https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sFr56AJQzI

I am very upset you did not say this was a Vox video. >:(
I will not give them clicks.

i think modern art is created when an artist gets bored and decides to shitpost

most modern art is for money laundering and tax fraud

art movements come and go, these all white paintings make sense in context of that artists entire body of work

and they aren't claiming that the actual painting itself is some sort of fantastic work of art, more so what that piece represents

She kept saying to be open to other interpretations of what the work meant, but didnt actually describe it. Seems super pretentious to me to make an exclusive "you have to find your meaning" meaning to a work of art and removing the voice of the artist. This is literally the counter movement to the definition of art as a means for expression and imagination when the art is a white canvas or some squares.

can't wait for a billionaire to purchase my work of art "upside-down bud light can with piss dripping out"

what if that was what the artist intended? i mean how else can you assign meaning to a blank white canvas

not necessarily. you can think art is expressive of the artist and still think part of that meaning is derived by the viewer. the ideas aren't mutually exclusive. The artist might be wanting to express something with a blank canvas, like "the art doesn't really mean anything until the viewer decides it means something" but even by making a non-statement the artist is making a statement.

im not gonna pretend to understand modern art but

spending tens of millions of dollars on that shit? jfc

I mean, people who read highly symbolistic novels probably find lots of meaning in places where the author didn't intend any, and that doesn't really invalidate the work as a whole, so why can't it work for art?

In my opinion most modern art is pretentious and meaningless.

There is definitely some good modern art out there and I don't mean to smear a whole generation of artists,
but when I see a painting of a single color in a museum with an adoring crowd around it,
I just can't help but think that the emperor has no clothes.

I don't know or particularly care whether it's art or not, I don't see why I should be impressed if it takes no real talent.

making a lovely sculpture is a talent, drawing a nice picture is a talent, and painting a lovely landscape is a talent
putting a blob of yellow is not a talent, it's something even I could do, and then saying some dumb shit that gives it a non-meaning is something I could do too

and inevitably some smarmy mongoloid (always with rich parents) says 'but you didn't' and I always think that's a stupid response. So what? I've also never hit myself in the face with a brick and that doesn't impress me either.

I used to think something like Minimalist visual art by default was pretentious and meaningless until I actually listened to musical artists such as William Basinski (up to you if he's a hack fraud or not), Philip Glass, and Steve Reich.

I learned to not be so dismissive.

A lot of the, say, zanier, modern art pieces are essentially the result of artistic boredom. Most folks who are at least quasi-known artists, or who at least could get their stuff shown in a reputable place, tend to be quite talented in their chosen medium - but they've simply grown bored of it so they take to doing wacky stuff for a while. The ones whose boredom really catches on tends to be because they're weird in a new way - so people talk about it.

Don't really see anything unusual about that.

If you're a person who likes realistic paintings or really any other kind of art, there is plenty of consumable art out there for you - people are making all kinds of stuff, and thankfully, most of it doesn't cost 20 mil.

Especially since a huge portion of the demographic here is either in university or headed to university, I would strongly advise you to drop in on student art exhibits; sometimes there's some really quality stuff hiding out and you can make a new friend and have something neat to show people, and if you're lucky you won't grow to hate it.

tbh people who criticize modern are often just people completely unwilling to be open to things outside their comfort or likes

"haha i could make modern art by pissing on a canvas!!!" type shit

bashing modern art and going to praise hyperrealistic art even though arguably they both would require the same "creative intensity" is really dumb

theres plenty of reasons to hate modern art but hating it just because you dont understand it or youre not willing to like it is not one of them

why is a matter of being impressed? if an author just strung together the most abstract longest words they could find and string it into a coherent sentence, that alone doesn't make them a great author.

there is no reason to make paintings and sculptures as realistically as possible for the sake of impressing people today. with the 3D modelling technology available or just plain simple cameras, which is probably what motivated this shift to what we see today. why spend months and years painting some bridge for the sake of it when you could take a picture of it, have it look as realistic as possible going beyond what any human could achieve in a second?

which is why this is worth shit and no one cares about it

https://ibb.co/fVcL4Q]

and this worth millions and in the tate

https://ibb.co/fKNbdk

when i show rothko's work to anyone or bring them into the tates rothko room, which is a room soley dedicated to a collection of these paintings and is a pretty huge deal, in fact i think in rothko's prime he was considered one of the best american artists, they usually say shit like 'anyone could do that' or that its just dog shit for rich people and never understand why someone would spend literally millions on these, one of which was #10 on this documentary i watched yesterday where they were showing the most expensive paintings ever sold to date (this being after 2009 i think) and they usually hate it so much they never ask themselves the questions that would lead to the answers.

could you imagine painting that set? why would a grown adult painter, someone who makes their living off of it grab a paint brush and just start painting 'like a 3 year old' in the first place? he didnt just shit these out either they're huge and there's like 11 of them. the motivation behind them was also a comission for a fancy restaurant so a lot is on the line here. now taking that all in mind, this specific piece is a lot more important than the random decisons and lack of control of a 3 year old and now opens the question thats central to appreciating modern art, which is what is this person trying to tell me?

by the way, this is an early rothko, before he started with those formless pieces which dominated his work and that he is more known for

https://ibb.co/kpcjEQ]

so its not that he just cant paint either. hes painting like that on purpose. why? he credits the change in his style after the red studio by matisse. i cant find the documentary i saw on this, but it would be really interesting to show you where they said his favourite part was and why he liked it so much, which was just the blank space which is also kinda funny the way they zoom into the nothingness

https://ibb.co/gHP6uQ

rothko said if a person understood his work, that they would cry. now theres no real use explaining why i personally think it merits its prestige, because you could google and find heaps and heaps of essays on this thing which is what seperates this from the daft punk picture (first thing that came to my mind when thinking 'impressive' and modern) is there any more to it other than it looks cool? no, you see it, you've taken it all in and its shit. its cool the person had the ability to replicate what they see, but it says nothing, its lifeless.

so what does that mean for paintings before the modern movement like turner and william adolphe? the difference between their works and the daft punk is that the old guy's paintings have that same emotion, that same depth as the rothko, maybe even more, which is why they are remembered today. they're the shakespeares of painting basically. its got much less to do with how realistic and impressive their work is, it always comes back to the question of what is this person trying to tell me. people who paint now are influenced by the old masters the same way today's playwrights and poets are influenced by shakespeare and aristotle even though their shit looks nothing alike.

watch this what do you think about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hsxR8aT2Ob0 they show this at the tate and i dont even think you need to think to understand the emotion, not even because of how aggressive he is, but to look at the painting after watching him fucking pound the canvas, the music, the colours, the shape, how it became all come together to make this feeling, extremely similar to how the old masters make a 'feeling' but it looks nothing alike, which just goes to show the old masters influence and spirit are still much so alive in art, just doesn't look the same.

i highly recommend you listen to these 2 even if u still dont buy the whole modern art thing. i had no idea who they were but was searching for their music for years cause i heard them in films, the first hunger games film where they start running for the cornucopia was my favourite part of the film because of the music, and i found it was steve reich like 2 years ago. listen to six pianos by steve reich and floe by philip glass.

i will give you one trillion dollars if you give me a reason why one singular yellow brush stroke on a white canvas is a stroke of modern genius and is truely a window into the soul, and that i just don't want to embrace it because it's not my brand of "normie art"

a stroke of yellow by who (what have they done before) when? how opaque is the stroke? which direction was the stroke painted in? what are the dimensions of the canvas? how bright is the yellow?

all that aside, i really do think you could see the genius in this hypothetical piece. its a lot easier to understand because you wrote it in text too. imagine seeing that in a poem, 'a single stroke of yellow on a blank canvas' and you'd immediately undetstand that this is a metaphor for going against the grain, standing out in the banal, the quite literal blankness. yellow is a fitting colour for this too. you'd only need a nursery education to be able to associate things with yellow, happiness, celebration, success, the sun, etc. its a very powerful colour, and only that one singular colour too which is also important, because all of those things i just said yellow represents stands out in the blankness, and thats it.

now whats genius about that is the simplicity. i've been watching some cooking documentaries and something that marco pierre white said that stuck out for me was 'you have to realize that mother nature is the true master and you are just the chef' in the context of making complex food. the best chefs are those that make good food in the most simple way possible. now if we apply that to art, the best artists are those that say what they want to say simply, and what better than one simple stroke of yellow, charged with emotion and imagery against a blank canvas. colours, especially yellow being a primary colour, are the most simple tools that an artist has, the same way a chef uses a potato and a writer uses language, and to say something while respecting these things, in its most purist form, is genius.

and if you don't feel that cooking is translatable, how about this quote from charles butowski 'genius might be the ability to say a profound thing in a simple way'. its all connected, food, writing, sculptures, even science 'the definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple'. - albert einstein

thousands of artists have used yellow to say something, mixing it with other colours, forming it into objects, etc but it neglects the feeling of yellow itself, just simple, pure yellow. a raw colour is amazing. imagine if tomorrow they invent a new colour. that would be life changing. its simple, its genius.

if we had everything that i mentioned above and taking into account what i wrote, this is how you see genius in a single stroke on a blank white canvas. with all this information you could probably write an entire article, essay or even documentary about such simple, effortless art. its all about perspective.

How would u even invent a new colour

.

imagine being blind and then seeing yellow for the first time. im pretty sure there are insects that can apparently see more colours than our eyes can process, so if thats the case then more colours exist than we've ever seen before. even if there aren't, the idea rests on the concept that everything and anything is possible and that yellow is a beautiul thing

@mould
i dont think that a sculpture has to take a lot of technical ability to be good. to draw a parallel, in fashion, designer pieces are worth in the hundreds and thousands, not only because they are made with premium materials, but you pay for the creative effort the artist went into designing the piece. a work of abstraction is valuable because of the creative thought about it. yeah, a lifelike portrait is very hard to do, but whats fun and interesting about that?

Did you know that many of the old masters (from around 1420 onwards iirc) made use of lenses and light projection to help them make their paintings? The artifacts of those early lenses - things going out of focus, vanishing points changing as the lense was moved around, distortions of light and scale, flattened overall perspective from many small projections - are painted into the works themselves. It's interesting to re-evalutate your opinion of them based on knowing that many of them "cheated".

I understand that creative effort is a part of the artistic process, I'm just firmly of the belief that you need both. The only reason I didn't also say that drawing a realistic tree is not very good art is because it's not relevant to the op.

the first time someone did a black stripe on a white background it was probably quite cool but there's only so many times you can respect an abstract piece like that before u start thinking hang on

when I see paint everywhere and it represents that persons being I feel like maybe I see it and I'm thinking safe actually that's not bad
then I turn around and there's 5 or 10 more paintings doing the exact same thing and at that point there's no way I'm not thinking nah, that stops being impressive now

I don't think that doing someone elses idea but a bit different counts as enough creative effort to counteract the lack of execution level needed to complete it, and that to me is why pieces like that will never impress me, ever, regardless of how dumb that makes me according to rich people.

i have decided to live my life under the assumption that modern art exists so rich people can give huge sums of money without being taxed and everyone who says that they understand it has no fucking idea what they're talking about

I do like how some modern artworks look, but I usually don't see any deep meaning behind it.

https://my.mixtape.moe/oaeadb.png

hi guys please rate my painting!!!!! :)

9/10
add me for my paypal