I think modern art's almost total pre-occupation with subjectivism has led to anarchy and sterility in the arts...

>food analogies

>modernism and modern art
>subjective

SHAME
H
A
M
E

...

...

...

...

>extremely uninteresting
define interesting/uninteresting, I see you are criticizing the infatuation with subjectivity, so I presume your definitions will be objective

>I might end up forgetting I have no pre-estabilished link with the viewer(classical) and not realize it is not interesting anymore for this viewer to look at the subjectivity of my work(modern).

Could he have more simply saying: in the classical art world, the most talented, passionate, dedicated and skillful artists, were commissioned to create immaculate timeless works, build cathedrals, palaces, murals, sculptures, paintings, golden details, and that in the modern world its the 'everyone gets a participation trophy and ribbon, maybe this chap can get a couple of million dollars for jerking off and shitting on a canvas'?

Pratt had someone come to my high school to harp about their institute. The woman who came to speak showed us art samples from the students, which were exactly like this. Thank you Pratt lady for convincing me not to get an art degree.

Diamonds can only be formed under pressure; so great art cannot be created without limits. The great modernists had limits, they inherited the classical tradition but "made it new", but the postmodernists shat all over that.

Simplified: "Artfags are trying to profit and become popular, from lazy uninspired shit, and it is ruining the integrity of art."

No limits today means that anything can be called art, but it also means that a much smaller selection of media can be called "good art". Are there not skilled and inspired artists alive today who are attempting to work around this limitation created by a lack thereof?

that he doesn't like things which do not spooned the consumer some interpretive master-key and whose referent he doesn't immediately understand

Can someone break this down for me? Wat is subjectivity?

Meanwhile in Russia:
youtube.com/watch?v=vpxrY0O40Ic

The West is finished.

never gonna make it

>highly original, very personal and extremely uninteresting work
the way to create great artwork is to master the old forms, and to only introduce changes once this first goal is accomplished.

>1488
is this a cruel joke? /ourguy/ hitler painted better than this desu

Veeky Forums attempting to talk about art is one of the most pathetic things I've ever encountered.

"Realistic statues of naked Greek boy fucktoys had more MEANING and INTEGRITY and VALUES!!!!"

he means people are self-indulgent just spewing the contents of their own mind into their art without effort to shape it beyond that. They think if it comes out of their mind it's automatically good

I wouldn't blame subjectivity itself, but it could be related

This thread is depressing
But im not surprised as a Londoner that things are as bad everywhere in the art world, literally no one outside of the tiny art scene that still exists cares about it, because there is nothing left to care about

Found the debt-addled poorfag art major. Everyone look at this loser retard and laugh.

HA HA HA HA HA

I'm sorry, did you actually think YOUR tired pollock and duchamp derivatives were ever going to get you anywhere?

Had to be an inside job. Whoever does their billing is red pilt tbqph.

Kubrick was an aesthetic shitheel who confused bombast for substance. He made good films up to, and not including, the last 20 minutes of 2001.

This is kind of fucking hilarious. This guy's sentimental speech about how fine drawing and life drawing is dying, at the end he says he's almost in tears, it's really pessimistic, and then you just see super shitty experimental bright and colorful art that seems it was made by 2 year olds. Lmao

Wonderful post. Thank you user

Art is valuable for one of two reasons: either it is beautiful, or it demonstrates high level mastery of the medium, which is impressive in its own right. Most modern art is neither of these.

It's objective enough. Fuck you.

...

He meant by that stage 'modern art' (abstract expressionism, most likely) had lost its urgency, so basically he is saying the same thing as all artists at that time (hence the advent of the post-modern and its rejection of subjectivity).

bc americans

Your response isn't nearly as good as the post you are responding to.

Kubrick isn't talking about contemporary art.

So.. art school is just where you send your fuckup kid when you're too rich to give a shit?

What's even going on here? Is there anyone from the working class at these places?

Post-modern image-makers primarily work with photography so they don't use, or need to use, the classical tradition as a rule.

Some do though, like Jeff Wall.

>the way to create great artwork is to master the old forms

Who keeps posting this meme?

Most pre-modern art is neither of these as well.

Two things are true:
The contemporary arts are in a dire state.
Simpleminded reactionism is ignorant and risible. When I read these threads all I think of is Ignatius Reilly sounding off on geometry and theology.

Let me pull out a related platitude:
>In art, as in life, you've got to draw the line somewhere.

>Working Class
>At a university
>In the current year

lololololol

Your response isn't nearly as good as the post you are responding to.

They actually do manage to delude a lot of working class kids to go to these ridiculous art colleges, they bribe them with loans, grants and student aid to make them think they're getting a deal. However, even at 50% or 60% off their total tuition these schools are still far more expensive than they have any right to be considering they don't actually teach dick and by the time the hapless students realize it they'd already signed on the dotted line.

Art is a very esoteric subject and it's very difficult for a prospective art student or their immediate family to make an informed decision in that regard...

.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

...this is why prospective art students and their families used to be able to entrust this decision to professional artist who'd vet any prospective student. If that student had to be turned away they would be informed of where their strengths and weaknesses lie and encouraged to try again later.

Instead today, they knowingly run thousands of not-gonna-make-it students through the meat grinder and into a monstrous amount of debt it will take them decades to recover from-all while inundating them with anti-capitalist ideology of course, lmoa

>Wikipedia links to the page for "Dunning-Krueger"
Just Reddit things.

It's the same for any tertiary learning institution.

>they don't actually teach dick

What do the courses look like?

>off by one
praise kek

Painting with sticks you've picked up outside, making fingerpaintings and handprints etc. Basically making the kind of shit you see in those pictures. "Do whatever you feel like, we already have your money anyway". It's an embarrassment, and if it's not a crime it ought to be. Oh, they do give you a nice course on "art history" you could have replaced with a weekend wikipedia cram session.

>t. Reddit expert

pls go back

Let's hear your top 5 books on aesthetics user

No, because he is not saying that.

In the classical world there is nothing passionate about doing art, that started with romantism and grew with modernism. The individual does not appear in art before that, we only retroactively read that into the classical world from a more modern perspective. Art was learned from tradition and technique and most artists and pieces are completely uninteresting for us today, historical pictures, postcard-like landscapes, so-so portraits of deputees from places that don't even exist. The ones that stand out and whose name we know, are exactly that, those who stood out for various reasons (our reasons, btw).

This dramatic representation of the classical world of art, "the most talented, the most dedicated, the most skillfull..." is detrimental to the classical context. It makes it seem as if artists were living in modern times, striding the streets next to skyscrappers, selling their art and being recognized for being full blown talented individuals creating "timeless masterpieces"(there is nothing timeless about them). There are so many differences between their time and ours that it can't fit in a post like this (and which time is it anyway, where is this world taking place? "Classic art" is not one thing).

Also, just like a lot of people in the thread, there is this confusion between modern art and contemporary art, which is totally understandable. Modern art started with the impressionists, photography, the industrial revolution, and it grew into the 20th century through multiple paths: expressionism, abstract art, cubism, surrealism, symbolism, dada, fauvism, not to mention cinema itself, or modern literature, music, architecture, theater, which all grew together and can not be taken from the context of european contact with their colonies, from the spread of newspapers, the invention of the locomotive and later the plane, the development of psychoanalysis, the world wars, the evolution of cities, fordian industries, etc, which created this scenario of multiple influences and points of view.

There is no clear time distinction between modern art and contemporary art or post-modern art, because the latter are essentially terms we use to refer to this self-aware modern art that can already consider itself posterior to that modern revolution. When did that happen exactly? People disagree. Just very roughly, mid 20th century onwards.

cont

cont

I can totally see the hate towards contemporary art, but there is a lot to be said about it. More than a "corruption of art", it denounces also some kind of loyalty from its haters to this "art world" which essentially does not exist as they think it exists. Highly technical and skillfull artworks continue to exist and has spread more than ever. They are just not in the museums or even art schools, they are in the work of autodidact graphic artists everywhere, playing with photoshop and selling their work, in animation studios and what have you. It was engulfed by the industry. Meanwhile, the museums and art schools were also taken by capitalism in a different way, in which the demands of the art market turned to more "abstract" works (not in an artistic sense, but in a monetary sense). The works themselves are less important than what you can make of them through the transactions of capital (economic or cultural).

At the same time, the first group of graphic artists seem to hold a grudge towards the museums and art schools for not valuing their work. You can see how that projects onto the museums some magic wand of validation of art. Haters of contemporary art should be glad that that scenario is so closed in itself. Most people hate or don't know contemporary art, so how is it really contemporary? If the ressentment is towards money, and I can totally understand that, that is more to blame on capitalism than any transformation of "artistic values" over time. The drawing skills did not vanish, they were removed from the institutions.

All of that being said, there is a lot of great contemporary works, if you look through that situation and actually visit galleries and museums. I'm not fond of great part of it, even less of the cocktails and conversations I hear in the galleries, but you'll eventually find interesting perspectives, works that are actually socially engaging, thought provoking or simply beautiful, even in an anachronic classical sense, some with great techniques as well. A lot of people just don't know how to get into it and you can't blame them or the artists, but the system that created this abyss in the first place. Also, this situation is changing once again, not for better or for worse, but each "player" in this art world is moving to new positions, museums are more of an spectacle now, drawing crowds to big exhibitions, trying to stay relevant, artists are getting tired as they always are and turning to other things to say, new people are coming and so on.

>it denounces also some kind of loyalty from its haters to this "art world"

This is all narrative fluff, it doesn't make any of the work coming out of this circlejerk of mouth breathers any more or less compelling or significant. It's shit with few exceptions, and you're a shit head for even bothering to write as much as you did just there trying to interpret it.

>it's not modern art, it's contemporary art

Semantics, no one gives a shit lol

There is nothing about the pollock and duchamp derivatives being churned out in these museums or universities by the score that is any more significant artistically than an anime girl with big tits, dragons or a space marines. It is the tired domain of pseudo-intellectuals and white collar criminals (nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers.html) and perhaps worst of all it's just plain fucking boring.

>capitalism

The people that come out of art schools are almost universally poor and it's the "art world" that put them there and no one else. The only people that make any money without any practical skills are hand-picked pseudo-celebrities chosen by a self-important and well-connected cabal of art critics who are vested with the authority of attributing arbitrary value to some mentally ill retard's shit-scribbles at the behest of the clique of wealthy criminals that make up the bulk of their clientele.

contemporary art is modern

>Diamonds
>doesnt know about the diamond meme

>and not including, the last 20 minutes of 2001.

why tho... are you avin a daff fuckin laff m8?

let me guess.... you didnt get it. I guess... sorry?

>post-modern and its rejection of subjectivity
how/in what way?

T.S.Eliot

anyone can take out a student loan

This is a good post.

>This is all narrative fluff, it doesn't make any of the work coming out of this circlejerk of mouth breathers any more or less compelling or significant.
I'm not defending them, so good thing that it doesn't make it more compelling or significant. My point is that we must not let that hate blind us from the fact that the institutions themselves are questionable and that art can move around in different places.

>Semantics, no one gives a shit lol
It's not semantics at all, there is historical difference.

>There is nothing [...] that is any more significant artistically than an anime girl with big tits, dragons or a space marines
Perhaps, I agree. But the point is, why do we even expect that it should be more significant artistically, so much so that we must deny it? Isn't that precisely a response to the fact that we think museums are supposed to be about significant artworks? They sell themselves as such and we denounce them for failing at it, but we are still looking for substitutes to fill those walls, and not substitutes of the walls themselves. The space of the museum itself must be questioned. That being said, the way in which both segments you mentioned work is essentially different and will be significant in different ways, they don't cover one another at all.

>The people that come out of art schools are almost universally poor and it's the "art world" that put them there and no one else.
Precisely. It's not about the individual artists themselves, not even the individual curators or something. The issue is with how each part of this is arranged. When I say capitalism, I don't mean "people hungry for money", I mean the hunger itself, which makes for the cheapening of techinque in art schools, the low wage of graphic artists in a saturated market, the flow of cultural capital, the speculation of collectors, the problems with art history education, the role of artisan crafts in our daily lives, etc. That all combined created this situation.

>museums are supposed to be about

What do you think of sites like tumblr, which is pretty much a sort of free digital museum, where anyone can host their art, and maybe even find ways to sell it from there, might things like this play into the convo?

'Modern art' in the 70s and 80s (the time of the interview) meant something other than what it does now.

Art became less and less concerned with personal expression/experience as it had been during the height of abstract expressionism, etc. By the time of minimalism and conceptualism (and the New Left and New Journalism) there was a turn towards art as being about measurement, serialisation, process, about documenting material things as they are rather than trying to uncover any transcendent, hidden reality.

It's probably one of the biggest things misunderstood about contemporary art, which is still affected by these practices.

life is too short desu

>le giant baby man

opinion invalidated

>le successful & cultured user

He meant that 19th century philosophy, while having made significant progressions, also opened the floodgates to losers who would rather be lazy than be proactively seeking to overcome themselves.

Perspectivism is a double edged sword. On the one hand, it enhances the strong personality, or master moralist if you will, by providing him with penetrating insight into how to shape the world around himself and a tool with which to do so. On the other, it enhances the imperative to be lazy in losers, who are just looking for an excuse. Oh, it's just like, your point of view, man -- who cares if I smoke pot and eat terrible fast food all day! My (short-lived) pleasures are as equal as yours, even though you'll be in the history books 300+ years from now and I won't be remembered after the following generation from mine dies out!

The arts are still in great shape. They have continued to become more complex and impressive and, most importantly, pleasurable. Of course, there's also an increase in fraud. But as above so below, as they say.

who gives a shit?
internet happened

*listens to lacan once*

>muh western subjectivism
>he's basically the equivalent of a weaboo justifying why he only reads hentai to satisfy himself sexually
That's where I stopped reading. Like holy fuck this guy equivocates experimentation with subjective idealism. What a dumbass.

Of course. It's a new space. And so is every other website gallery and community, or something like, say, street art in all its variety, or perhaps the retired ladies doing watercolors of butterflies or adorning kitchen towels. Furniture at IKEA and overpriced t-shirts with portraits of Bowie next to Frida Kahlo, a new Batman comic book and an extremely laborious new hentai manga that launched this year. An indigenous tribe in Brazil performing a simplified demystified version of a body painting ritual onto white tourists that might drop some money to support their resistance against big farmers. A middle school teacher showing Rafael and Michelangelo prints to her students with the colors being slightly off. A 15 year old kid that started a youtube channel on how to draw, a guy in Mongolia falling asleep to a documentary on Greek vases, ISIS destroyed another historical monument, a Mexican girl is learning how to paint Tibetan thangka.

All of that is happening. More than to answer "yes, tumblr is just as art as what the museum shows" or something like "no, because for something to be art, it must fit this criteria", I think it is interesting to see how all of this different "worlds" are performing different relationships to art, whether it is useful or not, desirable or not. They have their own criteria, their own reasons to do it, they are connected to the market in different ways and can only be the way they are because of particular political and economical situations. You can perhaps say that it was always like that, for while the Impressionists were working in France, someone was doing a very different kind of art elsewhere, you don't even have to go outside Europe to see that. It's only that artists validate their own history, they choose their own influences (to quote T.S. Eliot: "What happens when a new work of art is created, is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it") and so some are forgotten, and others brought forward. Right now, these different worlds are in contact with each other in a way that couldn't happen before. The museums were not criticized by a "layman" shoemaker in 19th century Paris, because it was a reality completely inaccessible to him. Now, the tumblr artist can have a glimpse of the museum, but not understand its reasons for being the way it is today. And vice-versa. Not to mention this fragmented reality exists within the museums and tumblr itself, there are all kinds of things being made in gallery art.

What will happen to museums or to tumblr, or to anything else after this contact, I have no idea. I think it is naive and unrealistic to expect any return, in the sense of going back to a certain monopoly of what art should be. The graffiti artists won't accept it, the old ladies will continue to do their butterflies, tumblr will go on, ISIS will fight, Veeky Forums will complain, someone will definitely be studying drawing techniques while someone shits on canvas.

He's very correct

>mfw the plebs in this thread

The only good posts in this thread.

>le my freshman year only covered lacan man
>le forgetting the iconographic subtext that lacanian art theory and history require to make this argument

You're right you know, did two years at a high-end arts instituion uni before dropping out and joining military and can confirm it's all memes.

>This ironically half-baked hedonism.
Back to the library and brush up on your academics, son.

>confusing capitalism with property, art with capitalism, kitsch with all of it, and all this equivocation.
We can't talk about these ideas if our terms aren't set, user.

Talking about Art just makes sense in case one talks about what is art:
Imagine you lie in a dark room an hear an orchestra. The musik is building up tension and you ask yourself what it is about, until it slowly reaches the climax. This is the moment when you lose sense of time and quiver, the moment you understand the whole peace of art, where you feel like god himself lets his divine dick dive deep into your unexperienced anus. This is the definition of timeless and therefore good art.

>confusing capitalism with property, art with capitalism, kitsch with all of it, and all this equivocation.
>We can't talk about these ideas if our terms aren't set, user.

I don't see how you read those confusions into my post, I'm not even talking about property or kitsch, though it is not unrelated. Anyway, I'm speaking broadly and generally and don't want to go much further into it.

I also think we can only talk when our terms aren't set, if our terms are set, we have nothing to talk about \__:^)__/

I don't see how you don't understand what he meant. If it's truly too complicated for you, go to some galleries in a major city with this printed on a little index card. Read it before you look at each individual work, and you just might see some of his insight shine through.
If you're asking how something can be both original and uninteresting, then I'll try and help. Originality is not what makes something interesting. If a work is relentlessly personal but not trying to be understandable to anyone else, it doesn't matter if the work is original. I believe that this is the sort of work that the Stan-Man is referring to. I've certainly experienced it as a boy who lives in the NYC and frequents art stuffs, I don't think that this criticism is true of all modern art, but I think that it's applicable to a great deal of it. But, with that being said, there are still some qualities to be appreciated in works that are highly personal and abstracted. I, for example, adore the works of Rothko. But that's due to the simplicity of Rothko's mission.

And anyone who takes out a student loan better damn well get a degree that looks good on a resume.

Hes right just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's good.

More emphasis needs to be put back on skill and form than message these days. The message doesn't matter if the form is lacking.

>I couldn't engage with the material :(

Yeah most art students can't, which is why only a slither are successful.

something being different for the sake of being different =/= good or interesting

but that's the thing about art Stanley, it's a weird, imprecise concept humans have created where there's no good or bad, it just is what it is

>there's no good or bad
You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But you should kill yourself.

The point of the particular statement in the OP was that mediocre art used to be useful. Draftsmen, as he alluded.

In the current state of things, it's as if people stopped all civil engineering (roadwork, infrastructure and things; construction work) in favor of making concrete sculptures. To the point that there's no one to teach people to spackle anymore.

China might save the art world in this one. The chinese style of teaching art went the opposite direction from ours, with nothing but repetitious practice of the basics until ten year olds can crank out hand painted copies of Michaelangelo. And you think I'm joking:

huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/chinese-art-reproduction-_n_1733455.html
oilpaintings.com/?gclid=CjwKEAiAqozEBRDJrPem0fPKtX0SJAD5sAyHdjnD2cl8XJSqtQ8KhndKyB48RnAYbzicvwJw63rglxoCNMvw_wcB
1st-art-gallery.com

Oh, my bad. Not the OP, but in this post:

>being this americunt

Contemporary art is, for the most part an extension of modern art to its extremes.

Where Kubrick (I assume the quote is accurate) complained of the banality of modern art, I should think he would tear his eyes out at the intentional disregard for content that is the art world today.

Modern art said find the content yourself. Find the meaning yourself. Contemporary art says what do you mean by meaning? I just wanted to photograph some garbage.

Which, might not be too bad if there were anything to follow up on that--if it was a few poignant upstarts that got the art world thinking differently and moving on to bigger and better things, but that doesn't really seem to be the case. We missed the train somewhere.

Once we get over the influences of world wide accessible media new hegemonies and monopolies will rise.
All this anarchy and choas are the reuslts of globalism slowly subverting older local values and strutures.
Once society settles into new hegemlonies and global structure, or at least somthing temporary that will encorporate bigger sections of the globe things will settle down for a while.
Its just that global communications have not yet truly had their full impact on us, its only the begnning.
all these tumpler artists and youtubers are a temporary phenomena characteristic of a new media or new structures.
Most of them wont last and only a few will be left.
The new mediums and structures will be refined by the perticipants and monopolized by the most succesful.
We are simply in a time of huge change but we are already seeing a new economic centralization of power.

At the same time, how many museums are there, galleries, artists in the world, and how much is great and good stuff? I would say a very a lot. An uncontrollable result of larger population, greater accessibility, greater ease of entry, is that we are more and increasingly aware of the ability for 'art we do not like' to be made, so it seems if there was an infinite amount of bad art being made, that is not what is important, all that is important is that whoever desires to not experience bad art, knows where to look.