What is this? Did someone actual get a degree in art to do this?

Call it abstract, call it surreal, say I don't understand it, whatever. But I'm pretty sure this is just paint-splattered crap.

I'm okay with abstract art. I'm even okay with art that doesn't resemble much of anything. But this takes no talent, no coodination, no nothing. What kind of talents went into making this? A little blending? Drawing that leaf?

I can't believe people buy these things and put them on display. Post your thoughts on this "modern art" fad.

As if you could put anything in a museum.

Picasso was amazing, this just embarrassing.

At 2/4/13 04:24 PM, Boomstick wrote: As if you could put anything in a museum.

I don't have a PhD.

The painting/picture/whatever depicted in your post is a space filler to tie a room together and keep the wall from looking empty, not a piece of art to be looked at and appreciated. It's bland and neutral enough to fit in with many different casual home decor styles. I wouldn't call it modern art, or even art at all, since it was probably designed specifically to be sold on store shelves.

At 2/4/13 04:28 PM, Tremulos wrote: The painting/picture/whatever depicted in your post is a space filler to tie a room together and keep the wall from looking empty, not a piece of art to be looked at and appreciated. It's bland and neutral enough to fit in with many different casual home decor styles.

I think this is a much more accurate answer as to what this piece of art is.

I went to a museum once where they had a showcase of modern art.

One of them was just a huge piece of checkered red and white table cloth.

Pointless.

At 2/4/13 04:28 PM, Tremulos wrote: The painting/picture/whatever depicted in your post is a space filler to tie a room together and keep the wall from looking empty, not a piece of art to be looked at and appreciated. It's bland and neutral enough to fit in with many different casual home decor styles. I wouldn't call it modern art, or even art at all, since it was probably designed specifically to be sold on store shelves.

Exactly.

Clearly it wasn't really made for the purpose of being something deep, meaningful and moving. It's more something made to blend in with modernly designed living rooms and I think it looks decent in that regard. Furthermore, I'm not sure if they really hire top class artists to do jobs like this.

At 2/4/13 04:40 PM, daethdrain wrote: real art

Ringo.

Stop it, you're not a painter.

You can't paint, Ringo.

You're a drummer, Ringo

I like to beat animals and call it art.

At 2/4/13 04:20 PM, T3XT wrote: What is this?

You need to turn it by 90 degrees to fully appreciate it.

OP is a pleb

Are we debating over subjectivity again? Good night, guys...

At 2/4/13 04:38 PM, daethdrain wrote: > mfw doesn't appreciate tru art

That almost looks like that tabecloth I mentioned...

The day you can understand a single stroke in that painting is the day you can start judging, but only that paint stroke.

It's 2deep4u, deal with it.

i like it fuck you and your ignorance.

That looks more like typical bland dentist waiting room-type decoration than the kind of actually thought-out abstract "modern art" willfully ignorant people like to complain about.

At 2/4/13 05:58 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Anything is art if the artist has declared it art.

Actually, dadaism is anti-art.

which is inherently hypocritical and why the movement collapsed

brought to you by your art teacher 2013

Art is pretty much useless. It's all 2deep4u shit now. You can jerk off onto a buddah statue you bought at Family Dollar and it counts as art.

At 2/4/13 04:20 PM, T3XT wrote: Post your thoughts on this "modern art" fad.

What a twat you are.

At 2/4/13 04:20 PM, T3XT wrote: What is this? Did someone actual get a degree in art to do this?

I dunno, beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

At 2/4/13 07:37 PM, LocoJoe wrote: Art is pretty much useless.

I raged pretty hard right here.

Relevant

At 2/4/13 05:13 PM, BumFodder wrote: OP is a pleb

Oh well clearly!

It's kinda weird, I'll give it that, but there are bigger things from modern art to rage about.
At least, this took some effort, some people just do practically nothing and call it art, like the guy who shat and pissed on a crucifix.
Andy Worhol did some pretty stuff.

I'll admit, this is really lame, but there are bigger piles of shit in museums.

Speaking of piles of shit, I once saw a piece called "captain shit and the legend of the seven stars".

When I think of modern art, I think of something weird or something random, that takes talent and effort to make.

At 2/4/13 05:58 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Anything is art if the artist has declared it art.

You do understand why this piece of art in particular is so important and revolutionary to the world of art, right ? OP is judging but without proper knowledge of art. And I'm not talking master degree in art history here, just... basic knowledge. There is a strong critic of rationality in a lot of modern art, so looking for easy aesthetics, obvious message or anything that you MTV era kids look for when looking at a painting or a picture, is just retarded.

At 2/4/13 11:56 PM, DelRio1991 wrote: It's kinda weird, I'll give it that, but there are bigger things from modern art to rage about.
At least, this took some effort, some people just do practically nothing and call it art, like the guy who shat and pissed on a crucifix.
Andy Worhol did some pretty stuff.

*Andy Warhol did some pretty lame stuff

damnit

You do understand why this piece of art in particular is so important and revolutionary to the world of art, right ? OP is judging but without proper knowledge of art. And I'm not talking master degree in art history here, just... basic knowledge. There is a strong critic of rationality in a lot of modern art, so looking for easy aesthetics, obvious message or anything that you MTV era kids look for when looking at a painting or a picture, is just retarded.

If a baseball player is playing exceptionally poorly, even someone who has never played baseball in their live can tell that it's terrible.
Not all modern art is bad, true, but there are many pieces which are much to be desired. As someone who spends a lot of time drawing and creating, it pains me to just a blot of ink on a canvas selling for thousands of dollars, when the newest issue of Deadpool took more effort to do.

Also, it's kind of a weak argument to say that someone cannot judge something because they are young or from a certain 'era'. OP has a valid point.

At 2/5/13 12:02 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 2/4/13 11:57 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: you MTV era kids

oh my god

I was not talking to "you", but rather to people like the original poster. There is a lot to abstract art, and obviously, some people are stuck up with the idea that art has to be beautiful, and really just beautiful in a 1st degree kind of way.

At 2/5/13 12:03 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 2/5/13 12:02 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 2/4/13 11:57 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: you MTV era kids

oh my god

I was not talking to "you", but rather to people like the original poster. There is a lot to abstract art, and obviously, some people are stuck up with the idea that art has to be beautiful, and really just beautiful in a 1st degree kind of way.

Yes and I'm sure that someone who sits and plays call of duty all day has more of a say as to what art is than someone who has actually ventured into a museum?