Weather you like it or not, pic related is art

Wow, they're identical!

Attached: IMG_6143.jpg (1791x888, 378K)

>art
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau

I prefer the left the right is just some rich fags sitting in a table. How can you relate to any of that?

>be you
>doesn't know the human anatomy
>doesn't know the fundamentals of color
>doesn't know how to apply lights and darks to differentiate highlights and shadows
>doesn't know composition
>doesn't know color theory
>doesn't know how to capture ones subject
>doesn't know how to control brush strokes
>etc etc etc
>all you know is paint on a canvas
>ye, I'm an artist, yo!

Seriously, neck yourself!

Attached: IMG_6141.jpg (800x597, 332K)

Wtf, is that the Orlando shooting aftermath?

>wow two different styles of something are not the same
>wow jazz and rock are both music but just because I dont like jazz means its not music because its not what I like

get fucking necked you piece of shit. Im not defending this shitty modern art era at all and I truly do hate it, but both are art and follow principles of aesthetics: balance, color, depth, symmetry, etc.

in the end that all art exists for: to look good or depict something. Art doesnt even need that to exist. Its simple existence can make it art as long as someone is willing to look at it. Trying to define art is like trying to catch a river in a jar; you are left with just a jar of water. The definition changes as soon as you try to grasp at it.

I hate fuckers like you who wont see anything except the classical styles as "art"

>be you
>everything is art, yo!
>fuck learning
>fuck the masters
>fuck the frustration
>fuck the mental agony
>fuck the self doubt that you'll never be as good as your idols
>fuck the lifetime it takes to understand what it truly means to be an accomplished artist but to never hear a single word uttered by another person that your art is truly amazing because you've been dead for years and your mastee art is just now being discovered
>fuck all that, imma through paint on a canvas, yo, because I can't capture water blah blah blah

Attached: IMG_6144.jpg (1500x1056, 972K)

Ay, everything's art, yo! You just gotta use your imagination and shit!

Attached: IMG_6152.jpg (1800x882, 132K)

Me: What's your favorite shade of red?

You: Oh, just red.

Me: ...

You: I'm an artist.

>get fucking necked you piece of shit. Im not defending this shitty modern art era at all and I truly do hate it, but both are art and follow principles of aesthetics: balance, color, depth, symmetry, etc.

I can support this viewpoint. It's true because, fundamentally, art arose to be decoration.

Art was what the rich and powerful thought would make their huts look nicer and be more pleasant - or, in some cases, art was what priests thought would help them propagandize the importance of priests.

The idea that art has to be something profound, the idea that the artist is some sort of savant connecting us to a noumenal realm, arose very late and has very little to recommend it. Artists should be demoted back to being craftspeople, like stone masons or landscapers. If we do that, then - yes, random splotches of color are "art", if they please the eye and match your drapes and are the right size and shape to fill the open space on your wall.

>be you
>read "a brief history in art"
>copy paste
>yeah, that'll show him

It's not bad, and I'm not normally a fan of this type of art.

This one sucks compared to the other one. Just because you spent effort making something look effortless doesn't mean the finished product isn't just a cosby sweater on a canvas.

I guess this is a sunken ship ?
Class project/10

These are literally the most boring pictures I've ever seen

The entire history of entire categories of art - Japanese, Chinese, Indian, African, Islamic, pre-Columbian - consists entirely of decorative art and religious art. (Modern Japanese and Chinese artists have been co-opted into modern Western art and no longer can claim to be working in the style of their own cultures at all).

Hell, even attempting to create non-decorative Islamic art would have gotten you executed for blasphemy.

And the entire corpus of art known to us from other cultures (steppe cultures, European art from cultures that predate written history, etc.) come to us as grave goods, almost always *purely* decorative and are primarily of archaeological interest. To even describe them in "heroic artist" terms we have to artificially impose a false and ideological interpretive frame upon them.

I haven't just read "A Brief History of Art", but honestly nothing else is really required. The basic gist of the *truth* here can be communicated in a few paragraphs and the rest of it is crack-brained ratiocination and make-work gibberish.

You don't have the mental capacity to understand what you're seeing. I could teach you, but I'm afraid you don't have the capacity to learn either.

I don't get this post.
Left is art and right is art too.

>be me
>conducted symphonies are the greatest form of music

>be you
>yeah, greasy shit plopping into toilet water is also the greatest form of music

What does being "greatest form of music" have to do with what's considered art and what not

It's an example of you not being able to distinguish between what's inherently good and grossly bad.

you sound like a fedora fag who whines about electronic music being too weird.