Modern art hate thread

(((Cultural Marxists))) hate all things that are truly beautiful.That's also why they attack femininity, and try to normalize obesity and androgyny.

Attached: 290837459.jpg (249x310, 40K)

>muh joooooooooos

pleb

Attached: 3776-e1375971812848-380x475.jpg (380x475, 23K)

pleb

Attached: Chapman3.jpg (399x600, 57K)

Attached: 1532888209555.png (744x1340, 73K)

brainlet

Attached: chapman_escultura_controversa_6.jpg (665x633, 105K)

Attached: 1418228156215.jpg (306x306, 20K)

If she goes into feminism just get mad and slap her or let her go.
I love art and classical music.
But art and music of these days are full shit

Also cant understand why a modern Violina cant be compared with a 250years old

it’s a product of the infinite subjectivity in our society today.

this and only this

It's about destroying absolutes in art, the same way they are doing everywhere else

A lot of it is moved by anger and "nietzschian" ressentment. Since not everyone has artistic skill, let's just destroy that hierarchy so I dont get my feelings hurt

dumb frog poster

Attached: 6640.jpg (950x711, 395K)

Attached: 1533352454821.png (655x706, 450K)

art is used for money laundering.
some artists are legit trolls.
some artists are women.
some are truly fucked in the head Weimar-tier.

Say you want to buy a shipping container full of children. It costs 10 million dollars. You can't just pull 10 mil out of the bank without answering some questions. Can't tell 'em it's for sex slaves, so you say you're buying a new piece by an avant-garde artist that paints only with ground up aborted fetal nipples. Bank says "wow, fancy rich guy shit, ok! Here's your money, sorry to inconvenience you rich guy with awesome taste." You buy your shipping container full of child sex slaves, and the painting serves as the receipt.

checked

Attached: 1534103898623.jpg (1024x1024, 131K)

>muh money laundering
>muh pedoooooos
>muh pizzagate
>muh jooooos
lol fuck off brainlet conspiracy cuck

Attached: 1534471157123.jpg (897x507, 584K)

commie lover

Attached: mutt.jpg (300x300, 7K)

It's cheap, it's disposable, and it goes hand-in-hand with modern decadence.

Because modern art is Goyim art and can be dragged and dropped anywhere, just like the slaves who made it.

Also this

Attached: 1534296107831.jpg (1000x708, 437K)

This
You guys exercised today ?

>It's cheap
It ain't that cheap, a Warhol Elvis will set you back 100 million.

Attached: Grapes_of_Rothko.jpg (640x360, 78K)

pretty good representation of the left

any good documents or articles on the money laundering aspect i can spread around?

>wanting to spread disinfo
pathetic

Attached: 3324.jpg (630x315, 22K)

I enjoy Barnett Newman fite me

Attached: arno_breker.png (1120x697, 452K)

Absolutely entartet.

>special forces

Attached: special officer.jpg (1060x480, 29K)

This is correct. It also happens to have a demoralizing effect as it crowds out actual good art from public view, but it is easily ignored once you understand what's going on.

Kisch derivative faux classical homo erotic trash, worse than Jeff Coons.

Pic related is the real deal.

Attached: Michelangelo-David.jpg (523x1000, 323K)

To make the aesthetics of advertisements that much stronger

nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers.html

why are those bug people standing so close to that?

you fucking moron

>there can only be one beautiful male body sculpture in the history of art

trying to see something that isn't there

>If the left had Hugo Boss design their uniforms

The Museum of Modern Art was founded by the Rockefeller family.
>Valuable as Art, but Priceless as a Tool to Launder Money
nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers.html
>Modern art was CIA 'weapon'
independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Attached: modern art.png (952x1522, 1.71M)

I've seen this in person and it was highly offensive to me. I wasn't expecting to see it, either, but I recognized it immediately. The friends I was with were shocked at my visceral, immediate reaction after turning the corner and that led to me sperging out and telling them about how modern art is used to evade taxes.

>This is correct.
No it isn't correct, if it were for 'tax evasion' with no concern for the status of the art work it would have no resale value & be a massive loss to the investor, that isn't how it works at all, the art sell for it's value within the art market.

Attached: 1534473203977.jpg (790x1125, 367K)

signalling by the elite

modern art was a CIA plot to subvert art and to propel the USA into the forfront of """"""art""""""

look it up. documents were declassified

Capitalism and commercialization of art.

No m8, it's you who is the moron, I know the art market from the inside out.

Attached: xkh150628.jpg (600x463, 51K)

Reminder that anime is the modern art.

Attached: cutekaren.webm (1280x720, 1.45M)

it's also a form of money laundering currently

>i'm selling this piece of modern art that took a 5-year-old 3 minutes to create
>i'll pay you $3 million dollars for it and no government agency can say that it isn't worth that much because it's a one-of-a-kind piece

>he doesn't know
Faggot buys art from starving artist, holds it for a few decades (paying maybe a couple grand, just enough to keep the faggot painting), and waits for him to die of aids or drugs or some shit. Then you lend it out to galleries to build some hype, and get an art valuer to inspect the work and assign a reasonable price to it. These are wildly overvalued, of course, and on paper the asset has now appreciated. BUT YOU DON'T PAY TAXES ON IT UNTIL YOU SELL IT. Here's the trick: rather than selling the work, you donate it to a modern art museum or gallery, WHICH IS A TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION. Now that piece you paid $5000 for a decade ago has just eliminated $5M from your "taxable income", AND you get the social benefits of being known as a generous, charitable, sophisticated person.

If you actually want to BUY modern art, it's incredibly cheap. But nobody DOES buy modern art, especially famous art, because any schmuck on the street can make it for you, or you can just make it yourself if you want a decoration. Art dealers trade primarily in cheap shit to middle class and nouveau riche faggots, or in rare works by the masters which they sell to private collectors.

The shit he posted was fake trash, bad copies of copies of copies made to pander to shitty nazi tastes, absolute worthless garbage.

Attached: 1523296789915.jpg (504x334, 60K)

jews

Duchamp made it as a joke, in effect he was commenting on the quality of art they were putting in galleries at the time, he was actually a competent painter in the classical sense. The original is long gone, the one you saw was a recreation, there are several recreations of the urinal, I've seen one myself.

Attached: 1521942668001.jpg (614x818, 49K)

Rich Jews? The market is all rich Jews, right?

I'm not well-versed in the use of modern and contemporary art as a money laundering tool, however I do have a strong opinion on it as "artwork".

It is the physical embodiment of the postmodern thought process which is based on complete relativism and a lack of acknowledgement of fundamental truths. In the same way that the far left justifies abortion and mass killing as being "good" without recognition of murder as a universal evil, the far left refuses to acknowledge the universal truths of beauty and skill. It's basically a way to condition the public to change the way they think to conform to their new world view.

unironically this.

I believe these claims, but knowing what I already know, I can't help to also see in it a Jewish attack on Western cultural standards of beauty, evidence of which unsurprisingly exists:
>In his book "The Painted Word", Tom Wolfe criticized Greenberg along with Harold Rosenberg and Leo Steinberg, whom he dubbed the kings of "Cultureburg". Wolfe argued that these three critics were dominating the world of art with their theories and that, unlike the world of literature in which anyone can buy a book, the art world was controlled by an insular circle of rich collectors, museums and critics with out-sized influence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg

Attached: Blake-Abel.jpg (2100x1630, 2.25M)

based

>incoherent rambling
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, rich people store their cash is assets, duh, who knew !
Cheap to buy ? it costs the price it costs depending on the piece & who it's by, whether that be $100 for a work by an unknown artist or $100,000,000 for a sought after artist, you don't seem to understand the concept of rarity or supply & demand, you could copy a 100 million dollar Warhol & put it on you wall but it would be worthless on the art market.

Attached: The_Soy_Scream.jpg (500x659, 93K)

Consider ending yourself.

Attached: 1491632762306.jpg (375x569, 65K)

Ooh, those naughty nazis were hotties.

And this is the reason why all of those 'modern art hate' threads are so pointless. It's a defense mechanism of wageslaves as they refuse to admit that modern art is rich people's game and those faggots who marvel at this trash in art galleries purposefully take part in this hypocrisy because they are desperate to get a cut of the profits.

Rich people yeah, jews or otherwise.

Attached: the-street-1933.jpg (1469x1200, 363K)

Nazi art sucked, sorry to burst your bubble.

Attached: shitler.png (515x375, 344K)

I miss Germany

Attached: 2018-07-23 15.58.55.png (640x1136, 592K)

Correct. WERE aesthetics relevant, the price of a painting would be limited by the skill of an artist, which could be assessed with some objectiveness.

Instead, by producing art devoid of substantial aesthetic skill means valuation can be totally subjective. It allows for illusory valuations to be made that are rooted in nothing. If people criticize this then they'll simply be passed off as not "getting it" and shunned. So there's a strong social motivation to being able to see the value in modern art. You have to see what's not there to be appreciated and seen as sophisticated.

It's exactly The Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone is too afraid to say there's nothing there and too many people have too much at stake to admit otherwise

duh idk

Attached: 1534452364890.jpg (800x800, 134K)

At least it's trying to be good, even if it falls short on a technical level. I can respect that a hell of a lot more than someone like Pollock who deliberately makes shit.

stop presuming, retard. You have no idea who you're talking to.

Attached: DA JOOS.jpg (815x599, 135K)

Attached: 1533984568840.png (819x593, 478K)

What are you trying to prove here with the black lines?

saved, was looking for this from prev. thread, thxanon

explain. plz

Because it stopped to try to achieve beauty.
Without beauty art is dull and ultimately meaningless. People try to give it back some meaning by being blatantly political but that makes it even worse - a bad painting doesn't get better if you write "fuck Trump" under it.

>You have to see what's not there to be appreciated and seen as sophisticated.
I'd like to share this about the book I mentioned earlier, which is a great read BTW. Note the use of the all-purpose insult fascist:
>By ridiculing the most respected members of the art world establishment, Wolfe had ensured that the reaction to his book would be negative. Many reviewers dismissed Wolfe as someone simply too ignorant of art to write about it. Other critics responded with such similar vitriol and hostility that Wolfe said their response demonstrated that the art community only talked to each other. A review in The New Republic called Wolfe a fascist and compared him to the brainwashed assassin in the film The Manchurian Candidate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Painted_Word#Critical_reception

>[In the Painted Word,] Wolfe provides his own history of what he sees as the devolution of modern art. He summarized that history: "In the beginning we got rid of nineteenth-century storybook realism. Then we got rid of representational objects. Then we got rid of the third dimension altogether and got really flat (Abstract Expressionism). Then we got rid of airiness, brushstrokes, most of the paint, and the last viruses of drawing and complicated designs". Wolfe concluded with Conceptual Art: "…there, at last, it was! No more realism, no more representation objects, no more lines, colors, forms, and contours, no more pigments, no more brushstrokes. …Art made its final flight, climbed higher and higher in an ever-decreasing tighter-turning spiral until...it disappeared up its own fundamental aperture…and came out the other side as Art Theory!…Art Theory pure and simple, words on a page, literature undefiled by vision… late twentieth-century Modern Art was about to fulfill its destiny, which was: to become nothing less than Literature pure and simple".
Pure Talmudism, in other words.

Attached: c15_north211328991561409.jpg (677x1024, 191K)

I have no idea how to describe the mistakes in the best terms but here I go.
1. First floor windows arent angled to show there depth.
2. Second floor windows are way to damn low compared to the door
3. Second floor door topside is crooked thanks to being to angled.
4. Roof looks like it ahould be flat when its angle gives the impression it is not.

>t. took an art class at 8 years old

It's for money laundering

(((modern art))).
What do you think?

pixelized

Attached: jart.png (398x600, 41K)

But that's better than what well over 99% of the population could draw

Attached: 1526811951351.png (2424x3064, 1.66M)

He was the divine archetype of the collective aryan consciousness.

Attached: 400px-Adolf_Hitler_-_Wien_Oper.jpg (400x291, 41K)

Is every user a trained art critic tho, by virtue of thousands of imageposteds ?

Hitler just couldn't conceptualize and paint people properly, though. I think there's something in that.

don't forget drug money laundering, kiddie trafficking via diplomatic shipping containers.

Modern art? More like modern FART.

In a lot of countries, the investment you make when buying art is tax-deductable. My opinion is the current art market is mostly artificial and mainly serves the interests of people willing to save some money or do money laundering, that before authentic art enthousiasts.

Absolutely.

Attached: ModernArtScam.png (681x383, 85K)

>Wrong, just because you're too retarded to recognise true genius doesn't make it "MUH MONEY LAUNDERING !!11!"
First of all, paintings are legitimately used as money laundering. They are kept in special economic zones, and used as currency among billionaires.

Secondly, Klimt isn't the one on trial here. There are truly garbage pieces of art worth tremendous amounts of money; and to say that "you just aren't smart enough to see it" is the exact same argument the fools in the parable of the Emperor's New Clothes used.

Attached: Art History.png (4856x1660, 3.89M)

Not to defend Hitler, I'm more of a Francoist myself, but maybe it wasn't an error on Hitler's part, but an accurate depiction of the building

Despite your legitimate post, I do believe my fellow bong is shitposting.

Because it's made by degenerates.

The Painted Word
by Tom Wolfe
Published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1975
Reissued by Picador, 2008
ISBN-13: 978-0-312-42758-0
$14.00

» Read an Excerpt

Purchase this book from Macmillan

The Painted Word charts the erratic course of the social history of Modern Art from its beginnings in revolution-a revolution against literary content in art-to its present state, in which it has become, quite unconsciously, a parody of itself, obsessedly devoted to the pronouncements of certain guru-critics, to the point of reductio ad absurdum, to the point where-turnabout being fair play-it has become as literary, as academic, as mannered, as clubby, as the salon painting against which it first rebelled.

Soon after Modern Art developed, it became fashionable. Society (le beau monde, Cultureburg) and art critics attached themselves to it like pilot fish; but then they grew, and grew, and grew, until-as Abstract Expressionism gave way to Pop, as Pop spawned Op, as Op fell before Minimal opposition, as what was Minimal became no more than Conceptual-Art began to serve fashion and theory. The shark vanished and left the pond to le beau monde and to the critics, custodians of the painted Word. Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, Leo Steinberg-these are the big fish, Wolfe argues, not Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, or Jasper Johns. The argument is utterly convincing . . .

. . . and wildly entertaining. Tom Wolfe is our premier social historian, and he is writing at the top of his form. Whether he is describing the Art Mating Ritual (in two parts, the Boho Dance and the Consummation) or taking the census of Cultureburg, he writes with an energy and irony all his own. His style has never been more dazzling, his wit has never been more keen. For everyone but his targets, the publication of The Painted Word is cause for celebration.