Postmodernism is objectively terrible garbage for pseuds and tryhards. Prove me wrong

Does this count?

That's a transitional work like Stella but still works as an example of )the beginnings of) postmodernism BTFOing modernism, since you see here the modernist aesthetic project represented by Greenbergian formalism taken to its logical conclusion. Self-referential painting-as-itself becomes just a three-dimensional object on a wall. 'Hard' postmodernism tends to move away from the art object

Infinite Jest

>transitional work
> greenbergian formalism
>self representional painting as self
>art object
>modernist aesthetic project
Art isn't a secret language for sofiscicts to congratulate themselves on thier own superiority.
Protip: if you have to explain a work, it sucks.
Also you are all following the emperor with no clothes, that painting is just to laundry money with a tax benefit

>that retarded interpretation of the motivations behind color field painting
you still don't get it

"high" modernist novels such as Ulysses don't have the propensity for memery, nor the tasteless expertise for colliding high and low culture like Tom Pynchon's GR.

>if you have to explain a work, it sucks
>>>/not here/

If I have to give an historical account of aesthetic developments as they occurred in the 20th century the work sucks? Is the same logic applied to work of the 19th century? 18th?

I didn't say anything about motivations.

You literally did.

Where?

aesthetic developments and history can always be interesting and enriching.
But if the work doesn't stand on it's own, and you have to be 'told' it's good and important, something has gone wrong.

>look at me, I'm retarded *farts* xD

If you want to sit here asserting your superiority without actually proving it, fine, you're smarter than me. You can leave the thread now. I don't want to do all the typing for you.

does shitty pixel art stand on its own?

It's important to the aesthetic developments in history. What do you think a canon is?

I haven't said anything about the quality of the work other than it represents the transition from art object to art system, i.e. modernism to postmodernism.

Which one would you make your computer background if you ONLY had these choices?
?

Stop being deliberately obtuse and maybe we can talk. Discussing art is hard enough without having to deal with a dense motherfuckers

You're the one who refuses to actually qualify any of your posts. This post I am replying to is the first of yours that has actually exceeded one sentence.

What specifically did you interpret as 'motivations' of colour field painting?

>haven't said anything about the quality of the work
Then stop talking.
This isn't history class, it is aesthetics. Don't confuse the two. Broken roman pots and pans and tools in a museum are interesting history, not interesting art

>Which one would you make your computer background if you ONLY had these choices?
The Newman, given I've had access to a decent enough high-def image

>What specifically did you interpret as 'motivations' of colour field painting?
Have you tried looking at the post I was initially replying to? That might give you a clue

20th-century aesthetics are based on history and historical developments of art. You can't talk about one without the other.

In any case if you don't like the quality of the work you don't like modernism, and my point about postmodernists BTFOing modernists is still uncontested since you effectively agree. How well can you read?

Postmodernism already is a fart in the winds of history
Modernism at least has a legacy

There are a couple of things that could be interpreted as 'motivations' which is why I asked you to be specific. I can't read your mind, which is why people talk, or in this case type. Imagine if you did that shit 15 minutes ago when you first made your snarky reply.

Please give me your eucatin on this fine modern work

Postmodernism has basically been left unchanged and unchallenged for 40 years and that's just a conventional dating. If you include Duchamp it's 100. Only Surrealism remained relevant for that long.

Make that 50 years, so it has outlasted even Surrealism.

There seems to be some very well informed people here.
Please explain these works so I can enjoy it and stop being a pleb

Also please tell me about this

Funny thing about Baroque is no one liked it until the 20th century.

And this

Are you one of those faggots who think that "real" art is exclusively neoclassic photorealistic paintings of baby jesus?
Fuck off, art is about ethics and aesthetics, not about technique or talent.

>Postmodernism has basically been left unchanged and unchallenged for 40 years and that's just a conventional dating.
Postmodern architecture is a failure and a meme
Postmodern philosophy is literally hated by the majority of academia and dilettantes
Postmodern literature hasn't produced anything as lasting as the great Modernist works
Postmodern painting is deemed by most people as a money-laundering scheme
Postmodern urban planning kills people

>art is about ethics

>Surrealism not relevant
What does that even mean?
I think your brain is addled from smelling your own farts from too many wine tasting parties, I would slap you to the ground if you dripped this verbal dirrera in front of me, then at the trial I would claim the slapping was a work of art and get the important ssmughead papers to agree and you'd have to drop the charges to maintain your sense of importance

Did you wish your mother a happy Mother's Day today?

I'm referring to trascendental artistic ethics not related to mundane human moral customs.

...

>It's still real to me dammit!

The japanese are the future of art again.
Nice trolling btw, the sad part is there are actual books that talk like you.

haha what a postmodern reply! irony is really amazing and refreshing

4u

I'm being serious.
Also, sauce?

I don't know how you expected me to reply to your unqualified opinions that just read like you feeling mad and unloved. You're obviously not really into the whole 'discussion with reference to actual art' thing so I don't know why you're here actually. Stop associating yourself with postmodernism, even to hate it. You'll feel better.

what the fuck

>trascendental artistic ethics
Please refrain from posting.

>my arguments can be expressed in 4-panel reddit-tier comics
Wow...

As what would Kurt Vonnegut classify?

>Postmodern literature hasn't produced anything as lasting as the great Modernist works

Holy shit dude it's almost like that's a defining principle of postmodernism of something whoa

shut the fuck up you stupid reddit cuck

The best is when a museum fucks up and hangs modern or post modern art too close good art and you can compare them and see how absolutely trash most modern AND post modern art is and how trash anyone who likes it is.
Most museums are smart enough to at least put them on different floors or better different buildings so it's harder for the half alseep plebs to realize they have been rused

>expecting qualified opinions on fucking Veeky Forums
Your piss poor piece of psychoanalysis aside, my statements come after much research on the topic. I'm an art history student, after all.

>As what would Kurt Vonnegut classify?
as "not as lasting as the great Modernist works"

Irrelevance is a core principle of postmodern literature?

>cabin and hoodies
>Reddit tier
Kill yourself with a hammer.
More like your position is so retarded it gets btfo with 4panel comics

I imagine some maniera greca workshop assistant saying of the new Renaissance style "if you need theory to understand it it's shit art" and that depictions of the Madonna are timeless unlike Greek myth and that it's just an intellectual circle jerk for educated elites since they're the only patrons of it

Veeky Forums gets FUCKING EVISCERATED in two panels of a newspaper comic

Calvin and Hobbes is reddit-tier.
The only Veeky Forums-approved comic strips are Peanuts and The Far Side.

>about Kurt Vonnegut
"his works are perfect go-to texts if you're trying to get a handle on some of the main themes and techniques of postmodern literature."

About Orwell
>"Orwell was a modern writer writing"

Yet Slaughterhouse 5 is way more in depth than 1984 and at least as memorable

a bit busy innit

>I'm an art history student, after all.

I'm an art history graduate, kid. Get on my level. I look at art objectively and I'm not so keen to let my undergrad opinions fly when I haven't even completed study.

>Irrelevance is a core principle of postmodern literature?

Problem?

>I'm an art history student, after all.
I'm a Master of Arts (Art History Masters Degree); where are you studying?

what do you mean?

>discussion with reference to actual art' thing
.....
You know what pisses me off about the whole modern and post modern art scene? Is there are actual good contemporary artists working right now (pic related) that don't get enough attention because of pysdo intellectuals and the bad artists spending more time on promotion than art. These are the paintings that should be selling for millions, no those no talent media hacks, and people like you are the problem

People like me, "art historians", try to evaluate art based on socio-historic and theoretical contexts because it is fair to all art past and present. You don't know what you're talking about.

Why should that painting sell for millions?

I mean it wasn't of any academic interest until the 20s.

paintings sell for millions because the art scene is a means to launder money.

>Postmodern architecture is a failure and a meme
this.
whoever thought throwing functionality out of the window was a good idea should be impaled

It's four panels of unfunny and unoriginal strawmanning. It btfos nothing. C&H has good moments but these are pathetically lazy strips. I wouldn't mind a deeper critique of the current state of things but C&H is a couple of lightyears away from being that.
Ironically it is postmodernism that enabled us to view caricatures and sunday comic strips as serious art worthy of attention and analysis.

>some kitschy pseudo-Chagall is good
pro tip: no

>evaluate art based on socio-historic and theoretical contexts
pleb, only aesthetics matter

Aesthetics is theory.

The only tenet of PoMo - that is, if talking about postmodern tenets even makes sense - that succesfully crawled into mainstream culture is the dissolution of the divide between high and low culture. Yet, this movement could be explained by the homogeneizing power of late capitalism rathen than an artistic choice

thanks f a m

>some kitschy pseudo-Chagall is good
It is good.
Go jack off to this please painting
I've seen Daniel merrriuam's work in person, it's amazing, too bad it costs 80,000 now, I have a few HQ prints though. And his style is unquie, and even if it wasn't just because a style or method been done doesn't make new work automatically bad so please come up with a better aurgument than
>kitschy pseudo-Chagall
If you don't want to sound aesthically handicapped

No is not, aesthetic is inherent

Did you have a heart attack before you finished your post?

>Chagall
Pic related
>like daniel merriam in anyway .
Opinions discarded

"I like it"
>source: genuine aesthetic model based on pure rationalism

God dammit I thought I wrote it correctly, I mean to say that aesthetics are something innate to the thing and you don't need much theory to get it, maybe exposure for more complicated works

Meant for

The sheer power of postmodern architecture

>Looks like fries
>Situated over a McDonalds

PURE
O
T
T
E
R
Y

>Make the building look like french fries
>mcdonald's logo at the bottom
Really made me think

Are you referring to the McDonald's logo in this pic?

Here's how I see it:
Anti-Post-Modernists think good art only factors on it's beauty, whether they see it as a measurement of the artist's talent, or that the sole purpose of art is to be "awe-inspiring", or to be more to the point, something that makes them feel cultured. Both views make art useless to the audience and something to hang on your wall and admire for a minute to then go back to watching pointless youtube videos.
Post-Modernists think good art only factors on it's meaning, art is supposedly valued on how much it can make the audience think and reflect, or put more simply, how much it makes them feel smart. It makes art into something you pretend to think "deeply" about for a minute to then go back to buying new clothes made by starving Chinese children to fill that hole in your heart, which the artist probably spoke out against.
Art, in all, is a useless endeavor that taken to it's core is escapism.

Holy...

wtf I love postmodernism now

>Daniel merrriuam
Googling this guy's work now I'm trying not to barf

>Art, in all, is a useless endeavor that taken to it's core is escapism

Oscar Wilde pls

Modernists think art only factors on it's ability to make good and rational people, based on the evolution of Enlightenment ideas such as the understanding of self and nature, blending the everyday experience of life with that of art, but people get sick of seeing the same shit every day and then go back to gassing kikes or lynching niggers