(((Modern Art)))

pairs of opposites OP

they invert them

Women over men

Dark over light

evil over good

"modern art" over traditional talent

gay sex over families

ect
ect
ect

pairs of opposites OP

they invert them

Women over men

Dark over light

evil over good

"modern art" over traditional talent

gay sex over families

ect
ect
ect

There is no such thing as your own original idea, it is all copied/inspired from someone else. I actually really like stuff from impresionism, clasical art may be very skilfully made but the idea behind it is ussually dogmatic and overall the ritch influencced what is to be portrayed, rarely was it something the artist had an urge to express.

>Promoting and normalizing degeneracy through famous (((art critics)))
>Placing more importance on generic and mundane scribbles to be (((critical))) of predominant culture

there's inspiration, then there's outright ideological perversion

Kikes and their enablers often frame the drastic aesthetic shift as follows: the back to back cataclysms of WW1 and 2 (especially the latter) demonstrated the inherent evil in a Western culture too confident in itself, as its belief system inevitably led to war and oppression of non-western modes of thought. Ergo, all Western traditions were something to be deconstructed. The ideal of beauty was thus a barely concealed claim to white superiority and so representations of baseness and vulgarity were more accurate portrayals of the West's murderous impulses and damaged psyche. Modern art is literally and figuratively iconoclastic; in this sense it is an internalization of the jewish unconscious; continuity must be broken; modern art movements cannot be mere iterations of past traditions that build upon them because the traditions have supposedly proven themselves to be linked to a fundamentally evil worldview. Slippery slope fallacy etc.

There are two things here:
1.Art adapts to the environment. Means more minoirities and more "wymyn power"
2.They are edgy

They deserve rape, just like the cia also deserves rape. And the people that make them are pencil necks while their greedy jew bosses breathe down their necks to make shekels.
So the pencil necks know this shit wont fly as a form of protest combined with what i outlined in 1+2.

But then again the CIA, is like everyone else, trying to satisfy shortterm needs even if that means that they export this shit around the globe, and will react accordingly if new problems arise to be the solution to said problems.

Doesnt take much imagination of them being acolytes because they take in millions of refugees that have nothing to do with their culture, that will have no chance on the jobmarket, claim they have no jobs for young people but then import mass refugees which means the best outcome of this endeavour means they take jobs from the locals, which means most of them either do nothing, become criminals or take away jobs of their very own youth. They also believe every difference between men and women is due to socialisation , still rant about the outcomes but then take in millions of barbarians that come from archaic traditions and think they will become more cuckish than the disgusting cucks they couldnt even trim down to be more pugish than they alreay are. Such is life in progressive lalaland.

Also, there are some deep and dangerous implications in abstract art. There are a number of treatises on symbolism in pre-20th century art; although certain artists did indeed have a personal style, the relation between signifier and signified was to a large extent drawn from a shared cultural lexicon, a common pool.
The radical shift that occurred with the normalization of abstract art - i.e. of non-representation - is a form of anti-symbolism, individualism, relativism and indeed nihilism. The idea is that nothing refers to anything innately, there cannot be any representation of pure forms within a world that places all potential representations on an equal footing; abstract art places the atomized individual at the center of creation; all possible relations between signifier and signified cancel each other out.
Abstract art is a capitulation: the refusal to take a stand and place one representation above any other because all symbolism is up for interpretation. The individual artist, in this paradigm, is God; all meaning flows through him - he is the arbiter of all symbolism: why can't a red dot represent truth, virtue, or a nigger's asshole? It does because the artist said so. Abstract art depicts nothing due to the belief that nothing is worth depicting.

But even if the artist is a raging fag, satanist or atheist and you believe in God and that he created us in his image, it doesn't matter what the artist wants or intends it still makes you think about God.
This is currently how I'm getting through life without going lakes of fire on individuals, groups, objects and theologies. It's not easy.

You mean like a kid that doesnt want to step on lava in the living room.Well in this context god is more like a guidance to trim your perception, isnt too bad if you ask me. Unless you are a catholic pope that want to import more refugees.
Atheists have the problem, in the current year, that they do not have that and the hierarchy of important shit and unimportant shit gets desintigrated, like nietzches übermensch, every game is the same game.

Checked.
I don't believe in the Christian God necessarily, but as I understand it, those that follow scripture think that He doesn't make mistakes - everything has its place. In this sense, genetic aberrations like queers, the cripples and other degenerates are useful imperfections as opposed to the ideal of perfection. Sin exists on this earth as an anti-beacon, to show us the not-way. The modern artist doesn't "make you think about God" because God implies that manichean value judgements can exist, indeed should exist; the modern artist vehemently denies this fact with his nihlistic denial of meaning.

Because nihilists are emotionally trapped with the idea of being edgy and nothing matters.
Cripples and queers (unlike cultivated new males) have no say in being cripples or queers.
But if you defile something of importance like a name or an idea, or your band name "feinesahnefischfilet" then you have a say in that.

And "sin" itself is nothing more than going out of the mainstream or out of the "collective consiousness" of your ingroup in a pretty mild way. There should be a new word to describe the fine tuning of that.

It's not that I disagree, it's just that "fine art" seems so irrelevant it is essentially like civil war re-enacting at this point. It seems silly to take these faggot narcissist kids seriously. Probably TV and vidya are more viable media to corrupt the youth from christianity. Maybe its just my personal experiences.

Comics are riddled with kikes in the first place. Look at who created many of then.

I dont give a shit about TV, but if you defile video games with your feminist shit, or think you are smarter than me by redirecting us by the means of fugly feminists, i will scourge this earth just to get to you.

I contend that there's nothing "pretty mild" about it.
There is.
it's called degeneracy
Human behavior replicates itself by mimetism more than by the internalization of theological-philosophical ideals; in this sense every action or role model that undermines the betterment of our race has harmful and unpredictable consequences as it sets a precedent. If the goal of racial betterment is to be aligned with the LifeForce in order to attain Godhood, then opposition to this is fundamentally deicide. Degenerate art as an anti-iconography is still an iconography - it doesn't just subvert ideals, it depicts subversion as the ideal. The void of nothingness is the new icon.

...

Degenerate art of yesterday is art of today.

The problem is the ill system setting incentives for bullshit, like you stuff a bunch of people into set stage and watch the outcome.
Like you would rather "no thanks" to a boobanimal with huge to continue to do your work so a greedy jew can make more money without any betterment of the environment you live in.
In a way it is escapism, but if i look at their shit, they either get out of the way or i put them against a wall.

...

Must suck a lot to be an artfag.

It was made to become irrelevant. The word "fine" itself implies a value judgement; and the Supreme Talent of the masters of the past is a reflection of natural law: absolute greatness exists, non-equality is (literally, if we're referring to sculpture) set in stone. This is profoundly offensive to the neue mensch of today who must believe that all individuals are interchangeable.
Art is not irrelevant, it is an immanent manifestation of ambiant ideology - the abundance of filth in museums is a re-writing of history for to send a deliberate message to posterity.

Modern art is parasitic in nature, it leeches of the history of the greats to gain credibility. An example of the pretentious mindset is "It came from a student of the same art school as [insert famous artist] so it must be a genius".

A very sophisticated form of rape.

Real genius plays your mind like a fiddle without any jews telling them how to strike a cord.

It isn't modern art that's shit, modern art doesn't even refer to art made recently, it's just a concept. Allow me to explain:

What you see is what you get, you appreciate the art for its aesthetic qualities and message but you only judge it by itself.
You judge the art within a cultural context, so this would include stuff like politically motivated art or art based on events that requires knowledge of those events' context in order to fully appreciate it.
The art is judged within the context of its own setting as well, this is the one that everyone finds to be controversial because most postmodern art is shit, but certainly not all of it. It doesn't have to be nearly as pretentious as people make it out to be though, an example would be the Sam Hyde 2070 Paradigm Shift talk. It wasn't that funny because of what he said, but rather because of the fact that he actually said it as a TedX presenter. If he just parodied a TedX talk in a skit it wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining.

The reason most postmodern art is shit is because a lot of it is completely uncreative. The first motherfucker that put a toilet bowl in a fancy art exhibit then called it art to fuck with people was pretty clever, The point of it is that the toilet bowl looks very out of place and confusing there and that confusion is the point of the art. Now everyone does this shit and is used to it which devalues it. If you expect art exhibits to have dumb shit like toilet bowls and half the pieces there are such then they have no value. Even worse is if you explicitly say that something is postmodern art before your audience sees it. That shitty indie game subtitled: "A postmodern RPG" has no hope of being such since everyone will know what to expect, but Frog Fractions is a proper postmodern videogame since you go into it expecting a shitty edutainment game since it pretends to be one before descending into madness.

Does this make more sense to everyone?

Just like lucifer, and the modification of the word spelling lucy, the word in itself means the cut out some letters like your subconisouness and your prefrontal cortex. cut out the last three letters. and you get a woman.

its sad. they were so close to having a good idea. during the 20th century artists in every medium were hitting a wall with what to come up with. everything had been done. so the breakdown and abstraction DID, in fact, HAVE to happen. there was nowhere else to go.

paris in the 1910s did this with their dada movement. now say what you want about dada, but it helped to break down a lot of creative barriers that had been erected over the last couple of centuries. dogmatic art is not good, ever, and artists were becoming disillusioned with what the fuck to do. after breaking everything down, and discarding the set rules, artists had a lot more breathing room.

after dada (in europe atleast), there were all kinds of awesome movements that took hold like surrealism, futurism, cubism etc. these crafty motherfuckers took the total breakdown aspect of dada as a jumping off point, then used their skills to build up off of the rubble to form their own new traditions. and it worked brilliantly. in my opinion, this was the best stuff in the whole century.

the problem came with modern art, with its purposely hideous sculptures, bland two-colored block rothcko paintings, and all that other shit that everyone hates. these fucking morons saw a creative outlet in purposefully making the worst art they possibly could in an effort to "challenge what can be accepted in art". which is basically pseudo-intellectual jargon that means "fuck you, if you dont like it, you know nothing about art". a kind of proto-hipsterism. now the artistic community hates getting told that they dont understand something, and thanks to the CIA and frankfurt school, this shit was what was getting all the funding, attention and exhibits. so rather than questioning why all the art was so shit, all the numbnuts multi-millionaires spent several decades looking at bad sculptures of dudes sucking themselves off and pretended to get something "enlightening" out of it. then all these famous "artists" went on to teach whole new generations of faggots who cant draw, and dont want to draw, how not to draw, and this is where we are now.

TL;DR breaking down something that has become dogmatic in art or music is necessary, but if you dont build back up off of it and make something of your own with it, then you are nothing but an angry, jealous child that knocks over the other kids legos

I thank you for your well thought out reply. Do you think it is possible that we have entered a technological age where traditional media (like sculptures and paintings) are unsuited for representing "universally relevant" experiences or ideologies? Basically should we hope new media like vidya and internet stuff can bring back the absolute greatness you speak of?

I wish I could see this sort of brazen passion in contemporary art, you should take up landscape watercolors.

As someone who believes in a divine creator, even this makes me think of God.
Nihilism = in the beginning there was nothing.
Denial = Lucifer believing he was his creators equal.
Meaning = to be or not to be, that is the question and the rub.

If i close my eyes i see all art, and i certainly paint with with landscape watercolours, i paint with people.

And then i self reflect, and remind myself that the boobanimals fruits are either with me or in fridge.

Behind the monkey mirror, and the fruity meatcarriers like that. They like it so much that they would walk by you and say that they love you.
So i wonder if self reflection in itself without a goal is just mentally masturbating.

found the moral relativist kike shill. Morality is not subjective, stop softening up and repent of your misdeeds.

Good art enlightens the spirit. Bad art such as a modern art simple doesn't. Hitler knew this and explained it pretty well.

I m not a moral relativist, i get what i want and i dont give a fuck. And like meat and meaty women with huge tits, and if you are like feinesahnefisch filet or the cia, i will rip you into shreads, just like i said from the very get go. I will crawl into your minds looking at all the cables, even at your anonymous crap, and i will rip and tear. Just like i find hackers really itneresting and how they think, you will expose your belly just like the thor steinar guy or the antifa, ich bin hinter dir her wie ich hinter dem verfassungsschutz her bin, prey.

It certainly does.

Nice resume. Yeah. A conceptual breakdown is great for creativism. Things do get quite stale sometimes.

Just like the pirate party, getting suvbverted by faggots and anitfa, and Bfv, you will feel my anger.

The quality of visual art (paintings and sculptures, as an example) has diminished. No one can negate that fact.
Canned shit is being treated like a masterpiece.

It is because the things that defined the value given to a piece, have shifted from the visual beauty said piece has and the effort that was done to achieve said beauty, to the meaning of the art piece, the backstory.

The value given to art was always based on visual beauty. The old greeks admired the human form, and tried to represent it perfectly. The famous paintings and sculptures that were done during the middle ages and the renaisance where of extremely good quality, being pleasant to the eye. The ability to depict reality as closely as posible was praised.

Even to someone that has not had interaction with the culture in which the pieces done following universal standards of beauty, the piece retains value, as it is based on visual aesthetics.

Now, however, it's based on the story, the meaning that the piece has. One great example is "the shoes on the danube". It has been praised as a great masterpiece. The sculpture itself is a collection of shoes sticked to the ground, in front of a river. Each pair of shoes is supposed to represent a victim of the nazis. To a person that doesn't know the context, it is merely a collection of shoes. The viewer has to know the story behind the piece to understand why its valuable. If the message, meaning, or story of the piece is not known, the viewer will see it as fucking trash.

If the pieces done following the rules I stated in the paragraph above, are presented to an allienated individual, it will certainly not be able to spot the source of praise.

That is why the standards have fallen so low, because meaning is praised more than beauty. That is why trash like an untouched canvas is sold by millions of dollars.
It gets even worse when the context is not shown. How can you spot the diference between a masterpiece and a pool of vomit? you can't. Only if you are told that one of those two identical pools of vomit is a thoughtful representation of human nature towards its own existance, and specifically told which one is it, you will be a ble to spot it. It holds no value of itself, the value is given by the viewer.

The conception that beauty is subjetive has also help to sink the quality of art in general. The idea that beauty is not a shared perception between every human, but a fluid concept that is aplied by the mind over an object, and that it changes depending on the person. It has been proved wrong, but that it has doesn't mean that it will stop being pushed by every form of media.

In short, if the context of a piece is striped from it, and then it holds no value, it had no value to start with.

It's an acquired taste. It's more difficult to be inspired or moved by classical art because it's refined and orderly, but that just shows the amount of care that goes into it, as opposed to some kike throwing shit on a canvas and calling it art. Get into German Romanticism if you're looking for expressive, emotional art, as well as music from the same period. Schubert's song cycles for example would be very hard to characterize as dogmatic and unemotional.

Just like "the spiegel" said only beauty can save us. But you have to create said thriving environment so it looks like it should look like.

The kikes think if you master the art you can throw shit on a canvas just for their preslected audiance.

I really understand art, but next is antifa, i will fuck you up you disgrace, and then i rape your handlers.

what the fuck is all this shit?

Rape, now the antifa thinks they can wear the shirts of the naztis or write crap on the internet to neatly sew them shut. And there is a tiime when their own life quality or their relatives suffers, i wonder what rationalization you have in pettp for that, you vermin. Will you part some money or invite them for a nice hike,. what will you do you shit. How much self denial can you take and insert into your friends and family. Will you look into a fridge and call them names you disgusting nigger.

Shills/bots spamming incoherent shit all over Holla Forums to disrupt threads
Just report him.

This is only true in a society that views progress as both inevitable and beneficial, as an end in itself - it only HAD to happen if we also consider that the enlightenment also HAD to happen. Both modern and and the enlightenment are physiognomic, i.e. outward manifestations of an inner essence, a sickened essence, as it were.
Art does not have to evolve - case in point, I'm sure the ancient greeks, had their culture persisted, would have been quite content in merely perfecting traditional representations of pure forms, indeed perfecting the absolute. It takes a level of inner certainty alien to us to REFUSE progress for progress' sake. I'm not an art scholar, but to me dada and surrealism were indeed constructive - there is a link between Dali and Brueghels - whereas Warhol is eminently destructive. Similarly, i don't think that Schoenberg aimed to destroy music and logos; atonal music is often highly structured and reveals a hidden order within the outward appearance of chaos, similar to natural phenomenon. Contrast this to the purely stochastic music (all elements dictated by chance) of John Cage.

Goethe would say that the concept of "Mankind" is a zoological fallacy - there are only Mankind(s). In this sense 'universally relevant' is only that which is relevant to our racial spirit. Not to sound like a communications major here, but in regards to your question about technology, "the medium is the message"'; why did Hitler value granite above all other materials? Why was sculpture the ultimate greek art form? To present digital art as the most relevant expression of the contemporary soul is to present this soul as a disembodied abstraction dependent on technology. Regardless of the meme that suggests that "the internet never forgets", ones and zeroes erode faster than stone; physical art is infinitely more "real". Not going to debate whether vidya is art or not, but it is certainly a representation of pure subjectivity: personal interaction is the prime decipherer of meaning. Only the vidya player makes the product finite by actualizing it; without him the vidya is pure potentiality.

The only thing you niggers get is some real war, and some real war machinery. And that is what you and your piece of shit friends craved for. Na you do not fuck off,you try to intellectualize it, now lets shape the enivironment so i can look you straight in the face, du kleine hure.

I put you against wall, along with your psyducks, i will get to you. Like i pointed out the first time i said this.

I wish humanity still valued aesthetics.

I fucking lol'd at the first pic over how disgustingly absurd it was. Anyone have a pic of the OP's hand carved dragon? I'd like to see it. (polite sage for off-topic)

There is nothing wrong with liking women or having a healthy sexual appetite. Nothing sinful about that. As with anything however, overindulgence or perversion is unhealthy in every regard. You don't need God to tell you that, medical science and psychology are enough.

Please elaborate, I need more ammo to tear down (((art dealers))) with.

see

marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

If you love modern art then you will love the works of Nigel Tomm

nigeltomm.us/

...

I was looking at some old statues the other day and admiring the level of detail the sculptors were able to carve into the stone, pics related. Because these were done before modern tools, carving an image like this took serious skill, as did painting with realism, as did writing something the Aenid or Inferno etc. These things took time, knowledge, effort, and were reserved as luxuries.

Now however, modern tools can easily pump out intricately carved statues, and skill has fallen by the wayside of "expression". Great art can still be made of course, but in a vast world filled with it who can find it? Who even wants to? People want to be artists, they don't want make art. In Melbourne there's a culture of young Muslim men going around with jihadi stickers on their cars flaunting all this IS shite, it's because they like the idea, and their cruisy facebook lives just aren't fulfilling enough, and so in the same vein, a lot of people are going around basically LARPing as artists because the idea of being that appeals to them.

Were in the weimar period of the entire world. They are trying the same shit they did to Germany pre world war two again.
Section on the modern art that was present in Wiemar Germany from a university paper.

...

our entire (((modern culture))) is jewish from top to bottom

Know how the Frankfurt School plays into this?

Scam 1: Oops, boat accident; insurance claim

Scam 2: a. borrow 6 gorillion dollars
b. arbitrage buy/sell stocks, commodities, currencies, etc.
c. pay back loan (no ?)
d. profit

The painting is by Ivan Albright, father-in-law of Madeleine Albright, for the 1945 movie version of "A Picture of Dorian Gray." The first Dorian Gray portrait you see in the movie is by Henrique Medina de Barros. Albright slowly transformed the painting during production resulting in this final version. A young and beautiful Angela Lansbury was nominated for an Oscar for her performance. I would not call this painting degenerate.

The Otto Dix painting "Metropolis" is a pointed criticism of the Weimar Germany. Decadent women and effeminate men mocking the crippled veterans of WWI. It's a masterpiece.

Machines rarely pump out something with details in the finest sense. Not what I have seen anyway but I'd like to see it. Nor can they create something new that can touch us in the human way we all know and feel from seeing beauty created by someone who wishes to show that beauty.. Replicas perhaps can get very close, but I'm not so sure about that either. Every mediocre Italian restaurant got tons of that shit and it never feels truly genuinely "Italian" because of exactly what it is - replicas. If some genuine statue of that calibre were to be placed in the midst of an mediocre Italian restaurant someone who's looking for beauty will find it and someone who's lucky may just randomly be drawn to it.

That level of detail you've shown us is the epitome of human skill. Things like that got soul because a human made them. That's why they are so precious.

Humanity does.

Informative post, thanks.

The thing I worry about is how to tell the difference from people who want more eye pleasing aesthetics and people saying to draw this way and this way only. I thought about this a long ago wondering if Picasso was just trolling when he went full abstract instead of doing his work in the early style that he did. Or if he was just bored and lost his fire to keep drawing in the same style as before. I just worry that everyone who believes in the true good art, which it is, will believe that this is the one and only way of art. Not even really grasping the concept of that everyone doesn't draw the same. Like handwriting, everyone doesn't write the same way. Like Adolf Ziegler. Adolf's favorite artist. Good painter, but very bland. Very dull. But yet artist like Carvaggio were more eye popping and interesting who painted way before Adolf. However, I am afraid that when we try something different then we shall be shunned for trying something different and not sticking to the status quo. Or that we should excuse bad art, and the whole belief of there is no such thing as bad art (which is a lie). My question is how do we produce good stylized art, but not be entered in the realm of degenerate bad art?

tl;dr almost complete rambling :What are good examples of stylized good aesthetic art?

yeah it explains that underneath

This article is has everything you need to know about the origins of modernism including art and architecture.
thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/01/how-jews-created-american-modernism.html
archive.fo/5I5Hx

How “overrepresented” were Jewish designers in the modern movement?

My questions exactly. In the early years—the 1920s and 1930s—modernism was seen as “out there.” Avant-garde. Sort of dangerous. And Jews were at the vanguard even then. (I’m thinking of the groundbreaking Los Angeles architects R.M. Schindler and Richard Neutra.) Why?

History is painful.
By historicism, you mean, like, neo-classical architecture. That sort of thing. Before modernism, designers were almost trying to recapture the past. But that was anathema to Jews

JEW CREATED MODERNISM TO DESTROY CULTURE AND HISTORY
It's such a common trick that reappears in everything the jew touches. Deconstruct tradition and erase it. Then replace it with something devoid of meaning as a "clean slate". Use these things to push a jewish agenda. Over and over and over again. With art, music, language, family, sexuality, literature, politics, philosophy. Again and again and again.

Oh you mean the movie released by (((Metro Goldwyn-Mayer))), directed by (((Albert Lewin))) and produced by (((Pandro S. Berman)))?

The user you originally responded to was correct. Little by little degeneracy gets creeped into culture until you have statements like oh well that's not that bad It's a spiral into the depths of hell that comes in the form of a slow boil. We are the frogs.

Modern art can be uplifting

It's a prop.

Pic related worth 6 million :^)

abstract art == kkkool

post-modern art == jeww

oh fuck me
aussie here

the pioneer is one of my favourites
fuarkin jew cunts….

anyway yeah reminder that modern isn't so bad but its post-modern where the real kike shit lies. most art newfags/plebs confuse the twom aye (pic related)

What's the difference?

all forms of modern art that aren't surrealist hellscapes are jewish

Pic on the left is Isis by di Sangro a Jesuit Rosicrucian alchemist who was expelled from the Catholic church for witchcraft. Pretty mind blowing stuff his life, the rumours and the Sansevero chapel.

Bob ross absolutely hated it. When a man like him who paints happy little trees hates something, you know it's fucked up.

...

You do art like that and I'm going to allow you a capital. Only things against him are his love of Bel Canto but that could be bullshit, and that he had all his notes destroyed so nobody could build on his work which seems a bit selfish.

The contrast between Tom Roberts and a short walk around vibrant Sydney or Melbourne couldn't be more stark.

War is coming.

"What is art" is the wrong question because it's unanswerable. It's better to ask, "what is not art". Answer: anything, with art markers like signatures and frames removed that you wouldn't rescue from the scrapyard.

Art test need to be on the educational test so it can be used to purge the degenerates or is this too dangerous to use this as a tool?

We can perform this test on that bed that some deranged lady plopped in an "art" museum. You might go to the junkyard and think, hmmm, I have a mattress at home that fits that frame, throw the disgusting mattress and all the junk and trash around it to the side and take the frame home. We can conclude from this that the mattress frame MIGHT be art but that any other parts of the "exhibit" are definitely ruled out as art.

As well as the conspiratorial explanations, there is also the more material, mundane one, MONEY.
The jew is a master of creating new markets to extract resources from the gullible.
One way to do this is to "invent" a new concept and position yourself as the leader in this new "field".
As the preeminent "expert" you have the clout to direct this "new movement" and decide who gets ahead and who doesn't.
This method has been used to subvert art and control what is accepted as "good" and "valuable".
Using their cousins in the media to hype their darlings, artjews inflate the "value" of the work of their chosen clique, bringing (((collectors))) in to invest early before the artist explodes into fame.
Then the (((collectors))) who are for the most part money launderers, insure the artwork for millions and then burn down the gallery, saatchi, or borrow money against the "value" of said art after it has been appraised at a much higher level than it's initial purchase price thanks to (((media))) hype of the (((artist))).
I'm sure I've missed some details, but the point I'm making is that beyond the cultural subversion aspect, modern art is plain FRAUD, the classic jewish livelihood.

Or they can borrow 6 gorillion dollars against the appraised value of a can of shit, arbitrage stocks, commodities, currency, etc., pay back the loan banking a nice risk-free profit, rinse and repeat.

So is there a Frankfurt School connection to any of this?

youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

I think it's why Hitler never because a successful artist. When Hitler was studying art, he didn't do the popular stuff. Wiemar Germany wanted "abstract" and "avant-garde" and shocking. That stuff was popular, and Hitler wasn't doing it. He didn't want to make art you could jerk off to.

I dunno, I'm not saying you should but I would have an easier time jerking of to a Bouguereau than a Paul Klee

The last one sold for 80 million goy.

...

Here's my latest masterpiece, can I get a million shekels for this?

Do you have a rich acquaintance that wants to launder millions of dollars to you? If you do, it's worth millions. If not, it's garbage.

does your name end in berg or stien?

probably

– t. the least imaginative person on the face of the Earth

pro tip - picasso didn't have much technical skill, his early realist stuff was done with his dad(a professional painter) breathing down his neck telling him what to do, pointing out his errors. The technique he used is a way to copy a scene in front of you with no real understanding of it, being a human camera. It's a good way to impress plebs but anyone with a good knowledge of art wont find it very interesting. He didn't start painting like a drunk retarded chimp until he was older and painting by himself. Picasso is world record all time champion of bullshiting.

patronage is an important aspect
patrons have always commissioned art, and historically were bound by rules of honor and integrity, which have been replaced with corruption and incentive
also the architecture angle of wanting people to live in places that are ugly to support the idea of everything being ugly

you're right, he ripped off Georges Braque who saw cubism as a way to express the new idea of the fourth dimension in a two dimensional work. Picasso got famous and Braque got nothing.

I'll just leave this here.

Sam's "How to Make it as an Artist" video from Rutgers is 10/10. He even blames the kikes for fueling 95% of the modern 'art' market's demand.

BUMP FOR A BREAD THATS SLOW

ART IS 20 % TALENT 80 % BULLSHITTING PEOPLE WITH ART FAG VANACKULERR this is modern art

MOST ARTIST THESE DAYS WILL JUST GET A GRANT OR GO THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS BULLSHITTING A CITY COUNCIL OR SCHOOL THAT THERE ART IS COMPLEX DEEP AND WILL BE A SIGHT TO BEHOLD SO THE ARTIST ASKS AROUND FOR EXAMPLE THE CITY WANTS A STATUE OF LETS SAY A BEAR FOR A PUBLIC PARK THE ARTIST SCULPS A SMALL BEAR STATUTE SEND THAT IN HE GETS A CHECK FOR 100GRAND takes the bear to get enlarged goes sculps large bear sends bear to foundry to make molds wax bronze all that long story short any one could make a bear out of clay but the real work comes from the people behind the scenes putting the artists work together and all the money that goes towards the process is skimmed of the top by who who knows ?

it is a tricky business there are talented people who don't get noticed and not so talented people who get everything because REASONS and not what you know WHO YOU KNOW ….beaver bread look it up
in b4 ?

hitler was denied when they found out he liked (((wagner)))

I wonder how redpilled old Bobby was.

Sounds like a lot of kike shit to me, user.

Stuff like this has to be a money laundering scheme. I can't see any other way anyone would even think of wasting that kind of money unless it's used to shuffle money around to other people.