Why is contemporary art such a farce?

It certainly made OP think--about why contemporary art is such shit.

Nah, it's a group of people (communists) exploiting and exaggerating what they short sighted view as a flaw in the system but, in truth, the system is and will eventually work itself out fine.

Since when is the CIA run by commies?

>art imitates life

...

I'm not exactly sure what Ansem Kiefer's work (OP's picture) has to do with CIA or communists, but I'm sure resident experts with Prager U education know better.

...

'IAE always recommends using more rather than fewer words.' This. Bloated with jargon.

At the time this stupid shit was gaining traction in the west, The USSR was sponsoring soley "socialist realism" art(pic related. just search for socialist realism in google images for more examples) While Social Realism focused on the real life nature of the working class (american gothic for example), socialist realism was pure propaganda. Instead of focusing on the real life nature of soviet workers and their problems, it was a idealistic version of what they were. It was the government saying "see? this is how brave and heroic and noble you are!" while ignoring their hardships and oppression by the communist governments.

I think most right wing people would actually appreciate some of these works. But this post-modern trash that OP is bitching about grew in the west, and it was in fact supported by the CIA as a propaganda tool. While soviet artist were restricted in their art by the government, the CIA was using this to show the world "Look at us and how free we are! artist can make whatever shit they want in America!"

independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

>He doesn't like the painting

What is regarded as art reflects those regarding it. Contemporary art is a farce because our social elite is one, and they are responsible for the art galleries' existence and its propagation in universities. It looks inhuman and values mind-benders and satire above immersive passions because the modern social elite is cold-blooded.

This. White nations are being ruled by a jewish elite now. Jews are iconoclasts who attack the nature and culture of others, and their own "culture" has shaped them to be this way over the course of centuries. Jewish culture is a semitic one that hates beauty, symbols, and icons, so what we've seen in the post 60s era since these jews have come to power is an all out assault on what whites consider artistic and beautiful. They've turned it into a freak show devoid of meaning and value, and if we wish to reverse that we're going to have to remove these jews.

go back to twitter

>remove the people that were smart enough to one-up you
Why not race mix?

They all have. It's terrible.

>Jewish culture is a semitic one
deflatedwojack.gif

Art reflects its environment

NEXT THREAD

its an arbitrary money laundering racket

There's so much action in this painting. As the eye scans the page, the ambiguous figures scramble provocatively to the imagination. Whoever did this knows what they are doing.

literature has the same problem.

art of all mediums became pretty meaningless after the holocaust.

might as well make some money out of it

God is dead.
The beyond, the outside the human, is no longer relied upon--no longer credible--as a foundation for standards of evaluation.
In the realm of aesthetics, his means one can't say "x is beautiful" and cite anything beyond the subject as a foundation.
In realm of morality, this means one can't say "x is good" and cite anything beyond the subject as a foundation.

The west has given up on the idea of there being laws embedded in nature which can be discovered by means of reason, or laws/norms/standards passed down as the will of god relayed to us plebs by prophets, through which we can evaluate things such as art, and say that it is objectively beautiful or ugly.

However, at the same time, we have not lost that age old predisposition to treat as legitimate only those standards which come from beyond the human, from beyond the herd. And so we're at an impasse. We lie on scorched earth, and no new flower, no new values, can emerge. As a consequence, we see this bullshit in the realm of art. But not only in art. What has happened in art, has also happened in morality, as I've already mentioned, as well as, more recently, in the realm of identity. Who you are is not grounded in any criteria that's outside of the subject, and so, the equivalent of OP's picture in the aesthetic sphere has also happened in the realm of identity in pic related.

...

Which medium doesn't, in your opinion ? Even cinema has been declining for nearly 50 years now while it's, all things considered, relatively new.

What?

They didn't outsmart people. They conned illiterates for centuries, got outsmarted by fire time and time again. Then the retards over at France decided to try emancipation of Jewry across Europe, because they believed in equality - another false god.

Art is declining because it is less and less tied to artistic vision, and more and more tied to shock value and profit margins.

Absolutely this.
There were people in every century that would have argued, like you, that art of all mediums had been explored and expressed in its entirety, yet within a few decades an entire new movement or vision would have appeared. This happened and will continue to happen in every medium, even science to some extent. Don’t mistake the mediocrity of most modern artists for the “end of art” or anything like that, the past tells us of a very different pattern of the creative arts.

You guys really don't see any artistic merit in that painting? It's great, and definitely a bad example.

You should go to a math class. Learn about combinations.
>Everything's been done already
This is a lie from a man who wants to stay bored.

>ITT: dunning kruger in full effect
If you had any knowledge of art history you would know that there are periods when art stagnates and periods when art flourishes. This has been true for all of history and today isn't any different.

>more and more tied to shock value
Duchamp made The Fountain a century ago. If you actually went to a local gallery very, very few pieces would try to shock you (unless of course not being hyperrealistic = shocking to you)
>and profit margins
Most artists actually don't make much money. Both of my parents are artists and they make so much money our roof is leaking.

It doesn't have naked women so it is degenerate and bad, that's how the logic goes, more or less.

>If you actually went to a local gallery
Depends where you live really, but more importantly it’s the shock value works that enter the public consciousness and have begun to morph the average person’s perception of what art is and what purpose it serves. It doesn’t really matter what profound works may be found in your local gallery, it is this new concept of art that is taking over the world and you can find so many examples in the current decade and well beyond Duchamp’s day.
>don’t make much money
Of course they don’t, this is no great surprise. However, the enormous corporate aspect of art that has turned, at least the most mainstream sector, into nothing more than an industry in which billionaire collectors decide the worth and prevelance of some artists over others is a massively damaging force in the art world, and its happening at a global and far-reaching level that is unprecedented.
>...so it is degenerate and bad
I don’t think this is fair at all. Veeky Forums does have a bias towards clumsy neo-classicism and romanticism, but to say that Pollock is being treated unfairly because of this is not much of a position.

this

Just learned the name today but Kiefer seems pretty solid as an artist. Possibly more substantial than the more widely accepted abstractionists like Picasso and Pollock, since the statements behind his paintings seem to have a bit of bite and that bite can be loosely felt through all the frenzied impasto.

>the post 60s era
>implying those years of lsd, rock and free sex weren't pushed by the merchants

Okay, but no one answered me how is Kiefer tied to CIA sponsored abstract expressionism.

Then again some person in a thread a while ago, presumably some amerimutt, started rambling about CIA when Mondrian was discussed so I should not be too surprised.

that's a really nice painting

>Duchamp made The Fountain a century ago. If you actually went to a local gallery very, very few pieces would try to shock you (unless of course not being hyperrealistic = shocking to you)
Have you heard of the feminist art?
>Most artists actually don't make much money. Both of my parents are artists and they make so much money our roof is leaking.
Neither do most video game developers, yet the market is saturated by greed. Plenty of artists work on video games. Heck, most of the living culture has moved there. Yet industrialization, with its disgusting idea of 'resources' follows, eating everything in its path.

this somehow

The past also tells us people like you who dismiss stuff like this always end up being treated like idiots in the future. Art is never going to be at capacity, but few major movements are going to be totally disposed of.

if you know where to look you can find pretty interesting contemporary things using video, interactivity, virtuality, mixed media, in situ artwork, etc.

or maybe it's because i'm french?

also, tv series and videogames supplanted literature and cinema quite a while back

if you cared about art you would know where to find good modern art
you guys just want to bitch and moan. just like people here don't read contemporary literature

People are confusing American Abstract Expressionism with European artists. "...some of Pollock's works were even sponsored by the Congress for Cultural Freedom (an anti-communist advocacy group founded in 1950), which was backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (Karmel, 1999). The CIA appreciated Pollock's style, because it steered clear of social realism and overt political gestures. Pollock's abstract work was hard to decipher, but his rebellious nature and expressions of freedom were clearly evident." jackson-pollock.org/convergence.jsp
But CIA had influence in Europe after the war so...
Kiefer is used today to show that (who?) we are mature people and can confront the past. As opposed to I suppose Putin and ISIS. You know, the new propaganda.

Convergence, 1952 by Jackson Pollock

>where is prity pic of boob and fruit
well you could try the modigliani exhibition that is on at the tate modern right now
i'm going next week

>Then why haven't other forms of art reached their limit?

I don't think literature will ever reach its limit simply because "meaning" doesn't depend on any rules. Be it grammatical rules of the language, or the rules for writing a story, or social rules, moral rules or whatever. No writer ever has been in complete control of meaning.

This can maybe apply to other art forms as well but since I know jack shit about visual arts, I'll just not comment on that.

Because it is all a money laundering scheme.

TV series are nothing in comparison to film and anyone who thinks so is a complete moron.

Example of social realism by Diego Rivera. He was married to Frida Kahlo.
Detail of his painting Man, Controller of the Universe.

contemporary capitalism is such a farce. also contemporary art is vast , every styles there ever was are still active: there are more living working artists now than at any point in history so of course a lot of it is shit but even pros can'T know about all the top 10% or whatever that is out there. lot of good shit happening and it's very exciting. so i find it so pitiful whenever some "cultural conservative" wannabe or whatever OP's problem is, comes up with that same old "discussion". maybe OP just want to be spoon fed good art? eh do your homework nigga! also: not everyone get to be the COOL DUDE who is HIP at what is going on... so keep on hating ?

>Just learned the name today
>Possibly more substantial Picasso
Lol you guys never stop... I’m happy to know art is in good hands

Ugly... seems like decent muralism at best to me.

Behold the average judaized moron modern and postmodern art appeals to.

Every jew i have ever known has pedestrian taste. The avant garde is anglo american.

That more or less goes without saying, but modern postmodern art movements going back to dada have been jewish through and through, which is why most of it is soulless culture jamming shit.

you don't know shit about my taste: i said everything is active and there are tons of art out there. so keep on being a stuck retard and keep telling yourself YOU ARE NOT MISSING OUT ON ANYTHING, YOU ARE SMART THEY ARE WRONG you can die in peace, bro.

Moron status: confirmed and updated.

First of all the visual arts have always been shallow, by nature.
Postmodern literature is often great, and modernists as well. If you won't address this then there is no reason to not report this thread.

oh sure. you are like a nigga in africa dying of malnutrition and you are shouting in this thread I HAVE ALL THE FOODS AND NUTRITION there is, YALL are the one who AINT GOT SHIT! keep telling yourself that bro ;_; you will be allright, everything will be allright...

When there was a European aristocracy in place art was epitomized by beauty and meaning. Once it fell into jewish hands in the dada era it became transgressive and devoid of most meaning, i.e., a reflection of the jew.

Again this is simply unrelated to literature and boring as well. We get it you blame jews for everything.

Not an argument. And do you know what thread you're in?

It's not the meaning that has a limit but technique. After artist studied anatomy for 5 centuries there was nothing exiting in it for artist like Picasso. And the list goes on: perspective, geometry, use of color and so on. In literature certain kinds of tricks with metaphors, beginning-middle-and-end storytelling, slow tempo etc. quickly get boring. The form of the novel is just two centuries old. It's technical form was perfected in Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert published in 1856. So the 20. century got authors like Samuel Beckett and B. S. Johnson. The 21. century is all for the bizarre and we can probably just call it mannerism.

You're just a pleb that doesn't know where to look. There exist an uncountable number of artists that are technically proficient.
Any old retard can go to any of the hundreds of art ateliers and learn to draw to a satisfactory level, and there are numerous artists that are self-thought.
People who say art is declining are turbo retards and plebs who don't know what they're talking about. Art is more alive than it's ever been.

>painting, as a medium, has reached capacity. there's nothing you can create that isn't a clear rehash of a much older artist/style - this is why so many painters go in the opposite direction, to mindless abstraction, which yields new but also terrible results

Retards have thought this and been proved wrong since the lascaux cave paintings

That's a sweet top down aerial view of a forest in a wintery afternoon.

Video games

Holy fuck all these social realist paintings depicting manual labor makes my heart swell with class pride.
We used to have some great pieces of it in Norway too in the early 1900's, but of course that's passé now.

>even bothering posting a picture of a Pollock painting, thereby implying you can base any opinion on his work without seeing it in person
I used to be retarded too, user, then I went to MoMA and saw him for myself.
Absolutely floored me.

But they are also ruined by greed, user

>Hey dude, let's compress a story that should probably be about 30-40 hours of screen time into two movies of 2 1/2 hours each and omit all the scenes of secondary importance and only highlight the parts that we think matter. And then when we're done with that, shoehorn a third movie in because a truncated, wrapped-up story apparently wasn't enough. Enjoy good screenwriting and illogically speedy character development that turns a hired gun into a soldier of justice in three scenes.

This is modern cinema. Enjoy your shallow, paltry character development over good storytelling. This is why I will always read books. They're a way better medium for most stories than film. God, film is a tragedy sometimes.

Troll: detected

Pic related is a better collection of art than the last two galleries I've been to. This is thought-provoking and emotional to a VASTLY superior number of people that much of modern art, and it's just a fucking list of SS insignias.

Comics

I'll take a single episode of Mad Men or Breaking Bad over the whole Marvel/DC shitfest anyday desu

maybe but they still haven't realised their full potential
video games are the future, user
and they're where it's at today

indeed
from the thumbnail i thought it was a photo

SUBTLE

you don't seem narrow-minded and monomaniac at all, user

JAV

Titties and dicks are more pleasant to look at

Shhh, please don't be cultured and appreciative in front of OP.
Might hurt his pitiable worldview

They have, look at music. Avant-garde music is synonimous with atonal garbage.

>contemporary
Shit art has always existed, now it's just more prominent because it's not just the top 0,001% of artist who get to have their shit shown.
99% of modern art will be forgotten in a century, just like we forgot the shit art from the past.

Tell me, what do you mean by "limit"?