File: Why_is_modern_art_so_bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Reminder Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:04 No.2667264
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:14 No.2667272
If technique is the essence of good art, then a computer work could be called art?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:16 No.2667276
>>2667272
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)
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:18 No.2667277
>>2667272
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:20 No.2667280
>>2667272
>>2667277
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?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:22 No.2667281
>>2667280
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:23 No.2667282
>>2667281
Sorry, I didn't clarify it.
I'm talking about AI.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:24 No.2667284
>>2667280
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:25 No.2667286
>>2667282
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?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:26 No.2667287
>>2667286
Then what is the point of art? tell me what it is.
Is just another way of communication?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:28 No.2667289
>>2667287
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 01/24/15(Sat)03:30 No.2667291
All art, at some level, is proof of the soul.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:31 No.2667294
>>2667291
kek
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:32 No.2667295
>>2667291
kek
No, it is proof of our capability for abstract thought. Unless that's what you call a soul.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:32 No.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"
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:33 No.2667297
>>2667289
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 01/24/15(Sat)03:37 No.2667302
>>2667294
>>2667295
-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...
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:38 No.2667304
>>2667297
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:38 No.2667305
I just took at huge shit... pay me $10 million for this flawless masterpiece.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:40 No.2667307
>>2667296
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:40 No.2667308
>>2667304
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:42 No.2667310
>>2667308
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:42 No.2667311
>>2667304
Also Marcel Duchamp was not an artist but a political pawn.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 01/24/15(Sat)03:43 No.2667312
>>2667305
Sorry, you have to have a big name in the well-established "Biomass Sculpture" community to pull
that kind of $$ for your work
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:44 No.2667314
>>2667311
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)
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:45 No.2667315
Ah, the classic "Realism is the only art" argument. Realism died out when we could start taking
photos. Expression is hella more talkative.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:47 No.2667320
>>2667310
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:49 No.2667322
>>2667307
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?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:49 No.2667323
>>2667320
Sure, real artists still exist but the degeneracy is still depressing.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 01/24/15(Sat)03:49 No.2667324
>>2667314
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:50 No.2667326
>>2667323
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
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:52 No.2667329
>>2667326
It's an interesting perspective, the internet is probably a functional alternative (if one can
somehow shine through the oceans of shit)
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:52 No.2667333
>>2667304
how in any way does that affect you or the value of the art you like?
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 01/24/15(Sat)03:53 No.2667334
>>2667324
Pokemon, rather.
"MAPPELTHORP! I CHOOSE YOU!"
-Mapple! Mapp-MappMapple!!
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:54 No.2667335
>>2667315
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.
>>2667322
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:54 No.2667336
>>2667329
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)
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:56 No.2667338
>>2667335
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)03:57 No.2667339
I believe that the problem is, in an objective way, of how tax money is used in this kind of
stuff.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)04:01 No.2667341
>>2667333
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.
>>2667336
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)04:01 No.2667343
>>2667338
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 01/24/15(Sat)04:02 No.2667344
> Mappelthorp uses Shock And Awe against the unsuspecting viewing public!
>It is SUPER EFFECTIVE
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)04:03 No.2667346
>>2667344
>I use my dick in your anus
>It is Super Effective
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 01/24/15(Sat)04:08 No.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!
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)04:09 No.2667352
I like how this swf always brings some thought-provoking discussion.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)04:20 No.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 01/24/15(Sat)04:25 No.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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)04:34 No.2667372
>>2667365
Of course there is, but I am talking in the general public eye of things, total garbage mostly.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 01/24/15(Sat)04:43 No.2667374
>>2667372
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)04:51 No.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
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)04:59 No.2667389
>>2667284
>I would definitely consider some parts of linux kernel and the early ID tech engines art
You're cancer
>>2667358
Yeah, I think it has something to do with the increased population and people feeding off one
another's stupidity
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:06 No.2667392
>>2667389
Why? Do you disagree with the entire idea of source code as art or only the examples?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:13 No.2667396
/f/ - serious art discussion
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:14 No.2667397
>>2667392
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
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:15 No.2667399
>>2667397
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:20 No.2667400
>>2667399
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:26 No.2667404
>>2667400
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:27 No.2667405
>>2667400
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:32 No.2667408
>>2667400
>implying art cant be utilitarian
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:45 No.2667420
>>2667308
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:46 No.2667421
>>2667264
this is like the deepest, longest thread I've seen on /f/
>>2667272
if this is the case then 4k demos are the ultimate art form.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)05:47 No.2667422
>>2667421
i dunno about ultimate, but the entire demoscene has always been considered art.
>> [_] Hot2Trotsky 01/24/15(Sat)05:48 No.2667423
>>2667420
Exactly.
(See also, "The Emperor's New Clothes")
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)06:14 No.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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)06:54 No.2667458
>>2667324
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)06:54 No.2667459
post some contemporary art collections
http://kokoelmat.fng.fi/app?si=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kiasma.fi&lang=en
>> [_] !!BJiYgff8zf2 01/24/15(Sat)07:18 No.2667469
I consider anime and anime-esque images the apex of art in the modern era.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)07:18 No.2667470
>>2667431
the problem with photorealism is that is in fact more real than real creating a perverse mockery
of reality
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)07:19 No.2667471
Something happened in this thread
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)07:21 No.2667473
>>2667469
I concur, this is the epitome of FUKKEN ART
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_c0XuXtxSbA/maxresdefault.jpg
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)08:08 No.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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)08:10 No.2667488
>>2667272
Yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9GLl6kI4hQ
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)08:15 No.2667489
>this whole thread
Is this still 4chan? Or watching the whole thing teleports you to some paralel dimension?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)08:26 No.2667499
>>2667487
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)08:29 No.2667500
>>2667489
Sshh, don't tell anyone. This is why /f/ doesn't usually talk much.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)08:38 No.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.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)08:53 No.2667511
>>2667504
Uh, of course he did. He's talking about western art specifically.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/24/15(Sat)08:54 No.2667513
>>2667511
of course he discarded oriental art*
