What happened to man's appreciation for fine art?

But shostakovich was regenerate How about a tone row you can actually whistle?

youtube.com/watch?v=Y7JVmrNwdh0

>youtube.com/watch?v=Y7JVmrNwdh0

Are you fucking kidding me?

If it took effort and has a genuine creative drive behind it and a sense of aesthetic consideration, there's nothing wrong with it. A true appreciator understands both traditional and more abstract pieces of work.

Maybe but compare it to this crap

youtube.com/watch?v=rZlB2tRyvQw

Its a step in the right direction. Ironically it was Stalin regulating the level of conservatism in creative works that kept Shostakovich from being a second rate Berg.

>The upper echelons of society, the bourgeoisie, have fallen into decadence and seek to destroy any spirit in the common people by propagating their idiotic art.

Pity or aidos baited the bourgeoisie glorifying the proletariat, assuming that they're virtuous just because they're suffering, only to find out they're shallow and base. Afterwards the balance of power shifts, and degenerate, destrucitve, most importantly jealous, socialists rise to power, that are un-coincidentally atheist, destroying art through the destruction of religion.

Why socialism, why, why did you ever happen?

Russia unironically has some of the best ateliers for art in the world.

You guys just turned me on to some new stuff that I like equally...sometimes you can be regimented or be a goblin. Thanks...

>one
A dull extrapolation of a portrait plus some descriptions most likely; propaganda; terrible composition.
>other
Endlessly interesting and absurd, a puzzle to the eyes; well-composed and inventive

Firetruck-core is trashola.
Schoenberg is infinitely better than firetruck-core.
>good music
vs
>muh angst where is my beloved *HONK HONK* SHE HAS DIED!

>by pretending shit is art I'm sticking it to daddy

Modernist art was great. Contemporary art is a mixed bag.

Neoclassical plebs are the worst.

More propaganda, I see.
Get over it, you don't understand art. You essentially have autism because you reduce art to description.

Descriptive sculpture is equivalent to a well-organized list of traits and such. These lists are primary in autistic literature (Ulillillia)

Left one is uplifting and beautiful something everyone can get inspired by and enjoy.
Right one is selfish and narcissistic by being too abstract for the common people.

>Dante larping as a Roman with scornful expression
>uplifting and beautiful

>modernist art was great
fucking user right here storming in with the shittiest opinion

>shittiest opinion
Let me guess, your favorite kind of art is kitschy neoclassical crap from 19th century? I bet you consider that pedo Bouguereau to be the greatest painter in history.

>Firetruck
>symphony 14

Learn how to use the memes kid. Its not romantic in the least.

>Let me guess, your favorite kind of art is kitschy neoclassical crap from 19th century?
Nope. But the fact that you, wrongly, call neoclassical art kitschy tells a lot about you.
>I bet you consider that pedo Bouguereau to be the greatest painter in history.
Nope.

If you consider modernist art anything other than a mixed bag your opinion is quite shitty.

Yes it is.
>play video
>*orientalism intensifies*

>you don't understand, I have to live in total fantasy and delusion because the real world is too challenging and difficult to describe, all my work looks like misshapen blobs so I have to pretend it is art
>whoops, I meant the real world is too "restrictive" and "uncreative" and my art somehow magically reflects the fact I am a special snowflake with more soul than everyone else, heheh...
spoken like a true art school student, you are wrong though, without the real world you will just do whatever you feel like doing until your brain turns into mush as your blobs and chicken scratches demonstrate

the problem is you are just not very authentic, that's all, you don't like reality and so never draw anything authentic from it, only kitsch copies, it is not a big deal, you're not a special snowflake is all I'm saying, why does this make you so angery?

>real world
No such thing exists, stop shitposting you ideologue.
I'm a theology student, not an 'art school student'. Go be an autistic engineer somewhere else.
>dante larping as a roman is authentic and not kitsch
Back to /r/eddit or /pol/ or whatever 'le rong generashun' shithole you came from. Deus Vult, you cuntbag.

>I have to live in total fantasy and delusion because the real world is too challenging and difficult to describe
Sound like neoclassicism and similar movement. The real world is too ugly, there is too much suffering and pain. Hey, look at these beautiful Roman-like statues of muscular men and heroes on horses! What? Half of our people live in deplorable conditions with rats and infant mortality is higher than in middle ages? Haha, forget about it, look at these columns!

they did draw suffering, countless paintings of jesus suffering on the cross and other such religious pieces, but that is not all there is in the world

The artists weren't larping as romans or heroes themselves, they were depicting someone larping as a roman or a hero based on real life muscular men, therein lies the essential difference, it is not the total fantasy of ethereal gods or a picture perfect representation of reality, it is trying to take these dreams and depict them as they might exist in reality, something attainable, reality as it could be, humanity reaching for something better and within our grasp, to make Gods human instead of lofty and inaccessible, that is creativity, that is art

something happened in Greece when they went from statues like Egyptian gods to humans, a flash of inspiration, and now there is a bizarre and energetic effort to eradicate it and go back to the "abstract", at the heart of it is obviously frustration by artists who lack the same brilliance and a mountain of sophistry, it is all bullshit of course

>humanism
>atheism
>art
Nope, back to /pol/ you LARPing cunt.

You don't understand art, get over yourself.

>countless paintings of jesus suffering on the cross and other such religious pieces
Can you post some examples?

not humanism specifically, just the real world

>I demand you say this is art and fawn over me like a celebrity
>"no?"
>You don't understand art, get over yourself you fucking arrogant prick.
hmm

I suppose in theory you don't have to draw upon reality, but there is not a single piece of modern art that is not a cartoon so clearly that has not happened

duckduckgo.com/?q=jesus suffering on the cross painting&iar=images

There is no real world, ideologue.

What you convey is humanism, the most sickening of ideologies.

I'm talking about 19th century academic paintings of Jesus suffering on cross.

...

I was thinking about this last week when I was walking through the sculpture section of my local museum. Do you think it is due to religion and patronage not being two important anymore?

If you think you are making a piece of art for a god, you're not going to fuck about with weird styles as there is a convention which has likely existed for centuries. A lot of the art too was commissioned by literal patricians who wanted sculptures of themselves or loved ones. e.g it was very fashionable to have a sculpture made of your kids as a hebe, cherub, or Dionysus etc. is there maybe less need for that sort things as well as portraits due to the accessibility of photography?

>If you think you are making a piece of art for a god
Medieval art was about ideas, later art was a result of human pride and vanity. Avant-garde and modernism is closer to pure medieval art than neoclassicism and academism.

God is a proper noun, and should in fact be capitalised.

How does it feel to be lacking a soul?

Liberals think good art makes minorities insecure since their ancestors historically could only make crap like the one on the right. So liberal arts students started making bocus claims like, "It looks that way on purpose", and "different cultures had different aesthetics". Then they started to justify it by saying "take a look a look at european viking art and medieval bible manuscripts that looked just the same".

The thing they are missing is that art grows and gets better with new innovations. Medieval artists didn't make art like that on purpose, they simply lacked the refined craft of millions of artists from antiquity. The moment romans from Constantinople came to western europe to teach their methods was the moment art greatly improved in the west(renaissance). The problem arises in thinking art is a derivative of culture when it's a craft like any other, that improves with greater knowledge.

Black and aboriginal art can be just as good if they simply adapted to current knowledge without liberals impeded progress, fearing it'll hurt their feelings because /pol/tards can't shut up and think.

>Medieval artists didn't make art like that on purpose

They did. Keep in mind most of what gets thrown around as medieval art, is manuscript illustrations only a few inches across at most, that are usually trying to convey actions and events.

Boredom people dont want to see the same stuff over and over again. Art is less a technique and skill and more imagination. If all you can do is replicate what came before than what point is there for you I will apreciate the old masters.
That being said this can lead to some poor ideas in the name of inovation, but that is better than stagnation.

>Art is only art when it appeals to the least common denominator
By that measure, the obscene farce is the truest form of art.

Tell me now REEEEEE and so forth

G-d. There is that better?

>hating God so much you wont even utter his title

Damn you actually gave into that autist

I can appreciate classical Greco-Roman sculpture, Renaissance painting, Insular illumination, Gothic architecture, Chinese ink wash, Persian miniatures, Nigerian ivory carving, Polynesian statues, Mayan vases and Paleolithic cave paintings. I can appreciate serene landscapes, dignified portraits, hellish war scenes and macabre realism. But I can't appreciate brutalism, modernism, post-modernism or whatever the fuck we're supposed to call it now. I can't appreciate art that doesn't even try to appeal to the human mind.

This has nothing to do with not 'getting it'. You don't need to read a textbook on native American symbolism to recognize that a Haida totem pole is something beautiful. We can never know the true meaning to paleolithic cave paintings and we can still appreciate them. Knowledge would help us appreciate them more, but we don't need it to recognize good art. If you need to be told something is art, if you need to learn about the artist's 'message' before it looks like anything other than trash, then it's not good art.

You say that post-modernity and cultural marxism decandent. We say it´s degenerate.

Old School Marxist-Nationalist alliance to crush the bourgeoisie and the "bankers" when?

USA happened

artists that are jealous and lazy (and therefore unwilling to learn and practice to become as good as the older masters) slowly warped public opinion about what is fine art with incessant and obnoxious propaganda.

if you believe that picasso's 5 year old scribbles are fine art then you are a victim of this heinous long-term tragedy.

This is Picasso at age 12 or 13

and that could be considered fine art
what isn't fine art is that disgusting amalgamation of shapes called Guernica

What a gay little faggot

People started to hate beauty and the world so they retreated into pretentious abstraction. When you hate truth you begin to worship ugliness and lies, which is precisely what you see when you enter into any contemporary art gallery.

fine art is fucking boring

Does everyone on Veeky Forums just have to pick a side and blindly and maliciously defend it while tearing down the other side and calling anyone who likes it morons and degenerates and the like?

Both look like fine pieces of art to me, I don't understand why everyone on this board is so damn divisive.

t.knows nothing about art

Art doesn't need to be realistic to be good, if you can't handle anything past impressionism, you don't have good taste, you're objectively a brainlet. Look at Egon Schielle, Otto Dix, Wyndham Lewis, etc.
>inb4 you accuse me of liking Pollock

Never thought I'd die fighting alongside a commie

i faced this monstrosity for 4 months of my job

THICC

>vacuoos garnadilaialqoqnsense

fuckoff

>what is sarcasm?

t. pleb who thinks he'll hide it if he pretends to like shit.

Also, just because something is propaganda doesn't mean it has no value

It's in a public area is should appeal to the masses.
REEEEEEEEEEEE

Very interesting point, I know little about art theory. But that seems legit. Illuminated texts etc

Do you think medieval art was like that for a lack of ability or as part of some ethos. The only self absorbed decadent art I can think of is court poetry commemorating great deeds of kings etc. but even that is meant to record history to an extent.

desu these kind of posts remind me of the fat and ugly chicks talking shit about cheerleaders.

Stay uggo friend

autism

literally all of this was done by communists in the West, all of the post-modernist artists were communists seeking to denegrate and destroy beauty in the West as it was seen as supporting the white-supremacy and patriachy. Communist are trying to disassociate from it now because of the right is growing in the West

idk man, I put that image together, it's from some sculpture park in Minneapolis

blimey that's repugnant

it's like a cheap imitation of craft

the only correct user in this entire thread yall dumb and know shit about art

I sure do know a thing about art, why, I've even had a coathanger of mine presented in a gallery as art.

>Egon Schiele
>Literally le i am so tormented look at my ugly unaesthetic attempts at drawing myself

Kys

I've never heard of Egon Schiele, and i'm not much into art, but i've seen his style before and i instantly recognized it, sure, it's a pretty ugly aesethtic, but it's still an aesthetic.

>it's ugly
Wow you sure showed him!

I found it, thanks user. evidently someone had the same thought based on this lovely work. Minneapolis is a commie hole desu.

it's called abstract art, people in western civilization don't get the beauty or meaning in abstract art, which is why they anthromorphize a being as complex as God into being a literal human with a beard

abstract art can be found in many cultures besides western civilization, the native americans, semities, and japanese all have heavy usage of abstract art, but it's more OK in their civilizations when they do it just because its old

>my face
>my soul

I appreciate fine art all the time OP, but at the same time I also recognize that we live in postmodernity.

Feudalism commissioned the Sixtine Chapel because they had a dominant culture that demanded beauty for their religious feelings.

Meanwhile, Capitalism commissions commercials and advertisement because the goal is to sell more products.

Our society is very materialistic, both for good and for ill, though I would argue more for ill.

Neither of those statues "appeal to the masses". A statue that "appeals to the masses" would be a statue of Nicki Minaj twerking. Art is not art by appealing to the LCD (and whenever you appeal to the masses, that IS, inevitably, what you have to go with).

Well, if you want art to be a finite stagnant pond, have fun with that.

people got tired of it, you can postulate about the death of art all you want but nobody wants to look at the same shit for 400 years

lol get over yourself. Maybe look past the propaganda and actually figure out why these artists create what they do

>Meanwhile
????

To be honest that sculpture is interesting. You could do much worse. But maybe your point was to draw a line in the sand?

I see sculptures in the OP and then ones like pic related and think the same thing user

Art that sought liberation so much that it liberated itself out of relevance

The World Wars deeply damaged the psyche of Europe. A whole generation was raised in the trenches and grew up to see a second even worse war follow it. Then they lived most of their lives under occupation by American or Soviet forces on the front lines of a decades-long nuclear standoff. For these people, nation and race and tradition were just a source of conflict and suffering.

A sort of nihilism settled over the continent during the 20th century, and we're still dealing with the tail end of this cursed generation in politics today.

Modern art existed before WW1. It's funny how /pol/ friends glorify 19th century and fin de siecle, because it was considered completely decadent by contemporaries.

He said A god, not The God, as in no specific god

>It is another all art must be realism else my autism will be hurt episode
All you nigga deserves Dadaism

pic very related

retard

Isn't that the commie who shit in a can and called it art?

Modern art is garbage pushed by (((THEM))) because it's easier to make and therefore easier to sell. Only a pretentious twat or a kike could possibly hold up the weird, the ugly, the abstruse, and call it art.