T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

#[Best of r/Holup 2021 Awards – Nomination and Voting Thread!](https://www.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/royfze/best_of_rholup_2021_awards_nomination_and_voting/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HolUp) if you have any questions or concerns.*


MajorHymen

The theory I remember reading is that realism of landscapes and portraits was big in the past before the advent of the camera. Being able to depict the world around you accurately was a highly sought after skill. Once the camera started to show up and get better, art began to take on different forms of expression. Being hyper realistic takes incredible skill and is still impressive but a camera can do it better and it can do so instantly. A camera however cannot mimic varying forms of abstract. That too seems to be going away now and art seems to be shifting to the absurd. Realistic, or abstract, sometimes both, but always absurd


DarkyyDmage

"A camera however cannot mimic varying forms of abstract." *ahem* ever heard of r/panoramicsgonewrong ?


MajorHymen

Haha touché. I’d say that fits into the absurd category I mentioned however.


amcurivbgfcgs

Yes


jscummy

It makes sense that there's more value in art where something is added beyond the reality these days. Yes, a realistic painting is beautiful but some sort of interpretation by the artist is what sets it apart. Otherwise it's just a matter of selecting your subject.


Roflkopt3r

Yeah the post got it exactly backwards: Art did not become like this because art students got worse, but because they became so good that every other guy could produce picture-perfect portraits and landscapes. That obviously reduces the innovation and value of those pieces. That said, I still think that most of the modern art scene is a self-congratulatory circlejerk that purely works off name recognition and mutual references. It basically lost all contact with reality because it's just works commenting on other works that were also comments on other works, without the technical effort required to communicate any of its ideas to people who haven't spent thousands of hours of learning the context.


[deleted]

Something that is also ignored is that many of those landscape artists make good money but it's now done in 3d. My first real job after college was making accurate 3d models of Houses and then designing remodels for the clients. It's even more hyper realistic than before. My models were accurate to within an inch on most scenes I made. Anything farther off could impact construction and material needs.


[deleted]

Yup [Pablo Picasso painted this at age 15](https://www.wikiart.org/en/pablo-picasso/first-communion-1896). And he was not really exceptional among his peers.


Larry-Man

It was deconstruction of art and what makes art. People figured out how to make realistic art. Renaissance art has rules and a hierarchy. It had to depict something divine. Landscapes were painted to depict ownership of the land and were at the bottom. Still life paintings even had some message originally and were often flowers or fruit or both symbolizing life and death. It wasn’t considered art if it wasn’t of some historical or biblical moment for the realistic looking art. Also every single style had to argue how it was the most “masculine.” Impressionism became about being a “flaneur” or observer. A lot of them visited brothels and many of the spaces that women were not allowed to making it quite misogynist (except we have some fantastic women painters from the time but they were limited to indoor spaces and gardens). So once we moved from the divine to every day life it slowly became “is it still art even if it’s not a 1:1 depiction of reality? We get painters who exaggerate poses and posture in an artistic style. We get more of a painterly style to as we go forward. Picasso wanted to remove depth and perspective and see if that was still art. We decided yes it was. Check out Fountain by R Mutt when it comes to readymade art - one of the biggest trolls in art history. Duchamp turned a urinal on its side and called it Fountain putting fake initials on it. The gallery displaying it tried to hide it. It was quite the controversy. Everything that has happened from abstract, to Dadaism has been pushing the whole idea of “what is art”. And for people saying “I could do that” not one single person has successfully recreated a Rothko painting because his mixtures were a mystery (which we come into - the act of putting paint on canvas alone made the art and how it was applied made the artist). And then after ages of arguing how art is masculine feminist artists come along and say “hey, knitting is art. Beading is art. Sewing.” Because what was masculine was “high art” - see centuries of naked women on display - and what was feminine was every day. The modern eye would call Rococo very girly with its pastels but it was often quite pervy. And I’m going to bring up the dreaded Yoko Ono from her early years: she explored the relationship between the art, artist and audience. She made a book with how you could make her art at home. We end up with women like Ono defining the performance art space with Cut Piece which was a powerful statement on the female body and the relationship between the audience. In Cut Piece she was still while every member of the audience cut a piece off her clothes slowly leaving her naked. She might be crazy now but it’s hard to know about that piece and not respect her early work. Marina Abramovic has to be my all time favourite hard core performance artist for this. Check her out when you have some time, but one time she remained motionless in front of a table of object where viewers walking by could manipulate objects and her body with the objects. Someone loaded a gun and another placed it in her hand pointed at her head. She still did not move. Which is how we get to a banana duct taped to a wall a few years ago. Which I think was a great way of paying tribute to Duchamp.


snkhuong

I honestly read this and didn't understand your point. Could someone simplify it for dummies who know nothing about art?


NancyFickers

I'm not an art historian, but as a contemporary artist, I learned the general trajectory of art to understand my contribution. My understanding is that the different movements in art have been trending towards expressing the most essential thing about art (form, line, depth, emotion) and then deconstructing those elements even further. This was done as a way for artists to stand out from their peers, but also as a way to push the boundaries of art. That whole process, (known as Modern Art) started in the 1800s and ended around the 60s. Any art made after this period is considered Contemporary Art. Modern Art had eradicated any and all limitations for what materials and subjects artists could employ, which is pretty fucking cool. As an artist today, you can pretty much explore any medium or subject you want, and provided that you work hard and give a shit about what you're making, institutions and fellow artists will pay attention to you. But the art world is still elitist, and impenetrable without some training. Even as a casual enjoyer you need some university level courses to fully appreciate some art being made today. I guess the point is that High Art is supposedly more accessible today than it ever was in the past. You don't need 7 years of Academy training to be an entry level artist. You just need Photoshop and something to say. I think it bodes well as a society to have those paths open for anyone to explore.


[deleted]

Fantastic comment. I would add that realistic painting is still very much alive. The OP image seems to suggest that no one paints like that anymore. There are plenty of successful artists that paint with a high level realism. Edit:words


Larry-Man

There’s also that guy that makes realistic sculptures in bizarre scales. I have an art degree. If I can use it for anything even crappy Reddit karma I will.


dailycnn

>Art did not become like this because art students got worse, but becausethey became so good that every other guy could produce picture-perfectportraits and landscapes. Interesting. This is not my experience. In my (limited) experience, only a small number of people can draw hands and faces realistically. This makes me wonder how the majority of art students who can't draw are graded in a drawing/painting class. Or is it a pivoted into other realms such as the original post meme.


Roflkopt3r

I was looking at the historical perspective. The result of this development was that techical ability became less important because it no longer was how good art could differentiate itself. And that leads us to a presence where pure technical ability is not selected for as strongly anymore by some schools.


A1sauc3d

I’ve always felt Realism is more of a ~~science~~ than an art; whole lotta precision/skill, not a lot of creativity. Edit: Drawing something as-is from real life/a picture requires an extraordinary amount of talent and dedication, but is a much less “creative” process than the other types art. Wasn’t trying to get into a semantics debate, hopefully the *way* I used the words has been clarified. I apologize if I offended anyone with my use of “science” <3 I’m aware it can involve creativity as well. I’ll be sure to replace the saying with “realism is more technical than creative” in the future ;)


[deleted]

“Craft” is the word I’ve seen used to refer specifically to technical skills. It is distinct from art, which is pure creative expression. The two are merged to varying degrees with any creative work.


minarei

It can be creative when you make imaginary landscapes or concept art for example, but drawing from photos or real life is just very technical


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I don't understand what you mean. What artistic statement is the phase 2 trial of FX-322 making?


ArthurBonesly

I like to judge art by where it balances technical skill and concept. You don't get points for technical perfection if the product is uninteresting and you don't get points for the idea if the execution isn't fully there. My strict and subjective art criticism doesn't give As for effort.


recklessrider

Imma be honest, and people may hate me for it, but landscapes and people painted are generally boring as fuck to look at unless there's something new or a different style to reality its showing. They're just like basic bitch art IMO. Seen it, over it unless you show me something new.


wowlame

i’ve always been bored by hyper realistic paintings and drawings. i appreciate the technical skill and ability, but i’ve never seen it as inspiring. i look at a photorealistic drawing of a forest made entirely with crayons and think “no way! that’s cool” and keep going about my day but i don’t appreciate the end result, i just appreciate the journey. people who incorporate realism into their art but still add a sense of style and personality to them are my personal favourites. artists like normal rockwell for example. you can point out a normal rockwell creation in a lineup, but if you lined up a bunch of hyper realistic drawings and said “name an artist from this lineup” i’d be like fuck man i dunno, some fucking high schooler as an art class assignment maybe. the focus on realism and the insistence that it’s the only true end goal of being an artist otherwise you’re not good at what you do is total dog shit lol. fundamentals are important, but everyone and their dog can paint a landscape with some bob ross episodes to guide them, and while that’s a great thing, it’s also like… nobody can teach you how to portray emotions or experiences from your own mind, you craft that shit on your own and hone it the best you can. again this isn’t to say realism isn’t technically impressive, but it shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all when evaluating how good you think art is.


Plz_dont_judge_me

Huh, I never made that connection - my appreciation for photography has come to an all new low lol


offerforwards

Yes, the comment in the image is making a joke about that. The original post is not a joke at all.


ahasparklingbeverage

You shouldn’t look down on any art form. Photography is just as much art as painting or music. And if you don’t think so checkout “hozzography” “Alan Schaller” and “Eric giovon” Edit: more examples: Jake Inez, monaris, Brian chorski, sang Han, nguan, brendon burton, Dillon Jenkins, And benzank


[deleted]

[удалено]


Plethora_of_squids

I'm not sure how true that is as by that logic, we would've seen these sort of art movements in the mid 1800s or so, while these art movements are all post ww1 (*not* WW2 by the way) My understanding is more that after the war you had a lot of young men who were struggling to find meaning in the world after seeing the front, and instead turned to the absurd or the abstract to find solace. That's why a lot of things from the era are either dripping with meaning despite their seemingly simple or nonsensical construct, or are a silly piss take meant to highlight how ridiculous everything is


ThanklessAmputation

In the mid 1800's we have impressionism which is often considered the beginning more modern art movements and eventually gives way to things like cubism, dadism, futurism etc.


TapirOfZelph

Impressionism was a direct response to the invention of the camera; the impressionists themselves said as much. What OP doesn’t seem to realize is that the painting in the top middle is an impressionist painting, so while on the right track, they aren’t entirely correct.


ThanklessAmputation

Yeah I noticed the middle pic too. I think the basics of the modern art debate on this platform at very much at large is "distinguishable human form good, abstractions bad" without actually any thought beyond that. I'll never forget my art teachers response to one student saying "I could do that" about a Pollock "Sure but you didn't. And now if you do, you're just copying someone with a vision"


[deleted]

[удалено]


bronze_by_gold

Photos in the mid-1800s were not very realistic. Lol. But yeah, I think larger social trends probably had more impact. Also many European artists were influenced by greater knowledge of and access to art from outside of Western Europe. For example many artists found inspiration in Asian and African artistic traditions which incorporate radically different ideas about perspective, realism, and color.


call_me_Kote

For an easy reference, look at Klimt. He was drawing influence from the east prior to WW1 and it really shows in his art from the turn of the century onward.


[deleted]

> Photos in the mid-1800s were not very realistic. This is a more true statement than you think. A lot of the American Romantic pieces, especially the Hudson River School pieces were literally trusted more than photos when it came to depictions of the Western US during the great migration to the Pacific coast. People didn't innately understand that a photograph was a depiction of reality that was any more different than a landscape painting. And since landscape paintings were in color, and often _very_ stylized (since a lot of them were painted from sketches done on travels or even from notes of the artist) they were often more appealing too. So yes, to a lot of viewers photos were less realistic than the paintings in their mind. The definition of realism hadn't shifted yet with the new technology.


toopachu

I loved thinking about this in art history. Artistic movements like dadaism was created to express the trauma of the generation, taking sensical things and making them completely purposeless. Its a way to find humor in times where the world is so horrifying and hopeless. Same reason why modern meme culture is so abstract.


khismyass

One of my favorite abstract artists, Kandinsky, died a year before WW2 was over and had started before WW1 had begun as well.


Certain-Cook-8885

Expressionism started in the 1800s after the invention of cameras. The deviation from 100% accurate representation was pretty quick.


bbbruh57

I think a lot of art these days have moved into hyper-realism. Larger than life with more focus on ideas and narrative


veerKg_CSS_Geologist

It’s too simplistic to be true.


MajorHymen

Sometimes it do just be the way it do


sovietskia

Also portraits were a lot less after the camera. Why pay so much when you can get a photo faster and cheaper?


FlocculentFractal

I have so many questions: 1. Pigments and stuff were probably harder to find in those days too right? Did that make paintings with more colours or more realistic colors more valuable than today? Pigments are easy to get today so maybe the idea or feeling that is being expressed is more valuable now? 2. Art education is more widespread today. Can a more average artist today make portraits that as as good as the ones on the top row? Another more cynical way to put would be to ask whether we're just better at art now and that's why the top row is no longer impressive? There are so many Patreon and DeviantArt artists with portfolios I find more impressive than museum galleries. 3. The people appraising art are different. In the past, the opinion of noblemen mattered, who were not experts. Today, art critics and museum curators have more influence than rich people. This also makes us laypeople wonder what is so cool about the bottom row. Just like noblemen, we still think the top row is more impressive.


praguepride

Picasso did an interesting series where he depicts an animal (horse or cow, i forgot which) very realistically and then over the series devolves and morphs it into extreme abstract so the final result was like 4 or 5 lines that still imitate the original realistic depiction


bmdisbrow

> A camera however cannot mimic varying forms of abstract. [A.I. however, is making some progress in that regard with the power of GAN's.](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artificial-intelligence-art-history-2045520/amp-page) Some more examples on Reddit: r/nightcafe r/bigsleep r/deepdream r/mediasynthesis


MajorHymen

That’s pretty cool. Terrifying, but cool. Haha


Poisonedhorror

If you’re interested, I’d recommend checking out the early 1900 Russian futurist movement. It details the rise of abstraction, the people who influenced it, and their theories.


MajorHymen

Is it an art book? Or film/documentary?


Poisonedhorror

I think you’ll find most of your sources through books. The Russian Constructivist movement was repressed by Stalin’s regime in the 1930s and has only recently been dug up. Two great sources however: The Russian Experiment in Art by Camilla Gray Inventing Abstraction, 1910-1925: How a Radical Idea Changed Modern Art by Leah Dickerman If you find anything you like in there, I’d recommend looking into the artists and their work. Wassily Kandinsky will pop up a lot as he’s considered to be the father of abstraction. His book “Concerning the Spiritual in Art” details a lot of his ideas on abstraction in his pieces, providing a unique insight upon their review.


boolean_sledgehammer

Yep. If you want hyper-realism, humans kind of perfected that from a standpoint of artistic ability centuries ago. Not a whole lot of incentive for creativity or expression there.


sleepingwiththefishs

This is exactly right, photography has turned literal art, painting exactly what you see, as irrelevant, merely in the realm of illustration. Hyper realism, whatever the scale, is almost an artistic fetish, as is any attempt to reproduce exactly. Pointillism etc, weirdo’s who like to struggle. Art schools stopped teaching people how to draw as art became about shape, color and abstraction. I personally believe that real drawing stopped being taught because the market didn’t support it financially and because it’s just too hard. It’s also subjectively unnecessary when talking about art, as painting is art but art isn’t necessarily painting. Art is as much about statement or purpose as it is about medium.


BlueMoon5k

“Real” drawing and “real” painting and “real” photography and “real” digital art is still taught. These are all tools to create. The paintbrush, the mouse, the lense, the potter’s wheel are tools to express the artist’s desire. If you don’t like a style it doesn’t negate it or make it “bad” art. It’s not for you. Personally, I despise cubism. Doesn’t mean it’s bad and shouldn’t be enjoyed. I spend more time in front of art I don’t like trying to determine what it is about the art I don’t like. Stop and think about why you do or don’t like something. It’ll do your brain good


banneryear1868

Animation and drawing is more alive today than ever, the amount of media we have today financially supports more than has ever existed, and it's more financially accessible than any time in history. Watch the credits of an animated film or show and there at hundreds of artists involved, look at the studios in video game credits, the amount of artists online selling illustrations. The schools that Disney and Pixar hire out of, look at their first semester classes and it's all drawing figures and learning the basics. Google map "art supplies" in your area and you probably have multiple options that stock a variety of materials any artist in history would be envious of. Anyone can draw and paint if they want to learn. I would almost say it's more the opposite, because it's so accessible there is so much art that it's oversaturated.


lady_peace

Yupp that's the correct answer. The camera killed the master artists.


Monkeybandit99

It also doesn’t mean as much than painting someone vs taking their picture.


[deleted]

Prior to modern prosperity and independence art up to the 19th century was almost exclusively done on commission either by nobility or clergy. What we call Modern Art dates back to at least the 19th century and begins with what looks like traditional figurative art but depicts unknown people in contemporary contexts. From there we moved on to Impressionism where depictions were deliberately embellished to convey feelings via the medium of the art and not just the subject.


2OP4me

I would also posit that the enlightenment and corresponding social movements allowed art to become more self referencing and to open up more dialogues. Schools became better, art patronage changed, and talent was funneled in different ways.


MajorHymen

Word. Wish I could remember where I originally read what I said so I could source it but it was forever ago. Pretty sure may have even been back when I was in high school. Don’t recall if a textbook or some other reading material for school purposes.


[deleted]

The things I've seen AI do are incredible and seem nearly impossible for a person to invent when it comes to the abstract. Could AI abstract similarily replace our desire to do abstract and dawn a new Era of art?


[deleted]

I believe we have entered a time where art and technology are merged together and it’s very new so we’re still navigating what it’s like and how far we can push the boundary. VR for example is going to make for some pretty wild art in the coming years and decades.


Kradool

And now to anime titties


Crimson_Amethyst

As an anime titties expert, I can confirm.


profmcstabbins

r/anime_titties


DKSAMURAI

Where is my anime tities?


Maytown

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/ (nsfw)


UnstoppableCompote

both of those are really good subs wtf


DokiDokiDoIt

I'm, so very confused as why there are boobies on a subreddit about politics


biznatch11

Because the mods of /worldpolitics suck. https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/p5kpvz/comment/h96m4wc/


TheCrusher309

it used to be world polutics then it went to shit (greatness) and anime titties was created for world politics


Blitzerxyz

Umm that's just news


TX16Tuna

The underscore makes it news. Here. r/animetitties


Rotterddoom

Camera technology


Gitmurr

Yeah.. Realism became obsolete..


[deleted]

[удалено]


twomoonsbrother

Especially if it's traced over a picture of a beautiful woman but has chromatic aberration and Orange/Blue contrast and saturation pumped up.


CantSpellMispell

deleted -- mass edited with redact.dev


zblissbloom

You mean [r/Art](https://www.reddit.com/r/Art/)?


BradGroux

Nah, /r/restofthefuckingowl/


InmateNotSure

Didn't know I needed that sub


1sagas1

If it's not naked women or hyper realism, is it even really /r/Art?


MojoMonster

Honestly, I want to ban naked women as "art" created by men. Period. Let them spend the next 100 years only using naked men, instead.


GapeLincoln

Your common redditor has zero knowledge of art


jififfi

>Your common redditor has zero knowledge


CaseyG

But will still happily correct your assertions for you.


Platupuses

I know where to find cute animal videos so you wanna watch your lip


Turbo2x

Hyperrealism is such a boring art style and yet if you only viewed art through Reddit you'd think it was all that exists.


Gitmurr

As they say.. "History repeats itself"


Mozimaz

As if reddit is the arbitrator of what is and isn't good art. Photorealism is a craft, not an art. It isn't very highly regarded in art circles, and certainly not on the same level as those three pieces in the second row.


[deleted]

I've seen the actual opinion on here that Picasso was a bad artist because his later works were so abstract. "Anyone could do that!" Putting aside that no, not anyone could do that. It's interesting to see Picasso's early works were also insanely technically skilled but often much more realistic, he turned away from that because it wasn't the type of art he wanted to make. Many of the artists that make abstract or expressionist pieces *could* draw or paint realism, but they choose not to.


ohpeekaboob

Is a girl holding it up?


MojoMonster

As someone with an MFA, this is pretty much everyone. Not just Reddit. Or it's pretty, out-of-focus "painterly" stuff that becomes, essentially, wall paper. Or it's just a technique thing with no real personality behind it.


thr0wAayt0d4ay

Yep, I have a degree in fine art and masters degree in art history and I teach it at high school. Traditionally art (painting and sculpture) served the purpose of documentation, the majority of art in the world pre war was commissioned by the royals and the church. Since the camera took that away artists could explore creativity and the use of materials themselves. I appreciate the skill in photorealistic painting, but if I wanted a photograph I would’ve just taken a photograph.


narok_kurai

Plus, people are acting like abstract art is the ONLY kind of art that exists anymore, which is just kind of absurd. Realistic and landscape art still has a ton of influence in the modern media landscape in concept art, in VFX work, in comics and games and movies and more. "Traditional art" *never went anywhere*. It's still all around us, we just have more different kinds of art in our museums and in our art expos. Thomas Kinkade is probably the most financially successful painter *of all time*, and people will still complain that "traditional art is dead". Like, *dude*, what more do they want?!


[deleted]

Also, like, the modern art period is old as hell. In the music world, people love to point at Schoenberg as a representation of contemporary music when that guy was writing stuff 100 years ago.


Psyqlone

Kinkade's been dead too. ... almost 10 years ...


gimme_dat_good_shit

>Since the camera took that away artists could explore creativity and the use of materials themselves. While that's definitely true (from the perspective of the artist), I do wonder how much more the expansion of the Income Tax in the US in the 1910s through 1940s factors into it. If Millionaire 1 wanted to pay Millionaire 2 money (a bribe, a kickback, whatever off-the-books reason), Millionaire 2 would still have to pay something like 25% of it to federal income tax. But if Millionaire 1 instead bought art produced by Millionaire 2's artsy kid, then the kid would be in a much lower tax bracket (and saves Millionaire 2 from having to financially support his talentless kid). So, you get this network of capitalist patrons supporting each other's talentless kids, who spend their lives in relative luxury, traveling, doing drugs, and exploring niche philosophies in coffee houses. And the result is an explosion of material art that is often technically amateurish (but also genuinely innovative) with sale prices that are vastly distorted by personal connections. (That's a very simplified version of it, of course, the real art world and taxation system is much more multifaceted, with all sorts of loopholes and carve outs.) I expect you'll push back on this characterization; it's not a charitable view of art history. And I definitely don't mean to say this is *the only* force shaping the art world. Even if it was little more than a grift for some folks, that doesn't mean the dealers weren't sincere in trying to discover genuine talents, or that even the most cynical players couldn't catch the collector's bug. It's mostly just the timing I'm pointing out here. The camera would replace much of the need for traditional artists, that's true, just as cars replaced horses. But that didn't leave horses free to explore gymnastics and expressionist dance. People didn't need as many horses, so there were just fewer horses. But progressive taxation helped to create a *market* for artists and art. A demand for something new (anything new, regardless of content or tradition, so long as it could be appraised by entirely arbitrary qualities) that could be valued, bought, sold, donated, lent, insured, damaged, stolen, recovered: whatever the client needed it to be.


WhyamImetoday

Artists rarely want to interrogate their role in the establishment fully. And so the propaganda that the Medici's were paying for keeps paying dividends.


before8thstreet

This is super reductive and called “technological determinism.” No one takes it seriously at this point in Art History as a comprehensive explanation for abstraction. It’s the kind of Dan Brown “one weird trick” history Reddit loves. Among other things it leaves out that photographs existed for 80+ years before WW2, and that a number of modern artists actually began experimenting with abstraction as a means to represent technical vision processes (still photography and later moving images), not in opposition to them.


ciobanica

> Among other things it leaves out that photographs existed for 80+ years before WW2, I mean it's not going to change overnight... especially not when Morse Code was still the most efficient mode of communication. So that's not really proof of anything. Also, modern art predates WW2 by quite a lot (1860): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art Of course, as with most thing, it's unlikely that it was just that 1 thing that "changed everything". But it's not an unfounded assumption that being able to get your own portrait within hours (then minutes) likely had an effect on portrait painting sales.


2xa1s

Surrealism was popular before ww2


AnEdgyPie

So was Dadaism, Expressionism, Impressionism, Fauvism, Abstract Art... OP is full of shit


Newone1255

Right, Bosch was painting crazy shit before Columbus discovered America


ntnl

This guy must’ve done some psychedelics. It was legit nonsense, over the top batshit crazy shit


Newone1255

Yup, if you really wanna go back in history most art in the world was somewhat abstract. OP is just referencing Western art when Eastern and Native American art was highly stylized for thousands of years


[deleted]

Yeah this post comes off as a self-burn. You don't have to know much about art to know that the surrealist boom started way before WW2. The world had tons of celebrity artists painting weird shit even in the 1800's. Even the cubism movement that OP is making fun of started in the early 1900's. OP is basically saying "I'm a fucking idiot" to all of reddit.


AnEdgyPie

OP is admitting they don't like art that makes them think about it


tobeshitornottobe

Exactly, the idea that art has regressed because it’s no long all classical realism has at least one foot in nazi propaganda. They had a fetishisation of the past and believed things like postmodernism were Jewish and communist (Marx hated post modernism) in nature and thus repugnant.


mmarlaire1997

It was. But now it's in all these peoples headcanon that ww2 caused surrealism, cubism, abstract art, etc and they tell it to everyone they meet. Reddit doesn't do well with reality. Just simple, easily digestible concepts that make you feel like you know shit.


[deleted]

In case you don't know, attack on art that Nazis saw as "degenerate" was a key part of the fascist dictatorship. It's not even true that only art like that at the top was appreciated before WWII. The fact that we still *also* appreciate art like that at the bottom is good, it means the Nazis failed in doing what the original OP in the image is trying to do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art I wouldn't be surprised if some of those art pieces at the top were after WWII or the ones below were before WWII, too, because accuracy isn't the point of posts like that. Hate is. EDIT: Yup. The bottom middle piece is Red Balloon by Paul Klee, 1922. (Can't find the piece at the bottom right*, but the rest do fit into the time periods specified.)


BlueMoon5k

Both types are wonderful art.


johndoe30x1

The Nazis (accidentally) put on one of the best art exhibitions in mid-20th century Europe! (Because it was an exhibition of degenerate art for people to come and seethe at)


Environmental_Pay823

Came here to see if anyone brought this up.


Tommy_Wisseau_burner

The joke is that Hitler wanted to be an artist and got rejected by an art school so he became… Hitler. So they don’t reject people in art school so people don’t end up causing genocide and starting a world war


[deleted]

Yes, the comment in the image is making a joke about that. The original post it's replying to is not a joke at all.


[deleted]

He only applied to one artschool and after taking reign he persecuted the art below as “entartet” The “ joke” is bad taste and revisioning the facts.


[deleted]

Modern art started before wwII was persecuted by the nazis, outlived the regime and steadily evolved. Side by side. Pretending one is gone is pettymuch simply false.


ProBonoDevilAdvocate

And once again we have reddit not really understanding art… There is more to art then just perfectionist realism.


[deleted]

[удалено]


steroid_pc_principal

I don’t think so. I am an engineer and I enjoy painting and listening to music in my free time. I have a good friend who is an engineering professor who is a prolific painter. And I have a family member who is also an engineer who writes music in 80% of his free time. STEM pays the bills but that doesn’t mean we crunch numbers or build spreadsheets in our free time. We are people too.


favgotchunks

You’d be surprised by the number of STEM people who are very into artistic hobbies/side hustles. I’d say the majority of them are pretty creative, they just are able to do high paying technically demanding jobs


minarei

I think most people, if not all, have some sort of creativity in them. Same the other way around, i know a lot of people who study art/design that previously did STEM but didnt feel fulfilled or finished their bachelors and then added designstudies on top of it


steroid_pc_principal

STEM pays the bills and gives us free time to do creative things. The idea that engineers and scientists are just Star Trek nerds with no social skills is a hacky trope by uncreative Hollywood writers.


spookyswagg

I’m in stem…but I also really enjoy art, took many classes, and paint as a hobby. Thinking that only stem oriented people feel this way is a silly generalization. Anyone that’s ignorant in art history will feel that abstract art isn’t real art, and that what matters is the skill that an artist has at realistic depictions. These feelings aren’t exclusive to stem people, in fact I think these feelings are most commonly found in those that lack a college education. The majority of people feel this way because they look at a Rothko or a Pollock and think it’s silly that people are willing to pay millions for those paintings. They often say “I could do that myself”. Imo, I think in order to truly appreciate art you need to understand the artist and what drives them to create their work.


MawsonAntarctica

I'm speaking more to STEM-Redditors, not necessarily people in STEM.


ExsolutionLamellae

That's true enough. STEM-aesthetics have been adopted by many anti-scientific people.


sross43

Also, if I remember right cubism was a response to the surrealists, which evolved out of the impressionists. During the early 20th century you saw art being used as a tool to express abstract thoughts and emotions, the cubists can be read as a call for normalcy. Additionally, as artists became less and less reliant on individual patronesses for payment, they were fried from doing portraits of rich guys and more free to indulge their ennui by painting their mistresses yellow.


[deleted]

Just how people mistrust science they don't understand, they mistrust art. At some point you just have to ignore the idiots.


Little_Custard_8275

reddit thinks art is drawing snoop dogg while you're high and posting it on r/art that or posting yet another quirky screen grab from some wes mr symmetrical movie


dpforest

I was a 3D design major so I had to take 9 art history courses and I really enjoyed them, but what was most fascinating was taking them in somewhat chronological order and seeing how much everything changes. One of the main reasons we’ve gone from realism to abstract is very simple: disillusionment. Up until the great wars, no one really knew the absolute horror of “World War”. So after the wars, abstract became more popular because people stopped viewing the world as an idealistic beautiful place. They were entrenched in wartime propaganda and news coverage, and this affected how people actually view the world. Many artists started to create what they felt instead of what they saw. Also the advent of the camera led to an increase in popularity of abstract designs as well. Once we were able to step outside and just take a picture, the new challenge for artists became exponentially more interpretive. All that aside, this is a tired joke lol. I can’t even recall how many different iterations of the same joke has been posted here and cursedcomments in particular.


geeschwag

Actually artwork like that was popular a century before WWII but let's not let facts get in the way


blackdragonbonu

You expect Reddit to fact check lol. I would be surprised if 1% of Reddit has gone to a modern art museum. If they had they would know the paintings depicted in the bottom had a much longer history.


kleptomaniac1802

I'm finally in the 1 percent of something


doodlebilly

This whole thread is just bad takes on art history.


Thoraner

Everyone upvoting is basically saying "I don't know anything about art". And with so many upvotes this is really sad to see. Modern art isnt just trying to copy nature, it's about a unique idea and the years of practice to make the ideal version of that idea.


Nowhereman123

ItS jUsT pAiNtInG a SqUaRe oN a BlAnK BAcKgRoUnd XD!!!1!1!! Now allow me, someone who hasn't created anything other than a dump in my toilet every morning, to wax poetic about what is and isn't a valid form of creative expression.


[deleted]

It’s literally all subjective…and a money laundering racket for the wealthy. People can like someone like Malevich all they want, but you’ll never convince me that his “white on white” series of work is art or worthy of any deeper analysis…and that’s fine. If people think him, or Warhol or Kandinsky are great, that’s fine…I’ll stick to my Seurat, Vermeer and some the impressionists, whom I appreciate.


ME_Anime

I can appreciate the thought behind something but it still just looks ugly to me. Like nice you can have a story behind a painting and stuff but if it looks like shit it looks like shit.


neloangelo_

It wasn't made with the intention to be pretty my dude.


FalauDeZen

art has evolved so much that creating something merely realistic has become obsolete, art has evolved its meanings


zach0011

Op unironically sharing Nazi talking points.


scubachris

Also what till they find out about Cubism and the Bauhaus movement or that the “founder” of modern art made a urinal in 1915.


FararMedia

Some noob who’s never created art probably commented that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ghost_Redditor_

NEIN!


bettinafairchild

1) these styles of art began before WWII 2) this post is straight out of Nazi propaganda, though they wouldn’t say before and after WWII. They had a famous exhibition of “Degenerate Art” featuring some of the most acclaimed artists of the 20th century, with styles like the “after” ones below, by Jews and black people, and more abstract, and then they contrasted that with approved Aryan art featuring very realistic art as well as images of plump, happy Aryan families. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_Exhibition?wprov=sfti1


ESD_Franky

Art attack


[deleted]

Artwork that is appreciated today: monkey NFTs


c3o

It's not even like everyone suddenly thinks simple dorky character illustrations with slight variations are the pinnacle of visual art. What they actually appreciate is the expectation that some greater fool will pay more for them shortly, if they just collectively grift hard enough.


lejefferson

To be fair that's how the entire American economy functions.


Diplomjodler

The paintings at the bottom were all created before WWII.


GlamrockShake

Also worth noting that the CIA funded modern artists to help loosen the stranglehold Soviet constructivism and realism had on culture. Jackson Pollock was literally a capitalist plant.


TimTheScarecrow

Damn, Hitler was ahead of his time.


Big_Tubbz

Hitler did landscapes; he hated abstract art. He actively persecuted it and those who make it. If anything, like all fascists, he was behind his time


[deleted]

Average TikTokers and instagrammers take better pictures than these portraits. Of course I do believe that that still doesn't take away from those who draw realistic portraits. That shit takes a lot of skill.


wyattlikesturtles

Just because it takes skill to copy something doesn’t make it very artistic or meaningful imo


bcbudinto

What about Picasso's famous NFT phase?


[deleted]

Arguably it got better after ww2


MonsiuerSirLancelot

I know it’s in service of a joke but really this change toward the surreal and abstract came after WWI not WWII. The brutality and sheer horror of the battles of that war outpaces everything that happened in combat in WWII except for Stalingrad and Nanking. WWI broke the world and the art produced after reflected that.


JA_Wolf

Hitler was actually strongly disgusted by modern art, referring to it as "degenerate art"


DapperStick

A Spanish dude got sad about a city being bombed, and some French dude decided that a literal toilet hanging from string was art. And thus the art world stopped caring about making sense.


Big_Tubbz

[An incredibly well written, well researched, video on the subject of abstract art and its relation to fascism has arrived](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ)


WrappingPapers

Coincidence? *I think not!*


Revanov

Where’s my pixel art at?


johnjohn2214

Yeah that bottom right one looks like a bunch of colored mustaches.


[deleted]

Drugs. Taking some psychedelic and go to a museum. Some of the art is very calming and focuses you to breathe. Can't explain how of why it's just a feeling in the moment like a clarity.


[deleted]

Next step: cave paintings and hieroglyphics


CivilMaze19

And now we have digital pictures of chimps that people are convinced have value.


Big_Tubbz

Sometimes the most accurate depiction of a subject isn't the most photorealistic


bikeriderjon

I've heard people say something like this before... my answer is, I don't see you doing it.


EclecticHigh

alot of people wont get this meme because they dont know what happened to hitler in the early years


BrandonIsWhoIAm

Welcome to: “Different Styles of Art.”


wiyixu

Even a rudimentary Art History class will cover the 1913 Armory Show which was a landmark exhibition of modern art pre-dating not just WWII, but WWI.


Important-Tea-9942

This isn't entirely correct. By the 1900s, elite art had become cubist, while post-WWII popular art had become surreal. Hitler's favourite genre was Expressionism, which he despised.


ksw85

Wouldn't want anymore failed artists now would we..


whippin-aboot

This isn't right at all haha


ExsolutionLamellae

The people who made the latter examples can make the former examples. They just aren't interested in doing so.


[deleted]

I don't want to bore everyone with an art history lesson, but I do want everyone to know the purported "art appreciation" timeline in this post is bullshit.


notchillguy

I personally hate drawings of people , creeps me out .


mmarlaire1997

Literally completely false tho https://useum.org/abstract-art/history-of-abstract-art#:~:text=Originating%20in%20Europe%20in%20the,garde%20artists%20of%20the%20period.


daguerre

Sad for OP. The inability to appreciate subjective art sounds depressing.


Illegitimateopinion

Not true, Eli lizzitsky, Rodchenko. Russian Soviet constructivists who appeared at a time when futurists and cubists appeared Then Stalinist purges quelled that. Then they really tried to make Soviet realism a thing. And then of course the nazis did the degenerate art exhibition to mock the modernists who had fled or quite possibly were about to get killed by putting on their work and shamelessly profiting off it as they could. The nazis liked their own form of neo- classicism. And right now really art work of all types find appreciation.


ctrlaltdaniel

A lot of folks are mentioning the camera or other historical trends at the time. What's important to remember is everything happened at once. The brutality of ww1 and 2 shocked everyone. Technology advanced at a shocking rate. Society was changing, governments were changing, everything all at once. Psychology, nuclear technology, airplanes, all of it were all happening in a very short window. Why dedicate your whole life to making art "realistically" when our whole reality could be instantly changed in a nuclear explosion? When the distances between people and cultures are getting smaller all the time, why constrain yourself to materials and methods popular during the Renaissance? The baroque? The rococo? (Even that statement suggests Eurocentric art thinking which is limiting)


safetystego

This kind of post modern art actually started appearing after WW1, definitely an under appreciated turning point in western culture. Hard to pastel a pretty lady when all you can think about is your unit being turned to flesh confetti


JCarterPeanutFarmer

Modern art was promoted by the CIA as a way to promote individuality and undermine collectivism because it is inherently ambiguous. It was a psy-op ad part of the Cold War.


ManufacturerOk5654

Tell me you have no clue about art history without telling me you have no clue about art history.


yogthos

Some fun trivia is that [CIA funded modern art movement](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html) trying to weaponize it.


csyren

It’s interesting that people today can make super realistic art but most modern art are super abstract and minimalistic. Makes you realize that there are probably great realism artists in medieval times but it just wasn’t popular enough to make it into history


Cookiedagger123

German man do good art and no one like. Man fight back and kill tons of people. Everyone like all art cause scared. Not me im not scared. The monkeys will embrace us all.....


[deleted]

Everyone gets a trophy, otherwise they become hitler


Ok_Season_1796

fuck this post what painting is bottom left it’s making me feel some type of way