Debate what kind of art should exist here, including postmodern and internet - I'm so tired of political debates let's scream about art

Destacado
AMHOLIO

AMHOLIO

in the one "wo"man play "The Amhole Argument"
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Registrado
4 de Ene, 2020
What art deserves to be classified as art? Are there degrees of validity to art? Do you enjoy de stijl? Do you think Jackson Pollock deserves or doesn't deserve hate? What postmodernism do you like or don't like? Before we finally gas the furries, will we see their art in fine arts galleries? What should we categorize or do with art that isn't "Art"?

Discuss.
 
All forms of human expression should be allowed to exist until time eventually erodes all. Even if art at the time is considered controversial,obscene or just plain bad it is a part of history and that is always worth preserving in my opinion.
 
Art shouldn't be regulated except in some cases:
1: If it is in public display. Architecture must be made in order to stay beautiful to the people living around it for centuries, and art shouldn't disturb the life of the population.
2: If it is illegal to made or if it promotes illegal stuff. Lolicon is pedophilia, it must be banned in the same way snuff movies are illegal.
 
If it's "art" that's reposted on this website, then it's probably not real art.
I agree loli pedo shit is certainly not art. If you'd be ashamed to show it in public to someone, it's probably not art.
Not everything you vomit onto a canvas is art.
 
pro drivor dijo:
postmodernity is shit
Presiona para expandir...
Post-modernism, the idea that modern culture and society are constructed based on meta-narratives that exist to legitimize a given cultural perspective, is itself a meta-narrative that exists to legitimize the given cultural perspective of the post-modernists. Nobody who trades in this kind of brainrot has anything worthwhile to offer, intellectually or artistically.

In conclusion, art is clearly bean-mouth-noodle-arm cartoons, nothing else need apply
 
If some rich person paid for physical art (paintings, sculptures, etc.), it should exist. The world runs on money laundering, and it gives crazies something to do with their hands.

If it's digital, it should be "stolen". Abolish all copyrights. It exists until it gets wiped out by an EMP or virus.

If there's something to debate, it's public art. In that case, your taxes are often going to people who hate you so they can make ugly art that you may have to see every day. Your opposition to it probably isn't going far if you live in the wrong place.

JeanRob1 dijo:
2: If it is illegal to made or if it promotes illegal stuff. Lolicon is pedophilia, it must be banned in the same way snuff movies are illegal.
Presiona para expandir...
As long as a few jurisdictions (particularly the US) tolerate its existence, even under an uneasy/untested quasi-legal status, lolicon/shotacon is never going away.

There will likely be a short-term reduction in the volume produced since financial services are being withheld from platforms that allow it. I think the "artists" can still find ways to collect money, but will earn and make less as the entire process becomes more of a hassle and drives away customers.

However, AI models trained on the content can now pump out an "infinite" amount of the stuff for "free", and they will only become easier and cheaper for idiots to use over time. We will see rapid criminalization of the distribution of AI models that have been trained on CSAM, if that hasn't happened already. But AI models are opaque blobs, and it will be back to the status quo at best for lolicon/shotacon. Legal in some places, generally hard to enforce where illegal.

The snuff film has been scarce because it requires the murder of a real person. There's arguably only one example in existence if you use a narrow definition of snuff film. Gooners will end up creating billions of lolicon and shotacon images.
 
The trouble is when people think art merely means something that is aesthetically pleasing. That's your taste in art, not what art is.

The purpose of art is to invoke emotions. Offence, outrage, and disgust, are all emotions. The art that invokes them is, in my opinion, often the most successful as art. Being vulgar, low brow, low effort, tasteless shock slop is a very easy way to make successful art, and you can certainly say that makes it bad art, but it is still art.

Art and internet trolling share a lot of DNA. The worst failure of a work of art is if people just look at it, go "meh", and move on. The highest success of art is if you can capture people's attention and provoke feeling without resorting to such cheap tactics.
The Mass Shooter Ron Soye dijo:
Abolish all copyrights.
Presiona para expandir...
Unironically though, this.
 
I most often see the word "art" used to mean "non-photographs on social media." So basically fetish cartoons. Our moron descendants will look back at what we used to keep in museums—all of which will be destroyed—and be totally confused.

So go see a Pollock in person. It doesn't look like you think it does. It's a complicated sculpture. Try to deduce how it was made ("reverse engineer" it, if you have no soul). You won't get it right.

I know the video genre of art experts claiming random slop is a "lost Pollock" (or a lost anyone who makes paintings that in photographs look simple). Of course the art business is a scam. It's a business. Total those guys death.

"Object with inexplicable qualities" is a useable definition of art. It includes a lot of crap. It includes a lot of stuff you think is crap but isn't. (It excludes almost all pornography, incidentally.) Many finely crafted beautiful things don't meet the standard.

An iPhone is better than a Vermeer, isn't it? There are no mistakes in it (until the jeet code is injected).
 
These discussions are almost always useless.

You probably want to ask what can be considered "good/bad/mediocre art" and its various degrees, but that's entirely subjective. For example, you may look at a paint splash on a wall and think that it looks like shit, but is it art? Well, to you it probably means "bad art", but art, nonetheless. To another person it may be good.

So what is "art"? To me, any original creation (read: original as in made by yourself with your skill, imagination, etc, not as in "unique". Like you drawing an anime character is not original as in novel, it has been done a trillion times, but it was made by you, it's "original" and so it's art (probably mediocre, though)).

But that notion is complicated when you introduce the idea that your skill/imagination/etc is not even yours to begin with, this was only able to be done by the body you barely control and stimuli you were gifted. You don't know how your brain works (on a deep level) nor is yours the inspiration you got from seeing a sunset, and your nervous system translating it into an attempted "artistic creation".

I usually don't go that deep because I don't care, so I leave it as original creations by common sense standards. Then the layer of: is it good, is it bad? It's another question.

But because human language (which is very imperfect) heavily associates "art" to "good art", when it's bad, you usually avoid calling it as such. Like the poorly drawn Sonic OC in Deviantart, it technically is art, but it's so bad by your standards, that you don't call it as such because of practical reasons & so that others understand your position.

PS: word of the day: art.
 
AMHOLIO dijo:
Do you think Jackson Pollock deserves or doesn't deserve hate?
Presiona para expandir...
At least some of Pollock's weird splotch paintings look neat.

I'm not opposed to weird or abstract art. What I loathe is lazy and pretentious art.

There was a video from redditor incarnate EthanisOnline where he talked about some Prager U & Moist Critical videos shitting on Modern Art, and I don't really care about it, however, it ended with him talking about on of his favorite pieces.

A fucking box fan in a glass container. The fan was the only thing left of the "artist's" dead boyfriend's possessions after the boyfriend's family grabbed his other shit after the man died of AIDS. That shit is fucking retarded.

retarded - Copy.jpg
Electric Fan (Feel It Motherfuckers) - Boskovich, 1997

I think my favorite artist is probably JMW Turner. I also really like Gustave Dore.
JMW Turner - Copy.jpg
Gustave Dore - Copy.jpg
 
We Are The Witches dijo:
These discussions are almost always useless.
Presiona para expandir...
It was either this or watch people argue about politics in mass debates and we need to sperg out about something else for a while. It's useless, but it furthers our own understanding of our own tastes, how others view things, what we percieve and agree or disagree on, and even preservation of non-verbal information. Plus people who love/hate things like splatter art and bananas on walls can fight with each other properly.

Edit: There isn't much to gain from mass debates in general. You either spend your time arguing so you can feel :smug:, spend time arguing amd getting even angrier, spend your time shitposting for a laugh, or trying to defend your incoming triangle/halal. Might as well take our minds off the news for a bit.
 
AMHOLIO dijo:
It was either this or watch people argue about politics in mass debates and we need to sperg out about something else for a while. It's useless, but it furthers our own understanding of our own tastes, how others view things, what we percieve and agree or disagree on, and even preservation of non-verbal information. Plus people who love/hate things like splatter art and bananas on walls can fight with each other properly.

Edit: There isn't much to gain from mass debates in general. You either spend your time arguing so you can feel :smug:, spend time arguing amd getting even angrier, spend your time shitposting for a laugh, or trying to defend your incoming triangle/halal. Might as well take our minds off the news for a bit.
Presiona para expandir...
Yes, but my point was more in regards to this being dedicated to "art" in general, at least your first 2 questions, and last one.

I feel my response was adequate to the OP, yet it's mostly a TLDR that probably no one cares about, that doesn't even reveal much info about my personal preferences.
 
We Are The Witches dijo:
Yes, but my point was more in regards to this being dedicated to "art" in general, at least your first 2 questions, and last one.

I feel my response was adequate to the OP, yet it's mostly a TLDR that probably no one cares about, that doesn't even reveal much info about my personal preferences.
Presiona para expandir...
It was, don't worry. It's just interesting to think how useful or useless something is.


I think we should keep furry art from art galleries, but it would be funny for an IRL gallery of just furry degeneracy. I want a bunch of rich people to get into aeromorphs.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo