"Art"

When and why did art turn to shit? Has it always been a money laundering scheme? I aologize if this is the wrong board for this question.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4-HZBQrT5Hw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

When it become too complicated for teenagers to be spoonfed on.

>rich people wasting their money on an abstract painting by a famous painter because they think of it like buying a commodity is evidence that "art has turned to shit"
explain

here is real art for comparison look at deepness of an emotions at all of colors and at complexity that can't be rivaled by modern works

Dude, the eyes...

Call me a pleb but I believe that art is a good when it combines aesthetic and meaning. The traditional religious art like the ones of Michelangelo managed to combine both aesthetics and (religious) meaning in strive to come closer to good. Experimentalism can be a bonus factor, impressionism is a style I find intriguing even though it was hated for a long while.

However, I feel like at a certain point that art made a complete flip around with post-modernism. It no longer has the aestheticism or constructed meaning. Instead it represents some flowing meaning of the artist that can be interpretated by the beholder. I used to make art like this in highschool and I did it mostly as a joke but my teachers loved me for my "deep meaning" to what was essentially garbage.

Everything can be art, and therefore nothing is art.

There's nothing wrong with modern art. OP is a shitter who don't know anything about art so he will pretend based on some shit he saw on the internet and form an uneducated opinion about it based on muh feels.

I for one hope that OP gets children and they grow up to be liberal arts artists who on one hand will understand the scope of art while being dirt poor, just to spite OP, so that the one day he gets a heart attack they won't be able to afford the record bill, only because he was too much of a faggot. If he wasn't a faggot, his kids wouldn't be contrarians and he wouldn't have died from devouring one burger too many.

you didn't answer my question, why is rich people wasting their money on bad art evidence that all art that isn't old is bad, you're merely ignoring all the good art that is made today to confirm your biases about how we've lost something from the past and are now in some kind of decadent and degenerate present.

also why do you consider the painting you put in the OP a "modern work" when it was painted over 70 years ago?

art is more than just painting and sculpture

DUDE, THAT EXPRESSION, LMAO

I would agree there's nothing wrong with modern art per se but there is legitimately no reason for stuff like what's in the OP to be worth as much as it is. no matter what you think of its aesthetics it requires absolutely no technical skill. the question is what are you really paying for: the piece of art or a piece of art made by such and such?

Are you retarded? OP is obviously referring to abstract art when he talks about modern art. Abstract art is garbage. It has no meaning at all, it's totally undisciplined. It's literally just for snooty elites to pretend they see the "deep emotion" of a white square on a white background so that other people agree in order not to look stupid for not being able to see the deep emotion. The emperor has no fucking clothes.

its 1dep2u m8 youll never get it.

reminder that there has already been two people who presented masterpieces of modern art that were made by their child smearing ketchup on a canvas and by a monkey smearing paint on canvas

> It has no meaning at all
It isn't true. In many cases their meaning is even explained directly by creator.

>or a piece of art made by such and such
that's absolutely why, it's a Barnett Newman who was one of the first abstract painters. Someone bought it because they thought they can sell it for more in the future, not because they really thought it was a great work of art (I would imagine).

If he felt abstract art is garbage then why did he say "modern art" but post a painting that was made before the end of ww2?

>In many cases their meaning is even explained directly by creator.

doesnt that mean its shit?

>go to Tate Modern
>they have Rothcoe exhibition
>wall plaque says the painting series is meant to evoke the feeling of being in a dark room
>the exhibition is in a room with no windows and the electric lights low

Bravo Rothcoe, truly great art

It's now an investment scheme since interest rates are so low.

Book sales are more of a money laundering thing for politicians.

I didn't say modern art you illiterate mongoloid. Re-read the OP. I am asking when and why art went to shit, and you haven't answered either. Kill yourself ASAP and never reply to my threads again.

> snooty elites pretend
> see the "deep emotion"
It isn't their fault that autists can't process simple expression techniques (i.e. sometimes silence is the most powerful sound for a scene) that doesn't rely on the mechanical show of concrete objects.

It's not our fault the emperor has no clothes.

>If he felt abstract art is garbage then why did he say "modern art" but post a painting that was made before the end of ww2?
Modern art has been around since the beginning of the 20th century. I mean surely you know Guernica was painted before the end of WWII. most art nowadays is post-modern.

Because art must be a puzzle or what?

>t-the emperors robe looks great!

>here is real art for comparison look at the deepness of an emotions (sic) at all of colors (sic) that can't be rivaled by MODERN WORKS(!!!!!!)

anyway to answer your question art hasn't gone to shit, you just focus on the shit artists of today and ignore the shit artists of the past because their art wasn't preserved. Art has also changed due to the creation of new technologies for artistic expression, like photography, film, and television so less artists today are interested in painting and sculpture than in the past.

"you're wrong" is not an argument

> i can't see it, so it doesn't exist! XD
truly euphoric position

I didn't post that, autist. Didn't I already tell you to fuck off? Your answer is embarrassing.

neither is "you just dun get it!"

> people only pretending to understand the thing!
Let's be honest here, original argument is a most retarded of them all, as it is some sort of autistic, in the literal sense of the world conspiracy theory.

oh ok, thought that was you nevermind then. But my opinion is still that art has not gone to shit, people just focus on the shit artists to confirm their preconcieved notion that we are in some kind of cultural dark age.

What the hell is embarrassing about that, why are you insulting me?

that gives me an idea: would it be possible for an artist to sell an art piece that is literally nothing and say it's "transcendent and immaterial"

Photography happened. The ability to portray reality became trivialized and with it an objective means of determining the quality of art.

Get to it before someone does that.

> here is legitimately no reason for stuff like what's in the OP to be worth as much as it is
This is problem with capitalism not with a painting. It isn't like creator can choose the price, it was out of his control.

I did it several time in during my college years. All they got was a document where they legally owned the piece and a note saying that it isn't material. My favourite piece was probably "thought about clouds forming like dancing girls 2015-06-21".

Let me check if it wasn't done before.
youtube.com/watch?v=4-HZBQrT5Hw

>out of his control
even if this was sold in an auction I would imagine the starting bid wasn't $10

i live on SSI because of bipolar disorder do you guys think I can convince rich people to buy crappy art from me?

Bipolar people are supposed to be very artistic they'd definitely buy into this stereo type to reaffirm themselves and virtue signal


plz I'm so poor I eat nothing but rice and beans send help

wait did you do this for a class? surely I would have thought in a college setting they would call you on your bullshit and demand some effort

Well, if you seriously count price as an element of an artwork, than you are already more postmodern than most of so called artists. It probably shouldn't be sold for billions, but being overpriced isn't really the artistic flaw.

$43,800,000 inst necessarily worth anything
Money is only "worth" what you did to get it.
Unfortunately everyone pays for it.

>how art used to look like

no, but if you actually learn how to draw you can eke out a nice living drawing for furries

There is deep irony about how people who are rich from passing papers spend billions on the objects, that were created with just the little bit more effort. Perhaps modern economy is just the one huge art performance by itself a most grandiose of them all.

> nice living drawing for furries
Which is basically patronage art, furries are true descendants of the renaissance artistic tradition.

society as spectacle
life as performance

>that
>good
literally the fedora of paintings, next to this

Tell me about it.
I've seen my bit of jobs. social envinronments, situations etc, and the intense vacums between them really tires me sometimes...

Lack of coherency.

I think it's tied in with the decline of religion. All art back in the day was religiously motivated.

Wanderer above the Sea is a great painting, stop being a contrarian. Here, have another nice seascape.

>be Jackson Pollock
>squirt paint out of butthole onto canvas
>somehow this is art

>people who have no interest in art still have opinions about it
>they want the same thing we had for centuries

It was religiously motivated because religious institutions commissioned the paintings

>umm what the fuck this doesn't even have migrants pozzing me up

The meaning you intended to deliver should be clear from the painting itself. If you have to explain it, you're a shit artist

It's pure Dunning-Krueger.

just because the rich are shelling out millions for garbage doesn't mean "real" art is dead

If your city has a "reputable" modern art museum it also has a classical one as well go there instead

>people with no taste in art have opinions about it

Can art only progress through these retarded post no abominations? There are good modern artists that aren't mongrels of the lowest order (Zdzisław Beksiński and Lucian Freud being the most famous)

>cliché, le painture

B-but that's wrong

oh shit you're right, sorry

You plebs just can't appreciate it.

I mean, I've seen some of his paintings in a museum and they're definitely cool looking but if we define good art as capable of producing an emotional evocation then I'd have to say its a failure.

That's actually good though.

Making you think it's cool is something right

You do realize he is standing in the mountains and its fog, right?

This was made in 2015.Stop generalizing

>This was made in 2015
That's fucking amazing. Why isn't shit like this being set as an example for good modern art these days?

So was this lifelike portrait of Adam and his first wife, Lilith the demon-wolf

I was taking an art class for teachers and we were given permission to display whatever we wanted at certain events, even if it weren't part of what we did during class. I displayed a contract of ownership of nothing alongside my "proper" art (not very good, mind you) and the fake stuff actually sold (the proper art weren't for sale) after someone actually bought it not understanding it wasn't suppose to be sold.

It is.

Look up Yves Klein.

>being so insecure you have to start calling people conspiracy theoriest because they dont like the same shlock you pretend to like

lol

If you don't rage at least once you are not at the Tate Modern.

Same applies to the Turner Prize.

>2017
>photorealism

A piece of art's meaning should come from the relationship between the art and the person viewing it, not from the relationship between the art and the artist.

Those little white squares of card next to a lot of pieces contain the most pretentious bullshit ever put in text.

If you can't piss in it, it's not art. Them's the rules.

You have a problem?

It's heavy handed and derivative and the renderer hasn't quite gotten over outlining.

Yeah I can just take a picture thanks to my iPhone5s ™ and it will be the same

When would a beta like you ever get this on your iphone?

I'd like to see you take a photo that looked like the painting you're replying to.

desu though that guy's painting isn't photorealistic (and that's a good thing). just regular realistic, and a realistic painting can look way better than a photo.

Modern art is trash, but it's a mistake to take the label "modern art" and apply it to all art done in modern times.

we've still got plenty of excellent painters / artists who do stuff other than abstract shit.

DUDE TITS LMAO

>Focuses on shit that a decent photographer could make
>focuses on naked women

Yeah, as if there was any more proof needed that the detractors of modern art are fundamentally plebian in their sensibilities.

You can't make a photo look like this

I like futurism though

I will say it right here: Dadaism was a mistake.

>Focuses on shit that a decent photographer could make

Confirmed for pleb taste and zero awareness of realism painting.

No, a photographer could not take a Jeremy Mann painting or a Roberto Ferri painting or any decent realist (not photorealist) painting. Just because it looks realistic doesn't mean it mirrors reality in the way a photograph does.

Lucian Freud is probably my single favourite artist. He somehow manages to make the uncanny valley feel more tangible and realistic than a photograph.

> shit that a decent photographer could make

nah m8, you're making it pretty obvious you've never done either photography or painting if you think that.

>posts more photography-tier art

What did they mean by this?

>still doesn't get it

Wew lad the pleb is in

(you)

>retards all over again

user I'm sorry you're blind. Realism =/= photorealism and if you're too stupid to realize this you should find another thread.

>still thinks that blurry bullshit makes this kind of art not plebian in its sensibilities

I guarantee you there's not a single thing in those paintings that couldn't be better expressed with a photograph.

>All these posts implying there is no art in modern world.

Art is still being propagated through different medium and breaking through different fronts from drawing to anime to cinematography to photography to sculpture to font types and stuff.

>inb4 consumerism