File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:14 No.

  Seriously its fucking brutally bad

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:19 No.

  >>2744388
  fedora tier video

>> [_] John Moses Browning 04/09/15(Thu)20:23 No.

  >>2744395
  I think it's the other way around
  Modern Artists are the biggest fedora tippers

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:28 No.

  not
  this
  shit
  again

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:32 No.

  Because donors opt to put the label "art" on material we perceive as comparative and literal crap.
  Money talks to make us deaf.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:34 No.

  >Wah wah I don't like thing
  >Objective art

  Pffftt.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:35 No.

  Make it music instead of paintings and sculptures. Should we only explore classical music because
  we know that it is good and requires skill to write and play? /mu/ would have a field day with
  this.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:44 No.

  I think people should be able to like what they like but if they think a pure white painting has
  any emotional value beyond the "Impressiveness" it takes to get that shade of white they're
  fucking retarded.

  It's like the people who feel they got some kind of spiritual advancement out of drugs like LSD
  or Shrooms, you didn't get jack what you're feeling is the side effect of the drug that's all,
  the only realization you're feeling is that you realized "Holy shit my brain can see things that
  aren't really there". I'm not saying don't take drugs, I do, I enjoy them but I don't try to act
  as if I think at a higher level now that I have taken them.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:46 No.

  Society accepts modern art and allows it to continue, because ultimately art is a reflection of
  the values of the people who produce and consume it. If you don't like it you can try to start
  another revolution like the impressionists did, but if not enough people agree with you, you're
  just an angry dude putting up internet videos.

  I think one reason the impressionists succeeded and their offshoots continue to thrive was
  because photography and eventually film made it less necessary for artists to focus on being able
  to draw realistic human figures or natural scenes. The art world needed to go in a more created
  direction and create things that can't be done with a camera.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:48 No.

  >>2744412
  >Random splats of paint and an entire picture of just white paint are art
  Alright buddy, completely subjective.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:48 No.

  >>2744424
  Modern art was a literal cia op to trick the soviet's into thinking it was real. But the
  opperation backfired when american 'art' collectors started encouraging it as a means to launder
  drug money.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)21:12 No.

  I like to watch fart plays and tip my fedora at the end

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)21:18 No.

  >>2744388
  >white painting at the end
  >Rouchenberg

  /pol/ was right again

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)21:35 No.

  i work at an art museum. This shit is so true. If you can shovel it, you will get in and a
  painting from an old master goes into storage.

  It is the biggest shit show you will ever see. I left my sketch book in the break room one time
  and came back to find it was gone. the chief curator had found it and was freaking out. He
  thought a piece from our collection had been left there. He took it to the director and they were
  trying to figure out the artist. I guess brilliant and edgy were kicked around. when they found
  out it was mine they were so pissed. they told me to never bring my own work into the museum ever
  again. the next day a policy went out that no museum employee was to draw/paint or construct any
  type of art on museum property.

  the next month, we hung a "sculpture" of found trash along the beach spray painted black.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)21:53 No.

  >>2744467
  10/10

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)22:06 No.

  >>2744467
  So, what? They liked your sketch, but when they found out you weren't a "real" artist, they
  decided it was garbage? Sounds like a bunch of stuck-up asshats to me.

  While I don't agree that their can be objective, universal standards in art, it chaps my ass to
  see some of the garbage we're calling art these days. The "statements" these "artists" are making
  are rarely even intelligent. Yes, we get it, you took a picture of you shitting on a flag because
  you think the government is shit. Real deep symbolism there, champ.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)22:20 No.

  >>2744489
  And that's why this flash is absolutely true.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)22:30 No.

  I'm proud to say I thought "That doesn't look like a very good Pollock."

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)22:38 No.

  >>2744413
  Except much of modern music does take a great deal of skill to make good in a respective genre.
  There is also "abstract" music (abstract classical as well) which is far more in line with the
  art he is criticizing, and I'm sure /mu/ would agree there is low effort "modern" music, except
  it's problem is generally copying the same routine and adding nothing new rather than just trying
  to be "meaningful".

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)22:43 No.

  >>2744508
  There was a moment of doubt in my mind that that didn't fit my mental image of a Pollock, but I
  hadn't looked at a Pollock in years, so I could be wrong.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)23:53 No.

  >>2744508
  That guy mentions the san fransisco museum of modern art at the end. I was in town there a few
  years back for a funeral and I remember that they actually had a pretty cool collection. I
  remember that they had some pretty baller Max Ernst stuff as well as a decent collection of
  Matisse. There was a whole lot of photography too.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)23:56 No.

  I don't care for this guy's opinions because he chooses to single out the best of the renaissance
  work, and the worst of the modern art.

  I can think of more quality examples of art that you could still make an argument against, but he
  literally chose the ones that are about shit, or so shitty due to being made by hipsters.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:10 No.

  >>2744547
  Can you point us in the direction of "good" modern art and "bad" renaissance?

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:10 No.

  I think we could define art as objectively good or bad based on agreeable metrics.

  Just get a bunch of classical art experts together and make something like the ANSI ISO art
  valuation standard

  I could be done if enough people and resources were ever put to it

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:23 No.

  >>2744508
  I think the point is not whether or not it would be a good Pollock, it's the preposterousness of
  the idea that It could be considered one and therefore glean respect as good. The nature of this
  ludicrous granting of respect and merit based solely on reputation proves irrefutably that it is
  inherently bad, and by extension Pollocks are also bad.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:26 No.

  Surely difficulty to create a piece of art matters

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:32 No.

  Why have modern artists lowered their standards? The Engineering Age has made art appreciated in
  it's simplest form. "Ain't nobody got time for that shit no more." Time=cost of living. Deal with
  it

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:33 No.

  >>2744424

  >I think one reason the impressionists succeeded and their offshoots continue to thrive was
  because photography and eventually film made it less necessary for artists to focus on being able
  to draw realistic human figures or natural scenes. The art world needed to go in a more created
  direction and create things that can't be done with a camera.

  Yep. The dude kind of glosses over why impressionists started doing what they did, it was a
  direct reaction to a technology developing that rendered a large portion of technical skill
  obsolete. Technical painting lived on for a while for depicting fantastical, non-realist imagery,
  but we've gone and done away with the need for that as well.

  Even in the commerical field where quick illustration skills are valued for conceptual work,
  photography manipulation has outstripped or become wholly integrated into it.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:36 No.

  >>2744508

  I thought almost the same thing. 'That's not a Pollock'. The set up was very predictable. I
  thought it was going to be something drawn by a child not his apron.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:44 No.

  The whole point of modern art is to redefine art. This video was very helpful to me though since
  it made me realize that just because some grotesque sculpture without skill is called art I don't
  have to waste my time trying to interpret it. I can just say 'I don't like that crap'.

  I always wished skillful realistic paintings returned to modern art but no museum would hang up a
  'great masters' style painting made today.

  Saying all classical art is good is as bad as saying all modern art is bad. I like them both but
  there are some true shit in modern art that shouldn't belong in a museum.

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:49 No.

  >>2744399
  This

>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:56 No.

  What's hilarious is that this extends beyond art into society as a whole. Liberals shit on
  everything they touch.