Why isn't art like this popular anymore?

Why isn't art like this popular anymore?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Jews

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this is kind of a bell curve thing
      >jews
      >it's a complex issue really
      >jews

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >just make the same shit over and over again
      you are litteraly no different than a consoomer. You dont wanna just appreciate the tens of thousand of artwork that would take a lifetime to look at let alone understand. You want to constantly consoome without restraint, you dont actually apreciate art, you apreciate the aesthetics of someone who does.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Art in general isn't popular anymore, unless you count memes and TikTok clips as art

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I unironically think memes are the most important and relevant artistic medium of the current age.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Music is still popular.

      I unironically think memes are the most important and relevant artistic medium of the current age.

      True. Memes can be looked down on as low brow (which they are), but they are definetely the defining artform in this era. Proliferation of memes created by and for the people is analagous to the changes that happend to language across india and europe as a result of paper and the printing press in ~1400s.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It is. You can buy a dozen paintings like that in any commercial art gallery.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Art major here. Tell me the intrinsic artistic qualities of this piece without using the term
    >"its beautiful" or any terms talking about how pretty it is or how its a place you'd like to visit...etc.
    What is the actual artistry on display here? Genuine question, and from there you'll get the answer as to why its not popular nowadays

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      A fricking idiot became an art major wow color me surprised

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >can't answer a question from an idiot
        If I'm that morones then the answer should be obvious and easy

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Sovl.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Beauty its objective though.
      Even knowing nothing about composition and values and contrast and color and figure, we can perceive that painting as beautiful and modern stuff as vacuous and ugly.
      Art critics determine what is 'popular' or not, yet they dont reflect the taste of the people.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If people really thought paintings like OPnwere better, wouldn't they be more popular?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No because artists and their critics are always pushing for novelty even If said novelty is shit. We've explored all the paths of quality in certain fields so all that's left for Yung artists trying to make their mark is to make garbage nobody ever made before and then try to convince themselves and everybody else that said garbage is actually brilliant.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There's a minority of artists who are playing to the critics.

            There's far, far more artists out there who paint pretty landscapes and bucolic scenes or birds etc. The sorts of things that ordinary people will actually want to buy and hang in their house. And that's what "popular" actually refers to. Kinkade prints and the like are infinitely more popular than shit like mason jars of pig teeth signed in Sharpie or tragic photographs of male prostitutes sleeping on the street in the 80s.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This is a strawman.
        I'm not trying to argue for the objectivity of beauty. What I'm trying to do is argue that the actual artistry thats happening in OP's painting is a display of beauty through the techniques of composition, realistic shading and realism.
        These are aesthetical qualities of the painting, but they are also qualities in which have been explored since the 18th century, and have masterful examples of their work.
        In contrast, you can continue to make works like OP, but you're not really making any sort of bold, new or profound statement by just sticking to the same aesthetical qualities from over 200 years ago.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Do you mean the symbolism and meaning or the technical structure of the painting?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I became an art major and all I got were these apologetics

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >become art major
      >no longer able to see beauty in a scene
      >only FLAMING HATRED for the INADEQUACY and IMPERFECTION and LACK OF ARTISTIC QUALITIES present in non-modernist-lgbt-abstract art
      >unable to even appreciate a beautiful scene in real life

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    God doesn't think poor people like me should be allowed to look at or think about islands or maritime settings in general (i live near the coast, he terrorizes me for reading about the town I live in on wikipedia) and art like that used to be made for rich people so he didn't care.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Can't wait for someone (a moron) to claim high profile auctions of Contemporary (not Modern, moron) Art is how you do money laundering.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >if I mention it first, I can decide if it’s true or not

      This is a strawman.
      I'm not trying to argue for the objectivity of beauty. What I'm trying to do is argue that the actual artistry thats happening in OP's painting is a display of beauty through the techniques of composition, realistic shading and realism.
      These are aesthetical qualities of the painting, but they are also qualities in which have been explored since the 18th century, and have masterful examples of their work.
      In contrast, you can continue to make works like OP, but you're not really making any sort of bold, new or profound statement by just sticking to the same aesthetical qualities from over 200 years ago.

      >beauty is objective
      >older paintings have these objectively beautiful qualities
      >but we also have new things today which are beautiful 🙂
      >also realism in painting is just old, tacky, and unpopular (like what

      Beauty its objective though.


      Even knowing nothing about composition and values and contrast and color and figure, we can perceive that painting as beautiful and modern stuff as vacuous and ugly.
      Art critics determine what is 'popular' or not, yet they dont reflect the taste of the people. said in the first place)

      Because it's a boring imitation of reality. You could just take a picture if you wanted something like that.

      You take for granted the technique and skill that goes into painting

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >muh skill
        The reddit approach to art.
        Skill is a means to an end, it's not something that adds standalone value to a piece. Like I'm not gonna think "wow so pretty, this must've taken you a really long time to make!" like a soccer mom evaluating her kid's drawing.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Good one. Skill is the reddit approach to art, navel gazing is real art.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How can you even begin to appreciate art if you can't even read? I said skill is a means to an end, not that the artist shouldn't be skilled.
            I swear this board has the highest concentration of trogs and mongs out of the whole site.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Psychoanalysis and the subjective nature, of looking at and treating all art as valid expressions of the human condition worthy of our time.
    Inevitably paved the way, for the validation of hacks lacking artistic merit and technical skill.
    Aside from the counter knock on effect, in an arts value becoming inherently correlated to pure shock value and investor speculation.
    Not withholding the important role of sociopolitical movements played, in rending the very fabric of the established order of bourgeois and religious artistic sensibilities and turning them on their head.
    All this culminates in why Maria Orsic, Bjiana Durdevic, Damien Hurst, and Tracey Emin good.
    Whilst resigning pieces typical of yours shared, to the dustbin of bad surface level nostalgic Kitsch.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Stop using punctuation as if it's a subjective suggestion, degen.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's a boring imitation of reality. You could just take a picture if you wanted something like that.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Realism in painting is very different from photography

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because it isn't pornographic

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    looks AI generated

  11. 1 year ago
    straight shota

    why look at this when i look at sweaty boobies?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      sweaty boobies? where? post links.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because there's plenty others like it. You can appreciate it, and I like it too, but all it'd really take is a painting that is more technically skilled to make it irrelevant.
    Realism tends to be a very traditional medium that doesn't make oneself distinguishing or interesting enough. Most artists do realism at some point to improve their skill.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    People got bored of it and moved on. That's literally it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *