/fa/ - Fashion

By Walid l FW16 Ecclesiastical Classic Jacket

>>12927076
how about posting some fucking clothes too

Here's the full mag: http://www21.zippyshare.com/v/Aq8zF5HO/file.html

>>12927136
Dude stop shilling your own photo

>>12927412
Not me I just thought that the dude looked good

>>12927392
Streetwear as fuck

>>12927421
qute face af

>>12927076
>Dressing like a normie isn't cool, unless it's a normie from the 80s or 90s

>>12927466
sorry those decades were objectively more /fa/ than this one

>>12927190
I wonder if it smells how it looks like it would smell.

>>12927392
Day-Labor-core

>>12927392
>first generation middle eastern immigrant who has educated children well assimilated into western culture core

theyre a dime a dozen around the suburbs of Toronto. nothing effay about this

>>12927471
>lewronggeneration

Not really. Time can make things seem exotic and interesting that were actually mundane and unoriginal.

The same thing will happen in 10-20 years from this decade. You'll see some fashion victim kid rocking vintage Supreme, talking about how cool everyone dressed back in the day, and "No Virgil Abloh for my generation."

You'll try to explain to him that only douches and Chinese kids wore hype brands, and he'll say "Still way better than how people dress today." And he won't even notice your full rick.

>>12927486
yeah but it's infinitely more effay than >>12927484

>>12927515
REEEEEEEEEE!

>>12927509
nah desu i'm sticking to this, you can't argue that the clothing wasn't of higher quality on average back then

if you ever actually handle garments from this era you can usually tell right away

that's not to say i don't appreciate certain things from today. but you have to draw the line somewhere.

If you're arguing quality, yeah you're right. It's been a gradual drop in quality since the 70s.

t. used to work vintage. Clothing from 80s and later would often be falling apart due to poor stitching (outside of denim), but shirts, dresses and suits from the 40s would be in same or better condition.

>>12927525
You can argue that the ones that survived are the higher quality ones though

>>12927577
Yeah or better cared for, but a lot of the stuff was everday casual stuff. The difference in quality for same price tier would be huge. Everything from stitching, fabric, buttons, zips got progressively worse. We even got occasional late 90s early 00s stuff, and it would be even more thrashed.

Newer clothes just have a hard time surviving the raghouses that 90% of 2nd hand clothing comes through (pic related). And the difference in quality between high and low end is bigger than ever.

>>12927147
man walid is hit or miss but when he hits... hnngh

>>12927613
It are garments you should make yourself as the years go by.

>>12927392
>>12927515
ppffftttttttttt

>>12927487
y his legs so long?

>>12927392
More gold chains, more spellout, less beads, dope look

>>12927509
>implying that everyone won't be dresses in full rick in 10-20 years

>>12927136
wouldn't be too bad if he wasn't standing like such a faggot.

>>12927076
I have this exact sweater

>>12928297
Nobody else here is gonna get this meme, but terry shouldnt be your inspo for anything

>>12927509
I don't know how blind you have to be to not see the superiority of 80s normie style to contemporary

>>12927152
>>12927157
>>12927161
>>12927163
>>12927165
>>12927173
>>12927175
>>12927179
>>12927183
>>12927187
Modern / abstract art is, and will always be, trash made by hack "artists" that are more concerned with being an "artist" then actually producing art.

>>12929425
>I don't get it

lol stay lame

>>12929427
>implying you do
>implying modern art fags only arguments aren't pretension and condescension

>>12928816
w2c?

>>12929434
literally just read what the artist says the piece means, and also it really depends on what the art is meant for, modern art can fit way better in the right situation, like in interior design or on a mural than traditional art

>>12929444
>>12929434
also modern art just genuinely looks good, like it's aesthetically pleasing, maybe the meanings can be pretty bullshit but you can't deny it's aesthetic value

>>12929444
>>12929449
>home decor is the same as art

I absolutely can deny its aesthetic value. Art based solely on contrarianism can never be aesthetic.

>>12929441
Thrift store

Boro is modern/abstract art? What?

>>12929484
I guess that's fair argument, but there's so many great modern artist that go way beyond home decor and make pretty moving pieces, I recently went to this yayoi kusama exhibit and I'd say it was definitely art

>>12929490
I don't know man...that looks like something a kindergartener would produce with a piece of printer paper and an 8 pack of fat crayola markers. And I would be more inclined to appreciate the kindergartener's drawing because at least he / she was being earnest...

I don't even understand how you could can consider that pic related as aesthetically pleasing with that horrendously loud and obnoxious color pallet.

>>12929512
>that horrendously loud and obnoxious color pallet.
this isn't even a criticism wtf do you know what art is

>>12929752
Are you seriously saying color isn't a fundamental part of art and specifically painting?

Also, in >>12929444, >>12929449 context using that piece as home decoration would look horrid.

>do you know what art is
Do you?

>>12928297
w2c jeans

>>12928818
is he still working on Temple OS? lol

>>12927136
don't listen to the hate this is sharp

>>12929752
>I have high functioning microcephaly

>>12928297
Hell yeah

recently in a thread there was a picture of a korean guy with blue hair who was dressed in the classic slp style with a black shirt with white patterns and he was also wearing a black coat, does anyone have it?

>>12930767
hopefully not

>>12930731
nice lol, i read about microcephaly in that other thread too

REMINDER: THE 80s SEEM OBJECTIVELY "COOLER" BECAUSE WE WEREN'T LIVING IN THE CONSUMERIST, IRONIC, SELF HATING LOW ENERGY CULTURE WE CURRENTLY INHABIT.
Men were unabashedly masculine, women were energetic and healthy, fitness was worshipped, people were genuine about their subcultures and met IRL, trends grew naturally and people still made their own clothes and did their makeup in strange and unusual ways for the thrill of it. Friendship groups would have a goth, a punk, a neon rollerblader, a biker all happily hanging out, the economy was booming, despite the threat of nuclear destruction we were still HIGH ENERGY AS FUCK AND NOT SOYED TO DEATH. Come home white man.

>>12930831
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsgTn6qbbis


HIGH ENERGY
>HIGH ENERGY
HIGH ENERGY
>HIGH ENERGY
HIGH ENERGY
>HIGH ENERGY

>>12928297
CIA nigger core

>>12930731
I actually meant that towards this >>12929512

Maybe I have microcephaly.

>>12929425
>'producing art'

You really should stick to socialistic realism with all it's utilitarian value and no creativity. You won't be dissappointed.

>>12927136
nice. all i gota say

>>12931268
stronk

>>12927412
thats ilovemakonnen you faggot

>>12930831
Holy shit, you don't know shit /pol/fag. You have a such an one-sided view

>>12931681
>>12930831
>consumerism didn't exist in the 80s
you're a fucking retard

>>12928297
where is terry right now?

>>12931692
The ethos of 80s was literally built on the ideology of consurmerism

>>12931692
I didn't say consumerism didn't exist in the 80s, brainlet. But we didn't buy our trends from Amazon - it's like you've never heard of the subcultures making their own clothes, DIY was yuge

>>12932019
You have an extremely unrealistic and romanticized version of the eighties. Eighties and nineties were like the epitome of consumerist mall culture, ironic anti-cool, and contrarian subcultures.

The better things of an era are usually what have staying power, and most of the worst parts get forgotten. And even the best things of an era get annoying when you live through them and are bombarded by them 24/7.

It's really easy to look toward the past with rose tinted glasses.

>>12928866
Yojhi or cdg?

anyone has a pic of that guy with white sneakers and grey coat?. Also some funky shirt sticking out from under his sweater. Cheers

>>12927475
clockwise from left: velma, fred, shaggy, daphne

>>12929490
>I'd say it was definitely art
That doesn't really tell us anything beyond it being a painting/picture. Art in the evaluative sense is a label used to refer to exceptional works and achievements, so the real question is: are modern paintings/pictures as beautiful and masterfully crafted as works of preceding eras that have historically been labelled as art? The answer is a decisive "no". In fact, most modern works are garbage smuggled into the "art" industry by talentless, hoodwinking charlatans looking to profit from cultural degeneracy, and it only takes a healthy, well-functioning human being to distinguish trash from art.

>>12932914
actually modern art is way more creative and deserving of the title than any of that old traditionalist garbage being propagated by so-called experts. it is the only true art.

Kazimir Malevich the guy who got sent to jail for painting a black. He's also is known for painting a white square on another white square. IDK boyz if YSL's rendition of neoplasticism can be one of the most well know collections then this has to count as inspo on a Tanzanian manga forum.

>>12932927
>actually modern art is way more creative
Good thing creativity isn't a criteria of critical evaluation in art, nor the sole criteria of any general evaluations.
>deserving of the title than any of that old traditionalist garbage
Hey guys I guess eating with forks and spoons, using medicine, appropriately cooking food is "traditionalist garbage"
>being propagated by so-called experts.
Sure, just like qualified individuals in their respective fields with life-long devotion to their crafts propogating which medicine to use, how to do carpentry, build sculptures and so on.

>>12932914
There is a lot of great contemporary art out there, and that's the stuff people will be looking back at in the future like we look back at art works from centuries past today. The edgy shit and contrarian garbage without any actual substance will be forgotten. Unless you are into the "art world" (by which I mean you actually follow contemporary art and watch movements as they develop and become influential) most of the contemporary art you're going to hear about is the controversial shit that people like to write a lot of articles about because it's outrageous and will get clicks. Artists are freer now than they have ever been so you're going to get a lot of trash coming out for every truly great work. I like classical painting and sculpture as much as the next guy, and the mastery it took to create some of those works is incredibly impressive, the images undeniably evoke emotion, but there's only so much you can do and express through old mediums and styles. Art can still be painting and sculpture, but it can also be performances and environments and interactive experiences and more. Art isn't just about depicting the real world and mythology any more, I don't understand why anyone would want it to be that way again.

pic related is one of my favorite contemporary artworks. It's called Breathing Light if you want to look it up.

>>12927486
>middle eastern immigrant

This nigga this looks like my uncle Juan.

How the fuck can any of you dweebs talk like you know about art when you can’t even differentiate between contemporary art and modern art. Modern was an era in art. Do some studying, dweebs.

Also, stop talking about art. It’s pretentious and fake as fuck.

>>12932914
>Art in the evaluative sense is a label used to refer to exceptional works and achievements
What are you talking about? This is one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read. Your definition for art is far from any laymen or academic definition.

>>12933162
This ×1000. A lot of contrarian stuff is in response to norms and trends in the art world, so of course it's gonna seem pretentious or out of touch to people from outside that world.

Yes, there are problems in the gallery/education system that create a lot of overly conceptual stuff that isn't relatable, but if you think there isn't a lot of exciting art out there, it's because you aren't looking for it. And with the constant advancements in technology, there will be even more innovative ways for artists to deliver experience.

>>12933162
>There is a lot of great contemporary art out there
Sure, I enjoy the occassional artwork

>and that's the stuff people will be looking back at in the future like we look back at art
Not if future artists and critics apply the standards that contributed to the creation of the greatest works on the planet.

>but there's only so much you can do and express through old mediums and styles.
I don't contest that access to a larger variety of material has the potential to breed greater creativity, nor is this necessarily a bad thing, the problem arises when the techniques and conventions cultivated throughout millennia that shaped the mediums known today (art, literature, music, sculpture, etc.) and facilitated reaching the height of mastery in them get disregarded in favor of laughable scribblings that only degenerate the human project (not that it really matters to great individuals and their shared hierarchy of experience). The conditions most conducive to rivalling or surpassing the established masterpieces would involve having sufficient grasp of the most complex techniques and conventions known to man, i.e. possessing the level of skill and virtuosity it took to create them. Again, this is the case with anything requiring learning: literature, maths, carpentry, etc.

>Art can still be painting and sculpture, but it can also be performances and environments and interactive experiences and more. Art isn't just about depicting the real world and mythology any more
Sure, not denying this

>pic related is one of my favorite contemporary artworks. It's called Breathing Light if you want to look it up.
Definitely not something I would call art. For me this is a case of mistaking something that evokes particular sensations for art, where art is much more than that. All that is art stimulates, but not all that stimulates is art. Latest modern artist I liked was Mark Tansey I guess

>>12927076
Baggy sweaters are good?

I'm not a fan of slimtfit desu, alays feels restricted and uncomfortable.

>>12933334
>What are you talking about? This is one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read. Your definition for art is far from any laymen or academic definition.
Actually it happens to be the best one you're ever going to find

>>12929489
It isn't. Those patches, all those different shades of blue, show how old they are. How many people throw their clothes away when it's damaged? How many repair it? How many people give their clothes to their kids? Only the last two pictures, the two paintings by Kurt Schwitters, can count as 'modern art', and I posted them because they reminded me of patchwork.

>>12933361
Art is literally just expression through a medium. Tacking on subjective qualifiers, like "exceptional", to that definition is self defeating. As soon as you start defining art as only creations that are "good", you're feeding into the mentality that sparked modern art.

You'll get people wanting to deconstruct what does and doesn't make a piece exeptional. Is it technical ability that makes art give you feels? Deviantart is full of exceptional artists making uninspired art, but it's still art. The masterful craft of modern art was in the tactful execution of an idea, not brush stroke. At it's best it was about experimentation and an attempt to flush out what base components are necessary to create moving work.

IMO the biggest problem right now is the attitude of galleries. They almost exclusively display work from graduates who have studied fine art/art history because there is an obsession with progress. The idea is that it takes someone with a decent knowledge of the past to create something new and not repeat the old. So you have all of these art schools pushing out students fixated on being strange and novel rather than how to convey a feeling. It's like they took all the worst aspects of modern art and missed the point completely.

With that said, there are still many contemporary artists who are killing it. The best seem to be the ones who have taken the expanded language provided by modern art, the attention to detail of old masters, and blurred separate disciplines into an immersive experience.

TLDR: Modern art gave us new tools and vocabulary to create cool shit and more ways to fail. But shitty art is still art.

>>12927525
It's important to define quality precisely.

In terms of durability and accessibility clothing is at its height right now.
In terms of technicality it's regressing. across the board.

>>12927611
[Citation needed]
What is quality? Durability?
Well it's improved, there's no argument there.
Try pull apart a Nike compression shirt with your hands today.
Find one for an equivalent price 10 years ago (accounting for inflation etc) and try do the same.

>>12927613
Those buttons are a real miss

>>12932509
Yohji

This art discussion is going to give me an aneursym.
Art is whatever tingles your genital region.

Did it bois.

>>12933486
>not repeat the old
That's the problem. Endless novelty is unnatural and disgusting. We barely remember the wisdom of our ancestors, and when we do, it's typically derisive and viewed through a Critical Theory lens. Botticelli wasn't looking to innovate when he brought back the creation myth of Venus, he was (although partly to suit the vogue of his patrons) intent on resurrecting the beauty, sublime poetry, intense emotion, hamartia and wisdom inherent in the Roman creation myth. He didn't invent Venus, he didn't invent the imagery, nor did he even invent the body language and pictoral style, but in his reverence for his ancestors and the careful observation of their psyche and inner workings, and his own passion and innate desire to bring "beauty" into the world (compromised as a career, of course), he made something ethereal that literally takes people's breaths away when on display in galleries, and undoubtedly inspired countless lives for the generations it has been shown.

That is great art, in my opinion, something that can elevate the human spirit, explore the tragedy of the human condition, that brings the inherent good that is beauty to the world.

>>12933526
Critical Theory is Loxism on a stick for stupid people, ie, the media and anyone trying to sell advertising eyeballs.

>>12933526
Sounds like we mostly agree. Still, I think there are examples of modern art that are just as grand as the classics. Nice to have a debate that doesn't devolve into a race war or triggered puss out. I'm on my phone though and can't keep this up. 10/10 would argue with you over a beer.

>>12933544
not that guy but nice pic. I go there pretty often. Mostly sit outside near Broken Obelisk but the whole park and chapel is really nice.

>>12933552
I've only been to Texas once, but wasn't close to it.

>>12933526
Oh my God seriously if there's something 4chan can't talk about it's art, why does every post about it have to be so cringy

>>12934141
A lot of the "only classical art styles have merit" stuff is just /pol/'s influence. I feel like it's a bit of a cop out to say it's not worth arguing with them but it's just not worth it. The only stuff they will ever like are fairly realistic depictions of humans and nature, and a big part of how good they think an artwork is depends on how difficult it looks like it was to make. The fact they don't even know the difference between modern and contemporary just shows that they're currently on top of mount stupid.

>>12934188
I almost called out that Numen guy for using the term 'modern' to qualify Mark Tansey. I just don't get why they insist on spreading their personal opinions when it just shows in their every sentence that they have never opened a book on history of art. And what really gets me is how they think their opinion is somewhat 'bold' and 'noble'.

I wish that guy would really read his sentence aloud: "That is great art, in my opinion, something that can elevate the human spirit, explore the tragedy of the human condition, that brings the inherent good that is beauty to the world."

>>12934213
Its very of its time isnt, giving strong opinions on topics upon which youve never read a book.

>>12933526
This is just so embarrassing. At least he spared us a digression on the artist as a small business, overtaxed and regulated, and just called him a careerist:)

>>12933544
Oh, my post about Botticelli was a one off, I wasn't the anon you were discussing with. I only read the comment I replied to. But I'd have a beer with you anon :)

>>12934213
>>12934302
>>12934188

Not an argument, you mental masturbators.

Prove this wrong: beauty is a measurable value and an inherent good.

>>12934349
Learn how to debate. You don't get to say X is true until you prove it's false. Prove there's no Bigfoot. Prove I'm not Bill Gates. Prove I didn't send this post from Mars. That must all be true then.

>>12933486
>Art is literally just expression through a medium.
Everything is an expression through a medium, doesn't make everything art.

>Tacking on subjective qualifiers, like "exceptional", to that definition is self defeating.
Not if you have any idea of what constitutes art beyond preferences, tastes, feelings and all this other horseshit.

>Is it technical ability that makes art give you feels?
But we're not talking about what gives you feels, we're talking about what constitutes art.

>The masterful craft of modern art was in the tactful execution of an idea
It is not simply the execution of an idea that makes something art, but the means by which it is done. Otherwise instruction manuals would be considered art.

Protip: Art is a label used to signify a set of exemplary works. Some artworks are better than others relative to the level of complexity involved in their constitution. Complexity is determined by a famlily resemblance of relative conventions and techniques. Not entertaining any other posts unless I see some worthwhile arguments against this very basic definition.

>I almost called out that Numen guy for using the term 'modern' to qualify Mark Tansey. I just don't get why they insist on spreading their personal opinions when it just shows in their every sentence that they have never opened a book on history of art.
I'm not talking about art in the context of paintings, I'm talking about the concept of art. You can remove "modern" from that sentence if you like

>>12934837
Do you like any art that isn't representational?

>>12934377
>Learn how to debate. You don't get to say X is true until you prove it's false. Prove there's no Bigfoot. Prove I'm not Bill Gates. Prove I didn't send this post from Mars. That must all be true then.
dat dogmatic western binary thinking

>>12934914
>Do you like any art that isn't representational?
I tend to proportionally like less of it the further away it moves from being "representational". Though ultimately all of it is representational of something.

>>12935001
>dat dogmatic western binary thinking

not even the guy, but this is a really lazy counter argument

>>12927475
That looks like Sam Hyde on the far left.

>>12935850
That wasn't a counterargument

>>12934837
Again you attempt to create your own definition for art. You say "protip", but I've never met a professional artist that agrees with your ridiculous and impossibly vague definition.

If art is only the exceptional or exemplary, who sets these standards? How do you clarify this without more loaded and subjective qualifiers? You're painting yourself into a corner and proving how out of your depth you are.

Honestly, there is no reason an instruction manual or anything man made can't be art. It sounds like your personal definition of art is actually a very narrow definition of fine art.

Still, I'm curious as to how you reached this definition. I'm also curious if it's difficult living a life where you choose your own uses for words, ignoring commonly accepted lexicon. Principle is more important than being understood, right? Wouldn't want to sully the word art with degneracy.

>>12935001
>dat dogmatic western binary thinking
How was anything I said binary thinking? I was merely using hypothetical hyperbole to show that burden of proof is on the person making a claim. This is pretty basic philosophy (see Russell's Teapot) and the foundation of science.

Or are you saying my thinking is binary because I actually believe that a truth statement is either objectively true or false? If that's the case, and we can't agree on the basic concept of truth and reality, then we should stop now.

>>12929427
>Implying you do

Modern art is literally one big ingenuity contest; a competition to see who can come up with the most unique explanations.

>>12935983
>You say "protip", but I've never met a professional artist that agrees with your ridiculous and impossibly vague definition.
Maybe you hang around some really dumb artists, not my problem.

>If art is only the exceptional or exemplary, who sets these standards?
A consesus of qualified experts in their respective fields.

>How do you clarify this without more loaded and subjective qualifiers?
Just like a doctor clarifies his reasoning for offering this or that medicine with "subjective qualifiers" (lol), take it or leave it.

>You're painting yourself into a corner and proving how out of your depth you are.
You or anyone else in this thread has yet to refute a single thing I've said.

>How was anything I said binary thinking?
>You don't get to say X is true until you prove it's false.

>I was merely using hypothetical hyperbole to show that burden of proof is on the person making a claim.
>burden of proof
That's a lovely little meta-epistemological claim I'd like you to validate, although if anything the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how anything I've said is incorrect.

>This is pretty basic philosophy (see Russell's Teapot) and the foundation of science.
There you go blowing your cover for that binary thinking

>Or are you saying my thinking is binary because I actually believe that a truth statement is either objectively true or false?
I wasn't saying anything, just laughing at your use of a peabrained true/false dialectic where it wasn't even warranted in this thread

Also,
>objectivity
>truth
>reality
please go to college

>>12935983
>>12936059
>Honestly, there is no reason an instruction manual or anything man made can't be art. It sounds like your personal definition of art is actually a very narrow definition of fine art.
Sure it can, just not for healthy people involved in the "fine arts" who prefer to categorize an instruction manual for a remote controller seperate from The Last Supper.

>>12936059
>A consesus of qualified experts in their respective fields
Such as? Do you have some examples of these so called experts.

>You or anyone else in this thread has yet to refute a single thing I've said.
What is there to refute? You think art is only the "exceptional", but you refuse to elaborate on what that entails. Exceptionally difficult, unique, accurate? How can anyone refute a stance that isn't clear?

Is it hard running the global ministry of culture all by yourself?

>>12936095
Outside observer here. This dude is either trolling or a total idiot (I hope it's the former but I suspect it's the latter). Just don't even bother with him. At best you're wasting your time and at worst you're giving him what he wants. The fact he won't accept that the burden of proof is on him to prove his own assertions is a pretty clear indicator he's not interested in having an honest discussion/argument.

>>12936005
Can you please stop using the word 'modern' when you mean 'contemporary'?

Pic related is modern art.

>>12936095
>Such as? Do you have some examples of these so called experts.
Any professor in a humanities department for a start, and seeing how basic what I've said up to this point is, probably most of the students (though not as articulately).

>What is there to refute? You think art is only the "exceptional", but you refuse to elaborate on what that entails. Exceptionally difficult, unique, accurate? How can anyone refute a stance that isn't clear?
>Some artworks are better than others relative to the level of complexity involved in their constitution. Complexity is determined by a famlily resemblance of relative conventions and techniques.
You're free to ask me to clarify any of my points.

>>12936095
Roger Scruton
https://youtu.be/bHw4MMEnmpc

Brainlet

>>12936122
>Some artworks are better than others relative to the level of complexity involved in their constitution. Complexity is determined by a famlily resemblance of relative conventions and techniques.

So basically pic related is not better than https://fineartamerica.com/featured/african-elephants-david-stribbling.html because it's less complex by all standards?

>>12935975
>I can say what is and what isn't without further explanation, debate me

>>12936117
>explicitly stating classical art is modern art
please stop

>>12936117
No it's not. Modern art doesn't have an exact beginning, but the post-impressionist are where early rumblings of modern art can be felt.

>>12936122
>Any professor in a humanities department for a start
Your definition of art doesn't even encompass academia's strictest definition of fine art and completely abandons applied arts.

>>12936124
I actually will get around to watching this, but I'll just say now that I never argued against beauty having value.

>>12936129
Yes, as far as the critical appreciation of art goes, though this is pretty obvious even from a general observation.

>>12936143
>No it's not. Modern art doesn't have an exact beginning, but the post-impressionist are where early rumblings of modern art can be felt.
Must feel good being able to distord reality to accommodate your own fantasies, you're living life in easy mode.

>>12936146
The sketch of the elephant was from Rembrandt, and the ability of suggesting the coarse skin of an elephant with such a few black lines is objectively harder than the painting I've linked.

>>12936150
>Must feel good being able to distord reality to accommodate your own fantasies, you're living life in easy mode.
You have yet to prove me wrong, therefore everything I've said is true.

>harder = better
I think we're starting to understand your logic a little more.

I'm going to bed now. 1v1 me tmo night.

>>12936153
>harder = better
>I think we're starting to understand your logic a little more.
It wasn't my own opinion, I was simply repeating the one of the tripfag and showing that he contradicts himself.

>>12936157
Oh. When would you say modern att started then. And why?

>>12936143
>Your definition of art doesn't even encompass academia's strictest definition of fine art and completely abandons applied arts.
The problem rather seems to be your physical inability to relate with usage in academia and day-to-day life the relatively simple concept of art used by me in this thread, which with equal clarity can be extended to what is generally meant by literature, theatre, music, theatre, anything involving developed expression and its arbitrary seperation from pedestrian products.

>>12936150
Cool, feels good to have recognized them

>>12936199
>theatre 2x
meant to post tapestry or something

>>12936194
Don't have time to explain right now because I'm buzzing off but basically modern art starts after the napoleonic wars, which is largely regarded as the event that severed the link of tradition (present = continuation of the past /// present = an island separated from the past) (can post biblio later if interested) and therefore fostered a mentality that resulted in modern art. This is also evoked in Hegel's lectures on Aesthetics, in the corresponding chapters.

Also on a more practical level, if you're studying art history you get four modules: antiquity, medieval, modern, contemporary. In modern art you're very likely to study everything that occurred after the industrial revolution.

>>12936227
I've never heard that before. Thanks for an interesting and informed answer though. I don't personally see a marked leap in technique, composition, or style in early 19th century. Is there something I'm missing, or are you just saying Napoleon's rampage was the catalyst for the change in mentality?

>>12936129
>>12936146
Also, it's better because it's more complex by most standards.

And whoever wrote
>harder = better
harder != more complex

Last bump, off to bed

>>12936129
>>12936146 (You)
Also, it's not better because it's less complex by most standards.

And whoever wrote
>harder = better
harder != more complex

Last bump, off to bed

>>12936262
Basically the rise of a historical consciousness gave way to self awareness in the arts. This historical consciousness comes from the turmoil of the times (borders changing again and again, the future becoming a threatening space rather than something to look forward too, especially since the industrial revolution is drastically changing the landscapes). The Salon des Refusés for example would be a good example of a modern initiative that doesn't involve drastic changes in the conposition or style of the paintings.

Beauty is objective, we find it all over nature and our brains are wired to find certain patterns, forms and palettes beautiful and attractive. There is a degree of subjectivity, cultural evocation, personal experiences that form taste etc but there is still a measure of beauty - the reason we universally find certain things unnattractive unless we have a mental disorder such as a paraphilia, for example some lighting is universally called "bad" because it accentuates ugly features, some palettes are considered off putting, some features enter the uncanny valley and elicit disgust (dolls' faces resembling dead bodies to our lizard brains), we cannot eat blue food without feeling repulsed (try adding blue food colouring to your rice, good luck finishing the meal).

Artists have been exploring this phenomenon since the birth of sentience and the resource surplus that enables tribespeople to spend labour hours on an unnecessary object or craft such as a cave painting, an example being the ice age caves in France, the Lascaux Lion drawings, which employ such skill, mastery over natural form and line and raw talent that they are universally agreed to be as beautiful and finely drawn as the best Disney artist's work.

This exploration of the innate value of beauty and evocations we can convey by translating the world around us and abstract concepts, hamartia, history, virtues, memory, mythos, ambition into tangible pieces of work that can be viewed by anyone and convey these ethereal concepts is called "the pursuit of beauty", beauty being agreed upon as an innate goodness and it is a pure act of love to bring beauty into the world. Using this metric we could call blueprint schematic for a plane or a bust of a great composer a piece of art, since they uplift the soul and explore memory, ambition, etc.

Most of modern and contemporary art is just edginess and trickery trying to con nihilistic Jews out of their millions, or a tax fraud.