• Unpopular Opinions V5: "I still don't like Half Life 2."
    5,001 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49614312]I'm glad I've grown out of the "Hurrdurr modern art dumb" phase. 9 times out of 10 the criticism boils down to "I could have made that!" Yeah but, you didn't.[/QUOTE] Say you make one. How do you find anyone willing to buy that? You don't because you're nobody. But if Di Caprio did it, his would sell immediately for hundreds of thousands
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;49618171]Say you make one. How do you find anyone willing to buy that? You don't because you're nobody. But if Di Caprio did it, his would sell immediately for hundreds of thousands[/QUOTE] no. Freelance artists are a thing and they can actually rake in quite a bit of money despite being not very well known. Granted, they won't be raking in thousands a day but they make a living.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;49610955]I'm gonna say like 75 percent of Undertale hate or more is based on "Something is popular...I HATE IT" rather than actually disliking the game for its content[/QUOTE] I must admit it, i've never played it, but i dislike it based on its fans since a lot of their proper obsessive fans are toxic waste that are vicious and rude.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;49618192]no. Freelance artists are a thing and they can actually rake in quite a bit of money despite being not very well known. Granted, they won't be raking in thousands a day but they make a living.[/QUOTE] But not very well known still means they're somewhat known The main reason why I feel modern art is cheap is because some particular works don't really take any effort. [t]https://theseaofstars.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/windows-live-photo-gallery-wallpaper.jpg[/t] This example probably has had thought put into it, probably the choice of colours and placement weren't random. However it doesn't really look hard to accomplish after you perfect your idea. After all it's just a few lines and three colours. [t]http://a4.files.biography.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTE5NTU2MzE2MTc0NjQ4ODQz.jpg[/t] This one on the other hand clearly took a lot of time and effort. To me this increases the value of the work because the skills necessary to make such a painting aren't at all common. I feel like throughout history painting has become less focused on the artist's skills. Anyone could make art since the skills required have been lowered by a lot.
While I agree that a certain selection of modern art is bad, I think it's unfair to hate an entire style because of it. There's plenty of good modern art out there.
[QUOTE=greeley;49618195]I must admit it, i've never played it, but i dislike it based on its fans since a lot of their proper obsessive fans are toxic waste that are vicious and rude.[/QUOTE] Judging something off the reaction of the people who consumed it is dumb. I could make the most amazing narrative driven game ever and all it would take is a vocal fanbase to draw porn of it and suddenly I've retroactively created a monstrosity in the eyes of people. And if you really want to judge something based off its fans, well, then, everything is terrible, because fanbases are universally awful. It doesn't matter how good the original work is, Silent Hill, Steven Universe, Portal, if it has a fanbase, that fanbase will almost always be noxiously ass. And blaming the media that that spawned from makes as much sense as blaming you for the actions of your ancestors you had no control over. I think we've all had experiences where someone really likes something or everyone likes something and you get a gut feeling of cynicism even if you don't know why, but you [I]should[/I] be able to put that aside and give things a fair shot. It's not that hard. I even did that with Undertale, putting the entire popularity and fanbase and hatebase and all that shit to the side and just reducing it to me and a game, that can either be good, or bad, and I have no way of knowing until I play it, and all I really expected at that point was an experience. And if you can't do that, and you really start hating something you don't actually know anything about or go in to it [I]wanting[/I] to hate it, just because some people like it or because some shitheads like it, you might just be just as immature as the fanbase.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;49618331]While I agree that a certain selection of modern art is bad, I think it's unfair to hate an entire style because of it. There's plenty of good modern art out there.[/QUOTE] I've never said I hate the whole style. I like a lot of Van Gogh's works, but the main difference between his works and the picture I posted above is because he still put a lot of actual effort into the product. I'm attracted to things done well therefore I come off as opinionated and hateful of a lot of things. Many simple things are very nice and are art, but you have to admit it when they've been clearly made in a short time. Time spent in the mind doesn't really count as true effort imo because anyone can do that, and "anyone can do that" = no real effort or particular knowledge is required
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;49618492]I've never said I hate the whole style. I like a lot of Van Gogh's works, but the main difference between his works and the picture I posted above is because he still put a lot of actual effort into the product. I'm attracted to things done well therefore I come off as opinionated and hateful of a lot of things. Many simple things are very nice and are art, but you have to admit it when they've been clearly made in a short time. Time spent in the mind doesn't really count as true effort imo because anyone can do that, and "anyone can do that" = no real effort or particular knowledge is required[/QUOTE] I can respect that.
[t]https://static.greatbigcanvas.com/categories/medieval-art-11307.jpg[/t] [t]https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Monk_sneaking_a_drink.jpg[/t] [t]http://40.media.tumblr.com/af8d95503610ccaa0acdf4a41d8daeff/tumblr_nt4w0zyN1Z1rqxd5ko1_1280.jpg[/t] "Ugh, man, art back in the DAY man had EFFORT! Not this MODERN bullshit!!!"
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;49618282] The main reason why I feel modern art is cheap is because some particular works don't really take any effort.[/QUOTE] -An unchiseled boulder -A woman having her period over a canvas -People running around in circles with their fingers up their ass -Random splatterings on a canvas -A signed urinal -A canvas painted entirely black Honestly, Grafitti should be getting more praise because they usually put in effort and creativity.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;49621891]Alien is so fucking good that the sequels pale in comparison in almost every way possible. Yes, even Aliens. I like Aliens a lot, but it's not even on the same plain as the first one.[/QUOTE] I actually don't like it when people try to compare Alien to Aliens. They're completely different movies.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49622046]The newest movie in the series, Prometheus, is dog shit, though. The acting is shit, the story is shit, and it takes a big shit on the first two movies. So many moments that were there to remind you that yes, you are in-fact watching a movie.[/QUOTE] I don't even consider Prometheus in the same universe, in my opinion. It had so much potential in so many aspects but squandered them at any opportunity. I actually find it worse than Aliens: Resurrection because Resurrection was dumb enough to be entertaining, I found Prometheus heartbreakingly boring.
if you think art needs to be difficult and complex to be legitimate, you probably aren't really all that into art I mean, photography is super easy, right? all you do is aim and click! not art.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49621874] "Ugh, man, art back in the DAY man had EFFORT! Not this MODERN bullshit!!!"[/QUOTE] [t] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/0_Galata_Morente_-_Musei_Capitolini_%281%29.jpg/1920px-0_Galata_Morente_-_Musei_Capitolini_%281%29.jpg[/t] This was made in 220 BC, and was originally painted.
When people a bit older than you go "Oh man, electronics nowadays. This new generation of stuff, I could never figure it out." when that's not completely true. Just give something a try, and with time and some patience you could be "right up there with the kids." I mean most of us when from fat 90's phones, to flip phones, to smart phones.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622931]gosh art these days is the worst i can't enjoy any of it *goes back to playing a videogame or watching a film*[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49621874][t]https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Monk_sneaking_a_drink.jpg[/t] "Ugh, man, art back in the DAY man had EFFORT! Not this MODERN bullshit!!!"[/QUOTE] You guys are missing the point. People aren't talking about art today [i]in general[/i]. They're talking about stuff like this: [t]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_srOhGcGHvik/SrShoV1_QxI/AAAAAAAADUo/sXMpuiuB-58/s800/modernartviewer.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49622534]I mean, photography is super easy, right? all you do is aim and click! not art.[/QUOTE] It's a lot harder than it seems.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49622931]gosh art these days is the worst i can't enjoy any of it *goes back to playing a videogame or watching a film*[/QUOTE] Call of Duty's artistic merit is miles ahead of a canvas that somebody puked on.
i guess it's an unpopular opinion, but i dont think effort is what makes art good just because something is hard to make doesnt mean it's better than something that's easy to make that doesnt mean i think an empty canvas is better than a picasso, but sometimes simpler is better this especially applies to music: just because something is hard to play doesnt make it good, it sounding good is what makes it good
[QUOTE=Blazedol;49623266]It's a lot harder than it seems.[/QUOTE] I was being facetious to prove a point
[QUOTE=The golden;49623133]My take on art: Effort does not define whether or not something is "art". It does, however, define whether or not it is [I]shitty [/I]art. Art to me is a piece of creative work which has some sort of meaning behind it put there by the creator. That's art in a nutshell for me. Does being "art" make it immune to criticism? No. That pile of scribbles and dog puke that is in a museum over there may be art, but it's shitty art and everyone has the right to call it so. (Or they have the right to love it, it's all subjective.)[/QUOTE] I wish people would stop stating "It's art" and "You just don't get it" when someone criticizes art. Those people are pretentious cunts.
[QUOTE=megafat;49623867]I wish people would stop stating "It's art" and "You just don't get it" when someone criticizes art. Those people are pretentious cunts.[/QUOTE] Especially considering that art does not equal good, and basically means something made by a person.
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia was a bit mediocre before Danny DeVito came in.
People go on about how Bob Ross's art was unoriginal, and I'm not doubting that. (And I don't think that was the point of his work nor does it really matter) But I'd much rather walk through a gallery of his work than a gallery full of pretentious modern art.
[QUOTE=The golden;49623133]My take on art: Effort does not define whether or not something is "art". It does, however, define whether or not it is [I]shitty [/I]art. Art to me is a piece of creative work which has some sort of meaning behind it put there by the creator. That's art in a nutshell for me. Does being "art" make it immune to criticism? No. That pile of scribbles and dog puke that is in a museum over there may be art, but it's shitty art and everyone has the right to call it so. (Or they have the right to love it, it's all subjective.)[/QUOTE] to me it's the point of art to challenge these notions, because i'd rather have a lot of shitty art and a few really innovative things than stagnation. i mean sure these Renaissance-era chiaroscuro's are well-made, but that was pretty much all they wanted to do back then. even you guys would get sick of them. so much happened when the invention of the camera forced artists to reexamine their purpose, presentation, how they grew and started to apply their creative license, i simply can't imagine art without this constant self-examination and refinement. even if it goes wrong very frequently. i guess you could say that for me, shitty modern art is just part and parcel of a grander tapestry.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49621966]-An unchiseled boulder -A woman having her period over a canvas -People running around in circles with their fingers up their ass -Random splatterings on a canvas -A signed urinal -A canvas painted entirely black[/QUOTE] Alright, this is art but its shit art that shouldn't be purchased for millions by governments. This isn't art aiming to express an idea/feeling or be beautiful. Its just people trying to piss people off or be elitists without actually being that good at anything or knowing anything. Is it wrong that I think art sold in the millions should be something that took alot of effort? Is a giant hulahoop really worth millions?
You all are art.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;49621620]you know the romans made some pretty insanely detailed and realistic sculptures and such yeah? Late in the roman empire they also made this; [IMG]https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/leach/www/c414/2005/tetrachs1.jpg[/IMG] and its not because becoming an artist was "easier" or art had dumbed down but because the values/ideals of the people commissioning and creating art changed.[/QUOTE] lol this kind of sculpture is called [I]Plebeian[/I] Art for a reason. Look at the proportions of the guy's arm. Look at the torsion of the torso and the waist. Does it look pleasant or rather feasible in any way? I wasn't advocating something like "Plebeian Art is inferior than the Greek sculptures" but I'm saying that after analysing your example further you have to admit late Greek sculptures didn't make such mistakes at all. Everything had to be in proportion - the head was something like 1/4th of the body and so on - by the fact that the classical values (thus the Greek values) were balance and harmony. Plebeian Art is a completely different thing though. Augustus decided that the best way to spread propaganda was to use art, and the best way to idolise someone through art is to make it less realistic and more idealistic. That's why there was a loss in realism. But does the loss in realism mean that all Plebeian Art is inferior? I guess it depends on how you see it. Making every subject symmetric, lacking dimensions, mistaking their proportions and basic human anatomy is shitty art imo. Some of this stuff depicts dwarves with feet bigger than their heads: everything is flat and without depth, it's one dimensional. Some other stuff has messed perspective, some have people bigger than the city walls. And even if it were the most realistic sculpture ever, it'd still suck because it wasn't done properly and most of the time it shows and decreases its value. Want to argue Roman art done right? Here. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Statue-Augustus_white_background.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;49618282]But not very well known still means they're somewhat known The main reason why I feel modern art is cheap is because some particular works don't really take any effort. [t]https://theseaofstars.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/windows-live-photo-gallery-wallpaper.jpg[/t] This example probably has had thought put into it, probably the choice of colours and placement weren't random. However it doesn't really look hard to accomplish after you perfect your idea. After all it's just a few lines and three colours. [t]http://a4.files.biography.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTE5NTU2MzE2MTc0NjQ4ODQz.jpg[/t] This one on the other hand clearly took a lot of time and effort. To me this increases the value of the work because the skills necessary to make such a painting aren't at all common. I feel like throughout history painting has become less focused on the artist's skills. Anyone could make art since the skills required have been lowered by a lot.[/QUOTE] I think art comes down to what you get out of it, not what goes into it. I know a lot of video games made in a few days that are better than duke nukem forever :v: [editline]28th January 2016[/editline] if someone enjoys art that didn't take enough ~effort~ I don't see why that's at all illegitimate. unless they're an asshole about it i guess
The majority of modern pop music is actually pretty good, but it's just the singers that ruin the song's sound.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.