Why is modern “art” so terrible?

Why is modern “art” so terrible?
What happened?
This is by Jean-Michel Basquiet, supposedly a great painter from the late 20th century. It looks like a child’s crayon drawing. How did we get here? Is this proof that art really is a reflection of culture?
The centuries of great painters would be rolling in their graves at this

Attached: 6B3BA372-C1AD-4F1F-BC78-8CAF01D0BB02.jpg (1232x900, 385K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc&t=1746s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Aldrich_Rockefeller
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Modern_Art
youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

That looks pretty cool desu

I find that aesthetically appealing as well

would use it for a book cover

I don't get Rothko

don't get it

Attached: rothko.jpg (772x1024, 81K)

sure my brain likes the colour

but I don't get it

art degenerates as civilization does

faustian civilization is dying

I don't get Goldsmith's modus operandi

someone for their graduate degree

entered a room and took a shit in a sparkle covered jar.

I mean

what

Also Goldsmith was actually DISCOURAGING people pursuing classically trained art in favor of conceptualism

weird...

idk. honestly I like it.

>my brain likes the color

And that's fine.

Attached: w.jpg (1000x1459, 172K)

that painting is supposed to make you feel hopeless, because the painter and buyer like to bang emo girls, its not that complicated, just don't buy it, and aim for 0% taxes.

>How did we get here?
Picasso, that's how we got here. He's the one who pushed hard for non-figurative art. And everyone else followed. It all started with Cubism.

From there, it was only a small distance step towards purely abstract painting (Mondrian, Malevich etc).

Attached: Botticelli-Primavera-Painting-ARTHIST0116.jpg (1600x1000, 559K)

Picasso was a brilliant artist.

Look at his realism, it is master level.

Not all modern art. You're not looking hard enough.

Attached: Art - Modern & Not Shit.png (1146x768, 1.29M)

They had their own reasons tho. Figurative painting had become a total bore by the start of the 20th century. Everything that you could have dreamt of achieving in figurative art had already been achieved to the fullest extent.

Maybe, but his influence on the history of art led to a dead end.

Attached: 12.jpg (508x665, 33K)

Well no I think maybe that was what's his face

splash boy for the CIA

Eyes are perfection

But then.

Attached: kill me pls.jpg (827x1000, 271K)

Modern art has been entirely taken over by Jews, started early 20th century. They love subverting a nation's culture.

.

Attached: Picasso.jpg (567x840, 138K)

Anutha one

Attached: Gerhard-Richter.jpg (2000x1365, 1.46M)

Attached: Picasso.jpg (364x488, 74K)

drawing is uncannily masterful

as if from another sphere entirely

Well yeah he was perfectly capable of doing figurative art. And yet he chose to embark on a methodical destruction of visual representation.

youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc&t=1746s

For centuries, the goal of painting was to create more and more realistic images. Once the photograph was invented, this was no longer the case. Consequently, art shifted to more conceptual styles. Around this same time a lot of Freudian ideas about the unconscious mind started to get popular, so what was seen as "real" was the subconscious experience unfiltered by the ego. The problem now is that everything has been done, there isn't much ground to break if you are a painter. That is why modern art is filled with cringey feminists smearing period blood on a canvas and calling it art.

Looks good to me, like something someone would do who would also kill you in your sleep

Attached: 1535559052185.png (289x276, 27K)

The camera happened. Realistic paintings kind of lost their charm when you could super easily great more real and lively things with no skill and little cost.

So art has searched for ways to feel meaningfull. From expressionism to all kinds of shit.

You seem like one of those wankers who approach it like it's just a craft and I'm sure that maybe your shallow art sense is pleased with that but most people who look over art history quickly grow tired of the things that has been done to death already in history.

Attached: 0rzxyzan4xnz.jpg (585x800, 87K)

Post-modernism and Jews. After WW2 the art establishment, academia and critics were all purged of "nazi supporters", and there were actually many of them. All these positions were then filled with "anti fascists" - resentful commies, sexual deviants and ethnic minorities There they took revenge on European culture that they hated and took to "deconstructing" everything - beauty, tradition, strength, power, christianity, nationalism, ancient art - all that was mocked and ridiculed on purpose. It was a Nietzschean transvaluation of artistic values by spitefil rejects plamted at the top by the Allies to "denazify" the west

Thats why a stereotypical western great artist is some gay black jew smearing shit on the wall in his gallery, whereas before ww2 it was some upper class white guy in a suit, with a huge library of great classics in his country villa who could go on and on about Homer, the Renaissance or Gothic cathedrals even if he was a modernist

Attached: EBVCA-6WwAAcLvk.jpg (510x510, 64K)

I don't think that's what he was doing. I think he was genuinely an experimentalist.

Dali was removed from the surrealist for not conforming enough

lol

1. efficient cause: incompetent public and lack of talented patrons.
2. formal cause: lack of an actual weltanschauung by the "art"-makers, which is the humus for any artistic creation. they mechanically try to dress up a concept with a figure, but that is not how art works.

movement*

Dali is one of my most favoured

and Tamara de Lempicka

Radiant Genius

Attached: Tamara.jpg (600x720, 343K)

the canvas glows with unearthly splendor

Just breath taking

I want to eat a grape plucked from this world

Attached: grapes.jpg (600x720, 333K)

the eyes just melt the heart

"Abigail Greene "Abby" Aldrich Rockefeller (October 26, 1874 – April 5, 1948) was an American socialite and philanthropist. Through her marriage to financier and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller Jr., she was a prominent member of the Rockefeller family. Referred to as the "woman in the family", she was known for being the driving force behind the establishment of the Museum of Modern Art, on 53rd Street in New York, in November 1929."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Aldrich_Rockefeller

"The idea for the Museum of Modern Art was developed in 1929 primarily by Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.) and two of her friends, Lillie P. Bliss and Mary Quinn Sullivan.[7] They became known variously as "the Ladies" or "the adamantine ladies".[8][9]"

"When Abby Rockefeller's son Nelson was selected by the board of trustees to become its flamboyant president in 1939, at the age of thirty, he became the prime instigator and funder of its publicity, acquisitions and subsequent expansion into new headquarters on 53rd Street. His brother, David Rockefeller, also joined the museum's board of trustees in 1948 and took over the presidency when Nelson was elected Governor of New York in 1958."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Modern_Art

To answer your question, user, it was heavily funded by the Rockefeller family. Why? For the purpose of destroy everything traditional regarding national, ethnic and historical culture. It's similar to how Jow Forums constantly complains about modern architecture is so ugly in comparison with buildings of the past. In order to destroy a culture, you have to destroy everything beautiful about its past and replace it with something ugly and standardized.

Looks like JoJo artwork

"David subsequently employed the noted architect Philip Johnson to redesign the museum garden and name it in honor of his mother, the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Sculpture Garden. He and the Rockefeller family in general have retained a close association with the museum throughout its history, with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund funding the institution since 1947. Both David Rockefeller, Jr. and Sharon Percy Rockefeller (wife of Senator Jay Rockefeller) currently sit on the board of trustees. In 1937, MoMA had shifted to offices and basement galleries in the Time-Life Building in Rockefeller Center. Its permanent and current home, now renovated, designed in the International Style by the modernist architects Philip L. Goodwin and Edward Durell Stone, opened to the public on May 10, 1939, attended by an illustrious company of 6,000 people, and with an opening address via radio from the White House by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.[19]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Modern_Art

Who's JoJo?

We invented the photograph and suddenly all those ‘artists’ were going to have to get real jobs, so they divorced art and aesthetics so that ‘artist’ could still be faggots. Ask an artist today to define ‘art’, especially in a room full of them. They’ll all give you different answers because it doesn’t mean anything anymore. It’s just a way for the super rich to show off their wealth, or hide their money in ‘investments’.

Art is dead.

Attached: E7A2A16B-ED72-4B8F-9EF7-95475DE6D91E.jpg (640x490, 41K)

Attached: MUCHA.jpg (886x1254, 668K)

Jenny Saville.

Attached: saville.jpg (193x261, 9K)

that painting by guayasamin is fine as a piece of forniture. it is as "retinal" as any other painting by e.g. matisse or vermeer. from a metaphysical point of view it is as worthless as a cattelan installation. while caravaggio and mies van der rohe are true artists, regardless of their "retinal" element.

Nope it just smells funny

but we can wash it up

That's not terrible. Not great either. But there are definitely lots of modern art pieces that are definitely terrible.

based Zappa fan

Attached: francis bacon jet of water.jpg (1000x1331, 815K)

Basically this picture but with art. They can't make art so it is easier to call their own work art.

Attached: jon stewart'.jpg (640x621, 56K)

Highly talented but I don't like the way it makes me feel

or giacometti, who is undisputedly the greatest post-war sculptor and one of the greatest ever lived

and not in a Francis Bacon way it makes me feel to make me think about things

I mean in a - I don't get why that level of mastery wouldn't make the eyes beautiful, in a shocking way if need be

Supposedly this sort of painting is a Cold War psyop. I don't have a link right now, so you'll have to bear with my memory of what I read:
In an effort to show off the differences between a brutalist communist regime vs a "free" American climate, the CIA pushed hard for these "abstract" styles to become popularized. The ease of effort of creating the art, as well as the literal lack of any actual art stylization/rules/design was meant to highlight the "freespirit" of the modern American dream. What they didn't expect, but the reason it proliferated, was that these paintings would be incredibly easy to use for high-profile laundering between the wealthiest.
So, TL;DR, this "style" literally exists because "muh freedom" psyop and money laundering.

Google the cia and abstract expressionism

Modern "art" isn't art at all. True art, in other words every made before modernism, is about aesthetics and the pursuit of beauty. Modernism is narcissistic ego-wanking over one's own "ideas".

In 1917, some French artist decided to take the piss and submit a joke piece. The kikes, who were eternally seething over their inability to understand art, were fucking ecstatic. This was finally something they could get and do themselves. So they invented "modernism" and took over the entire art scene, including all the schools.

It's gotten so bad now, even kids in public school are taught that art is about "ideas" and "self-expression". If they're lucky they'll learn a few techniques for proper design but they won't properly learn about aesthetics.

Attached: asdfwerwqr.png (500x565, 236K)

Fucking cringe normie watercolour. This vapid art is a lower grade than literal shit in a jar.

Attached: c4daad3527a021355ec5022c26899bf3.jpg (736x986, 193K)

Looks like a zombie

and I don't invite those into my home

Oh no the eyes are really beautiful

I don't think it's vapid when the artist has encapsulated beauty

No, he set out to break up completely with the Western canon of representational art, he did this programmatically. It wasn't just a question of visual experimentation, there was a meaning behind this decision. He didn't do it purely for stylistic reasons, there were some philosophical implications for breaking up with a representational paradigm in aesthetics.

Let's not forget how Picasso got on this route. He was first influenced by Gaugain's naive and primitivist style and started adopting African-inspired styles in some of his sculptures and paintings.

So there are some ethno-antropological implications here. It's a rejection of European culture and tradition and embracing exotic subjects from other cultures.

I like nothing more than paintings of the human face and eyes, I find them fascinating

Who lived with Gogh again?

Oh, and here comes the kike trying to pin this on whites.

Modernism came around long before the Rockefeller's got into it.

Watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

Attached: hysjuqc5cpd11.jpg (736x1012, 57K)

my fave later picasso

I just love it

Attached: woman.jpg (260x334, 33K)

>t. Kruschov

>Art is dead.
That would be a hasty conclusion. Art cannot die for as long as our brains are incapable of perfect predictive abilities. The day when our brains will be able to perfectly predict any phenomenon, that's when any aesthetics will be dead.

Attached: picasso-early-work-3.jpg (750x1187, 1.15M)

Ofcourse you like it, you are a retard that made 5 posts for an opinion that wasn't worth any

I mean that's just perfect, literally perfect

Sure thing Clifton.

Attached: lmao.jpg (190x266, 7K)

>glassy smooth brain stare
>cool crazy girl water colour splats
>unfinished aesthetic because of a lack of confidence
>hyper-generic colour pallet
You like it because its a cute girl

Attached: b1000a5419eff80bd34f8015a54c44a8.jpg (736x916, 302K)

I like it because it's beautiful

>master level
Get the fuck out of here, Picasso never was nowhere NEAR old masters. He was barely apprentice level

Attached: picasso-early-work-10.jpg (750x1135, 324K)

I love medival art I want more art like this

Attached: 2015-02-18-JesusWesternLookingbroughtbeforeCaiaphastheJew3.jpg (600x339, 71K)

God, you are an absolute mouth breathing retard, aren't you? In your little world, a white person has never done anything wrong. Never mind the fact that the Rockefeller and Rothschild connection has been factually established in thousands of different areas. God, i'm so sick of morons like you.

Attached: Durer.jpg (196x257, 10K)

I don't get if you are making a joke

You like it because you are retarded

Attached: art.jpg (1440x760, 188K)

Attached: DurerheadofChrist.jpg (1234x1600, 561K)

OK CIA.

Attached: Jesus Christ.jpg (660x365, 40K)

His realistic paintings are not very realistic nor technically great

norwegian nature art

Attached: norks kunst.png (1884x744, 2.88M)

Ok

Attached: raphael ha.jpg (900x750, 97K)

You don't need pretty pictures to launder all that cash you get off dope and human trafficking.

magnificent

Attached: raphael.jpg (220x310, 16K)

Attached: apple.jpg (1000x1346, 909K)

Attached: IMG_20190816_003437.jpg (715x349, 47K)

Bery nice

Attached: 68622790f984d48dce3c8b26f6149bb5.jpg (640x492, 98K)

You think Jung might say you get the art you deserve?

so, actual mental illness.