File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:14 No.2744388
Seriously its fucking brutally bad
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:19 No.2744395
>>2744388
fedora tier video
>> [_] John Moses Browning 04/09/15(Thu)20:23 No.2744399
>>2744395
I think it's the other way around
Modern Artists are the biggest fedora tippers
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:28 No.2744404
not
this
shit
again
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:32 No.2744409
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.2744412
>Wah wah I don't like thing
>Objective art
Pffftt.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)20:35 No.2744413
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.2744419
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.2744424
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.2744425
>>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.2744427
>>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.2744447
I like to watch fart plays and tip my fedora at the end
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)21:18 No.2744452
>>2744388
>white painting at the end
>Rouchenberg
/pol/ was right again
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)21:35 No.2744467
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.2744481
>>2744467
10/10
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)22:06 No.2744489
>>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.2744503
>>2744489
And that's why this flash is absolutely true.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)22:30 No.2744508
I'm proud to say I thought "That doesn't look like a very good Pollock."
>> [_] Anonymous 04/09/15(Thu)22:38 No.2744516
>>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.2744521
>>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.2744543
>>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.2744547
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.2744560
>>2744547
Can you point us in the direction of "good" modern art and "bad" renaissance?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:10 No.2744561
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.2744578
>>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.2744581
Surely difficulty to create a piece of art matters
>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:32 No.2744587
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.2744588
>>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.2744590
>>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.2744593
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.2744599
>>2744399
This
>> [_] Anonymous 04/10/15(Fri)00:56 No.2744601
What's hilarious is that this extends beyond art into society as a whole. Liberals shit on
everything they touch.
