File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Japanese)
[_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)01:24 No.2642936
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)01:37 No.2642953
>google "modern art"
>images
>bottom of page results
>Suspected child abuse content has been removed from this page.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)01:44 No.2642959
Yeah, I want artistic mythology back.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)01:46 No.2642960
>>2642953
>>2642936
oh god im dying.
I have no idea why this video is so funny, but fuck, it's true.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)01:47 No.2642962
>>2642936
well done OP
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)01:47 No.2642963
>>2642953
worry.jpg
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)01:49 No.2642967
oh god the ending, completely lost my shit.
GG op GG
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)01:53 No.2642974
first off id say the "descent" he talks about began with the two world wars, and it's entirely
reasonable that people at the time would be drawing weird shit.
anyways every time I see this im torn, but ive finally come to the conclusion that this guy is
wrong. even though I at first agreed with him, he is viewing art as some sort of competition, and
also failing to realize art in all its forms isnt something society as a whole looks at anymore.
we all now have different, specific tastes because we can find a number of painters, designers,
musicians, that fit within our specific needs largely thanks to better communication
technologies. arts role in society has completely changed.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:01 No.2642983
>>2642974
But you're wrong. He's not viewing art as a competition but, rather, as something that should be
held up to a high standards. But I will agree: Art is something we just don't seem to really care
about anymore and, for those who do, they just look at previous works of art that's already been
created.
I guess his point is that art is stagnating heavily and because people think that art can be
whatever you want it to be, it continues to spiral down in that well of stagnation. Just like he
said, art should be something that should be meaningful, inspire something with us or another.
It's hard to look at modern art in today's day and age and think that.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:02 No.2642986
tl:dw:
>STOP LIKING WHAT I DONT LIKE! WAKE UP SHEEPLE
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:03 No.2642988
>>2642974
But competitiveness drives innovation and creativity. Art can indeed be viewed objectively while
still be judged personally by any person who views it. Just how people generally would agree that
a talented musician is much more appealing and worthy of merit than some dude banging two trash
can lids together and telling people that he's a musician and "You just don't get it".
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:05 No.2642990
Are you faggots from that other performance art thread being floated?
>>2642983
I think >>2642974 still has a good point: the speaker is levelling a blanket criticism against
the art industry for devolution when in fact (what he terms as) good art is still around and
still being produced, it's just that it's being drowned out by the noise.
It's like 4chan. If all you do is visit this place, you'd be convinced the internet is full of
homophobic racist white males.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:07 No.2642991
>>2642983
>Artistic norms remain the same for 2000+ years
>artists begin exploring different concepts and examining the relationship between the creator's
message and the interpretation by working through new mediums and forming their own stylistic
forms.
>But we should go back to doing it the old way because trying new things is stagnation.
Makes perfect sense.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:10 No.2642995
Oh boy. Some faggot cherrypicking shock pieces and calling them the best of modern art. There's
still great traditional art being made today, but it isn't as well known because it doesn't have
the same distinctiveness. There's also great non-traditional art being made when it has an actual
artist behind it rather than a con-man trying to make a quick buck.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:14 No.2642999
>>2642995
What he's saying is that modern art is bad because people are praising and encouraging no-talent
edgelords, who in turn manage to drown out people who take the age-old values of effort and
standards and apply it to their works, modern and otherwise.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:18 No.2643001
>>2642986
>s-stop criticizing my art! this piece of poo in a bottle makes a statement!
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:21 No.2643005
>>2642991
>artists literally shitting on walls and smearing urine all over themselves
>exploring different concepts
Sure buddy.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:22 No.2643007
>>2642983
He compares it to figure skating, a competition. He then suggests that expert critics should be
rating art in the same manner. He does view it as a competition even if that's not the message he
is trying to send. In addition I never said we don't care about Art, we care as much about art as
we ever did. Rather instead of it being a societal thing its personal entertainment now and all
marketed to different types of people. There was a time when everyone would listen to the same
sort of music, but not anymore. Some people like pop, some people like rap, some people like
techno, some people like classical, and some people like stuff that cant even be fit into a broad
category because it can afford to be that specific.
>>2642988
Yes competitiveness drives innovation, I don't know about creativity but maybe. I stand by my
point that art isn't a contest and even though a few artists might get competitive with
eachother, the nature of art isn't competition. It's expression.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:24 No.2643010
>>2642999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum
So what, we should praise hard work for the sake of hard work? Even if something simpler evokes a
more meaningful response from the viewer? Does art not serve as a function of our cultural
values? If this is indeed a business, like he said, do we not vote for what we enjoy and find
value in using our money?
Also, I put forth that he's roundly ignored the effects of industrialization on the art community
and how it is has now made artwork, previously only reserved for the wealthy and elite,
accessible to the masses, and by doing so allowed them to share their voice as to what they find
artistically meaningful, for better or for worse.
Furthermore, if you wanna talk con-men who cheapen the meaning and depth of their medium, why the
hell has nobody mentioned Thomas Kincade's christmas cottage empire?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:25 No.2643012
>>2643005
wait, which one of the Italian masters did it first?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:25 No.2643014
>>2643005
Are you saying that "artists literally shitting on walls and smearing urine all over themselves"
is NOT a new thing?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:28 No.2643020
they will stop making terrible art it people would stop paying them to make terrible art.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:30 No.2643021
>>2643012
>>2643014
Disregard what I said then. I suck cocks. I know shit about art then.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:33 No.2643023
>>2642999
But it isn't. The bad modern art is just more visible. Yeah, society is giving it attention, but
that doesn't mean there isn't art that is fantastic, even by this moron's standards, still being
produced today. There was plenty of shit old art too, but people don't bother putting
centuries-old art into exhibits if it's shit and not influential.
This entire video is an armchair theorist with some half-baked argument about how everything was
better in The Old Days.
>>2643010
There are still objective ways of measuring the quality of art, they're just more refined than
straight realism. One of the better ones is consistency throughout a piece.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:33 No.2643025
>>2643021
oh! So you know about modern art then!
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:35 No.2643026
>>2643020
The thing is, people who want a quick buck and could care less about the art world continue to
propagate the concept of modern art as something worth spending time and money over. Meanwhile,
traditionalists have been backed into a corner because of the way people have been conditioned to
view art nowadays.
It's an Ouroboros of shit.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)02:40 No.2643028
>>2643023
To reiterate what i've been saying it's not even that the "bad art" is more visible.
It's all there, and the amount of it matches the consumer base for it . People are too widely
divided on everything involving art to ever come up with universal standers, and people are too
widely divided for "quality art" to ever be profitable for everyone to create.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)03:10 No.2643051
See, this si why we have furries
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)03:13 No.2643053
>>2643020
would people make terrible art if they continued making terrible people?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)03:25 No.2643058
Keep in mind, we're actually in the Contemporary period of art, although calling it modern art is
not wrong. The Modern period of art spanned from the 1860s to 1970s, although sometimes it's
disputed, some saying it transitioned in 1945.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)03:32 No.2643064
>>2642983
Before talking about what "good" art and "bad" art is, I think you should first try to define the
purpose of art.
If you think that art is something to give us pretty pictures to look at (like the video seems to
imply), then what the video calls "modern art" probably sucks at it.
On the other hand, if you thin that art should have meaning, maybe send a message or elicit some
form of emotion from the viewer, then pissing in a bottle and putting a crucifix in it is pretty
damn good by that standard.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)04:00 No.2643082
Modern art is more grotesque and stupid. There's not a lot of effort put into some shit put in
museums, and the stuff that DOES get a ton of effort put into it is just gross.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)04:29 No.2643111
"Art has no objective standard... now here are some objective standards we should be attributing
to it" -This Video
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)04:50 No.2643122
>>2643020
people only buy modern art to launder money
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)04:50 No.2643123
>>2643064
No, the video did not imply that. A painting can have a meaning while still holding to beauty
standards. Pissing in a bottle is just a way to convey that message without having any artistic
skill. Do you seriously think older paintings are just pretty pictures with no meaning?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)04:53 No.2643126
>>2643064
You see there is pushing someone's buttons to "elicit an emotion" resulting in pissing off
people, and then there is to elicit and emotion to make people think deeply about humanity.
Pissing someone off isn't an emotion, its a state of being. No matter how right or wrong it is in
being pissed off.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)05:26 No.2643150
Fuck off /pol/
>> [_] Anonymous 12/30/14(Tue)05:47 No.2643166
>>2643126
Eliciting a reaction ("Pissing someone off") is a verb, not an emotion, that much I agree. The
state of being, however, is not pissing someone off; that's the goal. The state is either anger,
depression or boredom; something which you feel. Besides that, good point!
