Will the literature world be interested in me making a medieval miniature?

are u aware revival of death art forms has been the core of artistic history, right?

>renaissance
>classisism
>neoclasisism

>Make something new.

Being THIS MUCH of a modernist and falling for the "originality" meme.

Yep, in a reintepreted way. If that's what OP wants to do - cool. If not, he's entering fantasy territory.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Picasso emerged from the Lascaux caves and said: "We have invented nothing new." But maybe, even if what we have to say is always the same, there might be a new form of how we can express ourselves in the future, no? Isn't that, what an artist should try?

unless he has the mentality of some medieval monk, it will be reinterpreted because the conditions, materials, tools are diferent.

you missed the last 80 years of experimentation bro.
go back to 1920.

And your point is?

art for the sake of experimentation and originality is a dead path that leads nowhere.

better to push the traditional mediums and techniques to new heights that push the same old tired modernists shit to nowhere.

New heights are always good, won't argue with that. And I also agree that a lot of art forms have reached a dead end. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other ways forward. I strongly believe that we are at a point right now like in the the mid-18th century. We still have to wait a bit more for the next big thing.

representational art has not heights, it's unlimited.
last twenty years we have seen new represenational art forms.
videogames, pixel art, 3D, CG photorealism, AI drawn photos, vertorized art, low poly art, anime and manga styles of the 00, cal arts cartoons.

representational art has no limits and is evolving.
modern art still looks like 1920 shit, expresionism looks like 80 year old expresionism.

Hell, even abstract art has moved, even if a little.

It's a dead end that leads nowhere.
It was an empty promissed that stagnated art during a century.

This never happened. Half of Picasso's work is toilet paper though.

Again, won't argue with you. But who said I was a modernist? And the examples you give are all interesting things but right now none of them have become the defining style or form of art (yet) for which this period will be remembered and be the movement that will shape the future of art in a lasting way. But it's not like I'm an expert, I'm just rambling. Maybe I'm completely wrong.

most of that shit is digital, I guess you could call them digital art.

hell, maymays will be remembered as an important part of our culture.

art is about comunication, and there's no comunication, or at least important comunication in modernist art.

>there's no communication in modernist art
You're gonna have to back that up

you seem to miss the part where I mention there's not valuable comunication in modernist art.
It's always very shallow meanings, or some impossed meanings the work doesn't really carry.

it's always the same boring shock contrarian values, some scat stuff, corporal fluids, garbage, basic liberal or leftists comentaries on consumerism, anti capitalism or pretty ego dumb shit.

There's nothing valuable I have seen in that kind of art.
Nothing even remarkable of valuable that will make me a better person.

Pic related is "Construction No 108" by soviet modernist Aleksandr Rodchenko. Just out of curiosity, do you see anything worthwile in this painting?

unless you want to superimpose some critical theory or some meaning upon it, there's nothing more than simple geometric forms, some circles, curves and lines.

there's nothing to it.
unless your interpretation of the piece clearly has some meanings or stuff the piece doesn't hold in reality.

Interesting. And this one?

Oh look another critic of modernism doesn't even know what it is

painting is a visual language, as such it doesn't hold meanings beyond visual information.

as in that other piece, there's clearly representations of ancient people, animals, babies, mythology and so on.

based upon those visual symbols, there's clearly vast amounts of information the piece holds you can talk about.
by example: the painting technique, the values (claroscuro), the age of the models, the animals being painted, the background, how accurate is the representation, the historical period, the cultural contexts.

It would be similarly to reading a classical novel, and you could spend weeks, years studying such masterpieces.

clearly the diference is like comparing an automatic writing poem versus a shakespearian sonnet.

>here's clearly representations of ancient people, animals, babies, mythology and so on
lmao this guy, quit trying to pretend that you're informed.

oh wow nigger, care to show me such complex pieces of modern art that clearly I can spend years and weeks talking about it?

I'm sure clearly a path about separating itself from the traditions, and the so called slavery to the model has liberated art to new heights and clearly hasn't stagnated beyond the first years of each movement in terms of technique or meaning.

I'm sure being closer to the platonic forms is a good idea in a medium that is about visual information.

I do agree abstract art is cool though and I agree that shit like icons and geometric shapes hold beauty.

>a painting is only random shapes that our brain interprets
lmao cuck.

So for example this painting (it's a new one) is superior to all modernist work?

what do you mean?
superior in terms of what?

technique? (yes)
composition?
narrative?

if you start analyzing most modernists works they're very simple and boring, their use of colors is boring or very simple, the compositions are pretty basic.

like I said, the only notable exception is abstract art.

Media aren't "about" anything.

Anyway, my comment was more directed at the fact that you said modernism was all scatological stuff, critiques of consumerism, etc. which is not true. Cubism is a subset of modernism, as is impressionism, as is surrealism. The stuff you are talking about didn't arise until decades later, after modernism as a movement had already come and gone. If you want to talk FOR YEARS about DEPTH of SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION (though I doubt that you personally could, and why would anyone waste their time doing so anyway?), then I guess see pic-related.

I was not saying that a painting is "just" random shapes which we interpret, but that your "analysis" of the above painting was laughable and surface-deep, which is funny given that you've been bitching about how modernism lacks depth

>cuck memes

As I understood you see a good painting as an addition of different things like style, technique, accurate representation, etc. Something that Rubens did right and Rodchenko didn't (them representing representative and modernist art), correct? But you also mentioned cultural context, so a painting apparently nevers stand on its own but requires that the viewer has a certain understanding of what's happening around him or has happened, right?

I do agree there was not a single monolythic style and that modernism includes neo clasisism and people like rotckwell, vilppu, loomis, even monet.

The point I'm trying to make is that painting is a visual language.
Much like music, we value more complex pieces of work like beethoven symphonies rather than some pop song.

In the end is a matter of tastes and wondering what should be the best we can do.

Should art be the best we can do and hope and even strive as humans, or should art be simply a commentary on modern society where it's only value is a tired old cliche shock by the sake of shock values?

isn't beauty the end all measure of paintings and drawings?

>it's always the same boring shock contrarian values, some scat stuff, corporal fluids, garbage, basic liberal or leftists comentaries on consumerism, anti capitalism or pretty ego dumb shit.
Congratulations, you mong. You don't know what modern art is.

I see only insults but no arguments.
positions of intelectual superiority are the mark of plebs.

>painting is a visual language.
But a language is needed when we want to say something. That's why I posted . It looks nice and took probably some time to finish it but all it gives me is a slight boner. Rubens gives a simple metaphor in a beautiful form . Rodchenko the other way goes a more intellectual way and tries to show the new, modern way of thinking that the communist revolution promises or demands. As the recipient, it is up to me what I make out of all of this. And I don't see why it's bad when one can find a deeper meaning behind a simple form.

because you're yuxtaposing meanings where they don't exists.

a circle is a circle, not some deep meaning of intelectual force where you can see the comunists revolution.

I could put some deep meaning in some rock I found in my backyard, does it make it deep?
no, it's just a rock I found.

sorry for being rude but it's extremely annoying following an argument where one person doesn't understand the terms they are using, and doubly annoying seeing the same recycled, shallow and ignorant criticisms of post-modern and contemporary art applied to modern art where they become nonsensical.

maybe you wanna explain them or maybe you wanna attack my arguments rather than insult me.

cultural context
and no, nature can never be art.

The problem is not with modernism, it's modern society who failed to push those modernist projects ahead, tbqh

again, cultural contexts imposes meanings the piece doesn't really have.

you could argue that my shirt was important because it belonged to some famous person, but still is an average shirt.

I see the works art students do today following those ancient modern styles and they haven't progressed.
They look identical to the first pieces in those styles.
You can't talk so much about squares and circles beyond it becomes cliche.

you're fucking dumb

That could be said for that rock in Mecca. But a painted circle is never just a circle. It's there because the artist wants it there. Remember that you said that art is a language. A rock itself isn't. So if the circle is there for a reason, it's because the artist wants to tell me something. But that's not art yet, too. It becomes art when I react to it and make sense out of it. Rodchenko is talking to you, you just don't listen.

hot arguments you have there chad.

a circle would be like making a song using one single note or one single chord.
sure, it may be interesting to some people.

but does it has real value as art form?
does it hold more value than a symphony?

does an insipid food taste better than a five start hotel food?

does a simple cube hold more value than michelangelo sculptures?

does a child letter hold the same value as some master calygraphy?

does a child story about narutu hold the same value as the western cannon?

technique user, is the diference between amateurish work and the one that holds real value.

shut up faggot, your arguments are fucking dumb and you don't know anything about art

HUH DUH DA CIRCLE?? BUT IT DA CIRCLE. DA VALUE???? UNDEFINED VALUE COS YUP

I think we look for different things in art. You ask "How is it made?" and I ask "Why?" And I'm not saying that for example classic art is bad (quite the opposite) but it focuses often on a complex way to tell simple things. To stay with your food example: what good is a dinner if it looks great and the chef spent hours on decorating your plate but the food is simply ok (not bad, just ok)?

you're not showing any real counter arguments beyond insults and ad hominems.

I'm just giving you my opinion.
I don't see how a circle holds more value than a realist portrait done by a master artists.

even pieces like this:
are so simple in terms of technique and there's nothing interesting like perspective, aereal perspective, hue or value constrast, anatomy, 3D shapes.
there's nothing too much to talk about or add beyond the general idea.
this piece is like seeing a description of a scene, done in plain english without any style or way to depict it as some master writer.

I come back to the music example.
most people will seek easy music to make or understand, I also do, I do prefer pop music.
But is because you lack the knowledge to tell apart a skilled draftmen from an amateur.
Most of these people will never engage in drawing or painting and will never see the effort needed to make such realist pieces, they will simply ignore how much knowledge and skill do they take.

why the fuck are you talking about circles

What value does all that technical stuff have in the era of photography? It's impressive, sure, but I think art which "portrays the unseen" is what is really worthwhile. What makes the fresco in the Sistine Chapel worthwhile? Not the technical mastery of perspective and anatomy but the scale and glory of it, which is evidence of the absolute devotion with which it was made. What makes worthwhile is the feeling of claustrophobia it evokes: the colors signify heat and noise, the blurred lines and faces the confusion and anxiety that can arise in such situations (you ever have a panic attack on a subway car?). Here you'll probably say I'm just foisting my own meaning on the painting, but such signifiers are well established and understood, and your emphasis on virtuosity and classical symbolism is just as arbitrary anyway.

Again, skill is fine and needed. But it's not all there is.When I stand in front of a painting or listen to a song or whatever, the main thought shouldn't be: "Wow! Must've taken him really long to get this done." Art exists to broaden your horizon, not to see which painter trained the most.

photorealism is just one of many styles.

you can't photograph an anime girl or some dragon or some alien sci fi scene.

again you're not seeing this through the eyes of some artists, but simply through the eyes of consumers.
only musicians should be allowed to talk about music, same as only artists are allowed to talk about painting and drawing.

I refuse to believe you are an artist. Also what a shitty attitude to take re: art criticism.

Tbqh, all these problems would be solved if there was no price tag attached to painting and if our shitty art culture didn't exist. If someone wants to paint a black square and pass it as art, there's nothing wrong with that. But once that piece sells for 50 million, people see it as having inherent value, and when an "invisible exhibit" is shown at an art gallery, besides being literally worthless, people in their heads assign some sort of value to it because others say so. I also disagree on the main purpose of art. I believe that art is part of the creative collective of a people, and that the art a people produces drives it forward and into new heights. It defines what it means to be that people and, esp. in classical art, it creates a perfection that individuals strive to achieve, like a form. From this view, certain art can have more value that other art. It all depends on perspective. Feeling for the sake of feeling; what does that do? It's akin to someone shooting heroin or engaging in mindless sex. Art, as all experience, should build up the individual.

What does it mean to build up the individual? Why does that have more worth than being moved in a particulat way? I'm not just talking about feeling good, either. Art can and should evoke other emotions as well.

For me, art is tied directly to culture and even politics. I'm not shitting on modern art; modern art has a lot to offer to the individual, as does classical. I'm shitting on the "rreealy maeks u blink" art which evokes cheap feelings of disgust, or tries to tie art pop culture, or requires little to no effort to make with all the value resting on how the viewer interprets it. This kind of art has no value in a culture. Art tells a people's history, and understanding art is part of understanding a people. There's plenty of good and bad art today, just as there was plenty of good and bad art 100, 400, and 2000 years ago.

Sorry, I didn't explain what I meant by the purpose if art being to "build up the individual." In my opinion, each one of us grows as a human being throughout our lives. Our experiences shape us, and art can be part of that. To me, art is especially valuable for the connection of a person to a certain culture, especially one that he belongs to.

Tries to tie art to pop culture*, sorry.

I'd like to leave this here: pirateproxy.red/torrent/3349599/Scott_McCloud_-_Understanding_Comics
Now don't complain that it's a comic. It might help some in this thread with their understanding of art. Trust me, it really does.

no one has painted black squares in literally 100 years you dumb faggot. that has absolutely nothing to do with contemporary art

the art you describe barely exists

Bump

you know nothing of art

...