File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)05:46 No.

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)05:59 No.

  Anyone can carve something out of rock. I'd like to see Michelangelo move a 340 ton rock.

  Faggot.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)05:59 No.

  zone-sama

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)06:09 No.

  This was very interesting and thoughtworthy.
  Thank you OP.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)06:13 No.

  Hmm. I agree, but I can't say I really give a shit about art enough to do anything about it.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)06:14 No.

  >>2512090
  I know your making a joke but Michelangelo could move the 340 ton rock if he used pullys or boats
  or the wheel or all 3. If one uses their mind they can do great things.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)06:27 No.

  The only genre of art that is an enemy to art as a whole is minimalism.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)06:49 No.

  See: Hyperrealism

  /thread

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)06:54 No.

  Such a "renewal" will produce more Thomas Kinkaids than William-Adolphe Bouguereaus. Just like
  trying to revive pre-60's fashions only gets us hipsters and fedora-wearing neckbeards. Kitch
  with no relations or connections to what the modern person knows or feels.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)06:55 No.

  >>2512113
  the average person has no sense for art anyway. thus hipsters and fedora neckbeards.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:09 No.

  >>2512085
  Gimme the source or suck dick faggot

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:09 No.

  Blame democratization, blame mass communications technology, blame globalization, blame a
  shrinking world with a growing population, blame the increasing irrelevancy of outdated
  hierarchical euro-centric worldviews.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:10 No.

  >>2512085
  the guy is an idiot - art is not science faggot - it acts on a different paradime

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:12 No.

  this was hilarious. I see doodles by druggies everyday on the internet that are far more
  interesting than the mona lisa.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:14 No.

  souuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurccccce

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:16 No.

  Can we get a video source for this?
  I'd like to share it...

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:18 No.

  >>2512118
  a landscape photo passed through 50 filters on instagram with a giant hashtag in the middle isn't
  "art", anon

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:19 No.

  Pretty sure most modern art is just made for the decorators and designers to add contrast and
  shit to rooms and comes across as legit to the owners because of the big price tag, if you put
  those old famous paintings in modern rooms they will look out of place so the "artists" make
  these simple paintings, usually with few different colors and explain there's some deep hidden
  message in them while making loads of $$$.

  tl;dr modern art is made for dumb rich people for decoration in their modern houses

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:21 No.

  >*Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications
  or diplomas.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:21 No.

  >>2512085

  rages inc.

  Things should be this way and not that way. Which way? Oh, the way I happen to like the most.

  Art should be enforced by the free market. Except when people buy things I don't like, then we
  need a series of institutions to save dying art and educate the public as to what they should
  really like.

  All human creativity should adhere to a strict, itemized sets of qualities. Art shouldn't be
  about self-expression.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:23 No.

  >[Dennis Prager] has also started his own non-profit online program called Prager University
  which, keeping up with his paranoia around universities turning students into secular bisexual
  leftists, has the totally not bizarre motto "Undoing the damage of the University... five minutes
  at a time." It actually presents history and politics from a hard-right point of view, which
  includes rampant New Deal denialism, promotion of the Laffer curve, Europhobia, and an off the
  walls weird interpretation of liberalism.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:25 No.

  >rowshinberg
  i wonder who pushed out good art

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:26 No.

  Dennis Prager - oh that guy - he's an konservative
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIOLBFr3R78

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:31 No.

  http://www.robertflorczak.com

  His work is Grade-A Kitsch. By-the-book pretty on the surface but absolutely hollow.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:32 No.

  >>2512126
  yes and photographs of landscapes aren't doodles

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:33 No.

  finaly give source

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:36 No.

  I'd argue that Art has not decreased in standard, I mean Yves Klein literally invented a new
  colour. That's mental and just as inspiring as any classical work.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:44 No.

  again source

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)07:51 No.

  Gonna go watch Robin Williams trash your shit in Dead Poet's Society again now. Also, ignoring
  the massive eras of art history and modern art history to pick out the best and worst.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)08:00 No.

  >>2512085
  No one gave two shits about Vincent Van Gogh's work until someone placed a price tag to it. Even
  though it is not hyper realistic he is non the less revered as one of the greatest artists of all
  time (my favorite for different reasons). His early still life work was also painfully simple (I
  replicated some back in highschool) and yet he has an entire museum dedicated to him.
  Art is not just skill or some higher community that can sit back and judge. Art is suppose to
  speak to a person without saying any words which is why "modern" art fails as they are created
  with the specific intention of portraying a message.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)08:04 No.

  >>2512103
  Other modern art is on the same level as minimalism, where "meaning" and "message" are valued
  above beauty and evocation.

  There ARE good pieces of modern art, but then again there are sculptures of people sucking their
  own dicks and pissing on the floor.

  Anyone who makes shit like that at calls themselves an artist gets laughed at by everyone they
  know, behind their back or even to their face.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)08:10 No.

  >>2512131
  A true hero.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)08:29 No.

  He cherry picks quite hard when comparing modern art to old art, but I'll give him the figure
  skating analogy.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)08:44 No.

  This is hard to watch. It's like listening to an old fogy from the 80s complain about Rock music.

  Art is like every other form of expression out there, some of it will be good and some of it will
  suck. Maybe it looks bad in comparison today because the internet has a fuckton of shit artists.
  But we still have good ones emerging all the time. You just need to dig through the crap to find
  them.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)09:00 No.

  >>2512085
  big headline video. so much quality.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)09:06 No.

  >>2512117
  What an idiotic statement, art can, as everything else empirically percieved, be broken down by
  science.
  There is no "magical" different paradigm.
  There is only Science
  In before fedora tipping, I hate wearing hats,

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)09:19 No.

  Thanks OP for posting this.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)09:45 No.

  This is art.
  \ /\ /
  :0::0:
  / \/ \

  Now give me 15 dollars for another piece of art. Art does need a standard much like anything else
  that's out there. If the art world keeps making literally pieces of shit and say how it
  represents the state of the world environment its all ready gotten old cause we all know what
  shit looks like. Or people being lazy and taking a chair and putting paperclips on it and calling
  it art.

  I can't say Sonic 06 is the best video game ever made cause we know what video games are supposed
  to play like. As well I cant say the newest Spiderman movie is the worse thing out their cause it
  plays like a superhero movie. We know the standards of those art forms.

  If you say that it's just a genre of art and to leave it alone I can very easily say that my art
  example up their is a fine piece of art as well.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)09:48 No.

  did that dumbass try to use paintings to construct a line diagram?

  how the hell do you measure a subjective thing like art?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)09:51 No.

  >>2512117
  >>2512174
  The guy at the top is right. Fuck why do I get caught up in shit on this website when nothing
  said really matters.

  Let's start with the video. The man in the video used some of the most obvious fallacy's in
  arguments. Name calling, strawman, argument from ignorance, begging the question. I mean shit.
  You can't compare our modern art to classical pieces. That alone is just "WTF are you thinking"
  teir. Movements in art change every ten years. It can't be expected to stay the same. I think it
  should be said that if you go to a gallery you can sometimes find the truly skilled artists who
  are trained by old masters. They apply skill and practice to modern movements and it would debunk
  this faggots whole video if you saw them because you would truly be impressed. Speaking of
  movements... the ones he was shitting on is half a century old. We are more into surrealism and
  illustration at this point of time, at least where I live.

  "There is only Science" what a faggot

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)09:57 No.

  Is goatse an art?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:00 No.

  as some dude who doesnt give a flying fuck about art and has no interest what becomes of it in
  the future - I agree with him

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:05 No.

  Why is modern art so bad? I will say a few words, Nick Minaj, Justin Bieber and One Direction.
  Think with that mindset in mind, you will find the eternal answer to your plight.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:07 No.

  >>2512202
  >physical, not lyrical medium
  Jesus christ pay attention man.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:09 No.

  >>2512131
  >that biased as fuck statement

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:15 No.

  Today OP wasn't a complete faggot.
  This made a lot of sense.
  Thanks OP.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:24 No.

  >>2512194
  You're an idiot, and before you call that one of your "fallacy's" (you couldn't at least use a
  plural form of a word right?) it's not a fallacy if it's the truth. Nothing you just noted even
  happened in the video. There was no name calling, strawmanning, argument from ignorance, or
  begging the question. Learn what a fallacy is to begin with before throwing words around like you
  know what you're talking about. Not to mention an argument isn't automatically invalid because of
  a fallacy's use, and that it still requires rebuttal outside of pointing out fallacies (proper
  plural form of fallacy).

  >You can't compare our modern art to classical pieces.

  Why not? They're both art, correct? Or are they not comparable because classical artwork blows
  modern art out of the water and holds no candle to it?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:30 No.

  >>2512131
  What does any of what you just posted even have to do with his opinion of modern art?
  Do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you just swallow and regurgitate whatever you read on
  RationalWiki? Are you going to defend third-wave feminism and social justice, too?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:36 No.

  >>2512085
  >who would spend $10 mil on a rock?
  >I would spend $10 mil on a rock that was sculpted by Michelangelo
  >Implying there is a difference

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:39 No.

  >>2512223
  One is sculpted and one isn't, there's a difference retard.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:40 No.

  >all these failed art students getting mad at the truth

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:40 No.

  I can't believe anyone went ahead and made a video about all of this without even mentioning
  photographs.

  He might have used the worst example ever with figure skating too, since the standards for it
  change literally EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:42 No.

  >>2512228
  >He might have used the worst example ever with figure skating too, since the standards for it
  change literally EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

  I don't see anybody getting tens for buttsliding though.

  Stay fucking mad.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:42 No.

  >>2512191
  You can call your fine piece of art a fine piece of art all you want, but you need others to
  believe it is. You need to create a demand for your work first, then you can slowly slip into
  mediocrity and still sell $1 million+ pieces of shit.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:43 No.

  >>2512225
  The first rock was sculpted by nature, far more beautiful than anything humans have done.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:44 No.

  >>2512232
  So what? it shows standards are flexible.

  It didn't happen in figure skating, but it did happen in pictoric art, what is your point?

  What is the point in making beautiful representations of something if you can photograph them
  instead? Why disregard the ENORMOUS amount of job being done with digital design? Why limit
  yourself to paint on a piece of cloth?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:44 No.

  >>2512237
  Holy shit take your pretentiousness back to tumblr or something.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:45 No.

  >>2512239
  Why limit yourself to make literal shit sculptures?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:46 No.

  >>2512085
  Art has moved on, it went to the internet, the telly, and other forms of media. If you want to
  get a feeling across to someone, why would yu use a canvas when you can use animation or acting?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:48 No.

  >>2512241
  But nobody is limiting themselves to that.

  That is something that also happens, it is not by far the ONLY thing that happens, we still have
  photorealism for example.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:50 No.

  >>2512228
  Regardless of the standards changing in figure skating there remain standards and expectations.
  You cannot simply "express yourself" in figure skating and expect a good score. You must have
  proper discipline, technique, and other features that are agreed upon for your performance to be
  deemed meritorious. I understand that he throws a spanner into everyone's perceived notion that
  art cannot be empirically evaluated, but I do tend to agree with him.

  The scatological and pornographic and offensive pieces are often done just to be that. To offend
  and make someone feel uncomfortable. There's nothing wrong with art trying to provoke unease, but
  that must not be its raison d'etre. Art should have merit and beauty without resorting to cheap
  tricks.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:51 No.

  >>2512237
  Nature cannot be art. Nature can be beautiful and enjoyed, but it cannot be art. Nature can be
  the inspiration and subject of art. A painting or portrait of nature can be art. But nature
  itself is not art. Art is created by man.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:53 No.

  >>2512237
  So deep. Are you a professional quote maker?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:56 No.

  >>2512246
  Agree, but I consider this to be a time in which all of this is new and unexplored, you have to
  start somewhere.

  Stupid literal pieces of shit being considered art now means that in 20 years time they are
  considered old and not worthy of mention anymore.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)10:59 No.

  How are you an art professor, yet you're using the term "modern art."
  Modern art is used to describe that of the 18th century and earlier such as Van Gogh, Picasso,
  all that good jazz. The art that is created today is called "contemporary art."
  Sauce: I took an art class in college and my teacher was a hippy contemp art major.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:02 No.

  yes

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:03 No.

  >>2512249
  What on earth are you talking about that is new and unexplored?

  Do you think rebellion against authority such as religion and government are something new? This
  has been going on for the past 300 years or so and people have been making art about it back
  then, but they didn't descend to the tasteless and trashy like they have today.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:04 No.

  >>2512085
  always nice when someone puts your thoughts into words

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:04 No.

  >muh modern art is shit
  >muh degeneracy
  how the fuck does it affect your life ? If people are dumb enough to buy shit, thats their
  problem. We re not there to educate them. Sometimes i even prefer faggots buying conceptual art
  than arrogant dicks who claim they know about "standards", beauty and uglyness.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:04 No.

  >>2512215
  Ignoratio elenchi :^). . Oh man and check out that graph. "Standards" were so high in the 1950s
  then it went to having "no standards." Hahaha are you fucking kidding me? This has no empirical
  or quantitative hold whatsoever. You respect this type of shit?

  There is no name calling? I still think there is. I am mainly mad that the way he speaks of art.
  like when he says "The profound inspiring and beautiful is replaced by the new the different and
  the ugly." It is too simple for something people of over the world love. even the title "Why is
  modern Art so Bad" is ridiculous.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:05 No.

  I know you're baiting, but classical artwork is great. Nothing wrong with it. People get bored of
  seeing the same thing and the same styles. it is a consumer driven world. And when taste changes
  the art changes. Should we sit in a world where nothing progresses? I would just be bored and
  desire more studies and more spiritual nourishment. Music for instance. When they moved on to
  romanticism Musicians began to feel that things were too mechanical. They wanted more feeling. A
  story to be painted with it. Less worry about technique. Then it went on to neoclassicism and
  jazz when composers were done with that. Talk to a jazz player now and they will complain that
  the world is too filled with technique btw. It all comes in waves.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:09 No.

  >>2512085

  This is all a load.
  The reason modern art fails is because there's so much of it.

  Many modern artists are far more technically sound, and have better technology at their
  fingertips to make that art. The art is flat out better.
  What the art is not: Old and few in number.

  That is the only value.

  If a cave man painted a pile of shit on a canvas, it would be the most valuable pile of shit
  painting in existence, because there werent other peice of shit paintings from that time period.
  GET IT?

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:10 No.

  >>2512258
  Shit I accidentally dropped off the rest from this... he said it though
  >>2512250

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:11 No.

  Why is it so important to be recognized for art? I thought that artists always drone on about how
  they draw from inspiration and for themselves.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:12 No.

  >>2512265
  You're a retard because you completely missed the point.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:13 No.

  >>2512275
  You're a retard cause you use words like retrd

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:14 No.

  >>2512258
  >Ignoratio elenchi

  And there you go again, using words to sound psudeo-intelligent when you have no grasp of what
  they mean.

  >name calling
  >like when he says "The profound inspiring and beautiful is replaced by the new the different and
  the ugly."

  You realize the "new, different, and ugly" are terms modern artists use to describe their own
  works, right? My god you're dense.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:19 No.

  >>2512277
  >getting this mad
  Also, what the fuck do you think ignoratio elenchi means

  >psudeo
  nailed it

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:20 No.

  >>2512286
  >resorting to "u mad" tier arguments

  Good work.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:21 No.

  The big difference is that old art will still be appreciated in 100 years but in 10 years nobody
  will give a shit about some rock or a white painting or a bunch of colors randomly splashed on a
  canvas.

  These "bullshit arts" can be thought-provoking (like some lady pissing on a cat or something) but
  those kinds of art will not last forever, only for the moment.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:25 No.

  Art didn't degrade. The good artists just moved on to movies and video games.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:26 No.

  >>2512287
  He's right, you are a huge faggot :^)

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:27 No.

  >>2512258
  >Ignoratio elenchi
  That doesn't apply to his comment at all, you incredible retard.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:28 No.

  I'm assuming this is why when "normal" people like me look at a modern art piece they think it's
  shit

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:29 No.

  >>2512293
  saying someone's grammar is bad in most of the text when that isn't the argument is ignoratio
  elenchi :^)

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:29 No.

  >>2512295
  >normal in quotes

  Quit trying to be a special snowflake, anon.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:30 No.

  >>2512297
  But that wasn't the main point of his argument and it was confined to two points in parentheses.

  You are an idiot.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:31 No.

  >>2512297
  >being this stupid
  >using :^) unironically

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:31 No.

  >>2512300
  >saying he when it is clearly you

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:33 No.

  >>2512302
  >more than one person cannot disagree with you

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:34 No.

  >>2512304
  8==D

>> [_] T 09/02/14(Tue)11:37 No.

  >>2512129
  What will the Free Market enforce? It is free after all

  >>2512138
  This post is art. Thats what standards have become

  >>2512276
  No you're retarded because it's not old vs. New if that were the case it would have happened
  during the thousands of years art has IMPROVED. It's about standards and giving value to art

  >>2512291
  Yeah, like Dear Esther or Depression Quest, those are perfect examples of what modern art is,
  expressing an opinion without keeping the standards or hieghtening them expected in video games.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:38 No.

  fucking idiot

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:38 No.

  >>2512306
  >only_pretending_to_be_retarded.jpg

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:39 No.

  >>2512310
  >Yeah, like Dear Esther or Depression Quest, those are perfect examples of what modern art is
  >Depression Quest
  >art

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:40 No.

  >>2512138
  >invented a new colour
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWV8mllJIaA

  seriosuly though, pretty silly

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:47 No.

  this whole thread...
  I swear to god you guys...

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)11:54 No.

  >>2512316
  this.

  But Im perfectly fine with this being this way. I'm not into art, but i at least like
  discussion/yelling/shitposting like this, so I'm game

>> [_] T 09/02/14(Tue)11:56 No.

  >>2512314
  Depression Quest has as much value as a game as Post-Modern art has as much value as art.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)12:03 No.

  This pisses me off so much. Art is supposed to convey emotion without words, not just look
  pretty. This guy is an uncultured idiot.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)12:04 No.

  I am starting to see more far right material come out to fight the far left.

  Also, I like art. This guy is a dick : (

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)12:05 No.

  100 Reply Thread on /f/?
  You don't see that everyday.
  welp, it's still shit, though.

>> [_] T 09/02/14(Tue)12:07 No.

  >>2512327
  >>2512325
  You're missing the point. Art is suppossed to do both, not just to look pretty and not just to
  convey your feels.

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)12:09 No.

  >>2512328

  That was what I was thinking!
  It's happening!

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)12:10 No.

  >>2512331
  I am pretty sure we both get the point and are just making a comment. You should stop telling
  people things

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)12:32 No.

  >104 replies
  I am in for some shit

>> [_] Anonymous 09/02/14(Tue)12:39 No.

  The problem with classical art is that because you're not trying to add upon the complexety or
  beauty upon it, you're just copying something that is classical art that was drawn in the past.

  That's why most classical artists are just in the ditch.