Has art declined over time?

art was never particularly useful to begin with, except as propaganda, which on the whole has never particularly declined in effectiveness for all its evolutions

how is something that patently makes world look less like shit useless, you fucking donut?

yes. It is simply now "hurr its "new" so its good" as well as just being a money making scheme by rich people.

It's value in terms representation has declined. We don't spend two-digit numbers of our GDP on temples and fancy statues. Thank's god.

Art hasn't.
Taste and culture have declined.
People can still produce superior art.
Jewish communists created "modern art" because they were unskilled and wanted to take art away from aristocrats who could afford to go to art school and paint all day instead of working.

Yes.

The decline and fall of the nobility/monarchy ruined the patronage system that artists relied on to make these elaborate masterpieces you see from the renaissance era. Artists today are generally self-funding their art projects and then trying to sell them in galleries, meaning that spending years on a single masterpiece or using enormous amounts of expensive materials like marble just isn't practical anymore.

No but it has shifted its form
Nowadays, you will find art mostly in movies, music and computer games

I definitely think the art world is in flux right now. The new (stupidly named imho) metamodernist era we're going into doesn't seem to be clearly defined yet. I think thanks to various advances in computer technology, art and design has never been more prolific or varied than it is now. Inevitably then, much of the art you see popularized is garbage, because anyone can market themselves nowadays, with art being cheaper and market forces demanding that artists only make art as a hobby or second job. You could say art's declined because it's become way less professional, or you could say art's improving because it's a larger, more accessible field than ever before. Depends on how you look at it. I think ultimately the way we value and produce art is going to have to change with the 21st century

>Jewish communists created "modern art" because they were unskilled and wanted to take art away from aristocrats who could afford to go to art school and paint all day instead of working.

Go back to /pol/ you shit-for-brains cuckistani.

Maybe art has ... "degenerated"...
Really forces one to carefully consider...

It helps if you define the terms as well, and then compare your definitions to OP's. It's not very helpful to just sit around waiting for answers.

Name some.

probably

youtube.com/watch?v=m0n0Et8aI3s

If anything art has finally got out of its infancy and moved past just copying reality and is finally approaching more intellectually stimulating and free scenarios.

I encourage everyone to look at this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=DP-kY-
hAzlc&index=1&list=PLTJMa65dqpmOGDftTxWliN4tEyhZ0DQBM

Although I suppose Veeky Forums has very good perception on Art in general,I still firmly believe that anyone who considers Modern/Post -Modern Art as a decline couldn't be more out of touch with the Art world.

>asks for art rather than artists

links fucked

It's going to be either le shouty autist man who thinks so much as glancing at wikipedia before reeeeeing is beneath him or the prager """"university"""" video where the guy advocates for objective standards without explaining what those standards would be and how they would work.

Sorry,copied it directly from a playlist.

youtube.com/watch?v=DP-kY-hAzlc

In my opinion, no. Tools (style) of art change through time and space, but the purpose - beauty - is constant. The manner of achieving that beauty isn't that important. That's why we can understand and relate to an Akkadian epic poem from four centuries ago or enjoy a far eastern landscape or a cubist painting or a medieval fresco.

Neither.
Conference of a rather concise and knowledgeable man on the field.
If anyone doesn't have time for the vid I've found it on an article.
atlassociety.org/students/students-blog/3671-why-art-became-ugly

In terms of design, especially in fantasy art, I think they're has been huge strides made

Look at a painting of a dragon from 1980 and look at a painting of a dragon from 2015, and compare their designs; you'll notice that the 2015 paintings have a lot more creativity and design choices that can be attributed to the fact that the artist did his research on real animals, their appearance and physiology and behavior; you don't really get that in a lot of fantasy art from the 1980s unless you're designing creatures in Hollywood

Much better use of tax money than welfare. Not that our civilization really has anything worth handing down to posterity, though. Since no one actually believes in anything, it is impossible to make powerful public art. Everyone knows that it is something of a joke.

Over time, it got objectively better and better in Europe for a long time. Michelangelo's David was built in 1501, but it was part of a long and improving tradition extending back to statues like these ones from over 500 years BC. We learned more and more principles over time, and truth be told, we haven't really lost many of them, but they're not getting used very often. I think sculpture is in much more danger than say, painting. Digital painting is doing its best to retain as much of the old techniques as it can as it continues to be commissioned for purposes of rpg art books, video game promotion, etc. But sculpture has been left to hack modern artists who would rather make a crude sculpture of shit if it makes a statement than attempt to live up to the works of the past in terms of aesthetic.

Name some artists.

Do you post on /ic/ often?

It has improved. Hellenoboos are finally irrelevant. Even the big classicists are much more interesting than the 'muh allegory using Greek/Roman myth and Christianity which I claim to adhere to but interpret mythologically to serve my humanist ego'
Eat shit.

>pieces of art that are low quality or requiring almost no effort to make
>Andy Warhol

Pick one, kiddo. You obviously know fuck all about art and art history.

good post

>Do you post on /ic/ often?
Senpai, he does that "concept artists are the new renaissance painters" schtick that every retard on /ic/ does.

Anyway, no it hasn't, at least not in the sense some delusional sperg who really likes bougereau because it reminds him of lolicon thinks it has.

Do your own googling, sport.

>Senpai, he does that "concept artists are the new renaissance painters" schtick that every retard on /ic/ does.
Hey man, they can't compare to actual rennaissance painters, but at least they're trying.

Without evidence I'm left to believe your argument is baseless and therefore worthless

What they are trying to achieve can at best be compared to 19th century academicism. Most of them are like Ruskin who fainted upon discovering women have pubes and most of them would unironically interpret pic related as a cultural marxist subversion of beauty or something.

Yep.

Your question seems too vague to properly answer.

Assuming you're referring to the world, then I would say that art has improved.

Japanese visual art now contains depth and lighting,
Indian music now uses chord progressions, a uniquely Western invention/discovery,
In America/France notably, cinema seems like the natural evolution of theatre, musical, and photography - all combined into a meta art-form, much like opera was initially envisioned.

However, I would say that standards have dropped in the West. Indeed, in modern art it seems the goal of some artists to deliberately sabotage their own works in the attempt to gain notoriety. Worse yet, this seems to be the rule, if not a common exception.

It was never good to begin with.

Actually communism produced realist art. CIA bankrolled a lot of modern artists.

Renaissance painters are overrated. Baroque is superior.

This is a triumph of the human spirit. It's beautiful.

(((modern """"""""art"""""""")))

Yes and obviously

Anyone who says otherwise is a shit "artist" or a moron

DAE I liek old art like this!!! fuck leftists!!

art as a whole does not decline, only the art of particular cultures. Western art has declined and is declining, the art of all other, older cultures declined long ago, the art of the non-cultured peoples is as it always has been and always will be

not really,
the techniques and/or kinds of art lost their specialness or "glamor" in the industrial era, in part because you could have assembly lines, but also due to the kind of limiting factors that govern a lot of more "classical" sculpture or art design.

Also: it's idiotic to take all modern art seriously, a lot of it are jokes/pisstakes on the "art world", personal commentary on some issue, etc.

What I find hillarious is both alt-righters and stalinists/tankies hate modern art., and want some kind of ban placed on it, with artists forced to make "good art" showing some kind of idealized realism or something rather than more abstract shapes or ideas.

Yes

Show me where in his post he used the word "objectively"

No. People whine and whine and whine but neglect to see the things that are actually good, traditional or avant garde. Art has not declined, it has become more diverse.

>give me proof that grass is green
>go look outside
>WOW IM NOT DOING YOUR WORK FOR YOU

Art and the definition of what "art" is, is an entirely subjective debate with no objective answer to the question.

Doesn't making the same thread over and over get old?

It has no utility except "beauty", which is worthless and effeminate.

Congrats on the high school outcast's first philosophical epiphany, now go outside.

>He doesn't like modern art

No offense senpai but your "opinion" is garbage. Yes beautification is not a "necessary" task, or even all that important. However to go and say that it has absolutely zero value whatsoever is ridiculous.

There are so many studies supporting the fact that "aesthetic" surroundings improve mental health and overall livelihood to just go and write it all off is being extremely disingenuous.

>effeminate

So? When I'm chopping logs by my cabin up in the Appalachian Mountains I'm thankful to be surrounded by beauty.

>Beauty
>Worthless
>He isn't an utilitarian
>Nor a fan of virtue ethics
What are you doing

If you took even the most mediocre tv show back in time and showed it to the Romans it would blow their fucking minds just to see people moving on a screen. They'd probably start worshipping the characters as gods.

dumb /leftypol/poster

Yes, post modernist faggots will tell you that a piece of human shit in a museum is the equivalent of the great neo-classical works. These are the same people who will tell you race isn't real, men can be women if they feel like it, and socialism has never been tried.

>the alien

Props to him for not committing soduku yet, guess I'm too cynical to live the life he does.

That's a nice limited view you have there, comparing millennial pseudoartists to avant garde works you're too stubborn to appreciate.

>comparing millennial pseudoartists to avant garde works
>implying these aren't the exact same thing

see

dumb T_D-er

Subjective.
Art techniques have expanded over time.
If more variety is good to you then yes.
If you think cave paintings are the apex of human art, you probably would like basquiat's shit too.

Now there is photography, film, and more advanced architecture than ever before.

Art has become retarded

it's basically shitposting irl

neat

socks-studio.com/2014/10/16/richard-gibletts-architectural-algorithms/

It's obvious bait, autists. Technical skill is constantly growing, but the output of that technical skill necessarily becomes more controversial and contentious due to over-saturation; when there are millions of educated, skilled artists and creators (when once there were thousands), the competition and congestion within the public intellectual atmosphere and popular cultural zeitgeist leads to a climate that's desperate and absurd. Each artist pursues controversy and divergence in any possible form, simply for the sake of attaining recognition and validation; how else can they get ahead and secure the patronage and opportunities they need to realise genuine artistic masterpieces, but to resort to radical, attention-grabbing, idiotic creations that will nevertheless successfully produce backlash and publicity?

Damn man you're so right, read my mind like a book. Just look at this modern piece of art. So degenerated and carelessly done, I miss the cave paintings and tree scribbles of old.

t. liberal arts student

Why dont you pay attention to good art instead of stuff you despise? The answer is because you dont even care about art, all you care about is being a contrarian.

Yeah man, such awful art. The modern art world is such garbage compared to the good old days where everything was perfect.

DAMN

What the fuck happened to art? Remember the good old days?

Really makes me nostalgic for the days when art was actually good

I mean really. Kids these days don't get it. Art like this actually said something. It's representing sin, unlike whatever all that modern art today tries to represent.

Can you demonstrate that the average person in the past gave a shit about art?

Look user, I despise the same people as much as you do but when you're being this facetious and this much of a fucking cock hole you're only making things worse

>also purposefully cherry picking shit art

Literally just as bad.

>purposefully cherry picking shit art

Which was exactly what the others were doing too. Welcome to the point.

>makes assertions with nothing to back it up
>spergs out when someone asks him to
I don't think you actually know any artists, because if you did it would take 2 seconds to type out a name, and you've spent longer than that having an autism fit.

Zdzislaw Beksinski painted and drew a multitude of aesthetically pleasing surreal art from the 60s up to his death in '05 with no artistic training other than in architecture. Pic related

was also painted in 2011.

More Beksinski

Post-Modernism destroyed art.

That's pretty cool user, if it wasn't edgy I would hang it in my house.

I wouldn't consider a skull edgy. They've been incredibly present in art since ancient times, and that painting doesn't even present it in any sort of obnoxious or try hard fashion. Memento Moris were more edgy than that honestly.

Jeff Koons, for one.

>artstation.com/
>this /v/irgin literally thinks there is NO art post-rennaissance
I'm not that big into art, but how naive can you be?
Artists aren't *celebrities* like they used to be, but you can be assured they fucking exist, if anything.
What's next, there's no good music these days because you can't be bothered to dig past Ke$ha? I'll take 16-year-olds-that-think-they-know-everything for 500.

it 100% did
common practice in art allows us to judge merit and gives context to innovation

How can art decline from being mere mimesis which is already at the very bottom in the order of things? A mirror does it better.

Funny, Susan (((Sontag))) argued the same thing.

I think Courbet and Manet were skilled actually.

Art was still pretty technical when it was being sold to the middle-class in the 19th century.