File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)20:40 No.

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)20:49 No.

  I'll say it again.
  Art didn't get worse. It just turned into movies.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)20:51 No.

  Very Interesting, Saved.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)20:54 No.

  As an Art student, I agree with most of what he says. We need boundaries and rules, I'm sick and
  tired of watching talentless people who have never picked up a brush in their lives gaing tons of
  money and fame for bullshit that they decided to call art.

>> [_] T 09/03/14(Wed)20:58 No.

  >>2514140
  I'll say it again, you're autistic. For example, a porn movie is about people fucking, modern art
  is a porno with no fucking in it and top notch acting.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)20:59 No.

  I agree with him for the most part, popular art has gone to shit. People whose art should be put
  up in galleries and displayed publicly are ignored while philistines continue to promote the
  production, glorification, and sale of shit. I wish that there was some way to easily change this
  deterioration of taste.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:00 No.

  Even better is when some artists know that their "art" only has value because of their name.
  Bansky did this thing where like 25 of his "Paintings?" were put on sale for like $5 a pop and
  nobody bought them

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:01 No.

  one word: kitsch

  you can thank the communists for ruining art

>> [_] fuckbitchesgetwaffles 09/03/14(Wed)21:01 No.

  Remember when that 4chan screenshot sold for $90,000+? That's what this is about.

  THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:02 No.

  I remember being taught the 7 principles of design.
  I've got a feeling they were all identifiable in a vast majority of pre-impressionistic work.

  It's disturbing how much this rip resonates with me.

>> [_] fuckbitchesgetwaffles 09/03/14(Wed)21:04 No.

  >>2514157
  http://www.memecenter.com/fun/3635375/2deep4u

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:08 No.

  >>2514155
  I like that about artist. Like when Rowling wrote that one book under a different pseudonym and
  Kojima made up Moby Dick Studios.
  Too bad it was kind of obvious the Phantom Pain was MGS.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:11 No.

  It was the Jews who made the push. Egalitarianism was placed even in our paintings.
  >Third world congoid africans are just as equal to us as a Frenchman or a Swiss.
  >Blotches of paint are just as equal to art as realistic landscapes

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:15 No.

  This is a good point, but on the subject of graffiti:
  Banksy is pretty cool

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:17 No.

  /pol/ is always right

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:20 No.

  >>2514160

  >memecenter

  How the fuck did you casuals even find /f/?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:28 No.

  >>2514157
  Because the state of public discourse has likewise fallen into disrepair; causing people to
  believe that anything that elicits even the slightest shred of serious thought out of them
  deserves to be elevated to the status of a work of art.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:29 No.

  >>2514186
  The point was that it wasn't serious.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:30 No.

  "Artists" of today are just cancerous freeloaders living on whatever state-funded art support
  money they can get.

>> [_] fuckbitchesgetwaffles 09/03/14(Wed)21:31 No.

  >>2514179
  We have our ways

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:32 No.

  >>2514190
  So what does it mean to be an artist in this day and age?

  It means being a lazy bastard whose only redeeming quality is mastery of talking bullshit.
  Should've become a politician instead of artist.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:33 No.

  >>2514189
  Yeah, someone sarcastically paid 90 grand for it

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:39 No.

  This post is art.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:40 No.

  What do you expect from modern art? Have you seen the modern urban pleb these days? Each
  generation is becoming more mind numb and so the quality of art degrades

>> [_] fuckbitchesgetwaffles 09/03/14(Wed)21:40 No.

  >>2514205
  Oh god not again

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:42 No.

  Anime is art.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:44 No.

  >>2514205
  he's right though, you guys are getting butthurt because your poor art isn't getting noticed,
  suck it up. Art is subjective.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:45 No.

  very good points in this flash

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:48 No.

  This guy is a retard.

  Debate me.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:48 No.

  wow, some faggot liberal arts professor gives you his opinion on what should be art because he
  can't let go of what he learned from a textbook decades ago...
  You can go take a big diarrhea shit on a canvas and someone will buy it for a million. It's all
  subjective. Art is such a worthless shit concept to asses with standards

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:49 No.

  >>2514157
  It sold because-one it's humorous and-two it illustrates the growing problem in the art world.
  It's brilliant because it shows the bullshit of the situation. It's one of the few 'minimalist
  works' that doesn't suck, mainly because of it's idea.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:54 No.

  Why is dollar value even coming into question in a discussion on art?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)21:59 No.

  Potato knishes is art

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:25 No.

  >>2514225
  >You can go take a big diarrhea shit on a canvas and someone will buy it for a million.

  That's his entire point. "Art" is no longer artistic. Stop for a moment and realize what you just
  said. Somebody can take a shit on a canvas and sell it as art. Does monetary value translate into
  artistic merit? Does that mean that a well-constructed painting with good aesthetic value, deep
  symbolic meaning, and a strong personal spin that sells for 10 dollars is less artistic than a
  piece of shit smeared on a canvas that sold for 10 million?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:33 No.

  >>2514280
  beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Art is subjective and someone might love my diarrhea shit
  on a big canvas. I should not have muddied the example by mentioning money.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:33 No.

  >>2514240
  Because it's a way to get a sense of what makes good art. Or at least that is what people think.
  Expensive works of art are the ones that people see in galleries and everyone talks about, not
  your shitty $10 print from target.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:35 No.

  >>2514205
  SIR I WILL PAY YOU ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT POST

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:36 No.

  >>2514292
  I already made that post, there will never be another one like it. A million wont do

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:36 No.

  World War 1 happened. How can anyone pretend to be knowledgeable on this dribble?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:38 No.

  >>2514280
  maybe if people in the art community weren't so stuck up and pretentious about it art would be in
  a better place.

  >Doesn't see how this "shitty" art is a masterpiece
  let me scoff at you

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:39 No.

  >>2514123
  Excellent. I fucking hate modern art and modern society.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:40 No.

  http://vimeo.com/55426796

  To all the people who are still concerned about art.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:45 No.

  >>2514290

  People like you are exactly the kind that this professor is railing against. What he's saying is
  "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is not correct - as there should be a standard of beauty,
  even if there isn't any longer.

  We shouldn't give assholes with shit taste a pedestal.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:45 No.

  guaranteedreplies.swf

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:47 No.

  This guy is a fucking nobody. He's not an art historian, he's some shitty painter trying to do
  shit that's been done for hundreds of years. He's obsessed with aesthetics and doesn't understand
  that art no longer has an obligation to be objectively beautiful and make us feel good.

  Artistic movements develop based on tons of factors, none of which this guy has any clue about
  because he's just some guy spouting his uneducated opinion, much like everyone else in this
  thread. It's understandable to think that the modern and postmodern movements have gone to shit
  when compared to beautiful renaissance works, but to spout on about artistic objectivity like
  this guy really just shows that he is either trying hard to be an edgy fag or is actually just
  retarded.

  also
  >prager university

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:47 No.

  >>2514310
  >as there should be a standard of beauty
  in other words
  >you should like what is only approved by others
  good luck with that.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:48 No.

  Don't quantify a work's quality with money, but with scientific evaluation. You can do plenty of
  experiments to show that it's empirical to a certain degree. Yes, people have different tastes,
  but only because they know that for the most part we all like the same things. We all like
  emotion and curves and things that are bigger than we are.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:50 No.

  >trying to define a shit subject like art
  >not leaving the interpretation open to the faggots at Starbucks
  art is not even worth arguing about. Either you like it or you don't. Some rich cumguzzler buys
  something stupid claiming its art as a publicity stunt and all the conservative liberal arts
  majors start crying

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:52 No.

  >>2514179
  >>2514192
  i used to go to memecenter back when i was new to the internet right after i left 9gag. then i
  discovered 4chan and now memecenter looks like stale shit. in fact it was already dying even
  before i left, since the reposts were increasing by the day and there was content from 9gag
  showing up.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:52 No.

  Hitler had the right idea.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:52 No.

  It was rather disingenuous of him to completely ignore the driving factor behind the departure
  from classical standards. They didn't do it "just because", they did it because their technical
  and aesthetic prowess in rendering something as close to how it is perceived by the eye as
  possible results in work left lacking when put against photography.

  They sought ways of creating art that still forced them to exercise that prowess, but could not
  be replicated by taking a photograph.

  And as photography developed as a medium, they had to go further and further towards abstraction
  to maintain that distance. At one point it got off the rails completely.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:53 No.

  >>2514322
  >9gag
  Oh, never mind. You're a cool dude after all ;-)

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)22:54 No.

  >>2514326
  this

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:01 No.

  Couldn't take him seriously after he lit up "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" as being
  wrong, despite the whole thing being about how he doesn't like modern art.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:01 No.

  >>2514190
  to be fair so was Leonardo Divinci it's just he was good at it.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:02 No.

  >>2514223
  no u

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:04 No.

  >>2514215
  actually it isnt. not real art at least.

  the difference is a masterful work of art has an intrinsic value to it that comes from the sheer
  amount of skill needed to create the piece. even if you don't know the meaning behind a
  beautifully carved statue, it's still something not just anyone can make and can still be
  apreciated for it's visual beauty and detail.

  meanwhile a pile of glued trash or a canvas of splashed ink can be done by pretty much anyone and
  thus only has value from the "meaning" behind it, and the viewer will look for one on his own as
  long as he thinks it's art, thus the artist doesn't even need to give it an actual meaning.

  tl;dr: real art is admirable by it's beauty and/or craftsmanship alone, often accompanied by some
  meaning that gives depth and "life" to the work. the other is pretty much trash that is only
  valuable because you tell yourself it must have some deep, hidden meaning to it, which i'd bet it
  often doesn't.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:04 No.

  >>2514123

  >go to store
  >buy canvas
  >go to museum
  >show them the canvas
  >acquire fame, money, riches, and bitches

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:07 No.

  >>2514326
  It's not just the development of photography that caused artists to stop striving for pure
  aesthetics and accessibility. The trend away from aesthetics happened in literature during the
  same period, and works started to be more experimental and less accessible.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:08 No.

  I don't think this issue is just applicable to modern art - it applies to almost every facet of
  our lives and how we judge things.

  If somebody does anything with their lives (good, bad, tasteful, etc.), we are supposed to just
  accept that all people are different and respect their decisions. Rather than it being an issue
  of God vs. no God or right vs. wrong, good vs. poor quality, we are just supposed to assume that
  everyone is right or everyone has their own truth - all religions or non-religions are true to
  the individual that believes in it. However, this is horse shit, there is a right and a wrong - a
  fact and a nonfact. I don't presume to know what the answer is, but I can sure as hell tell you
  that not everyone is correct all at once.

  Similarly, if a kid isn't doing well in school, its not that he's stupid, its just that he has a
  'different kind of intelligence'. Bullshit.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:08 No.

  >>2514123
  Obviously the people who wipe shit on a canvas and call it art are retarded. But the thinking
  like, that in order for something to be good it has to be disciplined and stick to the guidelines
  stifles innovation.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:10 No.

  >>2514354
  And just to add to this...

  it seems like those who do seek out the truth or deny relativism are frowned upon in modern
  society

>> [_] Anonymous 09/03/14(Wed)23:11 No.

  Ironically we've reached a point where corporate art is patently superior to fine art. Case in
  point: https://sites.google.com/site/mtgbasics/home/plains