Ok, here's my take on it: "Modern" art started as a way for art students of the beggining of the 20th century (such as Duchamp), who were fed up with the establishment, to revolt. They wanted something totally new. Their art is outrageous because that was the point, it was made to anger the big pompous aristocrats who appreciated "fine" art. However, as this type of art got more and more copied, and itself got more established, the pompous aristocrats saw that they could made a lot of money through it, so the art establishment (museums, colectors, art schools, auction houses) started assigning more meaning to these pieces, in an effort to justify their existence in the market. And then it's just downhill from there.
tbh most artists don't explain themselves, it is other people. Plus as someone who has a few friends in a lterary circles it just sucks, you create something that touches on a lot of topics you read about, try to make them play of of each other as cleanly as possible, and still quarter the people reading your stuff will be like "WOW MIND BLOWN SO CRAZY" the half will be like "yeah I dont get it" And then there are some peolpe who will get it and try to explain it to others instead of just enjoying the fact that you found a wholesome moment of communication with the artist through their work
as you see here, a wonderful painting made by a 3 yea- what? what? by jackson pollock? uhhh so he's a 3 year old? no? how old is he? he's 50 and still sucks at painting? i would make a better doodle and would probably sell more than this man
@@gunk3407 So uh, can the three year old just take the form of a colored dot on a wall, or maybe spilled paint on a canvas? IT'S INCREDIBLE, ILL BUY IT FOR TWENTY MILLION!
My mom met a guy who basically taught her how to make art like this, she just put a couple paint strokes on a canvas, put it in a gallery, and just came up with some bullshit explanation on how she made it. She ended up selling the painting for something like 800 bucks.
I remember one particular piece of modern art I thought was cool. The artist placed a tall wooden machine in the middle of a busy sidewalk with a handle passersby could crank. For every 4.97 seconds the person cranked, the machine would dole out a single penny. Most people realized the time it took cranking the handle wasn’t worth the pennies they got and gave up. It was meant to represent the minimum wage in the U.S.A. and how little money people actually receive for their labour, since if you are paid $7.25/hour you literally make 1 cent for every 4.97 seconds of work. I thought that was pretty clever. 99% of modern art is flaming dog shit though.
Now THAT is a good example of modern art. It is focused, makes a clear statement that still takes some time and thought to truly understand. And it is clearly not effortless, as the machine had to be crafted, its mechanism calculated and designed to dispense pennies at the correct rate.
@@Timeward76 so its only valuable if the artist spent a lot of time on it? it could just as well have been a preexisting machine that the artist used but the effect is the same. This is why art elitists like you have no idea what you even want other than defining a hierarchy
@@sakura-pq9xk I pity whoever created this YT bot, having to produce such monstrosities just to scrape up a little cash from the naive that click those links.
@@wowalamoiz9489 Yeah like I don't think it's that impressive or anything but it's got a nice look but everyone has the right to their opinion I can see why people don't like it
In the 1920s, a guy named Paul Jordan-Smith got annoyed that his wife's amateur art was dismissed by art "experts," so he invented a new person, gave him a European-sounding name, said he was famous in Europe, and made a bunch of purposely bad art, which were hailed by the same art "experts" as great pieces, and they were sold for a lot of money. After like 2 years, he just told the media he made it all up, then went back to doing his own thing. True story.
His paintings are like NFTs, they have such high value, even though they're just effortless pieces of crap, but even these shitty pngs have more effort put into than his art.
Most these "artists" be snorting something else to fuel their ridiculous lifestyles lol. Sell garbage to some pretentious douche, buy some shit, rinse and repeat lmao.
Honestly Charlie should just find a shit ton of underrated starving artists to commission and make his own art gallery; there is so many legitimately skilled artists that are ever hardly recognized.
This reminds me of when I went to a museum a couple weeks ago. Among the art pieces, there was one empty space with a title card that said "NOTHING". And the guide book described it as representing the emptiness the 'artist' felt inside. All I could think was: where the fuck have we gone wrong as a species to have arrived at this point???
So true! There are hundreds and hundreds of amazing artists who are smaller or only known online who won't charge you $10,000 for a sneeze on a canvas.
Yeah! Those people have years or even decades of experience in art and they make great art that is priced at $20 and these guys shit paint on a canvas and sell it for millions, a child can do that.
Modern art exists on a bell curve of pieces that are genuinely creative, an interesting, and then there’s the random BS people throw together in claim is incredible.
I don't mind a nice story to go along with art but if it's to explain how good the art is and not to help make a story using the art as a base for your imagination then it's a failure is all terms.
Learn what Modern Art is first. Modern Art have in around about 100 different styles ranging over a 100 years time. Some art "surrealist", some are "realistic", and some are "abstract", and I put them in quotes because Realism, Abstract, and Surrealism are all styles in their own right. Short list of Modern Artist, Monet, Von Gohn, Rockwell, Seurat, Picaso. What they all have in common, all are Modern Artist, and that about it. Hell, Superman in Detective Comic is Modern Art.
Charlie should do a modern art challenge with his friends, they all make nonsensical art and they have to explain their beautiful modern art pieces. That would be the funniest shit ever to see them try to explain their own modern art.
The best abstract art I've ever seen was a painting that appeared entirely black from a distance, but was actually bunch of small squares of different colours that looked black when put next to each other. At least that painting rewards the viewer for taking the time to look closely at it.
As an artist the thing that's frustrating is that people don't even like the art they are buying for millions of dollars. All they know is the person who made it is worth millions so they art must be worth millions too.
Makes me so angry as an artist that people that make these glorified dumpster fires get so much attention over the true abstract & “modern” artists who put so much time, passion, & creativity in their work. There is absolutely no meaning or feeling behind these pieces. These are lazy wastes of paint.
i would add some people buy just cause they see high price tags for flexing. look at clothes for example people would spend like $500+ on a belt just cause it says "gucci" when you can buy belt at walmart for less then $20. they do the same exact function yet one has a fancy label so people shell out unnecessary amounts of money for it.
"Each of those lines is recording the gesture of his hand as it moves." That is LITERALLY every line that has been made by a hand. That is how making lines works. If there were no record of the gesture, there would be no line.
I drew a dot. As you can see, the dot took a lot of patience and time. To draw the dot, I had to open my door, walk down the staircase as head towards a shop. I then buy the paint and brush to bring it home. I took a brush and dropped it. And there you have it, a dot. I am selling the painting for 50k.
8:09 the short pause before he paused the video and held his head was beutiful. When someone says something this profoundly stupid it legitimately takes a moment to really process and its on full display here.
I remember a story about the local modern art gallery at my college where someone dropped their keys on the floor and didn’t notice it. People started taking pictures of the keys on the floor and tried to interpret the meaning behind them. I swear when my friend told me that coffee shot out my nose from trying to hold in my laughter.
I had an art teacher who said (in the context of mocking art galleries) that he entered a room in a gallery but he couldn’t find the piece. He then walked across the room to read a sign posted near the middle of the room which said “corrugated steel” and a bunch of artsy gibberish. Looking behind him he realized he just walked over the “art”. Also he said in that same gallery there were a bunch of people taking pictures of a fire extinguisher thinking it was part of the exhibit.
I bet if you took paint cans and stacked them in a triangle and had cool colors on one half and warm on the other, people would make something out of it and call it a masterpiece.
See what makes it a masterpiece is that the paint isn't trying to be what it's not. The cool colors are cool, and the warm colors are warm. They don't mix, they don't make you think 'huh, could this cool color also mean something warm?' You see what you see. The triangle beautifully represents that you can be anywhere from cool to warm, and even move from one side to the other, but you will never be both at the same time. If you look at the shape and the colors, you can also see how the artist placed the cans, you can almost feel him there with you, putting the cans down. It's never done before, nobody has ever come close to this!
I’m an art student studying to be a concept artist for games, and before I got into a wonderful online program, I had to deal with this everyday when I attended a physical fine arts school. That was such a horrible idea, my brain was melting seeing art like this and having my professors make us all awkwardly takes turns explaining our interpretations of it. I can definitely see the value in some pieces, but scribbles and dots shouldn’t be worth millions, and I think anyone with common sense can understand that lol
I feel this, took art as an elective in hs and hated it for the most part. Having to do the modern and abstract movements were sooo bad. I remember once we were presented a painting by some famous artist of nothing but a red cube and some bullshit spiel about how it represented his “early life out in the wheat fields”. Another was going to an art museum and two of the exhibitions being 1) A pile of wood planks just hanging from the ceiling w wire (not set in any kind of pattern, just hanging randomly) 2) and a fucking toilet. Nothing else, just a toilet. Both by the same artist. My teacher was in awe while the dude was telling stories of what “inspired” his “masterpieces” like she couldn’t comprehend the ‘genius’ of this literal pile of shit. Sad because it feels like this sort of thing encourages people to just give up, you can study for years to learn anatomy or hone your style and still never be recognised while low effort shit like this makes millions only because it was some famous dude who slapped a couple paint cans around and called it a day.
@@Alexander-nc4vy I’d say yes and no - not all modern art is a disgraceful “slap some paint on it and call it a day”. At the same time though, it does feel like modern art encourages laziness, or at least the idea that no matter how well you draw unless you have real connections or large followings, you’re going to get nowhere. You can take several years to paint the most beautifully elaborate mural like no one has ever seen, and still have it be passed over for some other guy with influence stacking a few paint cans together and calling it a day. I got disillusioned with the arts and never pursued them as a career for that reason exactly. It’s a big problem with a lot of artistic industries - acting, music, graphic design, ect ect. Feels like the requirements aren’t about how well you can do something, but about being recognised enough to get to a place where you’re famous. Connections are everything. That’s a theme in a lot of lines of work, but it’s super apparent in the art industry especially. And why do you think so many modern songs all sound the same? If the same lazy algorithm works, why bother exerting the effort right? Why bother putting in the time and effort to make something adventurous and experimental that could potentially tank when you could copy the same old formula to guarantee another money making hit. Kinda sad honestly
When people believe there is a hidden meaning behind something, they're going to find it. Our brains will create the meaning. That's what these "artists" take advantage of. They let YOU come up with a meaning to their art, then they will pretend that the interpretation that your brain created was the original intended meaning behind the piece, which also takes advantage of one's desire to feel smart by "figuring it out". That's how they convince people that their art is good.
I can imagine a similar dynamic with architecture. Imagine spending years immersing yourself in historical beauty, before having to overlook projects that are either oppressively cookie-cutter or a loud eyesore.
@@created_just_for_you that is an awful lot of beautiful meaningless words to defend business men whose scams make as much money as the wages they're friends don't give to the artists hired by they're company's.
@@created_just_for_you honestly, i think art is just a particular way of saying 'expressive creation'- you could theoretically claim pretty much anything man-made is art (by my definition,) since it is a created expression of some trait. maybe just a phone, for example. it is just a phone, but it is also an expression of design, effort, maybe creativity, desire for money, utility, etc, since that is what traits it could most easily be interpreted to show. on the other hand, at the end of the day, a phone is a phone, and you will most likely still use it as a phone, because that is what it is made for. i think the same thing applies to what is most commonly referred to as art (paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc) due to it being possible to interpret it in the same way, just more commonly. this also means that art could be interpreted as malicious, or as some people would call it, a scam. not all art, but some. some art is created with the intent to scam someone as means to gain something, commonly money. there is always the possibility of art being created with that kind of malicious intent. the problem with thinking that way is that, because you cant just read an artists mind to see what skills they used, or what their intention was when creating art, it is open to interpretation, meaning that anyone can call any art a scam, and anyone can say art has infinite pure and actual value, and neither could be 100% wrong. so, essentially, yes, it is a scam. at the same time, it also is not. TLDR; art is open to interpretation, therefore all art is considered a scam and also is not, simultaneously.
It's never a question of talent or ability. All that matters is getting one wealthy sucker to like your work. They'll brag to their friends about how much they paid for it. Not to be out done, the friend will buy a piece for a higher price just to one-up their friend. Now a sharp gallery operator realizes he's got a couple live ones on the line and plays up the so-called artist's work to make more sales. The gallery operator finagles some media attention to create more buzz and soon the 'artist' is pulling down six figures for his 'art'. Wash, rinse, repeat. I'm 73 and have been painting off and on since the early 70s. I see this crap all the time in all genres of art. Size also sells, the bigger the piece the more attention it gets in a show. You can spend six months or a year on a 10" by 14" painting that's stunning. Yet some 4' by 6' stain on plywood will get all the attention. Charlie said everything I've felt for years. If you have to spend more than two minutes explaining a piece, it ain't art, it's bait for suckers and rubes.
I’m an artist too and this is why I refused to go to art school or sell my art. The mainstream art world (the one you can profit on, atleast) is so pretentious and filled with nepotism. I went to a high school that had a lot of art programs and it was filled with really rich kids who got tons of attention for lackluster work. I decided then, nah I’ll just do this for me lol. Not saying I’m better than them or anything it just made me realize who you know and how much money you have is all that really matters in that world: It’d feel like selling my soul if I tried to “make something” of myself. I have respect for people who sell nonsense on a giant canvas for tons of money though honestly haha. Easiest money ever
I mean with that first Pollock example - no one was able to present art in such a way (and message) as before. For that reason he was praised. You can imitate his art style as much as you want but the effect and reception will not be the same because you are only riding on the message and statement he made initially.
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
That's why I love Zdzisław Beksinski's art and his attitude of "theres no meaning, i just thought this looks cool as shit". He literally didn't even give his paintings any titles, because he didn't want the viewer to get influenced by them
As someone who actually likes abstract art I feel like people trying so hard to put “deep” meaning into it are super freaking pretentious. Imo abstract art is all about accessibility and enjoying simple fundamentals like shapes and color. The same enjoyment can be found in mixing paints at home or arranging your own mood board. I think it’s fun to look at why we like certain colors or lines or why it might make us think of something negative But anyone can make a Jackson Pollock. He was making paint splatters, some people think it looks cool and some don’t. You can make paint splatters yourself and hang it up in your house and be just as happy. The high art world is all about fame and connection, and inflating their work’s value. Some people might find a lot of meaning in a blank canvas, but imo most of the time it is just bullshit to make rich people spend money on it. It makes me upset that modern art has alienated a lot of people from engaging in art in general because it’s so fake and hollow. Abstract art means whatever you want it to, and anyone can make it. Trying to make art exclusive and restricted and “oh you need a high IQ to “””get it””” is pure bullshit. There’s nothing to “get”, it’s just do you like looking at this or not. If you don’t like abstract art then you’re not stupid, it’s just not your aesthetic. Liking photo realistic art doesn’t make you a genius in the same way. Abstract art isn’t about skill, and that’s why I like it. Anyone should be able to make and enjoy something creative that makes them happy. Putting those pieces in a museum that you have to pay to see and claiming it took so much skill and it’s so special and unique and not like anything anyone else can make is elitist bullshit.
I made my own comment but I'll put it here too, this is a really good video to "understand modern art",, I think it goes well in depth into explaining how modern art should be valued just as much as classical art. It really convinced me tbh. ruclips.net/video/v5DqmTtCPiQ/видео.html
As a guitar player, it’s exactly like when pop musicians make millions playing the same 4 chords while people that actually work years and years to refine their craft and be actually insanely skilled and make something insanely original get no recognition whatsoever (by the masses that is).
I can't believe that so few people who who the frickin Slash is man. Everyone knows Ed Sheeran but god forbid anyone knows who the Slash is. Which is crazy because I thought he was way more popular in his prime.
it literally sounded like the way i described my art in my last year of school, you can literally bullshit your explanation to why you made what you made and get top marks for it if you sound profound enough.
AISURU.TOKYO/AGNEZ 💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
The only thing that matters in art is your Credentials. Where you studied, where you traveled, and who you know. I feel bad for any student whos genuinely interested in Art because it's next to impossible to be successful on talent and skill.
all that matters is how much money you dumped into getting a piece of paper that says "i passed a class on explaining art." I've been an artist almost my entire life, and i won't get a single job unless i put myself in debt to get a paper that says "i can do art" when i could easily prove it without signing up for poverty.
Your wrong, that's modern art. You can become industry artist and make art for games and film. That's what most people go into now, extremely competitive tho
Oh man I agree. I've been drawing anime for years and I think that artworks in an anime style is much better than whatever the hell is in this video Charlie watched. How can scribbles be considered art but a detailed drawing of a girl in anime style is not? It doesn't make sense. Art is art and anime is just a form of cartoonist style
I adore art even if only for the context of it. I want to know the history of the artist, the world they lived in, and all of the DSM-5 diagnoses we can retroactively apply to them.
I tell you, the real artists these days aren’t in museums. They’re in our movies, our video games, and our tv shows. Those underpaid artists who make gorgeous sceneries, and worlds you explore.
"What you see is what you see" has the same energy as “The floor is made out of floor” except its not a meme and an actual grown man said it unironically
There is truth to "What you see is what you see" as well as bullshit. When talking about Pollock, it makes a lot of sense. What you see IS what you see. When it comes to other artists in the abstract world, their art can try to hide things. Some abstract artists might use different shapes, patterns or textures to hide what is actually being painted. A good example is of a tattoo a friend has. The tattoo is of an AK-47 but every component of the gun is actually kitchen tools made to look like a gun. In that case, what you see ISN'T what you see. Another example would be a picture of donald trump composed of tiny pictures of random people using their different skin tones to "draw" trump. While there is a lot of pretentious shit in the art world, I do think the quote "You see what you see" makes sense in this situation.
@@ZeLoShady See why couldn't the other fella have said it this way? That at least could make logical sense to those who under appreciate and then we at least see where the point is coming from. Perhaps it would help if we'd had the chance for Pollock to do a Bob Ross where he talks and shows his mindset as he went along. Some people can see things easier after having it explained first after all.
@@flandyc4513 I am not even in the art world that deep, I just don't go with my initial reaction to things. Initially, I was like, ya that quote is stupid as fuck but if you take a minute to actually use your brain and think (something most people don't do these days) than you will see the quote has meaning in this context. IN THIS CONTEXT. People also tend to leave context out of their thought s and opinions too.
I had to take an art history class in order to get my associates degree and if you take away the sarcasm, Charles sounds just like the other students in my class. The best part of the whole thing is that my professor thought that most modern art was bullshit as well. I love this channel so much!
it is disgusting, but is life all about getting rich? also, there are way more artists drowning in student debt than artists who are getting rich. its like 1/10,000 artists will be successful. its a lot like the struggling youtuber scene, but worse. this anti-art sentiment in this comment section, and in this video rest on a huge strawman.
Not to mention there are artists on like art twitter who actually draw really amazing shit and they get hounded just for charging 30$ a commission But these people make millions off blank canvases
These artists dont get a mere percent of the paintings that are being sold this much. The money doenst go to the artists, it goes to collectors jacking eachother off
Fountain, by Duchamp is one of the best art pieces of all time. He took a urinal off a wall, turned it on its side, and literally pissed all over the art world. It's hilarious, and brilliant.
@@stephenn1056 Pretty sure that the gallery curators get it. It's from the Dada movement, which is anti-aesthetics and art culture at that time. Early 20th century.
I'm so glad someone brought up Duchamp. This is the exact art piece I was thinking of when Charlie was talking about the paint cans... I'm just thinking, "you think this about Pollock? Don't even get me started with Duchamp." Dada is a whole other world.
I’m convinced modern art is like The Emperor’s New Clothes. Deep down everyone knows he’s naked, but only the wisest of men can see the clothes (that aren’t there), so everyone just goes with it and doesn’t challenge the emperor for being nude. Nobody wants to admit they can’t see the clothes, and nobody wants to admit that modern art is stupid.
@Wicker 2 "Resonating" or eliciting an emotional response does does make something better, and is utilized in classic artworks and literature throughout history, even in things like sculptures and architecture. Meaning and technical skill aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to good art. The problem is modern art doesn't have meaning or emotion to it, the shitty artist who made it just says so and people take his word for it.
@Fucking grass It's subjective just as how a pile of dogshit is. The act of stepping on that pile of dogshit and the reaction may be subjective but the objective truth is that its a pile of shit.
@Wicker 2 I agree with your views on this... but I'm also laughing at your comments because they're written like you're doing a response for a discussion board in an online college class 🤣
@Wicker 2 To be clear I'm not a fan of modern art either, but technical ability only matters in the sense that it allows you to bring your artistic vision from your imagination into the real world more accurately. Someone can paint a photorealistic painting of an apple and it takes a lot of technical mastery to do so (although it was more important in the past when people didn't walk with actual cameras in their pockets), but I'd rather look at a less technically perfect, but epic painting of a huge battlefield or something. *Because* it elicits a strong emotional response in me. Artistic skill is important, but it's an objective measure. Art is everything that is not objective. At points your arguments make it sound like all art is bad, because it can be applied to everything. Also, your plagiarism argument means nothing.
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
I dont even dislike Jackson Pollocks stuff like looking at the colours is fun I just hate how these videos take the hardest reach to explain shit U can just say u like it cuz it looks nice damn 😭
It was never the art itself people had an issue with, it was the price of the art, the people defending the art, and the disrespect to other artists that was the issue.
There is good abstract art, like Pablo Picasso's chaos of barely recognizable facial features, or Salvador Dali's surreal pieces. And there is good minimalist art, like Paul Rand's simple and direct graphic designs, or Picasso (again) and his use of four lines to draw a woman's backside or his bull painting. When you combine both and put no effort in, you get splatters of paint going for millions.
Yeah i think the shitty art that shouldnt be acknoledgue as art is that one that a complete todler could do, like the blank "paint" or the stains of paint. When you talk Picasso, you see something that takes skill and makes sense, any kind of art can be good if it has skill and meaning in it.
When I was an art teacher, one of my favorite lessons involved putting up a slide of a Jackson Pollock painting along with quotes from two art critics-one critic said that he was the greatest artist America has ever produced, the other said his art was meaningless crap. I then had my students discuss which opinion they agreed with and why. It was always a lively discussion, and my students really seemed to enjoy it. I particularly liked that, because there were no objectively "right" or "wrong" answers, even my shy and more withdrawn students were able to express some pretty strong opinions. :) Incidentally, seeing a slide of a Jackson Pollock painting is nothing like seeing one of his works in real life. It's impossible to get a sense of the scale, texture, depth, energy, etc. without seeing it in person. A framed print or an art book reproduction just doesn't do it justice. And I suppose this brings up an important problem: not everyone has the means to visit the MOMA, Louvre, Guggenheim, etc. to see an artist's work in person, and it's impossible to fully appreciate an artwork without being able to choose where to look-to take in the whole piece, to lean in and look at the paint strokes, to walk around the sculpture, to take it in from different angles, and so on. I would encourage everyone, if their city has an art gallery, to visit it, to see/experience art in person. And however possible, to support their local artists.
"What you see, is what you see." I understand this quote like this: There's no pretentiousness in the paintings, if you see a bunch of paint splattered on a canvas, it's literally a bunch of paint splattered on a canvas. No meaning. If that's what Frank was going for, I agree with the quote.
All of these people finding deeper meanings in this art never outgrew their phase of thinking they were super deep and that made them smarter then everyone else
Meaning can be found in a piece of shit, not unsimilar to Zen way. But the meaning is not derived from a painting but within you. So in that you are right - attributing thought provoking news to an art piece might be a stretch already.
I usually don't hate on art, but as an artist I really hate modern art like this. Art is a craft with endless possibility for learning and improvement, there's always more skills to learn and practice, and your works should show your development as an artist and a person. So when someone spatters paint on a canvas and sells it for millions,it disrespects the very nature of art. It's not expressive,or skillful,or meaningful in any way, and it hurts to see it held in such high regard.
One time in high school we took a trip to the art museum in Denver. There was a newly constructed room that was roped off with about 25 red rolling trash cans it in. To this day I don't know if that was construction or art.
See, I enjoy abstract art. I don’t know why, but I always have. What I don’t enjoy, however, is people trying to give paint splatter a deeper meaning than it being just a mishmash of colors that looks neat. That’s all it is, a cool looking mesh of colors. I don’t understand why art needs to have some sort of deeper meaning to it
And if it has some artistic value to you, that makes sense. I think the problem arises when people condescendingly explain why something is art to them & why others lack their insight or say things like "what you see is what you see" like it's some kind of hidden wisdom. It's not the art so much as the fandom.
I took an art class for three years in high school. One of the few things I remember about it is an art college graduate coming in as a guest teacher and spending forty-five minutes ranting about how Bob Ross wasn't a real artist. Nobody asked and this has little to no relevance to the video, but I felt compelled to share.
if you think that this is scam read thus: "In May 1961, while he was living in Milan, Piero Manzoni produced ninety cans of Artist's Shit. Each was numbered on the lid 001 to 090. Tate's work is number 004. A label on each can, printed in Italian, English, French and German, identified the contents as '"Artist's Shit", contents 30gr net freshly preserved, produced and tinned in May 1961.'" I went to Manchester art gallery a few years ago and they were excited to have a display of a dozen or so can's of said artist's shit. A pile of brown hued sealed tin cans indeed filled with poop.
if i'm not too wrong some people even opened it up and apparently it was just some random stuff, i forgot what it was now, i think there was some concrete? but the problem is who opened these cans?
I have very many stories from art school but yes, sometimes you can't distinguish between literal trash, and art. This one time we went to a gallery and there was a plastic bag with some trash in the middle of the room, and everyone (including the "professors") were tiptoeing around it and looking at it, because they weren't sure if it was art or trash, so nobody dared to pick it up and throw it in the can. It was wild. The things I've seen back then drove me half mad.
If there's a reward in viewing a white canvas, then why don't they look at the section of white wall right next to it? It's white, and it's painted. Why doesn't modern art just have walls? No more art, just walls.
I actually really like that idea. Strip down minimalism even harder. Blank canvases replaced with the blank walls of the museum. Alternatively you'd have """carefully""" splattered walls of paint. Some abstract paintings rely on a huge canvas and a wall is basically the largest it can be. But perhaps this hilarious form of minimalism isn't being done because that kind of art can't be sold off. The wall would be stuck in a museum.
I swear that's actually a thing... I remember seeing it in a book or on a museum website. I can't remember if it's in New York or somewhere in California though.
As an artist that actually works 40 hours for one piece (all styles including realism) and gets nothing, modern art feels like they personally attack my 15 years of hard work that went into improving my art. It’s mentally painful to even look at this.
"But what Pollock does is just present us with paint as paint. He was the first person to do this." THAT'S LITERALLY JUST "THIS IS NOT A PIPE" BUT WITHOUT EVEN TRYING
I’m not a fan of Jackson Pollock, but I think that he was a good painter, he just chose to make a bunch of bullshit. Look up his painting “Going West” if you wanna see something he put effort into.
I will never understand the appeal of "expressive" paintings that just look like someone nutted on the canvas. To each their own but I feel like it requires zero skill or talent. So much of art just feels like it's art because someone said it was. I have to respect anyone who can sell some random bullshit painting for a fortune though.
When you sell your spatter painting at Sotheby's they will report the exact amount of the sale to the IRS so you have to declare the gain as ordinary income or capital gains - so it is not even that great at that. Even ebay starts reporting to the IRS once you hit a certain sales threshold.
Развлечения
Whoever said, "Art is just the trading cards of millionaires..." was a genius.
Dude that quote, -*chefs kiss *
It actually really is
Can someone find that quote, thats great
well it is a front to launder money, so yeah
Jackson Pollock's would be like, blue splodge white canvas
“Pollock was the first artist to present Paint as paint.”
*So who’s going to tell him about Home Depot*
Pollock has to be before Home Depot...
Scamming is still an art form. So Jackson Pollock and the like are brilliant artists.
Sherwin Williams has entered the chat
Pollock made some very nice, more traditional paintings in his earlier years
Imagin if I presented gentials as genitals *mind blown*
Ok, here's my take on it: "Modern" art started as a way for art students of the beggining of the 20th century (such as Duchamp), who were fed up with the establishment, to revolt. They wanted something totally new. Their art is outrageous because that was the point, it was made to anger the big pompous aristocrats who appreciated "fine" art. However, as this type of art got more and more copied, and itself got more established, the pompous aristocrats saw that they could made a lot of money through it, so the art establishment (museums, colectors, art schools, auction houses) started assigning more meaning to these pieces, in an effort to justify their existence in the market. And then it's just downhill from there.
This comment needs more recognition. I think you hit the nail on the head
couldnt have said it better myself
So, the punchline is... THE ARISTOCRATS.
To become the very thing you swore to destroy
So your just going to guess what happened and have people agree with you, seems legit.
Whenever you have to “explain” your art rather than letting the art speak for itself, you know you failed as an artist.
Truefully
it's usually somebody else that tries to "explain" them though, just to fetch a high price for it LOL
Its the equivalent of a big arrow pointing at a stickman with the words "ME" next to it
Pollocks work dont need an explanation, they have no meaning.
tbh most artists don't explain themselves, it is other people. Plus as someone who has a few friends in a lterary circles it just sucks, you create something that touches on a lot of topics you read about, try to make them play of of each other as cleanly as possible, and still quarter the people reading your stuff will be like "WOW MIND BLOWN SO CRAZY" the half will be like "yeah I dont get it" And then there are some peolpe who will get it and try to explain it to others instead of just enjoying the fact that you found a wholesome moment of communication with the artist through their work
Jackson is a genius, he found out rich people are stupid with money before anyone else.
A fool and his money are easily parted.
No they buy painting for tax evasion
Jackson was a genius, its just that the novelty of his work wore off as literally everyone started making abstract wallpaper and shitty abstract trash
So is Mark Rothko, he did the same thing laughing his face while cooking his bbq with his friends!!!
The richer you get, the less valuable money is.
"It really makes you feel... like a dumb asshole" couldn't have said it better myself
as you see here, a wonderful painting made by a 3 yea- what? what? by jackson pollock? uhhh so he's a 3 year old? no? how old is he? he's 50 and still sucks at painting? i would make a better doodle and would probably sell more than this man
@@gunk3407 Pollock is just doing fucking very advanced money laundering that’s all it is
@@thecrazybirdboyck301 no he's drawing a 3 year old
@@gunk3407 So uh, can the three year old just take the form of a colored dot on a wall, or maybe spilled paint on a canvas? IT'S INCREDIBLE, ILL BUY IT FOR TWENTY MILLION!
my english was kinda bad
My mom met a guy who basically taught her how to make art like this, she just put a couple paint strokes on a canvas, put it in a gallery, and just came up with some bullshit explanation on how she made it. She ended up selling the painting for something like 800 bucks.
I remember one particular piece of modern art I thought was cool. The artist placed a tall wooden machine in the middle of a busy sidewalk with a handle passersby could crank. For every 4.97 seconds the person cranked, the machine would dole out a single penny. Most people realized the time it took cranking the handle wasn’t worth the pennies they got and gave up. It was meant to represent the minimum wage in the U.S.A. and how little money people actually receive for their labour, since if you are paid $7.25/hour you literally make 1 cent for every 4.97 seconds of work. I thought that was pretty clever. 99% of modern art is flaming dog shit though.
ok now that is clever and I dont think the artist want the wood itself to be classed as the art....unlike this crap
Now THAT is a good example of modern art. It is focused, makes a clear statement that still takes some time and thought to truly understand. And it is clearly not effortless, as the machine had to be crafted, its mechanism calculated and designed to dispense pennies at the correct rate.
@@Timeward76 so its only valuable if the artist spent a lot of time on it? it could just as well have been a preexisting machine that the artist used but the effect is the same. This is why art elitists like you have no idea what you even want other than defining a hierarchy
@@colinscherer3316 Art without effort is pointless.
@@colinscherer3316 yes, it is only valuable if the artist spent time on it
“This artist presents paint as paint”
“Oh yes, much like one of my favorite artists…
Home Depot”
@@sakura-pq9xk I pity whoever created this YT bot, having to produce such monstrosities just to scrape up a little cash from the naive that click those links.
@@sakura-pq9xk begone, spawn of darkness
@@motifity3416 remember when you couldn’t post link on RUclips? Good times
I prefer Ace Hardware myself.
Mm yes this air is air
Most modern art is one of three things imo :
1. An artist trolling rich people
2. A way to launder money
3. Something nice to look at and nothing more
I strongly disagree with 3.
where does three come in because i've yet to have witnessed it
Hey guys that's why I put imo (in my opinion) you don't have to agree
3 is Pollock's art. Don’t you guys think it could make a nice bathroom tile?
@@wowalamoiz9489 Yeah like I don't think it's that impressive or anything but it's got a nice look but everyone has the right to their opinion I can see why people don't like it
In the 1920s, a guy named Paul Jordan-Smith got annoyed that his wife's amateur art was dismissed by art "experts," so he invented a new person, gave him a European-sounding name, said he was famous in Europe, and made a bunch of purposely bad art, which were hailed by the same art "experts" as great pieces, and they were sold for a lot of money. After like 2 years, he just told the media he made it all up, then went back to doing his own thing. True story.
My hero. I would love to do this someday lol. I bet a lot of actual artists do that shit
@@tohaovershellwell you need marketting skills to do that
What a chad
His paintings are like NFTs, they have such high value, even though they're just effortless pieces of crap, but even these shitty pngs have more effort put into than his art.
I am fully convinced that art from character artists or concept artists should be in museums.
@@cyberneticxylem9614 Exactly! But it requires effort and discipline to achieve that, which these gallery artist don't have.
There’s scams in all trades
The reason the blank canvas "pieces" have nothing on them is because the artist's snorted all the paint before getting to do anything
snorted it all and passed out so when it was time to pack it up and send it to the gallery the artist was like eh yeah this is it
Most these "artists" be snorting something else to fuel their ridiculous lifestyles lol. Sell garbage to some pretentious douche, buy some shit, rinse and repeat lmao.
There is an artist the drew something really cool and then erased it and that was it artwork. The blank canvas.
I don't laugh often on comments. But this one was a heavy hitter xD
Dude must've lungs with a jet pumps capabilities.
I don't even hate modern artists, I'm just jealous they figured out how to be lazy and make money, it's my dream
@Horamberg I mean same honestly and while I do actually draw if I could trade my skills for whatever tf contacts these people have I woulddd
How can you look at the 7:20 mark of this video and see any of those paintings and think the artist is lazy…
@@TylerG13 trying to justify shit painting, i see
@@brett255 "effort" yeah, enough effort to launder a ton of money.
All 0.01% of them who make money
Honestly Charlie should just find a shit ton of underrated starving artists to commission and make his own art gallery; there is so many legitimately skilled artists that are ever hardly recognized.
I agree
This reminds me of when I went to a museum a couple weeks ago. Among the art pieces, there was one empty space with a title card that said "NOTHING". And the guide book described it as representing the emptiness the 'artist' felt inside. All I could think was: where the fuck have we gone wrong as a species to have arrived at this point???
It’s not a scam, they’re just making sure everyone passes art class in the modern age
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html .
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html .
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html .
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html .
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html .
People who will draw for you for like $20-$50 are significantly better than any millionaire high/modern artist man
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html .
So true! There are hundreds and hundreds of amazing artists who are smaller or only known online who won't charge you $10,000 for a sneeze on a canvas.
People shouldnt have to charge that little for something so damn hard to do
@@sunshinem.7741 Because they have to, alot the poeple making these simple modern art have done stuff comparable to the mona lisa
Yeah! Those people have years or even decades of experience in art and they make great art that is priced at $20 and these guys shit paint on a canvas and sell it for millions, a child can do that.
Modern art exists on a bell curve of pieces that are genuinely creative, an interesting, and then there’s the random BS people throw together in claim is incredible.
“What you see is what you see”
Ah yes the floor is made out of floor, profound.
Classical art is a picture worth a thousand words
Modern art is a thousand words to "explain" a picture
Nailed it
Well said
I don't mind a nice story to go along with art but if it's to explain how good the art is and not to help make a story using the art as a base for your imagination then it's a failure is all terms.
Perfect
Learn what Modern Art is first. Modern Art have in around about 100 different styles ranging over a 100 years time. Some art "surrealist", some are "realistic", and some are "abstract", and I put them in quotes because Realism, Abstract, and Surrealism are all styles in their own right. Short list of Modern Artist, Monet, Von Gohn, Rockwell, Seurat, Picaso. What they all have in common, all are Modern Artist, and that about it. Hell, Superman in Detective Comic is Modern Art.
Charlie should do a modern art challenge with his friends, they all make nonsensical art and they have to explain their beautiful modern art pieces. That would be the funniest shit ever to see them try to explain their own modern art.
Yeeeeessss!!!
That'd be huge lmao
up up up
Well, they did draw sometime back although not all the other that you described but still: ruclips.net/video/FrCwFFfV6ME/видео.html
id watch the shit out of this
The best abstract art I've ever seen was a painting that appeared entirely black from a distance, but was actually bunch of small squares of different colours that looked black when put next to each other. At least that painting rewards the viewer for taking the time to look closely at it.
"The paint is liquid"
ah yes, the floor is made out of floor
As an artist the thing that's frustrating is that people don't even like the art they are buying for millions of dollars. All they know is the person who made it is worth millions so they art must be worth millions too.
What's even more frustrating are teachers using those as valid examples.
Makes me so angry as an artist that people that make these glorified dumpster fires get so much attention over the true abstract & “modern” artists who put so much time, passion, & creativity in their work. There is absolutely no meaning or feeling behind these pieces. These are lazy wastes of paint.
Will you be upset if I told you, that I more like art showing something in beatiful instead of a banana duct taped to a wall?
Nft moment ( I wish I was joking)
i would add some people buy just cause they see high price tags for flexing. look at clothes for example people would spend like $500+ on a belt just cause it says "gucci" when you can buy belt at walmart for less then $20. they do the same exact function yet one has a fancy label so people shell out unnecessary amounts of money for it.
"Each of those lines is recording the gesture of his hand as it moves."
That is LITERALLY every line that has been made by a hand. That is how making lines works. If there were no record of the gesture, there would be no line.
Yes! Show them, Captain!
Yeah, bitch! SCIENCE! Attaboy Captain!
I would buy a piece made from Picasso shitting on a canvas before I'd buy any modern piece of rich people art.
He says so much but also so little.
It seems that the way to scam rich people is just using fancy sentences to describe a very simple idea
I drew a dot.
As you can see, the dot took a lot of patience and time. To draw the dot, I had to open my door, walk down the staircase as head towards a shop. I then buy the paint and brush to bring it home. I took a brush and dropped it. And there you have it, a dot.
I am selling the painting for 50k.
I'll buy it for 100k!
1:10 I’d probably get tired and sit on that chair without even realizing it IS the art.
"Of course the Emperor's new clothes are fabulous! What? He's naked? No, no, that's just you, I can see and fully appreciate them, I'm not stupid."
Woefully applicable.
I'd completely forgotten about this story! Thank you reminding me of it. And also the very apt analogy 🙂
I used to love this story when I was a kid, Thank you for reminding me
Exactly
My favorite naked artist is Maude from Big Lebowski. ruclips.net/video/bDDGZxb6YhM/видео.html
I love how cr1tikal has been on a constant rant with Jackson Pollock and other modern abstract artists
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
8:09 the short pause before he paused the video and held his head was beutiful. When someone says something this profoundly stupid it legitimately takes a moment to really process and its on full display here.
I remember a story about the local modern art gallery at my college where someone dropped their keys on the floor and didn’t notice it. People started taking pictures of the keys on the floor and tried to interpret the meaning behind them. I swear when my friend told me that coffee shot out my nose from trying to hold in my laughter.
I had an art teacher who said (in the context of mocking art galleries) that he entered a room in a gallery but he couldn’t find the piece. He then walked across the room to read a sign posted near the middle of the room which said “corrugated steel” and a bunch of artsy gibberish. Looking behind him he realized he just walked over the “art”. Also he said in that same gallery there were a bunch of people taking pictures of a fire extinguisher thinking it was part of the exhibit.
Wut 😂
You might like the art gallery scene from Nathan For You
This is literally a comedy sketch
This is some sitcom shit right there
Can't make this shit up. 😂
You can literally snort paint and sneeze onto a canvas and call it "art".
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
Art schools really set their art expectation so low when one of the drop out almost conquered Europe
Underrated comment
Modern art: Who are you?
Paintings of portraits, scenery ,backgrounds etc: *You but better.*
I bet if you took paint cans and stacked them in a triangle and had cool colors on one half and warm on the other, people would make something out of it and call it a masterpiece.
*yoink* I'm gonna make millions, thanks bud 😎👍
@forEach well I patented the idea so now you owe royalties to me 😈
See what makes it a masterpiece is that the paint isn't trying to be what it's not. The cool colors are cool, and the warm colors are warm. They don't mix, they don't make you think 'huh, could this cool color also mean something warm?' You see what you see. The triangle beautifully represents that you can be anywhere from cool to warm, and even move from one side to the other, but you will never be both at the same time. If you look at the shape and the colors, you can also see how the artist placed the cans, you can almost feel him there with you, putting the cans down. It's never done before, nobody has ever come close to this!
i was wondering what makes a colour "cool"
Seriously just do it and act like you are famous artist
I’m an art student studying to be a concept artist for games, and before I got into a wonderful online program, I had to deal with this everyday when I attended a physical fine arts school. That was such a horrible idea, my brain was melting seeing art like this and having my professors make us all awkwardly takes turns explaining our interpretations of it. I can definitely see the value in some pieces, but scribbles and dots shouldn’t be worth millions, and I think anyone with common sense can understand that lol
Yeah but rich old people with no brains can’t see that
I feel this, took art as an elective in hs and hated it for the most part. Having to do the modern and abstract movements were sooo bad. I remember once we were presented a painting by some famous artist of nothing but a red cube and some bullshit spiel about how it represented his “early life out in the wheat fields”. Another was going to an art museum and two of the exhibitions being 1) A pile of wood planks just hanging from the ceiling w wire (not set in any kind of pattern, just hanging randomly) 2) and a fucking toilet. Nothing else, just a toilet. Both by the same artist. My teacher was in awe while the dude was telling stories of what “inspired” his “masterpieces” like she couldn’t comprehend the ‘genius’ of this literal pile of shit.
Sad because it feels like this sort of thing encourages people to just give up, you can study for years to learn anatomy or hone your style and still never be recognised while low effort shit like this makes millions only because it was some famous dude who slapped a couple paint cans around and called it a day.
I was glad that in HS we eventually got a new art teacher who was like "if you do splatter painting...don't do splatter painting."
As someone who is good at drawing, I think modern art is a disgrace to my field.
@@Alexander-nc4vy I’d say yes and no - not all modern art is a disgraceful “slap some paint on it and call it a day”. At the same time though, it does feel like modern art encourages laziness, or at least the idea that no matter how well you draw unless you have real connections or large followings, you’re going to get nowhere.
You can take several years to paint the most beautifully elaborate mural like no one has ever seen, and still have it be passed over for some other guy with influence stacking a few paint cans together and calling it a day.
I got disillusioned with the arts and never pursued them as a career for that reason exactly. It’s a big problem with a lot of artistic industries - acting, music, graphic design, ect ect.
Feels like the requirements aren’t about how well you can do something, but about being recognised enough to get to a place where you’re famous. Connections are everything. That’s a theme in a lot of lines of work, but it’s super apparent in the art industry especially.
And why do you think so many modern songs all sound the same? If the same lazy algorithm works, why bother exerting the effort right? Why bother putting in the time and effort to make something adventurous and experimental that could potentially tank when you could copy the same old formula to guarantee another money making hit. Kinda sad honestly
When people believe there is a hidden meaning behind something, they're going to find it. Our brains will create the meaning.
That's what these "artists" take advantage of. They let YOU come up with a meaning to their art, then they will pretend that the interpretation that your brain created was the original intended meaning behind the piece, which also takes advantage of one's desire to feel smart by "figuring it out".
That's how they convince people that their art is good.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing.
@@JackalJack412-ej8og it most certainly is, in most cases
Yet more proof that furry porn artists truly are better than modern artists
Tbh a 5 year olds drawing has more effort put into it than most modern artists paintings.
but furry porn art is modern art
“What you see is what you see”
“Every 60 seconds in Africa, a minute passes”
At nighttime, it turns into the night sky.
People with synesthesia: am I a joke to you?
Water is wet
Fire is hot
Earth is flat.
I'm an art major and believe me, many artists think stuff like this is trash.
*insert broke joke here*
I can imagine a similar dynamic with architecture. Imagine spending years immersing yourself in historical beauty, before having to overlook projects that are either oppressively cookie-cutter or a loud eyesore.
You mean any actual artist?
@@created_just_for_you that is an awful lot of beautiful meaningless words to defend business men whose scams make as much money as the wages they're friends don't give to the artists hired by they're company's.
@@created_just_for_you honestly, i think art is just a particular way of saying 'expressive creation'- you could theoretically claim pretty much anything man-made is art (by my definition,) since it is a created expression of some trait.
maybe just a phone, for example. it is just a phone, but it is also an expression of design, effort, maybe creativity, desire for money, utility, etc, since that is what traits it could most easily be interpreted to show. on the other hand, at the end of the day, a phone is a phone, and you will most likely still use it as a phone, because that is what it is made for.
i think the same thing applies to what is most commonly referred to as art (paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc) due to it being possible to interpret it in the same way, just more commonly.
this also means that art could be interpreted as malicious, or as some people would call it, a scam. not all art, but some. some art is created with the intent to scam someone as means to gain something, commonly money. there is always the possibility of art being created with that kind of malicious intent.
the problem with thinking that way is that, because you cant just read an artists mind to see what skills they used, or what their intention was when creating art, it is open to interpretation, meaning that anyone can call any art a scam, and anyone can say art has infinite pure and actual value, and neither could be 100% wrong.
so, essentially, yes, it is a scam. at the same time, it also is not.
TLDR; art is open to interpretation, therefore all art is considered a scam and also is not, simultaneously.
It's never a question of talent or ability. All that matters is getting one wealthy sucker to like your work. They'll brag to their friends about how much they paid for it. Not to be out done, the friend will buy a piece for a higher price just to one-up their friend. Now a sharp gallery operator realizes he's got a couple live ones on the line and plays up the so-called artist's work to make more sales. The gallery operator finagles some media attention to create more buzz and soon the 'artist' is pulling down six figures for his 'art'. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I'm 73 and have been painting off and on since the early 70s. I see this crap all the time in all genres of art. Size also sells, the bigger the piece the more attention it gets in a show. You can spend six months or a year on a 10" by 14" painting that's stunning. Yet some 4' by 6' stain on plywood will get all the attention.
Charlie said everything I've felt for years. If you have to spend more than two minutes explaining a piece, it ain't art, it's bait for suckers and rubes.
ego one-upmanship
I’m an artist too and this is why I refused to go to art school or sell my art. The mainstream art world (the one you can profit on, atleast) is so pretentious and filled with nepotism. I went to a high school that had a lot of art programs and it was filled with really rich kids who got tons of attention for lackluster work. I decided then, nah I’ll just do this for me lol. Not saying I’m better than them or anything it just made me realize who you know and how much money you have is all that really matters in that world: It’d feel like selling my soul if I tried to “make something” of myself. I have respect for people who sell nonsense on a giant canvas for tons of money though honestly haha. Easiest money ever
This is the kind of art that those climate activists who threw tomato soup onto Van Gogh paintings should’ve targeted
People “understanding” modern art is like when you tell a joke to someone and they laugh but when you ask “Do you get it?” they say “No.”
Ngl I kinda do that whenever someone tells a joke and I don't understand. I laugh, and then immediately say "I don't get it"
well to be honest thats exactly correct, this abstract form of art legitemately only is there to make you think. like not even kidding.
I mean with that first Pollock example - no one was able to present art in such a way (and message) as before. For that reason he was praised. You can imitate his art style as much as you want but the effect and reception will not be the same because you are only riding on the message and statement he made initially.
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
@@eensteen it makes you think "why the fuck did i just spend 60 dollars to see such bullshit ?"
That's why I love Zdzisław Beksinski's art and his attitude of "theres no meaning, i just thought this looks cool as shit".
He literally didn't even give his paintings any titles, because he didn't want the viewer to get influenced by them
His attitude wasn’t that they didn’t have meaning, rather that he wanted the viewer to develop their own interpretations. His art is so cool tho lol
I love his art too
Dang give him that rec
OK so why not apply that logic to what Jackson Pollock does? You don't think he thought drip paintings looked cool as shit?
I love his work, every piece looks shitballs insane. Like you're looking through a mirror connected to some weird dystopian hellscape dimension.
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
"The art is made of art."
-Sun Tzu, the War of War
Im an artist and I'm self aware enough to realize that some of the sh*t we do is goofy af😂😂
honestly, I don't think they're "Thought Provoking" but some of Pollock's paintings actually look really cool, in an album artwork sort of way
Art snobs are the one who make it deep when its shallow but looks nice.
Get out
Yeah, looks like something that would work in my living room, but I'd be pulling my own leg if I consider it thought provoking
Stone Roses init
Yeah I agree they just shouldn't be so expensive
As someone who actually likes abstract art I feel like people trying so hard to put “deep” meaning into it are super freaking pretentious. Imo abstract art is all about accessibility and enjoying simple fundamentals like shapes and color. The same enjoyment can be found in mixing paints at home or arranging your own mood board. I think it’s fun to look at why we like certain colors or lines or why it might make us think of something negative
But anyone can make a Jackson Pollock. He was making paint splatters, some people think it looks cool and some don’t. You can make paint splatters yourself and hang it up in your house and be just as happy. The high art world is all about fame and connection, and inflating their work’s value. Some people might find a lot of meaning in a blank canvas, but imo most of the time it is just bullshit to make rich people spend money on it.
It makes me upset that modern art has alienated a lot of people from engaging in art in general because it’s so fake and hollow. Abstract art means whatever you want it to, and anyone can make it. Trying to make art exclusive and restricted and “oh you need a high IQ to “””get it””” is pure bullshit. There’s nothing to “get”, it’s just do you like looking at this or not. If you don’t like abstract art then you’re not stupid, it’s just not your aesthetic. Liking photo realistic art doesn’t make you a genius in the same way.
Abstract art isn’t about skill, and that’s why I like it. Anyone should be able to make and enjoy something creative that makes them happy. Putting those pieces in a museum that you have to pay to see and claiming it took so much skill and it’s so special and unique and not like anything anyone else can make is elitist bullshit.
Fuckin... What he said. People that unequivocally hate "modern art" are just as pretentious as people who jerk themselves off with modern art.
thats actually a great take
It nice to see through and thoughtfull comments every now and then on RUclips.
I made my own comment but I'll put it here too, this is a really good video to "understand modern art",, I think it goes well in depth into explaining how modern art should be valued just as much as classical art. It really convinced me tbh.
ruclips.net/video/v5DqmTtCPiQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
I am an artist and I hate modern art. It makes me look stupid and I don’t even do that kind of art.
I highly doubt you’ve studied the principles of art and design or art history lol. Being anti-modern art is anti-intellectual.
@@huh5007 Are you a redditor?
@@simplepointstudio6210 aw you beat me to it bro! lol
@@simplepointstudio6210He also likes Lolis. Look at his weeb profile pic 😂
As a guitar player, it’s exactly like when pop musicians make millions playing the same 4 chords while people that actually work years and years to refine their craft and be actually insanely skilled and make something insanely original get no recognition whatsoever (by the masses that is).
Not really. Music is music and all music requires skill. A blank canvas is not the same as a Taylor Swift song.
I can't believe that so few people who who the frickin Slash is man. Everyone knows Ed Sheeran but god forbid anyone knows who the Slash is. Which is crazy because I thought he was way more popular in his prime.
Every mainstream song
charlie sarcastically explaining the meaning behind jackson pollock’s painting was me bullshitting my way through english class
That’s the beauty of English class. You can bullshit anything as long as you have confidence in it
All English classes are actually just as bullshit as these paintings.
it literally sounded like the way i described my art in my last year of school, you can literally bullshit your explanation to why you made what you made and get top marks for it if you sound profound enough.
As an aspiring writer, seeing this just makes me sad. Theres a reason why specific books are chosen in english class.
Lmao same
Like I was always saying "it doesn't have to be right or make sense, just make it look like it does"
If Jackson Pollock painting is upside down no one will ever know
True
That's part of why his art was so revolutionary.
AISURU.TOKYO/AGNEZ 💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
@@Straumnes you'll call a discarded shit stained toiletpaper an art just because its from Pollock, there's nothing revolutionary about that.
@@FatGouf putting a shit-stained toilet paper in an art museum would be objectively funny tho.
Like Marcel Duchamp or something
I actually like how Pollock's paintings have different colors far away and close up.
Sure, I think it’s neat too, but is it worth buying for several million dollars?
@@KN9595 No, I just can see why see people like it.
@@Chicken. i can see why people could like it but paying so much money for it doesn't make sense
8:42 two other good comparisons are “People die when they are killed” and “Every 60 seconds in Africa a minute passes”
The only thing that matters in art is your Credentials. Where you studied, where you traveled, and who you know. I feel bad for any student whos genuinely interested in Art because it's next to impossible to be successful on talent and skill.
all that matters is how much money you dumped into getting a piece of paper that says "i passed a class on explaining art." I've been an artist almost my entire life, and i won't get a single job unless i put myself in debt to get a paper that says "i can do art" when i could easily prove it without signing up for poverty.
This is why the American college system is also a scam
Your wrong, that's modern art. You can become industry artist and make art for games and film. That's what most people go into now, extremely competitive tho
Your view of what makes an artist is very narrow it seems
Many people would pay good money for certain drawings these days.....
As an artist I feel insulted that a circle on a canvas is considered worth more than an anime pencil drawing.
Yep. Anime and furry art is waaaaay better than 90% of what you see in modern "art" galleries...
Oh man I agree. I've been drawing anime for years and I think that artworks in an anime style is much better than whatever the hell is in this video Charlie watched. How can scribbles be considered art but a detailed drawing of a girl in anime style is not? It doesn't make sense. Art is art and anime is just a form of cartoonist style
@@nitabagels6969 I wonder if I can get an anime boy drawing into a high art museum.
@@palanthas7063 my god.
@@arjenbij yes?
I adore art even if only for the context of it. I want to know the history of the artist, the world they lived in, and all of the DSM-5 diagnoses we can retroactively apply to them.
One of the world's biggest art dealers once said, "it's not how good it is, it's how much you can get for it."
I tell you, the real artists these days aren’t in museums. They’re in our movies, our video games, and our tv shows. Those underpaid artists who make gorgeous sceneries, and worlds you explore.
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
amen to that
Thank you!
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Also in manga/comic books, like Kentaro Miura, Takehiko Inoue, Alex Ross, Jim Lee, etc.
"What you see is what you see" has the same energy as “The floor is made out of floor” except its not a meme and an actual grown man said it unironically
"The floor here is made out of floor" seems more fitting
@@trystanclemenceau2071 I’ll add it
There is truth to "What you see is what you see" as well as bullshit. When talking about Pollock, it makes a lot of sense. What you see IS what you see. When it comes to other artists in the abstract world, their art can try to hide things. Some abstract artists might use different shapes, patterns or textures to hide what is actually being painted. A good example is of a tattoo a friend has. The tattoo is of an AK-47 but every component of the gun is actually kitchen tools made to look like a gun. In that case, what you see ISN'T what you see. Another example would be a picture of donald trump composed of tiny pictures of random people using their different skin tones to "draw" trump.
While there is a lot of pretentious shit in the art world, I do think the quote "You see what you see" makes sense in this situation.
@@ZeLoShady See why couldn't the other fella have said it this way? That at least could make logical sense to those who under appreciate and then we at least see where the point is coming from.
Perhaps it would help if we'd had the chance for Pollock to do a Bob Ross where he talks and shows his mindset as he went along. Some people can see things easier after having it explained first after all.
@@flandyc4513 I am not even in the art world that deep, I just don't go with my initial reaction to things. Initially, I was like, ya that quote is stupid as fuck but if you take a minute to actually use your brain and think (something most people don't do these days) than you will see the quote has meaning in this context. IN THIS CONTEXT. People also tend to leave context out of their thought s and opinions too.
I like Pollock. I went to an exhibit a few years ago and being in the room with them you can feel the energy it took to make those pieces.
Are you blind by any chance?
@@forkrust9296he's actually blind, death and crippled so any energy he can feel is crazy
@@forkrust9296Nah just a schizophrenic lol
I had to take an art history class in order to get my associates degree and if you take away the sarcasm, Charles sounds just like the other students in my class. The best part of the whole thing is that my professor thought that most modern art was bullshit as well. I love this channel so much!
It's just disgusting that most people will work their entire life and not have anywhere near as much money as these people
The "fine" art world is literally just for money laundering purposes at this point. Same with most charities.
it is disgusting, but is life all about getting rich? also, there are way more artists drowning in student debt than artists who are getting rich. its like 1/10,000 artists will be successful. its a lot like the struggling youtuber scene, but worse. this anti-art sentiment in this comment section, and in this video rest on a huge strawman.
Not to mention there are artists on like art twitter who actually draw really amazing shit and they get hounded just for charging 30$ a commission
But these people make millions off blank canvases
These artists dont get a mere percent of the paintings that are being sold this much. The money doenst go to the artists, it goes to collectors jacking eachother off
Okay, make something as cool looking as the paintings at 7:20
Fountain, by Duchamp is one of the best art pieces of all time. He took a urinal off a wall, turned it on its side, and literally pissed all over the art world. It's hilarious, and brilliant.
The best part was when the art gallery was like "yeah bro 11/10 and put it on display"
@@stephenn1056 Pretty sure that the gallery curators get it. It's from the Dada movement, which is anti-aesthetics and art culture at that time. Early 20th century.
I'm so glad someone brought up Duchamp. This is the exact art piece I was thinking of when Charlie was talking about the paint cans... I'm just thinking, "you think this about Pollock? Don't even get me started with Duchamp." Dada is a whole other world.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, Duchamp.
Duchamp made the same criticism this comment section makes but 100 years ago
😂 I was dying when he said what you see is what you see. Your follow up reaction was priceless lol
I’m convinced modern art is like The Emperor’s New Clothes. Deep down everyone knows he’s naked, but only the wisest of men can see the clothes (that aren’t there), so everyone just goes with it and doesn’t challenge the emperor for being nude. Nobody wants to admit they can’t see the clothes, and nobody wants to admit that modern art is stupid.
Well the people who want to appear distinguished dont want to admit it anyway, but ordinary people without reputations to lose are willing to admit it
@Wicker 2 "Resonating" or eliciting an emotional response does does make something better, and is utilized in classic artworks and literature throughout history, even in things like sculptures and architecture. Meaning and technical skill aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to good art. The problem is modern art doesn't have meaning or emotion to it, the shitty artist who made it just says so and people take his word for it.
@Fucking grass It's subjective just as how a pile of dogshit is. The act of stepping on that pile of dogshit and the reaction may be subjective but the objective truth is that its a pile of shit.
@Wicker 2 I agree with your views on this... but I'm also laughing at your comments because they're written like you're doing a response for a discussion board in an online college class 🤣
@Wicker 2 To be clear I'm not a fan of modern art either, but technical ability only matters in the sense that it allows you to bring your artistic vision from your imagination into the real world more accurately.
Someone can paint a photorealistic painting of an apple and it takes a lot of technical mastery to do so (although it was more important in the past when people didn't walk with actual cameras in their pockets), but I'd rather look at a less technically perfect, but epic painting of a huge battlefield or something. *Because* it elicits a strong emotional response in me. Artistic skill is important, but it's an objective measure. Art is everything that is not objective.
At points your arguments make it sound like all art is bad, because it can be applied to everything. Also, your plagiarism argument means nothing.
"Crying Dolphin Blue"
Charlie needs to rename every color on a paint swatch, in the world's longest tier list video series
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
@@sakura-pq9xk I finally got this joke
8:10
-Frank Stella
People die when they're killed.
-Shirou Emiya
The archer class is really made of archers.
-Rin Tohsaka
I dont even dislike Jackson Pollocks stuff like looking at the colours is fun
I just hate how these videos take the hardest reach to explain shit
U can just say u like it cuz it looks nice damn 😭
Thanks for that comment, same here
It was never the art itself people had an issue with, it was the price of the art, the people defending the art, and the disrespect to other artists that was the issue.
“When paint dries, is it a liquid?” -Jackson Pollock, right before writing the 10 Commandments
Art has turned into zen koans, and if you dont like it, dont look at it.
There is good abstract art, like Pablo Picasso's chaos of barely recognizable facial features, or Salvador Dali's surreal pieces.
And there is good minimalist art, like Paul Rand's simple and direct graphic designs, or Picasso (again) and his use of four lines to draw a woman's backside or his bull painting.
When you combine both and put no effort in, you get splatters of paint going for millions.
Dali wasn’t a great painter but rather a personality
@@gabopaz9693 Dali used to say that he was too smart to be a good painter, and if he became dumb and skillful, he would die earlier
Don't forget Rothko or Miro
Yeah i think the shitty art that shouldnt be acknoledgue as art is that one that a complete todler could do, like the blank "paint" or the stains of paint.
When you talk Picasso, you see something that takes skill and makes sense, any kind of art can be good if it has skill and meaning in it.
@@rodrigoperes3336 Dali must not have heard of da Vinci then lol, he was a skilled painter and incredibly smart💀
them explaining the symbolism and meaning behind the art is like trying to get to the essay word count
When I was an art teacher, one of my favorite lessons involved putting up a slide of a Jackson Pollock painting along with quotes from two art critics-one critic said that he was the greatest artist America has ever produced, the other said his art was meaningless crap. I then had my students discuss which opinion they agreed with and why. It was always a lively discussion, and my students really seemed to enjoy it. I particularly liked that, because there were no objectively "right" or "wrong" answers, even my shy and more withdrawn students were able to express some pretty strong opinions. :)
Incidentally, seeing a slide of a Jackson Pollock painting is nothing like seeing one of his works in real life. It's impossible to get a sense of the scale, texture, depth, energy, etc. without seeing it in person. A framed print or an art book reproduction just doesn't do it justice. And I suppose this brings up an important problem: not everyone has the means to visit the MOMA, Louvre, Guggenheim, etc. to see an artist's work in person, and it's impossible to fully appreciate an artwork without being able to choose where to look-to take in the whole piece, to lean in and look at the paint strokes, to walk around the sculpture, to take it in from different angles, and so on.
I would encourage everyone, if their city has an art gallery, to visit it, to see/experience art in person. And however possible, to support their local artists.
"What you see, is what you see."
I understand this quote like this: There's no pretentiousness in the paintings, if you see a bunch of paint splattered on a canvas, it's literally a bunch of paint splattered on a canvas. No meaning.
If that's what Frank was going for, I agree with the quote.
Good explanation
I oddly liked that weird ass splatter painting... I would buy it, not for 10,000 , but like 25-50 bucks (or however much the canvas costed)
@@parzavaal5335 I think it would fit really well in a modern house, to be honest.
@@KenoxProductions looks like winter camo too I noticed, lol
Looks like the floor of a paint booth if it was never cleaned.
"what you see is what you see"
I paused the video at the same time as charlie and died pretty hard inside
In summary: no one cares what art you actually created, as long as you know the right people and you have a good reputation... the rich gets richer
All of these people finding deeper meanings in this art never outgrew their phase of thinking they were super deep and that made them smarter then everyone else
Brilliant observation.
16 years old but forever
Offt, that comment hit me like a truck. Damn I thought I was special, I thought I was profound, but I guess not.
Meaning can be found in a piece of shit, not unsimilar to Zen way. But the meaning is not derived from a painting but within you. So in that you are right - attributing thought provoking news to an art piece might be a stretch already.
seethe
I usually don't hate on art, but as an artist I really hate modern art like this. Art is a craft with endless possibility for learning and improvement, there's always more skills to learn and practice, and your works should show your development as an artist and a person. So when someone spatters paint on a canvas and sells it for millions,it disrespects the very nature of art. It's not expressive,or skillful,or meaningful in any way, and it hurts to see it held in such high regard.
Somebody can buy a canvas from somewhere, literally do nothing to it, and sell it for like 10 million dollars or something.
@LonelyG33k yeah the creator of that was a massive troll and ate the banana lol
@LonelyG33k the person who did that mainly did it to prove the point that modern art is a scam. He ate the banana afterwards
@@AleksandarBell dude’s goal was literally to show people that modern art is a scam
@@ninjafrog6966 yeah and I love him for that it was hilarious
One time in high school we took a trip to the art museum in Denver. There was a newly constructed room that was roped off with about 25 red rolling trash cans it in. To this day I don't know if that was construction or art.
"Recording the gesture of his hand as it moves"
So like,,most,,paintings
There is nothing more pretentious and condescending than art people talking about modern art
technically that is CONTEMPORARY art, not modern.
Aw naw. An art person found me
@@12zander45 nope
Like Charlie is here?
Yes, I deliberately misinterpreted what you said
regular people shitting on modern art can also get very snobbish.
See, I enjoy abstract art. I don’t know why, but I always have. What I don’t enjoy, however, is people trying to give paint splatter a deeper meaning than it being just a mishmash of colors that looks neat. That’s all it is, a cool looking mesh of colors. I don’t understand why art needs to have some sort of deeper meaning to it
Thank you
You can't feel better than everyone else for liking/owning it if it doesn't have a deeper meaning
And if it has some artistic value to you, that makes sense. I think the problem arises when people condescendingly explain why something is art to them & why others lack their insight or say things like "what you see is what you see" like it's some kind of hidden wisdom.
It's not the art so much as the fandom.
Because some people actually have different feelings when looking at it. I think interpretation doesn't work everywhere tho.
But paying 50 grand for that is moronic right?
I took an art class for three years in high school. One of the few things I remember about it is an art college graduate coming in as a guest teacher and spending forty-five minutes ranting about how Bob Ross wasn't a real artist.
Nobody asked and this has little to no relevance to the video, but I felt compelled to share.
7:09 "Okay, so this (Jackson Pollock) is the villain."😆
“Jackson Pollock’s paintings really make you feel like you’re Jackson Pollock”
-IGN probably idfk
10 / 10
the exaggerated swagger of a Jackson Pollock
if you think that this is scam read thus:
"In May 1961, while he was living in Milan, Piero Manzoni produced ninety cans of Artist's Shit. Each was numbered on the lid 001 to 090. Tate's work is number 004. A label on each can, printed in Italian, English, French and German, identified the contents as '"Artist's Shit", contents 30gr net freshly preserved, produced and tinned in May 1961.'"
I went to Manchester art gallery a few years ago and they were excited to have a display of a dozen or so can's of said artist's shit. A pile of brown hued sealed tin cans indeed filled with poop.
if i'm not too wrong some people even opened it up and apparently it was just some random stuff, i forgot what it was now, i think there was some concrete? but the problem is who opened these cans?
Best part is that the cans were first priced as worth their wight in gold. Manzoni created the greatest shitpost in art history.
oh my god
@@ENDERBOSSPURPLE If that's true, then it's the most genius art shitpost of all time.
@@Boredman567 literally the most expensive shit post
Imagine an expert on duplicates get this white canvas and he has to determine whether or not it is a false one.
I have very many stories from art school but yes, sometimes you can't distinguish between literal trash, and art. This one time we went to a gallery and there was a plastic bag with some trash in the middle of the room, and everyone (including the "professors") were tiptoeing around it and looking at it, because they weren't sure if it was art or trash, so nobody dared to pick it up and throw it in the can.
It was wild. The things I've seen back then drove me half mad.
I genuinely want to see Charlie unironically, but also ironically make modern art and just see what happens.
It wouldn’t look anywhere near as impressive as the paintings at 7:20. I promise buddy
If there's a reward in viewing a white canvas, then why don't they look at the section of white wall right next to it? It's white, and it's painted. Why doesn't modern art just have walls? No more art, just walls.
I actually really like that idea. Strip down minimalism even harder. Blank canvases replaced with the blank walls of the museum.
Alternatively you'd have """carefully""" splattered walls of paint. Some abstract paintings rely on a huge canvas and a wall is basically the largest it can be.
But perhaps this hilarious form of minimalism isn't being done because that kind of art can't be sold off. The wall would be stuck in a museum.
@@voxlity let me do you one farther. Let’s just get rid of all contemporary art museums. The pinnacle of minimalistic art
@@casshernsins8333 You walk into the museum and its just completly empty, actually, fuck it, the entire museum is gone, its just the floor.
I swear that's actually a thing... I remember seeing it in a book or on a museum website. I can't remember if it's in New York or somewhere in California though.
@@therealbubble4696 floor? That's too much. Just use the ground and charge $40 to look
This brings me back to that dude who sold a banana he taped to a wall for thousands of dollars.
"Heres some paint, make something!"
Jackson Pollock: "no"
*makes thousands of dollars*
As an artist that actually works 40 hours for one piece (all styles including realism) and gets nothing, modern art feels like they personally attack my 15 years of hard work that went into improving my art. It’s mentally painful to even look at this.
Well, that's why you get nothing
@@madmaximum875
TRUE. 😂😭
I hate realism, but where can I find your pieces? And what topics do you touch upon in your works? Just whatever, or do you have some favourite?
In their hearts they know they are nothing and will be punished in hell for their scam
Don't listen to negativity. You have my respect for your hard work.
"But what Pollock does is just present us with paint as paint. He was the first person to do this."
THAT'S LITERALLY JUST "THIS IS NOT A PIPE" BUT WITHOUT EVEN TRYING
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
I desperately want to find your profile picture now fission lmao
@@codgod5238 nah you did not just link your nuke clip💀
Some college students in Scotland left a pineapple and a week later it had a glass box
This guy is amazing I’ve never seen seen someone so unable to see the other side of something
there is no other side stop lying to yourself lmao
This guy is pretty amazing :), glad we can agree
@@obesity_loverthere is another side, starry night takes on a whole different meaning when you learn it was made by someone stuck in a mental hospital
@KingNerdius but at least you could still see meaning without needing to hear a story :)
@@reddytoplay9188 you still don’t need a story for modern art
I’m not a fan of Jackson Pollock, but I think that he was a good painter, he just chose to make a bunch of bullshit. Look up his painting “Going West” if you wanna see something he put effort into.
I mean, he couldve been at it for hours on the drip paintings. Efort doesnt rly matter.
If "Going West" is his best work, I can understand why he is only making a bunch of bullshit
I will never understand the appeal of "expressive" paintings that just look like someone nutted on the canvas. To each their own but I feel like it requires zero skill or talent. So much of art just feels like it's art because someone said it was. I have to respect anyone who can sell some random bullshit painting for a fortune though.
The deep is his best painting
@@MrYelly it's not his best work.
Modern art is just a prettier way rich people evade taxes
Really stretching the word 'prettier' right there...
@Fax no one cares lmao
Pretty? No
Efficient? Maybe
Effective? Most likely
Hotel? Trivago
Yeah I saw a video that explains this. ruclips.net/video/3L1an9JU3Nk/видео.html
When you sell your spatter painting at Sotheby's they will report the exact amount of the sale to the IRS so you have to declare the gain as ordinary income or capital gains - so it is not even that great at that. Even ebay starts reporting to the IRS once you hit a certain sales threshold.