Why is this literally 99% of the art that women make...

The rise of the woman artist coincides with the rise of the new kind of artist not as an influence of woman but because of the rise of a mode of art that is accessible to her innate sensibilities. The feminine-chaotic energy typified in the compositions of say a Rimbaud or a Ginsberg or a Whitman ("coincidentally" all homosexuals) de-emphasizes structure, form, deconstructs the kind of "meaning" that a poem typically presents or portrays, essentially strips poetry of the last vestiges of its ritual origin, laid bare in formless content, pure female, absolute in isolation, if you will. If art is the precursor of anything (in the manner of Spengler) we are reaching the end of a cycle.

I make the male glaze.

I take the heads of dead trannies and put clown make-up on them.

They are too obsessed with their own bodies.

Attached: art.jpg (579x500, 47K)

if I show my vagina enough, people will like me.

Read Schopenhauer

Attached: Pringles Schopenhauer.jpg (400x534, 200K)

This. But it explored other themes too like the grotesque, the absurd, despair, euphoria, reflections about society and humanity...

Almost unrelated to this idiotic thread, art is ANY representational expression. Any differentiation is based upon opinion. If you think something someone calls art is shitty, you're able to make that judgment. If you say it isn't art because you don't appreciate it, you're wrong. It's still art. It's just art you don't like. If you think a dog is an ugly dog, it's still a dog. You're petulantly equating your distaste for something with the ability to reclassify it so that your opinion of the classification of it doesn't have to change. This thread is idiotic at the basest level.

checked & time to fap

Attached: time.jpg (1024x683, 217K)

>Accepting a kike'd 20th c. definition of art
lmao

found the shitty artist.

This. Most modern art is just trash. Not an artist, but I can at least tell immediately of some classic art is beautiful (or at least created by talent). If I need a page of expository dialogue to justify why it's beautiful, then it just isn't. But then that's also because it's no longer about reaching people including non-artists, it's just about circlejerking art fag elitists.

That's shit, not art. My absolute favorite contemporary artist is a Polish girl from LA, Natalia Fabia, here's some of her work.

Attached: IMG_2285.jpg (968x718, 201K)

Another piece

Attached: IMG_2289.jpg (736x490, 97K)

I'm currently at a loss, are there any actual great women visual artists? Not terribly impressed by Georgia O'Keefe...but i'd accept that tier, even...

All of these are oil on canvas

Attached: IMG_2287.jpg (1181x1446, 361K)

They’re mkultra victims tasked with dragging down standards of decency. Also useful for d&c propaganda

youtube.com/watch?v=uPTm-8YqJfw

Embrace it, lads!

Attached: 119-1195747_53-kb-png-apu-apustaja-happy.jpg (840x491, 138K)

its self indulgent nonsense

See the artist I posted, she's been getting increasingly popular, started exhibiting in Culver City, CA in 2007, and done a couple of international shows since, check her out Natalia Fabia.

you could go to the subway in ny and see this shit for free
mentally ill retards do this all the time
2/10 for not shitting herself

It is the only definition. You're trying to reinvent the wheel because you're a fuckin' idiot.

Found the intellectual midget.

trolling is a art

Destructuralism started this mess and we now have to live in a post-structuralist hellscape.

Derrida and Foucault essentially stole the concept of 'performitivity' from linguistics and began applying it to art, philosophy, and politics, etc. The academia proceeded to run wild with this idea(s) and birthed entire 'fields of discourse'.

But it wasn't something particularly "new" or "innovative", but rather a 'synthesis'. The "post-structuralists" of France finally rejected the Analytics of Britian, along with English Liberalism, and began to forge new ideas within a more Continental form. Kant and Hegel become groundworks, allowing both the 'critical' nature and the psychology of the 'geist' to become paramount.

Thing is tho, French thought had 'liberal' underpinnings, so as much German Idealism and Marxist claptrap they 'studied' they couldn't fully break their fetish with Liberté. Instead of raw materialism they began to obsess over the 'discursive' nature of things (aka 'psychological')

The fallout begins, as this new school of thought becomes trapped in power games of critique. They slowly stop 'creating' things, instead only offering 'critical theories'. This expands to art, in the sense that art becomes a 'noble goal' only if it contains to discursive power of phenomena and their discursions.

And so the link to performitivity is sealed. Instead of a 'raison d'etre' one needs only to perform such being. Foucault posited 'transgression' as a form of revolt, in which one essentially 'performs' sin. Their academics become celebs, their writings chic; everyone starts performing the act of being academics. Marxism becomes 'cool', revolution hip. Performance art (the domain of women) takes over, because the 'textuality' of art needs to carry the emotional geist of phenomena. Everyone starts navel gazing, expressing sexual fetish bullshit, and laundering money/influence through this new 'polisci art market'...etc

I could go on...

That's nice. Can you show me some? But if you don't want to that's ok

This is why women are subhuman and will never be a mans equal. These lesser creatures deserve no rights and should be property of men. Women who make degenerate art like this should be executed.

Attached: 1549165062780.jpg (1000x652, 54K)

if anyone can do it

it's not really a disciplined art is it?

>all these buttblasted posts
i'm sorry nobody at the hipster coffee shop wants to buy your watercolors

do you really think these young retards have read foucault and art philosophy in order to create the drivel in the video?

I think you're over complicating things.
Art used to be about creating something beautiful.
Now it's about conveying emotion.

Foucault's comments on modernity, certainly the role of the likes of psychiatry and institutionalised medicine are the most profound articulations of the last century.

Goya isn't always "beautiful"

yet it is?

I'm not even an artist, kiddo. I'm just more intelligent than you are. Most cats and dogs are too, I suspect.

>i am more intelligent than you
oh you're the type of person that tells other people he's more intelligent than them. that's even funnier LOL

They probably don't read Foucault, but I would bet $$$ they read Judith Butler, who is Foucault progeny and Queer theory scion. Butler is completely obsessed with 'performance', positing that not only is everything 'socially constructed' but it is also 'performance'

But that is mostly irrelevant, in the sense that it has more to do with the general 'culture' and 'climate' that such writers have caused to fester within academia.

Very few of these students engage deeply with these thinkers, so you get the basic bitch hot takes aka performance art. The point is for it to be 'discursive', to supposedly make people 'think' about their emotionality and to applaud people ("artists") who openly express their psycho-trauma with abstractions.

And again, it has much to do with the creation/critique dichotomy. These people have stopped creating, truly, instead just using art (or 'academic papers', whatever) to air their grievances and psycho-social complexes

lost

repeal.io

Attached: why-women-should-not-vote.png (1500x3719, 595K)

It's not a light switch where art is either beautiful or conveying emotion. The 18th and 19th century were very much the transitory period of this, and it's a simply transition to explain.

Artists create beautiful art
Beautiful art induces emotion in the viewers
Artists seek to induce more emotion in views.
Beauty become less of a focus for the artist and instead inducing emotion.

What you're seeing with goya is the artistic world beginning to focus more on capturing inducing emotion rather than capturing beauty. By the 21st century all art is is inducing an emotional response from an assault on the senses

I think Da Vinci was doing a little more than that friendo

lol

bye

checked, first of all most artists are fucking bullshit, they don't make anything great, music drawing and film production is art, presenataion art is fucking retarded shit for liberal cucks to make some money because they are too dumb to do anything with real value.

(there's only one Francis Bacon)

That poor woman is holding herself hostage man, vagina vagina vagina man. She want's the fucking money Lebowski...that poor woman.

interesting. i'm actually in performance art circles in a very liberal city, and i have heard "judith butler" thrown around more than a few times. i didn't know there was an actual degenerate philosophy behind this degenerate art

>p..p..people aint crazy, they just misunderstood
much profound

>heterosexuality is just a performance, cuz Greeks did gay shit
woke

>if people access their true biopower and perform transgressions they can excise the power dynamics contained within the panopticon of hegemonics
expanded_mind.jpg

This is basically just hyper-futurist fascismo italiano, but without the fast cars and with the BDSM sex dungeons and AIDS death.

Say something nice about the LGBT community of this thread will be reported to the CIA

Sure thing, Natalia.

>a toe by 3pm

Oven for you, Schlomo

I knew a girl who did a bunch of photographs of herself naked with shit drawn all over herself. I remember the local art scene really embraced her and she got semi famous. Even had some national exposure on television and radio for her work, which was mediocre at best.
Anyway, one night she was complaining that almost every review of her work called it feminine. And I remember saying "but, I mean, your work is feminine. It's all of you, naked, with pink and white marks all over yourself."
She seriously thought the art critics were somehow being sexist for calling her work feminine, as if a man would take pictures of himself with paint on his chest... And if he did, the idea that anyone would want to see it is pretty fucking unlikely.
Women artists are always exploring their femininity. They're literally the most confused people on earth. 90% of girls have femininity figured out by 14-15. Somehow there's artsy chicks who can't figure it out until they're deep into their 60s or older.

You needed to hear it, son. You aren't bright enough to come to that conclusion on your own.

pepes

Because cia forced shitty art that takes little to no effort to make popular just so people could launder money easier.

So bitches don't understand it's people just pretending to be retared so they act normal.

Say something nicer about SPICS or everyone in this thread will be reported to the JIDF

Here ya go man.

fanfiction.net/s/10216847/1/Dipper-Goes-to-Taco-Bell-reupload

Not really, creating and capturing beauty can be extremely complex, but he still seeked that same harmony and structure needed to create and capture beauty. The vitruvian man is a perfect example

Myth. They also claimed best cooks but they aren't. Men are far more creative than women. Look at literature, media, just about everything!
Women are good nurturers, do a passable job of keeping house and make good vocalists but that's it.

since you're pretty versed on this topic, what would you call art that was enabled and mediated through very high level mastery of technology? the art itself uses abstract visuals to depict a celebration of achievement/advancement/evolution. i'm working with very high level software developers who also have an artistic bent, and i don't know enough about art history/philosophy to come up with a term for some of the stuff we're making. but it is distinctly different from all of the other performance art around us.

>(You)
just for you. cherish it

Attached: 0272621.jpg (2099x2083, 1.08M)

Based

i would perhaps make a correction here.

It is not so much "degenerate philosophy" but rather a "philosophy of degeneracy". In the sense that over time much from these schools of thought outright celebrate degeneracy. Foucault's 'transgression', chosen for its relation to 'sin', is mostly a celebration of degenerate acts. As in, by performing transgression you offends the 'panopticon of hegemonic society'. In translation: be edgy because it upsets your parents and/or the prudes/normies/non-rebels

Why? because everything is socially constructed and therefore oppressive, because your beautiful spirit is misunderstood and not appreciated by the sheep of the polis.

This is just a very basic take on this, but it is easy to see how it breeds narcissism.

Male artists are all but anonymous, leaving behind great works that are revered for centuries while they themselves are perhaps a name that an educated person might have heard in college. It is a fundamentally male impulse to create a lasting work.

Female artists desire attention above all else, so they gravitate toward performance art, or insert an oppressed female character into their art as an avatar of themselves. There are some very good female artists working in the masculine paradigm, but not enough to turn their gender around.

Off the cuff I will perhaps posit this. Art is that which is a creation made without proscriptive goals of Being outside itself. This is mostly framed against 'tools', that is, things with proscriptive goals and chains of Being.

As in, take a hammer...it is created both with a proscriptive goal (beating nails) and a sense of Being outside of itself (hammer - > nails - > house - > living space).

But i also say that 'art' is a somewhat useless term. Painters and musicians, etc. are more accurately described as 'painters' and 'musicians' as opposed to 'artists'.

In what you are referring to, I'm not sure how I might classify it without actually seeing/experiencing it. Sounds more 'visual' than 'performance'. Digital art? Von Neumann expressionism? Art traditionally referred to 'craft' so often the tools are part of the classification...

I do not think you need to study the history/philosophy to make, understand, or 'name' "art". Call it something from yourself/your conceptions

I usually just call stuff i do 'alchemy' or 'political art' because it's funny to me.

in the current year if as a woman you take off your clothes and say everyone and everything is oppressing you then no one will be able to criticize it in a way that is considered socially acceptable.

I remember going to a gallery show for rising star female artists a few years ago.

There was a lot of goofy shit. Some performance art, some 'kitsch post-modern shit', political bullshit, etc. etc. And then there was this one Italian artist (I can't remember her name at present) who made marble 'veil' sculptures (as in carving marble to resemble flowing cloth over faces; very 'grandmaster' type shit and a nod to a style of the Renassance). This women did amazing shit, her sculptures were beautiful, provoking, and implied some sense of extreme craft discipline.

But most people just looked at them, said neat, and went to watch the naked girl or look at period blood.

It was sad.

yeah and you proved OPs point. art by a female contains nudity.

truly a musical masterpiece fren

Attached: 1550907829207.png (819x827, 16K)

Attached: 1549415141416.jpg (418x509, 27K)

I prefer classical oil but don't have the patience. I mostly work with markers and pens. Bic fine Point markers create surprisingly good detail.

Otto Lohmüller is a pretty good painter.

This is fucking trash.

It's just slightly higher quality "art" trash so you think its good.

All the crappy hallmarks of female "art". Nothing to show but a confused, disfigured Jewish mess of crap sprinkled with nudity because when women don't know what to do they just get naked so it draws in attention.

Attached: 1521583504298.jpg (306x287, 20K)

Yes there are insane feminist cunts that make shitty period blood “””””Art””””””, but there are many very talented female artists in the world.

pretty much this

Attached: 1542743806211.jpg (580x563, 236K)

I draw in my notebook at work. Not the best but it uses actual art material and not period blood

Every shit i take is a god damned masterpiece compared to this

Lets go buddy present one. I actually argue almost all art is jewfied beyond belief and that all the greats have been dead and gone along with much of their craft for a long time.

DOO DOO DOO DOO DOO DOO DOO DOO

Attached: 69f.jpg (600x485, 25K)

czech'd
Female artists are like female comedians. They both suck.

>Why is this literally 99% of the art that women make?
Because it's an option for them.

Suppose you were a female art major in a liberal college and someone tells you that you could spend years of hard work obsessively honing your technical skills as an artist until your works finally reached a level quality that would attract attention, or you could get the same level of attention by just taking off your clothes and making up some pseudo-intellectual explanation for what you were doing.

How many people are honestly going to take the hard path?

I literally do 3d modelling in blender. Checkmate faggo.

Women have never created anything of note, maybe Frankenstein perhaps?

This guy is completely wrong. If anything can be art then nothing is art, the word art has no meaning.

holy shit.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2613444/Percy-Bysshe-Shelley-helped-wife-Mary-write-Frankenstein-claims-professor.html

Oh my god, thank you!! I WISH! She's beautiful and married to Bad Religion's bassist, I love that girl and I wish I was her!!!

Yeah I always suspected something was up, I used to think Gabriel Faure was a woman so I was like hey one or two women can create great works, turns out it’s just a French mans name

this

Because they are narcissists that think that they are special.

With clearly mixed racw facial features

post moar