How to make a mass-murderer

Post Reply New Topic

I can see it now.

The two of you get together, and sing a duet about your....common plans for...global domination and world enslavement!

And you put out an album on old fashioned analog disc.

You two entitle the album "the Vinyl Solution".

It depends on how you define great art. I don't normally like abstract art, because I can't see whatever it is meant to represent.

Traditional art and architectural illustrations, is very appealing to me, because it is beautiful, beautiful landscapes, nature and (if the buildings are old enough) - even the architecture itself can be beautiful.

To me, abstract art looks more like an artist having rushed to finish the painting in a hurry, without considering the details. This is very typical for the late 19th c. and early 20th century paintings with way too large brush strokes, which makes the paintings more rough and not very detailed.

I like details. I like beauty. I like epicness. Picasso is none of that. Therefore I won't say Picasso was a great artist.

I believe the vast majority of common people feel this way about art. And the rest are just lying to themselves.
There's no obvious reason to like abstract art, because it lacks detailed and epic beauty.

Anyone can make abstract paintings, it's just a matter of throwing in some random paint at a canvas. The real trick is to get a name/brand for yourself that can make you a billionaire. This has nothing to do with the quality of the art in question, it has 100 % to do with your social network and your social status.

While lazy and untalented artists can make millions of dollars on a single canvas with some random staints of paint, the genuinly talented artists who puts a lot of effort into making a beautiful and detailed painting struggle for social recognition and cultural acceptance.

This is INJUSTICE! It is UNFAIR!

It's injustice that many people prefer art you don't personally appreciate?

I judge art on how it makes me feel inside.

Who are "people" or "the people"? I believe there's a difference.

SOME people prefer abstract art, because of the social pressure being put on them. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes: Nobody really likes it, but everybody are cheering.

Some people, who happens to be very rich, buy these paintings because it helps them grow in their social networks. If they refuse they're not really "one of them" (the "elite class"). They'll be thrown out of whatever society they're part of, lose their elite jobs and become part of the lower classes, doing hard manual labor for little pay.

But I'm pretty sure THE People - the masses - don't really like abstract art.

The emperor has got no clothes at all. He's naked, despite the fact that people are lying to themselves believing they see him in some new clothes. The same applies to abstract "art": It's not art at all!

You don't appreciate it and perhaps some other people agree with you. I fail to see how this makes art you don't like not art.

I quite enjoy abstract art. Some of it's garbage, yes. But that's true of any style.

Because there has to be criteria for defining anything, whether it be to define a "car" from a "rock" and a "tree" from a "chair". Or else we would confuse a car with a rock, and we can call everything whatever we like, and language lose its purpose and it's meaningfulness.

The same applies to art. You shouldn't be able to take a rock and place it somewhere in the city park, and call it a "sculpture" when nobody has sculpted it.

I enjoy some few abstract works of art too, which can be considered art in itself, but the vast majority is indeed garbage and cannot be cathegorized as art at all.

As for garbage in traditional art, I don't really believe it will make it to publications/put on display. There are very high standards for traditional art.

You don't put on sketches for public displays, unless the sketches themselves are of a very high quality.

Marcel Duchamp would disagree with you.



Your argument about how accepting art you don't appreciate will somehow doom us to a slippery slope where no words have meaning is ridiculous.

Art that you don't personally appreciate is still art. Genres of art that you don't approve of still have artistic merit. You haven't made a coherent argument, you've made a bunch of absurd statements that are more worthy of being appreciated for their artistic merit than for their logic.

Um, no.

Not being accepted into a university isn't justification for being a mass murderer nor the university or society's fault.

There's a thing called personal responsibility. hitler was personally responsible for his actions. They were not the actions of the arts community.

A few famous abstract art works (Piet Mondrian, Wassily Kandinsky and Jackson Pollock):




Mondrian and Kandinsky both had to flee from Nazism, BTW.

I like how OP unilaterally decided what is and isn't "real" art - and also decided for everyone, that anyone who disagrees with their assessment of art is "lying" or "tricked".

They open the stage with "it depends on how you define art", but then don't allow people to define art for themselves, and instead tells everyone that if they disagree with their definition of art, you're clearly wrong or lying or tricked.

The idea that art or music have to meet certain standards in order to be considered "real" is just another form of elitism. The only standard art has to meet is, does someone like it. Just cos people have different tastes than you doesn't make them "wrong". Art doesn't have to "look like" something. Art doesn't have to "look like" anything. And the fact that an artistic object can exist without resembling something will not somehow deconstruct the fundamental essence of language.

Just cos YOU don't like certain types of art, doesn't mean the rest of us can't. Many of us DO find beauty in the abstract and undefinable. How else do you think people experience awe in the face of the unknown?

Aurora Borealis is beautiful, even though it's just a bunch of colors that don't "look like" anything, and even if you have no idea what it is. At least, I think it does. And I wouldn't have the audacity to tell someone that if they didn't find it pretty, they were wrong. People see, or don't see, beauty wherever they do, or don't.

People like what they like. That's all there is to it. There is nothing "UNJUST!" about the world being different than the way you think it should be. There is nothing "UNFAIR!" about people having different tastes than you. An artist who is so proud of their work, they think they deserve more recognition than they get, has a pride problem, not a recognition problem. Every mediocre chef thinks their food is delicious, and everyone else has a "taste" problem. Sorry, but other people get to decide for themselves what they think. The conceited argue. The self-aware change.

Everyone's feelings get hurt the first time they're told they're not as impressive as they think they are, or the first time they spend a lot of time and effort on something that fails to impress as much as they thought it would. You are not being bullied or slighted just cos you don't get the returns you think you "deserve". The idea that just cos you exerted effort means you should be rewarded is the ultimate participation trophy. "It's YOUR fault I turned out this way!" is the ultimate abdication of responsibility. Just cos you don't "like" a choice doesn't mean you can't still make it anyways. The easy path is seldom the right path or best path. The easy path is merely the most appealing to people who feel they've already "earned" the rewards they feel they've been "denied". As though reality keeps a tab of suffering, and once you experience enough discomfort, the world "owes" you compensation.

At best, that's little more than cognitive dissonance trying to protect a scared and fragile mind from the reality that bad things can happen to anyone, without reason or remorse - and that it is possible to commit no errors, yet still fail. A world with strict and rigid rules feels much safer - but also feels more "unfair" when one's unreasonable expectations collide with the reality of the issue.

Mass-murderers are self-made when they convince themselves that they have no alternative but to murder. They came to that conclusion all their own, despite any claims of being "driven" to it.

millions upon millions wish to hell those GD art snobs had accepted the SOB to that GD art school.

hi. hitler's art is boring a f. even at the time he painted it, a camera could already take a better picture.

more ornamental stuff, art noveau, was en vogue in vienna back then. but that's not abstract art. it's stylized - something a camera wasn't able to do at a fraction of the cost.

after ww1, artists painted their traumatic experiences, often dreamlike distorted - the boring hitler postcards weren't interesting to anyone, I mean - the world had seen it's first global war woth planes and tanks and people drowning on dry land from poison gas, empires had fallen apart, Germany was no more - and hitler was painting these kitschy things from a world that no longer existed.
the time was out of joint...
and, well, o'cursed spite, he felt born to set it right

In my early experiences with posting my art online, I was in some art communities where technical accuracy was the considered the only thing that mattered. I got some purely technical critiques and asked if the person could also comment on the content, the characters and ideas, etc. They said no, they didn't know how to comment on that sort of thing at all. After this experience, for a time, I went further into surreal art and avoided traditional structure, lighting/shading and so on. I feel like if it had been explained to me, "This kind of technique can be useful to you for these reasons," I would have been more open to it. But it was phrased as "You have to do it this way because IT'S THE RULES! Everybody has to follow THE RULES!" I think society in general is more receptive to that line of thinking. Sometimes they employed the saying "You have to learn the rules before you can break them," which I loathe.

Today, my work is a bit more structured. I suspect it would still not meet the OP's artistic standards, though.

Needless to say, I didn't turn into Hitler. Or Bizarro Hitler, or whatever you turn into when you're rejected for not using traditional techniques.