Art

objectively*

why is art so triggering to you fags?

youtu.be/lNI07egoefc
Is this guy right?
Ignore the pro Israel video this same channel made, focus on this

no

God is an anagram of dog. Really makes you think.

Can you point out where he's wrong fag?

Yes it's art. Dog shit on a plate is art. Doesn't Mean It's good art!

>conflates modern and contemporary
>argues for objective standards but never outlines any
try maeks u thenk

i like looking at this object, what does that make me?

im glad it exists but the system that created it makes me feel sickly

its shit that art cant exist in isolation, modern art is self concious of this to the point of autism, shameless commercialsim has almost become the bubble that protects it from reality in a perverse way

ALL art is inconsequential faggot shit prove me wrong pro tip you literally can't.

Is this the point where it all started to go wrong?

...

isnt dada supposed to be satire of how retarded art is?

Prove yourself right first.

...

The trouble with satire is that sooner or later somebody comes along who doesn't realize that it's satire, then they take it seriously and everything goes to hell.

The point of Duchamp is that he challenges the idea of what art is through satire

1) Art does not necessarily have to be made. Anything can be promoted to the status of art by the artist.

2) Art can be mostly about ~ideas~ and still be art

>Beauty is the sole quality by which an aesthetic object can be judged

How can you be this retarded

Art

fuq

All art or does it just happen to be just the stuff that you don't like?

>meaning should be spoonfed to the masses

no

good art

What really differentiates Duchamp from later imitators is that duchamp could express the meaning and motivations of his art through (by artist standards) plain language. We know what the idea is behind readymades because he was more than willing to explain what they were for anyone who wished to interview him on the subject. It's hard to get anything of the sort out of artists today. Oh sure, they'll explain everything in interviews, but in impenetrable and often contradictory language.
Though of course I do not know if that's the fault of artists or simply that they are artists in times like these.

So touching, so deep...

Give this man ten million dollars!

>serves no purpose other than itself
>consequential in any way

>Can't tell the difference between a Pollock and his workshop apron.

You expect me to take this video seriously?

Are you implying that there could be any art greater than hamburgers?

Artists tend to be pretty clear when they're the avant-garde because it's on them to prove that their art is a response to the art that came before. Contemporary art isn't really the avant-garde anymore even though it draws heavily from post-formalism. That's not to say there is no good art being made currently but there's no real direction for it to be headed.

A big fake burger in a gallery has more to do with art than 19th-century paintings of women I can tell you that much.

The purpose of art is to cause reactions and make people think. The fact that you people get upset at looking at a signed toilet and discuss whether it is art or not makes it art. It has nothing to do with aesthetics or beauty.
Something becomes art at the exact moment when someone talks about it.

I am not an artist, I just stopped being mad at stupid shit people do.

>The purpose of art is to cause reactions and make people think. The fact that you people get upset at looking at a signed toilet and discuss whether it is art or not makes it art. It has nothing to do with aesthetics or beauty.
Your brain on cultural marxism

this is why high fashion is great, the good ones actually explain their stuff and it makes sense. rick owens' exhibitions are a great example

He's wrong but so are you.

Is he? Most if not all the people who I've met whom defend modern "art" seem to be indoctrinated one way or another into Marxism.

Marxism is a nazi conspiracy theory, it doesn't exist.

>The purpose of art is to cause reactions and make people think.
Awful definition buddy, think about it for five minutes.
>It has nothing to do with aesthetics or beauty.
Beauty? Sure. Aesthetics? Dead wrong.
>Something becomes art at the exact moment when someone talks about it.
This contradicts with your first line though

>It's another mouthbreathers who jerk off to baroque paintings cherrypick things they don't like thread

He's wrong in thinking art is for reactions and making people think is cultural Marxism.

False

He just pointed out how the faggot sounds like a brainwashed Marxist, which he does.

But he doesn't because Marxism in the arts does not result in 'art to make u think'

>everything I don't like is MARXISM!
fuck and I thought you faggots couldn't bubblewrap your opinions on art any more

>brainwashed cultural marxist
Nice arguments you got there, now fuck off to /pol/.

You are right, but it does end in uninspired shit being called "art", because Marxist don't have standards to which measure objectively, or rather they don't comprehend the relationship between skill and art (hint: they are practically the same)

>everything is marxist
How deluded are you?

I never said that, and that's neither an argument, care to share something of value instead of bitching?

You don't seem to be able to read or comprehend English friend, I've never said that

>art can be judged objectively

How can you be so right about postmodern garbage and then miss the mark so hard? Jesus Christ.

The contemporary art we see today is the capitalist appropriation of a Marxist avant-garde that petered out at the end of last century. The skill and craft of art to the avant-garde (and really all art since the Renaissance) is based entirely on its theory. A bunch of bricks lined up in a gallery is good art; there's theory behind it based on the logical conclusions to formalism, in itself the logical conclusion to purity in painting. Contemporary art has no avant-garde and its struggling to find a theory. A burger is bad art.

It can, don't you remember that "art" comes from the Greek skill? Artist are meant to be skillful, and skills can be measured objectively, this is a fact.

youtu.be/rKhfFBbVtFg

You never said anything of value, even assuming you were the first poster I quoted. What sort of "argument" is "most if not all the people who I've met whom defend modern "art" seem to be indoctrinated one way or another into Marxism." Please substantiate this or make an argument of value yourself.

>objective standards
There's that phrase again. Will you be the first poster to actually outline any? Or will you just allude to the feel-good notion of them without providing any.

That video is bogus but not nearly as bad as his Picasso one.

I was agreeing with the guy that the group of people I've seen defending modern "art" are Marxist, nothing more.

Art is s skill, this are works of art that required skills honed by many years of practicing.

This is art, this are artist.

youtu.be/rKhfFBbVtFg

youtu.be/WKRKrpz09Fk

It is meant to be skilled, but you can't judge that in art. Sure, you can identify shitty art, but let's assume you have two pieces of good art. How do you "objectively" judge them to see which is better? This isn't sports where scores and stats show superior play, or durability and utility like smithing, etc. So what exactly are these objective criteria that you can use to decide what art is good or bad? All I can think of are things that are open to debate.

That's because he is objectively measuring the skill put into that painting

Are you guys memeing or do you really disagrew with him? I think he's completely based and just speaks common sense + truth. I'd like to hear what problems you have with what he said in the vid

Just because you are an ignorant idiot who can judge art, doesn't mean it can't be judged.

See the links posted above, to see how you can actually measure art/skill

I'd rather not waste time watching a youtube video that you've posted a link to instead of formulating your own argument to support your opinion.

Death of Socrates is famous because it invokes istoria, and Las Meninas is famous because it seems to question the nature of painting itself. It's not the skill of the rendering that makes something high art but the quality of the artistic theory. So history paintings ranked higher than portraits and landscapes in the Academy because they had more to do with a general truth of existence, and eventually it was realised the artist could evoke this same truth without relying on the mechanistic copying of sense-data.

My argument was already made in simple English, those links are what we call EXAMPLES.

Lmao, idiot.

Art.

>Art is a skill
So say Malevich gets his brush license or whatever for being a demonstrably good artist. Then goes and makes black square. What happens?

You do realize there are thousands of paintings portraying Socrates death and royal families, tight?
So no, history doesn't make them relevant or good.
You know why these two paintings are above all others?

Hint:Skill

I asked you. Yes, clearly art can be shit. But I said assume you had two good pieces of art. How do you objectively decide which is better? Because it all comes down to taste.

It's like cooking. There is no objectively best meal. What tastes good to me may taste like shit to someone else no matter what skill or time was put into it. Same with art. We can agree that postmodern art is pretty shit and lacking in any creativity or skill, but that doesn't mean art can be judged objectively since you have yet to lay down any objective criteria to judge between two different works. Or account for different taste. Some people may like art that makes them think or fills them with awe, some may like art that is realistic, some may like surreal art, some may like happy scenes, some may want darker, etc.

Clearly a sandwich isn't art, but that doesn't make whatever you think is good art the only objectively good art there is.

Brush license? WTF are you talking about?

You can like literally SHIT (cropofilia?) But that doesn't make shit art or good...

That didn't answer my question. I asked for you to explain what the objective criteria for good art is.

Let's make it simpler. I have a Picasso, Bob Ross, and a drawing a 5 year old kid made. How do I judge them objectively to decide which is best and does not boil down to my opinion or subjective value of them?

There are thousands of paintings executed skillfully that aren't as famous as Death of Socrates or Las Meninas. The point is they're used as examples to highlight trajectories in art; changes in theory that coincide with new ways of thinking about the world (Neoclassicism) or early uses of self-reference in painting (Las Meninas). Why does no one analyse still lives, even though they are rendered skillfully and truthfully to nature -- arguably even more so than any of David's or Velasquez's works? Why is it that art was suddenly transformed when artists in Florence starting writing not only about the simple craft of making the work as it had been practiced for centuries but theorising how to make it a good work, i.e. what qualities should it have?

I've already explained what art really is, if you want examples I've already posted them, the Socrates death and Las Meninas videos explain the greatness of those two words of art, from the use of light to the meaning behind the simetry.

Check both videos, learn something new.

>Brush license? WTF are you talking about?
I was being dismissive, I'll rephrase into more autist-friendly literal terms.

Kazimir Malevich was a practiced draughtsman, comfortable with the human form, had a demonstrable ability to paint within the bounds of conventional for the time. He honed his craft as an artist. With that foundation he goes on to paint most famously Black Square. Is this still art, despite you probably not liking it? Should his status as an artist be revoked?

As an aside, what is the cutoff for what should or should not be considered art; impressionism, cubism, ab-ex...?

The qualities it "should" have is just skill, and that's what makes art good, the skill behind it. For a painter it goes from using light, to forms and even the idea skillfully portrayed.

Care to show me a Death of Socrates better than JLD?

So, you have no objective criteria and are just pissed that a sandwich is art then. I feel you and get that, but then cut your stupid shit claiming art is objective when that argument falls apart because people can easily value different things in art.

Postmodern bullshit being paraded around as art doesn't mean you have to be a reactionary faggot who thinks art is objective. That and you clearly can't even name shit that would be objective so you're clearly spewing shit you have little knowledge of.

Because people value different things in art, that makes it subjective?
, Yeah feelings are not a measure for Worth, lmao. No wonder you still don't understand the point I'm making about skill, you are pretty stupid.

Warhol predicted this.

>mfw anti-modern/pomo retards still don't get it

The skill in rendering theory. Light and shadow, drapery, anatomy, expression, etc. are all a specific theory of art. If one is not attempting to create an illusionistic painting, one should not be judged on the failure to render an illusionistic scene because it is not a lack of skill that results in an absence of illusionism but a decision not to paint it.

If Picasso took a shit in the middle of a museum it wouldn't be art just because it came literally out of him.

Same for every artist, his measure as an artist come from his art, the skill he uses, a simple square that anyone can do or think is not art, just like shit in s Museum

Except if it was an exceptionally skillful shit it would be art?

Atheist is an anagram of a theist.
Really agitates those synapses.

>skills
So you agree there are skills involved.

Would you agree that some artist are more skilled than others?

Der Zeit ihre Kunst
Der Kunst ihre Freiheit

There's no skill in taking a shit

OK, so black square is not art. Where is the line, objectively speaking?

Yes, that makes it subjective. Because if someone doesn't give a fuck about lighting, what value does a picture utilizing it have for them? Maybe they like those cats painted by a schizophrenic and don't give two shits about a historical figure dying. Art is only worth what people think it is worth.

If you want objective worth, it's worth the paint and canvas it's on and that is it. What makes it more than a cheap paint and canvas combination is the value a person places on it. And that is entirely subjective. Yes, skill is necessary, but just as there is no objectively best cook that everyone will like, there is no objectively best art. Because these are things that people seek out for different reasons. They all want something different out of art.

And sentimental feelings is what makes art valuable. Because objectively it is paint on a canvas and cheap. What makes it anything but that is us seeing what the artist did with it and going "I like that" and putting a value that is very much subjective onto it.

I never doubted skill was involved, just that art is more than skill as I have been describing for a while now with evidence you won't acknowledge.

Artist where the first to draw correctly human anatomy for its study by doctors and medicine.
They where able to recreate the human body thanks to their skills, you are trying to argue that if someone didn't like those paintings for whatever reason, they would lose value.

That's the most retarded thing I've heard about the subjective measure of arts, lol.

There's no skill in drawing a line either. It could be that the skill involved in shitting has not been a subject of consideration because Vasari didn't publish Lives of the Most Excellent Shitters in 1550.

What could be more important than skill regarding art?

A line, yes no skill whatsoever there, a painting however takes A LOT of skill, specially paintings Ike the ones i mentioned.

Except that is a retarded example because clearly that art is valuable to doctors. So, the doctors would value pictures of anatomy a lot.

Try harder, kid. Because you're just shitting the bed now and making a fool out of yourself.

The realisation of theory, which is what I've been saying.

But it's worthless for the rest of people, if for example a farmer deemed the biology illustrations worthless for him, wouldn't make the art worthless in itself.

So no, you are still wrong, feelings are not a measure of worth, lol.