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.