Modern Art

So you are saying art can only be what you say it is? Okay. Why are you even talking about it if you don't understand it?

accidentally hit enter.

rothko paintings are art but they didn't take a lot of skill to make and aren't interesting to look at so they're not good art.

If everything man made is art, then art is a useless term. Also, we're clearly talking about the culture surrounding Mark Rothko and others like him that allows his uninteresting works to be put up in museums and galleries and sold for millions.

What are you talking about? I'm creating art. Every post I make is art, faggot.

I took a college course in art history, I was upset that we skipped over a lot of peices I wanted to learn about but once we hit modern art I could just feel the pretentiousness the artists put into them.
Most abstract art is just terrible. That one group just made it to say"Fuck you dad!" too that French Academy. The rest decided that they didn't need to learn through years of disipline and training to throw paint at a board and demand cash.

>If everything man made is art, then art is a useless term.
it's not a useless term. art basically just means skill. obviously anything man made requires some degree of skill, but when people use the term art or say something is artfully made, they usually mean something made with a high degree of skill.

Well, you just changed the definition from everything man made to everything man made with a high degree of skill.

I think the latter definition is more to the point, and more what is colloquially considered to be art, and why most people innately reject Rothko and a lot of what is called modern art.

>made in 34 seconds
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

>Well, you just changed the definition from everything man made to everything man made with a high degree of skill.
it's both. bad art is art that didn't require a high degree of skill and good art is art that did.

Fine it took some hours to dry.

So 4 hours and 34 seconds. Happy?

>He thinks there's only one layer of paint
Sure is uneducated in here.

It's just another way for rich people to launder money

That canvas looks as though it was done less professionally than the walls of my house were.

Several layers of paint culminate into that ugly painting?

Damn, it's like you're asking for modern art to be even more laughed at.

What did he mean by this?

Meanwhile capitalists make billions of dollars having 10 year old Chinese kids sow sneakers; but your outrage is towards rich people making valuable things for each other.

Color field paintings are extremely popular. They add color to and brighten up areas where they're put, and look especially nice with modern furnishings. I see them in most houses I visit.
Peopple also like them because they're pretty unpretentious and aren't huge conversation pieces, unlike hanging classical artwork

.So yeah, people would pay a lot of money to obtain an original Rothko, since he with others started a hugely popular trend in art and design.

I don't care what idiotic mental masturbation fools engage in. It fills me with glee that a retard gave 92 million of his dollars for that garbage.

The retard is intending to sell it for 150 millions in ten years, and will likely be able to do so.

Did you think millionaires buy this stuff because they really like it ?

>art must conform to what I think art is or art
should be

That's literally the whole point of the "modern-art" crowd. Chasing artists who want to do different things away, to other industries like movies.

>rich people making valuable things for each other
maybe that is how they launder their sweatshop profits

But why buy an original then if you can get an exact replica for $15? The colors are all the same, why pay millions for it?

Why buy a $15 dollar replica when you can get the exact same result from asking your kid to paint it in art class with the available supplies?

Art is subjective.

Then why do we hace standards?

>exact replica for $15
What do you mean by this? You could get a reduced size paper print of a Rothko for $15, sure. But cost of materials alone, a reproduction would cost a couple hundred. One of the things about Rothkos that makes them valuable is how they look in person, how the light hits the paint, their texture and so forth. It's not something you can really see from looking at a picture on the internet, or on a print. I'm not going to claim that other artists can't replicate the effect very effectively, but it's a very cool thing to see in person.

>Why buy an original?
Same reason why anyone would buy any other piece of original artwork, very expensive wine, a very expensive car, a first-pressing Thelonious Monk album, a suit of 16th century armor, a lock of my nostril hair, a Montagnana cello, etc., even though reasonable reproductions of these things exist. They have value because of their history, scarcity and/or because they were close to a famous person.

$95 million is a lot to spend on anything, admittedly, but I guess if you got the money...

Laughs were had.

you could say the same of any painting. why buy any original when you could get a cheap perfect replica from Dafen Village?

Standards are also subjective.

Standards for art is simply you applying your subjective notions on what constitutes good art.

rothko is all about the brush strokes. there's real lyricism there.

Wow that piece of shit is tasteless.

No, there's a reason my son's thanksgiving fingerpaint art is not on par with The starry night. Saying everything is subjective is the first way to spot someone who knows jack shit but still tries to sound smart. The existannce of a universal standard is very different from acknowledging certain objectivity in the medium.

There is this thing called money laundering. The largest criminal organizations use art as their device to turn drug money into spendable money because "you can't put a price on it".

>mass-produced picture book shat out of a printer in 10 minutes
>3.2 million dollars

I don't think anyone is claiming that old comics are high art, but a popular thing that a lot of autists like to collect.

>implying there aren't autists in the art world

hush, you. there is an le message deep within xD

But it's celebrated within the art community to be an autist.

So how did we go from this to that? Are details too ableist against people who can't paint or something?

Wow, it's almost like there are free and ccomprehensive art history resources online that you can read and not have to ask idiotic and hostile questions about things you know nothing about.

metmuseum.org/toah/hd/abex/hd_abex.htm

It's not art. It's pseudo-intellectual bullshit. It's a sign of how decadent and perverse a society has become.

>the purpose of art is not to constantly revolutionize its own meaning and reflect the culture of its time, but to achieve photorealism

>reflect the culture of its time

"Ayy homeboy, how am I meant to portray the confusing times we are experiencing, in which the notions of government, supranationality, the right to self-governance, clash of cultures are being challenged? Surely this is material for a rich painting".

"Tell you what, make the painting have three colors xD. Confusing eh?"

"You are of genius!"

Photorealism is not really the point.
It's literally three fucking stripes. Any meaning you can attach to it is a product of your own imagination, which could potentially be rich, but going by that logic a detached branch from a tree is art too.
As I said, it's pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and I can't help it but laugh at people who pretend it means anything, and admire ''artists'' who make mad money from try-hard pseudo-intellectuals.

>i cant appreciate the beauty of pure color and shape: the thread
jesus faggots, this type of art was born out of the idea that you need not know about grand historical events, famous people, etc. in order to enjoy art, that even a peasant in a farm or a kid in an african tribe could have appreciation for somethig as simple as shapes and color

there's barely any sociopolitical meaning in these types of abstract art (not referring to the stuff like "beat the whites with the red wedge") and people telling you that its a critique of capitalism or some other dog shit is lying. its just color and shape. that simple. why cant you appreciate something as simple as color and shape? or are you too high on your pseudointellectual high horse?

Isn't modern art just another example of Jewish subversion?

>make shit art
>use influence in media to advertise it as high art to the Gentiles
>make money and subvert gentile society by twisting their ideas about art at the same time

Rothko was a Jew, wasn't he?

That's different, okay its mass produced and the art isn't great but that comic book marks the first appearance of an american cultural icon. Nearly 80 years later there almost isn't a person alive in the western world who doesn't know who Superman is or what he looks like so it's value lies in it's cultural significance as arguably the first "superhero" story rather than it's quality. I can't create a character who has that kind of mysticism and appeal, but I can damn sure paint three crude rectangles on a canvas.

This art is way more inaccessible to the rural farmer or African child than other genres. The rural farmer of African child wouldn't even consider this art, they would just think it's unremarkable shapes and colors. Show those same individuals an exciting scene and they will appreciate it.

Modern art: 1900-1939

""""""Modern art"""""""": 1945-1980

((("Modern" """"""art"""""))): 1980-

pic related: modern art

Art is a money laundering scam.

>I'm not a pleb, evry1 els is just stopid

It's about intent, but could an unknown artist have made this and sold it for the same amount?

I studied history if art at university. (I know).

I've also studied drawing and painting.

I don't hate modernism at all. There are a lot of great contemporary artists and illustrators. It's conceptual art which is complete trash IMO.

>such depth
>much meaning

> three stripes of color made in 34 seconds
Are you seriously implying that picture so big could be painted in 34 seconds? I would pay you 92$ if you would be able to do that. But you wouldn't even if I would pay you full 92000000$, because you are retard who doesn't even know how painting looks IRL.

Daily reminder that:
early 20th century art>post-1945 "art"

in order to fully appreciate that work the person must know greek myth, the concept of rape, why rape is bad, what gold is, that the white people in the work are actually humans, and so on.

in order to enjoy malevich you simply need a concept of space and color which all humans with eyes have regardless of knowledge of the world

That's doesn't even look like Hector and Andromache.

ok

Is selling art for large amounts of money inherently counter revolutionary?

What is proletarian art?

>inb4 gommie

You can appreciate that image to a high degree by looking at it without knowing the myth, a lot more than the two shapes. Hell, the farmer and African child might even learn something interesting about mythology if they ask the curator what the piece means or maybe they will invent an exciting, vivid story to explain the scene on their own.

Maybe cultural engineering by the CIA and money laundering are art, they reflect human nature.

Though I wish modern art was more like an offshoot of art deco rather than just a ton of random bullshit.

Nah, the purpose should be to create shapes and forms which instill emotions that make it worth to have created the shapes in the first place I would say.

Critical theory the post.

Hang youself fag

Good to laundry money!

Would you pay 92 million dollars for this? Or even 9 cents? Doubtful, but then that isnt the point either.

Art isnt something whose worth and enjoyment can be measured by monetary value. Stop caring so much about what dumb rich people do with their money.

Art for the people would be art that wouldn't try to alienate the subject from his cultural milieu by promoting globalist ideologies such as consumerism or socialism.

Awful.

i am talking about fully appreciating the work and not simply appreciating it to a high degree. there is no doubt that you can appreciate rembrandt's painting without knowing myth. however, compare these two paintings with regards to fully (keyword) appreciating them. malevich simply requires you to have eyes and the ability to process visual information while rembrandt requires knowledge of myth. adding figures from antiquity was quite literally the norm in academies that taught painting then as it gave the impression of the patron being knowledgeable about worldly things. see poussin's writings on historical painting about this point

Well, three stripes of color made in 34 seconds that was sold for 92 million dollars certainly can instill some very strong emotions into people as we can see in action here.

Let a fool be robbed of his money and a smart NEET become a millionaire. I see no problem. One less socialist (that is frustrated and envious) "artist/intellectual" in the world.

But were the 34seconds worth to instill this emotion?
Im getting the impression modern art is a giant trolljob.

i like this article explaining how suprematism is art for the proletarians: e-flux.com/journal/becoming-revolutionary-on-kazimir-malevich/

>the artists made monumentally scaled works that stood as reflections of their individual psyches—and in doing so, attempted to tap into universal inner sources

Fuck this particular form of faggotry. I hate when artists think they can pull off the work of philosophers or prophets

I should also point out
>attempted to tap into universal inner sources

The easy answer to all this bullshit is that they failed. They incredibly quirky and retarded method of "tapping into the universal" failed

the culture of our time is three sloppily painted boxes of varying colour and size?

really makes you think

>Awful.
I'd rather an artist try and fail than see more cartoons and random bullshit.

Besides, it is an ordeal finding decent artwork post ww2 thanks to all this.

recode.net/2014/8/2/11629454/this-post-is-art-framed-Veeky Forums-post-sells-for-90900-on-ebay

>modern art
>anything other than a money laundering scheme

top jej

Post art that took some actual talent to produce

...

>What is proletarian art?

graffiti

dank memes bro

art curators are the biggest faggots in the world. jesus stop trying to sound continental you don't even have a shred of their intelligence

Best painting coming through

You don't get it. The entire point is that it isn't intellectual. Hanging some classical painting on your wall makes you look like a pretentious fag, but modern art is just nice decoration. It's the basic appeal of colours and shapes.

People who complain about modern art being "pseudo-intellectual" are always projecting to be honest.

While I will unironically defend modern art on every platform except its criminal element, that's gotta be my all time fave.

Can someone explain?

> Basically cossacks inventing shit posting.
Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!

O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil's kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are you, that can't slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil excretes, and your army eats. You will not, you son of a bitch, make subjects of Christian sons; we've no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck your mother.

You Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw your own mother!

So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won't even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we'll conclude, for we don't know the date and don't own a calendar; the moon's in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day's the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!

Art History minor, is that qualified enough to call out Rothko for being shit tier?

Fucking faggots trying to defend a million dollar painting because the only good aspect of a painting is the impasto and lighting in person.

>its justified because it looks better in person
>it fits in better with modern interior design

Is this a fucking meme now? Acting like how the painting is meant to be viewed in person is revolutionary or some bullshit?

You could say the same shit about Impressionist painters, and it would have more justification. At least the aim of their movement was about lighting and achieving impasto effects.

Why did le million dollar painting need a defending? It isn't a crime to be sold for a high price.

>manual dexterity is a meme

kys tbqh

it is when they're literally using it to clean dirty money