and the fact he didn't even try to conceal the psychological priming. Asking "explain why it's good" and then trying to call abstract art a hoax because they said good things about it... not to mention it doesn't even remotely look like a Pollock.
25:51 so when we see art, we become entranced by it and we can also see the mind behind the art.... I wonder if it also applies to nature when people go hiking or just observe and experience the outdoors?
I think it happens every time we really take the time to observe something, be it art, nature or anything else. We try to understand ourselves through the world, and reflecting on ourselves I think is one of the most natural things, it just happens when you contemplate anything. I think that's why, through the ages, there have been so many types of divination, we see ourselves everywhere.
I understand and appreciate what is being said from a Western psychological discipline, (some of it sounds familiar to symbolic interactionism). Also embroiled in this psychological approach is the philosophy of the mind, i.e. belief (Gendler). But to say "art" and not "painting" in the case discussed in the video is reductionist. Also some things in art cannot be made solely by children, animals or machines as indistinguishable from an artist such as certain kinds of sculpture, photography, ceramics etc.
so the "less abstract" an abstract art is, the more likely people think it's made by an adult human? doesnt that invalidate the whole argument of abstract art to begin with?
this is another example of why we are where we are today,why do we as humanity feel that we need to examine the shit out everything?even our perceptions of simplicity in all it,s beauty!
Not offended by saying Chinese culture is primitive, because I don’t know if this is true, but I can say original art and forgeries in Chinese culture are valued vastly different. I wonder where you got the idea that’s the opposite? 😂 Interesting lecture and seriously good questions asked by the audience.
@Michael Lochlann true. There is only one good art, the invisible one. It is to such an extent part of our lives, that we dont recognize it as seperate from us.
Art can not be engineered by scientific understanding. If it was than we wouldnt need artist we would follow a series of rules and we would create a work of art. But that is not to say there shouldnt be scientific studies on art. Such studies keep academics busy at psychology/philosoohy departments but are meaningless when you try to create real art.
Hot take: The intrinsic value of art is received by the creator and not the viewer. All value given by the viewer is subjective and there are no wrong views. The amount of intrinsic value of art is closely tied to what level of transformation the artist has received from doing the work. It can be a soup can or a Rembrandt or even a AI image, but I would argue that the transformation recieved by the artist for making an AI image can be far less than other forms, for example. And yet there IS transformation using AI tools, however little or great, and therefore art.
I don't understand how people find kids and animals work are the same as abstract art made by the artist?! The canvas the paints, the quality of movement and shapes are so much more supreme, it is obvious. No need to underate artists because of your own ignorance.
Modern abstract “Art” requires the conjunction of opposing imaginative terminology and the assistance of media’s hype to create value in a worthless object. Abstract art requires what the lazy artist who created it lack, the fortitude to completely create something identifiable that a random stranger could create a link between image, experience and observation. The abstract is so abstract it’s unrecognizable on any level
A well trained artist friend many years ago in nyc told me that it’s too much work to paint a traditional portrait. So she changed to make some abstract art, just splash around according to her. She got invited to Spain for her abstract works not long after. She splashed on some big plexiglass
![Rich Dunk (Ft. DaBaby) - BIG DAWG [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Pz2ewsSKAEM/mqdefault.jpg)
Surely 'Outsider Art' is the most intriguing psychologically
This was a delight to take in, and the Q&A was fun.
Great video, questions and answers. Enjoyed this one
Thank you so much for sharing this video!
Excellent lecture ❤
Thank you for sharing.
Thanks for sharing...🌹🌹❤️❤️
This is so so good 🙏😀👍
Well work reading Robertson Davies 'The Cornish Trilogy
Advertisers have been on to this for years, they call it “brand”.
James Frazer is on to this as well.
20:27 the art teacher really tricked those innocent kids and made it his whole argument
and the fact he didn't even try to conceal the psychological priming. Asking "explain why it's good" and then trying to call abstract art a hoax because they said good things about it... not to mention it doesn't even remotely look like a Pollock.
How can we reach out to Ellen Winner regarding questions?
Very interesting
25:51 so when we see art, we become entranced by it and we can also see the mind behind the art.... I wonder if it also applies to nature when people go hiking or just observe and experience the outdoors?
That happens with religious folk. Read William James book "the varieties of Religious experience"
I think it happens every time we really take the time to observe something, be it art, nature or anything else. We try to understand ourselves through the world, and reflecting on ourselves I think is one of the most natural things, it just happens when you contemplate anything. I think that's why, through the ages, there have been so many types of divination, we see ourselves everywhere.
I understand and appreciate what is being said from a Western psychological discipline, (some of it sounds familiar to symbolic interactionism). Also embroiled in this psychological approach is the philosophy of the mind, i.e. belief (Gendler). But to say "art" and not "painting" in the case discussed in the video is reductionist.
Also some things in art cannot be made solely by children, animals or machines as indistinguishable from an artist such as certain kinds of sculpture, photography, ceramics etc.
🤓
so the "less abstract" an abstract art is, the more likely people think it's made by an adult human? doesnt that invalidate the whole argument of abstract art to begin with?
Only in a way
The less abstract? Where did you get that from? Do you mean the more intentional, because representative and intentional are not synonyms.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
❤
this is another example of why we are where we are today,why do we as humanity feel that we need to examine the shit out everything?even our perceptions of simplicity in all it,s beauty!
16:30 The one on the right clearly has more goudire!
Not offended by saying Chinese culture is primitive, because I don’t know if this is true, but I can say original art and forgeries in Chinese culture are valued vastly different. I wonder where you got the idea that’s the opposite? 😂
Interesting lecture and seriously good questions asked by the audience.
16:10 clowning the choice of art from the study lmfaoooo 💀
all art starts with shapes...so in a sence all art starts that way that is ...abstract
Instead of pulling out color blind people, may we should do studies comparing color blind people to those not color blind regarding art critiques.
ART
is
BETWEEN US
@Michael Lochlann true. There is only one good art, the invisible one. It is to such an extent part of our lives, that we dont recognize it as seperate from us.
Art can not be engineered by scientific understanding. If it was than we wouldnt need artist we would follow a series of rules and we would create a work of art. But that is not to say there shouldnt be scientific studies on art. Such studies keep academics busy at psychology/philosoohy departments but are meaningless when you try to create real art.
Hot take: The intrinsic value of art is received by the creator and not the viewer. All value given by the viewer is subjective and there are no wrong views. The amount of intrinsic value of art is closely tied to what level of transformation the artist has received from doing the work. It can be a soup can or a Rembrandt or even a AI image, but I would argue that the transformation recieved by the artist for making an AI image can be far less than other forms, for example. And yet there IS transformation using AI tools, however little or great, and therefore art.
I don't understand how people find kids and animals work are the same as abstract art made by the artist?! The canvas the paints, the quality of movement and shapes are so much more supreme, it is obvious. No need to underate artists because of your own ignorance.
I would think outsider art could lend itself quite well to AI generated art comparisons.
Modern abstract “Art” requires the conjunction of opposing imaginative terminology and the assistance of media’s hype to create value in a worthless object. Abstract art requires what the lazy artist who created it lack, the fortitude to completely create something identifiable that a random stranger could create a link between image, experience and observation. The abstract is so abstract it’s unrecognizable on any level
speak for yourself
A well trained artist friend many years ago in nyc told me that it’s too much work to paint a traditional portrait. So she changed to make some abstract art, just splash around according to her. She got invited to Spain for her abstract works not long after. She splashed on some big plexiglass
Very relevent in this new emerging AI art curfuffle