I understand hating on the pretentiousness of it all a little bit, and certainly the people involved can be fucking faggots to be sure. I certainly agree that there is tons of garbage that gets produced and passed off as ‘revolutionary’ …usually when it’s trying to make some gay political statement. Does Any Forums think any of it looks cool? I think pic related looks interesting, at least worth spending a few minutes looking at and definitely not ‘easy’ to produce like some of the stuff the talentless hacks from the art world present us. Is all abstract art equally worthless? I don’t think it has to be either or thing for that matter, lots of artists I know usually do something else (portraits, landscapes etc) alongside their abstract stuff.
Why does Any Forums hate modern art
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
because like all things post modern its only purpose is to redefine things that were well established within the previously cohesive society.
Like here, this thing looks like absolute shite to me. It’s in a gallery in New York City right now probably selling for at least several thousand dollars. I wouldn’t pay 5$ for this
Any Forums reactionary types are not judging this art based on the creative value of it really. They're judging it based on its deviation from traditional standards. I'm the type of guy to like modern art, but I like it for these destructive, depressed qualities. Reactionaries who are pining for a bygone halcyon era - rather than facing the horrors that confront us as they are - feel great distress upon seeing modern art. It's a valid reaction. The intended one in many cases.
"Previously" being the key word there. Where Any Forums sees conspiracy I see artists doing their job, which is reflecting on and compiling the reality around them into an aesthetic. You feel pain looking at these paintings because you see the loss of categories and values in them. But that makes them MORE valuable works, not less, as they are accurately embodying the spirit of the era in which they were created in a way a nice classical painting of a landscape never could.
what artist??
Because it isn't Art. Art is capturing essence. Art is not creating because you had the compulsion to "make Art". The term "Art" today is used as a compliment. "It is so good it COULD be Art." But it is not Art. What does this picture make you feel? What does it represent? Nothing. Some faggot spit paint all over a canvas and got some schlomo to buy it. Their art was made for money, for notoriety, for the desire to be an artist. It is for that reason that it is not Art.
I will always prefer permabeg art to this soulless "abstract" capturing of nothing with no essence. I will always prefer self-produced soundcloud trash to jew produced advertised radio shite. I will always prefer the schizo rant to the sermon. Because at least in these examples, someone sought to communicate something they couldn't with words. Here is me communicating OP's pic with words: "Some faggot spit paint all over a canvas and got some schlomo to buy it.
mark maggiori
Like modern music, modern art is retarded and obviously devoid of talent.
I don’t find it visually pleasing simple as
It's bad
Because it's a money laundering scam
my 6 month old spits up better art than your faggot pic related
art is by necessity tied to the creativity and skill it takes to make
serge marshennikov
Modern art is a racketeering scam.
Modern American art was bought by the CIA as a soft power projection push. Nobody wanted those garbage Warhols or pollacks. Anynomous donors fueled their hype.
>reflecting on and compiling the reality
No, you are intentionally attempting to change reality to fit a narrative. Suddenly you are a "woman" because you took some hormones and cut your dick off. This is the idiocyn of post modernism. There is nothing natural about it. A glass of water on a shelf is now "an oak tree". This is mass delusion, nothing more. You cannot redefine reality without coercing others into your gimmick. All that is, is lying...not art.
Beautiful
if you need to explain your art to someone because they don't get it immediately by just looking or hearing, your art is trash
Art for the sake of being your picrelated, just random bullshit lines with bullshit explanations with bullshit buzzwords thrown around (powerful, vibrant, bold, and all those homo words) is not art at all but money laundry bullshit.
now art doesn't have to be HD ULTRA REALISTIC pretty drawings (take my picrel of francis bacon for example) but it needs a style, a message, a feeling and discipline. Modern "art" lacks all of these or at least the discipline part. Why is this aspect important? Because your self set of rules and discipline are your style (monet had the blurry flowers, van gogh had the yellow impressionism, repin had the realistic countrylife, klimt had the gold and women) and if you don't have a style, you don't have a personality and if you don't have a personality YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING ARTIST AT FUCK ALL. Even Andy Warhol had a style and an impact, but the horseshit you posted is completely random that a nobody like me can perfectly replicate.
Art has a study, even motherfucking Kandinsky had a reason behind his seemingly random lines, but shitting on a canvas and naming it "MODERN INDIAN MAN" and selling it for $6 000 000 isn't art, you were picked for a money laundering scheme by a pedophile or a drug dealer.
How the CIA Secretly Used Jackson Pollock to Fight the Cold War
youtube.com
why is that considered "art" with value, but this is considered "porn" with no value?
it's low effort and tryhard.
no, because they don't bring anything new to the table and will be forgotten in a week no matter that millions were paid for such horseshit. the only impact they had was in the wallets of the buyer and the seller, but not in humanity and your piece of shit random bullshit lines will never reach the level of a sunflower by van gogh
Holy shit that is amazing. Gives me chills.
checked. who is it? the boars are eating his sheep?
I wish I could have said it this way. Yes.
"Modern" isn't inherently bad. I think you mean "abstract".
Time to post some real art just to show it to whoever doesn't know any better.
it's not art
I have no emotional response to it
>Harvey shits on canvas
>Harvey "sells" it to Rebekkah for $6000000
>Harvey gives Rebekkah back her $6000000
>No money has changed hands, but the shit on a canvas now has a market value of $6000000
>Harvey offers to sell the shit on a canvas to museums, investors etc for $3000000 half price great deal
Why does Any Forums hate modern art?
because it's cringe
/thread/
Ilya Repin - Unspected visitor (soldier returning home)
/thread
>2 minutes
nigger please
impressionism is gay
Yep CIA used it to counter social realism
Guess I should have read the whole post instead of just the title and skimming it. Egg on my face, sorry bud.
>artists doing their job, which is reflecting on and compiling the reality around them into an aesthetic. You feel pain looking at these paintings because you see the loss of categories and values in them. But that makes them MORE valuable works, not less, as they are accurately embodying the spirit of the era in which they were created in a way a nice classical painting of a landscape never could
I think we've reached peak cope now.
What kind of pedo scam money laundering is the artist involved in for anyone at all to host this?
if you think it looks interesting then you are actually mentally ill. You've deluded yourself so much, you attempt to find meaning, reason, and thought in works which have none.
You have been brainwashed by the jews and you love it. You nigger.
Abstract painting is glorified decoration. Paintings without meaning is just decoration not art.
Fracis Bacon
2 figures with a monkey. Can't be appreciated in this pic, but I saw it face to face in Mexico and it was grotesque and beautiful at the same time. It's a shock of 2 emotions, seeing a bed made for sex, bodies, and loving combined with grotesque abnormal bodies, blood and a beast looking at you.
Is this porn from the idiocracy movie?
Who likes this trash?
Holy fuck.
Klimt
The Kiss. There is just too much going on here.
...
>art
harrumph I say to you good sir
Detail of Fallen Angel (Lucifer Crying)
Nighthawks
(protip, see if you can find a door into this cafe and then ask yourself why)
>"modern art"
pic_related is abstract expressionism, started in the 30's and was killed by pop art and minimalism.
>Any Forums reactionary types are not judging this art based on the creative value of it really. They're judging it based on its deviation from traditional standards.
Just because it's abstract doesn't make it art.
>Modern American art was bought by the CIA as a soft power projection push. Nobody wanted those garbage Warhols or pollacks. Anynomous donors fueled their hype.
Abstract expressionism (including Pollock) was funded indirectly by the CIA. People did want the Warhols though.
God damnit I hate splatter painting so much. 90% of it is such shit.
I don't really feel any "great distress" when I see kindergarten scribbles or tampons stapled to canvases and shit like that. I feel nothing really, I just look at it and process it the same way I "feel" about a piece of trash on the street. I will admit I feel slight contempt towards people who analyze and explain such art in the way you do. But that's pretty mild too, it's a relatively harmless pursuit as far as I'm concerned, albeit pretty silly.
I have come to the conclusion that it's more about the person doing it and their story.
interesting people making dumb stuff is more important than dumb people making interesting stuff.
💦
Thats not art. My 4 year old made a better painting than that. Thats why 'modern' art is disqualified as art.
Magritte
Empire of Light