Explain postmodernism to a renaissance artist

Anyone can learn to draw good, but only a true artist smears menses on a canvas.

Can the Virgin of the Rocks defeat the Patriarchy!?

Merely pretending being retarded

>a readily easy thing to do

It still takes years to get any good at painting.

hahaha what the fuck
don't pretend literally throwing paint on canvas (or leaving it blank except for one black dot) takes any skill whatsoever.

Yeah, but you can buy a book or go to the community college and get pretty good.

In those times, that level of art hadn't been achieved ever

Putting your name on a shovel is considered to be on the same level as making a 20-foot-tall statue of David.

Read the post I'm replying to, it was arguing that painting is easy and therefore we choose to paint like retards. Painting didn't magically become easy. We have easier access to instruction, sure, but it's still a skill that takes years to cultivate to be proficient.

That's real painting, not postmodern shit which is graphic design at best and monkey-tier paintsmears at worst.

Show him this

> all good things are painted already
> so only option is to paint random shit
> also there is magic box that can create picture of whatever you see without need to study for 15 years

I see.

wtf

Thread

I couldn't and really wouldn't want to

there you go, dumb animeposter

source?

*gives him THE GOLDEN ASS by APULEIUS*

It's fine modern art you unsophisticated pleb!

...

No, it an awe-inspiring post-ironic conceptual moving image installation.

Complete with an essay. Arthur Danto was right?
eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/1308/1315

Excellence has already been achieved so many times that it is now of no interest for both the general public (which won't care enough to finance high art; we are included in this group, and as such we do not have the right to complain) and the specialized academia (which now is fully aware of the limits of the limits of classical art, and can notice immediatly how much derivative and insignificant is modern traditional art).
Since the most appreciated trait of art is uniqueness and its ability of displaying a completely individual and original effort (people don't like to admit it, bu the way in whoch they finance the arts just prove this point of mine), the new criterion of excellence is innovation: everything that opens a new world for a medium will be highly regarded, independently of their aesthetic qualities. Therefore Boulez was more important than every other neoromantic and Warhol was more important than virtually every landscape artist of the '50s and '60s.

Now, this art may look ugly and unrefined to you, but the truth is that the entire Western world, being so desensitized to beauty, has decided that this is the only art worth financing. There won't be any new Michelangelo, Rembrandt or Beethoven, my dear friend, for no one really cares enough about that kind of art anymore. Sure, people will find it more pleasing than the more avantgardistic one, and may also compliment the artist and his effort, but the story will end here: this is the maximum support a traditional artist who is not fine with whoring himself (in this case, by dumbing their art down) out will get.
This new art is in itself valid, but its predominance may look almost dispotic, unjust, but please, keep in mind that more than predominance this is an absence of support for a type of art that, in fact, never got assistance from the institutions that are now curating it.

user.

we live in a world where morality is dead, everything is subjective, nothing is absolute, nobody is right or wrong, and art can be interpeted in a thousand different ways that the artist never intended because people apply their own subjective view to things and craft stories to explain things. Because of this, there are a ton of people that project all over shit and the artists themselves take advantage and put out shit because nobody can objectively say anything in postmodern society. Quality is meaningless, profit is everything, all that matters is mass appeal, nobody will give a shit about artists until afted theyre dead, btw youre famous but sucks you never get to enjoy it, your skill will be trivialized and hacks will live like gods in comparison.

A bit too real, my man

someone discovered a set of chemicals that react to light, they coated pieces of paper with these chemicals and focused light on them using a lens such that the image through the lens was stamped on the paper, so to speak

this invention was perfected to the point where anyone can make precise color images of what they saw, with obvious consequences for the art world

Explain the changes in literature and art music then.

>literature
printing press
>music
phonograph

bingo.
>muh subjectivity is everything. nothing matters. art is anything

Poop poop poop everything now is poop.
Poop?

>the new criterion of excellence is innovation: everything that opens a new world for a medium will be highly regarded, independently of their aesthetic qualities. Therefore Boulez was more important than every other neoromantic and Warhol was more important than virtually every landscape artist of the '50s and '60s.

In other words, in the recent years we valued autism over hardwork, dedication, tears, blood, sweat, and struggle.
>Now, this art may look ugly and unrefined to you, but the truth is that the entire Western world, being so desensitized to beauty, has decided that this is the only art worth financing.

No its because when you create an eco-chamber among elites, literally anything goes to stand out. Hence the muh innovation. nigga there isn't anything new under the sun.

This new art is in itself valid, but its predominance may look almost dispotic, unjust, but please, keep in mind that more than predominance this is an absence of support for a type of art that, in fact, never got assistance from the institutions that are now curating it.

It never got assistance from anyone from themselves because who wants to stop homeless people from throwing shit on each other in a dark ally-way?

They would lack the framework to understand something as insane as postmodernism. If you were in their time, and made the attempt, know that you would be confined to a mental institution.

>We invented magic artifacts that captured flawless images of the world around them. To justify their existence in this new age, artists resorted to shitting on various items and insisting it was worth thousands of dollars.

If people want crazy why not fund surrealism? There's a lot of shit people can come up with and it's 100 times better than most postmodernist crap

In summary, modern art has no aesthetic function, no social function, and no objective beyond propagation of the lifestyle of "artist".

Human technical skill peaked during your lifetime. No objectively better art was ever made.
We invented ways of making perfect copies of images and sending them to every person on Earth.
Consequently, society has grown tired of beauty and is not impressed by displays of artistic mastery.

We must now derive aesthetic pleasure from:
>producing incomprehensible art that defies all known metrics of quality, in hopes of stumbling upon something good by accident
>mocking good art in order to feel like we have an elevated, super-human aesthetic sense (without necessarily having one)
>interpreting bad art through the lens of our personal experiences, in order to perceive meaning and emotion that doesn't exist within the work itself

We get mixed results.

> We valued autism over handwork, dedication, tears, blood, sweat, and struggle.
How can you achieve the same struggle that was real in medieval times with current levels of tech?

wasn't that just done by some local granny who wanted to help?

Explain all the classical art that depicted fantastical things in a realistic style then.

I'd have to explain a whole hell of a lot to make pic related make sense. Maybe I can get him to understand the fact that 90% of the American media (And thus, world media) is owned by just six corporations. Maybe an analogy to town criers and monastic copyists?

If I can get his head around the internet however then I can make him understand that actual art, not meme """"""""""""""art"""""""""""""" is still made and still loved just as much as it is in his day, it's just not found in churches anymore.

Show him a book, a painting, a movie and make him listen to David Bowie.
Then throw all of that into a blender and serve it to him on a plate while saying "It's a metaphor."

it was novel because no photos

I told you to explain all the classical art that depicted fantastical things in a realistic style.

This thread is retarded and filled with art plebs.

All you'd have to do to make a renaissance artist "understand" post-modernism is take out your smart phone, snap a picture of him, slap a filter on it, and if you have the capacity print it out and hand it to him.

I mean fuck, show them a picture of a pre-made oil paint in a disposable aluminum tube, and then show them what Vincent Van Gogh was able to do with that much paint. They'd shit themselves with joy.

For guys who had to make their own paints by hand, they'd be truly amazed at the tools we have at our disposal for creating art. They would easily begin to imagine the possibilities and would soon begin to understand what makes abstract art so compelling when generating photo-realistic images becomes an effortless, instant endeavor, and art becomes more of a question of what you can do that a camera can't. After explaining to them the huge proliferation of art leads to a huge proliferation of medias, artists specialize, and fine artists stopped needing to be given a subject matter by some wealthy asshole, they could create art for pure art's sake. They would easily grasp what Andy Warhol meant when he talked about the meaninglessness of the distinction between high art and low art when they started seeing fantastically intricate visuals for even mundane objects like soup cans. After taking the time to understand just how sophisticated our society is, they would begin to understand why contemporary artists aren't limiting themselves to a 2-D surface, but their pieces become something that is installed.

These kind of discussions are always dominated by knuckle-dragging forest apes using art as a vehicle to bitch about 'muh degeneracy' like they've never actually met a creative person, or know how one's mind works. They hear the stories of lesbians smearing their menstrual fluids all over a canvas and assume that's the state of art without actually bothering to see what's being made these days.

>What if bad things were actually good?

>Imagine if, after Savonarola was defeated, a bunch of his supporters, instead of admiting they were wrong, decided that reality was wrong, and didn't exist, instead

>Explain postmodernism to a renaissance artist.
Commission him to portray Hell.

>pic
What

Easy.
>Every wanted to be a girl but youre a boy?
>destroy civilization so that when even anyone calls you out for being a faggot you can lynch them

While you're partially correct, you're mostly wrong.
These renaissance artists were Craftsmen and Mathematical types, rather than the "Artistic" types which came later. The roles for those people in the Renaissance was Humanist circlejerk symposia, the type lambasted in the works of Aretino and Rabelais.

Your line of reasoning would hold little water with folks like Leonardo, but would possibly be effective on the likes of the Mannerists. Leonardo was renowned for his hatred of the imperfect representations of the human form present in the early mannerist works of Michelangelo.

Imagine if the world was run by Jews....

>we have cameras now
>therefore realistic art is pointless
This argument never held water for me.
It's not like Michaelangelo got God and Adam to pose for him when he painted the Sistine chapel. How does the invention of the camera effect a decorative painting of spiritual subjects on a ceiling?

It especially doesn't make sense considering the supposed "creative" impulse of the artist. Having access to cameras doesn't suddenly make an artist want to throw away his pencil and no longer desire to bring the visions in his head into the world.

On the other hand though if we're claiming that thanks to postmodernism, modern artists now only have abstract images of chaos and disorder in their heads, rather than the glory of God and human endeavour, I suppose it make sense then that the rise of the camera would displace painting among tradesmen intent on replication of real world images, leaving the realm of painting solely in the hands of the mentally ill products of the modern university system.

>pretend

It is sophisticated.

Art is meaningless, and your hard work means nothing.

This image and this post are just as artistically relevant as the Mona Lisa

>not knowing that postmdernism already existed in the renaissance

...

I was going to say.

Imagine the bricolage effect that you find in Raphael's Miraculous Draught of Fishes tapestry that constructs an image from different sources, and the focus on process as art in Michelangelo's ('unfinished') Battle of Cascina cartoon, and similarly the primacy of theory over content (a new way of depicting subjects like the change from greca maneira to the present style) in his presentation drawings of Leda and the swan to... is it Anna or something? But yes imagine this emphasis on theory introduced in the Renaissance by your artist-theorists is allowed to develop to its own logical completion and you will have postmodernism. Also buy stocks in Apple.

He died
Those are unfinished

Michelangelo was a mannerist, not a faggot, despite being a faggot

It did, just like capitalism existed in certain merchant city-states at that time.

But there's a difference between something being the cultural norm and something being an underground phenomenon.

>No its because when you create an eco-chamber among elites, literally anything goes to stand out

Lol who do you think the patrons have been over the entire history of Western art? The people?

Postmodernism is very surrealist, especially in a Breton and Bataille way.

I like Surrealism better, because you don't have to be a shit draftsman to be a surrealist

>This argument never held water for me.

Yep it's a bad argument. I'd argue the camera brought an end to modern abstract art rather than gave it a beginning.

>Those are unfinished
>Michelangelo was a mannerist, not a faggot, despite being a faggot

no, they were complete actually.

>michelangelo
>undergound

also this is pretty postmodern (or surrealist at least) and is evern earlier

No, they're not. Those are the unfinished sculptured for the Tomb of Julius II.

This is a finished or near finished one. Just because you like it unfinished doesn't mean he intended it so

yeah, essentially just point to everyone's reaction to the sistine chapel or other Michelangelisms

Mimesis got boring, Colorito is no longer the core excellency of painting, its all about sheer expression of Grace

>Fair is foul and foul is fair
>fly through the fog and filthy air
that's not a new idea

>Not being so Postmodern that You've looped back to the Renaissance

>not wedging a halberd into Jeff Koons face for producing hackish shlock

on the other hand, compelling painting still speaks for itself

>dick
>vag
>decapitated body

2edgy4me

>Implying the old masters never drew/sculpted vag

With an element of decorum, yes. Not edgy schlock trying to reproduce the image of the Academies but completely lacking the spirit.

>Not being edgy

Are you sarcastically saying that painting is not being edgy, or are you chiding me for not being edgy enough to enjoy your edgy Sphix painting?

What exactly do you consider edgy?

Decorum, or what is emphasised by the painting. 'The Sphinx' doesn't need to be about the sphix at all, it's just an exercise in edgy classic-like painting. Spraying blood for no reason (what caused the cut?), breast on the lower body for no reason, vag on the upper body for no reason, body upside-down for no reason... a combination of elements makes it edgy. A nude girl is not edgy because the point is beauty. And for Christ bleeding these things show his suffering and the means by which man is redeemed from sin; you don't see his dick, for example.

>Imagine humans have the power to destroy everythig at the push of a button. Makes that painting that took you 16 years seem silly, doesn't it?

Tbh El Greco is a hack

ITT: hurr i dont get it! i like pretty mass produced paintings instead because i don't have to think too hard about it!

k

People got bored of realistic things and started exploring with other means of expressing themselves.

>Your handpainted Masterworks are mass produced
>Postmodern Superstar Warhol became famous for mass producing identical soapboxes
What did (You) mean by this?

To be fair there were thousands upon thousands of artists working in the 19th century making work that was (at least superficially) classicist. They're not 'masterworks' but the idea of painting masters doesn't apply to the whole history pre-modern, post-Renaissance art.

And soapboxes were already being mass-produced. The artistic point was to bring it into the gallery and for Warhol himself to be like a machine.

No, Studio 54 literally copied and mass produced boxes that looked exactly like soapboxes that contained soap. That was the art.

And yeah, by the 19th Century, classical painting had become just another decorative craft. The Impressionists had taken over the artsy part of the art world by then.

is this too edgy

enough decorum?

>That was the art.

What do you mean 'no'? What you said doesn't contradict what I said.

That's Baroque dynamism for you. The subject is literally one of violence and is not extraneous.

No dick, no bleeding wounds.

I thought you meant they took boxes made by a factory and brought them into exhibition, instead of making them

Yeah the 'it' wasn't very clear.

>classical painting had become just another decorative craft
that's what it was at the height of the cinquecento too