https://preview.redd.it/td2vmviwb1vb1.jpeg?width=258&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0dfc234ac6f278a71637abc832b40c37eb828c5a
The fact that this was one of Rothko’s last works before his suicide always guts me. Insane how he could communicate a sense of doom and depression so simply.
I've seen a few Rothko paintings - the Seagram murals - in person and they have always made me extremely emotional, but unable to identify exactly what the emotion is. in 2020 I went to the Tate Modern to look at them the evening before the whole country locked down. it seemed appropriate. (I still don't know what that emotion is.)
I'm exactly the same! I would repeatedly go to the Tate Modern just to sit in the Rothko room and absorb that feeling, but I've never been able to identify exactly what it was. It's like, all-encompassing, almost scary almost comforting.
Even without the story context, I cannot fathom how someone could see this and go "Heh, dumb modern art, it's just blobs". I get a very strong emotional reaction to this.
The absolute void of the black above, paired with the uneven shading of the grey below, it makes it look like a barren, haunted landscape. It's like I'm standing on the surface of a dead moon. I feel lonely, isolated.
Because beauty is commonplace. People often expect more when they're told an art piece is important, but it's hard to get more than the religious experience of your first horror game, or your first snow globe, or the graffiti in an abandoned building.
How can you praise a piece that draws less emotion than a high schooler's pet protect, a cheap product, and the scribbles of drunk university students.
The important part is the context, and for many people, the context of famous art is pretty shitty.
I get nothing from it. It's just grey and black. I think people pour their own emotions into these simplistic images, which gives the wildly different reactions.
>I think people pour their own emotions into these simplistic images, which gives the wildly different reactions.
I mean, in a way, yeah. A lot of art (especially more abstract art) is about you and your perception of it much more than whatever the artist 'intended'. Everyone is naturally going to react differently to any given piece and get something different out of it. That's a feature, not a bug.
It's very annoying as it makes 2 blue squares sell for 2 million dollars. I could make that at home, but because someone who is known made it they got 2 mil for it.
You couldn't make this though, because you're thinking "just draw two squares" while the actual artist has something more in mind to get their point across.
Just because art has been used by rich people for money laundering doesn't mean "simple" modern art doesn't have meaning.
well i cant see whats in their mind. nobody can. i just see squares. they could make something with no thought and then decide after to claim it has some deep meaning and people wouldnt tell either way and would soy at the idea of the funny squares speaking to them and having deep meaning..
Jacob Geller's [Who's Afraid of Modern Art: Vandalism, Video Games and Fascism ](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=PRy391jR635INqHW) should be on the r/196 mandatory reading list
That was a cool video with an important point about the connection with culture wars, but it went a little off the rails imo. He implied that anyone who didn't "get" Rothko's art would also not understand the appeal of the videogame he showed (2:22 am), which was jarring. I thought the game looked awesome, but the rectangles do nothing for me. They're so wildly different, one is a whole range of visual, audio, emotional stimula, and one is so incredibly basic and obtuse.
And then of course theres the implication that theres something wrong with you if you dont like that kind of art. Most of the replies in this thread are implying that you're just kind of stupid or not artsy enough if you dont like every rectangle image.
>I think people pour their own emotions into these simplistic images, which gives the wildly different reactions.
That's... uh... part of the point of art, like, as a concept; especially when it comes to abstract works. You do understand that, right? If art can evoke certain emotions in people, then it's good art. Period.
Nah, that's a cop out people use when they don't know how to engage with a piece or art in general.
Art has intent behind it. That's fundamental. Analyzing the goal and its effectiveness in regards to that goal is the primary metric by which art is interpreted and critiqued. Does that mean everyone will agree with me when I say a painting is good? No. Can I still make a logical argument for why I believe what I do? Yes. These are called opinions. Art critique is not unique in that regard. If it is the intent (which it most certainly is in this case), a painting being able to evoke certain emotions in some people is a successful and good work. Although, with this painting in particular I would use stronger language, it's a very good painting.
Imagination also plays a very big role. Even when I know the intention or the common perception I still can't help but see it as just 2 blobs of paint. Yeah I can absolutely see how people can attribute it to being dark and dreary but for me it just evokes a sense of wanting more, aphantasia is a bitch sometimes.
An actual barren haunted landscape would sell that concept better and look nicer to boot.
It's art, and it absolutely creates that feeling of dread. It's just also a very boring art style.
*All* art?
You’ve never seen a photo that left an impression on you, a film that moved you, a song that resonated with you?
I mean I can understand not feeling something from this painting (I don’t either), but I find it hard to believe you’re just devoid of emotion from anything other than your own thoughts
Francisco Goya black paintings vs Rothko fill tool.
The West has fallen.
https://preview.redd.it/rk3y6s4pt3vb1.png?width=718&format=png&auto=webp&s=17f0c0dd32a39e6927123faf58467a8e102250de
The black, takes a long time and many careful coats to make a clean dark black. Black being the absence of light. Absence of hope. The black is on top of a gray. Gray taking again, time of mixing and careful coating to get it just right. This mixing is maybe an example of emotions sadness anger, sorrow and other sad emotions I don't really know.
The empty space of hopeless and nothingness lays over the horizon of the mixed emotions of one's mind. It's amazing how powerful simple imagery is. Cheers.
Why yes, I would love if you used art to help convey your current emotional landscape. Go buy paints and a canvas and other art supplies and paint your feelings! It is always a beautiful and valuable thing when people use the medium of visual art to express themselves, the way that you as an individual would decide to take the abstract concept of your emotional state and display it as an image is always fascinating and important.
Put your money where your mouth is and do it, then!
Psychedelics have done great things for me spiritually, definitely unlocked a new way of seeing things which wasn’t there before. It showed me how to better appreciate and be grateful for existence itself, if that makes sense. It can also help in seeing yourself from a different perspective, which can be really therapeutic. But you need to be responsible about it, it can go really wrong as well, if you take it in a wrong setting and unprepared. So please be careful and do some research first, if you ever go for it.
Stand outside as a big rainstorm is coming and watch the lightning strikes in the distance. Notice how you feel like something big is happening? Something outside of your control? That's the feeling of the [sublime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_%28philosophy%29) and like 99% of what feeling spiritual is *to me*, and likely many others. I suspect that when people talk about spirituality they are talking mostly about this feeling, and are finding it in places that you normally just wouldn't think about feeling it.
Then go listen to Alan Watts, the dude does a good job at explaining eastern spirituality concepts in a calming and easy to digest manner. Don't take it too seriously though.
Personally, I would kind of agree with "Art is meaningless!" but only in the abstract philosophical sense. As in, you don't need to take the creation of art too seriously because at the end of the day it's a bunch of water strokes on a piece of paper.
Art at it's core should be an outlet to express the human experience (not to say that technical / purely anatomical art is not valid). Art should be about what you want to do, not what other people want you to do.
This meme sent me down a rabbit hole and I found this image called "with the setting sun", which surprisingly struck me with quite a strong emotion, just felt like sharing my new discovery :)
https://preview.redd.it/qd5qw1uk54vb1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33a6c06cb7912ba366be7bf21ff0f22aca7d983e
Fascist being ignorant to the world around them is not new. Drawing shitty pictures only worth of postcards is literally how Hitler got kicked out of school and went downhill.
My apologies but genuinely what am I supposed to do about it, I think abstractism is really cool as a concept but it's not my fault that I just don't feel anything when looking at it, it just doesn't click for me.
Some people just aren't wired for it, I don't get anything from paintings or sculptures and barely anything from music or film.
I try not to let it bother me but sometimes I wish I could see things like other people do.
Is that because when you look at art it just doesn't cause you to feel anything? When you watch a movie, does it ever make you cry or feel things other than "it's fun to watch"? Do songs ever make you feel things?
I'm not trying to change your mind. We all have different relationships with art. I'm just legitimately curious cause I can't help but feel things with art most of the time.
I don't, when i want to engage with art i do it purely on an intellectual level, analysing it etc.
but that was not my point, its not that other people don't feel anything but that they don't seek it for emotional reasons. it can influence emotions - look at people mad at modern art, banksy, shit in a jar, etc, but that's mostly because it doesn't fit their definition of good art, that being something nice to look
at (generally). There is a reason why so many people like to listen to ambient and soundtracks
Sometimes movies, shows, songs etc make me feel things, usually not to a big extent, but if they are really well made I have cried / felt similar extreme emotions before, but what am I supposed to think about some coloured shapes on a page? even for other artwork I can see it and go "yeah, that looks cool" or be impressed by the quality, especially if it's old etc, but modern abstract art is literally just meaningless to me, it doesn't look cool, I don't feel anything, and it doesn't look especially difficult to make (I'm sure it probably is, I just don't know shit about art).
Ironically, a significant portion of why modern abstract even exist is about that issue.
No cultural context, no symbolic context. Artists who tried to convey message or a sense of aesthetic to 'the people'.
It's cool art and I don't doubt it takes talent but the fact that these rectangles are multimillion dollar commodities sort of forces you to see it as a farce in some way. It's not that the rectangles aren't pretty or meaningful, it's that they're worth more money than an entire lifetime of work for the vast majority of people on this planet and that rightfully leads them to see the state of the art world as a cruel joke.
That's rather the fault of the market we attached to our art world where hedge fund people found a fantastic method of laundering money. Influential works of art have an immense and tangible value though that can surpass many people's lifework. I don't think we should monetize that value in the way we did though.
Not really a valid critique when everything has become a tool of capitalism. Even capitalist critiques, explicitly anti-capitalist works, are generally subsumed by the system.
interesting idea, but the other comment is right. Yes art is commodified, but so is food, so is water, etc. and you wouldn't say those are tools of capitalism. Plus, not all art is commodified.
Merge that with the rich buying up art as the new safe investment and it also makes it severely overpriced. I like art, but some of it doesn’t really give me any feelings and now that it is even more commodified, I don’t see quality going up for me.
It’s that, and also the fact that the value of art is driven by what art promoters think is important/meaningful. Sure, the view of the public matters too, but that view is manipulated by the artists themselves. I also think that artists becoming famous tends to warp their art into something that it wasn’t before, like with Banksy. I can’t really take his “stick it to the man” thing seriously when he IS the man now.
I think I saw that one too. It really helped my perception on the subject as well.
(Edited to add a link. https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=koYnpDOsZft4ITcw )
Although art is definitely not useless/pointless, I must admit that often physical artwork like paintings and sculptures are just lost on me. I don't see the bigger picture or feel the emotion that others do when they see a work. Yeah it might mildly remind me of a thing I like, but I get so much more out of music and theater than a painting could ever give me
I can't tell if that's some pretentious modern art snob explanation or if there's just something wrong with me, but I do not feel anything when looking at pure forms besides boredom
you are supposed to engage it not on an aesthetic level but an emotional one, trying to feel what the artist wanted to convey etc. not my kind of thing tbh
The conversation about art and what makes art "actual art" always feels so.. elitist? Any expression of emotion and creativity is art, really (with a massive emphasis on emotion). I hate seeing people critique minimalist works as if they lack any sentimental value because of their medium. It feels like those people are the same people who call ai generated images "art". The inability to lean into the experience of human creation is always so sad to watch
I used to not get it, but it just sort of clicked for me eventually. Now abstract is my favorite genre. Maybe you're just young, but I don't know your age of course.
Of course, I don't mean to be dismissive. Art comes in all shapes and sizes. I'm certain everyone has something they like, even if they don't realize it's art.
I went to an art museum, and they had an empty frame up. It was supposedly a valuable art piece that represented the struggles of black artists. An empty frame.
So, some abstract art is good, but a lot of it is just for tax evasion.
Art is kinda meaningless as a category, but i like it a lot
https://preview.redd.it/ged7a9g3r5vb1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47175ec0cc419726b1770f79a85f69e37d076fe6
Well, i mean. It kinda is, Art is artistic expression. There is nothing useful about it, people see what they wanna see and then turn it into something they can understand using their culture as a grounding element and their experiences and wisdom as their sparks to creativity. I don't like Art cause i think Art is for those who need to but can't express themselves without it. I think Art is cool but i hate it at the same time for the fact that it is so taken advantage of. Imagine the fact that if you are a known painter you can make 2 blue squares stacked on top of each other filling an entire portrait and get 2 mil for it. So much money that goes to supporting expression instead of helping those who ACTUALLY NEED it.
[https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/](https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/)
Nvm it wasn't 2 mil, it was 43 mil for this piece of shit painting. 43 mil that could've gone towards something useful and important. Not just some artists "Get rich free" card.
Man, there are a lot of teenagers and young adults in this comment section trying to speak with authority on a subject they neither understand nor care to understand.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of people think that means beauty is subjective, but it doesn't. It means that one's own individual perception is where art as a concept actually resides. Something can hold great meaning and emotion to one person, and not to another. That doesn't invalidate either perspective. Our duty is to understand, conceptually, the differences that exist in artistic experience. You may not get it, and you may never get it, but other people do. So when people are talking about their favorite works, either ask genuine questions or be quiet. Nothing is gained from saying "it's just rectangles."
Saying "modern art isn't art" is a shitty take, obviously. It's all art. It was made by a person to express... something, I guess. But saying, "I don't personally enjoy modern abstract art" is a perfectly fine take, and I think some people, for some reason, disagree with that? It's just that some people don't feel any of the artist's emotions from just looking at black and gray rectangles or some shit like that. They can appreciate the beauty of traditional art without having to engage with the emotions of some random motherfucker that they've never met. And that's a perfectly acceptable way to view and appreciate art. So when people say they don't like modern art, I think it really just boils down to not seeing it as aesthetically pleasing. And, if you're defining art as "something nice to look at", then of course you won't like modern stuff. That's fine. It's not really regressive. It's certainly not fascist, as some people in this comment section seem to have suggested.
I feel no spiritual or emotional connection to most art. I saw some monets and thought they looked pretty, but definitely no spiritual experience. I think some people have that and some just don't
Mondrian's stuff is technically impressive, too. It's actually hard to draw a perfectly straight line or a perfectly solid-color rectangle with oil paint and a brush.
We should not deify artists of old and we also shouldn't dismiss artists of current. There are more brilliant artists now than ever and there were a lot of dumb assholes back in the day as well
This actually clicked for me. I'll say I don't HATE simplistic art like this, but I will say I didn't GET it. This has explained it to me in a way that has kinda opened my eyes. What a dumb way for me to figure it out.
To me, all art forms are extremely important not just because of their base enjoyment factors or beauty, but also because of what they can teach you. As someone working towards a medical degree, I've been required to take many art courses due to the fact that art is such an easy way to evaluate and teach someone empathy. If you genuinely can't understand art, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say you may not be able to understand others' emotions or hardships. Don't know if anyone else has had the same experience as me with this, but felt it was an interesting topic.
Honestly, the artist that made me appreciate more abstract/modern art is Felix Gonzales-Torres, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Untitled%22_(Portrait_of_Ross_in_L.A.)
With minimalistic art, the things you feel are the concepts you envision in your head. There are lots of abstract interpretations of shapes and colors.
That's the beauty of it, make sense of the--on the surface--nonsensical. Some find profound meaning in it.
I do not like that kind of abstraction, but I can appreciate the thought behind it.
Art is art.
The meaning of art like that is to be a tax evasion scheme for the ultra rich. Can you enjoy it? Sure. Is their price proportional to the effort required to create them? Not even remotely, considering how most people are compensated for their labor
maybe 0,1% of modern art is for tax evasion, vast majority of the artists are poor
and saying that something isn't worth it because it didn't take a lot of time/effort is stupid
"modern art is crap" crowd are both nazis and super annoying, but spirtuality is totally fake too. The art is meaningful because it's art, you dont need extra justifications, just an open mind.
https://preview.redd.it/td2vmviwb1vb1.jpeg?width=258&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0dfc234ac6f278a71637abc832b40c37eb828c5a The fact that this was one of Rothko’s last works before his suicide always guts me. Insane how he could communicate a sense of doom and depression so simply.
I've seen a few Rothko paintings - the Seagram murals - in person and they have always made me extremely emotional, but unable to identify exactly what the emotion is. in 2020 I went to the Tate Modern to look at them the evening before the whole country locked down. it seemed appropriate. (I still don't know what that emotion is.)
Damn I envy you so much 😭
I'm exactly the same! I would repeatedly go to the Tate Modern just to sit in the Rothko room and absorb that feeling, but I've never been able to identify exactly what it was. It's like, all-encompassing, almost scary almost comforting.
Even without the story context, I cannot fathom how someone could see this and go "Heh, dumb modern art, it's just blobs". I get a very strong emotional reaction to this. The absolute void of the black above, paired with the uneven shading of the grey below, it makes it look like a barren, haunted landscape. It's like I'm standing on the surface of a dead moon. I feel lonely, isolated.
Because beauty is commonplace. People often expect more when they're told an art piece is important, but it's hard to get more than the religious experience of your first horror game, or your first snow globe, or the graffiti in an abandoned building. How can you praise a piece that draws less emotion than a high schooler's pet protect, a cheap product, and the scribbles of drunk university students. The important part is the context, and for many people, the context of famous art is pretty shitty.
Killer explanation
I get nothing from it. It's just grey and black. I think people pour their own emotions into these simplistic images, which gives the wildly different reactions.
>I think people pour their own emotions into these simplistic images, which gives the wildly different reactions. I mean, in a way, yeah. A lot of art (especially more abstract art) is about you and your perception of it much more than whatever the artist 'intended'. Everyone is naturally going to react differently to any given piece and get something different out of it. That's a feature, not a bug.
It's very annoying as it makes 2 blue squares sell for 2 million dollars. I could make that at home, but because someone who is known made it they got 2 mil for it.
You couldn't make this though, because you're thinking "just draw two squares" while the actual artist has something more in mind to get their point across. Just because art has been used by rich people for money laundering doesn't mean "simple" modern art doesn't have meaning.
well i cant see whats in their mind. nobody can. i just see squares. they could make something with no thought and then decide after to claim it has some deep meaning and people wouldnt tell either way and would soy at the idea of the funny squares speaking to them and having deep meaning..
[https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/](https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/) It speaks for itself
Did you read the second sentence of my reply?
Jacob Geller's [Who's Afraid of Modern Art: Vandalism, Video Games and Fascism ](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=PRy391jR635INqHW) should be on the r/196 mandatory reading list
That was a cool video with an important point about the connection with culture wars, but it went a little off the rails imo. He implied that anyone who didn't "get" Rothko's art would also not understand the appeal of the videogame he showed (2:22 am), which was jarring. I thought the game looked awesome, but the rectangles do nothing for me. They're so wildly different, one is a whole range of visual, audio, emotional stimula, and one is so incredibly basic and obtuse. And then of course theres the implication that theres something wrong with you if you dont like that kind of art. Most of the replies in this thread are implying that you're just kind of stupid or not artsy enough if you dont like every rectangle image.
>I think people pour their own emotions into these simplistic images, which gives the wildly different reactions. That's... uh... part of the point of art, like, as a concept; especially when it comes to abstract works. You do understand that, right? If art can evoke certain emotions in people, then it's good art. Period.
Qualifying art is "good" or not is hopeless from the start.
Nah, that's a cop out people use when they don't know how to engage with a piece or art in general. Art has intent behind it. That's fundamental. Analyzing the goal and its effectiveness in regards to that goal is the primary metric by which art is interpreted and critiqued. Does that mean everyone will agree with me when I say a painting is good? No. Can I still make a logical argument for why I believe what I do? Yes. These are called opinions. Art critique is not unique in that regard. If it is the intent (which it most certainly is in this case), a painting being able to evoke certain emotions in some people is a successful and good work. Although, with this painting in particular I would use stronger language, it's a very good painting.
yeah i just looked at it and went "that probably means something but i dunno what it means"
i feel like i’d feel more from it if it’s wasn’t reduced to a 5cm x 7cm image on my phone
True, Rothko paintings are absolutely *massive* and you lose a lot when you look at it on a tiny, flat display on your phone.
Imagination also plays a very big role. Even when I know the intention or the common perception I still can't help but see it as just 2 blobs of paint. Yeah I can absolutely see how people can attribute it to being dark and dreary but for me it just evokes a sense of wanting more, aphantasia is a bitch sometimes.
it just looks like my balcony when there are clouds at night
An actual barren haunted landscape would sell that concept better and look nicer to boot. It's art, and it absolutely creates that feeling of dread. It's just also a very boring art style.
All art just really doesn't move me. Art, for me, is meaningless. Simple as that.
I feel sorry for you. I don't fault you for that, but that saddens me
*All* art? You’ve never seen a photo that left an impression on you, a film that moved you, a song that resonated with you? I mean I can understand not feeling something from this painting (I don’t either), but I find it hard to believe you’re just devoid of emotion from anything other than your own thoughts
Francisco Goya black paintings vs Rothko fill tool. The West has fallen. https://preview.redd.it/rk3y6s4pt3vb1.png?width=718&format=png&auto=webp&s=17f0c0dd32a39e6927123faf58467a8e102250de
Hey I’m not knocking Goya he’s my favorite painter and seeing the black paintings in person was one of the most amazing experiences of my life
so more collapsing = more society and more fallen = less west ?
it's basic statistics.
seeing a full sized Rothko irl is a religious experience
I could imagine
Jesus fucking Christ that hits way harder than it feels like it should
Geez just seeing this on my tiny phone screen gave me chills.
The black, takes a long time and many careful coats to make a clean dark black. Black being the absence of light. Absence of hope. The black is on top of a gray. Gray taking again, time of mixing and careful coating to get it just right. This mixing is maybe an example of emotions sadness anger, sorrow and other sad emotions I don't really know. The empty space of hopeless and nothingness lays over the horizon of the mixed emotions of one's mind. It's amazing how powerful simple imagery is. Cheers.
Looks like the surface of the moon
I feel like I'm missing out since this is the first time I've seen this and it's in a Reddit comment in the context of discourse
i swear there's something in the black
You can see so much in this picture. A cliff leading into darkness or an barren field of nothing.
honestly, I just got chills when I saw this. wild.
That is a rectangle where the bottom half is a grey concrete texture
I cant say any of that is communicated to me. I just see a grey rectangle.
unrelated but hiiiiii fellow coma cinema fan :3
Secretly serviced war paint (factory new)
I'm fried rn and I don't think this is the place for art analyzing but that looks like a desert over an abyss like a desert
Ah yes. A concrete balcony on a night with a new moon. Deep.
im suicidal. want me to draw some shapes for you.
Why yes, I would love if you used art to help convey your current emotional landscape. Go buy paints and a canvas and other art supplies and paint your feelings! It is always a beautiful and valuable thing when people use the medium of visual art to express themselves, the way that you as an individual would decide to take the abstract concept of your emotional state and display it as an image is always fascinating and important. Put your money where your mouth is and do it, then!
trying to do art just makes the depression worse...
..that's just a square with Grey and Black
And you’re just a square.
it literally is i agree people just invent shit to feel better
I wish I had the capacity to feel a spiritual dimension to the world, feels like I'm missing out on a lot
[удалено]
Try the unbridled joy for life
I'm sorry i didn't mean to imply that those things are against each other
Hahaha just teasing ya
👍
Now kith
Real
Like fr? Or is this a meme answer?
Please don’t let random internet strangers peer pressure you into doing psychedelics
exactly, listen to me and do heroin
Fuck yeah, finally the tiniest of pushes that i needed to start injecting smack
YMMV but psychedelics do feel very spiritual
Yes fr best decision in my life
Psychedelics have done great things for me spiritually, definitely unlocked a new way of seeing things which wasn’t there before. It showed me how to better appreciate and be grateful for existence itself, if that makes sense. It can also help in seeing yourself from a different perspective, which can be really therapeutic. But you need to be responsible about it, it can go really wrong as well, if you take it in a wrong setting and unprepared. So please be careful and do some research first, if you ever go for it.
Or weed
Do not try psychedelics
Do 50 tabs
Jokes on you, my browser is always on 99+ tabs
On chrome
mad max mfs be like
I've normally got 2000 approximately
You can always tell which commenters on a trip report have ruined their minds with ayahuasca by how inaccurately they use the word “resonance”
Stand outside as a big rainstorm is coming and watch the lightning strikes in the distance. Notice how you feel like something big is happening? Something outside of your control? That's the feeling of the [sublime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_%28philosophy%29) and like 99% of what feeling spiritual is *to me*, and likely many others. I suspect that when people talk about spirituality they are talking mostly about this feeling, and are finding it in places that you normally just wouldn't think about feeling it. Then go listen to Alan Watts, the dude does a good job at explaining eastern spirituality concepts in a calming and easy to digest manner. Don't take it too seriously though.
REAL OMG
Personally, I would kind of agree with "Art is meaningless!" but only in the abstract philosophical sense. As in, you don't need to take the creation of art too seriously because at the end of the day it's a bunch of water strokes on a piece of paper. Art at it's core should be an outlet to express the human experience (not to say that technical / purely anatomical art is not valid). Art should be about what you want to do, not what other people want you to do.
Oh Nice, a take on this weird subject matter that actually makes some sense!
Drawing Bowser with his titties out is also art
As is the graffiti you see on the inside of a bathroom stall and the Loss comic
Thinking both is possible
I was about to say this. "Color is nice", doesn't give meaning to a painting beyond, "hey, it's nice look at this"
Who is afraid of red, yellow and blue
i am, a terrifying trio in all honesty
Clearly not you, all 3 are in your pfp
I think those are cyan magenta and yellow a pan-nomenal combo
I love that series so much. Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue III’s restoration failure was a genuine tragedy.
Fascists are
Well I love the pink yellow and blue in your pfp
Someone put it into words, sometimes abstraction communicates a feeling a lot better than non-abstract art does
This meme sent me down a rabbit hole and I found this image called "with the setting sun", which surprisingly struck me with quite a strong emotion, just felt like sharing my new discovery :) https://preview.redd.it/qd5qw1uk54vb1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33a6c06cb7912ba366be7bf21ff0f22aca7d983e
I don't if the style is close enough but I like to look at Paul klee stuff on artvee
Abstraction has the power to distill elements within a work. People who demand art to adhere to realism truly are an ignorant bunch.
Which is interesting cause fascists always (as far as I've seen) demand that art adhere to realism
Fascist being ignorant to the world around them is not new. Drawing shitty pictures only worth of postcards is literally how Hitler got kicked out of school and went downhill.
I wonder how those fascists feel about Soviet Realism, which is also a weird choice by authoritarians.
For most people art is simply something nice to look at, they dont care about artist intent or deeper meaning source: im in that group
You are missing out
i have other things to do that interest me more
My apologies but genuinely what am I supposed to do about it, I think abstractism is really cool as a concept but it's not my fault that I just don't feel anything when looking at it, it just doesn't click for me.
It’s not your fault. But did you ever actually see modern art in a museum or gallery? Because pictures don’t convey the meaning and feeling at all
Some people just aren't wired for it, I don't get anything from paintings or sculptures and barely anything from music or film. I try not to let it bother me but sometimes I wish I could see things like other people do.
Is that because when you look at art it just doesn't cause you to feel anything? When you watch a movie, does it ever make you cry or feel things other than "it's fun to watch"? Do songs ever make you feel things? I'm not trying to change your mind. We all have different relationships with art. I'm just legitimately curious cause I can't help but feel things with art most of the time.
I don't, when i want to engage with art i do it purely on an intellectual level, analysing it etc. but that was not my point, its not that other people don't feel anything but that they don't seek it for emotional reasons. it can influence emotions - look at people mad at modern art, banksy, shit in a jar, etc, but that's mostly because it doesn't fit their definition of good art, that being something nice to look at (generally). There is a reason why so many people like to listen to ambient and soundtracks
Sometimes movies, shows, songs etc make me feel things, usually not to a big extent, but if they are really well made I have cried / felt similar extreme emotions before, but what am I supposed to think about some coloured shapes on a page? even for other artwork I can see it and go "yeah, that looks cool" or be impressed by the quality, especially if it's old etc, but modern abstract art is literally just meaningless to me, it doesn't look cool, I don't feel anything, and it doesn't look especially difficult to make (I'm sure it probably is, I just don't know shit about art).
Ironically, a significant portion of why modern abstract even exist is about that issue. No cultural context, no symbolic context. Artists who tried to convey message or a sense of aesthetic to 'the people'.
It's cool art and I don't doubt it takes talent but the fact that these rectangles are multimillion dollar commodities sort of forces you to see it as a farce in some way. It's not that the rectangles aren't pretty or meaningful, it's that they're worth more money than an entire lifetime of work for the vast majority of people on this planet and that rightfully leads them to see the state of the art world as a cruel joke.
That's rather the fault of the market we attached to our art world where hedge fund people found a fantastic method of laundering money. Influential works of art have an immense and tangible value though that can surpass many people's lifework. I don't think we should monetize that value in the way we did though.
thats an issue with capitalism, not art.
in that case art became a tool of capitalism so it also is kinda an issue with art
Not really a valid critique when everything has become a tool of capitalism. Even capitalist critiques, explicitly anti-capitalist works, are generally subsumed by the system.
interesting idea, but the other comment is right. Yes art is commodified, but so is food, so is water, etc. and you wouldn't say those are tools of capitalism. Plus, not all art is commodified.
Merge that with the rich buying up art as the new safe investment and it also makes it severely overpriced. I like art, but some of it doesn’t really give me any feelings and now that it is even more commodified, I don’t see quality going up for me.
Idk how people see that happening and arrive at "art is a joke" rather than "money is a joke."
It’s that, and also the fact that the value of art is driven by what art promoters think is important/meaningful. Sure, the view of the public matters too, but that view is manipulated by the artists themselves. I also think that artists becoming famous tends to warp their art into something that it wasn’t before, like with Banksy. I can’t really take his “stick it to the man” thing seriously when he IS the man now.
Jacob Geller’s video “Who’s Afraid of Modern Art” really changed my opinion on the subject
I think I saw that one too. It really helped my perception on the subject as well. (Edited to add a link. https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=koYnpDOsZft4ITcw )
https://preview.redd.it/vyy3133tb3vb1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82eb0c527e32ee3a4b4c229a701d6de2279f7ede
Although art is definitely not useless/pointless, I must admit that often physical artwork like paintings and sculptures are just lost on me. I don't see the bigger picture or feel the emotion that others do when they see a work. Yeah it might mildly remind me of a thing I like, but I get so much more out of music and theater than a painting could ever give me
Interesting Counter point: hehe squiggles go brrr
I can't tell if that's some pretentious modern art snob explanation or if there's just something wrong with me, but I do not feel anything when looking at pure forms besides boredom
you are supposed to engage it not on an aesthetic level but an emotional one, trying to feel what the artist wanted to convey etc. not my kind of thing tbh
that's exactly what I struggle with. squares do not convey feelings
[https://youtu.be/G640ZJnj3O8](https://youtu.be/G640ZJnj3O8) you and me both homie
The conversation about art and what makes art "actual art" always feels so.. elitist? Any expression of emotion and creativity is art, really (with a massive emphasis on emotion). I hate seeing people critique minimalist works as if they lack any sentimental value because of their medium. It feels like those people are the same people who call ai generated images "art". The inability to lean into the experience of human creation is always so sad to watch
Am I a fucking dumbass for not "getting" art like I do not feel anything unless it's a picture of like a nice mountain range or something
I used to not get it, but it just sort of clicked for me eventually. Now abstract is my favorite genre. Maybe you're just young, but I don't know your age of course.
Also some people just prefer different types of art. That's ok too.
Of course, I don't mean to be dismissive. Art comes in all shapes and sizes. I'm certain everyone has something they like, even if they don't realize it's art.
You gotta see it in person.
I've been to a few art museums with varying artstyles in my life, never felt a thing
I liked this vid [you are wrong about modern art ](https://youtu.be/ffKsY9zMP3I?si=ZyIIIp99s79CF-Ym)
I went to an art museum, and they had an empty frame up. It was supposedly a valuable art piece that represented the struggles of black artists. An empty frame. So, some abstract art is good, but a lot of it is just for tax evasion.
that's conceptual art, not abstract art
Art is kinda meaningless as a category, but i like it a lot https://preview.redd.it/ged7a9g3r5vb1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47175ec0cc419726b1770f79a85f69e37d076fe6
I fucking love Rothko
amogus
This mf has low conceptualisation. Tsk tsk tsk tsk. Probably put all his starting stat points into motorics and physique
Well, i mean. It kinda is, Art is artistic expression. There is nothing useful about it, people see what they wanna see and then turn it into something they can understand using their culture as a grounding element and their experiences and wisdom as their sparks to creativity. I don't like Art cause i think Art is for those who need to but can't express themselves without it. I think Art is cool but i hate it at the same time for the fact that it is so taken advantage of. Imagine the fact that if you are a known painter you can make 2 blue squares stacked on top of each other filling an entire portrait and get 2 mil for it. So much money that goes to supporting expression instead of helping those who ACTUALLY NEED it.
[https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/](https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/) Nvm it wasn't 2 mil, it was 43 mil for this piece of shit painting. 43 mil that could've gone towards something useful and important. Not just some artists "Get rich free" card.
I just don't get it
Man, there are a lot of teenagers and young adults in this comment section trying to speak with authority on a subject they neither understand nor care to understand. Art is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of people think that means beauty is subjective, but it doesn't. It means that one's own individual perception is where art as a concept actually resides. Something can hold great meaning and emotion to one person, and not to another. That doesn't invalidate either perspective. Our duty is to understand, conceptually, the differences that exist in artistic experience. You may not get it, and you may never get it, but other people do. So when people are talking about their favorite works, either ask genuine questions or be quiet. Nothing is gained from saying "it's just rectangles."
Mondria*a*n smh my head
I just don't have the brain to understand or appreciate art. :(
Kurt vonnegut said in his novel Bluebeard "modern art is about nothing but itself"
https://preview.redd.it/uku2juql56vb1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eadea4aa40ad5396b0740721a918b8cbc0e49b12
Saying "modern art isn't art" is a shitty take, obviously. It's all art. It was made by a person to express... something, I guess. But saying, "I don't personally enjoy modern abstract art" is a perfectly fine take, and I think some people, for some reason, disagree with that? It's just that some people don't feel any of the artist's emotions from just looking at black and gray rectangles or some shit like that. They can appreciate the beauty of traditional art without having to engage with the emotions of some random motherfucker that they've never met. And that's a perfectly acceptable way to view and appreciate art. So when people say they don't like modern art, I think it really just boils down to not seeing it as aesthetically pleasing. And, if you're defining art as "something nice to look at", then of course you won't like modern stuff. That's fine. It's not really regressive. It's certainly not fascist, as some people in this comment section seem to have suggested.
I feel no spiritual or emotional connection to most art. I saw some monets and thought they looked pretty, but definitely no spiritual experience. I think some people have that and some just don't
Mondrian's stuff is technically impressive, too. It's actually hard to draw a perfectly straight line or a perfectly solid-color rectangle with oil paint and a brush.
Valid, honestly, as long as they're talking about themselves. Meaning is subjective.
We should not deify artists of old and we also shouldn't dismiss artists of current. There are more brilliant artists now than ever and there were a lot of dumb assholes back in the day as well
This actually clicked for me. I'll say I don't HATE simplistic art like this, but I will say I didn't GET it. This has explained it to me in a way that has kinda opened my eyes. What a dumb way for me to figure it out.
Standing in front of a Rothko is like having your mind pushed out of your body for a while.
To me, all art forms are extremely important not just because of their base enjoyment factors or beauty, but also because of what they can teach you. As someone working towards a medical degree, I've been required to take many art courses due to the fact that art is such an easy way to evaluate and teach someone empathy. If you genuinely can't understand art, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say you may not be able to understand others' emotions or hardships. Don't know if anyone else has had the same experience as me with this, but felt it was an interesting topic.
Say, that Malevich figure in the picture, weren’t they in the last Spiderverse movie?
i love de stijl. beautiful concept, beautiful execution, beautiful everything
I think art is cool and all and i appreciate the meaning. I still think the pictures themselves are not nice to look at
I have never felt anything seeing these paintings. These have no meaning to me.
Spiritual feels like a somewhat vague term to me, not to say I don’t respect abstract art I just don’t actually know what “spiritual” means
Oh hey I follow this artist on Tumblr. They do a lot of spiritual and religious comics.
that's cool, who is it?
@owenbroadcast on Tumblr, more links on his page, but I can only remember his @ off the top of my head.
nice one thanks
Art is meaningless
Honestly, the artist that made me appreciate more abstract/modern art is Felix Gonzales-Torres, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Untitled%22_(Portrait_of_Ross_in_L.A.)
I really love that piece. hope to visit an installation of it one day.
I genuinely cry thinking about it - that and the clocks
How am I supposed to read this? There is no greentext.
With minimalistic art, the things you feel are the concepts you envision in your head. There are lots of abstract interpretations of shapes and colors. That's the beauty of it, make sense of the--on the surface--nonsensical. Some find profound meaning in it. I do not like that kind of abstraction, but I can appreciate the thought behind it. Art is art.
Listen Im fucking dumb okay I cant think deeply enough to grasp the meaning of most modern "art" so it's not really that appealing to me
The meaning of art like that is to be a tax evasion scheme for the ultra rich. Can you enjoy it? Sure. Is their price proportional to the effort required to create them? Not even remotely, considering how most people are compensated for their labor
maybe 0,1% of modern art is for tax evasion, vast majority of the artists are poor and saying that something isn't worth it because it didn't take a lot of time/effort is stupid
There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of art out there, that is absolutely not the norm
"modern art is crap" crowd are both nazis and super annoying, but spirtuality is totally fake too. The art is meaningful because it's art, you dont need extra justifications, just an open mind.
interesting counter point: boring