Why did modern art progress pass the tipping point of being an exploration of new interesting ways of painting into...

Why did modern art progress pass the tipping point of being an exploration of new interesting ways of painting into just being as edgy, skill-less and anti-aesthetics as possible

up until picasso and matisse it was all going fine. why did the art world accept their wankery and why is it now the standard produce of every art school

Blame the CIA.

that wasn't until the cold war

art already got fucked somewhere around 1900-1910

the camera was invented

art used to be about representing the world around us but after the fuggin camera came around people turned inward and tried to represent the unknowable, sometimes with crude symbols, other times it could be amazing, depends on the artist. what is language if not shitty art with crude symbols? anyways nobody could exactly check whether some crappy sculpture is somebodys inner world and when your trying to get someone to suck your dick it doesnt help your game to call them out on their fake art. so thats how it goes... also painting realistically is hard. on top of that if someone says your blank canvas isnt real art other people can easily be like ah ha! your a fucking pleb that doesnt understand art and deep things like me! and then everyone will back that person up to gain social status. are you happy now user?

>Why did modern art progress pass the tipping point of being an exploration of new interesting ways of painting into just being as edgy, skill-less and anti-aesthetics as possible

Notice that these trends appeared when pictures and video appeared. The main reason for paintings and drawings was to record reality. Now they've been completely replaced. But it's not like your'e gonna reduce the number of painters by 50%. So instead, they go off the walls, and do things that pictures cannot.

> World war 1, but interbellum art is not just edgy, it's legitimately disturbing but beautiful.

also you're just looking at the wrong art there is some incredibelly beatiful modern and contemporary art

forgot pic

60s colorfield also has its splendour

wich inspired the later pop-art which was kinda a counter movement to what people call pretentious art

...

Edward Kienholz, The Portable War Memorial is also pretty impressive

>anti-aesthetics
Well, they draw 3DPD because they don't know anything better.

Actually a pretty good write up
Good work user

>the CIA nuggets invented time travel and Picasso and Matisse were plants
But why?

this makes sense, but you would think people would still judge art based primarily on aesthetic value as had always been done, even with the inevitable shift to more experimental styles

it seems crazy that the majority of art from the 20th century that is revered and considered important is some of the absolute most limited and emotionless "art" possible. Why couldn't skillful beautiful art is new styles have become dominant

I agree with the pseudo intellectualism and not wanting to seem like a pleb thing but I still don't understand how it gained enough support and momentum among artistic circles for people to begin to think they're a pleb for not going along with it

art just takes a very sudden jump from being original and experimental while still being beautiful to becoming a load of awful pretentious wank. how did it get a foothold

for example this was picasso in 1905 (not wank)

and in 1913 there's this (wank)

and again with matisse

here is a piece from 1912 that is experimental and new and inventive

but then here in 1916 it suddenly just becomes a bunch of pretentious shite

This.

Picasso is so fucking overrated

He became (more) mentally ill. This is a natural thing for many artists but at least he didn't begin with wank. The artists who begin with wank are pure CIA cutouts.

Isn't there still value in realistic paintings in creating fictional scenes that cannot be photographed?

there we go
painting and sculpture are tried & tired media

are memes the new frontier?

from the wikipedia on dada

"the Dada movement consisted of artists who rejected the logic, reason, and aestheticism of modern capitalist society, instead expressing nonsense, irrationality, and anti-bourgeois protest in their works"

they were literally making purposefully bad looking art for political reasons

how did stuff like that spread through all of art and stamp out the good stuff

>I agree with the pseudo intellectualism and not wanting to seem like a pleb thing but I still don't understand how it gained enough support and momentum among artistic circles for people to begin to think they're a pleb for not going along with it
I think the real wank and pseudointellectualism is being arrogant enough to think that your personal opinion represents some objective truth and that people that have an opinion that is antithetical to yours are only pretending in order to look cool.

degas is objectively better than kandinsky

there are objective measurements you can look at when evaluating how "good" a piece is

and if you just asked a bunch of strangers the majority of them would agree too, so it's hard to understand how that type of art has become dominant within the art world

>degas is objectively better than kandinsky
>there are objective measurements you can look at when evaluating how "good" a piece is
What are these objective methods and are they actually reproducible and universal enough to really be called objective?

how come Veeky Forums is full of shitposting when ostensibly its purpose is the high quality anonymous discussion of various subjects

>are they actually reproducible and universal enough to really be called objective
well not on the same level as sciences, things like colour palette and composition

I figure the best way to measure the aesthetic value of art "objectively" is just to find how it's viewed by the average cultured and sane person, and it's very noticeable that the majority of people don't see much value in your standard turner prize winning piece

because there's nobody evaluating the worth of each post

yes if you want work as a matte painter in hollywood, but not if you want to show your work in galleries and gain status in the art world

Of course! It just won't be as impressive to people because everyone has seen avatar and lord of the rings already but fuck them! Art is actually very personal. We are on the honor system user. Make art for yourself not for the others. This is the true path of the artist

Well for one thing what's looks bad to you could be just your own opinion. Actually there were many many art styles after classical. Too many to count and they don't all have names. Don't pay too much attention to that signed urinal user. If you want you can check out juxtapose dot website which is one of the biggest websites about modern art

>but not if you want to show your work in galleries and gain status in the art world
my city's art gallery just had an exhibition about superflat artists who arre almost all commercial artists or have a background in commercial art.
why this meme that there's a solid wall between """"""serious""""" art and commercial art still persists is beyond me.

> (You)
>>are they actually reproducible and universal enough to really be called objective
>well not on the same level as sciences, things like colour palette and composition
Have you a link to some methodology? You are being quite vague.

>I figure the best way to measure the aesthetic value of art "objectively" is just to find how it's viewed by the average cultured and sane person, and it's very noticeable that the majority of people don't see much value in your standard turner prize winning piece
>average cultured and sane person
So you'd stack the deck before you started a statistical analysis? I'm guessing your definition of sanity is a lot more constrained than the average psychiatrist. You'd have to define an objective measure of being cultured too. If you are confident that your opinion is objectively correct why not a straightforward stratified sample representative of society? Regardless though, that is a suggestion for a system and not one in use.

>People want pretty things.
>Making pretty things used to require hours of endless practice. There is no such thing as "talent", there's just "practicing until you are good".
>Suddenly the camera is invented, and photorealistic painting is no longer necessary from a utilitarian standpoint (James Monroe in 1817 was the last US president to have an official portrait painted instead of photographed).
>The need for painters goes down.
>As the requirement for being a painter goes down so too does the bar.
>People who aren't as good can get in.
>Morons like the Dada folks begin to occur because the pressure to be actually good at art is no longer there.
>Tax laws allow the wealthy to use """"""""""art""""""""""" to launder money and cheat on their taxes which keeps the demand for artists artificially high.

Obvious CIA again.
Seriously, why do you want us to love ugly art?

Spank you very much

Not the CIA here. I think if you want to make true art follow your own path and never show it to anyone. The second people start putting in their two cents is the second the cowards backs start to bend. Make art that's true to yourself user and never show it to anyone. Faggots will be arguing about it after your dead and you can have a nice ghostly chuckle

I find this painting enjoyable. Not memeing. For as crude as it appears there is something there. Hard to say what. While I'll agree that a lot of modern art is wank, this isn't.

>Dude...
*goes off anti-psychotics*
>Dude like the CIA and shit
*Binges Loose change*
>You know modern art right
*posts wall of text to Facebook about chemtrails and rainbows in the sprinkler water*
>Dude like the CIA used time travel to go back to like the 1870s and invent modern art n shieeet

>You can't know things
>But my opinion is still better than yours

All he is asking is why it is popular since the majority of people don't like it. My opinion is that art was once about depicting beauty and emotion, and the first modern artists were still holding to this but in a different style. However the movement slowly turned into art depicting art and has become a feed back loop of artists trying to out do each other. What has resulted is a hatred of beauty and emotion as it represents "comformity" even though this type of art is now what you think of when you think of art in the present. It's basically a hipster complex.
What your feeling is the human desire to make sense out of randomness it's a legitimate feeling, and it's what these artists capitalize on. The best do this on purpose adding hints and clues that your mind would hopefully piece together into the desired message. The purpose is to find the root of beauty and condense it down to it's simplest form. The rest are just trying to recreate that experience without knowing the reasoning behind it.

>i put my fingie in my bot bot and it come out poopy
might as well be your greentext strawman for how closely it actually relates to the fucking content of my post.

is that a painting? it looks like a quilt it's amazing

Art doesn't "mean" anything, the meaning is all in the minds of the observer and the artist. Modern art is about finding new ways to express meaning, ways that go beyond what has traditionally been considered "art". It's true there are many poor or mediocre modern artists, but back in the golden age of painting there were hundreds of mediocre artists whose names and works have been forgotten for every Vermeer or Rembrandt.

I'm Going to try and learn to paint the way they used to in the meantime I got to go and do my thing

Is that Nicholas Cage?