CalARTs and other animation schools

This is becoming a common trend in a lot of majors, not just art. You're seeing professors who value activism over coursework, and others saying they'll just let their students pick their grades, so as not to cause and oppression or emotional distress. Couple this with the fact that many teachers never worked in the fields they claim to be experts in and others don't know how to teach, and you get a pretty huge problem.

Programming majors graduate without really knowing how to code. Artists graduate without knowing the fundamentals and with portfolios full of performance art and post-modernist drivel to show for it. And let's not forget communications majors who have only learned ways to control and hinder the ways that people communicate.

Can you really blame them though? People aren't stupid. Everybody can see that the chances of actually getting a job after you graduate are slim to none, and the chances of actually getting a job related to your degree in any way might as well be zero. Why even try?

What the actual fuck is even going on anymore?! Did nearly 100 years of animation teachings go down the fucking drain?

The golden age is long gone, and the vets of animation are either dead or not getting any younger user. It'll take a miracle or a memeteor to fix this.

...

Im going to be honest user keep those jokes to the gg threads, if you bring that crap here it'll only entice the actual shitposters that try to cause shit to continue.

You're the only one getting assblasted about it.

Yes. Kikes don't care about beauty, only 1. if its cheap and 2. promotes their narrative. Good art is not cheap, and those who make that are a bit too independent-minded to be reliable propaganda tools.

First time seeing this, thanks for sharing.
It's funny… I remember back in high school I took an art crash course of sorts, the first session –which doubled as a test to determine who is fit to continue the course– had real life drawing. The teacher brought a plant in a pot and asked the whole class to draw it, right off the bat… Needless to say that half the class failed and dropped the course, while the rest who passed went on to advance through more and more real life drawing granted it was mostly inanimate objects because this wasn't a high level course.

Now people are getting degrees from fucking college by drawing scribbles, how utterly hilarious. Stop enabling these graduates. no company executive, animation studio or cartoon fan should ever digest a piece of "artistic" crap these faggots shit out. Only then will they step up their game.

...

Something like this?

For fuck's sake

They deserve to be bullied.

...

Well, at least one good thing came out of CalArts.
In 1986.

So basically art schools are containment sites for trust funders with sub-100 IQs and a Tumblr account. Explains a lot when you think about it.

The joke was already obvious in the post.

Gotta agree with the user.

That can't be fucking real . . . she became a manlet woman-let. Any comparison pics from season 2/3?

Why the fuck is this art? Anyone else could climb up a ladder and just drop paint filled eggs onto a canvas beneath it without having to insert it and expel it from a body cavity.
Jackson Pollock already mastered this with way more splatters and no vagina.

Why does it feel like modern art is becoming more, how can I be original, shocking and have a disgusting sexual component of myself at the same time?

Second picture is a John K quote, but it was directed at Animaniacs, not Mighty Magiswords like the picture implies.

It's both a lack of talent, and a desire to provoke a reaction from the public in order to bring attention to their work, and to make a statement. Problem is that shock value is a fleeting thing. Something that shocked you yesterday is not as shocking today. Back in the day you could just grab a broken urinal and call it "fountain" and people would be shocked by it. Nowadays you have to shove eggs in your vagina and queef them onto the canvas in order to get a reaction out of people. The aesthetic aspect of art has died, and been replaced with a never ending need to attention whore basically.

Not that I'm all that big a fan of Animaniacs, but why is John K such an autistic snob?

The popularity of Ren & Stimpy made him a self-entitled asshat. He likes to stalk little girls too.

Because nobody goes to art school to learn anything, they go there, finish up and then get hired either via word of mouth or the networks need to hire animators who want to work cheap.
These people put in the bare minimum because they care more about bragging about working on a big cartoon show than they do about creating something that is worth anybody's time. Look at the asshole who created Mighty Magiswords, his original idea was a blatant Slayers rip off but CN kept rejecting the pitch, so he decided to jump on the "LOL RANDOM" bandwagon and he got his shit on the air and he doesn't have to put in any effort into making his show good because he doesn't care, he can just brag to all his friends that he has a show on CN and that is good enough for him.

They're available, but the issue is that there's no curriculum or structure to learn it properly. It might seem minor, but it's very crucial to improve.

He shits on his own Ren & Stimpy cartoons he's just a perfectionist, He also likes Gorillaz music videos, Tank girl, Cats don't dance, Plastic man(Pilot and DC nation shorts) and Cow and chicken, So you can't say he hates everything made after the 50s.

Isn't he literally gay though?

blame monet on that for forcing impressionism on the art world. everything before that was great, the art world had a standard that was based on craftsmanship. but because of that asshat impressionism made way for the genres that became what we see today. today's artist don't care about craftsmanship you see this all the time, the reason for that is because art had an somewhat objective meaning, sense of morals and passion before impressionism. but after the meaning of art started to become subjective and with that anything can be art (can being the key word). what people think is art, became the problem because people dont look at art anymore as how finely crafted the finished piece is, they look at it if it satisfy their likes (which is wrong, i forgot the philosopher but he went over invoking the will and why its wrong), why do you think today's cartoons, comic books, etc are pandering to a group of people, it's because it is easy to get them to like it. all you have to do nowadays is is make something like that, no effort, a lot of buzzwords, echo their opinions and so on. if you want to really know how bad it is see pic, with out looking up it via reverse image search think about it for 5 mins then look up the guy in it and the painter.

...

I don't get what the picture has to do with what you're saying. Didn't find anything special about the subject or the painter, what are you getting at?

Real question: is this whore retarded? Apparently she is if she things squirting eggs out her pussy is art or whatever
If she received any money from this then it makes her a whore, showing off and exposing her body to the camera like that while inserting stuff in her rotten probably barren cunt

Heavy stuff, that's the kind of deep desire to create and connections we need in our artists nowadays, not some bored daddys money bitch at a comfy art college.

There's also this. NSFW: videos.toypics.net/view/139/

Wasn't he one of reasons we ended up in the position we are in today from pushing the execs too far that they decided to try the less creator driven route?

Since art job listing stopped demanding drawing skills particularly in computer animation.

There are still plenty of artists who spend countless hours practicing/studying to improve their craft. It's just that these are also the same people with the worst networking skills and opportunities. Y'know since they spend so much time in solitude WORKING ON THEIR ART. So casual artist yuppie who parents can fit the bill for over priced "prestigious" art school in equally over priced coastal city, will get far more chances to lick crew ass enough to get a coveted spot on a show.

Look at all the webased animators.

It's speculated to be Kate Leth.

I don't care about user's bitching about impressionism, but the man's face in that painting looks like a goddamn photograph.

I didn't know they let hookers into the premises at CN.

She interned at CN?

A few actual reasons:

1. College tuition has gotten so ludicrously expensive, especially at CalArts that the only ones who can afford it are rich snowflakes that aren't used to being told "no", anyway. It becomes an exclusive social club instead of a place of learning.

2. Television ratings have been declining for decades ever since the internet was invented. Less viewers mean less money can be gained from commercials. Less money means less quality the network wants to spend money on. This means there's no pressure to get good at drawing, since the networks can't afford good animation anyway.

...

Sound liked my life for now. This is why I pursued another career for now.

Whether or not the impressionists existed, your bloody western art going down the drain anyway. The reason why Impressionism and all the other -isms existed in the first place is because PHOTOGRAPHY took away all the craftsmanship you need to make a great art. So the rest of the artists instantly tried to innovate different ways to make painting relevant.
See pic related. Which of the three paintings where the subject matter cannot be done better with a camera?
Dadaism is just a way to express the art's lack of relevant in society. All the Picasso, Matisse, Rothko, Jack the Dripper blalalala were just there for the rich to communicate that they are more culturally enlightened. The paintings that they made are made quickly and thus intensify the art dealers to promote them.
To be honest, I liked the diverse styles of modern art. The old paintings, beautiful as they are, became stale and boring, it isn't as great as you think. See pic related. Turner and Dali are some of my favorites because they did not just paint naked women all the time.
Right now, animation style go to shit the same way as paintings. Computer software did not required great drawing unlike the old days. Time and budget management required that the art is done quickly screwing over originality and serious craftsmanship. Which is why CalArt animators are the ways they are.

You (and most people) think of art as something that required work and demand respect. Artists think of art as just a way of express themselves (in reality, 90% do it to impress others).
There are an over-abundance of artists, how else can they grab your attention?

Small correction
*which one of the three painters that the photographer could definitely be able to do a better job than a painter?
Hints: more pics to press a point

aesthetic standards went down the tubes with five monosyllabic words: "you just don't get it"

This is probably the best reason for the major decline in talent. Instead of art schools being used to train people for actual jobs like becoming draftsmen, it's about buying a degree and enjoying the social club.

Though something else that I think has hurt things is the popularity of manga and anime, which have a lot of their cheaper cartoons not using much detail in their facial features. The shitty artists in the west copied the practice of just using oddly colored hair and set clothing/accessories/whatever to try and define the characters' 'look'.

Plus why worry about animation when a team of koreans is just going to do all your animation for you and you sit back and dictate how it should be animated?
Or even better, your name is attached to it and that's as far as you go in terms of work or talent.

Example: Steven Universe does all the animation in Korea, they just follow the storyboards.
Which just goes to show how lazy rebecca sugar and co. are.
Speaking of the devil, is it cancelled yet? I havent heard shit about that show in a good 6-7 months.

I always thought something was off.

fuck off

report, appeal for rule change or shut up

I think the real problem here is that rich fuckasses that don't know art looked at impressionism and modern art and what it meant and decided 'I can do that too!' Impressionism and other art movements from around the same time was based around emotion. Especially post-WW1; it gave people feelings they'd never had before. They didn't want to just draw pretty pictures. And beautiful pieces of art came from wanting to do something new.
The problem was when rich fuckasses appropriated that and decided to just sell scribbles and pretend like it has meaning.

Though I still love old paintings with naked women you talk about. I think you can always enjoy the natural beauty of the old paintings. Especially the ones that paint a story. It's not about porn. Porn never has the beauty that comes with paintings.

fuck off niggerfaggot

Anyway, art is best when it makes you feel something. Classic painting can do that, but also more impressionist. Even silly paintings like last pic related have more feeling and depth to them than a lot of shitty 'modern art' that's just a bunch of scribbles.
Animation has the same problem, but interestingly enough, so does fashion. Fashion is a legitimate art with a lot of work behind it, and then people like Kanye West put a model in pantyhose and a potatosack shirt and try to demand praise.

There's nothing wrong with impressionism, tbh. Abstract expressionism is what killed art in the west, it's the trend that started the post modern art movement. Impressionism still required talent, and skill.
The two fuckers who got the ball rolling were Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol. There's also the beginning of the mass produced commercial art trend when you could print art on canvases with industrial printers that started around the same time. Margaret Keane (and her scam artist husband) was the other side of the art world's decline.

Pollock, an alcoholic who took to throwing paint at canvases for therapy managed to impress some dipshit with too much money and no taste, bought up his booze therapy, and suddenly Pollock was a fucking super star, even though he did what a fucking kindergartner can do.

Andy Warhol was a fucking fraud on all levels. Though I give him some credit, he knew damn well he was being a fraud. But he also gave the idea that you don't actually have to have real talent, or skill to be a success.

Margaret Keane's style is very bland and flat, and was the epitome of "cheap mass produced art can make you rich with minimal talent." Though I have to give her some slack, her husband really didn't allow for her to expand upon her talents during her most formative years as an artist.

The message these artists sent to the next generation who would go to college in the 70's and 80's and learn about their art in art history classes and be "inspired" by them, is not one of creativity or doing something amazing, but that you can bullshit your way through the art world and become a success. Which is why most college art departments and art schools are now littered with post modernism shit, eggs spraying out of vaginas, and other nonsensical horseshit. You no longer have to try, you can pump out garbage, and the end result is that art is no longer as valued as it once was. It's a whole lot of noise to signal, and the signal is often ignored and drowned out in an outpouring of support for mediocrity and garbage, as the art world is now dominated by tasteless hacks who get in a big circlejerk over one another, allowing talented folks into their world would expose them, hence why they shit on talent and promote garbage. Art teachers in art schools are part of this circlejerk as well. Which is why they teach, they cant fucking do shit. Students who excel are shot down while students that follow the mold are praised and lifted up high. You have the attitudes of commercialism and mediocrity, the Keanes and the Pollocks, married together in an unholy union, producing potato headed animated characters in 2017, where being famous is more important than being talented, where mass produced work and cookie-cutter art is what is accepted and sells.

Who can blame them though? The system is designed to shut out talent, and garbage artists and animators are far cheaper to pay, and it's easier for execs to have a system where there is conformity and nothing will force them to have to switch things up and take risks. Plus if you get some diva who thinks they deserve more money on a huge money making show, it's trivial to replace them if their art is easily emulated by their peers.

Commercialization, mass produced artwork, cookie cutter art, and abstract expressionism is what fucking killed the art AND animation industry. We are now seeing its natural conclusion.

at least they're posting art from tumblr and not neo-feminist horseshit that seems to rule the other side of tumblr. You know, the whole intended purpose of the stupid site. There are legit artists on tumblr, they're just a minority on a site where idiocy reigns.

I remember that episode of the Honey Badgers. Good times.

To spread virtue-signalling and hate against right-wing groups?

Daily reminder that the artist of pics related isn't even old enough to be a Boomer.

They're not a minority, they're a silent majority. 99% of tumblr is just art blogs and instagram-wannabe blogs and just random people. There's only a handful of SJWs that just like bitching, and they've been moving more to twitter recently since more people on Tumblr are getting sick of their shit.

But yeah, when people post random art from tumblr, it's just because that's what most of Tumblr is, and it comes up on google searches since it's so much just image sharing.

He's 53. He's close to the cusp, but that's a Boomer.
There's also no word in his wiki page about going to an art school. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say he's self-taught, which seems to be the case with many of these types. iirc, Bob Ross went to school for painting, got pissed at them not teaching him how to paint realistically, and left to be self-taught, for example. He said something like 'they taught me what a tree was, but not how to paint it' or something to that effect. If I'm remembering right, anyway.

It also depends on where you're talking about. Your artist is Spanish. There's also Serge Marshennikov, that studied at the Imperial Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg. Clearly, Russia does not have the problems America has with art.

He got it off google you fuckwit, obviously.

Whoops.
What depends?

Whether or not it's impressive that they're making that art at a time where art's going to shit, that's all. You're less likely to find a Marshennikov or a Ferrer-Dalmau in America.

fuck off

This is relevant:
independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

tl;dr

Apparently they don't use references or something so as not to limit the animators or some shit like they think it's Ren and Stimpy except they never, ever do anything interesting with the character animation in SU so it just makes it inconsitant.

There's a great quote from the movie Midnight in Paris that I think is appropriate here:

Most people don't have easy lives or at least they aren't easy to them. People turn to art of various forms, whether it's paintings, music, or movies, for a relief from the natural anguish you experience in the course of life.

Many of the modern artists we see, who are fucking terrible at art, often seem to have led incredibly cushy lives. They shelter themselves from any sort of hard times or at least try their best to block it out of their minds (as evidenced by how they behave over social media). So many of their attempts at art don't involve trying to create something that gives anyone any sort of relief or comfort, but rather try for the opposite fairly often, where they try inserting discomforting things into their art to give people the sensation. Because they themselves have tried to shed from their lives all those thoughts of very real problems and conflict so now they're like a novelty that they think is entertaining on its own.

No, the art aspect.The whole sjw shit is a result of the people who orbit around talented artists seeking attention and purpose latching onto something that makes them appear to be worthy and gives them purpose, they were a ripe target for far left brainwashing.

Tumblr has always been meant for art. SJW's ruined tumblr, and pretty much ruined halfchan as well.

I like how her teeth are as yellow as her hair, with that soul less joyless stare of someone who is perpetually unhappy because they despise everyone around them and use them because they're psycho.

I think you really hit the nail on the head.

Pretty deep and depressing.

I used Tumnlr for porn. Try it sometimes. You cannot believe how much tumblr women loved to be consider less than an animal, and how they fapped about wanting to be processed into dogfood . Also there is a blog where they recounted the real rape they have and masturbated to it. You need an account for it though, I made one long ago just for art, now I used it mainly for porn.
myrapefantasies.tumblr.com/tagged/real-rape

Porn is why most of the old paintings were bought and sold. Plenty of old classic paintings are high-class erotica and if a photographer or pornographer put their time and energy to make something as grand, they could be made as beautiful. Other than that, telling a story via a camera is quicker, more accurate and a hell lot easier than learning how to paint. Which is why those impressionism and other -isms are good for paintings and were underrated. They basically prolong the art form by bringing more creativity and much more interesting art styles.

I said it before, it is the rich arseholes and the art dealers are the ones who did it. Art in the 20th century, is a way of the artists expressing themselves not supposed to be a respectable, divine, enlightened endeavors. Most artists I knew agreed with this but it was the rich, the academy, the press, the elites, the "pseudo-intellectuals" who just used art to promote themselves.
For that reason alone, is why i liked Andy Warhol. He exposed the art world of all their stupidity and made millions and long-lasting fame because of it. Other than that, he did ruin art.

That is because they are often the only artists who could made it. The art world is run by the rich for the rich. The poor had to switch careers or stay in obscurity. My teacher told me this: if you wanted to be an artist be prepared to be poor. Most of the artists you see on the news already have money and connections which resulted in those shallow arts because of their shallow lives. And the fact that most artists (most humans) are shallow people to begin with, there is a very small real talent pool among a ton of shit. What you see is what you get.
Best description of the art world so far.

See vid related: got to 5:56 if you wanted to know why some arts were considered good or why it was shit.

*2:56

Fucking degenerate.

Do you know where to find some nice resources about it

t. Butthurt CalArts student

It's still on air, Sadly. But it is not relevant anymore.

lol are you still paying for it?

Do you know how to read?

Yeah but like did you not pay for it all at once?
Are you poor? lol

I am not an art student. I studied Commercial Art and Graphic Design and met a ton of artists. That is how I get this info about art history. I am interested in art only because of how it is related to my field of work (film and photography) and that's it. Western art quality and ruination did not concerned me. I simply preferred different styles of paintings than the good old bougoereau copy-pastes. I only posted because Holla Forums liked to blame the symptoms and not the root cause. It is technology that cause most of the changes not the philosophy.

Stop with the smug and get out of here, faggot. He was saying the other person was a butthurt CalArts student.

Though only a moron would think that that person's post is CalArts. You have to be a special kind of stupid to not even find merit in impressionism.

I really doubt porn was the reason most old paintings were bought and sold. They were often time commissions for rich people that wanted photographs of themselves, but it's not like someone bought stuff like the Birth of Venus to jack off to it. Erotica isn't the same as porn, you know. A woman being naked is not inherently pornographic. And if it was all about porn, we wouldn't have just as many nude men in these pieces of art as we do.

Anyway, dunno who u speak of but whomever else said impressionism sucks is mostly wright for the most part tbh

...

You're trying way too hard to fit in here, faggot.

That is like saying cinematic masterpieces aren't films.
No, but you have to be a faggot if you cannot find sexuality in an ideal naked women beauty.
True, but that did not applied to the paintings of Ancient Greeks and Romans or any nudes.
I hated to sound like a feminist but if how many times have you see a nude male surrounded by clothed females comparably speaking to>>914088. All the nudity in those paintings are supposed to represent the perfect human beauty. That is the aesthetic goal. And the perfect male beauty is muscle bound Greek men with small penises. The reason men are nudes is to show their muscle. The reason why women are nudes is to show their tits or asses. Most of famous male nudes are also painted by gays.

Almost all the richest old-school painters in the 19th century are rich because female nudes. Why else do you think the reason there is a hundred births of venus every year? Why do you think many women in painting liked to be topless for no reason? Sex sells.

The pope had porn room painted by Raphael for Christ sake. Sexuality is the driving force of fine art in western civilization. Nothing wrong with it. If you ever watched art documentaries of those old art, the bloody critics always find sexual innuendos.

No, I mean erotica is literally different from pornography. They are considered two different things by definition.
It's more like saying a bathing suit isn't underwear. The two are pretty damn similar, sure, and might cover the same bits, but they're ultimately different things. Something can be sexual and erotic without being pornographic. It''s not about being a fag or not, the point of the paintings in question is the beauty of it rather than being pure jack-off material. You seem to understand this when you talk about aesthetics with the male nudity thing, so I don't know why you're bothering to fucking argue.

Give me some sources on people making these paintings by commission specifically for pornography. You can't, because the artwork is more than that, which is why it's not as explicit as porn– Even if the subjects are nude, they don't have their legs wide open while they rub their clits furiously. Sexuality and erotic themes =/= pornography, you damn barbarian.

...

My "Catholic" history professor throws around "Catholic" and "Christian" as if they were two different entities. Are they? Are. They?

Yes, Catholicism and Christianity are two different things. Catholics separate themselves from other Christians and other Christians tend to hate Catholics. The difference between Catholics and Christians of other branches is enough that they consider themselves different, even if a lot of the subject material is still the same. They put more emphasis on Mary and are the only ones that follow the Pope.
You're not helping your argument here. Things can be similar but not be the same. Erotica can involve pornography at times, but erotica is not inherently pornographic. Look at those definitions:

versus

Not the same thing. Also this is more of a case of this particular erotica definition being vague and lacking. Pic related is a better example. Erotica is more art-based and not necessarily explicit, though it deals with sexuality. Pornography is inherently explicit and is not made for its artistic value. They are different.

Man, you got to stop thinking that pornography is inherently bad, dirty or a hack job.
Pornography done in an artistic way is called erotica.
The reason why they are no explicit in their pornographic contents (they don't rub their clits furiously while they have their legs wide open) is because the clients wanted to be able to hang them in their living room and they don't want to be censor by the church. Everyone knew why those paintings were commissioned.
Nothing wrong with pornography.

No they aren't. The only "Catholics" I've met that say that are hardly Catholic.
Both are intended to arouse you. One is less emotional than the other. When we say they're almost the same, it's because they both are disgusting pieces of filth appealing to base desires.

This is only semantically different than what I'm saying. I don't care about whether porn is bad or not, it's just that I say they're different things. You even acknowledge there's a difference.
Anyway, how about you show me proof that people commission these paintings specifically to jack off to them? If you can't do that, then it's not porn.

So you admit they're different. Shut up then.

They can't boast to their friends that they painted it because of the carnality, can they? We found beauty in females because we wanted to fuck them. So did faggot and male nudes. The male nudes that weren't done by gays are power fantasy. The clients wanted to be the perfect male beauty and be able to fuck the perfect female beauty.

A car may not be an SUV, but an SUV is always a car. And erotica is always a high class pornography.
slate.com/articles/life/welltraveled/features/2011/vatican_inside_the_secret_city/vatican_guide_the_pope_s_pornographic_bathroom.html

Are you mad bro? 'Cause you seem pretty rustled.
They're hardly different, and to anyone who isn't some hipster fuck or just degenerate, they're the same. Both are intended to turn you on. Both are porn. Erotica is emotional porn. Pornography is just porn.

>psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201104/what-distinguishes-erotica-pornography
>sexualhealthsite.info/erotica-versus-pornography.php

…I don't know what the fuck happened to that post.
But either way, yeah. It's only a semantic difference you're trying to make and you still can't prove to me that people commissioned these pieces of art for pornographic reasons.

I already gave you a link on the cardinal.
Also you can read about it in history book liked pic related.
Watch a lot of smithsonian documentaries on the great art and you will find them.
Look for any Renaissaince documentary and they will be there. You can always be deluded and think that the paintings is innocence and that is find with me. I made my cases with the books I read and I am frankly to lazy to look up those books now.

And to be clear, they always mention "people commissioned these pieces of art for pornographic reasons" in one or two throwaways lines to an appendix. So don't think that the entire book are about the case we talked about.

Thanks fam.

The term "Erotica" got degraded with garbage like 50 shades of gay and the like.

Post proof.

is it even played at all? I swore the Teen Titans Go channel stopped airing it

A lot of artists and other fame seeking creatives like actors, writers and musicians are prostitutes who sell a product in exchange for sex. Study the woman in the video carefully. She is young and fit. I'm guessing sexually uninhibited given the egg-xibitionism; reminder that she "performs" this routine in public. She has boob implants and her nostrils suggest a nose job. She obviously has one or more male benefactors that she sleeps with in exchange for paying her bills. Studio space, art supplies and cosmetic surgery aint cheap!

Animation & Art ~ what is it good for?

Stay mad, bitch boy

good taste, funny you should post that as I've been on a bit of a Satoshi Urushihara kick lately. (anybody know where I can find all the Lemnear books in English?)

[low-effort reeeee'ing]

>>>/a/

I feel like I'm the only one who got the movie reference.

What you said It's only half the truth. Technology made people lazier, but during the Greeks and the Renaissance there was technological advances too and they don't sacrifice the craftsmanship. It was because people was against the institutions (particularly the Chruch) that they chose to object standards on art.

Tell me, of all these artists you met, are there someone with knowledge of the fundamentals or all of them are "muh statement"'?

I tried to upload a video about Roman statue technology which disproved what you just said and somehow it couldn't. Anyway because the video got blocked on Youtube, You have to use the piratebay if you want to see it. It is in Episode S04E07 of the Horrible Histories
'Basically, the roman used swabable parts (heads, arms, weapon or books) to avoid making new statues every few months due to emperors keep dying of coups. So just enjoy this vid about Roman toilet.

Also, all the statue buyers wanted is something that make them look good. That is why muscles, wisdom and beauty is a must while the real person may be an ugly skinny dumbass. Nobody cares because most people did not see him personally. With the camera, nobody can lied that easily any more. He will just be a joke. In short, the statues are propaganda or homage to the gods, the craftsmen did not want to go to Hades or died broke because the client hated his own look.

It depends. One is very good at drawing and maybe paintings because he practiced everyday. Because many are graphic designs, they also gave a damn about aesthetic and reaching your audiences, but their fields in the "fine art world" is in photography so I am not sure this what you looking . One is good at making statues resembles human using wood, but I don't know much more skilled he truly have. Anyway though, graphic designers rarely have any good feelings about the "muh statements" in modern art as well. Their trades is all about communicating and modern art expression (performance arts like the eggs in the vagina or vomit nude) creep them out and they have a lot more horror stories. But because we also dealt with a lot of abstractions, there is a lot of overlap and interactions between the two field.

*It couldn't upload and the youtube video is blocked.

The Renaissance is when they rediscovered the craftsmanship using the technology. Why would they throw it out?

Yes and No. The new artists are not against the church. the church hasn't had much power since Napoleon. They were simply against the masses, they cannot stand society, they wanted to be either above it (the pretentious elites like Picasso, Matisse, Gertrude Stein) or away from it (the homeless autists like VanGogh), that is why bourgeoisie is such an ugly term, they are the rising masses, the artistic plebeians, the normies, the reddit-tiers. Of course, they just ended up selling stuffs to them because only leddit appreciated them.

*Another correction. Sorry
They ended selling to the money elites. After all,
only the Upper-Class with no ties to the plebs and the uneducated middle-classes understood their values. That is how the art exhibitions exist at the moment to me: either the artists wanted to be more different and interesting than the rest of society. Or they wanted to say they are better than everybody and whoever bought their stuffs are better than everyone too.

I browse this board every once in a while and I think my experience of modern art is appropriate to this subject.

There was an art exhibiton in Finland's capital, Helsinki's Kiasma museum. The theme the art exhibition was going for was "the state of technology as it is today" or something vague like that. I got the impression that it was supposed to have art that was supposed to gouge at the internet, social media and the like after reading the pamphlet. Well, the exhibition mostly consisted of the most pretentious pieces of art I have ever seen. One piece consisted of barely discernible, childish scribbles on the walls. There was a room with bent and smashed wide-screen TV's strewn about. There were thick metal cables that had one piece of them cut out and put on display. This is what the "physical" art pieces amounted to, their only connection to the technology theme being extremely shallow.

There were also several rooms dedicated to videos, with maybe one or two taking some real talent to pull off, like with one German project where they went to hang out on a derelict Cold War- era satellite and made all kinds of media and video game references, trying to blur the lines of what was virtual and real. Others were the kind where a bunch of aposematism-hair women went to hang out in abandoned buildings to get drunk and throw drones around, all the while talking about nothing in particular. These videos lasted for well over half an hour. I ended up walking out in disgust through half of the videos. Not only did over half of the submitted pieces of "art" completely miss the point of the thing requested from them, it was all just a bunch of junk. I couldn't discern the artist's meaning from them, even if the art was personally meaningful to the artists themselves, and I only walked away with my own impressions. For instance, your cup of coffee can have incredible personal meaning to you, but I can't know that unless you try and communicate that same feeling to me. Just presenting it to me and saying "like, dude, look at this cup. it is so incredible" does nothing to the viewer.

You could say that it accomplished what it set out to do, but I call that utterly lazy artistry. Anyone can look at something and discern their own meanings from them, it doesn't have to be art for people to do that. If I need to hang around for over 30 minutes, watching some video that just keeps dragging on without any point to make, to try and discern some sort of meaning from it, that is just utterly frustrating. It would be a nice pay-off for my time if there actually WAS something to discern, but there simply isn't. I was wowed by 2, maybe 3 pieces there, but everything else amounted to white noise. I barely remember even being there.

If a piece of art doesn't have some effort behind it or a clear vision what it sets out to do, it is simply lazy art. Lazy art only ever amounts to be "barely passable", like scoring the lowest score on a course just so long as you pass. I went in, expecting to be challenged with stunning visuals or scathing ideas about the underlying ethics of the way our tech is produced, or something completely different I haven't noticed, but was only met with creations from hipsters who hang out on twitter, their only concern was becoming famous.

You could say I "didn't understand" these amazing pieces of art, but there was nothing to bite in to. No substance, no craftsmanship, no idea. Perhaps that was the whole point of the exhibition, but if that is true, then I think that was accomplished in the most frustratingly simple way possible. The internet is vast and bottomless, full of depravity and wonder, and THIS is how you decide is a good way to show how you have your fingers on the pulse? Seemingly random, utterly substanceless pieces of crap strewn around in a room? Videos of people just hanging around with a camera?

I am no art critic, but I know that I am pissed. I am a visual person and I feel wonder and excitement from all sorts of impressive art. This just left me feeling cheated out of my time.

Ever think about going to a graphic design exhibition? You might find something you want to see in that art exhibition there (and more generic but less insulting shit). Anyway at the end of my major, I decided to make abstract photography for the main theme because I hated that theme. It is a lot more like contemporary art than my classmates and I tried my best not to have the following:

If you went to many art exhibitions, you will always see the above. So if you want to see impressive visual art, just go there looking for the one of two pieces that might wow you. Trust me most art exhibitions are like that. If you are lucky, you might see one to three unique artworks that caught your interest. Plenty of time, there are none. Despite the fact that my classmates all worked harder than me and produced much more polished and "better-looking" visual works, more than a few teachers told me that I am the only one that actually impressed them because it stand out from the rest in terms of ideas and how it communicated. It is the same with fine art exhibition. One or two pieces will impress you, the rest will either bored or insult you.

I went there as a one-off, I usually stay away from modern art because I know I'll get angry, but I was surprised just exactly HOW angry it made me. I'll just stick to the more traditional route from now on like you suggested.

but kino isnt film

Fuck off Holla Forums

I remember when my Drawing teacher said that Art was for the rich and now modern art is like that because of technology. I remember to show her "why beauty matters" but she disregard it because it was "the eurocentric mindset"

...

It seems to me that she has never been out of the western world.
If she come to the least developed Southeast Asia countries then she would just discover that the majority of the artists there still paint the traditional way. It did not matched the craftsmanship of the old European painters but they were made to be aesthetically beautiful and is lot more polished than the impressionists. I preferred creativity than beauty but when someone said that "the eurocentric mindset" most of the time, they have no ideas what other cultures mindset were.

Though the idea that "Beauty is Truth" is really a western idea from pretentious philosophers and artists who inflated their self-worth. The ideas that because you like a certain art over the other make you more civilized and more intelligent is pure stupidity to me. Just false flattery across the board.

Other cultures paint beauty just because they love it and they were acknowledged as lies. The paintings are made to be beautiful because the real world is full of ugliness.

T H I C C

Hey Holla Forums