Is the high art the most decadent bourgeois industry?

Socialist Realism is the best

Yes I will.

Most Socialist Realism art is insufferable kitsch. Your pic is one example.

Really? Which capitalist process is it even part of?

As far as I know "high art" is not created en masse nor is it made by workers who produce surplus. The maker and seller of each piece is an independent agent, working for himself.

...

...

Its a money laundering scheme.

Based Rivera.

They're making that money off the bourgeoisie not other workers. Don't forget that in this equation there are also bourgeoisie making money from owning the exhibits where the art is shown. Rich =/= bourg and poor =/= prole.

What do you mean there are plenty of people who don't actually "produce" their own art. Didn't Damien Hirst have some other people actually create those dot paintings? Also there were some minimalist artists who had things constructed in factories.

This. Telesur English is making an ongoing series about those Art Fairs that are popping up in malls and shopping centers in Britain and it addresses the issues really well. Any comrades can find the series on youtube.

shitpost flag my bad

read a book

The proletariat only likes photorealistic art.

That's nonsense.

nah you have shit taste

Ok not exactly only realistic art but very few proles like abstract art. Don't try to deny it fam

why not. i've seen plenty of prole homes with kandinsky or mirò prints on the walls. not even "artsy" people, just bought the thing because they liked it.

Modern art was a CIA propaganda weapon used in order to make the United States look more "futuristic" in comparison to the Soviet Union.

Millions and millions of dollars and decades of of promotion barely scratches the surface of it all.

….I'm not even fucking kidding.

bbc.com/culture/story/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia

gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal

independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

I don't trust ANY of this fucking porky shit.

Then why did the soviet union have "modern" art?

It's the USSR's fault for thinking that only the boring Socialist Realism thing was worth it.

I'm not denying they did, all i'm saying is that Socialist Realism was primarily what the USSR went with and the CIA slush funds and fake foundations propping up Jackson Pollock ( he was unaware of any of this, by the way) were done for a reason.

"This technique—called "long leash" operations—kept the CIA in the shadows as it sponsored massive organizations like the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which had offices in 35 countries, and organized historic exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist art in cities across Europe. The works were to form a psychological blockade against Communist artistic influence."

Nothing to see here folks, be sure to pick up your free Andy Warhol prints with the purchase of a Happy Meal.

Is surrealism modern art? Because a bunch of surrealist were leftists.

Futurists were mainly fash (or they are thought to be) but then you have Carrà making a painting for an anarchist.

I should make the distinction between the very broad umbrella of "modern" art and the specific genre of Abstract Expressionism (Pollock, Rothko) which I'm railing against.

By the way, keep stuff like this in mind:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_Exhibition

That second one ain't surrealist, it's Dada.

Well, if we're gonna split hairs, Frida refused to be called surrealist too.

My point is that artistic movements don't just pop up from nowhere, every artist knows art and is part of an ongoing discussion about how art should be and what it should do. dismissing an entire movement because alphabet soup financed it is short sighted. You might as well say that nasa is shit because the space race was anticommie propaganda.

That's fair enough, to be frank I think the main reason I detest it so much is idpol has blurred the lines between interesting art like the stuff Salvador Dali did, and the full blown "I'm going to shove ravioli noodles into my vagina (actually happened, btw) to convey how neo-liberalism has fried my brains" that most art school graduates are trying to go for.

there's plenty for everyone in twentieth century art. and yes, a whole bunch of it is bullshit, especially post Warhol, but then, a whole lot is actually great. I do recommend looking into it, you're bound to find stuff you like, and if by any chance you find out cia funded it then fuck it, it's not like you're buying the stuff and the cold war is allegedly over anyways.
cheers and sorry for the rothko but i like the guy

"Art is whatever makes the rich and powerful feel smarter."

Apparently this is a quote by an artist called Flashlight that I never managed to find again.

Modern Art didn't start with Pollock

Even Pollock's fame didn't start with the CIA

I seriously hope people in this thread don't think modern art started somewhere in 1950s. And while the art market may be ridiculous, I'd take over faux-heroic gaudy monstrosities like this

If it's any consolation to your resentment, Barnett Newman himself hasn't seen even half percent of that price.

Dali is the least interesting surrealist, he's crypto classicist kitsch shitter for petit bourgs and Tool fans.