Who here understands the philosophy behind modern art and can read it without resorting to spergouts...

>Milo Moiré

You're such a fucking plebeian.

It's a CIA psyops remanent from the cold war, and it's also used to launder money by the jews.

>the jews

/pol/ was right

>remanent

Did the CIA also abduct your spelling teacher?

Theirs no such thing as spelling teachers

You can attribute meaning to anything when you live a meaningless life.

It's weak, like the people who enjoy it. It's Coca Cola for the soul. What's to understand?

pls dont confuse modern art with shity postmodernism

What are you thinking of when you're saying "modern art"? It is far from being a homogeneous field

>the cold war started in the 19th C.
lel

Doesn't captivate me and generally it doesn't generally have much meaning. It's just a bunch of people taking everyday objects and putting them in a museum and making money.

While many other artists work for months or years on end to finish their masterpieces, they do little to nothing at all and produce nothing spectacular.

It just seems like a lame trend for people to pat each other on the backs and say "Hey, I'm an artist!" and then laugh knowing it's not really true.

There are whole books devoted to this subject. Maybe you should read some.

Do you mean modern art as in modernism or do you mean modern art as in contemporary art?

he means bait

The gist of it is:

1. The Realism and virtuosic monuments to mechanical exertion that plagued Western visual art for so long were so obnoxious that people are still getting it out of their systems even after Fuchs and Dali; it was THAT terrible

2. It's part of the wider obsession with Irony or humor

3. Capitalism (and Socialism) is a race to the bottom that allows people to sell jars of shitpiss and call it Art

Only useful if you want to meet pretentious cuties who are easily impressed by "cultured" people.

Modern art aka museum art is easy to understand. It's also subhuman.

I don't understand what is defined "Modern Art"

I know what art is. People tell me that things that aren't art are "Modern Art".
People act as if you need some sort of external knowledge to appreciate it as art, and only their special club has such knowledge.

Can any of you explain what "Modern Art" is to me. If you are going to just tell me that I need to read some books and study art history to appreciate art then don't bother making an ass of yourself.

>(and Socialism)
Nope, art in the Soviet Union was non degenerate.

More like ironic capitalism is what sells shitpiss for money.

There is no real definition for it, all predefined structures and techniques have been thrown over board to make room for pure expression and message.

If it requires no artistic skill to make, conveys some vague message that could be interpreted a million different ways and is indistinguishable from random patterns, then it's modern art.

I don't speak for everyone, but...

"modern art" widely refers to what's placed in museums today. It widely refers to things which are designed specifically with the intention of being digested as "art" by a community — but which needs to be in a museum first in order to qualify, according to most of these communities that endorse "modern art"

No one ever uses the term "modern art" and refers to things like blockbuster movies, online art galleries e.g. artstation, video games, etc. They are always referring to museum exhibits or what's done at art universities.

>Accurate descriptions are now spergouts
Noice

It similar to how post-modern philosophy was a propaganda tool for the USSR

Dude, artists in the USSR was the target of CIA funded post-modern art

No, Modern art is art that reflects the ideas of the modernist movement. A picture painted today might be modern but it is not necessarily "Modern art" if it looks like a da Vinci for instance. Yes the art era is badly named which confuses people.

The modernist era is difficult to define, just as the romantic era or the neo-classical era is, that is where you need to read a book to understand all the conflicting ideas of what defines an era.

I feel like there is a deep misunderstanding of art by nearly everyone these days, and historians are partly to blame. Historians label certain works from the past as "art" as if it is a fact. Because a work was regarded as art at one time, it is factually art, and always will be.

But art is an attribute we give something; a thing ceases to be art when the world ceases to title it as such. There is a philosophical understanding here that people seem to overlook or disregard, which is not only that art is a matter of perspective, but it is specifically things which please us and which we hold in high regard.

Then you have all these debates on "what is art?" or "is X art?" Questions that, really, make no sense. It's the equivalent of asking, "Is X delicious?" Only you can answer that by tasting it yourself. It's overall pointless to ask someone else, even if they've tried it, because everyone has different tastes.

>The modernist era is difficult to define, just as the romantic era or the neo-classical era is, that is where you need to read a book to understand all the conflicting ideas of what defines an era.

I told you not to make an ass of yourself.

>but which needs to be in a museum first in order to qualify
Sounds more like the death of culture.

So it has to be something that isn't art that people call art. Interesting.

Art is something an entity crafts with underlying meaning pursued through a medium. Picture/Sculpture/Words/Cinema/etc

You misunderstand, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is not art. It is just shitty art. If something is not delicious doesn't mean it isn't food, it just tastes like shit. A bad drawing is still art even if it is shit.

Anyone that follows the ideology that "art" is only what they deem as "art" is a divisive pseud.

>Who here understands the philosophy behind modern art and can read it without resorting to spergouts
A spergout is the philosophy behind the thing you call modern art.

>mfw people imply there has been any good art since the greeks

>If something is not delicious doesn't mean it isn't food
And if something is not art doesn't mean it isn't a human creation. It's precisely those creations which please us and we hold in high regard that are art, just like how only delicious, high quality food is considered gourmet. You can call McDonald's gourmet, of course... not everyone has the same standards. But that just further asserts what I'm saying.

If you are unwilling or unable to educate yourself with a book or three on a subject that apparently interests (or enrages) you, then maybe you should be on /ic/ instead of Veeky Forums. Although I'll admit most /ic/icles are incapable of shedding more light than shade on this topic.

Modern art: an attack against earlier definitions of art.

Post-modern art: an attack against earlier definitions of art.

Post Post-modern art: an attack against earlier definitions of art.

Crossboard pleb here.
I miss pretty paintings and marble statues of myth and history that someone obviously invested a gruelling amount of time purely for the pursuit of beauty or posterity.
All the great ones I've seen are by people who are dead.

Sounds about right. You forgot to start with impressionism, but otherwise spot on

this video is all you need to know about modern art: youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI

>talks about 'modern art'
>manages to be even more annoying than the worka he talks about
Truly a masterpiece.

Protip: if one of those people who you think are great were alive today, they wouldn't be making pretty paintings or marble statues. They would be using modern methods to convey concepts.

This is why modern art is hilarious and can be trashed immediately. It's people who are a few hundred years behind the curve.

these people are idiots - if it was intended as art, it would have a note next to it, or be referenced in the artist's statement.

I do "get" contemporary art, but I'm not in love with it.

>mfw RECUPERATED NEODADAISM

I do get it.
But im still clinging on to painting..

Shit like in OP can only happen when people treat musea and galleries as holy spaces where everything inside suddenly transforms into being worthy of investigation.

Shit like OP was likely just a twitter joke that is elevated to a sacred truth by people who hate modern art.

Yes, yes, you are all so terribly clever.

Thanks user!

'modern art' is an integral part of the spectacle. 'art' is a reified commodity completely detached from life. the ideology of 'art' perpetuates itself. the only remaining function of 'art' is its own validation. The modern artwork's only purpose assert itself as 'meaningful' and 'relevant'

Impressionism falls under the category of 'modern art', you ding dong.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art

Some good intros all with associated docs:
This Is Modern Art - Matthew Collings
Shock of the New - Robert Hughes
British Masters - James Fox, there's also "Who's Afraid of Conceptual Art?" but haven't seen it. "Three Colours" was relatively shit imo, so dunno. I think they're all TV only too.

Modern art is just an excuse too be lazy as fuck.
I would never spend a dollar to go and see one of these 'events'
There is no philosophy behind it. It's human laziness.

I'll allow it (tips beret)

Not half as lazy as your understanding.

Help me understand? I understand lazy people need to make money some how.
What am I not factoring in?
Honestly what am I missing?

it's a reaction against academic art. academic art had a set process, use of materials, set poses, an emphasis on the classical and high brow. modern art started using new processes (plein air painting, collage), new materials (acrylic and watercolours, pre-mixed paints, found objects, and mixed media), new poses (figures that engage the audience with eye contact), and emphasised the contemporary relevance of subjects with little pretense (whores, manufacturing and machinery, still lives of common household objects rather than exotica collected by the upper class, war is hell not glorious).

if you call yourself a philosopher and enjoy modern art you may as well kill yourself now. Being that delusional you must already be dead instead

I see no problem with that.

This. The biggest issue here is that people try to discuss contemporary art as if it's some kind of unified movement that is homogenous to a degree, while really there is an extremely broad range of ideas and techniques alive and well in the field.

the job of modern art is limited to convincing the viewer of it's relevance and status as 'art'.

>being this triggered by one work by Manzoni 55 years ago

ITT
>I heard of Piss Christ and Artist's Shit and now I hate all modern art and feel qualified to discuss the field even though I clearly know little to nothing about it