File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] The Truth Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)17:20 No.2538039
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)17:29 No.2538049
/f/ is full of art.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)17:30 No.2538051
I like this. It says exactly what need to be said.
Thank you.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)17:33 No.2538055
This guy comes off as such an asshat. Art is left up to each individuals interpretation of it,
fucking deal with it old man.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)17:36 No.2538058
I don't listen to jews.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)17:54 No.2538078
>these cherry picked famous painters were the only people painting in the past!
Don't kid youself, humanity hasn't changed. How can you even be nostalgic for a time period you
didn't live in?
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)17:58 No.2538085
This entire flash can be summed up as "These famous works of art have withstood the test of time,
and thus are the highest form of art while nothing in MODERN times has done the same."
And that's frankly a fucking retarded argument. But I'm sure in 300 years there will be another
old asshole talking about Citizen Kane the same way.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)18:02 No.2538093
The problem is that most of modern art requires only thought but minimal talent while classics
excel both in mastery of the art and thought alike.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)18:12 No.2538111
a wood carving of a man sucking his own dick is considered art
a woman speaking in tongues, cutting shirt & pants while opening a can of rotten spaghettios
which then she proceeds to rub all over herself is considered art
a man in drag drinking champagne through his ass is considered art
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)18:21 No.2538133
>>2538055
Art is not up to the individuals interpretation, what is however, is if it is good or not,
regardless of if it is art. Shit on a canvas is not art, but if you think its artistic and wanna
hang it on your wall? Go for it. Don't however, call it inspiring, and hang it up in a Museum,
and charge for it when all it is, is shit on a canvas.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)18:23 No.2538139
>>2538078
>>2538085
>lazy cunts detected
>>2538055
while it is up to the eye of the beholder to determine what is beautiful it takes a fool not to
see the amount of work put in to each painting.
it's all in the details
>>2538111
top wat
>>2538093
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)18:46 No.2538176
It should also be noted that the invention of cameras had a huge impact on modern art. One of the
main focuses of older art was to depict people and scenes for people to look at in the future to
get an idea of what it was like. With the invention of cameras that all changed because you no
longer needed a skilled painter to paint a picture of your family, you could just take a picture.
This, coupled with the disillusionment that came after World War I, is what lead to artist trying
to be abstract and paint things that could not be described.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)19:09 No.2538200
>>2538133
>don't hang it up in a museum
>implying we wouldn't put 300 year old shit on a canvas in a museum
Seriously, all this video does is equate age with quality which is retarded. If you don't think
everything you hate in "modern" art didn't exist when the mona lisa was painted you're an idiot.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)19:10 No.2538201
>>2538176
Precisely this. Old art is poor renderings of today's everyday technology. Want a picture of a
girl smiling? Take a picture with your camera.
As it often does, new technology (in this case, reproducing representations of real objects) has
outmoded old technology.
Some modern art is shit. But the general difference between classical art and modern art is the
difference between perception and feeling.
The only thing worth appreciating about old art is the amount of time it took to make it. There
isn't much of anything in classical art which can't be represented better with modern technology.
However, modern technology rarely evokes emotion without any sense of form. This is the true
intent of the impressionistic worldview.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)19:12 No.2538202
>>2538139
The carving of the man is from an anon's post about being called an artist; he made a wood
carving of a dragon out of one piece of wood only to have it placed next to the carving of the
man sucking his own dick
The woman with the spagettios & the man chugging the champagne through his ass are videos which
are congratulated by an audience.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)19:21 No.2538208
>I don't like it therefore it isn't art.
I don't like this video, therefore he is wrong.
See? Not so nice when it's used against you.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)19:23 No.2538211
>>2538039
this guy is no different than the music faggots saying queen is the all time greatest band, or
them saying that music today sucks. it doesnt, you are just a close minded little faggot too
clingy to your "classics"
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)19:33 No.2538220
>posting this on a site where 99.9% of the users think anime is the greatest form of art
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)20:04 No.2538244
>>2538139
>it takes a fool not to see the amount of work put in to each painting.
Effort has nothing to do with it. Just because a lot of work goes into something doesn't mean it
isn't shit.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)20:10 No.2538251
>>2538201
>Old art is poor renderings of today's everyday technology
Maybe if you're only talking about portraits. Much of the art depicting people was to showcase an
ideal, such as human physical perfection, rather than a straight copy of reality. Even portraits
tended to portray people in a more perfect state than reality.
Just look at a random selfie on Facebook and you'll see that it rarely stands up to the work of
an actual artist in terms of beauty. Not that photos can't be used to create art, but the
technology itself is not a replacement for it.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)20:21 No.2538258
>>2538244
yeah, just like i'm sure the majority of modern artists put their hearts and souls into their
shitty work.
the video was about giving artists back a way to put their effort toward quality instead of trash.
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)20:28 No.2538268
>>2538139
>it takes a fool not to see the amount of work put in to each painting.
>it's all in the details
What does it matter if the piece is hard to do or not? It was never about the amount of work, it
was always about the result
The fact that he doesn't mention photographic cameras alone paints him as an absolute moron
>> [_] Anonymous 09/22/14(Mon)21:09 No.2538320
>>2538251
For every random attention whore selfie on facebook, there are dozens of beatifully photo-shopped
magazine hotties (from playmates to makeup models to hand models)
There are lots of crappy quality mundane paintings which nobody cares about from the classical
period as well.
