Because the "artists" are.

Sheesh!

we're in the post-modern era now, and moving forward.

it's pretty clear that the old sayin' has merit: "whatever thou doest is the whole of the law." (and that applies to art as well).

They have moved from quality to shock value and political statement.

Yes, something happened on the way to the 20th century, the camera became more and more common starting in the 19th century. Before the camera, the highest standard of art was what we now call photo realistic, but when that can be captured so easily by a camera, artists had to come up with other notions such as impressionism, abstraction, minimalism, and cubism that circumvent the camera.

Anyone remember Piss Indian and Piss Christ, andrew serrano got natl endowment of the arts govt money to create despicable trash.

I like some modern art. Much of it just sucks.
Same for a lot of modern things.
But a lot of old stuff sucks too.
Good stuff can be had in "different"..........but "different' doesn't automatically make it good.

Not a fan of impressionism.

art isn't always what we think it is, is it?

a starving artist certainly dances to the sound of a different drummer.

and art like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Women are the only works of art!!!

Art is a reflection of our society. In what I would consider the pinnacle of western art, the art, music and architecture represented not the shortcoming of mankind, but a striving for better and to leave a legacy for future generations.

Todays art represents the opposite, and sadly represents a goodly portion of our society.

"good" art brings a good, or even higher price.

bad art, not so much.

is art for sale?

Just as poems should rhyme, art should actually look realistic.

Modern art now (in my opinion) has nothing whatsoever to do with the art itself. Rather it is what the artist was feeling, experiencing, suffering, fill in the blanks at the time of its creation.

Case in point, at the Crystal Bridges Museum In Bentonville, AR (supposedly one of the most modern and up and coming museums in the US based almost solely on its “Green” footprint) there Is a 5’ x 5’ canvas painted completely gray. Supposedly the artist had a sad story or childhood. The interpretation is the art I guess.

Any time I view art I expect it to say something to me. When I look at most modern art, all it says to me is WTH? I do not need an artist explaining his work. It either speaks to me or it does not.

The answer is complex, I think this long article goes into depth on that very question:

https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/Title/art-scam

"Our 20th century has marked a period that celebrated the bizarre, the novel and the outrageous for its own sake. The defining parameter of greatness to Modernism is "has it ever been done before," "is it totally original where there is no derivation from any former schools of art," "does it outrage," "does it expand the definition of what can be called art?" I propose to you today that if everything is art then nothing is art. If I call a table a chair have I expanded the definition of the word table? Would this make me brilliant? If I call a hat a shirt have I expanded the definition of hat? If I call a nail a hammer, have I expanded the definition of the word nail? Am I now a genius? If I call screeching car wheels great music have I expanded the definition of music?

Or in reality have I perpetrated a fraud on the people who wanted to buy tables, hats, nails and music and instead got chairs, shirts, hammers and a headache.

Modernists have not expanded the definition of art at all. What they have done is attempted to destroy art, created icons that represent this destruction, and then called these icons the thing that they have destroyed i.e. works of art. A urinal or an empty canvas, hung on the wall of a museum, are especially pure examples of this. They are not works of art but symbols of the victory of the Huns, who have sacked the bastions and forums of our culture. It would be like saying that the Roman Forum today is far greater architecture than it was when all the buildings and streets were intact."

.....

"Modern and post-modern art is nihilistic and anti-human. It denigrates humanity along with our hopes, dreams, desires and the real world in which we live. All reference to any of these things is forbidden in the canonistic halls of modernist ideology. We can see that their hallowed halls are a hollow shell, a vacuous vacant vault that locks their devotees away from life and humanity, while stripping mankind of his dignity. It ultimately bores the overwhelming majority of its would be audience who can find nothing with which to relate.

It has been called exciting and "avant-garde," but the sad truth is that it is incredibly humdrum and monotonous. Whether you glue together pieces of plastic or shards of glass, assemble metal scraps or piles of feathers. Whether you dribble little dollops of colors or drag fat uneven slashes of black. Whether you compile a mountain of paper or wrap the statue of liberty. The effect is always the same: meaningless primitivism. Modernism is art about art. It endlessly asks the question ad nauseam: what is art? What is art? They believe that only those things that expand the boundaries of art are good; all else is bad. It is art about art. Whereas, all of the great art in history is art about life."

...........

"If someone with intelligence takes the time to understand advanced mathematics and physics, computer science, or biogenetics, there is something there to understand. If you take the time to understand Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Colorfield, Pop-art, Op-art etc. you will find a clever con game perpetrated by a sophisticated gang of public relations experts that figured out a great tactic to make millions.

The underlying philosophy is totally without merit, and amounts to nothing more than a misuse of language, which is sufficiently complex as to be usable in the wrong hands to justify nearly anything. If you read their discussions of what makes a Rothko or a de Kooning or Jackson Pollock painting great, you discover an enigma wrapped in a paradox and embedded in a quandary. With looping cadences of illogical chaotic thought, usually vocalized by individuals with flowery credentials next to their name, the average listeners, who lack self-confidence in their understanding of the arts and are intimidated by their inability to understand, usually meekly back away. Or they protect themselves by proclaiming that they do fully understand, so that they too may feel part of the anointed. The effect of "prestige suggestion" could never be seen more clearly. Many of us here have said it countless times before, but apparently it needs to be said yet again.

The emperor has no clothes!"

it's just awful when good art gets set at price too high to sell.
is it ego? too much pride?
not knowlegeable of the market?
greed?
wishful thinking?
good art, priced right, literally flies off the shelves, right?
unseen value by the rank & file?
if i couldn't sell it for more than i paid for it, why buy it in the first place?

Where would you hang it?

Crappy artists have always existed, but they could only make a living if they could convince someone to pay them for their crap. In the old days, people could only spend their own money, so they didn't waste it on crappy artists. Modern art is funded by government spending other people's money.

Excellent point!

Right next to the person who created it.

its a bunch of fuggen weirdos who are told all the time how special they are and how great their fuggen schit is by other fuggen weirdos and nobody is telling them that their "art" is total schit. nobody outside of that group of weirdos cares about that crap unless they have a ton of money and are peer pressured into buying it to keep up with their weirdo friends. all total crap.

1. There is no accounting for taste.
2. It's easy to find schlock from any period.

Lol, literally.

Better clip of the earlier one. Best movie of all time.

Don't know. Pablo's work always left me wondering.

Well said.

Big deal. I've got a couple of those out in yard.

You do photo realism perfectly and some idiot will say perspective or lighting is wrong.........yadda yadda.

That's when you pull out the photo and ask them what's wrong.

And they leave super red faced.

Artists can vary in talent. Potential customers seem to be quite consistent....... chitheads.

This is art. Created by a Caucasian nearly 5 centuries ago.

Holy photo-realism. Wow.

I like some of H R Geiger.

Rembrandt,...

Some of the revered old masters would have likely killed and traded their brushes to get their hands on the latest
ED aspherical fluorite multi-point auto focus - digital Canon or Nikon.....and a Pro- PHOTOSHOP type program....


They may have even had appreciation for modern like this:

https://www.artsy.net/artwork/roy-lichtenstein-whaam

Five centuries later,......not Rembrandt,...Negro rendered portrait.

When I was about 12, another boy, somewhat older and I, were leaving an art exhibit.
A modern art painting was near the exit, as was the lady in charge.
I ask her what this painting was suppose to be, and she said it was the artist expressing themselves..
I then ask if they were having a nervous breakdown.
She laughed.

Modern arts sucks because it has been co-opted by liberals. Liberals ruin everything they control.

Some of my daughter's art,...rendered from carbon dust, a small brush, spit, and her finger.

Durer (1503)

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/homage-to-albrecht-durer-miguel-rodriguez.html

Goya 1820s

https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the...ing/67eecb35-18d3-4377-9482-739713680b42

https://theartstack.com/artist/francisco-goya/tio-paquete

Munch. (1893)

http://www.paintingmania.com/scream-1893-16_2514.html


None of those are even close to 'life-like' in appearance, but that doesn't stop a clear message being conveyed.

Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects.

Imagination without skill gives us modern art.

Jon McNaughton

Throughout the ages, those who possessed and used significant knowledge and skill to produce great art according to the values of their times were able to leave a record of that art because it was acknowledged and held high. The poor art of those times went to dust. Not all of that broadly praised art is met with an approving eye today, and it always has been so. This indicates the strong influence of individual tastes - "the eye of the beholder".

In the early stages of "Modern Art" (possibly further back than one might think) the artists who were able to rise above did possess and use fine knowledge and skills, showing mastery of strong principles in design, form, color, use of light, perspective, etc. During the 20th century, serious social and academic undercurrents in the "art world", especially in the US, undermined the importance of many if not all of those classic artistic principles.

Critique based on application of knowledge, skill, etc. gradually became replaced with uninformed critique - "anything goes" if the artist thinks there is a message, or if you think there is something there. Weak standards. Lousy stuff passed off as art. But, not ALL of it is lousy. What of it will prevail, and endure - and why?

If you think that progression is odd or unacceptable - take a listen to contemporary music. Which of THAT will endure.

"Art" can be a tricky thing - the best of it arrives on a strong foundation.

Very simple, art is subjective...and I am tired of being subjected to what they now insist is art.

That is as apt a description as any I have seen.

I like this one, just a technique study by HS kid.

The prev pics done by Jon McNaughton?
Pretty boring.
Style I don't care for either.

Those done on velvet?

Patriot velvet.

"Target" -- Jasper Johns

Thanks for the reminder, not all art in this time is despicable, even if most done by lieberals is.

Too funny:

https://www.thelocal.ch/20180404/cl...way-swiss-artists-unhappy-meal-sculpture

Cleaners accidentally throw away Swiss artist’s 'Unhappy Meal' sculpture

When an artist plays with the reality, it can have unintended consequences.

That’s what happened to Switzerland’s Carol May recently when her “Unhappy Meal” sculpture was thrown away by cleaners during the hotel-based Harbour Art Fair in Hong Kong.

The work was being displayed in a hotel room converted into an exhibition space along with other pieces by the Swiss art collective a-space.

Like many of May’s pieces, the “Unhappy Meal” sculpture aims to shed a critical light on consumer culture. It resembles the traditional bright red and yellow boxes available at McDonald's restaurants around the world.

But there is a twist: the familiar smiley face has been turned upside down.

“A lot of my pieces involve very small alterations to familiar items: changes that aren’t maybe obvious at first glance,” May told The Local.

Unfortunately, in this case, cleaners at the Hong Kong hotel were also unable to spot the difference and threw away the artwork valued at around 350 francs.

Cleaners quickly rescued the piece from the trash, but it was battered beyond repair.

“Initially I didn’t find it funny at all,” May said. “But later I realised it meant my imitation had been a success.”

Lol

Never been a fan of modern art. Give me the works of Russell, Bodmer, Remington, Alfred Jacob Miller, David Wright, Lee Teter, Carrie Ballantyne, O.C. Seltzer, etc, and I'm a happy camper. To each his own.


Ben

We have a winner!!]

After the invention of the camera, people stopped buying photo realistic art. I they wanted something photo realistic, they get a photo for a fraction of the cost of a painting. It was invention, and the market that killed photo realism in art.