Yeah, yeah op. You have no idea of the what’s and why’s or any context for why plenty of modern art looks like it does and why it is important in art history. You know what you like. And you like what you understand. And if you don’t understand it, you feel intellectually lesser and have a knee jerk reaction to protect yourself - by taking a meme format that says you have all the smarts and people that understand it are below yourself.
You can keep doing that, or you can get curious and ask the what’s and the why’s and see if you can appreciate things from it that aren’t immediately obvious. That is how people grow.
Right. Because any statement about art is equally valid just because anybody can form an opinion.
What’s up next in brave culture truths and insights of arts? James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Erik Satie, Arnold Schönberg, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Mark Rothko, Robert Rauchenberg, Jenny Holtzer, Man Ray, Robert Mapplethorpe, David Hockney are all shit and everybody who thinks otherwise are a simpleton because we are so smart hue hue hue.
This is only tangentially related, but it astonishes me (it doesn’t) how often people defending AI art wield Pollock as a weapon out of jealousy for his relative success and not because they actually like him. Same with the toilet. And the banana.
[edit] I think I might have meant to respond to a different comment of yours, but ah well.
I always find it funny when somebody mentions The Fountain as an example of this stupid “modern art” (as in contemporary) and I get to tell them that it is from 1917. Like dude, if you missed out on the last hundred years of what art is, maybe you should humble down on your opinions.
People don’t have to like everything, but I find it frustrating how people think their uninformed opinion is as valid as someone that knows and understands what it is, why it is what it is, and how it is important in a historical context.
There are plenty of topics I know very little about. I may have ideas and opinions about things, but I would never imagine myself being superior to people who are actually knowledgeable of the field.
I have a MA in Fine Arts many many years ago actually, so I’d consider I have some actual weight in the field and not only shallow opinions confused as equal to knowledge and facts.
But I should know better than to vent because every time this sort of post is a living illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect on a bandwagon.
Tbf lots of stuff in that style, including some of his, is trash.
Edit: and if context is beauty: a lot of people making it didn’t understand, and it was overpromoted by the fucking cia to contrast the literal style pushed by the ussr. So it’s literally an anti-communist plot by yhe cia. Show me some other ‘anti communist’ things.
Yep. If you look into history there are plenty of examples of political powers promoting arts of all tradition for their own purposes.
But you know who were on the fronts of practically banning modern art in the first place? Check out Entartete Kunst, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art. So does that make all traditional and figurative art problematic now?
And you know what other art was “not understood” by it’s creators until later? Oh, boy. Fucking most of it, because a lot of art is expression and exploration, and theory is the understanding after, despite academics and theorists in fine arts have been trying to center the entire scene around themselves rather than the artists for the better part of the 1900s until today.
Im saying if, as is pretty strongly stated upthread, beauty comes entirely from the context, and the piece does not factor, by that metric, this genre is ugly, disgusting, vile.
I did not say that it is the case. I am responding to someone who defended this genre by saying people who dont like it do not understand the history.
Damn, my dude. You sure have impressive reading skills to find all of that in “this is shit”.
Not to mention the truly phenomenal, remarkably exceptional, astonishingly outstanding writing skills required to wield, utilize, employ, and make strategic use of a dictionary, thesaurus, lexicon, and vocabulary compendium in order to lend, bestow, confer, and imbue an exaggerated, inflated, and artificially magnified impression, illusion, and semblance of substance, gravitas, and argumentative weight.
![[OC] Personal opinion on Jackson Pollock's drip art](https://fedia.io/media/57/a6/57a68784da258ac88cbf772d4cc1c57c31be67a0f7ddda1a203f62c49fd84eff.jpg){kind=link}
Yeah, yeah op. You have no idea of the what’s and why’s or any context for why plenty of modern art looks like it does and why it is important in art history. You know what you like. And you like what you understand. And if you don’t understand it, you feel intellectually lesser and have a knee jerk reaction to protect yourself - by taking a meme format that says you have all the smarts and people that understand it are below yourself.
You can keep doing that, or you can get curious and ask the what’s and the why’s and see if you can appreciate things from it that aren’t immediately obvious. That is how people grow.
I upvoted the OP message. And I upvoted yours too, because both of you are so right.
The OP message you responded is a person in the middle of the curve bell that things they are at the end of the curve, while they are in the middle.
Right. Because any statement about art is equally valid just because anybody can form an opinion.
What’s up next in brave culture truths and insights of arts? James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Erik Satie, Arnold Schönberg, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Mark Rothko, Robert Rauchenberg, Jenny Holtzer, Man Ray, Robert Mapplethorpe, David Hockney are all shit and everybody who thinks otherwise are a simpleton because we are so smart hue hue hue.
A circle jerk of ignorance. Enjoy.
You know when everybody on both Lemny and Reddit are up in arms that American mainstream culture celebrate anti-intellectualism?
This here is a prime example.
Nothing intellectual about claiming something is more than it actually is and being pretentious about it.
What is it then and what is it not?
This is only tangentially related, but it astonishes me (it doesn’t) how often people defending AI art wield Pollock as a weapon out of jealousy for his relative success and not because they actually like him. Same with the toilet. And the banana.
[edit] I think I might have meant to respond to a different comment of yours, but ah well.
I always find it funny when somebody mentions The Fountain as an example of this stupid “modern art” (as in contemporary) and I get to tell them that it is from 1917. Like dude, if you missed out on the last hundred years of what art is, maybe you should humble down on your opinions.
People don’t have to like everything, but I find it frustrating how people think their uninformed opinion is as valid as someone that knows and understands what it is, why it is what it is, and how it is important in a historical context.
There are plenty of topics I know very little about. I may have ideas and opinions about things, but I would never imagine myself being superior to people who are actually knowledgeable of the field.
Third year art major?
I have a MA in Fine Arts many many years ago actually, so I’d consider I have some actual weight in the field and not only shallow opinions confused as equal to knowledge and facts.
But I should know better than to vent because every time this sort of post is a living illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect on a bandwagon.
Respect.
Tbf lots of stuff in that style, including some of his, is trash.
Edit: and if context is beauty: a lot of people making it didn’t understand, and it was overpromoted by the fucking cia to contrast the literal style pushed by the ussr. So it’s literally an anti-communist plot by yhe cia. Show me some other ‘anti communist’ things.
Yep. If you look into history there are plenty of examples of political powers promoting arts of all tradition for their own purposes.
But you know who were on the fronts of practically banning modern art in the first place? Check out Entartete Kunst, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art. So does that make all traditional and figurative art problematic now?
And you know what other art was “not understood” by it’s creators until later? Oh, boy. Fucking most of it, because a lot of art is expression and exploration, and theory is the understanding after, despite academics and theorists in fine arts have been trying to center the entire scene around themselves rather than the artists for the better part of the 1900s until today.
Im saying if, as is pretty strongly stated upthread, beauty comes entirely from the context, and the piece does not factor, by that metric, this genre is ugly, disgusting, vile.
I did not say that it is the case. I am responding to someone who defended this genre by saying people who dont like it do not understand the history.
Please read before replying.
Damn, my dude. You sure have impressive reading skills to find all of that in “this is shit”.
Not to mention the truly phenomenal, remarkably exceptional, astonishingly outstanding writing skills required to wield, utilize, employ, and make strategic use of a dictionary, thesaurus, lexicon, and vocabulary compendium in order to lend, bestow, confer, and imbue an exaggerated, inflated, and artificially magnified impression, illusion, and semblance of substance, gravitas, and argumentative weight.
+! im a fucker whos fucking good at fucking writing.
Of course you are, dear.
A shame communication has two parts.
Guy got paid by the CIA, stole the whole idea, but rich people buy it, must be art!!
Bet you explain Matisse the same way.
You’re equating an appreciation of significance with an appreciation of aesthetics.
What if I told you that art is much more than aesthetics. Clearly this is news to both OP and yourself.
Did you just not read my comment?