Fuck Modern Art
DirtySanchez
Regular
Can someone please explain the point of it to me? A piece of art should be judged on its merits not the name of the artist. Take a look at this below. It's called "blind justice"
I call it blind bullshit. Come on somebody actually got paid for that piece of shit? I can't find it right now but there is one that is literally just an orange line going down the middle of a solid grey background.:facepalm:
I call it blind bullshit. Come on somebody actually got paid for that piece of shit? I can't find it right now but there is one that is literally just an orange line going down the middle of a solid grey background.:facepalm:
Comments
Voice of Fire: Bought by National Gallery of Canada in 1989 for $1.8m :facepalm:
I don't know how anyone has the nerve to call that art.
It's all to do with exclusiveness - "I really like that representation of shit-on-a-stick, what do you mean you don't like it? you're such a philistine." and all that
But I understand what you're getting at. It's the people who think they're so 'expressive' with their 'abstract' art that ruin it for the rest of us.
I was mainly using Modern art in a general sense. Piccaso for example was brilliant but when I talk about Modern art I'm referring to the bullshit like in the images above. It seems like if an artist is well known then he can literally just throw paint at something and call it "art" probably saying he was "expressing his compulsive nature" or some shit.
These days its not the work you create that makes you an artist, its the words and terminology you use to go with it. Anyone can be an artist, you've just got to know how to word it right.
http://www.studiokdd.com/pages/blind-justice.html
I'll go partnership with you (nohomo)
I can create the works of art (because that's what we'll call them from now on) and you can give it the fang-dangled verbally artistic reason for it's existance.
We'll crack the big bucks.
If people will pay for it, it has value. That in and of itself is the lesson of modern art. You can draw a line on a canvas and sell it for millions. Art doesn't take talent. It has no message. You do not have to learn how to paint anymore. Very sad, isn't it? That's what they're trying to say about reality. That, or they just want to get rich off of shit.
- Pablo Picasso
Once upon a time a person studied everything from anatomy to geometry for years before daring to call himself an artist. But so-called modern "art" provides instant gratification, and with proper connections, bribes and propaganda to go along with political correctness it is even rewarded with wealth and fame.
The reality of it is the splashing paint on a canvas and smashing away at stones by those spastic freaks without the talent or wish to create life-like portraits.
Now Hitler was a good painter :thumbsup:
But Picasso got rich from the ignorance of others. He trolled everyone and got famous for it.
ORLY?????
It was better than this bullshit from Piccaso
Did you miss the part where I said about the right conenctions. Why the fuck can't any of you retards read?
the argument of modern art relies in the idea behind the pieces created. a lot of artists placed a greater value over the message or idea implemented in the piece over the aesthetic of the actual art. many artists of course took this idea to the limits, creating a lot of the crappy art that many of you would never pay a dime for, unfortunately, art is also political. There are artists who because of connections and not their talent rose to fame and created multi million dollar pieces which look like they did in a few minutes.
Personally, even though much of the modern art i have seen i feel has no artistic merit, i do commend these artist on their promotional skills and tactics. I mean yes, anybody could make this bullshit, but what sets them apart is they invested time and energy, perhaps not on their pieces (obviously), but on making someone, somewhere actually pay a lot for these pieces of "art." Again, it is what these pieces represent depending on their time period and what buyers pay are what gives them their value.
Plus, i think it gave rise to a higher freedom in the arts, like breaking from realism because of the camera. It would be rather dull if in all of art history, there was only an emphasis on making things look beautiful. And lastly, these assholes had a bit of guts, if people think it sucks now, there was probably a lot more who thought it was shit when it was first made and there are future generations who still think it is just as lame, but they did get people talking and now you show this piece " blind justice" that you are bashing, but still presenting it to a larger audience and thats really all the artist wants. Btw, it is an ugly piece of crap. Just like much of the modern "art" created.
..........If i create something though and someone tells me its a piece of shit, what else can i do other than tell them they're right. Otherwise I'd be calling them a liar. Different perspectives just adds to the piece.
btw people, if anybody digs in the history of picasso's work and look at some of his early art, you'll see how talented this guy was. He went through Many styles and even created a few. Except complete realism gets boring after a while, so he strayed away. I'm glad he did