gunnels

It's pretty much always been like that, though. All artists (including composers) either commissioned their work for someone in the upper class or tried to sell it to them. It's how they made their living.

__________________
Let's Play TF2 Sometime.|Unrepresentative Last.fm.|Puns, Pokemon, and Miscellany

Janszoon

Who do you think was buying the artwork the surrealists made?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Chollie Mank

Kindergarten teachers, gives the kids a standard they can actually reach.

Janszoon

Exactly. Whether it's churches, governments, businesses or just wealthy patrons, it's pretty consistently the rich and powerful that finance art throughout history.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Janszoon

That's terrible, lizard.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

boo boo

I wouldn't call myself an eloquent speaker, I'm just a guy who rants about everything.

...And yeah, I'm a guy.

Someone did that with elephants too, same result.

Critics praise "true art" as that which defies convention but so many of these guys are up there own ass about how abstract art is the only good kind of art, it has BECOME convention.

And by making figurative art or "kitsch" art, you are defying the conventions upheld by the art community. And that is just naughty.

People who make "kitsch" art are people who are considered to make art as a product, art for consumers. It's obvious that for this reason Thomas Kinkade is considered a kitsch artist.

But during the renaissance, all the top artists made their work for an elite group of people, that's how they made their living, and it doesn't matter how much love and care they put into their work, by making art for consumption or to please other's tastes, it should be considered "kitsch" by the definition art critics use.

But how is abstract art true self expression? You know not everyone likes that kind of art, but critics will demonize anyone who doesnt conform to modern art ideals. And because it's become so fashionable it's not at all uncommon for rich people who know f*ck all about art to buy a Rothko or two to make their place more "modern", the word "kitsch" was invented to define stuff like this was it not?

Critics are consumers too you know.

And the mere idea that there's more artistic credibility in making art for critics than everyday, not so privilaged people is f*cking absurd. People actually like the work of Boris Vallejo, nobody likes the work of Damient Hirst, they just pretend to like it because it's fashionable.

Art critics consider "kitsch" a disease, as in anything that becomes popular and desired and imitated WILL become kitsch, but they ignore the fact that by going fap happy over stuff like Pollock and Damien Hirst, these things have become "kitsch" themselves.

Simply liking something turns it into "kitsch", so, should we just not like anything to keep the disease from spreading?

Oh yeah, and Damien Hirst, what a c*ntbag that guy is. He specializes in "emperor has no clothes" art, the guy puts dead sharks in some kind of jelly or whatever and not only is it successfully passed off as art, it has become a mass produced product.

He's the Kinkade of the modern art community, but you know what? At least Thomas motherf*cking Kinkade makes his art for un-pretentious, simple everyday people. So what if he makes his stuff for ready consumption, so did Da Vinci and Michaelangelo, but they made it for very high class people, so what's the difference? It's more artistically credible to make art for rich people than to make art that anyone can afford?

I'm not saying Kinkade is in the same field as those from the Renaissance, f*ck no, but you know what I mean.

I don't like his work, too much bloom and sh*t. But I actually think he has more artistic credibility than the stuff art critics praise today and that just comes to show the terrible state modern art is in.

Almost any new modern art movement I have an interest in, like neo-surrealism or lowbrow art, it's immediately written off as "kitsch", as modern art continues to be a hysterical parody of itself.

Critics have become so obsessed with this word that it now describes virtually everything in existance. Everything traditional is kitsch, that means all music and movies that have some coherent structure or genre traits to them is kitsch, but that truly means everything.

EVERYTHING is kitsch. Everything.

Also, the thing I hate most about kitsch as a derogatory term is that it implies that art can NEVER appeal to human emotion, or even be provocative, that means that even if art isn't sentimental or idealistic, even if it just wants to provoke any kind of reaction, it is "kitsch".

To be true art, it can only stimulate you intellectually, I guess while you rub your chin and smoke a pipe.

Thus "art" is a denial of basic human emotion, basic human nature. We are emotional beings, why is that shunned upon? Emotion drives us in everything we do weither we admit it or not. That is just the way we are.

Until we evolve into giant floating brains with no need for emotion (easy to assume this is what art critics want) we can never appreciate "art" over "kitsch".

No one truly likes "art", they just like the idea of liking art. It just gives us an excuse to feel superior to others for having "refined" taste.

But everyone likes "kitsch", because kitsch is anything and everything that stimulates us emotionally, even sex is kitsch.

Critics love to use the excuse "false emotion", well, what validates art is the way it is percieved by the viewer. All this stuff about "aura" critics go on about is ridiculous, like I don't even know if they're joking.

Bedises, all human emotion has a simple biological cause and purpose so you could argue that all emotion is false. But who cares? I feel emotion, so it feels real to me.

So it doesn't matter if the artist treats it as merely a product, if it has an aesthetic or emotional impact on me, that validates the art for me, that's how it goes for all art mediums.

Critics are not art lovers, because art cannot be loved. Art is something you make for critics to circle jerk over as they flaunt their alledged superiority over everyone else.

Kitsch is something that can be genuinely enjoyed. So if kitsch is the death of art as all critics proclaim, all I can say to that is.... good.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

bungalow

i believe jackhammer is indeed a john cassavetes fan

boo boo

D'oh.

EDIT: I removed his name.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Janszoon

I think it's great that boo boo is taking the time to rant about something that hasn't been relevant since at the mid-20th century at the latest.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

CAPTAIN CAVEMAN

gotta take a break from contentious issues such as videogames and having hair sometime