What does Veeky Forums think about modern art ?

It's what some people pretend to understand to feel superior to the 'plebs', while in fact they also think it's garbage.

It's a Jewish money laundering service

It's shit.

>what if, like, nothing matters? like dude everybodys so alienated amirite
>so to represent that im gonna throw random shit on a canvas and call it groundbreaking even though there has been literally thousands of hack "artists" like me making the exact same conceptual point for decades
>when people dislike it on an aesthetic level I'll just say they don't get it!
Postmodern/conceptual art was good early on, like Duchamp, Schwitters, and so on, but now it's the most trite and repetative bullshit imaginable. Art is a product now, and instead of fighting against this, postmodernists embrace their nihilism and make a show of their alienation, with diminishing returns.

Not for me, but I don't think badly of anyone who's into it.

Conceptual art loves to reuse concepts. It's laugable that in this age people still think they're doing anything new by "challenging people's notions of beauty". Have you ever talked to a conceptual artist? They're parroting bullshit they read from Dada essays, they don't have anything to say or any read aesthetic sense, they're just very pretentious. They think they're rebelling but they ARE the establishment. Their audience just pretends to be shocked by blood and sex, they don't truly give a shit. And they're so free that nobody will ever tell them, "you can't do this", like they want. They're like liberals who want some sort of social oppression to fight against, so much that they push degenerate and destructive behavior in an effort to be rebellious and shocking. But faux-rebellion and shock is the backbone of our societies now, we can't be shocked. So we need a new goal.

Just admit it. There are no great pieces now. You think Picasso was some unknown before he died?

I like Kandinsky, Pollock, Rothko, Tobey, Klee and Twombly a lot. Everyone seems to have a hard-on for Kline but once you've seen one of his works you've seen them all.

I abhor plebs who say things like "modern art is shit, anyone could do it" or "it doesn't even represent anything, therefore it's worthless" just as much as I hate plebs who think they can be the next Pollock just by haphazardly throwing some paint at a canvas with no regard for aesthetic consideration of form or colour.

>haphazardly throwing some paint at a canvas with no regard for aesthetic consideration of form or colour.
Just like Pollock, then?

I love how psueds complain that pre-20th century art is "irrelevant". "formulaic", and "too representational" and then go to a gallery of very similar-looking splotches of paint on a canvas and praise it as revolutionary. Because to them, form, symbolism, and representation doesn't exist, only novelty and sensationalism is worthwhile.

This is the problem I have when I talk to art students. They literally cannot wrap their heads around the fact that what is avant-garde in 1920 might not be avant-garde now. They have this idea that the conventional and the avant-garde are two unchanging categories, and that their work is somehow groundbreaking for repeating the same tired experiments as other avant-gardists.

There's also the problem (and this is a problem I think across all artistic fields) that art (at least in the last 200 years) has progressed by assimilating the avant-garde into the conventional. The experience of being shocked and challenged by a work of art is key to this process. I'm talking about the "jolt" that's been talked about previously by a tonne of thinkers. The problem now is that this "jolt" is basically impossible to produce in an audience, because nothing is formally shocking anymore.

We have to go back, and re-sensitize ourselves to less experimental art. At least that's the way I see it.

Actually nevermind, i realized there's a lot of Pollock i really like.
I still prefere Kazuo Shiraga, though.

Its an excellent pleb filter, one of the best

This is the only reason i like koons and hirst.

>i like koons and hirst

Avant-garde was a mistake, a 20th century mistake.

Your post is the same as mine, senpai. That's exactly what i was trying to convey.

Btw why do we never have /art/ threads on Veeky Forums like we use to?

early 20th century art was god-tier though. The issue isn't "modern" art, it's postmodernism.

Why don't we have a good art board on Veeky Forums?

Because they get spammed with ">>Veeky Forums" into oblivion

Eh, these were necessary developments as I see it; we just need to be able to move on and realize that the 21st century is going to involve the rediscovery of the virtues of classicism in the art world, and hopefully realism (beyond kitschy victorianism) in the world of fiction. I.e the rediscovery of non-experimental art's functions and virtues

I agree with you, I was reacting to user's conservative take on art history.

>tfw this is exactly my goal as an artist
Is this what the beginning of a new art movement feels like?

Who are some good artists working today?

Mail carriers.

I like most of it, from the physical landscapes artists create as well as video based art Gordon Douglas probably being my favorite though I also enjoy Phil Collins, Hookyas and Stansfield

>8849942
>8850058
It's not really work, just the power to charm

Picasso's early work was unironically better than the gimmicky stuff he invented/capitalized upon. I saw some of it in the Barcelona Picasso museum.

Van Gogh and post-impressionism is about as far as I go in expressionism.

I sure as fuck hope so.

What are we gonna call it?

Are you a writer or a painter?

>Are you a writer or a painter?
both

This to be quite honest

In fact, I can't think of there being a good art forum anywhere on the internet.

was Veeky Forums the biggest mistake of Veeky Forums history?

Literally what was the need for that board? We still have all the threads we used to have, and it just gives shitty uncultured anons a chance to force good content off this board. Nobody's gonna have a decent /art/ thread on Veeky Forums. It's literally just a space for /pol/ and leftist normies to butt heads

Pure garbage. Artists should stop making up excuses for failing to live up to the standards of excellence.
youtu.be/lNI07egoefc

Nice. Good luck with your work man. I sincerely believe this is what the art world needs right now.

I can vouch for this guy

It is called a return to order. To think there is something new to this attitude shows how little this mindset cares about history, ironically.

>tfw dabble in painting, writing and music but can't dedicate to one discipline

>POSTING THE PRAGER
>PRAGER UNIVERSITY
>EVER
>PRAGER UNIVERSITY VIDEO
>POSTING THE
>VIDEO EVER
>EVER POSTING
>THE PRAGER UNIVERSITY
>VIDEO
>EVER
>THE PRAGER UNIVERSITY VIDEO
>POSTING EVER
>EVER POSTING THE PRAGER UNIVERSITY VIDEO EVER
why would you do this to yourself user?

Looks like my notebook scribbles. Truly your taste is refined and intellectual.

Because it makes you asshurt.

My boy Rog said it better than I ever could.

youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

I think they make decent videos.

Mr au-fait seen it all before nothing's new to this guy he's seen it all before thanks very much for input

Obviously, nothing is necessarily new about the concept of pulling back from an experimental period in art. There is something very distinct about the need to deal with an audience who has been so battered by avant-garde forms for a hundred years, that they can no longer experience any kind of pleasure from the new because the new has become old-at. And the task of radically re-sensetizing this audience has little to do with the return to order of the 20th century, which was based on nostalgia for the lost pre-war world. It's very obvious that the audience that the audience of the 1920s could still experience shock, considering the fact that the avant-garde developed beyond this point for thirty more years.

It's fairly apparent to everyone that our contemporary situation is different, and that the avant-garde has no answers. So, this is not just a rehash of a previous movement, but the only direction left to go.

And you're a symptom of the problem. You couldn't even things changing, because you've seen it all before. People like you can't experience anything new and that's exactly what my post was diagnosing. So thanks for proving that point man.

If his grad students can't tell that's not actually a Jackson Pollock painting, then it says a lot more about the quality of a Prager education, than about modern art

Chris Marker and Chris Burden were both pretty good but both have died within the past few years. I like James Turrell and a lot of the people I know like him but I know elsewhere a lot of people think he's a hack.

Plese, tell me more about myself and what art is to you. I gather it is a direction to take, the last remaining. I promise I won't project or be mean.

Well, could you reply with some substance, or is being a snide, sarcastic little prick your only party trick?

I am genuinely interested in your idea that art is taking the last direction possible. How's that for substance, you aggressive prick?

not an argument :^)

I would literally put that on my living room wall.
Looks more interesting than most realistic paintings I have seen (not saying I would in general put abstract over more grounded stuff).

Debased, barely even art. No techne involved.
CIA conspiracy gone too far.

Are there any current movements that you think are pushing the envelope?

Well, sorry for misinterpreting your post. You know the way this website is sometimes.

I think that throughout the 20th century, we can cay that the central technique of art was to engage in a defamiliarizing effect, or what's better described as a "jolt". When you think about the reaction contemporary audiences would have had to the progressive works of the century, they would have experienced a sense of (probably quite extreme) surprise at the way in which the art-form was applied. What this provided them with is a surpassable barrier. When they read Ulysses, they were given such a barrier, but the progressively-minded (in artistic not political terms) would have been able to extract meaning from the text and the effort is what gave it its impact.

However, this effect can no longer be reached. We are too used to art that provides us with this kind of formal barrier, that even if it doing something new, we have simply come to expect this. The jolt is par for the course in modern art (incl. literature).

The only direction that art can go in, is backwards in a constructive manner (the "in a constructive manner" being the most important part; nostalgia is not conducive to this purpose). The side effect of the "jolt" is that with each successive impact the viewer or reader becomes more desensitized to the detail of the work. We are nowadays unlikely to comment on the way an artist has represented the human figure unless they have put their arms where their legs should be and given them three eyes (an exaggeration but I hope my point carries through). This is what I mean by the process of re-sensitization, a reacquainting of the audience with the smaller, more modest technical details of the piece. In literature, this might map onto character, considering the way postmodern literature is noted for sub-par (and deliberately so) character construction.

It's misleading to refer to this as a single direction. Because there are as many roads going back as there are going forward. There are a million ways this reorientation towards the artwork can be achieved, but what is important is that it can be achieved.

That's what I think, and I'm not going to force anyone to see it that way. But I'd appreciate if they at least considered it.

see

It's interesting. But I don't like art for critics. I'd rather see societally-relevant art than art-related art.

not him but many areas of computer art and interactive art are yet unexplored

honestly though, human art changes very little over incredibly long periods of time and what changes is the mode of expression. the art of the 20th and 21st centuries have obviously been driven by the rapid technological changes and the rise of global societies/networks

Contemporary art is a CIA psy op and a Jewish money laundering scheme.

I suppose some of it is conceptually neat though, I particularity like some performance art.
There's Vietnamese dude or whatever, who did crazy shit like live in a cage for a year, and clock into one of those work punch card things every hour for over a year.

If anything things like women shitting out eggs of paint is funny at least.

I'm really not an expert in the fine arts, very far from it. I can only really comment on literature.

It's too early in the century to talk about a movement. At least I hope that's the case. I honestly believe that any new movement which is likely to do what I'm talking about will be forced to take advantage of some form of alternative publishing (not necessarily self-publishing, but certainly not traditional publishing), since these ideas simply are not fashionable. I mean, you can look at someone like Franzen, but is Franzen really doing what it is we're talking about here? Is he really reorienting us to think about something like character in a new, more attentive light? I thought so, reading the first part of The Corrections, but then I got to the part with the talking turd, which is pure Pynchon-lite, and all that hope was lost.

One of these days Veeky Forums will produce a zine which will rival The Egoist. I guarantee it. You can't have this many people gathered in this kind of atmosphere of dedication and elitism, without producing good work eventually.

Modern art is great, contemporary not so much, in my opinion. 2017 will be terrible with the amount of political stuff that they will push through (like what we have actually isn't enough), Art Basel and some biennales already made a preview of what is to come..

Anyways, best 2016 artwork passing through.

>not him but many areas of computer art and interactive art are yet unexplored
they're called memes

Hal Foster, american art theorist and critic, located in his 2015 book "Bad New Days" four tendencies (or paradigms, as you wish) that are pushing the envelope to affirm themselves as some kind of neo-neo-avant garde. They are: abject, archivel, mimetic and precarious art.

You can read more about it here: versobooks.com/books/1961-bad-new-days

i like some works but in general i don't like modern art

pretentious Ellsworth Kelly-type shit is dumb
literal garbage ''''sculptures'''' or '''installations''' are dumb too

Thanks for calming down and offering me an explanation. I agree that a constructivist tendency seems at play in the formation of new art. But I think that instead of using it to shape the public, reeducating an audience to appreciate some art (a heavy-handed political process that is rather scary), artists, to make their art work, will be using whatever the details you speak of have become in the public's eye.

that's right, those of us who were alive before the internet will find it hard to see as anything other than novelty. but you have new generations growing up who are completely familiarized with social media, video games, cgi, etc and will begin to utilize them as more than just shallow forms of entertainment or functional softwares... like the avantgarde has been doing since the 70s but this time instead of a few lines being generated on a tube-and-resistor screen we have the ability to create and control entire virtual worlds

I take issue with the idea that what I'm proposing has any political element whatsoever. You should remember that the avant-garde of the 20th century was a largely reactionary movement, so moving in the opposite direction is hardly likely to be inherently reactionary. The process is not so much re-education, as recovery of elements of the artwork which have been buried by the priorities and privilegings carried out by the avant-gardists.

I'm not sure what you mean by using these more modest details in terms of "what they've become in the public's eye", and could you also develop what you mean by a "constructivist tendency"?

Its a scam, everyone knows its a scam. Good art is almost non-existent in traditional circles as of 2016. You are more likely to see beautiful art on /d/ than in an art school.

By constructivist tendency, I am referring to the productive component of art-making -or reproductive, in the case of post-modernism. I'm thinking about poiesis.

Beauty, in a traditional sense, is always recognized. Furthermore, for a modernist like Beaudelaire, the beautiful is always bizarre. The details lie on this threshold, explored by early post-modernists like Duchamp, with the readymade.

History paintings, the highest form of painting in the academies from the 17th century on, were always large scale, and people were trained to make them. Small-scale works were portraits, devotional images, still lives, etc. and later genre scenes and stuff that the growing middle-class liked and wanted for their home. Large-scale oil painting has been the prime example of painting for centuries.

Real-world examples?

Also >aesthetic

I don't think any contemporary artist, conceptual or otherwise, is trying to 'challenge ... beauty'. Most contemporary art is safe, technically-proficient photography, and the stuff that is painting is usually people doing 'graphics' or whatever. They're trying to make money so they're not challenging anyone really except maybe expressing queerness or whatever.

The error is in thinking form has to be experimental to shock us. Beautiful (or at least unobtrusive) form and meaningful content will make good art all the time.

Art students now don't really represent the 'art world' per se. Surely the 19th century had the same kind of art students just copying Academic art with any innovation and now history doesn't remember them in favour of Realisme or the Impressionists.

What's the difference to you? What have postmodern artists done that isn't first seen in early modern collage or Duchamp?

We already have film and TV for this.

The avant-garde certainly does have answers, just "most artists" (I don't even know if this is true but it seems to be the subject) take the avant-garde at face value rather than trying to work out how it functions.

Nothing, that's why it's shit.

What a coincidence OP, I had a few hours before my flight in Nice today and went to MAMAC. The Yves Klein IKB stuff should really be experienced in person. It's an almost unsettling colour.

In what way would Rothko be defamiliarising?

I love modern art. Appreciation of "modern art" takes a longer period of time. The average joe can see a painting by one of the old masters and say "Wow, that's really good!" simply because it's technically well done and looks real.

Modern art is an acquired taste and it's actually very fun to get into. Once you discover a certain ascetic that appeals to you, you can then look for other artist's with similar styles and go from there.

This thread is full of hilariously misinformed generalisations about "modern" (by which is meant contemporary) art. It's the people criticising "modernism" who are stuck in the 1920's.

>pic
>tfw I could have been a famous artist at 7

So you think any repeated subjects of pre-Modern art are also shit?

no its not user, YK is playing you. The turning the color into an object of artistic fetish is the whole point - it no longer is just a color, it's a brand. The unsettlement you talk about is bullshit because it is born out of your own preconception that this isn't just any color.

it's what i think most often about

Colour has been an object of artistic fetish since caveman paintings.

aesthetic*

>I could have been a famous artist at 7

Why must everyone who dislikes abstract art say that? Many "modern" artists with abstract styles can draw or paint with just as much realism as an old master. But the goal of an artist isn't to create something that you couldn't, it's to create something new and interesting.

Open your mind man, you might just find something you like.

>Why must everyone who dislikes abstract art say that? Many "modern" artists with abstract styles can draw or paint with just as much realism as an old master. But the goal of an artist isn't to create something that you couldn't, it's to create something new and interesting.
>Open your mind man, you might just find something you like.
It's just a joke man, I do personally appreciate some postmodern art on an aesthetic level. But most of it is unimaginative shit.

Modern art are a lot of things OP - Abstract Art is only one of them, in all its forms.
I'm a big fan of "The London School" which is unbelievably rich with great painters. Freud, Bacon and Auerbach are all incredible.

Almost like 'originality' was an idea challenged by postmodernism or something.

I'm not saying I love it, but it does get the senses working.

It's a modern form of expression. There should be nothing you should be ashamed of; it's where it's at.