This might be a reach but, Tyler Perry's Acrimony for me was one example. Although now I think about it, he might have made Taraji's narration that obviously antagonized the male protagonist, to make her tragedy all the more painful. If it wasn't, then I thought her narration was trying to do all the thinking for the audience. Explaining how every single thing the male character said or did was a deceptive ploy to take advantage of her and ruin her life. Which I don't think was the case
I don't really understand the difference between didacticism and conveying a message in your art. You talked about Rockwell's end of life period, when he painted social problems in America. Is it not also taking a moral stance and showing it to the viewer? Or is like sentimentalism, where it is only a question of intensity and clumsiness. Execpt for the latter one emotions are imposed to the viewer without subtlety, and for the former one it is a point of view, an opinion? I'm a bit confused, and would appreciate clarifications. I am not a native English speaker, I apologize for any mistake.
Thank you for saying "I like Norman Rockwell just because I like Normal Rockwell". It's gotten to where you can't like someone or something without a good thesis on their greater value, and I feel like that misses a very central part of art, which is sometimes it just makes you feel a certain way and that's a good enough reason that it exists.
It did take a little determination from Stan to make him admit it though. :p I respect Marshall more for this. He separated examination from opinion in the end.
I also think there needs to be a discussion the differences between "sentimental" which almost implies a bit of falsehood visually instead of "tender" which implies a truth of the human experience.
There are a lot of popular artists out there I feel that do nothing but pandering, but they're also just painting what they enjoy. I used to hate on them for it, but after a while I just realized I get nothing out of my jealousy.
I consider it a waste of time as well. I am more focused on my own behavior and journey. My opinion on their work changes little in their course. I also recognize that to make sound judgements on what I do enjoy, I must also expose myself to what I do not. Sometimes the sole existence of a piece is a motivator for people to work in the opposite direction. I detest when artistic expertise is confused with a personal judgement. Censorship is the enemy of truth, and I think art is one of the key ways we can seek truth in our lives.
I personally don't like much the discussion around what "real art" is because most of the justifications start sounding elitist at some point. I think both "simple" and "deep" art needs to exist, because as humans we don't consume only one or the other and most of the time, it's healthier to consume a balance of the two. Yes, if we only consume simplistic empty stuff we may go stupid, but if we were only to consume war and other heavy world problems content throughout the whole day we would go depressed. Sometimes all you want is a painting of a silly little cottage hanging on your kitchen because it has pretty colors and nothing else, and that should be totally okay. I think it's okay that we as artists don't like that only one type of art is being more consumed by the masses than the other, and we may feel it's unfair that important artists don't get as much likes as a generic female portrait on instagram, but I think we can have this conversation without needing to tell other artists their art is not "real art", nor disminish one for the other.
The masses are people, and people naturally look for things that they find important. Artists, and non artists alike. In a sense fine art is the aggregate art that very skilled artists find important. Maybe it's like a respect thing. I personally would prefer to have a simplistic cottage hanging on my wall then any fine art, but that's an opinion based on the things that I find important.
lets just remember that "the masses" are non expert people on a certain area, in this case just happen to be art, and we are hearing to expert talking about art, thus it make sense that they understand to a deep lvl what is and what isnt good,.. the masses just consume what everyone else consume,.. keep that in mind and the idea of "elitist" just break a part,.. this ofc apply to everything, like for example, climate change
@@ReyZar666 I don't exclusively like art for excellent rendering, color, or shape theory. I like a piece of art for the ideas it conveys. I can look at a master painting, and a rough sketch, and appreciate the rough sketch more if it has a greater vision behind it.
@@brant-bi8563 oh yeah? tell that to Darwin,.. or literally every other illustration of space,.. Art is another for of communication,.. is not about "not been objective" it about telling something on a visually format
Marshall your analogy of flavor and taste when it comes to art is spot on. Some synapses in my mind fired and new connections were made there. That was really great. I feel that a lot artists make art for other artists, and that may be a big factor in to their success or their lack there of. This conversation is absolute gem.
The ad timing on this is unintentionally hilarious. It's almost like Stan is going for "if you're thinking of selling out, try reaching out to Better Help" XD
Thomas Kinkade painted a dream, a hope, an fond experience when young, and an idea of heavenliness. When I hear the reactions you're expression I understand very much where you are in your journey of life. The reactions vary by the health of your soul. If you're feeling dirty about your own soul you're going to think I will never live there or I don't deserve a place like this. If you want to hang onto this there's going to be all kinds of negative reactions including threats of violence. The reality of the whole experience with Kinkade as I observe observers is if you're in a state of hopelessness it's terrible art. If you're naive or well healed from the tests in life then a place like this is your hope. In some cases people already live in a Kinkade cottage because they are so thankful for the shack they could be living in now. Just because of the reactions Kinkade's art pulls in is a testament to this being a great work of art. The state of the artists not only represents this but serves as a warning of extremes. The presence of these paintings makes one reconcile with heaven or hell. Last word on Kinkade. I live in a shack but there is so much nature around me that I grow more and more thankful each day. In my eyes I see the birds and the greens more vividly each day. I am retired and I photograph regularly, used to do airbrushing when work wasn't available. Now that I got some time, I get a chance to be more thankful each day. This is corny and each day becomes more like a Kinkade painting or a Rockwell moment when I look at things given to me. What will be interesting is when it's time to pass on will I be so grateful that even that moment will be greeted thankfully and peacefully?
Hi Stan and Marshall! First of all, I love this podcast, I've seen every single one of your episodes and they were of tremendous help. I think your best episode was the one about studying the old masters and it seemed like you really enjoyed making it as well. That subject to me seems like it could become an inspiration for a series of episodes just because it is such an important subject for us artists. I would definitely love to see more episodes on that (and I'm sure other listeners feel the same). Plus, it looks like an untapped area on youtube.
I never knew there was so much criticism about what is considered cheap and what is considered art. I thought beauty was in the eyes of the beholder, and art is subjective. I doubt there'd be a time where everyone will ultimately agree on what is cheap and what isn't, so I never quite understood the purpose of the argument. I enjoy the diversity of work that's put out there. Even if I don't value some art over others, that wouldn't mean its lost any place in the art world, it just appeals to someone else's taste. I think that diversity is something to be appreciated whether it's studio work, commercial art, so on. Not to say Marshall or Stan are imposing opinions or anything. I mean in regard to the really harsh, vocal critics.
I know some people say art is subjective, but is it though ?! When someone paints a blue triangle and calls it a work of art, I may simply smile and walk away, or roll my eyes and not think much of it, but when "art critics" pretend like that blue triangle is a masterpiece, worth millions of dollars, or worthy of hanging in museum, that just pisses me off. In my opinion, anything achieved without a particular set of skills (often acquired over a period of many years) is not art. I have to say this, though: I do not like the amount of hate Thomas Kinkade gets. People who criticize him almost never talk about any of the skills he clearly mastered. They talk about his art as if it can be achieved by anyone. I highly doubt those who criticize him could produce a work similar to his.
@@Ty-1452 with the introduction of AI "art", I would have to agree with you now lol. Ironically I just saw a big, blank canvas at hobby lobby too that was almost a 100 dollars. Like, barely any painting texture. It made me laugh though. I actually looked behind the painting thinking it was turned around and i was mistaken. But yeah, skill can certainly determine the value of something, but i also really enjoy silly, messy sketches.
@@logantj8020 Speaking of AI art, recently I was accused of using AI to create my art, which is not true of course. I came across other traditional artists talking about their worries of being accused of using AI ! There are some messy sketches I love a lot too, especially when they make more sense from afar. I'd encourage you to watch a video called 'The Banishment of Beauty' by Scott Burdick. It's very interesting.
This is literally the best thing on youtube. Marshall has a very therapeutic voice and also a great teacher, Stan is very talented too. Really look up to you guys. Its always an energy boost for me whenever I listen to this podcast and sketch. Thank you so much for this. Learned a lot from here.
Rockwell stated he was looking for warmer and more sentimental themes in his work after being exposed to the wars of the earlier 20th century. Even though the scenes are sentimental they explore parts the human experience. I see that very different from Kinkade who was running art sweatshops to make millions of more dollars exploiting his art laborers. Kinkade's is beyond sentimental his work is like a painting of crying clowns standing next to sad-eyed puppies next to a window with a sunset with ducks flying across the sky, it's just so ridiculously over the top.
That’s selling out in my opinion, he’s willing to squeeze and exploit the vulnerable to make money, it’s the complete lack of ethics that make someone a sellout.
@@PurpleFlush I don't know if you are referring to Rockwell. I don't see Rockwell as a "sellout" If someone chooses themes to contain a certain feeling to them because that is the way they choose to create art and those sentiments are a common part of the shared human experience of family, courtship, celebration, and others, I don't see that as selling out. Kincade was not only a "sellout" but exploited both the art industry by sowing disinformation to those who bought his prints and posters sold as supposed "original work" he also exploited his sweatshops where they cranked out prints of his images with some bit of paint that were again sold as "original art." The difference between these men and what they produced is on opposite sides of the spectrum.
We also have "Cucumbers should be twisted early on" and other sayings that sound funny when translated and completely unrelated to the real meaning. Just like my reply to your comment. Completely unrelated. I just wanted to say oi conterrâneo.
Kincaide had a list of “rules” you can find online. He distributed them to people adapting his work to Hallmark channel TV shows. I remember they were sort of interesting.
This is why it can be a good thing for fine artists to have a day job. That way you don't have to choose between paying the bills and staying true to your artistic vision. But no choice is without consequences.
I think that the main difference between Norman Rockwell and Thomas Kinkade’s work is that Rockwell is undoubtfully a great craftsman - he paints masterfully, his storytelling skills are incomparable and he has a fantastic sense of humor. Also, you can feel real kindness in all his works. If you want, you can ignore the message, the sugared representation of the reality in his paintings and simply enjoy the mastery and learn from it. In case of Kinkade, the overbearing sentimentality and ‘fairytaleness’ is in the painting style itself - you can’t ignore the choice of colors, the whole style - so if you don’t like it, there is nothing to look at, while the subject is neutral - landscapes, trees, houses, nothing's wrong with the theme itself.
Thomas Kincade paintings are well painted. They have good perspective, attractive subject matter, the light is well executed. People are just snobby about him , mostly because of the consumer of his work.
The Sentimentality section of the video really reminded me of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. The show sometimes tries very hard to make you miserable, and it appears to work for most people, but when I watched for the first time I just felt like "man, is all of that really necessary? I think you can make this story just as sad, and not appealing so much, thus making it feel cheap"
You pretty much hit the nail on the head with that show. I love the manga (I think it's sentimentality done right), but it doesn't translate well into animation, so you end up with a lot of overblown emotion.
I thought of Naruto. But anime in general is often guilty of tons of these sins. Preaching too hard, fanservice, trying to make emotional moments way too emotional, etc.
There's a manga/anime called Vinland Saga that to me fits Marshall's point about didacticism perfectly. It's a highly acclaimed, well executed work. But something always keeps me from adoring it, and Marshall just put my feelings into words.
when I saw the Durer book in the background I smiled because of his art, his craft, and his business....echoing through this point and counterpoint of this discussion....urer the man of the sod and the rabbit, the self portrait, and mass produced woodcuts
. I believe Magic: The Gathering should also be an interesting topic regarding art creation, management, advertising and the scope of high art applied to mainstream (well... "mainstream" in a manner of speak... MTG is incredibly popular, granted). Boris Vallejo, Brom and Ciruelo Cabral, among many other outstanding artists have created card designs, and it would be great to know more about it. John Avon, Randy "rk" Post, Terese Nielsen and many other traditional artists get special requests to alter their printed MTG card works (and in the case of rk post, create special tokens and making a living out of it, which I'm sure Master Kopinski has done as well). For the love of God, please do a Terese Nielsen episode!! Still patiently waiting for a Comic Book Creators' special episode. Many of the sins discussed today are displayed on full force since that medium's inception, and regarding draftsmanship... whew. Neal Adams, Dave Stevens, Greg Capullo, Dave McKean, GODDAMN ALEX ROSS, etc... I believe there quite the material out there, and Marshall seems to know a LOT about comics... Good video; quite a bit of perplexing, honestly.
Such a great talk, I've so much to say on it.. but had to say bravo on that add placement. It evoked a hearty slightly conflicted laugh from me. I enjoyed it. Thanks.
That french onion soup metaphor really summarize my relationship with Bouguereau's work. Also, Marshall mentioned gore movies as an oposite to sweetness, when people try to make things really edgy, but I think you can find that in painting too. e.g. Odd Nerdrum.
This is such a great topic! I just had my middle school art students study the work of Kristoffer Zetterstrand. We recreated his paintings in Minecraft Ed, and wrote a report on him. One of the questions I asked my students to address was, "Is Kristoffer's art considered 'Fine Art,' and why?" We had a great conversation about the various genres of art, and the spheres artists influence. We specifically discussed the fine art and entertainment/gaming communities. I got some great conversation time when asking them to define art. I wish I could play this whole podcast for them in class. 😁
"All candy with syrup on top" ... this is how I feel when I look at the work of famous deviant-art-artists like Loish. Sweet girls with butterflys and hummingbirds only. But most people don't seem to get tired of it.
I get what you mean, but that's more like Ms. Jisu. I just liked a post by Loish with birch autumn trees, golden, reddish leaves. It was quite lovely. But yes, most girls do draw only girls. I'm trying to draw it all. Cars, landscapes, mechs, weapons and military, cute girls, older ladies, etc. Also culturally appropriate characters. Aliens too.
To be fair, artists like Loish get plenty of criticism like this, usually from art-bros who consider their own brand of syrup to be the only "true" one ;)
@@KitKatWiffleBallBat plenty of women draw different stuff (I'm seeing loads of female artists draw men lately and female concept artists who draw whatever). The catch is that, unless they explicitly specify that they're female or post their photos, people just automaticly decide that they're dudes. People seem to really enjoy indulging in old stereotypes...
@@vp3841 Hmm, interesting. 🤔 I see your point, but I've seen many girls who draw only girls though. Many of them have channels on RUclips with 1mil subs and on. I think all artists of all backgrounds and identities could benefit from drawing all things. Though because they don't wish to conform to that idea, they limit themselves in terms of portraits and the like. I guess I'd rather be a "Jill of all Trades" than be great at one thing. But that's because I have problems and wish to see the whole world through "windows" instead of create an appealing face; a character who takes up the entire image space. Again, I want to emphasize that everyone is free to do what they want, but sometimes without a strict code, we let ourselves cheat us out of other opportunities by limiting ourselves to drawing one thing.
You mentioned Kubrick, there are several scenes in “Barry Lyndon” that could have been over the top in sentimentality, but because they were handled somewhat dryly and the narrative moved on from those episodes rather quickly, you really don’t take the events in that way. It’s only afterwards that you kind of think about it and think, “oh wow, that happened to Barry, huh?” It’s part of what makes us human so, indeed, there is a place for it when handled correctly.
Good morning, I have a question about this video from 3 years ago. The example of Thomas Kinkade (coauthor with Gurney of his fist book) is mentioned in the video, and Frank Frazetta is mentioned soon. Without denying the expertise of Frazetta in many areas, from my perspective, often he also falls into the same sin of "pandering" the viewer. Much of his sword and sorcery work, not all, has that extra spoonful of sugar to appeal to the superficial feelings of the viewer. It is a different kind of kitsch, but kitsch anyway. I like his use of colour and composition, the dynamism of his figures, but I think he often lacks sobriety, and he did not have to do door to door interviews, he knew how to get the attention he needed.
I'm surprised for "frigidity" you focused so much on violence. I dont disagree, but when I look through art (commercial and fine) I see sexualization and objectification of the female body much more in that category. It's possible to argue exactly what does and doesnt fall into that category but either way it's a plague in the arts. Especially in photography I find it's ubiquitous that instead of artistic development or thought etc the maker will just go 'toss in hot girl, pose like it's a porn shoot, stripe off a layer of clothes and call it a day'. Same thing sexualization for impact rather than artistic merit. Sells well oc, but similar to violence it's degrading and rather disappointing how common it is (especially in commercial art). Ive seen the inverse with sexualization of male for impact as well, but it's not nearly as common. Outside of film, comics, and games I think sexualization is more common than violence as frigidity as an artistic pitfall
I agree. I’m tired of it. It’s everywhere it’s so blatant. I wonder how much things were sexualized throughout history. It has a lot to do with dopamine addiction in our society. Video games, movies, nsfw, social media, smartphones etc. all at our disposal. Fast food processed diet in general. We are all gluttons compared to people a hundred years ago.
Of course it really depends on the artist and I know what you're referring to but two questions; why must we be so pretentious and why do some scoff at capturing reality? It sells for a reason, and the only ones splitting hairs are "artists" whose ego compels them to do so
When you talked about the preachiness of university art, you put words to exactly how I feel about a lot of current fine art that deals with social issues! Often I even agree with what the artist is saying but it often feels too artificial and too clear cut.
Alejandro Jodorovky's "La Montaña Sagrada" have that feature. But it happened to me that I wasn't enjoying that much the movie until that "preaching" began. It was more like a plot twist with some learning.
I honestly don't think pandering is really a sin. When you come to think of it, it's simply a product of capitalism. It's even less of a sin if the artist enjoys doing that, the art itself or making money off of it.
On the point of Didacticism, I can think of The Lorax movie, but my opinion of the movie, I personally felt, was affected in a positive way because of it
Hi there ! I'm not an English speaker by birth, so I still not understand what "pandering" means. Could somebody help me for this one ? Thank you very much ^^
It may help by sharing with you other words and phrases with similar meanings (because its hard to explain, sorry, I'm trying my best!) - Boot-licking - Appeasement - Selling out - Ignorong your principals and morals in favour of some kind of reward (be it monetary or something else) - Someone "pandering" to the boss, might be a "yesman" just looking to get a promotion. - Acting like a dog seeking affection by any means necessary
Thomas Kincade’s work is romantic in much of the same way as pre raphaelites painted. Remember William-Adolphe Bouguereau and Norman Rockwell we’re both looked down on as plebeian and beneath contempt
Thank you guys, very entertaining and educational. My takeaway is: be honest in your art, but above all, be honest with yourself. And remember; if you work for McDonald’s
I never really cared about the meta for art. I think all art is done with ntention behind it. There is always a target audience, yourself included. I think it's everyone's responsibility to balance what they consume on a personal level. Art is art, even when we pander. I think what we do as far as our work, relies solely on our shoulders. You want to formulate pieces to teach a lesson, do it. You want to show the dregs of humanity, do it. I think art is simply a byproduct of human existence. Perhaps I just view it more broadly. I can't pretend to have any more say in your lived experience than you can, at the end of the day we all struggle with meaning and truth. Maybe some people need candy, and maybe some need dirt. I cant say, I am not them, and I would lose my hair stressing over it.
Agree. But I think their point is everyone is gonna need to be a 'Whore' to make more money. In that case an artist need to know something about what people want to see, right?
Good comment, thank you for sharing. On the last part of your comment, you mentionned candy and dirt, focusing on the viewer's point of view. For the artist's point of view, I would tend to agree with the draftsmen that there should be awareness (not judgement) of the candiness/sourness of your piece. So you can offer a counterpoint in the same piece, making it even better&enjoyable for a broader audience. See Marshall's comments about Rockwell's early works, where the adorable situations Rockwell is depicting actually blossom out of not-so-adorable mindset from the characters.
@L1qu1d S1lenc3r I enjoy the show very much. I just don't feel pandering constitutes a lack of artistic integrity. Often, the limits we place upon ourselves, and our target audience challenge people to be more creative. The need to pay the bills inspires some and demotivates others. I just think it's more of personal aspect of art making.
@@yohenson I can't tell if you consider this a good or bad. Some highly competent artists plan pieces similar to an engineer. Others produce exemplary pieces off the cuff and on a whim. Both ways of artmaking have merit in the end. I think execution lies mostly within the dedication to your craft. Mastering something is a lonely endeavor, so it would make sense to try and map out a road aforehand. Inspiration can be a fickle muse, and when you are not in the throes, it can be difficult to practice. I think sitting down and beginning a piece constitutes a logical step in the planning process. I just don't think considering an audience enough to invalidate artistic integrity. I think what we call art is deeply personal and individual, and there is no one correct answer.
I would be interested as to how you feel things like the song "this is America" fits into all this. Where there is a message; unapologetically so put into an artform. If I understand Marshall correctly I assume it would follow didacticism BUT is that really a bad thing? Didacticism could just as easily be a conversation starter no? Thanks for the episode guys, lots to think about namely in keeping your art in integrity.
@@Edinburgh1000 Interesting. Due to how powerfully the arts are at sending a message I've always separated them into two different categories. -The art for entertainment/wanting to make it. -The art used for a 'purpose' as in a political agenda or an important message like the example I listed above.. I had no idea people considered the latter such a negative thing.. In my case I thought the "This is America" was a good, non violent way to start a conversation between people about something the artist feels is wrong. Thanks for the reply, definitely something I'm gonna think about more.
Mannerism sums up too much of contemporary art, including currently popular portrait artists - as soon as the artist makes the work reflect themselves, ahead of the subject, vanity and ego take over, and indirectly insult the person being portrayed. Dali, Picasso, suffered from this in their works, but I believe all sincere portrait artists need to subsume their own identity, in pursuit of a likeness that can stand the test of time, without worrying if their own name is remembered.
Yes!! My husband and I love ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, but dislike the strong global warming sermon within it. The remake of ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’ with Keanu Reeves also preaches along a similar vein. I get that we have got to be good stewards of this planet, but I want to escape that messaging in my entertainment since we get bombarded so much in our day to day lives with it.
As a person, reacting to your narration, I can't help but just wonder. I've been lucky to have those Rockwell moments as well as the dream presented by Kinkade. I've produced Ocean style airbrush themes and admittedly they didn't stay on hnagers more than 2 hours. I did make them for money but that wasn't the top reason I made them. I made them because the colors were amazing. The contrasts were beautiful even down to the silhouettes of dolphins. I don't think Kinkade started to paint those paintings for money. It was what he discovered with the colors. When he lost that he went for the money and sold out exactly as he said. Rockwell's change was due to politics of his time. We went from an ideal to Eisenhauer to the sixties. Media exposed us to new truths. The good was becoming evil and the evil was doing good.
Marshall @ 39:10 "cruelty to animals as spectacle used to be a part of this country's culture and you find it in some illustrators work". What kind of illustrations and illustrators is he talking about?
It's fairly widespread, both in older US art and in the UK. A lot of country painters used to paint hunts. Including William Micheal Harnet's "After the Hunt" as just one example
Thomas Kincaid His life is a great lesson to artists. I genuinely believe that pandering is what killed him. He suffered from alcoholism. Paint with James gurney and Frank Frazetta early on I think seeing how his colleagues had had real “”real art” Made him depressed I’m thankful for the work that he made because it’s a Bridge For example, my grandma had a Gateway painted by Thomas Cade framed on the wall She wouldn’t understand the nuance of a bureau painting versus something out of the Hudson River school. She just knew that this gate looks like one of the most beautiful places nearby. Funny enough, she never bought any of his cottages
I don't get it. How is Kinkade and Rockwell making candy? And how is Rembrandt mash potatoing people? I just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me a little bit? So how can we separate good art and great art? Is it because they're doing what people like and not what they wanna do?
It's just gate keeping. It's like a jazz enthusiast saying this kind of stuff about pop music while it's actually more popular. As an artist, i love kinkade's works
I think the difference between Rockwell and Kinkade is that both made sentimental and cheesy stuff, but Rockwell was conscious and honest about it, while Kinkade thought of himself as the greatest artist alive.
i know it's a bit late.. but the threats surrounding the Kinkade show probably had more to do with TK's greater life's work outside of painting. it's pretty dark.
Maybe it's because I'm not from America, but I don't feel put off by the work of Thomas Kinkade at all, although it's very samey. I know you mentioned that you only started to dislike his work/ not appreciate it as much when you matured and enriched yourself with other artists, however, for me, I don't see what is inherently wrong with his artwork. Sure it was made to please the masses, but to be honest, when I look a lot of famous Instagram artists etc, I don't see anything different.(though I will refrain from naming any) Of course, the level of success/audience may be vastly different, but the overall idea of feeding of one's fanbase doesn't seem too far off from pandering, especially with things like Patreon etc. Though, in my eyes, I don't see this as a problem, as people probably enjoy creating art this way despite what other 'real' artists may say. In the end, artists/art critics themselves/ourselves can't dictate what art should be, as we all have different aesthetic preferences.
I'm seeing some of Kinkade's works, I like his overall composition, but I don't like the color or the lighting of some of the images, i just can pinpoint the issue with me.
@@carlosroo5460 I think there are aspects I like. But the faces remind me of Noddy, in a bad way. Bright red noses and bright red cheeks. Makes me cringe. If it weren't for that, I think it would be quite pleasant.
How many of the world's most thought of/highly valued artists pumped out portraits in the hundreds in order to earn a living? Can't both be done, commercial, and for the sake of art?
The movie that stands out for me is ‘The Green Mile’. Here’s a movie of five men convicted of murder in suspicious trails. And as each is going to the electric chair, one takes way to long to die, another is such a gentle man he befriends a mouse in his cell. Another is black and is a healer falsely convicted. This was a anti death penalty agenda movie, but still a pretty good movie.
love the podcast. lot of good thought flow very entertaining and lot of things to think about. I would love to hear tho what you think about topic "Art for the Artists". and put yourself in a shoes of non-artist (who don't care about "interesting brush strokes" or anything related to process of creating. and not thus art lovers who pretend that they got it just to not look ignorant about it) . and how lot of "Art" would stand the test without artists name behind it, like for example van Gogh paintings whos let's be honest lack pretty much in every fundamental. and what sugarcoating towards artists does to art as a product. which can lead to mass product of let's say low quality art made by sugarcoating encouraged wanabe artists. what we can witness a lot of Instagram artists who could care less about learning craft as long they can promote them self and feed the Algorithm Daemon.
Thank god proko we have proko's more objetivist leens in this episode. Is easy to get lost in the abstract denominations. I go as far to say that the sins are very debetable.
I don't agree with Marshall on this one. Thomas Kingkade was a great technical landscape painter. Landscapes, like portraits, when well done are stunning. The art critics may not call it art, but then again they call some of the garbage you see in contemporary art galleries real art.
Is it why people sent death threats to the actors and director? No, I disagree. People hate TLOU2 for any number of reasons, but none of which are reasonably informed. The hate is more visceral and reactionary.
@@calunsagrenejr just because they reacted is a shitty way doesn't mean the reason they disliked it was automatically wrong. For example I hate nazis, punching a nazi is perfectly valid (maybe a bit mild) as a response to one. However you can take any response too far, for example tracking down every blood relative of every nazi and sending them death threats is a shitty response. (And of course the actions of the nazi party are far worse than the worst video game ever made. I used them as an example because I doubt there will be anyone who says that some action is not required there.)
@@hadhayosh5105 The assertion was didacticism is the reason why TLOU2 got so much hate. There is no evidence of that, and it is a VERY weak stance to take given the visceral and reactionary nature of the hate, when didacticism as presented by Marshall is well-reasoned and not inflammatory at all. The only point I'm making is haters of the TLOU2 are not behaving in well-reasoned and well-informed ways, so suggesting didacticism is what compels them to act that way is a massive leap of logic.
What are examples of art and movies you would have liked if they hadn't put a sermon in at the end?
I don't remember any... And I think that is because when that happens it breaks the rest of it.
This might be a reach but, Tyler Perry's Acrimony for me was one example. Although now I think about it, he might have made Taraji's narration that obviously antagonized the male protagonist, to make her tragedy all the more painful. If it wasn't, then I thought her narration was trying to do all the thinking for the audience. Explaining how every single thing the male character said or did was a deceptive ploy to take advantage of her and ruin her life. Which I don't think was the case
The Disney Star Wars trilogies. Mulan (2020). Captain Marvel. Ghostbusters (2016). Terminator Dark Fate.
anne with an e new netflix show
I don't really understand the difference between didacticism and conveying a message in your art. You talked about Rockwell's end of life period, when he painted social problems in America. Is it not also taking a moral stance and showing it to the viewer? Or is like sentimentalism, where it is only a question of intensity and clumsiness. Execpt for the latter one emotions are imposed to the viewer without subtlety, and for the former one it is a point of view, an opinion?
I'm a bit confused, and would appreciate clarifications. I am not a native English speaker, I apologize for any mistake.
Why i listen to draftsmen
10% art advice
20% Stans humor
70% wishing Marshall was my grandad
you're bald.
Yeah sounds about right 😅
Marshall, can we go through your book shelf some time? That's quite a lot of good books.
yess this
Vote this up guys, I love this idea and would love to see it happen!
I fourth this
I think that every video.
this
Thank you for saying "I like Norman Rockwell just because I like Normal Rockwell". It's gotten to where you can't like someone or something without a good thesis on their greater value, and I feel like that misses a very central part of art, which is sometimes it just makes you feel a certain way and that's a good enough reason that it exists.
It did take a little determination from Stan to make him admit it though. :p I respect Marshall more for this. He separated examination from opinion in the end.
Marshall is the Master of the art of "Waiting for Stan".
Ha ha hmmm
I also think there needs to be a discussion the differences between "sentimental" which almost implies a bit of falsehood visually instead of "tender" which implies a truth of the human experience.
There are a lot of popular artists out there I feel that do nothing but pandering, but they're also just painting what they enjoy. I used to hate on them for it, but after a while I just realized I get nothing out of my jealousy.
I consider it a waste of time as well. I am more focused on my own behavior and journey. My opinion on their work changes little in their course. I also recognize that to make sound judgements on what I do enjoy, I must also expose myself to what I do not. Sometimes the sole existence of a piece is a motivator for people to work in the opposite direction. I detest when artistic expertise is confused with a personal judgement. Censorship is the enemy of truth, and I think art is one of the key ways we can seek truth in our lives.
I personally don't like much the discussion around what "real art" is because most of the justifications start sounding elitist at some point. I think both "simple" and "deep" art needs to exist, because as humans we don't consume only one or the other and most of the time, it's healthier to consume a balance of the two. Yes, if we only consume simplistic empty stuff we may go stupid, but if we were only to consume war and other heavy world problems content throughout the whole day we would go depressed. Sometimes all you want is a painting of a silly little cottage hanging on your kitchen because it has pretty colors and nothing else, and that should be totally okay.
I think it's okay that we as artists don't like that only one type of art is being more consumed by the masses than the other, and we may feel it's unfair that important artists don't get as much likes as a generic female portrait on instagram, but I think we can have this conversation without needing to tell other artists their art is not "real art", nor disminish one for the other.
The masses are people, and people naturally look for things that they find important. Artists, and non artists alike.
In a sense fine art is the aggregate art that very skilled artists find important.
Maybe it's like a respect thing.
I personally would prefer to have a simplistic cottage hanging on my wall then any fine art, but that's an opinion based on the things that I find important.
lets just remember that "the masses" are non expert people on a certain area, in this case just happen to be art, and we are hearing to expert talking about art, thus it make sense that they understand to a deep lvl what is and what isnt good,.. the masses just consume what everyone else consume,.. keep that in mind and the idea of "elitist" just break a part,.. this ofc apply to everything, like for example, climate change
@@ReyZar666
I don't exclusively like art for excellent rendering, color, or shape theory. I like a piece of art for the ideas it conveys.
I can look at a master painting, and a rough sketch, and appreciate the rough sketch more if it has a greater vision behind it.
I don't think art can be compared to science. Science is always meant to be objective, Art is not.
@@brant-bi8563 oh yeah? tell that to Darwin,.. or literally every other illustration of space,.. Art is another for of communication,.. is not about "not been objective" it about telling something on a visually format
Marshall your analogy of flavor and taste when it comes to art is spot on. Some synapses in my mind fired and new connections were made there. That was really great. I feel that a lot artists make art for other artists, and that may be a big factor in to their success or their lack there of. This conversation is absolute gem.
The ad timing on this is unintentionally hilarious. It's almost like Stan is going for "if you're thinking of selling out, try reaching out to Better Help" XD
Man, I just love Marshall. he just makes these podcasts.
Thomas Kinkade painted a dream, a hope, an fond experience when young, and an idea of heavenliness. When I hear the reactions you're expression I understand very much where you are in your journey of life. The reactions vary by the health of your soul. If you're feeling dirty about your own soul you're going to think I will never live there or I don't deserve a place like this. If you want to hang onto this there's going to be all kinds of negative reactions including threats of violence. The reality of the whole experience with Kinkade as I observe observers is if you're in a state of hopelessness it's terrible art. If you're naive or well healed from the tests in life then a place like this is your hope. In some cases people already live in a Kinkade cottage because they are so thankful for the shack they could be living in now. Just because of the reactions Kinkade's art pulls in is a testament to this being a great work of art. The state of the artists not only represents this but serves as a warning of extremes. The presence of these paintings makes one reconcile with heaven or hell.
Last word on Kinkade. I live in a shack but there is so much nature around me that I grow more and more thankful each day. In my eyes I see the birds and the greens more vividly each day. I am retired and I photograph regularly, used to do airbrushing when work wasn't available. Now that I got some time, I get a chance to be more thankful each day. This is corny and each day becomes more like a Kinkade painting or a Rockwell moment when I look at things given to me. What will be interesting is when it's time to pass on will I be so grateful that even that moment will be greeted thankfully and peacefully?
Hi Stan and Marshall! First of all, I love this podcast, I've seen every single one of your episodes and they were of
tremendous help.
I think your best episode was the one about studying the old masters and it seemed like you really enjoyed making it as well.
That subject to me seems like it could become an inspiration for a series of episodes just because it is such an important subject for us artists. I would definitely love to see more episodes on that (and I'm sure other listeners feel the same). Plus, it looks like an untapped area on youtube.
As a violinist, my ears perked up at Marshall saying "too many violins". I immediately thought he meant an orchestra. 🤣
You are both the best audio/video company during drawing sessions...Keep this podcast live! And thank you!
I never knew there was so much criticism about what is considered cheap and what is considered art. I thought beauty was in the eyes of the beholder, and art is subjective. I doubt there'd be a time where everyone will ultimately agree on what is cheap and what isn't, so I never quite understood the purpose of the argument. I enjoy the diversity of work that's put out there. Even if I don't value some art over others, that wouldn't mean its lost any place in the art world, it just appeals to someone else's taste. I think that diversity is something to be appreciated whether it's studio work, commercial art, so on. Not to say Marshall or Stan are imposing opinions or anything. I mean in regard to the really harsh, vocal critics.
I know some people say art is subjective, but is it though ?! When someone paints a blue triangle and calls it a work of art, I may simply smile and walk away, or roll my eyes and not think much of it, but when "art critics" pretend like that blue triangle is a masterpiece, worth millions of dollars, or worthy of hanging in museum, that just pisses me off.
In my opinion, anything achieved without a particular set of skills (often acquired over a period of many years) is not art. I have to say this, though: I do not like the amount of hate Thomas Kinkade gets. People who criticize him almost never talk about any of the skills he clearly mastered. They talk about his art as if it can be achieved by anyone. I highly doubt those who criticize him could produce a work similar to his.
@@Ty-1452 with the introduction of AI "art", I would have to agree with you now lol. Ironically I just saw a big, blank canvas at hobby lobby too that was almost a 100 dollars. Like, barely any painting texture. It made me laugh though. I actually looked behind the painting thinking it was turned around and i was mistaken. But yeah, skill can certainly determine the value of something, but i also really enjoy silly, messy sketches.
@@logantj8020
Speaking of AI art, recently I was accused of using AI to create my art, which is not true of course. I came across other traditional artists talking about their worries of being accused of using AI ! There are some messy sketches I love a lot too, especially when they make more sense from afar. I'd encourage you to watch a video called 'The Banishment of Beauty' by Scott Burdick. It's very interesting.
This really made me think. You guys are both such good observers of not only art but life.
This is literally the best thing on youtube. Marshall has a very therapeutic voice and also a great teacher, Stan is very talented too. Really look up to you guys. Its always an energy boost for me whenever I listen to this podcast and sketch. Thank you so much for this. Learned a lot from here.
Rockwell stated he was looking for warmer and more sentimental themes in his work after being exposed to the wars of the earlier 20th century. Even though the scenes are sentimental they explore parts the human experience. I see that very different from Kinkade who was running art sweatshops to make millions of more dollars exploiting his art laborers. Kinkade's is beyond sentimental his work is like a painting of crying clowns standing next to sad-eyed puppies next to a window with a sunset with ducks flying across the sky, it's just so ridiculously over the top.
That’s selling out in my opinion, he’s willing to squeeze and exploit the vulnerable to make money, it’s the complete lack of ethics that make someone a sellout.
@@PurpleFlush I don't know if you are referring to Rockwell. I don't see Rockwell as a "sellout" If someone chooses themes to contain a certain feeling to them because that is the way they choose to create art and those sentiments are a common part of the shared human experience of family, courtship, celebration, and others, I don't see that as selling out.
Kincade was not only a "sellout" but exploited both the art industry by sowing disinformation to those who bought his prints and posters sold as supposed "original work" he also exploited his sweatshops where they cranked out prints of his images with some bit of paint that were again sold as "original art." The difference between these men and what they produced is on opposite sides of the spectrum.
@@KevinMccainArtist no I meant Kencade. Rockwell’s a good artist and a great human being, I love his art.
In Brazil, we have a saying regarding what Marshall said about the "golden rule": "Whoever pays for the band, chooses the song"
We also have "Cucumbers should be twisted early on" and other sayings that sound funny when translated and completely unrelated to the real meaning. Just like my reply to your comment. Completely unrelated.
I just wanted to say oi conterrâneo.
Estou feliz de saber que tem outros brasileiros assistindo esse podcast
@@viniciusmanasses154 difícil é achar onde nois não tá kkkkk
Kincaide had a list of “rules” you can find online. He distributed them to people adapting his work to Hallmark channel TV shows. I remember they were sort of interesting.
One of my favourite episodes ! Marshall going trhough any subject he's passionate about is always a delight. I learned a lot :)
This is why it can be a good thing for fine artists to have a day job. That way you don't have to choose between paying the bills and staying true to your artistic vision. But no choice is without consequences.
if you ask me, the ONLY sins are: disrespecting other works of art, copy rights violation and dishonesty about the process of art making.
I think that the main difference between Norman Rockwell and Thomas Kinkade’s work is that Rockwell is undoubtfully a great craftsman - he paints masterfully, his storytelling skills are incomparable and he has a fantastic sense of humor. Also, you can feel real kindness in all his works. If you want, you can ignore the message, the sugared representation of the reality in his paintings and simply enjoy the mastery and learn from it. In case of Kinkade, the overbearing sentimentality and ‘fairytaleness’ is in the painting style itself - you can’t ignore the choice of colors, the whole style - so if you don’t like it, there is nothing to look at, while the subject is neutral - landscapes, trees, houses, nothing's wrong with the theme itself.
One of the best episodes you've done until now. Great stuff!!
Thomas Kincade paintings are well painted. They have good perspective, attractive subject matter, the light is well executed. People are just snobby about him , mostly because of the consumer of his work.
Yeah it's funny how people suddenly start hating on something just because it's popular
Great episode. I'll definitely be thinking about the candy analogy for my future work.
Absolutely lovely to see you Marshall! Love this podcast so much.
I'm always having a good laught when I first see the thumbnail, these edits are gold tier
I feel like the movie Avatar (2009) really beats you over the head with the message to the point of being ridiculous
I second that, Avatar is the first movie that comes to my mind when I think “preachy”
@@rachaelstohr7658 I introduce you to Fern Gully
Loved this podcast, very thought-provoking! Thank you for letting Marshall speak the whole episode without interruption!;-)
The Sentimentality section of the video really reminded me of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. The show sometimes tries very hard to make you miserable, and it appears to work for most people, but when I watched for the first time I just felt like "man, is all of that really necessary? I think you can make this story just as sad, and not appealing so much, thus making it feel cheap"
You pretty much hit the nail on the head with that show. I love the manga (I think it's sentimentality done right), but it doesn't translate well into animation, so you end up with a lot of overblown emotion.
I thought of Naruto. But anime in general is often guilty of tons of these sins. Preaching too hard, fanservice, trying to make emotional moments way too emotional, etc.
There's a manga/anime called Vinland Saga that to me fits Marshall's point about didacticism perfectly. It's a highly acclaimed, well executed work. But something always keeps me from adoring it, and Marshall just put my feelings into words.
when I saw the Durer book in the background I smiled because of his art, his craft, and his business....echoing through this point and counterpoint of this discussion....urer the man of the sod and the rabbit, the self portrait, and mass produced woodcuts
.
I believe Magic: The Gathering should also be an interesting topic regarding
art creation, management, advertising and the scope of high art applied to mainstream
(well... "mainstream" in a manner of speak... MTG is incredibly popular, granted).
Boris Vallejo, Brom and Ciruelo Cabral, among many other outstanding artists
have created card designs, and it would be great to know more about it.
John Avon, Randy "rk" Post, Terese Nielsen and many other traditional artists get special requests
to alter their printed MTG card works (and in the case of rk post, create special tokens
and making a living out of it, which I'm sure Master Kopinski has done as well).
For the love of God, please do a Terese Nielsen episode!!
Still patiently waiting for a Comic Book Creators' special episode.
Many of the sins discussed today are displayed on full force since that medium's inception,
and regarding draftsmanship... whew. Neal Adams, Dave Stevens, Greg Capullo, Dave McKean, GODDAMN ALEX ROSS, etc...
I believe there quite the material out there, and Marshall seems to know a LOT about comics...
Good video; quite a bit of perplexing, honestly.
Oh heck yes to the comic book episode!! Alex Ross would be craaaaazy!
Yess please ! A comic book episode !!
Such a great talk, I've so much to say on it.. but had to say bravo on that add placement. It evoked a hearty slightly conflicted laugh from me. I enjoyed it. Thanks.
This podcast reinforced the idea that art cannot be judged according to principles we've put in place. We might hate so type of art and love another.
That french onion soup metaphor really summarize my relationship with Bouguereau's work. Also, Marshall mentioned gore movies as an oposite to sweetness, when people try to make things really edgy, but I think you can find that in painting too. e.g. Odd Nerdrum.
I looked him up, his work seems pretty cool. Not sure why it's deemed "edgy". we all have aesthetic preferences no?
This is such a great topic! I just had my middle school art students study the work of Kristoffer Zetterstrand. We recreated his paintings in Minecraft Ed, and wrote a report on him. One of the questions I asked my students to address was, "Is Kristoffer's art considered 'Fine Art,' and why?" We had a great conversation about the various genres of art, and the spheres artists influence. We specifically discussed the fine art and entertainment/gaming communities. I got some great conversation time when asking them to define art. I wish I could play this whole podcast for them in class. 😁
The Jon cleese quote made me lol. What a great topic! Gave me much to think about!
"All candy with syrup on top" ... this is how I feel when I look at the work of famous deviant-art-artists like Loish. Sweet girls with butterflys and hummingbirds only. But most people don't seem to get tired of it.
I get what you mean, but that's more like Ms. Jisu. I just liked a post by Loish with birch autumn trees, golden, reddish leaves. It was quite lovely. But yes, most girls do draw only girls. I'm trying to draw it all. Cars, landscapes, mechs, weapons and military, cute girls, older ladies, etc. Also culturally appropriate characters. Aliens too.
To be fair, artists like Loish get plenty of criticism like this, usually from art-bros who consider their own brand of syrup to be the only "true" one ;)
@@vp3841 that's exactly how on art station everyone do the same look
@@KitKatWiffleBallBat plenty of women draw different stuff (I'm seeing loads of female artists draw men lately and female concept artists who draw whatever). The catch is that, unless they explicitly specify that they're female or post their photos, people just automaticly decide that they're dudes.
People seem to really enjoy indulging in old stereotypes...
@@vp3841 Hmm, interesting. 🤔 I see your point, but I've seen many girls who draw only girls though. Many of them have channels on RUclips with 1mil subs and on.
I think all artists of all backgrounds and identities could benefit from drawing all things. Though because they don't wish to conform to that idea, they limit themselves in terms of portraits and the like.
I guess I'd rather be a "Jill of all Trades" than be great at one thing. But that's because I have problems and wish to see the whole world through "windows" instead of create an appealing face; a character who takes up the entire image space.
Again, I want to emphasize that everyone is free to do what they want, but sometimes without a strict code, we let ourselves cheat us out of other opportunities by limiting ourselves to drawing one thing.
I don't know if it ties in, but some of the music they used in 'Scent of a Woman' made it feel like I was watching an afternoon Disney special.
This is my fav episode so far!
Well, I can safely say the Draftsmen Podcast is anything but didactic because it's advertised as educational, but I always come to be entertained :)
You mentioned Kubrick, there are several scenes in “Barry Lyndon” that could have been over the top in sentimentality, but because they were handled somewhat dryly and the narrative moved on from those episodes rather quickly, you really don’t take the events in that way.
It’s only afterwards that you kind of think about it and think, “oh wow, that happened to Barry, huh?” It’s part of what makes us human so, indeed, there is a place for it when handled correctly.
I wish I could see what was on Marshall's mind when he said "typically, I know there's... Exceptions" 🤣
For your Didacticism question, most things that comes out of Hollywood now adays..
Good morning, I have a question about this video from 3 years ago.
The example of Thomas Kinkade (coauthor with Gurney of his fist book) is mentioned in the video, and Frank Frazetta is mentioned soon. Without denying the expertise of Frazetta in many areas, from my perspective, often he also falls into the same sin of "pandering" the viewer. Much of his sword and sorcery work, not all, has that extra spoonful of sugar to appeal to the superficial feelings of the viewer. It is a different kind of kitsch, but kitsch anyway. I like his use of colour and composition, the dynamism of his figures, but I think he often lacks sobriety, and he did not have to do door to door interviews, he knew how to get the attention he needed.
Marshall is such a cool guy, love you too there, Stan!
The editing in this episode was waaaay more noticeable than usual. I bet the recording was all over the place, lol.
I'm surprised for "frigidity" you focused so much on violence. I dont disagree, but when I look through art (commercial and fine) I see sexualization and objectification of the female body much more in that category. It's possible to argue exactly what does and doesnt fall into that category but either way it's a plague in the arts. Especially in photography I find it's ubiquitous that instead of artistic development or thought etc the maker will just go 'toss in hot girl, pose like it's a porn shoot, stripe off a layer of clothes and call it a day'.
Same thing sexualization for impact rather than artistic merit. Sells well oc, but similar to violence it's degrading and rather disappointing how common it is (especially in commercial art). Ive seen the inverse with sexualization of male for impact as well, but it's not nearly as common.
Outside of film, comics, and games I think sexualization is more common than violence as frigidity as an artistic pitfall
Thanks for expanding the discussion. When watching, it felt like I was seeing only one facet of that topic in particular.
I agree. I’m tired of it. It’s everywhere it’s so blatant. I wonder how much things were sexualized throughout history. It has a lot to do with dopamine addiction in our society. Video games, movies, nsfw, social media, smartphones etc. all at our disposal. Fast food processed diet in general. We are all gluttons compared to people a hundred years ago.
@@blaneandgame9 On a recent trip to Italy I was stunned by how much great art glorifies rape. And violence.
Of course it really depends on the artist and I know what you're referring to but two questions; why must we be so pretentious and why do some scoff at capturing reality? It sells for a reason, and the only ones splitting hairs are "artists" whose ego compels them to do so
When you talked about the preachiness of university art, you put words to exactly how I feel about a lot of current fine art that deals with social issues! Often I even agree with what the artist is saying but it often feels too artificial and too clear cut.
I love this dynamic duo!
Stan's face when Marshall asks: "What is manierism?" - priceless!
I love how Marshal is always waiting on Proko. Proko get your stuff in order here.
Alejandro Jodorovky's "La Montaña Sagrada" have that feature. But it happened to me that I wasn't enjoying that much the movie until that "preaching" began. It was more like a plot twist with some learning.
Nows I understand me the energy. Thanx Marshy.
love your podcasts, it's helped me so much! thank you :))
I honestly don't think pandering is really a sin. When you come to think of it, it's simply a product of capitalism. It's even less of a sin if the artist enjoys doing that, the art itself or making money off of it.
On the point of Didacticism, I can think of The Lorax movie, but my opinion of the movie, I personally felt, was affected in a positive way because of it
Gosh, I love these two.
The proko empire shall expand to both east and west of the Greenwich meridian time.
Hi there ! I'm not an English speaker by birth, so I still not understand what "pandering" means. Could somebody help me for this one ? Thank you very much ^^
It may help by sharing with you other words and phrases with similar meanings (because its hard to explain, sorry, I'm trying my best!)
- Boot-licking
- Appeasement
- Selling out
- Ignorong your principals and morals in favour of some kind of reward (be it monetary or something else)
- Someone "pandering" to the boss, might be a "yesman" just looking to get a promotion.
- Acting like a dog seeking affection by any means necessary
Thomas Kincade’s work is romantic in much of the same way as pre raphaelites painted. Remember William-Adolphe Bouguereau and Norman Rockwell we’re both looked down on as plebeian and beneath contempt
That's crazy my grandparents have had Kinkade paintings on the wall all these years it all makes sense
Thank you guys, very entertaining and educational. My takeaway is: be honest in your art, but above all, be honest with yourself.
And remember; if you work for McDonald’s
And remember if you work for McDonald and sell millions of hamburgers, does not mean you are the best che. Same thing in art
I never really cared about the meta for art. I think all art is done with ntention behind it. There is always a target audience, yourself included. I think it's everyone's responsibility to balance what they consume on a personal level. Art is art, even when we pander. I think what we do as far as our work, relies solely on our shoulders. You want to formulate pieces to teach a lesson, do it. You want to show the dregs of humanity, do it. I think art is simply a byproduct of human existence. Perhaps I just view it more broadly. I can't pretend to have any more say in your lived experience than you can, at the end of the day we all struggle with meaning and truth. Maybe some people need candy, and maybe some need dirt. I cant say, I am not them, and I would lose my hair stressing over it.
Agree. But I think their point is everyone is gonna need to be a 'Whore' to make more money. In that case an artist need to know something about what people want to see, right?
Good comment, thank you for sharing. On the last part of your comment, you mentionned candy and dirt, focusing on the viewer's point of view. For the artist's point of view, I would tend to agree with the draftsmen that there should be awareness (not judgement) of the candiness/sourness of your piece. So you can offer a counterpoint in the same piece, making it even better&enjoyable for a broader audience. See Marshall's comments about Rockwell's early works, where the adorable situations Rockwell is depicting actually blossom out of not-so-adorable mindset from the characters.
that sounds like engineering, not art.
@L1qu1d S1lenc3r I enjoy the show very much. I just don't feel pandering constitutes a lack of artistic integrity. Often, the limits we place upon ourselves, and our target audience challenge people to be more creative. The need to pay the bills inspires some and demotivates others. I just think it's more of personal aspect of art making.
@@yohenson I can't tell if you consider this a good or bad. Some highly competent artists plan pieces similar to an engineer. Others produce exemplary pieces off the cuff and on a whim. Both ways of artmaking have merit in the end. I think execution lies mostly within the dedication to your craft. Mastering something is a lonely endeavor, so it would make sense to try and map out a road aforehand. Inspiration can be a fickle muse, and when you are not in the throes, it can be difficult to practice. I think sitting down and beginning a piece constitutes a logical step in the planning process. I just don't think considering an audience enough to invalidate artistic integrity. I think what we call art is deeply personal and individual, and there is no one correct answer.
I start grinning before i even start the video because i already expect Marshal messing around at the start
I would be interested as to how you feel things like the song "this is America" fits into all this. Where there is a message; unapologetically so put into an artform.
If I understand Marshall correctly I assume it would follow didacticism BUT is that really a bad thing? Didacticism could just as easily be a conversation starter no?
Thanks for the episode guys, lots to think about namely in keeping your art in integrity.
@@Edinburgh1000 Interesting. Due to how powerfully the arts are at sending a message I've always separated them into two different categories. -The art for entertainment/wanting to make it.
-The art used for a 'purpose' as in a political agenda or an important message like the example I listed above..
I had no idea people considered the latter such a negative thing.. In my case I thought the "This is America" was a good, non violent way to start a conversation between people about something the artist feels is wrong.
Thanks for the reply, definitely something I'm gonna think about more.
Mannerism sums up too much of contemporary art, including currently popular portrait artists - as soon as the artist makes the work reflect themselves, ahead of the subject, vanity and ego take over, and indirectly insult the person being portrayed. Dali, Picasso, suffered from this in their works, but I believe all sincere portrait artists need to subsume their own identity, in pursuit of a likeness that can stand the test of time, without worrying if their own name is remembered.
I feel so confused. I think I need to read more. What books do you recommend for a beginner artist?
"The Day After Tomorrow" (maybe?)
Yes!! My husband and I love ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, but dislike the strong global warming sermon within it. The remake of ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’ with Keanu Reeves also preaches along a similar vein. I get that we have got to be good stewards of this planet, but I want to escape that messaging in my entertainment since we get bombarded so much in our day to day lives with it.
As a person, reacting to your narration, I can't help but just wonder. I've been lucky to have those Rockwell moments as well as the dream presented by Kinkade. I've produced Ocean style airbrush themes and admittedly they didn't stay on hnagers more than 2 hours. I did make them for money but that wasn't the top reason I made them. I made them because the colors were amazing. The contrasts were beautiful even down to the silhouettes of dolphins. I don't think Kinkade started to paint those paintings for money. It was what he discovered with the colors. When he lost that he went for the money and sold out exactly as he said. Rockwell's change was due to politics of his time. We went from an ideal to Eisenhauer to the sixties. Media exposed us to new truths. The good was becoming evil and the evil was doing good.
The word Marshall used at 18:13 ... tomays? tomaize? tormays? I'm guessing it's a synonym for rant / criticism / lament.
Its "tomes" but he's saying it like tome-es.
As in a book. So yes, you were close with a long rant!
@@Stettafire hahaha! Thanks, that's probably exactly right! It bugged me for a while.
Timestamps for myself~
33:00
49:40
Marshall @ 39:10 "cruelty to animals as spectacle used to be a part of this country's culture and you find it in some illustrators work". What kind of illustrations and illustrators is he talking about?
It's fairly widespread, both in older US art and in the UK. A lot of country painters used to paint hunts. Including William Micheal Harnet's "After the Hunt" as just one example
@@Stettafire neither an illustration nor a illustrator.
Thomas Kincaid
His life is a great lesson to artists. I genuinely believe that pandering is what killed him. He suffered from alcoholism.
Paint with James gurney and Frank Frazetta early on
I think seeing how his colleagues had had real “”real art” Made him depressed
I’m thankful for the work that he made because it’s a Bridge
For example, my grandma had a Gateway painted by Thomas Cade framed on the wall
She wouldn’t understand the nuance of a bureau painting versus something out of the Hudson River school. She just knew that this gate looks like one of the most beautiful places nearby. Funny enough, she never bought any of his cottages
What does the theme tune say?
lo do de do do
lo de do de do do
lo do do do doo,
it's the draftsmen show
yeah!
I don't get it. How is Kinkade and Rockwell making candy? And how is Rembrandt mash potatoing people?
I just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me a little bit? So how can we separate good art and great art? Is it because they're doing what people like and not what they wanna do?
It's just gate keeping. It's like a jazz enthusiast saying this kind of stuff about pop music while it's actually more popular. As an artist, i love kinkade's works
I think the difference between Rockwell and Kinkade is that both made sentimental and cheesy stuff, but Rockwell was conscious and honest about it, while Kinkade thought of himself as the greatest artist alive.
Just out of curiosity, what's "cheesy " about their works?
The best podcast in the world
i know it's a bit late.. but the threats surrounding the Kinkade show probably had more to do with TK's greater life's work outside of painting. it's pretty dark.
Kinkade's work is formulaic and repetitive in subject matter. Rockwell's work tells a story.
I hope Marshall lives forever
I love how at the start of the video Marshall's every other word is "empire". So funny XD
Thanks 🤙🏻
“ and the YOU sent the death threat “ 😂😂😂
Maybe it's because I'm not from America, but I don't feel put off by the work of Thomas Kinkade at all, although it's very samey. I know you mentioned that you only started to dislike his work/ not appreciate it as much when you matured and enriched yourself with other artists, however, for me, I don't see what is inherently wrong with his artwork. Sure it was made to please the masses, but to be honest, when I look a lot of famous Instagram artists etc, I don't see anything different.(though I will refrain from naming any) Of course, the level of success/audience may be vastly different, but the overall idea of feeding of one's fanbase doesn't seem too far off from pandering, especially with things like Patreon etc. Though, in my eyes, I don't see this as a problem, as people probably enjoy creating art this way despite what other 'real' artists may say. In the end, artists/art critics themselves/ourselves can't dictate what art should be, as we all have different aesthetic preferences.
I'm seeing some of Kinkade's works, I like his overall composition, but I don't like the color or the lighting of some of the images, i just can pinpoint the issue with me.
@@carlosroo5460 I think there are aspects I like. But the faces remind me of Noddy, in a bad way. Bright red noses and bright red cheeks. Makes me cringe. If it weren't for that, I think it would be quite pleasant.
I agree with Stan on topic of Kinkade. He seems liek a good businessman.
For the first time since i watched this channel, i thought stan made more sense than marshall. Lol
Was it Thomas Kinkead?
He didn't say his name at first, spot on description though
How many of the world's most thought of/highly valued artists pumped out portraits in the hundreds in order to earn a living? Can't both be done, commercial, and for the sake of art?
Have you ever discussed what art is? It might be a good idea for a philosophy episode.
Marshall shall be on TED talks
I actually don't agree with his takes this time
The movie that stands out for me is ‘The Green Mile’. Here’s a movie of five men convicted of murder in suspicious trails. And as each is going to the electric chair, one takes way to long to die, another is such a gentle man he befriends a mouse in his cell. Another is black and is a healer falsely convicted. This was a anti death penalty agenda movie, but still a pretty good movie.
love the podcast. lot of good thought flow very entertaining and lot of things to think about. I would love to hear tho what you think about topic "Art for the Artists". and put yourself in a shoes of non-artist (who don't care about "interesting brush strokes" or anything related to process of creating. and not thus art lovers who pretend that they got it just to not look ignorant about it) . and how lot of "Art" would stand the test without artists name behind it, like for example van Gogh paintings whos let's be honest lack pretty much in every fundamental. and what sugarcoating towards artists does to art as a product. which can lead to mass product of let's say low quality art made by sugarcoating encouraged wanabe artists. what we can witness a lot of Instagram artists who could care less about learning craft as long they can promote them self and feed the Algorithm Daemon.
Thank god proko we have proko's more objetivist leens in this episode. Is easy to get lost in the abstract denominations. I go as far to say that the sins are very debetable.
I don't agree with Marshall on this one. Thomas Kingkade was a great technical landscape painter. Landscapes, like portraits, when well done are stunning. The art critics may not call it art, but then again they call some of the garbage you see in contemporary art galleries real art.
Based
The last point Marshall made is perfectly exemplified in Last of Us part 2, that's why people hate it so much.
Is it why people sent death threats to the actors and director? No, I disagree. People hate TLOU2 for any number of reasons, but none of which are reasonably informed. The hate is more visceral and reactionary.
@@calunsagrenejr just because they reacted is a shitty way doesn't mean the reason they disliked it was automatically wrong. For example I hate nazis, punching a nazi is perfectly valid (maybe a bit mild) as a response to one. However you can take any response too far, for example tracking down every blood relative of every nazi and sending them death threats is a shitty response. (And of course the actions of the nazi party are far worse than the worst video game ever made. I used them as an example because I doubt there will be anyone who says that some action is not required there.)
@@hadhayosh5105 The assertion was didacticism is the reason why TLOU2 got so much hate. There is no evidence of that, and it is a VERY weak stance to take given the visceral and reactionary nature of the hate, when didacticism as presented by Marshall is well-reasoned and not inflammatory at all.
The only point I'm making is haters of the TLOU2 are not behaving in well-reasoned and well-informed ways, so suggesting didacticism is what compels them to act that way is a massive leap of logic.