File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anon 3021377 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3021378 ho ho troll harder
>> [_] Anon 3021381 And this is why we have little hipster kiddies saying things like "Graphics don't make a game good" "Who care about aesthetics" "Game play and story mean more than how a game looks". Marketing execs take advantage of this trend now by having developers make games with poor aesthetic appeal (to save time and money) in order to brainwash the target audience into thinking the rest of the content (game play, story, music) is good (by contrast). When in fact those qualities are no better than any other AAA game with great graphics and stunning aesthetic appeal. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public has been easier than it ever has been.
>> [_] Anon 3021382 >># >video games Are you a literal child?
>> [_] Anon 3021383 >># something of quality on /f @impressed
>> [_] Anon 3021384 >># I can enjoy games that have bad graphics as long as they have good gameplay or story. Don't give a flying fuck how it looks as long as I enjoy it. Problem with most games is: both are awful, or ONLY the graphics are good. If I'm playing a videogame I want to have fun, not stare at a work of art and AMAZING graphics if that's the only thing it has to offer. Of course it's advantageous if the game looks pretty AND is fun to play, but that seems to be a rare occurrence nowadays.
>> [_] Anon 3021385 >># Video games are still considered a form of art, whether you like it not.
>> [_] Anon 3021390 >># what do you mean still? they never were.
>> [_] Anon 3021393 >># It's been a debate for a long time, still is. It can't be confirmed as not being a form of art, therefore it can be considered a form of art until proven otherwise.
>> [_] Anon 3021395 >waaah! waaah! why does art have to change? why can't it stay the same forever? waaah!
>> [_] Anon 3021397 >># >waaah! waaah! I can't do anything without a user interface. Why can't I interact with technology without visual cues? waaaaah!
>> [_] Anon 3021400 tl;dw: Jews
>> [_] Anon 3021421 while I agree scatological modern art is both figuratively and literally shit, his reasoning for the decline of realistic art can really be attributed to one thing: photography. when it became possible to capture the real world in perfect detail, the skill to replicate the real world ubiquitous. anyone can do it, there is no need for advanced techniques or years of training. if you look at something like Mondrian's paintings you can see why it developed to the abstract. he was a phenomenally talented painter but explored shape and form and color. besides the only jobs that classically trained artists can get are as portrait artists for rich fucks or paintings for magic the gathering cards >># also the CIA. funded modern art to fuck with the soviets.
>> [_] Anon 3021434 why do you retards come here jesus christ
>> [_] Anon 3021437 >># Because we are faggots, my son.
>> [_] Anon 3021440 He seems to not understand that the problem extends far beyond just art. The whole fucking country is diseased with modernist, pseudo-relativist, cuckolded, special snowflake faggots. I almost hope the fucking Islamist barbarians come to the States, at least then the fucking subhumans would be burned alive
>> [_] Anon 3021441 modern art is terrible and anyone that think it's good should be called out on it
>> [_] Anon 3021447 Thank you, OP
>> [_] Anon 3021453 >># wew lad
>> [_] Anon 3021455 >># This applies to the most modern music too actually.
>> [_] Anon 3021459 >># >Rosenberg Every fucking time
>> [_] Anon 3021465 >># "For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: '/pol/ was right again!'"
>> [_] Anon 3021466 >># Sad but true.
>> [_] Anon 3021467 >starts as essay >ends as GIBBE MONEY PLZ Industrial society produces industrial art. Religious/Philosophic society produces their equivalent. Michelangelo took more than 10 years to do David, he would never get the chance in modern world, it only happened because the church was paying the bills for him at the time.Not that hard. Along with it, many errors, like saying the Impressionists were the ones who invented relativism, when it was already a thing before Plato All in all, learn2art fagget
>> [_] Anon 3021468 He's mostly right.
>> [_] Anon 3021472 >># modern music isn't an art form though. it's a business. art can't self sustain itself as a business so the artist "community" had to trick people into believing that what they like is outdated and wrong. *poof!* abstract art is born! over time our desire for beautiful ornaments and representations of skill and mastery has dwindled, since we aren't aristocrats. we are merely working class citizens. we don't need any physical objects of gratification, especially in the digital age. and thus, we start losing appreciation for tradition, craft, legacy, and culture. the ironic mutation of the term "art" has been poisoned forever. over saturation will do that. i believe if we weren't such a consumerist society we would be able to appreciate the finer things in life. but i don't see any realistic way for the world to go backwards on technological advancement.
>> [_] Anon 3021474 >># >Industrial society produces industrial art What exactly is "industrial" about a randomly spraying paint on a canvas or putting a crucifix in a tank of piss (other that it's so simplistic that anyone can do it, and as such it can be mass produced).
>> [_] Anon 3021476 >># >art is technique Get a load of this fag >># >art is not one of the oldest form of business And a load of this one Seriously, were people got the idea that at the past artists used to do everything for free? The whole "art" thing start being a success exactly because you finally could buy a original piece with nothing else around. Art stands for "artisan". Something you make with your hands and is unique. One of the highest values in ancient world. Only latter it would be applied to beauty, philosophy and aesthetics
>> [_] Anon 3021477 >># https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music#As_a _form_of_art_or_entertainment I know what you're saying and all, but it really does depend on a lot of different factors that the above link better explains.
>> [_] Anon 3021479 >># >It's quick >It's a fad >It generates word of mouth >Controversy makes it more valuable Same logic of Lady Gaga wearing a meat dress. It sells
>> [_] Anon 3021492 >># So then the quality of art should be gauged by how profitable it is to those peddling it?
>> [_] Anon 3021493 >># >># >># >># ICO, Shadow of the Colossus
>> [_] Anon 3021495 >># Also, I think the word you're looking for is consumerist, rather than industrial.
>> [_] Anon 3021496 >># They're good games but by no means art
>> [_] Anon 3021499 >># Everything is art.
>> [_] John Moses Browning 3021500 >># >by no means Open your mind
>> [_] Anon 3021501 >># If everything is art, nothing is.
>> [_] Anon 3021502 >># have you ever played them? the landscapes, the story, looks like art to me. do you think books are forms of art?
>> [_] Anon 3021503 >># This isn't like nobody being special if everyone is.
>> [_] Anon 3021505 >># How so?
>> [_] Anon 3021507 But Botacelli's Birth of Venus is kind of ugly, and the pissing cop is funny, and well-executed. This jackass is ignoring Goya, Bosch, and, most significantly, Lucas Cranach: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ommons/7/75/The_Papal_Belvedere.jpg Come on! This guy is full of more shit than those peasants were launching at the pope!
>> [_] Anon 3021508 >># Although you seem a bit hurt in the rear, I am totally with you on that point. This bullshit individualism "my opinion matters because I am special" thinking has to stop.
>> [_] Anon 3021509 >># >free my spirit from collosi to revive your loved one This cliche story seems like art to you?
>> [_] Anon 3021520 >># where have you seen that story before?
>> [_] Anon 3021523 >># beautiful and interactive worlds made purely by math. Yeah not art at all you faggot
>> [_] Anon 3021526 Is this the Undertale thread?
>> [_] Anon 3021529 Guys, GUYS! got a crazy one so bear with me: Dark souls is art
>> [_] Anon 3021531 >># get back in your fucking grave, ebert you know you're not allowed out unsupervised
>> [_] Anon 3021533 Goddamn does someone just post dumb bait shit and then immediately links the thread on /pol/? Where do you fucktards keep coming from?
>> [_] Anon 3021535 >># People who say "graphics don't make a game good" actually have a leg to stand on, if they apply it to the proper game. There is a growing trend in the gaming world that a game is good just because it is pretty. This isn't the case. A game, much like a painting, can't just be a mish-mash of colors that is visually pleasing to the eye if there is no substance behind it. All the classical paintings have a degree of mastery to them that showcases a deeper meaning behind them, or tell a story, or simply illustrate a point in time that will be frozen forever. Video games can be art, if they have some substance behind them. A video game isn't really a video game if there isn't some level of challenge, or a win/lose cycle. If you made a game where all you had to do was press a button to win, but gave it the most beautiful graphics known to man, the community of players would revolt against it. If you made an extremely complex game that made the player gamble with their decisions, and gave a near infinite possibility of outcomes but with poor graphical quality, it too would be looked down on. There's a fine balance between making a game "just look good", and making a game "really fun to play". In the former, most developers are spending far more time developing textures in 4K resolutions for insignificant things like a nut or a rock, and less time developing a story or control mechanic to apply these things to. Conversely, many of the newer "retro" styled games are using lower quality textures and models to focus more on a story and gameplay. Games like Shadow of the Colossus and ICO and even Journey can demonstrate that video games can be a form of art, because they manage to blend high quality graphics with exciting gameplay (although Journey is a bit lacking in that department). Once we find that great graphics and great gameplay line, we will be in a great spot.
>> [_] Anon 3021536 >># leave
>> [_] Anon 3021537 >># he doesn't say a word, and with the very few cut scenes in the game it becomes very clear that he loves her so incredibly much, I think telling such a 'simple' story in such an incredible way is worthy to be labeled art.
>> [_] Anon 3021543 >># >pragerU youtube channel >people who are not paid by conservative republicans for beeing pseudo-intelligent choose only one ps.: pragerU would most likely crucify U because you are on this website and not on disney1984 dot com
>> [_] Anon 3021548 >># You missed the point entirely. I didn't say video games with high res textures, high poly models, and many FOV levels to immerse the player in the graphics only had to have a couple of crappy game play mechanics and dynamics to make a good game. I'm simply stating that there are A LOT of games that provide everything all round (AAA games) that are no worse than games with less aesthetic appeal. The reason why games with less aesthetic appeal are hyped up so much is because it gives the player the illusion that everything else must be very well done if the graphics are "meh". In regards to 2d retro games, it is less time spent compared to typical 3d games where modelling, uv mapping, texturing and animating is concerned. But 2d retro graphics still need a great artist and a lot of time to create the sprites and animate them. Which means fine-detailing every pixel. You see retro games out there with no effort put into their aesthetics i.e. the pixels don't really differ in colour and it literally looks like a child drew it in MS paint. Then you have the hipster kiddies praising it saying "Oh who cares the game play, story line and music more than makes up for it", when it's really not that great and no better than AAA games that poured a lot of their effort into the aesthetics but still pumped out great game mechanics and dynamics.
>> [_] Anon 3021559 Graphics is a technical term. Art direction is the term for how the game looks. A game can have art direction, even if the game itself is not art. Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, and other pretty games like it have terrible graphics. Low poly counts, etc. But they look pretty, and that's because of their art direction. Cod: Blops has better graphics than either, but still looks "less pretty". An engineer can create a model with a disgustingly high poly count that looks like shit. An artist can create one with a lower poly count that looks beautiful.

File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anon 2744388 Seriously its fucking brutally bad Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2744395 >># fedora tier video
>> [_] John Moses Browning 2744399 >># I think it's the other way around Modern Artists are the biggest fedora tippers
>> [_] Anon 2744404 not this shit again
>> [_] Anon 2744409 Because donors opt to put the label "art" on material we perceive as comparative and literal crap. Money talks to make us deaf.
>> [_] Anon 2744412 >Wah wah I don't like thing >Objective art Pffftt.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2744425 >># >Random splats of paint and an entire picture of just white paint are art Alright buddy, completely subjective.
>> [_] Anon 2744427 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2744447 I like to watch fart plays and tip my fedora at the end
>> [_] Anon 2744452 >># >white painting at the end >Rouchenberg /pol/ was right again
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2744481 >># 10/10
>> [_] Anon 2744489 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2744503 >># And that's why this flash is absolutely true.
>> [_] Anon 2744508 I'm proud to say I thought "That doesn't look like a very good Pollock."
>> [_] Anon 2744516 >># 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".
>> [_] Anon 2744521 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2744543 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2744560 >># Can you point us in the direction of "good" modern art and "bad" renaissance?
>> [_] Anon 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
>> [_] Anon 2744578 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2744581 Surely difficulty to create a piece of art matters
>> [_] Anon 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
>> [_] Anon 2744588 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 2744590 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2744599 >># This
>> [_] Anon 2744601 What's hilarious is that this extends beyond art into society as a whole. Liberals shit on everything they touch.

File: Why_is_modern_art_so_bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] It's that time again. Anon 2677499
>> [_] Anon 2677505 This man is 100% correct.
>> [_] Anon 2677513 thanks, learnt a lot
>> [_] Anon 2677516 blew my mind when he said that the thing behind him was a fucking painting jesus art has fallen a long way
>> [_] Anon 2677519 of course an old white guy would love art made by old white guys. art is better than it's ever been. to call modern art lazy or bad is to not understand art. Classical European art is beautiful and inspiring and all full of the Christianity that western civilization loves. Modern art is just as engaging. Who cares how long something takes to make? And even then, people are STILL making art that takes a long time to make. What a fucking joke.
>> [_] Anon 2677520 I couldn't agree more. I want a painting, not the artist's ego hanging in my living room
>> [_] Anon 2677522 >># no it really isn't. the old painting took skill, any retard can paint a canvas white and call it art.
>> [_] Anon 2677523 >># You are a part of the problem.
>> [_] Anon 2677524 >># >shock art >literal garbage bags as art >engaging fucking please
>> [_] Anon 2677525 >># I could make modern art when i was 5. My printer is full of hundreds of pages of modern art. And sometimes i add extra artistic value by expressing my thoughts on these white sheets of art by printing my thoughts on them, litterally with words. Truely i am a master.
>> [_] Anon 2677526 >># >old white men trying to push their old white men ideals on me!!!!!!!!!! >>>/tumblr/
>> [_] Anon 2677527 >># >My printer is full of hundreds of pages of modern art Come to think of it, when my printer broke, it became a modern art machine. Huh.
>> [_] Anon 2677529 >># no becuz ur a faget
>> [_] Anon 2677530 >># you have to exhibit this in a museum.
>> [_] Anon 2677532 >># sometimes my printer runs out of ink and starts printing shit in red instead of black. i'm going to have to stay up tonight thinking about the social and political implications of this.
>> [_] Anon 2677533 >># This is just a stupid argument. Either people really do enjoy a beauty in modern art, than his argument is just "stop liking things i don't like". Or, they are pretentious cunts, in wich case it doesen't help if the support classical arts instead. They obviously cant see the beauty and excelence in classical art either. His argument is "stop beeing pretentious about this thing, instead be pretetntious about my thing" No, pretentious cunts should just stop beeing .
>> [_] Anon 2677535 >># *stop beeing pretentious
>> [_] Anon 2677538 >># being*
>> [_] Anon 2677541 >># Actually, his argument is there should be a standard to the quality of art.
>> [_] Anon 2677544 >># let's enjoy a rock or a pile of shit! it's the 21st century, right?
>> [_] Anon 2677545 I hope this flash becomes the new Zeitgeist spam bullshit. Please post this every day.
>> [_] Anon 2677547 >># I think I'm in love with this guy. I've been thinking the same shit he's been saying for so many years.
>> [_] Anon 2677549 >* Prager University is not an accredited >academic institution and does not offer >certifications or diplomas. >But it is a place where you are free to learn. http://www.prageruniversity.com/courses. php?teacher=Robert%20Florczak
>> [_] Anon 2677552 lol the Prager videos This is the only one I remotely agree with, the rest are pretty shitty. The one on capitalism being the best system is laughable because it assumes the best in every human being.
>> [_] Anon 2677554 >art has been reduced to personal expression boo fucking hoo also the advent of photography is the reason for the departure from realism
>> [_] Anon 2677555 >># don't understand me wrong, i don't think people can enjoy a rock. but this isn't just a problem in modern art. this is a problem of art in general. imagine for example a very talented artist who makes an identical copy of a painting. with the same beauty, determination and excellence. most people wouldn't consider the copy as good as the original, because they look at the name of the artist and the price, not the art itself
>> [_] Anon 2677557 You can say the same has happened with cartoons as well.
>> [_] Anon 2677563 >># YEAH! fuck standards and accreditation! Oh wait.
>> [_] Anon 2677568 Ironically I would have told him that 'painting' was about as artistic as an unwashed smock. Guess I hit that one on the head.
>> [_] Anon 2677569 right now I'm shitting in my hand, painting a stick duck over a surfboard smoking a joint and watching a rainbow fuck a muslim with a squirrel, and this guy comes and tells me it is not art? c'mon.
>> [_] Anon 2677571 I have to disagree. First of all, there is plenty of art created today in the style of "classical" art that is of equal value. People create paintings deemed "objectively beautiful" all the time. Here's an example of a new painting that is one of my favorites and you all would deem beautiful: http://imgur.com/b9wdgss So we know art of all kinds is being made, his argument falls when he assumes art has to be beautiful. The police woman squatting is not beautiful to me, yet I appreciate the message it sends about women in combat roles and the objectification they face, just as we observe the sculpture and are repulsed by her urine. It isn't pretty, it's reality, and it makes us think. Simultaneously, I'm not a fan of pollock or the blank canvas art. Perhaps an abler pen can describe persuade me otherwise, but agian, I personally don't view it as meaningful. Art must adapt as time progresses, who wants to see mountains being drawn until the end of time anyway?
>> [_] Anon 2677574 >># I'm an Amerindian and I agree with the "white guy", you racist piece of shit.
>> [_] Anon 2677578 >># >art started at the Renaissance >Ignores that David from Michelangelo took more than 15 years to be done, and how he had financial support to do so by the church all those years, while modern artists have mostly times a one week deadline >one single aesthetic style from a decade/century is the TRUE art, while all others are causality, not the other way around >impressionism started because EVIL students rebelled against standards, not because photo was invented and people was not interested in realistic portraits anymore >Putting the lowest in comparison to the highest, to make a point >Never explain what, in the end, is the true nature of art is how I should measure instead. Instead pledge to the beauty, but also never explains it >GIBBE MONEY TO MY ASSOCIATION >Museum art once was relevant top kek. and people obviously fall for the bait Go study some art history
>> [_] Anon 2677579 >># please stop existing.
>> [_] Anon 2677581 >># It's not worth it, man. Just move on, this thread never happened. Egyptian art a best
>> [_] Anon 2677582 >># I must concur. The "painted" canvas was a joke though. I'm sure it has some deep, meaningful reason behind it for it... but to me it's kinda shit. I do like some moderns arts I have seen, but after the 'different' factor wares off I don't want to see another similar piece. I find it different with classical pieces, since rather than being 'different' it's more about excellence. True, exellence can become boring when pieces are similar too often, but purely being 'different,' like modern art often tries to be, can become boring much faster so than when the excellence factor is not present.
>> [_] Anon 2677583 these guaranteed replies flashes are the fucking worst there hasn't been a single thread with people agreeing with each other just someone always trying to persuade others that their opinion is right
>> [_] Anon 2677584 >># You little shit. It's called contemporary.
>> [_] Anon 2677585 >># Contemporary, then.
>> [_] Anon 2677587 >art, talent, beauty and effort are all the same thing But that is fucking wrong. Art can be simple. Beauty sense changes from time to time. Talents does not equal in good results. Effort does not guarantee a good work. Yeah, of course museums are full of shit nowadays (sometimes literally). But that's goes for all expressions of art as well. Take the top 10 billboard from this month and see how "good" are those. But that does not mean, of course, that once in a while a pop song can't be a well crafted piece of music, and that some modern artist can't do something really good. This man in the end is just bitter nostalgic for something he never lived or experienced. He also seems to be believe that one "movement" must have a name and rules to be real, while refusing to believe that anything out of museum is ever gonna be important, or good IN another words, he studied a lot of art, but never truly experienced it.
>> [_] Anon 2677591 If all modern art is "bad taste" and "ugly" (which is a lie) that means they do have a standard. That standard just being the opposite of the ones who worshiped the beauty and the good taste Not saying I like those, just saying that he contradicts himself in his "no such thing as standards on modern art" speech It's quite impossible to start a trend without creating a standard, even if you are fucking dadaist, your art must obey some required rules and aesthetics to be called so tl;dr STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE speech
>> [_] Anon 2677593 >># can you post more stuff like this?
>> [_] Anon 2677595 >># way to in every way literally BE the problem there guy.
>> [_] Anon 2677596 Call me a sad human being, but in the end calling something art nowadays is meaningless. "Art" being a positive quality is just end result of people having the same opinion. Especially nowadays, people hold too much value to opinions. Anybody saying "I consider this art" instantly means it is "art". Ask yourself then - So what? It doesn't gain anything in comparison to other things, since they're "art" just as well. And this is core of the problem. In earlier times something had to gain widespread recognition to be considered art. If you take the widespread applause, you also devalue the 'art' label down to nothingness. Separate issue is mistaking the causality by certain crowds. Art causes clashing opinions, therefore if it causes clashing opinions it is art. And you end up with buttplugs being 1:x replicas of fine art, re: paris sculpture.
>> [_] Anon 2677600 >># if you can find it post it.
>> [_] Anon 2677601 >># I feel you.
>> [_] Anon 2677602 >># >art used to mean "craft" >any potter, baker or blacksmith was also a artist >it needed top be widespread to be called art >nowadays it means nothing! top art studies here
>> [_] Anon 2677603 >># BOYHOOD IT TOOK TWELVE YEARS TO MAKE
>> [_] Anon 2677604 >># Dude, before the industrial era being an smith was equal to being an artist, an artist of war.
>> [_] Anon 2677605 >># I think all movements do have a name and rules. Modernism is no exception. They are just much more loose than in the classical periods. The result being line between movements has been blurred a lot recently. At least manifestos and the like help a bit in the classification of some of the movements.
>> [_] Anon 2677606 >># >pretentious cunts pre·ten·tious prəˈten(t)SHəs/ adjective adjective: pretentious attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. >yfw modern art critics and "artists" are actually the literal definition of pretentious
>> [_] Anon 2677608 >># >the word changed meaning so you are wrong > I'm so happy I feel gay.
>> [_] Anon 2677610 >># see andy warhol's paintings of marilyn monroe
>> [_] Anon 2677614 >># Manifestos only started at the modern and post modern art, because art at this point was getting really meta But the renaissance artists never sat down on a table and said WE MUST BE CALLED...THE RENAISSANCE Names/rules are just a way to separate important changes, trying to squeeze the essential things from the called movement. But at the time it was just a guy drawing things that was according to his views on the world. For example, is really easy to separate baroque painting from renaissance, but in the middle of those two periods the art is mixed and not so rule-oriented, creating the famous "post" and "pre" separations. In short, nothing but one academic choice, took way too seriously by wannabes. Unfortunately modern art is dominated by academics and wannabes, so everybody wants a name, a break-tough movement and fame. Hence the mediocrity and try hard edge bullshit
>> [_] Anon 2677619 >># >of course an old white guy would love art made by old white guys >full of the Christianity that western civilization loves So you're an edgy "anti-racist" fedora who's too retarded and/or autistic to recognize what is objectively aesthetically pleasing and therefore assumes people like actual art because of Christianity, the amount of time it takes to produce a piece, and "DEY WHITE." Seems like you're half bullshitting us and half repeating something from a charlatan that you were too dumb to question.
>> [_] Anon 2677620 >># Can I roll up a dog turd, smoke it, record it, and sell it to a museum as a performance piece? I think I'll call it, Responsible Regret, a take on sticking it to the man but only to find myself having a new addiction
>> [_] Anon 2677631 >># Only if you have the correct connections to get it submitted to a museum, and the ruthless social climbing skills to destroy the reputation of everyone that submits anything better.
>> [_] Anon 2677632 >># >art is better than ever >trash art please die
>> [_] Anon 2677634 >># There was always a notion of what was the "norm" during those times; people noticed the change from the rennaisance to the baroque. And, while it is true that many of these divisions were termed by the academia, it doesn't change the fact that separating them by period proves to be helpful in other areas of academia, namely the social sciences and literature. I won't know what will happen to modern art as it is now, however. Many continue to push away from what they consider the "norm", but it's attempting to change far too rapidly for anything of importance to be created, resulting in most of the "mediocrity and try hard edge bullshit"
>> [_] Anon 2677636 Talent can be taught. With enough time, barring physical disability, a person can learn how to paint like a master. That is technique and is simply a matter of time and dedication before it can be absorbed. Expression and innovation cannot be taught. You have it or you do not. Photography and printing have allowed for exact replicas of the world be able to be created on a whim. Expression is what separates an artist. Some have more technical skill than others but simply relying on the rote copying of nature to canvas is no longer acceptable on its own as a popular form of art.
>> [_] Anon 2677639 I find old art boring and new art pretentious. Oh and this guy is a nerd. What's wrong with me?
>> [_] Anon 2677640 >># Don't forget some things like Digital Art was created in that generation. Same way a even more aggressive pop-art thing is happening, with all kinds of happy, colored celebrities/movies/references being painted in t-shirts, outdoors and so on Our view is getting more and more commercial-oriented, is no different with the art. The standard we have for popular art (forget the elites) is a happy, quick, amusing thing.
>> [_] Anon 2677643 >If the product doesn't sell, it isn't made. a product is not art nor should art be made for profit, since it is just a way of expressing one self for the artist and a form of entertainment for the audience. >art museums a shit!!! Yeah, art museums are a fucking joke and pandering to the biggest wallet. No shit. There were tons of bullshit artist in history and yet only the few best ones are remembered. Why? Because they were fucking good. It's not like every graffiti is going to be remembered as the pinnacle of our time. This guy does have good points but the best artist can actually be found online nowadays. Also he seems to limit his perception of art to fucking paintings and sculptures. The 1900's to now has been a revolutionary age to every other form of art, and since paintings are not really the most popular form of art anymore it's really fucking stupid to complain about them being worse than 500 years ago.
>> [_] Brother in /f/ 2677647 >># swf is type of modern art, sorry bros
>> [_] Anon 2677649 >># That's not what he's talking about. The subject matter of the video is modern, critically-acclaimed "art." There are lots of worthwhile modern forms of art that aren't recognized by art critics as "modern art".
>> [_] Anon 2677656 I just look at these as funposting
>> [_] Anon 2677662 Stop spamming this shit video please, of course he is right but every not completely retarded man already know that.
>> [_] Anon 2677663 >># You have to be fucking kidding me. The worst part is this isn't obviously bait. In which case, you're fucking retarded, or everyone can dismiss this as bait.
>> [_] Anon 2677667 >># But he's a kike.
>> [_] Anon 2677680 >names only good classical works >names only bad modern works fucking moron. the classical masters also made heaps of shitty uninspiring works on top of that, only to get lucky with a few prized pieces..
>> [_] Anon 2677683 these guys are the defeners of the art world
>> [_] Anon 2677686 >># Name shitty classical works please.
>> [_] Anon 2677688 >># The vast majority of them. Nobody saved them because they were so shitty that they weren't deemed worthy of preserving. The only reason we have the "classics" we have now is because they were pared down from thousands of shit pieces over the course of hundreds of years. It'll be the same thing a hundred years from now with modern art.
>> [_] Anon 2677691 potato
>> [_] Anon 2677692 BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT BAIT
>> [_] Anon 2677693 ITT people who don't understand art or art history
>> [_] Anon 2677696 There is a lot of really shitty modern art but there is also a ton of shitty classical art. If its shit its shit.
>> [_] Anon 2677697 >># for example....young woman with ibis from degas nothing special, not even close to his other works. most of the "masters" were actually criticized in their lifetime and only later were their works recognized as masterful works. how are the works of dali, matisse, kandinksy and picasso not of the same quality as the classical masters?
>> [_] Anon 2677715 >># tl;dr all new art is fucking shit all the rest is good also you're all fucking faggots
>> [_] Anon 2677719 >># > nor should art be made for profit Which explain why every important piece of art was done for profit! Oh... wait

File: Why_is_modern_art_so_bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Reminder Anon 2667264 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2667272 If technique is the essence of good art, then a computer work could be called art?
>> [_] Anon 2667276 >># yes, if it takes technique and has aesthetic value. *note fractals do not count as they are generated by an algorithm, one can argue that the algorithm is art but not the output (and as such only the creator of the fractal algorithm can be considered an artist, not the monkey pressing keys making the algorithm do things)
>> [_] Anon 2667277 >># Would be glorious if beautifully written code was valued as an art, similar to poetry. It certainly has more artistic merit than modern shock art garbage.
>> [_] Anon 2667280 >># >># Im not an critic or any of that dramatic shit, modern art is ugly. But if "art" can be made by a machine then what is the point of art?
>> [_] Anon 2667281 >># a computer work does not necessarily mean a computer made it, it merely means a computer was the tool. For example intricately beautiful code could be considered art, 3D geometry could be considered art. A digital painting could be considered art.
>> [_] Anon 2667282 >># Sorry, I didn't clarify it. I'm talking about AI.
>> [_] Anon 2667284 >># I was talking about well-designed code written by humans. In case you didn't know, we don't have strong AIs capable of doing the same. For example, I would definitely consider some parts of linux kernel and the early ID tech engines art.
>> [_] Anon 2667286 >># if the AI was truly intelligent (as in sentient) then I don't see why it couldn't be considered art, paintings by chimps are art so why wouldn't a painting by a sentient ai be?
>> [_] Anon 2667287 >># Then what is the point of art? tell me what it is. Is just another way of communication?
>> [_] Anon 2667289 >># I honestly don't know, does it need a point? If I had to express an opinion I guess it'd be to communicate complex ideas or emotions through the creation of beauty. Or maybe creation for the sake of creation.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667291 All art, at some level, is proof of the soul.
>> [_] Anon 2667294 >># kek
>> [_] Anon 2667295 >># kek No, it is proof of our capability for abstract thought. Unless that's what you call a soul.
>> [_] Anon 2667296 I fucking hate art "purists" like this. it all boils down to "what I like=art, what i don't like= evidence of cultural conspiracy"
>> [_] Anon 2667297 >># I'm gonna say that i believe that art is a form of communication. there is a lot of ways of express something. Classic and modern artist have forget about that and only care to "create what is the norm" according to them, and that is sad.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667302 >># >># -honestly, it's just what I keep telling myself in order to keep from cutting off my ear, and stave off drinking myself to death in my tiny studio for another day...
>> [_] Anon 2667304 >># indeed, however a rock isn't communication. Throwing a can of paint on a canvas isn't communication either, unless maybe you're expressing the concept of chaos but it's far from a good way to do it. A pure white "painting" at best expresses the "artists" laziness as they clearly couldn't be arsed to paint in the first place. I don't really care what medium a piece is in but if it doesn't convey emotion or at least some sort of information then it isn't art (or rather, shouldn't be). In a way graffiti can be more 'art' than a lot of pieces in the museum, doodles in notebooks can just as well also be far more worthy of the title than art in a museum, we live in a world where a urinal is 'art'. A fucking urinal is ART, it makes me want to not live on this planet.
>> [_] Anon 2667305 I just took at huge shit... pay me $10 million for this flawless masterpiece.
>> [_] Anon 2667307 >># He's right though. For a more familiar example (I hope you're not a newfag): Do you also think letting normalfags ruin 4chan has been beneficial, or cultural degeneration? Were we better off a decade ago? Purism/elitism certainly has its place.
>> [_] Anon 2667308 >># Of course those "modern artist" are just making money out of fools or their are deluded as a kid who brush some colors around and believe its good cuz people told him so.
>> [_] Anon 2667310 >># ah, indeed. We know where the problem lies, but I don't know what sort of solution could be applied. I fear the degeneracy has gone much too far to be resolved.
>> [_] Anon 2667311 >># Also Marcel Duchamp was not an artist but a political pawn.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667312 >># Sorry, you have to have a big name in the well-established "Biomass Sculpture" community to pull that kind of $$ for your work
>> [_] Anon 2667314 >># It doesn't really matter, the 'art community' considers it art and as such we live on a planet where a motherfucking urinal is art. (which, fyi, sucks)
>> [_] Anon 2667315 Ah, the classic "Realism is the only art" argument. Realism died out when we could start taking photos. Expression is hella more talkative.
>> [_] Anon 2667320 >># Nah, the thing is that now you are more aware of how people is instead of living under a idealization of it. People that has the "soul" will always be in their path, that have been since the past and nowadays are not exception. The other day I watched an artist that create a a draw of a bird out of soot. The thing that i want to said is that before that the idea of an "artist" was created, those beings existed, and now that the "factory of artist" its been destroyed people think that those beings do not exist anymore...but they do.
>> [_] Anon 2667322 >># that's a loaded and pointless question- you've already made out the change to be ruination. I think the major problem with these sort of criticisms of art is they always seem to suggest that art as a whole has "degraded"- that there is a finite supply of art and now the majority of it is bad. There's way more art being made now than there ever has been in history. There are still skillful, classically inspired paintings and sculptures. It just so happens that there are also crosses in jars of piss as well. Whats wrong with allowing that sort of expression to take place?
>> [_] Anon 2667323 >># Sure, real artists still exist but the degeneracy is still depressing.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667324 >># The "Art Community" is mainly made up of real estate tycoons who do a hellametricfucktonne of drugs, and blow each others ego-dicks at parties. They develop pet artists, and trade them around like Magic cards.
>> [_] Anon 2667326 >># Is just matter of perspective (kek), the "artist" have move to another real that is not longer inside of a museum or neither a "gallery". That is my opinion tough
>> [_] Anon 2667329 >># It's an interesting perspective, the internet is probably a functional alternative (if one can somehow shine through the oceans of shit)
>> [_] Anon 2667333 >># how in any way does that affect you or the value of the art you like?
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667334 >># Pokemon, rather. "MAPPELTHORP! I CHOOSE YOU!" -Mapple! Mapp-MappMapple!!
>> [_] Anon 2667335 >># He never said anything to that effect. He just used famous realism masterpieces as examples for people who know jack shit about art movements. The issue is self-expression overriding quality control, which leads to absolute nonsense "art" and art galleries being known as a joke nowadays. >># >Whats wrong with allowing that sort of expression to take place? It lowers quality standards. Or rather, allowing it is not a problem but overappreciating it is a very serious problem.
>> [_] Anon 2667336 >># Just don't sweat it man, if you like some kind of stuff then reunite with people alike and do that stuff (or you can do it by yourself too). There will always be people that will hate what you do because whatever reason, so don't give a fuck about those who only intend of destroy you. You just have a life time to expend it in such trivial things (unless they are not for you)
>> [_] Anon 2667338 >># why is that a serious problem? if that's the way tastes develop and that's the sort of art people appreciate, there's nothing wrong with that. I fail to see why it's any less valid than more classical art forms.
>> [_] Anon 2667339 I believe that the problem is, in an objective way, of how tax money is used in this kind of stuff.
>> [_] Anon 2667341 >># it does not particularly affect the things I do like, however it does affect my ability to visit a museum to view things I like as at best the experience will be watered down with irrelevant garbage and at worst it'll be mostly or only irrelevant garbage. >># quite, however discussing the topic can be interesting. I don't particularly bother with such 'art' in real life though, I'm far too busy.
>> [_] Anon 2667343 >># Like I said, >which leads to absolute nonsense "art" and art galleries being known as a joke nowadays. No one outside the contemporary art community thinks this self-expression bullshit is art. It cheapens art as a whole.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667344 > Mappelthorp uses Shock And Awe against the unsuspecting viewing public! >It is SUPER EFFECTIVE
>> [_] Anon 2667346 >># >I use my dick in your anus >It is Super Effective
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667351 > C'thul'hy counters with Have Others Do All The Work! > Mappelthorp is Buried under Squiggly Glass! > Mappelthorp is Fatigued, and must withdraw! > C'thul'hy WINS!
>> [_] Anon 2667352 I like how this swf always brings some thought-provoking discussion.
>> [_] Anon 2667358 As an artist...I agree with this video. Modern art is pure shit. Then again, almost everything in the modern age has lost standards. It is sad.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667365
>> 2667358 It's not so much that everything has gone to shit, so much as the shit is broadcast much farther and with less effort than in the past. There's lots of good stuff out there, but it is drowning in noise because noise sells easier than art.
>> [_] Anon 2667372 >># Of course there is, but I am talking in the general public eye of things, total garbage mostly.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667374 >># Yes. Because bad art is easily identified, and that generates discord; which creates various market potential. First for the museum or art holder, who gets heads through the door and prestige. Then from merchandisers, of course, because if it's a hot topic, it'll sell even if it's ugly. Then for the media, selling advertising off the banter and public outcry. Finally, for the Folks With Agendas (aka- public art haters in congress, etc.,) who generate money or votes collecting on the stirred-up frenzy byproduct of all above. Good art doesn't generate any of that, because it is never universal in appeal.
>> [_] Anon 2667378 The various forms of art have been achieved and mastered. Anything at this point is copying past works. Anyone with a year of solid practice these days can draw a perfect human figure. Anyone with the money can make wonderful human art sculptures with a little studying and a lot of practice. Why? Because it's already been mastered. I feel this is a major reason why art have gone from outward beauty to inward, natural beauty. His smock for example, shows all the chaos, enthusiasm and frustration of his various paintings, much like the painted rocks or fire rainbows. It doesn't have to have a name attached to it, it's just thought provoking. Isn't that what all are he exampled do, make the viewer think? > Most modern art do look bad though, but I'll be damned if I don't defend it as a medium
>> [_] Anon 2667389 >># >I would definitely consider some parts of linux kernel and the early ID tech engines art You're cancer >># Yeah, I think it has something to do with the increased population and people feeding off one another's stupidity
>> [_] Anon 2667392 >># Why? Do you disagree with the entire idea of source code as art or only the examples?
>> [_] Anon 2667396 /f/ - serious art discussion
>> [_] Anon 2667397 >># Sorry for being vague The examples Off the top of my head, I can't think of much code I would consider art, although I'm sure I've seen something at some point
>> [_] Anon 2667399 >># I would consider that TAS video where they program a fully-functioning original super mario into a super mario world snes cart to be art.
>> [_] Anon 2667400 >># Code isn't art it is merely a human construction meeting it designated function if you consider it art then cement, screwdrivers and the internal combustion engine must also be art.
>> [_] Anon 2667404 >># Awe-inspiring feats of engineering, any kind of engineering, can be art. I doubt you'll ever find that in a screwdriver, but architecture for example is often considered to be art.
>> [_] Anon 2667405 >># >it is merely a human construction meeting it designated function So is art, its function being aesthetic pleasantry of thought provocation. But yes, I do consider the functioning of the internal combustion engine to be art in a way.
>> [_] Anon 2667408 >># >implying art cant be utilitarian
>> [_] Anon 2667420 >># It's not so much the artist that fools people, but critics, artists, buyers,patreons that let this system continue for the following reasons: - It creates a form of elitism; those people are supposed to appreciate Modern Art, while the commoner won't "understand" a thing and think it's ridiculous. I think this is a consequence of the creation of museums and easy acces to culture for people from low class. (Art Nouveau and its ideals might have an influence in this.) - It creates speculation bubbles; in some countries, art is an investment that is not subject to taxation, like in France. Modern art churns out more content thatn people spending years on paintings and sculptures, thus providing a healthy supply. You make the price rise by making an artist famous or appreciated. It's a shielded world, where insider trading isn't punished.
>> [_] Anon 2667421 >># this is like the deepest, longest thread I've seen on /f/ >># if this is the case then 4k demos are the ultimate art form.
>> [_] Anon 2667422 >># i dunno about ultimate, but the entire demoscene has always been considered art.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 2667423 >># Exactly. (See also, "The Emperor's New Clothes")
>> [_] Anon 2667431 Art did continue to be perfected after realism, there is a photorealism movement that is pretty amazing and still going on. Vector art also has a very similar intent to reach perfection.
>> [_] Anon 2667458 >># As someone who lives a strange life on the edge of struggling folks and a crowd of extreme wealth, I will attest that you are correct.
>> [_] Anon 2667459 post some contemporary art collections http://kokoelmat.fng.fi/app?si=http%3A%2 F%2Fwww.kiasma.fi&lang=en
>> [_] !!BJiYgff8zf2 2667469 I consider anime and anime-esque images the apex of art in the modern era.
>> [_] Anon 2667470 >># the problem with photorealism is that is in fact more real than real creating a perverse mockery of reality
>> [_] Anon 2667471 Something happened in this thread
>> [_] Anon 2667473 >># I concur, this is the epitome of FUKKEN ART http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_c0XuXtxSbA/maxres default.jpg
>> [_] Anon 2667487 I would defend my assertation that this man's smock is indeed as much art as a jackson pollock painting, but for entirely different reasons. It IS bold, and evocative. It is balanced, and random, and varied... it is all these things because it is representative of all his works, his failures and his attempts, his sketches and his grandiose attempts at fine art. It is as worthy of being called "art" as Jackson Pollock's work and the only reason it would sell for less is because it lacks the marketing to make it valuable. Is it original? no. Is it art? Yes. Have a great day.
>> [_] Anon 2667488 >># Yes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9GLl6kI 4hQ
>> [_] Anon 2667489 >this whole thread Is this still 4chan? Or watching the whole thing teleports you to some paralel dimension?
>> [_] Anon 2667499 >># >the only reason it would sell for less is because it lacks the marketing to make it valuable. >marketing You accidentally pointed out the root of all evil.
>> [_] Anon 2667500 >># Sshh, don't tell anyone. This is why /f/ doesn't usually talk much.
>> [_] Anon 2667504 >Universal Standard >Disregards all oriental art, way way way older than european classical art That guy knows nothing, he's just an art elitist. I bet he thinks movies aren't art too. Fuck him.
>> [_] Anon 2667511 >># Uh, of course he did. He's talking about western art specifically.
>> [_] Anon 2667513 >># of course he discarded oriental art*

File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Japanese)
[_] Anon 2642936 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2642953 >google "modern art" >images >bottom of page results >Suspected child abuse content has been removed from this page.
>> [_] Anon 2642959 Yeah, I want artistic mythology back.
>> [_] Anon 2642960 >># >># oh god im dying. I have no idea why this video is so funny, but fuck, it's true.
>> [_] Anon 2642962 >># well done OP
>> [_] Anon 2642963 >># worry.jpg
>> [_] Anon 2642967 oh god the ending, completely lost my shit. GG op GG
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2642983 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2642986 tl:dw: >STOP LIKING WHAT I DONT LIKE! WAKE UP SHEEPLE
>> [_] Anon 2642988 >># 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".
>> [_] Anon 2642990 Are you faggots from that other performance art thread being floated? >># I think >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2642991 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2642999 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2643001 >># >s-stop criticizing my art! this piece of poo in a bottle makes a statement!
>> [_] Anon 2643005 >># >artists literally shitting on walls and smearing urine all over themselves >exploring different concepts Sure buddy.
>> [_] Anon 2643007 >># 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. >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2643010 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2643012 >># wait, which one of the Italian masters did it first?
>> [_] Anon 2643014 >># Are you saying that "artists literally shitting on walls and smearing urine all over themselves" is NOT a new thing?
>> [_] Anon 2643020 they will stop making terrible art it people would stop paying them to make terrible art.
>> [_] Anon 2643021 >># >># Disregard what I said then. I suck cocks. I know shit about art then.
>> [_] Anon 2643023 >># 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. >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2643025 >># oh! So you know about modern art then!
>> [_] Anon 2643026 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2643028 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2643051 See, this si why we have furries
>> [_] Anon 2643053 >># would people make terrible art if they continued making terrible people?
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2643064 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2643111 "Art has no objective standard... now here are some objective standards we should be attributing to it" -This Video
>> [_] Anon 2643122 >># people only buy modern art to launder money
>> [_] Anon 2643123 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2643126 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2643150 Fuck off /pol/
>> [_] Anon 2643166 >># 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!

File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] The Truth Anon 2538039 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2538049 /f/ is full of art.
>> [_] Anon 2538051 I like this. It says exactly what need to be said. Thank you.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2538058 I don't listen to jews.
>> [_] Anon 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?
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 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
>> [_] Anon 2538133 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2538139 >># >># >lazy cunts detected >># 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 >># top wat >>#
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2538200 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 2538201 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2538202 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2538211 >># 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"
>> [_] Anon 2538220 >posting this on a site where 99.9% of the users think anime is the greatest form of art
>> [_] Anon 2538244 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 2538251 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 2538258 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2538268 >># >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
>> [_] Anon 2538320 >># 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.

File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anon 2521549 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2521582 yup
>> [_] Anon 2521602 art is subjective
>> [_] Anon 2521604 >># It's true. I took AP Art History last year in Junior year, and I can fullheartedly agree that modern art is fucking shit
>> [_] Anon 2521610 That fucker is making some sweeping statements.
>> [_] Anon 2521616 >># >the new >the different >the UGLY Stopped watching there. there.
>> [_] Anon 2521621 I never liked modern art.. I know there are some deep shit behind some of those but really, that's just an idea expressed in a sort of enigmatic way. While in classic art there is the talent and the dedication of the author splattered in front of you.
>> [_] Anon 2521622 Modern art is literally a shit statement.
>> [_] Anon 2521624 >># Whoever made this was a butthurt autist. >Hurr I don't like or understand it and/or find the subject matter offensive, so it's shitty
>> [_] Anon 2521626 Obviously the Jews did this.
>> [_] Anon 2521628 You see the same thing in literature, especially modern poetry: obscurity to give the illusion of meaning; vulgarity as a substitute for wit.
>> [_] Anon 2521629 >># >talentless "artist" detected
>> [_] Anon 2521631 >># mad you don't want to put in more effort then literially shitting in a bowl?
>> [_] Anon 2521635 There's some decent modern art out there with a lot of thought put into it, this video just cherry-picked some of the shit..of which there is also a lot. The thing with it is talentless hacks flood the scene trying to get a piece of it all, using minimal effort and producing (sometimes literal) shit that is utterly pretentious and then hiding behind "it's all subjective man it has deep meaning and stuff" when the quality is criticized.
>> [_] Anon 2521636 well, beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it's free speech and people are just going to have to suck it up if they get butthurt about who likes what or not.
>> [_] Anon 2521639 >># I agree that classical art was generally more technically inclined, but there's literally no good reason to slam modern art for being 2enigmatic4u or getting upset because certain pieces are "offensive". On top of that, the entire clip only ever cites classical western art, as if the only classical art in the entire world was European and there aren't elements of classical art from various other cultures that are commonly present in modern art. Funnily enough, in trying to present an educated viewpoint, Roger just created more fodder for the ignorant people who neither understand nor truly wish to ever understand modern or classical art, but relish the mere feeling that they do.
>> [_] Anon 2521640 >prager university Good goys. Anyway, the guy makes a couple of good points. There is a lot of trash in modern art that gets by just out of novelty and standards of production have gone down the drain for the most part. But: He appears to reduce modern art to dadaism and offshoots, which is an extremely criticized movement within the art community anyway. Anybody with any kind of art or design background could tell his dirty apron is a dirty apron. Its composition is unexistant. He fails to explain the main reason classical movements went out of style (photography) and simply blames it on 19th century rebels.
>> [_] Anon 2521643 modern art is the art of the time it reflects whats happening at that very moment various arts would not have been labeled if it wasn't done at a specific time and look the same thing happened to music from harmony came a long period of dissonant music but from that dissonant style you have most of modern music you're american, jazz, and various other were born from mastering dissonant sound hell you wouldnt even pieces like peirrot lunaire without it. and trust me when the first artist used dissonant sound it sounded like shit before it had a chance to get refined
>> [_] Anon 2521665 This guy is 5000% retarded. Shitty art has always, always existed, and will continue to always exist. The best of the best is what is remembered. So too, among the piles of shit around us today, are gems in every field of art. Just fucking wait, and those gems' ability to stand the test of time will survive as modern greats.
>> [_] Fuckbitchesgetwaffles 2521669 Relevant thingamajig, also this was on here a few days ago I think.... http://www.memecenter.com/fun/3635375/2d eep4u
>> [_] Anon 2521670 >the girl with the pearl earring wow faget, if you're going to talk about art you should at least look up the painting's name
>> [_] Anon 2521672 If I could post images on /f/ I'd post the one of the guy on /k/ having his sculpture placed next to a shitty crude fellatio sculpture at an art exhibit
>> [_] Anon 2521675 >># are you retarded? that is the actual fucking name of the painting
>> [_] Anon 2521676 >># you tried
>> [_] Anon 2521683 The reason why, as this guy would say, "untalented and/or vulgar" art has skyrocketed, is because of the spread of information and means to bring individual works to the global stage. Back when art was "better", all the artistic outlets were much more tight. Be it because of quality control or just about the lack of artists/viewers in general. Now we live in the age of radio, television and, most importantly, internet. Every individual with any artistic skill (be it objective or subjective) can bring out their works for all to see.
>> [_] Anon 2521696 >That graph Fucking what? This whole thing complains about subjective value but has no objective backing for a lot of the stuff it claims. I mean, I understand what this guy says, and I can agree with some of it, but I think his generalizations mixed with cherry picked examples and little actual hard facts undermines the whole thing.
>> [_] Anon 2521698 >># I love how he dances arround how pleb tier people is ruining his art without trying to call out the pleb tier people because everyone would stop listening. >>I can hear your butthurt on 4chan, you may need to see a doctor.
>> [_] Anon 2521704 This guy is visibly frustrated. I think it's because he possibly trained to do some super great art but then became a teacher since piss and shit sold better. In fact, I think quite many "classically oriented" artists are extremely butthurt about modern art. Best example of this kind of artistic anger is none other than Adolf Hitler himself.
>> [_] Fuckbitchesgetwaffles 2521706 >># Was he not taking the daily dose?
>> [_] Anon 2521710 >># >an idea expressed in a sort of enigmatic way A good definition of art. >in classic art there is the talent and the dedication of the author splattered in front of you. Art is measured by exertion of the artist? Here is a rule of thumb: If it looks good, it is good. Try not to be an asshole next time.
>> [_] Anon 2521712 >># Well the thing is a lot of modern art is shit, and it should rightfully be called shit. Instead people defend it because people like defending shit and feeling good about themselves.
>> [_] Anon 2521713 It's hilarious because modern art is the one with literally a gallery of close-up assholes. Not figurative. Just zoomed in pictures of anuses.
>> [_] Fuckbitchesgetwaffles 2521716 >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >># >butthurt people fighting over art >me just masturbating to everything regardless
>> [_] ButthurtArtist !0OcwKW7j.c 2521719 I have not once invaded Poland over my art not being accepted... Although I did once occupy a French cafe for almost a week...
>> [_] Anon 2521721 >># The man in the video was condemning modern art as awful in its entirety. Which is no different from a group of Christians condemning Rock N' Roll as a satanist music.
>> [_] Anon 2521723 >># watch again, he said the origins of modern art started out quite good
>> [_] Anon 2521724 >># >one exhibit >entire genre k
>> [_] Anon 2521727 >># *tips condom fedora*
>> [_] Anon 2521729 >># I've watched it 3 times prior to this thread. The guy is an elitist, and claims contemporary art is trash (contemporary is not the same as modern). Have a look. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-kn udsen/top-ten-contemporary-art-_b_4521903 .html
>> [_] Anon 2521739 >># >implying it's not a clear indication when a gallery of assholes achieves such success
>> [_] Fuckbitchesgetwaffles 2521742 >># M'nonymous
>> [_] Anon 2521745 >># Almost all that art looks like complete shit and wouldn't even be accepted in a high school class
>> [_] Anon 2521749 Guys, you DO know that the 'decline' in art is partly due to the invention and proliferation of the camera, right?
>> [_] Anon 2521751 >># Who said it had to be?
>> [_] Anon 2521760 >># It's actually due to the jews, no joke.

File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anon 2514123 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2514140 I'll say it again. Art didn't get worse. It just turned into movies.
>> [_] Anon 2514142 Very Interesting, Saved.
>> [_] Anon 2514145 As an Art student, I agree with most of what he says. We need boundaries and rules, I'm sick and tired of watching talentless people who have never picked up a brush in their lives gaing tons of money and fame for bullshit that they decided to call art.
>> [_] T 2514149 >># I'll say it again, you're autistic. For example, a porn movie is about people fucking, modern art is a porno with no fucking in it and top notch acting.
>> [_] Anon 2514152 I agree with him for the most part, popular art has gone to shit. People whose art should be put up in galleries and displayed publicly are ignored while philistines continue to promote the production, glorification, and sale of shit. I wish that there was some way to easily change this deterioration of taste.
>> [_] Anon 2514155 Even better is when some artists know that their "art" only has value because of their name. Bansky did this thing where like 25 of his "Paintings?" were put on sale for like $5 a pop and nobody bought them
>> [_] Anon 2514156 one word: kitsch you can thank the communists for ruining art
>> [_] fuckbitchesgetwaffles 2514157 Remember when that 4chan screenshot sold for $90,000+? That's what this is about. THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!
>> [_] Anon 2514158 I remember being taught the 7 principles of design. I've got a feeling they were all identifiable in a vast majority of pre-impressionistic work. It's disturbing how much this rip resonates with me.
>> [_] fuckbitchesgetwaffles 2514160 >># http://www.memecenter.com/fun/3635375/2d eep4u
>> [_] Anon 2514164 >># I like that about artist. Like when Rowling wrote that one book under a different pseudonym and Kojima made up Moby Dick Studios. Too bad it was kind of obvious the Phantom Pain was MGS.
>> [_] Anon 2514169 It was the Jews who made the push. Egalitarianism was placed even in our paintings. >Third world congoid africans are just as equal to us as a Frenchman or a Swiss. >Blotches of paint are just as equal to art as realistic landscapes
>> [_] Anon 2514173 This is a good point, but on the subject of graffiti: Banksy is pretty cool
>> [_] Anon 2514175 /pol/ is always right
>> [_] Anon 2514179 >># >memecenter How the fuck did you casuals even find /f/?
>> [_] Anon 2514186 >># Because the state of public discourse has likewise fallen into disrepair; causing people to believe that anything that elicits even the slightest shred of serious thought out of them deserves to be elevated to the status of a work of art.
>> [_] Anon 2514189 >># The point was that it wasn't serious.
>> [_] Anon 2514190 "Artists" of today are just cancerous freeloaders living on whatever state-funded art support money they can get.
>> [_] fuckbitchesgetwaffles 2514192 >># We have our ways
>> [_] Anon 2514195 >># So what does it mean to be an artist in this day and age? It means being a lazy bastard whose only redeeming quality is mastery of talking bullshit. Should've become a politician instead of artist.
>> [_] Anon 2514197 >># Yeah, someone sarcastically paid 90 grand for it
>> [_] Anon 2514205 This post is art.
>> [_] Anon 2514207 What do you expect from modern art? Have you seen the modern urban pleb these days? Each generation is becoming more mind numb and so the quality of art degrades
>> [_] fuckbitchesgetwaffles 2514208 >># Oh god not again
>> [_] Anon 2514210 Anime is art.
>> [_] Anon 2514215 >># he's right though, you guys are getting butthurt because your poor art isn't getting noticed, suck it up. Art is subjective.
>> [_] Anon 2514218 very good points in this flash
>> [_] Anon 2514223 This guy is a retard. Debate me.
>> [_] Anon 2514225 wow, some faggot liberal arts professor gives you his opinion on what should be art because he can't let go of what he learned from a textbook decades ago... You can go take a big diarrhea shit on a canvas and someone will buy it for a million. It's all subjective. Art is such a worthless shit concept to asses with standards
>> [_] Anon 2514226 >># It sold because-one it's humorous and-two it illustrates the growing problem in the art world. It's brilliant because it shows the bullshit of the situation. It's one of the few 'minimalist works' that doesn't suck, mainly because of it's idea.
>> [_] Anon 2514240 Why is dollar value even coming into question in a discussion on art?
>> [_] Anon 2514251 Potato knishes is art
>> [_] Anon 2514280 >># >You can go take a big diarrhea shit on a canvas and someone will buy it for a million. That's his entire point. "Art" is no longer artistic. Stop for a moment and realize what you just said. Somebody can take a shit on a canvas and sell it as art. Does monetary value translate into artistic merit? Does that mean that a well-constructed painting with good aesthetic value, deep symbolic meaning, and a strong personal spin that sells for 10 dollars is less artistic than a piece of shit smeared on a canvas that sold for 10 million?
>> [_] Anon 2514290 >># beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Art is subjective and someone might love my diarrhea shit on a big canvas. I should not have muddied the example by mentioning money.
>> [_] Anon 2514291 >># Because it's a way to get a sense of what makes good art. Or at least that is what people think. Expensive works of art are the ones that people see in galleries and everyone talks about, not your shitty $10 print from target.
>> [_] Anon 2514292 >># SIR I WILL PAY YOU ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR THAT POST
>> [_] Anon 2514293 >># I already made that post, there will never be another one like it. A million wont do
>> [_] Anon 2514294 World War 1 happened. How can anyone pretend to be knowledgeable on this dribble?
>> [_] Anon 2514297 >># maybe if people in the art community weren't so stuck up and pretentious about it art would be in a better place. >Doesn't see how this "shitty" art is a masterpiece let me scoff at you
>> [_] Anon 2514300 >># Excellent. I fucking hate modern art and modern society.
>> [_] Anon 2514304 http://vimeo.com/55426796 To all the people who are still concerned about art.
>> [_] Anon 2514310 >># People like you are exactly the kind that this professor is railing against. What he's saying is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is not correct - as there should be a standard of beauty, even if there isn't any longer. We shouldn't give assholes with shit taste a pedestal.
>> [_] Anon 2514311 guaranteedreplies.swf
>> [_] Anon 2514314 This guy is a fucking nobody. He's not an art historian, he's some shitty painter trying to do shit that's been done for hundreds of years. He's obsessed with aesthetics and doesn't understand that art no longer has an obligation to be objectively beautiful and make us feel good. Artistic movements develop based on tons of factors, none of which this guy has any clue about because he's just some guy spouting his uneducated opinion, much like everyone else in this thread. It's understandable to think that the modern and postmodern movements have gone to shit when compared to beautiful renaissance works, but to spout on about artistic objectivity like this guy really just shows that he is either trying hard to be an edgy fag or is actually just retarded. also >prager university
>> [_] Anon 2514316 >># >as there should be a standard of beauty in other words >you should like what is only approved by others good luck with that.
>> [_] Anon 2514317 Don't quantify a work's quality with money, but with scientific evaluation. You can do plenty of experiments to show that it's empirical to a certain degree. Yes, people have different tastes, but only because they know that for the most part we all like the same things. We all like emotion and curves and things that are bigger than we are.
>> [_] Anon 2514319 >trying to define a shit subject like art >not leaving the interpretation open to the faggots at Starbucks art is not even worth arguing about. Either you like it or you don't. Some rich cumguzzler buys something stupid claiming its art as a publicity stunt and all the conservative liberal arts majors start crying
>> [_] Anon 2514322 >># >># i used to go to memecenter back when i was new to the internet right after i left 9gag. then i discovered 4chan and now memecenter looks like stale shit. in fact it was already dying even before i left, since the reposts were increasing by the day and there was content from 9gag showing up.
>> [_] Anon 2514324 Hitler had the right idea.
>> [_] Anon 2514326 It was rather disingenuous of him to completely ignore the driving factor behind the departure from classical standards. They didn't do it "just because", they did it because their technical and aesthetic prowess in rendering something as close to how it is perceived by the eye as possible results in work left lacking when put against photography. They sought ways of creating art that still forced them to exercise that prowess, but could not be replicated by taking a photograph. And as photography developed as a medium, they had to go further and further towards abstraction to maintain that distance. At one point it got off the rails completely.
>> [_] Anon 2514328 >># >9gag Oh, never mind. You're a cool dude after all ;-)
>> [_] Anon 2514332 >># this
>> [_] Anon 2514340 Couldn't take him seriously after he lit up "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" as being wrong, despite the whole thing being about how he doesn't like modern art.
>> [_] Anon 2514342 >># to be fair so was Leonardo Divinci it's just he was good at it.
>> [_] Anon 2514344 >># no u
>> [_] Anon 2514347 >># actually it isnt. not real art at least. the difference is a masterful work of art has an intrinsic value to it that comes from the sheer amount of skill needed to create the piece. even if you don't know the meaning behind a beautifully carved statue, it's still something not just anyone can make and can still be apreciated for it's visual beauty and detail. meanwhile a pile of glued trash or a canvas of splashed ink can be done by pretty much anyone and thus only has value from the "meaning" behind it, and the viewer will look for one on his own as long as he thinks it's art, thus the artist doesn't even need to give it an actual meaning. tl;dr: real art is admirable by it's beauty and/or craftsmanship alone, often accompanied by some meaning that gives depth and "life" to the work. the other is pretty much trash that is only valuable because you tell yourself it must have some deep, hidden meaning to it, which i'd bet it often doesn't.
>> [_] Anon 2514348 >># >go to store >buy canvas >go to museum >show them the canvas >acquire fame, money, riches, and bitches
>> [_] Anon 2514352 >># It's not just the development of photography that caused artists to stop striving for pure aesthetics and accessibility. The trend away from aesthetics happened in literature during the same period, and works started to be more experimental and less accessible.
>> [_] Anon 2514354 I don't think this issue is just applicable to modern art - it applies to almost every facet of our lives and how we judge things. If somebody does anything with their lives (good, bad, tasteful, etc.), we are supposed to just accept that all people are different and respect their decisions. Rather than it being an issue of God vs. no God or right vs. wrong, good vs. poor quality, we are just supposed to assume that everyone is right or everyone has their own truth - all religions or non-religions are true to the individual that believes in it. However, this is horse shit, there is a right and a wrong - a fact and a nonfact. I don't presume to know what the answer is, but I can sure as hell tell you that not everyone is correct all at once. Similarly, if a kid isn't doing well in school, its not that he's stupid, its just that he has a 'different kind of intelligence'. Bullshit.
>> [_] Anon 2514355 >># Obviously the people who wipe shit on a canvas and call it art are retarded. But the thinking like, that in order for something to be good it has to be disciplined and stick to the guidelines stifles innovation.
>> [_] Anon 2514361 >># And just to add to this... it seems like those who do seek out the truth or deny relativism are frowned upon in modern society
>> [_] Anon 2514362 Ironically we've reached a point where corporate art is patently superior to fine art. Case in point: https://sites.google.com/site/mtgbasics/ home/plains

File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anon 2512085 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2512090 Anyone can carve something out of rock. I'd like to see Michelangelo move a 340 ton rock. Faggot.
>> [_] Anon 2512091 zone-sama
>> [_] Anon 2512093 This was very interesting and thoughtworthy. Thank you OP.
>> [_] Anon 2512095 Hmm. I agree, but I can't say I really give a shit about art enough to do anything about it.
>> [_] Anon 2512097 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512103 The only genre of art that is an enemy to art as a whole is minimalism.
>> [_] Anon 2512111 See: Hyperrealism /thread
>> [_] Anon 2512113 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512114 >># the average person has no sense for art anyway. thus hipsters and fedora neckbeards.
>> [_] Anon 2512115 >># Gimme the source or suck dick faggot
>> [_] Anon 2512116 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512117 >># the guy is an idiot - art is not science faggot - it acts on a different paradime
>> [_] Anon 2512118 this was hilarious. I see doodles by druggies everyday on the internet that are far more interesting than the mona lisa.
>> [_] Anon 2512120 souuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurccccce
>> [_] Anon 2512125 Can we get a video source for this? I'd like to share it...
>> [_] Anon 2512126 >># a landscape photo passed through 50 filters on instagram with a giant hashtag in the middle isn't "art", anon
>> [_] Anon 2512127 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
>> [_] Anon 2512128 >*Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.
>> [_] Anon 2512129 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512131 >[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.
>> [_] Anon 2512132 >rowshinberg i wonder who pushed out good art
>> [_] Anon 2512133 Dennis Prager - oh that guy - he's an konservative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIOLBFr3 R78
>> [_] Anon 2512135 http://www.robertflorczak.com His work is Grade-A Kitsch. By-the-book pretty on the surface but absolutely hollow.
>> [_] Anon 2512136 >># yes and photographs of landscapes aren't doodles
>> [_] Anon 2512137 finaly give source
>> [_] Anon 2512138 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512145 again source
>> [_] Anon 2512148 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512155 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512157 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512161 >># A true hero.
>> [_] Anon 2512165 He cherry picks quite hard when comparing modern art to old art, but I'll give him the figure skating analogy.
>> [_] Anon 2512167 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512169 >># big headline video. so much quality.
>> [_] Anon 2512174 >># 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,
>> [_] Anon 2512181 Thanks OP for posting this.
>> [_] Anon 2512191 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512192 did that dumbass try to use paintings to construct a line diagram? how the hell do you measure a subjective thing like art?
>> [_] Anon 2512194 >># >># 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
>> [_] Anon 2512198 Is goatse an art?
>> [_] Anon 2512201 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
>> [_] Anon 2512202 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512204 >># >physical, not lyrical medium Jesus christ pay attention man.
>> [_] Anon 2512206 >># >that biased as fuck statement
>> [_] Anon 2512208 Today OP wasn't a complete faggot. This made a lot of sense. Thanks OP.
>> [_] Anon 2512215 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2512218 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2512223 >># >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
>> [_] Anon 2512225 >># One is sculpted and one isn't, there's a difference retard.
>> [_] Anon 2512227 >all these failed art students getting mad at the truth
>> [_] Anon 2512228 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512232 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 2512233 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512237 >># The first rock was sculpted by nature, far more beautiful than anything humans have done.
>> [_] Anon 2512239 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2512240 >># Holy shit take your pretentiousness back to tumblr or something.
>> [_] Anon 2512241 >># Why limit yourself to make literal shit sculptures?
>> [_] Anon 2512242 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2512244 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512246 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512247 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512248 >># So deep. Are you a professional quote maker?
>> [_] Anon 2512249 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512250 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512252 yes
>> [_] Anon 2512253 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512256 >># always nice when someone puts your thoughts into words
>> [_] Anon 2512257 >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.
>> [_] Anon 2512258 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512259 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512265 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2512268 >># Shit I accidentally dropped off the rest from this... he said it though >>#
>> [_] Anon 2512269 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512275 >># You're a retard because you completely missed the point.
>> [_] Anon 2512276 >># You're a retard cause you use words like retrd
>> [_] Anon 2512277 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 2512286 >># >getting this mad Also, what the fuck do you think ignoratio elenchi means >psudeo nailed it
>> [_] Anon 2512287 >># >resorting to "u mad" tier arguments Good work.
>> [_] Anon 2512289 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512291 Art didn't degrade. The good artists just moved on to movies and video games.
>> [_] Anon 2512292 >># He's right, you are a huge faggot :^)
>> [_] Anon 2512293 >># >Ignoratio elenchi That doesn't apply to his comment at all, you incredible retard.
>> [_] Anon 2512295 I'm assuming this is why when "normal" people like me look at a modern art piece they think it's shit
>> [_] Anon 2512297 >># saying someone's grammar is bad in most of the text when that isn't the argument is ignoratio elenchi :^)
>> [_] Anon 2512298 >># >normal in quotes Quit trying to be a special snowflake, anon.
>> [_] Anon 2512300 >># But that wasn't the main point of his argument and it was confined to two points in parentheses. You are an idiot.
>> [_] Anon 2512301 >># >being this stupid >using :^) unironically
>> [_] Anon 2512302 >># >saying he when it is clearly you
>> [_] Anon 2512304 >># >more than one person cannot disagree with you
>> [_] Anon 2512306 >># 8==D
>> [_] T 2512310 >># What will the Free Market enforce? It is free after all >># This post is art. Thats what standards have become >># 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 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2512312 fucking idiot
>> [_] Anon 2512313 >># >only_pretending_to_be_retarded.jpg
>> [_] Anon 2512314 >># >Yeah, like Dear Esther or Depression Quest, those are perfect examples of what modern art is >Depression Quest >art
>> [_] Anon 2512315 >># >invented a new colour http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWV8mllJI aA seriosuly though, pretty silly
>> [_] Anon 2512316 this whole thread... I swear to god you guys...
>> [_] Anon 2512317 >># 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 2512320 >># Depression Quest has as much value as a game as Post-Modern art has as much value as art.
>> [_] Anon 2512325 This pisses me off so much. Art is supposed to convey emotion without words, not just look pretty. This guy is an uncultured idiot.
>> [_] Anon 2512327 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 : (
>> [_] Anon 2512328 100 Reply Thread on /f/? You don't see that everyday. welp, it's still shit, though.
>> [_] T 2512331 >># >># You're missing the point. Art is suppossed to do both, not just to look pretty and not just to convey your feels.
>> [_] Anon 2512332 >># That was what I was thinking! It's happening!
>> [_] Anon 2512335 >># I am pretty sure we both get the point and are just making a comment. You should stop telling people things
>> [_] Anon 2512354 >104 replies I am in for some shit
>> [_] Anon 2512359 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.