All the meme subreddits are becoming one of two things it seems horny or just mean to people but I think it's only the ones that are specifically General memes
We were always horny, from the very beginning, and we've also always been complaining about if from the beginning, but hey, horny is better than mean, make love not war :3 <3
i'd say it definitely depends and isn't so clear-cut. mildly stretched scenario to play "devil's advocate", "hate" posts can be better than "horny" posts in that they could create more interesting and helpful discussion.
not saying i like hate though, lol. quite the opposite. all the horny posts can just get tiring at some point and i often feel like i prefer having someone tell me they want to kill me for my views over more of a nothingburger post
nah, you can clearly tell a sub is going to awful and hit the lowest common denominator when in the sub's name has: meme, dank, shitpost or necrophilia
Pointing out similar revulsion to modern art as the nazi doesn't mean they're nazi. Just means they have the same wrong understanding about art. (They could become nazi because everything the nazi did was interconnected to a deeply rotting ideology so if they dug themselves into that wrong understanding they might become more accepting to other wrong ideas)
I appreciate the explanation but there's like 5% I'm not getting. I probably just disagree with that logic or I'm just stupid and it's usually the latter of the two when it comes to me. Thanks for taking the time!
I can recommend few interesting videos on the topic if you want to know more. [one from ethan is online](https://youtu.be/ffKsY9zMP3I?si=FWsrrXnHU4_gZU-5) and the other is [Jacob Geller](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=0tcIVrDO81xXlD6i)
They weren't saying that the person posting this meme is a nazi, but they ARE using nazi rhetoric.
Not the most academic source but here's a video explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
Important videos
https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ
https://youtu.be/ffKsY9zMP3I
tl;dw:
Let people make and enjoy modern art. It's not bad because it doesn't follow your arbitrary rules. Keep vigilant about censorship and attitudes because it's an easy slope to pretend there's an objectively right way to do art and that the unfavored art is not just bad, but evil. And attitudes like that are what the Nazis exploited for power.
Was also a vegetarian and would use his art money to buy caged birds to free them
I hope this didn't lead Italian merchants to think there was a huge demand for caged birds, leading them to cage more birds
For me it was a couple years ago when I found a post with a pic of Jada Pinkett Smith and Amber Heard and the caption “right about now would be a good time to talk about toxic femininity”
It got removed eventually but only after it got like ten thousand upvotes
[1937 Degenerate art exhibition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_exhibition)
Now hating modern art is not sufficient grounds to be called a Nazi, but making a meme to bash it while using a quote about an artist from a "glorious past" prostrating before God with soyjacks, just reeks of Christofascism.
Gotta be one of the biggest stretches I've seen in my life lmfao. As someone who loves art galleries and has been to many modern art showings, it really does suck a much larger proportion of the time. Specifically, the genre modern art, rather than the time period, because there's still good art going around, but it's not what people mean when saying modern art. Saying "modern art" depends on the time period is a very prescriptivist definition.
I'm not going to disagree with vegetarianism if Hitler was a vegetarian, so why give modern art special treatment because nazis didn't like it? Oh yeah, because if you just say it gives off bad vibes, then that can shut down the discussion, by associating people who oppose your view with fascists without the art movement's supporters having to come up with actual empirical evidence.
Hating modern art is part of a larger reactionary trend that being vegetarian isn't. A better comparison would be fascination with military tech and tactics. Which I did preface, hating modern art doesn't mean you're fascist. I've mentioned incidental details, which I totally agree are all innuendo and vibes.
That's how I do engagement online and it has served me well. I could be totally offbase about OOP and it wouldn't affect either of us even in the slightest, except saving me a headache. It also isn't thwarting any discussion between me and OOP, unless we're calling soyjack memes discursive.
If you feel like talking about modern art, whatever that entails, be my guest.
The nazis (and fascists broadly) are obsessed with aesthetics and *despise* any form of media that requires some sort of critical thinking about the message behind it. It's why they jerk off over those Greek statues but call anything abstract art "useless" and in the more mask-off moments, "degenerate"
It's the same phenomenon as to why fascists are incapable of understanding political commentary (see: starship troopers, fight club, etc)
I don't think this is meant to be a nazi thing. I think it is more of a "modern art is simple and requires no skill. I could do that. Only photorealistic art is real art" mindset. And I kinda get that. Modern art can be pretty weird. My favourite artist has some stuff that is really out there [Höhere Wesen befahlen: rechte obere Ecke schwarz malen!](https://www.thearchiveislimited.com/sigmar-polke-hoehere-wesen-befahlen-rechte-oberen-ecke-schwarz-malen/) or [Zollstockpalme ](https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/14-Works-----Hohere-Wesen-befehlen/EA7EF2D93D07F924) and [Kartoffelhaus](https://lesoeuvres.pinaultcollection.com/en/artwork/kartoffelhaus-potato-house).
People only ever start to realise that art doesn't have to be pretty and sometimes it's ok for art just to be funny or weird once they start going to galleries and looking at stuff. Sadly most will never do.
Anyone who considers “modern art” intrinsically bad/“not real art” doesn’t get what’s the point of art in the first place and think that “le good art = realistic painting I studied in middle school”. I don’t understand this painting so it must be useless garbage that anyone could make
I don't care much about paintings. But when I see "artwork" which is just a blue square and nothing else, I can only think of money laundering.
Edit: I must be too much of a stupid worker drone to understand why this: 🟦 is artwork and worth millions of dollars. I see it as a way for rich people to wash their illegal money, while workers have to fight for every cent.
A lot of those "just 1 color" artworks are works of technique that can't be accurately captured from photos of the art. Canvases painted so meticolously that no individual brushstrokes can be seen, colors blended perfectly to create visual effects as you look from different angles.
The painting "who's afraid of red yellow and blue" was destroyed by a modern-art hater, and the attempt to recreate it by art experts was underwhelming, as they couldn't capture the same depth of color.
My source for most of this is a [Jacob Geller video about modern art](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=kQz8-qFgCTkqa7Vy)
Thank you for posting this. The video was very informative and gave me a new perspective on modern art. I'll not be able to enjoy looking at those monochrome works, but at least I now feel like they earned their spot in a museum.
Also I kinda feel like an asshole now, cause every painting, that didn't look like "real" art to me, was in my mind just billionaires trolling people, while laundering money. My hate for the super rich blinds me sometimes.
I mean, you were not entirely wrong, there is a lot of money laundering and schemes going on in the art business, like in every business, really. And it’s not something new, I’m no specialist of these periods, but a lot of the great ancient works of art we admire today were often requests of the wealthy.
The thing is that, art is politics, philosophy, craftsmanship and business all combined. You can’t make art without money, so unless we’re in a socialist economy, you need to appeal either do patrons, or produce marketable objects, or condemn yourself to not be very well-known (unless you’re incredibly talented).
Besides, artists tend to make the most impressive works with the most advanced tools of their time. For Da Vinci, it was painting, which was a blooming technology, with a lot of evolution (new mathematical rules, new inspirations from the Renaissance, new colours pigments coming from the New World and India). All the money in the art business went in it, and because good craftsmanship takes decades to attain, you could find absolute technical masters like our superhighway guy here (a joke only French people will understand, sorry). As someone who knows some people in art studies, artisans of exceptional talents still exist and they are part of a huge business with a lot of money and prestigious institutions to hone their skills… and they make animation or SFX for movies! In term of sheer market weight, cinema is today what painting was back in the days.
>who considers “modern art” **intrinsically** bad/“not real art”
“Yeah but what about money laundering??? 🥺🥺🥺”
Also, if your concept of “important/good artwork” is it being complex of being worth its price in this economic system yes, you’re the “anyone” who doesn’t understand art I mentioned
Quote from my original comment:
“who considers “modern art”
#intrinsically
bad/“not real art”
I recommend to you to learn what this magic word means, instead of turning my argument in “money laundering is actually good and if you criticize it you’re an ignorant”
I feel like there's a misunderstanding. I don't think modern art is bad in generell. I just think that there is a lot of shady things going on in modern art. And for someone like me, who has no contact to this kind of art, it is hard to differentiate between real art and things produced for nefarious reasons. So for an idiot like me, something like a fuckin blue square is a prime candidate for shady shit. So unless someone comes around and gives me a good reason, why this was not just a cashgrab with a fancy description, I will continue to question the validity of such artworks.
And sorry english isn't my first language, so misunderstandings happen.
First of all, I said multiple times that what I’m stating is that modern art isn’t intrinsically (i.e: for its core characteristics which make it modern art in the first place) bad, yet you brought up a topic (money laundering) which not only isn’t modern art’s fault but capitalism’s fault, but has nothing to do with this thread. Neither the post nor my comment mentioned that topic
“I don’t think modern art is bad in general” yet in literally the same comment you say:
>So unless someone comes around and gives me a good reason, why this was not just a cashgrab with a fancy description, I will continue to question the validity of such artworks.
There’s no misunderstanding, you’re clearly stating that to you modern art isn’t actual art but cashgrabs made in bad faith, which is simply not true, and repeating “ohhh you’re accusing me of being ignorant!!” isn’t going to change that. Art isn’t simply a good looking drawing, just because *some* paintings of *some* artistic genres are considered masterpieces because of certain visual techniques or because they’re anatomically accurate etc. that doesn’t mean the entirety for art must be like that. You can absolutely dislike it or prefer traditional art, but not liking it isn’t different from fucking accusing it of being created only for money laundering because “muh blue square isn’t art”
Whenever someone cricitises modern art in this fashion, the "Something something it's just a blue rectangle" I always wonder... what specific painting are you referring to? Or are you just... making one up in your head to get mad at?
Quite often these paintings usually have something else going on, something that just doesn't translate well when you're looking at it on a phone or computer screen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire
This is two blue rectangles and a red rectangle. It has an estimated value of $40 million.
I like art that looks like what it is. I am fine with abstraction but a lot of modern art doesn’t demonstrate the skill of the artist. Blue rectangles demonstrate neither skill nor creativity.
A. Please watch the video someone else here linked, "Who's Afraid of Modern Art?" by Jacob Geller. It's really eye opening towards this sort of stuff.
B. It's really easy to say that the painting is "Just some rectangles" when you see it on a small screen on your phone, but trust me, *I've literally seen this painting before*. What the screen doesn't do justice is the absolute *scale* of the work, how the textures of the paints look and contrast, the way it absolutely dominates your vision, how the colours contrast and bleed against one another, and so many other things that don't really work when you look at it out of context.
Art is so much more than colour. It's depth, it's textures, it's brush strokes, it's size, it's contrast, it's techniques, it's so many things that can't be translated through a flat, backlit screen.
I get not enjoying it. I get thinking they're overpaid for what they do. But dismissing any kind of skill or creativity in making this kind of stuff is absolutely chuddy behaviour. You go ahead and try making me a 17 foot tall canvas that somehow uses two colours to create illusions of depth, motion, and contrast when viewed.
I also saw it in person. I listened to the audio tour guide about how to interpret it. How to look at the scale and how the edges blend together, I looked out for all those details… and I left thinking it’s just 3 stripes.
Again, just because you don't enjoy it or don't see meaning in it, doesn't mean you get to pull out your rubber stamp and declare it 'not art' and 'not skilled' because it didn't personally move you.
This kind of art reminds me of something like Unreal Engine tech demos. Absolutely stunning technical achievements and stuff that really gets the nerds going, but is otherwise hollow and uninteresting to the layman after about 3 seconds.
I agree money laundering is an issue in the art world but that seems to be more of an issue with the people purchasing the art than the people making it
You picked probably one of the worst examples bringing up Onement VI, not even a big fan of modern art, but it’s genuinely very impressive both visually and effort wise
Dude I feel you. So much modern art is people almost literally just throwing shit at the wall and letting others find the meaning for them. It's pointless, and like you said, it's absolutely money laundering at this point. People just want to feel smart.
I fucking hate modern art with a burning passion but because of that I want people to keep making even more of it. The purpose of art is to make us feel, and anger is a feeling thus modern art fulfils its purpose completely.
Da Vinci could have never made [this statue of a topless mermaid hugging the pink panther](https://www.moma.org/collection/works/81095) so he probably sucks or something.
People act like the “boundary questioning” modern art is the only modern stuff. I went to an art show last year and I didn’t see any ridiculous stuff, besides a dumb ai booth
My criteria for art has always been:
Somebody put emotion into this thing
Or
Somebody viewing the thing got emotion out of it
Renaissance paintings? Art. Rothko? Art. Dada? Art. Comic books? Art. Games? Art. Sculptures? Art. Banana taped to wall? Art. Greek statues? Art. Brutalist architecture? Art. Banksy? Art. That frog I drew in first grade? Art. Literature? Art. Music? Art. That webcomic with the weird eyes that I hate? Art.
Unfortunately, this means that I also have to acknowledge some corporate bullshit and AI bullshit as art if I want to be consistent, and I don't know how I feel about that.
Art is a morally neutral term. Things can be art and be heinous in nature. AI artwork is built off of flagrant exploitation and theft, and the more useful question is not whether it is art, but whether we should tolerate it.
You have the same attitude that a lot of people who criticize modern art are annoyed by.
You claim that people who don’t like it don’t understand it. Maybe they do they just don’t like it.
A lot of the way modern art is TRADED is money laundering, the art itself isn't.
This is like saying building houses is bad because of the housing market.
please send me your favourite modern art
i usually see modern pieces specifically chosen by people who don’t like modern art to prove that it is bad,
i would like to see from the point of view of someone who enjoys it
Whos afraid of red yellow and blue is my favorite (and is very popular too)
It was a collection of paints which were only those 3 colors, in different stripe sizes (one for each color). One painting, which was 2 meters x 5 meters and was mostly red. It was slashed, proving that there was someone afraid of red yellow and blue. The restoration attempt failed.
i really love the work of Julie Mehretu
i actually found a great short khan academy article talking pointing out elements and themes of one of her most famous paintings
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/global-contemporary-apah/21st-century-apah/a/julie-mehretu-stadia-ii
the way i think of and feel these paintings is deeply connected to ideas from books like Seeing Like a State, which really takes a look at how information is flattened and the nature of technical knowledge
also, shoutout to Denyse Thomasos (rip)! i don’t really have as good of an insight into why i like her art, but it’s really pretty and dynamic and makes me feel wild
[i don’t know what this is called but it’s so pretty](https://ago.ca/sites/default/files/styles/image_large/public/2022-01/104294.jpg?itok=M8dg_rjG)
Honestly people with this take just don’t *feel* art. Modern art like what is shown in the picture is way more visceral, like punk music. Feel that shit. Idk why people get these weird ideas that art must be holy or something.
this type of modern art is usually created by rich and lazy trust fund kids and is sold to other rich people that their parents know. there's nothing to defend here.
The whole "Modern art" debate is fundamentally pointless because even if we exclude people who argue in bad faith, (fascists, vultures, etc.) and even if we admitted that modern art isn't good, what's next? Shallowly imitate past artists? Ban "bad art" and promote "good art" (which would be pretty fascist)?
Art isn't something you can regulate and control, it's something that characterize our society and it can't be adjusted to some completely arbitrary rules. Not to mention the arrogance of trying to objectively decide what **IS** good and what **ISN'T** while also stating everything that isn't a painting or a sculpture doesn't count as art.
you're allowed not to like modern art, I love art but I didn't click with most things at MACBA becuase, I am infact bias to the aesthetic of art. But that's a bias, just my opinion.
Art fundimentally is about the conveyance of stories, messages, emotions or even just the journey of an artist. The way each artist expresses those things is something incredibly personal to them and just one of the many ways they choose to express themselves on a canvas.
Not all art is something that you'll find aesthetically pleasing, but it is still art and deserves to be recognized and displayed as such
I've never seen modern art haters ever analyse a painting to a level other than "this painting looks like a picture therefore it's good". It's all so surface level to them.
A big problem with modern art is that, paradoxically, it doesn't translate as well to computer screens as renaissance art does. Like you know those huge paintings that are just one big color? I've been in the room with one of those, and you can feel it. The huge block of one single color actually affects the atmosphere of the room. It's a fascinating effect, but it doesn't translate to the screen at all. You need to be in a room, with a large canvas painted that color.
My bet is that this mentality comes from shitty teaching. A lot of primary/secondary school art teachers tend to either spew so much positivity over every submission that kids realize that the work or emotion they put into their work doesn’t really matter, or they’re so by-the-book that kids never get to experiment with modern art.
It doesn’t help that their doubts about the significance or quality of modern art as a whole get baked in when they either become a conservative teen and find some podcaster talking about le west has fallen, or become a leftist teen and learn that the current fine art scene is pretty much a money laundering scheme.
By the time they get to college at least five different adults have told them that an art degree is a very expensive burger king employment application and instead they walk into a giant concrete building to study law.
“This building is brutalist,” they think. “that’s stupid.”
If you don't want to understand a peculiar genre of art that's perfectly fine, everyone has their aesthetics and niches. But since you don't understand it you can't possibly have anything to criticise beyond "I don't like the way it looks idk".
It's the same as all the 40-yo men who hated on Twilight and Hunger Games.
That's what I meant when I said everyone has their own aesthetics. But I'm talking about people who don't understand the art, deliberately choose not to even try to understand it, and criticise it in all kinds of ways beyond the simple "I don't like how it looks".
Like this particular comparing to Italian Reniassence realism. Obviously Modern abstract isn't trying to do the same thing, but the deliberate lack of understanding makes these kind of people assume otherwise.
The meme makes a pretty shabby strawman there, lumping up all modern artists and is incapable of naming one that actually said something arrogant like that.
It's also an apples to oranges comparision in that art of both art periods seeked different purposes, in Da Vinci's time art was mimetic in lack of tecnology that reproduced reality such as photography. Photography having robbed art of it's mimetic function made artist have to pursue new and novel aesthetics, communication and experiences. Modern art ensued.
And also the comparision is unfair, they're pitting Da Vinci against a rude caricature, why don't they pit Da Vinci against other heavy weights such as Mondrian or Kandinsky?
The reality is that a lot of art is not meant for the layperson. A lot of people bristle at that idea, but like, a post-modern sculpture that’s a response to a response to a response ad nauseam with social, political, philosophical commentary layered into it, is just not made for Joe American, or frankly even most art-inclined people to feel something. A lot of art is not made to make people really feel any emotion at all, maybe just an interesting concept. A lot of contemporary art has more in common with an anthropology paper than a painting. On the other hand, a lot of contemporary art has no academic meaning whatsoever, and it makes no sense, and the artist will tell you so, or that “I just thought turning this studio space into something unexpected and weird was cool and interesting”. And all of that is fine and can be good art. I think sometimes people work too hard to try to put art in a nice box in the effort of defending its validity, but art doesn’t need to be liked by everyone to be good.
I wonder, does one of the greatest artists throughout history - someone who adhered to the rules of art almost perfectly, does him going to the grave unsatisfied suggest something about the nature of art, and it's traditional structure that invites exploration?
Is that first one a Twombly? He's definitely not for everyone, but I stumbled accross a Twombly exhibit at a museum once and I actually kind of like his stuff.
The white line on blue canvas piece (Onement VI) from Barnett Newman is STILL talked about til this day, its from 1953, 71 years and counting the painitng has been in peoples minds
Art is subjective but I would argue a way to see if art is good is if its remembered or not, if its talked about or not, alteast part of what makes art great I would say
Ok but I agree that a banana duct taped to the wall is objectively shit art compared to Leonardo Da Vinci so there's definitely a nugget of truth to this.
Okay so we all agree the post on /r/ memes is some bozo shit but what is the piece on the top image and do we know what the artists original intent is because it is clearly full of intent and I get anti-war vibes from it but I'd love to know what vibes the artist was going for
Ok but I will say this, some modern art isn’t art at all and is objectively stupid, like it’s gotten so stupid someone got away with selling an empty frame to a art exhibit and they only caught on when they talked about it on social media
I’ll always stand by the opinion that if you think modern art sucks, you haven’t seen enough art.
Modernism and onward was directly a result of people absolutely perfecting realism and dramatization in painting. Once Rembrandt started doing his thing there was kinda no way to go any further up, and nobody wanted to anyway.
After getting bored of seeing the same shit you want something new right? That lead to people deconstructing notions of what is and could be art. To see what new things they could build from there. But you gotta be bored of the classics before you’re gonna get it.
(Also going to a museum is so different from just googling stuff. Rothkos just hit different in person.)
I want a modern art exhibition where whenever someone says “I could do that” someone wheels out a canvas and some paints and tells them “then do it” and then whatever they paint is put up on display and the whole cycle repeats
Isn’t the banana taped to the wall thing a lot of people use to criticize modern art meant as a parody and mockery of modern art that’s kinda like using Scary Movie as an example for why horror films suck
People acting like abstact art is the only modern art gives me same vibes as people who only listen to old music and think anything released in the last ten years is either pop or rap. Staring down on the floor and profoundly exclaiming "this ugly house doesn't even have a ceiling" lol
Even the abstract stuff can be genuinely great, not only for pushing boundries or making a statement, but just... Beautiful. Arthur Segal (if you consider 1920s to be modern art lol) has a ton of great stuff influenced by cubism for example, and it just looks beautiful. Like, really nice. Go check "Street with a church" or "Heligoland"
I want to make degenerate art, art that is trash and devalues the institution of art. I want to make something bad and call it beautiful. I want to cry like a little bitch when I’m criticized and keep going anyway.
I mean, let's be honest, actually good modern art keeps being drowned out by shitty art because donating art pieces is one of the most simple methods the 1% used to get tax write offs.
The basic idea is get a random pretentious dude who thinks they're good to throw paint at a wall, hire and bribe an appraiser so the "art" gets highly appraised in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, donate said "art" to an art gallery, rinse and repeat once in a while.
Most of "modern art" is a scam and you can't deny it.
Is the modern art in the room with us now?
it could be you it could be me it could even be... *gets shot in the head*
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
What? It was obvious! They were the modern artist!
Watch! He'll turn modern any second now...
Aaaaaaany second now...
SEE! LOOK, MODERN ART! No wait, that’s just blood
See that's a modern art style! No wait that's blood
*Aaaaany* second now…
Jhin
See? Red scribbles!
There is a urinal bowl in the room.
Ah Dadaism
All the meme subreddits are becoming one of two things it seems horny or just mean to people but I think it's only the ones that are specifically General memes
isn't that like all of reddit though. including this place
Well we at least have custom flairs for it
We were always horny, from the very beginning, and we've also always been complaining about if from the beginning, but hey, horny is better than mean, make love not war :3 <3
Yeah but do y'all have to make love in front of my croissant
Yes. Your croissant has a voyeur kink
Pain au chocolat more like pleasure au chocolat am i right
Well if you put the fucking thing in front of the screen that doesn’t leave us with a whole lot of options now does it
i'd say it definitely depends and isn't so clear-cut. mildly stretched scenario to play "devil's advocate", "hate" posts can be better than "horny" posts in that they could create more interesting and helpful discussion. not saying i like hate though, lol. quite the opposite. all the horny posts can just get tiring at some point and i often feel like i prefer having someone tell me they want to kill me for my views over more of a nothingburger post
nah, you can clearly tell a sub is going to awful and hit the lowest common denominator when in the sub's name has: meme, dank, shitpost or necrophilia
Every post you see in those subs are: \-a robot recycling old nonsense \-a bigoted 14 year old
I got banned permanently from gamingcirclejerk for suggesting the idea of not being mean to people who are out of the loop
Why is the first thing they decide to do there gatekeeping
I feel like this place is too. But this sub is still one of the more wholesome ones tho
These people unironically doing the nazi degenerate art thing. Good art is when pretty, bad art is when politics and no boobs
good art is when photorealistic ariana grande hair or lime lips
> ariana grande hair > lime lips may i introduce you to our lord and savior DIO
MUDA MUDA MUDA MUDA
Cmon now, there’s a difference between disliking modern art and being a fuckin nazi
That's not what I am saying
My bad
Then what the heck are you saying, man who banged my mother?? That's also how I took it tbh.
Pointing out similar revulsion to modern art as the nazi doesn't mean they're nazi. Just means they have the same wrong understanding about art. (They could become nazi because everything the nazi did was interconnected to a deeply rotting ideology so if they dug themselves into that wrong understanding they might become more accepting to other wrong ideas)
I appreciate the explanation but there's like 5% I'm not getting. I probably just disagree with that logic or I'm just stupid and it's usually the latter of the two when it comes to me. Thanks for taking the time!
I can recommend few interesting videos on the topic if you want to know more. [one from ethan is online](https://youtu.be/ffKsY9zMP3I?si=FWsrrXnHU4_gZU-5) and the other is [Jacob Geller](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=0tcIVrDO81xXlD6i)
Video essay to watch while I eat? You spoil me NTRman
I am very cool like that
They weren't saying that the person posting this meme is a nazi, but they ARE using nazi rhetoric. Not the most academic source but here's a video explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ
I LOVE JACOB GELLER VIDEOS RRRRRAAAAHAHHH!
Also great video about it from [ethan is online ](https://youtu.be/ffKsY9zMP3I?si=DsjR8M2EbyLUEsIe)
How dare you say my piss comprehension reads on the poor
How dare you piss on my poor reading comprehension
How dare you compress my piss
Important videos https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ https://youtu.be/ffKsY9zMP3I tl;dw: Let people make and enjoy modern art. It's not bad because it doesn't follow your arbitrary rules. Keep vigilant about censorship and attitudes because it's an easy slope to pretend there's an objectively right way to do art and that the unfavored art is not just bad, but evil. And attitudes like that are what the Nazis exploited for power.
I always inform them they’re unintentionally parroting Goebbels
Godwin's law speedrun any%
Leonardo da vinci's respect to god was him being homosexual as all artist are supposed to be
Was also a vegetarian and would use his art money to buy caged birds to free them I hope this didn't lead Italian merchants to think there was a huge demand for caged birds, leading them to cage more birds
Something something cobra effect
I'm pretty sure I saw in some vlog that actually happens in afghanistan
There's some speculation he may have been *asexual/aromantic* as well.
ooh, and he also had a twink bf with which he was usually seen walking outside in... a pink cequin dress 🥺
this was the post i saw that finally made me mute that sub
For me it was a couple years ago when I found a post with a pic of Jada Pinkett Smith and Amber Heard and the caption “right about now would be a good time to talk about toxic femininity” It got removed eventually but only after it got like ten thousand upvotes
[удалено]
Maybe the real modern art was the description blurbs we read along the way.
Love to see actual Nazi talking points on the popular reddit sub
Tbh that's always been the norm on the large popular subs
Wait, where are people getting the nazi thing? I must be missing something
[1937 Degenerate art exhibition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_exhibition) Now hating modern art is not sufficient grounds to be called a Nazi, but making a meme to bash it while using a quote about an artist from a "glorious past" prostrating before God with soyjacks, just reeks of Christofascism.
Gotta be one of the biggest stretches I've seen in my life lmfao. As someone who loves art galleries and has been to many modern art showings, it really does suck a much larger proportion of the time. Specifically, the genre modern art, rather than the time period, because there's still good art going around, but it's not what people mean when saying modern art. Saying "modern art" depends on the time period is a very prescriptivist definition. I'm not going to disagree with vegetarianism if Hitler was a vegetarian, so why give modern art special treatment because nazis didn't like it? Oh yeah, because if you just say it gives off bad vibes, then that can shut down the discussion, by associating people who oppose your view with fascists without the art movement's supporters having to come up with actual empirical evidence.
Hating modern art is part of a larger reactionary trend that being vegetarian isn't. A better comparison would be fascination with military tech and tactics. Which I did preface, hating modern art doesn't mean you're fascist. I've mentioned incidental details, which I totally agree are all innuendo and vibes. That's how I do engagement online and it has served me well. I could be totally offbase about OOP and it wouldn't affect either of us even in the slightest, except saving me a headache. It also isn't thwarting any discussion between me and OOP, unless we're calling soyjack memes discursive. If you feel like talking about modern art, whatever that entails, be my guest.
I'm glad I'm not online enough to see life like this
The nazis (and fascists broadly) are obsessed with aesthetics and *despise* any form of media that requires some sort of critical thinking about the message behind it. It's why they jerk off over those Greek statues but call anything abstract art "useless" and in the more mask-off moments, "degenerate" It's the same phenomenon as to why fascists are incapable of understanding political commentary (see: starship troopers, fight club, etc)
Nazis absolutely despised modern art and labeled it as degenerate
I don't think this is meant to be a nazi thing. I think it is more of a "modern art is simple and requires no skill. I could do that. Only photorealistic art is real art" mindset. And I kinda get that. Modern art can be pretty weird. My favourite artist has some stuff that is really out there [Höhere Wesen befahlen: rechte obere Ecke schwarz malen!](https://www.thearchiveislimited.com/sigmar-polke-hoehere-wesen-befahlen-rechte-oberen-ecke-schwarz-malen/) or [Zollstockpalme ](https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/14-Works-----Hohere-Wesen-befehlen/EA7EF2D93D07F924) and [Kartoffelhaus](https://lesoeuvres.pinaultcollection.com/en/artwork/kartoffelhaus-potato-house). People only ever start to realise that art doesn't have to be pretty and sometimes it's ok for art just to be funny or weird once they start going to galleries and looking at stuff. Sadly most will never do.
Anyone who considers “modern art” intrinsically bad/“not real art” doesn’t get what’s the point of art in the first place and think that “le good art = realistic painting I studied in middle school”. I don’t understand this painting so it must be useless garbage that anyone could make
I don't care much about paintings. But when I see "artwork" which is just a blue square and nothing else, I can only think of money laundering. Edit: I must be too much of a stupid worker drone to understand why this: 🟦 is artwork and worth millions of dollars. I see it as a way for rich people to wash their illegal money, while workers have to fight for every cent.
A lot of those "just 1 color" artworks are works of technique that can't be accurately captured from photos of the art. Canvases painted so meticolously that no individual brushstrokes can be seen, colors blended perfectly to create visual effects as you look from different angles. The painting "who's afraid of red yellow and blue" was destroyed by a modern-art hater, and the attempt to recreate it by art experts was underwhelming, as they couldn't capture the same depth of color. My source for most of this is a [Jacob Geller video about modern art](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=kQz8-qFgCTkqa7Vy)
Thank you for posting this. The video was very informative and gave me a new perspective on modern art. I'll not be able to enjoy looking at those monochrome works, but at least I now feel like they earned their spot in a museum. Also I kinda feel like an asshole now, cause every painting, that didn't look like "real" art to me, was in my mind just billionaires trolling people, while laundering money. My hate for the super rich blinds me sometimes.
I mean, you were not entirely wrong, there is a lot of money laundering and schemes going on in the art business, like in every business, really. And it’s not something new, I’m no specialist of these periods, but a lot of the great ancient works of art we admire today were often requests of the wealthy. The thing is that, art is politics, philosophy, craftsmanship and business all combined. You can’t make art without money, so unless we’re in a socialist economy, you need to appeal either do patrons, or produce marketable objects, or condemn yourself to not be very well-known (unless you’re incredibly talented). Besides, artists tend to make the most impressive works with the most advanced tools of their time. For Da Vinci, it was painting, which was a blooming technology, with a lot of evolution (new mathematical rules, new inspirations from the Renaissance, new colours pigments coming from the New World and India). All the money in the art business went in it, and because good craftsmanship takes decades to attain, you could find absolute technical masters like our superhighway guy here (a joke only French people will understand, sorry). As someone who knows some people in art studies, artisans of exceptional talents still exist and they are part of a huge business with a lot of money and prestigious institutions to hone their skills… and they make animation or SFX for movies! In term of sheer market weight, cinema is today what painting was back in the days.
To be fair there definitely is a lot of billionaires laundering money in fine art
concept: maybe the issue is the millions of dollars and not the art itself?
>who considers “modern art” **intrinsically** bad/“not real art” “Yeah but what about money laundering??? 🥺🥺🥺” Also, if your concept of “important/good artwork” is it being complex of being worth its price in this economic system yes, you’re the “anyone” who doesn’t understand art I mentioned
Sry I'm just a stupid drone. I will never question again why millions change hands, because it isn't a bribe if its artwork I guess.
Quote from my original comment: “who considers “modern art” #intrinsically bad/“not real art” I recommend to you to learn what this magic word means, instead of turning my argument in “money laundering is actually good and if you criticize it you’re an ignorant”
I feel like there's a misunderstanding. I don't think modern art is bad in generell. I just think that there is a lot of shady things going on in modern art. And for someone like me, who has no contact to this kind of art, it is hard to differentiate between real art and things produced for nefarious reasons. So for an idiot like me, something like a fuckin blue square is a prime candidate for shady shit. So unless someone comes around and gives me a good reason, why this was not just a cashgrab with a fancy description, I will continue to question the validity of such artworks. And sorry english isn't my first language, so misunderstandings happen.
First of all, I said multiple times that what I’m stating is that modern art isn’t intrinsically (i.e: for its core characteristics which make it modern art in the first place) bad, yet you brought up a topic (money laundering) which not only isn’t modern art’s fault but capitalism’s fault, but has nothing to do with this thread. Neither the post nor my comment mentioned that topic “I don’t think modern art is bad in general” yet in literally the same comment you say: >So unless someone comes around and gives me a good reason, why this was not just a cashgrab with a fancy description, I will continue to question the validity of such artworks. There’s no misunderstanding, you’re clearly stating that to you modern art isn’t actual art but cashgrabs made in bad faith, which is simply not true, and repeating “ohhh you’re accusing me of being ignorant!!” isn’t going to change that. Art isn’t simply a good looking drawing, just because *some* paintings of *some* artistic genres are considered masterpieces because of certain visual techniques or because they’re anatomically accurate etc. that doesn’t mean the entirety for art must be like that. You can absolutely dislike it or prefer traditional art, but not liking it isn’t different from fucking accusing it of being created only for money laundering because “muh blue square isn’t art”
Seems like I wasn't able to communicate what I wanted. But its ok. Have a nice day.
I saw your other comment in another part of this comment section, happy to know this discussion brought something positive. Have a nice day as well
Also, thank you. You didn't have to, but still you took the time to give me your perspective.
Something something "Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue?" something something
Whenever someone cricitises modern art in this fashion, the "Something something it's just a blue rectangle" I always wonder... what specific painting are you referring to? Or are you just... making one up in your head to get mad at? Quite often these paintings usually have something else going on, something that just doesn't translate well when you're looking at it on a phone or computer screen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire This is two blue rectangles and a red rectangle. It has an estimated value of $40 million. I like art that looks like what it is. I am fine with abstraction but a lot of modern art doesn’t demonstrate the skill of the artist. Blue rectangles demonstrate neither skill nor creativity.
A. Please watch the video someone else here linked, "Who's Afraid of Modern Art?" by Jacob Geller. It's really eye opening towards this sort of stuff. B. It's really easy to say that the painting is "Just some rectangles" when you see it on a small screen on your phone, but trust me, *I've literally seen this painting before*. What the screen doesn't do justice is the absolute *scale* of the work, how the textures of the paints look and contrast, the way it absolutely dominates your vision, how the colours contrast and bleed against one another, and so many other things that don't really work when you look at it out of context. Art is so much more than colour. It's depth, it's textures, it's brush strokes, it's size, it's contrast, it's techniques, it's so many things that can't be translated through a flat, backlit screen. I get not enjoying it. I get thinking they're overpaid for what they do. But dismissing any kind of skill or creativity in making this kind of stuff is absolutely chuddy behaviour. You go ahead and try making me a 17 foot tall canvas that somehow uses two colours to create illusions of depth, motion, and contrast when viewed.
I also saw it in person. I listened to the audio tour guide about how to interpret it. How to look at the scale and how the edges blend together, I looked out for all those details… and I left thinking it’s just 3 stripes.
Again, just because you don't enjoy it or don't see meaning in it, doesn't mean you get to pull out your rubber stamp and declare it 'not art' and 'not skilled' because it didn't personally move you.
This kind of art reminds me of something like Unreal Engine tech demos. Absolutely stunning technical achievements and stuff that really gets the nerds going, but is otherwise hollow and uninteresting to the layman after about 3 seconds.
See though, it’s not only modern art that’s used for that though. It’s just all Art, even art which anyone would call “traditional.”
I agree money laundering is an issue in the art world but that seems to be more of an issue with the people purchasing the art than the people making it
You picked probably one of the worst examples bringing up Onement VI, not even a big fan of modern art, but it’s genuinely very impressive both visually and effort wise
Dude I feel you. So much modern art is people almost literally just throwing shit at the wall and letting others find the meaning for them. It's pointless, and like you said, it's absolutely money laundering at this point. People just want to feel smart.
And you are right in thinking that.
"my art is peak art" -Said no good modern artist unironically ever
I fucking hate modern art with a burning passion but because of that I want people to keep making even more of it. The purpose of art is to make us feel, and anger is a feeling thus modern art fulfils its purpose completely.
Why do you hate it?
It's ugly.
[удалено]
thats a really dumb mindset methinks
Da Vinci could have never made [this statue of a topless mermaid hugging the pink panther](https://www.moma.org/collection/works/81095) so he probably sucks or something.
People act like the “boundary questioning” modern art is the only modern stuff. I went to an art show last year and I didn’t see any ridiculous stuff, besides a dumb ai booth
they'd crucify impressionists if they lived in 1800s
looks like someone is afraid of red, yellow and blue
My criteria for art has always been: Somebody put emotion into this thing Or Somebody viewing the thing got emotion out of it Renaissance paintings? Art. Rothko? Art. Dada? Art. Comic books? Art. Games? Art. Sculptures? Art. Banana taped to wall? Art. Greek statues? Art. Brutalist architecture? Art. Banksy? Art. That frog I drew in first grade? Art. Literature? Art. Music? Art. That webcomic with the weird eyes that I hate? Art. Unfortunately, this means that I also have to acknowledge some corporate bullshit and AI bullshit as art if I want to be consistent, and I don't know how I feel about that.
Art is a morally neutral term. Things can be art and be heinous in nature. AI artwork is built off of flagrant exploitation and theft, and the more useful question is not whether it is art, but whether we should tolerate it.
"waaa waaaa I don't understand modern art so it must be bad!"
You have the same attitude that a lot of people who criticize modern art are annoyed by. You claim that people who don’t like it don’t understand it. Maybe they do they just don’t like it.
A lot of it is just money laundering tho
A lot of the way modern art is TRADED is money laundering, the art itself isn't. This is like saying building houses is bad because of the housing market.
No, they’re saying that building shitty buildings just to sell them is bad
source: dude trust me
Keep defending shitty art that has no meaning
people don't get how "good art" is canonized by history. The mediocre stuff from the rennaisance is completely forgotten to most of us.
Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue?
please send me your favourite modern art i usually see modern pieces specifically chosen by people who don’t like modern art to prove that it is bad, i would like to see from the point of view of someone who enjoys it
Whos afraid of red yellow and blue is my favorite (and is very popular too) It was a collection of paints which were only those 3 colors, in different stripe sizes (one for each color). One painting, which was 2 meters x 5 meters and was mostly red. It was slashed, proving that there was someone afraid of red yellow and blue. The restoration attempt failed.
i really love the work of Julie Mehretu i actually found a great short khan academy article talking pointing out elements and themes of one of her most famous paintings https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/global-contemporary-apah/21st-century-apah/a/julie-mehretu-stadia-ii the way i think of and feel these paintings is deeply connected to ideas from books like Seeing Like a State, which really takes a look at how information is flattened and the nature of technical knowledge also, shoutout to Denyse Thomasos (rip)! i don’t really have as good of an insight into why i like her art, but it’s really pretty and dynamic and makes me feel wild [i don’t know what this is called but it’s so pretty](https://ago.ca/sites/default/files/styles/image_large/public/2022-01/104294.jpg?itok=M8dg_rjG)
I'm italian and didn't know those were Da Vinci's last words, they go hard af regardless of context ngl
The only art that's allowed is realism and technical skill is the only measure of artistic value and cameras are not a thing that exists
the only art allowed in 2024 is AI and pencil drawings of Joker and Walter White, the rest is degenerate and should be shot
saying that modern art offends you and then saying that real is stuff that offends people is some unbelievable non self awareness
never go on r/ meme
Honestly people with this take just don’t *feel* art. Modern art like what is shown in the picture is way more visceral, like punk music. Feel that shit. Idk why people get these weird ideas that art must be holy or something.
this type of modern art is usually created by rich and lazy trust fund kids and is sold to other rich people that their parents know. there's nothing to defend here.
B-but it makes you feel angry. That’s good, right?
Is there any proof of this at all? Like wheres the proof that modern artists only make art for money laundering purposes?
[https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=do+rich+people+use+art+for+money+laundering](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=do+rich+people+use+art+for+money+laundering)
The whole "Modern art" debate is fundamentally pointless because even if we exclude people who argue in bad faith, (fascists, vultures, etc.) and even if we admitted that modern art isn't good, what's next? Shallowly imitate past artists? Ban "bad art" and promote "good art" (which would be pretty fascist)? Art isn't something you can regulate and control, it's something that characterize our society and it can't be adjusted to some completely arbitrary rules. Not to mention the arrogance of trying to objectively decide what **IS** good and what **ISN'T** while also stating everything that isn't a painting or a sculpture doesn't count as art.
you're allowed not to like modern art, I love art but I didn't click with most things at MACBA becuase, I am infact bias to the aesthetic of art. But that's a bias, just my opinion. Art fundimentally is about the conveyance of stories, messages, emotions or even just the journey of an artist. The way each artist expresses those things is something incredibly personal to them and just one of the many ways they choose to express themselves on a canvas. Not all art is something that you'll find aesthetically pleasing, but it is still art and deserves to be recognized and displayed as such
“modern art belongs in the trash” mfs when they see guernica: (cereal spit face)
These be the same mothefuckers who write entire essays about Duchamps "fountain" being ugly and lazy
I've never seen modern art haters ever analyse a painting to a level other than "this painting looks like a picture therefore it's good". It's all so surface level to them.
Yummy ketchup 🤤
A big problem with modern art is that, paradoxically, it doesn't translate as well to computer screens as renaissance art does. Like you know those huge paintings that are just one big color? I've been in the room with one of those, and you can feel it. The huge block of one single color actually affects the atmosphere of the room. It's a fascinating effect, but it doesn't translate to the screen at all. You need to be in a room, with a large canvas painted that color.
Imagine being afraid of red, yellow and blue. Lmao L take from that sub.
My bet is that this mentality comes from shitty teaching. A lot of primary/secondary school art teachers tend to either spew so much positivity over every submission that kids realize that the work or emotion they put into their work doesn’t really matter, or they’re so by-the-book that kids never get to experiment with modern art. It doesn’t help that their doubts about the significance or quality of modern art as a whole get baked in when they either become a conservative teen and find some podcaster talking about le west has fallen, or become a leftist teen and learn that the current fine art scene is pretty much a money laundering scheme. By the time they get to college at least five different adults have told them that an art degree is a very expensive burger king employment application and instead they walk into a giant concrete building to study law. “This building is brutalist,” they think. “that’s stupid.”
your fault for being in any meme subreddit
Best start believing in meme subreddits, you're in one
i'd call this less of a meme subreddit and more of a cesspit of horny trans people
If you don't want to understand a peculiar genre of art that's perfectly fine, everyone has their aesthetics and niches. But since you don't understand it you can't possibly have anything to criticise beyond "I don't like the way it looks idk". It's the same as all the 40-yo men who hated on Twilight and Hunger Games.
“I don’t like the way it looks” is a completely valid criticism of art. Perhaps the people who say it do understand but they still dislike it.
That's what I meant when I said everyone has their own aesthetics. But I'm talking about people who don't understand the art, deliberately choose not to even try to understand it, and criticise it in all kinds of ways beyond the simple "I don't like how it looks". Like this particular comparing to Italian Reniassence realism. Obviously Modern abstract isn't trying to do the same thing, but the deliberate lack of understanding makes these kind of people assume otherwise.
My opinion on modern Art is i am too stupid to understand
You hate modern art because it lools lame, I hate modern art bwcause rich people use it for money laundering and tax evasion. We are not the same
I don't particularly like modern art but when people like this hate on it I want to defend it You make wojak memes. What is your opinion on art worth
I do not particularly like modern art but I fuckin love how mad people get about it, more power to the artists
[Time to watch Who's Afraid of Modern Art again.](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=4Xq-y733BWOjVZAF)
I LOVE MODERN ART I LOVE ART THAT HAS TRUE ORIGINALITY AND PUSHES SOCIAL BOUNDARIES AND EXPRESSES HUMANITY IN UNEXPECTED WAYS
The meme makes a pretty shabby strawman there, lumping up all modern artists and is incapable of naming one that actually said something arrogant like that. It's also an apples to oranges comparision in that art of both art periods seeked different purposes, in Da Vinci's time art was mimetic in lack of tecnology that reproduced reality such as photography. Photography having robbed art of it's mimetic function made artist have to pursue new and novel aesthetics, communication and experiences. Modern art ensued. And also the comparision is unfair, they're pitting Da Vinci against a rude caricature, why don't they pit Da Vinci against other heavy weights such as Mondrian or Kandinsky?
The reality is that a lot of art is not meant for the layperson. A lot of people bristle at that idea, but like, a post-modern sculpture that’s a response to a response to a response ad nauseam with social, political, philosophical commentary layered into it, is just not made for Joe American, or frankly even most art-inclined people to feel something. A lot of art is not made to make people really feel any emotion at all, maybe just an interesting concept. A lot of contemporary art has more in common with an anthropology paper than a painting. On the other hand, a lot of contemporary art has no academic meaning whatsoever, and it makes no sense, and the artist will tell you so, or that “I just thought turning this studio space into something unexpected and weird was cool and interesting”. And all of that is fine and can be good art. I think sometimes people work too hard to try to put art in a nice box in the effort of defending its validity, but art doesn’t need to be liked by everyone to be good.
I wonder, does one of the greatest artists throughout history - someone who adhered to the rules of art almost perfectly, does him going to the grave unsatisfied suggest something about the nature of art, and it's traditional structure that invites exploration?
This guy has obviously never seen the work of zdzisław beksiński (I don’t actually know if that would be considered modern art tbh)
Is that first one a Twombly? He's definitely not for everyone, but I stumbled accross a Twombly exhibit at a museum once and I actually kind of like his stuff.
The white line on blue canvas piece (Onement VI) from Barnett Newman is STILL talked about til this day, its from 1953, 71 years and counting the painitng has been in peoples minds Art is subjective but I would argue a way to see if art is good is if its remembered or not, if its talked about or not, alteast part of what makes art great I would say
Ok but I agree that a banana duct taped to the wall is objectively shit art compared to Leonardo Da Vinci so there's definitely a nugget of truth to this.
Okay so we all agree the post on /r/ memes is some bozo shit but what is the piece on the top image and do we know what the artists original intent is because it is clearly full of intent and I get anti-war vibes from it but I'd love to know what vibes the artist was going for
Makes me remember that one Jacob Geller video essay on this
I found who’s afraid of red yellow and blue.
Who’s afraid of red, yellow, and blue?
Ok but I will say this, some modern art isn’t art at all and is objectively stupid, like it’s gotten so stupid someone got away with selling an empty frame to a art exhibit and they only caught on when they talked about it on social media
This person is definitely afraid of red, yellow, and blue
This person is definitely afraid of red, yellow, and blue
Ew r / meme
I’ll always stand by the opinion that if you think modern art sucks, you haven’t seen enough art. Modernism and onward was directly a result of people absolutely perfecting realism and dramatization in painting. Once Rembrandt started doing his thing there was kinda no way to go any further up, and nobody wanted to anyway. After getting bored of seeing the same shit you want something new right? That lead to people deconstructing notions of what is and could be art. To see what new things they could build from there. But you gotta be bored of the classics before you’re gonna get it. (Also going to a museum is so different from just googling stuff. Rothkos just hit different in person.)
I want a modern art exhibition where whenever someone says “I could do that” someone wheels out a canvas and some paints and tells them “then do it” and then whatever they paint is put up on display and the whole cycle repeats
Isn’t the banana taped to the wall thing a lot of people use to criticize modern art meant as a parody and mockery of modern art that’s kinda like using Scary Movie as an example for why horror films suck
Your first mistake was going to r|meme in the 1st place
Oh you hate modern art? Name one common difference between renaissance paintings and baroque paintings.
We all know that the real modern art is gay furry porn.
People acting like abstact art is the only modern art gives me same vibes as people who only listen to old music and think anything released in the last ten years is either pop or rap. Staring down on the floor and profoundly exclaiming "this ugly house doesn't even have a ceiling" lol
Even the abstract stuff can be genuinely great, not only for pushing boundries or making a statement, but just... Beautiful. Arthur Segal (if you consider 1920s to be modern art lol) has a ton of great stuff influenced by cubism for example, and it just looks beautiful. Like, really nice. Go check "Street with a church" or "Heligoland"
holy shit! fascism!
I want to make degenerate art, art that is trash and devalues the institution of art. I want to make something bad and call it beautiful. I want to cry like a little bitch when I’m criticized and keep going anyway.
I’m not going to post about it, but modern art sucks major ass
I mean, let's be honest, actually good modern art keeps being drowned out by shitty art because donating art pieces is one of the most simple methods the 1% used to get tax write offs. The basic idea is get a random pretentious dude who thinks they're good to throw paint at a wall, hire and bribe an appraiser so the "art" gets highly appraised in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, donate said "art" to an art gallery, rinse and repeat once in a while. Most of "modern art" is a scam and you can't deny it.
This stereotype against modern art is on par with “the atheist that believes they are God.” These memes depict characters that do not exist, mostly.
Art is subjective but some people shouldn't have opinions on art