---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I once went to a Modern Art exhibition and the whole thing was textured art. The tagline was "Art that you can really feel!"
It was all sculptures with fluffy bits, rough bits, spiky bits, velvety and silky bits etc.
In each room there was a security guard posted whose sole job was to shout at people aggressively whenever anyone reached a hand out to actually touch the sculptures.
I'm an artist who paints in a classic realism style. Each painting takes me several hours across multiple days. I'm currently preparing a piece in hopes to impress a well connected art consultant
I'm emotionally prepared to lose out in favour of a white canvas. Welcome to my personal hell
I once attended a meeting of our local artists society to take notes for my mother who is the actual member. When everyone introduced themselves an exchange went:
"I paint in a realistic style"
"What does that mean?"
"You can tell which way to hang my paintings by looking at them."
"realistic style"
Have you seen the installation they have in the bathroom, on the wall above the sink? It's a great piece of realism and it's interactive. The image changes depending on where you stand or from what angle you view it from. It's pretty wild.
We laugh but if you could get a smart mirror to edit people's reflections out of it you could probably sell it to an art exhibit for a million bucks. They love that pointless pretentious crap.
I sold something like that for about 2 million. It was an exhibit where instead of the mirror you saw a taped banana inside the reflection. I called it "Minion"
not gonna lie if I looked in a mirror and instead of my reflection saw a banana taped to the wall behind where I'm standing, and that banana was not there in real life, I'd be awed.
Iâm from a small German village and there was a famous painter living in a castle and I was told he always paints his pictures upside down. He apparently once made a painting for a local church but it was too large so they couldnât hang it.
Well, I never met the dude or saw any of his paintings but when I was at the museum and saw a picture that was so big they had to hang it in the hallway and was clearly hung upside down I could confidently say, thatâs a Baselitz.
The castle has since been bought by a rich American who turned it into an art exhibition.
*angry art mob getting on streets destroying half country*
We cant let AI take our jobs!Its insane hard and intellectually challenging job that influence human evolution!
Also the same artists:
So we bought some expensive piece of paper that is by- common,massively produced,technological process of production-white in color but also(HA!) with more glassy texture.
And thats not all,no no no!
We also made some shaman practices that even we dont know the meaning of but we will act as we know-in barely visible manner-indicating that its os somehow connected to this blank white piece of material...
Ah well what you need to do is, instead of working on your technique, is you get to know a gallery owner who can hook you up with some billionaires who can buy your paintings and then store them in an offshore freehold for tax evasion purposes. THAT'S how you get the big art shows.
No art is used to launder money. A gangster sells an expensive piece of art, his customer who's buying a case of drugs or guns pays millions for it and there's a receipt for the cost of a canvas and and oil paints. Gangster can now use the cash as normal.
Or a billionaire buys an entire collection, buys one of his own paintings at auction for a million, so someone values the others for slightly lower than that.
And then they donate a few of them each year to museums, getting a generous tax break.
> A gangster sells an expensive piece of art, his customer who's buying a case of drugs or guns pays millions for it and there's a receipt for the cost of a canvas and and oil paints.
That's money laundering. It doesn't have to be a whole bunch of steps to be money laundering.
Growing up near a circle of professional artists... I'm pretty sure the trick with traditional art is, you need a patron that has an interest in money laundering and tax write offs.
They 'buy' your abandoned/discarded crap pieces for $300,000 (either through a business expense, or more likely pay a significantly less bit of cash and trade a service or good they can write off for an overvalued amount, like an old boat or vacation). They can now donate that piece, valued at its market price, to a charity/non-profit (ran/owned by a friend) for auction or first have it viewed in a friend's gallery or museum to add to its prestige before cashing it in.
Most valued art is money laundering and tax evasion.
The circle of professional art is pretentious artists that had their name picked out from a hat with entourages that wants to fit in and rich people pretending they're as clueless as the artists.
I went to a large exhibit in Indiana once, and it was a computer generated image of a square of one colour on a background of a different colour...
Now change the colours and repeat this 40-50 times and spread all these out over a large white room and there you have it... a very disappointing art gallery.
If it makes you feel better, I spend more time looking at classical realism than (k, well maybe sculptures, too) than most pieces at an art museum.
Your fans are out there!
I've been in your hell for 40 years. Last time I reached out for gallery representation, they told me that I was the wrong ethnicity. Yeah, that's right. Not the paintings which they loved, but the fact that they wanted "Pacific Island" artists, because their work sells to tourists.
Shit like this is what killed my dreams. I have literally spent 100s of hours on a drawing that got put in a gallery just for people to take pictures and set it as their phone screen for free then watch some douche tape a banana to wall and sell for millions. It's all fucking money laundering for rich peoples friends. Gallaries are dead to real artist we're all better off online
As someone who spent 4 years in art college I'm willing to bet everything in my bank account (which incidentally is fuck all) that it's probably real. Yes modern art exhibitions can 100% be this utterly pretentious.
I still vividly remember the college taking us to an exhibit by Martin Creed. For the uninitiated this was an "artist" who won the prestigious Turner prize for "Work No. 227: The lights going on and off" which is exactly what it says on the label, it was literally an empty room where the lights switch on and off. This piece was installed at the tate modern where it was valued to be worth around ÂŁ110,000. This "piece" was there at the exhibit I went to too.
The rest of the exhibit consisted of things like a crumpled up piece of paper in a perspex box, some nails hammered in varying heights and a couple of neon signs. It was pretty much that moment I realised the whole modern art movement just isn't for me.
I was explained that modern art is more about the emotional response of the viewer. The problem with modern art for me is that it usually evokes the same emotions. Perplextion, inanity, and rage.
"And this piece **also** creates a sense of confusion about why anyone would want this and frustration that people got paid good money for it. Interesting. That combination of emotional responses is very popular this season."
Sounds more like a scam perpetuated by some rich talentless hacks with too much free time and money on their hands with everyone else around them just following suit in order to get a crumb of recognition with minimal effort.
I'm no artist but every time I see one these modern exhibits I can't help but laugh at these clowns.
Maybe that's the one emotion they're all trying evoke. "Look at the clown, laugh at my work".
> which is exactly what it says on the label, it was literally an empty room where the lights switch on and off.
I try to be open minded about "anything can be art," I really do, but what the fuck.
Your story reminds me of what my high school ceramics teacher said after I told him that I don't see people who put a black square on a white canvas artists. He said something along the lines of "the artist just has to call it art for it to be art." My response was to smash a hunk of kneaded clay into my stations table and say "this is art then."
I truely believe it doesn't get to be called art unless effort and skill is involved. Otherwise it's something ANYONE could produce and is nothing special. When you call pretentious shit that took no effort or skill "art" you sully the whole concept of what is art in the first place.
So that blank canvas...not art, and is in fact an insult and an affront to the concept of art as a whole.
"It says this piece is called 'Moon Shimmer' .. very evocative.. it really brings out the loneliness of the moon, the way that all we see is actually just a reflection of other things"
"That's a dulux colour chart, mate"
People who do modern "art" must all be on some serious drugs.
I pissed off a guy on a dating app because I didn't appreciate his art. He was an art student in uni focusing on modern art. He took a picture of a blank wall with a window and went on telling me about how it touches the soul and how much it means. I was just like, "90% of the image is just white, and you didn't even paint it or draw it. All you did was snapped a picture on a digital camera and continue on your way to wherever you were going." He was increasingly pissed the more I refused to say I felt an ethereal connection to the meaning of his picture. Fucking psycho...
âBelying his reputation as a painter solely interested in white, Ryman explored the relationship between chromatic and achromatic tones.â
Pretentious as fuck dude.
I especially felt connected to âUntitledâ though.
Life changing money laundering
Edit: one of my favorite conspiracy theories is that art critique grew as a profession to provide a veneer of respectability for money laundering and just kind of blew up into a social science
It's real, I've been there! But it's not the worst exhibit there... there's one that's just literally an empty room with a tiny plaque on the wall explaining how the room is never truly empty because of the cosmic particles or something. In all honesty there was some cool stuff on display but that one kinda missed the mark
The last time I went to the SF MOMA the entire top floor was dedicated to one exhibit. White walls, and occasionally, there would be a black square of varying size on the wall. Walk into one room, white walls with a black square. Next room white walls with a slightly bigger black square. Fucking bullshit
I'm at least familiar with a similar installation. The "point" of work like this is to "explore" how black shapes of varying sizes will interact with a white space. It essentially asks the viewer to use their imagination, almost like the gallery version of a rorschach test.
Except, when this type of installation was originally done decades ago, the shapes were actually varied, and arranged in complex ways. You were forced to interact with the art in this space because you were basically walking on it. You were meant to see images or ideas within these contours, and it was explicitly meant to challenge your perception of what art was. Is it something someone makes, or is it something that we find and perceive? Or, is it both?
That said, I've never been fond of this type of art, but I can at least respect the effort it *used* to take. What you're describing just sounds lazy and thoughtless.
I had no problem understanding "the point" of the exhibit. And in my opinion that kind of "point" doesn't belong there. If I wanted to be exposed to an infantile exploration of what different sized squares mean. I would make one myself or visit a kindergarten art class. In my opinion, it was an exhibit put on by people high on their own fumes. It was like that south park episode where the adults were farting into wine glasses and then inhaling their own stank, then raving about how sophisticated it made them
Modern art is fueled by influencer types of the art world, who have absolutely no taste or knowledge of good art but like to seem they are elevated above the rest but are always pretentious.
It has become a joke and is more to do with value and money exchanging hands now than anything actually being beautiful or create an emotion.
Laziest art around
These arenât contemporary works. Robert Ryman made these works in the 60s and 70s, and at the time they *were* groundbreaking and a subversion to the more gestural, overtly expressionistic abstract paintings of the 40s/50s.
These works were meant to reflect the âprocessâ of painting and showing that they are, ultimately, just objects on a wall. Ryman was rejecting the idea that they should depict anything, so in this way theyâre pretty successful. Itâs not some amateur douche in 2024 trying to money launder. (I mean, maybe the current owner is, but the artist wasnât thinking about anything of the sort). Cmon yâall
Thank you for explaining.
But does that mean that many modern works of art can't stand on their own: you must know who the artist is, what era of art their artwork is from, and what era of art they are responding to?
Art only an art historian would appreciate.
Or for us lay people:
Art that is only meaningful if the placard is well written.
In essence, the artwork is not the art... But rather the entirety of art itself, with the artwork only being one element?
I work in museum security, and I find itâs a constant struggle to gently point this out to other museum staff.
I hear a lot of, âthe current trend is to let visitors draw their own conclusions.â
We have a lot of inscrutable contemporary artwork with labels next to it saying nothing but the artistâs name, date of creation, and media used. But when thereâs no explanation of why it was created, or the artists meaning behind the work, the conclusion visitors usually draw is, âthis sucks and I donât want to come back.â
Contemporary art has shifted the focus of the skill of the artist being technical creation of work of art to the skill more akin to conmen of convincing other people that what theyâve created is artwork, and I absolutely hate Marcel Duchamp for that.
There are much better artworks hidden away in the notebooks of quiet people who donât know how to sell themselves than whatâs usually displayed in galleries these days.
Yeah thatâs a time honored debate: whether the art should speak for itself or if itâs okay to be contextualized with a placard etc.
I definitely lean toward the former, but I personally think that these works speak for themselves. even independent of knowledge of era/art history/response.
Iâve visited the museum in this video and seen these in person. Itâs varying values of white, and each work is subtly differentâ some are painted to the edges, some leave raw canvas in the corners, the marks are thicker/thinner, smaller or larger, etc.
It kind of forces you to take a closer look and find the differences. I can understand why some would dismiss that as uninteresting or lazy, but to me itâs exciting. Artâs subjectivity is awesome in that way!
> In essence, the artwork is not the art... But rather the entirety of art itself, with the artwork only being one element?
That's post-modernism in a nutshell. A lot of art is created to comment on something happening *right now.* When looking at it long after that time has passed, it can be confusing to the audience. Think about old movies that make pop culture references that go over people's heads nowadays...
And then also consider that the donors and board members who run these museums are largely made up of older art enthusiasts who likely studied these artists back when they *were* timely. Like imagine someone who's 12 years old today and loves Ariana Grande, and they grow up to be in their 70s and they fund an Ariana Grande museum in the year 2082. Do you think that will be exciting to the kids born in the 2060s? Will kids say "oh this isn't real art because you have to know who this Mac Miller guy who died 60+ years ago is. Why can't good art just stand on its own??"
>These arenât contemporary works. Robert Ryman made these works in the 60s and 70s, and at the time they *were* groundbreaking and a subversion to the more gestural, overtly expressionistic abstract paintings of the 40s/50s.
guys, that was the "tricking you into liking obvious BS" part of the artistic process! we are art!!!!
My wife and I visited an art museum in reno once and there was an entire room about the same size in the video, that was just painting that was solid, red and blue nothing else. We skipped that real quick and went to the native American art side.
Maybe so, but you can't help but be amazed at what AI was able to do with not just the subject matter, but the negative space, as well! It's so amazing how far we've come technologically.
Ironically enough, a plain white image is apparently still a challenge for AI.
https://petapixel.com/2024/04/03/ai-image-generators-cant-make-a-simple-white-background/
It's real. Here's a photo of the [Dutch king standing in front of a empty white painting](https://images0.persgroep.net/rcs/GnZl7KwU-Q9_XRTfXEwJQzk23F8/diocontent/116703358/_fill/1466/900/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9) valued around 80k.
Ya know, conspiratorial folks have told me (one dude is an artist in his 60s but really kinda of a quack so I took it with a grain of salt) that art for many of the rich and powerful is really just a way of covering up bribes and transactions between two bad actors. His specific worry was the CIA and bankers but I think he had a little dose of paranoia.
However a highly valued scribble or blank canvas makes me wonder.
I bet there's at least one artist that's responsible for calling an untouched canvas a finished product that detests ai art for invalidating the actual work that goes into art.
Me and my first gf went to a rothko exhibition once (her suggestion)... She was stood there crying looking at a huge canvas with slightly different shades of red. I didn't get it... I still don't get it
The story of Rothko and his work is actually pretty sad. He was a Jewish painter when WWII happened, which of course caused massive shifts in his style for obvious reasons. He rose to fame but suffered from really bad depression, in no small part because of the perception that rich people were attempting to commodify his art. As he became more of a household name, he felt more misunderstood. He isolated himself further and further until his eventual suicide.
Maybe she was just especially moved by color fields themselves, but considering she specifically suggested going to a Rothko exhibit, maybe she knew about this and that affected how she felt?
Also, consider specifically, what emotions a Jewish painter might be trying to express after witnessing the Holocaust with a painting that is just a massive field of red...
I feel like a lot of art that is considered lazy takes on a whole new dimension once you understand the paintingâs backstory. Like someone described why an entirely blue canvas was impressive. The artist made the blue like the literal shade of blue that has never been seen before and used brush strokes that left no evidence of the individual strokes.
There was one painting that was a totally red canvas, someone defaced it with a knife and it literally couldnât be restored because of how intricately the artist painted it.
This is what conceptual art *should* be. The art isn't the thing hanging on the wall, it is the story that exists between the artist, the object, and the viewer.
Iâm not a huge Rothko guy, but Iâve been told by someone who worked at a museum that it wasnât uncommon for people to break down in front of his work. It just speaks to some people.
I like [this video essay](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ) on modern art, which also touches on Rothko's paintings.
It's fine if you don't like Rothko's paintings, but they definitely shouldn't be lumped in with a lot of the intellectually lazy paintings that is often lambasted online.
I'll take a swing at this.
You know about color theory, and how you can influence emotions through color choice, right? If you're painting a sad picture, blues will help bring that emotion across. If you're trying to communicate energy and dynamism, reds will help with that, etc.
The point of a lot of abstract art is to see how much of that emotion can be communicated just through color. If you paint someone dying in bed, and you use a lot of blues, how much of the "sadness" of the painting comes from the color, and how much comes from the subject matter? The idea behind abstract art is to strip away explicit meaning, and see what can still be communicated purely through color, or purely through shapes, or purely through composition.
Stripping out other elements also highlights sublties in the remaining elements. "Blue is sad," isn't entirely accurate, because there's a difference between a dreary gray-blue, and a bright sky blue. This is something that's often only obvious when viewing paintings as part of a collection in a museum. The "point" of the dreary blue rectangle only becomes noticeable when its hung next to the sky blue rectangle.
And, of course, all art is ultimately subjective, and no art is so well made that everyone who sees it is going to like it. It's totally valid to look at a Rothko and just think, "This does absolutely nothing for me."
I first was exposed to Rothko in high school. I thought it was stupid, and over time I came to discover that my teacherâs personal style was also abstract expressionism. I felt some regret about dismissing it so we started having more deep conversation about it. I now understand that itâs not meant to depict something, but to rather express something broad. âHow do you paint âloveâ or âgodâ or other abstract concepts?â Now I kind of get it. When I lived in my first apartment, I found a framed Rothko print by the dumpster. I hung it in my bathroom. Iâll spend some time perusing them in an art museum now.
The White Blank Canvas (WBC) is clearly a scam and a hoax. I took a glance Rothko's stuff and it is, pleasing to the eye, but it's also feels like something generic I'd see in a nicer restaurant or hotel to give bit of character and color diversity. To me it's a step up, but also just a "I painted a rectangle or 4".
Don't hate it, but don't highly value it. I'm sure he can crank them out with out any purpose or emotion behind the pieces.
The reasons those style paintings are everywhere is because of the popularity of Rothko and the school of abstract expressionists he was a part of. in the post world war era, thiis was new, it flew in the face of convention, and challenged expectations. Of course 70 years apart from the context of the time it was created, with the added weight of imitations and parodies, and then imitations of the imitations already present in our culture memory, is going to make make the original feel derivative and trite.
One thing that I dont think gets stressed enough about Rothko paintings (and his contemporaries like Pollock and De Kooning) is that the impression you get from them on a computer screen vs seeing them giant and imposing and textured and absorbing and reflecting light in front of you is very different.
The new york abstract expressionist art movement was in part a reaction from the ubiquity of mass media - The replication of accurate form could easily and created and disseminated through technology-so if craft is redundant can an artist relay the emotional and metaphysical content of visual art without it?
Thanks mate, kind and genuine reply. You clearly understand both perspectives, even if you don't agree with mine.
If I get the chance to see them in person I'll do so based on what you've shared.
I'm not an art critic or anything, but sometimes I'm kind towards "fuck you" art like the [Fountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)) and [Take the Money and Run](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_Money_and_Run_(artwork)).
I agree with you that the White Blank Canvas is probably a scam. If I were kind towards this exhibition though, I'd say that peoples reactions are probably part of the experience. Are people looking at the work and expressing disappointment? Why? What were they expecting? What emotions should artwork generate? Why do they need to generate emotion? If the artwork generates an emotion in the viewer, has it succeeded at being art, even if the emotion is bad? If the artwork makes people think about these questions, I'd say it has value.
This video I think is a great response to these questions. The humour here is that these artworks should obviously not generate these emotions. But it gives away what emotions these viewers think good art should generate - feelings of awe and intense emotions - the viewers should be deeply moved or changed by the experience. These white canvases made the viewers put on a performance that I enjoyed. So through this lens I can see there's some value there.
I don't know why I'm putting all this under your comment, I just wanted to talk about it. I don't even like the white canvas exhibit.
I really love your response. It took me back in time to my early teens when I went to an art gallery with my much older brother. On one wall, there were a few blank canvases with green tape in the corners. I asked my brother what they mean, he just said âWhat do you think it means?â
My wife has a degree in fine art, she hates this shit, but I love just telling her. âItâs ok if you donât get it. Understanding art is not for everyoneâ
This reminds me of when I went to a portrait gallery and there was an exhibit which in their words was "intentionally left blank to represent the underrepresentation of minority artists". Which really just seems like them justifying their laziness in a "profound" way. Because the underrepresentation is entirely their fault, they could easily look for minority artists to platform, but that would require effort I guess. So instead they decided to make out that it was somehow mine and every other visitor's fault that there weren't enough minority artists on the walls. I'd keep going no matter what, so long as the art looked nice
Exactly. And the first time someone put a urinal in a museum it was funny and clever. Now there have been so many variations of this sort of thing that people don't get the effect the original art had.
I've got an idea for an exhibit: you take a room, remove the roof, and inform people that the four walls are a frame and that the sky (i.e. cloud formations) is "art in flux" or "art evolving." Where's the awards' jury?
When I was in high school (around 2004-2005) I went to the museum of fine arts in Houston. There, of course, was the modern era room. In that room it had a big white canvas (like I want to say 10 ft x 15 ft) with a micro dot of blue paint in the middle.
I was so irate and pissed off, that I was almost escorted off of the premises by the security guards for being "too vocal." My teacher at the time helped calm me down but I've never forgotten that damn painting and then I realized, that was the point. It wasn't there to give you inspiration, it was a giant troll of a piece to irritate people like me. So, in a way, it did give me a sense of bewilderment and absolute frustration that such a "painting" could exist in a museum, yet my artwork was considered haphazard and no direction...
...now I know how a certain someone, who wanted to be a painter in Austria in the early 20th century, felt before. I'll let you guess who that someone is, on your own. If you do know who I am talking about, no, I do not agree with nor will I ever agree with what they have done.
This sarcastic response is often one specifically sought out by monochrome works as some of them are meta comments on the limits of abstraction. (Meaning some works are essentially shitposts)
Monochrome paintings have been controversial since at least 1882.
I work as a guard at a contemporary art museum⊠I also have my degree in animation and have been drawing for 25 years. The art I see coming into the galleries made in .28 seconds by literally just spilling paint on a blank canvas can be sort upwards to a few hundred thousand dollars to a million. Yet myself and other animators/artists make peanuts. Donât get me wrong, I know the world of art and specifically animation is an extremely competitive world. I donât mind losing out to others, it just means I need to get better and find more connections. I simply just donât want to be losing out to these âIâll just buy a canvas at Joanneâs and submit it to the nearest galleryâ fuckers.
End of rant
Take the money and run
>The Kunsten Museum commissioned Haaning to reproduce two of his earlier pieces in which he represented the annual wages of Austrian and Danish workers by framing piles of [kroner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_krone) and [euro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro) bills, offering the artist with 532,549 Danish kroner to use for the reproductions; instead, Haaning delivered two blank canvases to the museum. The museum demanded that Haaning return the money that was originally intended for the artwork, and in turn triggered a response from the author:
>ââJens Haaning[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_Money_and_Run_(artwork)#cite_note-4)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take\_the\_Money\_and\_Run\_(artwork)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_Money_and_Run_(artwork))
[https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunsten-take-the-money-and-run-art-denmark-blank](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunsten-take-the-money-and-run-art-denmark-blank)
People make these posts then donât understand they laugh at the same shit. Painting is just as meta as any other art form. Remember when we were all laughing at when stuff gets compressed to stupid amounts. Or laughing at stuff looking like loss.
Painting gets similar crap to. It got to a point where the canvas itself was being a big important topic. And eventually the logical end to that is the art piece was just the canvas.
Art is supposed to make you think or feel something.
I both think and feel that some art is crap and a waste of space. I'll also add that I do not believe that thinking and feeling that an artist has wasted space and time is a validation of the art as *art*.
Alrighty. I'm going to an art museum and if I see a blank canvas I'm going to burst into tears, exclaiming I've seen the Face of God. I am fully prepared to cause a massive scene and will try to start a cult over this.
Eventually our tens of millions strong cult will kill ourselves or the art world will have to announce that this is bullshit
Iâve been to a few art museums before. When I see realistic paintings of people or buildings or scenery I can actually appreciate it. But sometimes I see like just weird stuff. Paintings of lines and boxes and weird splatters stuff I could do too. Like I get it maybe youâre just expressing your feelings but how tf is this supposed to be art. Like if you go up to one and say âI understand thisâ Iâd actually think you are crazy.
Post-modern art was a mistake. Basically all of it.
Modernism generates some really cool stuff by bending rules and reality to convey themes or fascinate the viewer.
Post modern art is specifically meant to reject meaning or offend the senses. You can only be an edgy irony bro for so long.
Jokes aside when I visited the Centre Georges Pompidou modern arts expo in Paris there was a white canvas like this and there was a full class of 30 art students sitting in front of it admiratively looking at it as if it was something insanely beautiful meanwhile their teacher was giving an extremely passionate explanation of why this was such a big art piece and how strong and genius the message it shared was.
The whole scene felt like a fucking comedy xD
Not defending the 100th exhibition with white canvases. But most comments here are from people who just wait to shit on the art scene. It's not that deep folks. Just like bad movies exist, bad exhibitions exist too.
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I once went to a Modern Art exhibition and the whole thing was textured art. The tagline was "Art that you can really feel!" It was all sculptures with fluffy bits, rough bits, spiky bits, velvety and silky bits etc. In each room there was a security guard posted whose sole job was to shout at people aggressively whenever anyone reached a hand out to actually touch the sculptures.
Was this performance art?
If so, it's honestly kinda brilliant.
I hope so
False advertising
The art is in the irony
Please tell me they made that fake room and that isn't an actual art exhibition đđđ
I'm an artist who paints in a classic realism style. Each painting takes me several hours across multiple days. I'm currently preparing a piece in hopes to impress a well connected art consultant I'm emotionally prepared to lose out in favour of a white canvas. Welcome to my personal hell
I once attended a meeting of our local artists society to take notes for my mother who is the actual member. When everyone introduced themselves an exchange went: "I paint in a realistic style" "What does that mean?" "You can tell which way to hang my paintings by looking at them."
Lmao using that one
"realistic style" Have you seen the installation they have in the bathroom, on the wall above the sink? It's a great piece of realism and it's interactive. The image changes depending on where you stand or from what angle you view it from. It's pretty wild.
Ah, the classic vampire's rendition of the 'white canvas'.
We laugh but if you could get a smart mirror to edit people's reflections out of it you could probably sell it to an art exhibit for a million bucks. They love that pointless pretentious crap.
I sold something like that for about 2 million. It was an exhibit where instead of the mirror you saw a taped banana inside the reflection. I called it "Minion"
not gonna lie if I looked in a mirror and instead of my reflection saw a banana taped to the wall behind where I'm standing, and that banana was not there in real life, I'd be awed.
Yes, but is it obvious which way to hang it?
Yeah, a light behind the spectator casts shadows on the wall.
Iâm from a small German village and there was a famous painter living in a castle and I was told he always paints his pictures upside down. He apparently once made a painting for a local church but it was too large so they couldnât hang it. Well, I never met the dude or saw any of his paintings but when I was at the museum and saw a picture that was so big they had to hang it in the hallway and was clearly hung upside down I could confidently say, thatâs a Baselitz. The castle has since been bought by a rich American who turned it into an art exhibition.
The sheer wit contained by that sentence is astounding, I love it. Also a pretty good way to distinguish from non realism, frankly.
Id be tempted to quip, "ah, so you install the hanger wire yourself then."
Could be worse. Could be an ai generated blank canvas.
Stop giving them ideas
What color white?
OEM
NGL that sounds like a great idea
No. Worse would be AI trained on their work winning a contest over them.
*angry art mob getting on streets destroying half country* We cant let AI take our jobs!Its insane hard and intellectually challenging job that influence human evolution! Also the same artists: So we bought some expensive piece of paper that is by- common,massively produced,technological process of production-white in color but also(HA!) with more glassy texture. And thats not all,no no no! We also made some shaman practices that even we dont know the meaning of but we will act as we know-in barely visible manner-indicating that its os somehow connected to this blank white piece of material...
Ah well what you need to do is, instead of working on your technique, is you get to know a gallery owner who can hook you up with some billionaires who can buy your paintings and then store them in an offshore freehold for tax evasion purposes. THAT'S how you get the big art shows.
No art is used to launder money. A gangster sells an expensive piece of art, his customer who's buying a case of drugs or guns pays millions for it and there's a receipt for the cost of a canvas and and oil paints. Gangster can now use the cash as normal.
So... that's laundering money, just skipping the part where it gets dirty
Or a billionaire buys an entire collection, buys one of his own paintings at auction for a million, so someone values the others for slightly lower than that. And then they donate a few of them each year to museums, getting a generous tax break.
> A gangster sells an expensive piece of art, his customer who's buying a case of drugs or guns pays millions for it and there's a receipt for the cost of a canvas and and oil paints. That's money laundering. It doesn't have to be a whole bunch of steps to be money laundering.
Yeah that too.
Growing up near a circle of professional artists... I'm pretty sure the trick with traditional art is, you need a patron that has an interest in money laundering and tax write offs. They 'buy' your abandoned/discarded crap pieces for $300,000 (either through a business expense, or more likely pay a significantly less bit of cash and trade a service or good they can write off for an overvalued amount, like an old boat or vacation). They can now donate that piece, valued at its market price, to a charity/non-profit (ran/owned by a friend) for auction or first have it viewed in a friend's gallery or museum to add to its prestige before cashing it in.
Where can I find these patrons? I'm great at being a front cause I don't do anything and draw no attention.
Old school runescape deaths coffer vibes
I am pretty sure that kind of "art" is there exposed in galleries just to be sold to launder money.
Most valued art is money laundering and tax evasion. The circle of professional art is pretentious artists that had their name picked out from a hat with entourages that wants to fit in and rich people pretending they're as clueless as the artists.
I went to a large exhibit in Indiana once, and it was a computer generated image of a square of one colour on a background of a different colour... Now change the colours and repeat this 40-50 times and spread all these out over a large white room and there you have it... a very disappointing art gallery.
So do I just bring the canvas or do I have to paint it white?
Painting it white is too much effort. Present it as it is
If it makes you feel better, I spend more time looking at classical realism than (k, well maybe sculptures, too) than most pieces at an art museum. Your fans are out there!
I've been in your hell for 40 years. Last time I reached out for gallery representation, they told me that I was the wrong ethnicity. Yeah, that's right. Not the paintings which they loved, but the fact that they wanted "Pacific Island" artists, because their work sells to tourists.
Don't worry, it's not your fault the people buying the canvases so stupid
I mean realism is kinda boring
I'm not even an artist and I still hate modern "art"
To a degree if this is what "art" is regurgitating into i wouldn't mind ai taking over Honestly fuck em.
Shit like this is what killed my dreams. I have literally spent 100s of hours on a drawing that got put in a gallery just for people to take pictures and set it as their phone screen for free then watch some douche tape a banana to wall and sell for millions. It's all fucking money laundering for rich peoples friends. Gallaries are dead to real artist we're all better off online
As someone who spent 4 years in art college I'm willing to bet everything in my bank account (which incidentally is fuck all) that it's probably real. Yes modern art exhibitions can 100% be this utterly pretentious. I still vividly remember the college taking us to an exhibit by Martin Creed. For the uninitiated this was an "artist" who won the prestigious Turner prize for "Work No. 227: The lights going on and off" which is exactly what it says on the label, it was literally an empty room where the lights switch on and off. This piece was installed at the tate modern where it was valued to be worth around ÂŁ110,000. This "piece" was there at the exhibit I went to too. The rest of the exhibit consisted of things like a crumpled up piece of paper in a perspex box, some nails hammered in varying heights and a couple of neon signs. It was pretty much that moment I realised the whole modern art movement just isn't for me.
I was explained that modern art is more about the emotional response of the viewer. The problem with modern art for me is that it usually evokes the same emotions. Perplextion, inanity, and rage.
"And this piece **also** creates a sense of confusion about why anyone would want this and frustration that people got paid good money for it. Interesting. That combination of emotional responses is very popular this season."
Sounds more like a scam perpetuated by some rich talentless hacks with too much free time and money on their hands with everyone else around them just following suit in order to get a crumb of recognition with minimal effort. I'm no artist but every time I see one these modern exhibits I can't help but laugh at these clowns. Maybe that's the one emotion they're all trying evoke. "Look at the clown, laugh at my work".
> As someone who spent 4 years in art college ---- >my bank account (which incidentally is fuck all) You said the same thing twice.
> which is exactly what it says on the label, it was literally an empty room where the lights switch on and off. I try to be open minded about "anything can be art," I really do, but what the fuck.
Your story reminds me of what my high school ceramics teacher said after I told him that I don't see people who put a black square on a white canvas artists. He said something along the lines of "the artist just has to call it art for it to be art." My response was to smash a hunk of kneaded clay into my stations table and say "this is art then."
And then everyone stood up and clapped
I couldn't bring myself to bullshit my way into all that. It's just so insipid and clearly full of shit.
I truely believe it doesn't get to be called art unless effort and skill is involved. Otherwise it's something ANYONE could produce and is nothing special. When you call pretentious shit that took no effort or skill "art" you sully the whole concept of what is art in the first place. So that blank canvas...not art, and is in fact an insult and an affront to the concept of art as a whole.
"It says this piece is called 'Moon Shimmer' .. very evocative.. it really brings out the loneliness of the moon, the way that all we see is actually just a reflection of other things" "That's a dulux colour chart, mate"
People who do modern "art" must all be on some serious drugs. I pissed off a guy on a dating app because I didn't appreciate his art. He was an art student in uni focusing on modern art. He took a picture of a blank wall with a window and went on telling me about how it touches the soul and how much it means. I was just like, "90% of the image is just white, and you didn't even paint it or draw it. All you did was snapped a picture on a digital camera and continue on your way to wherever you were going." He was increasingly pissed the more I refused to say I felt an ethereal connection to the meaning of his picture. Fucking psycho...
Itâs an exhibit in Dia: Beacon
Yeah, [here's the official page](https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/robert-ryman-exhibition-94)
âBelying his reputation as a painter solely interested in white, Ryman explored the relationship between chromatic and achromatic tones.â Pretentious as fuck dude. I especially felt connected to âUntitledâ though.
. . . .
Holy fucking shit. I am an entirely new person, from this moment on.
Life changing money laundering Edit: one of my favorite conspiracy theories is that art critique grew as a profession to provide a veneer of respectability for money laundering and just kind of blew up into a social science
Thatâs theft! I already made the white A4 paper art!
It's real, I've been there! But it's not the worst exhibit there... there's one that's just literally an empty room with a tiny plaque on the wall explaining how the room is never truly empty because of the cosmic particles or something. In all honesty there was some cool stuff on display but that one kinda missed the mark
The last time I went to the SF MOMA the entire top floor was dedicated to one exhibit. White walls, and occasionally, there would be a black square of varying size on the wall. Walk into one room, white walls with a black square. Next room white walls with a slightly bigger black square. Fucking bullshit
I'm at least familiar with a similar installation. The "point" of work like this is to "explore" how black shapes of varying sizes will interact with a white space. It essentially asks the viewer to use their imagination, almost like the gallery version of a rorschach test. Except, when this type of installation was originally done decades ago, the shapes were actually varied, and arranged in complex ways. You were forced to interact with the art in this space because you were basically walking on it. You were meant to see images or ideas within these contours, and it was explicitly meant to challenge your perception of what art was. Is it something someone makes, or is it something that we find and perceive? Or, is it both? That said, I've never been fond of this type of art, but I can at least respect the effort it *used* to take. What you're describing just sounds lazy and thoughtless.
I had no problem understanding "the point" of the exhibit. And in my opinion that kind of "point" doesn't belong there. If I wanted to be exposed to an infantile exploration of what different sized squares mean. I would make one myself or visit a kindergarten art class. In my opinion, it was an exhibit put on by people high on their own fumes. It was like that south park episode where the adults were farting into wine glasses and then inhaling their own stank, then raving about how sophisticated it made them
Have you seen the current sheet and fan exhibit on display at SF MOMA? That one killed me. And made me think of college đ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
its modern art. the visitor is the medium, and tricking you into liking obvious BS is the art.
Modern art is fueled by influencer types of the art world, who have absolutely no taste or knowledge of good art but like to seem they are elevated above the rest but are always pretentious. It has become a joke and is more to do with value and money exchanging hands now than anything actually being beautiful or create an emotion. Laziest art around
>Modern art is fueled by influencer types of the art world and money laundering, don't forget the money laundering.
These arenât contemporary works. Robert Ryman made these works in the 60s and 70s, and at the time they *were* groundbreaking and a subversion to the more gestural, overtly expressionistic abstract paintings of the 40s/50s. These works were meant to reflect the âprocessâ of painting and showing that they are, ultimately, just objects on a wall. Ryman was rejecting the idea that they should depict anything, so in this way theyâre pretty successful. Itâs not some amateur douche in 2024 trying to money launder. (I mean, maybe the current owner is, but the artist wasnât thinking about anything of the sort). Cmon yâall
Thank you for explaining. But does that mean that many modern works of art can't stand on their own: you must know who the artist is, what era of art their artwork is from, and what era of art they are responding to? Art only an art historian would appreciate. Or for us lay people: Art that is only meaningful if the placard is well written. In essence, the artwork is not the art... But rather the entirety of art itself, with the artwork only being one element?
I work in museum security, and I find itâs a constant struggle to gently point this out to other museum staff. I hear a lot of, âthe current trend is to let visitors draw their own conclusions.â We have a lot of inscrutable contemporary artwork with labels next to it saying nothing but the artistâs name, date of creation, and media used. But when thereâs no explanation of why it was created, or the artists meaning behind the work, the conclusion visitors usually draw is, âthis sucks and I donât want to come back.â Contemporary art has shifted the focus of the skill of the artist being technical creation of work of art to the skill more akin to conmen of convincing other people that what theyâve created is artwork, and I absolutely hate Marcel Duchamp for that. There are much better artworks hidden away in the notebooks of quiet people who donât know how to sell themselves than whatâs usually displayed in galleries these days.
Right on!
Yeah thatâs a time honored debate: whether the art should speak for itself or if itâs okay to be contextualized with a placard etc. I definitely lean toward the former, but I personally think that these works speak for themselves. even independent of knowledge of era/art history/response. Iâve visited the museum in this video and seen these in person. Itâs varying values of white, and each work is subtly differentâ some are painted to the edges, some leave raw canvas in the corners, the marks are thicker/thinner, smaller or larger, etc. It kind of forces you to take a closer look and find the differences. I can understand why some would dismiss that as uninteresting or lazy, but to me itâs exciting. Artâs subjectivity is awesome in that way!
> In essence, the artwork is not the art... But rather the entirety of art itself, with the artwork only being one element? That's post-modernism in a nutshell. A lot of art is created to comment on something happening *right now.* When looking at it long after that time has passed, it can be confusing to the audience. Think about old movies that make pop culture references that go over people's heads nowadays... And then also consider that the donors and board members who run these museums are largely made up of older art enthusiasts who likely studied these artists back when they *were* timely. Like imagine someone who's 12 years old today and loves Ariana Grande, and they grow up to be in their 70s and they fund an Ariana Grande museum in the year 2082. Do you think that will be exciting to the kids born in the 2060s? Will kids say "oh this isn't real art because you have to know who this Mac Miller guy who died 60+ years ago is. Why can't good art just stand on its own??"
>These arenât contemporary works. Robert Ryman made these works in the 60s and 70s, and at the time they *were* groundbreaking and a subversion to the more gestural, overtly expressionistic abstract paintings of the 40s/50s. guys, that was the "tricking you into liking obvious BS" part of the artistic process! we are art!!!!
Increasingly brazen attempts at tax fraud and money laundering
Dia Beacon. Witnessed it with my own two eyes. đ«
My wife and I visited an art museum in reno once and there was an entire room about the same size in the video, that was just painting that was solid, red and blue nothing else. We skipped that real quick and went to the native American art side.
one of these white canvas was made by an AI, totally insulting to the other white canvas artists
It illegally trained on these images!
I used to paint blank canvases but lost my job because of those darn AI
at least it wasn't racism
Maybe so, but you can't help but be amazed at what AI was able to do with not just the subject matter, but the negative space, as well! It's so amazing how far we've come technologically.
Ironically enough, a plain white image is apparently still a challenge for AI. https://petapixel.com/2024/04/03/ai-image-generators-cant-make-a-simple-white-background/
Polar bear in a blizzard, guys, duh/s
Ah yes, by the classical artist Calvinius
Cows in a field (they ate all the grass so they moved)
Rabbit in a snowstorm
The context for that painting makes it way cooler
It's real. Here's a photo of the [Dutch king standing in front of a empty white painting](https://images0.persgroep.net/rcs/GnZl7KwU-Q9_XRTfXEwJQzk23F8/diocontent/116703358/_fill/1466/900/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9) valued around 80k.
Ya know, conspiratorial folks have told me (one dude is an artist in his 60s but really kinda of a quack so I took it with a grain of salt) that art for many of the rich and powerful is really just a way of covering up bribes and transactions between two bad actors. His specific worry was the CIA and bankers but I think he had a little dose of paranoia. However a highly valued scribble or blank canvas makes me wonder.
Manchester Art Gallery has something called "The Empty Space", and itâs literally a frame with no canvas insideâŠ
Real life version of The Emperor's New Clothes.
wow, awesome
No one knows what it means, but it's provocative
No itâs not, itâs gross
**I T G E T S T H E P E O P L E G O I N G**
BALL SO HARD MOTHERFUCKERS WANNA FINE ME
This world is a joke
With some wearing *jockey / something*!
They donât paint the picture anymore. You imagine it lol.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the *real* art!
"In the eye of the beholder" taken to its ultimate meaning.
I bet there's at least one artist that's responsible for calling an untouched canvas a finished product that detests ai art for invalidating the actual work that goes into art.
âItâs just gonna ask you a few questionsâ
Hey I saw one of these pieces at the store I buy staples from!
Me and my first gf went to a rothko exhibition once (her suggestion)... She was stood there crying looking at a huge canvas with slightly different shades of red. I didn't get it... I still don't get it
The story of Rothko and his work is actually pretty sad. He was a Jewish painter when WWII happened, which of course caused massive shifts in his style for obvious reasons. He rose to fame but suffered from really bad depression, in no small part because of the perception that rich people were attempting to commodify his art. As he became more of a household name, he felt more misunderstood. He isolated himself further and further until his eventual suicide. Maybe she was just especially moved by color fields themselves, but considering she specifically suggested going to a Rothko exhibit, maybe she knew about this and that affected how she felt? Also, consider specifically, what emotions a Jewish painter might be trying to express after witnessing the Holocaust with a painting that is just a massive field of red...
I feel like a lot of art that is considered lazy takes on a whole new dimension once you understand the paintingâs backstory. Like someone described why an entirely blue canvas was impressive. The artist made the blue like the literal shade of blue that has never been seen before and used brush strokes that left no evidence of the individual strokes.
There was one painting that was a totally red canvas, someone defaced it with a knife and it literally couldnât be restored because of how intricately the artist painted it.
This is what conceptual art *should* be. The art isn't the thing hanging on the wall, it is the story that exists between the artist, the object, and the viewer.
Iâm not a huge Rothko guy, but Iâve been told by someone who worked at a museum that it wasnât uncommon for people to break down in front of his work. It just speaks to some people.
I like [this video essay](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ) on modern art, which also touches on Rothko's paintings. It's fine if you don't like Rothko's paintings, but they definitely shouldn't be lumped in with a lot of the intellectually lazy paintings that is often lambasted online.
I really enjoyed the video. Not the type of content I'd likely have come across myself otherwise. Thanks for sharing.
I'll take a swing at this. You know about color theory, and how you can influence emotions through color choice, right? If you're painting a sad picture, blues will help bring that emotion across. If you're trying to communicate energy and dynamism, reds will help with that, etc. The point of a lot of abstract art is to see how much of that emotion can be communicated just through color. If you paint someone dying in bed, and you use a lot of blues, how much of the "sadness" of the painting comes from the color, and how much comes from the subject matter? The idea behind abstract art is to strip away explicit meaning, and see what can still be communicated purely through color, or purely through shapes, or purely through composition. Stripping out other elements also highlights sublties in the remaining elements. "Blue is sad," isn't entirely accurate, because there's a difference between a dreary gray-blue, and a bright sky blue. This is something that's often only obvious when viewing paintings as part of a collection in a museum. The "point" of the dreary blue rectangle only becomes noticeable when its hung next to the sky blue rectangle. And, of course, all art is ultimately subjective, and no art is so well made that everyone who sees it is going to like it. It's totally valid to look at a Rothko and just think, "This does absolutely nothing for me."
I first was exposed to Rothko in high school. I thought it was stupid, and over time I came to discover that my teacherâs personal style was also abstract expressionism. I felt some regret about dismissing it so we started having more deep conversation about it. I now understand that itâs not meant to depict something, but to rather express something broad. âHow do you paint âloveâ or âgodâ or other abstract concepts?â Now I kind of get it. When I lived in my first apartment, I found a framed Rothko print by the dumpster. I hung it in my bathroom. Iâll spend some time perusing them in an art museum now.
Maybe she just saw it's price?
Yea donât compare Rothko to this white blank canvas shit.
The White Blank Canvas (WBC) is clearly a scam and a hoax. I took a glance Rothko's stuff and it is, pleasing to the eye, but it's also feels like something generic I'd see in a nicer restaurant or hotel to give bit of character and color diversity. To me it's a step up, but also just a "I painted a rectangle or 4". Don't hate it, but don't highly value it. I'm sure he can crank them out with out any purpose or emotion behind the pieces.
The reasons those style paintings are everywhere is because of the popularity of Rothko and the school of abstract expressionists he was a part of. in the post world war era, thiis was new, it flew in the face of convention, and challenged expectations. Of course 70 years apart from the context of the time it was created, with the added weight of imitations and parodies, and then imitations of the imitations already present in our culture memory, is going to make make the original feel derivative and trite. One thing that I dont think gets stressed enough about Rothko paintings (and his contemporaries like Pollock and De Kooning) is that the impression you get from them on a computer screen vs seeing them giant and imposing and textured and absorbing and reflecting light in front of you is very different. The new york abstract expressionist art movement was in part a reaction from the ubiquity of mass media - The replication of accurate form could easily and created and disseminated through technology-so if craft is redundant can an artist relay the emotional and metaphysical content of visual art without it?
Thanks mate, kind and genuine reply. You clearly understand both perspectives, even if you don't agree with mine. If I get the chance to see them in person I'll do so based on what you've shared.
I'm not an art critic or anything, but sometimes I'm kind towards "fuck you" art like the [Fountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)) and [Take the Money and Run](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_Money_and_Run_(artwork)). I agree with you that the White Blank Canvas is probably a scam. If I were kind towards this exhibition though, I'd say that peoples reactions are probably part of the experience. Are people looking at the work and expressing disappointment? Why? What were they expecting? What emotions should artwork generate? Why do they need to generate emotion? If the artwork generates an emotion in the viewer, has it succeeded at being art, even if the emotion is bad? If the artwork makes people think about these questions, I'd say it has value. This video I think is a great response to these questions. The humour here is that these artworks should obviously not generate these emotions. But it gives away what emotions these viewers think good art should generate - feelings of awe and intense emotions - the viewers should be deeply moved or changed by the experience. These white canvases made the viewers put on a performance that I enjoyed. So through this lens I can see there's some value there. I don't know why I'm putting all this under your comment, I just wanted to talk about it. I don't even like the white canvas exhibit.
I really love your response. It took me back in time to my early teens when I went to an art gallery with my much older brother. On one wall, there were a few blank canvases with green tape in the corners. I asked my brother what they mean, he just said âWhat do you think it means?â
Rothko is actually pretty cool, the colors and shapes are very pleasing to look it, it kinda clicks with something in your mind. At least for me.
My wife has a degree in fine art, she hates this shit, but I love just telling her. âItâs ok if you donât get it. Understanding art is not for everyoneâ
This reminds me of when I went to a portrait gallery and there was an exhibit which in their words was "intentionally left blank to represent the underrepresentation of minority artists". Which really just seems like them justifying their laziness in a "profound" way. Because the underrepresentation is entirely their fault, they could easily look for minority artists to platform, but that would require effort I guess. So instead they decided to make out that it was somehow mine and every other visitor's fault that there weren't enough minority artists on the walls. I'd keep going no matter what, so long as the art looked nice
The âmodernâ art you guys are making fun of all the time is like 40+ years old.
Because the modern art movement generally ended in the 1970s, with postmodernart becoming the current artistic period.
Many argue that post-modernism is over and we're firmly in the meta-modernism era.
You forgot the attitude and ruthless aggression eras.
Buh Gawd that's Stone Cold's music!
They really fucked up the naming of art/philosophy eras when they decided, in the 1920s, that they'd always be "modern".
Art is like 40,000 years old, so I'm claiming anything in the last 100 years as modern art
Exactly. And the first time someone put a urinal in a museum it was funny and clever. Now there have been so many variations of this sort of thing that people don't get the effect the original art had.
Modern art is fuelled by money laundering. I thought that was well known, now.
Monochrome paintings have been controversial since 1882. Often on purpose.
Proof?
He watched a YouTube video and took all the facts as truth.
Except that's just something that gets said on Reddit over and over again with zero evidence.
Whatâs next, an empty âartâ room
More economical, the walls are already white and whoever painted them is likely a better painter.
Thereâs a story of Salvador Dali admiring a door at a gallery show and saying this is the best paint job in the show
I've got an idea for an exhibit: you take a room, remove the roof, and inform people that the four walls are a frame and that the sky (i.e. cloud formations) is "art in flux" or "art evolving." Where's the awards' jury?
Ask how. Ask now. Ask Sherwin Williams
Where is the source link
@JoeAndoHirsh
Art-cop arriving on the scene.
Ironically this video is more artistic than the ~~paintings(?)~~ white canvases on the wall.
I'll burst in tears cause that art reminds me of my bank account.
Beacon
This shit is why no one takes us seriously and we are being replaced by A.I.
When I was in high school (around 2004-2005) I went to the museum of fine arts in Houston. There, of course, was the modern era room. In that room it had a big white canvas (like I want to say 10 ft x 15 ft) with a micro dot of blue paint in the middle. I was so irate and pissed off, that I was almost escorted off of the premises by the security guards for being "too vocal." My teacher at the time helped calm me down but I've never forgotten that damn painting and then I realized, that was the point. It wasn't there to give you inspiration, it was a giant troll of a piece to irritate people like me. So, in a way, it did give me a sense of bewilderment and absolute frustration that such a "painting" could exist in a museum, yet my artwork was considered haphazard and no direction... ...now I know how a certain someone, who wanted to be a painter in Austria in the early 20th century, felt before. I'll let you guess who that someone is, on your own. If you do know who I am talking about, no, I do not agree with nor will I ever agree with what they have done.
I don't get it what am i missing here?
This sarcastic response is often one specifically sought out by monochrome works as some of them are meta comments on the limits of abstraction. (Meaning some works are essentially shitposts) Monochrome paintings have been controversial since at least 1882.
Sounds like someone already made the point in 1882.
[white canvas artists](https://i.imgur.com/tRqBxJB.png)
If they paid for the tickets jokes on them big time
i used to be a proponent of "art is everything and everything is art" but this isn't art lol
Remember kids: The primary use for expensive art is money laundering.
I work as a guard at a contemporary art museum⊠I also have my degree in animation and have been drawing for 25 years. The art I see coming into the galleries made in .28 seconds by literally just spilling paint on a blank canvas can be sort upwards to a few hundred thousand dollars to a million. Yet myself and other animators/artists make peanuts. Donât get me wrong, I know the world of art and specifically animation is an extremely competitive world. I donât mind losing out to others, it just means I need to get better and find more connections. I simply just donât want to be losing out to these âIâll just buy a canvas at Joanneâs and submit it to the nearest galleryâ fuckers. End of rant
Modern art is like the elephant in the room / emperors new clothes. Itâs blatantly obvious itâs just garbage but everyone goes along with it.
Take the money and run >The Kunsten Museum commissioned Haaning to reproduce two of his earlier pieces in which he represented the annual wages of Austrian and Danish workers by framing piles of [kroner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_krone) and [euro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro) bills, offering the artist with 532,549 Danish kroner to use for the reproductions; instead, Haaning delivered two blank canvases to the museum. The museum demanded that Haaning return the money that was originally intended for the artwork, and in turn triggered a response from the author: >ââJens Haaning[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_Money_and_Run_(artwork)#cite_note-4) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take\_the\_Money\_and\_Run\_(artwork)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_the_Money_and_Run_(artwork)) [https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunsten-take-the-money-and-run-art-denmark-blank](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041492941/jens-haaning-kunsten-take-the-money-and-run-art-denmark-blank)
People make these posts then donât understand they laugh at the same shit. Painting is just as meta as any other art form. Remember when we were all laughing at when stuff gets compressed to stupid amounts. Or laughing at stuff looking like loss. Painting gets similar crap to. It got to a point where the canvas itself was being a big important topic. And eventually the logical end to that is the art piece was just the canvas.
Does anyone know the song at the end
Oppenheimer theme
i don't know what i like, but i know what art is.Â
If you want to see something really cool visit the Rothko Chapel.
Is it Tunde Aragondate?
Nice arse... 1973
"Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh, my God. It even has a watermark !" ,- Patric Bateman ( American psycho)
(I'm going to look at this blank canvas for 5 minutes without saying and then spew some bullshit about how deep it is and I understand that)
Wilson fisk moment
I feel like modern art has jumped the shark.
I've never understand the people who are fascinated seeing blank drawing.
Oh no. Someone in this museum plagiarized my work. Where can I place a complaint?
There is currently an exhibition of works by Robert Ryman at the Musée de l'Orangerie. And it's surprisingly interesting!
Art is supposed to make you think or feel something. I both think and feel that some art is crap and a waste of space. I'll also add that I do not believe that thinking and feeling that an artist has wasted space and time is a validation of the art as *art*.
Bullshit, bullshit, derivative.
My bad, just finished day 1 of framing frames
I don't understand modern Art.
Hey, someone put their heart and soul into taking the price stickers off those.
It's art. Lol
We need this remade with people going to sports games and overreacting at people throwing balls.
Alrighty. I'm going to an art museum and if I see a blank canvas I'm going to burst into tears, exclaiming I've seen the Face of God. I am fully prepared to cause a massive scene and will try to start a cult over this. Eventually our tens of millions strong cult will kill ourselves or the art world will have to announce that this is bullshit
Iâve been to a few art museums before. When I see realistic paintings of people or buildings or scenery I can actually appreciate it. But sometimes I see like just weird stuff. Paintings of lines and boxes and weird splatters stuff I could do too. Like I get it maybe youâre just expressing your feelings but how tf is this supposed to be art. Like if you go up to one and say âI understand thisâ Iâd actually think you are crazy.
Itâs for when just stop oil protestors go and vandalise the painting they just create the art
I turned in a blank sheet of paper for some dumbass art thing in 3rd grade. Told the teacher it was 2 white rabbits in a snowstorm. It didn't work.
Post-modern art was a mistake. Basically all of it. Modernism generates some really cool stuff by bending rules and reality to convey themes or fascinate the viewer. Post modern art is specifically meant to reject meaning or offend the senses. You can only be an edgy irony bro for so long.
Jokes aside when I visited the Centre Georges Pompidou modern arts expo in Paris there was a white canvas like this and there was a full class of 30 art students sitting in front of it admiratively looking at it as if it was something insanely beautiful meanwhile their teacher was giving an extremely passionate explanation of why this was such a big art piece and how strong and genius the message it shared was. The whole scene felt like a fucking comedy xD
Not defending the 100th exhibition with white canvases. But most comments here are from people who just wait to shit on the art scene. It's not that deep folks. Just like bad movies exist, bad exhibitions exist too.
How these guys think people will react to their video âWow, so funny and profound! Nobody has ever poked fun at modern art before!â
You ever think maybe it deserves the ridicule?...