Why does modern society produce artlets?

...

Contemporary art is always absurd and retarded so that it drives away normies. Classical art can now be enjoyed by everyday tourists where it use to be the exclusive pursuit of the wealthiest and more cultured.

The modern art crowd is more concerned with association and status symbols than the art itself. And since what is considered transgressive changes everyday, they specifically seek retardation. They have sacrificed meaning for a scene. Just ignore them.

...

...

...

...

wealth made us lazy

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

>modern art is inherently shit
when will this meme end. all art has value, even if it isnt aesthetic value

...

...

Nobody wants to devote their life to sculpting or painting anymore, that's why.

...

There are plenty of talented artists probably even more than in the past as living is easier it's what is promoted that is the problem.

Its just that standards have dropped, ofc there are still good artists out there, but the left thinks theyre part of some 2017 renaissance

Its a sad reality

Rich people got tired of the same boring attempts to recreate the ancient world and decided to fund other artists that they enjoyed.

There's plenty of good "modern" art. You just have to know where to look.

...

Composer reporting in, I also know lots of writers who work in academia.
This is the deal: contemporary composers do not compose for people like you, in fact to them (I'll use them instead of us, since I've never shared this dominant elitism) you are downright disgusting, someone who just has no right to utter not even the most basic opinion on the argument. It may sound silly, but these people have spent decades training their ears for the most sophisticared techniques (which, at this point simply ignore concepts such as tonality and atonality) and at this point they just do not care anymore for the public.

It's not about pomo drivel, it's about the fact that contemporary artists treat themselves as researches, just like a Biology PhD would do, and as such elements like the ego of the composer, or the mere public's empathy become simply worthless.
Rimsky-Korsakov famously said to a young Stravinsky "Do not listen to Debussy, you might like it", well, this is the case for a plethora of other less famous contemporary composers. I must have heard thousands of clueless critiques on Schoenberg music: if only they knew how fun it is to compose and analyze (once you get acquainted to it, which is usually a task for musicians) such music, they would at least start their arguments by recognizing his genuinity.
They are not lying to you, they genuinely appreciate it, it's just that they've never factored yor appreciation in the first place.

...

Idk. Even here theres something but it has no flow, no connections. Its not abstract if its a mess

You're full of shit and you know it, any chump from here to bolivia can tell how good a piece of art is just by experiencing at it. Understand its message too

DESPACITO

man you sure showed me. is that your aforementioned composition made by the mighty elites who live in ghetto shithole republics where there literally are no elites?

>Why does modern society produce artlets?
>Modern "art" is sad

>Well over 2000 years of civilization and people still dont understand the filter of time

I bet you like the shit they scavenge out of 'excavations' too

Not him, but it's blindingly obvious that the world's most streamed song is meant as a refutation to your statement that "any chump ... can tell how good a piece of art is just by experiencing at it". Now I firmly believe that taste is subjective and aligning one's personal tastes with a nonexistent objective truth is arrogant and blinkered; but on the other hand, reggaeton.

numbers don't prove anything. Ask a person if they actually think that song is good and youll know the truth. Taste might be subjective, but a lot of art is mean't at all to be enjoyed, whwich is the art that he is defending as superiorly made by the musical elites or whatever garbage hes on about like hes gods gift to earth for making shitty music

>need to fap
>no fap material
>no money for a visit to a brothel
>spend your life mastering sculpting and realistic painting so you can produce your own fap material

>the left thinks theyre part of some 2017 renaissance
>2017
thats not modern art then mate

The problem is that few of those talented artists are getting recognition. There is a man sculpting animal statues to near-inhuman precision by memory, yet all he gets is a single "did you know" article living with his parents while artists who make art that is literally mistaken for garbage get to live in mansions built and passed down to them by greater men.

Art is about looking at the artists you love being thrown under the rug against artists you loathe, yet do to its subjective nature it is considered irrational to protest. The popular artists are popular because they are objectively popular, and that's the end of the discussion.

The guy you're talking about isn't an artist. Any actual artist would consider him an abomination if thats what he did for a living and called it art. Don't blame teh world for why more of that person's are didn't get made, it was always your fault that more didn't get made. A dvine punishment, if you will

what the fuck are you even talking about

Because modernity is anti-culture.

I actually like that pic.

The point is, it is not necessary to something to have an objective form to express emotion and connect ourselves to some innermost feelings.

Even tho there is a huge lot of rubbish in modern art, there are quite few thoughtful artists to look over.

The guy you're talking about is a crafter, not an artist. More good art doesn't get made for people to enjoy because people are impious and don't deserve it

sculpture is art my friend, also the barrier between art and craft is incredibly fickle and subjective, and is not a useful distinction

sculptures are art, but crafts are world apart from art and only a cultural marxist would say otherwise. They have no expression, no human creativity, sometimes not even inspiration.

how is that s? things that are traditionally considered craft, such as pottery, embroidery, knitting, also have some of the greatest skill and creativity behind them. The only reason I would say they arent art is because they have use

>When Modernity sends its artists, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending artists that have lots of pretentiousness, and they're bringing those pretentiousness with us. They're bringing abstraction. They're bringing irony. They're degenerates. And some, I assume, are thoughtful artists.
>But I speak to museum curators and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right artists.

>pottery, embroidery, knitting
pottery is oftentimes art and falls under sculptures, the other two things are literally as ghetto as it gets and are made by machines now and illiterate peasants without any education in art in the past. There is no skill or creativity and their crudeness if proof of it. Though they can be with the right people, if you fashion.

>You're full of shit and you know it, any chump from here to bolivia can tell how good a piece of art is just by experiencing at it. Understand its message too
So? Are you too stupid to understand that this statement has nothing to do with what I wrote? Composers don't care about the public, but the public can tell how good a piece of art is (by the way, really? If I have you listen to 20 Bach's fugues, let's say 15 from his youth and 5 from his last years, would you be able to tell me which one is written better?).
The point from the beginning was that composers don't care in the first place about what YOU think, they care about composing their music, have it played, and have other composers listen to it and read the scores.

It may be musical elite, but it's not written for the elite. You're complaining about a bunch of people doing something they love, and you're hating them only because they are not sumbing down their art for you. Well, maybe you were not part of the picture in the first place?
And again, you trust far too much the opinion of "chumps" in Bolivia and far too little the opinion of people who have dedicated their life to their craft.

I'll tell you a secret: audiences do not care for traditional art.
You can give them the most mesmerizing Rembrandt's painting, or the most delicate Beethoven's quartet, they will appreciate it, say "wow, it's beautiful" and that's it.
On onjective terms, the Art that Scruton hates seems to be the most interesting art currently available, simply because the entire global population is absolutely incapable of elevating not even one single serious artist (representational for painting and sculpture, tonal and structured for art music) to the ranks of the art canon. Not one.

You're a pleb.

>the other two things are literally as ghetto
Ideological argument, not about aesthetics. The specific contemporary context behind knitting does not tell you anything about what a great knitter can achieve. You're thinking in stereotypes.

>are made by machines now and illiterate peasants without any education in art in the past.
Every craft can be now made by machines, and most artists of the past were only educated in their craft, remaining often ignorant in every other way of life. Basically, you're dismissing virtuosity in knitting and broidery because you think that only grandmas do it, and because you don't know what virtuosity in this craft is in the first place.

>There is no skill or creativity and their crudeness if proof of it.
Prove it. If I knit I can represent whatever I want in whatever texture I wanr: how does that stifle my creativity? It doesn't, you're just rationalizing prejudices.

>On onjective terms, the Art that Scruton hates seems to be the most interesting art currently available, simply because the entire global population is absolutely incapable of elevating not even one single serious artist (representational for painting and sculpture, tonal and structured for art music) to the ranks of the art canon. Not one.

So what? It is still shitty art.
This is not an argument, the lack of good art doesn't make bad art more interesting.

Checked.
>So what? It is still shitty art.
According to who? According to guy who just look at it once or twice every year, or according to the guy who think about and produce it 24/7? Why is your "opinion" objective?
Let's have you saying "Webern is shit, it's just noise!": why should I trust you and not actual musicians and composers, who, and I know this for a fact, have trained their ears enough for them to be able to fully identify every possible dissonance?

>This is not an argument, the lack of good art doesn't make bad art more interesting.
Again, you're throwing lots of claims without justifying not even one.

>According to who?
according to the general public. most people dislike this kind of art because it doesn't get in touch with them, it is meaningless for most people, including some people sensible to art.

>why should I trust you and not actual musicians and composers, who, and I know this for a fact, have trained their ears enough for them to be able to fully identify every possible dissonance?

This is authority fallacy. You shouldn't say "this is good art" because someone else said so and wrote an enormous thesis on the complexity of it.
You should not trust the others, but yourself and your sincere feeling towards it.

>Again, you're throwing lots of claims without justifying not even one.
tu quoque

>according to the general public. most people dislike this kind of art because it doesn't get in touch with them, it is meaningless for most people, including some people sensible to art.

According to the general public of the past 99% of our musical canon would be downright worthless. The reason for which we still listen to Schubert is not because the public just likes him more (which is not true by the way, I can assure you that the public would rather listen to a Ries or Gluck piece, and could not tell the difference), but because those musicians who have studied its craft have discovered its actual inherent value. So how important is the appreciation for Bach by the part of the public if the public would still be incapable of describing and internalizing it in a way that would be different from what would happen with a random Bach student's fugue?
On the topic, read the third Aesthetic Lesson by Wittengstein, I think he managed to explain what happens in uneducated listeners far better than me. Maybe I'll link it later.

>This is authority fallacy. You shouldn't say "this is good art" because someone else said so and wrote an enormous thesis on the complexity of it.
You should not trust the others, but yourself and your sincere feeling towards it.
And this is why I have not trusted your opinions, and then I asked you why I should care about them more than the ones conjured by composers and musicians? You were tryring to hide an authority fallacy by pretending that the authority in question was not you. Otherwise why would you have said "bad and good music" rather than "music I like and dislike"?

>tu quoque
I haven't made any claim, I have just described what's the mindset of the contemporary composer, without applying any moral/value hierarchy to it.

...

Noice

Check out Yiannoulis Halepas.
Pic rel.

turkish art?

Modern art means art from the 1860's to the 1970's, brainlets. Use the right terminology.

Contemporary starts after WWII, you absolute dumdum.

>just like a Biology PhD
leave biology out off your autistic circlejerking

t. biologist

You're a retard, I'm just describing what have been the mindset and the ambition of the contemporary artist for the past 60 years. Don't blame it on me, dummy.

But, user, why don't you just go out and be a sculptor?

because nobody cares about old boring art nomore you plebs

Unironically true. You can fill a museum with new masterpieces and people would go "Oh! That's a nice" or "ooooh look at that... let's see the next thing now".
At least if you put a can full of shit people will fucking feel something in museums, and even if that something is confusion or disgust, that is still better than nothing.

Is this why the renaissance/baroque Italian sections of the Louvre are ALWAYS so fucking packed you can't even see anything through the mass of people, while literally nobody but a handful of hipsters and pretentious intelliguanas gives a damn about cans of shit and empty canvases?

if you want to create art that makes people feel something, you don't make it for a museum

Because decent artists are sidelined in favor of celebrity artists.

I like Mondrian AND the so called classical art, and I don't see why anything after Mondrian and other moderns should bear the same fringe identity of it.

art should invoke a sense of beauty in the person viewing it. plato wrote about this many thousands of years ago

we enjoy art because of the beauty

Then let's burn most of our museums.

Why do people travel to see the Mona Lisa? Because other people told them that it's a great painting, and Da Vinci was a genius.
Once they arrive there they say "what a genius" (of course they could not justify such a statement, nor do they know if Da Vinci's contemporaries were similar in talent, which means that they're talking out of their asses), and even when they are in front of the grratest paintings we know of, what do they do? What I've said earlier: "oooh, nice, let's go on", even if they were looking at a Raffaello's painting that could have deserved hours and hours (for scholars: decades) of focus and analysis.
I'm starting to think that you guys are not really used to go to museums and theaters.

Then let's burn Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. In fact, if you have read Plato, you would know that this would imply burning every piece of music with counterpoint in it.
Don't trust excessively philosophers when it comes to Art. As the golden rule, ignore Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, the 4 worst aestheticians of the Western canon.

The wealthy now flaunt their wealth on instagram instead of using all their free time to learn an art-form that takes many years.

I don't think it is that simple, some art can be grotesque, repulsive, unsettling, and yet, cause sensations of wonder in the viewer. Beauty is not a requisite, ugliness can be compelling too.

Like the figure of Christ in the Cross, for example. In most modern churches, the Passion of Christ doesn't look so gross and morbid than it used to be in the middle ages. Once I saw a medieval, wooden carved Jesus, full of blood, pale and sick, in an expression not of serenity, but of pain.
It was probably the most impacting religious iconography experience I ever had. And it was absolutely repulsive.

Actually, most people say "it's so small".

Ugly art can't be art. Plato argued for it multiple times.

Just because clever-man Plato said many things, doesn't mean that all of his sayings are truths to be followed strictly.

To me it's rational. The goal of man is the ultimate Good, therefore the proper usage of Art can only lead in this direction, and you would certainly not say that Good can be equaled to disgust, repulsion and obscenity. It would be irrational.

But art is not about what is rational, but also about what is irrational, primal instincts.
Art is feeling with no language.

Apollonian and Dionysian. That's why a comprehension of beauty sometimes, and if only sometimes, need to be suspended.

So? I can accomplish the same going to /b/.

Please educate a historically challenged individual but for and did the sculptor generally have "models" for this or did they do this simply from memory?

All of the sculptors and painters of the past used extensively real models.

Good lord. So what's the story here ?

Visit to the brothel?

Well, there are some people who say that memes are the next step of art. Like an art piece made by millions of people from all around the world. Maybe in 50 years there will be art historians examining Pepe and the influence /b/ had on art world.

>"Art used to be something to cherish. Now literally anything could be art. This post is art."

>A photo of a Veeky Forums post sold for almost $100,000, because ‘art’

washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/05/a-photo-of-a-Veeky Forums-post-sold-for-almost-100000-because-art/?utm_term=.46f6df5803a5

remarkable shitpost

I love Beksinski

Lolis are the highest form of art.

>did they simply do this from memory
This brings up even more interesting questions given that they didn't have HD porn channels or possibly even mirrors (I believe they didn't make the sort of huge wall mirrors you could watch yourself fucking in until around the 18th century) so they're memories of watching other people fucking in front of their nose.