Objective art doesn't exi-

What am I supposed to think of modern art? It is very silly, but then it is so obviously silly that that has to be why they are doing it so I can't really rage like this taffer This is all very well, but why is modern art considered the apex of art of the now when we could instead find some young incredibly talented artist like michaelangelo and put them in the limelight instead? There are 7 billion versus the few million in renaissance Italy so there must be 1000s of Leonardos, Michelangelos, Donatellos and Raphaels. Do people really want this?

the terrible artists get the most attention because there's always controversy over whether it's art or not. it has nothing to do with being pushed by elites, but it is true that people will pretend that it is deeper than it actually is -- picking a side, basically

that being said tracey emin and yoko ono are actually good and there is solid art theory to support this (even though they aren't technically 'modern artists'). paint vomit, giant squiggles, and solid colour canvases aren't really relevant in the art world because painting itself isn't very relevant anymore, compared to installation, video, photography, etc. these types of work don't show up in 'modern art' threads because people only complain about the works that are known because of people complaining about them and thinking they have worthwhile, informed opinions that don't just fuel the infamy of these artists

Honestly is there any legitimacy to "modern art" ever since dadaism?

modern art exists because people worked out that art isn't really like some passive window to another world and is just a created object. and also because in the 19th century had turned art making into an exercise of making pretty pictures and early modern artists sought to combat that

there is more talent to art than rendering the human figure. besides, what would they paint? religious scenes? greco-roman myths?

There'd be a lot more than that, art is more widely taught and people have more free time to learn it than in the 1500s

It wasn't a natural progression, CIA made it what it is today, which is a reflection of feelings of inferiority in leftists.

>but he has to stick to politics where hard evidence, facts, truth exist
Except he's factual wrong in most of his videos which are dominated by his apparent bias

Shilling on Veeky Forums doesn't exi-

the CIA didn't fund cezanne, matisse, or picasso. they funded abstract expressionism, which itself was critiqued by subsequent american artists (minimalists) and neo-dada, which also had international equivalents, suggesting that art today isn't a continuation of ab ex

>politics where hard evidence, facts, truth exist

I didn't say that they are hard sciences, but facts and evidence are not (or should not) be alien to politics
Just referring to the latest topic he's been touching, Hillary's health, he's been saying for weeks that she has clearly got some health issues. On face of being called a conspiracy theorist, we've had Hillary admit to having got pneumonia (and god knows what else)

>Small time comedy group achieves an extremely shaky 4 AM sketch-show on the mature after-hours section of a children's network
>Better pay to advertise it on the history board of a dead website that isn't even in the top 500 websites anymore.

theres an aesthetic to ascribing artificial meaning to something simple

He's been called a conspiracy theorist because he made a bunch of presumptions supported by some unnamed "experts"

t. shill

He named at least 2 of those experts, however i agree that him even referring to a vague group such as "experts" was a mistake

That's definitely made for other alt-righters to congratulate themselves for having the correct opinion to. I doubt anybody that disagrees would be convinced by being shouted at by an autistic for 10 minutes.

>MDE
>on Veeky Forums
i love them but come on

What the fuck is wrong with him.
Modern art might not be intended for the general public. But since Andy Warhol there is art avaible to buy and see for anyone. Also the decision if something is art or not is the choice of the individual. Well, maybe there is less conflict about the Mona Lisa than Malewitsch's Black Square. But still there are people that think the Black Square is art. I wouldn't put it up on my wall, but I also would identify it as radical reduction of art.
If some people got the money and want to invest in modern artists it's their problem.
There is no need for his aggressive vibes in my point of view.
But maybe it wouldn't appeal enough viewers if he had more of a "live and let live" stance.

The fact that we debate endlessly about if something is art makes it art.

Just because something is art does not make it good art.

Now here's the real question what is good art?

30 seconds in a guy with the thinker as his banner has called other people pretentious twats; and has conflated modern, contemporary, and also conceptual art. Fuck that.

>hating on Malevich's Black Square.