/lit/ - Literature

>>11187582
>>11187594
Replying to the bait, it's gonna be another
>durr art discussions are just a proxy for political discussions and I lack the intellectual capacity to judge art as according to its own merits, theory, and context

It isn't as bad as the Realist factions would have you believe. Not that there isn't a push for maintaining technical skill to be found:
https://www.artrenewal.org etc

I've found you get out of modern pieces what you put in. The experience of color (and it's indexical relationship to the viewer) is subjective, but beyond muh theory, seeing a work like Rothko for me has always been a matter of investment. Even for the psudes, they're floored by a Rothko because they've invested all their (ego) fauxhype. For those who've studied the work itself, the knowledge of the intentions and process is the reward. When art became more conceptual, it (opened the door for the return of >connoisseurship and all the armchair psudes and bourgeois critics that come with it) required more than just visual investment to be appreciated than Gerome (read: Classicists that blurred/later became kitsch) provided. All that said, it still doesn't do anything for me, but learning about it helped me appreciate what it does instead of getting buttrekt by >muh squares.

tl;dr It isn't bad, you just can't appreciate (fun).