You must log in or register to comment.
Explanation: The Soviet Union put some fairly stringent restrictions on art, out of a bizarre idea that certain styles, even absent any offensive themes, were ‘bourgeois’. While this attitude softened temporarily under Khrushchev in the 1950s (though Khrushchev also famously despised the abstract art movements of the period), ‘Soviet Realism’ remained the dominant style pushed by the Soviets and their puppets.
For that reason, the US found supporting abstract art a useful way to create a wedge between the Soviet Union and artistic circles.
At the same time, as governments are very often not monolithic structures, but consisting of numerous institutions with their own portfolios and aims, some of which are subsumed by shockingly clientistic-feudal networks headed by a small number of influential bureaucrats, the FBI under Edgar Hoover was investigating these selfsame artistic circles, hoping to find something just lawful enough to charge them with. Anything to satisfy the FBI’s conservative urge to penalize dangerous free-thinkers.
I’ve heard that modern art was a response to proliferation of photography.
There’s already a device that can capture faces and landscapes in seconds so what’s the point in painting them. So this gave rise to expressionism, cubism, abstract art etc.
Don’t know of this is true or pop culture myth.
I’m certain it would have been a factor.
Fuck Jackson Pollock. All real homies hate Jackson Pollock.
You know why people don’t care if things are AI art or not? Blame Pollock and useless, unimaginative, lazy modern art like him, and Damien Hurst and his formaldehyde fish tanks, and the banana tape guy.
As an artist and philosopher, I find this comment extremely ironic as you have identified some of the artwork which I find the most valuable and thought-provoking.
you and your opinion suck, and it’s because of people like you defending those shitheads that the roosters have come home to roost for artists.
Go look at some blank paintings
Thinking deeply about these artworks has literally helped me understand the world better so what do I do with that knowledge?Just throw it away?
admit that they are thought exercises and move on with your life.
The problem is part of my life is being an artist which means incorporating the things I’ve learned that I want people to understand into my artistic work.
Have you ever considered that artist don’t actually owe you something?
do you know what a thought exercise is? You’re saying that you derived ideas from the works you cited, which is the entire point of a thought exercise. A thought exercise or an experiment in technique is different to a finished work; these fucking people belong in textbooks for artists, not museums, because they are not expressing anything. If you’re getting some emotions expressed at you from these works, you most likely get them from blank walls and stains in wood as well; you are the artist in that situation, not them.
Have you ever considered that artist don’t actually owe you something?
They owe me loads; I paid taxes which housed the works that pushed out the curative attention that society has a limited amount of, over works that would have been much more deserving and poisoned YOUR OWN FIELD OF ENDEAVOUR.
Those fucking people literally ruined the world of paintings, and you’re there continuing to encourage them.
so you think that the purpose of visual arts is literally nothing more than to express emotions and aesthetic beauty? Is that seriously the only kind of “expression” that you can imagine?
Something to think about: here is an artist very clearly explaining to you that they got something out of these works that you obviously missed or did not perceive and you’re not even a little bit curious as to what it might be, already deciding that there is no way there is anything of value there, and I think that’s just very unfortunate
