Art is beauty and beauty speaks for itself, not through statements or pretensions. Classical artists never needed to justify their work. Art has no rules but must have standards.
You couldnt be more wrong. Art is not about the product, but the phenomenology of art. the emotions that the art makes the view feel is what art is all about. And those emotions do not always have to be positive as well. The fact that a blank sheet of paper can be considered art can enrage and confuse some people. And that right there is the emotions the piece of art gives off, this giving it meaning.
@@chriskeane2004 The thing that enrages and confuses people about the fact that a blank sheet of paper can be considered art is the price tag though. I'm not enraged by the ones next to my printer. By your logic I'm justified to charge a ridiculously high price for a blank piece of paper, because the high price that I'm charging upsets people, which is an emotional response. Can I also go around kicking people in the nuts in that case? That would give off an even stronger emotional response, I think. I'll be sure to tell them how much meaning I've added to their lives afterwards.
10:25 "And if art is about imagination, about ideas, and the idea is primary, then it follows that its form and techniques are secondary." And here lies much of the problems with contemporary art. The form is absolutely essential to every artistic creation. The philosopher Luigi Pareyson argued that it is necessarily through its form that a work of art expresses whatever meanings it might have. I think he is correct. To elevate the idea above the form only makes it excusable to have an idea expressed through a mediocre form. Also, it seems to make it justifiable to select very banal ideas to be evoked by said mediocre forms. Choose any simplistic idea you want. It doesn't have to be a complex thought; anything will do. Assemble anything whatsoever that evokes this idea - you don't have to worry about any sort of skilled crafting. Anything will do. Arrange the things you got in whatever way you like - it doesn't matter how. If the idea you want to evoke seems not obvious from your arrangement, don't worry; it's the viewer's job to guess it. If it ends up that the viewer doesn't guess your idea, who cares? And _voilà_ - you made a work of art. The assumption that the idea is primary and the form is secondary is very misguided, in my view. I don't think that the majority of people lack the insight to understand contemporary art. Rather, I think that it is the majority of things done and labeled as contemporary art that lack, in general, the minimum quality necessary to actually have any worth. The standards have fallen too much; the bar is far too low.
That really nails it. When the idea behind the piece of art is so complex then why the piece itself so often isn't? Also when it's primarily the idea which is important, why not just write a text instead of making visual art? It is claiming to be visual art, when in fact it isn't really (there are exceptions of course).
Pretty much where I see art going wrong is keeping the name. Art went from a craftsman's trade to an intellectual pursuit, changing the nature of the work, but keeping the name 'art', which is where the confusion arises. People think you can divorce idea from form, but without form you have nothing to observe.
@phobicpigeon Thanks. I really encourage those interested in the subject to read Pareyson's works, or at least to get familiar with his views. I'm not sure about his contribution to other topics in philosophy, but his thoughts on art and aesthetics are pure gold, in my humble opinion.
@@thomervin7450 back when it was all craft, it was not even called art, just work. The same as a the work of a baker or any other work. Thats pretty nice I think
This topic was applied to the creation of contemporary music in the documentary titled PressPausePlay. I saw this documentary years ago and the ideas about the acceptance of mediocrity and the rejection of craftsmanship have stayed with me. Having said that, the other point in the documentary is that “all are welcome” which democratizes the creation of art (musical art, in this instance). One truth, however, is made glaringly obvious… money (who has it-whether individuals or institutions) will always be a factor in what the current society deems as having artistic value.
But then Ms Jessica Backus won't have a career preaching to the rest of us dummies. She'll have to actually get a job that produces like the rest of us stooges.
@@bredbandtva7177 Impressionism still has artistic merit because it has skill and talent to back it up. Degradation happened when people assumed any schmuck could be an artist by doing whatever came to mind, whatever someone wanted to do became elevated as "art" which is disgraceful
I don't get contemporary art because there's nothing to get. It's a naked emperor. If you have to explain the feeling I'm suppose to "get," then maybe you're not an artist. As a writer, I can have the most thought provoking idea and concept ever, but if I don't have the skill and elegance to really express it, then I'm not a writer. I don't have to explain any of my written work to people. They get it when they read it. So why do you get to say you're an artist, when you have clearly no artistic skill to express whatever it is you're looking to express?
Spot on. Art needs no explanation. You show it, and people get it. That is why art is an art, because it captivating and engaging. Art speaks meaning the moment it revealed. If you have to explain and get preachy about a piece of art. Then it is no art.
Despite your infuriatingly condescending attitude, I actually agree with you. I wouldn't go as far as to say you're 'not a writer' but yes if people can't understand your work than you're not a very good creator. However just a note, analyzing and interpreting is muscle that you have to exercise. A person who doesn't like to read very often and doesn't take the time to try is not going to understand nor appreciate the best writing
@@gameofman blatantly not true. You can walk through a museum of brilliant portraiture and get nothing from it without context. Art is an individuals reaction distilled and cast tword the future. Context enhances all art and the idea it was somehow negative only ever came up as a way to reject modern art when it first appeared. Context is vital to enhancing the strength of every work be it Caravaggio or Matisse.
This isn't entirely true. Often there are symbols, allegory, metaphor and allusion. It can take time to read a painting to discern an artist's intentions. Reading a work of literature is often the same. BUT I get what you're saying. Most contemporary artists don't have enough of a subject to make the work interesting or even readable. The function of contemporary art is to make those creating the stuff, artists. Some people are so desperate to be an artist in the limelight for the prestige that they will say anything. The art serves the artist, not the viewer.
It's not that people don't *understand* contemporary art, it's that much of contemporary art puts on an air of sophistication and complexity where neither is actually present. If you put a beaten-up old couch in a museum (which requires an entire essay of context on how it represents the decline of modern civilization to understand or "enjoy" it), you're not an artist, you're a hack.
Yo, contemporary art is basically the ability to understand your surroundings at a decent if not high degree. I do say hi degree because that may be the most of the art that you refer to. Take a genius in that category he's only trying to explain what he sees literally every f****** day to his own degree in which may be a higher standard that you cannot fathom that is okay, but it's there and he's putting it out there for you. So try and be thankful, the end.
Well the fact someone actually thought a rotting couch was "art" and bothered to put it in a museum, really does show our society is declining and full of decay, so bravo to that one. It still isn't art though.
Gallowglass art is not about understanding, it is about feeling and this is exactly what contemporary “art” lacks , a feeling, an emotion. Because of that , they try to replace that feeling by telling others that they just don’t get it . It’s true , I’m not supposed to get it , I’m supposed to feel it . If your “art” gives me nothing then it is not art to me . They try to brainwash people into thinking that they just don’t get it , it’s the biggest misconception about art and I had an headache just listened her speak all this nonsense , talking about how she’ll make people understand 99% of artworks. You can never understand and artwork or the meaning behind it unless the artist enlightens you and most importantly you don’t have to understand it , it’s art not rocket science. People forget that the emotional impact art has is it’s purpose . We live in such a brainwashed society where everyone has to think the same and they make you feel odd if you don’t do as they please .
@@opioloco2537 totally agree, when you study classic art, you basically dumbfounded by tiny obvious definitive details you missed. moreover its more easy to connect. isnt it odd that you would never understand why a piece of of scribble worth 400million when it never contributed anything, why is it so important to purchase that in that amount of money instead of donation or anything better. how is that art better than anything
Real art needs no explanation. You look at classical sculptures, you don't get everything, but you are awed by the beauty, you wonder how the artists could turn rocks into silks. That's art.
But a lot of older art pieces have similiar techniques & intentions behind them. We pretty much played through the entire aesthetics game so I think it's very reasonable that art changed to what it has become now. And there are still a lot of modern artists that create beautiful things, even if it's by different standards than just pure realism.
Art was always something that touched and influenced the masses, regardless of education or social status. These days it seems to be limited to the elite snobs. I blame modern/contemporary art for people not taking art seriously
She said, " the idea of a unified artist " ( who views painting and architecture as the same field) does not exist until after the 1720s? I guess the Renaissance Masters who painted, sculpted and designed buildings didn't get the memo?
I 'get' modern art. I just don't think this 'exlusive shock value' should be valued so much more than the works of artists who spend their whole life on building a excellent skillset to create breathtakingly beautiful artworks.
Imagine you are in a room where there are two equally large canvases. One canvas depicts a young, 16th century Italian Lady. On her person we see red velvet, pearls, golden pipping on her clothing, an elaborate headdress, complete with feathers and gemstones. Rings adorn her clasped fingers. On her fair face, we see a youthful innocence, but her brow is slightly furrowed which suggests she is perhaps a little sad or troubled. Her eyes gaze off into the distance, as though she is pondering something. The Painting is titled "The Lady Waits" On the other canvas, is white paint, with 4 small, irregular purple dots, and nothing else. That painting is titled "A commentary on Modern Life in a City." Suddenly, there is a fire in the room and it's spreading rapidly. Due to the size of the canvases and their attached frames, and the speed of the spreading flames, there is only time to save one. Knowing nothing else about the paintings other than they are both originals, which one would you save? No one honest EVER says they would save the White with Purple dots.
Well one is a historical artifact as well.. which has a lot of influence in this decision. Choosing between a crude eating utensil made of stone from early Mesopotamia and a modern day fork which would you choose even though the former is made of stone and essentially useless?
The 16th century painting might not be as original though because everyone sort of painted the same way during that time. It's much more democratic and more people can take part in the art world. It's not just a small club for the few that many people think.
Which would you save, neither. That what fire department and the "sprinkler" are for. As for which is saved, who made which. When were they made. Because one has a clear subject does not make it more important then the one that doesn't. In fact the one with the subject may not be of any historic value where the abstract is of high historic value. The Abstract artist of the early 20th century did not get where they ended up over night. It toke years of trying new ideas, asking questions.
True. Even if you don't understand art, you can always appreciate the beauty in it, and the skills of the artist. I look at classical sculptures, I wonder how the artists made rock look like silk, it's beautiful. That's art, it's that simple.
"You suffer from an inability to get contemporary Art. Yes, me too." There's so much wrong with this opener, from the implication we are afflicted, possibily diseased, that we are the ones at fault, to the condescending, Newspeak conceit of 'I don't get it either (I'm on your side!) yet I'm still going to tell you how to do so' that you know this is going to be an exercise in propaganda, projection, and doublethink. The delivery is fake ("Anybody here? Yes, me too, me too!" like she were experiencing the genuine relief of solidarity), the method underhand, and the motive entirely capital.
It's weird how to jumped in reasoning from 'some art you will like and some you won't' to 'you need to change yourself to understand art you don't get.' It's like she's saying you just need to engage with the art whether you like it or not, just because contemporary art exists. Basically, I skip most art after 1900.
If everything is art, nothing is art. There's no reason to call something art if everything is art as well. If someday people decide that everything is art, somebody will make a new label to define it and so on.
@@Xplorer228 No, i don't want any rigid rules for art. My point was never that there should be rigid rules in art or an specific definition, it was just that not everything should be considered art, because if everything is, nothing is. The term would just lose meaning. Is a white board art? idk, maybe it is for you. Would I can it art? Probably not. Both are fine. And that's about it
@@kapybara8079 Hmm not sure I accept your premise that "if everything is then nothing is". Everything is made of matter, that doesn't mean that nothing is made of matter. Another example: Pantheists who believe that everything is god.. doesn't mean that that nothing is god. When you say that everything is something you are saying just that.. that everything is included. But I would argue that its not exactly that everything is art, rather that anything CAN be art. Art cannot exist without a beholder, a human, cause it really takes place in the mind.. in that sense its more of an action. There is no inherent meaning in objects.. we humans assign them meaning.
@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 because no one can and I believe even if it was Priced around affordable to what people could pay.. People would still not buy it.
I can't believe how rude people are being in their comments about this speaker. That was a perfectly cogent and well done presentation. She seems very knowledgable and nice. I think that one of the reasons so many dislike a lot of contemporary art is because so much contemporary art is essentially nihilistic in outlook. Like the just another painting painting and so many others out there the basic message of postmodern philosophy is a complete abandonment of right and wrong, of values, of striving for the betterment of self into a basic degradation of human life and human effort. Even the modern of the first half of the 20th century, for as much as it sought to break away from the past, to find new things, and to express both personal and universal ideas of the human condition, amorality, lascivious proclivities, the horrors of human existence, especially war and hypocrisy, all of that art still contained the idea of effort, of work, of meaning, of an affirmation of life, even if it was a life of debauchery, of spiritual realms, even if those spiritual realms where the apostasy and charlatans of mediums like Madam Blavatsky, but still all of that work was rooted in the very values which it sought to break away from. But then in the 60s the tide turned and brought forth ever increasing amounts of art and artists whose only concern and expression was their own sense of self worthlessness and self indulgent hedonism. Immaturity itself becomes elevated. Slap dash becomes style. unpleasantness for its own sake becomes fashionable. Now of course that isn't every artists in all that time, but it is enough of them that the overall milieu can seem fairly pointless and ugly to the average onlooker. I think a lot of what is happening, especially lately, is that the very vision of any ideal both personally and as a society is so fraught these days that everything comes across as either banal, pointlessly beautiful, needlessly ugly, mystifyingly opaque or as is often the case, another volley in the ongoing struggle for economic and social justice, which is all well and good, except that it is all reactionary and art in general has almost no teeth to affect the general public, foster social change, or do much of anything other than seem like noble sentiment. It speaks to those who are already converted and does nothing for the rest. People are searching for meaning in their lives, and art does nothing to point anyone toward any meaning anymore, if it ever did. I say all this and I am an artist. I love art. But in the end all art is just a fantasy. If one is wealthy enough to grow up and or live in an environment surrounded by great art, architecture, and beauty, that can have have an effect on a person. But that may be more about money.
Well, she is offering the thought that by making a certain amount of effort contemporary art can be better understood. She makes no claim that such understanding will make anyone like the art. In fact she says that it's perfectly ok to not like the art. It is a valid point. As she says art has become an esoteric language which is not readily understood by laymen. One does wonder with much art how the artists sustain themselves financially when there is much that is not something anyone can readily buy or put into their homes. Museums of course do help support some of that stuff, but in the general market place at large and it is large, there are tons of artists out there making a living doing all kinds of work from things that fit into the realism and classical styles of work to all kinds of abstract work, much of which is derivative. But that is okay, even. I like abstract art. it looks good on a wall. The first half of the 20th century had the luxury of novelty on their side. They were opening up a new territory and as such they were energized by the excitement and newness of that. Once that was done the next generation of artists had to contend with where to go from there. There was nowhere to go. There still isn't. That is why there is no dominant movement anymore. We have true pluralism now, and so much work happening in so may modes. The internet itself has democratized the marketing of art. It may not lead to fame, but if you are making a living does that really matter? Personally I would make the argument that the affirmation of values and ideals that people might hope for and which art in general for a long time has not provided cannot and will not ever be found in artworks, as such, but rather only fro Faith in God. Faith is squarely at odds with things like art, in that art is a worldly thing and creativity itself is a tricky thing can not and will not arise solely from rules, laws or values. If one has those structures built into their personal framework, they can create things in which the spirit of them lives, Think Bach. But creativity is like divine spark itself, and no matter what ones personal basis, talent can combine with inspiration to create marvelous work, even though that work may be rife with immorality Think Jimi Hendrix. There are no easy answers in life or art. But if their were, where would be the fun in that? Though I would say that all great art that is and ever was all and always points to the most important aspects of life and experience. Those aspects are the inevitability of death. The impossibility of control. The tension that exists between our need and longing for love and the basic tragedy of life in our own imperfection and inability to love or receive love to the extent and with the power that we would hope. The reality of evil and man's hypocrisy and inhumanity. Ultimately life is always tragic. If we are lucky this reality will point us toward God. Our need is absolute. Reality is dramatic. Postmodernism, however, ignores this in favor of boredom, I think. Sure, some of the questioning of postmodernism is worthwhile. We are always searching for a better understanding of life and reality and that quest has often chucked out the past in favor of some new idea. Perhaps we improve, gradually, like thin thin layers of lacquer building up over time in the slow progress of humanity, but maybe it all just change, neither wholly good or bad, because no matter what the fundamental nature of humanity does not change. Let us be generous and kind to others. No one is perfect. and art is just art. It doesn't really matter.
Seems you have described what we do. No longer needed to entertain art can focus on being a dank parody of today. As illustrated philosophy artists can explore test and retest how it feels to think and make. Yesterday was mastery and beauty for a god king. Today a pile of smelly tires for critics. It was and is honest labour for propaganda.
Hey man,people are fucking dumb ok?They want to see some paint on canvas,not some ideas,because its too hard to think these days.And no,im not saying there is no bad conceptual art.
Stop blaming people. It's the art. It doesn't concern itself with divine anymore, only with mediocre. A medium can't be greater than what is expresses.
chumbra gambla with all due respect. do you like the drumset? Or the electric guitar? Or hip-hop/blues/bluegrass/Rock/EDM/Motown/country? Just to name a few things this country has brought to this world.
That's funny, considering America sets the tone for pop culture. You know.. Hollywood? Patriotism? Constitutional democracy? Fucking technology... *sighhhh
I think the problem isn't ALL contemporary art, but pieces like the chair example. Art is a tool to link feelings or experiences with representations of the emotions they produce. The chair example is merely illustrating a concept. I see it and I go "Yeah, it is questioning the meaning of the chair" and that's it. However if you take an ambiguous poem for example, it makes you think: what do the allegories and imagery used represent? how does that resonate with me? what do i make of it?. It is a much more complex experience. The chair exhibition is connecting A to B, the latter example is more intricate.
Yeah, it's not hard to convince people to see meaning and even value in contemporary art when you use good examples. But try to use that pile of tires or those chairs? Good luck. To me art is beautiful and evocative, and a pile of tires in a white room is neither and those chairs are just meh. The problem with contemporary art is that trash (literally trash in some cases) gets labeled art for some strange reason every now and then.
Well to put into perspective, theres a popular question in maths that goes as follows ''Prove that 1 + 1 = 2'' and it required like 30 pages to even come close to successfully proving it, which isnt done yet (if i remember correctly). There are also other similar things in mathematics like prove a squares angles makes 360 degrees. Or in science - prove that oxygen exist. You can think of contemporary art in this way, even if its obvious, maybe proving it is necessary, or provoking etc.
You may find the chair piece too simple because you've already seen artists such as Magritte trying to redefine what reality is. Creativity isnt actually the capacity of creating new things,but the capacity of expressing a concept in new ways,wether this concept is original or not.Poetry seems much more complicated because of its form,because you have to read It countless times until you get what the author is trying to say....Isnt that the diference?people find reading more dificult because they are forced to concentrate on what they are reading,they are forced to think.On the other hand if you can Just see all the piece of Art at once you find no need to observe and ask yourself about the depth of the concept presented in front of you because your mind only scans the piece On the surface and worries more about its form than about its meaning.What makes these pieces of Art diferent is yourself and your will to understand them or not.
+David Graycat I started my own thread in this comment section (it's easy enough to find), exposing my view through the construction of a reasoned argument, centered around one specific point raised in the video - I even cited a philosopher to back up my point. So, I guess this comment is not for me. :)
It's because the manner in which this lady is presenting it is similar to that professor that put the whole class to sleep. She lacks any trace of intriguement and excitement.
She really just did a bad execution of explaining it and unfortunately people are taking this to reconfirm their already unfounded beliefs about contemporary and modern art.
Value is created by people. Cars would have no value if people stopped appreciating and needing them. Value like time is another man made invention to better understand the world.
Devin Cox I’m going to make a little analogy for you. Let’s say that you’re playing a card game, and like all card games, most cards are just normal and okay, but there’s some very good cards - those have the highest value. But if we made all cards the exact same, then there aren’t any cards that are truly special anymore. They’re all the same - so none of them have any higher value than another. The quality of the card isn’t really high anymore, it’s just normal. That is what value is - it’s that which is special, which has either the greatest use or brings the greatest pleasure. It’s the same with art - you can tell which ones required more skill, which ones have the highest quality. You cannot say that a random splattering of ketchup that someone calls art (and which might’ve been done by a normal four-year-old child who calls it art) requires the same level of skill and brings as much pleasure as a truly timeless masterpiece. That is folly. The only reason you can possibly consider them to have the same value is because you’ve been taught to see them as such. You’ve been taught by critical people that values are man-made inventions - which in a sense they are. But if we are to tear down some establishment that values only the highest quality, and replace it with one which celebrates lower quality (which we are told we must accept), then in a sense, we are replacing the celebration of beauty with the celebration of ugliness and mediocrity. There is a real sense of beauty, that is important. That is not to say that we should attack what is mediocre, we just shouldn’t treat it the same as we treat something beautiful. Beauty pleases us, something done with the highest skill pleases us. To cheapen the value of true quality is a crime.
@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 Card games have rigid structures and rules to them, art doesn't have any of that. If you try to put rules onto art they fall apart. We all know that the most technically skilled artists aren't always the most impactful. Dream Theater the band has some of the most skilled musicians but their music is mediocre for a lot of people, how could that be? Art is very complex and has different values based on different people. Art isn't like a card game, you can't create strict rules for it, a 2 of spades can have as much of an impact as a Queen of hearts. Outside of human interpretation they just take up space and have no intrinsic value over a rock. Beauty with your strict interpretation could be maxed out one day with a computer, that understand the human brain well enough to create the most aesthetically pleasing painting in existence. That painting wouldn't automatically be better than a Rothko though, it's emotional value can't be determined with a ruleset (scale).
@@Xplorer228 Well, really, she's lamenting what is being made fun of. She's part of the system that enables the divide, but she's trying to portray herself as a normie.
Because it's not intended to be understood, it's pretending there is meaning where there isn't. The emperor has literally no cloth. Also: Because I don't need to. There are 6000 years of actual art, what do I need th last 100 years for?
Also, there're still good artists out there today, making art that is fresh and new but still has technique, beauty, enjoyment and meaning. No need to waste time with the contemporary art movement nonsense.
I don't really care if you like a big pile of old tires in the middle of an all white room, but it clearly serves no purpose and communicates nothing and is therefore not art. Art has been either physically functional or communicative since the very beginning of its creation on cave walls with charcoal and ochre to tell stories or make sense of the world. Since the days when people first carved stone effigy pipes, function and form were carefully considered and stylistic norms were followed. Modern man can look at an ancient carving and get a rough idea of the beliefs and influences of its maker as well as the ideas being communicated. Look at Trajan's Column. Look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Look at the calligraphic mosaics on the Dome of the Rock. Look at a Chinese Plum Bottle. Look at Inca architecture. Look at Hokusai's prints. Look at the simple but elegant Wabisabi aesthetic of the pottery of the town of Mashiko. All of these are great examples of art that anybody can understand without explanation and which have a reason to exist and a great deal of skill was used in their creation. You really can't say that of the vast bulk of contemporary art.
very contradicting the "philosophy" she talked abouy trying to sell the idea of contemporary art (mistaken by general public as modern art). what a lot of hot wind there
But what about the abstract art, by which I mean the paintings of swirling colors and such, that people can spend days making in order to make sure it communicates that special interest just right. Not clear meaning, but a strange interest in wondering what the meaning is, and the not knowing of it that sparks the human mind to generate ideas of its own, instead of communicating the ideas of the creator? What about them? Because their paintings may not look like much effort was put into them, but a lot was.
@@foxcheetah6035 I think this description treads the line between abstract and contemporary art. Works such as Picasso’s cubism could be considered abstract art, but pieces by people like Damien Hirst are all but contemporary.
i get why people are saying that contemporary art just enables stuck up and pretentious people to make stuff that have bleak and boring meanings behind them, but i dont think the whole of contemporary art is completely boring and meaningless. i think she made it pretty clear that there are pieces of contemporary art that convey some things that can only be expressed through feelings and things only found in your imagination, things that are conveyed so skillfully. at least acknowledge the theme it tries to convey.
Art is a skillfully made creation which elevates people to a higher level of thought evoking in them the sensation of meaning. Art is based on tradition, Eastern, Islamic, European, African, American, or a blend of these. Each one has developed over the course of thousands of years to become what it is today. Modern "art" is merely the complete rejection of tradition and becomes anti-art, neither elevating mankind nor requiring skill to create. Indeed it is salt that has lost its savor. It is not enough to merely complain. We must do more. If you can't make art, because there are few with the creativity and skill to do so, buy art. Find a piece that truly speaks to you and obtain it. Put it on your wall and let it enlighten your life and being you closer to the divine.
I'm so fed up with "artists" who "question the meaning of x". Or how many times do we need to be shown that "anything can be art"? At some point in history, there was merit to establishing that art didn't have to be lifelike paintings and sculptures. But it's been done, it doesn't need to be done over and over again.
Went to the museum of modern art in NYC on a school trip there. There was a wall entitled "Blank Wall Pierced By A Single Air Rifle Shot". Yes, someone took everything off of a wall and shot it with a BB gun. A few other nuggets included a piece of plywood that had been painted pink and was leaning against a wall (the angle was very important according to the plaque) and a picture frame that must have been bought at Walmart that had a strip of duct tape on the frame backing and nothing else. There also was a video being projected onto a wall of two naked people passing an inflatable work out ball between each other. I had and still have no words.
The only thing that I learnt from this is that modern art is a code that well educated people use to celebrate the fact they are indeed well educated people.
Many of us watching this are artists, and as "elitist" this woman makes contemporary art sound, it is only those that put importance on contemporary and modernism. It's just tripe. Pushed on by shallow people that think they are "artists" when they are nothing but self-important dabblers in junk. I know art when it evokes an emotional response other than loathing. That when I go to a gallery I want to feel inspired and in love again, not like I wasted my time there. If I have to be told it's art, it doesn't miraculously become so.
That's interesting. How about the contextuality of art? If a piece of art is emotional within a time period and culture, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is felt so by people in another era and space. So a piece of art cannot be "good" or "bad", it is all relative.
I find most modern, minimalism and contemporary art milquetoast at best. It's bland, lifeless and neither inspires, nor is it masterful. Which is probably why urban art culture is rising in popularity. It's a gleaming zeitgeist for artists thriving for existence in the urban jungle. While modern art is for white middle class Americans that have to be sold that it's art. Just so long as it can match their bland decorum.
Well, some art is supposed to invoke repulsion... Yet, that repulsion is supposed to have a story... Like, being repulsed from an horrific image... That horrific image also telling you something, it touches you somewhere, and it makes you have an inner shock or something. Loathing the piece out of feeling like "Why did I even come here?" is pretty much the whole "artistic merit" of such type of... "Art"... It's the art of trolling someone... You opened a video, and you got rick rolled... That's the emotion this art invokes. Though, some of the things presented have some merit to them, and can be judged as art. The only greater issue is, almost all of them attempt to deliver some social/political message... And, when you examine the art itself without the jib-jabbering, it really fails to deliver the message it intended to deliver, mostly because it invokes all the wrong feelings. I don't want to fall in love again specifically in an art galley... Show me the macabre, show me honesty, show me insanity... Show me passion, give me a story - tell me something I didn't know, make me interested, teach me things... Grab my attention, and guide it through an experience. If my experience in an art gallery is opening my phone and downloading a game, it's clear the art gave me the experience of waiting for a bus, and my occupation is distracting myself from the general empty setting I'm stuck in.
A lot of modern art is basically a combination of having no technique, being provocative for no reason whatsoever, and being indistinguishable to nonsense. In my opinion, the whole movement is the embodiment of the edgy 15 year-old girl.
I agree with Jessica Backus when she speaks about the questions we should make, in order to appreciate more a piece of art - curiosity is a key. Nonetheless, in my humble view, in general, contemporary art lacks something. What is one of the masterpieces of contemporary art?
How much contemporary art have you seen? There’s something for everyone. Think about the mediums you like, the styles you like, get back to me on it, and I’m sure I can find you an artist whose work you’ll enjoy. A contemporary artist, by the way, is anyone who is making art today. If you decided to make ANY kind of art, you’d be a contemporary artist. That broadens the possibilities, doesn’t it?
@@mattunnaki8983 Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Pippilotti Rist, Olafur Eliasson, Tacita Dean... Literally any artist. Even if the piece of art seems like it was made in minutes, it took countless of hours to plan and execute.
@@Annakanerva bull, most of the stuff they make doesnt even have any direction, how do you plan out exactly how paint will splatter? You cant, these people play with paint, but they do not paint.
Most of the time I just don't get Contemporary art. I know that not anyone can just go and be like "oh I should do colored shoes hanging from the ceilling" like not everyone just come up with it. People who do Contemporary first need an idea, although usually weird one, to make art. But I still don't get it that well. To me comic artists, animators, illustrators, concept artists are so talented. They have done hours upon hours of learning and sketching to become good while Contemporary artist can have some skill but what they only need is an idea to start off. Maybe I don't get contemporary art because I value the level of mastery needed for the mentioned jobs rather than the ideas that bring forth contemporary art.
The other reason why good comic artists, animators, illustrators and concept artists are much easier to admire and respect is not just their talent as artists, its also their talent as communicators. If their art is amazing but they don't get the message across they have failed... and they know it. Conceptual art also has a message, its literally the the only thing it has to offer and yet the 'artists' generally don't bother trying to project their message. The end result is a piece of visual philosophy that cant be understood without a long lecture, its therefore pointless. If the artist does not make a successful attempt to communicate then its not art and the work can only be judged by the skill of its craftsmanship and aesthetic value.
I came across the idea that art reflects the society - it certainly does, i would say, after reading the most of the haters` comments under this video. I appreciate your opinion that`s why i took a look at the comment section, but I also appreciate the opinion of the speaker who studied arts studies and who actually has an expertise due to 10 y. long career in the one of the most important art-education institutions on our days. I do believe that trying to understand or disliking contemporary art - is the way of exploring your own life. But if you choose hatred - Art will also be of the simpler form.
why yes, the art certainly DOES reflect society. it shows that we are entitled idiots, who demand praise for doing the bare minimum. contemporary art requires no effort, no skill, not even a long thought process. anybody could do that, in the exact same manner. you see, many people want to see in Art something that they themselves couldn't do. something that doesn't need an explicit explanation that it is art. even Picasso's weirdest paintings have something to them. mostly because he still had put effort into them. and he had a clear direction what he wanted to go for. even some abstract paintings can be interesting to look at, that is if there is visible effort to them.
Stop thinking about art works as objects and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. What makes a work of art good for you is not something that s already inside it but something that happens inside you
I liked that sugar sphinx. At first, it didn't make any sense. Why would somebody build a huge sugar sphinx? That makes no sense. But then when she mentioned how the features of the sphinx had been crafted to hearken the traditional image of a female African slave, it clicked. I remembered all the literature I had read about the atrocities of the historical sugar industry and the inhumanity suffered by African slaves and it made sense. It's like this big monument to the fact that sugar, for all the pleasure it brings us today, has brought about terrible human suffering in the past as well. That sort of contemporary art is intriguing to me, stuff based on ideas that carries symbolism and makes you think. If there's not really an idea behind it or you don't know the idea, then it's boring. The idea is what makes it interesting. Otherwise, it's just a giant pile of sugar.
You didn't get it but you didn't just decide you don't like it. You thought about it and listened and learned and came away with a different impression. I disagree with her final statement. If you don't understand art that isn't enough to say that you don't like it.
Uncovering & exposing the art world as she has begun to is great. Art is a man made thing which may have begun as a needed visual form of identification, representation or communication but has involved into a game of exclusivity for insiders.
Art CAN be anything, but that does not mean every single thing is inherently art. It means every single thing can be repurposed and re-contextualized under a certain narrative to be art. Old still life paintings in museums have beautiful renders of fruit. If someone back then were to look at the fruit on the table though, they likely wouldn’t call it art until they looked at the panting
I admire the effort that the art world is making to connect with the general public in our modern age. This talk start out well, but it finishes out confused and diminished. The speaker doesn't have a clue as to how to fish contemporary art out of the fast food dumpster it made for itself. The thing I like about the Rothko piece is that it simply asks you to like it, dislike it or feel ambivalent.....just have a feeling when you look at it. If you happen to be depressed, you may get something more out of the work. It doesn't demand a reaction at the outer end of a spectrum. It's not trying to eke out a major emotion or cause a social tantrum, it wants to usher in a thoughtful mood, which makes sense since the artist was dealing with an emotional disorder in an era full of television heroes that killed without compunction in every episode. Contemporary art is pushy and demanding, like a spoiled child. Why don't you love me? Why don't you hate me? It wants either total adoration or utter hatred. I find it so ham-fisted and bratty that it becomes akin to reality TV personalities like Trump or the Kardashians. Something needs to change. A viewer can only hate/love new pieces so many times before they get desensitized. At what point will a plastinized, shit covered, beheaded aborted asian baby covered in blood diamonds and crude oil become yawn worthy?
Totally agree, the art world is run by gangsters, they are masters at selling shit this woman is typical , it is your fault if you don't like contemporary art , so if i don't like the sick bed by T.Emenn that is my fault.W.T.F.
I appreciate Ms. Backus's effort to help others understand contemporary art. And the questions she invites us to ask may well open our eyes to a greater appreciation of contemporary art. But her penultimate remark is still going to be my nearly universal response: it may well be that you just don't like it. Indeed. When it comes to contemporary art, almost all of it I just don't like. Thanks anyways!
what is virtue signaling, and how is it possible for such a thing to be arbitrary to virtue, and if it is not arbitrary to what is virtuous, than how can you have a problem with such a thing, i understand conservatives have always supported non virtuous, or unjust conservative prescriptions based on subjective fallacies and tyrannical traditions, like economic suppression and war, or the abolition of women's rights, so its essential to the conservative hoax that they essentially attack virtue, or anything virtuous anywhere they see it, as something as simple as mere virtue is an entire threat to their policies which have no leg to stand on. as it is a misinterpretation of virtue, not the real thing. i didn't watch the video, my comment is exactly about what you said, not what you criticized so i'm not defending something that is irrelevant to the philosophical discussion of which i have just now initiated.
why is it so hard to just...listen to what people say? she's not trying to sell anything, she's trying to make it more accessible. saying the art market is a scam has nothing to do with the art itself. it's not about monetary value. you don't have to like all modern art. the point is, you won't ever learn anything about it if you automatically dismiss it.
Is she suggesting that I should try to work harder at trying to understand something? The nice Australian girl in Topshop never does that. She says I have great taste.
Ugh. If you need explanations and intellectuals to explain an art work to you, it's simply not art. It's conceptual bullshit. When you hear Mozart or see a Monet painting and it moves your heart, that's art. Not this silliness. Call it something else, but not art.
I know this is quite the old comment but sheesh, what an uneducated one. Not all art needs to be self explanatory and one sided to the point that it can be interpreted on first look. One may explain the artwork in ways that another may not have seen it, art on its own is subjective. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but to say that an explanation causes a piece to simply not be considered art, is foolish.
@@chimneyeveryday but the purpose of art isnt it to express the artist imagination and conceptual ideas?. if it need further explanation then they lack the technical skill to be an artist. well you can still called it an art, a bad art.
Both Mozart and Monet are probably examples that will greatly benefit from intellectuals explaining it to you. Without it I will just hear grandma's music and grandpa's painting found in a dusty attic. And both Monet and Mozart were shitted upon by people in their times!
@@chimneyeveryday Art needs to be self explanatory for definiton. It's a requirement. If you pretend to change that, it has to be with a compementary meaning behind, not a substitute to the skill and value of the piece.
I understand modern art and i am disgusted by it. Craftmanship is being looked down on, and replaced by pretense. I am not able to call myself a visual artist because the shame i feel for how this term is being abused and secondly, whatever classical skills (such as drawing, painting, sculpturing,..) used to be required to evoke visceral experiences by the viewer, are frowned upon by the people who populate the contemporary art world (and often lack the talent or creativity to express themselves and genuinely relate to others), who are unfortunately dominating in the economical market.
I think Jessica nailed it at the beginning when she designated contemporary art as a a religion, so it attempts to evoke emotion, yet its based on something that is not real. I totally got it now :) For me, recognized art has to be more about liking or emotion or imagination - the bar for it must be at a level of talent where (unlike like that tire sculpture) 1/2 the people on the planet cant make it themselves. Would we all be tuning into the Olympics this week to watch a high school swim team, or a couple of the most talented basketball player on the office team - I dont think so - we are watching the top
They are the people back in the day yelling at van Gogh that he's not making real art. History always has plenty of fools, we just have the tools to hear from more of them.
To me, contemporary art is a way of expressing yourself in every aspect of the piece you are creating. You aren't stuck to the same mediums as classical art and you can create whatever you want. Generally, great pieces of contemporary art have mediums that directly connect to the message they are trying to convey as well as visually it connects with the message. It isn't necessarily about pleasing your eye, but about putting out what the artist needs to say. Do not get me wrong, I am a very big fan of classical art, but modern art is on the rise. What we are failing to do is adapt like the artists are. They are adapting with the changes and have more to say now than every before. Artists are finding more and more creative and silent ways to say things and since we aren't adapting and we are sticking to traditional mindsets, we don't like what a contemporary artist is trying to create.
Contemporary art took away the necessity of skills. Some even hire skilled people to make it for them because it's all about the idea anyways. But anyone can have an idea but that does not make them an artist in my opinion. If you don't have the skills to communicate an idea then you are just like most everybody else.
Actually this video explains perfectly why I don't like contemporary and most modern art ^^ Imo art should be imagination shackled by aesthetics not just pure imagination. These constraints are what make the game interesting and are also the reason why most of the art I like is from 18th and 19th century, there humanity reached its aesthetic peak (for flats at least)
Some strategies: What do I see, hear, touch, taste, smell? What are the materials? What do you feel? What does this say about other art? Art may expand possibilities Art may give you a new sensory experience
I was raised in the art world and honestly? People in galleries don’t talk like this. I know so many artists, and you know, most of them don’t like Pollock. It’s not a game.
the biggest flaw with this ted talk is around 3:20 when she says that "with art, you have to go out into the world to experience it." NOT TRUE. That statement basically suggests that art posted exclusively on the internet is somehow not art! This alienates a large number of artists in the 21st century, the artists who sidestep galleries and post their work directly to instagram or wherever because the art they make is not in the tastes of for "gallery curators" No wonder studying contemporary art history really pissed me off, as somebody who makes art for people to look at "on-demand" on the internet
Her job description literally is "selling sham non-art as art". Insulting our intelligence is the textbook con. "It's art, you just don't get it". No, I get it - sometimes this is sort of art (but it's really bad art), sometimes it's *design*, which is a different thing related to art. Never something that belongs in a gallery. But usually, it's just pretentious poorly-designed non-art. "You simply don't like it" is another insult to our intelligence. The opposite is true, and it's in some sense the very definition of art: you recognize and get real art even if you don't like it.
Am I the only one that doesn't get frustrated when I see an art piece I don't understand? Like, an art piece that you have to actually think about to understand just seems more valuable to me, which is why I like contemporary art, because it isn't always obvious what the artist was trying to convey.
It’s not for one to determine for someone else why he or she doesn’t “get” modern art. Or any art. If someone doesn’t like it, it’s because he isn’t inspired in any meaningful way by it. That decision is for the individual to make. And as the primary purpose of art is to inspire, if legions of people are equally uninspired by a piece of it, that represents a failure on the artist’s part, not a failure of the spectators’ abilities to “recognize” it
Getting it doesn't mean that you get to like it. You can watch a pretty "bad" movie and understand the meaning, or give it a meaning yourself, but still recognise that maybe it is not enough.
I am an artist now in 2020. I began formally studying art at the university professional level in 1976. Initially there was a little basic information with terminology given and lots of studio assignments that was experimental and to some degree playful in nature. Three years later in a painting class critique, I was getting lots of questions and demands of me to explain myself and my work. Pushed to my limit, I broke down and cried toward my professor, I really do want to do abstract art, but honestly, I don't understand it, I don't get it! The old father type professor smiled and told me he had said the same thine thirty some years earlier to his professor. He was told to keep trying and give it time, and he did, and now 30 some years or so I did. I did it because I wanted to not because I had to or because I wanted to impress someone. Do what you want to. And give it some time.
Ha, my story is exactly opposite! I did not wish to do Abstract, instead, I believed I needed a good foundation to build upon. I did precisely what you experienced at my critique session too....but that was eons ago. Luckily, my own prof gave me space to sink in to do my own thing. And it has been 30 years of self exploration travelling alone on my own route!
this woman has no experience of artists - and I mean the humble everyday people who embarked on their art journey because it's a calling, a compulsion a burning flame that cant be extinguished. it beats in your heart and mind every minute of the day and maybe in that way we are different to others. we're visual philosophers tho our visions and our languages are unique to ourselves. she's right about one thing, the problem is with not getting contemporary art lies with the viewer.
art = beauty Or truth That's it.. no politics, Marxism or poor technique. If I go to a museum and don't immediately think something is beautiful I wouldn't care to look at it or figure out its justification. Contemporary art is for the non artists to pretend they are so they can shop at urban and wear the "look".
If you think art is never political you must have never studied it, because art has been political for as long as politics have existed, lol. You’ll have to try another angle, sorry
@@SP-mf9sh You can decide for yourself what you think is art but you can't decide for others that you only want to see pretty things that appear to you
@@julesmartin6972 No, I can't decide for others but the history books speak for themselves. Rembrandt, Michaelangelo, van gogh, caravaggio, durer, Picasso...all created beautiful paintings of people or landscapes. People pay big money to see them not modern contemporary art. But contemporary art will always have a niche following.
In 1961, an artist named Pierro Manzoni literally shat in a can, dared to call it art and actually had the audacity to sell it. I looked at a photo of "the piece" and thought about the mental checklist you gave us. I can definitely say after doing this, it didn't automatically verify the shit and suddenly make it art, and I still didn't understand it at all. What did I see? A tin can filled with 30 grams of shit. What are the materials? Actual human feces. What do I feel? Disgusted and insulted. What does it say about other art? It, as well as all the other bullshit contemporary art that is like this are dismantling art as a form of creativity and warping it into something that is self-indulgent, lacks craft, and frankly degrading to our intelligence. You're literally playing with poo, Pierro. C'mon. I will never say that ALL contemporary art is garbage. But when museum janitors have thrown contemporary art away because they accidentally mistake pieces for being actual trash... I think there's an issue.
Beacause art isn't supposed to be explained by the author in order to produce aesthetic pleasure. Art is a physical feeling, not just a clever wordplay or a political statement.
I was at that event and I had the extreme misfortune of using the bathroom after Jessica (the speaker in the video.) I don't know if it was nerves, or she had some kind of food allergy, but the smell she left in the bathroom was BY FAR the most wretched, disgusting reek I've ever encountered. There are no words I could use to describe it. I actually saw stars and thought I was going to pass out.
Watching the audience take notes and seriously try to understand why they don't get modern art is modern art to me.
That'll be $17 million please
Print this and you'll be rich
Their art should be recycled for better purposes.
That's hilarious
This comment is art
Art is beauty and beauty speaks for itself, not through statements or pretensions. Classical artists never needed to justify their work. Art has no rules but must have standards.
You couldnt be more wrong. Art is not about the product, but the phenomenology of art. the emotions that the art makes the view feel is what art is all about. And those emotions do not always have to be positive as well. The fact that a blank sheet of paper can be considered art can enrage and confuse some people. And that right there is the emotions the piece of art gives off, this giving it meaning.
Art is not beauty.
@@chriskeane2004 The thing that enrages and confuses people about the fact that a blank sheet of paper can be considered art is the price tag though. I'm not enraged by the ones next to my printer. By your logic I'm justified to charge a ridiculously high price for a blank piece of paper, because the high price that I'm charging upsets people, which is an emotional response.
Can I also go around kicking people in the nuts in that case? That would give off an even stronger emotional response, I think. I'll be sure to tell them how much meaning I've added to their lives afterwards.
@@sietsejohannes You made me laugh with this one, this is some good art right here 😂
@@rimonawad5721 Haha, thank you! I aim to entertain.
That will be $50.000.000 please.
10:25 "And if art is about imagination, about ideas, and the idea is primary, then it follows that its form and techniques are secondary."
And here lies much of the problems with contemporary art. The form is absolutely essential to every artistic creation. The philosopher Luigi Pareyson argued that it is necessarily through its form that a work of art expresses whatever meanings it might have. I think he is correct. To elevate the idea above the form only makes it excusable to have an idea expressed through a mediocre form. Also, it seems to make it justifiable to select very banal ideas to be evoked by said mediocre forms.
Choose any simplistic idea you want. It doesn't have to be a complex thought; anything will do. Assemble anything whatsoever that evokes this idea - you don't have to worry about any sort of skilled crafting. Anything will do. Arrange the things you got in whatever way you like - it doesn't matter how. If the idea you want to evoke seems not obvious from your arrangement, don't worry; it's the viewer's job to guess it. If it ends up that the viewer doesn't guess your idea, who cares? And _voilà_ - you made a work of art.
The assumption that the idea is primary and the form is secondary is very misguided, in my view. I don't think that the majority of people lack the insight to understand contemporary art. Rather, I think that it is the majority of things done and labeled as contemporary art that lack, in general, the minimum quality necessary to actually have any worth. The standards have fallen too much; the bar is far too low.
That really nails it. When the idea behind the piece of art is so complex then why the piece itself so often isn't? Also when it's primarily the idea which is important, why not just write a text instead of making visual art? It is claiming to be visual art, when in fact it isn't really (there are exceptions of course).
Pretty much where I see art going wrong is keeping the name. Art went from a craftsman's trade to an intellectual pursuit, changing the nature of the work, but keeping the name 'art', which is where the confusion arises. People think you can divorce idea from form, but without form you have nothing to observe.
@phobicpigeon Thanks. I really encourage those interested in the subject to read Pareyson's works, or at least to get familiar with his views. I'm not sure about his contribution to other topics in philosophy, but his thoughts on art and aesthetics are pure gold, in my humble opinion.
@@thomervin7450 back when it was all craft, it was not even called art, just work. The same as a the work of a baker or any other work. Thats pretty nice I think
This topic was applied to the creation of contemporary music in the documentary titled PressPausePlay. I saw this documentary years ago and the ideas about the acceptance of mediocrity and the rejection of craftsmanship have stayed with me. Having said that, the other point in the documentary is that “all are welcome” which democratizes the creation of art (musical art, in this instance). One truth, however, is made glaringly obvious… money (who has it-whether individuals or institutions) will always be a factor in what the current society deems as having artistic value.
Recently, a shoe and a trash bin were confused for contemporary art.
Masterpiece
You guys should look up Urn Malley.
Many argue that by setting up, strategically placing the glasses, and creating a fake nameplate (aka naming the piece) made what he did art ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
One art, please! {{ This is not; [:funny]; anymore; [[!:-)]] }}
That's because hipsters are always trying to look so artsy
If you have to sell the idea that something is art, then it's probably not art.
Early impressioism got the ''this isn't art'' treatment but few would exclude it now. These things change.
So is god then.
But then Ms Jessica Backus won't have a career preaching to the rest of us dummies. She'll have to actually get a job that produces like the rest of us stooges.
@@bredbandtva7177 Impressionism still has artistic merit because it has skill and talent to back it up. Degradation happened when people assumed any schmuck could be an artist by doing whatever came to mind, whatever someone wanted to do became elevated as "art" which is disgraceful
@Mark Branham EEEEEEEEEYYYYY
I don't get contemporary art because there's nothing to get. It's a naked emperor. If you have to explain the feeling I'm suppose to "get," then maybe you're not an artist. As a writer, I can have the most thought provoking idea and concept ever, but if I don't have the skill and elegance to really express it, then I'm not a writer. I don't have to explain any of my written work to people. They get it when they read it. So why do you get to say you're an artist, when you have clearly no artistic skill to express whatever it is you're looking to express?
Spot on. Art needs no explanation. You show it, and people get it. That is why art is an art, because it captivating and engaging. Art speaks meaning the moment it revealed.
If you have to explain and get preachy about a piece of art. Then it is no art.
excellent
Despite your infuriatingly condescending attitude, I actually agree with you. I wouldn't go as far as to say you're 'not a writer' but yes if people can't understand your work than you're not a very good creator. However just a note, analyzing and interpreting is muscle that you have to exercise. A person who doesn't like to read very often and doesn't take the time to try is not going to understand nor appreciate the best writing
@@gameofman blatantly not true. You can walk through a museum of brilliant portraiture and get nothing from it without context. Art is an individuals reaction distilled and cast tword the future. Context enhances all art and the idea it was somehow negative only ever came up as a way to reject modern art when it first appeared. Context is vital to enhancing the strength of every work be it Caravaggio or Matisse.
This isn't entirely true. Often there are symbols, allegory, metaphor and allusion. It can take time to read a painting to discern an artist's intentions. Reading a work of literature is often the same. BUT I get what you're saying. Most contemporary artists don't have enough of a subject to make the work interesting or even readable. The function of contemporary art is to make those creating the stuff, artists. Some people are so desperate to be an artist in the limelight for the prestige that they will say anything. The art serves the artist, not the viewer.
It's not that people don't *understand* contemporary art, it's that much of contemporary art puts on an air of sophistication and complexity where neither is actually present. If you put a beaten-up old couch in a museum (which requires an entire essay of context on how it represents the decline of modern civilization to understand or "enjoy" it), you're not an artist, you're a hack.
Yo, contemporary art is basically the ability to understand your surroundings at a decent if not high degree. I do say hi degree because that may be the most of the art that you refer to. Take a genius in that category he's only trying to explain what he sees literally every f****** day to his own degree in which may be a higher standard that you cannot fathom that is okay, but it's there and he's putting it out there for you. So try and be thankful, the end.
@@surchipparoski9814 be thankfull for looking at a couch? Ill be thankfull when they can actually create skillfull art.
Well the fact someone actually thought a rotting couch was "art" and bothered to put it in a museum, really does show our society is declining and full of decay, so bravo to that one. It still isn't art though.
Gallowglass art is not about understanding, it is about feeling and this is exactly what contemporary “art” lacks , a feeling, an emotion. Because of that , they try to replace that feeling by telling others that they just don’t get it . It’s true , I’m not supposed to get it , I’m supposed to feel it . If your “art” gives me nothing then it is not art to me . They try to brainwash people into thinking that they just don’t get it , it’s the biggest misconception about art and I had an headache just listened her speak all this nonsense , talking about how she’ll make people understand 99% of artworks. You can never understand and artwork or the meaning behind it unless the artist enlightens you and most importantly you don’t have to understand it , it’s art not rocket science. People forget that the emotional impact art has is it’s purpose . We live in such a brainwashed society where everyone has to think the same and they make you feel odd if you don’t do as they please .
@@opioloco2537 totally agree, when you study classic art, you basically dumbfounded by tiny obvious definitive details you missed. moreover its more easy to connect. isnt it odd that you would never understand why a piece of of scribble worth 400million when it never contributed anything, why is it so important to purchase that in that amount of money instead of donation or anything better. how is that art better than anything
Real art needs no explanation. You look at classical sculptures, you don't get everything, but you are awed by the beauty, you wonder how the artists could turn rocks into silks. That's art.
Trueeeeeee, same thing in music.
dont compare mozart to ferneyhough on the basis of “art is subjective”
Isn't it boring if every artist makes the same stuff that we made centuries ago already?
@@llawliet7241 no art piece is the same
But a lot of older art pieces have similiar techniques & intentions behind them. We pretty much played through the entire aesthetics game so I think it's very reasonable that art changed to what it has become now. And there are still a lot of modern artists that create beautiful things, even if it's by different standards than just pure realism.
@@llawliet7241 you know what's more boring? A white canvas
Art was always something that touched and influenced the masses, regardless of education or social status. These days it seems to be limited to the elite snobs. I blame modern/contemporary art for people not taking art seriously
i think most people appreciate good art when they see it (like when somebody would make a portray of them)
Absolutely.
People back in the nineteenth century didn't even know how to read, what are you talking about? Art has always been for the elite
Exactly
Art can be anything? Then what meaning does art have? if literally anything can be art its not art its just mass, nothing.
Jordan B that can be an art piece, you can make millions
meaning varies from person to person, does it not?
Define art then
But mass means something doesn't it
Your comment is definitely art
She said, " the idea of a unified artist " ( who views painting and architecture as the same field) does not exist until after the 1720s? I guess the Renaissance Masters who painted, sculpted and designed buildings didn't get the memo?
THE RENAISSANCE MASTERS WERE 200+ YEARS EARLIER.
I 'get' modern art. I just don't think this 'exlusive shock value' should be valued so much more than the works of artists who spend their whole life on building a excellent skillset to create breathtakingly beautiful artworks.
Imagine you are in a room where there are two equally large canvases. One canvas depicts a young, 16th century Italian Lady. On her person we see red velvet, pearls, golden pipping on her clothing, an elaborate headdress, complete with feathers and gemstones. Rings adorn her clasped fingers. On her fair face, we see a youthful innocence, but her brow is slightly furrowed which suggests she is perhaps a little sad or troubled. Her eyes gaze off into the distance, as though she is pondering something. The Painting is titled "The Lady Waits"
On the other canvas, is white paint, with 4 small, irregular purple dots, and nothing else. That painting is titled "A commentary on Modern Life in a City."
Suddenly, there is a fire in the room and it's spreading rapidly. Due to the size of the canvases and their attached frames, and the speed of the spreading flames, there is only time to save one. Knowing nothing else about the paintings other than they are both originals, which one would you save?
No one honest EVER says they would save the White with Purple dots.
Well one is a historical artifact as well.. which has a lot of influence in this decision. Choosing between a crude eating utensil made of stone from early Mesopotamia and a modern day fork which would you choose even though the former is made of stone and essentially useless?
The 16th century painting might not be as original though because everyone sort of painted the same way during that time. It's much more democratic and more people can take part in the art world. It's not just a small club for the few that many people think.
@@phanders6236 but not every one run in mill can reproduce it.. Unlike 4 dots in canvas.
And who *would* save the dots? That's such a stupidly simple piece that saving it would be harder than reproducing it.
Which would you save, neither. That what fire department and the "sprinkler" are for. As for which is saved, who made which. When were they made. Because one has a clear subject does not make it more important then the one that doesn't. In fact the one with the subject may not be of any historic value where the abstract is of high historic value. The Abstract artist of the early 20th century did not get where they ended up over night. It toke years of trying new ideas, asking questions.
Too many words, terms, explanations...ART doesn't need it.
Well said. Art transcends words
True. Even if you don't understand art, you can always appreciate the beauty in it, and the skills of the artist. I look at classical sculptures, I wonder how the artists made rock look like silk, it's beautiful. That's art, it's that simple.
@@ROCKSTAR3291 yeah but is a pile of tires art?
Exactly.
"You suffer from an inability to get contemporary Art. Yes, me too."
There's so much wrong with this opener, from the implication we are afflicted, possibily diseased, that we are the ones at fault, to the condescending, Newspeak conceit of 'I don't get it either (I'm on your side!) yet I'm still going to tell you how to do so' that you know this is going to be an exercise in propaganda, projection, and doublethink. The delivery is fake ("Anybody here? Yes, me too, me too!" like she were experiencing the genuine relief of solidarity), the method underhand, and the motive entirely capital.
In short, gaslighting. 😒
Oh wow somebody just finished reading Orwell. Give this man a medal.
The modern human is being turned into a lunatic. Universities, media, arts and politics are working hard to destroy our identity.
It's weird how to jumped in reasoning from 'some art you will like and some you won't' to 'you need to change yourself to understand art you don't get.' It's like she's saying you just need to engage with the art whether you like it or not, just because contemporary art exists. Basically, I skip most art after 1900.
The fact that you read so much into this says more about you than the speaker. Are you off of your schizophrenia medicine again?
If everything is art, nothing is art. There's no reason to call something art if everything is art as well. If someday people decide that everything is art, somebody will make a new label to define it and so on.
Oliv Oliv that was the hope of marcel duchamp to kill the notion of something being art.
Big brain right here.
Go for it. Make a new definition. What should the definition of art be? What are these rigid rules you wish to instill?
@@Xplorer228 No, i don't want any rigid rules for art. My point was never that there should be rigid rules in art or an specific definition, it was just that not everything should be considered art, because if everything is, nothing is. The term would just lose meaning.
Is a white board art? idk, maybe it is for you. Would I can it art? Probably not. Both are fine. And that's about it
@@kapybara8079 Hmm not sure I accept your premise that "if everything is then nothing is". Everything is made of matter, that doesn't mean that nothing is made of matter. Another example: Pantheists who believe that everything is god.. doesn't mean that that nothing is god. When you say that everything is something you are saying just that.. that everything is included. But I would argue that its not exactly that everything is art, rather that anything CAN be art. Art cannot exist without a beholder, a human, cause it really takes place in the mind.. in that sense its more of an action. There is no inherent meaning in objects.. we humans assign them meaning.
this is more like *HOW TO OVERANALYZE CONTEMPORARY ART*
Your comment is more like how to under analyze yourself.
@@surchipparoski9814 that insult doesn't even make sense, it doesn't relate to the arguement at all, its just a pretentiously worded ad hominem attack
@@ryanrigley2558 I think it does
@@surchipparoski9814 that's sad
@@alexanderthegrrrreat6727 sad like how?
It brings me joy that this video received more dislikes than likes.
Means that not everyone buys this stuff, makes me relieved
me too 😂😭🙏🏻
@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 because no one can and I believe even if it was Priced around affordable to what people could pay.. People would still not buy it.
I can’t see the likes to dislikes ration thanks to youtube
I can't believe how rude people are being in their comments about this speaker. That was a perfectly cogent and well done presentation. She seems very knowledgable and nice. I think that one of the reasons so many dislike a lot of contemporary art is because so much contemporary art is essentially nihilistic in outlook. Like the just another painting painting and so many others out there the basic message of postmodern philosophy is a complete abandonment of right and wrong, of values, of striving for the betterment of self into a basic degradation of human life and human effort. Even the modern of the first half of the 20th century, for as much as it sought to break away from the past, to find new things, and to express both personal and universal ideas of the human condition, amorality, lascivious proclivities, the horrors of human existence, especially war and hypocrisy, all of that art still contained the idea of effort, of work, of meaning, of an affirmation of life, even if it was a life of debauchery, of spiritual realms, even if those spiritual realms where the apostasy and charlatans of mediums like Madam Blavatsky, but still all of that work was rooted in the very values which it sought to break away from. But then in the 60s the tide turned and brought forth ever increasing amounts of art and artists whose only concern and expression was their own sense of self worthlessness and self indulgent hedonism. Immaturity itself becomes elevated. Slap dash becomes style. unpleasantness for its own sake becomes fashionable. Now of course that isn't every artists in all that time, but it is enough of them that the overall milieu can seem fairly pointless and ugly to the average onlooker. I think a lot of what is happening, especially lately, is that the very vision of any ideal both personally and as a society is so fraught these days that everything comes across as either banal, pointlessly beautiful, needlessly ugly, mystifyingly opaque or as is often the case, another volley in the ongoing struggle for economic and social justice, which is all well and good, except that it is all reactionary and art in general has almost no teeth to affect the general public, foster social change, or do much of anything other than seem like noble sentiment. It speaks to those who are already converted and does nothing for the rest. People are searching for meaning in their lives, and art does nothing to point anyone toward any meaning anymore, if it ever did. I say all this and I am an artist. I love art. But in the end all art is just a fantasy. If one is wealthy enough to grow up and or live in an environment surrounded by great art, architecture, and beauty, that can have have an effect on a person. But that may be more about money.
your comment is well thought out and placed. it's a shame she said almost nothing you did.
Well, she is offering the thought that by making a certain amount of effort contemporary art can be better understood. She makes no claim that such understanding will make anyone like the art. In fact she says that it's perfectly ok to not like the art. It is a valid point. As she says art has become an esoteric language which is not readily understood by laymen. One does wonder with much art how the artists sustain themselves financially when there is much that is not something anyone can readily buy or put into their homes. Museums of course do help support some of that stuff, but in the general market place at large and it is large, there are tons of artists out there making a living doing all kinds of work from things that fit into the realism and classical styles of work to all kinds of abstract work, much of which is derivative. But that is okay, even. I like abstract art. it looks good on a wall. The first half of the 20th century had the luxury of novelty on their side. They were opening up a new territory and as such they were energized by the excitement and newness of that. Once that was done the next generation of artists had to contend with where to go from there. There was nowhere to go. There still isn't. That is why there is no dominant movement anymore. We have true pluralism now, and so much work happening in so may modes. The internet itself has democratized the marketing of art. It may not lead to fame, but if you are making a living does that really matter? Personally I would make the argument that the affirmation of values and ideals that people might hope for and which art in general for a long time has not provided cannot and will not ever be found in artworks, as such, but rather only fro Faith in God. Faith is squarely at odds with things like art, in that art is a worldly thing and creativity itself is a tricky thing can not and will not arise solely from rules, laws or values. If one has those structures built into their personal framework, they can create things in which the spirit of them lives, Think Bach. But creativity is like divine spark itself, and no matter what ones personal basis, talent can combine with inspiration to create marvelous work, even though that work may be rife with immorality Think Jimi Hendrix. There are no easy answers in life or art. But if their were, where would be the fun in that? Though I would say that all great art that is and ever was all and always points to the most important aspects of life and experience. Those aspects are the inevitability of death. The impossibility of control. The tension that exists between our need and longing for love and the basic tragedy of life in our own imperfection and inability to love or receive love to the extent and with the power that we would hope. The reality of evil and man's hypocrisy and inhumanity. Ultimately life is always tragic. If we are lucky this reality will point us toward God. Our need is absolute. Reality is dramatic. Postmodernism, however, ignores this in favor of boredom, I think. Sure, some of the questioning of postmodernism is worthwhile. We are always searching for a better understanding of life and reality and that quest has often chucked out the past in favor of some new idea. Perhaps we improve, gradually, like thin thin layers of lacquer building up over time in the slow progress of humanity, but maybe it all just change, neither wholly good or bad, because no matter what the fundamental nature of humanity does not change. Let us be generous and kind to others. No one is perfect. and art is just art. It doesn't really matter.
Once again, thank you for your comments! Very worthwhile...!
Seems you have described what we do. No longer needed to entertain art can focus on being a dank parody of today. As illustrated philosophy artists can explore test and retest how it feels to think and make. Yesterday was mastery and beauty for a god king. Today a pile of smelly tires for critics. It was and is honest labour for propaganda.
Hey man,people are fucking dumb ok?They want to see some paint on canvas,not some ideas,because its too hard to think these days.And no,im not saying there is no bad conceptual art.
Stop blaming people. It's the art. It doesn't concern itself with divine anymore, only with mediocre. A medium can't be greater than what is expresses.
Damn! Swing that hammer. Agreed.
a man with a hammer It's not even art
what's the difference between america and yogurt? yogurt can grow culture :)
typo
it's not that simple, chumbra. This shit is happening worldwide…
chumbra gambla with all due respect. do you like the drumset? Or the electric guitar? Or hip-hop/blues/bluegrass/Rock/EDM/Motown/country? Just to name a few things this country has brought to this world.
Oh yeah..I forgot funk music. Imagine this world without PARLIAMENT FUNKADELIC! Or James brown? The list goes on
That's funny, considering America sets the tone for pop culture. You know.. Hollywood? Patriotism? Constitutional democracy? Fucking technology... *sighhhh
I think the problem isn't ALL contemporary art, but pieces like the chair example. Art is a tool to link feelings or experiences with representations of the emotions they produce. The chair example is merely illustrating a concept. I see it and I go "Yeah, it is questioning the meaning of the chair" and that's it. However if you take an ambiguous poem for example, it makes you think: what do the allegories and imagery used represent? how does that resonate with me? what do i make of it?. It is a much more complex experience. The chair exhibition is connecting A to B, the latter example is more intricate.
Yeah, it's not hard to convince people to see meaning and even value in contemporary art when you use good examples. But try to use that pile of tires or those chairs? Good luck. To me art is beautiful and evocative, and a pile of tires in a white room is neither and those chairs are just meh. The problem with contemporary art is that trash (literally trash in some cases) gets labeled art for some strange reason every now and then.
alichi101 That's exactly what I meant!
Unfortunately no, it's all shit.
Well to put into perspective, theres a popular question in maths that goes as follows ''Prove that 1 + 1 = 2'' and it required like 30 pages to even come close to successfully proving it, which isnt done yet (if i remember correctly). There are also other similar things in mathematics like prove a squares angles makes 360 degrees. Or in science - prove that oxygen exist. You can think of contemporary art in this way, even if its obvious, maybe proving it is necessary, or provoking etc.
You may find the chair piece too simple because you've already seen artists such as Magritte trying to redefine what reality is. Creativity isnt actually the capacity of creating new things,but the capacity of expressing a concept in new ways,wether this concept is original or not.Poetry seems much more complicated because of its form,because you have to read It countless times until you get what the author is trying to say....Isnt that the diference?people find reading more dificult because they are forced to concentrate on what they are reading,they are forced to think.On the other hand if you can Just see all the piece of Art at once you find no need to observe and ask yourself about the depth of the concept presented in front of you because your mind only scans the piece On the surface and worries more about its form than about its meaning.What makes these pieces of Art diferent is yourself and your will to understand them or not.
Apparently appreciating art doesn't give you good taste when selecting clothing...
omgggg lol I'm dead
Or: appreciating contemporary art makes you accostumed to trash, so you end up selecting clothing to fit the trash.
Translation: I Don't have an Argument thereby i am going to insult her cloths!
+David Graycat
I started my own thread in this comment section (it's easy enough to find), exposing my view through the construction of a reasoned argument, centered around one specific point raised in the video - I even cited a philosopher to back up my point. So, I guess this comment is not for me. :)
Isn't that weird? I notice that so many artists dress terribly and it's hard to see why lol
Why don't u get contemporary art?
There's nothing to get.
Hahahaha yes
Couldn't said better my self
Modern art and contemporary art are two different things, people....
@Wenceslao Futanaki van gogh doesn't count.
Things aren't looking so good for this video when it comes to likes...
It's because the manner in which this lady is presenting it is similar to that professor that put the whole class to sleep. She lacks any trace of intriguement and excitement.
plus she's so condescending it makes me never want to use the word AAAAART again, and I'm a painter
+Dragos Olar V agreed. I am a mixed medium artist, as well as traditional oil.
Serdar Uluç agreed.
She really just did a bad execution of explaining it and unfortunately people are taking this to reconfirm their already unfounded beliefs about contemporary and modern art.
*That ain’t art, Chief. If anything can be art what value does art hold?*
True...not everything is art. Art communicaties something of James you veel something..triggers response s.
Truth
Value is created by people. Cars would have no value if people stopped appreciating and needing them. Value like time is another man made invention to better understand the world.
Devin Cox I’m going to make a little analogy for you. Let’s say that you’re playing a card game, and like all card games, most cards are just normal and okay, but there’s some very good cards - those have the highest value. But if we made all cards the exact same, then there aren’t any cards that are truly special anymore. They’re all the same - so none of them have any higher value than another. The quality of the card isn’t really high anymore, it’s just normal.
That is what value is - it’s that which is special, which has either the greatest use or brings the greatest pleasure. It’s the same with art - you can tell which ones required more skill, which ones have the highest quality. You cannot say that a random splattering of ketchup that someone calls art (and which might’ve been done by a normal four-year-old child who calls it art) requires the same level of skill and brings as much pleasure as a truly timeless masterpiece. That is folly. The only reason you can possibly consider them to have the same value is because you’ve been taught to see them as such. You’ve been taught by critical people that values are man-made inventions - which in a sense they are. But if we are to tear down some establishment that values only the highest quality, and replace it with one which celebrates lower quality (which we are told we must accept), then in a sense, we are replacing the celebration of beauty with the celebration of ugliness and mediocrity.
There is a real sense of beauty, that is important. That is not to say that we should attack what is mediocre, we just shouldn’t treat it the same as we treat something beautiful. Beauty pleases us, something done with the highest skill pleases us. To cheapen the value of true quality is a crime.
@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 Card games have rigid structures and rules to them, art doesn't have any of that. If you try to put rules onto art they fall apart. We all know that the most technically skilled artists aren't always the most impactful. Dream Theater the band has some of the most skilled musicians but their music is mediocre for a lot of people, how could that be? Art is very complex and has different values based on different people. Art isn't like a card game, you can't create strict rules for it, a 2 of spades can have as much of an impact as a Queen of hearts. Outside of human interpretation they just take up space and have no intrinsic value over a rock. Beauty with your strict interpretation could be maxed out one day with a computer, that understand the human brain well enough to create the most aesthetically pleasing painting in existence. That painting wouldn't automatically be better than a Rothko though, it's emotional value can't be determined with a ruleset (scale).
This woman doesn't understand that Danny devito was portraying HER....SHE IS THE JOKE.
Did you not listen to what she said? She does understand that's what its making fun of clearly.
@@Xplorer228 Well, really, she's lamenting what is being made fun of. She's part of the system that enables the divide, but she's trying to portray herself as a normie.
Because it's not intended to be understood, it's pretending there is meaning where there isn't.
The emperor has literally no cloth.
Also: Because I don't need to. There are 6000 years of actual art, what do I need th last 100 years for?
Hear..hear!!!
Nurlinda F Sihotang
I'm not _that_ important, but feel free to take notice.
Also, there're still good artists out there today, making art that is fresh and new but still has technique, beauty, enjoyment and meaning. No need to waste time with the contemporary art movement nonsense.
I don't really care if you like a big pile of old tires in the middle of an all white room, but it clearly serves no purpose and communicates nothing and is therefore not art. Art has been either physically functional or communicative since the very beginning of its creation on cave walls with charcoal and ochre to tell stories or make sense of the world. Since the days when people first carved stone effigy pipes, function and form were carefully considered and stylistic norms were followed. Modern man can look at an ancient carving and get a rough idea of the beliefs and influences of its maker as well as the ideas being communicated. Look at Trajan's Column. Look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Look at the calligraphic mosaics on the Dome of the Rock. Look at a Chinese Plum Bottle. Look at Inca architecture. Look at Hokusai's prints. Look at the simple but elegant Wabisabi aesthetic of the pottery of the town of Mashiko. All of these are great examples of art that anybody can understand without explanation and which have a reason to exist and a great deal of skill was used in their creation. You really can't say that of the vast bulk of contemporary art.
very contradicting the "philosophy" she talked abouy trying to sell the idea of contemporary art (mistaken by general public as modern art). what a lot of hot wind there
But what about the abstract art, by which I mean the paintings of swirling colors and such, that people can spend days making in order to make sure it communicates that special interest just right. Not clear meaning, but a strange interest in wondering what the meaning is, and the not knowing of it that sparks the human mind to generate ideas of its own, instead of communicating the ideas of the creator? What about them? Because their paintings may not look like much effort was put into them, but a lot was.
Foxcheetah no they didn’t and it doesn’t spark anything.
@@foxcheetah6035 I think this description treads the line between abstract and contemporary art. Works such as Picasso’s cubism could be considered abstract art, but pieces by people like Damien Hirst are all but contemporary.
i get why people are saying that contemporary art just enables stuck up and pretentious people to make stuff that have bleak and boring meanings behind them, but i dont think the whole of contemporary art is completely boring and meaningless. i think she made it pretty clear that there are pieces of contemporary art that convey some things that can only be expressed through feelings and things only found in your imagination, things that are conveyed so skillfully. at least acknowledge the theme it tries to convey.
Art is a skillfully made creation which elevates people to a higher level of thought evoking in them the sensation of meaning. Art is based on tradition, Eastern, Islamic, European, African, American, or a blend of these. Each one has developed over the course of thousands of years to become what it is today. Modern "art" is merely the complete rejection of tradition and becomes anti-art, neither elevating mankind nor requiring skill to create. Indeed it is salt that has lost its savor.
It is not enough to merely complain. We must do more. If you can't make art, because there are few with the creativity and skill to do so, buy art. Find a piece that truly speaks to you and obtain it. Put it on your wall and let it enlighten your life and being you closer to the divine.
I'm so fed up with "artists" who "question the meaning of x". Or how many times do we need to be shown that "anything can be art"? At some point in history, there was merit to establishing that art didn't have to be lifelike paintings and sculptures. But it's been done, it doesn't need to be done over and over again.
It's like movie reboots and sequels.
If it needs a book, lecture, and dissertation to explain why it's art, then it's not art.
Modern art is just laughing at someone else's attempts to be serious or profound
Went to the museum of modern art in NYC on a school trip there. There was a wall entitled "Blank Wall Pierced By A Single Air Rifle Shot". Yes, someone took everything off of a wall and shot it with a BB gun. A few other nuggets included a piece of plywood that had been painted pink and was leaning against a wall (the angle was very important according to the plaque) and a picture frame that must have been bought at Walmart that had a strip of duct tape on the frame backing and nothing else. There also was a video being projected onto a wall of two naked people passing an inflatable work out ball between each other. I had and still have no words.
The only thing that I learnt from this is that modern art is a code that well educated people use to celebrate the fact they are indeed well educated people.
Everything she just said could be applied to literally any object in the world.
She IS modern art.
And that is the beauty of art.
@@Annakanerva Is it though???
@@Annakanerva Not everything is art mate. A scrumpled up piece of paper isn't art. because then there'd be no such thing as art
@@VisionsOfSpy define art then
I feel empowered to say I DON'T LIKE this video
Good for you!
Many of us watching this are artists, and as "elitist" this woman makes contemporary art sound, it is only those that put importance on contemporary and modernism. It's just tripe. Pushed on by shallow people that think they are "artists" when they are nothing but self-important dabblers in junk. I know art when it evokes an emotional response other than loathing. That when I go to a gallery I want to feel inspired and in love again, not like I wasted my time there. If I have to be told it's art, it doesn't miraculously become so.
That's interesting. How about the contextuality of art? If a piece of art is emotional within a time period and culture, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is felt so by people in another era and space. So a piece of art cannot be "good" or "bad", it is all relative.
I find most modern, minimalism and contemporary art milquetoast at best. It's bland, lifeless and neither inspires, nor is it masterful. Which is probably why urban art culture is rising in popularity. It's a gleaming zeitgeist for artists thriving for existence in the urban jungle. While modern art is for white middle class Americans that have to be sold that it's art. Just so long as it can match their bland decorum.
Yes, but how about my point?
Well, some art is supposed to invoke repulsion... Yet, that repulsion is supposed to have a story... Like, being repulsed from an horrific image... That horrific image also telling you something, it touches you somewhere, and it makes you have an inner shock or something.
Loathing the piece out of feeling like "Why did I even come here?" is pretty much the whole "artistic merit" of such type of... "Art"...
It's the art of trolling someone... You opened a video, and you got rick rolled... That's the emotion this art invokes.
Though, some of the things presented have some merit to them, and can be judged as art.
The only greater issue is, almost all of them attempt to deliver some social/political message... And, when you examine the art itself without the jib-jabbering, it really fails to deliver the message it intended to deliver, mostly because it invokes all the wrong feelings.
I don't want to fall in love again specifically in an art galley... Show me the macabre, show me honesty, show me insanity... Show me passion, give me a story - tell me something I didn't know, make me interested, teach me things... Grab my attention, and guide it through an experience.
If my experience in an art gallery is opening my phone and downloading a game, it's clear the art gave me the experience of waiting for a bus, and my occupation is distracting myself from the general empty setting I'm stuck in.
@@micksylvestre2887 do you understand that you are speaking just as pretentiously as the art you claim to hate?
After you watch this, I recommend the video THE TRUTH ABOUT MODERN ART by Paul Joseph Watson as a palate cleanser.
***** Yes, you have to be ingnorant to not see the artistic beauty of cans of shit or people with their fingers in each other's butts.
Watson has such an abrasive personality. Both him and the person that did this talk are annoying to listen to.
I hope you recovered from being exposed to his radioactivity.
A lot of modern art is basically a combination of having no technique, being provocative for no reason whatsoever, and being indistinguishable to nonsense. In my opinion, the whole movement is the embodiment of the edgy 15 year-old girl.
gosh your comment is so ignorant and sexist
Gosh, thank you :*
@@Valserize Sexist? How vacuous and inept are you to the concept of sexism?
@@Recondite101 Relax, she's a fembot in training.
I agree with Jessica Backus when she speaks about the questions we should make, in order to appreciate more a piece of art - curiosity is a key. Nonetheless, in my humble view, in general, contemporary art lacks something. What is one of the masterpieces of contemporary art?
How much contemporary art have you seen? There’s something for everyone. Think about the mediums you like, the styles you like, get back to me on it, and I’m sure I can find you an artist whose work you’ll enjoy. A contemporary artist, by the way, is anyone who is making art today. If you decided to make ANY kind of art, you’d be a contemporary artist. That broadens the possibilities, doesn’t it?
@@lynxaway find me a contemporary artist that makes something which couldnt be done in a matter of minutes.
@@mattunnaki8983 Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Pippilotti Rist, Olafur Eliasson, Tacita Dean... Literally any artist. Even if the piece of art seems like it was made in minutes, it took countless of hours to plan and execute.
@@Annakanerva bull, most of the stuff they make doesnt even have any direction, how do you plan out exactly how paint will splatter? You cant, these people play with paint, but they do not paint.
Most of the time I just don't get Contemporary art. I know that not anyone can just go and be like "oh I should do colored shoes hanging from the ceilling" like not everyone just come up with it. People who do Contemporary first need an idea, although usually weird one, to make art. But I still don't get it that well. To me comic artists, animators, illustrators, concept artists are so talented. They have done hours upon hours of learning and sketching to become good while Contemporary artist can have some skill but what they only need is an idea to start off. Maybe I don't get contemporary art because I value the level of mastery needed for the mentioned jobs rather than the ideas that bring forth contemporary art.
or you were just a sane person
The other reason why good comic artists, animators, illustrators and concept artists are much easier to admire and respect is not just their talent as artists, its also their talent as communicators. If their art is amazing but they don't get the message across they have failed... and they know it. Conceptual art also has a message, its literally the the only thing it has to offer and yet the 'artists' generally don't bother trying to project their message. The end result is a piece of visual philosophy that cant be understood without a long lecture, its therefore pointless. If the artist does not make a successful attempt to communicate then its not art and the work can only be judged by the skill of its craftsmanship and aesthetic value.
Bryce Bannon they immitating the kind of rene maggrite and co, in a very lazy and dumb way. Very insulting indeed.
Nurlinda F Sihotang I'm sorry but I don't understand your comment, could you please clarify.
Steampunk Skunk Do you really think that something that takes a long time to understand is worthless? I completely disagree.
Oh no we get contemporary art, is not hard to understand trash......
I came across the idea that art reflects the society - it certainly does, i would say, after reading the most of the haters` comments under this video. I appreciate your opinion that`s why i took a look at the comment section, but I also appreciate the opinion of the speaker who studied arts studies and who actually has an expertise due to 10 y. long career in the one of the most important art-education institutions on our days. I do believe that trying to understand or disliking contemporary art - is the way of exploring your own life. But if you choose hatred - Art will also be of the simpler form.
The art you see in the video is the art of confusion deception in other words charlatans
why yes, the art certainly DOES reflect society.
it shows that we are entitled idiots, who demand praise for doing the bare minimum.
contemporary art requires no effort, no skill, not even a long thought process. anybody could do that, in the exact same manner.
you see, many people want to see in Art something that they themselves couldn't do. something that doesn't need an explicit explanation that it is art. even Picasso's weirdest paintings have something to them. mostly because he still had put effort into them. and he had a clear direction what he wanted to go for.
even some abstract paintings can be interesting to look at, that is if there is visible effort to them.
Stop thinking about art works as objects and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. What makes a work of art good for you is not something that s already inside it but something that happens inside you
I liked that sugar sphinx. At first, it didn't make any sense. Why would somebody build a huge sugar sphinx? That makes no sense. But then when she mentioned how the features of the sphinx had been crafted to hearken the traditional image of a female African slave, it clicked. I remembered all the literature I had read about the atrocities of the historical sugar industry and the inhumanity suffered by African slaves and it made sense. It's like this big monument to the fact that sugar, for all the pleasure it brings us today, has brought about terrible human suffering in the past as well. That sort of contemporary art is intriguing to me, stuff based on ideas that carries symbolism and makes you think. If there's not really an idea behind it or you don't know the idea, then it's boring. The idea is what makes it interesting. Otherwise, it's just a giant pile of sugar.
nice shoob
You didn't get it but you didn't just decide you don't like it. You thought about it and listened and learned and came away with a different impression. I disagree with her final statement. If you don't understand art that isn't enough to say that you don't like it.
People can say they don't like something without "getting" it.
That's not art though. That's a visual document.
Uncovering & exposing the art world as she has begun to is great. Art is a man made thing which may have begun as a needed visual form of identification, representation or communication but has involved into a game of exclusivity for insiders.
Art CAN be anything, but that does not mean every single thing is inherently art. It means every single thing can be repurposed and re-contextualized under a certain narrative to be art. Old still life paintings in museums have beautiful renders of fruit. If someone back then were to look at the fruit on the table though, they likely wouldn’t call it art until they looked at the panting
I admire the effort that the art world is making to connect with the general public in our modern age. This talk start out well, but it finishes out confused and diminished. The speaker doesn't have a clue as to how to fish contemporary art out of the fast food dumpster it made for itself. The thing I like about the Rothko piece is that it simply asks you to like it, dislike it or feel ambivalent.....just have a feeling when you look at it. If you happen to be depressed, you may get something more out of the work. It doesn't demand a reaction at the outer end of a spectrum. It's not trying to eke out a major emotion or cause a social tantrum, it wants to usher in a thoughtful mood, which makes sense since the artist was dealing with an emotional disorder in an era full of television heroes that killed without compunction in every episode. Contemporary art is pushy and demanding, like a spoiled child. Why don't you love me? Why don't you hate me? It wants either total adoration or utter hatred. I find it so ham-fisted and bratty that it becomes akin to reality TV personalities like Trump or the Kardashians. Something needs to change. A viewer can only hate/love new pieces so many times before they get desensitized. At what point will a plastinized, shit covered, beheaded aborted asian baby covered in blood diamonds and crude oil become yawn worthy?
Totally agree, the art world is run by gangsters, they are masters at selling shit this woman is typical , it is your fault if you don't like contemporary art , so if i don't like the sick bed by T.Emenn that is my fault.W.T.F.
"This talk start out well, but it finishes out confused and diminished."
Replace talk with modern art.
Fits perfectly.
Postmodernism = ran out of ideas
I truly feel bad for actual artists with talents going unnoticed out there.
Thanks! Now I get it!
Contemporary Art is bullshit.
Very interesting and clever comment. Bravo, sir!
The fact that this guy replied to himself is art alone.
I appreciate Ms. Backus's effort to help others understand contemporary art. And the questions she invites us to ask may well open our eyes to a greater appreciation of contemporary art. But her penultimate remark is still going to be my nearly universal response: it may well be that you just don't like it.
Indeed. When it comes to contemporary art, almost all of it I just don't like. Thanks anyways!
16:00 This isn't art. This is pure virtue signalling.
Yeah.
that is an insults to the very definitions of "virtue"
what is virtue signaling, and how is it possible for such a thing to be arbitrary to virtue, and if it is not arbitrary to what is virtuous, than how can you have a problem with such a thing, i understand conservatives have always supported non virtuous, or unjust conservative prescriptions based on subjective fallacies and tyrannical traditions, like economic suppression and war, or the abolition of women's rights, so its essential to the conservative hoax that they essentially attack virtue, or anything virtuous anywhere they see it, as something as simple as mere virtue is an entire threat to their policies which have no leg to stand on. as it is a misinterpretation of virtue, not the real thing. i didn't watch the video, my comment is exactly about what you said, not what you criticized so i'm not defending something that is irrelevant to the philosophical discussion of which i have just now initiated.
You know what really pissed me off? She says Undocumented aliens. They're Illegal aliens! They come here Illegally!
Oy. In here we talked about the contemporary art. James B. Hall ***** DaLagga take your politic talk elsewhere
"ohh you have to climb the hill to get to the art, bohoo its so hard, thats why its so inaccessible" con artists
@@oscarisawesome4 this comment is contemporary art
why is it so hard to just...listen to what people say? she's not trying to sell anything, she's trying to make it more accessible. saying the art market is a scam has nothing to do with the art itself. it's not about monetary value. you don't have to like all modern art. the point is, you won't ever learn anything about it if you automatically dismiss it.
I’m an artist and I don’t even like modern art.
I don't know, for me that only proves you are an actual artist.
My definition for Art - An emotional representation in any medium that is both personal and universal.
If we apply your strategy to things that are definitely not art, it would still work perfectly.
You reduced art into nothing.
Is she suggesting that I should try to work harder at trying to understand something? The nice Australian girl in Topshop never does that. She says I have great taste.
Ugh. If you need explanations and intellectuals to explain an art work to you, it's simply not art. It's conceptual bullshit. When you hear Mozart or see a Monet painting and it moves your heart, that's art. Not this silliness. Call it something else, but not art.
I know this is quite the old comment but sheesh, what an uneducated one. Not all art needs to be self explanatory and one sided to the point that it can be interpreted on first look. One may explain the artwork in ways that another may not have seen it, art on its own is subjective. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but to say that an explanation causes a piece to simply not be considered art, is foolish.
@@chimneyeveryday but the purpose of art isnt it to express the artist imagination and conceptual ideas?. if it need further explanation then they lack the technical skill to be an artist. well you can still called it an art, a bad art.
Both Mozart and Monet are probably examples that will greatly benefit from intellectuals explaining it to you. Without it I will just hear grandma's music and grandpa's painting found in a dusty attic. And both Monet and Mozart were shitted upon by people in their times!
@@chimneyeveryday Art needs to be self explanatory for definiton. It's a requirement. If you pretend to change that, it has to be with a compementary meaning behind, not a substitute to the skill and value of the piece.
@@julesmartin6972 You clearly haven't seen Monet's paintings, like the last ones from his house.
Modern art is trash there is no getting it, there is only playing pretend when you patronize artists.
She s talking rubbish because she s part of this system. Shame..
what... system...
I understand modern art and i am disgusted by it. Craftmanship is being looked down on, and replaced by pretense. I am not able to call myself a visual artist because the shame i feel for how this term is being abused and secondly, whatever classical skills (such as drawing, painting, sculpturing,..) used to be required to evoke visceral experiences by the viewer, are frowned upon by the people who populate the contemporary art world (and often lack the talent or creativity to express themselves and genuinely relate to others), who are unfortunately dominating in the economical market.
Its just a pretentious bubble of artists that put no effort and expect the most reward
I think Jessica nailed it at the beginning when she designated contemporary art as a a religion, so it attempts to evoke emotion, yet its based on something that is not real. I totally got it now :) For me, recognized art has to be more about liking or emotion or imagination - the bar for it must be at a level of talent where (unlike like that tire sculpture) 1/2 the people on the planet cant make it themselves. Would we all be tuning into the Olympics this week to watch a high school swim team, or a couple of the most talented basketball player on the office team - I dont think so - we are watching the top
This comment section is really sad
Great minds think alike but fools rarely differ, huh?
They are the people back in the day yelling at van Gogh that he's not making real art. History always has plenty of fools, we just have the tools to hear from more of them.
@@TubbyKC Sure, cause these craps are like Van Goghs... ignorance is bliss.
The comment enclave is really sad. A breeding ground for contemporary art lovers.
She is the only TED speaker to tell me something was "my fault". The ONLY one, EVER!
Maybe it’s because it is your fault.
An art that is indistinguishable to "not-art" is not an art.
To me, contemporary art is a way of expressing yourself in every aspect of the piece you are creating. You aren't stuck to the same mediums as classical art and you can create whatever you want. Generally, great pieces of contemporary art have mediums that directly connect to the message they are trying to convey as well as visually it connects with the message. It isn't necessarily about pleasing your eye, but about putting out what the artist needs to say. Do not get me wrong, I am a very big fan of classical art, but modern art is on the rise. What we are failing to do is adapt like the artists are. They are adapting with the changes and have more to say now than every before. Artists are finding more and more creative and silent ways to say things and since we aren't adapting and we are sticking to traditional mindsets, we don't like what a contemporary artist is trying to create.
Contemporary art took away the necessity of skills. Some even hire skilled people to make it for them because it's all about the idea anyways. But anyone can have an idea but that does not make them an artist in my opinion. If you don't have the skills to communicate an idea then you are just like most everybody else.
Actually this video explains perfectly why I don't like contemporary and most modern art ^^
Imo art should be imagination shackled by aesthetics not just pure imagination. These constraints are what make the game interesting and are also the reason why most of the art I like is from 18th and 19th century, there humanity reached its aesthetic peak (for flats at least)
Apparently your house Is filled with masterpiece that can cost billions when all of them are sold
639 people are faking liking this video
Some strategies:
What do I see, hear, touch, taste, smell?
What are the materials?
What do you feel?
What does this say about other art?
Art may expand possibilities
Art may give you a new sensory experience
I was raised in the art world and honestly? People in galleries don’t talk like this. I know so many artists, and you know, most of them don’t like Pollock. It’s not a game.
the biggest flaw with this ted talk is around 3:20 when she says that "with art, you have to go out into the world to experience it." NOT TRUE. That statement basically suggests that art posted exclusively on the internet is somehow not art! This alienates a large number of artists in the 21st century, the artists who sidestep galleries and post their work directly to instagram or wherever because the art they make is not in the tastes of for "gallery curators"
No wonder studying contemporary art history really pissed me off, as somebody who makes art for people to look at "on-demand" on the internet
I don't get contemporary art which is why this AP Art History class is killing me inside 😁
Her job description literally is "selling sham non-art as art".
Insulting our intelligence is the textbook con. "It's art, you just don't get it".
No, I get it - sometimes this is sort of art (but it's really bad art), sometimes it's *design*, which is a different thing related to art. Never something that belongs in a gallery. But usually, it's just pretentious poorly-designed non-art.
"You simply don't like it" is another insult to our intelligence. The opposite is true, and it's in some sense the very definition of art: you recognize and get real art even if you don't like it.
I don't mind being challenged by modern art, but more often than nots its being challenged not to laugh.
It made you laugh? Great! Art can effect people in so many ways.
@@phanders6236 Given the reaction I've received, and yes I'm talking to the security guard in Toronto, your opinion is rather unique.
@@Waltham1892 I don't think there is a rule against laughing at things.
@@phanders6236 There appears to be in Toronto...
The Beaty of art lies in it’s lack of a definition. Your observation of it’s kind and religion is as good as it gets.
Identity Politics that's what modern art has Become
Am I the only one that doesn't get frustrated when I see an art piece I don't understand? Like, an art piece that you have to actually think about to understand just seems more valuable to me, which is why I like contemporary art, because it isn't always obvious what the artist was trying to convey.
YAAAASSSS to this
…Also, it's probably contemporary art when it's able to trigger a huge amount of hate in the comments section.
If a blind man can make a perfect replica its not art
It’s not for one to determine for someone else why he or she doesn’t “get” modern art. Or any art. If someone doesn’t like it, it’s because he isn’t inspired in any meaningful way by it. That decision is for the individual to make. And as the primary purpose of art is to inspire, if legions of people are equally uninspired by a piece of it, that represents a failure on the artist’s part, not a failure of the spectators’ abilities to “recognize” it
If you need a 20 minute ted talk in order to understand art, it’s probably not art.
Getting it doesn't mean that you get to like it. You can watch a pretty "bad" movie and understand the meaning, or give it a meaning yourself, but still recognise that maybe it is not enough.
if someone doesnt "get" contemporary art, it means its bad art.
if art fails to communicate something in at least some basic way then its bad art
Ok all seeing eye thanks for the info
I am an artist now in 2020. I began formally studying art at the university professional level in 1976. Initially there was a little basic information with terminology given and lots of studio assignments that was experimental and to some degree playful in nature. Three years later in a painting class critique, I was getting lots of questions and demands of me to explain myself and my work. Pushed to my limit, I broke down and cried toward my professor, I really do want to do abstract art, but honestly, I don't understand it, I don't get it!
The old father type professor smiled and told me he had said the same thine thirty some years earlier to his professor. He was told to keep trying and give it time, and he did, and now 30 some years or so I did. I did it because I wanted to not because I had to or because I wanted to impress someone.
Do what you want to. And give it some time.
Ha, my story is exactly opposite! I did not wish to do Abstract, instead, I believed I needed a good foundation to build upon. I did precisely what you experienced at my critique session too....but that was eons ago. Luckily, my own prof gave me space to sink in to do my own thing. And it has been 30 years of self exploration travelling alone on my own route!
"suffer from an INABILITY to understand contemporary art"?really??
It is the contemporary art that suffers from the inability to make sense.
art is art. a bunch of tyres in a pile is a bunch of tyres in a pile
lol very true
this woman has no experience of artists - and I mean the humble everyday people who embarked on their art journey because it's a calling, a compulsion a burning flame that cant be extinguished. it beats in your heart and mind every minute of the day and maybe in that way we are different to others. we're visual philosophers tho our visions and our languages are unique to ourselves. she's right about one thing, the problem is with not getting contemporary art lies with the viewer.
Contemporary art sucks. That's why you don't get it. It's low quality standardless rubbish.
I don't know why TED allows TEDx to diminish it's brand. This is a snoozefest, like so many TEDx talks.
art = beauty
Or truth
That's it.. no politics, Marxism or poor technique. If I go to a museum and don't immediately think something is beautiful I wouldn't care to look at it or figure out its justification. Contemporary art is for the non artists to pretend they are so they can shop at urban and wear the "look".
I do thinks that people that make contempory art, are not artist as if s not art but a crafter of decoration.
If you think art is never political you must have never studied it, because art has been political for as long as politics have existed, lol. You’ll have to try another angle, sorry
@@lynxaway good art can be political but it's not the means to the end. Art comes from a feeling.
@@SP-mf9sh You can decide for yourself what you think is art but you can't decide for others that you only want to see pretty things that appear to you
@@julesmartin6972 No, I can't decide for others but the history books speak for themselves. Rembrandt, Michaelangelo, van gogh, caravaggio, durer, Picasso...all created beautiful paintings of people or landscapes. People pay big money to see them not modern contemporary art. But contemporary art will always have a niche following.
In 1961, an artist named Pierro Manzoni literally shat in a can, dared to call it art and actually had the audacity to sell it. I looked at a photo of "the piece" and thought about the mental checklist you gave us. I can definitely say after doing this, it didn't automatically verify the shit and suddenly make it art, and I still didn't understand it at all. What did I see? A tin can filled with 30 grams of shit. What are the materials? Actual human feces. What do I feel? Disgusted and insulted. What does it say about other art? It, as well as all the other bullshit contemporary art that is like this are dismantling art as a form of creativity and warping it into something that is self-indulgent, lacks craft, and frankly degrading to our intelligence. You're literally playing with poo, Pierro. C'mon.
I will never say that ALL contemporary art is garbage. But when museum janitors have thrown contemporary art away because they accidentally mistake pieces for being actual trash... I think there's an issue.
Beacause art isn't supposed to be explained by the author in order to produce aesthetic pleasure.
Art is a physical feeling, not just a clever wordplay or a political statement.
I was at that event and I had the extreme misfortune of using the bathroom after Jessica (the speaker in the video.) I don't know if it was nerves, or she had some kind of food allergy, but the smell she left in the bathroom was BY FAR the most wretched, disgusting reek I've ever encountered. There are no words I could use to describe it. I actually saw stars and thought I was going to pass out.
Well that's pleasant to know.
Your comment is art, well done sir.
well, you hadn't be capable to appreciate her art
*wretched
mangatic776 Oops! Thanks!
Modern art isn't just inaccessible, truth is no one wants it.