Why does modern (contemporary) art suck? Can I get a valid argument...

Attached: download (14).jpg (980x980, 146.36K)

Look into why Hitler didn't make it into art school and you'll have your answer.
His stuff was really good too.

Jews.

Don’t I have a three part article for you?

theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/03/17/marl-rothko-abstract-expressionism-and-the-decline-of-western-art-part-1/

good read, I will definitely finish this later.

Digits confirm!

This. Jews have been our ruling class for the last 150 years and their Semitic volcano demon forbids representational art, so they have been using their financial and media power to erase Aryan representational art from the Jewish mass culture which they feed us.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Judaism

Attached: Giovanni Gasparo (Bari, Apulia, Italian Republic 1983-) Martirio di San Simonino da Trento, per omicidio rituale ebraico (The Martyrdom of St. Simon of Trento by Jewish ritual murder) - Olio su Tela 2019-2020.jpg (3924x3922, 2.41M)

Yes

thats part of the reason, this video goes into details about that :

youtube.com/watch?v=ifbbaqwteEU

everything to be happy is accesible to the modern man but unhappines is widespread. this is a clear sign things are not right.

I think the reason is the mockery of god and the flat earth.
Art comes from the soul which is outside the 3rd dimension
the point in which we receive this input is the center of the universe

When people blindly follow science they remove themselves and observe
We need to stop global warming
We need to waste time coming to an agreement that doesn't offend anyone

That's antigod
God loves a story and a character arch an actor
God loves nature, symmetry, geometric ratios, creation, etc.

By removing ourselves "for the greater good" we operate at a lower level of being
Our energy is a collective because we're constantly bouncing it off each other
without this connection to the eternal spirit and logic we're confused and low quality

Attached: 1 4kxFAFU6ejS3AkY5D6bHDg.png (1044x608, 152.49K)

As painting materials became more widespread and not just something for the wealthy or those with wealthy patrons merely having technical skill no longer stood out. So instead novelty replaced ability and the arts world became an incestuous mess of back scratching elitists and critics constantly trying to reinvent itself to exclude the masses.

It's almost as if there are consequences when a society abandons God.

Attached: 212171876.jpg (4000x2664, 2.48M)

The definition of art is something that has no purpose or function other than itself.

"Art" today, or at least most of it, has an ulterior purpose than itself. And I think we all know what purpose it is, it's a very judaic purpose.

Its not a religion thing brother. Its a mindset. Its the values a person holds. You can be an atheist without being a degenerate nihilist.

It's a giant money laundering scheme

lots of dirty money in the art world today, in fact i'd say it's more dirty than clean

Over the last 60 years art went from being a skillful craft to being a philospohical statement. At some point pot smokers tossing around the same ideas ceases to be thought provoking. Its neither creative or original.

In addition all the moneymakers selling petty art at shows are mostly money launderers.

Marxist bullshit. Their stated goals are to corrupt the arts and replace greatness with meaningless forms. Modern art isn't to create, it's to destroy.

Art doesn't suck. Art has become better than ever before.
On average the quality of art has gone down but that's only because now more than a hundred times more people are doing art than, for example, a century ago.
The art institutions (galleries, academia) have become corrupted. If you only look at what they have to offer, I can understand how you will come to the conclusion that modern art sucks.
Digital technology has allowed us to commit feats in art that have never been imagined before. In fact, the technical quality has skyrocketed just because of technology.

something to do with the CIA pushing bad "art" so we can be stupid and degenerate

Most people aren’t willing to put in the time and effort anymore.

If everything is art nothing is art, since a word needs an actual, agreed upon definition to in fact be a word, so to conclude that contemporary is ”art” is to make the word art meaningless, as contemporary doesn’t actually share much with actual artforms, real art forms have a definitive purpose, whether that be to relay information(like concept art and architectural sketch's), to inspire and create beauty(Syde Mead comes to mind as a modern example of someone who did this particularly well), or to try to create understanding between two individuals by expressing an emotion or expressing an individual's outlook of the world(Van Gogh). Contemporary alternatively fails at all of these things. It isn't trying to convey a concept or try to deliver information, nor does it try to create an understanding. It tries to do the opposite, pieces are meant to sow confusion, they never convey a concept or information, and they aren't beautiful, though the pretentious people who make the pieces will disagree, if just to spite you like a brutalist or post modernist architect would through ugly, imposing buildings.

Wrong.
Pic related is an example of just one artwork I've found browsing just for a few seconds on the internet. It was literally posted just 13 hours ago.
The internet is full of absolutely amazing art: more than ever before. You just have to look for it.

Attached: mark-kolobaev-mega-01-a.jpg (3000x1250, 792.54K)

Somethings cannot be said directly.

>posted 3 days ago

Attached: quentin-mabille-gate1.jpg (1920x1080, 528.16K)

Yes sure. I was talking about the educational and institutional side of analog painting.
Pic related is ok but not very hard to do. Indirect lighting is nonexistent because it’s a night seen. There is no size reference because it’s a futuristic fictional setting.

Laziness

the honest answer is because the jews are literally demonic cocksuckers. If you've been around here for a while you have probably heard of sabbatean frankists and if not you can look them up. Walter Benjamin was a frankist and forerunner of the frankfurt kikes. This short essay will tell you why "modern art" is so shitty
marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
>tl;dr we have to make everything shitty and gay to epic pwn the fascists

Don't try to gatekeep art with some personal bias because you think classical, or most likely neoclassical art is superior to modern art.

"art" these days is a front for money laundering. you don't need talent when you can proclaim literally anything is cutting edge and meaningful art, and all who disagree simply dont get it.
there's a reason why you mostly see huge checks for contemporary artists and why the meaning of the pieces seem largely contrived.

Attached: image.jpg (620x349, 10.78K)

People who actually pay for art want it to be degenerate.

>not very hard to do
post one of your paintings then

Art has changed. For the better or worse, is up to you.

I think being a painter is also a dead profession, nobody is able to put months or years of their time into one painting like back then. Painting had much more importance back then.

I think I understand why art styles changed to become less realistic, more abstract, and even scribbly, but at what point will mainstream art for paintings become more realistic? I think that soon, more realism, not less, is the way forward.

there is a very excellent book called The Recognitions by William Gaddis which largely centers around this subject. The main character makes money by creating "newly discovered" paintings by the old masters but he knows that nobody will ever know his name or respect his talents. There is a lot more going on in the book and it is unironically a difficult big boi book but it's fucking excellent.

That's stupid. So you're claiming that no one paints pictures like OP's anymore because you could just stage that scene and take a picture? How come no one does?

Thanks man, will check it out.

As sad as it is, movies have replaced epic art.

By the way, it makes me think of those guys that 'repaint' famous painting nowadays.

Insanely talented to be able to recreate themselves those painting, but unknown to the public. Also probably illegal

Attached: thu-berchs-1-2-10.jpg (3840x1635, 774.81K)

>t. Greek art is shit
Art under the church was really fucking bad

I hope that you do. The first 100 pages or so is some of the finest english prose I have ever seen penned. Afterwards he shifts into what would become his own technique of writing which centers on dialogue to drive the narrative but The Recognitions is still a pretty "standard" novel other than being 2bigbrained4u and really dense.

His next book JR was 700 pages of almost entirely dialogue and it's unfuckingbelievable how funny and engaging the book is. He is a master of voicing characters, so it's clear who is speaking and what kind of environment they're in. It's a completely real world with convincing personalities, really funny satire.

How often do you go to museums, faggot? How much are you willing to pay to do so? What are your favourite renaissance artists that are not also ninja fucking turtles?

The art world does not care about your opinion because you do not care about art. You just hate that other people are enjoying themselves without you in ways you don't understand (modern artists and people that enjoy their art).

If enough people thought like you and enjoyed "classical" art then more would be created. Enjoyed = {time, money, attention, praise, etc.} not posts on image boards.

>"Art is in the eye of the beholder"
I have an art test that bypasses that. It takes these assumptions as given
>if someone says something is art, it is art -- to him
>artist's personality, name, story, etc. is separate from his art -- the piece speaks for itself
The test:
>remove off any art makers like signatures, frames, pedestals, etc.
>if YOU wouldn't rescue it from the tip, then YOU don't think it's art
The test can only rule out something being art but it rules it out absolutely.

It’s pretty hard to do that tho. How do you justify anything? I’ll make it brief: there are two routes on that journey.
1) The universe is a big empty nothingness. You have no true foundation for your conclusions other than your own experience. It all comes back to humanity and human perspectives. Your philosophy must be anthropocentric and stem from the human. The problem is, the door is left open for subjectivity to reign. There’s no outside moral order; there is only what man has decided for himself. There are no chains to bind people to one thing or another. There’s no defense against degeneracy. What’s to say one should live this way or that? What’s to say they should listen to you?
2) You go down the track of objectively existing. Your answers to the above are something like, “it’s ultimately good for you and mankind because the laws of nature, which exist outside of us, determine it.” Science and logic point to certain ways of living being better than others, like having meaning and having a sensible social code, having a logical, ethical system. You objectively determine what is good and wrong because society ultimately needs that to survive. You get there with logic and evidence provided through scientific inquiries. You discover that there are universal laws which govern everything. You start referring to “nature” as the determining factor. When asked a question, you’ll simply default on “nature” and the evidence extracted from nature to explain why one shouldn’t be so degenerate. “‘Nature” is the key word. Sooner or later, you realize “nature” is just another word for God. Your appeals to the laws of nature from which your conclusions stem are no dissimilar from those one might make to God.
For it is the God of nature that has made us what we are.

>t.Jo Cox ghost

>like signatures etc
I don't really care very much about visual art but I can definitely tell when someone is posting a passage from an author or trying to ape their style on /lit/. I start radio stations for musicians I like all of the time and it's very easy to identify from a bar or two if an artists solo album I've never heard has come on or something. I assume for people who are really into visual art they have a similarly easy time identifying who the creator is or who the person is mocking/imitating.

Probably the nicest thing someone has said to me. Thanks, memeflag.

The point to removing signatures is they mark it as art. Nobody is going to rescue a jar of shit from the dump unless maybe it has a signature so that he could think it might be "art".

On All Saints’ Day, seven days out and half the journey accomplished, God boarded the Purdue Victory and acted: Camilla was stricken with acute appendicitis.

The ship’s surgeon was a spotty unshaven little man whose clothes, arrayed with smudges, drippings, and cigarette burns, were held about him by an extensive net- work of knotted string. The buttons down the front of those duck trousers had
originally been made, with all of false economy’s ingenious drear deception, of coated cardboard. After many launderings they persisted as a row of gray stumps posted along the gaping portals of his fly. Though a boutonnière sometimes appeared through some vacancy in his shirt-front, its petals, too, proved to be of paper, and he looked like the kind of man who scrapes foam from the top of a
glass of beer with the spine of a dirty pocket comb, and cleans his nails at table with the tines of his salad fork, which things, indeed, he did. He diagnosed Camilla’s difficulty as indigestion, and locked himself in his cabin. That was the morning.

In the afternoon the Captain came to fetch him, and was greeted by a scream so drawn with terror that even his doughty blood stopped. Leaving the surgeon in what was apparently an epileptic seizure, the Captain decided to attend the chore of Camilla himself; but as he strode toward the smoking saloon with the ship’s operating kit under his arm, he glanced in again at the surgeon’s porthole. There he saw the surgeon cross himself, and raise a glass of spirits in a cool and steady hand. That settled it.

The eve of All Souls’ lowered upon that sea in desolate disregard for sunset, and the surgeon appeared prodded from behind down the rolling parti-lit deck. Newly shaven, in a clean mess-boy’s apron, he poised himself above the still woman to describe a phantasmagoria of crosses over his own chest, mouth, and forehead; conjured, kissed, and dismissed a cross at his calloused fingertips, and set to work. Before the mass supplications for souls in Purgatory had done rising from the lands now equidistant before and behind, he had managed to put an end to Camilla’s suffering and to her life.
Yeah I see what you're saying now

I don't think people nowadays work for the greater good. They do what makes the individual happy. People used to build cathedrals for centuries. This would be unheard of nowadays.

Attached: 212199278.jpg (2000x1325, 670.04K)

they rebuilt that church that was bombed in dresden as recently as the 2000s

bump