My favorite example of over-analyzing art is Edward Hopper's Nighthawks painting. Everyone was speculating why there was no door on the diner, but when they asked Hopper himself he took a big long look at the painting and said "Fuck, I did it again."
A really good artist that didn't get nearly enough recognition is Zdzislaw Beksinski. That dude painted some weird, dark shit. But in a good way, obviously.
My favorite thing about him is the fact that he was opposed to the idea of mandatory interpretation. After all, why does everything have to mean something? He also refused to title any of his paintings because he feared that that would impose a specific meaning to any given work.
I think it was a, 'so many paintings, so little time', situation. The guy made a hell of a lot of art and it was much easier to draw more geometric shapes than photorealistic art pieces. It's like they say in this video, he valued expression of all his ideas and a quick execution over less ideas and a skillful execution of them.
Expressionism and cubism was the result of talented painters experimenting because they were bored with realism and wanted to explore other styles and ideas. Cubism in particular, once you understand the purpose -- representing multiple facets of 3d subjects in a single 2D image -- is actually really interesting.
Diogo Montesso have you ever seen any pollock paintings that aren’t splatter paintings? Have you ever taken even the 2 minutes it takes to google “pollock sketches”?
In Canada's National Gallery, in the modern art section, there's a tarp from a ship. Just an old tarp. Some person bought it, called it art, and then sold it to the gallery at a massive profit. The "artist" had the least part in the tarp's entire lifetime. They didn't make it, use it, or anything.
I have a friend who is way into art and he too thinks Van Gogh is a terrible artist. I thought he was being incredibly pretentious, but after listening to this video I think there is a context I must be missing.
My grandmothers painted as a hobby for 30+ years. She has done literally hundreds of paintings that are all tucked away in a large closet. They range from surrealistic stuff, personal expression art, gorgeous abstract landscapes, photorealistic-ish flowers, and my favorite are the simple landscapes she does. She sometimes spends six months on one painting, quietly dabbing away for a few hours a day. Some of them are bad, many of them are absolutely fantastic. She REFUSES to sell them. There are only maybe three or four outside of her possession, all owned by family. Each one is unique with no copies, no two look the same. I believe the family has an understanding that these paintings are worth several hundred thousand dollars at least, probably millions. Her story is so strange and the art is so voluminous and amazing for them not to be worthy of celebration. Not a single one is anything like the garbage that gets sold nowadays. Considering she’s in her 80’s, still lucid, still painting, and very healthy I hope that maybe one of the great grandkids will take to painting with her.
I've heard this stuff a million times. I feel like it's a misguided notion, don't criticize the shitty artists that made the expensive paintings, rather the people that buy them (supply=demand). It's more of a symptom of disproportionate wealth.
RobRIPDG he does have a point. The "artists" are smart enough to know that they can make millions for doing fucking nothing, while preying on dumb people who have no idea what they're buying
I'm glad to hear them so opinionated about this. Going into MoMA made me irrationally angry (or rationally. Depending on how much you care.) There was a painting of a bunch of squares, and the plaque said the artist was banned from shit numerous times for stealing credit for other art pieces. But the angle it was taking was that this "artist" was so counterculture for that, it seemed to make no indicator that that's fucked, or pay any concern to the fact that that museum was housing that guy's "art." You'd think an art museum would at least respect art enough to not platform a known art thief. And then seemingly boast that next to their nothing painting of squares. In another room, there was a blank, white tee-shirt pinned to the wall, and that was it. In a third room, there was a splattered tarp swung over a beam (that was part of the building architecture, not even the "art") and the plaque said it was about Martin Luther King Jr. (1) if a plaque has to say what the piece is, the piece failed. It should be able to speak for itself. Its the fucking art, the plaques not the art. (2) I'm sure your tarp did a lot for race politics in the 60s, man. The stupid plaque both limits the interpretation of the audience (which is what all these modern art douches say is the entire point) and does nothing to depict what it says it's supposed to be. I was once told by an art teacher that this painting covered in black splatters was so profound because the painter had a painful life and mental illnesses, etc. But then the painter should write a fucking book. Again. The art should be able to stand on its own. I don't care about the traumatic childhood of the guy who fell asleep and drooled on a canvas and sold it for 50 million. I wouldn't go as far as stamper in this case (although I respect that he's passionate), since I think alternative art has its place. I just think it's gotta not be useless garbage.
They touched on this, but it is very impressive how many of these paintings were made back when dyes were made of crushed up flowers, and you could get three colors for the modern day equivalent of one thousand dollars, and then you paint on this blank canvas without internet references, just your own mind and possibly the view of whatever model you were using.
13:08 starts at "what's an easy to learn hard to master aspect of animation" is the question, 13:56 is profoundly true and I'm really glad I could hear stamper explain this, I've always wondered what this phenomena was but he explained it so perfectly, it's true people ask these questions because they want guidance, and guidance isn't the same as an answer, it's a direction, where to go to achieve this.
The best example of an open to interpretation ending is persona 3. Spoilers... but the theme of the game is memento mori. If you learned the lesson of mortality then you will understand that the main character is dead. If you dont learn, then you deny the fact that he is dead, further reinforcing the fact that you are in denial and dont truly understand that you are mortal.
To me, art is an effort to express pure individuality: which is why you have to study and practice to copy something like ‘Starry Night’ (there’s effort there to translate something), and on the other hand, this modern stuff is so effortless and removed from the relationship between artist and audience that you could paint a canvas one solid color on a whim and it’d be indistinguishable from a celebrated piece *on accident*. On top of that, the mark of a good piece in my eyes, is something that speaks not just to the viewer, but *from* the artist. It’s like how Beksinski insisted to his grave that there was no meanings to his works, but if you look at them even with no context of the time period he lived in, you know he was bullshitting. But a random paint splatter by its nature of being random can’t have a meaning to the painter worth 6 fucking paragraphs and $4000. Art is subjective, but that’s to an extent; a blob, splatter, or solid color canvas isn’t even a good expression of nothingness because it’s literally just the sum of its parts at that point.
I feel like paintings are some of the most bullshit filled aspects of art that is SUPER overrated. I feel like there's so many branches of "art" that aren't given their due. A ton of people make fun of animation or just don't really acknowledge the hardwork it takes to make it. Film was only recently considered serious art. Film and animation take HUNDREDS of people working around the clock to get that shit done, and people watch it once and go "Eh, alright," and yet some guy can splash paint on a board and be deemed an artist genius. Reminds me of the bullshit behind the Oscars. No one ever acknowledges art in different forms unless it's super depressing or "philosophical" for no reason.
This doesn’t just apply to modern art or abstract contemporary, this kinda applies to casual mainstream art on sites like tumblr or twitter. A lot of art (be it from genuinely skilled artists or amateurs) i See is just for the sake of whatever emotion it’s trying to portray: porn is just porn, shock is just shock art, art for the sake of a trend is just that. People also seem to be infatuated with the process of becoming famous for a piece instead of making a piece born from inspiration and meaning. No substance. Edit: So coming back to this comment, I should clarify while the guys are kinda correct about modern art being shitty often, it doesn't mean its not art: basically everything and anything can be art. But that doesn't make it GOOD art, yknow?
Van Gogh was the best and last impressionist to exist. If you ever seen a painting of his up close, it's insanely detailed and the coloring is very peculiar. Not sure why they hate him, unless they think he's a modern artist lol
People praising kids making Splatter painting and "abstract"(which is just a kids drawings with expensive equipment) is the most annoying shit, all people can do that shit. I've saw a video about people praising a kid using a Thomas train as a brush, sticking a toy car to a pool of paint on a canvas and coating it with another paint, and throwing paint cans to the blank canvas.
Depends on how old at a certain age encouragement can lead to striving to do better my friend was praised as a kid and one of their first drawings was using a key with paint. Now they can draw some pretty good watercolor and sketches for fashion.
I genuinely love paintings that have markmaking (pollock is the basic bitch of it, he's FINE but it's been done), i'd look at art of a guy swinging around into canvass and genuinely fucking love it xD
It's funny that Stamper doesn't understand the irony of Jackson Pollock and his thoughts on comedy. "They like it because they've never seen it before" is exactly why Pollock is in museums.
Wow you're so right, who needs photorealism when you can look at a canvas covered in literal shit from when the artist took a dump on it and called it art?
@@HamburgerHat1 the skill is, but the art isn't. You can admire the skill, but the art itself is just a boring replication of real life. It almost seems like wasted skill.
My theory is that a great painting is great because of psychedelics. People are like "i wanna see this painting on acid cause it feels like im already tripping"
Why would anyone want to paint a photorealistic vase of flowers when photographs exist? Art is about expression. Ideally you should be able to paint in a realistic classical style (at which Picasso was a prodigy) but doing so your whole career is a waste. That's like making classical music for your whole musical career instead of trying to carve a new path. Mozart has been and gone already, create something else.
he's so right about Pollock. A fucking hack just sharts on a canvas and sells it for trillions. i hate the concept of art as an expression. that's kindergarten mentality.
1) Slap some paint on a canvas, it doesn't matter what it looks like. 2) Come up with some bullshit about the "meaning" behind it. Bonus points if you find some way to stir up controversy. Boom, modern art.
I walked into an art museum there was a canvas painted blue with glossy reflective car paint, I thought 'wow that's shit' but then I stopped myself, I read the description, it said something to the extent of 'this guy knows a lot about art history and that the reflectiveness allows you to become part of the artwork,' that one painting discredited any respect for the establishment of the whole building and anyone who had taken it seriously.
Fuck that's a really good point, a lot of art now is pure expression without much talent. My thing is where is the line between talent properly applied and talentless hack. Like that one guy who wrapped a town on plastic, that's just expression, it's not inherently artistic it's just something he wanted to do, so he did, and his shit sells like gang busters.
Artists who make subjective art call other art "bad and bullshit". They really dogged on modern art despite arguably being a part of modern art; animation. I still love these guys but this clip in particular really showed off their egos at the time.
I have a dream of doing a weird "art" exhibit where i show people a blank wall with a single line of paint running across it, then have people write their opinions of it, and after i get lets say 100 writen opinions, put all the positive ones above the line and all the negative below.
To me the art. Like Jackson polok or Rothko. I understands theirs no technical, or maybe even expressive skill. But I think like even if you like it for just a pattern you can look at. I guess that's interesting. Or going to Rothkos paintings the huge canvases must be quite interesting to stand in front of it. Or like. I guess maybe no one had done it before
I find it funny that a group of kinda crappy newgrounds artist, half of which did sonic porn, the other half did cringe overdone parodies of videogames, are smugly sitting here shitting on Vincent Van Gogh as if they could even get close to matching his skill and level of detail. It's kinda embarrassing.
The opposite is also true. People who only draw hyperrealistic depictions of barack obama's upper lip and shit like that are even less interesting hacks then the hacks theyre talking about. technique without expression hasnt been cool since the camera came out
so youre saying even if my handwriting and drawing skills are so fucking bad that even a kid i knew back in first grade drew better then than i do now, i can make money off it? sheeiiiittttt
The splatter art took a lot of practice I guess, like he studied color and shit for years. How the splatters are on the canvas are planned, at least that’s what an art guy told me
I always got the impression that modern art lovers are on some serious cases of the emperors new clothes. Whenever I hear proper hardcore enthusiasts defend and explain bollocks art it’s like listening to cult members praise their leaders.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and say that Jackson Pollock was an amazing artist, and not an amazing painter. The point of what he did, to put in layman's terms so layman that it does him and his art no justice whatsoever, was to demonstrate that art, as a process, is a therapeutic, chaotic practice that we can use as an emotional outlet, and that the end product doesn't really matter, though with Pollock's pieces it kinda does considering the super subtle technical complexity but that's an entirely different can of worms that is beyond me. Just think of what you see in front of you as only a small part of the art (vague, I know), the result, to say, and that what it stands for is what you should focus on. That doesn't justify snobby rich people paying exorbitant amounts for shit they don't understand, though, those people are just trend following idiots. The way I like to put it is, if it makes you think about it, if you react to it emotionally, either through hatred or reverence, and that is what it was meant to do, then it's art.
Pong actually he was both a very good artist and painter. How have none of the people offering perspectives on this ever looked at any other pollock works other than the splatter paintings? It literally takes 2 seconds to google “pollock early sketchbook” to see he was a very technically adept artist. Obviously he knew how to draw, how are people this stupid?
I agree it’s all BS now, that dude stacked buckets and dropped them and said ‘it’s about a single sand is inconsequential but together it forms society’ nah bro you were bored at the beach. Though he did have one good piece. It was called ‘a shot at a plane’ or something where he fired a real gun at a real passenger plane. But everything else is trash
I mean, you could draw a fucking pencil line on an electrical adapter and sell it as an artistic representation of society clinging to their own devices. Doesn't seem very hard.
I know it's dumb to argue with a podcast from over a decade ago but where does Stamper get off calling modern art "masturbatory" when he says he just looks at art purely for technical skill alone
Half the people on Deviant-art draw better than the ragamuffins you see in art museums these days. I'm no professional, butt if I was in my thirties or something some people might believe me if I tried to bullshit my art to sell for thousands. It's just not right man.
Isn't there a commercial or something with a painting hung upside down and the people around it are trying to figure out what it is, then a kid walls up to it and puts it right side up then walks away, the adults around it just looked stupid.
As a Jeep Driver the only Jeeps you bother waving at are the older then your model Jeeps. And tgere is a points scale anything made after 2006 is worth 0 points.
Honestly I don’t like the Mona Lisa I love Leonardo but man the Mona Lisa is so fucking over glorified, yeah looks alright and I guess her expression changes depending on the light and so on but its one of those pieces that I don’t understand how it became iconic :/
Am I the only one who wants to slap together a bullshit piece of trash and sell it to a modern art gallery just to see what sort of meaning people glean from it?
Van Gogh is dope tho, he got fuckin shot by two boys and didnt rat them out even though he died over an excruciating period of about 29 hours. He also had like seizures and hallucinations and shit from absinthe and would try to poison himself with paints and turpentine during his episodes. Crazy life man
Sweaty Woman yes but they obviously don’t know anything about any of the people they’re talking about? You’re judging artists on only a fraction of all the art they ever created. Have you ever seen works from Picasso’s blue period? Or the sketches of pollock and Van Gogh? If you had you’d know that they are all very technically proficient outside of abstract expressionism and cubism etc. so of course you and everyone in the podcast don’t know what they’re talking about
![SleepyCast S2:E6 - [Griefing and Game Design]](/img/1.gif)
My favorite example of over-analyzing art is Edward Hopper's Nighthawks painting. Everyone was speculating why there was no door on the diner, but when they asked Hopper himself he took a big long look at the painting and said "Fuck, I did it again."
Knut Andersson that’s hilarious
Sounds fake, couldn't find anything about it. Also his paintings had a lot of planning involved.
@@KINGBublepop could be, my only source is an old art teacher I had. Funny nonetheless.
his piece Intermission -1963 door makes me believe that haha
"Idiot!" *smacks Hopper behind the head repeatedly while Hopper himself screams "STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!!!"
I miss the fuck out of this podcast
SurvivalHorrorJunky Zach's Schmucks podcast is pretty good, but it doesn't fill the void
Survivorgroup1 same man.
SurvivalHorrorJunky same
sad thumbs up....
Whyd they stop these anyway
William “Im gonna be crucified for this.” Stamper
Koop
Cory had a coryism and say they were gonna castrate him
A really good artist that didn't get nearly enough recognition is Zdzislaw Beksinski. That dude painted some weird, dark shit. But in a good way, obviously.
Thank you for posting this! I looked up his work and it's awesome :)
My favorite thing about him is the fact that he was opposed to the idea of mandatory interpretation. After all, why does everything have to mean something?
He also refused to title any of his paintings because he feared that that would impose a specific meaning to any given work.
I wrote an essay in my Art History class at Uni on that guy just last week.
Fuckin fantastic stuff.
wasnt Darkwood's artstyle based on him?
And he got stabbed to death over 100 dollars. Real shame
Picasso was a really good artist as a teenager, he got bored and started doing what he's famous for.
Yeah that's pretty much correct, he was really technically skilled and could paint realism and shit at a young age.
Then he got accepted into CalArts
I think it was a, 'so many paintings, so little time', situation. The guy made a hell of a lot of art and it was much easier to draw more geometric shapes than photorealistic art pieces. It's like they say in this video, he valued expression of all his ideas and a quick execution over less ideas and a skillful execution of them.
Picasso: *FUCKIT!*
Are you just gonna fuckin ignore Guernica?
Expressionism and cubism was the result of talented painters experimenting because they were bored with realism and wanted to explore other styles and ideas. Cubism in particular, once you understand the purpose -- representing multiple facets of 3d subjects in a single 2D image -- is actually really interesting.
we need more Constructivism
Can we all agree that Bob Ross is awesome?
RoBB RoSS iS oVerLord
He iS Boss
No
Yeah, he's streaming after he's dead! That commitment to the grind is rare these days.
Are we just gonna glaze over the fact Cory doesn't know the difference between a plastic container and a duffel bag?
Cory doesn’t know a lot of things
@@Boogers32150 but he is funnah
I don’t acknowledge anything the comments tell me to. So yes, I will glaze over it.
He does know, though. He corrected himself. He mixed up the words duffel and tupper(ware) because they sound similar.
glazing
Ok so, Van Gogh, that's not really Fair to say he was a hack, but i will agree On Jackson Pollock.
Diogo Montesso have you ever seen any pollock paintings that aren’t splatter paintings? Have you ever taken even the 2 minutes it takes to google “pollock sketches”?
Kieran L That’s what he said. He disagreed with the criticism of Van Gogh, but he agrees that Pollock is a hack.
@@kieranl5249 Yea that shit is highschool tier. Are you serious?
@@kieranl5249 looks like shit I did in the margins of papers I got in highschool
Puff what site is your shit on let's see your oc's video game art
I can't help but love that some dude was swinging around bare naked covered in paint slamming himself into white surfaces.
In Canada's National Gallery, in the modern art section, there's a tarp from a ship. Just an old tarp. Some person bought it, called it art, and then sold it to the gallery at a massive profit.
The "artist" had the least part in the tarp's entire lifetime. They didn't make it, use it, or anything.
I'd argue that If someone created something, you could call it art. however much value or meaning someone derives from it afterwards is subjective
i just created art on the toilet :D
I don't get the dislike of Van Gogh, he was incredibly skilled.
Van Gogh was a goddamn genius who painted beautiful, magnificent paintings. Picasso was a sellout hack.
Van Gogh came in my boy pussy
It's really not that good. It's decent, but it's not that good.
I have a friend who is way into art and he too thinks Van Gogh is a terrible artist. I thought he was being incredibly pretentious, but after listening to this video I think there is a context I must be missing.
Van Gogh is good, but Monet is really the master of impressionism.
all these comments about art yet the top one is "i miss this podcast"
My grandmothers painted as a hobby for 30+ years. She has done literally hundreds of paintings that are all tucked away in a large closet. They range from surrealistic stuff, personal expression art, gorgeous abstract landscapes, photorealistic-ish flowers, and my favorite are the simple landscapes she does. She sometimes spends six months on one painting, quietly dabbing away for a few hours a day. Some of them are bad, many of them are absolutely fantastic.
She REFUSES to sell them. There are only maybe three or four outside of her possession, all owned by family. Each one is unique with no copies, no two look the same. I believe the family has an understanding that these paintings are worth several hundred thousand dollars at least, probably millions. Her story is so strange and the art is so voluminous and amazing for them not to be worthy of celebration. Not a single one is anything like the garbage that gets sold nowadays.
Considering she’s in her 80’s, still lucid, still painting, and very healthy I hope that maybe one of the great grandkids will take to painting with her.
clicking on rocks K
BigxBadxBlake L
The garbage modern art I can understand, but Van Gogh was hardly without talent.
I've heard this stuff a million times. I feel like it's a misguided notion, don't criticize the shitty artists that made the expensive paintings, rather the people that buy them (supply=demand). It's more of a symptom of disproportionate wealth.
Nah shit on both
RobRIPDG he does have a point. The "artists" are smart enough to know that they can make millions for doing fucking nothing, while preying on dumb people who have no idea what they're buying
@@wormy6923 See, they are both bad. they KNOW that people will buy them so they are bad as well
@RobRIPDG
Shit on the art, and make it “better”
Valuable art artifacts are also the biggest vehicle for money laundering in the entire world
I'm glad to hear them so opinionated about this. Going into MoMA made me irrationally angry (or rationally. Depending on how much you care.)
There was a painting of a bunch of squares, and the plaque said the artist was banned from shit numerous times for stealing credit for other art pieces. But the angle it was taking was that this "artist" was so counterculture for that, it seemed to make no indicator that that's fucked, or pay any concern to the fact that that museum was housing that guy's "art." You'd think an art museum would at least respect art enough to not platform a known art thief. And then seemingly boast that next to their nothing painting of squares.
In another room, there was a blank, white tee-shirt pinned to the wall, and that was it.
In a third room, there was a splattered tarp swung over a beam (that was part of the building architecture, not even the "art") and the plaque said it was about Martin Luther King Jr. (1) if a plaque has to say what the piece is, the piece failed. It should be able to speak for itself. Its the fucking art, the plaques not the art. (2) I'm sure your tarp did a lot for race politics in the 60s, man.
The stupid plaque both limits the interpretation of the audience (which is what all these modern art douches say is the entire point) and does nothing to depict what it says it's supposed to be. I was once told by an art teacher that this painting covered in black splatters was so profound because the painter had a painful life and mental illnesses, etc. But then the painter should write a fucking book. Again. The art should be able to stand on its own. I don't care about the traumatic childhood of the guy who fell asleep and drooled on a canvas and sold it for 50 million.
I wouldn't go as far as stamper in this case (although I respect that he's passionate), since I think alternative art has its place. I just think it's gotta not be useless garbage.
They touched on this, but it is very impressive how many of these paintings were made back when dyes were made of crushed up flowers, and you could get three colors for the modern day equivalent of one thousand dollars, and then you paint on this blank canvas without internet references, just your own mind and possibly the view of whatever model you were using.
13:08 starts at "what's an easy to learn hard to master aspect of animation" is the question, 13:56 is profoundly true and I'm really glad I could hear stamper explain this, I've always wondered what this phenomena was but he explained it so perfectly, it's true people ask these questions because they want guidance, and guidance isn't the same as an answer, it's a direction, where to go to achieve this.
Optical illusion is rad thought.
The best example of an open to interpretation ending is persona 3. Spoilers... but the theme of the game is memento mori. If you learned the lesson of mortality then you will understand that the main character is dead. If you dont learn, then you deny the fact that he is dead, further reinforcing the fact that you are in denial and dont truly understand that you are mortal.
Modern art is just ironic god tier shitposting
I call it, The Million Dollar Shitpost
To me, art is an effort to express pure individuality: which is why you have to study and practice to copy something like ‘Starry Night’ (there’s effort there to translate something), and on the other hand, this modern stuff is so effortless and removed from the relationship between artist and audience that you could paint a canvas one solid color on a whim and it’d be indistinguishable from a celebrated piece *on accident*. On top of that, the mark of a good piece in my eyes, is something that speaks not just to the viewer, but *from* the artist. It’s like how Beksinski insisted to his grave that there was no meanings to his works, but if you look at them even with no context of the time period he lived in, you know he was bullshitting. But a random paint splatter by its nature of being random can’t have a meaning to the painter worth 6 fucking paragraphs and $4000. Art is subjective, but that’s to an extent; a blob, splatter, or solid color canvas isn’t even a good expression of nothingness because it’s literally just the sum of its parts at that point.
Alrighty, good animation advice from my most favorite animators. That's pretty neat.
I feel like paintings are some of the most bullshit filled aspects of art that is SUPER overrated. I feel like there's so many branches of "art" that aren't given their due. A ton of people make fun of animation or just don't really acknowledge the hardwork it takes to make it. Film was only recently considered serious art. Film and animation take HUNDREDS of people working around the clock to get that shit done, and people watch it once and go "Eh, alright," and yet some guy can splash paint on a board and be deemed an artist genius.
Reminds me of the bullshit behind the Oscars. No one ever acknowledges art in different forms unless it's super depressing or "philosophical" for no reason.
Modern art is stinky
true
Uh oh stinky
art is misunderstood
That is subjective
This doesn’t just apply to modern art or abstract contemporary, this kinda applies to casual mainstream art on sites like tumblr or twitter. A lot of art (be it from genuinely skilled artists or amateurs) i See is just for the sake of whatever emotion it’s trying to portray: porn is just porn, shock is just shock art, art for the sake of a trend is just that.
People also seem to be infatuated with the process of becoming famous for a piece instead of making a piece born from inspiration and meaning. No substance.
Edit: So coming back to this comment, I should clarify while the guys are kinda correct about modern art being shitty often, it doesn't mean its not art: basically everything and anything can be art. But that doesn't make it GOOD art, yknow?
Mother 3 does interpretation well
Van Gogh was the best and last impressionist to exist. If you ever seen a painting of his up close, it's insanely detailed and the coloring is very peculiar.
Not sure why they hate him, unless they think he's a modern artist lol
I really don't get stampers thing against van goe. Is because hes so famous that he got sick of hearing about him?
I wonder what the guys think about Francis Bacon
@@kaistzar2831 different francis bacon
I fucking love francis bacon.
Bro Zach and Mik did a complete 180 when they realized the purpose of abstract art xD
Wait, what happened?
People praising kids making Splatter painting and "abstract"(which is just a kids drawings with expensive equipment) is the most annoying shit, all people can do that shit. I've saw a video about people praising a kid using a Thomas train as a brush, sticking a toy car to a pool of paint on a canvas and coating it with another paint, and throwing paint cans to the blank canvas.
It's shit like that why some kids get an inflated sense of ego. Every fucking stupid thing they do gets unnecessary amounts of praise.
Depends on how old at a certain age encouragement can lead to striving to do better my friend was praised as a kid and one of their first drawings was using a key with paint. Now they can draw some pretty good watercolor and sketches for fashion.
Modern art is literally just shit posting.
FloridaJones hahahahahaha oh my god that's sooo true!
I genuinely love paintings that have markmaking (pollock is the basic bitch of it, he's FINE but it's been done), i'd look at art of a guy swinging around into canvass and genuinely fucking love it xD
It's funny that Stamper doesn't understand the irony of Jackson Pollock and his thoughts on comedy. "They like it because they've never seen it before" is exactly why Pollock is in museums.
wow u drew that coke can exactly like it looks thats amazing photorealism!! or i could just look at the coke can
Wow you're so right, who needs photorealism when you can look at a canvas covered in literal shit from when the artist took a dump on it and called it art?
AtlanticSpamHammer But the shit canvas is more interesting, I don’t get to see a shit canvas every day
@@joesmith4546 how is the skill required to make a photorealistic painting of a coke can not interesting?
@@HamburgerHat1 the skill is, but the art isn't. You can admire the skill, but the art itself is just a boring replication of real life. It almost seems like wasted skill.
I’d love to hear them talk about the painting that Banksy painting that self shredded and got more valuable
Stamper's honestly the modern Van Gogh.
Fuck, he even looks like him. THATS WHY HE HATES VAN GOGH, BECAUSE VAN GOGH NOTORIOUSLY HATED HIMSELF
He "honestly" isn't even close.
0:38 can i have that "stop it" go on for an hour thank you
Damn I’ve never heard them talk over each other more than this
Van Gogh is my favorite artist...
Good thing their criticism was unfounded and dumb lol
I love the sleepybois but I don't agree with them on van goh
stamper’s mannerisms and speech remind me of mitch hedberg and that just proves he’s a god or somethin’
My theory is that a great painting is great because of psychedelics. People are like "i wanna see this painting on acid cause it feels like im already tripping"
There can be Meaning In everything if you look hard enough.
Why would anyone want to paint a photorealistic vase of flowers when photographs exist? Art is about expression. Ideally you should be able to paint in a realistic classical style (at which Picasso was a prodigy) but doing so your whole career is a waste. That's like making classical music for your whole musical career instead of trying to carve a new path. Mozart has been and gone already, create something else.
he's so right about Pollock. A fucking hack just sharts on a canvas and sells it for trillions. i hate the concept of art as an expression. that's kindergarten mentality.
the pig head thing is called "a thousand years" by damien hirst for anyone who wanted to know
1) Slap some paint on a canvas, it doesn't matter what it looks like.
2) Come up with some bullshit about the "meaning" behind it. Bonus points if you find some way to stir up controversy.
Boom, modern art.
Stamper is me describing 4:33 by John Cage
It's all pretentious people who don't know what they're talking about and are just there for the free wine and cheese.
The description of modern art as "self-masturbation" is so fucking accurate it hurts
Stamper is in Hazbin Hotel so that kinda puts a damper on his hate to Van Gogh
Well, as a cameo. That being said, you should never trust an artist to critique art.
I'm probably just an idiot but what do Hazbin Hotel and Van Gogh have to do with each other?
@@jordanbaird8681 nothing
voice acting =/= animation and writing
I walked into an art museum there was a canvas painted blue with glossy reflective car paint, I thought 'wow that's shit' but then I stopped myself, I read the description, it said something to the extent of 'this guy knows a lot about art history and that the reflectiveness allows you to become part of the artwork,' that one painting discredited any respect for the establishment of the whole building and anyone who had taken it seriously.
People who make mirrors must be the true artists then /s
Aye I got an optical illusion poster next to a naked lady poster already hung up next to eachother
I can't really take Cory's opinions on art seriously, seeing as, you know, he draws fucking Sonic porn.
Fuck that's a really good point, a lot of art now is pure expression without much talent. My thing is where is the line between talent properly applied and talentless hack. Like that one guy who wrapped a town on plastic, that's just expression, it's not inherently artistic it's just something he wanted to do, so he did, and his shit sells like gang busters.
Artists who make subjective art call other art "bad and bullshit". They really dogged on modern art despite arguably being a part of modern art; animation. I still love these guys but this clip in particular really showed off their egos at the time.
I have a dream of doing a weird "art" exhibit where i show people a blank wall with a single line of paint running across it, then have people write their opinions of it, and after i get lets say 100 writen opinions, put all the positive ones above the line and all the negative below.
To me the art. Like Jackson polok or Rothko. I understands theirs no technical, or maybe even expressive skill. But I think like even if you like it for just a pattern you can look at. I guess that's interesting. Or going to Rothkos paintings the huge canvases must be quite interesting to stand in front of it. Or like. I guess maybe no one had done it before
"self masturbation"
Soooo.... Masturbation?
I find it funny that a group of kinda crappy newgrounds artist, half of which did sonic porn, the other half did cringe overdone parodies of videogames, are smugly sitting here shitting on Vincent Van Gogh as if they could even get close to matching his skill and level of detail. It's kinda embarrassing.
Didn't realize they had such closed minded opinions of abstract expressionism
The opposite is also true. People who only draw hyperrealistic depictions of barack obama's upper lip and shit like that are even less interesting hacks then the hacks theyre talking about. technique without expression hasnt been cool since the camera came out
so youre saying even if my handwriting and drawing skills are so fucking bad that even a kid i knew back in first grade drew better then than i do now, i can make money off it? sheeiiiittttt
Yall ever seen HR Giger's work? I love that shit. Its so eerie and unsettling. Does it have a meaning? Fuck if i know, i just like lookin at it.
The splatter art took a lot of practice I guess, like he studied color and shit for years. How the splatters are on the canvas are planned, at least that’s what an art guy told me
Is the idea presented at 3:24 literally just a Rorschach test?
>muh abstract expressionism is just expression
If you don't like something then you don't like it, it's not hard jfc
I always got the impression that modern art lovers are on some serious cases of the emperors new clothes.
Whenever I hear proper hardcore enthusiasts defend and explain bollocks art it’s like listening to cult members praise their leaders.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and say that Jackson Pollock was an amazing artist, and not an amazing painter. The point of what he did, to put in layman's terms so layman that it does him and his art no justice whatsoever, was to demonstrate that art, as a process, is a therapeutic, chaotic practice that we can use as an emotional outlet, and that the end product doesn't really matter, though with Pollock's pieces it kinda does considering the super subtle technical complexity but that's an entirely different can of worms that is beyond me. Just think of what you see in front of you as only a small part of the art (vague, I know), the result, to say, and that what it stands for is what you should focus on. That doesn't justify snobby rich people paying exorbitant amounts for shit they don't understand, though, those people are just trend following idiots. The way I like to put it is, if it makes you think about it, if you react to it emotionally, either through hatred or reverence, and that is what it was meant to do, then it's art.
Not going to lie, Pollock was scummy. My colleague knew him personally and he was an abusove asshat.
Jackson Bollock
Pong actually he was both a very good artist and painter. How have none of the people offering perspectives on this ever looked at any other pollock works other than the splatter paintings? It literally takes 2 seconds to google “pollock early sketchbook” to see he was a very technically adept artist. Obviously he knew how to draw, how are people this stupid?
Damien Hirst. I had to study him in art because I drew sharks. All he did was put a dead one in melted plastic. The rest of his stuff is shite.
I believe their called jeeople
I agree it’s all BS now, that dude stacked buckets and dropped them and said ‘it’s about a single sand is inconsequential but together it forms society’ nah bro you were bored at the beach.
Though he did have one good piece. It was called ‘a shot at a plane’ or something where he fired a real gun at a real passenger plane.
But everything else is trash
I mean, you could draw a fucking pencil line on an electrical adapter and sell it as an artistic representation of society clinging to their own devices. Doesn't seem very hard.
I know it's dumb to argue with a podcast from over a decade ago but where does Stamper get off calling modern art "masturbatory" when he says he just looks at art purely for technical skill alone
Dude I totally agree about the Jackson Pollack one, his art was shit!
This shit is worse with how NFT's are being sold for thousands of fuckin bitcoins
Half the people on Deviant-art draw better than the ragamuffins you see in art museums these days. I'm no professional, butt if I was in my thirties or something some people might believe me if I tried to bullshit my art to sell for thousands. It's just not right man.
MikarubA _ how do you evaluate “drawing better”? It seems like a very subjective thing to me?
One time I went to an art museum and they had an elephant turd with human teeth in it...
Wasn't Jackson Pollic that guy who bought blackest black and made it super fuckin expensive
Isn't there a commercial or something with a painting hung upside down and the people around it are trying to figure out what it is, then a kid walls up to it and puts it right side up then walks away, the adults around it just looked stupid.
Just
0:40
I guarantee that if any of them tried to do what van gouh did with his paintings they would fail miserably.
I love sleepycast, but it was kinda annoying to hear.
“SleepyCabin being elitist for like 18 minutes”
As a Jeep Driver the only Jeeps you bother waving at are the older then your model Jeeps. And tgere is a points scale anything made after 2006 is worth 0 points.
How do you spell the German town?
I am wondering that as well
Peckleschtiner
I agree completely with Stamper about Pollock and Van Gogh.
Honestly I don’t like the Mona Lisa I love Leonardo but man the Mona Lisa is so fucking over glorified, yeah looks alright and I guess her expression changes depending on the light and so on but its one of those pieces that I don’t understand how it became iconic :/
I hate Modern Art
9:11 he must hate modern movies
Am I the only one who wants to slap together a bullshit piece of trash and sell it to a modern art gallery just to see what sort of meaning people glean from it?
Van Gogh is dope tho, he got fuckin shot by two boys and didnt rat them out even though he died over an excruciating period of about 29 hours. He also had like seizures and hallucinations and shit from absinthe and would try to poison himself with paints and turpentine during his episodes. Crazy life man
The last people you would expect to have hard artistic opinions
Artists are the last people you would expect to have opinions on art?
Its hard to talk bout something you dont know at all.
They are literally artists.
Mad you spent 3k on a giant ink blot?
Sweaty Woman yes but they obviously don’t know anything about any of the people they’re talking about? You’re judging artists on only a fraction of all the art they ever created. Have you ever seen works from Picasso’s blue period? Or the sketches of pollock and Van Gogh? If you had you’d know that they are all very technically proficient outside of abstract expressionism and cubism etc. so of course you and everyone in the podcast don’t know what they’re talking about
@@kieranl5249 But why get offended about it. It's just some guys talking.
@Slavblab666 Saying that a cartoonist isn't an artist deserves the "Retard of the year" award. Good job.
12:22 enjoy
od najnowszych
When you’re known for haphazard paint blotches and splatters, then you’re, by every definition of the word, a hack.