>>616923Because 3d art isn't physical. Nobody would pay hundreds of millions for a jpeg of that painting.
>>616926Unless you 3d print it
Because selling modern art is a con-man's job not an artist's.
>>616923because you don't have a merchant friend that wants to launder some money on this garbage he just named and circlejerked into "art" status. it has nothing to do whether it is "real" shit, or pixel shit, it actually doesn't matter.
>>616965Even when done legitimately the art world has little to do with craft or skill. Every piece is entirely representational. You could possibly sell slightly fucked up polygon's for 100's of millions but you'd have to spend years understanding what kinds of themes, stories and ideas millionaires care about and why. On the surface all of these ideas seem to be based on craft- >ah this artist's choice of scenery is inviting us to commentate on the Hudson River School's obvious superiority to modernism as a call to return to godliness while rebuking it's euro-centric, colonialist idealsBut at the end of the day all of these 'themes' are happening outside of the art and being assigned by rich-people approved art academics and critics. The whole thing is just rich people trying to feel superior to other rich people and if you can someone convince rich people your fucked up polygons will make them feel superior to other rich people then you're golden. But just know there are a couple thousand other artists with Ivy League educations all trying to do the same thing with their shitty art.
>>616923Because that's (((modern art))) which is designed to demoralize real artists and you need to be (((one of them))) to become a (((modern artist))).
/pol/ threads about art and architecture are always a good laugh.
>>616923Until you can launder money through 3D without anyone blinking an eye, you'll remain poorfag.
>>616965So if Polygonstein and co. suddenly got interested in 3d same process could apply here?
Because you aren't good at schmoozing and impressing super rich art buyers.