Robert Rauschenberg - Erased De Kooning

You fail to grasp the fundamental point here. The Emperors new clothes is actually a great analogy... just like the emperors new clothes, they exist in all their splendour in the eyes of the beholder who knows what to look for. Only immature brats point out that the new clothes don't have any visual qualities, of course they don't, that's the point. This would be a farce if it was pragmatic objects like clothes we were discussing, but art, unlike clothes, ultimately exist in the mind.

You claim that this isn't the case, but if that's true then why are you so intent on equating good drawing with good art? Disegno vs. Colorito is not the only positions in the world of art, something that recent studies have shown. A lot of contemporary art and art criticism revolves around giving Concept it's just earned place. Just like certain art schools have emphasised Disegno or Colorito, so does contemporary art emphasised Concept.

To start off, the previous comment was erased due to grammatical errors, I thought I posted a corrected version. Eng is my second language and Youtube isn't the kindest forum when it comes to editing you know.

Anyway, my point wasn't that art progress. My point was, as you have denied, that you seem to value old convention of what it "good art" over new simple because the old are older.

Conceptual art requires a special point of view, a mindset, a talent if you will. You don't get this work, which I would like to claim is a true conceptual masterpiece, so you must lack the talent. Congratulations: You can't become a great conceptual artist!

Art is yet again saved from nihilism.

Konzwambii, I feel for your enthusiasm, but please. You've obviously have no idea about the history of art or contemporary art, otherwise you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement as claiming art is only what it looks like. You seriously believe conceptual art doesn't require talent? Let go of the formalist bullshit for crying out loud, it's painful to watch.

Incorrect. I've made a lifetime study of art and art history, and have studied with some of the most prominent art historians. And yes, I do believe conceptual art is an oxymoron: it may be conceptual but it isn't art. It is an artifice, a concoction by elitist narcissistic talentless FAILED "artists" and the effite inbred sychophants, critics, and magazines that wish to sell us the emporer's clothes. I'm not buying.

Furthermore I don't care who you studied with: You still flunk. Remember the first lesson: Art is not static. Fools bash post-modern art for not being modernistic just as fools used to bash modernistic art for not being classical. It's called "Not getting it". The best way to experience art is not by having a good ol' jerk-off in the Sistine Chapel. True art is never that dull.

hahahahahahahaha... Pardon me, I'm still laughing that you had to remove your comment earlier. Confused? Didn't sound so good after all? Needed editing? Having second thoughts?

Anyway, I agree that art is not static, but to imply that there is somehow an ineluctable progression tantamount to "improvement" or even maintenance of quality in art is just ludicrous. Any human endeavor is subject to periods of great foibles and self-delusion, of convoluted and misguided movement, where [cont'd]

every development is not necessarily progress. Of course you would say that I just "don't get it", that my view is in the camp of phillistines who would have reviled the Impressionists, then the Post-Impressionists, championed the Pre-Raphaelites and all academics, and so on in retrograde fashion. Well, I don't believe in the idea of "progress" in art. If progress were true, then why is expressive early Cave Art, or ancient Egytian or Greek art so often vastly better than what passes now? [cont]