Go to an art museum

>go to an art museum
>i don't get it
what am i supposed to experience looking at old paintings of landscapes, portraits, still life and abstract art?

pic related

Attached: pollock.jpg (3264x2448, 3.54M)

It's alright user, not everyone is cut for understanding art.

I dont know, its really personal, you can enjoy the craft, the symbollic play, the concepts, history around the work, there is a lot of stuff to get and also you can hate it with passion for a lot of other reasons

OP is right. The fuck is in his picture? What the fuck is that painting supposed to be? It's just shit slapped together and thrown all over the canvas. It's a shitty piece of art.

Abstract art is fucking retarded unless its a book or a video game or a movie. When its just a painting or a sculpture its absolutely some of the most pretentious and retarded shit I have ever seen and is created by the artistically inept that desperately want to be considered great artists, always without question.

Attached: dc6ab3w-0f3953da-75e2-474e-a193-58d943c05ebd.png (500x450, 236K)

I personally think abstract art is where it becomes shit like your pic OP. If its done like that for no reason other than being a decoration with no symbolic bs, I.e its literally just aethetically pleasing then its perfectly fine.

This is why I hate most art students, they try to weave in prententious bs rather than just making something thats nice to look at and the symbolism stuff being an afterthought. They think they can do symbolism well like renaissance art when most really cant.

Stuff like this is typical for post-war art movements. You see it develop independently in separate parts of the world which is extremely interesting. Artists want to radically break with the past and create something entirely new, using new materials, techniques and subjects.

For me, a Pollock painting is ugly af, but kind of interesting.

I get that it's not for everyone, but there are so many different art traditions and artists to discover. When you really "feel" something the moment you look at it (other than "Oh, that's nice" I mean), that's when you know what art is about.

no offense dude but splattering paint randomly on a canvas isn't exactly earth shattering. people have been doing it for decades. If they wanted to radically break from the past by making art like in OP's pic they fucking failed in doing so.

If you're a visual artist, you can probably see efforts other people don't see in the art.
The purpose for a non-artist is to look at it, say, "this is nice," think about what made the artist want to make it and move on.
If you walk away and find yourself thinking about the art at a different time, the artist has accomplished their job

All you are "supposed" to do is respond to one or some.
One or another might strike you as particularly pretty or striking or even troubling. Buy a postcard of it in the gift shop and take it home.Enjoy looking at it.

art is not about painting, but about selling.
they sold a ticket to you, that is what made it art.

>All you are "supposed" to do is respond to one or some.
and how do you respond to it?

>go to art gallery by myself
>look at picture then walk away
>see couples chatting about the painting
how do i be like that? if i took a grill to an art museum, i'd be in complete silence

dude thats exactly it! art interpretation is genuinely tough for young people cause its suppose to relate to experience but if you never had that experience then you won't "get it"

Nobody cares
They just want you to pay to see the dumb shit
At end of day, all art is just a different kind of blogging really

ya a lot of art is just kind of whatever, sometimes you find something you think is cool or whatever, but ya most modern art doesn't do anything for me

Attached: 1545547217743.jpg (1584x1660, 634K)

Modern art in general is garbage. It’s the fortnite in gaming. The Marvel in movies.
You find this everywhere.
You don’t feel shit, because you don’t see anything made from real passion or significance.

as a art major..i hate to admit to it but. real art is hard to find now a days... and the fact that people are so out of touch is shrinking the size of consumers

Oddly, anime helped me understand modern art. At least a little bit. Centaur No Nayami ep 10, lol.

I think works like the OP are meta-art. It totally inverts the standards of beauty, creating something totally ugly, as if to say, "I know so much about aesthetics that I'm creating something I know is ugly, because in order to identify something so unaesthetic you would have to know a lot about what is aesthetic." Not that I'd know, though. I have to say there are a couple Pollock pieces that I really like, but definitely not the one in OP.

Attached: animu explains modern art.png (1776x946, 2.08M)

Abstract art came because photography was very popular at this time and since cameras could capture everything why paint real life anymore?

You're not supposed to get anything. If you DO feel something, then you win!

Modern art takes no skill and is literally money laundering

>Didn't even read that OP wasn't just talking about abstracts.
>Claim to know either what art is or why it is useless while still being part of the illiterate Twitter generation.

Op cant experience anything or feel anything because there is no feeling or skill out behind modern art.hkw is the viewer supposed to feel something when the artist themselves don't give a fuck?

Pretentious shite.

That's the thing. He made you think it's random.
That artist started out with those crazy messes, evolved to less abstract closer to reality paintings, then near the end de-evolved back to splatter and was frustrated.

Stop using words that you don't know the meaning of.

The modern artist doesn't not give a fuck about the art. They don't give a fuck about the viewer. They aren't required to. If the viewer likes it, great, maybe they'll buy it. If not, the artist just keeps trying to capture on canvas what they see in their head until they die. They'll do that anyway, they'll just have to do it broke.

If ops pic is what artists see then they have no value and are worthless and do not deserve any respect since ethey clearly have no respect for themselves.

I could say this for entire bodies of governmental ruling and it wouldn't change the fact that the average person seems pleased as punch that these things are in effect
Most TV is worthless
Most sports are worthless
Paying celebs more than min wage is a fucking joke
Paying athletes more than min wage is a fucking joke
But you know, that's just how it is on this bitch of an Earth

You have to admire this painting for the sheer technical skill.

Attached: Albert_Edelfelt_-_Queen_Bianca_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (3013x3869, 2.39M)

Literally everything you said is true.
There is no skill or dedication or value in modern art.

I'm going to assume you have all your limbs. Does that mean prosthetic limbs have no value in the world?
You are not the end all be all of mankind. No one gives a fuck what arists you think have value.
Either you look at it, and it gives you a boner, or you look at it and want to throw up. If it's in a museum, it's boner:vomit quotient is greater than 1, whether or not it has value to you.

>That example
What the fuck are you talking a out? Prosthetics are infinitely more useful and valuable than art.

We have movies, books, music and video games what is the use of static art in today's world? Seems like an outdated medium.

A single person can create something great. That is what are is ultimately about but good art takes skill, dedication and a good creative mind.

>Prosthetics have no value to someone with all their limbs, but great value to someone without.
>Art has great value to someone who enjoys looking at it, but no value to someone who prefers looking a other things.
Analogies are hard, guys.

A video game doesn't quietly cover my wall and make me smile when I walk past it.

>Prosthetics can make someone else's life better
>Art can't help said person.
There is literally no downside to prosthetics. People who don't need them? Their well off, people who need em? Helps them out.

What exactly can art contribute without simply making someone feel something for a minute or two?

You really don't get analogies, do you? The art isn't for the guy with no arm.

The point is that it doesn't have to do anything for YOU. YOU don't need a prosthesis. Good for you, stop complaining about the prosthetics store. Other people like it.
YOU don't like modern art. Good for you, stop complaining about the museum. Other people like it.

>Make a shitty analogy that has no correlation to my original argument.
>Gets mad when called out.
You need to read man.

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but your original argument was that modern art has no value. You said this as if it was objective fact, applying to all modern art, and to every person viewing such art.
That is obviously erroneous.

It doesn't. To use your own analogy.
>Which prosthetic you want senpai? This skillfully made robotic one that took time and energy to make
>Or this one that's 3 beer cans and duct taped together made in the back of a Walmart.
I'm sure you can guess which is which.

Autistic people don't understand analogies, my boy.

I'm not sure I can tell you what you're "supposed" to feel. Some people probably just don't get it, like how some people can't do math, or learn languages, or etc. That being said, modern art is garbage and I feel nothing when looking at it other than curiosity about how I can get into putting paint on plywood and making money

If the beer cans let me pick up shit without an arm, then I'll take that one. It makes me just as happy.
If the only art that makes you happy takes ages to make, go look at that. But you can't say anything else has no value to anyone just because it doesn't make you happy.

So by your logic, if I shat on a canvas and said that's my art, you'd be ok with it?
I guess we just have big differences in what we determine to have value.

I wouldn't buy it, but that doesn't mean no one else will. That's not even an original idea.

neither is randomly throwing paint on a canvas but artfags still do it and claim its original

Well grats, I assumed you saw yourself in a better light but if you are really thinking that is ok, then you are perfect for modern artists.
It doesn't matter how a piece of art feels, the skill, creativity and dedication behind it is what makes real art.

Oh and if forgot the beer can arm will cost 10x more than the robot arm and will break in a week where as the robot arm is for life.

>It doesn't matter how a piece of art feels
I assume you mean 'makes you feel.' Though you're still wrong. That's the only thing art does. That's what art is.
>the skill, creativity and dedication behind it is what makes real art.
>Real art
No, that's the kind of art that makes you happy. That's the kind woman that gives you a boner. Liking another sort of woman doesn't make my enjoyment less valid.

What are you, 12?

Art is a creative medium. How is anything in ops pic creative?
It's like you don't know what are is.
Am I not right? Shitty art like that will sell for millions but good art goes by rather cheaply.

Art need not be creative to be enjoyable. Art need only be pleasing. YOU need to see something creative to be pleased. You =/= everyone.

If you don't value setting enough to pay millions for it, then don't. If something IS being sold for millions, well George I think that just might mean someone enjoys it regardless of what you think. Funny how that happens.

Just because someone enjoys something doesn't make it good or art.
Art is format for creative outlet medium first and foremost.
Just because hacks like you and others enjoy modern art does not make it have value.

And, I'm done feeding the trolls.

>Can't refute a point
Shouldve called me an incel

>Just because something has value to someone other than me doesn't mean it has value.
I refuse to believe anyone can be that dimwitted unintentionally.

Autism is a powerful thought inhibitor, dude.

At what point does it end? Do we really wanna give merit to someone who didn't do anything and half hazardly shat something in an afternoon because some meth head looked at a painting and got feels? That's why we need a standard. You can be creative and have standards.
Anyone who values modern art has no standards and thus has no value themselves since they do not value themselves.

>Modern Art
>The term is usually associated with art in which the traditions of the past have been thrown aside in a spirit of experimentation.
Go home, autismo.

>My standard is that only art that is made of solid gold has value. Why doesn't your art meet my standards, user? All you did was meticulously paint a landscape. That's not real art. You must be morally bankrupt to not use solid gold.
That's what you sound like.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying art made with a creative, skillful and talent is better than making a few scribbles and claiming it to be art.

Modern Art isn't even claiming to be art, knuckle head. It's an experimentation of art. Stop bumping this shitty thread because you can't understand that.

And I'm telling you that "better" has absolutely no meaning in a subjective discipline.

This thread is literally why >& humanities is a meme.

No, that wasn't your argument. Thats a different one entirely but yes, even is a subjective medium, you can have standards and see what is better and what isn't.

No, that's exactly what my argument was. You said that something can't have value because YOU don't like it. I said that as long as someone likes it, it has value. i.e. better has no meaning in art, because the definition of better exists only in each of us.
>you can have standards and see what is better and what isn't.
YOU can have standards. Those standards are subjective. They are your opinions. They are not universal, and clearly have no impact on who enjoys art you think doesn't meet your standards, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No you literally can't have standards for "better" in subjective media.
Go put a crab on your genitals right now. They're the best looking exoskeletal creature on earth. You should want to fuck one. If you don't do it you're a degenerate human that doesn't think interspecies sex is the height of human sexuality. You can have all that useless human pussy and make babies like a vanilla ass breeder.
and end example**

Attached: tenor (6).gif (498x213, 3.05M)

Honestly I love modern/contemporary art but I I still think that this is a valid question/critique. Like if you go to a good modern art museum especially if it has a special exhibit or something (for example...the octopus eats its own legs...) you'll find a lot of really neat art and art that does make you think or feel something. However, you'll also see a lot of shit like this picture. And I've taken a lot of art classes mostly art appreciation and histories, and even with the whole idea of "dada" art where like anything can be art...Some of it I'm just not buying lmao.

Attached: download.jpg (272x185, 5K)

Again, just because someone values something does not mean it is good or creative. That is why we need a standard to hold accountable what people can do to be better at their creative outlook.

Example: let say for op pics the artist want to make a picture of his emotions and feeling to this day. Instead of mindless scribbles, why not put some thought and effort in the outlet? Why not make something skillful and requires practice to which represents what the artists wants? Because there is no standard, he/she can just do whatever they want and call it art.

It's why people don't value modern art, because there is no talent or creative skill to it. Only feels. Anyone can feel something, but not everyone can create something and make people feel something too.

I'm gonna feel my foot in your ass, you shitty troll.

All you are saying is "I don't feel anything when I look at it. That means you can't feel anything when you look at it either. You can't! It isn't good! Only what I think is creative is good! I'm the only one who gets to set the standards. Your standards are different, so they must be wrong. Why? Because it isn't good if it's different. "

Do you seriously feel anything when looking at the mess in the OP pic?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. There are plenty of pieces of art I don't have any feelings on but can respect the artist for creative.
How did you even come to this conclusion?

>let say for op pics the artist want to make a picture of his emotions and feeling to this day.
That's exactly what they did. If you see it differently, that doesn't mean it's bad. Is War and Peace better than Animal Farm because it took a thousand pages and fancy words to get it's point across?
>But I don't like farm animals
Then suck my dick you sheep hating faggot.

Except the artists didn't put any effort or creative thought into his painting. He/she literally threw shit on a canvus and claimed art.

Not really. I prefer Rothko. I'm not defending that piece. I'm trying to get user to see the difference between subjective and objective.

If I think War and Peace is a shit book but Clifford the Big Red Dog is heaven sent, then what? It's my subjective opinion, but objetivly it requires more skill to write War and Peace.

Why is your opinion of 'creative thought' the only one that should matter?

Thank you for proving my point? If you like Clifford, you read Clifford. Just because War and Peace took more effort to write doesn't necessarily make it more enjoyable.

It's not but if we are going to say this is museum worthy art, then there needs to be some standards so that others know what quality is defined as a base.

So many things the artist could have done with the scribbles to make it creative and skillful but no, just throw paint at it and call it a day.

So if we placed Clifford the Big Red Dog next to War and Peace in a museum for great works of writting, it would be completley justified because some people are bound to prefer Clifford over War and Peace?

That's a diff anom but just because you enjoy Clifford doesn't mean it's has equal or better value than war and peace.
War and piece took time, a lot of skill, and refinement on complex matters. Clifford doesn't have nearly the same level of skill.

The museum decides the standards. Just like how you decide what you want to hang on your wall. What's hard to understand about that?

This is one of the best explanations for it I've heard in recent memory, the meta-art thing. But even then, dismissing it as "ugly" seems unnecessarily harsh and suggests that you can't possibly enjoy it on a more superficial level. For example, I like the painting in OP's pic. To me it depicts something otherworldly and cosmic, like a cross section of a huge galaxy (contrary to popular opinion, space is actually full of colors and isn't just a field of black with tiny stars), or a landscape from within some kind of a Lovecraftian polydimensional quasi-space that's beyond human comprehension. I like the unkemptness of the whole, which makes it feel punkish, honest and "authentic".

This isn't true. Photography was invented in 1820s. Modern art saw its first attempts at near-full abstraction in the 1910s - that's 90 years later. However, we got examples of abstraction in art from as early as 12th century China.

What you're thinking of is impressionism, out of which the post-impressionist movement sprung, who in turn were the precursors to abstract modern painting.

I haven't read the entire thread, but as expected there are a lot of posts here claiming polarized views in quite complex matters. First of all, there are different schools of art criticism. Some are preoccupied with a painting's subject matter or discoursive aspects, while others are more interested in its structure and formal quialities such as colour contrasts and compositional balance, to keep it relatively simple.

I would suggest that you approach art without agenda, and use the medium as a way to reveal and explore your own humanity and mind. See anything that makes you think? Could be anything form the size of the brushwork relative to your own bodily movements and restrictions, to the pulsating effect of similar colours put next to each other, that might lead to ideas about the nature of vision or the reality of wavelengths. I just made this up while I was writing, and that's how the mind is supposed to work when you look at paintings. This applies to both realistic paintings and non-figurative works of art. It's a low-res representation of the fields of possibilities that make up reality in both nature and the imagination, made with muck from the earth and human hands.

If the museum was curated by children, War and Peace wouldn't even make the cut. That's the point.
You two keep conflating 'value' with 'value to me.'
Sorry to burst your bubble, mate. But it's actually just some thoughtless scribbles that you're not allowed to enjoy because only things made of solid gold can be enjoyable.

And I'm saying the standards the museam has are not up to par and are border line corrupt.

Because what we value are standards that require talent and skill to achieve, things artists in the past also valued.

If it's a public museum, then vote it out. If not, than fuck yourself with a cactus.

> what am i supposed to experience looking at old paintings of landscapes, portraits, still life..
Nevermind user.
I thought you were complaining about abstract "art" but I see you feel nutin even looking at breathtaking traditional art, like incredible sculptures and shit like that. Maybe you have some kind of retardness.


The problem with your argument is that it leaves nothing off the table. People can shit on canvuses, use period blood as paint and other nasty shit and call it art and it would fall under your logic because someone out there felt something from it.

Imagine if history of artists thought the same thing. We would ever gotten the Mona Lisa? Statue of David? What about the works of Salvador Dali?
The point I'm making is we wouldn't have the amazing works without a sense of creative standards and talent.

Why does what you value mean other people can't value something else?

Yes, we. See

Because it's the standards made by people of talent, Skill and creative minds.
If we didn't have the standards, we wouldn't have historical arts like we do now.

There are multiple painting theories which take skill and time to learn and to implement into your painting in order to get the desired effect
>the golden cut
>the golden ratio
>diagonal, horisontal and vertical lines
>color symbolism
>central perspective
>frog's/bird's eyeview
>symmetrical composition
That thing in the OP could have been made anyone. If that thing has value to you, great, go ahead, enjoy it, but when I enter a museum I expect it to be curated by people who've stuided art and can detect these techniques in paintings.

aesthetic pleasure hits first, sharply so, right at top surface of your awareness. then a little ways beneath that, not immediately noticed, is the compulsion or desire or wonder or else which has taken hold of you and locked your focus in suspension. lastly, undergirding all of it and taking the longest to fade away, is a stirring of instinct and emotion that impacts your perspective and draws new tendrils of connection in your worldview.
>abstract art?

i used to "not get it" either. as it turns out, art actually is all it's cracked up to be. the trick is you have to actually be looking at art. i imagine that's where most get tripped up. the notion that anything can be art is akin to the everybody gets a trophy philosophy. no one is going to look at a person who's won a dozen medals for participation and see a champion. similarly you'll never end up with art without inspired creative vision, an understanding of foundational guiding principles, and the requisite technical skill. you'll end up with Pollock.

Attached: Carl_Georg_Adolph_Hasenpflug__1802_1858__Blick_auf_die_Kirchenruine_im_Winter___oil_on_canvas_1848.j (4389x3627, 2.96M)

And again, I'm not saying they can't value it, I'm saying what they value is not a good or bad.
I'm sure we all love or value a shitty b-movie because of its quircks but if held that as the standard, we wouldn't get great movies like 12 angry men or citizen kane.

The Mona Lisa was written by an adulterous hobo
Your problem is that you're assuming art has somehow not once in history been 'the bohemian vocation;' the thing is more appropriately that throughout history, artistry has never once not been the path of bohemians

The painting itself is vastly better than the ops pic. While it may be the most creative painting (oh look it's just a female), the sheer talen and skill behind it is what elavates it too great levels.