Art Thread

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Delete this.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Who is this qt?

The person in the painting or the artist?

...

...

...

...

...

...

one of the best

...

...

...

...

...

noh

Loving it eintartete

Why is it that the over-whelming majority of paintings in these threads are always 19th century european art?

...

...

Because everything else sucks.

>implying any other culture can compete with European art

...

>modern art

disgusting

>modern art

gusting

>implying its possible to judge the merit of an aspect of a culture outside of the context of that culture

I'm sorry that you can't see that everything in the west post rococo is literal shit

sexual masturbation

...

...

...

>Why is it that the over-whelming majority of paintings in these threads are always 19th century european art?
because it's entry-level shit. It's not bad necessarily (though Veeky Forums doesn't know the difference between good and bad art so a lot of what they post is terrible) but it's basic as fuck, doesn't require any knowledge of art.

Pic related: The fedora in painting form. Good in it's historical context, but ruined by clueless millennials who grasp like a cargo-cult at an aesthetic instead of attempting to understand how art (or fashion) works.

>Waaaah modernism sucks
You post-modern faggots are cunts, whether you're self aware about how pomo you are or not.

I gotta agree. My take on it, based on Spengler's idea that the western soul died around 1800, is that the paintings of the 19th century represent when our "civilisation" stage's art was closest to the "cultural" stage's art, and so at it's best in that its closest to having a soul. It is easier for people of this time to understand civilisation period art then cultural because they have been brought up in this period where art with soul is not valued

...

Neo-Dadist

Your post reminds me of my fencing. Since I never win I just can't convince my non fencing friends how technically excellent I am.

(((Vampyric Jihad)))

High point of Europe goy.

19th century euro is ocular masturbation and not art

basically, but it's not 'bad art', it's just not art

yeah for the art that isn't photographic illusionism i.e. the beginnings of modern art

>Neo-anything

What's wrong with photographic illusionism?

I can't take photographs of a good many things after all, why are realist scenes of such unphotographical events bad?

this is how civilisation fall
cultural marxist out
REEEEEEEEEEE

because after the values of christian art had disappeared, the 'academic' art of photographic illusionism made no attempt to engage with the new fundamentals of art i.e. art in itself, and instead opted to depict the world as it is rather than an autonomous world in itself as painting of the past had done. the lower forms of art had all been based on the mechanical copying of the real world i.e. portrait, landscape, still lives, which were always at the bottom of the hierarchy of genres, but proper 'art' had an intellectual aspect to it; to contend with the 'real world' by attempting to portray the essence of things, whether ideal or divine, etc. high art was constructed, 19th century illusionism was subservient

civilisation falls when people value 'pretty pictures' over art

European civilisation is stronger than it's ever been and will only grow stronger.

no, art school reject, taking a shit on a canvas does NOT constitute art

never said it did

You make a lot of bold claims there, and yet for all you've said you still haven't actually answered my question. Given by how you're very concerned about what other people, not yourself, think about what makes art good it appears to me that you're frankly more concerned with other people thinking you like the "right" art rather than just liking what appeals to you.

Why do you care so much what others think about you? Is feigning enjoying something because others say you should really that important to you?

People like you literally never have any defence. "muh poop on a canvas" is not an argument.

hmm i guess photographic illusionism is good after all

Dumb frogposter.

Who painted this?

The image quality ain't great and I'm trying to find a better version.

Thanks for posting though, the lighting variation is impressive.

Defense against what? It's just the emperor's new clothes writ large

>it's not 'bad art', it's just not art
A lot of the 19th century shit that people post is fucking bad too. You can tell this thread was started by an American because that whole run of posts is purely melodramatic high-falutin' shit across style and era.

>Defense against what?
The argument that poster made was that much of the "art" in the 19th century was little more than decoration, without any emotional or artistic content. It was a valid criticism of the period, though not necessarily one I agree with.

Your comment about shit on a canvas was a complete non-sequitur based on memes.

>It's just the emperor's new clothes writ large
If you're saying that contemporary art is devoid of substance and that people are just pretending to like it because of social pressures then that at least is a valid criticism, again not one that I agree with but miles better than your inane "muh shit on a canvas" argument.

>pigeon playing chess.jpg

>muh old and not degenerate art

how about some Gothic?

byobu

...

...

...

19th century art:
Decadent/Symbolism/Aestheticism > Impressionism > Romanticism > Post and neo-impressionism > Realism > Academicism

>Post and neo-impressionism
>19th century

what are u doin

They started in the 19th century.

The term "post-impressionism" its kinda tricky since many of those artists were contemporaries with the impressionists. No idea why they coined that term.

does neoclassicism fall under academism?

>If you're saying that contemporary art is devoid of substance and that people are just pretending to like it because of social pressures .
Not him, but the really ironic thing is that's the exact criticism which people used against pre-impressionistic art: that it was just mindless mechanical repetition of the old masters in a hoity toity social scene which shunned actual genius and anything which pushes boundaries or challenges pre-conceived notions about what art is and what it could be

No. Neoclassicism was from the 18th century and it formed from the ideals of the Enlightenment. Academicism was 19th century reaction to movements that rejected the more 'academic' approach to art. They might seem similar on the surface but their context and ideals are different.

>shunned actual genius and anything which pushes boundaries or challenges pre-conceived notions about what art is and what it could be

this is such a cancerous way to look at art. It was created in the 19th century once the western soul had run it's course and we had to think of new ways to make ourselves feel good about our clearly inferior art. Art is a non rational, spiritual aspect of human existence which can help us transcend, the expression of the soul. It's not about trying to be clever, or come up with the newest, trendiest, hippest way of recreating duchamp's fountain.

The one thing I agree with /pol/ on, modern art sucks

While I can't speak for everyone, I know that as a Texan, the only art history that students are taught about in highschool is European/American art from the 18th-19th centuries. So that is what we're most familiar with. Aside from a few famous Asian paintings I don't know of many other historic art pieces, so there's not much to draw me in to looking into other arts

...