Modern """""art"""""

>Modern """""art"""""

Other urls found in this thread:

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

>Veeky Forums - Literature

Kill yourself you stupid fucking
>''''''intellectual'''''''

That's really cool looking desu

is that a painting on a canvas, or is it a graffiti on a wall?

>Complaining about contemporary art
>Doesn't even post one of the many, many, many paintings that don't look cool

Cool painting, made it my phone wallpaper, thanks

...

ah so that's the infamous basquiat

okay here goes nothing

it isn't as appreciated because no one knew of it, so what you are doing is the modernity of art, by making it known people appreciate it through the force of others, they are oppressed by the group to have that opinion and so on

it is purchased recently by a japanese businessman for a museum dedicated to american stuff
that's why it is so popular

when it was first sold it was worth a lot less

Meltdown. Total meltdown.

It's a "painting" by an untalented heroin addict by the name Basquait, whose only claim to fame is dying of an overdose. Rrecently it sold for 110.5 million dollars, no doubt to launder money.

whats wrong with this?

>modern art
What about it?

So it was either for tax exemption purposes or a Yakuza money laundering scheme (or both).

If he was untalented why does his art sell for millions? Maybe you just have poor taste?

At 110.5 million dollars a painting this ugly isn't good value for money.

Did you not see my post about a. tax exemptions and b. money laundering?

nothing its just the usual boring uncultured dogs breeding around these parts who give far too much value to their own opinions

If someone has the money why wouldn't they buy a piece of art they enjoy? You both sound like people who don't value art and cant see beauty in anything they aren't told to see it in by the most plain base level standards.

If this guy was so untalented are you able to reproduce his work or create original pieces in his style?

>paintings are popular because of the japanese mafia
poverty stricken people believe the craziest shit

Yes, I'm sure that his status and fame are actually just a conspiracy to make money laundering this much easier.

Why does /pol/ always insist on being such clueless plebs?

the first selling of this painting was for 18000 euros

Wow it was a good investment then

a nigger drug addict painted a graffiti tier nigger skull, and it sold for $110M

money laundring

Clearly onto something.

you overestimate the real world value of 110 million

i bet you still think 100 bucks is expensive

you owe me $100M now

Basquiat was a hack artist who merely added proletariat novelty to the established visual style of de Kooning

looks nothing like it. No matter how untalented you think Basquiat was you are even less talented which explains why no one is buying/selling any art you have created, even for money laundering

>looks nothing like it.
Mine looks better, now you owe me $200M

Boring, plain, cliché

Interesting, flashy, original

Dude, they chose piece nobody wants for money laundering.

It would be very inconvenient in someone else bids for it and then you have to bid more and end up paying $180M for $110M worth of drugs.

I actually like it. Not 110.5 million buckaroos like it (as other anons have said, that's clearly an inflated purchase), but I'd pay a not-insignificant-to-me amount of money for that if I had the space and leisure for it.

Those Basquiat paintings are awesome.

You can look at them for as long as you want and still not know what the hell he was trying to convey, which is what makes them so good.

>what the hell he was trying to convey
is his face when one of his hos told him she was pregnant

Yes, the man was a genius

If it is worth 20mil somebody will pay 20mil for it. Of course you know it isn't tho

I'm a muh loomis frank frazetta shill that does traditional art and I like this. As you can see nothing was lost because fucks like Warhol existed.
Enjoy your recreation stupidity

>durr muh modernist expressionism
I used to hate this because dumb teenage art objectivist me believed expression could only be achieved by adhering to realism.
Now I hate this because I learned about aesthetics and realized art doesn't need to be tangibly expressive at all.

ITT: clueless plebs who don't know that literally any painting can be reproduced to the degree where they would never be able to tell the difference in their lives by a random chinese painter who will make dozens of them in a month

De Kooning's low-IQ, melanin-enriched, late cousin

Medieval """art"""

>implying you understand the symbolic meaning of illuminated art

>be black
>we iz oppressed n sheiitt
>it be da white man that's shooting us heroin n sheit
>die of overdose
>people think this is profound

Agreed, the Medicis only commissioned work for tax exemption

It doesn't need to be expressive but I think it's safe to say Neo-expressionism wants to be.

Kinkade tier kitschy drivel.

I'll take Basquait's work over that garbage any day of the week.

lol you have shit taste, user. fucking fedora-tier

The reason it was sold for 110m was because there was a bidding war between several people.

is this sincere or some sort of parody? i can't tell

Think before you speak you fucking cunt.

nah

I fucking love medieval art.

Anyways, people who dislike newer art are morons. /thread

>Veeky Forums - """""Literature"""""

what's wrong with tax exemption and money laundering?
also, that painting is worth something like 133 Tomahawk missiles
which is pretty cool desu

Medieval art still conveys more meaning as it was used for purposes of illustrating a text. And from an objective perspective, it is better than primitivism.

Someone explain how you would go about laundering money vis a vis a painting. I'm lost here.

>still conveys more meaning as it was used for purposes of illustrating a text.

Ha! Hahaha!

There is so much more 'meaning' in works that are not narrowly trying to visualize one specific thought at a time. That's just "illustration".

Meaning in art is 'living' and emergent, unfolding from a point where the viewer's consciousness interfaces (sensually) with the spell cast by (whatever the form/media of) embodiment of the art object.

I'd add that the meaning is more of a two-way chemistry than just the viewer interpreting. The art object is definitely putting vibrations out there, they're just encrypted, and the resulting emergent 'meaning' is a surprise for both parties (although very true / uncannily inspired).

There's literally nothing wrong with contemporary art, and all you faggots whining about it are the same people who whine about Jews and degeneracy on other boards.

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

I think I know the problem with modern art: hacks can blend in. Often you can't know if the artist who painted it is truly skilled or has had a deep thought process that has evolved into what you see on the canvas. This is not true in filmmaking nor literature. Hacks WILL be spotted in those art forms. In paintings that's not true.

Ironically, people on Veeky Forums who hate modern art often say that a piece of art is bad if you have to study and read books to understand it.

you "discover" a "hidden treasure" and let a middleman buy it with your own dirty money

Proves literally nothing.

It has been normal for the state to use art as propaganda for millennia.

What the fuck do you think Christian art is? It was literally commissioned by the Church.

Big if true

as someone in the art world, this is so hilariously untrue. there are very strongly established standards and terms by which relevance is deemed, nobody is "faking" it. there are too many genuinely gifted people who know what's up to let that pass. in the end, the best rises to the top. anyone who says otherwise is just a resentful outsider how doesn't get new art.

>large parts of the avantgarde were the opposite of what they pretended to be, actually they are continuing sacred christian tradition
ok

I can tell a pro and a hack apart by the brush strokes and the technical aspects of the painting;

Content means NOTHING.

Wow

>Someone in the art world
I take that it is you?
What about sculptures?

Literally nowhere near what I said you strawmanning fag.

you supply the text, i supply the meaning

Not only are you a shitposting troll, you don't even understand the people you're against.

Really shocking.

I think the problem with modern art is really the coca cola light, zero, and standard principle: taste is fractured in the modern consumer society, VERY fractured so any avant garde will be only intriguing to a small subset of the population, not that this wasn't already true but now it doesn't have the potential to grow much anymore. Museums put up what they think is art and for many people what is shown simply isn't good art to them.

This is satisfying to look at
Has talented

/ic/ and Veeky Forums has swapped places.

Is this bait? Contemporary art isn't the same as modern, and modern art preceded CIA funding. The CIA aren't art historians.

>He didn't double the commentary

If you're a retard maybe

If it continued at the same rate it would be worth 500 billion before 2050. That's how overpriced and over inflated this shit was.

>Overestimate the real world value of 110 million
Lmao what

Basquiat was untalented though

You're a moron

wrong

this is exactly what happened

pretty cool if true

lol sure you can you fucking pseud
you don't know shit despite what you may believe, your worthless degree means fuck all when all they teach you is dogshit

lol Basquiat should be famous for just getting rich new yorkers to loot graffiti off neighbourhoods they would later move back into, giving the neighbourhood's old sidings pride of place in their shitty flat where they're now more likely than ever to die young and accidentally of shittier opiates than basquiat got. that's slicker than any shit goethe pulled off

there's something like that around the corner from me under a bridge

>paintings are good when they're pretty

Why are you here

Jesus Christ, learn how to write a sentence. That shit was barely readable.

i bet you think it'll be believable when you want to talk about pictures in proust

R E D P I L L E D!!!
we're all living a lie, art is a scam, we are controlled
but OP is w o k e
(pjw will save us all)

WOLL IMAGIN MOI SHOCK

I actually like this stuff

you know the art trade has been alive largely for money/drug laundering for...at least the past 80 years right?

if the art is going to a "personal" museum or "private" collection, that usually means someone is laundering coke money

Does that include all the 19th century shit that is stupidly popular at auctions or is it just specifically modern art?

modern art

cheap to produce, not actually highly wanted like something from "master artists"


this is how it works, in a very simple and rough breakdown

1. you have drug trade man and have lots of money
2. it's dirty money, and no way to show you have it legally though
3. buy "modern art" that is already over-sold for a few thousand.
4. some years later get a friend, give him a big chunk of your dirty money and have him legally bid for the painting you spent 10K for
5. you know have successfully laundered a hundred million of your drug money, and can now use it for whatever the hell you needed a hundred million clean money for


it's been going on for decades, most art trade/shows involved are probably bribed pretty well too. this is much more prevalent in the european cartel scene than something like south america

They'd still have to show where that money came from, that's not laundered at all. Where did you get this insane idea from?

>Does that include all the 19th century shit
m8 what else would they be trading around 80 years ago. I mean there was selling off all the classics to foreign buyers before WWII also so it's not just drug money but arms and everything else. this movie captures the time but is more accurate about the play and condenses a lot of shit into the time line /pol/ trigger warning, it contains full blown commies and mccarthy doesn't get them all
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqPE0YYgwjI
I'm watching this shit again I'd forgotten about it and it's fucking awesome

Why just modern art though? Surely it works the same for any art purchase. The original cost of the work doesn't matter.

modern art started it because that's all the shit you can buy that nobody thinks is worth something but will be worth a lot if enough people buy it. like that woman who begged her local council not to paint over her banksy picture because her house was worth millions

So it's not an adequate explanation for the rise of modern art.

Again, that money has not been laundered, your explanation makes no sense at all.

I already told you it was a simplistic break-down of what happens

most of the background stuff for the money goes through shell companies, which in turn also have a huge money laundering schemes going on.

if the businessman was Yakuza, you can bet your dumb ass they have thousands of money laundering ops throughout asia