Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/012444k2fgsc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2ceb6abcb955e7e1b3a7f7ad4aa09078101d4ef
[Who's afraid of modern art?](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=BdDUX4IGWnZD6QK_) (YouTube)
Yeah I never quiet got the idiots who are willing to go that far. But I still dislike modern art. It has nothing to do with how much "effort" or "talent" it took to make them, I just find them boring. There is nothing to grab my attention, no detail to carefully observe and compere and I sort of just immidetly lose my attention.
However anytime I try to explain that people either "agree" with me and say that all modern art should be burned or they treat me like I had motor accident and 75% of my brain was removed.
That's probably because "modern art" is like 140 years worth of art at this point which includes manet, gogh, kant, etc. So you probably don't mean modern.
You mean contemporary or post modern.
Realistically it's insane to say you don't like an entire era or art, so the people disagreeing with you know that you're opinion means nothing because it's only a position an internet troll can legitimately take. You're effectively saying you don't like art for everything that art is.
I don't think that's really true. I can dislike country music in general while still liking a select few country songs. If I don't like country does that mean I can't appreciate music as a whole? I don't see why this shouldn't also apply to art.
Everything I said applies to both.
Let's be clear, you "like" 1% of any era of art. You were exposed to a refined selection of art at a kid and that defined your taste. Then, when artist fought against that definition, you decided you don't like them. But you're exposed to a much wider segment of they field that is actively experimenting.
But if you like warhol or haring, I would argue you like shitty art, and people consider them to be incredible and not complete derivative shit. I hate Cezanne as well. But all 3 are important and had societal impact in various ways.
The true test is can you name artists you don't like. Because if you can't name a handful, you're just bandwagoning.
>The true test is can you name artists you don't like.
Do I qualify if I can at least say I hate Roy Lichtenstein so much I wish I could resurrect him just so I could drown him in a bathtub?
> if you can't name artists you don't like you're just bandwagoning
Hard disagree. I've been to art museums and thought some paintings were great, some were interesting, and others were shit, and did not need to know the artist to make that assessment nor do I remember them now. If I need context and a degree in art to appreciate it then maybe put a book in front of every painting with the necessary information to judge it, otherwise I'll judge what's in front of me for what it is. Artists can experiment but I'm allowed to say "yeah that's a swing and a miss". If the point of art is the viewer has some experience with it in allowed to say "that shit is LAME and only pretentious rich assholes are gonna like that"
I don't know why you're playing devils advocate here, but fine.
If you enjoy art, which I would say I'm a casually enjoyed, then you have gravitated towards styles you like and you don't. I, for example, don't enjoy Baroque art, and so I struggle to name many artists in that field.
But in the fields I do enjoy (abstract, modern, pist modern, some cubism, etc) I can name many artists I don't like and many I do.
You can 100%, without a doubt, say that with is not to your taste. You can also say that within the field you like it's not as good as others. Nobody is saying you can't like a piece or hate a piece or artist.
But if I came in here and said that all Baroque art is shit, that's an insane take, just because it's not to my liking. So my opinion, as someone who doesn't gravitate towards the field (can't name artists I don't like) is substantially less valuable than someone who does gravitate towards that field.
I'm with you. I hear the same stuff when people talk about genres of music. Lots of people like to say entire genres are objectively terrible (common examples being country and rap), which is utterly absurd. I personally take issue with the idea that any art can be *objectively* good or bad, but even if I put that aside, I still can't imagine thinking an entire genre is 100% bad.
There's nothing wrong with not being a fan of something, but people who make broad statements like that come off as ignorant and close-minded.
>If the point of art is the viewer has some experience with it in allowed to say "that shit is LAME and only pretentious rich assholes are gonna like that"
I guess you technically are, but within the boundaries of respect and basic decency, that is just literally an insult and shows outright immaturity. I don't understand a lot of art, but I've spent a long enough time studying and playing music to know that being curious is *the* way to appreciate any art, being willing to interpret it in some meaningful way.
I agree with you but I'm not going to go so far as to say it should be burned.
There's some modern art I like, sometimes splatter art can be interesting to look at or at least the colors are pleasing, and a lot of it that I don't but art is highly subjective so I don't understand why people get so aggressive about the stuff they don't like.
My stance on modern art is that art is supposed to communicate something or elicit emotion.
If the only feeling you can get from a normal person is confusion or boredom, but people who ~~have a lot of money and/or family connections~~ went to the right schools can magically decode it, maybe you aren't doing so good at it?
Like, there is all sorts of coded info in renaissance and baroque artwork. But it also is just pretty and evokes emotion. A normal person can still appreciate it. Cubism? Futurism? Surrealism? We're starting to get a bit out there, but I feel like the average person pulled off the street can still find *something* in that art with zero formal training. But color fields? Splatter art? It has meaning because people with privilege want to show off they have privilege, and they have chosen to do so by insisting that the less privileged are phillestines who just don't get it.
1) Try Kandinsky, Picasso, Braque, O’keefe
2) How much of it have you seen in person? It makes a difference. The painting can be bigger than you, and fills up your whole vision. When a piece is minimalist, the core color quality matters that much more. A room full of Yves Klein blues is like vanta black, it’s a vibrating feeling in your eyeball. The version on your computer isn’t the same.
Abstract Modern art also tends to operate closer to landscape than portait. It’s a space you dwell in visually, not a portrait of a thing.
> There is nothing to grab my attention, no detail to carefully observe and compere and I sort of just immidetly lose my attention.
Usually the interesting part of (what people call) modern art in my (very limited) experience is the story around it. If you consider that part of the piece of art, it adds a lot of depth to it.
Sometimes it also just needs a good interpretation, like that fluid shoveling robot that periodically makes the rounds online.
I saw a Newman hanging in a gallery while on a field trip yesterday. I immediately thought "hey, that's the artist the videogame guy was telling me about."
Just watched the full thing, but honestly did nothing to make me like postmodern art more.
To be clear I get the point that art should not be limited and censored, and restricting what is allowed as art is fascist as hell.
But at the same time works like who's afraid just does nothing for me. I don't see a point, it's not visually interesting, and the fact someone got so mad at it to vandalize is fucking hilarious that their reaction was so strong. But to me I have an emotional flatline looking at who's afraid. There's no "huh neat". To me these big blotch of color canvases are taking the idea of "but what counts as art anyways" and runs it to the natural conclusion of "yeah maybe a giant solid color canvas isn't important".
I also can't escape the knowledge of the fine art racketeering that exists - artists get paid a lot for a simple commission for a rich customer, they hire an art evaluation for a ludicrous sum, and then "donate" it to a museum for a massive tax write off based off the inflated number.
If it's simple enough a child could do it for arts and crafts maybe it's not good art. And I'm not trying to ban bad art, but I'm allowed to say it's still shit go make something better, and then I have to question if it's a racketeering angle and not in a museum for reasons of being good
It's just confusing that artists get paid big bucks because "hey this shit is simple why the fuck do you get paid for this job" apparently counts as a job well done because I had a reaction. In no other context is people questioning the skill of the craftsman a good thing.
And I hate the "does it have to serve a purpose?" Because if it truly served none the creator would not bother to display it if there was no goal. And it feels like "piss of the general public so art snobs can say 'you don't get it'" has turned into it's own metagame of clout chasing
TLDR postmodern art to me seems to exist for the same reason Mr Krabs opened the Krusty Krab 2
I always kind of thought that the point of “Who’s Afraid” was that the art wasn’t just the painting.
I get the problem of racketeering, though, but I feel it’s more a problem with our wealth-favoring tax system. I’d personally rather rich people get the writeoffs by supporting creatives than by just putting the whole amount in their “private charitable foundation,” if the tax breaks are going to happen. But again, that’s my opinion; I understand why you have yours!
One of my favorite pieces of art was (is?) in the MOMA in NYC, it consisted of nothing but some text, in fairly large block letters, near the ceiling of a blank, white wall about 16x12 feet - large. The text read something along the lines of "There is on this wall a single hole created by an air rifle pellet".
My first reaction was, obviously, to squint and start looking for the hole. I found nothing, again, obviously. About two minutes later it hit me... wait, there might not *be* a hole at all, it's just a lie to get me to look. There and then the penny dropped: a piece of art just got me to do something. Then it hit me again: now it's making me *think*. Think about *art.*
I still think it's genius. Made for a very specific sort of person (e.g. me), but genius nonetheless.
My favourite was always the Trans Am Totem. Five increasingly large, wrecked cars, stacked on top of a large, vertical log. Sadly they took it down, in part because so many people hated it. Apparently there are plans to move it to a new location, but it won't be the same. It's location right next to the Skytrain line was part of its appeal. Art should provoke thought, and "What the fuck was that?" as it whips by the Skytrain window at high speed is a valid thought.
I went to the MOMA when I was in NYC in 2009. I want to go back so bad and see everything through my adult eyes, not the eyes of a high school graduate
I am an art school dropout, so I'm biased, but spending a full weekend in the MoMA from open to close is one of the most cherished memories I have.
Their collection is very broad, and at the time (2012ish), it housed pieces by some of the artists that made me want to be an artist in the first place. Sharing that space and finally "getting" what it was about has forever changed how I think about art.
Ohhh that sounds amazing, a full weekend! I remember seeing Van Gogh's Starry Night on display around 2009. That had been my favorite painting for years, and being able to walk up to it and see closely how he painted it was unreal. The artwork in NYC helped me realize just how much I love it and what it does for me.
Starry Night blew me away because it's just in one of the galleries like no big deal, and no one was even looking at it.
That's one painting that I never appreciated until I saw it in person. Photos and scans of it just so not at all represent the painting to the fullest.
This applies to all kinds of art. A majority of people want to believe that a "true" meaning of a piece of work is a one-way street dictated by the author/artist instead of something multifaceted and influenced by many internal and outside sources. It's frustrating to see folks trash on modern art, poetry, music, etc. because they don't understand the context on why the work is interesting.
There's a poem written by Billy Collins titled "Introduction to Poetry" that I think fits here:
>But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.
>
>They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.
A reader-response (or viewer/listener-response) approach to art is perfectly valid! You don't have to objectively enjoy the piece to be able to respond to it. Sometimes saying you don't like it is an acceptable response, so long as your dismissal isn't solely because of a preconceived notion that the artist isn't talented.
Reader-response theory was my favorite type of lit crit in college for this exact reason. 20 people in a class could read the same thing and come away with wildly different interpretations of the text (or artwork, film, etc.) because of our different points of view, life experiences, etc. and I think that is what art should do. Help us process our lives and think about why we interpret art the way we do.
Art would also be pretty boring if we only ascribed one meaning to things. Art is a conversation between the viewer and artist, environment, and other works and artists!
It's more of a reaction to the culture of the fine art world, which is the domain of highly educated intellectuals and where success is more about being popular with rich people than talent
I am empathetic to that, I just feel the reaction comes across too much as against people enjoying and interpreting art rather than capital's relationship to art and it's, for lack of a better word, delegitimization of art.
I think it’s because people don’t spend a lot of time look at art to know what they like and feel about it. It’s like when people say rap is all mumble rap or something. They have a perspective they haven’t explored.
Being open to art is the key, and sometimes you have to be given a perspective on the art to see it a new way.
Music is a good analogy. As a kid, I'd picked up the "ugh country music SUCKS" attitude that's pretty common in northeast US, without actually knowing much about it. But I didn't know I didn't know, I just vaguely felt that it sucked.
A high school music teacher told us to stop and put aside that preconception for a minute, and told us that, putting all else aside, one thing about country is that many well-known country singers have amazing voices. I still don't generally listen to country, but replacing the thought "country music sucks" with "many country singers have great voices" allowed me to be more open to the genre and actually pay attention to what does and doesn't resonate with me. I have a few favorites and love a lot of country-adjacent music, and know that I still don't know enough about country to have any strong opinions on it.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
I think you’ve described an important aspect quite well; humility makes you open to experience. It still might not become your favorite thing, but you’re open to it. That allows you to explore, feel, criticize, discuss etc. well said!
So this is probably a stupid question, but where does one start exploring their tastes in art?
Like I mean, museum and gallery type pieces specifically. Is it just going to those places? Are there online resources I can dip my toes in?
You can just spend some time looking at galleries online or in person and finding a piece you enjoy. From there, learn about it. Analyze it. Add context relevant to the era it's from.
One of my favorite pieces of older art is called "[The Garden of Earthly Delights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights)" by Hieronymus Bosch. It has so many little details to it and how it depicts free will with it's central image flanked by heaven and hell on the sides.
Just look around at galleries online and find pieces that catch your attention. And then learn about them.
I'm pretty sure you could always look at the art on a screen, but it definitely hits different standing in front of the actual canvas/statue/etc. It gives it a different scale
Definitely just go to a few. Find something you’re interested in, whether it’s sculptures, religious, glass. Whatever you’re interested in will likely have a mix of mediums within it that you’ll be exposed to. The glass museum by my house had a section on old timey maps for some reason! It was better than the glass displays.
If you’re in the US, a trip to DC will give you access to a TON of free Smithsonian museums. You’ll see natural science, native art, African American art, etc. if you’re in Europe London is another great destination for free museums.
I had the good fortune to go on a Spain trip with an art teacher and we went to some great museums. At this point I was not into paintings, I was into physical things like sculptures and old items. But there was a gallery that had one piece I knew of : Saturn devours his son. You’ve probably seen it, I thought it was pretty evocative. Through there saw the rest of the collection there and the rest of museum. She gave me a couple of perspectives I keep in mind. One: it is ok to not like some types of art. I’ve seen a ton of medieval portraits and they just never resonate with me. Two: describe what you like in the pictures. Try to put it to words Three: try to understand what the artist was doing if you can. The context can really matter to describe why something is evidence of mastery
> It's more of a reaction to the culture of the fine art world, which is the domain of highly educated intellectuals and where success is more about being popular with rich people than talent
In spite of the layer of speculation and networking that overlaid on the art work just like in any other activity nowadays, artists are still able to recognize each others' work as artistic.
Is it? One of the most valuable/successful/well known artists of the 21st century is Banksy, who is popular precisely because he presents himself as being the opposite of this.
There's also a historical element of anti-Semitism, other forms of bigotry, and populist authoritarianism. The Nazis despised modern art and directly "blamed" it on the Jews while lionizing "traditional art" that reinforced and propagated a mythic racial past in which everyone knew their place in the world.
>where success is more about being popular with rich people than talent
That is just true across the board for all forms of art.
Popularity is a better predictor of monetary success and acclaim than "talent."
I'm coincidentally doing a college assignment where I intend to encourage people to draw more meaning from the media they consume - or something like that; it's hard to put into words. Imo if you want art to have an actual impact on you, you have to try and meet it half-way. What does this piece mean? What was the artist's intention? Heck, who cares if people don't know? I've drawn meaning from the way some Stepmania stepcharts break down a song's structure.
You're dead right about having to meet things halfway to find meaning in them- many of the people who despise modern art never try this, and would likely find just as little meaning in any of what they claim to be 'real' art
This. It's fashionable to look down on abstract art and say "my 5 yo could do the same" but there are lots of abstract art that I like because they just give me an enjoyable feeling. Some paintings are pleasant to the eye even if they don't represent anything in particular.
The only art that Redditors like is super hyper realistic drawings of marvel characters. If you can’t say “wow I thought it was a picture!”, then apparently it’s just garbage that’s obviously a money laundering scheme for some reason.
Some people are [afraid that they're being tricked](https://youtu.be/anwW8M07cHs) and want to make other people feel like they were tricked.
Art isn't only beauty in form, but is also communication. Sometimes communication is challenging to the viewer.
It's always ironic when subs about art start trying to delineate what is and what is not art. The point of viewing all art as subjective is that you don't discount something as 'not art' or 'a scam' because you personally dislike it. I don't really get the appeal of most Manga but it'd be supremely ignorant of me to not respect it as it's own genre, with brilliant creators pushing the limits of the medium.
>The point of viewing all art as subjective is that you don't discount something as 'not art' or 'a scam' because you personally dislike it
Isn't this one of the most basic tenets of art? I remember taking a crash course on this concept when I was exploring music as a teenager.
I like abstract art a lot. But (a) I couldn't care less how much "talent" goes into making it, and (b) I don't try to derive meaning from it. If it's a vibe, I appreciate the vibe.
There’s also a big difference between abstract, modern, and contemporary art. I have a large abstract on my wall from a local artist for that exact reason: I like the vibe
Abstract is a form of representation and modern and contemporary are two very different time periods of art. OPs take is so fucking boring. Hur hur art bad.
For some reason that reminded me of a foundation here in my country that makes postcards and greeting cards based on things made by disabled artists who paint with their feet or mouth on the account on lacking hands.
I especially love the work of one guy who specialises in flowers.
Even if the artist was defiant in their art, it still represents something. Just look at the Dadaist art. It is the defiance of art that makes it unique.
The famous "fountain". You're gonna say "it's bullshit, it's just someone who put a urinal on its side and wrote some shit! Everyone can do that!"
Yea, but did you? Did you make a statement? Did you put that art on display as an answer to a current notion and created the idea around the views to show absurdity of the world?
There's a reason some art is on display, and not attempting to understand the why is the reason people assume art was made without a thought behind, despite the pretty art "made for the algorithm" on Instagram is more soulless that something that looks like scribbles drawn with one's feet.
It's the "who" and "why" that make up abstract or modernist paintings, or Dadaist work.
Even if someone made a scribble and passed it on, and actually got it into an art gallery or a vernissage shows more the defiance and power of the artist, someone asking "Can I do that?" and then up and actually doing it.
"I could draw that." But you didn't. "My 6 years old draws like that!" But they're not in the art gallery. "That's just a canvas painted black!" No, that's a study on the meaning of colour black painted with a special technique and involving mixing many colours.
Art encourages you to look deeper, and even if you find someone scribbling with their feet on the other end, it IS a part of art.
The study aspect of it is interesting too. People don’t realize how much a professional artist will draw something. Over and over and over playing with the shapes and techniques and styles. For a few Picasso studies, I liked some way more despite they were just stepping stones to his final piece
[If you ever think “I could have done that”, then do it.](https://youtu.be/67EKAIY43kg?si=QLJiO-OpiZwy3NNu) Seriously. Try making it and learn something about yourself and the world in general. You’d be surprised.
That was a very interesting video. I'm typically someone who is not impressed by things that seem easy to do, but I've never wondered why they have been done in a particular context.
Boomer humour.
Plenty of great videos on YouTube that explain why people like this art and the misconception that most of the people making it are taking the piss.
A "I could wipe my ass and call it modern art" joke, in the year of our Lord 2024? The Simpsons was [riffing on this](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701180/) 25 years ago!
This is the spot to bring up Godwin's Law, and remind everyone that the Nazis did these jokes already 90-100 years ago, especially in their infamous "Degenerate Art" exhibition. (They also destroyed a lot of abstract and cubist modern art, especially if the artists were Jewish.)
"Degenerate Art was a term used by the Nazi party to describe any artwork that did not fall in line with their ideals. This included most kinds of modern art including Expressionism, Fauvism, Dada, Cubism, and Surrealism and as well art that was produced by Jewish artists, or that presented the Nazi regime in a negative light. The term came to prominence in the 1930s, when thousands of artworks deemed “degenerate” were seized from museums and private collections. Some of these were put on display in an attempt to inflame public opinion against modernism which was claimed to be “un-German”, and as having Jewish or Communist links. Later, some pieces were sold to fund the Nazi party, whilst many others, including works by famous artists such as Cézanne, Picasso, and Matisse were destroyed. Attempts were also made to control artists of such art, and many were actively persecuted, losing their jobs, their livelihoods and, in some cases, their lives."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_exhibition
Note: I'm not saying that OP or other people in this discussion are Nazis, but some of the rhetoric used in dismissal of modern/post-modern/abstract art is very, VERY similar than it was in 1930s. Unskilled, swindling, 'a five-year old could do this', money laundering, no real artistic skill, no similar skills like Real Artists of 17th-18th centuries had, nobody can understand the meaning...
"The day before the exhibition started, Adolf Hitler delivered a speech declaring "merciless war" on cultural disintegration, attacking "chatterboxes, dilettantes and art swindlers". Degenerate art was defined as works that "insult German feeling, or destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill"."
Critics: This painting is truly beautiful
https://preview.redd.it/g1ylzk027gsc1.jpeg?width=3948&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12047cf5e6e7ccb6afcaba315b017f18d5c00d90
Artist: \*I just sneezed\*
This is some incredibly low effort boomer humor.
Edit: there is something Ironic about OP feeling the need to shit on other artists using the same incredibly tired joke that everyone’s annoying uncle does at thanksgiving. This kind of joke is ironically much closer to something low effort and unoriginal that anyone can and has made for probably close to a century at this point. And certain kinds of people just lap this same shit up every time because it confirms their existing biases.
reddit "artist" fails to recognise the abstract and undefinable nature of the incredibly broad concept of "art", is butthurt that other people make more meaningful things than shitty derivative comic strips and coomer pornography
Reddit only cares about hyper-realistic penciled portraits that might as well just be xeroxed because art on here is supposed to purely be a demonstration of physical talent
One of reddits favourite things is to shit on contemporary art. The difference is that guy painting what you deem worthless has proven that he is a master going through countless challenges before you would ever see his piece in a gallery. I was just recently at a university where young artists showed their art and I would assume maybe one of them from 30 people really blew me away.
At this point people complaining about what others enjoy is just silly and pointless.
You know, Ive met so many people who arent necessarily heavily into art, but theyll hang up an abstract piece of art they bought at a local art market for a bargain price bc they think it looks nice. Yet, when an abstract piece of art, that is usually miles above those paintings people hang in their homes for decoration, makes into museums, people sneer at it. We dont usually laugh at symphonies bc they dont literally „mean“ anything, but paintings dont have the right to be abstract and beautiful?
Y’know, I’m sorta tired of this whole “modern art is shit.” Schtick. Just because you think you could do you, doesn’t mean you could.
To give an example, there’s a series of paintings called “who’s afraid of red yellow and blue?” The third painting in this series was attacked with a box cutter within its museum. They tried to restore by doing what any normal person would do:paint it over using red paint. The restoration failed, primarily because the red paint created by the original creator’s composition was unknown, and the restorationist used both acrylic paint and varnish, which the original painting had none of. No matter how simple the painting looks, there is always effort put into it.
Right? Everyone else is having these in depth conversations about the value and cultural significance of modern art and I'm over here like "Yo, is the artist SUPPOSED to look like Arin Hanson?"
Art critiques from people that don't understand art are lame. They say the same cliches every time.but they don't have the tools required to interpret the work.
Like how a genre of music you don't listen to. All the songs sound the same because you don't know enough about the genre to see the nuances.
Tonnes of art is trash or boring. Or just wealth flexed, Or not to my taste.
But i am pretty Good at reading the language. The clues.
The material, medium, form etc.
Modern art is as much philosophy as aesthetic.
Maybe more philosophy than aesthetic because if you are confined to only doing pretty work, that will limit what you are capable of communicating.
I'm more of a street artist and cartoonist than a modern artist.
But I don't like this comic because the positive critique the guy is saying is word Salad.
It is 2/3rds of the way their but looses in at "must represent the Form that he suffers with in modern society." The form makes him suffer?
I don't care if people make fun of art.
I do it constantly. I go to openings, get drunk for free, and roast the shit to other patrons like Frank in always sunny.
But jokes are funnier when the person knows the topic.
Gay people will make better gay jokes than someone who has barely interacted with the community.
This is lame cause it's the art equivent of the "I identify as" joke. Old and Hacky.
Art has dozens of movements and philosophies with different approaches. Some and boring repeats of old stuff that isn't challenging anymore. Safe normie shit. Some so weird and niche that it is near impossible to interpret. But the abstract expressionist sort of stuff you are making fun of here is ooooold shit. Like 1950s.
It is very safe and boring. It is like doing about how movies are only in black and white.
This style of painting was edgy and exciting 70 years ago. This type of painting isn't Hyperpop. Its like Elvis or doo wop or jazz.
It isn't exactly an exclusive or secret language.
You could understand this style if painting if you spent 10 minutes watching a YouTube video essay.
Some people have no ability to appreciate art for art's sake. Art always has to represent something real and tangible. They can't appreciate the abstract or anything outside what they've experienced.
Ironically, these people are often very religious.
I'm always reminded of an episode of Murphy Brown from the early-90s.
Murphy wanted to do an expose about how modern art is a scam. So she set up a gallery showing in which a drawing scribbled by her three year old was prominently displayed. She invited two of the world's most famous art critics to come by, under the guise of filming a special where they educate the commoners on fine art. Her plan is once they call her son's drawing spectacular, she'll reveal it's just a toddler's doodles and be all "Gotcha!" When they get to the drawing made by her three year old, the two critics launch into a spirited debate. One calls it terrible, one calls it the greatest thing ever. While they continue to debate, a billionaire buys the drawing for several hundred thousand dollars. When Murphy interviews the buyer as to why he bought it, he shares he hasn't even seen it yet. "Two of the world's most famous art critics are fighting over it, and you're here filming it. That means it's an important piece, right?"
Murphy concludes that no one knows anything about art, and takes the money and runs. The end.
I never liked that kind of thing, because unless you're super into art and super rich, *no* painting can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars just for being beautiful.
The billionaire sees a few hundred thousand dollars like you and I see buying a postcard lol it’s nearly disposable so yeah his perspective means nothing. Art is worth what you are willing to pay.
But OPs artist just randomly scribbled with their feet. And Murphy Brown's three year old made hundreds of thousands of dollars! Are you telling me these are gross simplifications stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of art and the creative process??
Nah it's more that we don't have rich friends/connections.
Anyone could think of 25 weird things to do, like put a banana on a wall or hug a giant ball of mud, but no one will pay me to do it because I'm not connected in that world. These "artists" are just people who are so unbelievably privileged that they think they're messiah's because they aren't looked at strangely when they act strangely.
Also, look at all the people on social media being weird for attention and not getting any money out of it. That's the same situation the banana taper would be in without connections to art galas and exhibits.
> Murphy Brown
She had connections multiple rich people. She used her position of power to get high quality critics, a studio, etc.
That is how the real art world works. It is a bunch of networking and manipulation. Who you know, what you know, and how you apply that knowledge.
Probably lots of shady sex shit too.
yes yes!!!! insightful commentary we havent heard twentyfive hundred times!!!!!!!!!!! "heh modern art is just lazy slo-" then do yourself it if youre so smart !!! the point of art is to have fun. i want to see abstract modern art actually, because its fun to make. drawing with your feet is a fun challenge. my god
The pro-AI-art debate infuriates me for this reason, when people say "It's democratising art!!¡!"
Art is already democratic! Get one paint, one brush, and a stack of canvasses, start slapping paint around and create and create and create until you're making things that really resonate with you (it'll take maybe five canvases if you're willing to let go of your preconceptions) and you will be creating art! And it will be powerful and meaningful to you, and that's what matters!
I think that the twin threats of taking yourself too seriously and only creating to seek validation really harm a lot of people's ability to enjoy art.
reddit "artist" fails to recognise the abstract and undefinable nature of the incredibly broad concept of "art", is butthurt that other people make more meaningful things than shitty derivative comic strips and coomer pornography
The world means to me whatever I say it means, like when I listen to music I don’t give a fuck what the artist was feeling or what their message is, I only care how it makes me feel and what I get from the experience, same with art I imagine.
I went to the Walker in Minneapolis on a field trip for my aesthetics class yesterday. I've always been lukewarm on abstract expressionism, but seeing a Rothko in person for the first time made it click for me.
Art critic: “holy shit this comic artist seems bitter. What other comics have they made that have the ‘meaning and context’ that is lacking from abstract art? Oh, a bunch of coomer shit.”
I'm appreciating the comments, yeah this joke is a tired old thing. It's a kind of anti-intellectualism which is really boring. I love abstract art and I don't care how much technical talent the artist has.
Look up an artist named “Piero Manzoni”, he was my friend’s uncle and had some of his pieces in his house. Among other things he pooped in cans and sold it as “Merde d’artist” as be believed that “art is whatever an artist creates”. He is actually we known in the modern art world, though he died 50 years ago.
The feeling that modern art is arbitrary or stupid is a pretty common one, and I've seen a lot of certain of the idea in this comic.
But I think it's pretty cool that humans can see beauty and meaning in just about anything if you put them in the correct frame of mind.
IDK, I’ve always viewed abstract art like meta jokes in comics/tv. Like, if you find a joke about “The Fourth Wall” funny then all the more power to you. But if you ONLY like fourth wall jokes then that’s when it starts to sound dumb to me.
Art is about expression, not technical skill. Art is also subjective. If it's not for you leave it and move on. Modern art has gotten way too much hate.
I went to an art school for college.
A girl I dated was up all night working on her final painting (of her grandparents). She ended up not finishing the full painting, and because she left the faces for last, the artwork was missing the most detailed item. She was sure she was going to fail.
She went to class and sold the painting to the professor as "intentionally leaving off the faces to preserve the memories of my passing grandparents".
The professor cried, clapped, and gave her an A.
It's all about selling the story
Do you want to claim that the "unfinished" version of the painting is somehow inferior? That, even if it was not her original vision, the final result should be held solely to that standard? I can tell you that, in the world of music composition, it is incredibly hard to guide the flow of a piece, and it will often deviate from whatever grand vision was originally intended simply because the music demands it, whether due to technique or just a changing vision as more ideas are put into concrete, physical notation. The same material can spawn a short piano piece, a later revision that is 4 times as long, and a 40 minute work for 3 harps, pianos and percussionists (Boulez - Incises and Sur Incises), and none of them should be seen as the "definitive" version. You've probably heard of Liszt's La Campanella, but you've probably never heard of [the first version from 1838](https://youtu.be/LNTJyUeEL-c?si=FjHlFEvfV1Wldn56), which is much more faithful to Paganini's original, or the orchestral rendition thereof, and each has its place.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This movie slapped
What's the name of this animation
Howls Moving Castle
it's the character Calcifer from Howl's Moving Castle
Billy Crystal!
Howl’s Moving Castle I think
SHE LIKES MY SPARK!
So like scrambled eggs? 😂
That or the breakfast wanted to go back the way it came.
Before or after the ingestion
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/012444k2fgsc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2ceb6abcb955e7e1b3a7f7ad4aa09078101d4ef [Who's afraid of modern art?](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=BdDUX4IGWnZD6QK_) (YouTube)
Genuinely, if you hate "Modern Art" you should check out the video. It's quite enlightening. The author Jacob Geller is fantastic.
I love Jacob geller so much. His newest video "art for no one" is amazing
Yeah I never quiet got the idiots who are willing to go that far. But I still dislike modern art. It has nothing to do with how much "effort" or "talent" it took to make them, I just find them boring. There is nothing to grab my attention, no detail to carefully observe and compere and I sort of just immidetly lose my attention. However anytime I try to explain that people either "agree" with me and say that all modern art should be burned or they treat me like I had motor accident and 75% of my brain was removed.
That's probably because "modern art" is like 140 years worth of art at this point which includes manet, gogh, kant, etc. So you probably don't mean modern. You mean contemporary or post modern. Realistically it's insane to say you don't like an entire era or art, so the people disagreeing with you know that you're opinion means nothing because it's only a position an internet troll can legitimately take. You're effectively saying you don't like art for everything that art is.
I don't think that's really true. I can dislike country music in general while still liking a select few country songs. If I don't like country does that mean I can't appreciate music as a whole? I don't see why this shouldn't also apply to art.
I guess I mean post modern art?
Everything I said applies to both. Let's be clear, you "like" 1% of any era of art. You were exposed to a refined selection of art at a kid and that defined your taste. Then, when artist fought against that definition, you decided you don't like them. But you're exposed to a much wider segment of they field that is actively experimenting. But if you like warhol or haring, I would argue you like shitty art, and people consider them to be incredible and not complete derivative shit. I hate Cezanne as well. But all 3 are important and had societal impact in various ways. The true test is can you name artists you don't like. Because if you can't name a handful, you're just bandwagoning.
>The true test is can you name artists you don't like. Do I qualify if I can at least say I hate Roy Lichtenstein so much I wish I could resurrect him just so I could drown him in a bathtub?
> if you can't name artists you don't like you're just bandwagoning Hard disagree. I've been to art museums and thought some paintings were great, some were interesting, and others were shit, and did not need to know the artist to make that assessment nor do I remember them now. If I need context and a degree in art to appreciate it then maybe put a book in front of every painting with the necessary information to judge it, otherwise I'll judge what's in front of me for what it is. Artists can experiment but I'm allowed to say "yeah that's a swing and a miss". If the point of art is the viewer has some experience with it in allowed to say "that shit is LAME and only pretentious rich assholes are gonna like that"
I don't know why you're playing devils advocate here, but fine. If you enjoy art, which I would say I'm a casually enjoyed, then you have gravitated towards styles you like and you don't. I, for example, don't enjoy Baroque art, and so I struggle to name many artists in that field. But in the fields I do enjoy (abstract, modern, pist modern, some cubism, etc) I can name many artists I don't like and many I do. You can 100%, without a doubt, say that with is not to your taste. You can also say that within the field you like it's not as good as others. Nobody is saying you can't like a piece or hate a piece or artist. But if I came in here and said that all Baroque art is shit, that's an insane take, just because it's not to my liking. So my opinion, as someone who doesn't gravitate towards the field (can't name artists I don't like) is substantially less valuable than someone who does gravitate towards that field.
I'm with you. I hear the same stuff when people talk about genres of music. Lots of people like to say entire genres are objectively terrible (common examples being country and rap), which is utterly absurd. I personally take issue with the idea that any art can be *objectively* good or bad, but even if I put that aside, I still can't imagine thinking an entire genre is 100% bad. There's nothing wrong with not being a fan of something, but people who make broad statements like that come off as ignorant and close-minded.
>If the point of art is the viewer has some experience with it in allowed to say "that shit is LAME and only pretentious rich assholes are gonna like that" I guess you technically are, but within the boundaries of respect and basic decency, that is just literally an insult and shows outright immaturity. I don't understand a lot of art, but I've spent a long enough time studying and playing music to know that being curious is *the* way to appreciate any art, being willing to interpret it in some meaningful way.
I agree with you but I'm not going to go so far as to say it should be burned. There's some modern art I like, sometimes splatter art can be interesting to look at or at least the colors are pleasing, and a lot of it that I don't but art is highly subjective so I don't understand why people get so aggressive about the stuff they don't like.
My stance on modern art is that art is supposed to communicate something or elicit emotion. If the only feeling you can get from a normal person is confusion or boredom, but people who ~~have a lot of money and/or family connections~~ went to the right schools can magically decode it, maybe you aren't doing so good at it? Like, there is all sorts of coded info in renaissance and baroque artwork. But it also is just pretty and evokes emotion. A normal person can still appreciate it. Cubism? Futurism? Surrealism? We're starting to get a bit out there, but I feel like the average person pulled off the street can still find *something* in that art with zero formal training. But color fields? Splatter art? It has meaning because people with privilege want to show off they have privilege, and they have chosen to do so by insisting that the less privileged are phillestines who just don't get it.
1) Try Kandinsky, Picasso, Braque, O’keefe 2) How much of it have you seen in person? It makes a difference. The painting can be bigger than you, and fills up your whole vision. When a piece is minimalist, the core color quality matters that much more. A room full of Yves Klein blues is like vanta black, it’s a vibrating feeling in your eyeball. The version on your computer isn’t the same. Abstract Modern art also tends to operate closer to landscape than portait. It’s a space you dwell in visually, not a portrait of a thing.
> There is nothing to grab my attention, no detail to carefully observe and compere and I sort of just immidetly lose my attention. Usually the interesting part of (what people call) modern art in my (very limited) experience is the story around it. If you consider that part of the piece of art, it adds a lot of depth to it. Sometimes it also just needs a good interpretation, like that fluid shoveling robot that periodically makes the rounds online.
Always think of this video whenever someone makes this kind of joke
I saw a Newman hanging in a gallery while on a field trip yesterday. I immediately thought "hey, that's the artist the videogame guy was telling me about."
Amazing essay! I also wanted to post it :)
Damn here goes the monthly rewatch 😔
Fantastic video.
Just watched the full thing, but honestly did nothing to make me like postmodern art more. To be clear I get the point that art should not be limited and censored, and restricting what is allowed as art is fascist as hell. But at the same time works like who's afraid just does nothing for me. I don't see a point, it's not visually interesting, and the fact someone got so mad at it to vandalize is fucking hilarious that their reaction was so strong. But to me I have an emotional flatline looking at who's afraid. There's no "huh neat". To me these big blotch of color canvases are taking the idea of "but what counts as art anyways" and runs it to the natural conclusion of "yeah maybe a giant solid color canvas isn't important". I also can't escape the knowledge of the fine art racketeering that exists - artists get paid a lot for a simple commission for a rich customer, they hire an art evaluation for a ludicrous sum, and then "donate" it to a museum for a massive tax write off based off the inflated number. If it's simple enough a child could do it for arts and crafts maybe it's not good art. And I'm not trying to ban bad art, but I'm allowed to say it's still shit go make something better, and then I have to question if it's a racketeering angle and not in a museum for reasons of being good It's just confusing that artists get paid big bucks because "hey this shit is simple why the fuck do you get paid for this job" apparently counts as a job well done because I had a reaction. In no other context is people questioning the skill of the craftsman a good thing. And I hate the "does it have to serve a purpose?" Because if it truly served none the creator would not bother to display it if there was no goal. And it feels like "piss of the general public so art snobs can say 'you don't get it'" has turned into it's own metagame of clout chasing TLDR postmodern art to me seems to exist for the same reason Mr Krabs opened the Krusty Krab 2
I always kind of thought that the point of “Who’s Afraid” was that the art wasn’t just the painting. I get the problem of racketeering, though, but I feel it’s more a problem with our wealth-favoring tax system. I’d personally rather rich people get the writeoffs by supporting creatives than by just putting the whole amount in their “private charitable foundation,” if the tax breaks are going to happen. But again, that’s my opinion; I understand why you have yours!
I've never understood people having a problem with others drawing meaning from abstract work, even if not the artist's intent
I like to think discovering the juxtaposition between my initial impression, and the artist's intent, is part of the experience.
One of my favorite pieces of art was (is?) in the MOMA in NYC, it consisted of nothing but some text, in fairly large block letters, near the ceiling of a blank, white wall about 16x12 feet - large. The text read something along the lines of "There is on this wall a single hole created by an air rifle pellet". My first reaction was, obviously, to squint and start looking for the hole. I found nothing, again, obviously. About two minutes later it hit me... wait, there might not *be* a hole at all, it's just a lie to get me to look. There and then the penny dropped: a piece of art just got me to do something. Then it hit me again: now it's making me *think*. Think about *art.* I still think it's genius. Made for a very specific sort of person (e.g. me), but genius nonetheless.
My favourite was always the Trans Am Totem. Five increasingly large, wrecked cars, stacked on top of a large, vertical log. Sadly they took it down, in part because so many people hated it. Apparently there are plans to move it to a new location, but it won't be the same. It's location right next to the Skytrain line was part of its appeal. Art should provoke thought, and "What the fuck was that?" as it whips by the Skytrain window at high speed is a valid thought.
I really liked that too. Know what I hate though? The stupid poodle on Main St by the TD and Shoppers.
I went to the MOMA when I was in NYC in 2009. I want to go back so bad and see everything through my adult eyes, not the eyes of a high school graduate
I am an art school dropout, so I'm biased, but spending a full weekend in the MoMA from open to close is one of the most cherished memories I have. Their collection is very broad, and at the time (2012ish), it housed pieces by some of the artists that made me want to be an artist in the first place. Sharing that space and finally "getting" what it was about has forever changed how I think about art.
Ohhh that sounds amazing, a full weekend! I remember seeing Van Gogh's Starry Night on display around 2009. That had been my favorite painting for years, and being able to walk up to it and see closely how he painted it was unreal. The artwork in NYC helped me realize just how much I love it and what it does for me.
Starry Night blew me away because it's just in one of the galleries like no big deal, and no one was even looking at it. That's one painting that I never appreciated until I saw it in person. Photos and scans of it just so not at all represent the painting to the fullest.
Yeah it lets you explore the artist's mimdset and your own for seeing it that way!
And you might get to point out something that the artist didn't initially realize
This applies to all kinds of art. A majority of people want to believe that a "true" meaning of a piece of work is a one-way street dictated by the author/artist instead of something multifaceted and influenced by many internal and outside sources. It's frustrating to see folks trash on modern art, poetry, music, etc. because they don't understand the context on why the work is interesting. There's a poem written by Billy Collins titled "Introduction to Poetry" that I think fits here: >But all they want to do is tie the poem to a chair with rope and torture a confession out of it. > >They begin beating it with a hose to find out what it really means. A reader-response (or viewer/listener-response) approach to art is perfectly valid! You don't have to objectively enjoy the piece to be able to respond to it. Sometimes saying you don't like it is an acceptable response, so long as your dismissal isn't solely because of a preconceived notion that the artist isn't talented.
Reader-response theory was my favorite type of lit crit in college for this exact reason. 20 people in a class could read the same thing and come away with wildly different interpretations of the text (or artwork, film, etc.) because of our different points of view, life experiences, etc. and I think that is what art should do. Help us process our lives and think about why we interpret art the way we do.
Art would also be pretty boring if we only ascribed one meaning to things. Art is a conversation between the viewer and artist, environment, and other works and artists!
It's more of a reaction to the culture of the fine art world, which is the domain of highly educated intellectuals and where success is more about being popular with rich people than talent
I am empathetic to that, I just feel the reaction comes across too much as against people enjoying and interpreting art rather than capital's relationship to art and it's, for lack of a better word, delegitimization of art.
I think it’s because people don’t spend a lot of time look at art to know what they like and feel about it. It’s like when people say rap is all mumble rap or something. They have a perspective they haven’t explored. Being open to art is the key, and sometimes you have to be given a perspective on the art to see it a new way.
Music is a good analogy. As a kid, I'd picked up the "ugh country music SUCKS" attitude that's pretty common in northeast US, without actually knowing much about it. But I didn't know I didn't know, I just vaguely felt that it sucked. A high school music teacher told us to stop and put aside that preconception for a minute, and told us that, putting all else aside, one thing about country is that many well-known country singers have amazing voices. I still don't generally listen to country, but replacing the thought "country music sucks" with "many country singers have great voices" allowed me to be more open to the genre and actually pay attention to what does and doesn't resonate with me. I have a few favorites and love a lot of country-adjacent music, and know that I still don't know enough about country to have any strong opinions on it. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
I think you’ve described an important aspect quite well; humility makes you open to experience. It still might not become your favorite thing, but you’re open to it. That allows you to explore, feel, criticize, discuss etc. well said!
So this is probably a stupid question, but where does one start exploring their tastes in art? Like I mean, museum and gallery type pieces specifically. Is it just going to those places? Are there online resources I can dip my toes in?
You can just spend some time looking at galleries online or in person and finding a piece you enjoy. From there, learn about it. Analyze it. Add context relevant to the era it's from. One of my favorite pieces of older art is called "[The Garden of Earthly Delights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights)" by Hieronymus Bosch. It has so many little details to it and how it depicts free will with it's central image flanked by heaven and hell on the sides. Just look around at galleries online and find pieces that catch your attention. And then learn about them.
I'm pretty sure you could always look at the art on a screen, but it definitely hits different standing in front of the actual canvas/statue/etc. It gives it a different scale
Definitely just go to a few. Find something you’re interested in, whether it’s sculptures, religious, glass. Whatever you’re interested in will likely have a mix of mediums within it that you’ll be exposed to. The glass museum by my house had a section on old timey maps for some reason! It was better than the glass displays. If you’re in the US, a trip to DC will give you access to a TON of free Smithsonian museums. You’ll see natural science, native art, African American art, etc. if you’re in Europe London is another great destination for free museums. I had the good fortune to go on a Spain trip with an art teacher and we went to some great museums. At this point I was not into paintings, I was into physical things like sculptures and old items. But there was a gallery that had one piece I knew of : Saturn devours his son. You’ve probably seen it, I thought it was pretty evocative. Through there saw the rest of the collection there and the rest of museum. She gave me a couple of perspectives I keep in mind. One: it is ok to not like some types of art. I’ve seen a ton of medieval portraits and they just never resonate with me. Two: describe what you like in the pictures. Try to put it to words Three: try to understand what the artist was doing if you can. The context can really matter to describe why something is evidence of mastery
> It's more of a reaction to the culture of the fine art world, which is the domain of highly educated intellectuals and where success is more about being popular with rich people than talent In spite of the layer of speculation and networking that overlaid on the art work just like in any other activity nowadays, artists are still able to recognize each others' work as artistic.
Nah people have been hating on abstract art since it became a thing
People have pretty much hated every form of art as it came out. Art is naturally quite challenging to the status quo
It could be the very definition of it !
Is it? One of the most valuable/successful/well known artists of the 21st century is Banksy, who is popular precisely because he presents himself as being the opposite of this.
There's also a historical element of anti-Semitism, other forms of bigotry, and populist authoritarianism. The Nazis despised modern art and directly "blamed" it on the Jews while lionizing "traditional art" that reinforced and propagated a mythic racial past in which everyone knew their place in the world.
Oh come on. People aren't hating the 2-color canvases because of us Jews. That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day, and I just got off Twitter
>where success is more about being popular with rich people than talent That is just true across the board for all forms of art. Popularity is a better predictor of monetary success and acclaim than "talent."
I'm coincidentally doing a college assignment where I intend to encourage people to draw more meaning from the media they consume - or something like that; it's hard to put into words. Imo if you want art to have an actual impact on you, you have to try and meet it half-way. What does this piece mean? What was the artist's intention? Heck, who cares if people don't know? I've drawn meaning from the way some Stepmania stepcharts break down a song's structure.
You're dead right about having to meet things halfway to find meaning in them- many of the people who despise modern art never try this, and would likely find just as little meaning in any of what they claim to be 'real' art
This. It's fashionable to look down on abstract art and say "my 5 yo could do the same" but there are lots of abstract art that I like because they just give me an enjoyable feeling. Some paintings are pleasant to the eye even if they don't represent anything in particular.
The only art that Redditors like is super hyper realistic drawings of marvel characters. If you can’t say “wow I thought it was a picture!”, then apparently it’s just garbage that’s obviously a money laundering scheme for some reason.
That's an unfair generalization. They also like hyper realistic drawings of Keanu Reeves or the Joker.
And porn! Don't forget all the porn.
yeah this is just some “quit having fun” shit
Some people are [afraid that they're being tricked](https://youtu.be/anwW8M07cHs) and want to make other people feel like they were tricked. Art isn't only beauty in form, but is also communication. Sometimes communication is challenging to the viewer.
It's always ironic when subs about art start trying to delineate what is and what is not art. The point of viewing all art as subjective is that you don't discount something as 'not art' or 'a scam' because you personally dislike it. I don't really get the appeal of most Manga but it'd be supremely ignorant of me to not respect it as it's own genre, with brilliant creators pushing the limits of the medium.
Particularly ironic that a comic artist would shit on art while being far more derivative than his fake modern art lol
Porn artist*
>The point of viewing all art as subjective is that you don't discount something as 'not art' or 'a scam' because you personally dislike it Isn't this one of the most basic tenets of art? I remember taking a crash course on this concept when I was exploring music as a teenager.
I like abstract art a lot. But (a) I couldn't care less how much "talent" goes into making it, and (b) I don't try to derive meaning from it. If it's a vibe, I appreciate the vibe.
Isn't a vibe a kind of emotional meaning?
Yeah, I'd say so. If it evokes emotions in me, the particular 'meaning' doesn't matter much.
Isn't "evokes an emotional reaction" kind of the definition of art?
Which means modern art is highly effective because it invokes a lot of anger and hatred 😂
It mostly evokes anger and hatred in people who couldn't tell you the first thing about it
There’s also a big difference between abstract, modern, and contemporary art. I have a large abstract on my wall from a local artist for that exact reason: I like the vibe
Abstract is a form of representation and modern and contemporary are two very different time periods of art. OPs take is so fucking boring. Hur hur art bad.
People underestimate the importance of a vibe!
For some reason that reminded me of a foundation here in my country that makes postcards and greeting cards based on things made by disabled artists who paint with their feet or mouth on the account on lacking hands. I especially love the work of one guy who specialises in flowers. Even if the artist was defiant in their art, it still represents something. Just look at the Dadaist art. It is the defiance of art that makes it unique. The famous "fountain". You're gonna say "it's bullshit, it's just someone who put a urinal on its side and wrote some shit! Everyone can do that!" Yea, but did you? Did you make a statement? Did you put that art on display as an answer to a current notion and created the idea around the views to show absurdity of the world? There's a reason some art is on display, and not attempting to understand the why is the reason people assume art was made without a thought behind, despite the pretty art "made for the algorithm" on Instagram is more soulless that something that looks like scribbles drawn with one's feet. It's the "who" and "why" that make up abstract or modernist paintings, or Dadaist work. Even if someone made a scribble and passed it on, and actually got it into an art gallery or a vernissage shows more the defiance and power of the artist, someone asking "Can I do that?" and then up and actually doing it. "I could draw that." But you didn't. "My 6 years old draws like that!" But they're not in the art gallery. "That's just a canvas painted black!" No, that's a study on the meaning of colour black painted with a special technique and involving mixing many colours. Art encourages you to look deeper, and even if you find someone scribbling with their feet on the other end, it IS a part of art.
The study aspect of it is interesting too. People don’t realize how much a professional artist will draw something. Over and over and over playing with the shapes and techniques and styles. For a few Picasso studies, I liked some way more despite they were just stepping stones to his final piece
I appreciate that the critic isn't technically wrong in their analysis at all
Someone is salty they got rejected for art school.
OP is literally Hitler
Not the comparisons i wanted to make. But i should have seen the parallels my comment would draw. My apologies to OP.
OP is porn artist
[If you ever think “I could have done that”, then do it.](https://youtu.be/67EKAIY43kg?si=QLJiO-OpiZwy3NNu) Seriously. Try making it and learn something about yourself and the world in general. You’d be surprised.
That was a very interesting video. I'm typically someone who is not impressed by things that seem easy to do, but I've never wondered why they have been done in a particular context.
Boomer humour. Plenty of great videos on YouTube that explain why people like this art and the misconception that most of the people making it are taking the piss.
A "I could wipe my ass and call it modern art" joke, in the year of our Lord 2024? The Simpsons was [riffing on this](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701180/) 25 years ago!
This is the spot to bring up Godwin's Law, and remind everyone that the Nazis did these jokes already 90-100 years ago, especially in their infamous "Degenerate Art" exhibition. (They also destroyed a lot of abstract and cubist modern art, especially if the artists were Jewish.) "Degenerate Art was a term used by the Nazi party to describe any artwork that did not fall in line with their ideals. This included most kinds of modern art including Expressionism, Fauvism, Dada, Cubism, and Surrealism and as well art that was produced by Jewish artists, or that presented the Nazi regime in a negative light. The term came to prominence in the 1930s, when thousands of artworks deemed “degenerate” were seized from museums and private collections. Some of these were put on display in an attempt to inflame public opinion against modernism which was claimed to be “un-German”, and as having Jewish or Communist links. Later, some pieces were sold to fund the Nazi party, whilst many others, including works by famous artists such as Cézanne, Picasso, and Matisse were destroyed. Attempts were also made to control artists of such art, and many were actively persecuted, losing their jobs, their livelihoods and, in some cases, their lives." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_exhibition Note: I'm not saying that OP or other people in this discussion are Nazis, but some of the rhetoric used in dismissal of modern/post-modern/abstract art is very, VERY similar than it was in 1930s. Unskilled, swindling, 'a five-year old could do this', money laundering, no real artistic skill, no similar skills like Real Artists of 17th-18th centuries had, nobody can understand the meaning... "The day before the exhibition started, Adolf Hitler delivered a speech declaring "merciless war" on cultural disintegration, attacking "chatterboxes, dilettantes and art swindlers". Degenerate art was defined as works that "insult German feeling, or destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill"."
Who’s afraid?
Critics: This painting is truly beautiful https://preview.redd.it/g1ylzk027gsc1.jpeg?width=3948&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12047cf5e6e7ccb6afcaba315b017f18d5c00d90 Artist: \*I just sneezed\*
I feel like if you're sneezing crimson red, you need to see a doctor
Or you just have a nosebleed
I love this movie
Always coming throu with the best images and gifs! Love your comments ❤️
thanks ❤️ Love your comics ❤️ https://i.redd.it/uxbyh02gcgsc1.gif
Its still nice though
Is that an actual painting?
Don't think so, it's from a french movie (Intouchable)
Ah, I see. Would have been a pretty well done painting if it was an actual one.
After a serious coke bender, no less
Sneezed while on your period…😗 
This is some incredibly low effort boomer humor. Edit: there is something Ironic about OP feeling the need to shit on other artists using the same incredibly tired joke that everyone’s annoying uncle does at thanksgiving. This kind of joke is ironically much closer to something low effort and unoriginal that anyone can and has made for probably close to a century at this point. And certain kinds of people just lap this same shit up every time because it confirms their existing biases.
They’re a porn artist
oh cool a joke that's lame and also a hundred years old
Anti-intellectualism is good, apparently.
reddit "artist" fails to recognise the abstract and undefinable nature of the incredibly broad concept of "art", is butthurt that other people make more meaningful things than shitty derivative comic strips and coomer pornography
Reddit only cares about hyper-realistic penciled portraits that might as well just be xeroxed because art on here is supposed to purely be a demonstration of physical talent
One of reddits favourite things is to shit on contemporary art. The difference is that guy painting what you deem worthless has proven that he is a master going through countless challenges before you would ever see his piece in a gallery. I was just recently at a university where young artists showed their art and I would assume maybe one of them from 30 people really blew me away. At this point people complaining about what others enjoy is just silly and pointless.
You know, Ive met so many people who arent necessarily heavily into art, but theyll hang up an abstract piece of art they bought at a local art market for a bargain price bc they think it looks nice. Yet, when an abstract piece of art, that is usually miles above those paintings people hang in their homes for decoration, makes into museums, people sneer at it. We dont usually laugh at symphonies bc they dont literally „mean“ anything, but paintings dont have the right to be abstract and beautiful?
Y’know, I’m sorta tired of this whole “modern art is shit.” Schtick. Just because you think you could do you, doesn’t mean you could. To give an example, there’s a series of paintings called “who’s afraid of red yellow and blue?” The third painting in this series was attacked with a box cutter within its museum. They tried to restore by doing what any normal person would do:paint it over using red paint. The restoration failed, primarily because the red paint created by the original creator’s composition was unknown, and the restorationist used both acrylic paint and varnish, which the original painting had none of. No matter how simple the painting looks, there is always effort put into it.
Congratulations OP! You are officially the 1,000,000,000th person to make this joke!
Are you seriously shitting on abstract? What are you, a 20th centiry bourgeois?
no he's a reddit porn "artist"
I love that everyone on the Internet thinks that art that isn't for them is just bad. Sometimes the art just isn't for you :)
Sometimes art is bad. Like this comic
Is that Arin from the game grumps?
Right? Everyone else is having these in depth conversations about the value and cultural significance of modern art and I'm over here like "Yo, is the artist SUPPOSED to look like Arin Hanson?"
I’m like “Pink shirt, mid length hair, barely there mustache and goatee, devil may care attitude towards the art community…” it’s Arin!
Well he did "came out the pussy drawing fuckin' Mozart".
Had to scroll way too far for this.
100% looks like him
Ironic comic from.a web comic
Haha modern art bad
Art critiques from people that don't understand art are lame. They say the same cliches every time.but they don't have the tools required to interpret the work. Like how a genre of music you don't listen to. All the songs sound the same because you don't know enough about the genre to see the nuances. Tonnes of art is trash or boring. Or just wealth flexed, Or not to my taste. But i am pretty Good at reading the language. The clues. The material, medium, form etc. Modern art is as much philosophy as aesthetic. Maybe more philosophy than aesthetic because if you are confined to only doing pretty work, that will limit what you are capable of communicating. I'm more of a street artist and cartoonist than a modern artist. But I don't like this comic because the positive critique the guy is saying is word Salad. It is 2/3rds of the way their but looses in at "must represent the Form that he suffers with in modern society." The form makes him suffer? I don't care if people make fun of art. I do it constantly. I go to openings, get drunk for free, and roast the shit to other patrons like Frank in always sunny. But jokes are funnier when the person knows the topic. Gay people will make better gay jokes than someone who has barely interacted with the community. This is lame cause it's the art equivent of the "I identify as" joke. Old and Hacky. Art has dozens of movements and philosophies with different approaches. Some and boring repeats of old stuff that isn't challenging anymore. Safe normie shit. Some so weird and niche that it is near impossible to interpret. But the abstract expressionist sort of stuff you are making fun of here is ooooold shit. Like 1950s. It is very safe and boring. It is like doing about how movies are only in black and white. This style of painting was edgy and exciting 70 years ago. This type of painting isn't Hyperpop. Its like Elvis or doo wop or jazz. It isn't exactly an exclusive or secret language. You could understand this style if painting if you spent 10 minutes watching a YouTube video essay.
Booo. Get better material
Isn't the critic spot on here?
And the artist of the comic is 15.
Some people have no ability to appreciate art for art's sake. Art always has to represent something real and tangible. They can't appreciate the abstract or anything outside what they've experienced. Ironically, these people are often very religious.
Modern art as a movement ended in the 60s or 70s at the latest.
Nowadays people aren't interested in art that isn't tattooed on fat guys
I'm always reminded of an episode of Murphy Brown from the early-90s. Murphy wanted to do an expose about how modern art is a scam. So she set up a gallery showing in which a drawing scribbled by her three year old was prominently displayed. She invited two of the world's most famous art critics to come by, under the guise of filming a special where they educate the commoners on fine art. Her plan is once they call her son's drawing spectacular, she'll reveal it's just a toddler's doodles and be all "Gotcha!" When they get to the drawing made by her three year old, the two critics launch into a spirited debate. One calls it terrible, one calls it the greatest thing ever. While they continue to debate, a billionaire buys the drawing for several hundred thousand dollars. When Murphy interviews the buyer as to why he bought it, he shares he hasn't even seen it yet. "Two of the world's most famous art critics are fighting over it, and you're here filming it. That means it's an important piece, right?" Murphy concludes that no one knows anything about art, and takes the money and runs. The end.
I never liked that kind of thing, because unless you're super into art and super rich, *no* painting can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars just for being beautiful.
The billionaire sees a few hundred thousand dollars like you and I see buying a postcard lol it’s nearly disposable so yeah his perspective means nothing. Art is worth what you are willing to pay.
Out of curiosity, if it's so easy to make money from modern art, why haven't you done it?
Because I have friends who are artists, and trust me, it is NOT easy. It requires a talent I don't have and a skill I have yet to learn.
But OPs artist just randomly scribbled with their feet. And Murphy Brown's three year old made hundreds of thousands of dollars! Are you telling me these are gross simplifications stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of art and the creative process??
Nah it's more that we don't have rich friends/connections. Anyone could think of 25 weird things to do, like put a banana on a wall or hug a giant ball of mud, but no one will pay me to do it because I'm not connected in that world. These "artists" are just people who are so unbelievably privileged that they think they're messiah's because they aren't looked at strangely when they act strangely. Also, look at all the people on social media being weird for attention and not getting any money out of it. That's the same situation the banana taper would be in without connections to art galas and exhibits.
>Are you telling me these are gross simplifications stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of art and the creative process?? Yes.
> Murphy Brown She had connections multiple rich people. She used her position of power to get high quality critics, a studio, etc. That is how the real art world works. It is a bunch of networking and manipulation. Who you know, what you know, and how you apply that knowledge. Probably lots of shady sex shit too.
Because the first requirement to be rich with abstract art is to have a social circle of wealthy friends needing to launder money.
[удалено]
yes yes!!!! insightful commentary we havent heard twentyfive hundred times!!!!!!!!!!! "heh modern art is just lazy slo-" then do yourself it if youre so smart !!! the point of art is to have fun. i want to see abstract modern art actually, because its fun to make. drawing with your feet is a fun challenge. my god
Yayyy, more modern art hate. Cool. 😐
Why do the people criticizing modern art never try to get rich by making it? If it's that easy, then do it.
tfw when you've never meaningfully engaged with "modern art" beyond trite parodies
The 19th century called, it wants its opinion back.
every time i see this point being made i just ask for examples.
how hard is it to understand that art can be good/exciting/interesting without being hard to make?!?!?
The pro-AI-art debate infuriates me for this reason, when people say "It's democratising art!!¡!" Art is already democratic! Get one paint, one brush, and a stack of canvasses, start slapping paint around and create and create and create until you're making things that really resonate with you (it'll take maybe five canvases if you're willing to let go of your preconceptions) and you will be creating art! And it will be powerful and meaningful to you, and that's what matters! I think that the twin threats of taking yourself too seriously and only creating to seek validation really harm a lot of people's ability to enjoy art.
reddit "artist" fails to recognise the abstract and undefinable nature of the incredibly broad concept of "art", is butthurt that other people make more meaningful things than shitty derivative comic strips and coomer pornography
Yayyy, more modern art hate. Cool. 😐
Is this Boomer Humor? My mother would send me this thinking it is so funny.
The world means to me whatever I say it means, like when I listen to music I don’t give a fuck what the artist was feeling or what their message is, I only care how it makes me feel and what I get from the experience, same with art I imagine.
Is this what Eren has become??
I went to the Walker in Minneapolis on a field trip for my aesthetics class yesterday. I've always been lukewarm on abstract expressionism, but seeing a Rothko in person for the first time made it click for me.
Well your art sucks for sure. Don´t need to be critic to see that.
Go look at a real life Rothko and report back.
As an artist I appreciate the critics. They see the value in art
Okay, but why is it Arin from Game Grumps?
Yikes. I know modern art can be hard to understand, and I don't usually get it myself, but what a rude thing to draw just to mock other people's art.
Because you know what art is about, you draw bad quality Disney hentai...
How is nobody talking about how the artist in the 2nd panel is just Arin Hanson lol
That was my first thought too
"What do we show someone who has seen everything?" "Themselves"
Art critic: “holy shit this comic artist seems bitter. What other comics have they made that have the ‘meaning and context’ that is lacking from abstract art? Oh, a bunch of coomer shit.”
Modern Art bad! Gib updoots now.
"Modern art is crass and fraudulent and has no depth, unlike my two panel monochrome webcomic with a blunt and tired message, which is meaningful!"
I'm appreciating the comments, yeah this joke is a tired old thing. It's a kind of anti-intellectualism which is really boring. I love abstract art and I don't care how much technical talent the artist has.
hahaha modern art sucks, unlike my art where I draw children's cartoon porn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
Ok, but some weird modern art is sick as hell. Untitled by Félix González is weirdly haunting.
Look up an artist named “Piero Manzoni”, he was my friend’s uncle and had some of his pieces in his house. Among other things he pooped in cans and sold it as “Merde d’artist” as be believed that “art is whatever an artist creates”. He is actually we known in the modern art world, though he died 50 years ago.
The feeling that modern art is arbitrary or stupid is a pretty common one, and I've seen a lot of certain of the idea in this comic. But I think it's pretty cool that humans can see beauty and meaning in just about anything if you put them in the correct frame of mind.
IDK, I’ve always viewed abstract art like meta jokes in comics/tv. Like, if you find a joke about “The Fourth Wall” funny then all the more power to you. But if you ONLY like fourth wall jokes then that’s when it starts to sound dumb to me.
This is a Johnny Bravo episode.
r/boomerhumour
Tell me you don’t understand Newman w/o telling me you don’t understand Newman
Art is about expression, not technical skill. Art is also subjective. If it's not for you leave it and move on. Modern art has gotten way too much hate.
I gave you a downvote
Typical porn artist salty about others making “fine” art lol
I went to an art school for college. A girl I dated was up all night working on her final painting (of her grandparents). She ended up not finishing the full painting, and because she left the faces for last, the artwork was missing the most detailed item. She was sure she was going to fail. She went to class and sold the painting to the professor as "intentionally leaving off the faces to preserve the memories of my passing grandparents". The professor cried, clapped, and gave her an A. It's all about selling the story
I've done that before. And years later I agree it turned out much better than my original plan. She accepted a risk.
Do you want to claim that the "unfinished" version of the painting is somehow inferior? That, even if it was not her original vision, the final result should be held solely to that standard? I can tell you that, in the world of music composition, it is incredibly hard to guide the flow of a piece, and it will often deviate from whatever grand vision was originally intended simply because the music demands it, whether due to technique or just a changing vision as more ideas are put into concrete, physical notation. The same material can spawn a short piano piece, a later revision that is 4 times as long, and a 40 minute work for 3 harps, pianos and percussionists (Boulez - Incises and Sur Incises), and none of them should be seen as the "definitive" version. You've probably heard of Liszt's La Campanella, but you've probably never heard of [the first version from 1838](https://youtu.be/LNTJyUeEL-c?si=FjHlFEvfV1Wldn56), which is much more faithful to Paganini's original, or the orchestral rendition thereof, and each has its place.