Some of the many issues I personally have with modern art is that they always claim to "have a message" and that many instantly look down on anybody who "doesn't get it" yet most of the time, their art simply fails at conveying that message on it's own and needs an extra explanation to go along with it, now if that explanation was intended to be part of the piece then fine but it pretty much never is, so in a sense their art fails at being art and thus most of the time amounts to just an assortment of random junk thrown together with very low effort. And I don't think just making people "talk" and "engage" should be considered art since then pretty much everything is art (drunk guy sh*ts in the middle of the street = art because people talk about it), art sets out to convey a very specific message(s) and you want people to talk about that message and not just about how dumb your piece looks. Now some pieces can simply convey their message on their own and others require the title, date of the piece or something else along with it to fully convey it (great example here is Red Square/Canvas by Kazimir Malevich) but for those pieces said additional information is considered part of the art piece, however if you put out something without providing said information that means that you think your art can convey it's message completely on it's own. Issue is then when you show your art piece to 100 different people and you get 100 different answers (which is the case with many modern art pieces) as such you've failed at producing the piece of art you wanted to create. Now sometimes the message of the piece is simply to convey a scene/object etc. (big robot fighting a dragon) and all that counts is the craftsmanship that goes into making sure this scene is readable to the viewer then that's fine, it succeeds in conveying the message, but if all you do is randomly splatter paint on your canvas and expect people to get a very specific message form that, you're most likely going to fail at producing anything meaningful and what's more is that it takes pretty much zero effort or craftsmanship. I would seriously love to see an experiment where you tell one of these modern artist to make a piece, then you also tell a random guy of the street and a kindergartner to make similar pieces and then put all 3 pieces in front of a "modern art crowd" and not tell them that two are fake and ask them for the meanings of each piece, you're probably gonna get a different answer from everyone and nobody would be able to tell that two are fake, yet everyone will act as if they understood everything and act all smug about it. And that's another reason for the hate, the goddamn attitude of many modern fans and how they look down on people who "don't get it" even though they themselves probably don't get it either, it's just pretentious snobbery most of the time and that reflects and taints the rest of the fans as well as the artist, similar to how some musicians get extra hate, not because their music is extremely bad and just not to every ones taste but just because their fans are just so annoying (example could be BST, or however that K-pop group is called). On top of all of that is then the amount of money that many of those pieces go for (most of them simply for money-laundering purposes and not because the actual artistic value of the piece or amount of effort that went into creating it) that rubs many people the wrong way. Also funnily enough Khaby who mocked the modern at piece with his parody video, actually did succeed in making a piece of art, because pretty much everyone who watched that clip of his instantly understood the message he wanted to convey since he provided all the necessary context and is thus getting an overall positive response as compared to the other guy who's message is a lot more obscured (I don't think he's the worst example of modern art there is but he still overall falls into that category for most people). So yeah, that's my two (very long and probably a bit incoherent since English is not my fist language and I'm quite tired at the moment) cents as to why modern art get's so much hate.
Thank you so much for your detailed comment. Really interesting view to measure the "effectiveness" of the message. Great two cents. 😅 More like two grand. 😅 I can relate to so many aspects you have listed - And I think this calls for another in depth video/conversation/whatever. Maybe a piece of art 😅
I think you're right. There can be negative criticism. However I think there is a difference between "I don't like this" and "You are a dumbass". And many people don't seem to make that difference. At least that is my impression.
There's a fine line between criticism and just straight up hating on a piece. Criticism is supposed to be constructive, even transformative for the person not to berate, belittle, or put them down. I ask, what is the contrary? What exactly is the cristism to this piece that can be constructive? That ANYONE can do it?? Alot of people wanna claim that they could even make something like that, but the moment the spotlight hits them they freeze, they cant think of anything to contest with and frankly Im tired of it. Im tired of people who are NOT artists specifically that say that "anyone can do it" without showing in a serious manner instead of pulling or provoking another person, just to hate. Its quite scary if we cant even stop to think about a piece like this and just straight up hate because this is a pretty damn good piece. Made me think what exactly the buckets represent. The classes of wealth? Age? Thats the sole purpose of the piece and hell it even had some physics into the equation to have the buckets land EXACTLY the way as intended in a perfect straight line.
A piece like that takes more work than some people think, because you have to work out the physics and the timing. I make fireworks. What's the point of making something that functions by destroying itself?
Fantastic example. And I think fireworks are a great example where people agree that it's worth the effort, even though the event itself is short and at the end there's only smoke 😅
Some people don't want to think about what the artist is asking them to. So they attack the medium of the message in self-defence. That said, I think the original bucket idea is too mundane to work well.
Yes, I agree. And I don't want to say that everyone should just be happy with everything - or not give any criticism where it's needed - rather pay attention to how you criticize people.
@@BenjaminJakschEach person decides for themselves. The artist doesn't get to decide. If the artists' goal is to provoke people, then they're provocateurs. Not artists. Oh sure they're "artists" by their own pretentious definition. When vast majority of society agrees on the classification of an intangible, conceptual thing - a society construct - then they have defined it. For example: words. The definition of words. We have clearly defined official meanings and accepted structures for modifications such as how a word's plural form is represented. But when a critical mass of society uses it a different way, then the new - often WRONG way - becomes its new meaning. Languages being modified thusly are called "living" as opposed to static, or dead, languages. Octopuses and octopi are both accepted plurals of octopus. Previously, only one was accepted. The vast majority of society - including many intellectuals - agree that "provoking people to discuss" is far too broad a term for "art". It's something that only a small, silly, laughed-at, sheltered, and overtly-pretentious group of mostly unproductive individuals uses to define a social construct for themselves only. Because they often use it in a way to look down their noses at the rest of us, like we just don't understand. Oh, we understand. Like this art is childishly simple. The look at his face when he raises his hands... he's so proud of himself. And everyone in the room then shares in that self-congratulating like they're also so great. I get that art for the masses, made to be spoon fed to the largest audience via the lowest common denominator is often... distasteful. It's like McDonalds. But there's a happy medium between an $8 greasy meal and a $300 a plate meal that looks fancy. Somewhere in there is an absolutely delicious homemade dish that 90% of people love and is the result of 1) talent that's been refined thru 2) training /education and is then manifest into a single piece (ie a meal) via 3) effort. At the very least, this guy lacks #3. For any creation to wow people, it requires all three: talent, training, and hard work. Sometimes you'll find true prodigies that are somehow able to produce amazing shit despite a lack of training. They're typically self-taught. Or they can make something amazing with minimal effort - that usually the result of great prep. So be the artist a carpenter, a custom car fabricator, a landscaper, a painter, a sculptor, an architect, their work can only be truly great if it has substantial deposits in all three
Great argument - and thanks for taking the time to write your comment. I see your points. I do want to comment especially on your point 3) Effort. Because I feel that effort is sometimes misunderstood. Because yes, it might not take a lot of time and effort to put sand into buckets, drill a hole in one of them and then unplug a stick from the hole. Does that reduce the value a piece of art has - or does it somehow influence the effect it can have on people? Plus: especially if someone is extremely talented and has gone through a lot of training and education, this will automatically reduce the effort somebody has to put into a creation, simply because it will take them less time to create it. But: I do get your point on raising the arms and thus implying: I am proud. Even though we do not know if that was the artist's intention.
I get that. And it's obviously in their opinion when they think something is BS. I am still shocked by how it's communicated. But I might be the only one who thinks like that.
Some of the many issues I personally have with modern art is that they always claim to "have a message" and that many instantly look down on anybody who "doesn't get it" yet most of the time, their art simply fails at conveying that message on it's own and needs an extra explanation to go along with it, now if that explanation was intended to be part of the piece then fine but it pretty much never is, so in a sense their art fails at being art and thus most of the time amounts to just an assortment of random junk thrown together with very low effort.
And I don't think just making people "talk" and "engage" should be considered art since then pretty much everything is art (drunk guy sh*ts in the middle of the street = art because people talk about it), art sets out to convey a very specific message(s) and you want people to talk about that message and not just about how dumb your piece looks.
Now some pieces can simply convey their message on their own and others require the title, date of the piece or something else along with it to fully convey it (great example here is Red Square/Canvas by Kazimir Malevich) but for those pieces said additional information is considered part of the art piece,
however if you put out something without providing said information that means that you think your art can convey it's message completely on it's own.
Issue is then when you show your art piece to 100 different people and you get 100 different answers (which is the case with many modern art pieces) as such you've failed at producing the piece of art you wanted to create.
Now sometimes the message of the piece is simply to convey a scene/object etc. (big robot fighting a dragon) and all that counts is the craftsmanship that goes into making sure this scene is readable to the viewer then that's fine, it succeeds in conveying the message, but if all you do is randomly splatter paint on your canvas and expect people to get a very specific message form that, you're most likely going to fail at producing anything meaningful and what's more is that it takes pretty much zero effort or craftsmanship.
I would seriously love to see an experiment where you tell one of these modern artist to make a piece, then you also tell a random guy of the street and a kindergartner to make similar pieces and then put all 3 pieces in front of a "modern art crowd" and not tell them that two are fake and ask them for the meanings of each piece, you're probably gonna get a different answer from everyone and nobody would be able to tell that two are fake, yet everyone will act as if they understood everything and act all smug about it.
And that's another reason for the hate, the goddamn attitude of many modern fans and how they look down on people who "don't get it" even though they themselves probably don't get it either, it's just pretentious snobbery most of the time and that reflects and taints the rest of the fans as well as the artist, similar to how some musicians get extra hate, not because their music is extremely bad and just not to every ones taste but just because their fans are just so annoying (example could be BST, or however that K-pop group is called).
On top of all of that is then the amount of money that many of those pieces go for (most of them simply for money-laundering purposes and not because the actual artistic value of the piece or amount of effort that went into creating it) that rubs many people the wrong way.
Also funnily enough Khaby who mocked the modern at piece with his parody video, actually did succeed in making a piece of art, because pretty much everyone who watched that clip of his instantly understood the message he wanted to convey since he provided all the necessary context and is thus getting an overall positive response as compared to the other guy who's message is a lot more obscured (I don't think he's the worst example of modern art there is but he still overall falls into that category for most people).
So yeah, that's my two (very long and probably a bit incoherent since English is not my fist language and I'm quite tired at the moment) cents as to why modern art get's so much hate.
Thank you so much for your detailed comment. Really interesting view to measure the "effectiveness" of the message.
Great two cents. 😅 More like two grand. 😅
I can relate to so many aspects you have listed - And I think this calls for another in depth video/conversation/whatever. Maybe a piece of art 😅
Negative doesn't mean hate
Where’s the line for you?
Why can't there be negative criticism?
I think you're right. There can be negative criticism. However I think there is a difference between "I don't like this" and "You are a dumbass". And many people don't seem to make that difference. At least that is my impression.
@@BenjaminJaksch That's "DuMasse". I don't know if you've seen that ad. But good point.
😅
There's a fine line between criticism and just straight up hating on a piece. Criticism is supposed to be constructive, even transformative for the person not to berate, belittle, or put them down. I ask, what is the contrary? What exactly is the cristism to this piece that can be constructive? That ANYONE can do it?? Alot of people wanna claim that they could even make something like that, but the moment the spotlight hits them they freeze, they cant think of anything to contest with and frankly Im tired of it. Im tired of people who are NOT artists specifically that say that "anyone can do it" without showing in a serious manner instead of pulling or provoking another person, just to hate. Its quite scary if we cant even stop to think about a piece like this and just straight up hate because this is a pretty damn good piece. Made me think what exactly the buckets represent. The classes of wealth? Age? Thats the sole purpose of the piece and hell it even had some physics into the equation to have the buckets land EXACTLY the way as intended in a perfect straight line.
Thank you very much. I couldn't have put it in better words.
A piece like that takes more work than some people think, because you have to work out the physics and the timing.
I make fireworks. What's the point of making something that functions by destroying itself?
Fantastic example. And I think fireworks are a great example where people agree that it's worth the effort, even though the event itself is short and at the end there's only smoke 😅
Some people don't want to think about what the artist is asking them to. So they attack the medium of the message in self-defence. That said, I think the original bucket idea is too mundane to work well.
Yes, I agree.
And I don't want to say that everyone should just be happy with everything - or not give any criticism where it's needed - rather pay attention to how you criticize people.
What is the name of the creator who recreated this? I can’t find the video 😅
Haha, that's Khaby. Here's the video:
instagram.com/reel/CvQO6kwNxsV/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
No safe spaces in "real life", maybe "modern" art just isn't art and that's the problem
Who gets to decide that?
@@BenjaminJakschEach person decides for themselves. The artist doesn't get to decide. If the artists' goal is to provoke people, then they're provocateurs. Not artists.
Oh sure they're "artists" by their own pretentious definition.
When vast majority of society agrees on the classification of an intangible, conceptual thing - a society construct - then they have defined it.
For example: words. The definition of words. We have clearly defined official meanings and accepted structures for modifications such as how a word's plural form is represented. But when a critical mass of society uses it a different way, then the new - often WRONG way - becomes its new meaning.
Languages being modified thusly are called "living" as opposed to static, or dead, languages.
Octopuses and octopi are both accepted plurals of octopus. Previously, only one was accepted.
The vast majority of society - including many intellectuals - agree that "provoking people to discuss" is far too broad a term for "art". It's something that only a small, silly, laughed-at, sheltered, and overtly-pretentious group of mostly unproductive individuals uses to define a social construct for themselves only. Because they often use it in a way to look down their noses at the rest of us, like we just don't understand.
Oh, we understand. Like this art is childishly simple. The look at his face when he raises his hands... he's so proud of himself. And everyone in the room then shares in that self-congratulating like they're also so great.
I get that art for the masses, made to be spoon fed to the largest audience via the lowest common denominator is often... distasteful. It's like McDonalds. But there's a happy medium between an $8 greasy meal and a $300 a plate meal that looks fancy. Somewhere in there is an absolutely delicious homemade dish that 90% of people love and is the result of 1) talent that's been refined thru 2) training /education and is then manifest into a single piece (ie a meal) via 3) effort.
At the very least, this guy lacks #3. For any creation to wow people, it requires all three: talent, training, and hard work.
Sometimes you'll find true prodigies that are somehow able to produce amazing shit despite a lack of training. They're typically self-taught. Or they can make something amazing with minimal effort - that usually the result of great prep.
So be the artist a carpenter, a custom car fabricator, a landscaper, a painter, a sculptor, an architect, their work can only be truly great if it has substantial deposits in all three
Great argument - and thanks for taking the time to write your comment.
I see your points. I do want to comment especially on your point 3) Effort.
Because I feel that effort is sometimes misunderstood. Because yes, it might not take a lot of time and effort to put sand into buckets, drill a hole in one of them and then unplug a stick from the hole. Does that reduce the value a piece of art has - or does it somehow influence the effect it can have on people?
Plus: especially if someone is extremely talented and has gone through a lot of training and education, this will automatically reduce the effort somebody has to put into a creation, simply because it will take them less time to create it.
But: I do get your point on raising the arms and thus implying: I am proud.
Even though we do not know if that was the artist's intention.
You're so lovely
Thank you
People calling out BS
I get that. And it's obviously in their opinion when they think something is BS. I am still shocked by how it's communicated. But I might be the only one who thinks like that.