makes me said that half of STEM graduates end up homeless, but people can get a million dollars for a blank canvas

you do realise that most of the paintings that sell that much are from painters that are long dead.

Even then there aren't as many as you think.

Where the fuck are you getting this shit from? don't say shit like "half" unless you have a source to back it up. Otherwise, stop lying nigga!

Since fucking when do STEM graduates end up homeless? They have like a 95% job placement rate in pretty much every university in America

There's very little solace to take in the fact that "extraordinarily few artists will ever reach fame" due to our society's declining interest in art.

The decrease in said interest and increase in depression and overall bad ideologies (radical feminism, PC culture, etc.) is, in my opinion, not a coincidence. There is something very important in experiencing other people's observations and ideas through their works, be they paintings, novels or pieces of music. Your mind expands, and, above all, you are not alone.

Yet today, people are lonely and their minds are as narrow as the distance between your eyes.

I'm just kidding. You don't have down syndrome.

Just take solace in the fact that for every one person that can do that, there are several thousand who are even worse of than the STEM grads.

Modern Art ladies and gentlemen

Trash like this?
(Yes this is a re-post, I am just posting here to try to bring more attention to it.)

That's not exactly how things went down. It has far more to do with the advent photography than anything else.

Up until the late 1800s, the only way to get a visual record of anything was to paint it. This is why you see so many portraits and landscapes. People weren't painting for pure artistic expression, they were doing it because it was their job. Keep in mind the Mona Lisa, arguably the most iconic painting of all time, was just a portrait commissioned by a husband for his wife. Most of the great works were done just to make a buck. If you wanted a realistic image you had to go to a master who had spent decades practicing his craft. People wanted realistic images and so the state of the art progresses towards greater and greater realism. These are the skills artists develop and even their more creative works strive for lifelike imagery.

Then photography comes along. All of a sudden those portraits that took weeks to make can be done in a matter of seconds. Not only that, the average person can now create something "better" than even the most skilled artists for much less time, money, and effort. Realism is suddenly cheap, it won't pay the bills anymore. The artists still had to make a living so they had to innovate. They had to do something other people weren't doing to earn their pay. Impressionism is the natural starting point, it is rooted in realism but adds some variety. All of a sudden you see different genres of art appearing, whereas before artistic style was almost entirely defined by the period and place. We have variety now, who can say that's a bad thing? Just because you don't like some of these varieties doesn't mean that art as a whole is meaningless.

Point is, it's a lot more than some twats a century ago saying "ANYTHING CAN BE ART!" There are some very good reasons they strayed from the traditional paths. I can't say that every new avenue that's been explored has been aesthetically appealing to me, but I can say I appreciate that they have been explored.

And what's up with that last paragraph? I get that you think contemporary art is different just to be different, hopefully I've persuaded you that this is not entirely the case, but the rest of it just dashes way off topic. It just seems like the rambling of a very bitter man. Don't force issues that aren't even remotely related.

Well, I am a rather bitter person.

Still, this is actually a pretty good read. Hope others see it. I guess I just don't know any people who could provide input on the topic prior to this.

And yet Impressionism led to some of the most beloved artworks in history.
The stuff made by Monet, Van Gogh, etc is considered to be of great beauty.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouen_Cathedral_%28Monet_series%29

>, I can justify spreading my ass and spraying shit all over your livingroom by calling it "art", and there's no way anyone could argue against it.
People could argue against it, it's just wholly subjective and therefore pointless. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

What's your objective standard for art?

I don't see your point. Clearly someone valued it highly.

>when every retard with a brush and some paint could suddenly become a world-famous artist.

Well, I'm disappointed that didn't upload. Let's try again.

< now that's art

**hubabalu used "*roll picture*"**
**hubabalu rolled image** I wasin't aware there was a 2nd picture.

Valkyria Chronicles has a k-kissing scene!

B-B-B-B-But that's lewd