Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree5Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 5th, 2018, 08:55 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 953
Modern Art?

Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea39dHj01yc

Thoughts?
Thanks from Sabcat
xMathFanx is offline  
Old March 6th, 2018, 01:46 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 23,893
My thoughts?

Some of what he presents is valid.

For the most part, I find him as pretentious and obnoxiously pontificating as the people he is lampooning.
Thanks from xMathFanx
tristanrobin is offline  
Old March 9th, 2018, 01:57 PM   #3
Quid est veritas?
 
Peter the Roman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The heart of darkness
Posts: 500
Who fucking cares about what some arrogant limey has to say about anything?

Fuck him and fuck you for posting him.
Thanks from tristanrobin
Peter the Roman is online now  
Old March 9th, 2018, 01:59 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 23,893
LOL yeah - what he said ^ LOL
tristanrobin is offline  
Old March 9th, 2018, 02:09 PM   #5
Quid est veritas?
 
Peter the Roman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The heart of darkness
Posts: 500
Let me continue my point, after watching the video, and say again: fuck him, and fuck you for inflicting PJW on unsuspecting people. I'm sure you listen to him for ideological reasons and that's whatever, but he really ought to consider, you know, what art actually is before he decides to make a comment on it.

The reason why art is where it is now all goes back to the camera, really. Before the camera, there was a bigger emphasis on artists being able to fully and accurately depict what they were trying to depict because it wasn't just supposed to be a representation of their feelings, it was literally supposed to be what a photograph would be to us. When the photographic camera came about and that need was lifted, artists turned to more abstract ways of showing the world. And in any case, this isn't a fucking rule. There are still artists today who paint like Rembrandt and such with detailed photorealism. For example:



Look at that painting. Do you see the immense detail the artist put into this? If you weren't looking at it very closely and only saw this at a glance, you'd think it was a picture with a filter. This was painted in 2007. Nine years ago. Nine. That's modern art right there.

Now of course that isn't necessarily what PJW is referring to but I don't fucking care. What gives him the fucking position or the fucking right or the fucking knowledge to speak on things that he honestly doesn't know about? He can talk in very dismissive terms about art, but yet by doing so he demonstrates that he only can discuss it in very broad terms.

For example:

Take Convergence, by Jackson Pollock. I'm sure that this is the 100% biggest offender on PJW's list of terrible art. But do you see the textures on the canvas? The layers of colors intersecting and complimenting and contrasting each other? He is looking at art in the same way one looks at a photograph. But that is an incorrect way of viewing it. Art is art for the sake of itself.

In conclusion,

is just as valid of an artwork as
Peter the Roman is online now  
Old March 9th, 2018, 02:29 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 953
@Peter & Trish

Thanks for clarifying your well reasoned position(s)
xMathFanx is offline  
Old March 11th, 2018, 10:51 PM   #7
An Awesome Dude
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location:
Posts: 3,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter the Roman
Who fucking cares about what some arrogant limey has to say about anything?
Indeed.... MODREN ART IS CRAP!!!
Dude111 is offline  
Old March 12th, 2018, 04:32 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post


Believe it or not many people felt the same way about the Impressionists.

"There were eight impressionist exhibitions between 1874 and 1886. Both public and critics were mystified by what they saw, baffled by the paintings’ lack of finish, their bright colours and quotidian subject matter. Reviewing the 1876 exhibition at the Galerie Durand-Ruel, Albert Wolff of Figaro summed up the general feeling: “Following upon the burning of the Opera-House, a new disaster has fallen upon the quarter. There has just been opened at Mr Durand-Ruel’s an exhibition of what is said to be painting … Five or six lunatics, of whom one is a woman [Berthe Morisot], have chosen to exhibit their works. There are people who burst into laughter in front of these objects. Personally I am saddened by them.”

Some of the artists featured? Manet, Monet, Renoir, Sisley, Degas and Puvis de Chavannes.
Clara007 is offline  
Old March 12th, 2018, 06:03 AM   #9
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
He is spot on. Modern art is trash and the goofballs who pretend it is not are pretentious douchebags.
Thanks from xMathFanx
Sabcat is offline  
Old March 12th, 2018, 06:06 AM   #10
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,996
Quote:

For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.



Modern art was CIA 'weapon' | The Independent
Sabcat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
art, modern



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Modern Educayshun Sabcat Education 1 October 27th, 2017 09:25 PM
We need a modern day Lincoln. Tyler Cornwall Current Events 15 January 14th, 2013 10:27 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.