Art should be in contact with the eternal and the divine, however one comes to define that. In order to understand what my art must be to replicate that, I have also had to discuss and understand the immense displeasures I have with the world. I say that to remind myself that the art I hope to create must be in opposition to that. Creativity must be exactly that - creation. For with enough creation, we may be able to outdo the destruction. Thanks. Lewis.
Art is more than just technique. It is expression. It is one human expressing something to the world. Technique can always be replaced by newer and better means. All of that old artwork you call “beautiful” was produced by a small percentage of human beings. They represent the expression of the wealthy elite, who could afford the means to produce beautiful works of art. The development of less expensive means which to produce works are art produces a multiplicity of different techniques. An endless variety of expression.
I don't like the fatalist dystopian shape this channel is assuming. And imho this video is kinda generic and simplistic when it dives into specific themes like videogame design and brutalist architecture. The conclusions pulled out are nothing new. It is like the perfect example of an individual trying to throw together random concepts, from numerous disciplines, in the name of subjective interpretation and aesthetic speculation. Things like brutalist architecture are complex historical, social, economical phenomena that can't be reduced in the phrase: ugliness = progress. To me it's like the video watches phenomena only from a safe and distant point of view, from which the aesthetic conclusions and intepretations assume a fascinating aura of credibility but in the same time overlook decisive aspects. What about playing and interact with the original Resident Evil games and then with the remakes? What about distinguishing rational and brutalist architecture from the specific post war residential speculation phenomenon? A building made of concrete is often nothing modular and not necessarily easy to build. I'm not here for hating, love this channel.
I can't help but wonder how you resolve the inherent contradiction in your anti-progress contention and your stated appreciation of film. Cinema wouldn't exist without "progress." The films you listed in your "200 films that changed my life" video all have some level of technical proficiency that wouldn't be possible without previous progress. For all of those films, if they weren't as technically proficient would you still appreciate them? Would they even be possible to make? You seem to be continuing the long, tired and frankly boring critique of modern and post-modern art as somehow less valid or important as the "artisanal" art of the past. The sculptures you pay reverence to in this video, the paintings as well were nearly all commissioned work. An artist didn't create these pieces out of some divine calling. They made them because they were paid to. The Sistine Chapel was painted at the behest of Pope Sixtus IV not out of some divine inspiration. This isn't to say there wasn't some level of inspiration involved but it's very funny that you give so much reverence to art created for monetary gain on the part of the artist and vanity on the part of the commissioner. Your choice of music in the middle of the video when discussing modern art is interesting (and transparent) There is an argument to be made against "progress for progress' sake." I do believe AI "art" is the true loss of humanity in the humanities, but your attitudes on modern art are surprisingly uneducated and seem to follow modern anti-intellectual thinking. Technical proficiency is not the end all be all of art. Modern art specifically art like Rothko, Pollock and the like were born out of experimentation. Photography completely changed our perception of what an artist is and made the need for technically proficient artists dwindle. Those modern artists are pushing the boundaries of what art is, which is what they're supposed to do. It's the same thing Bela Tar does with Santatango, what Kubrick does with 2001. It's bizarre to me that you appreciate these films while railing against the progress that made them possible.
This comment section always has a way of restoring my faith in humanity. I love seeing such eloquent and thoughtful counter arguments and most written with such care and understanding. I found myself personally disagreeing with much of what this essay (in my limited understanding of the heady thesis) had to say. However, a well crafted debate is more important than any proposed finality. If that’s not progress than I don’t know what is. It’s easy to become cynical about the current state of the world when you’re flooded with information on a daily basis and standing in the eye of the storm but the mere fact that we can (all of us strangers) communicate and amicably disagree with one another on such lofty subjects is a gift.
Just wanted to shed light on the overlooking of cast systems and limited accessibility to the exhibition of art during former eras as well. I couldn’t help but feel as though this was coming from a perspective of privilege and undervaluing the fact that people who would’ve had no voice in the world can now express themselves in the public eye and create whole new conversations that in the past would have been stifled. Also… don’t forget about counterculture. Even if the future presents an artistic climate devoid of skill and valuing skill, history has shown that there will surely be a counter, an “Anti” movement, against such an approach. Always question the present but don’t deny the cyclical nature of progress.
I typically adore this channel however this video might be of the most flimsy and moronic arguments I've seen. It’s a flawed, uncooked idea held up by large segments of gross inaccuracies, poor (or disingenuous) evidence and gigantic leaps in logics. 1. Firstly, within the rules of your argument, wouldn’t Resident Evil be a worse version of cinema? The fixed camera angles are clearly inspired by those seen in old horror films. It is both a response to technical limitations and as a way to create cinematic angles and experiences. Also I find the celebration of RE4 while simultaneously disliking the REmakes bizarre (and inconsistent) with the argument as well. RE4 abandoned the rules of the original to fall in line with the contemporary gaming trends of it day. This is exactly what the REmakes do. If the argument had been that 4 does it better I would agree and in fact I dislike 4 because it moves away from the fixed camera experience - but that’s not what the video argued. 2. Secondly, the vast majority of what you showed as “brutalism” weren’t even brutalist buildings. Brutalism was a humanist movement designed to comfort those ravaged by war and provide them with places that felt strong and understandable. Shifting the ornamentation into the materiality and functionality of the building was meant to allow the average person to actually engage with and experience architecture in their day to day lives. Glass office blocks, Chinese megacities, American suburban sprawls and Stalinist housing blocks aren’t brutalism - they are completely different styles. Plus your point about these various buildings falling into disrepair has no consideration of the material conditions in which they were made. Chinese housing blocks are routinely pulled down and rebuilt as a capitalist con-job not due to people not liking them. The International Style buildings of the Central Americas were poor quality due to the fact they were built by exceptionally poor nations not that people found them so ugly they no longer maintained them. To reiterate, neither of these points have anything to do with something inherent in Brutalism. Your point about ideology being good and therefore making the building beautiful, is in fact a critique to be pointed at old churches and the homes of nobility. Huge buildings that were aesthetically pleasing because they were for God/s and those rich enough say they were god/s chosen people. These grand buildings of the past were not experienced by the average person - outside of those who toiled to make them (often as slaves). This complete revisionism of the history of architecture borders of the fascistic and mirrors those accounts on twitter obsessed with Greek and Roman statues and architecture. Let’s actually look at the architecture of the average house, shop and town instead of the haunts of the historical 1%. 3. I assume the basis of this video stems from the arguments of Walter Benjamin and his concerns around the loss of the Aura with the advent of mechanical reproduction techniques. While I think Benjamin’s concerns are fairly sound, they are specifically aimed at photography and cinema and are also very western-centric. If your concern is that of reproduction and the artist less involved in the creation of the work extend to the woodblock printers of Japan? Is the printing press a horrific destruction of the written word? How is the “humble mason” who was hired by the wealthy to build their statues and structures any different than Koon’s assistants hired to do the same? (I personally dislike Koons to be clear). If you truly felt that ancient artwork was best then why show paintings and statues several hundred years into the existence of the medium? Surely the Venus of Willendorf and illustrations in caves are to be venerated instead. Would not the dot based abstractions of the indigenous Australians would be the highest form of painting? You avoid these because they go against your ridiculous idea that technological progress leads to a loss of technique. Despite the fact that these early modes of art have significantly less “technique” than those you show in the video. Furthermore you conflate technique with western realism through the lens of Judaeo-Christian values - ignoring the vast history art that came before then (and was also made at that time) that had neither of those qualities. 4. Finally you blame the modern, “degenerate” artist for this and retroactively reframe old art as being made by those of a superior, nobler spirit. As if the contemporary artist is the driver of trends and the source of society’s suffering. In fact capitalism is the source of both of these things. Before capitalism controlled art and artists it was the monarchism and religious institutions. Much of what this video celebrates is art made to appease nationalists, zealots and narcissists. Artwork which was either made by poor artists selling their skills to the rich to survive or by the children of the wealthy who were free to pursue art which celebrated them and their peers. The argument also denies artists the desire to explore new ideas and techniques. Why would an artist want to repeat Rembrandt? Or Pollock for that matter, when they’re trying to find a way to express their view of the world. There is no universal, correct aesthetic and asserting that artists who don’t adhere to your western Judaeo-Christian traditions as immoral and as destroying the world is fascistic bollocks.
i disagreed with all of your critiques, the remake of Resident Evil wasn't bad because they did a remake, it was bad because the original game was on the edge of limitations of the time, and the creators used techniques that created a game that transcended them into a game that spawned a new genre. whereas the remakes are safely doing what all other games are doing now, and for some reason, it's considered progress, when in reality it's just another game in a sea of games that are recycling the ideas of its time. everything shown was of brutalist architecture to my knowledge, and you don't really prove your argument by pointing out examples to prove your point. Brutalist buildings are characterized by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design. and is indeed commonly known for its presence in post-war communist nations. You also critiqued his point on the ideology being good and therefore making the building beautiful. you missed his point entirely, in fact, you proved it. his point is that a vast majority of people find the artwork you're critiquing to be beautiful throughout the generations, but you find the idea that rich people paid for it and prefer the idea (or ideology) that removes it from their hands (loosely speaking) therefore you prefer the latter to the former and confirming his point entirely, that the ideology being good and therefore making the building beautiful. your point about mass production is a bit off the mark as well, the printing press doesn't fit in his critique of art, because the printing press doesn't change the core creative process of creating a novel. the art is in the meaning of the words laid by the author, not the stamping of the words on paper. and as for Koons, I believe his critique is mainly the glorification of the mass-produced assembly line model in art. there is nothing wrong with mass-producing a print of art. but there is a problem when mass production of art is glorified as a progeniture of art itself. and as for your 4th critique, you basically fall back into his critique of "the ideology being good and therefore making the building beautiful." critique. not once did he say everyone must do this particular form of art, and he never said that there is a "universal, correct aesthetic", but he does say that there are universal BETTER forms of aesthetic. and as a side note, I don't believe he brings up religion once in this video essay, so your injected argument of " asserting that artist who don’t adhere to your western Judaeo-Christian traditions as immoral and as destroying the world is fascistic bollocks." came entirely from your own mind.
Ya know, I so VEHEMENTLY disagree with the entire tone/premise of the weltschmerzy philosophy you've been repeating in recent videos that it's actually making me yell at my screen, and I'm arguing the OPPOSITE perspective from the one I usually feel so deeply- which would be this same sort of facile whinging and bleeding heart fatalism I'm getting from these videos. Spare me man. Honestly, I don't know if you're trying to achieve some sort of like Brechtian alienating effect where common modes of thought to modern people are rendered as so obnoxiously self-absorbed and 'affected' that the same people who usually think in this way end up re-evaluating their thinking, but BY GEORGE if it isn't achieving that effect for me!
@@johnsailorsgoat What counter argument? I haven't stated one. I've described the effect that this upload has had on me in my own room talking to myself. I don't know how I'd argue against his points precisely because this is usually the way I think, but seeing it presented like this just bristles something and I can very intuitively understand how misleading, reductive, and counterproductive this type of thought is. I commented on what a weird feeling it is to realise that I'm taking the view directly opposed to the one I usually take because of how that view is presented here. Still have no coherent counter argument to offer you, sorry.
Are you interested in the life of a farmer who lived 600 years ago? Are you really interested in their challenge their small desires, triumphs, failures hurt as you said humanity? Or are you really only interested in stories, larger than life? Artists commissioned by aristocrats and institutions to stylize their myth and capture it for all eternity. Just as artificial as a koons but with the advantage of historical transfiguration. Was the farmer interested in the works of art of egypt or did he express the hypris that his myth should go down in history for all eternity? Or did he live in the moment? perhaps you yourself are trapped in your role as a critic. Forced by the inconsistency of the system to ingratitude for a life situation for which in the past people wiped out or enslaved whole tribes, but at the same time being unable to consider an alternative because it is easier to imagine the end of the world.
To answer your leading question, whether I'm interested in a 600 y/o farmer... Yes? Like, a lot even? Being able to have a peek into a world practically alien to us is fascinating to me. Exactly because art was so focused on the mighty and the divine means that unfathomable amounts of cultural knowledge is lost to time, as it was all deemed so unimportant to record. But there's a whole genre of historical work where historians attempt to reconstruct parts of it, where such stories feature heavily; microhistories. The Return Of Martin Guerre (the book) and The Cheese And The Worms are triumphs of historiography and come highly recommended.
I strongly disagree with almost all the statements made here. Beauty is often mistakenly equated with decoration, and geometry is portrayed as artificial. How is Baroque not artificial? What's invisible about the geometry of structures like the Guggenheim or the Sydney Opera House? Once again, there seems to be confusion between geometry and squares, as if squares were the only geometric shape in existence. It's clear that, when it comes to art, design, and architecture, people can't escape their personal tastes, no matter how romantic or embellished the argument may be. The need to declare one thing superior to another is perhaps the most vacuous approach. The fact that architecture can provide shelter for millions more people than in the past, which is arguably the most fundamental goal of architecture, is sometimes overlooked when viewed through the lens of "beauty." It's as if people would prioritize ornamentation over the basic necessity of shelter. In reality, this essay demonstrates that the progress deemed "ugly" has allowed society to take shelter for granted and explore more abstract ideas that technology has made possible. Lastly, destruction is also a necessary and arguably fundamental step in the creative process, rather than just iteration.
I think you're too sure of your conclusions and if even one of them is wrong or even more nuanced than what you've stated, then your whole thesis falls apart, especially when it come to brutalizum. Utilitarian design was created as part of a nihilistic ideology, forced on people, not as a result of different ideologies. People are absolutely still being creative AND they're using advancement in technology to do it. Just because you can cherry pick some examples of franchises that ran their course and found their way into the hands of corporate bean counters giving their notes, it doesn't mean the soulless cash grabs are a result of the advancements. If you think those vampires just sprang into existence in the last 150 years with the advent of automation, you're living in a romantic dream of the past. I respect your channel and your knowledge but you have to stop drawing these manic depressive, sophomoric conclusions just because people don't all want to create in the same way they always have. People want to try new things. You can't tell them they're wrong to.
There’s just so many wild inaccuracies in this video especially the section on brutalist architecture. Intercut with the images of brutalist housing projects are suburban developments and funnily enough an example of neoclassical fascist architecture converted into a Burger King. The irony lies in the fact that the neoclassical forms of fascist architecture is exactly what you are advocating for, a connection to historical aesthetic traditions and reverence for a “divine” other, in this case being the nation. You also claim brutalist Architecture is the dominate form of architecture, where is this true?Its simply not the case, and they were not abandoned and fell into disrepair because they were “ugly” it was a concerted political projected orchestrated by the neoliberal establishment to eliminate the remnants of the post war welfare state. Also in regards to the art world It is not the technology and technique that makes the art worse it’s the market forces in which art is produced and circulated! Jeff koons is a hack surely but he’s successful because understands the art world is a market, you’re critique should be of capital and the financialization of everything. Instead you make some twitter trad argument with no material analysis.
Can't progress serve art? I've seen multi-million dollar films that were slick and shiny, all style and no substance, but I've also seen modern films with the same budget that I've adored. I've seen film that was indy and cheap that I've loved, and that I've hated. People still paint, and write. They weave and sculpt and create. I guess whatever the tools used, as long as they are serving the human imagination then art will survive.
If I'm misinterpreting this video, disregard me but as fascinating of a watch as it is, at some points it seemingly falls into some lines of thought I disagree with. People can and do still create works akin to ancient ones. We likely will always create as a species across a great many mediums, forms, functions and ideologies. A good chunk of the issues expressed are substantially rooted in our modern economic models and their many issues. AI art and modern commodification and devaluation of artists is truly awful as detailed. However, otherwise modern tools have allowed art to become so much more accessible as a practice than ever before. Sharing knowledge, community and toolsets the internet are resoundingly a boon in spite of other effects wrought by modern technology (which again I'd argue are largely a synptom of economic models etc). Older works have an elememt of survivorship bias working in their favour too. Great works survive and endure while many lesser ones have fallen by the wayside as a matter of statistics. Our eras works haven't stood long enough to all be revealed. I think sometimes this all causes people to uphold the ancient as transcindentally superior. There is incredible awe and beauty in those things. Ancient things, spectacular, lovingly imperfectly crafted things. No doubt we have crafted a world that sorely needs more of it and less of the culture that has hurt artists and these techniques. But human ingenuity and artistic technique is enduring (I beleive at least) and hopefully in time systems that have also contributed to this state of affairs will be less negativley impactful. Brutalism can also be truly stunningly beautiful and I truly beleive that though I know that wasn't really what you were getting at. Sorry if any of this makes no sense, sounds combative or is misinformed. I know not all of it is exactly adressung your essay, which I enjoyed a lot.
The main issue I have is that you for some reason believe that the progress of moving from complex, highly detailed art is necesarily a bad thing, and while I understand your unoapologetic hatred towards automated and ai processes, you fail to bring up all the goods it can give us in an honest manner, these new technologies are just new tools that REAL artist will make good use of, because, believe it or not, not everyone is born to make art, once the novelty dies off, people will get sick of anything AI, but that new progress of finding an insanely efficient way to visualize possible outcomes for a piece will open the doors for any individual with high ambitions towards bigger projects. Do you also hate digital art too? being able to just pick colors off your screen with eyedropper would be utter witchcraft for the ancient art masters, and now, with just a few clicks, you can get all the colors you need. Progress is inevitable, ist just mankinds nature, why look at it from the most cynical point of view when as, with most things, there's always plus and cons? The most dishonest point you made was nagging about art movements following a formula, when back then, most classical artist had to strive for utter realism otherwise they'd be a financial failure! the ones that stood out, stood out for a reason, what about ALL THE OTHERS, that were outright forgotten by time? do you understand how hypocritical that is of you? new movements like Picasso or Pop art can speak to the soul of the viewer far better than any highly detailed masterpiece, and I don't think you understand that. You have some great points on your vid but I absolutely despise the one sided view it has.
I disagree with the conclusion you each at the end of the portion about capcom and resident evil. I think that jumping from “these games are better because they embrace newer design philosophies and technology,” to “any change in technology is progress” is an enormous leap that I don’t think you’ve shown through that portion of the video.
I love the old resident evil games and the new remakes. I think resident evil and Capcom, even video games in general are a bad example to use for this video seeing as how most people in the classical art world think all video games are degenerate.
bro is saying that london 19th century is better than any eastern europe capitol. bro modernism is about understanding that we need higher standards.... aka be human and evolve! not what religion did in europe in medieval imes where the wheel was forgotten. yes the wheel.....
Enslaved and indentured laborers made those ancient buildings for despotic kings, who enjoyed them with the feudal nobility. Your romanticization of them is a myth all its own.
And, like the ending of Barry Lyndon (*spoiler*) they are all dead now, so we can think what what we want about them. Regular folks can even go inside them at will in a lot of cases (jp morgan library for instance). I want nice shit for everyone instead of sitting around being angry of the rich (ie the politics of ressentiment).
It's a funny phenomenon how people so easily blame consumerism but are afraid to criticize capitalism, they are the same thing capitalism can't exist without consumerism. The delusion of infinite growth, greed, materialism of capitalism is what's destroying everything. It isn't progress, only the brainwwashed think that, it's the greed of capitalism that's ruining art and every creative endeavor. Some good art has come out of our current system but it's only despite of it not because of it. Consumerism! But don't ever say the other C word it props up, that would take too much courage I guess something most don't have...
Art is usually appreciated by looking to the past and comparing, but I wonder what would happen if the oposite was the norm. If when people made art they competed with the future. I think the people making the Sistine Chapel had a mentality closer to that, making use of what resources they had to make something to compete with the future, and surpass it in beauty, utility, and value. So far it seems to have worked. Or the Pyramids of Giza, with our technology we could build hundreds more if we wanted, but we do not, because the ones that exist surpass any potential new ones in every way. Transgressive art whose aim is to critique the present feels like the worst kind of art, but maybe it is too a necessary one.
wooow!! Hell yes!!! If you make art thinking about the present, it stays in the present and will not pass much beyond that. Also, right now, what does transgressive even mean? It's just a boring self absorbed aim... I think, it's just reacting, not creating, and is usually just for the hipe of others, not interior.
One thing that this video does not address (not that I necessarily expected such a thing) is that all of the art from our predecessors that still exists is only a fraction of the art that was made. The stories we know from antiquity are really only a a small sample that have survived. We honestly do not know exactly what our fore-bearers did if we go back far enough, though there are some things that survive. The reason I like to remind myself about this is because this perspective truly illustrates that while late-stage capitalism has changed the nature of commercial art and what being a commercially successful artist looks like, it has not exactly fundamentally changed how we play with our tools and make things. How many times have we used the Sims to build our "perfect dream home" or used one of those virtual dress up things as a kid to create clothes from stock options? "AI" Art is mainly repugnant because of how it steals its techniques from other existing works of art and is being used by those in power to usurp the ability for an artist to work commercially for the big multinational conglomerate companies. It does not, however, mean that we cannot hone our skill, build our own style, or otherwise make something that feels meaningful to the human experience. More than ever, I can see the beautiful art through music, video, or image from all over the world in a way that our ancestors could never imagine. I can interact with it, give my money directly to the creators I love via Patreon even if they are a world away. I can find others like myself from all over the world to discuss the art and create our own works from the inspiration of others. How many haunted house stories are there? A million, for sure. Does that cheapen their existence? What about stories about zombies? There are certainly stories and movies that play on many similar themes even without the use of "AI" technology. And yet, if that story or visual taps into something deeply meaningful that makes us feel like human beings, is it truly worthless if it is simply another variation on a known theme? I do not think it is. I am all behind the destruction of our society's systems of exploitation of the worker, of the human being forced to tether their creativity to a master for the audacity to need shelter, food, and warmth. And yet, I do not think that it means that we need to remove the option for people to play with different technologies and mediums creatively. In the end, it's about money, power, and corruption. And if we can just get out of our own way as a species, maybe we can finally realize "progress" for what it is- the ever-stratification of late-stage consumerist industrialist capitalism. And maybe if we truly take the time to look at it, we can find our way back to art.
Fucking cynical vision of art, can't really say if I agree or not though. Thank you for sharing this thoughts. Have you read any of Ellul books by any chance ?
Coming from your previous criticism, I'm really glad you've put much of your passion into this. One thing I won't expect is the art of video game, and here you brought to us that perspective. I feel some sort of...comfort, knowing that "video games" helped me through a lot was no nothing but also a work of art. I really appreciate it, thank you so much.
@@digihu5732 I just found Jacob Geller's video couple weeks ago, actually! Thank you for the recommendation! I also watched Daryl Talks Game, Design Doc, and Razbuten! p.s. sorry to bring another channel to this, I appreciate it for sharing the knowledge!
@@Dwarfplayer I dunno how to read it in Chinese, but it reads "tōhō" in Japanese 😅 I made it with paint in my Dad's old PC about 15 years ago, so it is bad... But it still deeply resonates with me because I'm a fan of Touhou games!
eh, i firmly disagree that Brutalism is necessarily ugly. Many of the buildings you showed in that section aren't even classified as "brutalist", they're Chinese apartment buildings like the Kowloon Walled City, or one of them is a famous apartment building in South Africa (that is actually brutalist, and a beautiful one, with a dark history unfortunately, because it was poorly designed). However to say that Brutalism is at odds with beauty, or that it believes beauty is purely ideological is to ignore so many community centers, libraries, and churches built out of concrete in France, Germany, the US, and Scandinavia. Even the former Yugoslavia has some lovely brutalist work in it. But I guess that doesn't exactly /disprove/ your point, now that I reflect on it.
If I forget the financial aspect of it, architects have confused something theoretically, they are not fine artists, they cannot do what they want, their art is practical. They cannot help but think about the natural and residential environment. The architecture of Santorini is in harmony with the environment, the roof tiles in Siena and Florence have the color of the soil of the surrounding areas, the gardens of the Arabs and their architecture looks like an oasis of nature (the European baroque has an authoritarian coarseness in colors and the lines, like the French symmetrical gardens, let alone brutalism), the minimalist gardens of the Japanese match their nature, etc. Respect for nature and the residential environment must be primary in architecture. If you want to do social criticism or anything intellectual you should get hold of some impractical art.
@@dimkilago2958 I forget the name of the particular housing council, but one of the brutalist groups of flats in England that was built was originally built without any kind of greenery in it, if I recall correctly, and now they have added cascades of lush garden. It's quite the sight to see. Eco-Brutalism is even prettier, when "done right", imo at least.
To me the most worrying part of today's art is the sped up production. Stuff isn't made to last. but to fill up time. A song lasts for a season or a walk, movie for a weekend, painting until the likes run out, words to collect ads. But what lasts? What is it that we will leave behind for our children and their children in turn? Music, patingings, books of old thought us things about ourselves, about times past about our history and the way people lived their lives. We would not be here without it. So what of the future? Where will they learn from? Stuff that will no longer exist because servers can't be maintained? I'm not doom and gloom on these new tools, they can be excellent tools, like yeah technology can wash some things away, but bring new avenues we couldn't reach before- movies, videos for example. But that is not the way they are being used today. Society needs to slow down, build something not only for the instant gratification, but for our future as well. For the world's future as well.
Major events requiring oddly old artists who have had a lasting impact to fill this gap is this case in point. One fairly recent example being the Glasonbury festival for 2023 which had as three of the four main headline acts Arctic monkeys (peak 00's), Guns'n'Roses (peak early 90's) and Elton John (sometime before the 00's). And then Lizzo. Is Lizzo an act that will last the test of time? I somehow don't think so.
That's your choice of what to do with art. Raise up art you believe took time, is physical, and "will last," what ever that means because nothing does, things always change, look at the pyramids. It's all up to you to do what you know is right, and enjoying things as much as you possibly can.
Well I'll just leave a general reply here. First off thank you for a different point of view, but I'll still say that these more prove the point of what I was saying. If no one can be used as a lasting example of today's music what does that tell us about today's music? Should Lizzo be used as an example? No... I honestly don't listen to her. BUT let's take a look back to Tolstoy's novels, to Michelangelo's cealings, to the iliuminsted manuscripts, to the buildings of Karlo the great, to roman portraits, Greek sculptures and vases and all down the history to the cave paintings. All things that spoke of history of their time, of the people of their time. Not just paintings or drawings but buildings and tools as well. Does that mean that there are no good artists today? No good musicians for example? No good movies? We are doomed? No. My problem as stated above is the fact that creation is treated today like an assembly line to create a PRODUCT, as pointed out, they 'last'. Nothing lasts forever of coursevut today more than ever before there's talent in this world. There are good artists, musicians, craftsmen and women and not just artists but beyond. The problem to me is this focus on making something to fill up the time, the production line, the focus on today and nothing else. My point is that we as the world need to slow down on so many different levels, art included, not to raise our hands and give up. Quite the opposite in fact. I don'like living in the world where things are designed to break. And of course I am not going to curl up into a corner and cry, but I'm going to make stuff. Will it make a dent? Probably not. But it will be there for people to like, or call trash, their choice really 🤷♂️ And sorry for the TED talk.
I think the criticism on brutalism is overstated. Yes, some countries use it as an ideology, but in most cases, they are a necessity. To boast brutalism as beautiful because it serves a greater good does or to condemn it for destroying artistries is utterly pointless because in modern time, brutalism is not part of the artistic philosophical debate anymore. It has simply become a necessity. It is better to quickly and affordably build sturdy homes for war torn countries with people living in the streets than waste time and money on expensive façade. When housing shortage in cities drives up the prices on even the most ugly plain-ass building, spending more money on ornate buildings won't solve the housing crisis. When a city or country can afford to do so, ornate or well designed buildings will naturally be built.
Well said! I prefer to live in and own an appartment in an “ugly” building rather than living on the street or pay landlords 80% of my income just so they can rent out those luxury appartments. As long as the building is functional and was made to last, I don’t care how it looks.
This isn't meant to be absolute truth, but I have some thoughts. I still feel like technology and the ease of creation it brings aren't on their own bad things. Living in the current day, you see people use this technology for inane, vapid purposes. But you also see people using it for genuine expression, that, if they had been born centuries earlier, would not have had access to. With more people having access to the creative process, you are going to see more meaningless drivel, sure, but no body is taking away your access to consideration, and technique, and genuine expression. And they also aren't taking that away from anyone else. The only reason grand cathedrals and masterful oil paintings stand the test of time is because the institutions that held power allowed it, or because the person got lucky. If you want to consider dying before you're recognized lucky. We should fight against thoughtlessness, not technology. To compare new tech to colonization to put it all in the box of "progress" perhaps could have used some more of that consideration you love.
that ending was kinda depressing hah.. but.. for real.. if you're an artist, musician etc.. i do feel Ai gave many people an existential crisis.. even social media.. to see so many artist.. you suddenly ask youself.. am i even an artist?if ai can litealrly copy my art.. was i never special? did i neve rhave a voice? if everyone can be an artist, musician, etc.. what does it even mean to be those things? if everyone is an artist.. suddenly it does seem pointless.. ai, and technology bridges that gap.. and it is kinda threatening... especailly i think to artist that focus on realism. its the same thing with cooking.. why cook for 3 hours, when you can just put this in the microwave for a minute mentality. good video, food for thought. the only thing i will say is, throughout time, we saw a reaction to movemnts.. the poroblem is now we haven't.. for a very long time.. when art become commerical and money was prioirty.. people kinda have accepted the reality.. vs.. the next movement which always kinda happened.. but i do see.. because of ai.. people are putting more emotion into their works. jus tlike anime, while ai is about hyper realism.. we do see people are more attached to asimplified abstract version of humanity.. that also has kinda stagnated as everyone copies that style.. but it is showing people want to have that human feel.. artifical or real.. ai might have been the progress we needed to kick into the next movement for creativity... as now its the ' battle' vs ' accepting it'
i like your responses to the video. honestly i'm not sure what the best response is to society becoming like this. do we just turn off all social media, use old inconvenient technology, and bury our heads in the sand? i remember during covid you needed your phone to sign in everywhere, and places just would deny you entry if your phone was out of power. that is still the case where i am now. in china if you dont have a phone with alipay or wechat, you basically cant go anywhere or do anything. i have no idea where society is heading. but i do think its better to be authentic and genuine.
13:54 I don't need to know anymore about this guy I hate him beyond measure now...ha! He hires artist to paint instead of you doing it! 😂this is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Glad you are opening up the comment sections, your videos are so thought prevokaing that the conversation in the comment section will be so interesting to read.
Thanks for a great video! Both art & technology clearly have their places in society, but one cannot be substituted for the other. Indeed, it seems that in the wake of the industrial revolution, art became in some ways more primitivist as a direct response. It was as if artists were saying, "Let us not get lost in the artifice of technological progress for its own sake; there are things more fundamental & meaningful". I've said for decades now that the video games of my childhood (Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, etc.) were better simply because they had to be fun. The technology wasn't there to make them 8K with millions of colors in 3D blah blah blah. So they had to be fun to get your attention. As technology "progressed", game makers got lost in it, and often forgot how to make them fun to play. Being impressive became an end in itself. We've seen the pendulum swing back a bit lately, with games using older looks as a style or pastiche. I'd say that part of the purpose of art is to remind us of what's really important; to help us recenter ourselves. The very idea of technological progress as an end in itself can be a garden path leading to hellscapes. As Frank Herbert wrote, "The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future". In other words, we're apt to hide in it, and forget the light. tavi.
Man, naturally has a longing to relate himself with something transcendental (a high being). Man is a doxological being ("Homo sapiens," "homo faber"... yes, but, first of all, "homo adorans." Alexander Schmemann) .And express this longing in different ways and one is ART. But what is art? The cinema poet Andrei Tarvosky in one interview said "Art is the capacity to create, it's the reflection, the mirror-image, of the Creator's gesture. We artists only repeat, only imitate that gesture. Art is one of those precious moments in which we resemble the Creator. That is why have never believed in art which would be independent of the supreme Creator, I don't believe in art without God." So therefore, God is the divine artist. We are the pure art of God. "Since with my soul I behold the face of my beloved therefore all the beauty of his form is seen in me." Saint Greagory of Nyssa. In the life of andrei he doesnt separate cinema form his life. It becomes his soul's language it is prayer for him. This is the same in the life of Saint Sophorony "... the concept of pure creativity answered Sergei's longing and search to portray the unattainable and the infinite. Abstract painting was or seemed to be the best way to convey the inexpressible and intangible with visions of another new creation." Sister Gabriela on Saint Sophrony. He even called art "springboard" to eternity. "Andrei, what is art?" Tarkovsky, looking even more pensive than usual, declares that "before defining art - or any concept - we must answer a far broader question: what is the meaning of Man's life on Earth?" An ambitious topic, certainly, but he, in his own way, embodied the very concept of the ambitious filmmaker. "Maybe we are here to enhance ourselves spiritually. If our life tends to this spiritual enrichment, then art is a means to get there. Art should help man in this process."And he add "I don't believe in art without God. The raison d'être of art is a prayer, it's my prayer. If this prayer, if my films can bring people to God, so much the better. My life would then take on its sense, the essential sense of "serving." But I would never impose it: to serve does not mean to conquer."
So, to the poor worker who could now afford modern housing, this was ideology ? To him beauty, but to you it is ideology because you didnt live it. I live today in better looking more expensive appartment, but its monthly cost is a burden, is this beauty?
This is one of the inspiring videos I have seen in a long time. I'm an amateur photographer and I am often frustrated with my process, my technique is sloppy and lacking. This essay has reminded me of the importance in continuing to do what I do, to refined my technique, and to hone my skill.
I do agree that often too much focus is put on technology, and it can sap the life out of a piece of art. I agreed with a lot of the points you made in the beginning but then my approval turned to horror. 1. You didn't engage with the ideas of a lot of the artists you criticise and even blame for the state of the world. A lot of the architecture you showed wasn't brutalist, and brutalists have actually spend a lot of time explaining how they wanted their architecture to be in opposition to the glass skyscrapers that came to define the financial sector. Or how they intended to bridge the gap between the form and function of a building. To not have a building that serves a function which is then clad in pillars and decoration for form but to have the function itself become the form. Many of the original, early brutalist buildngs were very creative, playful, and not what you would build if you wanted cheap soulless structures alone. Warhol and the Pop Artists asked questions about what defines art, about the relationship between illustrators, commercial photographers, and fine art. they didn't Just want to capitalise on their works. 2. This video focusses entirely on western perceptions of beauty. It excludes all the cultures that have traditionally embraced abstraction. Morrocan tiles, American indigenous fabrics and patterns, african bronzes, Japanese concepts of beauty that value entirely different ideas than technical perfection, clarity, etc. 3. Ancient artpieces that are still regarded as important have undergone an immense process of survivorship bias. A lot of this video is just general fear mongering about an unavoidable, fateful decline of art, that is very quick to compare 3D printing with medival sculpture, claim that they want the same thing and that one is superior in spirit. But do people that do 3D print figurines want the same things as medieval artisan? Is that a fair comparison? Aren't there worthwile innovations that have been made possible through technology? Where do you draw the line? Why don't you shun cinema itself for being a degradation of theatre? Are there clear rules on which art is allowed and which isn't? Or is this more of a vibes-based "Everything is worse now" argument? Have you engaged with modern artists, and did you seriously not find one that sparks your interest? Or why are you so quick to write them off? This talk of the good old days and decline is a compelling narrative, but can you really say that everything is getting worse? And why have people been saying that history is at it's end, the current generation has finally ruined everything, it can't get worse" since forever? 4. For a video that claims to concern itself with the intersection of physical technique and the content of art, you didn't engage with the material conditions under which art is produced at? Is the alienation we feel in modern society desired by artists? Did we creatives who have to sell our work and our soul on the free market in order to survive, decide to accelerate the processes used, do we always go for the cheapest, soulless designs? No, it is the managers who themselves are forced by the capitalist system, by private ownership, by the distribution of power, by our current laws, to fulfill the desires of the owning and ruling class. Were the artisans who carved those church statues and castle gates guided by some divine, higher ideal? Or by nationalism, religious zeal, maybe fear of the powers that be, forced into selling their talent to the lords and kings of their age? Are the lavish, golden statues they built an expression of a creative human spirit or an expression of a sense of superiority over the poor, the foreigners, the unbelievers? You look at the present without looking at it's context, and you look at the past entirely through rose-tinted glasses. 5. Your appeal to the past, to a time when everything was right and artists captured the correct values and ideals in their work, and especially identifying that with traditional European art, was the thing that finally drove me to write this comment. I think the video gives an unfair representation of modern art, and paints an emotinally seductive but not well thought out narrative of decay. Of a degeneration of art. It is anti-modernity, it's view of beauty and art is one where they are unchanging, and instinctual. One where it is a moral crime against the world, if an artists chooses to create art for an intellectual purpose, not beauty, as in prettiness. It demands a return to, even if it avoids the term "western values". this video spells out an almost fascistic view of art, the good old days, the obsession with a perceived decay. it takes the alienation we all feel under late capitalism, but instead of blaming it on our power structures it says "look, the artist is at fault. They must return to tradition. to the superior human spirit" One can almost hear the Ride of the Valkyries swelling in the background of your final monologue
Look, I'm standing in the first row of NTF haters, always, but to say Beeple "just was in the right place at the right time" is a bit of understatement. The guy was doing one solid artwork every single day for multiple years at time. Each of them was relevant a political/cultural comment of what has been happening at the time. What he has sold was a whole collection that was both, a lifetime worth of work but also a capsule of time and his approach to it. If ANYONE deserved this money, honestly, it was only Beeple. I do resent the rest of the movement though. Great video btw, i just wanted to add this comment to give some perspective for people who may not understand what happened with Beeple.
i understand that this video essay it is leaning to be conservative and about the good old times of the art but in present i thinke there are lots of good art that is full on emotion, creativity, and unique and it's still having that je ne sais quoi, but it's need to be searched. And the brutalism it's not a repugnant style without esence, if it's maintained properly it is good and you cand use those simple brutalist buildings as a canva where you can make a great composition, in eastern europe you can find great mosaics that are great, and you can look with awe at them and the AMERICAN SUBURBIA it's not brutalism, more like american exceptionalism. And all that boogie man with the AI Art is just a dust in the wind that will go away soon. An artist should not be afraid about the ephemeral stuff wich orbits around him and it shouldn't be a hermit. Like in the past, the artists where adapting to the new medias to express themselves and the artist should not be considered a genius, more like someone who does something true to self and is leaving a part of him to everyone for an indefinite period.
Funny. I was definitely of the mindset that progress is more of a negative, and for most of your video saw my own thoughts being reflected back at me. Until the final part. If that is in fact the future, I do not see the doom that others do, it truly sounds like what my heart longs for everyday. To have control over my own nothing, and then become it. Maybe you hope that you are wrong about the future, but I hope you are right.
Many things that you say are true, but sorry, I won't agree with this pessimism. I try not to be naive, but I think that optimism is our only hope. You might say that sounds hopeless, but I don't think it does. Without optimism, pessimism is the only thing that remains. Ultimately, I'd argue, what got us into this mess. So, just as an addition to your worthwhile contribution, I want to encourage everyone to be optimistic and spite the negative sides of our modern society. I think it's worth believing that the human condition isn't beyond hope.
Of this essay, I think I have to say it...."cynicism isn't smarts". To the extent that we reject technology or drop one technology for another, it's because the social construction behind the technology doesn't satisfy us. And that can be intrinsic, when a hyped technology just doesn't work, or it can come from a place of politics, where some gain and others lose. For example, the invention of writing is considered very momentous, and its gradual development into a literate society as a major theme of progress. But to invent literacy you have to invent illiteracy as well. Because this technology is more intrinsically difficult for some, society has actively created disability. But if you couldn't read me, you couldn't have this experience. And so not accepting the technology as an already-literate person would most likely come from a place of ignorance. Technology isn't in the gadgets but in the "enablers and disablers", and in the industrial world we often end up in places we don't understand, because we didn't think to consider that having laundry machines and frozen food would enable the feminism of the midcentury, nor did we stop and consider that computerizing everything in our lives disables people who don't have knowledge of computers. The art of the industrial world isn't in the products we call art, the art is in navigating all of this change and adopting the set of norms that will best fit these awesome powers being unleashed each day. After all, it's not like anyone is in charge of any of this change. Noblemen used to ban progress and imprison inventors, but it did not stop the change from happening. It is merely a matter of survival now, a passing of different seasons in which some technologies work and others don't.
You should make a dedicated Resident Evil video you would smash it out the park. Said more about the remakes vs the originals in those few minutes than everybody else’s hour or two long diatribes.
This made me depressed. I have drawn and painted all my life thinking it'll make me special someday, but then people better than I am exist and then there's AI, and suddenly, I have no voice. I am actually just a nobody.
This is beautiful, I really think it's among the best of the thousands of video essays that have been uploaded. It touches an open yet hidden wound in our age. Thank you
Watch literally any other old, miserable person talk for more than 30 minutes, and you will literally get this exact fucking video essay word for word. I swear to god, what the hell is WRONG with you people. “Everything modern sucks, we must return to tradition” is (without even GETTING to the terrible politics of it). One of the most common sentiments propagated by ANY rapidly aging and irrelevant generation. As this bastards literally shows AT THE BEGINNING of this humiliating display of midlife crisis coping.
It's crazy how this channel turned into dystopian crying fear so quickly. We made it halfway through this one making real interesting content and then... everything is so sad and bad and the popular media and world is so bad :(
I understand the ideas you're putting forth, but you could've done a better job of dissociating it from fascist ideas of degenerate art, which this strays dangerously close to.
@@ArtPhotographerLindsay wtf does virtue signal even mean anymore? is expressing any kind of opinion virtue-signalling, or just the opinions you disagree with? grow up.
I love the video but I feel like I must say this. No matter how artificial the technology or architecture has made the world, people are still in it. The glorious thing about people is that they are meaning makers. Even if “progress” renders all things into a contextless digital mulch people will make context. People will create.
Hey everybody, haven't watched it yet but oh boy am I just so excited for another Cinema Cartography video! They're always so great to listen to while I take a bath or make dinner. Thanks for making such great content CC! edit: i want to die
@@villebooks This was a joke, but...why not? As if a video essay requires a certain set of circumstances to be consumed. Please forgive me as I don my smoking jacket and light my pipe, and sit by the fire with a snifter of brandy and a laptop. The only true and proper way to watch.
haven't watche dthe video yet, but there once was a movment.. where people drew incredible realistically.. however.. it was only of a certain high class.. art was only for the upper class.. however, some artist started to turn their focus to the working class.. the lower class.. changing the pov and making the more impoverished the subject matter of " high art'. as that movemtn happened.. another movement happened.. the begining of abstraction.. the importance of emotion and expression rather than every single fine detail where realism played.. abstraction, impressionism. to allow the brush to paint what the artist felt in the moment.. once again, focusing on every day subject matters.. as diferent artist brough their own flavour or representation.. still, it was tied to represenitng a real world.. slowlly the subject matters started to fade away to become splashes of colour.. emotion overwhelmed the canvas.. some even started to critize these artist ' waht is this? a kid can draw this.. this isn't art!!" slowly the divide in art happened, the high brow and low brow.. where once artist progidies deliterbately simpliefed deconstructed the 3d word into 2 dimmension.. where not it wasn't only expressoin of emotion, but of time.. how would you represent time on a flat surface? as picasso , who once drew incredible realism.. started to simplify more and more, cubsim, to lines.. to one line.. why were these gerat artist starting to ' draw garbage?" - the mind as it ages.. solidifies reality.. once your mind does that.. its very hard to go back to that fluidity and imagination a child has.. where the sies the limit.. to be able to see the world in such an abstractmanner.. - this is what an artist desires. and through the years we saw art become commercialized.. packaged.. what was even art at that point? and then the moment of post mod art happened.. where nothing and anything could be art.. as interpretation was most important.. a slash on a canvas, a banana taped to a wall.. what does it all mean? progress? with the internet and instagram and many artist sudddnly having an avenue, a burst of art exploded.. however, there were only a few with a certain style that got atention and money - commercial art. art that looked profesional.. that delinma in new artist.. ' should i even try? what is art?'.. and then ai.. ai came.. the ultimate enemy to the human artist.. was this progression? as the ai art gradually got so good it cuold imitate and draw real life beyond what humans were cappable of.. and we come back to the very begining.. where artist once drew so realisitically of certain subject matters.. that then sparked the need for exp[ression art in a different form.. abstraction etc.. the cycle continuies.. tho it seems harder.. ai, should force us to go back into abstract expression.. where art really flourished.. as good art doesn't = realism just 2 cents:)
this video is cool but l wanna tell you something l remember in one of your videos you talked about this philosophical movie about 5 man talking about philosophy its incredible similar to my dinner with andre so please tell me what was the name of the movie
Progress and progressivism are not at fault here. It's capitalism. But false-consciousness always leads to incorrectly diagnosing the problems caused by capitalism (via replacing the end goal of everything with 'profit') and pinning them on obscure factors or on "progress". False-consciousness leads to fascism.
reading the comments section, it seems that everyone is missing the point. this is asking you to question the narrative that technology is progress in art and to question why the subjective form of art is so dominant (brutalist buildings, abstract art) in our culture. this reminds us that removing limitations through technology or stripping out the techniques through the post-modernist lens, actually strips away the biggest reasons we find things beautiful. it's the goal of the artist, and the awe of that artist working within the limitations and through technique transcending them into an artwork that is greater than the sum of its parts. Vincent van Gogh is the perfect example for me, whether it's Starry Night or Wheat Field with Cypresses, he does a masterful job of working within the limitations of his medium, of paint on a canvas, to paint a picture of a moment in time, but through his techniques was able to express the movement of the world by painting the wind on canvas
The irony of Brutalism is that it was often less functional than older buildings, and the exterior although bland was not improvement in function for example not having overhangs is why they have bad problem with water ingress, we had forgot the reason these elements existed in the first place.
Functionalism is a core belief in Modernism, Brutalism's core beliefs were ethical. By exposing the way an Architecture was built the architect was able to experiment with structure. It was a humanistic movement born out of post-war destruction.
@@Alex-cw3rz abstraction mixed with technological advancement. But Brutalism is much more sound in theory than what is built today completely controlled by BIM and material manufacturers.
As an artist, yes I want the old world gone because I am my world. The more technologic our world becomes, the more "eternal" or "divine" our appreciation of art must be. With more technology, we are further released of the chains holding us to earth and more capable of transceding the physical, becoming fully saturated in the emotional/experiential. This is the beauty of brutalism, its CONTRAST to the natural world. This contrast of nature/human/Technology/Artificial/Fake? only expands our capacity for appreciation. By experiencing the unnatural you become more aware of what you love about the natural. By experiencing the fear, nihilism, and wish for upholding traditional values in this video, I am further entrench in my work of aesthetic appreciation, phenomenological awareness, and optimism... So I comment in retaliation.... Good job.
There will be no "nature" left soon. The hyperreality (digital photography, AI or digital special effects) claim to be more natural than nature itself. And we believe it more and more. We are facinated by this process of disappearing, it has nothing to do with art itself.
With great tools an artist can immediately begin to perfect a vision instead of face a number of crippling limitations. The period's imprint on the art is lost, but who cares? Does requiring that every curve be personally drawn create a greater link? Technology does not stand in the way of such personalization. The exact manifestation of a uniquely detailed imagination is still Art. A masterpiece doesn't have to be finger painted in blood in a dimly lit prison cell. The times have gifted you a self-piloting starship and you long for the paddle-boat.
But the original conjecture has merit. Back in the '80s movies even just went pantomime props and balck boxes to sit on... It worked perfectly because the Actors had us "suspending our disbelief" with the perfection of their craft. Was that a form of "brutalism" ? Surely ..if we are sincere in ourselves ... we can make Paradise with a decent meal and a roof to keep the rain off? But as to the conjecture... the more amazing the technology gets the more shit the media swill becomes.. I hate to say it ...
Progress is what allowed you to create this video and publish it on the world wide web to anyone in the world to be able to see it. I'm an absolutely fan of your videos, "Pre-Cinema | Cinémathèque" and "Cinémathèque - A History of Cinema" are honestly 2 of my favorites videos ever, but this whole video honestly just sounds like a luddite manifesto. Sure, limitations might sometimes inspire people to be more creative and come up with workarounds, but ultimately they aren't desirable because.... it limits what people can do and how many people can do it. I want to live in a world where anyone - regardless of having the "technical skill" or money, - cause as a lot of people point out, all those nice paintings from back in the day, the artists who did that painting were paid by very very rich people, so art ends up being limited by money a lot of times - I want to live in a world where anyone is able to create movies, like real movies, like Hollywood quality movies (at least from a technical/budget point of view) using AI, because how much creativity is out there, imagine how many people have cool ideas that they would never have the money to make it true: Also, the amount of art you can create without any kind of technology is pretty limited. You can't play piano if the piano technology doesn't exist. You can't create a movie without the technology of the camera. You can't publish a video to anyone in the world without the internet. Progress, more specifically technological progress, is what enable pratically all forms of art to exist, as well as enabled us to live in a world where people can have time to create art because we mastered agriculture and now only a very small part of the population needs to work on feeding everybody, and the rest can do other things, like making a living creating art.
@@bluewaver1216 is it that musicians don't make much money anymore, or that lazziness keeps some people from finding music/art they prefer because there's so much now? Both are unfortunate imho Big music labels have always been corrupt, they've always ripped off artists. Pop music is a funny concept, it's always been propped up by people who let big music corporations tell them what music to like and listen too, and it's gotten worse and worse... profit, greed and consumerism dilutes and diminishes the quality of everything over time. It's not technical progress itself that's a problem but that those tools are mostly in the hands of the elite and deployed solely for profit. I say good for the musician/artist kid who can bypass big industry with technology, reach their potential fans directly and start a career, that's awesome.
@@bluewaver1216That's a pretty sugar coated history of the music industry and pop music you're reciting, the truth is much different. "consume", "earnings", "sells", "invest"... money money money... Exactly, putting profit over all else ruins everything. Cost to produce goes down, quality goes down, people buy anyway because they follow what corporate media tells them is trendy, profits go up and up... destroying and diluting creative expression, the more it's commodified the worse it gets.
@@squigglyarmz197 and just to clarify, when i said invest earlier i meant from the costumers' perspective. When i was growing up you paid $16 for an album, so you generally only bought it if you actually wanted to hear it over and over. Now they only have to pay for Spotify or whatever so listening to "whatever mass media tells you to" isnt a problem
I think that brutalism is gorgeous... The building is for everyone...with no symbols...its a space without meaning,so ur experience with the environment would create an unique relationship with the place... without an aesthetic of a ruling class.... All those magnificent churches and institutions where build by slaves for a god or at worst Monarchs...
Brutalism is awful when you're actually living inside one of those depressing buildings. I associate them with the smell of piss, mould and poor fire safety.
@@greek_commie But cladding is. Please look up the Grenfell tower fire and the cladding related fires. A lot of brutalist housing is hated by the people who have no choice but to live in those conditions.
10:36 I think that’s the new federal building here in Salt Lake City, it’s a terrible eyesore. Even among the gentrification it stands out as an eyesore 😢
Art should be in contact with the eternal and the divine, however one comes to define that. In order to understand what my art must be to replicate that, I have also had to discuss and understand the immense displeasures I have with the world. I say that to remind myself that the art I hope to create must be in opposition to that. Creativity must be exactly that - creation. For with enough creation, we may be able to outdo the destruction.
Thanks.
Lewis.
The representationalist delusion
"Art is prayer" Tarkovsky
Art is more than just technique. It is expression. It is one human expressing something to the world. Technique can always be replaced by newer and better means.
All of that old artwork you call “beautiful” was produced by a small percentage of human beings. They represent the expression of the wealthy elite, who could afford the means to produce beautiful works of art. The development of less expensive means which to produce works are art produces a multiplicity of different techniques. An endless variety of expression.
i love this video
True art transcends space and time
I don't like the fatalist dystopian shape this channel is assuming. And imho this video is kinda generic and simplistic when it dives into specific themes like videogame design and brutalist architecture. The conclusions pulled out are nothing new. It is like the perfect example of an individual trying to throw together random concepts, from numerous disciplines, in the name of subjective interpretation and aesthetic speculation. Things like brutalist architecture are complex historical, social, economical phenomena that can't be reduced in the phrase: ugliness = progress.
To me it's like the video watches phenomena only from a safe and distant point of view, from which the aesthetic conclusions and intepretations assume a fascinating aura of credibility but in the same time overlook decisive aspects. What about playing and interact with the original Resident Evil games and then with the remakes? What about distinguishing rational and brutalist architecture from the specific post war residential speculation phenomenon? A building made of concrete is often nothing modular and not necessarily easy to build.
I'm not here for hating, love this channel.
Cruelty Squad is a good companion piece to this video
*heggle stirs in his grave*
I like your channel, but the ending was painful to watch
This video manages to not be antisemitic, and by virtue of that, it misses the mark just a bit.
Could you elaborate on that?
the video: endlessly striving for perfection, palatability, and conceptualism robs art of its humanity
you: HBHUHGUBH THE JEWS
I'd like to believe this vids quasi cryptofascist narrative was unintentional thank you very much.
This video must be a hard watch for you. Praising traditional art without any right wing ideology, very rare these days.
@@thefebo8987 imagine thinking you have to have a certain political ideology to enjoy art
I can't help but wonder how you resolve the inherent contradiction in your anti-progress contention and your stated appreciation of film. Cinema wouldn't exist without "progress." The films you listed in your "200 films that changed my life" video all have some level of technical proficiency that wouldn't be possible without previous progress. For all of those films, if they weren't as technically proficient would you still appreciate them? Would they even be possible to make?
You seem to be continuing the long, tired and frankly boring critique of modern and post-modern art as somehow less valid or important as the "artisanal" art of the past. The sculptures you pay reverence to in this video, the paintings as well were nearly all commissioned work. An artist didn't create these pieces out of some divine calling. They made them because they were paid to. The Sistine Chapel was painted at the behest of Pope Sixtus IV not out of some divine inspiration. This isn't to say there wasn't some level of inspiration involved but it's very funny that you give so much reverence to art created for monetary gain on the part of the artist and vanity on the part of the commissioner. Your choice of music in the middle of the video when discussing modern art is interesting (and transparent)
There is an argument to be made against "progress for progress' sake." I do believe AI "art" is the true loss of humanity in the humanities, but your attitudes on modern art are surprisingly uneducated and seem to follow modern anti-intellectual thinking. Technical proficiency is not the end all be all of art. Modern art specifically art like Rothko, Pollock and the like were born out of experimentation. Photography completely changed our perception of what an artist is and made the need for technically proficient artists dwindle. Those modern artists are pushing the boundaries of what art is, which is what they're supposed to do. It's the same thing Bela Tar does with Santatango, what Kubrick does with 2001. It's bizarre to me that you appreciate these films while railing against the progress that made them possible.
none of these conclusionss make any sense, just some sophisticated word salad
This comment section always has a way of restoring my faith in humanity. I love seeing such eloquent and thoughtful counter arguments and most written with such care and understanding. I found myself personally disagreeing with much of what this essay (in my limited understanding of the heady thesis) had to say. However, a well crafted debate is more important than any proposed finality. If that’s not progress than I don’t know what is. It’s easy to become cynical about the current state of the world when you’re flooded with information on a daily basis and standing in the eye of the storm but the mere fact that we can (all of us strangers) communicate and amicably disagree with one another on such lofty subjects is a gift.
Just wanted to shed light on the overlooking of cast systems and limited accessibility to the exhibition of art during former eras as well. I couldn’t help but feel as though this was coming from a perspective of privilege and undervaluing the fact that people who would’ve had no voice in the world can now express themselves in the public eye and create whole new conversations that in the past would have been stifled. Also… don’t forget about counterculture. Even if the future presents an artistic climate devoid of skill and valuing skill, history has shown that there will surely be a counter, an “Anti” movement, against such an approach. Always question the present but don’t deny the cyclical nature of progress.
I typically adore this channel however this video might be of the most flimsy and moronic arguments I've seen. It’s a flawed, uncooked idea held up by large segments of gross inaccuracies, poor (or disingenuous) evidence and gigantic leaps in logics.
1. Firstly, within the rules of your argument, wouldn’t Resident Evil be a worse version of cinema? The fixed camera angles are clearly inspired by those seen in old horror films. It is both a response to technical limitations and as a way to create cinematic angles and experiences. Also I find the celebration of RE4 while simultaneously disliking the REmakes bizarre (and inconsistent) with the argument as well. RE4 abandoned the rules of the original to fall in line with the contemporary gaming trends of it day. This is exactly what the REmakes do. If the argument had been that 4 does it better I would agree and in fact I dislike 4 because it moves away from the fixed camera experience - but that’s not what the video argued.
2. Secondly, the vast majority of what you showed as “brutalism” weren’t even brutalist buildings. Brutalism was a humanist movement designed to comfort those ravaged by war and provide them with places that felt strong and understandable. Shifting the ornamentation into the materiality and functionality of the building was meant to allow the average person to actually engage with and experience architecture in their day to day lives. Glass office blocks, Chinese megacities, American suburban sprawls and Stalinist housing blocks aren’t brutalism - they are completely different styles. Plus your point about these various buildings falling into disrepair has no consideration of the material conditions in which they were made. Chinese housing blocks are routinely pulled down and rebuilt as a capitalist con-job not due to people not liking them. The International Style buildings of the Central Americas were poor quality due to the fact they were built by exceptionally poor nations not that people found them so ugly they no longer maintained them. To reiterate, neither of these points have anything to do with something inherent in Brutalism.
Your point about ideology being good and therefore making the building beautiful, is in fact a critique to be pointed at old churches and the homes of nobility. Huge buildings that were aesthetically pleasing because they were for God/s and those rich enough say they were god/s chosen people. These grand buildings of the past were not experienced by the average person - outside of those who toiled to make them (often as slaves). This complete revisionism of the history of architecture borders of the fascistic and mirrors those accounts on twitter obsessed with Greek and Roman statues and architecture. Let’s actually look at the architecture of the average house, shop and town instead of the haunts of the historical 1%.
3. I assume the basis of this video stems from the arguments of Walter Benjamin and his concerns around the loss of the Aura with the advent of mechanical reproduction techniques. While I think Benjamin’s concerns are fairly sound, they are specifically aimed at photography and cinema and are also very western-centric. If your concern is that of reproduction and the artist less involved in the creation of the work extend to the woodblock printers of Japan? Is the printing press a horrific destruction of the written word? How is the “humble mason” who was hired by the wealthy to build their statues and structures any different than Koon’s assistants hired to do the same? (I personally dislike Koons to be clear).
If you truly felt that ancient artwork was best then why show paintings and statues several hundred years into the existence of the medium? Surely the Venus of Willendorf and illustrations in caves are to be venerated instead. Would not the dot based abstractions of the indigenous Australians would be the highest form of painting? You avoid these because they go against your ridiculous idea that technological progress leads to a loss of technique. Despite the fact that these early modes of art have significantly less “technique” than those you show in the video. Furthermore you conflate technique with western realism through the lens of Judaeo-Christian values - ignoring the vast history art that came before then (and was also made at that time) that had neither of those qualities.
4. Finally you blame the modern, “degenerate” artist for this and retroactively reframe old art as being made by those of a superior, nobler spirit. As if the contemporary artist is the driver of trends and the source of society’s suffering.
In fact capitalism is the source of both of these things. Before capitalism controlled art and artists it was the monarchism and religious institutions. Much of what this video celebrates is art made to appease nationalists, zealots and narcissists. Artwork which was either made by poor artists selling their skills to the rich to survive or by the children of the wealthy who were free to pursue art which celebrated them and their peers.
The argument also denies artists the desire to explore new ideas and techniques. Why would an artist want to repeat Rembrandt? Or Pollock for that matter, when they’re trying to find a way to express their view of the world. There is no universal, correct aesthetic and asserting that artists who don’t adhere to your western Judaeo-Christian traditions as immoral and as destroying the world is fascistic bollocks.
i disagreed with all of your critiques, the remake of Resident Evil wasn't bad because they did a remake, it was bad because the original game was on the edge of limitations of the time, and the creators used techniques that created a game that transcended them into a game that spawned a new genre. whereas the remakes are safely doing what all other games are doing now, and for some reason, it's considered progress, when in reality it's just another game in a sea of games that are recycling the ideas of its time.
everything shown was of brutalist architecture to my knowledge, and you don't really prove your argument by pointing out examples to prove your point. Brutalist buildings are characterized by minimalist constructions that showcase the bare building materials and structural elements over decorative design. and is indeed commonly known for its presence in post-war communist nations.
You also critiqued his point on the ideology being good and therefore making the building beautiful. you missed his point entirely, in fact, you proved it. his point is that a vast majority of people find the artwork you're critiquing to be beautiful throughout the generations, but you find the idea that rich people paid for it and prefer the idea (or ideology) that removes it from their hands (loosely speaking) therefore you prefer the latter to the former and confirming his point entirely, that the ideology being good and therefore making the building beautiful.
your point about mass production is a bit off the mark as well, the printing press doesn't fit in his critique of art, because the printing press doesn't change the core creative process of creating a novel. the art is in the meaning of the words laid by the author, not the stamping of the words on paper. and as for Koons, I believe his critique is mainly the glorification of the mass-produced assembly line model in art. there is nothing wrong with mass-producing a print of art. but there is a problem when mass production of art is glorified as a progeniture of art itself.
and as for your 4th critique, you basically fall back into his critique of "the ideology being good and therefore making the building beautiful." critique. not once did he say everyone must do this particular form of art, and he never said that there is a "universal, correct aesthetic", but he does say that there are universal BETTER forms of aesthetic.
and as a side note, I don't believe he brings up religion once in this video essay, so your injected argument of " asserting that artist who don’t adhere to your western Judaeo-Christian traditions as immoral and as destroying the world is fascistic bollocks." came entirely from your own mind.
Ya know, I so VEHEMENTLY disagree with the entire tone/premise of the weltschmerzy philosophy you've been repeating in recent videos that it's actually making me yell at my screen, and I'm arguing the OPPOSITE perspective from the one I usually feel so deeply- which would be this same sort of facile whinging and bleeding heart fatalism I'm getting from these videos. Spare me man. Honestly, I don't know if you're trying to achieve some sort of like Brechtian alienating effect where common modes of thought to modern people are rendered as so obnoxiously self-absorbed and 'affected' that the same people who usually think in this way end up re-evaluating their thinking, but BY GEORGE if it isn't achieving that effect for me!
I’m not getting a coherent counter argument here.
@@johnsailorsgoat What counter argument? I haven't stated one. I've described the effect that this upload has had on me in my own room talking to myself. I don't know how I'd argue against his points precisely because this is usually the way I think, but seeing it presented like this just bristles something and I can very intuitively understand how misleading, reductive, and counterproductive this type of thought is. I commented on what a weird feeling it is to realise that I'm taking the view directly opposed to the one I usually take because of how that view is presented here. Still have no coherent counter argument to offer you, sorry.
Are you interested in the life of a farmer who lived 600 years ago?
Are you really interested in their challenge their small desires, triumphs, failures hurt as you said humanity?
Or are you really only interested in stories, larger than life?
Artists commissioned by aristocrats and institutions to stylize their myth and capture it for all eternity.
Just as artificial as a koons but with the advantage of historical transfiguration.
Was the farmer interested in the works of art of egypt or did he express the hypris that his myth should go down in history for all eternity?
Or did he live in the moment?
perhaps you yourself are trapped in your role as a critic.
Forced by the inconsistency of the system to ingratitude for a life situation for which in the past people wiped out or enslaved whole tribes, but at the same time being unable to consider an alternative because it is easier to imagine the end of the world.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
A bit harsh but so was this video.
To answer your leading question, whether I'm interested in a 600 y/o farmer... Yes? Like, a lot even? Being able to have a peek into a world practically alien to us is fascinating to me. Exactly because art was so focused on the mighty and the divine means that unfathomable amounts of cultural knowledge is lost to time, as it was all deemed so unimportant to record. But there's a whole genre of historical work where historians attempt to reconstruct parts of it, where such stories feature heavily; microhistories. The Return Of Martin Guerre (the book) and The Cheese And The Worms are triumphs of historiography and come highly recommended.
I strongly disagree with almost all the statements made here. Beauty is often mistakenly equated with decoration, and geometry is portrayed as artificial. How is Baroque not artificial? What's invisible about the geometry of structures like the Guggenheim or the Sydney Opera House? Once again, there seems to be confusion between geometry and squares, as if squares were the only geometric shape in existence. It's clear that, when it comes to art, design, and architecture, people can't escape their personal tastes, no matter how romantic or embellished the argument may be. The need to declare one thing superior to another is perhaps the most vacuous approach.
The fact that architecture can provide shelter for millions more people than in the past, which is arguably the most fundamental goal of architecture, is sometimes overlooked when viewed through the lens of "beauty." It's as if people would prioritize ornamentation over the basic necessity of shelter. In reality, this essay demonstrates that the progress deemed "ugly" has allowed society to take shelter for granted and explore more abstract ideas that technology has made possible.
Lastly, destruction is also a necessary and arguably fundamental step in the creative process, rather than just iteration.
I think you're too sure of your conclusions and if even one of them is wrong or even more nuanced than what you've stated, then your whole thesis falls apart, especially when it come to brutalizum. Utilitarian design was created as part of a nihilistic ideology, forced on people, not as a result of different ideologies. People are absolutely still being creative AND they're using advancement in technology to do it. Just because you can cherry pick some examples of franchises that ran their course and found their way into the hands of corporate bean counters giving their notes, it doesn't mean the soulless cash grabs are a result of the advancements. If you think those vampires just sprang into existence in the last 150 years with the advent of automation, you're living in a romantic dream of the past. I respect your channel and your knowledge but you have to stop drawing these manic depressive, sophomoric conclusions just because people don't all want to create in the same way they always have. People want to try new things. You can't tell them they're wrong to.
There’s just so many wild inaccuracies in this video especially the section on brutalist architecture. Intercut with the images of brutalist housing projects are suburban developments and funnily enough an example of neoclassical fascist architecture converted into a Burger King. The irony lies in the fact that the neoclassical forms of fascist architecture is exactly what you are advocating for, a connection to historical aesthetic traditions and reverence for a “divine” other, in this case being the nation. You also claim brutalist Architecture is the dominate form of architecture, where is this true?Its simply not the case, and they were not abandoned and fell into disrepair because they were “ugly” it was a concerted political projected orchestrated by the neoliberal establishment to eliminate the remnants of the post war welfare state. Also in regards to the art world It is not the technology and technique that makes the art worse it’s the market forces in which art is produced and circulated! Jeff koons is a hack surely but he’s successful because understands the art world is a market, you’re critique should be of capital and the financialization of everything. Instead you make some twitter trad argument with no material analysis.
Can't progress serve art? I've seen multi-million dollar films that were slick and shiny, all style and no substance, but I've also seen modern films with the same budget that I've adored. I've seen film that was indy and cheap that I've loved, and that I've hated. People still paint, and write. They weave and sculpt and create. I guess whatever the tools used, as long as they are serving the human imagination then art will survive.
+ creating has become far more democratized
If I'm misinterpreting this video, disregard me but as fascinating of a watch as it is, at some points it seemingly falls into some lines of thought I disagree with. People can and do still create works akin to ancient ones. We likely will always create as a species across a great many mediums, forms, functions and ideologies. A good chunk of the issues expressed are substantially rooted in our modern economic models and their many issues. AI art and modern commodification and devaluation of artists is truly awful as detailed. However, otherwise modern tools have allowed art to become so much more accessible as a practice than ever before. Sharing knowledge, community and toolsets the internet are resoundingly a boon in spite of other effects wrought by modern technology (which again I'd argue are largely a synptom of economic models etc). Older works have an elememt of survivorship bias working in their favour too. Great works survive and endure while many lesser ones have fallen by the wayside as a matter of statistics. Our eras works haven't stood long enough to all be revealed. I think sometimes this all causes people to uphold the ancient as transcindentally superior. There is incredible awe and beauty in those things. Ancient things, spectacular, lovingly imperfectly crafted things. No doubt we have crafted a world that sorely needs more of it and less of the culture that has hurt artists and these techniques. But human ingenuity and artistic technique is enduring (I beleive at least) and hopefully in time systems that have also contributed to this state of affairs will be less negativley impactful. Brutalism can also be truly stunningly beautiful and I truly beleive that though I know that wasn't really what you were getting at.
Sorry if any of this makes no sense, sounds combative or is misinformed. I know not all of it is exactly adressung your essay, which I enjoyed a lot.
'But human ingenuity and artistic technique is enduring',, i agree
It’s the RUclips video equivalent of those Greek statue “return to tradition” Twitter accounts
I could've spent 20 minutes of my life for other things
The main issue I have is that you for some reason believe that the progress of moving from complex, highly detailed art is necesarily a bad thing, and while I understand your unoapologetic hatred towards automated and ai processes, you fail to bring up all the goods it can give us in an honest manner, these new technologies are just new tools that REAL artist will make good use of, because, believe it or not, not everyone is born to make art, once the novelty dies off, people will get sick of anything AI, but that new progress of finding an insanely efficient way to visualize possible outcomes for a piece will open the doors for any individual with high ambitions towards bigger projects. Do you also hate digital art too? being able to just pick colors off your screen with eyedropper would be utter witchcraft for the ancient art masters, and now, with just a few clicks, you can get all the colors you need.
Progress is inevitable, ist just mankinds nature, why look at it from the most cynical point of view when as, with most things, there's always plus and cons? The most dishonest point you made was nagging about art movements following a formula, when back then, most classical artist had to strive for utter realism otherwise they'd be a financial failure! the ones that stood out, stood out for a reason, what about ALL THE OTHERS, that were outright forgotten by time? do you understand how hypocritical that is of you? new movements like Picasso or Pop art can speak to the soul of the viewer far better than any highly detailed masterpiece, and I don't think you understand that.
You have some great points on your vid but I absolutely despise the one sided view it has.
I disagree with the conclusion you each at the end of the portion about capcom and resident evil. I think that jumping from “these games are better because they embrace newer design philosophies and technology,” to “any change in technology is progress” is an enormous leap that I don’t think you’ve shown through that portion of the video.
I love the old resident evil games and the new remakes. I think resident evil and Capcom, even video games in general are a bad example to use for this video seeing as how most people in the classical art world think all video games are degenerate.
bro is saying that london 19th century is better than any eastern europe capitol. bro modernism is about understanding that we need higher standards.... aka be human and evolve! not what religion did in europe in medieval imes where the wheel was forgotten. yes the wheel.....
Enslaved and indentured laborers made those ancient buildings for despotic kings, who enjoyed them with the feudal nobility. Your romanticization of them is a myth all its own.
Yeah, and your self congratulation isn't anything but self congratulation, an utterly pointless tangent
Not many indentured laborers enjoy the 33 Thomas Street either but at least ancient buildings are beautiful and not concrete hell rectangles.
And, like the ending of Barry Lyndon (*spoiler*) they are all dead now, so we can think what what we want about them. Regular folks can even go inside them at will in a lot of cases (jp morgan library for instance). I want nice shit for everyone instead of sitting around being angry of the rich (ie the politics of ressentiment).
I am still astounded at how massively people can miss the point.
Alright time to get some popcorn a new Cinema Cartography vid is out
Time to go into another existential crisis, a new Cinema Cartography video is out.
@@LoganJKroll at least we've got popcorn
Might wanna get a box of Kleenex as well
🎯
More like time to grab the tums and get ready to be a bit blue for the remainder of the day
It's a funny phenomenon how people so easily blame consumerism but are afraid to criticize capitalism, they are the same thing capitalism can't exist without consumerism. The delusion of infinite growth, greed, materialism of capitalism is what's destroying everything. It isn't progress, only the brainwwashed think that, it's the greed of capitalism that's ruining art and every creative endeavor. Some good art has come out of our current system but it's only despite of it not because of it.
Consumerism! But don't ever say the other C word it props up, that would take too much courage I guess something most don't have...
Art is usually appreciated by looking to the past and comparing, but I wonder what would happen if the oposite was the norm. If when people made art they competed with the future. I think the people making the Sistine Chapel had a mentality closer to that, making use of what resources they had to make something to compete with the future, and surpass it in beauty, utility, and value. So far it seems to have worked. Or the Pyramids of Giza, with our technology we could build hundreds more if we wanted, but we do not, because the ones that exist surpass any potential new ones in every way.
Transgressive art whose aim is to critique the present feels like the worst kind of art, but maybe it is too a necessary one.
wooow!! Hell yes!!! If you make art thinking about the present, it stays in the present and will not pass much beyond that. Also, right now, what does transgressive even mean? It's just a boring self absorbed aim... I think, it's just reacting, not creating, and is usually just for the hipe of others, not interior.
One thing that this video does not address (not that I necessarily expected such a thing) is that all of the art from our predecessors that still exists is only a fraction of the art that was made. The stories we know from antiquity are really only a a small sample that have survived. We honestly do not know exactly what our fore-bearers did if we go back far enough, though there are some things that survive.
The reason I like to remind myself about this is because this perspective truly illustrates that while late-stage capitalism has changed the nature of commercial art and what being a commercially successful artist looks like, it has not exactly fundamentally changed how we play with our tools and make things.
How many times have we used the Sims to build our "perfect dream home" or used one of those virtual dress up things as a kid to create clothes from stock options? "AI" Art is mainly repugnant because of how it steals its techniques from other existing works of art and is being used by those in power to usurp the ability for an artist to work commercially for the big multinational conglomerate companies.
It does not, however, mean that we cannot hone our skill, build our own style, or otherwise make something that feels meaningful to the human experience. More than ever, I can see the beautiful art through music, video, or image from all over the world in a way that our ancestors could never imagine. I can interact with it, give my money directly to the creators I love via Patreon even if they are a world away. I can find others like myself from all over the world to discuss the art and create our own works from the inspiration of others.
How many haunted house stories are there? A million, for sure. Does that cheapen their existence? What about stories about zombies? There are certainly stories and movies that play on many similar themes even without the use of "AI" technology. And yet, if that story or visual taps into something deeply meaningful that makes us feel like human beings, is it truly worthless if it is simply another variation on a known theme? I do not think it is.
I am all behind the destruction of our society's systems of exploitation of the worker, of the human being forced to tether their creativity to a master for the audacity to need shelter, food, and warmth. And yet, I do not think that it means that we need to remove the option for people to play with different technologies and mediums creatively. In the end, it's about money, power, and corruption. And if we can just get out of our own way as a species, maybe we can finally realize "progress" for what it is- the ever-stratification of late-stage consumerist industrialist capitalism.
And maybe if we truly take the time to look at it, we can find our way back to art.
Fucking cynical vision of art, can't really say if I agree or not though. Thank you for sharing this thoughts. Have you read any of Ellul books by any chance ?
The ending of this was far beyond miserable
reverence is a chump's game. your objects of adoration will always disappoint you.
Coming from your previous criticism, I'm really glad you've put much of your passion into this. One thing I won't expect is the art of video game, and here you brought to us that perspective. I feel some sort of...comfort, knowing that "video games" helped me through a lot was no nothing but also a work of art. I really appreciate it, thank you so much.
I highly recomend Jacob Geller's channel, also presents videogames as art in very interesting contexts
@@digihu5732 I just found Jacob Geller's video couple weeks ago, actually! Thank you for the recommendation! I also watched Daryl Talks Game, Design Doc, and Razbuten!
p.s. sorry to bring another channel to this, I appreciate it for sharing the knowledge!
@@Dwarfplayer I dunno how to read it in Chinese, but it reads "tōhō" in Japanese 😅
I made it with paint in my Dad's old PC about 15 years ago, so it is bad... But it still deeply resonates with me because I'm a fan of Touhou games!
eh, i firmly disagree that Brutalism is necessarily ugly. Many of the buildings you showed in that section aren't even classified as "brutalist", they're Chinese apartment buildings like the Kowloon Walled City, or one of them is a famous apartment building in South Africa (that is actually brutalist, and a beautiful one, with a dark history unfortunately, because it was poorly designed). However to say that Brutalism is at odds with beauty, or that it believes beauty is purely ideological is to ignore so many community centers, libraries, and churches built out of concrete in France, Germany, the US, and Scandinavia. Even the former Yugoslavia has some lovely brutalist work in it. But I guess that doesn't exactly /disprove/ your point, now that I reflect on it.
If I forget the financial aspect of it, architects have confused something theoretically, they are not fine artists, they cannot do what they want, their art is practical. They cannot help but think about the natural and residential environment. The architecture of Santorini is in harmony with the environment, the roof tiles in Siena and Florence have the color of the soil of the surrounding areas, the gardens of the Arabs and their architecture looks like an oasis of nature (the European baroque has an authoritarian coarseness in colors and the lines, like the French symmetrical gardens, let alone brutalism), the minimalist gardens of the Japanese match their nature, etc. Respect for nature and the residential environment must be primary in architecture. If you want to do social criticism or anything intellectual you should get hold of some impractical art.
@@dimkilago2958 I forget the name of the particular housing council, but one of the brutalist groups of flats in England that was built was originally built without any kind of greenery in it, if I recall correctly, and now they have added cascades of lush garden. It's quite the sight to see. Eco-Brutalism is even prettier, when "done right", imo at least.
To me the most worrying part of today's art is the sped up production. Stuff isn't made to last. but to fill up time. A song lasts for a season or a walk, movie for a weekend, painting until the likes run out, words to collect ads. But what lasts? What is it that we will leave behind for our children and their children in turn? Music, patingings, books of old thought us things about ourselves, about times past about our history and the way people lived their lives. We would not be here without it. So what of the future? Where will they learn from? Stuff that will no longer exist because servers can't be maintained?
I'm not doom and gloom on these new tools, they can be excellent tools, like yeah technology can wash some things away, but bring new avenues we couldn't reach before- movies, videos for example. But that is not the way they are being used today. Society needs to slow down, build something not only for the instant gratification, but for our future as well. For the world's future as well.
Major events requiring oddly old artists who have had a lasting impact to fill this gap is this case in point. One fairly recent example being the Glasonbury festival for 2023 which had as three of the four main headline acts Arctic monkeys (peak 00's), Guns'n'Roses (peak early 90's) and Elton John (sometime before the 00's). And then Lizzo. Is Lizzo an act that will last the test of time? I somehow don't think so.
That's your choice of what to do with art. Raise up art you believe took time, is physical, and "will last," what ever that means because nothing does, things always change, look at the pyramids. It's all up to you to do what you know is right, and enjoying things as much as you possibly can.
I agree, the original commenter’s view seems unnecessarily defeatist.
Wow just like physical products as well
Well I'll just leave a general reply here. First off thank you for a different point of view, but I'll still say that these more prove the point of what I was saying. If no one can be used as a lasting example of today's music what does that tell us about today's music? Should Lizzo be used as an example? No... I honestly don't listen to her. BUT let's take a look back to Tolstoy's novels, to Michelangelo's cealings, to the iliuminsted manuscripts, to the buildings of Karlo the great, to roman portraits, Greek sculptures and vases and all down the history to the cave paintings. All things that spoke of history of their time, of the people of their time. Not just paintings or drawings but buildings and tools as well.
Does that mean that there are no good artists today? No good musicians for example? No good movies? We are doomed? No. My problem as stated above is the fact that creation is treated today like an assembly line to create a PRODUCT, as pointed out, they 'last'. Nothing lasts forever of coursevut today more than ever before there's talent in this world. There are good artists, musicians, craftsmen and women and not just artists but beyond. The problem to me is this focus on making something to fill up the time, the production line, the focus on today and nothing else. My point is that we as the world need to slow down on so many different levels, art included, not to raise our hands and give up. Quite the opposite in fact. I don'like living in the world where things are designed to break.
And of course I am not going to curl up into a corner and cry, but I'm going to make stuff. Will it make a dent? Probably not. But it will be there for people to like, or call trash, their choice really 🤷♂️
And sorry for the TED talk.
I think the criticism on brutalism is overstated. Yes, some countries use it as an ideology, but in most cases, they are a necessity. To boast brutalism as beautiful because it serves a greater good does or to condemn it for destroying artistries is utterly pointless because in modern time, brutalism is not part of the artistic philosophical debate anymore. It has simply become a necessity. It is better to quickly and affordably build sturdy homes for war torn countries with people living in the streets than waste time and money on expensive façade. When housing shortage in cities drives up the prices on even the most ugly plain-ass building, spending more money on ornate buildings won't solve the housing crisis. When a city or country can afford to do so, ornate or well designed buildings will naturally be built.
Well said! I prefer to live in and own an appartment in an “ugly” building rather than living on the street or pay landlords 80% of my income just so they can rent out those luxury appartments. As long as the building is functional and was made to last, I don’t care how it looks.
The world is bigger than you think
This isn't meant to be absolute truth, but I have some thoughts. I still feel like technology and the ease of creation it brings aren't on their own bad things. Living in the current day, you see people use this technology for inane, vapid purposes. But you also see people using it for genuine expression, that, if they had been born centuries earlier, would not have had access to. With more people having access to the creative process, you are going to see more meaningless drivel, sure, but no body is taking away your access to consideration, and technique, and genuine expression. And they also aren't taking that away from anyone else.
The only reason grand cathedrals and masterful oil paintings stand the test of time is because the institutions that held power allowed it, or because the person got lucky. If you want to consider dying before you're recognized lucky. We should fight against thoughtlessness, not technology. To compare new tech to colonization to put it all in the box of "progress" perhaps could have used some more of that consideration you love.
that ending was kinda depressing hah.. but.. for real.. if you're an artist, musician etc.. i do feel Ai gave many people an existential crisis.. even social media.. to see so many artist.. you suddenly ask youself.. am i even an artist?if ai can litealrly copy my art.. was i never special? did i neve rhave a voice?
if everyone can be an artist, musician, etc.. what does it even mean to be those things?
if everyone is an artist.. suddenly it does seem pointless.. ai, and technology bridges that gap.. and it is kinda threatening... especailly i think to artist that focus on realism.
its the same thing with cooking.. why cook for 3 hours, when you can just put this in the microwave for a minute mentality.
good video, food for thought.
the only thing i will say is, throughout time, we saw a reaction to movemnts.. the poroblem is now we haven't.. for a very long time.. when art become commerical and money was prioirty.. people kinda have accepted the reality.. vs.. the next movement which always kinda happened.. but i do see.. because of ai.. people are putting more emotion into their works. jus tlike anime, while ai is about hyper realism.. we do see people are more attached to asimplified abstract version of humanity.. that also has kinda stagnated as everyone copies that style.. but it is showing people want to have that human feel.. artifical or real.. ai might have been the progress we needed to kick into the next movement for creativity... as now its the ' battle' vs ' accepting it'
i like your responses to the video. honestly i'm not sure what the best response is to society becoming like this. do we just turn off all social media, use old inconvenient technology, and bury our heads in the sand? i remember during covid you needed your phone to sign in everywhere, and places just would deny you entry if your phone was out of power. that is still the case where i am now. in china if you dont have a phone with alipay or wechat, you basically cant go anywhere or do anything. i have no idea where society is heading. but i do think its better to be authentic and genuine.
This brought tears to my eyes.
It's never to late for us.
Thanks Lewis.
Same ;-;
Mussolini taking about how great rome was also brought a tear to me eye
13:54 I don't need to know anymore about this guy I hate him beyond measure now...ha! He hires artist to paint instead of you doing it! 😂this is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Glad you are opening up the comment sections, your videos are so thought prevokaing that the conversation in the comment section will be so interesting to read.
Thanks for a great video! Both art & technology clearly have their places in society, but one cannot be substituted for the other. Indeed, it seems that in the wake of the industrial revolution, art became in some ways more primitivist as a direct response. It was as if artists were saying, "Let us not get lost in the artifice of technological progress for its own sake; there are things more fundamental & meaningful". I've said for decades now that the video games of my childhood (Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, etc.) were better simply because they had to be fun. The technology wasn't there to make them 8K with millions of colors in 3D blah blah blah. So they had to be fun to get your attention. As technology "progressed", game makers got lost in it, and often forgot how to make them fun to play. Being impressive became an end in itself. We've seen the pendulum swing back a bit lately, with games using older looks as a style or pastiche. I'd say that part of the purpose of art is to remind us of what's really important; to help us recenter ourselves. The very idea of technological progress as an end in itself can be a garden path leading to hellscapes. As Frank Herbert wrote, "The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future". In other words, we're apt to hide in it, and forget the light. tavi.
Man, naturally has a longing to relate himself with something transcendental (a high being). Man is a doxological being ("Homo sapiens," "homo faber"... yes, but, first of all, "homo adorans." Alexander Schmemann) .And express this longing in different ways and one is ART.
But what is art?
The cinema poet Andrei Tarvosky in one interview said "Art is the capacity to create, it's the reflection, the mirror-image, of the Creator's gesture. We artists only repeat, only imitate that gesture. Art is one of those precious moments in which we resemble the Creator. That is why have never believed in art which would be independent of the supreme Creator, I don't believe in art without God."
So therefore, God is the divine artist. We are the pure art of God. "Since with my soul I behold the face of my beloved therefore all the beauty of his form is seen in me." Saint Greagory of Nyssa.
In the life of andrei he doesnt separate cinema form his life. It becomes his soul's language it is prayer for him. This is the same in the life of Saint Sophorony "... the concept of pure creativity answered Sergei's longing and search to portray the unattainable and the infinite. Abstract painting was or seemed to be the best way to convey the inexpressible and intangible with visions of another new creation." Sister Gabriela on Saint Sophrony. He even called art "springboard" to eternity.
"Andrei, what is art?" Tarkovsky, looking even more pensive than usual, declares that "before defining art - or any concept - we must answer a far broader question: what is the meaning of Man's life on Earth?" An ambitious topic, certainly, but he, in his own way, embodied the very concept of the ambitious filmmaker. "Maybe we are here to enhance ourselves spiritually. If our life tends to this spiritual enrichment, then art is a means to get there. Art should help man in this process."And he add "I don't believe in art without God. The raison d'être of art is a prayer, it's my prayer. If this prayer, if my films can bring people to God, so much the better. My life would then take on its sense, the essential sense of "serving." But I would never impose it: to serve does not mean to conquer."
So, to the poor worker who could now afford modern housing, this was ideology ? To him beauty, but to you it is ideology because you didnt live it. I live today in better looking more expensive appartment, but its monthly cost is a burden, is this beauty?
why is this channel becoming more and more moralist and obscurantist? unsubscribed.
ok like but i dont agree with this the world is over vibe
This is one of the inspiring videos I have seen in a long time. I'm an amateur photographer and I am often frustrated with my process, my technique is sloppy and lacking. This essay has reminded me of the importance in continuing to do what I do, to refined my technique, and to hone my skill.
I do agree that often too much focus is put on technology, and it can sap the life out of a piece of art. I agreed with a lot of the points you made in the beginning but then my approval turned to horror.
1. You didn't engage with the ideas of a lot of the artists you criticise and even blame for the state of the world. A lot of the architecture you showed wasn't brutalist, and brutalists have actually spend a lot of time explaining how they wanted their architecture to be in opposition to the glass skyscrapers that came to define the financial sector. Or how they intended to bridge the gap between the form and function of a building. To not have a building that serves a function which is then clad in pillars and decoration for form but to have the function itself become the form. Many of the original, early brutalist buildngs were very creative, playful, and not what you would build if you wanted cheap soulless structures alone. Warhol and the Pop Artists asked questions about what defines art, about the relationship between illustrators, commercial photographers, and fine art. they didn't Just want to capitalise on their works.
2. This video focusses entirely on western perceptions of beauty. It excludes all the cultures that have traditionally embraced abstraction. Morrocan tiles, American indigenous fabrics and patterns, african bronzes, Japanese concepts of beauty that value entirely different ideas than technical perfection, clarity, etc.
3. Ancient artpieces that are still regarded as important have undergone an immense process of survivorship bias. A lot of this video is just general fear mongering about an unavoidable, fateful decline of art, that is very quick to compare 3D printing with medival sculpture, claim that they want the same thing and that one is superior in spirit. But do people that do 3D print figurines want the same things as medieval artisan? Is that a fair comparison? Aren't there worthwile innovations that have been made possible through technology? Where do you draw the line? Why don't you shun cinema itself for being a degradation of theatre? Are there clear rules on which art is allowed and which isn't? Or is this more of a vibes-based "Everything is worse now" argument? Have you engaged with modern artists, and did you seriously not find one that sparks your interest? Or why are you so quick to write them off? This talk of the good old days and decline is a compelling narrative, but can you really say that everything is getting worse? And why have people been saying that history is at it's end, the current generation has finally ruined everything, it can't get worse" since forever?
4. For a video that claims to concern itself with the intersection of physical technique and the content of art, you didn't engage with the material conditions under which art is produced at? Is the alienation we feel in modern society desired by artists? Did we creatives who have to sell our work and our soul on the free market in order to survive, decide to accelerate the processes used, do we always go for the cheapest, soulless designs? No, it is the managers who themselves are forced by the capitalist system, by private ownership, by the distribution of power, by our current laws, to fulfill the desires of the owning and ruling class. Were the artisans who carved those church statues and castle gates guided by some divine, higher ideal? Or by nationalism, religious zeal, maybe fear of the powers that be, forced into selling their talent to the lords and kings of their age? Are the lavish, golden statues they built an expression of a creative human spirit or an expression of a sense of superiority over the poor, the foreigners, the unbelievers? You look at the present without looking at it's context, and you look at the past entirely through rose-tinted glasses.
5. Your appeal to the past, to a time when everything was right and artists captured the correct values and ideals in their work, and especially identifying that with traditional European art, was the thing that finally drove me to write this comment. I think the video gives an unfair representation of modern art, and paints an emotinally seductive but not well thought out narrative of decay. Of a degeneration of art. It is anti-modernity, it's view of beauty and art is one where they are unchanging, and instinctual. One where it is a moral crime against the world, if an artists chooses to create art for an intellectual purpose, not beauty, as in prettiness. It demands a return to, even if it avoids the term "western values". this video spells out an almost fascistic view of art, the good old days, the obsession with a perceived decay. it takes the alienation we all feel under late capitalism, but instead of blaming it on our power structures it says "look, the artist is at fault. They must return to tradition. to the superior human spirit" One can almost hear the Ride of the Valkyries swelling in the background of your final monologue
I agree with everything you said and I wanted to add that this video is so nostalgic it borders on kitsch. You really hit the nail on the head.
you haven't stitched without thread. 10/10
i don't think a video essay has ever made me cry from existential horror before
Progress is the antithesis of imperfection and therefore invisible
Look, I'm standing in the first row of NTF haters, always, but to say Beeple "just was in the right place at the right time" is a bit of understatement. The guy was doing one solid artwork every single day for multiple years at time. Each of them was relevant a political/cultural comment of what has been happening at the time. What he has sold was a whole collection that was both, a lifetime worth of work but also a capsule of time and his approach to it. If ANYONE deserved this money, honestly, it was only Beeple. I do resent the rest of the movement though. Great video btw, i just wanted to add this comment to give some perspective for people who may not understand what happened with Beeple.
i understand that this video essay it is leaning to be conservative and about the good old times of the art but in present i thinke there are lots of good art that is full on emotion, creativity, and unique and it's still having that je ne sais quoi, but it's need to be searched. And the brutalism it's not a repugnant style without esence, if it's maintained properly it is good and you cand use those simple brutalist buildings as a canva where you can make a great composition, in eastern europe you can find great mosaics that are great, and you can look with awe at them and the AMERICAN SUBURBIA it's not brutalism, more like american exceptionalism. And all that boogie man with the AI Art is just a dust in the wind that will go away soon. An artist should not be afraid about the ephemeral stuff wich orbits around him and it shouldn't be a hermit. Like in the past, the artists where adapting to the new medias to express themselves and the artist should not be considered a genius, more like someone who does something true to self and is leaving a part of him to everyone for an indefinite period.
Funny. I was definitely of the mindset that progress is more of a negative, and for most of your video saw my own thoughts being reflected back at me. Until the final part.
If that is in fact the future, I do not see the doom that others do, it truly sounds like what my heart longs for everyday. To have control over my own nothing, and then become it. Maybe you hope that you are wrong about the future, but I hope you are right.
This is very interesting. I feel like Walter Benjamin’s idea of “Mechanical Reproduction” can also be implemented in this argument.
Many things that you say are true, but sorry, I won't agree with this pessimism. I try not to be naive, but I think that optimism is our only hope. You might say that sounds hopeless, but I don't think it does. Without optimism, pessimism is the only thing that remains. Ultimately, I'd argue, what got us into this mess. So, just as an addition to your worthwhile contribution, I want to encourage everyone to be optimistic and spite the negative sides of our modern society. I think it's worth believing that the human condition isn't beyond hope.
Of this essay, I think I have to say it...."cynicism isn't smarts".
To the extent that we reject technology or drop one technology for another, it's because the social construction behind the technology doesn't satisfy us. And that can be intrinsic, when a hyped technology just doesn't work, or it can come from a place of politics, where some gain and others lose.
For example, the invention of writing is considered very momentous, and its gradual development into a literate society as a major theme of progress. But to invent literacy you have to invent illiteracy as well. Because this technology is more intrinsically difficult for some, society has actively created disability.
But if you couldn't read me, you couldn't have this experience. And so not accepting the technology as an already-literate person would most likely come from a place of ignorance. Technology isn't in the gadgets but in the "enablers and disablers", and in the industrial world we often end up in places we don't understand, because we didn't think to consider that having laundry machines and frozen food would enable the feminism of the midcentury, nor did we stop and consider that computerizing everything in our lives disables people who don't have knowledge of computers. The art of the industrial world isn't in the products we call art, the art is in navigating all of this change and adopting the set of norms that will best fit these awesome powers being unleashed each day. After all, it's not like anyone is in charge of any of this change. Noblemen used to ban progress and imprison inventors, but it did not stop the change from happening. It is merely a matter of survival now, a passing of different seasons in which some technologies work and others don't.
You should make a dedicated Resident Evil video you would smash it out the park. Said more about the remakes vs the originals in those few minutes than everybody else’s hour or two long diatribes.
Brilliant and profound video CC 🔥💯
Brutalism is unironically beautiful.
Damn this guy is really stuck in western art.
hahaha, im pretty sure CC would agree
Resident evil is from japan tho
This made me depressed. I have drawn and painted all my life thinking it'll make me special someday, but then people better than I am exist and then there's AI, and suddenly, I have no voice. I am actually just a nobody.
No you aren't. Just be you and you'll always be original. Don't give up.
You’re fine dude it’s not that serious
I'd HEAVILY enourage you to look into the Orthdox Christian Icon carving tradition, if you want to get into the deep meaning of art.
This is beautiful, I really think it's among the best of the thousands of video essays that have been uploaded.
It touches an open yet hidden wound in our age. Thank you
Watch literally any other old, miserable person talk for more than 30 minutes, and you will literally get this exact fucking video essay word for word. I swear to god, what the hell is WRONG with you people. “Everything modern sucks, we must return to tradition” is (without even GETTING to the terrible politics of it). One of the most common sentiments propagated by ANY rapidly aging and irrelevant generation. As this bastards literally shows AT THE BEGINNING of this humiliating display of midlife crisis coping.
It's crazy how this channel turned into dystopian crying fear so quickly. We made it halfway through this one making real interesting content and then... everything is so sad and bad and the popular media and world is so bad :(
I understand the ideas you're putting forth, but you could've done a better job of dissociating it from fascist ideas of degenerate art, which this strays dangerously close to.
Why? Jesus, the kevel of hand-wringing in these comments by the virtue-signalling is incredible.
@@ArtPhotographerLindsay wtf does virtue signal even mean anymore? is expressing any kind of opinion virtue-signalling, or just the opinions you disagree with? grow up.
I feel like art will be ok. I can't be the only one who was put off by the instagram art at the end of this sequence 1:12
I love the video but I feel like I must say this. No matter how artificial the technology or architecture has made the world, people are still in it. The glorious thing about people is that they are meaning makers. Even if “progress” renders all things into a contextless digital mulch people will make context. People will create.
Hey everybody, haven't watched it yet but oh boy am I just so excited for another Cinema Cartography video! They're always so great to listen to while I take a bath or make dinner. Thanks for making such great content CC!
edit: i want to die
Never considered to make dinner while watching a video of CC ... odd.
@@villebooks This was a joke, but...why not? As if a video essay requires a certain set of circumstances to be consumed. Please forgive me as I don my smoking jacket and light my pipe, and sit by the fire with a snifter of brandy and a laptop. The only true and proper way to watch.
haven't watche dthe video yet, but there once was a movment.. where people drew incredible realistically.. however.. it was only of a certain high class.. art was only for the upper class.. however, some artist started to turn their focus to the working class.. the lower class.. changing the pov and making the more impoverished the subject matter of " high art'.
as that movemtn happened.. another movement happened.. the begining of abstraction.. the importance of emotion and expression rather than every single fine detail where realism played.. abstraction, impressionism. to allow the brush to paint what the artist felt in the moment.. once again, focusing on every day subject matters.. as diferent artist brough their own flavour or representation.. still, it was tied to represenitng a real world..
slowlly the subject matters started to fade away to become splashes of colour.. emotion overwhelmed the canvas.. some even started to critize these artist ' waht is this? a kid can draw this.. this isn't art!!"
slowly the divide in art happened, the high brow and low brow.. where once artist progidies deliterbately simpliefed deconstructed the 3d word into 2 dimmension.. where not it wasn't only expressoin of emotion, but of time.. how would you represent time on a flat surface?
as picasso , who once drew incredible realism.. started to simplify more and more, cubsim, to lines.. to one line.. why were these gerat artist starting to ' draw garbage?" - the mind as it ages.. solidifies reality.. once your mind does that.. its very hard to go back to that fluidity and imagination a child has.. where the sies the limit.. to be able to see the world in such an abstractmanner.. - this is what an artist desires.
and through the years we saw art become commercialized.. packaged.. what was even art at that point? and then the moment of post mod art happened.. where nothing and anything could be art.. as interpretation was most important..
a slash on a canvas, a banana taped to a wall.. what does it all mean? progress? with the internet and instagram and many artist sudddnly having an avenue, a burst of art exploded.. however, there were only a few with a certain style that got atention and money - commercial art. art that looked profesional..
that delinma in new artist.. ' should i even try? what is art?'.. and then ai.. ai came.. the ultimate enemy to the human artist.. was this progression?
as the ai art gradually got so good it cuold imitate and draw real life beyond what humans were cappable of..
and we come back to the very begining.. where artist once drew so realisitically of certain subject matters.. that then sparked the need for exp[ression art in a different form.. abstraction etc..
the cycle continuies.. tho it seems harder.. ai, should force us to go back into abstract expression.. where art really flourished.. as good art doesn't = realism
just 2 cents:)
this video is cool but l wanna tell you something l remember in one of your videos you talked about this philosophical movie about 5 man talking about philosophy its incredible similar to my dinner with andre so please tell me what was the name of the movie
Thanks!
thank you for your videos
Your appeal to maledom betrays a sentiment in your personality that has in the past and does in the present leads to despotic chaos
Progress and progressivism are not at fault here. It's capitalism. But false-consciousness always leads to incorrectly diagnosing the problems caused by capitalism (via replacing the end goal of everything with 'profit') and pinning them on obscure factors or on "progress". False-consciousness leads to fascism.
In many ways we progress, in some ways we have moved backwards. Sometimes we're unmoving.
I think we’re doing all of that at once.
reading the comments section, it seems that everyone is missing the point. this is asking you to question the narrative that technology is progress in art and to question why the subjective form of art is so dominant (brutalist buildings, abstract art) in our culture.
this reminds us that removing limitations through technology or stripping out the techniques through the post-modernist lens, actually strips away the biggest reasons we find things beautiful. it's the goal of the artist, and the awe of that artist working within the limitations and through technique transcending them into an artwork that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Vincent van Gogh is the perfect example for me, whether it's Starry Night or Wheat Field with Cypresses, he does a masterful job of working within the limitations of his medium, of paint on a canvas, to paint a picture of a moment in time, but through his techniques was able to express the movement of the world by painting the wind on canvas
This felt like the video they show the chimpanzee in the testing lab 😂
This video hit like a sack of bricks.
The irony of Brutalism is that it was often less functional than older buildings, and the exterior although bland was not improvement in function for example not having overhangs is why they have bad problem with water ingress, we had forgot the reason these elements existed in the first place.
Functionalism is a core belief in Modernism, Brutalism's core beliefs were ethical. By exposing the way an Architecture was built the architect was able to experiment with structure. It was a humanistic movement born out of post-war destruction.
@@sethlouiszimmerman but modernism also is very poor in functionality they also didn't know what overhangs were for either.
@@Alex-cw3rz abstraction mixed with technological advancement. But Brutalism is much more sound in theory than what is built today completely controlled by BIM and material manufacturers.
arche-fossil, holophobia, necrocratic, decay as 3D printing, brutalist refugee camp, psychaesthenia, cosmic becoming in eternity & a Big Mac
As an artist, yes I want the old world gone because I am my world. The more technologic our world becomes, the more "eternal" or "divine" our appreciation of art must be. With more technology, we are further released of the chains holding us to earth and more capable of transceding the physical, becoming fully saturated in the emotional/experiential.
This is the beauty of brutalism, its CONTRAST to the natural world. This contrast of nature/human/Technology/Artificial/Fake? only expands our capacity for appreciation.
By experiencing the unnatural you become more aware of what you love about the natural.
By experiencing the fear, nihilism, and wish for upholding traditional values in this video, I am further entrench in my work of aesthetic appreciation, phenomenological awareness, and optimism...
So I comment in retaliation....
Good job.
There will be no "nature" left soon. The hyperreality (digital photography, AI or digital special effects) claim to be more natural than nature itself. And we believe it more and more. We are facinated by this process of disappearing, it has nothing to do with art itself.
Thank you, Cinema Cartography.
With great tools an artist can immediately begin to perfect a vision instead of face a number of crippling limitations.
The period's imprint on the art is lost, but who cares?
Does requiring that every curve be personally drawn create a greater link? Technology does not stand in the way of such personalization.
The exact manifestation of a uniquely detailed imagination is still Art. A masterpiece doesn't have to be finger painted in blood in a dimly lit prison cell.
The times have gifted you a self-piloting starship and you long for the paddle-boat.
But the original conjecture has merit. Back in the '80s movies even just went pantomime props and balck boxes to sit on... It worked perfectly because the Actors had us "suspending our disbelief" with the perfection of their craft. Was that a form of "brutalism" ? Surely ..if we are sincere in ourselves ... we can make Paradise with a decent meal and a roof to keep the rain off? But as to the conjecture... the more amazing the technology gets the more shit the media swill becomes.. I hate to say it ...
go outside and touch some grass
I hiighly recommend everyone watch Renoir and Rivette’s discussion
The ending gave me chills
Progress is what allowed you to create this video and publish it on the world wide web to anyone in the world to be able to see it.
I'm an absolutely fan of your videos, "Pre-Cinema | Cinémathèque" and "Cinémathèque - A History of Cinema" are honestly 2 of my favorites videos ever, but this whole video honestly just sounds like a luddite manifesto. Sure, limitations might sometimes inspire people to be more creative and come up with workarounds, but ultimately they aren't desirable because.... it limits what people can do and how many people can do it.
I want to live in a world where anyone - regardless of having the "technical skill" or money, - cause as a lot of people point out, all those nice paintings from back in the day, the artists who did that painting were paid by very very rich people, so art ends up being limited by money a lot of times - I want to live in a world where anyone is able to create movies, like real movies, like Hollywood quality movies (at least from a technical/budget point of view) using AI, because how much creativity is out there, imagine how many people have cool ideas that they would never have the money to make it true:
Also, the amount of art you can create without any kind of technology is pretty limited. You can't play piano if the piano technology doesn't exist. You can't create a movie without the technology of the camera. You can't publish a video to anyone in the world without the internet.
Progress, more specifically technological progress, is what enable pratically all forms of art to exist, as well as enabled us to live in a world where people can have time to create art because we mastered agriculture and now only a very small part of the population needs to work on feeding everybody, and the rest can do other things, like making a living creating art.
@@bluewaver1216 is it that musicians don't make much money anymore, or that lazziness keeps some people from finding music/art they prefer because there's so much now? Both are unfortunate imho
Big music labels have always been corrupt, they've always ripped off artists. Pop music is a funny concept, it's always been propped up by people who let big music corporations tell them what music to like and listen too, and it's gotten worse and worse... profit, greed and consumerism dilutes and diminishes the quality of everything over time.
It's not technical progress itself that's a problem but that those tools are mostly in the hands of the elite and deployed solely for profit.
I say good for the musician/artist kid who can bypass big industry with technology, reach their potential fans directly and start a career, that's awesome.
@@bluewaver1216That's a pretty sugar coated history of the music industry and pop music you're reciting, the truth is much different.
"consume", "earnings", "sells", "invest"... money money money... Exactly, putting profit over all else ruins everything. Cost to produce goes down, quality goes down, people buy anyway because they follow what corporate media tells them is trendy, profits go up and up... destroying and diluting creative expression, the more it's commodified the worse it gets.
@@squigglyarmz197 and just to clarify, when i said invest earlier i meant from the costumers' perspective. When i was growing up you paid $16 for an album, so you generally only bought it if you actually wanted to hear it over and over. Now they only have to pay for Spotify or whatever so listening to "whatever mass media tells you to" isnt a problem
apparently this video has some minor fascist elements
yeah, romanticizing the past, Mussolini talking about rome over here
I think that brutalism is gorgeous...
The building is for everyone...with no symbols...its a space without meaning,so ur experience with the environment would create an unique relationship with the place... without an aesthetic of a ruling class....
All those magnificent churches and institutions where build by slaves for a god or at worst
Monarchs...
Brutalism is awful when you're actually living inside one of those depressing buildings. I associate them with the smell of piss, mould and poor fire safety.
@@omnipenne9101 im really sorry to hear that.
I can't imagine someone having those feelings for brutalism
@@omnipenne9101 oh....and just for u to now..... cement is not flammable....so at least one of ur associations is wrong.
@@greek_commie But cladding is. Please look up the Grenfell tower fire and the cladding related fires. A lot of brutalist housing is hated by the people who have no choice but to live in those conditions.
@@greek_commieI don't know where you're from but I implore you to come to England and ask people who live in those buildings how they feel.
10:36 I think that’s the new federal building here in Salt Lake City, it’s a terrible eyesore. Even among the gentrification it stands out as an eyesore 😢
The gentrification is uglier, and it's happening all over the US.
Art is the universe filtered through a temperament~ Paul Tortelier ❤
Beautiful video, as always, but probably unintentionally self referential and derivative.
Billiant. A profoundly brilliant analysis. I'm at a loss for words.
Wow. Best video yet. The torrent of ai will wash away culture.
thank you for this..
i hit a wall recently this puts in well tho...
beautiful
I'm SO happy to see you covering videogames (though I'm not sure if you have done before)!
...............it's kinda giving Lydia Tár.
Is this a parody?😂
there is a lot of great art that talks about modern society. Like that piece of art that sold for millions and then immediately got shredded
And was then sold for more
The artist was BANKSY - graffiti artist.
Ну, и да, и нет.
The narration, the structure. one of best Essays in my opinion.