When did Art die?

People saying shit like this basically.

Kids, psuedointellectuals, leftists, and all of the above combined make for some shitty modern art.

Literally CIA.

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

1900s
jews

because people are dumb as bricks and look for something to get riled up over.

Probably post-industrial revolution, once the concepts of 'mass production' starting kicking into peoples minds, the value of 'a piece' of art diminished, since almost any image or sculpture could be reproduced artificially; the creativity was transferred to designing of the machine which could do it. Soon enough, art and artist lost power and meaning in society and all the old masters lost their relevance in the mainstream. Only the die hard true believers carried on the traditional techniques. For everyone else it just become another job, another thing to sell.

>artists before the industrial revolution folded their paint brushes a million times before drawing a single stroke.

this

The Jews during the Weimar Republic

Judaism, as usual.

Italy cucking their culture to respect Mudslimes.

no... It's the Nu-Jews.

>modern-art-was-cia-weapon
so the CIA travelled back in time to ~1870 to invent modern art, why not just assassinate the commies instead?

>When did Art die?
Post-Modernism

>Who killed it?
Post-Modernists

A new shitty sub genre spawning off an overarching medium can't "kill" the medium. Highly detailed and conventional art still exists and is in demand, it just doesn't make the absurd amount of money post-modernist and minimalist shit makes. It's because PM art has more mainstream applications and is championed by rich idiots who want to feel superior and intellectual to everyone else, but don't want to try to think too hard while doing it - they just want to pretend essentially. Thus a picture of nothing is the best thing they can hope for. They can literally invent a reason why its good, buy it for $$$$ so they look rich, and then display it in their box home to complete the sterile look and sterile lives and show off to boot.

You are right. If someone claims to care about art they should expend effort finding art they enjoy, but that doesn't change the fact mainstream society's attitude toward art is bizarre.

Medieval Italy had a population of 10 million and treated commoners and women like trash yet they produced about a dozen artistic geniuses over 200 years.

The current global population is 7 billion, we have better attitudes towards women and the poor, we have more wealth and resources to support artists, yet the media tells us Tracey Emin's bed and Damien Hirst's fish are the pinnacle of art.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

Even with a conservative estimate we should have had something in the order of 1000 Leonardos and Michelangelos over the past 50 years. How can this be anything but an intentional effort to suppress humanity's artistic spirit for nefarious reasons. It is possible it is tied in with the assassination of Bruce Lee, Tupac and other strange events.

>How can this be anything but an intentional effort to suppress humanity's artistic spirit for nefarious reasons.

I dont think its intentional. I think it has to do with how materialistic we are.

Compare someone like Mozart or Bach to someone like Skrillex or any other edgy edmfag/ravefag.

There is a HUGE qualitative gap between them. If you sit and listen to a musician from the Baroque period, there aren't lyrics.

However, it conveys a feeling rather well. Its ART conveying the composers EMOTION.

If you sit and listen to edmfagshit, there also aren't lyrics, and it does convey a feeling! HOWEVER, it's a material feeling (big wide PHYSICAL soundwaves/bass that you can palpably feel) rather than a transcendent emotional feeling.
But post-modernism/relativism/materialism has laid the foundation for any faggot to do any fucking thing and be a fucking artist.

just because contemporaries love it does not mean it will pass on to become part of history

Surely between the decadent westerners and the hopelessly poor there are people who suffer and struggle yet have the resources to commit to great works of art as well as plenty of people who want something more transcendent.

Maybe materialism just makes it more difficult to find.

>Compare someone like Mozart or Bach to someone like Skrillex or any other edgy edmfag/ravefag.
You are looking at a few genii from across centuries and compare them to average Joes of today.

I'm sure you'd find countless Skrillexes during Mozart's times, too.
Conveniently for you, they were forgotten by time, because they sucked, just like how only the genii of today will be remembered and people in 500 years will look to the year 2002 and say "man, back then music was still great, just look at [insert one of the few good artists brought fourth this century] and compare them to the edgy cyberneocore we have to listen to today." Because by then Skrillex will be forgotten, just like how you have forgotten the Skrillexes of 1682 like Georg Schniebels and Hans Wurst.

I see what you mean user. I just cant seem to think of a single modern artist that produced music qualitatively on par with a majority of the musicians from the Baroque period.

And I was comparing the two for popularities sake. Questioning what todays society idolizes vs what society idolized back then.

Who wants to bet they're behind this SJW-shit too?

It hasn't.

But idiots are now routinely capable of being heard beyond their village.

it didn't

>I don't understand the anthropological definition of art: the post

Ultimately the media reflects our interests. If a paper thinks sperging over Turner prize finalists is what will appeal to their audience, then they will do so. Controversy begets fame, or infamy, which begets public popularity, causing another round of sperging and a feedback loop is created.

Orchestral music was for the elite. If you want to compare like for like compare pop like skrillex to folk music like the oompa music that accompanies Bavarian interpretive dance bar fights over women or whatever.

Can you direct me to some good contemporary art that can be compared to some historical masters? And I mean actual painting or sculpture, not some faggot how posts his Photoshop masterpieces on Deviantart.

I didn't have a lot of exposure to modern art, but most contemporary painters I saw art by, who didn't follow some modern abstract style were very formulaic. Just following some basic, somewhat realistic style, pretty much just making paintings for your grandma's living room.

No, that was the KGB.

...

Than they set up the alt-right as a """""natural reaction"""""" to SJW-s. The Eternal Rooskie strikes again.

*sips wine**twirls tiny moustache*

It's not dead. You fuckers are so fucking stupid.

>what I don't like isn't art!!!

Go fuck yourselves.

Just making sure I have this straight, only the art you dislike is "championed by rich idiots" who are only pretending to like it as a social signal?

Is an empty canvas art?

Computer drawn pictures are art.

1900 died, since then art was used by politics and jews in general

GUYS GUYS GUYS PLEASE HELP
I'M looking for a classical painting, probably oil on canvas, baroque, perhaps Renaissance, it depicts a scene in Greek mythology where a male character killed a woman stabbing her in the heart, now there are 3 female figures screaming in his ears, tormenting him, he looks ultimately tormented, trying to shut his ears with the hands.... Everyone has seen it before, can someone please source it to me?

I know the painting but not the name so I can't help you, but nice trio of repeating numbers m9, now check these.

Ii Don't want st Baptist, but thank you for your reply
DOES ANYONE ELSE KNOW IT?

Modern fashion is just to like like as big an asshole as possible

I killed Arte

When Secularism began

>You just don't understand it

You think the average pleb went to see mozart and bach perform? The common person has always listened to whatever was easily accessible. If anything appreciation of classical type music is significantly more widespread now. Additionally, music in the classical style is still being composed and it's easier than ever to see it performed or listen to after the fact.

Art didn't really die, it just changed. Art used to be made purely for decoration, mostly being commissioned to adorn churches and palaces. However, sometime during the late 1800's the focus began to shift away from art as decoration to art as a personal statement by the artist. The artist went from an artisan to a philosopher of sorts; the message of his or her work became more important than its beauty. With this new approach art no longer had to cater to the tastes of wealthy aristocrats, and the artist was free to go as far up his own asshole as he so desired. It just so happens that the tastes of the 20th century capitalist elite were perfectly in line with the novelty of the new art. Both old and new artists ended up serving the elite, despite modern art's veneer of rebellious individualism. So basically shit's changed but not really.

>some of Veeky Forums thinks music is objective
I remember when this board was comfy.

aren't some sounds objectively enjoyable for the majority of population because of how their ears are built?

Photography.

Why do you compare Mozart to Skrillex? Isn't that a bit disingenuous? Shouldn't you be comparing Baroque composers to those who claim to be successors of the concert music tradition? People like Gloria Coates, Kaija Saariaho, Michael Hersch, Steven Stucky, Sofia Gubaidulina, Joan Tower, Samuel Adler, Aaron Cassidy, Shulamit Ran and so on?

Evaluating music has objective and subjective qualities.

I don't want to write a long post, but objectivity is mainly answering questions pertaining to the craft of music. This mainly deals with how well the music compares with pre-agreed upon standards for music performance and composition (which are social constructs, but nonetheless an objective evaluation is still possible). For example:
>Is the piece skillfully performed?
>Is it written and performed appropriately in the style of [genre, tradition, etc]?
>Are the sounds novel or evocative?

Subjective evaluation deals with the experiential component of hearing music, rather than the craft component. Things like:
>Did I like it?
>Was it interesting?
>What emotions did I experience (if any)?

The feelings that we get when we listen to music are some combination of our objective and subjective experiences, not just one or the other.

I don't know jack about art desu but I have a question for you guys who shit on modern art (not mentioning that you always cherrypick a few particularly weird pieces) and post renaissance paintings all the time. Do you seriously think it would be more impressive to create just more of those? The techniques have been mastered, basically every heroic/romantic composition that works has been used etc. It may look nice but there's nothing left in classical style art to explore. It would be craftsmanship, not art.

Art, like all other concepts, was stillborn

Rule 34 killed it. Veeky Forums was a mistake.

>Veeky Forums only understanding "Art" as painting

You fucking plebians

youtube.com/watch?v=Eo9pU1q8sy8

we should get rid of all art except for oil paintings and statues just to piss off the sjws

Consumerism
Atheism
Technology

post modernism killed art when the audience decided it could interpret the message of the artist without having the artists intentions

You do know people paint and draw to this day, right?

Orestes wird von den Furien verfolgt

Warhol.

This.

>good
that's for you to decide. maybe start with google or >

>/ic/
Don't take the piss