Why did art start becoming degenerate?

Where do you draw the line?

>Paintings of actual things are still being produced, you'll find them on google images
But extremely skilled artists can produce stuff that photos never can, and I'm not talking about photorealism

>Jackson Pollock paintings can't be considered art

And why not?

Jews

I believe this is correct.

This post you're reading now is an art then. Basically every human creation is art so art becomes a completely meaningless term.

Photos are not art

It's basically just a bunch of random sprinkles of paint which create no recognizable image whatsoever, heck even most animals and toddlers can do what Jackson Pollock considered art.

it's not, but go ahead

He never said that.

>"us scientists left to improve the world while weak mean stuck with art. hehe, tough luck humanities."

Pic related was a poet and a musician. He would fucking kill you 1v1, then defeat three invading armies at once.

"Because it's just paint splattered on paper"

>How to reveal your lack of intellect 101 with Veeky Forums

too obvious?

I dunno, this is Veeky Forums afterall, (You)s are guaranteed.

No, Jackson Pollock paintings were created with skill and careful thought. There's a reason you can design algorithms to discern fakes from the genuine thing and why there's a trend towards increasing mathematical complexity within the paintings themselves as his career progressed. I would contend that art is expression coupled with skill, which Jackson Pollock's paintings most certainly fit the bill of.

Where did I disagree that?

It was the random part that gave you away. Though to be fair, I almost replied.

>splattering shit on canvas
>skill

>Basically every human creation is art so art becomes a completely meaningless term

No it doesn't

It would mean
'the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.'

Jackson Pollock's art was great at the time because it was so original. It was him kicking the idea that art had resemble something to be art, right in the nuts. No one had ever applied paint to canvas like he had before, and that's what was so original.

His style cannot be imitated though, because the idea is not original anymore though.

What you have to understand about abstract art is that, in most cases, it's not about technical skill such as creating photo-realistic art, it's about conjuring a mood or conveying an idea in an original way.

Stop trying to view it in the same way you would be romanticist artwork and try to be open minded and then you will understand.

emotions are a jewish plot to destroy culture with degeneracy lad

Yes they are. Some at least.

Yeah, my English leaves much to be desired. You guys can understand me, right?

Are you implying my posts aren't created with skill and careful thought?

You know, its difficult to tell whether this post is serious or a mockery.

>Where do you draw the line?
Barnett Newman fan

Kill yourself, you are societal cancer

see

According to that you might as well murder someone and call the act "art". Just because something is considered eccentric for it's period it by no means can be considered art.

...

He said that photographs can portray a moment accurately, and that since this was the paintings' main job, they had to 'reinvent' themselves. Pls, I also find most of the modern art repulsive.

We got a degenerate right over here.

art =/= good art

>1479743
Whenever I see Pollock's work I instantly think of The Stone Roses, therefore he is good.

I'm also partial to this style

Your subjective opinion mon amie

I'm not implying they're not art, either. Though I suppose I should add to that definiton as there's a distinction between high art and low art I've always been fond of. Art also appeals to the emotional sensibilities of humans, the distinction between high and low is a matter of how hard the emotions are to appeal to and how subtly it appeals to it (so hardcore pornography is basically the most base art, since lust is extremely easy to appeal to and it does it with no subtlety, likewise a troll post would be fairly low art as well as pissing people off is easy and they don't do so with subtlety). The emotional appeal caveat is basically to prevent science textbooks from being considered "art" (they have merit, but their function isn't necessarily artistic, though one could theoretically be constructed to be artistic).

Showing weak skill is still showing skill

If you think pollock's work is just splatter you should try picking up a paintbrush one day.

Literally a CIA psyop

independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Actually, it isn't my subjective opinion, its semantics.

...

Legit, that's actually kind of an interesting picture.

A fucking elephant can replicate what Pollock did. Just go around an ask some children in a kindergarten to draw art, you will get drawings which are as good if not better than the shit Pollock made.

>degenerate

watcha doing pol?

pfft, an infinite number of monkies thorwing paint at a infinite number of canvases could recreate Degas, Impressionism is a jewish conspiracy

And what about that Punk Rock, eh? All it is is just three or four chords, and the singer is usually not even that good!

You know he's going to start claiming its not real music don't you?

Oh God, and don't even get me started on this "post-structuralism" stuff. It's not real philosophy, they don't even seem to believe in absolute truth for crying out loud!

NIce, you're on the right track to the conclusion that art is hard to define.

>Murder as art

I've always thought that fine art (paintings, sculptures, etc) is the expression of ones self; it is used to express or thoughts, feelings and other things that we find difficult to articulate vocally. There's an animu (don't judge me) called psycho pass which is a show about what it means to be human and other themes of morality/philosophy disguised as a psychological thriller/detective drama. In it, a young adult woman called rikako oriyo makes shit like this to carry on her father's legacy who made paintings similar to it.

She murdered girls in her college, chopped them up and used chemicals to plastisize their parts and created horrifying sculptures out of them.

Is it art? I think it is. Beautiful even, albeit disgusting.

There ya go, this is what you degenerates consider "art" isn't it?

>implying just stacking a bunch of concrete blocks one on top of eachother constitutes a building

i like it

Only the Sith deal in absolutes

Oh let me guess you don't think movies are art either right?

>one on top of eachother
eh, I should go to bed, but the damn jewish conspiracy is keeping me awake. Please help me Trump, you're my only hope.

...

I don't really like the spiral. But the rest is quite neat for something done in 2 seconds.

It reminds me, do you consider flags art?

Some flags

surely...

It's getting there. If you actually continued on this course and started putting some actual effort into planning this sort of out, you could be on to something.

youtu.be/qUIP_HS-vDo

>Voltaire

youtube.com/watch?v=fU6qDeJPT-w

art or a jewish conspiracy? I mean, some of their noses are kinda fishy...

>which would bear it's fruit
Dropped. Learn English.

That's neat. Its like when you point a camera at its own monitor and wiggle your finger in front of it.

It could be a quite good thing to set up in schools to teach kids about audio feedback.

modern art is most regenerate because art became overly concerned with the visual rather than the intellectual towards the end of the 19th century. post-impressionism and cubism sought to reinvigorate what academic art was supposed to be, based on the close study of objects in nature and careful attention paid to composition and design

not really

not really

art doesn't need to create a recognisable image. also animals and toddlers don't have the intellectual capacity to 'compose' a work in the way pollock did. they have no conception of pictorial space. if you've actually seen a child's painting they don't really understand what to do

pollock paintings support formalist thought. your post does nothing

i've never seen any work of art analysed in such a sophomoric way. this is how you can tell that someone has no idea how to read art

>A fucking elephant can replicate what Pollock did.

no it can't. that's like saying pollock replicates rembrandt

>I've always thought that fine art (paintings, sculptures, etc) is the expression of ones self

into the trash it goes

Anyone got the link where that 2 yr old did the paintings and the mom conned the """"art"""" world into thinking she was some genus?

Artffags are literally this pretentious and posing

are you talking about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Kid_Could_Paint_That because towards the end of the film it became more and more obvious that the father was telling the daughter what to paint and when left to her own devices the kid didn't paint anything any more advanced than what a kid would usually paint i.e. just pushing paint around the paper

Because it ceased to be christian. Atheists can't produce and maintain a civilization, they only destroy it.

>Why did art start becoming degenerate?
The moment it became about being an act of expression on the part of the artist rather than creating something inherently beautiful independent of the artist's ego.

>scientists
>not ego driven manchildren MUH PUBLISHED PEER REVIEWED PAPER, MUH LET ME PUT MY NAME INTO WHATEVER SHIT I "DISCOVER", MUH I NEED FUNDING WAAA

No.

Except only idiots actually believed that it was anything other than a child's scribbles, anyone with any real understanding of abstraction could tell you they were lousy paintings. The filmmaker really wanted to prove he could fool the art world, but nobody with an ounce of training was taken in by it, only provincial galleries and 'critics' that didn't know shit to begin with.

Pic related is a fantastic abstract painting that couldn't be created by anyone who hasn't had thousands of hours of formal training and an active practice. Unfortunately it is hard to appreciate the formal qualities that make this image so compelling without having studied abstract painting for a long period of time either. Just as the nuances of history are more meaningful to its students, the same is true of art.

Paints used to be for rich kids who graduated many years of art school only

Then in the 19th century the pain tube was invented( as well as different styled paint brushes) - which changed art forever

>The paint tube was invented in 1841 by portrait painter John Goffe Rand,[5] superseding pig bladders and glass syringes[6] as the primary tool of paint transport. Artists, or their assistants, previously ground each pigment by hand, carefully mixing the binding oil in the proper proportions. Paints could now be produced in bulk and sold in tin tubes with a cap. The cap could be screwed back on and the paints preserved for future use, providing flexibility and efficiency to painting outdoors. The manufactured paints had a balanced consistency that the artist could thin with oil, turpentine, or other mediums.

so basically instead of spending heaps of money getting expensive ingredients from around the world to make paint then stuffing it all in a pigs bladders , any old dickhead could buy some paint and some paint brushes instead of some loser straight A student at art school painting glossy paintings of jupiters abs

> formalist thought

Pretentious faggotry

>Bourgeois middle class plebs think they can talk about art
>implying art has had the same value or manufacturing process consistently throughout history
>implying "degenerate" isn't a made up, political buzzword

You faggots are just the worst.

ok you talk to us about art then mate.

give us the real scoop.

the truth.

insight from another dimension.

This is exactly the kind of trust fund kid pretentiousness I mean.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095416/Can-guess-painting-ELEPHANT-work-modern-artist.html

Modern art is a fucking joke for smug hipsters and a few con men. You guys will literally defend a signed urinal as art if some critic or social group will tell you to. Pathetic.

>I don't like it and I don't understand it! People who do are just lying about it!

t. you

Go do a boring engineering job, Autismo.

>literally trying to rationalize a can of shit

Nazis had the right idea about you desu

Have fun with your barista job

Go to /pol/ and you can circlejerk about boring Romantic paintings all you wish.

Here, i'll give you a link

So modern art is basically just edgyfags, like the "fuck you dad!" of art?

Lmao you literally believe a can of shit is art

t. buttlasted pretentious 90 IQ boy