Can any art history autists tell me why abstract art is trash...

Can any art history autists tell me why abstract art is trash? I recognize that splattering paint and "minimalism" is hollow and a feudal attempt at art, but I can't really put it into words.

literature recommendations appreciated

Attached: 1556910873927.jpg (1500x1501, 224K)

You cannot distinguish a finished abstract piece from an unfinished abstract piece. There is no real information content to it. Everything about it is arbitrary. You can replace any brush stroke with another brush stroke and the painting will be essentially unchanged. With a representative painting a single brush stroke out of place will stand out.

>You cannot distinguish a finished abstract piece from an unfinished abstract piece.
fucking based. how do i turn this into normie speak for debate purposes

Attached: 0bbeded05d18c255d9535bba627811c9.jpg (2048x1536, 649K)

Attached: The-Rape-of-Proserpina-Leg-Indention.jpg (979x1306, 783K)

Attached: littlebabel.jpg (1021x844, 185K)

Attached: 894941_10151388137469372_1966695603_o.jpg (2048x1620, 659K)

Zdzislaw

Attached: Zdzislaw.jpg (856x1024, 176K)

Attached: waarp.png (553x716, 566K)

Not an art history fag but I can take a stab.

Basically art, in the classical sense, is supposed to represent beauty and concepts/experiences that words alone cannot express as acutely, whether it is awe, happiness, sadness, or something entirely profound. Take the idea of beauty for example, beauty is objective and it has to do with symmetry and health. Beautify is not a learned concept it is engrained genetically but it is subverted by modern art which recoils at any objective standard for beauty which has implications. Like beauty, post modern art is an attack on all things objective and ultimately an attack on human reason which is the bookend from which all other rational judgments follow.

Real art does not require education and it is not “mysterious”. Art should represent universal human experiences that attempt to dignify human existence but modern art is so repulsed by that idea that (because it’s creators were degenerates) that it attempts to attack the very idea of art.

>feudal
Futile

Attached: 57612591_135422957578908_2812155515700077622_n.jpg (1000x999, 110K)

fuck, thank you. voice to text is garbage.
>phone poster sort of

Attached: Dr8drKyUwAAed-0.jpg (720x718, 116K)

I'm not a fan of abstract or post modern art in general but this isn't a point that you should use as an argument. There are other painting styles like impressionism that don't really look finished either.

Blind guy, trying to understand visual art?

thanks m8

Attached: ArtemisiaGentileschi-Judith-Slaying-Holofernes-1612-21.jpg (800x974, 138K)

abstract art is more about the time period it was created in than the piece itself
most people just look at art and examine it on the physical level but the story behind the painting such as the time place and events that were taking place during the creation of the painting adds elements to it
abstract art was only cool to be the first one to do it after that it just becomes a bunch of self fellating bullshit imo

Modern art is not necesserily abstract.
Abstract art is either about purely formal elements like arrangement of lines, colours, shapes, the action of painting itself etc. or about some idea of spiritual or emotional purity that can only be achieved by letting go of the 'recognizable' world.
Abstract artists didnt necessarily like each other or how art critics promoted their works.

still doesn't make abstract art justifiable or in any sense of the word, "good"

Why would it need to be justified?
What do you mean with ''good''?

If you replace a certain number of strokes it loses a lot of information. BECAUSE IT HAS INFORMATION IN IT.

snif

ur just too dumb for it sorry lmao sorry ur too dumb to synthesize visuals and sounds

This is a good post right here. Saved, thank you user.

Attached: 7BB9017D-0F65-4C90-A4BB-4B2F5D1F6986.jpg (1500x996, 1.28M)