Why was pop art the last major art movement in the west? Have we done it all?

Why was pop art the last major art movement in the west? Have we done it all?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You need to understand what pop art is and specifically Warhols aesthetic. Up until Warhol, there was a large amount of labor that went into a single art piece. Even degenerate art that was considered detrimental to society still had the hard brushstroke of the artist encased in its canvas. It took time and work to create a good art piece essentially. Warhol changed all this with meshing the mass-production technologies of his day with his own work. Even though he still sunk countless hours into creating his work, the mass production of it sort of took away its perception as valuable. The public no longer saw time and production value as an essential key to successful art. Art now was focused towards message incased within the work. From this art sort of degenerated into what the scene is now. Absurd things like simple brushstrokes or solid canvases are accepted as art because it's no longer about quality and message, but just message. Because simple art projects can convey large messages, talented artists have stopped becoming known to the public

You're not wrong, but it's important to note that social media and the general "excess" wealth being created as we enter the ai age is already reversing this. Look at the guy who does 'Primative Technologies' on YouTube for instance.

That's pure horseshit m8
You've constructed your narrative first with absolutely no deference to even simple things like dates; for example "solid canvases" might well refer to pieces like Rauschenberg's White Paintings of the early 50s, only a few years after what might be considered very earliest of pop art and a decade before Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans and Marilyn Diptych; similarly Yves Klein's monochromes of the 1950s, and it wouldn't take any imagination to draw their history back to something like Malevich's Black Square of 1915. "Simple brushstrokes" could describe many abstract expressionist works which also predated pop art.

His blaming all of this on Warhol isn't correct, although Warhol definitely didn't help things. But the gist of his post is entirely correct in that what is now considered art is not actually art. You're right in that it started long before Warhol, Malevich's Black Square like you said, or Duchamp's Fountain. Warhol was a symptom, not a cause.

>what is now considered art is not actually art
Do indulge me with your definition.

art never stops friendo.

youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

It's more of the definition of art has become way more broad, which had led to a degeneration in overall quality.

The public and art market interest in modern art that people complain about today really began with Pop Art, when it became a sort of fashion. And yes the avant-garde is 'actually art'.

It wasn't really. Minimalism, Conceptual, Arte Povera, Nouveau Realisme, The SI, Land Art, Neo-Expressionism, YBA, etc.

Some avant-garde stuff is definitely art, Italian futurism, cubism, impressionism come to mind. But a lot of it, especially the later stuff, was crap. Suprematism, abstract expressionism, dada, and conceptual art for instance is all degenerate nonsense that's destroyed art in the modern age. Maybe there was some novelty in 1915 at calling a urinal a fountain and saying "look anything can be art", but taken to its logical conclusion where everything is art, nothing is art.

What is Veeky Forums "art" called?

>If everyone is human, then no one is human

You're equating art with labour which is silly.

Where do do video mediums like movies, animations, video games fit into your view of "art"? What about literature? Online literature? Music? Art often arises as a function of another activity...for all we know such activities don't exist now will and will become ubiquitous later and will create new forms of art. Also, the point and/or main idea of art isn't just the style, its the meaning and the concepts. As our society moves forward new meanings will be derived from different things. The world wars created and influenced new styles and concepts, so why can't new forms come about? I've seen some pretty artsy memes...are memes art?

I'd argue the quality of art was pretty shit 170 years ago when everyone and their mother was painting cliched idealized landscapes. The skill required may have been high but the composition of most of such landscapes is pretty yawn-inspiring. This is NOT a defense of modern art.

With the exception of literature, all other media are craft because they lack that vital ingredient -- and I mean that literally, the life -- the 'breath' of history-theory that runs within and animates the word or the material. Other media just involve the rote placement of elements to achieve 'feeling' in others which is not the point of art. Art brings life, it is life.

Im not really sure what you're saying but it sounds very subjective. There are people who devote their "life" to japanese cartoons, people who literally try and live them....is that art? History-theory? of art? You're gonna have to define "the life" and "the breath" of history-theory. If you're talking about art theory then I don't really see how thats relevant, the masses are ignorant to that sort of thing, or is art not for the masses?

>things that I like are art
>things I don't like are degenerate, and not art
Why can't you insecure cucks just accept that taste is subjective? Why try so hard to delegitimise anything that you don't like, does this really threaten your autistic, neat worldview so much?

No, giving your life to something does not necessarily mean you receive life in return. The life of art is not being controlled or dominated by art as would happen with wanting to live out its characters or be manipulated into thinking something is beautiful like in music and film ('immersion') -- it is a dialectical engagement with art that gives you a sudden bolt like you're witnessing, being played out before you and within you, the very processes of nature itself, and then that in turn constitutes your character.

History-theory is a sort of bricolage of history, and this is also embodied and played out in the form of paintings and similar media themselves. There are parallels between the arrangement (not composition -- composition is too focused on form, the flesh rather than the spirit, which is the death of art) of natural elements such as paint and canvas and the arrangement of re-presentations of natural elements (in the Renaissance, studied in depth through drawing or disegno which forms the basis of academic art) in the frame, and the 'points' of fragmented history acted out as theory (as it developed through history, refined to reveal the truth of that theory once practice, technology, thought catch up). Theory was developed to a sort of extreme with Greenberg's formalism in that the theory justified the idea that you didn't need the theory, but still relied on it. This was countered by artists in the 50s and 60s who played out a kind of 'dumb theory' where art just simply was what it said it was doing by nature of the title, etc. History-theory now is a point between these two -- a constructive, conversational theory that is neither too dumb nor too smart but which enriches the characters of those who engage with it. Art now acts out the 'points' of fragmented history while still retaining that 'coding' (of allowance, like common law) of theory beneath it, and the point now is to trace trajectories between art both then and now.

...

You still haven't defined "life." Plenty of weeaboos experience immersion. On the same token, things that are universally considered art, the Mona Lisa, for example, don't engage me at all, there is no immersion. What you're describing is entirely subjective. I'd also contest your view of what modern art is. Some artist rely heavily on art theory and some don't rely on it all, neither of those things seem to be exactly what you're talking about in regards to theory but they still sort of contradict your statements.

>Meaningless, deconstructive "art"
>Subjectively nondegenerate

I have but you've misread.
> The life of art is ... a dialectical engagement with art that gives you a sudden bolt like you're witnessing, being played out before you and within you, the very processes of nature itself, and then that in turn constitutes your character.

>Plenty of weeaboos experience immersion.
I know, I'm arguing against immersion. It is not life, it is dominance.

>On the same token, things that are universally considered art, the Mona Lisa, for example, don't engage me at all
Like I said, it functions like bricolage so you'd need other elements to go by. If your understanding of art is ahistorical it won't really have an effect on you. The Mona Lisa is in isolation. But once you start linking these separate elements or evidence together the work means a lot more. It is subjective in a way, since no one experiences their life in the same way, no one has the same biology, no one forms the same thoughts, but the dialectical link between people is that life, and we claim 'objectivity' when that link is refined enough that it is not imposed and given finality but rather brought out as true. The links you discover between the things you have experienced is your contractual engagement with history, and it functions as a logical process that must be played out, must be concluded, as logical processes do (and they presuppose they have already been completed). This drive for action based on the connections you have made between elements is the life, animation.

There's a difference between art theory and theory-history. Theory-history is the theory beneath the theory.

It's regenerative. People were pretty shook up after the war.

>this reaction pic proves my personal taste is objective
Not how it works buddy

What will the next art movement be then?

maybe you are a bit right in the way that pop-art changed the way the world viewed art, but there was a lot more labour in a pop art painting than there is in a 60s colorfield painting.

Just look at Rosenquist, the dude painted a whole room full of art with incredible detail.

>literally Hitler level autism

that was all before pop art, pop art started out as a counter movement to conceptual

i'm gonna take a wild guess and say you've never seen a suprematist, concepual or abstract impressionist peace in real life in a museum and you're just going on a tangent because you saw it on the internet

i was obviously talking about paintings

the fact that you use the word degenerate shows that you are a /pol/ autist

Neo-Expressionism and YBA are after. Most others occur at the same time as Pop.

I know balls when I see them

At least we have vaporwave.

Will people actually start to respect vaporwave though? Seriously

More like poop art amirite

now use yours.