To who? At the end of the day its up to you as the beholder , its fun, there isnt like anything threatening about it beyond just thinking @@topherthe11th23
I get that he wanted viewers to experience feelings, but when art is too abstract with no objects at all then it is hard to feel any feeling besides confusion
Agreed, he had to spend years explaining his art and in the end it never caught on. What's the point of his art if there isn't anything for you to even start thinking about?
@@nickway_Not necessarily. The purpose of the art style is convey feeling without objective realism. Most people have the capacity to feel, and even the most basic of things like a color can provoke a feeling, but when presented a piece of art, their childlike wonder typically is set aside for logical analysis. The cruel irony of artwork like this is that it relies on one to only look, with no criticism of art itself. No technique, no interpretation of meaning, only to look and reflect on yourself. But people typically would only do that if they weren't critically analyzing art in an art gallery.
@@ghostderazgriz You can explain it however way you want, but you cannot say it is even remotely worth 20-140 million dollars. It's no different than the abstract parts of psychology, something reserved for people who have too much time on their hands, but with art it's money.
Abstract visual art is just like music sometimes. A music piece that does not represent anything in the real world can bring any large range of strong emotions. Why is it so weird when that is done visually?
Do you think it has some sort of connection to all the weird shapes and psuedocolors we see when we close our eyes in the dark; like our brain is a complex, artistic symphony not even it can understand?
@@sen7826no you are actually assuming stuff. I am not saying to like them. But they present a beautiful nature of philosophy behind what is music and art.
@@HerMi.T I didn't reply to anything you said, did I? I don't even know what "you are saying" because this is your first reply here. So, no, I'm not assuming anything you are saying.
when my kid was 4 months old, she grabbed a pencil and she "drew" a line on a piece of paper. Then, to make my wife laugh, I start bullsh*tting about how that was a masterpiece and that what it seemed just like a crooked line actually had a lot of meaning. Now...when this video started with "the square is off center to give movement", the hair in the paint, the paintings under the painting, etc. it sounded 100% the style of what I said about my daughter's "painting". For example I remember saying stuff like "the line is going down and it could be interpreted like life will bring suffering but, since it's drawn on a free paper, you can just rotate and it will go up. This doesn't change the line (the events in your life) but changes how you see it because even the same events can be seen from completely different perspective and give you happiness or sadness, depending on how you're gonna interpret it"
@@audhd_incarnate8001 In that case literally everything any human being has come across is art. You've made the definition of art so broad that it's meaningless and conveys nothing.
@@Joshua-dc4un Why does the intent matter? By your logic, me sneezing into a tissue could be art as long as it was done by me intentionally. If you can't look at a piece of art without being able to discern whether it was done intentionally or was simply a freak accident, then maybe it's not really art at all.
With some art styles, it can be a fine line between subverting the norm to create a meaningful message, and simply being a contrarian to boost your own sense of self-worth.
I really think this the case here. I'll spend months on my paintings, which also have been painted upon used painting canvases. They too have begun to crack over time. And my paintstrokes are also visible, my hair, my fingerprints, my sweat, even my blood when i painted so long my hands blistered. What makes art, art, is that a special effort and intention was put into it. But no special effort or intention went into this, because this happens to all paintings.
I firmly believe that the art is not his painting, but his intentions and views. The moment he put it on canvas it became an object, what is the exact opposite he wanted. His explanation is the art and the painting is just the "canvas".
My first thought when I first saw it was also that anyone can do it even a little child can. His other works looked great to me. Somehow it reminded me of a banana in a museum or art exhibition that someone left turning into a piece of art 😂.
The fact that the video pointed out how it was not, in fact, a perfect square, has triggered my OCD tendencies when it comes to drawing panels for comics X3
Before the invention of the photograph, art had the sole responsibility for recording the visual human experience for later reference. Photography freed painting and sculpture from what was both a heavy burden and an immense responsibility. According to my high school art teacher, art is currently trying to answer the question "What is Art?" I would rephrase this question as: "What can we get art experts (including artists and critics) to agree constitutes Art?" It is a boring question equivalent to "If I paid a lawyer to stand in a court room and argue about what falls into the definition of 'Cat,' what plausible arguments could the lawyer come up with that other like-minded lawyers would agree with?" The word "Cat" in the previous sentence can be replaced with a variety of nouns such as "car," "furniture," "chicken," "boat," "vegetable," and even concepts like "sports" or "art." If the opinions of non-lawyers are dismissed because "they aren't lawyers," why would the lawyer-approved, stretched-out and distorted definition of the word "Cat" even be valid? Similarly, when artists are pushing the limits on what can be considered "Art," why is the resulting stretched-out definition of "Art" valid, especially if the only opinions considered are those of art experts themselves? This is the frustration I feel as an art consumer walking through displays of modern art that look to me like a plumber was having a bad day. These are the rooms at an art museum where people don't linger. In a parallel universe, Fine Art could be defined by the following: "the best fine art is the art that can be wildly marked up and sold on a cruise ship." This would mean that the Fine Art is defined as art that best connects emotionally and is accessible intellectually to the general public. In the actual real world, this definition of Fine Art would really pi** off art critics, but why is would such a radical definition of Fine Art be invalid? Originally, art was about recording images to be shared with the general public for informational purposes and not an inward emotional exploration among a tight circle of art experts.
@JMRCUSP I'm glad you enjoyed my comment. Thank you for enlightening me about art history and photography. I'm a lawyer and casual art consumer and not anyone super knowledgeable about art. BTW, if I was arguing for the most expansive definition possible of the word "Cat" that I thought I might get away with, I would have argued that any animal with a nose and whiskers should be considered a cat. "Hello Kitty" is unambiguous considered a cat based on its nose, whiskers, face shape, and ears. The ears and the face shape should be disregarded in my definition. Hello Kitty's ears are just undefined nubs, and cats' faces aren't actually round. Thus, the whiskers and the nose make the cat. The expansiveness of the definition comes into play because most mammals (including all non-human primates) have whiskers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers. All mammals I am aware of have noses.
"Sole responsability for recording the visual experience"? Oh, no. That's a complete misunderstanding of art and art history, or of human history and even just common sense. That was not the only intended or unintended function of art. And other forms of expression have always been able to represent visual imagery for posterity. Just think about it. Even if a person says "I once saw a cow. It was big and blue with Hugo square eyes", and somebody hears that and tells it to their children, who by themselves tell it to their own children. There you go, visual registry of a cow for posterity.
I guess it's the art equivalent of being able to enjoy a videogame right from the get go or having to stick with it for a few hours before it gets good.
Carmen Oliveras en su artículo Los conceptos principales, más que preguntarse “¿Qué es arte?”, hoy sería más pertinente preguntarse “¿Cuándo hay arte?”. De modo que sólo el tiempo podrá responder si el cuadro lo es o no. ✌🏼
If you look hard enough, you'll find lots of meaning in even an infant's scribbling. So i still don't get what's so special. But i read that rich people buy these weird paintings to avoid huge taxes somehow.
I prefer a child's skribbles than an adult's because at least I know the kid and it's kinda cute and stuff, with adults creating these scribbles and selling them for billions they're just scamming people
Those people who criticize Malevich's works weren't paying attention to the detail of his paintings. They looked at paintings like a "child" not an expert. Hence, they lacked insight about the real meaning of these images.
Child isnt the the right word.. more like.. a person who can actually tell the difference between art that actually means something and doesn't need a video to explain to the viewer why they should enjoy said art and art that does.
It's a shame this type of art is impossible to be appreciated without handicaps: articles by the author explaining his worldview, being positioned in a museum where it won't be mistaken as nothing intentional, etc. Other art pieces can evoke emotion without those handicaps of explanation and museum spotlight.
◾Zaha Hadid, the late British-Iraqi architect, was so inspired by his paintings that she found her way to express her design thought through his ideas. She had also given lectures on his work. ⬛
That's all cool. It's still a square, though. I don't think it's deeply profound because it's off-center and there's a hair stuck in it 😂. "It giVeS iT a sENse oF mOVeMEnT" k dude, or maybe he didn't have a ruler handy. The thing is, people can BS some sort of deep meaning out of ANYTHING if they try hard enough. I'd say that's exactly what people are doing when it comes to many examples of highly simplistic or random abstract artwork "that a child could make." Spare me all this pretentious "oh, you're too close-minded to get it" or "you simply need to try harder to engage with the artwork" Nah man, you're just making stuff up and getting high on your own farts. Make whatever art you want, however simple you want, but when an all-white painting, or a single shape, or a bunch of random splatters, or a damn banana taped to a wall is getting applauded as inspiring artwork and sold for the price of a house, then yeah, people are gonna roll their eyes and make fun of it.
I don't want to read essays and know the life story of an artist to be able to artificially put meaning into an artwork. It should be interesting by itself.
So it seems art will always be different and each is not for everybody. However, suppressing the artist from his/her art to imitate another is far worse.
Amazing video. But the comment section clearly represents the minds of those who aren’t ready to understand it, despite it being a more than a century old painting. Even after such a great video, people are still upset to this day, and that what makes it a masterpiece
"if you don't like it you just don't understand it and thats why its amazing" Not how it works champ. He had to spend years explaining what it means and thats now how you do art. You can leave it up for the person to interpret it themselves but to go on and say "this is what I mean by it" ruins what art is
@@TungLe-if5pq sorry you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill No one understood it its why he had to explain for years which ruins art. It shouldn't be explained by the artist
@@TungLe-if5pq and your point is you dont understand art. An artist can say he used red because he was angry all he wants but if people say he used red because they painted an apple and apples are usually red, all the artist did was show they know what color an apple is. Take any sort of art class and you'll see only the snob artists and art critics tell you how you should feel when you look at art. If you see it as something beautiful then congrats it looks beautiful in your eyes and thats what the artist accomplished. But if the artist was trying to show you ugliness and you saw only beauty, its not good art
@@Dheeraj5373 Words describe things. That is the whole point. If you want to expand the word "art" to include everything, then you are very, very simply not using the word correctly. That's it. It's linguistics. It's not hard to understand. I can't just DECIDE one day that "the word elephant means cup!", that's not how languages work. So no, everything is NOT art, art has a SPECIFIC definition that you do not get to change on a whim.
The history is always cool, but I think the point of art is to make u feel something. Personally, I feel nothing when I see tht square and a lot of art tht I see in museums come to think of it. Partly why I don’t like art museums - more artifacts of history than art
He’s proven he can paint many different styles, in the traditional artistic sense, thus proving whatever he paints should have more merit than any critic could ever have of the painting itself. What he sees may not be what you see, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Post-modernism has really done a number of destroying all the arts. I hope it's a fad that ends soon and we can rediscover the beauty of aesthetically-pleasing arts.
"But his opened hand formed a quadrilateral"... No it didn't. This is a prime example of people imagining meaning where there is none. The open hand hardly even represents an angle, much less a quadrilateral.
This is the epitome of overcomplicating art for the sake of it. The irony is, a kid can't still do it and also achieve all the things you spoke of...off kilter, non parallel, cracks in the paint, stained with fingerprints and hair. Yup sounds like what my kid does
Except your kid did not do it. You could have painted this just like Malevich did and in his time as well but you did not. Art is not just about what is right in front of you but also the context of its creation and idea behind it. If you think something is being overcomplicated for the sake of it, it might be just too complicated for you specifcially but there is nothing wrong for others to have and share ideas.
@@HandledToaster2 Feel free to do that, if you manage to not just paint a blue circle but give a convincing explanation of the idea behind it, do not let anyone tell you that you are not a genious. Just because people like you try to gatekeep art does not mean I will try to convience you that you are not capable of creating art. Good luck with your blue circle project!
@@rayawira It is almost like not every single piece of art is meant to be enjoyed by every single person. Universally enjoyed and widely understood art is actually not so intriguing or challenging in a way. If you are more comfortable with other styles and schools of art, I am glad you found something you enjoy, keep doing that but without putting others down.
Kudos to the animators always the best according to the topic of the video.
I agree.
"a refudge of pure feelings,that lay beneath a burden of objects" this quote somehow managed to stand between the simplicity and complexity
To who? At the end of the day its up to you as the beholder , its fun, there isnt like anything threatening about it beyond just thinking @@topherthe11th23
@@topherthe11th23who give this kid a phone 🌚
@@topherthe11th23 Nono,he got a point
@@kaunghlamyatikr
@@KiwioftheTropics nice
I think it’s really based off of the hype behind it. I mean Donda was alright but it was nowhere close to the expectations people had for it
It was great tho, a little bit bloated but still great
donda
Donda was great. You probably listen to fnaf music if you think donda is bad 💀
@@cx3622thats shallow
DONDA
I get that he wanted viewers to experience feelings, but when art is too abstract with no objects at all then it is hard to feel any feeling besides confusion
Agreed, he had to spend years explaining his art and in the end it never caught on. What's the point of his art if there isn't anything for you to even start thinking about?
If you are spending time considering what it might mean, then perhaps he achieved his goal?
@@nickway_Not necessarily.
The purpose of the art style is convey feeling without objective realism. Most people have the capacity to feel, and even the most basic of things like a color can provoke a feeling, but when presented a piece of art, their childlike wonder typically is set aside for logical analysis.
The cruel irony of artwork like this is that it relies on one to only look, with no criticism of art itself. No technique, no interpretation of meaning, only to look and reflect on yourself.
But people typically would only do that if they weren't critically analyzing art in an art gallery.
@@ghostderazgriz You can explain it however way you want, but you cannot say it is even remotely worth 20-140 million dollars. It's no different than the abstract parts of psychology, something reserved for people who have too much time on their hands, but with art it's money.
@@theaslam9758 u reply to the wrong guy and I do agree with you
Malevich spent years of his life in Belarus, and it affected his art. Vitebsk was an art center in the region.
True
"It doesn't need to make sense, just feel it"
- Christopher Nolan
⬛ This says alot about our society
Well, it clearly inspired something in someone, so it's certainly got that part of art down.
Abstract visual art is just like music sometimes. A music piece that does not represent anything in the real world can bring any large range of strong emotions. Why is it so weird when that is done visually?
It's not that deep, man. Just like not all sounds are music, all paintings aren't art.
Define Music
Define art
Do you think it has some sort of connection to all the weird shapes and psuedocolors we see when we close our eyes in the dark; like our brain is a complex, artistic symphony not even it can understand?
@@sen7826no you are actually assuming stuff. I am not saying to like them. But they present a beautiful nature of philosophy behind what is music and art.
@@HerMi.T I didn't reply to anything you said, did I? I don't even know what "you are saying" because this is your first reply here. So, no, I'm not assuming anything you are saying.
Whatever you do there will always be someone who likes your work
Underrated comment
when my kid was 4 months old, she grabbed a pencil and she "drew" a line on a piece of paper. Then, to make my wife laugh, I start bullsh*tting about how that was a masterpiece and that what it seemed just like a crooked line actually had a lot of meaning. Now...when this video started with "the square is off center to give movement", the hair in the paint, the paintings under the painting, etc. it sounded 100% the style of what I said about my daughter's "painting". For example I remember saying stuff like "the line is going down and it could be interpreted like life will bring suffering but, since it's drawn on a free paper, you can just rotate and it will go up. This doesn't change the line (the events in your life) but changes how you see it because even the same events can be seen from completely different perspective and give you happiness or sadness, depending on how you're gonna interpret it"
And in the end, that's what all art is. A conversation had between whomever comes into contact with it.
Except your daughter wasn't trying to make a painting, at least not that we can tell she was trying to
@@audhd_incarnate8001 In that case literally everything any human being has come across is art. You've made the definition of art so broad that it's meaningless and conveys nothing.
@@Joshua-dc4un Why does the intent matter? By your logic, me sneezing into a tissue could be art as long as it was done by me intentionally.
If you can't look at a piece of art without being able to discern whether it was done intentionally or was simply a freak accident, then maybe it's not really art at all.
@@thelemurofmadagascar9183 If that's your interpretation sure. But some of us find meaning in the mundane
Hands down my favorite lecture from dr Leigh’s class she’s one of the best professors I’ve ever had❤
Same, She is honestly the best teacher ive ever had.
🥰
With some art styles, it can be a fine line between subverting the norm to create a meaningful message, and simply being a contrarian to boost your own sense of self-worth.
I really think this the case here. I'll spend months on my paintings, which also have been painted upon used painting canvases. They too have begun to crack over time. And my paintstrokes are also visible, my hair, my fingerprints, my sweat, even my blood when i painted so long my hands blistered. What makes art, art, is that a special effort and intention was put into it. But no special effort or intention went into this, because this happens to all paintings.
Or maybe you're just being pretentious.
This guy's either a genius, or an eloquent BS-er 😅
Just need some special explanation for why it exists.
both
I'm inclined on a BS-er wannabe genius
Both can be true 🤷🏽♂️
How can that art survive the test of time if it need someone to explain it
I firmly believe that the art is not his painting, but his intentions and views. The moment he put it on canvas it became an object, what is the exact opposite he wanted. His explanation is the art and the painting is just the "canvas".
Would u pay to see it ?
Well said
@@Watch-0w1 Yes
@@Joshua-dc4un ⬜ ⬛
I love his work. My design portfolio is unified by the motifs of his work.
one of my favorite paintings ever
My first thought when I first saw it was also that anyone can do it even a little child can. His other works looked great to me. Somehow it reminded me of a banana in a museum or art exhibition that someone left turning into a piece of art 😂.
The fact that the video pointed out how it was not, in fact, a perfect square, has triggered my OCD tendencies when it comes to drawing panels for comics X3
This painting and video is proof that you can read anything into a picture.
That is true.
The fact that it was placed where an Icon would be was all the context I needed. Pretty solid expression I would say.
Before the invention of the photograph, art had the sole responsibility for recording the visual human experience for later reference. Photography freed painting and sculpture from what was both a heavy burden and an immense responsibility. According to my high school art teacher, art is currently trying to answer the question "What is Art?" I would rephrase this question as: "What can we get art experts (including artists and critics) to agree constitutes Art?"
It is a boring question equivalent to "If I paid a lawyer to stand in a court room and argue about what falls into the definition of 'Cat,' what plausible arguments could the lawyer come up with that other like-minded lawyers would agree with?" The word "Cat" in the previous sentence can be replaced with a variety of nouns such as "car," "furniture," "chicken," "boat," "vegetable," and even concepts like "sports" or "art." If the opinions of non-lawyers are dismissed because "they aren't lawyers," why would the lawyer-approved, stretched-out and distorted definition of the word "Cat" even be valid?
Similarly, when artists are pushing the limits on what can be considered "Art," why is the resulting stretched-out definition of "Art" valid, especially if the only opinions considered are those of art experts themselves? This is the frustration I feel as an art consumer walking through displays of modern art that look to me like a plumber was having a bad day. These are the rooms at an art museum where people don't linger.
In a parallel universe, Fine Art could be defined by the following: "the best fine art is the art that can be wildly marked up and sold on a cruise ship." This would mean that the Fine Art is defined as art that best connects emotionally and is accessible intellectually to the general public. In the actual real world, this definition of Fine Art would really pi** off art critics, but why is would such a radical definition of Fine Art be invalid? Originally, art was about recording images to be shared with the general public for informational purposes and not an inward emotional exploration among a tight circle of art experts.
People don't linger because they already have a conception of what art is or should be. And are not really looking to change their minds
@JMRCUSP I'm glad you enjoyed my comment. Thank you for enlightening me about art history and photography. I'm a lawyer and casual art consumer and not anyone super knowledgeable about art. BTW, if I was arguing for the most expansive definition possible of the word "Cat" that I thought I might get away with, I would have argued that any animal with a nose and whiskers should be considered a cat. "Hello Kitty" is unambiguous considered a cat based on its nose, whiskers, face shape, and ears. The ears and the face shape should be disregarded in my definition. Hello Kitty's ears are just undefined nubs, and cats' faces aren't actually round. Thus, the whiskers and the nose make the cat. The expansiveness of the definition comes into play because most mammals (including all non-human primates) have whiskers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers. All mammals I am aware of have noses.
"Sole responsability for recording the visual experience"? Oh, no. That's a complete misunderstanding of art and art history, or of human history and even just common sense. That was not the only intended or unintended function of art. And other forms of expression have always been able to represent visual imagery for posterity. Just think about it. Even if a person says "I once saw a cow. It was big and blue with Hugo square eyes", and somebody hears that and tells it to their children, who by themselves tell it to their own children. There you go, visual registry of a cow for posterity.
Huge*
I guess it's the art equivalent of being able to enjoy a videogame right from the get go or having to stick with it for a few hours before it gets good.
Carmen Oliveras en su artículo Los conceptos principales, más que preguntarse “¿Qué es arte?”, hoy sería más pertinente preguntarse “¿Cuándo hay arte?”. De modo que sólo el tiempo podrá responder si el cuadro lo es o no. ✌🏼
On that logic, if time is infinite then everything can and will eventually be art, it's not an "if" question.
I agree that modern art is about feeling, more than just documentation about figure.
Me too
I have never really liked this kind of art, but I can respect where it came from
Awesome video! And the analysis was amazing!
Beautiful and thought-provoking!
Agreed
If you look hard enough, you'll find lots of meaning in even an infant's scribbling. So i still don't get what's so special.
But i read that rich people buy these weird paintings to avoid huge taxes somehow.
Yup. I wouldn't value this painting above others. I personally find leaving *this much *meaning up to the interpreter to be lazy and misguided
I prefer a child's skribbles than an adult's because at least I know the kid and it's kinda cute and stuff, with adults creating these scribbles and selling them for billions they're just scamming people
No objects, just vibes
Art in 2023 has evolved to a whole new astronomical level
Al least we can be sure the painting wasn't AI generated.
Anything can be the deepest art ever created if you bs it enough
So interesting and inspiring! Love it
I agree.
Very inspiring, loved that story!
Nice ad. I’m convinced.
The painting Take the money and run by Jens Haaning has suddenly got me interested in art all of a sudden
Nice, how this small video pulled my attention. Thanks for this!
Those people who criticize Malevich's works weren't paying attention to the detail of his paintings. They looked at paintings like a "child" not an expert. Hence, they lacked insight about the real meaning of these images.
Child isnt the the right word.. more like.. a person who can actually tell the difference between art that actually means something and doesn't need a video to explain to the viewer why they should enjoy said art and art that does.
If you have to be educated to appreciate art, then it has failed. Art should speak to your feelings. There should be no need for education.
@@tuathaigh-aa Maybe Dwayne Johnson movies are more your speed.
It's a shame this type of art is impossible to be appreciated without handicaps: articles by the author explaining his worldview, being positioned in a museum where it won't be mistaken as nothing intentional, etc.
Other art pieces can evoke emotion without those handicaps of explanation and museum spotlight.
Wow. Thank you Ted ed. The presentation and animation was great.
So was his quote about desert and feeling
His ideas about 'feeling' are interesting however we already had that in paintings that were focused on objects.
◾Zaha Hadid, the late British-Iraqi architect, was so inspired by his paintings that she found her way to express her design thought through his ideas. She had also given lectures on his work. ⬛
In software engineering, there's a phrase for this: bugs become features 😅
That's all cool. It's still a square, though. I don't think it's deeply profound because it's off-center and there's a hair stuck in it 😂. "It giVeS iT a sENse oF mOVeMEnT" k dude, or maybe he didn't have a ruler handy.
The thing is, people can BS some sort of deep meaning out of ANYTHING if they try hard enough. I'd say that's exactly what people are doing when it comes to many examples of highly simplistic or random abstract artwork "that a child could make."
Spare me all this pretentious "oh, you're too close-minded to get it" or "you simply need to try harder to engage with the artwork" Nah man, you're just making stuff up and getting high on your own farts. Make whatever art you want, however simple you want, but when an all-white painting, or a single shape, or a bunch of random splatters, or a damn banana taped to a wall is getting applauded as inspiring artwork and sold for the price of a house, then yeah, people are gonna roll their eyes and make fun of it.
Aight, I need those as blindfolds to sleep at night after knowing this is art.
WorthEstimated is over $20 million 🫠
This was so interesting!!!
Art is expression. He expressed. So, yes. It's art
A dog expresses several times each morning. Wouldn't call it art.
Boring, useless.
It's no different from the banana taped to a wall, this is bs.
Whether or not you approve or even agree, it's technically art.
If I jizz on a canvas and let it dry would it be art
I don't want to read essays and know the life story of an artist to be able to artificially put meaning into an artwork. It should be interesting by itself.
Sounds like Art isn’t for you. Maybe try Star Wars or Harry Potter
@@AlcazarJones congrats, you are probably way smarter than me
@@AlcazarJones overrated. next.
So it seems art will always be different and each is not for everybody. However, suppressing the artist from his/her art to imitate another is far worse.
Very cool but does anyone else see the bear in the painting
Yes it is
A refuge of pure feeling. But did it make you feel anything? How?
I love stuff like this, it's so easy to cause outrage. It's very interesting.
Hmmmm... I find it difficult to look away from this square. I've begun to see the cracks and lack thereof as... a city, with roads and districts.
This was a really interesting video! Kind of amazed by how many comments are being so negative
Cool square dude.
You lost me at the part where you told the lore of a strand of hair that got stuck in a paint.
artists paints a simple picture
Literature teachers:
Amazing video. But the comment section clearly represents the minds of those who aren’t ready to understand it, despite it being a more than a century old painting. Even after such a great video, people are still upset to this day, and that what makes it a masterpiece
"if you don't like it you just don't understand it and thats why its amazing"
Not how it works champ. He had to spend years explaining what it means and thats now how you do art. You can leave it up for the person to interpret it themselves but to go on and say "this is what I mean by it" ruins what art is
@@HIFLY01 all I can say is, I‘m sorry that u can’t understand it
@@TungLe-if5pq sorry you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill
No one understood it its why he had to explain for years which ruins art. It shouldn't be explained by the artist
@@HIFLY01 if that’s everything you took from this video, then you only prove my point
@@TungLe-if5pq and your point is you dont understand art. An artist can say he used red because he was angry all he wants but if people say he used red because they painted an apple and apples are usually red, all the artist did was show they know what color an apple is.
Take any sort of art class and you'll see only the snob artists and art critics tell you how you should feel when you look at art. If you see it as something beautiful then congrats it looks beautiful in your eyes and thats what the artist accomplished. But if the artist was trying to show you ugliness and you saw only beauty, its not good art
Well well if it isn’t another piece of thing ❤ this is art 😮
Everything is art no matter what it is
Jesus loves you ❤️ please turn to him and repent before it's too late. The end times described in the Bible are already happening in the world.
@@L17_8 🫣
@@L17_8what?
@@ClumsyRoot no bro art is everywhere.
You only need eyes to see it
@@Dheeraj5373 Words describe things. That is the whole point. If you want to expand the word "art" to include everything, then you are very, very simply not using the word correctly. That's it. It's linguistics. It's not hard to understand. I can't just DECIDE one day that "the word elephant means cup!", that's not how languages work. So no, everything is NOT art, art has a SPECIFIC definition that you do not get to change on a whim.
Too many ideas, still so bad results.
I need to create a backstory, paint me a smiley face, and make me some bank in the art world.
it's not just a square, it's a badly drawn square. i actually lolled at the description of how the fact it is crooked makes it special
What a genius-
I've learned a lot today
Thank you!
I am definitely not an artist. Thus if I can do it, it’s not art.
The artist in question: Oh yeah, good point. I mean, yes.
0:10 It was also known as Saint Petersburg, Russia at the time. It was renamed Leningrad in 1924 and the USSR was formed in 1922.
During WW1 they change the name to Petrograd to sound more Russian . because Petersburg is a German word.
DONDA
If his art was just made to reflect feeling, I question why bother with paint and canvas at all 🤔
Thank you for sub indo
Malevich, one of my favourite artists, among Escher and Pollock.
The history is always cool, but I think the point of art is to make u feel something. Personally, I feel nothing when I see tht square and a lot of art tht I see in museums come to think of it. Partly why I don’t like art museums - more artifacts of history than art
Here we go rekindling the flame ‘cause the demand is too low.
cause its the donda album cover duhh
chill. there's a lot of subjectivity in this passed off as meaningful analysis.
Why does the painting is famous? Because the artist is famous.
Yo bro,non-objectivity 是 非客觀性，不是非主觀性
Thank you.
He’s proven he can paint many different styles, in the traditional artistic sense, thus proving whatever he paints should have more merit than any critic could ever have of the painting itself. What he sees may not be what you see, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Someone made a blank canvas naming it "Take the money and run" 😂😂
So.. the artist went mad!
Arent they all
@@SurvivingLifeHurdles some time I don't feel so
Very nice
Wow! Thoroughly enjoyed this video😃 my idea about abstract art changed after watching this video😊 thank you TED-Ed❤
Wow, a ⬛, indeed pure feeling
What until you see ⚫, even more deep and profound
not just any square tho, not even a square :O
It sure is 🗿
Well also- a child could have done it. But a child didn't. It's about the meaning and the fact that it is.
Post-modernism has really done a number of destroying all the arts. I hope it's a fad that ends soon and we can rediscover the beauty of aesthetically-pleasing arts.
That’s not postmodernism and the word is written without the hyphen. Maybe read some art theory before calling others ‘fads’.
If you need someone else to tell you what art is supposed to mean, then whatever it represents, it's badly communicated
It could also be that he didn't like the first two paintings and decidet to essentialy erase his work
If asked what this painting made me feel, I would reply "a vague sense of irritation, boredom and wanting to look at almost anything else"
Ahh yes. Daily dose of Ted Ed. So much information that im not gonna use🥲
Damn, got a lot of Soviet Soldiers in this comment section already.
Art is subjective. To me that square is not. But it's not up to me!
Lima blue
Just tell me what kind of S-Type Donda West like?
"WOW they have it!, SQUARE"
Where to find such music like used in video ?
Popular color ?
Idk.
"But his opened hand formed a quadrilateral"... No it didn't. This is a prime example of people imagining meaning where there is none. The open hand hardly even represents an angle, much less a quadrilateral.
This is the epitome of overcomplicating art for the sake of it. The irony is, a kid can't still do it and also achieve all the things you spoke of...off kilter, non parallel, cracks in the paint, stained with fingerprints and hair. Yup sounds like what my kid does
Except your kid did not do it. You could have painted this just like Malevich did and in his time as well but you did not. Art is not just about what is right in front of you but also the context of its creation and idea behind it. If you think something is being overcomplicated for the sake of it, it might be just too complicated for you specifcially but there is nothing wrong for others to have and share ideas.
@@anigabisoniablah blah blah still full of bs. What makes a good art is also the effort behind it.
@@anigabisoniaI will paint a blue circle now. Since you didn't think of that first, that makes me a genius now.
@@HandledToaster2 Feel free to do that, if you manage to not just paint a blue circle but give a convincing explanation of the idea behind it, do not let anyone tell you that you are not a genious. Just because people like you try to gatekeep art does not mean I will try to convience you that you are not capable of creating art. Good luck with your blue circle project!
@@rayawira It is almost like not every single piece of art is meant to be enjoyed by every single person. Universally enjoyed and widely understood art is actually not so intriguing or challenging in a way. If you are more comfortable with other styles and schools of art, I am glad you found something you enjoy, keep doing that but without putting others down.