Upload
Login or register
x

Comments(82):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
12>
[ 82 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
73 comments displayed.
Reply
+242
User avatar #1 - mrnaanbread (10/12/2015) [-]
this kid will go places
not art museums but places nonetheless
Reply
+2
User avatar #45 to #1 - burningchimera (10/13/2015) [-]
Little late on that one, since he's at one
Reply
+32
#2 to #1 - hassoutobi (10/12/2015) [-]
Actually he will probably go to art museums

just not, *sigh*...modern art museums
Reply
+23
#7 to #2 - anon (10/13/2015) [-]
Ah, yes. Art Museums. The place we go to see artworks that a simple google search would have dug up, and whine about how people put out overly abstract art these days.

Art never suffered. It's just that our modern-day Goethes and Da Vincis found more profitable avenues for their art.
Reply
+4
User avatar #18 to #7 - shanethedragon (10/13/2015) [-]
a lot of what we think of as abstract art is actually classified as nonrepresentational. abstract art still represents a subject, just not in the way representational and naturalistic art would. nonrepresentational art tries to pass off as art without representing anything and trying to get by on the elements used in the work. needless to say nonrepresentational art makes no ******* sense
Reply
+3
#38 to #7 - bakagaijin (10/13/2015) [-]
**bakagaijin used "*roll picture*"**
**bakagaijin rolled image** **** yea, chandra
Reply
0
User avatar #58 to #7 - rockerforlife (10/13/2015) [-]
Ah yes, why go to a baseball or football game when there's a perfect TV at home?

Why have sex when there is porn?

Why go to school when there's virtual school?
Reply
0
#63 to #58 - hassoutobi (10/13/2015) [-]
art is different. It's just about seeing stuff. you don't need to go to a place to see something if you can just do it at home.
Reply
0
#67 to #63 - rockerforlife (10/13/2015) [-]
LIFE is seeing stuff. Why travel when you could just use google streetview?

There's incredible works of art and sculpture that date millenia and there are people that get the same ecstatic thrill from seeing these kinds of things up close as do fans at a sporting events or travelers.

Museums are about pondering on the past and how the artist took so much time and skill to make a work of art in amazing detail and precise strokes. Seeing it on a screen is one thing but actually being the object is surreal.

I will attest there's a difference between the beautiful exhibits in the Louvre and the Orsay and ******* ****** modern art museums.

pic related, amazing work
Reply
-2
#69 to #67 - hassoutobi (10/13/2015) [-]
Amazing work the I can see perfectly fine on the internet instead of going to whatever museum it's located on.

I won't change my opinion. To me art is not supposed to be analized like you think. I don't see the point of thinking about the history and meaning of a painting instead of just paying attention to the painting itself.

Sure, that kinda contradicts my first post mocking ''modern'' art museums but that's because all that's in those museums has neither any meaning nor is it pretty to look at ( Look at this post for example, seriously there's nothing pretty about two sinks on a wall. Nor any meaning in your case ).

I'm really not in the mood to elaborate a better response but what i want to get at is that art is just supposed to be...pretty. Whether it's abstract or concrete it needs to be pleasant for you to see/hear or at least draw your interest/curiosity or else it's not really art no matter what anyone else says, in my opinion.

So since I think about art like that I don't see the point of traveling to museums to see stuff you can just see on the internet. However, about the travel/google streetview argument you came up with, traveling to see a city/landscape is different than going to a museum because when you travel to a place you're not just seeing things, you're experiencing how it feels to be there ( Where in a museum you're just experiencing different artworks, which you can do a home as I've said before etc ).

I hope you understood my point of view because I really don't wanna continue this conversation.
Reply
0
User avatar #70 to #69 - rockerforlife (10/13/2015) [-]
Exactly. You're experiencing what it's like to be in front of the work. Just like a building or a monument which are other forms of art.

But, I can't argue with fools and if that's how you feel about art then I feel sorry for you.
Reply
-1
#71 to #70 - hassoutobi (10/13/2015) [-]
Well **** you too, Mr.''I have superior views on a subject that's primarely about different points of view and how none of them are better than any other ''.

Reply
0
User avatar #73 to #71 - rockerforlife (10/13/2015) [-]
I didn't say superior or inferior. I just feel sorry that you can't appreciate art like most people.

I can't appreciate sports like most people, I'm not a sports guy. Same with parties, doesn't mean inferior or superior.
Reply
-1
#74 to #73 - hassoutobi (10/13/2015) [-]
''Like most people''...

Hate to break it to you but that's not how most people think in real life. In fact I'd say for certain that most people nowadays are like me. The internet has made the sharing of artwork really common and trivial so everyone can appreciate art. This makes people see art as something casual and simple so there is no need to deeply analize every drawing/painting you see. And I bet your ass if you ask a lot of people who create art and share it online ( Like...every single artist nowadays )they will not think the way you do about art in general.

Now please snap out of that ''I'm better than you'' mindset and try to understand my point of view without seeing me as a fool right away, because that'll get you nowhere.

You think art is supposed to be deeply analized in various aspects, such as historic and cultural influences on the piece being analized, alongside the piece itself, right? And you also believe that seeing a certain piece of artwork in real life is necessary to truly appreciate it.

And I think that art should be seen as something simple and trivial, because by the end of the day its just what was in the mind of some guy who decided to express himself by painting/drawing/sculpting...etc. I'm also against modern ''art'' because it's not really pretty to look at nor it has any meaning. My point of view is based around how art is shared nowadays and how today's artists and the artwork they create are compared to those in the past.

We have different points of view. We have our reasons to believe them and we can somewhat back them up.

No one is better than anyone here.

And finally, we're also arguing on the internet. That's the lowest anyone can get...
Reply
0
User avatar #75 to #74 - rockerforlife (10/13/2015) [-]
Why are you so salty? I never said anyone is better than anyone nor that I'm better than you. I'm rather dismissive about that concept and I'm honestly sorry if I came off a superior but the concept is completely bizzare to me, regardless I feel sorry for you for not seeing it as MOST people see it.

Yes most people. Do you know how many people visit the Louvre per day? 15,000 visitors. That's 5,475,000 a year. Even if you halved that, you'd still have 3 million people going every year. That's about the entire population of Oregon going to see the Louvre every year. That's just one museum out of millions in the world. Not to mention historical sites, monuments, and cities where people go to see how "artistic" a place is.

I'm not saying people SHOULD analyze. I'm saying in these museums, it sparks most people's imagination. They ponder on the past and are often mesmerized by the treasures it has to offer. It's a window into the past designed by a skilled crafstman with a purpose.

I don't think it should be "deeply" analyzed but I think to dismiss seeing it in person is alien to me. I've only ever met one person with that mentality before. That's not to say no one thinks like you do, but I'm in a society where people are at least conditioned to value art to a degree, otherwise all places would look like Russian suburbs.

I share your views on modern art lmao, but by saying "in the mind of some guy who decided to express himself" it shows little of art you actually know because up until the 19th century, most paintings were not expressionistic at all.
Reply
-1
#77 to #75 - hassoutobi (10/13/2015) [-]
Nevermind the ''I think you're probably...'' part. I was gonna say more but then I decided to keep my response short and did not erase that part by accident.
Reply
0
#76 to #75 - hassoutobi (10/13/2015) [-]
1-I'm not salty. This is just how I type. Sometimes I sound more calm and sometimes I sound a bit agressive and even salty but in reality I'm not really upset.

2-I'm not talking about expressionism, I'm talking about art in general. It all comes from the mind of the artist, who decided to express his thoughts/ideas/feelings into the world.

3-I think you're probably
Reply
0
User avatar #80 to #76 - rockerforlife (10/13/2015) [-]
No dude, for centuries artists were hired by patrons. They didn't use art to express their thoughts and ideas into the world. That wouldn't happen until the 19th century and that's exactly what Expressionism and Impressionism (modernism) is.

It's worlds away from the painting i showed you or art from Roman, Renaissance, and French Imperial courts.
Reply
-1
#81 to #80 - hassoutobi (10/14/2015) [-]
So you're telling me every single artist didn't like expressing their own ideas and just did it for the money until the 19th century? So only then people actually started creating art because they liked it?
Reply
0
User avatar #82 to #81 - rockerforlife (10/14/2015) [-]
Yes, people liked to recreate, not express. They took joy in it but they didn't express their own feelings, or at least if they did it wasn't the subject matter. Most paintings were completely directed by the patron. It was a job for them, like a blacksmith or a glassblower, they didn't really express themselves in their work but they'd obviously put passion and effort into it. Same with an artist of those eras.
Reply
0
User avatar #8 to #7 - theshinypen (10/13/2015) [-]
I work at an art gallery, there are still skilled artists out there. Just avoid the modern arts.
Reply
0
#9 to #8 - secondlawprevails (10/13/2015) [-]
What's your ratio of actual talent to modern douchebagels?
Reply
0
User avatar #10 to #9 - theshinypen (10/13/2015) [-]
90% percent talent but sometimes the weird **** sneaks in.
Reply
+2
#11 to #10 - secondlawprevails (10/13/2015) [-]
If you ever get the chance PUNCH a moderist **** in the nards for me.
Reply
+2
User avatar #12 to #11 - theshinypen (10/13/2015) [-]
If I ever get the chance and can get away with it I will. Just for you
Reply
+2
#14 to #12 - secondlawprevails (10/13/2015) [-]
You're the best.
You're the best.
Reply
+1
User avatar #41 to #12 - munchlord (10/13/2015) [-]
Can you do it for me as well? Hell you can probably add the will of a large part of the FJ community to that punch, spirit bomb style.
Reply
0
#47 to #10 - deutschblut (10/13/2015) [-]
All art is ******* stupid.

$44,000,000 for ******* blue squares.

What Jew have the nerve to go "They are squares. They are blue. 44 million goy!"

**** , I should sell the **** my 4 year old does. We would be set for life!
Reply
0
#59 to #47 - rockerforlife (10/13/2015) [-]
>All art is ******* stupid

How can you say that when this badassery exists?
Reply
+1
User avatar #65 to #59 - deutschblut (10/13/2015) [-]
I stand corrected.

I should have been wiser with my words.

Perhaps... all art with abstract, totally unapparent, meaning, totally lacking in any sort of logic whatever, art being art for the sake of being art, is garbage.

Painting is cool.

Sculptures are cool.

But this idea of "art" as some sacred thing is cancer.

I went to an art museum in Belfast once. The whole museum was pictures of dudes sucking cock, getting ****** in the arse, drinking cum, and having it squirt in their faces. Since it was pictures, those pictures were "art".

Recently an "artist" in Australia (I think he is actually America?) got arrested and had his "art" exhibit confiscated. Why? 100% of his art show was CHILD PORN! But he, and the museum, though it was art...

That is the kind of **** I hate. And I should be more specific XP
Reply
0
User avatar #66 to #65 - rockerforlife (10/13/2015) [-]
I consider myself an artist so here's a video that sums up my views on what you're trying to say, my German friend

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
Reply
0
User avatar #68 to #66 - deutschblut (10/13/2015) [-]
Yes, that was exact.

It is as if you can read my mind.

Great little video indeed!
Reply
+67
#25 - brickfest (10/13/2015) [-]
Oh wel...
Reply
+28
User avatar #15 - civilizedwasteland (10/13/2015) [-]
The fact that even children know that "modern" art is ******** says a lot
Reply
+30
User avatar #4 - Lilstow (10/12/2015) [-]
telling a kid this young to think about what the art is saying is stupid. Who the **** at this age actually looks at a work of art and says "you can really see the X...", or something similar?
Reply
0
User avatar #43 to #4 - molzy (10/13/2015) [-]
I think it was more of a 'don't get bored and whine' kind of thing to say to the kid.
Reply
0
User avatar #46 to #4 - hudis (10/13/2015) [-]
Children often have much better imagination and creativity than adults. No, they might not make an analytical assessment like "you can really see X...", but they will definitely have ideas as to what the artwork might be.
Reply
0
User avatar #57 to #46 - Lilstow (10/13/2015) [-]
as someone who was once a child, no.
I looked at art and thought it was stupid.
Reply
0
User avatar #72 to #57 - hudis (10/13/2015) [-]
As someone who was also once a child, has four little siblings and a mother who works at kindergarten, I disagree that that is a general rule with kids.
Reply
0
#32 to #4 - migueldecervantes (10/13/2015) [-]
It helps develop their creativity, imagination, sensitivity to beauty and critical thought.
Reply
+1
#49 to #32 - sheepnut (10/13/2015) [-]
in this case the kid developed a kickass sense of sarcasm
Reply
-1
#78 to #49 - migueldecervantes (10/13/2015) [-]
Be quiet, please.
Reply
+3
User avatar #13 to #4 - threeeighteen ONLINE (10/13/2015) [-]
Well the kid obviously treated them accordingly.
Reply
0
#3 - stadshaug (10/12/2015) [-]
**stadshaug used "*roll picture*"**
**stadshaug rolled image**
Reply
+6
#23 to #3 - dasbrot (10/13/2015) [-]
**dasbrot used "*roll picture*"**
**dasbrot rolled image**TFW when I have a cat like that.
Reply
+14
#5 to #3 - anon (10/13/2015) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**
Reply
+6
#24 - itskennyandjosh ONLINE (10/13/2015) [-]
**itskennyandjosh used "*roll picture*"**
**itskennyandjosh rolled image** Seriously, who's stupid enough to go to a modern art museum and thinking that all of that trash is actual art
Reply
+1
User avatar #48 to #24 - nowthatsedgy (10/13/2015) [-]
mom's spaghetti
Reply
0
#44 - bigtitsathome (10/13/2015) [-]
the shadow of his finger makes him look like a small david spade
Reply
+5
User avatar #52 to #44 - AcidFlux (10/13/2015) [-]
*Smaller David Spade

Small David Spade is redundant.
Reply
0
User avatar #53 to #52 - bigtitsathome (10/13/2015) [-]
haha true
Reply
+3
#55 - greekrascal (10/13/2015) [-]
>Modern art

>Art that is trying to say something meaningful

Pick one.
Reply
+2
#30 - etkelly (10/13/2015) [-]
In case some of you have never seen this work of art before...
Reply
+3
#33 to #30 - migueldecervantes (10/13/2015) [-]
But this one genuinely makes a good statement.
Reply
+2
#35 to #33 - etkelly (10/13/2015) [-]
Oh it does, i just thought it was relevant. The artist shows that the thought of art has taken such a twist that anything can be art to someone. It more of a satirical piece of art than anything really.
Reply
+2
#36 to #35 - migueldecervantes (10/13/2015) [-]
Actually, that is an apocryphal understanding of this opus.

Duchamps was simply saying "Putting something in a museum does not make it art. There are other qualities--objective qualities!--that make something art. Think about such things instead of flocking into museums like retards and taking everything there for granted as deep/beautiful."

It would have taken Duchamps way too much foresight to perceive the atrocious unintended consequences he created (those we see now with exactly that: modern art).

It's funny.

...

And very sad also, of course.

That ******* retard on YouTube, PBSidea, had a video about video games as art. He said something like "Kay, guise! PBSidea here, guise! Video games are now in a museum. So there's no more argument for whether they're art or not. But let's discuss..."

It made me even sadder.
Reply
+1
User avatar #60 to #36 - doctorprofessornv (10/13/2015) [-]
To be fair, many videogames are far more artistic than much of the **** that is displayed in museums these days.

I know that videogames are still not conventionally considered art, and I've heard all the reasons why, but I still have trouble wrapping my head around it. I will concede that RPGs and open world games cannot be art because the player (observer) is directly involved in the outcome (although such games contain artistic elements). But for a conventional FPS or other story based game, there is a definite story arc, with a set number of ways to go about achieving that story arc (whether you use a grenade or a machine gun to get past an enemy, the end cutscenes and overall plot will be the same regardless). So if such games end up being nothing more than a unique way of telling a linear story, why shouldn't they be considered art? True, the player may be involved in pushing the story forward, but the story is still the same because the objective is always the same.

Then again, there is no defintitive definition of art, and to me the study seems currently mired in meaningless sophistry and useless delineations.
Reply
+1
#79 to #60 - migueldecervantes (10/13/2015) [-]
If art is just any creative endeavor which's sole (or in some rare cases primary) purpose is its aesthetic quality (as Kant said, this is the only quality that would allow disinterested contemplation), then video games are definitely art. Maybe a lesser form of art because they involve the player too much for it to be truly "disinterested" (in the sense that you WANT to finish the game, and thus have an outside motive), but art no less.

I only meant to say that one thing should not be considered art if it is in a museum. That's how people end up claiming that a toilet or piece of dog **** is art. Which is, ironically, exactly what Marcel Duchamps didn't want.
Reply
0
#64 to #60 - rollfourexplain (10/13/2015) [-]
Yet Another Games as Art Thing

Vide games are defined by being interactive. I was originally going to say that movies can be considered art ("Video.") and then talk about games, but I realized that text adventure games are also videogames. A book can be considered art too. A game like soccer I would not consider art. But what about dancing? Dancing is an art form. I think it's the competitive aspect that is not art, but can become a part of the art such as through a metaphor.

I think there's no argument for saying "videogames" can not be art. It comes down to the same thing about how if a particular movie is art or not. I would not say the movie Aliens is art but some things in it are artistic, like literally every room and building and prop and hair piece. I would not say the game Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2 is art but some things in it are artistic, like literally every texture and model.

I wanted to say something about that PBSideachannel guy as well. Sometimes he's smart, sometimes he misses the mark, and that one time he was a complete idiot. I've been trying to determine what I think of him but I've completely given up on coming to an answer. I just listen to his videos for the food for thought, often what he brings up and talks about is more interesting than the end conclusions he draws.
Reply
0
#37 to #35 - migueldecervantes (10/13/2015) [-]
Here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAs4Dy-lh8E

God dammit, I hate that retard so much...
Reply
+1
#62 - oinos (10/13/2015) [-]
He'll be a fine man one day, capable of even master level trollery.
Reply
+1
#56 - fossfjellen (10/13/2015) [-]
guess he just had to let it sink in
Reply
+1
#50 - gabikak (10/13/2015) [-]
Oh well
Reply
+1
#21 - magicsteel (10/13/2015) [-]
Unless the "art" is chosen by market, it's a trash.
"Artists" patting each other on the back doesn't make it art. People need to see enough value in it to buy with their own money. If there's nobody who can see enough value in it, maybe there is no value after all.
One thing about art grant from tax money; it's not market choice, just some fanboy spending somebody else's money to feed his bias.
Reply
0
#34 to #21 - migueldecervantes (10/13/2015) [-]
To add to your point, any good artist knows that there are actual reasons for which people appreciate certain works and learn to use such techniques and methods. If anything in art can be said to be close to object, it would be such those guidelines.
Reply
0
#19 - malexandercalamity (10/13/2015) [-]
Modern art can be cool.

I once saw a painting of many shades of deep purple on a glossy canvas that made it look 3D.
Reply
0
User avatar #20 to #19 - letting (10/13/2015) [-]
Modern abstract art Vs. a balled up tissue and some rubber bands glued to a piece of construction paper are two totally different things.

Modern art is too broad of a term. There are some fantastic artists alive today. Millions, I'm sure, that paint beautiful landscapes, draw fantastic images, and sculpt beautiful portraits. The problem is that these artists are often overlooked for not being "original" or eccentric enough to gain attraction in a art museum. For some reason, many curators believe the stranger, and usually dumber, pieces of "art" are going to attract more people.

Reply
0
#17 - AnomynousUser (10/13/2015) [-]
What I think of when I hear "modern art" is a pretentious twat with unrealistic expectations of the world who believes that the world needs to change for them when the world says "You have no talent in art and are too lazy to make it special; stop acting like a solid red painting has a secret meaning."

Which is a shame because that's really just postmodern art, but nobody ever really labels it as that...
Reply
0
#54 - mayorman (10/13/2015) [-]
**mayorman used "*roll picture*"**
**mayorman rolled image** what speaks to me
Reply
0
User avatar #51 - weirdrussianguy (10/13/2015) [-]
Bless this child
Reply
0
User avatar #42 - olesaintdikolas (10/13/2015) [-]
Good his faggy artsy parents won't ruin him
Reply
0
User avatar #40 - hantervan (10/13/2015) [-]
Why is Modern Art so Bad?
whenever modern art is mentioned
12>
[ 82 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)