How can Veeky Forums defend modern art and modern philosophy+literature with a straight face?

>muh subjectivity!
It's not and never was. Read a book sometime

The Stuckists fucking suck though and are eternally butthurt that all they ever amounted to was trendy product for that kike Saatchi to push on tasteless rich assholes.

>Vorticism
Man that's some cool shit, thanks for introducing me to it.

>Art is objective
Proof?

>illness

I dont understand this idea that art has to evoke an emotion. Why? Why give it a purpose? If we are at buckets on head, then haven't we passed the point of meaning? If it evokes an emotion or not who cares

who said its about the audiences emotions?

If the artist is feeling depressed and paints a completely grey canvas, that means something.
Although outside of the artists head it means something else to other people

Because that's what separates the art from the stuff.

The artist uses it as a conduit for his own creativity, then in turn the audience reads into it whatever they wish. Maybe they get what the artist meant, maybe it makes them feel smug, maybe it just inspires disgust.

This is particularly relevant to performance art, because is it really art if it's performed to no one? I might be sitting here right now in the nip wearing a bucket on my head but nothing would have come of it. The self expression will end as soon as I get dressed and after that then what? In performance art the fact that it's performed adds an extra dimension too it not just in the expression of the performer but in the appreciation by the audience.

Non-performance art is a bit different as that has much more to do with the artist's self expression. Audience appreciation is a reflection of that.

People defend modern art because it is a wide area with so many wonderful things in it. They need to defend it against people that reduce it to the very worse they can find.

Buckethead guy seems cynically designed to pander to the kind of people who unreservedly hate modern art. They love that stuff because it is so crap and comforts them in their already fixed opinons.

I would never glorify it or condone doing so, but it can't be denied that mental illness can lead to unique creative works

>they unironically glorify mental illness as a creative angle.
this has been art since the dawn of time m8

Most of the contemporary artists are just charlatans that want Soros shekels and audience pussy.
>If you are an artists painting the same realistic way over and over again gets boring.
They DON'T know how to paint in the realistic way. Picasso did, but he is an exception. These people dont know shit about art. They aren't "bored" of classical painting - they can't produce it. They have no skill at all - and art is 95% skill, grinding and practicing for years and years.
If they want to paint 2 red squares or some shit they better have some serious philosophical reasoning behind that. They better write a long book to explain why. They better be well read in aesthetics. But they are not. Because they are charlatans.

Youre reading the wrong books then m8

>Soros
Post discarded

ding ding ding
problem with the internet is that it has never before been so easy to view so much modern shite that the really impressive stuff gets lost among the muck

its for the inverse reason why classical art is so privileged: as the centuries pass only the truly iconic works survive as everything else decays into obscurity, giving you a rose-tinted perspective of what art was like back then.

So it naturally becomes a problem when people looking for the same level of quality in modern art become frustrated, because you have to look that much harder. You can tell a slacker because they will always condemn modern art by shitting over the most provocative piece (a urinal, anyone?) but can't name any modern art that doesn't rely on click-baiting controversy to generate an audience.

So art is dependent on its creator? If two artists were to paint two red squares then the more knowledgeable artist has created the "better" work?

>So art is dependent on its creator

The intent behind the picture is the important part.
The situation you set up just would mean, that two artists would paint a work each, but that would be a given, so that they wouldn't have any intent themselves for the picture.
As soon as someone gives you some sort of boundry, i don't see art as pristine as it could be, without said boundry. I am also giving this information, because one just could say that the boundry itself makes the art, therefore it isn't the "artist" who made the work of art, it's the person who gave the indication of what the art should look like.
So to come to some sort of conclusion, art is intent, putting meaning behind something. Everyone can copy ideas, but coming up with the idea is the magnificent part.
On a sidenote, last week i was quite pissed, i was going to an art shop and they were selling paintings of unknown artists in 3 different sizes. Every painting was unique, the problem at Hand though, for me at least, was that the artists were given certain sizes, which they had to work with.
I asked the person working at the store, if that doesn't deprive the artists of their freedome to produce art as they intend it to be. She of course said no, it gives them a place to Show their art and a way to price the art itself, without to long evaluation. (they had set prices for each size)
For me it just felt forced and like bullshit, as the artists (which are probably happy that they can show people their art) still had some boundries to their art. It was there for the first time i acctualy started thinking about what defines art and i stand by my Statement that intent is the leading factor.

So you don't agree with any of what I said or only the Soros thing?

In conceptual art the work should be an embodiment of the artists philosophy. The worth of that artwork is determined by how well the work represents the philosophy. But the philosophy itself must be something other than "dude pink plank on the floor lmao" or everything is worthless.

We should expose the frauds in contemporary art if we want to see any quality anytime soon.

I go to an art-focused uni, even some of the art students drop out on the grounds of "what the fuck is this shit". I went to the degree show, there were people who (not as part of the exhibits) were wearing make-up to look like demons or utter psychedelic car crashes and shit. Saatchi was there, apparently. I only know that OP's image wasn't from that because I don't recognise any of the people watching. Modern art has disappeared up its own arse.

>If the artist is feeling depressed and paints a completely grey canvas, that means something.

That's a stupidly low standard for art.