Why were con artists allowed to parade all willy-nilly with their expressionist and abstract minimalist abortions in...

>curation prevents a "reddit" approach to art.
Curation is an entirely reddit approach to art. Critic consensus divides the "kitsch" from the high-brow. They get their upvotes from money and academic praise.

>art is supposed to make you feel and think
An empty canvas, menstrual blood painting and a urinal really make me ponder about the deeper meanings of the universe.

Modern art is a bastard child of Marxist deconstructivism.
Daily reminder that we must rebell & exterminate them all.

Like I said, artists make what they will. No one is forcing you to try and "get" dadaism. That whole style is meant not to make sense anyway. It's literally meta. If it doesn't mean anything to you, then look at something else.

>art is supposed to make you feel and think
Ehhhh, not quite.

Art is about what you want. Art is about the ideal. The abstract and minimalist modernist works still followed that rule, but the thing is, the people supporting that shit were all vapid, self-absorbed and boring. And so what they wanted indeed translated into their works. Their works were more concerned about "perspectivism" and appearing "subtle" (which roughly meant, shallow but make it seem like there's more to it) and having a "message".

Caveman sees a wild beast he wants to kill or fuck - hence he imagines the desire, the ideal, and draws a picture of himself killing or fucking a wild beast. There's a message in that, sure, but when the caveman smeared his concoction of feces and blood paste on the wall to draw these things, the message was not the focus - his boner was.

Artists have followed this simple principle since day one. It has always been about what you want, the intangible ideal that you want brought to life. And it's fine to like those abstract or minimalist works if you agree with what those artists wanted. I see it as a mockery for irony's sake though.

Speaking from my own experience as a professional artist, "modern art" is hated by a lot of people in the art community as well. While art is, of course subjective, it's a bit disheartening to put time and effort into learning form, anatomy, lighting, etc and then seeing pic related sell for 110 million dollars. Still, I wonder what kind of devil's deal you have to make to sell something like that for that kind of money.
If you want to see some recent work by technically talented artists, go pick up a copy of the yearly Spectrum. It's full of great stuff that isn't up its own ass with meaning and deepness.

I don't know if I agree with all of that. Political art is very much a thing and it often depicts the opposite of an ideal. It's not like food necessarily, where everything is made to taste good. Sometimes you draw things you hate and that's natural too. It can even resonate with others.

All I know is I'm only really dissatisfied if I look at a piece and go "eh". I feel that way about OPs Rothkos and some other pieces of really abstract art but I'm not about to say those don't have value to somebody or shouldn't have been popular.

Money laundering. It's all literally a huge scam.

feel like basquiats success is a little racist... like he's obviously shit. can't paint. retarded drug addict. and then all of these white colletors were like wow! this little street monkey can paint! isnt that cute?

he's literally just another talentless black homeless painter. A white guy with an MFA (back then) would never have gotten away with this shit. pic related.

I think its called the bigotry of low expectations.

>art is subjective

no, it's not.

>MFA
What's an MFA?

>Spectrum
Interesting, thank you.

Raw draftsmanship is just not taught or valued anymore.

This guy gets it.

Why do autistics that only like epic broads and barbarians fantasy shit think that anybody that likes anything remotely abstract is only pretending?

must be admitted this crap may look cool as part of interior design. but it should not cost more than 5 or 10 dollars. astronomic prices are boosted by art ethnic dealer mafia who keep reselling some POS until it 'earns history' and then may be sold for millions to some bank (usually colluding with said bank ethnic management to the detriment of cuck shareholders).

Gangster Computer God Worldwide Secret Containment Policy made possible solely by Worldwide Computer God Frankenstein Controls. Especially lifelong constant-threshold Brainwash Radio. Quiet and motionless, I can slightly hear it. Repeatedly this has saved my life on the streets.

It was literally the most advanced painting at the time because it dealt exclusively with its own materials.

The art business you know and love was born in the 80s when corporations got involved with art.

Even the art world asks itself "how do we fix the art world?"

Basquiat isn't bad.

>A white guy with an MFA (back then) would never have gotten away with this shit.

Untrue, Neo-expressionism was pretty big. A woman wouldn't have got away with it though.

This is both true and untrue. Art adheres to standards which are objective but often it tries to argue itself around the 'law' of art so that objectivity is never really fixed and entirely context-dependent.

This is actually the saddest thing about these reactionaries, they all like the same 19th century shit instead of any earlier art because it's the most accessible -- so it could be sold to the middle-class.

It's easier to just say that what kind of art you personally like is subjective, but art itself isn't subjective. It's literally just a category error.

Painting was dying at the time so it being the most advanced isn't really saying much.

It was only dying because it was being supplanted by minimalist sculpture, photography, Pop Art, assemblage and all that, i.e. everything else except painting.

I completely agree though I don't really see why abstract art needs to be in galleries. I've always thought they could look nice in someones living room, an object that doesn't demand attention and could compliment the colour scheme/design of the room.

It's not about that. It's more just a questioning of why you want to stare at and dream about some color blotches all day.

We know why though. You like to pretend you're clever.

Because there was demand for their products, what's hard to understand?

They mistook art for craft

Art is expression that is revered. Craft can be art.

Art should make you LOOK AT THE PICTURE and SEE, THE SKULL.

Rothko was directly influenced by a deep understanding of Nietzsche you FUCKING pleb

It is almost as if the empty canvas, menstural blood painting and a urinal are making you consider more seriously the boundaries of art, and whether or not they can, or are fit, to present fuel for the greater project of aesthetics, ontology and value.

Because they're of historical and aesthetic importance.

It's paint on a canvas, like all paintings. What's so hard to understand?

Craft isn't expression.

van gogh became popular because of his connection to gaughin and his brother and sister posthumously shilling his art.. there has been and will always be thousands of mentally ill artists, some die in a ditch and some get fetishized, How many tumblr girls have a daniel johnston t shirt..

So people were manipulated into liking his art by shills rather than it having value as post-Impressionism?

craft can't be expressive? nobody ever crafted something to express themselves?

Have you ever seen an expressive chair?

Why, yes. Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.

This wouldn't be art even if it were revered. It would just be a revered chair.

are you kidding me? people like you sicken me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorative_arts

the whole point is to revere the artist, not the piece. the art is just a medium, like music and literature.

You should probably read the article you linked to see the distinction between big-A Art and the decorative arts.

Good job not negating what I just told you, and just doubling down on your own wrong assertion.

There's nothing stopping chairs from being art-objects as well, all at once. You seem to think that you are making a point by taking a normally "prosaic" thing, a chair, and developing the ridiculous, reductionist idea that a chair is at all times and most of all /only/ a chair. This is false. "The category is commonly understood to be prosaic, so everything belonging to the category is necessarily and ONLY also prosaic". This is you.

De Stijl is art first before craft. It's the sole exception because it dealt with relevant artistic concerns. It's not made for the gallery, it ends up in the gallery because of the artistic context of modernism.

are you saying that fine art is the only art because lol. you are either a commie and ill call you bourgeois or your a fascist and ill call you a yakee carpetbagger turdball. art doesnt have to come from rich people that got put through college by their parents.

I'm saying that in art history there is a useful distinction between the fine arts and the decorative arts, with the fine arts historically defining the essence of what 'art' is. The craft/art distinction originally brought up by some other user is saying that the 19th century works about epic broads or whatever tends to shift away from that which has historically been considered 'art' and more towards a paint-by-numbers craft, because it lacks that quality that separates decoration from some higher purpose claimed for the fine arts.

>art is that which is relevant to the concerns of the institution
Pure, unadulterated cancer.

hey im a professional artist too

you in LA?

1. Because they are premier money laundering vehicles.
>What do you mean?

Millions of dollars can be stored as the value of an innocuous painting.

2. The CIA funneled money into promoting it as a rival school of art to Soviet Realism.

CONT.

>What do you mean (regarding painting)

And the cost of funding academics making word salad about pieces is minimal in comparison to the capital value stored on the canvas.

I disagree, art dealers were jewing rich dudes back when we receded to monopolists as robber barons.

Oh wow look this user just solved the problem of art. Everyone go home, user you are a genius.

I agree. Beautiful craftsmanship where you can feel the love and inspiration poured into pure technique is for me definitely art. It almost becomes performance art in a weird way. That said, I also dig very abstract art.

>it's all just a money laundering scam!!

People keep saying this, yet offer no proof.

>you don't like modern art because you don't understand it

The proof is that the variable nature of the value of paintings is such a delectable exploit in income valuation.

Once you have a painting, you can file it as being worth anything from a fraction of a penny to a billion dollars on tax forms.

And a bunch of schmuck academics will write garbage and salad to justify the appreciating "actual" value of the painting.

Do you have examples of that happening?

The uselessness of art in a world where tesosterone levels are dropping due to xenoestrogens, where men have to compete with women for jobs which destroys them both, and where first world nations are heavily invested in polluting the largest stream of information in history (the internet).

The artists with talent get to work in either advertising or entertainment.

>But that's not proof

You have to be insane to walk into a modern art museum and think that any of the pieces "speak" to you or inspire a feeling of the sublime and beauty.

Their utility is propping up a system of de facto cognitive pollution by creating a class of academics to pump up the value of paintings.

Literally the whole truth of art. Art is nothing without its qualifying frame.

Sadly the writing in support of this art makes more sense than the writing against it.

In terms of speculation though, that began in the 80s. People buying modernist art genuinely believed it was the most advanced art, not because they thought it would fetch a few dollars a decade down the track.

You'd have to be insane to believe sublimity and beauty is the purpose of art. This isn't the Romantic period.

I wonder how conceptual art and art that specifically avoids commodification and the art market works into this scam. Oh it fucking doesn't?

Because what else is the purpose of art? As I said, why the fuck should I give a single shit about modern art? How does it give comfort to man? Why should man constantly be faced with chaos and meaninglessness?

Describe conceptual art and why it's even important enough to acknowledge in a savage world.

Why should man constantly be faced with chaos and meaninglessness because some academic wrote word salad to pump up the importance of the pieces presented?*

Modern art is the complete opposite of chaos and meaninglessness. It's about uncovering transcendental and spiritual truths about reality as uncovered by the human intellect and imagination. It's a fucking painting on a wall, how chaotic can it be?

>Describe conceptual art

It's art... that's a concept. You can't buy or sell it.

> in a savage world.

Word salad.

Artists tend to write their own statements. They don't need academics to write anything for them. Academics occur after the fact and the importance is self-evident.

>It's art... that's a concept. You can't buy or sell it.

What? Is this some fucking kind of joke? We have terms for that shit that don't involve word salad.

"Imagination"

Wow, so they had to create another fucking edifice of verbal shit to frame imaginative thoughts.

You guys are fucking killing me.

But academics provide "intellectual" justification as writers, curators, and professors. Who indoctrinate people into accepting word salad as meaningful descriptions. Especially when the artist is dead.

What exactly about the word salad do you not understand? If you're having trouble maybe I can help explain it to you.

Artists provide their own justification.

I'm stopping for tonight. This isn't worth even thinking about. This has literally been a waste of cognitive resources.. Literally.

Do you think conceptual art would provide "transcedental" and "spiritual truths" to NKs in a prison camp? Or would they be more moved and healed by being free and taking a break in a forest?

No they don't. Each person who encounters an artist's work either approves or disapproves. The artist is not the sole cognitive entity in the world.

But really, I have to stop.

No conceptual art is not the same 'modern art' that is supposed to provide transcendental and spiritual truths. Conceptual art helps map the functions of the very systems we participate in every day. Conceptual art occurs after the heyday of modern art since they (and other 'post-modernists') believed that modern art ended with the art object being reduced to a commodity in the gallery system -- the same thing you're complaining about. Except this was relevant 50 years ago.

>No they don't.

Yes they do. They write about what they try to accomplish and why. They provide the justification. Whether it is justified to the viewer is another thing entirely. It's the same of the academics; their justification isn't necessary to whether the viewer approves or disapproves. What a useless argument you're making.

It seems this discussion is happening on a couple of levels more advanced than what you're used to. Honestly it's just as well you're calling it quits.

You seem to have a lot of anger towards this topic. Why anger?

>It seems this discussion is happening on a couple of levels more advanced than what you're used to.

I'm sorry. I helped run nuclear reactors on US Navy nuclear submarines. I guess this shit is "too advanced" for a fucking retard like myself. I guess I should've been smart enough to automatically envision a piece of conceptual art but I guess I'm a fucking retard.

Because it's a lot easier to posture intelligence and meaning than to provide actual intelligence and meaning, especially when examining the signals and seeing they don't actually describe anything meaningful.

People would rather talk bullshit instead of solve real problems. That's my experience in life. And even worse, the people who talk bullshit evaluate themselves as being "more advanced" than normal people who have to deal with the real complexity of a world.

>I helped run nuclear reactors on US Navy nuclear submarines

Wait they have nuclear reactors on nuclear submarines now?

Ha ha yes they do. Most other countries don't and the navy only got them because we have stricter safety standards than nuclear power plants.

What you're describing ("modern art is meaningless!") has been a common feeling in the art world since the late 60s. Did it ever occur to you why people don't make abstract art anymore? When do you think Rothko was alive? Did you even know he's dead?

No, because why should I fucking care? I'd rather be a hermit in a mountain than deal with verbal diarrhea

The smell of hay is worth more than all the museums in the world. The sun rising is worth more than all the paintings in the world.

How is that ever related?
t. Wrote code for Russian guided missiles

You are required to have knowledge of the context, not just being 'smart'

Well you share the same feeling towards the art world as the conceptualists, the minimalists, the Nouveaux Realistes, etc. that all modernism's posturing wasn't adequate enough to deal with the real world.

So these artists started to critique the gallery and the systems they belonged to. They started to deflect the idea of 'conscious purpose' because it was a potentially dangerous imposition on the natural world. The sublime, the beautiful, the transcendent, the imaginary, were all meaningless when it came to dealing with real life and real people.

The purpose of art is beauty i.e. pleasure. There is no art movement that contradicts this regardless of what its proponents may try and lead you to believe.

If you disagree, then your conception of beauty is rigid and just based on what the media thinks is beauty. Horror, grotesque imagery can be beauty to some. Abstract shapes and lines can be beauty to some. The thought process that abstract paintings generate from the viewer can be the beauty to some. In some shape or form, there is an appeal to one's sense of beauty, which is being praised in the art itself.

Use the right terminology you fucking philistines. Modern art began in the 1860's, do you hate Van Gogh's work?

How is Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty-Six Attempts) about beauty? You'll have to familiarise yourself with more art movements before you make broad claims about what art is.

How is it not about beauty? I don't give a fuck about it, so I couldn't tell you exactly why it might be seen as attractive, but clearly someone did enough to want it performed, photographed, and eventually framed.

I can tell you right up front that it was not done because they hated doing it, or because they thought it would make for an ugly piece of shit that no one cares about - someone in the process thought it was a worthwhile, attractive effort. Otherwise it's not art.

Expressionist art as a movement is probably on the same level as Beethoven and the Gothic movement, for all the new ideas and styles it gave to art ranging from Bauhus to Futurism to Proto-psychedelia It's influence can be seen everywhere in art and that's a good thing because new ideas prevent stagnation. It's a natural thing because culture changes and goes through evolution like everything else does in the world.

If you can't see the value of a Vincent Van Gogh painting but can see the value of something else that's abstract like some East Asian art just because it's more "traditional" I don't understand. The Goth movement and Beethoven both had the same kind of reaction from people when they were new too.