When did Art died?

Modern art is pretty good, bro.

Dadaism

>gassing the kikes is art

"no"

It didnt die, the only thing that happened is that western leftist artists became major self-hating cucks after ww1 and that spread the deconstructivist and meme (((art movements))).

Also pop art (industrialized art) and colour photography destroyed the portrait and landscape bussiness which was a major source of income for artists leaving them on scraps and seldom rare fundings

Add to that the power to use "art" as money laundering schemes and dehumanization of modern era and voila modern art

How is this good

Modern art is great, it's just western modern art is shit

Reminder that anything is art if it is presented as such.

Why have realistic art when a photograph does every better and cheaper?

You are the degenerate.

I will never understand how people post this unironically when everything about it basically comes off as self-satire. That fucking graph pushes it over the edge.

Veeky Forums isn't great when it comes to history or the humanities but on the topic of art, my god.

nazi germany's attempts to be aesthetic were usually very corny, they only succeeded in creating stylish military uniforms and large domineering structures for obvious reasons

why can't they make more like this, but more complex, like a large masterpiece

>When did Art died?

When photography was invented.

why did sculptures die long before 3d printing

t. Modernist faggot

Go back to your African lesbian fingerpainting forum

This. Fascism and National Socialism were the last chance for beauty and sanity to prevail on this earth.

1875, everyone knows that

fatigue of the faustian weltgeist

how is that art?

Art became the thrall and mistress to corporate culture. Suddenly it became disconnected from things that actually mattered or left an impression and was transfered to a manufactured aesthetic as outlined by marketing studies.

The rest of art made by people outside this sphere of influence are for the most part focused on narcissism and self-adulation, or gutteral instinct.

Not dead, just sleeping

I said beauty, not necessarily art.

In the NatSoc world-conception, however, everything was aesthetic. Watch the documentary architecture of doom.

the same time god died

it's impossible to have art without a deeply religious society

Good one

aesthetics are opinion dude. anything can be aesthetic if you want it to

Post God tier artistic movements from the early 20th century

Christians did the same thing when they destroyed temples to roman gods

But they then went on to themselves produce amazing art

and, yes, there is amazing islamic art out there

Check out this turd from 1872

>But they then went on to themselves produce amazing art

Which, according to their own religion, they're not allowed to do.

Or is the 3rd Commandment now suddenly a metaphor as well?

Monet sure liked his colored pencils, didn't he?

The original title of this was BLACKED, 1875

No-one on /hispol/ knows anything about art.

Here's a painting of a dead person, by Monet, 1879, which represents the death of realistic art

2nd commandant, not third.

Not him but, as I understand it, don't Christians only diligently follow the New Testament , while selectively following parts from the Old according to convenience?
There is virtually no Jewish/Islamic art that I'm aware of the violates the second commandment. Which is why Christian art proliferated much more, being basically pagan art with a fresh coat of paint.

Including yourself?

What the fuck am I suppose to be looking at?

So no one in the entire world understood art for whole millennia until the enlightened artists of the 19th century finally figured it out?

Not him but I guess he has a point. Religious systems demand certain moral standards which are pushed on art as a whole.

The current lament over how art is dead is just because there are no standards anymore to what art is. In art everything you could rebel against has already been rebeled against. We had shit in cans for fuck's sake.

Religion however sets very strict rules an artist would have to obey. Islamic iconoclasm spawned its own art style which centered on floral patterns and Islamic calligraphy.

Meh. Too noisy.

Modernism was absurdly Eurocentric, you genuine, unironic retard.

...

I guess that's why nazi art was terrible and mundane

Mundane, sure, but not technically terrible.

Compared to most modern art pieces, which are being sold for some ungodly amount of money on the market, for something I could do for about six dollars or so... This is neither the worst nor the most mundane piece of art that could be birthed on this planet.

That's pretty good.

Nah, man. Besides not being technically accomplished, it's just ugly. It's not even good decor. You'd have to pay me for me to take this into my house. Meanwhile, I don't really get abstract art compositions, I'm not an artsy type, but I think a lot of them would look pretty and cool on my wall. Unlike this drab, grey, melt-y mess.

The perspective is completely fucked.

The real question is: why can't rightists into subjective taste?

surrealism

If I painted a picture of an apple, just an apple with a black/white bacground, that was photo realistic 100% would it be the best painting ever?

Because because being a conservative now is what being a hippy was in the 60s:

>fun and edgy

if hating modern art/philosophy/etc is required then so be it, as long as they can be edgy.

>art as decoration
Kill yourself

Uncle adolph's paintings weren't top notch, but if you compare them with to the other jews who got in, he was a fucking renancentist master. Also why the fuck would you try to get in if your technique was flawless in the first place.

Also if you think your art is to please god, you don't give a shit about anyone. Take Bach as an example, his style was already kinda outdated, but he was just out of fucks.

just posted a reply to this pleb

what an imbecile

I said I'm not an artsy type. Dunno why a piece of piece of shit that was hard to make because the artist sucked would be worth more than something nice looking regardless of the source or craftsmanship.

That grey thing is just an eye-sore. Why should I pay more for it than for something that can please or move me?

I heard once that garbage art is created and sold for crazy prices for the purposes of laundering money.

I can't verify that, but it sounds pretty brilliant.

Art didn't die. It's always been about expression and articulation of the human condition, and it still is. The difference is that the emphasis has shifted to subjective experience and meaning rather than anything objective. It's a reflection of how we live our lives, how we view knowledge, and how we think and feel.

If you complain about that, then you simply don't get the point of art. You can say "well, that's great, but gee, I just happen to like more technically virtuose works." But turning that statement of taste into an assessment of merit is the mark of someone who doesn't know very much about art.

Basically.

Is this artistic enough?

The quality of art should equal the time and dedication spent on it. If you look at the old huge canvas paintings the average observer can tell that the painter has spent a lot of time, and probably spirit on it, whereas if you look at the art now it looks like the kind of thing that could be assembled in like 20 minutes. It probably didn't, but because it looks like it, regular people will give it less respect.

...

>should

I don't want to antagonize, user. But on what basis?

>The quality of art should equal the time and dedication spent on it.
But what about all the people who simply suck? They may spend more time working than this guy and still end up producing something that just isn't that good.

Probably used the wrong word. Its more like art back then had the amount of time spent on it evident in its final form. If you look at sculptures and other forms of art like that you can tell that time was spent on it and in turn you admire the persons dedication. That's probably why people can look at art back then, and even if they don't like it they know that it has quality. Now though, there is no self-evident quality that shows time put in, and so people can more easily hate the piece of art, because they see no positives that the artist put into it.

I'd actually agree with you there. Interpretation and critique have become more difficult and complicated as our ideas of meaning have changed.

>quality of art should equal the time and dedication spent on it

t. Marx

If I make doodles for 5 straight days it's still shit art.

Funny enough, the style Adolf painted in was very often used for decoration. His art is hallmark-tier and very boring. I wouldn't let this fucker into my academy either.

Why do you have to pick on the man who painted the light? He was a revolutionary.

correct answer.

And no not because of the fall of the Reich, you absolute retards

explain how he is wrong

It is great that you want to challenge society, but the urinal is over 100 years old now. At this point you are just trying too hard to be edgy.

youtube.com/watch?v=J3ne7Udaetg

it didn't really. there's a lot of good art out there

The Harvard Art Museums have this across the hall from a gallery with Van Gogh and Picasso.

>Also why the fuck would you try to get in if your technique was flawless in the first place.
Complain about the downfall of art, and then demand that universities shouldn't have standards to meet for artists.

Hilarious.

For one, he's turning his nose to anything outside of academia or ivory walled art galleries which would prove him wrong.

He's avoiding any mention of commercial artists, i.e Illustrators, Muralists, Designers and so on.

pic unrelated

but most of contemporary art is photography

notice how no one posts photography in these threads? only 100-year old paintings?

>The quality of art should equal the time and dedication spent on it.
I'm reading a generic fat fetish piece that someone has been writing for 10 years. The Gambler, by Dostoevsky was written in 26 days.

Which of these is more worthy of respect?

Your argument against the death of art is the abortion of it. What you call art is visual art, and the greeks didn't consider it art at all, for the reasons you've stated.

Nigga this is some math textbook from the 90s shit

Isn't the point of art school to learn how to paint better?

"no"
Is the point of STEM to learn multiplications ?

Yes just like the point of a math degree is to do math faster.

Networking at universities.
Ateliers are a mix of tech and networking.

The reason art degrees have no prestige these days is because there are no standards for entry. Any decent conservatory by contrast is going to require you pass an audition. Why? Because they don't want to have to waste years teaching beginners the very basics so at the end of your time as a student you might, and this is a strong might, have a small grasp on classical music.

The same used to be true of art academies. They didn't want their graduates producing sloppy, inelegant work and the academy's name being attached to that poor output. They wouldn't entertain the idle dreams of students who don't have any fundamentals, if anything that's unethical.

source?

>nobody mentions AAA videogames or 3D animations or tabletop games or magic the gathering cards or comics or warhammer 40k shit
>it's always irrelevant fine art BS

Because none of those things are art. They are bastardizations at best, and products to be bought and collected and worst.

Most Fine Arts programs take all comers, they don't require a portfolio or anything first.

I was speaking too broadly though, I'm sure there's some elite art academies that do.

>products to be bought and collected and worst.

that's the story of art