Modern art is shit! t-tolstoy told me it was!

>modern art is shit! t-tolstoy told me it was!

Is this statement the mark of a true tasteless pleb who can't see past the whole "hurr it's detailed ergo it's good" bullshit?

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Literally shit on a canvas

it's a telling sign, to be sure

How can Tolstoy trash something that didn't exist until well after he died?

Still art, the method of creation is irrelevant to the creation itself

Would you disregard gravity's rainbow if pynchon wrote it with a pen stuck halfway down his urethra?

All art is just different arrangements of shit on a canvas. Literature is shit on a page.

t. I think art is subjective
kys, >>>>>>>>>/reddit/

Art is objective though

Art is subjective is just a shitty SJW university meme

And yes, modern art is dogshit

>b-b-but muh representation

No. Brown smudges on a canvas do NOT represent life or the passage of time or some shit, it represents literally nothing except laziness and intellectual degeneracy

Modern art is garbage, quite obviously.

I'm pretty sure it exists simply to launder money or as a tool of propaganda from foreign governments.

>Of course young man, stop wasting your time creating masterpieces of art and sculpture, no no no! Instead, just shit in your hand and wipe it on a wall! Yes! My, how sophisticated, why but it must represent life itself surely? How much do you think this ones worth then, old chap? You'll give me 50 million for it? Wow, thanks!

I don't think art is subjective. It's objectively shit on a surface.

>He thinks modern art is about representation

Did you learn this in retard school?

Name 3 times this has happened in the history of art

lel thinks art is anything more than money laundering

>modern art isn't shit! m-muh prof told me it isn't!

Is this statement the mark of a true tasteless pleb who can't see past the whole "I swear my less beautiful art that my less skilled techniques produce isn't inferior to my predecessors, whose art I had as an example to learn from, but failed" bullshit?

>hurr it's detailed ergo it's good

Not exactly. But not putting detail into your work probably means it's shit

>it's art so it's good

>He fell for the beauty and skill meme

Tolstoy is the epitome and high point of modern art, you dilltwat.

Yes, beauty and skill are a meme, we should strive for ugliness and incompetence instead. Good goy.

No we should strive to make art, fucking IDIOT.

>he fell for the we're all equal, everything is equal because my teacher and mom said so meme

What are you talking about, moron?

Honestly, Hitler did nothing wrong.

He probably didn't like stuff like Monet and Van Gogh.

Modern Art and Contemporary Art are confusingly interchanged

Just because everyone can make art, does not mean everyone should.

Imagine how many cases of food poisoning there will be if everyone started believing they can cook properly

I'm talking about you being a retarded cunt, you cunt.

What is this beauty and skill meme you speak of? There is no such "meme"
Modern art has genuinely been mistaken as garbage and actually thrown away before.
As I said, Modern art was a CIA weapon.

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

I hope you die slow

This. The problem with postmodernism is that it's too easy to pretend to be good at it. You can't really differentiate a "good" pomo work from a "bad" one. Some degree-holding professor has the same literary merit as the average instagram poster, since they're both being pomo. Which is why it's the go-to theme for so many humanities theses

No you're not because I never came close to saying anything like everything being equal. That is your dull mind at work unable to comprehend anything other than opposites.

>There is no such "meme"

Yes there is. Art is not how well you can render a scene of nature. Art is not beauty. These genres, like still lives and landscapes, were always and consistently the lowest forms of art in the academy. Skill and beauty is for film and other pleb entertainment that seeks to evoke emotion through psychological manipulation.

>Modern art has genuinely been mistaken as garbage and actually thrown away before.

ALL OF MODERN ART WAS THROWN AWAY? HOLY SHIT!

>As I said, Modern art was a CIA weapon.

WRONG idiot. Abstract expressionism, a type of modern art popular for at most 20 years was funded by the CIA. Modern art existed before and after this brief historical moment.

Fucking go back to your reddit school and end your own life.

There is literally no intrinsic artistic difference in value between modern and classic art styles

Unless you give an example, you are bait

I just wish modernism and post-modernism didn't happen in architecture

Sick of all these ugly socialist homes being bought by gormless rich snobs

I'll assume you mean contemporary art rather than postmodernism since postmodern art is not produced anymore.

>The problem with postmodernism is that it's too easy to pretend to be good at it.

No it isn't. You need to know theory, not everyone knows theory.

>You can't really differentiate a "good" pomo work from a "bad" one.

Yes you can for the theory it uses.

>Some degree-holding professor has the same literary merit as the average instagram poster, since they're both being pomo.

Nope, not all pomo is equal on the basis that it is pomo.

When everyone is postmodern, nobody will be.

If everyone is human, then no one is.

>this thread

It is required you can solve this before participating in the thread.

What is Art?
Are we Art?
Is art Art?

POST-MODERN! CONTEMPORARY! NOT MODERN YOU ILLITERATE NORMIE TROG RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Easy mode
>romanesque
>gothic
>renaissance
>baroque
>rococo
>romanticism
>neo-classicism
>modernism

Undergrad mode (I'll probably fuck up somewhere, confuse literary and art movements etc)
>romanesque
>gothic
>renaissance
>baroque
>rococo
>romanticism
>neo-classicism
>realism
>modernism
>impressionism (aren't this one and the movements below just different types of modernism?)
>symbolism
>expressionism
>cubism
>surrealism
>abstract expressionism
>minimalism

C-R-I-N-G-E

How do leftist intellectuals support government spending on extremely elitistic art that will only be appreciated by some new york art critic?

Is this conspiracy theory a real reactionary meme? I've never heard this before. I also feel like it's not hard to understand how the art market could become completely divorced from any sane concept of value when contempary art is bid on by noveau riche shitheads with no taste, which is what has actually happened.

>elitistic
See me after class.

Except this was modern art in his days

>No we should strive to make art, fucking IDIOT.
No, we should strive to make beautiful and competent art, not ugly and incompetent art.

>There is literally no intrinsic artistic difference in value between modern and classic art styles
You're objectively wrong, the resell value of classic art is orders of magnitude more than of modern art.

You'd better give a meaning for the word "value" you throw around so lightly, faggot.

Tolstoy couldn't into advanced aesthetics.
Contemporary painters completely can't into aesthetics.

Yeah, and every really cool poem is "epic," right?

Art knows not beauty or ugliness, competence or incompetence.

If you want a spectacle go watch some capeshit.

it's a simple mechanism:

0. the central premise of the argument: every aspect of the modern society has the function of serving the economy (making money that is)

1. art has nothing to do with art, but with creating profit

2. dumbing down the masses is in the interest of the economy (a stupid consumer is the best kind of consumer). meaningless "art" contributes to this process

3. "art experts" are an arbitrary body that has the authority to evaluate art and they evaluate it in order to fulfill 0, 1, 2

4. therefore "art experts" praise abhorrent works of "art". they give it the value it objectively doesn't have, and by doing so they assure that it will sell

5. the extremely rich buy these pieces of shit knowing that purchasing art is the best investment (the price of art is bound to grow, and it's easier/safer to keep paintings at home instead of millions on bank accounts/elsewhere)

Modern Art is shit regardless of who say it is or isn't. Period.

Photorealistic painting is no longer art because it asserts nothing.

You are all playing with language and having different debates.

Philosophy should be cleansed of you brainlets.

Do you summarize the western tradition of presentational art as "photorealistic painting"?

t. It's detailed so it's good
I bet you like beksinski

/pol/ detected
Back to your containment board

>all this populism ITT

>mfw I get that banner

Why are you people all so fucking stupid? Do you think all art is necessarily about representation when it hasn't been about representation ever since it's inception. Even DaVinci was to some extent a conceptual artist, he wasn't just painting pretty ladies and Jesus, he was actively endowing those scenes with humanistic and rationalist proportions, just like Goya wasn't just painting a shooting squad, but making a statement against spanish monarchy and so on.

You retards fail to understand the art you like, thinking it's all about this perfect quest towards ideal representation (which had it's peak in the 18th century anyway, we've already been there and done that to hell) when there's a lot more going on that you won't understand if you don't spend time studying art history and the artists lifes which will, in turn, make you stop being such a pleb and understand where modern, post-modern and contemporary (three very different things you assholes lump together, while also memeing their literary equivalents to death like they're the new prophets of the apocalypse or something) while also getting most of your intel on contemporary art from clickbait sites you're all so ready to criticize anyone from reddit for believing.

You are all disgusting and should leave this place to people who actually cherish and want to understand and experience art in all it's levels and possibilities, and start rethinking what kind of fucking pseudo-intelectual, spectacular cesspit of existential hell you're all living, because you're no better than HS faggots spending 1000 bucks on Hot Topic with mom's card to look rebelious, you're only trying even harder.

Modern art isn't necessarily shit. There are lots of great artists out there. The problem is many "artists" aren't trained to do anything except edgy, talentless shit and it's rightly called out as such.

Romanesque (really went far there bruh)
Gothic
Renaissance
[mannerism/
Baroque
Rococo
Neo-Classicism
Romantism
Realism
Symbolism
Impressionism
[Post-impressionism, no way I rememebr all those groups but Les Fauves, Der Blaue Reiter, Die Brucke, you get it]
Futurism
Cubism
Dada
Soviet Vanguards
Expressionism / New Objectivity
Surrealism
Abstract Expressionism
Minimalism
Pop Art
European Vanguards (Nouveau Realisme, Arte Povera, Situationists, COBRA, etc.)
Conceptualism
Neo-Concretism
but really at this point everything is happening so quick and at the same time it becomes pointless and modernism is over

I don't want to see modern art. Plebs can like it all they want, but it is realism and romanticism that inspires me to haunt /ic/. Modern art feels soulless, uninspired and is unimpressive. A bit like YA books.

The five most expensive paintings ever are all modernist. Actually, most of them are, the only expensive ones being memes like DaVinci
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

How can artists make statements nowadays when there's no great event happening? The fuck are they gonna "react" to?

Yeah, there's no great event happening at all, the world isn't in the middle of a demographic, economic, climatic and soon to be nuclear catastrophe, we're not running out of resources, space or anything, no one is literally on the brink of mendicancy and everything is perfectly stable.

Even if you wanna disagree with all of that, there's always space for personal discourse. You might not understand or agree with the artists personal discourse, but you can like the way he puts it.

tolstoy said that?
if he said then even if i like modern art i shall agree

>you can't understand art unless you study the history of art and the lives of the artists
and that's where we fundamentally disagree. according to your twisted logic, spit on canvas can be interpreted as art due to the message it is supposed to deliver, and the message is hidden beneath layers and layers of (shallow/meaningless) theory.

the very idea that the viewer has to go through thousands of pages of least to say questionable theory in order to be able to appreciate a painting is sickening.

>Yeah, there's no great event happening at all, the world isn't in the middle of a demographic, economic, climatic and soon to be nuclear catastrophe, we're not running out of resources, space or anything, no one is literally on the brink of mendicancy and everything is perfectly stable.
These are all exaggerated reddit memes that are borne from the ennui of modern society. Life isn't nearly as oppressed as back then and it's reflected in the lack of any great movement.

I hate to interrupt the conspiracy theories and arguments about whether beauty is subjective, but Tolstoy didn't say art was bad because it didn't take skill, wasn't of something specific, or whatever. Instead, Tolstoy said intent is everything. A genuine MS paint drawing is more "art" than mass-produced or profit-minded prints.

>"The first sign of a real scholar or artist is that he works not for profit, but for sacrifice, for his calling."

This statement is the mark of a true patrician.

if your system for valuing art can't distinguish between michelangelo's david and a random lump of marble i picked up from the ground and put on a pedestal, then your value system is worthless

jej

So, you think any kid out of elementary school can read and comprehend Ulysses?

Also, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with literally every art historian and aesthetician since Vasari and Baumgarten.

You wouldn't be surprised if someone without at least college knowledge of physics couldn't understand a paper, what makes you think art has to be so given to you while other areas of human knowledge aren't?

You miss Land art, abstract art, neo-expressionism, fluxus, minimalism etc.

>mfw some homeless guy offers his page of ink scribblings and we would laugh at him
>the modern art museums are filled with stuff like that and people admire that
>we can't differentiate art from neo-arte because muh technique don't matter, art is art, and no one knows what art is
>when the time comes we all would burn the same 'art' for warmth and preserve technique and order
>mfw controversial art pieces are one of the better investments because its value will always peak with more controversy
>mfw art is a social concept and not an individual one, which is subject to rejection and acceptance by different social ranks

Okay lets be honest then, you don't care about art, you don't do art, you don't read about art, why the fuck your opinion should matter? ans why limit yourself to sensibilities that have nothing to do with today experiences?

My point is that in order to comprehend Ulysses you don't need to waste hundreds of hours on reading his biographies and what various literary "experts" think of the book.

>you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with literally every art historian and aesthetician
This is simply not true. You obviously didn't even read Baumgarten's Meditations. The idea that you need to have excessive theoretical knowledge of art in order to comprehend it has nothing to do with him.

Just to add two more authorities that refute your idiotic, factually untrue statement: Neither Kant nor Hegel (the two greatest authorities in modern aesthetics together with A.G. Baumgarten) expressed that opinion.

>if someone without at least college knowledge of physics couldn't understand a paper, what makes you think art has to be so given to you
There's a fundamental difference between art and science. Kant marvelously formulated it in his Critique of Judgement and it comes down to the following: we can rationally understand science, whereas experiencing art is beyond the grasp of our rationality.


And to conclude: you're obviously a pseud that's full of shit and didn't read any relevant works regarding aesthetics. Plato - Ion, Hippias Major, Politeia books 2,3,10; Aristotle - Poetics; Baumgarten, Kant and Hegel). Stick with the contemporary bullshit that has nothing to do with the fundamental questions, an imbecile of your kind would only degrade the important works by reading them.

You are actually fucking retarded

False premise.

Modern art is recuperated neo Dadaism. It's not even 'edgy, transgressive art', but a commodified simulation of 'edgy, transgressive art' created for the consumption of bourgeoisie who want to feel sophisticated.

Not an argument.

It can.

Even in theoretical terms, a lump of marble on a pedestal is not good art, not is it even representative of any art after 1900.

Art no longer asserts nothing except its commodity value

>It is required you can solve this before participating in the thread.

Romanesque, gothic, Renaissance, baroque, rococo.
Romanticism, neoclassicism and realism stemmed all around the same time.
Then impressionism and modernism, but modernism diverged to symbolism, expressionism, surrealism, cubism and abstract art.

Right?

A homeless guy's scribblings could possibly be memed in on the basis of being outsider art but it's still not going to be the greatest art ever produced. More likely it will end up in someone's collection, and maybe some historian will write about it. Not to say there isn't some skepticism around the idea of outsider art and how it is almost like a form of 'primitivism'.

Believe me the art world isn't as stupid as you think it is.

>mfw art is a social concept and not an individual one

This is true though.

What's the deal with mannerism? I remember there being an autoportrait of a guy with a hand curved and enlarged in a mirror.

lets set things straight here:

the value of art, like everything else, is subjective - but also like everything else, it can worthwhile to make informed judgements about art using different standards of value.

such values might include a mix of any below:

spiritual significance
historical significance
beauty
technical mastery
"conceptual" provocation
financial investment

etc etc

its hard to say whether any of these values are 'more valuable' than others, but the big boy 'official' judges of value in the art world, i.e. institutional critics/historians/curators and dealers and tend relay the praise of similar standards.

also dont assume smarty pants art wank writing is all written in order to hype the art the writer owns

consumer ideology, not even once

What's wrong with beksinski?
Can't into surrealism?

>My life is boring therefore all life is boring

also

if you dislike a piece of conceptual art, without learning about its history / ideas / yada yada, thats fine, but just dont expect to have your opinion taken seriously within the capital A Art World.

the art world and its complicated theories of interpretation aren't for everyone, and their standards of value are not necessarily more enlightened than the old lady who loves her flower watercolors, its just that the art world has the loudest most institutionalized voice for determining what is "high" taste.

Only because of age and skill in making it

No, but I wouldn't venerate Twilight just because Stephanie Meyer wrote it with a pen stuck in her urethra.

What do people mean by objective when they make this banal assertion? It must mean something potent because it is always said with the self-important panache of rebellion, as though one were defying some widely followed and stifling falsehood.

is this actually hard for americans? it's high school tier challange

yup

outwash from the renaissance with an emphasis of 'grace' over naturalism. So you get twisted serpentine figures with elongated proportions. painting you are thinking about is Parmigianinos self portrait.

You can't fucking read. Nobody mentioned theory. You're invoking as a strawman to paper over anything you don't understand. We're talking about art history.

And what the fuck makes Kant and Hegel authorities on aesthetics? They furnish primary texts in aesthetics, sure, but that doesn't make them authorities on the current state of the discourse, nor on its historical development since their work. Not only that, but aesthetics as a branch of philosophy does not necessarily intersect art criticism or art history.

What fucking high school did you go to?

polish high school

You are so fucking noxious. Every thread you post in, you try to defend your empty reactionary ideology against people who have more knowledge than you, then you parade out names as though this lends you credibility. It doesn't—it only makes you look insecure, a rhetorical hit your already stupid, dullard arguments can't really afford to take.

I can 'react' to some happening on the other side of the world from my armchair but who on earth would think i ahve any idea what im talking about?