I feel like prageru's pet artist would be terrified of Beksinski. Self taught, surrealist, painted whatever the fuck he wanted because he thought it would be cool, and so incredibly technically skilled that you can't ignore it. The guy was a king. He painted the most gripping and nightmarish stuff.
It’s cute that he just lists elements of art and pretends that they’re long-lost aesthetic values, instead of basic building blocks that people interpret in different ways for different purposes. Case in point: I actually quite liked the piece that he used as an example of bad color. It’s garish, yes, but eye catching, and it elicits emotion far better than a more reserved palate. Unrelated, but I’m also kinda psyched about the future of art. I expect that things are about to get really weird, mainly as a pushback against ai image generation, which, in my opinion, represents the ultimate commodification of art.
I love modern art, I love O’Keeffe, Kahlo, Monet, and Rothko. Of course I don’t get all of it, no one can, and I don’t like lot of it, (fuck pollock) But thank god I was in a time line with so much art.
Its always good to take these videos with a pinch of salt. Presenting completely subjective topics as objectively as possible with simplified diagrams and PowerPoint a middle schooler makes.
Why would you take it with a pinch of salt? Prageru is funded by Dan and Farris Wilks, two of the richest men in america. In 2020 they reported $28 mil in revenue, this isnt middle scooler budget
Your video fails as much as Prager U's video does. While you caught the logical fallacies in their argument you didn't do much to create a valid argument yourself after. Saying I think this is art and my definition of art is different from Prager U and that makes it wrong, is on the same level. Through most of art history, art was to communicate mainly narratives to an audience and in many cases artist did that with incredible skills and knowledge that allowed them to impress people with what they were able to do. The idea of making you reflect and just create some kind of experience is a very recent shift in what art is supposed to be. The skill of drawing and painting people, architecture and landscapes fell out of favor in art circles at this point in time. It found a new home in design, illustration and movie or game productions, where story mostly is still king. I value this more because I know how much skill and hard work it takes to be able to even create something to the level of an old master or artists working in animation, vfx or games. Most of the effort in an contemporary art piece from what I have seen so far is the marketing of the piece. You can't even compare modern art with the art that came before, because they had vastly different goals and were more or less successful in their own right. The end of the video is just a big bag of assumptions.
I fucking hate the argument that art is objectively better when it's skillfully executed. It's like saying that Dragonforce is objectively better music than The Rolling Stones because Dragonforce songs require more skill to play. And don't even get me started on how technical death metal is more skillful than any of the traditional pop songs that these PragerU types always seem to compare to modern music to show how music was better in the 1950s than it is now. They would absolutely see technical death metal as a musical continuation of modern art with its shock value and its graphically brutal and decadent themes. I also fucking hate the implication that music isn't art. Is this some kind of stupid American thing that art means just paintings and not anything else? Music is art. Literature is art. Films are art. Photography is art. It's all art. Why are paintings the only thing that are seen as art by these PragerU types?
PragerU owned by metalhead lol. Good point- math rock is also pretty complex but I don't exactly consider Midwest Emo a crowning achievement of western civilization.
I love that your example of modern art for begginers is picasso. I am new to modern art, i find it difficult to appreciate none literal things, and picasso is my least favourite artist ever. I just don't find his work satisfying. I found a lot of great modern and classical artists via the canvas and blind dweller. I'd recommend maybe Francis bacon? He's definitely not a favourite of mine but i think his pope series is an interesting intro to modern art
Bacon's work is definitely interesting but I don't think I'd recommend that as an intro lol. If someone is already not sold on modern art it would probably freak them out!
Bacon was my intro but for me John Heartfield's anti fascist art was what convinced me on dada. Man Ray is also up there as he shows that experimentation with resources is as important as delivering a final piece. Idk, everyone has a different artist that opens their minds it's only a matter of finding them
To add to that last point to anyone who isn't sold on modern art - Along with Picasso, I'd also reccomend checking out some of the more popular art from the German Expressionist movement of the early 20th century. Check out the work of Ernst Ludwig Kirchner and Edvard Munch, (You likely already know Edvard Munch's "The Scream") and maybe Egon Schiele. Remember that art is not only meant to capture beauty but also the intensity of human emotion and experience- a lot of which can be ugly or eccentric.
Both sides of the argument were annoying me, so I've been trying to find more nuanced explanations. Both sides can be so condescending, it's hard to find actual logical arguments. Still not sure what my personal conclusion is. I do think the words subjective and objective both apply to art, and the two sides are talking passed each other by applying them to different aspects; yes, how you FEEL about something is subjective taste, while there is simultaneously an objective measurable reality that it conforms to or not (perspective, anatomy, etc.). C. S. Lewis makes this distinction in "An Experiment in Criticism." (Highly recommend). Some of these objective realities are complicated and not necessary to fully comprehend, better reached (or diverted) through intuition. I wrote a paper on this once...
Art is a name. Everyone could make a definition, and call art what respects that definition. Saying "who decided these characteristics of art? And why must they be these?", means nothing. Who decided that art is everything out of practical use (dadaism)? Why can't I call art only that which shares certain characteristics with Caravaggio's paintings? Is a name. I refuse to say that modern art it is not art because the definition that is given today of art includes it. But this does not change the radical differences with "traditional visual art". We must ask ourselves why we have broadened the definition of art so much over time. Why have we not given another name in place of art to what we call modern art, but have broadened the definition to contain it within the term? The answer I give myself is that it is convenient for someone to call the product of his work art, which is a term that historically has only had positive connotations. “WOW, THAT’S A WORK OF ART” is a compliment in common parlance.
It is so funny that in the whole video you simply presuppose relativism and then you proceed to accuse PragerU of presupposing objective artistuc standards.
I'd call myself conservative, but you are spot on here. I can easily imagine dear Robert in a 19th century French dress, a member of the Académie des Beaux Arts, sneering at the impressionists, holding his nose and complaining "zey do not ticke ze necessarey boxes!" A pity that pompous, self- important scholars like him have convinced the general public that only they know what art is, and that you can only be an artist after getting a degree by some pompous, boring university or academy.
Millions of people go to see the Mona Lisa every year. Nobody hangs a copy of it in their living room. Why not? Because technical skill, while admirable, is not synonymous with interesting.
Mediocre art is found in every period, throughout every culture, every style. When Marcel Duchamp democratized art with his readymades the floodgates were open to anyone to say my piece is art because I say it is. I don't have a problem with Duchamp's assertions as he created a masterwork with his Bride Stripped Bare showing his genius and his conceptual ability to destroy the entirety of classical teachings. However my feelings towards him are ambivalent in that great art has risen from the ashes as well works that barely skim the surface of craft. I have an appreciation of most styles, especially those which have an ambitious reach in idea, execution, originality, free thinking, commitment and those which reflect the cultural significance of their time. Prager claims assertions merely to hug their followers' biases falling far below the academic standards of a reputable university. Prager is not by any standard a university.
Imo the process of making art is sometimes equally if not more important than the final product. Take a plain black canvas f.e. in itself it may hold no meaning to the viewer but with the added context that the artist painstakingly filled the canvas stroke by stroke it gives the viewer a new perspective and maybe appretiation for something that everybody could do.
They are lame but their point is valid. Without standards or any organizing principles disciplines decay into nonsense. Hence dumb art like blank canvases
@@e.b.1115Oh yeah, EVERYBODY is just making blank canvases these days and nothing else, NOBODY thinks modern art is mostly pretentious bullshit! Christ.
@@warped_rider yea everybody hates it, but they don't realize it this radical subjectivism fueling the degradation. If the standard is that beauty is 100% subjective, art becomes about the artist, not the art. You're not trying to capture something truly beautiful with your medium of choice to the best of your abilities, you're 'expressing yourself'. Maybe some of it happens to still be beautiful, but this shift tilted the field towards self indulgence and man there's a lot of, well, self indulgent nonsense. Go to the nearest modern art museum--you'll see like 10'x10' canvases with squares or some shit, or maybe an obnoxious performance art intended to see how the audience reacts to shit and period blood smeared everywhere lol It only ends when everyone admits this garbage sucks, objectively
@@e.b.1115 "Everybody hates it" and yet people make it and other people view it so your point is....what? I could just as easily tell you to seek out the art you think is worth while and your point is doubly blunted. If I make a piece, and you think it's ugly and "bad", but it turns out I was working in some foreign tradition you were unfamiliar with like...I don't know, something from central Africa, wherever, would that still make it "bad" art? Or would you then agree that it's "good" because it follows the conventions of that artistic tradition? If the latter, then we agree art is subjective in terms of culture and therefore it is also subjective when people make art outside of their cultural norms. If the former then well...maybe you're racist or just xenophobic generally, or just a snobby elitist who thinks he knows better than everyone else. The vast majority of people still make conventionally "good" art, nobody is running anything. If you don't like Pollock don't look at Pollock, really that simple blud. Nobody else is making you look at Pollock no matter how much digital ink you spill saying otherwise.
@@warped_riderI just said it. beauty isn't subjective, and believing it is hinders our ability to actually see it and differentiate it from self indulgence. Case in point the high art scene. Yea I can go find a picture I like on the internet--im talking about what is considered fine art: the supposed best of modern man. It's a lot of pretentious clout chasing, petty bullshit, obscure commentaries on commentaries on commentaries, money laundering, etc. Full of narcissists. Even if skilled, ego taints the work.
I've also noticed PragerU has a tendency to show videos that paint everything in modern society negatively. I never see a video promoting positive things, things improving in society. Their intent never seems to be an honest one.
the end reminds me of metamodernism. I don't claim to understand it fully, but to me, it's that yes, spirituality is just pattern seeking, the universe is random, and nothing matters. but we make our own meaning out of this chaos. things matter if we want them to, and it doesn't matter that spirituality is just pattern seeking, it's worth it anyway.
Its the way that everything around us, especially social media, doesnt us allow for us to think, or just the maker of these memes/posts make the viewer's opinion and the viewers dont even knkw its happening. Just end up subscribing blindly to someone they idolize. This has trained our brains to function completely out of whack
Florzak uses the term "classical" to refer to different styles and schools of art. He ignores the social and historical context that informed the growth of art.
Not even a quarter in this video yet, but art is NEVER objective. Its highly subjective. It seems like this Prager U guy is obsessed with tradition a little too much, and it feels like he really wants to say that " 'art' needs to be realistic or else it takes no skill". The art movements that proceed this classical art are the ones making a point that art is an expression of internal emotions of the artist or events in their or other people's lives and how they interpret it. You can see this a lot in Van Gogh struggling with depression, Piccaso with his hatred for ugly women, Salvidor Dalí with his surreal art highly inspired by people's subconcious reaction and emotions he tries to evoke on viewers, and the more recent modern art is doing the same exact thing but feel comfortable with taking liberty in how they can convey it to their liking. Classical peices are not the only art style with some sort of meaning. This is ridiculous! 5:15
PragerU is 99% garbage but the art videos did make me think and there were a few points I agreed with. I believe that an art piece should be able to stand on it's own merits. But a lot of times that isn't the case with modern art. People sometimes say in response to Cy Twombly's scribbles that "I could have made that" and the modern art people would retort with "You could have, but you didn't." But that fails because let's say I did make it first, do you honestly think it would have the same reception as it did when Twombly did it? Absolutely not. It's famous majorly in part BECAUSE it was painted by Twombly. In my mind, that art piece isn't standing on its own, it's propped up by the fame of the artist. Now that's not to say there's no value in modern art nor the pushing of boundaries. But realize that such things will be essentially esoteric to the masses. There's things like that in other mediums as well like John Cage's 4'33'', a musical piece consisting of 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence. Yeah it got people thinking about what constitutes music, but I doubt anyone puts 4'33'' on their Spotify playlist. Same way I wouldn't put up a blank canvas to decorate my house.
Many classical art pieces are held up by the artists and the situations surrounding their creation too, like the Mona Lisa, and The Birth of Venus. Many art pieces were never intended to be hung up in your walls and to be looked at constantly, like how you said that John Cage's 4'33 was to make people think. It's purpose was never to be on your playlist, so I don't think its fair to judge it by the same standards that you would judge a pop song, and the same thing goes for art pieces. They have to judged by how well they convey what they were painted to convey.
@@HarperOC Could you please tell me who painted that particular "traditional" art-piece you show here? Was it made by someone who was respected in the academic art world?
@@atticusmcinally7964 PragerU is using modern art pieces that are respected in the modern art world as examples. And you want to debunk him by using some bad painting that you can't even reference? You don't even know who painted it? If you want to make a good argument for why classical art isn't superior to modern art, you need to compare what is considered to be one of the best by modernists with what's considered to be one of the best by classical artists. Picasso is considered to be one of the best modernists in the modernist world, so you should compare him with somebody who is considered to be one of the best Academic/classical artists. For instance, someone like William Bouguereau. And than you should explain why, according to you, the best Bouguereau paintings are not better than the best Picasso paintings.
@@tenonakin9237 I don't think its fair to directly compare art that was made by different people in different times because their art was likely made for different purposes and in different cultural environments, but for the sake of your argument I will compare my personal opinions on both and why I prefer Picasso's. I personally prefer Picasso's paintings because I find them far more interesting and varied, from the use of colour, the way he mixes angular and round shapes in an unnatural way, and the confusing ways he structures his subjects. In contrast, I find Bouguereau's paintings a little boring, because the compositions are all fairly similar, I find the colour palette bland for the most part, and Im not interested in his religious symbolism. I still like some of his paintings though. I'm sure that they have their reasons for looking the way that they do, and I'm sure that you're justified in your opinion of these pieces , but I don't enjoy the reaction I get from them as much as Picasso's. Maybe if I understood them better that would change but as far as I'm concerned, both artists have merit and the differences between them don't make either artists work better or worse. The only way I can evaluate them is through my own opinions, which are not objective. I also think that the artists name shouldn't matter, the only thing that should matter is the context of the painting and the intent behind it. I don't see the point in using critically acclaimed artists as the way to evaluate a genre's value because there's plenty of art that I enjoy that isn't made by Picasso or Bouguereau.
A most BRILLIANT video by a brilliant guy. He is entirely correct that 'modern art', as a general phenomenon, is reflecting the condition the modern world is finding itself into. In fact, this guy reaches-out into the mystical and that is, after all, the heart of the matter: what is art? It is subjective territory indeed. But that does not mean that within the subjective experience there are not objective, i.e. true and real, standards of artistic quality. Only, they cannot be objectified in the way this Prager type thinks is possible. Yes, we should be open to modern art and try to understand the experience of it. This does not mean, however, that what we find is inevitably something we can appreciate as art, or 'good art'. It depends upon the nature of the experience. For instance, it is not difficult to fully understand Picasso's primitive later art and the power of his primitivism. Does it posivitely resonate with our own suppressed longing to be primitive? Or does it connect us with our primitive deeper layers which reach back very far in the evolution of the species? (Hence the relationship Picasso's work has with African tribal art.) Does it contribute to a better, more civilised world, or does it merely reflect a primitive world, behind the façade of modernity? In such way, a full and penetrating understanding can lead to rejection and seeking alternatives. The 'defence of classical art' by this Prager guy is indeed naive and rightly criticized in this video. And indeed aesthetic consensus in the arts have always been shifting, moving, developing, changing. But these changes have been on the surface. There is a 'deep structure' of aesthetics which is embedded in the human perceptive system, and that system is biologically wired and thus, not defined by the surface of change. This deeper quality is timeless, but that does not mean there are concrete, objective 'standards' that can be treated as an easy system of boxes to tick and then, everything is OK, which is indeed trivilialising art in a terrible, pedestrian way. But the existence of this embedded perceptive system in the human mind is the reason we can understand and appreciate artefacts from non-western cultures, or works from ages ago. Quality standards are created all the time, and often differently so, but only if they are following these deeper systems of organisation can they produce meaningful works of art. This goes for painting, sculpture, architecture (as an art, as for monuments), music, poetry. This has nothing to do with conservatism but is part of the human condition. "Recent research in neuroscience seems to confirm that aesthetic perception is related to other perception types which played a crucial role in the evolution of the species; appreciation of art is evolutionarily embedded in the same system that works for survival: Human neuro-imaging studies have convincingly shown that the brain areas involved in aesthetic responses to artworks overlap with those that mediate the appraisal of objects of evolutionary importance, such as the desirability of foods or the attractiveness of potential mates. Hence, it is unlikely that there are brain systems specific to the appreciation of artworks; instead there are general aesthetic systems that determine how appealing an object is, be that a piece of cake or a piece of music. (“The Neuroscience of Beauty: how does the brain appreciate art?”, Steven Brown and Xiaoqing Gao, The Scientific American, accessed September 2011, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/) The experience of mathematical beauty correlates with activity in the same part of the emotional brain-namely the medial orbito-frontal cortex-as the experience of beauty derived from art or music: People who appreciate the beauty of mathematics activate the same part of their brain when they look at aesthetically pleasing formula as others do when appreciating art or music, suggesting that there is a neurobiological basis to beauty. (“Mathematical Beauty Activates Same Brain Region as Great Art or Music”, Geometry Matters, accessed August 6, 2021, geometrymatters.com/mathematical-beauty-activates-same-brain-region-as-great-art-or-music/) There are certain aspects of art that seem universally appealing, regardless of the environment or culture in which people grew up, indicating that there are universals in the field of aesthetics, i.e., objective standards, however subjectively interpreted: The human brain is wired in such a way that we can make sense of lines, colors and patterns on a flat canvas. Artists throughout human history have figured out ways to create illusions such as depth and brightness that aren't actually there but make works of art seem somehow more real. And while individual tastes are varied and have cultural influences, the brain also seems to respond especially strongly to certain artistic conventions that mimic what we see in nature. (“What the brain draws from: Art and Neuroscience”, CNN Health, accessed September 15, 2012, edition.cnn.com/2012/09/15/health/art-brain-mind/index.html ) All of this is a strong indication that basic universal aesthetic laws do apply, and that they play a role in our appreciation of art. This means that although there are subjective interpretations of art, what they interpret is existing universal aesthetic laws, embedded in human nature." There is more to the increasing criticism of (post-)modernism than meets the eye. Only, people like this Prager guy merely muddle the waters. Kudos to Harper O'Connor. From: 'Regaining Classical Music's Relevance; Saving the Muse in a Troubled World', to appear in 2024 by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK. www.johnborstlap.com
I like some of PragerUs videos, but as an artist, with an art degree, I'd never buy into a video like this completely...so I appreciate your views even though im not sure why you think that having objective art standards is not a good thing. I don't think all modern art sucks. It's based upon a different set of ethics and standards, which is what they're actually looking at - modern art is a reflection. It's a reflection of what PragerU believes is corrupt and even possibly evil. I think we could agree classical art has meaning and depth we should preserve. If we can't objectively preserve standards for art, we will have a deluge of art that is diverse and much more of a crafted advertisement of the reflections of modern society and subject to market conditions and social contagion. The new conditions you're describing are related to social media, whereas in the past, these foundations of thoughts and trends were not as fluid or rapidly changing. In that aspect, I agree with PragerU that perception is often universal among those viewing certain classical art. Remember Zappa: "writing about music is like dancing about art." People do not spend nearly as much time creating art, as well. The quality of modern art is diminished by society its reflecting. Art that helps us reflect upon our personal experiences is a therapeutic model, not art that is perceived or preserved as classical or displays historical value. I think post modern art has become very bad, however, because it's thrown away our collective love for beauty and insisted that subjective reality is paramount. That's very chaotic. I really appreciate that you're taking the time to dissect these ideas. I'm not sure combining this stuff will create the desired effect. But I hope you're right.
Having objective standards in art would be absolutely pointless. Not only would the standards change time to time and culture to culture, but the people not following the standards are going to be innovating, while the traditionalists are stuck making "approved art"
"every generation thinks the subsequent generation is abandoning aesthetic standards" There's truth to this, but modern art is different, in that its explicit goal is to subvert the notion of aesthetic standards per se. Its value is not in its intrinsic beauty, but in its critique of art and aesthetics itself. But what happens when you've fully deconstructed the notion of objective aesthetics? You can comment on the commentary, like dadaism, but eventually the content of such work is formless and unrelatable except to super niche groups of artists, and nobody likes it. They've ripped their discipline from its roots and didn't bother to replace them, so its trajectory is just decay and entropy. This is the sickness of modernity--radical subjectivism leading to entropic decay and nihilism
It is extremely strange to view dadaism as the end point of art, as if there isn't anything else behind making art but a critique of aesthetic once you hit dadaism on this hypothetical lineage of the development of artistic expression, as if it works in some straight line of to an endpoint in the first place. It's also pretty weird to think that the concept of "objective/intrinsic beauty" is the "root of the discipline", as if such a thing not only exists but would be accessible and demonstrably objective by anyone. You seem to have just made a bunch of assertions about the nature of artistic expression and its history without supporting them. I don't necessarily agree with all of the language Harper uses to explain art, but I think he has the better argument between you two.
@@IdiotDoomSpiral69 Well, your response seems to be a series of unsupported (and condescending) assertions as well so I guess we break even here. Objective beauty is only weird to modern people. Believing beauty is a property of the universe doesn't mean any one person can comprehend all of it, obviously, but people can see elements of beauty and express it through some medium, and the degree to which it does this successfully is the degree to which it is good art. I understand some of the history of art, and I know what it's turned into today. The roots I'm talking about aren't the methods of art, but the motivations behind it. And when I say modern I mean contemporary, like postmodern garbage. Modern Art proper like Picasso is fine, bc his critique was still attached to a notion of beauty. This is not the radical subjectivism of the late 20th century. Radical subjectivism is literally a logical endpoint for aesthetics. Anything can be considered beautiful as an axiom, so there's no place to stand from which to evaluate art or beauty. Sure people will keep making art and it will evolve, but this egocentric mindset and freedom from critique leads to fragmentation and inane works, like literal trash on the ground. You can't criticize it, because "who are you to say this isn't beautiful or good art?" The high art scene has become this catty clout chasing bullshit. It's politics and money laundering now lol. This is what happens when people stop trying to reveal beauty and art becomes mere expression. It becomes egocentric, so self centered motivations become the sole guiding force of the field (mere differentiation, social climbing, etc)
@@e.b.1115 You do realise that in protest to as you call it "formless and unrelatable" art, and as the public begins to get bored of postmodern art, popular art will likely change back into being more formed and relatable. The same thing happens in music all the time, a great example is the transition from rock, to punk, to grunge, post punk, goth and then back to more technical and constructed music again like a lot of the indie rock. Punk rockers got bored of the sterilised and soft/"beautiful" sounds of rock, so they simplified, deconstructed, and added energy to it, then when people got bored of the simple punk rock they began to reintroduce emotion with bands like Joy Division, Fugazi, American Football, The Cure etc. Now those sounds have found their way back into the sounds of bands like Kings of Leon, the Foo Fighters, and Arctic Monkeys. These things tend to go in cycles.
After looking at Roberts Florczaks art I can say it isnt that good. Dont get me wrong he is talented but its very dry and generic. Its art just for the sake of it, it doesnt mean anything.
I actually really like his work...though I'd call most of it illustration rather than "fine art." That's _not_ an insult - illustration is absolutely my favorite branch of art, the one I aspired to as a young artist. But I recognize that illustration has a subtly different purpose than what we call "fine art." Illustration is about _storytelling,_ about conveying a moment in a narrative. "Fine art" is about conveying ideas, emotions, thoughts, even philosophy. Now, you can _absolutely_ convey ideas, emotions, thoughts, and philosophy through a narrative (which is why I consider illustration to be a valid branch of Art), but you can also convey those things without narrative, and "fine art" usually aims at _that_ target. The distinction is, in the way of most art categorizations, largely artificial, but the difference in effect, methods, and aesthetics is profound. Florczak's problem is that he has decided art is about the skills, and that meaning can't be conveyed without them. I get it - after you work hard to develop such skills, you value them very highly - but that can lead to the typical artist's branch of tunnel vision: "my technique is the only 'REAL' one." The same elitism that leads "fine art" artists to disdain illustration as "plebian" is what leads Florczak to disdain non-narrative, non-representational art as "meaningless." Florczak has essentially just adopted the elitism (he thinks) of former centuries and deemed it "higher quality elitism" than modern elitism. In reality (IMHO), elitism is invalid no matter where it comes from, and art galleries should be filled with classical art, modern art, illustration, postmodern art, decorative art, folk art, pop art, "fine art," street art, and all other kinds of Art. None is intrinsically "better" than another, though each is very different in what it aims to "say" and how it goes about "saying" it. Artists in each type of Art speak different languages...which is why they often have trouble understanding each other. Florczak never learned to speak "modern art," or "postmodern art," and therefore has decided they're gibberish. He _thinks_ he's learned to speak "classical art," but most art afficionados of the era he idolizes would probably dismiss _his_ work as "popular art." Florczak _thinks_ he speaks their language, but to them, he'd just be a tourist reading from a phrasebook. I don't speak modern/postmodern art very well myself, but I can recognize them as languages, just as complex and subtle as any other. I may not understand a lot of it, but I know it's not "gibberish." Florczak, apparently, has not had this realization. It _sounds llike_ gibberish to him, so he's decided it IS gibberish. This, of course, is nonsense...so while I really like a lot of Florczak's art, I think his art _opinions_ are basically worthless.
@@enter1323 - Thanks. But I don't think his _art_ is "very textbook," I think his art _opinions_ are. His art (what I've seen of it) strikes me as wonderful examples of illustrative Art - sometimes beautiful, sometimes subtle, sometimes whimsically delightful, but almost always engaging. He speaks "illustration" fluently and poetically...he just doesn't get that other languages exist.
I’m no an art expert, but even with my lack of knowledge I can tell that the classical art demanded great skill unlike most of the modern art that is indistinguishable from a toddler’s drawing or simply a joke. I realize this might be survivership bias, but when you see that the most famous and “successful” examples of modern art is also lame and looks like literarlly anyone could’ve done it, I can’t help but think that the whole art industry is going downhill.
You lost me at the Hitler art start. A pretty bad way to start the video tbh, It meant absolutely nothing and you presented it without actually making a point. The start of the video is supposed to give people an idea of what your main point is supposed to be and it was just empty posturing. Completely lost me.
More of PragerU’s verbal gymnastics by goading people into following their idea by throwing it in the viewer’s face right away. Obviously our little troll Robert hasn’t learned the lessons of Art 101! He thinks that the only Art that needs to have any worth is a progression from Classical Antiquity. Even the most well-known Art appreciator, Sister Wendy Beckett said in one of her series that “Art changes, but it doesn’t get better!” Which explodes Robert’s specious argument. Art is an observation and/or a reaction to what’s going on in the artist’s world! Dada was a huge reaction by artists to the Chaos that World War I left on the planet! They thought that if Society didn’t make sense anymore, neither should their Art! Something Robert can wrap his addled head around! Really appreciate your video, always enjoy watching Conservative concrete-sequencing exploded to bits! Keep up the great work!
Obviously, there's something about the Prager U video that ran up against your cognitive dissonance. I would privately explore that. That said, art is subjective. Everyone has their favorite style. But, more importantly, art reflects society and how the artist feels about society. Modern art is seemingly disconnected, often seen as sterile, and not "relative" to society. But, take that, as how the artist feels about the world around them, and you have a different perspective of what life is like.
Look, this was a bad analysis. The fact is that modern art, contemporary art, whatever does not relate to regular people and that "deconstructing" everything isn't gonna automatically make it beautiful, noble and appealing. Modern art and classical art are in the same ballpark since they're both a part of art history and are put in the same art museums. The whole situation with modern art is even more insulting since alot of artists currently put in alot of work with their art but simply don't get recognized, or as simply unable to put themselves out their as artists easily because they have to work "real jobs". Instead you have this elitist art world ruled by art critics who don't know anything and tasteless billionaires.
Some years ago, in the national art gallery, I saw two canvases that were part of one piece. One was painted all dark blue, the other light blue. If thats what a "spiritual experience" looks like, and what is presented as modern "art", then its trash and does not deserve to exist.
@@user-yr7dp5du5l there is actual talent out there in the world. But a blue square is what gets the attention of art museums, galleries, and gets bought by millionaires. Is it not a tragedy? Id love to hear your argument for a fucking square having the right to be considered "art".
The right to exist is not the same as deserving of possitive praise and attention". There's a not zero amount of low effort shlock that exists as a way for rich people to launder money. Still, a rectangle of paint on it is shockingly hard to produce, is it perfectly even in hue across the surface? Can you notice brush strokes? Can you notice texture? Is this a perfect colour that cane directly as is from a tube? How big is it? There's technique to it still. There's this painting, i believe it's called "who's afraid of the colour red" and it was vandelised by someone who decided it doesn't deserve to exist, and fixing it proved impossible so they attempted to replicate it and the museum guests could tell it was a fake, because even a big red canvas has personality to it. I do agree it's aggravating how much people are willing to pay for it, but less because "there's more deserving art" and more because we're deprived of art every day by things like poverty, because we let brilliant minds rot under the crushing weight of having to feed themselves and pay rent and shit. It has a right to exist, and we can agree it's stupid it sells for this much without arguing against its right to be in reality
also this guy is telling me Zdislaw Beksinski wasn't technically proficient or emotionally affecting?! tf???? like... dude. He's the soul of horror. Absolute terror and sublimity at once.
This whole video is a just a strawman argument. Prager may be dunces but that still isnt the same thing calling it out that 99% mainstream avant garde art after WWII is pure trash.
I feel like prageru's pet artist would be terrified of Beksinski. Self taught, surrealist, painted whatever the fuck he wanted because he thought it would be cool, and so incredibly technically skilled that you can't ignore it. The guy was a king. He painted the most gripping and nightmarish stuff.
Beksinski was a king
@@HarperOC For real, he's my biggest inspiration in my own work and how I view art as a whole.
I just looked at some of his work and bloody hell it’s fucking awesome work
This is a well written video. Good shit man. You're gonna go places.
The entire video I was just thinking Picasso disproves the entirety of the pragru video
It’s cute that he just lists elements of art and pretends that they’re long-lost aesthetic values, instead of basic building blocks that people interpret in different ways for different purposes. Case in point: I actually quite liked the piece that he used as an example of bad color. It’s garish, yes, but eye catching, and it elicits emotion far better than a more reserved palate.
Unrelated, but I’m also kinda psyched about the future of art. I expect that things are about to get really weird, mainly as a pushback against ai image generation, which, in my opinion, represents the ultimate commodification of art.
I love modern art, I love O’Keeffe, Kahlo, Monet, and Rothko. Of course I don’t get all of it, no one can, and I don’t like lot of it, (fuck pollock) But thank god I was in a time line with so much art.
aw, i like pollock and rothko both 😢but yeah also a huge fan of 19th century and renaissance art. gimme all the art
I hate modern art. It’s disgusting and ugly.
Its always good to take these videos with a pinch of salt. Presenting completely subjective topics as objectively as possible with simplified diagrams and PowerPoint a middle schooler makes.
Why would you take it with a pinch of salt? Prageru is funded by Dan and Farris Wilks, two of the richest men in america. In 2020 they reported $28 mil in revenue, this isnt middle scooler budget
Prager U videos. yes
@@enter1323 I can't understand whether you're being sarcastic or not.
Just because Hitler had a specific taste doesn't mean we have to hate it. Art doesn't need Hitler at all.
This guy is still bitter that he never got to go to the Factory and probably thinks Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe is pornographic.
He went to the Factory, but Nico ignored him and Lou Reed made fun of him.
I think you should add either subtle background music or an ear shattering whip crack every 2 minutes
(But really I like this video)
Your video fails as much as Prager U's video does. While you caught the logical fallacies in their argument you didn't do much to create a valid argument yourself after.
Saying I think this is art and my definition of art is different from Prager U and that makes it wrong, is on the same level.
Through most of art history, art was to communicate mainly narratives to an audience and in many cases artist did that with incredible skills and knowledge that allowed them to impress people with what they were able to do.
The idea of making you reflect and just create some kind of experience is a very recent shift in what art is supposed to be. The skill of drawing and painting people, architecture and landscapes fell out of favor in art circles at this point in time. It found a new home in design, illustration and movie or game productions, where story mostly is still king.
I value this more because I know how much skill and hard work it takes to be able to even create something to the level of an old master or artists working in animation, vfx or games.
Most of the effort in an contemporary art piece from what I have seen so far is the marketing of the piece.
You can't even compare modern art with the art that came before, because they had vastly different goals and were more or less successful in their own right.
The end of the video is just a big bag of assumptions.
I fucking hate the argument that art is objectively better when it's skillfully executed. It's like saying that Dragonforce is objectively better music than The Rolling Stones because Dragonforce songs require more skill to play.
And don't even get me started on how technical death metal is more skillful than any of the traditional pop songs that these PragerU types always seem to compare to modern music to show how music was better in the 1950s than it is now. They would absolutely see technical death metal as a musical continuation of modern art with its shock value and its graphically brutal and decadent themes.
I also fucking hate the implication that music isn't art. Is this some kind of stupid American thing that art means just paintings and not anything else? Music is art. Literature is art. Films are art. Photography is art. It's all art. Why are paintings the only thing that are seen as art by these PragerU types?
PragerU owned by metalhead lol. Good point- math rock is also pretty complex but I don't exactly consider Midwest Emo a crowning achievement of western civilization.
I love that your example of modern art for begginers is picasso. I am new to modern art, i find it difficult to appreciate none literal things, and picasso is my least favourite artist ever. I just don't find his work satisfying. I found a lot of great modern and classical artists via the canvas and blind dweller. I'd recommend maybe Francis bacon? He's definitely not a favourite of mine but i think his pope series is an interesting intro to modern art
Bacon's work is definitely interesting but I don't think I'd recommend that as an intro lol. If someone is already not sold on modern art it would probably freak them out!
Bacon was my intro but for me John Heartfield's anti fascist art was what convinced me on dada. Man Ray is also up there as he shows that experimentation with resources is as important as delivering a final piece. Idk, everyone has a different artist that opens their minds it's only a matter of finding them
Arguements? Hardly are there any arguements, it is just the same what PragerU does, the difference is simply that you are a relativist.
To add to that last point to anyone who isn't sold on modern art - Along with Picasso, I'd also reccomend checking out some of the more popular art from the German Expressionist movement of the early 20th century. Check out the work of Ernst Ludwig Kirchner and Edvard Munch, (You likely already know Edvard Munch's "The Scream") and maybe Egon Schiele. Remember that art is not only meant to capture beauty but also the intensity of human emotion and experience- a lot of which can be ugly or eccentric.
Hell yeah love the new content man, I've missed it
Both sides of the argument were annoying me, so I've been trying to find more nuanced explanations. Both sides can be so condescending, it's hard to find actual logical arguments. Still not sure what my personal conclusion is. I do think the words subjective and objective both apply to art, and the two sides are talking passed each other by applying them to different aspects; yes, how you FEEL about something is subjective taste, while there is simultaneously an objective measurable reality that it conforms to or not (perspective, anatomy, etc.). C. S. Lewis makes this distinction in "An Experiment in Criticism." (Highly recommend). Some of these objective realities are complicated and not necessary to fully comprehend, better reached (or diverted) through intuition. I wrote a paper on this once...
Art is a name. Everyone could make a definition, and call art what respects that definition. Saying "who decided these characteristics of art? And why must they be these?", means nothing. Who decided that art is everything out of practical use (dadaism)? Why can't I call art only that which shares certain characteristics with Caravaggio's paintings? Is a name. I refuse to say that modern art it is not art because the definition that is given today of art includes it. But this does not change the radical differences with "traditional visual art". We must ask ourselves why we have broadened the definition of art so much over time. Why have we not given another name in place of art to what we call modern art, but have broadened the definition to contain it within the term? The answer I give myself is that it is convenient for someone to call the product of his work art, which is a term that historically has only had positive connotations. “WOW, THAT’S A WORK OF ART” is a compliment in common parlance.
It is so funny that in the whole video you simply presuppose relativism and then you proceed to accuse PragerU of presupposing objective artistuc standards.
I'd call myself conservative, but you are spot on here. I can easily imagine dear Robert in a 19th century French dress, a member of the Académie des Beaux Arts, sneering at the impressionists, holding his nose and complaining "zey do not ticke ze necessarey boxes!"
A pity that pompous, self- important scholars like him have convinced the general public that only they know what art is, and that you can only be an artist after getting a degree by some pompous, boring university or academy.
Millions of people go to see the Mona Lisa every year. Nobody hangs a copy of it in their living room. Why not? Because technical skill, while admirable, is not synonymous with interesting.
The "circular logic" you describe at 4:27 has a name; it's called begging the question.
I just watched your last video on this and I’m so excited there’s another yessss
Mediocre art is found in every period, throughout every culture, every style. When Marcel Duchamp democratized art with his readymades the floodgates were open to anyone to say my piece is art because I say it is. I don't have a problem with Duchamp's assertions as he created a masterwork with his Bride Stripped Bare showing his genius and his conceptual ability to destroy the entirety of classical teachings. However my feelings towards him are ambivalent in that great art has risen from the ashes as well works that barely skim the surface of craft. I have an appreciation of most styles, especially those which have an ambitious reach in idea, execution, originality, free thinking, commitment and those which reflect the cultural significance of their time. Prager claims assertions merely to hug their followers' biases falling far below the academic standards of a reputable university. Prager is not by any standard a university.
Art history and art anthropology is tricky
Art does have some objectivity for example line design and color theory
But I don’t like modern art
Imo the process of making art is sometimes equally if not more important than the final product. Take a plain black canvas f.e. in itself it may hold no meaning to the viewer but with the added context that the artist painstakingly filled the canvas stroke by stroke it gives the viewer a new perspective and maybe appretiation for something that everybody could do.
But surely things like line design and colour theory are interpreted subjectively and don't have to be adhered to
I don't care which art a good. I care why prayger U insists on dictating what is good. They are trying vey hard to be cool
They are lame but their point is valid. Without standards or any organizing principles disciplines decay into nonsense. Hence dumb art like blank canvases
@@e.b.1115Oh yeah, EVERYBODY is just making blank canvases these days and nothing else, NOBODY thinks modern art is mostly pretentious bullshit!
Christ.
@@warped_rider yea everybody hates it, but they don't realize it this radical subjectivism fueling the degradation. If the standard is that beauty is 100% subjective, art becomes about the artist, not the art. You're not trying to capture something truly beautiful with your medium of choice to the best of your abilities, you're 'expressing yourself'. Maybe some of it happens to still be beautiful, but this shift tilted the field towards self indulgence and man there's a lot of, well, self indulgent nonsense.
Go to the nearest modern art museum--you'll see like 10'x10' canvases with squares or some shit, or maybe an obnoxious performance art intended to see how the audience reacts to shit and period blood smeared everywhere lol
It only ends when everyone admits this garbage sucks, objectively
@@e.b.1115 "Everybody hates it" and yet people make it and other people view it so your point is....what?
I could just as easily tell you to seek out the art you think is worth while and your point is doubly blunted.
If I make a piece, and you think it's ugly and "bad", but it turns out I was working in some foreign tradition you were unfamiliar with like...I don't know, something from central Africa, wherever, would that still make it "bad" art? Or would you then agree that it's "good" because it follows the conventions of that artistic tradition?
If the latter, then we agree art is subjective in terms of culture and therefore it is also subjective when people make art outside of their cultural norms. If the former then well...maybe you're racist or just xenophobic generally, or just a snobby elitist who thinks he knows better than everyone else.
The vast majority of people still make conventionally "good" art, nobody is running anything. If you don't like Pollock don't look at Pollock, really that simple blud. Nobody else is making you look at Pollock no matter how much digital ink you spill saying otherwise.
@@warped_riderI just said it.
beauty isn't subjective, and believing it is hinders our ability to actually see it and differentiate it from self indulgence. Case in point the high art scene. Yea I can go find a picture I like on the internet--im talking about what is considered fine art: the supposed best of modern man. It's a lot of pretentious clout chasing, petty bullshit, obscure commentaries on commentaries on commentaries, money laundering, etc.
Full of narcissists. Even if skilled, ego taints the work.
I've also noticed PragerU has a tendency to show videos that paint everything in modern society negatively. I never see a video promoting positive things, things improving in society. Their intent never seems to be an honest one.
the end reminds me of metamodernism.
I don't claim to understand it fully, but to me, it's that
yes, spirituality is just pattern seeking, the universe is random, and nothing matters.
but we make our own meaning out of this chaos. things matter if we want them to, and it doesn't matter that spirituality is just pattern seeking, it's worth it anyway.
ena fans at 6:26 losing our minds for a split second
At this point its easier to understand surreal and deep fried meme than modern art
Its the way that everything around us, especially social media, doesnt us allow for us to think, or just the maker of these memes/posts make the viewer's opinion and the viewers dont even knkw its happening. Just end up subscribing blindly to someone they idolize.
This has trained our brains to function completely out of whack
They are both exactly the same. Think about it.
Dude memes are made to be easily understandable of course it’s easier
Great video! Would be better if it was a Family Guy funny moments compilation but pretty good nonetheless.
Florzak uses the term "classical" to refer to different styles and schools of art. He ignores the social and historical context that informed the growth of art.
Not even a quarter in this video yet, but art is NEVER objective. Its highly subjective. It seems like this Prager U guy is obsessed with tradition a little too much, and it feels like he really wants to say that " 'art' needs to be realistic or else it takes no skill". The art movements that proceed this classical art are the ones making a point that art is an expression of internal emotions of the artist or events in their or other people's lives and how they interpret it. You can see this a lot in Van Gogh struggling with depression, Piccaso with his hatred for ugly women, Salvidor Dalí with his surreal art highly inspired by people's subconcious reaction and emotions he tries to evoke on viewers, and the more recent modern art is doing the same exact thing but feel comfortable with taking liberty in how they can convey it to their liking.
Classical peices are not the only art style with some sort of meaning. This is ridiculous! 5:15
PragerU is 99% garbage but the art videos did make me think and there were a few points I agreed with. I believe that an art piece should be able to stand on it's own merits. But a lot of times that isn't the case with modern art. People sometimes say in response to Cy Twombly's scribbles that "I could have made that" and the modern art people would retort with "You could have, but you didn't." But that fails because let's say I did make it first, do you honestly think it would have the same reception as it did when Twombly did it? Absolutely not. It's famous majorly in part BECAUSE it was painted by Twombly. In my mind, that art piece isn't standing on its own, it's propped up by the fame of the artist. Now that's not to say there's no value in modern art nor the pushing of boundaries. But realize that such things will be essentially esoteric to the masses. There's things like that in other mediums as well like John Cage's 4'33'', a musical piece consisting of 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence. Yeah it got people thinking about what constitutes music, but I doubt anyone puts 4'33'' on their Spotify playlist. Same way I wouldn't put up a blank canvas to decorate my house.
Many classical art pieces are held up by the artists and the situations surrounding their creation too, like the Mona Lisa, and The Birth of Venus. Many art pieces were never intended to be hung up in your walls and to be looked at constantly, like how you said that John Cage's 4'33 was to make people think. It's purpose was never to be on your playlist, so I don't think its fair to judge it by the same standards that you would judge a pop song, and the same thing goes for art pieces. They have to judged by how well they convey what they were painted to convey.
Do you seriously believe that the paintings you show at 6:28 are classical works ???? That's so stupid.
left is Picasso (not classical). Right is a poor restoration of what we could loosely call a "traditional" art-piece.
@@HarperOC Could you please tell me who painted that particular "traditional" art-piece you show here? Was it made by someone who was respected in the academic art world?
@@tenonakin9237 Why does it matter if the person who painted it was respected in the art world?
@@atticusmcinally7964 PragerU is using modern art pieces that are respected in the modern art world as examples. And you want to debunk him by using some bad painting that you can't even reference? You don't even know who painted it? If you want to make a good argument for why classical art isn't superior to modern art, you need to compare what is considered to be one of the best by modernists with what's considered to be one of the best by classical artists. Picasso is considered to be one of the best modernists in the modernist world, so you should compare him with somebody who is considered to be one of the best Academic/classical artists. For instance, someone like William Bouguereau. And than you should explain why, according to you, the best Bouguereau paintings are not better than the best Picasso paintings.
@@tenonakin9237 I don't think its fair to directly compare art that was made by different people in different times because their art was likely made for different purposes and in different cultural environments, but for the sake of your argument I will compare my personal opinions on both and why I prefer Picasso's. I personally prefer Picasso's paintings because I find them far more interesting and varied, from the use of colour, the way he mixes angular and round shapes in an unnatural way, and the confusing ways he structures his subjects. In contrast, I find Bouguereau's paintings a little boring, because the compositions are all fairly similar, I find the colour palette bland for the most part, and Im not interested in his religious symbolism. I still like some of his paintings though. I'm sure that they have their reasons for looking the way that they do, and I'm sure that you're justified in your opinion of these pieces , but I don't enjoy the reaction I get from them as much as Picasso's. Maybe if I understood them better that would change but as far as I'm concerned, both artists have merit and the differences between them don't make either artists work better or worse. The only way I can evaluate them is through my own opinions, which are not objective. I also think that the artists name shouldn't matter, the only thing that should matter is the context of the painting and the intent behind it. I don't see the point in using critically acclaimed artists as the way to evaluate a genre's value because there's plenty of art that I enjoy that isn't made by Picasso or Bouguereau.
Very debatie. Not as philosophical as I would want
A most BRILLIANT video by a brilliant guy. He is entirely correct that 'modern art', as a general phenomenon, is reflecting the condition the modern world is finding itself into. In fact, this guy reaches-out into the mystical and that is, after all, the heart of the matter: what is art?
It is subjective territory indeed. But that does not mean that within the subjective experience there are not objective, i.e. true and real, standards of artistic quality. Only, they cannot be objectified in the way this Prager type thinks is possible.
Yes, we should be open to modern art and try to understand the experience of it. This does not mean, however, that what we find is inevitably something we can appreciate as art, or 'good art'. It depends upon the nature of the experience. For instance, it is not difficult to fully understand Picasso's primitive later art and the power of his primitivism. Does it posivitely resonate with our own suppressed longing to be primitive? Or does it connect us with our primitive deeper layers which reach back very far in the evolution of the species? (Hence the relationship Picasso's work has with African tribal art.) Does it contribute to a better, more civilised world, or does it merely reflect a primitive world, behind the façade of modernity? In such way, a full and penetrating understanding can lead to rejection and seeking alternatives.
The 'defence of classical art' by this Prager guy is indeed naive and rightly criticized in this video. And indeed aesthetic consensus in the arts have always been shifting, moving, developing, changing. But these changes have been on the surface. There is a 'deep structure' of aesthetics which is embedded in the human perceptive system, and that system is biologically wired and thus, not defined by the surface of change. This deeper quality is timeless, but that does not mean there are concrete, objective 'standards' that can be treated as an easy system of boxes to tick and then, everything is OK, which is indeed trivilialising art in a terrible, pedestrian way. But the existence of this embedded perceptive system in the human mind is the reason we can understand and appreciate artefacts from non-western cultures, or works from ages ago. Quality standards are created all the time, and often differently so, but only if they are following these deeper systems of organisation can they produce meaningful works of art. This goes for painting, sculpture, architecture (as an art, as for monuments), music, poetry. This has nothing to do with conservatism but is part of the human condition.
"Recent research in neuroscience seems to confirm that aesthetic perception is related to other perception types which played a crucial role in the evolution of the species; appreciation of art is evolutionarily embedded in the same system that works for survival:
Human neuro-imaging studies have convincingly shown that the brain areas involved in aesthetic responses to artworks overlap with those that mediate the appraisal of objects of evolutionary importance, such as the desirability of foods or the attractiveness of potential mates. Hence, it is unlikely that there are brain systems specific to the appreciation of artworks; instead there are general aesthetic systems that determine how appealing an object is, be that a piece of cake or a piece of music. (“The Neuroscience of Beauty: how does the brain appreciate art?”, Steven Brown and Xiaoqing Gao, The Scientific American, accessed September 2011, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/)
The experience of mathematical beauty correlates with activity in the same part of the emotional brain-namely the medial orbito-frontal cortex-as the experience of beauty derived from art or music:
People who appreciate the beauty of mathematics activate the same part of their brain when they look at aesthetically pleasing formula as others do when appreciating art or music, suggesting that there is a neurobiological basis to beauty. (“Mathematical Beauty Activates Same Brain Region as Great Art or Music”, Geometry Matters, accessed August 6, 2021, geometrymatters.com/mathematical-beauty-activates-same-brain-region-as-great-art-or-music/)
There are certain aspects of art that seem universally appealing, regardless of the environment or culture in which people grew up, indicating that there are universals in the field of aesthetics, i.e., objective standards, however subjectively interpreted:
The human brain is wired in such a way that we can make sense of lines, colors and patterns on a flat canvas. Artists throughout human history have figured out ways to create illusions such as depth and brightness that aren't actually there but make works of art seem somehow more real. And while individual tastes are varied and have cultural influences, the brain also seems to respond especially strongly to certain artistic conventions that mimic what we see in nature. (“What the brain draws from: Art and Neuroscience”, CNN Health, accessed September 15, 2012, edition.cnn.com/2012/09/15/health/art-brain-mind/index.html )
All of this is a strong indication that basic universal aesthetic laws do apply, and that they play a role in our appreciation of art. This means that although there are subjective interpretations of art, what they interpret is existing universal aesthetic laws, embedded in human nature."
There is more to the increasing criticism of (post-)modernism than meets the eye. Only, people like this Prager guy merely muddle the waters. Kudos to Harper O'Connor.
From: 'Regaining Classical Music's Relevance; Saving the Muse in a Troubled World', to appear in 2024 by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK.
www.johnborstlap.com
I like some of PragerUs videos, but as an artist, with an art degree, I'd never buy into a video like this completely...so I appreciate your views even though im not sure why you think that having objective art standards is not a good thing. I don't think all modern art sucks. It's based upon a different set of ethics and standards, which is what they're actually looking at - modern art is a reflection. It's a reflection of what PragerU believes is corrupt and even possibly evil. I think we could agree classical art has meaning and depth we should preserve. If we can't objectively preserve standards for art, we will have a deluge of art that is diverse and much more of a crafted advertisement of the reflections of modern society and subject to market conditions and social contagion. The new conditions you're describing are related to social media, whereas in the past, these foundations of thoughts and trends were not as fluid or rapidly changing. In that aspect, I agree with PragerU that perception is often universal among those viewing certain classical art. Remember Zappa: "writing about music is like dancing about art." People do not spend nearly as much time creating art, as well. The quality of modern art is diminished by society its reflecting. Art that helps us reflect upon our personal experiences is a therapeutic model, not art that is perceived or preserved as classical or displays historical value. I think post modern art has become very bad, however, because it's thrown away our collective love for beauty and insisted that subjective reality is paramount. That's very chaotic. I really appreciate that you're taking the time to dissect these ideas. I'm not sure combining this stuff will create the desired effect. But I hope you're right.
Having objective standards in art would be absolutely pointless. Not only would the standards change time to time and culture to culture, but the people not following the standards are going to be innovating, while the traditionalists are stuck making "approved art"
Caravaggio's painting was rejected by the church for being to extreme and scandalous. Now PragerU considers Caravaggio a classical painting. 😂
"every generation thinks the subsequent generation is abandoning aesthetic standards"
There's truth to this, but modern art is different, in that its explicit goal is to subvert the notion of aesthetic standards per se. Its value is not in its intrinsic beauty, but in its critique of art and aesthetics itself.
But what happens when you've fully deconstructed the notion of objective aesthetics? You can comment on the commentary, like dadaism, but eventually the content of such work is formless and unrelatable except to super niche groups of artists, and nobody likes it. They've ripped their discipline from its roots and didn't bother to replace them, so its trajectory is just decay and entropy. This is the sickness of modernity--radical subjectivism leading to entropic decay and nihilism
It is extremely strange to view dadaism as the end point of art, as if there isn't anything else behind making art but a critique of aesthetic once you hit dadaism on this hypothetical lineage of the development of artistic expression, as if it works in some straight line of to an endpoint in the first place. It's also pretty weird to think that the concept of "objective/intrinsic beauty" is the "root of the discipline", as if such a thing not only exists but would be accessible and demonstrably objective by anyone. You seem to have just made a bunch of assertions about the nature of artistic expression and its history without supporting them. I don't necessarily agree with all of the language Harper uses to explain art, but I think he has the better argument between you two.
@@IdiotDoomSpiral69 Well, your response seems to be a series of unsupported (and condescending) assertions as well so I guess we break even here. Objective beauty is only weird to modern people. Believing beauty is a property of the universe doesn't mean any one person can comprehend all of it, obviously, but people can see elements of beauty and express it through some medium, and the degree to which it does this successfully is the degree to which it is good art.
I understand some of the history of art, and I know what it's turned into today. The roots I'm talking about aren't the methods of art, but the motivations behind it. And when I say modern I mean contemporary, like postmodern garbage. Modern Art proper like Picasso is fine, bc his critique was still attached to a notion of beauty. This is not the radical subjectivism of the late 20th century. Radical subjectivism is literally a logical endpoint for aesthetics. Anything can be considered beautiful as an axiom, so there's no place to stand from which to evaluate art or beauty. Sure people will keep making art and it will evolve, but this egocentric mindset and freedom from critique leads to fragmentation and inane works, like literal trash on the ground. You can't criticize it, because "who are you to say this isn't beautiful or good art?" The high art scene has become this catty clout chasing bullshit. It's politics and money laundering now lol. This is what happens when people stop trying to reveal beauty and art becomes mere expression. It becomes egocentric, so self centered motivations become the sole guiding force of the field (mere differentiation, social climbing, etc)
@@e.b.1115 You do realise that in protest to as you call it "formless and unrelatable" art, and as the public begins to get bored of postmodern art, popular art will likely change back into being more formed and relatable. The same thing happens in music all the time, a great example is the transition from rock, to punk, to grunge, post punk, goth and then back to more technical and constructed music again like a lot of the indie rock. Punk rockers got bored of the sterilised and soft/"beautiful" sounds of rock, so they simplified, deconstructed, and added energy to it, then when people got bored of the simple punk rock they began to reintroduce emotion with bands like Joy Division, Fugazi, American Football, The Cure etc. Now those sounds have found their way back into the sounds of bands like Kings of Leon, the Foo Fighters, and Arctic Monkeys. These things tend to go in cycles.
Great video, thanks for the inspiration!
At the end your basically making the case for the metamodern paradigm, didn't expect that! Really nice counterpoints to prageru
But figurative art is so “19th Century”!
I wonder what this Prager U guys thinks of so called “AI art”?I mean it’s often meaningless and looks pretty right?
Remember Paul J. Watson? Think of the video you're talking about as a "more competent" version of that.
After looking at Roberts Florczaks art I can say it isnt that good.
Dont get me wrong he is talented but its very dry and generic. Its art just for the sake of it, it doesnt mean anything.
I actually really like his work...though I'd call most of it illustration rather than "fine art." That's _not_ an insult - illustration is absolutely my favorite branch of art, the one I aspired to as a young artist. But I recognize that illustration has a subtly different purpose than what we call "fine art."
Illustration is about _storytelling,_ about conveying a moment in a narrative. "Fine art" is about conveying ideas, emotions, thoughts, even philosophy. Now, you can _absolutely_ convey ideas, emotions, thoughts, and philosophy through a narrative (which is why I consider illustration to be a valid branch of Art), but you can also convey those things without narrative, and "fine art" usually aims at _that_ target. The distinction is, in the way of most art categorizations, largely artificial, but the difference in effect, methods, and aesthetics is profound.
Florczak's problem is that he has decided art is about the skills, and that meaning can't be conveyed without them. I get it - after you work hard to develop such skills, you value them very highly - but that can lead to the typical artist's branch of tunnel vision: "my technique is the only 'REAL' one." The same elitism that leads "fine art" artists to disdain illustration as "plebian" is what leads Florczak to disdain non-narrative, non-representational art as "meaningless." Florczak has essentially just adopted the elitism (he thinks) of former centuries and deemed it "higher quality elitism" than modern elitism.
In reality (IMHO), elitism is invalid no matter where it comes from, and art galleries should be filled with classical art, modern art, illustration, postmodern art, decorative art, folk art, pop art, "fine art," street art, and all other kinds of Art. None is intrinsically "better" than another, though each is very different in what it aims to "say" and how it goes about "saying" it.
Artists in each type of Art speak different languages...which is why they often have trouble understanding each other.
Florczak never learned to speak "modern art," or "postmodern art," and therefore has decided they're gibberish. He _thinks_ he's learned to speak "classical art," but most art afficionados of the era he idolizes would probably dismiss _his_ work as "popular art." Florczak _thinks_ he speaks their language, but to them, he'd just be a tourist reading from a phrasebook.
I don't speak modern/postmodern art very well myself, but I can recognize them as languages, just as complex and subtle as any other. I may not understand a lot of it, but I know it's not "gibberish." Florczak, apparently, has not had this realization. It _sounds llike_ gibberish to him, so he's decided it IS gibberish. This, of course, is nonsense...so while I really like a lot of Florczak's art, I think his art _opinions_ are basically worthless.
@@ShinyAvalon You put the whole thing into words really well. His art is very textbook
@@enter1323 - Thanks. But I don't think his _art_ is "very textbook," I think his art _opinions_ are. His art (what I've seen of it) strikes me as wonderful examples of illustrative Art - sometimes beautiful, sometimes subtle, sometimes whimsically delightful, but almost always engaging. He speaks "illustration" fluently and poetically...he just doesn't get that other languages exist.
Man, at this point I’m scared for the world if people accept pure white paintings.
I enjoyed this video both while eating a snack and having a potty
Thank you for sharing
I hope you used the little table on the back of the toilet!
I’m no an art expert, but even with my lack of knowledge I can tell that the classical art demanded great skill unlike most of the modern art that is indistinguishable from a toddler’s drawing or simply a joke. I realize this might be survivership bias, but when you see that the most famous and “successful” examples of modern art is also lame and looks like literarlly anyone could’ve done it, I can’t help but think that the whole art industry is going downhill.
Holy shit why don’t you have a crazy amount of subs?? High quality and great video man!!
You lost me at the Hitler art start. A pretty bad way to start the video tbh, It meant absolutely nothing and you presented it without actually making a point.
The start of the video is supposed to give people an idea of what your main point is supposed to be and it was just empty posturing. Completely lost me.
More of PragerU’s verbal gymnastics by goading people into following their idea by throwing it in the viewer’s face right away.
Obviously our little troll Robert hasn’t learned the lessons of Art 101! He thinks that the only Art that needs to have any worth is a progression from Classical Antiquity.
Even the most well-known Art appreciator, Sister Wendy Beckett said in one of her series that “Art changes, but it doesn’t get better!” Which explodes Robert’s specious argument.
Art is an observation and/or a reaction to what’s going on in the artist’s world! Dada was a huge reaction by artists to the Chaos that World War I left on the planet! They thought that if Society didn’t make sense anymore, neither should their Art! Something Robert can wrap his addled head around!
Really appreciate your video, always enjoy watching Conservative concrete-sequencing exploded to bits!
Keep up the great work!
my guy, i seriously suggest you go read up on post-modernism, 'cause you're kinda talking out of your ass about the whole 'soul' thing.
Like Dadaism fundamental value is art is bullshit taken too seriously, they said modern art sucks is rather true 😂
Obviously, there's something about the Prager U video that ran up against your cognitive dissonance. I would privately explore that. That said, art is subjective. Everyone has their favorite style. But, more importantly, art reflects society and how the artist feels about society. Modern art is seemingly disconnected, often seen as sterile, and not "relative" to society. But, take that, as how the artist feels about the world around them, and you have a different perspective of what life is like.
So, is my poop 💩 art or not? I could send a probe if that helps
If someone ate nothing but plastic and styrofoam and shit it out, is it art? I would argue so. If you think it is, it is. it’s as simple as that
Look, this was a bad analysis. The fact is that modern art, contemporary art, whatever does not relate to regular people and that "deconstructing" everything isn't gonna automatically make it beautiful, noble and appealing. Modern art and classical art are in the same ballpark since they're both a part of art history and are put in the same art museums. The whole situation with modern art is even more insulting since alot of artists currently put in alot of work with their art but simply don't get recognized, or as simply unable to put themselves out their as artists easily because they have to work "real jobs".
Instead you have this elitist art world ruled by art critics who don't know anything and tasteless billionaires.
decent vid
Some years ago, in the national art gallery, I saw two canvases that were part of one piece. One was painted all dark blue, the other light blue. If thats what a "spiritual experience" looks like, and what is presented as modern "art", then its trash and does not deserve to exist.
"does not deserve to exist" who are you to say that?
@@HarperOC who is anything to say anything then? Or are you the type to praise a banana strapped to the wall as "art"?
You know it can exist and you can say "i don't like it" right. It has as much a right to exist as anything else
@@user-yr7dp5du5l there is actual talent out there in the world. But a blue square is what gets the attention of art museums, galleries, and gets bought by millionaires.
Is it not a tragedy? Id love to hear your argument for a fucking square having the right to be considered "art".
The right to exist is not the same as deserving of possitive praise and attention". There's a not zero amount of low effort shlock that exists as a way for rich people to launder money. Still, a rectangle of paint on it is shockingly hard to produce, is it perfectly even in hue across the surface? Can you notice brush strokes? Can you notice texture? Is this a perfect colour that cane directly as is from a tube? How big is it? There's technique to it still. There's this painting, i believe it's called "who's afraid of the colour red" and it was vandelised by someone who decided it doesn't deserve to exist, and fixing it proved impossible so they attempted to replicate it and the museum guests could tell it was a fake, because even a big red canvas has personality to it. I do agree it's aggravating how much people are willing to pay for it, but less because "there's more deserving art" and more because we're deprived of art every day by things like poverty, because we let brilliant minds rot under the crushing weight of having to feed themselves and pay rent and shit. It has a right to exist, and we can agree it's stupid it sells for this much without arguing against its right to be in reality
pedantic
try telling me that LHOOQ isn't infinitely better and more interesting than Mona Lisa lol
also this guy is telling me Zdislaw Beksinski wasn't technically proficient or emotionally affecting?! tf???? like... dude. He's the soul of horror. Absolute terror and sublimity at once.
This whole video is a just a strawman argument. Prager may be dunces but that still isnt the same thing calling it out that 99% mainstream avant garde art after WWII is pure trash.