Ironic postneoshit as the dominating trend in contemporary art

As V.X. Nosuch, resident professor from Banghi College Of Art stated recently, "ironic postneoshit became the dominating trend in contemporary art. Related to the "cult classics" movement, and hipsterian fanboyism in general, ironic postneoshit has, apparently, won over confusianism while restoring the hopes of young iconoclast schlockists". This means that going for maximum scandal with minimum effort is de rigueur now, and is guaranteed not only to win worldwide recognition and attract wealthy patrons, but also increase the profits of coffee industry, from plantations, to packing plants, to cafe franchises, where droves of hipsters will undoubtedly congregate to discuss the daring escapades of the new art trend's representatives.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

I have noticed that art is now more about the message than making something pleasing to the eye.

Like how a guy vomiting represents how we must reject the government for some shit. Just paint some bloody flowers and make it look nice.

FIMFiction Account MLPMST Page

Beautiful landscape painting of hills and valleys, with amazing detail: labeled as boring.

Broken Toliet is placed on a pedastal: labeled as a masterpiece.

I don't get modern art.

Tropers watching movies

@Bard

They're both art. One is a display of the beauty we seem to ignore around us, and the other is symbolic of how we'll worship the most broken and flawed systems. The first went out of style with the advent of photographs.

"Dr. Strangeloid, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Cleanlink" - thespacephantom

I admire what they try to express with their art, don't get me wrong. Its the fact that people trip over themselves to declare the latter a masterpiece is what annoys me.

It's a matter of taste, though, and I respect that many people enjoy it. I'll stick with Paintings and sculptures myself.

edited 10th Feb '12 11:27:40 AM by AStrayBard

Tropers watching movies

Ew, visual art.

Whose works, while they were alive, were generally considered incomprehensible garbage by the general population.

Now, don't get me wrong, I also don't get much of what goes for modern art. But I try to be open to the possibility that perhaps it's me who is not getting something, and not the artists themselves.

I mean, about one year ago I visited an installation which had, as one of its main pieces, a strange mesh-like thing made of twigs and stuff that hung from the ceiling. According to some of the people I went with, and who are vastly more knowledgeable about art than I am, that was an impressive masterwork. I suppose that they were right.

I wouldn't want it in my house, but it's probably just me. Although, to be honest, I would not want a Van Ghogh (way too depressing, usually) nor a Picasso (just does not appeal to me much). I'd prefer a De Chirico or a Miró◊ or, if we want something a little more oldfashioned, something by Rubens.

edited 10th Feb '12 11:35:13 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

If I came off as condescending or rude, then I apologize. No one medium of art can ever be truly better than another, as the word "art" itself is such a subjective term. I don't doubt that the pieces we see today will be treasured in the future, as I probably don't get what it's really supposed to represent.

It's just a personal preference of mine that I enjoy paintings, sculptures, etc. more than I do the aforementioned toliet on a pedastal. Once again, it's a matter of taste.

Tropers watching movies

You'd probably like 19th century Latin American art, then.

"Dr. Strangeloid, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Cleanlink" - thespacephantom

No problems, as far as I can see you were perfectly reasonable and polite. For what's worth, I didn't like the toilet on the pedestal either

By the way, I am not convinced that the premise of the OP is correct anyway. While "postmodern" currents, whatever that ever means, are certainly relatively common, as far as I know (but I am not an expert at all, honestly) that's actually considered sort of an old-fashioned style nowadays.

Just a random Wikipedia trawl tells me that some currents of contemporary art are Classical Realism◊, which seems custom-built to reply to the OP's objections; Massurrealism◊, which — while postmodern in a way — also looks totally sweet; and Pseudorealism◊, which while stylistically somewhat minimalistic is definitely not what I would call "ironic postneoshit".

edited 10th Feb '12 11:58:25 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

My general issue with contemporary art is that it rarely contextualises itself. A good piece of expression will contain all the meaning within itself so as to be decoded and understood. Literature, cinema, music and video games all follow this pattern, but contemporary art has lost a huge audience via is incomprehensibility.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

However, the painting you linked is a typical 19th century history painting. Those were extremely popular in the latter half of the 19th century, especially battle paintings and the like... however, do they actually still draw stuff like that?

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

It kinda bothers me that art that tries to go beyond the pre established medium is seen as pretentious these days.

Not only that, but I see it as vaguely anti intellectual to dismiss something because it tries to present something that isn't a pretty picture. Yes, aesthetics are as important as the message presented, but it doesn't have to outrank it.

oh come on, alex, really? Art is and always will be reactive. Whether to trends within art itself or to the world at large. I don't think you're looking really deep enough if you think it's "incomprehensible".

edited 10th Feb '12 12:00:56 PM by juancarlos

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

Yeah, I linked the wrong url, sorry. Now the link should send to a painting from 2004, by Jacob Collins, in a similar style.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Well, what I had in mind is the fact that the dictate of so called "art critics" discards valuable art (like classical realist works you posted links to) as "sentimental kitsch", while promoting things painted by kids and animals (by claiming True Art Is Incomprehensible and comparing them to works of earlier, adult human artists - I found the article while looking for a name of animal that painted something that ended up in a gallery) or things that are clearly made to cause a scandal. Of course, if pointed out that it's shit, the "art critics" will respond that it's "ironic postneoshit" or something to that effect. After modern art got bludgeoned to death with an urinal (because Duchamp... was taking the piss *cue The Who*) you can sell the art galleries anything, roll with the complicated, pretentious, philosophically sounding name (for example, call Michael Bay a "pioneer in pyrotechnic deconstructionism").

As for massurrealism, it's interesting - sure, I can see shades of Dali in that Kreuzhof picture you linked too, but it stands out on its own. Pseudorealism isn't bad either - I can recognize shapes and composition, sure, they're simplified, but at least I don't have to wonder "what the hell is this thing?".

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

And, ironically, intended as anti-art at the time it was made.

Duchamp was basically trolling.

The same, but better, could be said about Piero Manzoni and his masterwork (really, now?)

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It's ironic postneoshit worth its weight in gold.

No shit, really.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

Yeah, I'm more of a fan of Renaissance era art, myself. It was my favorite section at the DIA when I went there.

Modern art I don't care for.

Please.

Art is obviously what you make it, and what it is not, it is never, and what is it, it is that. In short, I am it and you are it and he is it and she is it and it is it.

Obviously, art's what you make it, so let's make it rock.

"Dr. Strangeloid, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Cleanlink" - thespacephantom

It's an artist's thing—it's a terrible thing to lose.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Yes, but see, the different between this art and your trash is that I like the this art and not your trash.

The emotions of others can seem like such well guarded mysteries, people 8egin to 8elieve that's how their own emotions should 8e treated.

But I consider my trash art.

And what art is, is what it isn't not.

PEOPLE WHO LIKE THINGS THAT I DON'T LIKE ARE WRONG