Why is Modern Art so Bad? | 5 Minute Video
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 авг 2014
- For two millennia, great artists set the standard for beauty. Now those standards are gone. Modern art is a competition between the ugly and the twisted; the most shocking wins. What happened? How did the beautiful come to be reviled and bad taste come to be celebrated? Renowned artist Robert Florczak explains the history and the mystery behind this change and how it can be stopped and even reversed.
🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE 👉 www.prageru.com/join/
📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ➡ itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage...
Download for Android ➡ play.google.com/store/apps/de...
📳 Join PragerU's text list! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! shop.prageru.com/
Script:
"The Mona Lisa"... "The Pieta"... "The Girl with a Pearl Earring." For a score of centuries, artists enriched Western society with their works of astonishing beauty. "The Night Watch"... "The Thinker"... "The Rocky Mountains." Master after master, from Leonardo, to Rembrandt, to Bierstadt, produced works that inspired, uplifted, and deepened us. And they did this by demanding of themselves the highest standards of excellence, improving upon the work of each previous generation of masters, and continuing to aspire to the highest quality attainable.
But something happened on the way to the 20th Century. The profound, the inspiring and the beautiful were replaced by the new, the different, and the ugly. Today the silly, the pointless, and the purely offensive are held up as the best of modern art.
Michelangelo carved his "David" out of a rock. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art just offers us a rock, -- a rock -- all 340 tons of it. That's how far standards have fallen. How did this happen? How did the thousand-year ascent towards artistic perfection and excellence die out?
It didn't. It was pushed out. Beginning in the late 19th century, a group dubbed The Impressionists rebelled against the French Academie des Beaux Arts and its demand for classical standards. Whatever their intentions, the new modernists sowed the seeds of aesthetic relativism -- the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" mentality.
Today everybody loves the Impressionists. And, as with most revolutions, the first generation or so produced work of genuine merit. Monet, Renoir, and Degas still maintained elements of disciplined design and execution, but with each new generation standards declined until there were no standards. All that was left was personal expression.
The great art historian Jacob Rosenberg wrote that quality in art "is not merely a matter of personal opinion but to a high degree . . . objectively traceable." But the idea of a universal standard of quality in art is now usually met with strong resistance if not open ridicule.
"How can art be objectively measured?" I'm challenged. In responding, I simply point to the artistic results produced by universal standards compared to what is produced by relativism. The former gave the world "The Birth of Venus" and "The Dying Gaul," while the latter has given us "The Holy Virgin Mary," fashioned with cow dung and pornographic images, and "Petra," the prize-winning sculpture of a policewoman squatting and urinating -- complete with a puddle of synthetic urine.
Without aesthetic standards we have no way to determine quality or inferiority. Here's a test I give my graduate students, all talented and well educated. Please analyze this Jackson Pollock painting and explain why it is good. It is only after they give very eloquent answers that I inform them that the painting is actually a close up of my studio apron. I don't blame them; I would probably have done the same since it's nearly impossible to differentiate between the two.
For the complete script, visit www.prageru.com/videos/why-mo...
![[ GUILTY GEAR STRIVE: DUAL RULERS ] Teaser Trailer](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e4TDqaE3XAg/mqdefault.jpg)
![mgk - I Think I’m OKAY (with YUNGBLUD) (Sad Version) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7AC1uqQLIg4/mqdefault.jpg)
so basically art's downfall is due to idiotic hipsterism
You hit it right on the nail!
One could make the argument that that is also the cause of the downfall of western civilization.
+PMeursault Kind of. The video doesn't go into artists like Duchamp, Beuys and well, the invention of photography. When photography became accessible to people, the realistic depiction of our surroundings became less meaningful. Artists like the impressionists found new ways of looking, trying to get closer to the picture you (as an individual) see with your own eyes and build upon the imperfections of your own eye. The individual became important and with it the need to express something that is yours, that you claim. Also there was this whole discussion between curators and collectors about what art is and it was challenged by artists like Duchamp, who opened the term "art" up to all kinds of practices (he put a toilette in a museum). The artists didn't want to be held back by old ideals of beauty, especially when you can actually find beauty in a dumpster. Why all the effort and the elitist thinking if things that can make you think and feel can be simply found around us? Art was challenging it's own standards. Now they aren't gone, but pretty obscure. Ask any art student what good art is and the answer will be difficult. Or what art is at all. The discussion has actually become much more elitist, excluding all those people that will find themselves thinking "why is this white painting even called art?". The "art-scene" knows, but they live on their little island.
+FeVomTee Photography =/= painting. Look at The Mona Lisa. Does it look anything like how it would have had she just been photographed?
+PMeursault That's why scholarship students don't take Art, because it's dumb and useless unless they make modern art.
I remember reading this story on the paper: A janitor working at an Art Museum was cleaning the place and he noticed an ashtray and a couple of half-filled cups of coffee, so he did his job and threw everything to the garbage. Turns out that was "art" (I think the artist is called Horst) and it was supposed to represent an artist's studio......
+egw esu his name was actually Hirst
+egw esu He was doing his job, though - taking out garbage.
vOddy75 sad but true haha
How can work together to make everyone realise that the emperor has no clothes ? Modern art is rubbish .
+egw esu Art Critique: How does this urinal made by Marcel Duchamp make you feel, what does it represent from today society?
Me: Piss!
It’s bad cause they made sure that everyone could pass art school after WW2
Oh my God.....
(≧▽≦)
source...
@@afgor1088 Are you asking for the source?
@@justinian1226 yes
There was this activity in our school where we draw any art we could put in a single paper and explain it in front why you drew that. Then there's this person came to the front, in her paper there was nothing in it. She said it represents her life being boring and empty and explains more, i didn't listen. She passed the activity. And she later confessed to me she forgot the homework.
Proof that it’s a scam. She’s a smart girl, should’ve boned her.
smart
Some things are so stupid only an 'intellectual' can understand it.
now that’s art
The art of excuses
Memes are the true modern artform
AlcoholicSmurf That would be sad. Putting some (probably misleading) statements on a background of existing artwork is a work of interpretation, not of authentic art.
D681ZVJ I disagree. That isn't really what a meme is. According to Richard Dawkins, memes are the transmission of culture from one person to another. This is why one can see Advice Animals that use the impact front as a good meme, while others (including me) can appreciate something like an extremely meta and ironic shitpost.
+Jackpatkinson4 *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* : ' )
*slap slap slap slap slap slap slap slap*
honestly? yeah
Yes and no. Generally speaking I'd say not all modern art sucks. But the art that sells usually does.
The main problem to me seems to be that art has become completly
inaccessible for regular people. The art community is this totally elitist and self-congratulatory club of art teachers, rich investors and hipsters. What's the point of your piece of art having a message if the public never sees or gets it?
^you aren't very smart are you?
John Hayden
That's a difficult question. How would I know if I wasn't smart? I assume it takes a smart man to know a smart man. However, maybe you wish to elaborate why you think I'm stupid. I tried to explain as well as I could how I agree and/or disagree with the statement of the video. I expect if you did the same we could probably have an actual conversation. That is if I'm not too far below you.
It all sucks.
Dexter Lecter pretty much ...
Forge, either you got it backwards or you are a part of the propaganda organ of the the one percent that might be using NSA fiber optic wire-tapping to spy on the entrepreneurs. You can't use a gym until you LEARN (or "knit") the EQUIPMENT. So learnen this, all of you: it is not the modern art, but WHAT YOU DO WITH the modern art. The public wants to press 200 pounds to show off in the gym, therefore they as well as you, remain lost in the international city system of the left brain...
“I suppose this hideous monstrosity is what you call modern art?”
“No, sir. We call that a mirror.”
god damn it
Lol
😂😂😂
Very Good!!...thats usually the case.
The modern art community are also one of the most pretentious and elitist groups you'll see. They act like they're better than everyone because they "appreciate" a blank canvas and would demonize you if you don't. It kinda goes totally against the real reason why the movement existed and that's to have personal self expression..now pretty much every modern artist does the same thing, think the same way and anyone who disagrees or tries something that doesn't follow their values is heavily criticized. It's just like it used to be, but instead of appreciation for something that actually took effort and talent we appreciate garbage only made to make money and nothing else. Art stopped being an expression of self and being valuable on it's own and became just like any other product with the only value to it is the price tag next to it.
Yep. They desire above all to be unconventional. But they are totally conventional in their rebellion against beauty and technique.
But if we are tslking about today's artists, don't they fall under the "contemporary art" period? I thought modern art was up until the end of WWII
I am seeing elitism in these comments lmao dummies
Guaranteed this person doesn’t know a single person in the modern art community.
Guaranteed this person demonstrated incredible arrogance and a lack of understanding of the historical context of lots of these pieces before demonising them
@@P-qk2tzthe historical context is irrelevant, they’re all terrible. The art world lost any leg they could stand on when they started claiming useless hacks like Basquiat had talent Lmao.
"Bold and brash..."
"More like...belongs in the trash."
You reposted in the wrong university
I like your rhymes, but I don't like your choice of artistic philosophy.
Spongebob Squarepants' reference
"Sorry, I must have missed that one."
*Drops it in the garbage
Chimp Wimp more like stays out of the trash
I would pay money to see daddy bold 😍😍
It's because of modern art that people cringe when you tell them you're an Art major.
It's why I'm going into animation; it's one of the few art forms that still has standards.
Seriously, a white painted canvas?!
+Radioactive Panda White painted canvas?
GENIOUS!!!
My "favourite" example of modern art is the toilet. Someone bought a toilet from a store and put it on a pedestal and said: "this is art now."
seriously, this is what ppl get paid for......da fuk with learning anatomy and the other complexities of studying art...where's my nearest home depot!?
That is NOT why people cringe; people cringe because, just like when somebody tells you that they want to be an actor, supply and demand do not match.
"I call this one Bold and Brash"
"More like Belongs in the Trash!"
“And it deserves quite a strong bash”
Haha
I mean more people are gonna recognise Bold and brash than the sculpture we've seen in that episode
Ok but that art atleast had something to show.... What can a rock show you? No expression nor emotions, just a rock
@@Vincent-yx7tg I mean I do find just putting a rock in the museum kinda silly but IMO art is in the eyes of the beholder. If someone finds it artistic I have no problem with that ... I'll still call it silly
Also "who's afraid of red yellow and blue" is a series of paintings made out of 3 colours only and people who hate modern art went so far to try and destroy it .... and for all of its simplicity of just being a 3 coloured canvas ..... the restoration failed. people were able to see that it's not the original. So saying there's no effort in modern art is also not correct
Or it'd be liek saying one of my favourite Horror games, Concluse, isn't a real horror games because nothing chases you and there's no jumpscares
Modern art would be like releasing a music album consisting of the sounds your washing machine makes and then saying it's on par with Mozart.
Lolol.
That's exacly what pop music is
I think Taylor swifts music is very plain and musically simple. I don’t like it, but I’m sure she put time and effort into it. I think that’s how you can make the distinction here. Art = time, effort, research, sweat, actual work. Not art = washing machine sounds
@@scoutgaming737 pop music is very heavily engineered to evoke certain emotions and also be catchy. The producers and artists of these songs are well aware that they are making brainless music
ruclips.net/video/sKZTdkvr4qo/видео.html
UGH! I know this man's pain!
Google "Voice of Fire." IT'S JUST TWO BLUE STRIPES AND ONE RED STRIPE, and it sold for MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?!
***** Of all the examples you could have picked you picked VoF. It's not a painting, it's installation art. It's an excellent example of when modern art can actually be GOOD.
It's just 3 colored stripes on giant canvas.. Justify it all you want, it's nothing more amazing than what a kindergarten class could accomplish.
Sometimes I think the only difference between art and junk is how you justify it when its put on display.
***** at least read wikipedia and discover the meaning of it
***** LOL "A further controversy ensued in 1992 when it was discovered that the
painting had been displayed upside-down following its acquisition." - that's why you didn't realize its genius - it was upside-down! :-D
RUclips "Andy Rooney on Modern Art"
Yeah, there is a good reason why I rather look at art done for Magic the Gathering than any modern art in a museum.
Sad that drawings on cards destroy modern art. Ever really look at the artwork of Star Eater? its amazing. Or even concept art of anime backgrounds like Blazblue. Breathtaking.
+free4fire because you're a bit thick perchance?
+Tool9395 Why yes thank you!
You know what they say, length isn't everything. ;)
+Tool9395 www.google.co.uk/search?q=best+magic+the+gathering+art&biw=1067&bih=533&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMItYetzuDHxwIVBhbbCh1CEQAY#imgrc=NruVd-l-qCHjkM%3A
But yeah the rock and blank white painting are totally better
+free4fire Magic the gathering, anime and all this fantasy art is all that survives from art if you ask me. But I wonder could this style exist in traditional classical art from antiquity to Renaissance with the colours and deepness but we have just lost them?? I am sure there is a tradition!!!
You could splash 3 types of paint on a canvas and become the number 1 best artist of all time but you can paint the mona lisa so good and people will just say "meh"
;(
ruclips.net/video/67EKAIY43kg/видео.html
someones already done the mona lisa. try harder
@@hot-cocoa1032 ok ill throw a paint bucket on a canvas and become richer then elon musk
@@Haal96 cool. you are original now
I went to the Hirshhorn Museum of modern art. There I found that my 16-year-old son was a great artist -- there was a dirty bedroom set up in one nook of the museum and praised as "great art." There was a single string of clear Christmas lights hanging from the ceiling in another exhibit. Things went from bad to worse. The funniest thing was that they had armed guards to protect the "art." I asked one of them if they really thought someone would steal a messy bedroom. He just rolled his eyes...
Is this really true? I need to know a way to sell my bedroom...
I think I know the artist/artwork you are talking about, but I forgot who she is. if my assumption is correct, that piece is actually about the artists depression and is what her bedroom looked like at that time. it is a representation of herself and her room at her darkest moments. I believe that anything can be art, if you put artistic expression behind it.
Agree with the reply above me. Art needs context sometimes.
@@jamssy3409 i took a shit. It was hard. It was tight. It was messy. It was smelly. But it was soft.
Do you care to buy it
@@shrishikesh2292 flush it n take a deep breath
I'm just gonna say it, some of the best artists online often draw(or the digital equivalent) porn.
+Kinky Fish True. I often spend hours looking at some of the beautiful pieces the community produces, not as a sexual fetish but as a fan of class and elegance.
+Matthew Watson Same. It's helped me with anatomy and posing... and for its intended purpose.
+Matthew Watson Same. It's helped me with anatomy and posing... and for its intended purpose.
Osmosis Wright [insert lenny here]
gh0strec0n141 So an extent, most stuff on DA is garbage, but there is still a lot of good stuff...including porn.
So my drawings are not lame, they're just modern.
Another word for dumbdowned by society to make us useless while they howne are crafts
Thats the beautyof modern art, everyone can do it, everyone can make a lame drawing and pretend its art. Anyone who does not understand the beauty of the (lame) drawing is stupid or uncultivated or ignorant or maybe simply jealous :)
LOL. good one.
Why doesn’t Florczak define modern art? If anyone is going to lecture on a subject, they should define the subject. Why doesn’t he even mention, let alone address Post-Modernism?
same.
Why did you just show that fake graph lol
@@ronnelechavez >Proceeds to provide zero citations for their graphs
Heck, even they don't provide sources. Also, what's with your weird comment?
I make "modern" art every time i go on the toilet .
I call it *Yesterday's past*
Rich's Soul true 😂
Gross joke. But a good one I might add.
Omg!! 😂
I literally laughed!!
Call MoMA, you will be the next Rodin! :D
Well you have sh*t for brains!
I once heard a story that someone dropped their coat in an art museum and everyone started crowding around it because they thought it was an exhibit. Eventually, some guy realized it was just a coat on the ground, but when he tried picking it up, some woman called security because he was "tampering with the art." Damn shameful.
lol really? Even if it's not, that's just the best.
Rachel Racanelli I found this story in another youtube comment, so probably about a 50/50 chance it's true, lol. And even if it isn't, it's not implausible.
I heard the same story, but with glasses instead of a coat.
Its not exactly a coat, nut I think its more shameful www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/pair-of-glasses-left-on-us-gallery-floor-mistaken-for-art
lol well at least everyone had fun with it.
Anti-art was art when it challenged standards. It was new, brave, and needed. Now that ant-art is now known as just everyday art, it's lazy trash. Instead of challenging and bending standards, there just aren't any. Without standards, there is no "good" and without "good" we can't say this is "good" art. I'm an artist and designer. These people are so pretentious. This crap is upheld because everyone is afraid to say "the emperor is naked" and they get off on claiming "you don't get it because you aren't as cultural as I am"
There is an excellent Irish colloquialism for certain people: gobshites.
So in short, don't challenge your preconceptions of what art is, and stay comfortable. How incredibly thoughtful.
exactly.
This video is kinda lazy tbh. It does not really provoke you to further reflect or challege the "norm" that is of this rubbish modern culture. It just told you that "yes it's trash, i hereby confirm your doubt which has actually been a trendy critique of modern art since the last two decades buuuuut i'm gonna make it sounds like its a groundbreaking notion. Anyway don't buy their crap, don't think, don't engage, just laugh at it, sit back and enjoy the comedy, as you have always did. Wank wank." Alsothe way he compare "classical art" to "modern art" reminds me of those critique who gave the condescending names to Impressionism or Les Fauves because they challenge the idea of conventional, bourgeoisie aesthetic then. Ironic much. Not saying that modern art is not trash ( actually, modern art wasn't, contemporary art is, but i doubt those who rushed to agree with this video would even care about the difference between modern and contemporary art), just disappointed to find yet another not so insightful "enlightment" with (rather ignorant and equally lazy- thinking) people cheering in its comment section.
You want to know who also had these same thoughts about art? Actually, the Nazi's. They created an art show called the "Degenerate Art Show" in which viewers over 18 were invited to laugh and scoff at new challenging art ideas that had been revered in museums for years. Yeah, then they burned most of it. This sort of ideology this professor is presenting is just about the same thing the Nazi party viewed, and it's regressive and disappointing to see. It's laughable how close conservatism gets to 1930's Germany.
Did he say it in the video or you're projecting your opinions?
@@happynewyear6240 contemporary art isn’t all the same
I think art reflects how society is changing and where it's going. So..
+ThereGoesKJ
Into the shitter?
+elilla331 true.
+ThereGoesKJ I agree
Atakan Basol It wasn't the only thing that they were painting, don't be so narrow minded.
I agree.
I have modern art all over my walls. 'Cause my walls are white.
+Mercure250 I see alot of people shocked by this video.
But please...a rock, a work of art? Even the least art-talented miner or geologist could've come with this, come on!
+Mercure250 RUclips is also white
WAIT NO THIS MUST BE THE UPRISING OF THE CIS WHITE MALE PATRIARCHY!!!
wait false alarm
that doesn't exist.
+Mercure250 is it really about who comes up with what? do you need special qualifications to be an artist? why don't you tell us why the LACMA piece is so bad, and don't just say 'it's a rock'.
Eamon Campbell-June *instructions unclear*
It's a rock
+Eamon Campbell-June variation makes the life a joy. we want to see things we have never seen before. we can see stones all day. a stone doesnt help the hunger of our eyes. a piece of art, something so difficult to create that we never seen before, that inspires us, that makes life greater!
i recall seeing shoes glued together hanging on a wall of a gallery and being called art by my art teacher, to which i said since she has so bad taste, it was obvious why she was a teacher and not an artist herself
what makes it not art? what applies to something else that makes it art that it doesn't have?
@@nameunknown2887 its "art" but it is meaningless requires no talent
@@nameunknown2887 id say that the bare minimum is not being a money laundering scheme
Assuming she was a full-time paid art teacher, well, a lot of artists would love to have that gig. I am sorry that she didn't teach you to restrict your criticism to the art rather than to be so unnecessarily cruel and personal.
@@Nahzuul she deserved it because not only was she bad at teaching, she also believed she was above other people for being an "educator". She even dared to say my mother's knowledge of arts wasn't serious because she was a housewife. My teacher forgot that my Mother pays the taxes that allow her to feel important as an educator. So I felt no need to show respect for someone who doesn't show it to others. By the way, my Mother studied art as part of her education in technical drawing, it was 4 years. My teacher only studied one year of art at the university and quit. That person thought she was above others
In class, our teacher showed us a "work of art", it was 2 pictures of an empty room, the first one was lit and the second one not.
The question was "do you consider this to be art" two thirds of the class said yes.
You could consider it as art , but when it comes to objectively judge it , that’s where it becomes interesting.
@@TheChocolatBlanc and how do you objectively judge art?
Nah, that was simply keeping up the appearances so you avoid trouble or the product of brainwashing, but most likely it was the first option.
Right now, I can tell you that art is flourishing online, and there are many hundreds of pieces I could find with a quick google that I'd prefer over modern, or even classical, art. Modern is trash, and classical was sometimes limited by the era. I find it highly offensive that this crap is pawned off as "Modern" art when there are many true artists out there working hard at their craft.
+Simon H. I could not agree with you more!
+Simon H. While I agree that there are lots of great artists to be found online and such, that isn't quite what he's talking about. He's talking about what we glorify in our museums and galleries -- what ought to be the highest houses of art. The great stuff we find online isn't being displayed there. That artwork doesn't sell for millions, like the so-called "art" too often featured in museums today. Bear in mind that "modern art" is not just a matter of what is currently being produced, it is the name of an art movement as well, which is what he's discussing.
Can you give me some examples of what you prefer just curious (;
Preach it!
+Simon H. "Modern" art refers to the timeperiod it was encouraged in. There's a difference between "modern' (ie, the 50s) and "contemporary" (ie, now)
Modern art is the equivalent of everyone gets a trophy.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” meaning that no one piece is going to please everyone and that we shouldn’t base our taste in art based on the thoughts of a select group of “experts”
Wow, that was deep. I'd still rather gaze upon a Botticelli for an entire year than spend 30 seconds looking at "piss christ" @@Stormkrow280
Put shit in a glass case and you get art
Kamen... ...Reaper, I’m sorry I couldn’t spell you whole name, I agree. Van Gohg’s ‘Irises’ is my favorite piece I’ve ever seen. It is breathtaking and personal. It is on display at the Getty in LA last I checked. In LA I went to a modern art display and (quite literally) laughed as I walked around the exhibit at the Broad Museum. It was absolutely a joke. But if I could defend, we find modern art disposable and clearly lacking in skill. Yet this is simply a dark time for art. Let’s not forget that during the dark ages they painted on wood boards in ludicrous ways that do not resemble the human form, also on view at the Getty (seriously I can’t recommend the museum enough). Art will return to its exceptional form as it always does. If you hate it. Hate it. I do... but to determine what is art by rules will ruin the next Picasso, the next Leonardo Da Vinci, shun what this is but don’t determine what art is. Because one thing does hold true. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And that, no matter what people try to do, will change. Sorry for the rant.
I was about to write exactly this..
all i want know is what was the guy who made petra trying to "exrpess"
Well, it's Michelangelo so probably something super gay. Lol
I find it funny that in the section that says "Buy PragerU merchandise" there are items that feature slogans praising freedom under a video about how artists shouldn't be allowed to make what they want.
This video doesn't say anything about artistic freedom.
Leftist trying not to strawman challenge:
@@ZnamTwojaMama101 poop piss
My definition of great art is very simple: If I can do it, it's NOT great art.
you made my second point for me, some people can appreciate but don't really care for hard-to-make art because for them the art is about the idea, if it looks easy to make that doesn't mean that the artist hasn't broken his brain over it for half a year wich makes it hard to make, in my opinion (not saying that's always the case) I am also not saying you should love it, but that's why they put easy-to-make art in a gallery and label it art
also bs commercialism and stuff
Does it evoke an emotional response in you or someone else looking at it? If yes,then what's the harm in calling it art.
That's a good start, but watching a butcher work would evoke an emotional response for a lot of people as well.
*insert Trebuchet meme* but....but....a trebuchet can launch a 95 kilogram stone projectile over 300 meters!!!!!
Modern art isn't very popular though. Modern art museums continue to underperform when compared to classical art museums
my step-brother's girlfriend works at a museum, and many schools visit the place. Kids have not been brainwashed by academia and are unbiased; they appreciate the truly beautiful, and find most modern art to be "ugly" and "stupid". In a way, they are smarter than the art teachers who are trying to convince themselves that garbage is art.
MrLTiger
Well generation Z is much more right wing, thank god
Well yes, you'd line up for hours to see the Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel. You are not going to do that for a rock
Umm, Museum of Modern Art anyone?
And thank goodness for that.
first off, what you equate to "modern art" is actually Contemporary art. the 'Modern Art' era includes art from the 1860s all the way to the 1970s and includes artworks from artists like Vincent van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Paul Cézanne, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Georges Seurat and more.
I absolutely hate when people say that Contemporary art isn't art, because it is. it's like how photography wasn't considered art. what one person sees as art might not be art in the eyes of another. art is subjective. even the works of van Gogh weren't seen as art to those of that era.
each era of art is a responce/rebellion to the previous one (like Renaissance to Mannerism). we are continuously breaking the definition of art. from the Neolithic era to the Contemporary era, it is all art.
nO BuT moDeRn aRt bAd bECuz ItS nOt PReTty. PragerU is pathetic
;lajf;lkajf;lzkjf;lzkjfakklfjd
There, I just made art.
I think people tend to think that just because something isn't universally agreed upon there is no actual right answer. In other words they take something where people disagree and immediately say that because they disagree there isn't a correct answer at all. Certainly at some point in your life your math teacher has at some point posted some hard math problem where half the class had different answers than the other class. However there was always a right answer to that problem its just that not everyone was correct. Now art isn't entirely objective, your not wrong if you aren't into a certain type of music, or series, or painting or whatever, however that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as quality in art. Basically for example if Gordon Ramsay cooks a dish with fish in it and you hate fish you will likely not like his food, however his food is still well crafted its just that it wasn't to your taste. That wouldn't make you wrong its fine not to like certain things however it also doesn't mean that Gordon Ramsay's food is no better or worse than a piece of shit on the ground or even Velveeta macn'cheese. Hot take btw Velveeta is objectively disgusting and an insult to the human palate. This whole subjective vs objective argument is one that has literally raged since ancient greek times tho so really either side that tries to simplify it can piss me off.
@@Dennis-nc3vw there is an artwork similar to that concept, but I doubt you care enough to learn about it.
a score of centuries he says and then he mentions artists from a span of just 400 years!
Look at the images in Chauvet cave ( around 300 centuries ago) and experience awe and wonder. The presenter had 5 minutes! To give his talk. Don’t be petty.
The whole Modern Art argument seems to boil down to
*"It has a secret meaning, so regardless of its actual quality or skill to make it still has value"*
Thats bullshit because you can literally bestow some hidden meaning to ANYTHING. Just because you give meaning to something doesn't mean its suddenly valuable.
Then your issue is with high art marketing, not the work itself.
Hate the game, don't hate the player.
***** My issue is what constitutes work? If what I said basically qualifies, then as I said it can be applied to anything. A definition that can be applied to anything is a meaningless definition. it doesn't categorize or sort anything into meaning. So whats the point?
My back moles are art. They represent the cancer of modern society within me...or just cancer. IT'S FUCKING ART THOUGH!
*****
Why not both?
***** I agree.
I don't think graffiti should be lumped into the same category as "modern art". That stuff takes real skill and dedication, and in itself is rebellious, which makes the perfection of some of its pieces ALL the more impressive. That someone is willing to risk their neck to make someone's jaw drop.
+Dillon Jenings
Graffiti is rebellion.
Modern Art is rebellion for rebellion's sake.
+Dillon Jenings Some graffiti art is good, but most of it is trash.
I don't know a whole lot about art, but shouldn't art be done on privately owned materials and not on public property? I mean public murals may be one thing, but those are meant for artistic purposes, as opposed to the side of an office building!
+Emigdiosback I don't have a problem with spray can art as long as it's not defacing things that are taxpayer financed. In terms of art I suggest looking at the work of Abraham Anghik Ruben. He has an interesting way of using Inuit art forms to tell Norse and Irish stories and vice versa. It is quite interesting.
+kfcnyancat Ah, but even rebellion must serve a purpose other than itself, otherwise it descends into barbarity and simple destruction.
Don’t you love that by the 1960s there’s straight up no standards, says alot.
When I was at art school I put a frame around my dirty palette and the tutors came along and critiqued it.
What did they say?
@@NateSassoonMusic There's a reason they didn't say, and it's because they probably said it was shit. The first semesters of art school re usually about the fundamentals, and you're given a bit more freedom later on.
You'll know if an "art" is garbage when the artist needs to explain why it's good.
sheer cardiac arrest has no discrepancies
Why is your profile picture a cat with Yugi’s hair and holding a mirror force? Well whatever the reason it’s absolutely amazing!
@@DiamondButter why not
FuzzoFoxxo Well when I was typing my reply, I actually put, “Well I guess a better question would be why not.” And then I changed it. And it is really a better question though. Why would there be a reason not to have such a masterpiece of a profile picture?
@@DiamondButter why are we going full philosophical about a silly pfp? why not!!!
FuzzoFoxxo Exactly!
"You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!"
There is a reason that quote exists.
Somebody get this man all the beer. ALL OF IT.
"There is always the problem of being misquoted or, what's even worse, of being quoted exactly" even the guy who made that quote would probably disagree with you.
@@acadia5898 My point is, that quote is an insult and it works, because the majority of modern art is objectively ugly as hell. The pieces that are beautiful don't get any appreciation, because modern art critiques are morons.
marticon666 There are plenty of modern artists creating beautiful works, the art world is so vast and unique that if you can’t find anything good you simply aren’t looking hard enough. The media sensationalizes lazy work that sells for millions because it gives people who know nothing about art something to be mad about. There’s merit to work that doesn’t aim to capture the real world, and throughout history art movements tended to be direct responses to whatever’s popular. If you want examples of modern masters who are still successful, there’s people like John Currin, Takashi Murakami, Abdulnasser Gharem, even graffiti artists like Banksy. Point is there’s so much from all different parts of the world that saying “all modern art is bad” (and technically these would be post modern, modern art would include works like Starry Night but whatever) is pretty ignorant.
@@derelictgbdavidlovo107 Yes, but the works by the artists you mentioned CAN be classified as art. With Currin i see the expression of human imperfection, with Murakami we see a stylistic expression of character with rounded shapes and bright colors, Gharem's works from what i saw, are based on geometric shapes with middle eastern influences and Banksy conveys messages trough realistic paintings, using pure black and white with, red for emphasising a point. With van Gogh's Starry Night you instantly understand what it is, even without painted detail or being given it's name. Not all art, made in modern times falls in the category of modern art. I'm sorry, but if you put three lines of color or a bunch or random, colored squiggles on a canvas, that doesn't make it art, no matter how many galleries say otherwise. If we can't tell the difference between a modern art painting and something drawn by a toddler in five minutes with a crayon, than it doesn't deserve to be put in a gallery or sold for millions of dollars.
I’ve been saying this for years, since I was a young teen! Most modern art is a disgrace and horrendous to look at. Seeing the praise for art that could be a child’s finger paintings is especially infuriating!
How so?
ruclips.net/video/67EKAIY43kg/видео.html
@@ma-wp8sf In a nutshell most modern Art you see on art museum nowadays are just bunch of stupid crap that is handled by a lazy unprofessional greedy people
Its like letting a bunch of people that have no knowledge in Math create new formulas without knowing anything
simple, the camera
"My fecal matter sculpture of Gandhi in SS uniform covered in menstrual blood is a legitimate form of art and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what art is" - The comment section.
Blu3W4r10Ck that's not a reason to write off all of modern art, but i still lol'd
Blu3W4r10Ck I would've lol'd, too, except my stomach was turning (I've gotta stop visualizing everything I read! Darn imagination!!).
Blu3W4r10Ck Indeed. I wonder what people would say if we started to apply this to say.. music. How long would stand they stand listening to such noise I wonder.
+DJ Human Condition
Modern art isn't stuff that's done today, it's the class of work that is.. well, as shitty as the examples he showed here. And these do deserve to be slagged off.
It's really just paintings and sculptures that seem to get a free pass. Movies? Music? Games? I can't think of anything else with artistic creations that would get away with this.
Blu3W4r10Ck I DONT AGREE! This old fart is looking at all the wrong places!
Its a whole new World out there. I bet if any of the renaissance artist like Leonardo DaVinci would play great video games, like grand theft auto , they would throw away those paint brushes...
Deal with it!
Henrik högberg ...Did you _seriously_ try to compare DaVinci's work with GTA...?! It may be a well-made game by talented individuals, but it's hardly a work of art, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't _intended_ to be, either. Well, this is a prime example of why people say this generation is too far gone...
...On the other hand, if that comment was satire, you have my apologies. Some people really _are_ so far gone as to honestly, seriously suggest such a thing.
If for you it's nearly impossible to differentiate between Pollock splatter technique and some random stain, than you're a bad art teacher. I'm sorry, but I'm just an architecture student and the first thing I thought when you said _"Do you see this Pollock?"_ was that this is clearly not Jackson Pollock's hand.
+ADE Marc Alexander Here's an intelligent reply to this video : (youtube) /watch?v=E56P55i3HHQ by the "School of Life"
Marka Biti Thank you a lot for the link! :)
No problem. I also saw the image and was like "wait, that's not Pollock" :p
+Marka Biti I saw the video. It's everything except intelligent. It's just the same old sad excuse, "Feel it, don't analyze it." Same deal as when they say, "When you ask God for forgiveness you can feel inner peace, feel God in your life" when the reality is... there's no such thing as "god." Exactly the same deal. You just convince people to feel stuff, but it's themselves the emotions come form, not the rubbish plastered on the canvas.
Karl Mart The difference is quite obvious to me honestly. Religion is an human made construct with the precise purpose to influence you on some level, in most cases to push a political rather than spiritual statement. But Pollock's art is an expression of an act with a canvas as the result of it, which however is just the proof of said abstract act and not the art itself.
So yes, it's something that can't be completely analyzed. That doesn't mean that there is no technicality behind it; otherwise we weren't able to recognize Florczak's - imho outrageously apparent - ruse. Also we're talking about art, which in some form or another always tries to send a message trough emotion. It's not that far fetched at all if you think about it.
Art these days is purely used as a store of value in otherwords money. And as we know people prefer to exchange money that has the least inherent value.
MY ART TEACHER WAS MAD AT ME CAUSE I DID NOT LIKE THE MODERN ART AT THE MUSEUM . SHE WANTED US TO WRITE A PAGE ON OUR TRIP TO THE MUSEUM AND I DID. I TOLD HER EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT THE WORK AND SHE WAS UPSET THAT I SAID I THOUGHT IT WAS CRAP . AS A MATTER OF FACT ONE OF THE ARTISTS HAD A BROKEN TOILET SEAT GLUED TO THE CANVAS WITH A BUNCH OF CHUNKY PAINT ALL AROUND IT. ALL THE OTHER PIECES WERE JUST AS BAD. NO ONE IS GOING TO PISS ON MY BACK AND TELL ME IT'S RAINING OUT.
But we have Bob Ross.
Had :(
@@petrohex ;( Rip
Used to
Had :C
We will miss Bob Ross. I love his videos.
real art today is in videogames :)
tiara n Hahaha no.
***** why not? :)
tiara n Games are not art. Stop pretending they are art. Games can be Entertainment. They can have Great stories. They can deliver awesome experiences. But they normally are not art. Every game that deliberately tried to be art (e.g. Gone Home) failed miserably at being a video game. And even though there are some video games that are on the edge of being art, like MGS series for example, they are generally not.
But of course, that is just my opinion.
***** do you consider movies to be art?
same as in movies you will find good and bad examples.not everything is a winner.
i collect artbooks and i have many videogame artbooks. for each game most of them have around 200 pages of high quality artwork
have you ever looked at what goes into creating a videogame? they require music, artwork, design.... all the things you would consider art on their own... but when put together it stops being art for you?
*****
Just like not every painting on the billboard is art not every game of art,
but there are games that are pieces of art..
according to art definition first video game is piece of and every first game in its genre is art too.
Modern art museums are the most boring places you could go
I apply the old standards in my 3D renders, I don't go for basic, I go for realism
As an art student of over 20 years, I have been asking myself this question for years. I remember once going to MoMA, and asking out loud "What is this shit?" and getting dirty looks from the other patrons. I have not gone back since. Also, the work of Jackson Pollock is shit and the fact that people find it aesthetically pleasing makes me weep for humanity.
How can you see us from that high horse there bud?
*****
dont worry. he just sees you as stupid.
The current artistic community are the same kind of disease to society that wine drinkers are. They complain about social status and the like because they've been shit on by it, but ironically they're the biggest leeches and easiest manipulated by their own little social niche. That would be fine if they didn't push themselves into every other community; Video games, journalism, cinema, art, music, and then proceed to shit it up with their awful hug-box developed opinions and general ignorance and arrogance.
Some people would say it starts at college or starts at home, but people can be born moronic. I guarantee you they're the other side of the coin belonging to the kind of person who says they've always been smart but school was too boring so they skipped all of it. One half goes on to do jack shit and is genuinely a lot more likeable than the half that goes off and tries to force its way into other communities to try and find a place it's accepted.
"I am a special snowflake, and I want be to treated as such." is their general thinking pattern which they apply to everything in life. If something goes against their idea that they are in anyway not exactly the same as everyone else in their circlejerk then they will lash out at it in the most threatened attitude. They'll claim it's fascist, misogynistic, genocidal, uncaring, and just about anything short of a war crime. They'll equate having to deal with the situation to rape or PTSD, even going as far to claim they have been theoretically murdered.
They aren't the problem with humanity, because they will be around forever and ever and have been since society was just small tribes dictated by the most skilled or strongest person in them.
The problem is other people who are in positions of actual power encouraging it and agreeing with it as if they have lost all thinking capabilities. Society accepting these individuals as equal whatsoever is the problem. These people can be fixed and molded into genuinely decent people if it were encouraged whatsoever, but it isn't. On one side they have people praising them for being generally incompetent, ignorant, and over-narcissistic shitheads, and on the other you have people constantly bashing them making them want to be even more what they already are.
FartMaster69 What are you talking about? The current artistic community push themselves into video games, cinema, art ect... ?? Well yes because video games, cinema and art IS art. Artists create your favorite video games and films. The artists creating these are not 'modern artists'. They're talented people who understand colour theory, perspective and effective designs.
I don't really understand your point.
Ally Baldwin
Video games are not art.
This is ridiculous. Objective standards in art are a myth.
+Past Analysis Yes. That boulder could be the next cultural phenomenon. And those 2 lines on an A3? NOW I'm inspired. If this stuff doesn't join the Venus de Milo and the Wedding At Cana in the Louvre one day, I'll eat my face.
+Dan Silvers I'm not saying I care about those things people put in museums. Note that I'm calling them "things" and not "art." I don't think of those things as art and I wouldn't waste my time going to a museum to see those things. I personally have no care for them. However, at the same time, I don't stand on some high horse, ridiculing all those who have a different personal taste than my own. Sure, it's weird to me that people would go to see such things, but that's it, it's weird. Otherwise, I'm more interested in finding out why they care to see the boulder or the 2 lines.
+Past Analysis Your seeking of an explanation is the essence of post-modernism. In previous works artifacts were self-explanatory, they held meaning of social value, or esthetic value, or symbolic value, where the symbols where not created by the artists themselves, like they do today, but were interpretations of existing symbols. Works of art now generate questions, while "old" artists gave answers, opinions, points of view, a little less ambiguous, a little more courageous in speaking their minds.
Claudio M That's a good point. Personally, I can't help but side with post-modernism in art, where it's understood that we create the meaning in the art instead of it being some high minded meaning that most think is there and one is stupid if they disagree.
of course you side with post modernism, you're all about meaning, where renaissance or impressionist arts were some about meaning and a lot about craftsmanship. But they were all very new, and very anti-establishment in the beginning. Then people like this professor tries to make it all about craftsmanship, and put themselves as judges of what's art and what's not. And so the establishment eats any inventiveness and art becomes static. But that's another story..
I can’t believe this video is 9 years old.
I hate how there are some uneducated people will say that stylistic art, especially anime, pseudo-disney art style and that "animamtion meme/quasi-anime" art style isn't real art because it's "cartoony", "digital" and "there is only realism and abstractionism", but then the same people will say that an algorithmically-generated NFT or a painting of a black line is "beautiful" and "meaningful"
This arguably applies to music too.
lol true.
But then again, I guess music is an artform.
No, it definitely applies to music
no. music is still far too primitive; also it was locked in the perfectionism of composers who had to suck up.
paulhallart
Speedcore vs Beethoven vs Dies Irae vs NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA
What are the deeper themes and what is best.
To be fair, a lot of graffiti is much nicer than modern art. I've seen some stuff that shows genuine artistic talent... much more than it takes to paint a square on a piece of paper, at any rate.
still vandalism in most cases so.. No. These guys are more criminals than "artistic talents".
hunteer3 Show me where legality is mentioned in the definition of art.
And you’d love the scoundrels to create their graffiti at your home, right?
I wonder if scoundrels is a euphemism for something? I'm not saying that graffiti is ethical, I'm just saying that some of it has artistic value. And if it's made in the modern day, doesn't that make it "modern art"?
@@hunteer3 so what is a criminal with artistic talent ? Just because your doing it illegal doesn't take away from that art part. And just because it's legal doesn't mean its artistic.
Didn't even show a single full modern classic art piece
Just make the voice a little bit more agressive, and you got the perfect GTA radio station LOL
I feel that most modern art is crap. But consider Mona Lisa (a famous painting that I think is somewhat overrated). Leonardo painted and repainted her over ten years and she's over five hundred years old. Think of all the crap she has outlasted! The old masterpieces are immortalized and the crap is forgotten.
Jack Hurst Preach
Jack Hurst there are a lot of great modern artists, problem is that they get no recognition from the pretentious elite that promoted the shitty image modern art has today.
S L A Y E R Truth! In music, the petty, the material and the ugly are preferred to the deep, the transcendent and the sublime these days. Maybe one day the praise will go to the worthy.
S L A Y E R literally I see so many great pieces that Barily make it past google images, magnificent pieces, overlooked by scrap metal, and trash. It's quite sad actually
true. tho mona lisa is a historical meme. now if pepe would also last 500 years.
I have seen graffiti better than most modern art pieces.
Pheonyx Actually, me too. I have seen some really good graffiti art.
Um, graffiti * is * modern art.
oh hun, you don't know anything about Modern Art do you?
Graffiti is as old as the ancient Egyptians.
Justinius you are correct. Graffiti goes back to ancient Rome and probably earlier.
I wonder what Leonardo Da Vinci would think of this
I bet you that I could take a picture of a pile of trash at one of my job sites and be able to retire young if I just said the word "bold" enough times when describing it
Absolutely agree, especially on the "all that was left was personal expression" line. So tired of "artists" claiming that the purpose of art is to express oneself, and then go on to make ugly piece after ugly piece with little to no effort.
Im blaming it on instagram
Tracy Coxon why can't they make ugly piece after ugly piece with little to no effort? Is it not art? Are you or the man in the video capable of claiming what is art and what is not? Does anyone care that you're tired of these artists?
Here, I wrote down the answers for ya pal
They can if they want to
It is
No
Nope cause they are not making what they make for you they are making it for themselves
Gui Esteves They can make it, but it's not art and they're not artists. If you went to a restaurant and they gave you a plate of dirt, you wouldn't call it food and you wouldn't call the person who made it a chef.
Tracy Coxon Who are you to define what art and what an artist is? Who are you to tell other people what is art and what is not? Not even god can tell what is art because its not up to him and not up to you. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder, like it was said. Art is in the eye of the spectator.
Gui Esteves Don't play the "what gives you the authority" game, because you are doing the exact same thing by trying to claim that these things ARE art. Just because someone finds something beautiful does not make it art. Art is the implementation of imagination and technical skill for the creation of images that reflect the world or communicate ideas or emotions. Tossing some paint on a canvas is unimaginative, requires almost no technical skill, and does not reflect the world or communicate anything beyond what the "artist" sees. It is purely self-expressive, and therefore not art.
Its pronounced:
Money laundering.
😂
My opinion of what makes objective standards for art:
There must be a display of skill, effort, and intent within the piece.
In Realism, this means the piece should show that the artist is skilled enough to make the form seem real, exerted effort to make it look realistic, and intended for most if not every detail to add to the picture’s realism.
For abstract, this means that it needs to demonstrate skill in terms of structure and arrangement, effort in terms of texture shading and concentration, and that the colors and pattern in the design illicit the intended feelings from the observer. There can be good abstract art pieces, but they have to show these things.
Other notes about these factors include making sure that the artwork doesn’t look like just anyone could make it or that you just threw paint across a given surface to make a mess. If it looks like an accident or like it was made by a toddler, then it’s not professional art.
Art should be a talent you work at and nurture. Turning it into something anyone could do belittles the field and undermines the hard work real artists put into their creations.
As one final note: looking realistic or unique isn’t enough. It needs to be presentable in a way that doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable or ashamed or embarrassed when you look at it. A lot of the profane art that people have been making to be “provocative“ might have a great sense of realism, but I would consider that to simply be bad art or even just simply distasteful because the vulgarity prevents you from taking anything away from the peace other than the elements that are disgusting and make you want to turn away. If you’re going to say some thing with your art, it doesn’t necessarily have to be something positive, but you should make it so that I don’t feel like I’m on a porn site when I walk into a museum.
It's your opinion so it's subjective
@@konyvnyelv. And we have objective standards in art.
@@aliyutubeLMAOOOOOOO BRO ASCRIBED STANDARDS OF CREATION TO THE INHERENTLY STANDARDLESS.
This.
"Standards declined until there were no standards. All that was left was personal expression."
And "personal expression" is essentially the art version of an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions, they're like assholes, everyone has one. If you want your opinion to mean anything to anyone else, it has to be well thought out and it has to be presented well. The same goes for your "personal expression" in art.
This video is nothing more than personal expression intended to assert the superiority of white European culture.
Congratulations- you’ve been duped by fascists.
Standards were fixed by power and institutions in pre democratic regimes and feudalism, thats the time when Michelangelo and Rafael created.
Also, have you seen internet art boards recently? There is tons of amazing art out there, it just doesn’t get sold for thousands of dollars simply because some rich person hasn’t decided to pay that much for it. Instead, art prints get sold for tens of dollars.
@@MDinhh One of the worts thing about it is that lots of people expect them to give their artworks for NO MONEY AT ALL!
@@MDinhh um, extreme leftists how
I think he's talking more about "art" like the blank white canvas, the unaltered rock placed on a pedestal, a pile of feces, etc.
@@KingDuckSauce trust me, they are.
Speaking from first hand experience.
@@lautheimpaler4686 source: trust me bro
‘Art can be everything but not everything can be art’
Udom Taepanit,Thai Stand-Up Comedian
At a modern art exhibit at the Met in 1960, three weeks went by before someone noticed one of the more featured works was hanging upside down.
You guys know that just because we say that art is subjective it doesn’t mean that you have to like every and any art piece, it means that you should not throw away or stop people from doing art just because of your personal opinions, but rather respect the creative freedom of people and anyone who values those art pieces. There’s enough space in art for loads of different forms to be equally respected
But these people are looking for ways to express superiority - so they desperately attempt to create scalar value in aesthetic contexts. It's all they know.
So, they don't truly see beauty or innate expression when they see art, they have to have "reasons" to express their approval in case they approve of the "wrong thing". So sad. Most artists were and are trying to show us how futile and vacuous that kind of existence is.
They are free to do what they please, but somehow art that's just a blank canvas or a normal rock gets sold for millions. That's just unfair, and most of these art pieces that a majority don't think is art are simply there to send a message or statement, not to actually appease to the eyes while also sending a message. An artist should be capable of doing both things
@@kirbydied2875 in YOUR opinion, art is not there to satisfy you, an artist when doing their work doesn't have to just make it look pretty, art can be whatever the person doing it wants it to be. And about the prices that some of those works get sold, I particularly don't believe the price of something defines if it's good or bad, but also there are several different reasons why someone might buy a piece of work, maybe they like artist, maybe they just want something new to put in their living room or maybe they genuinely like that piece, then again the price of something doesn't define its value, and to be honest you shouldn't worry what people do to their money if it's not harming anyone.
@@laurabrand6167 the people who buy blank canvases for millions are dumb. You can't change my mind. Use that money for charity
@@kirbydied2875
The art world certainly attracts fakers and opportunists. The "wealthy" subset will always have many people who are insecure, bland and unskilled enough to follow narratives that give inflated value to things.
But what is value in reality anyway?
Once you have what you need to survive, it's perceived "need" and "want" in most cases.
With freedom, come pros and cons.
We have to try to let fools be fools, because we all might find out we match other people's definitions of fool.
PragerU is a mindset that doesn't allow for this, because it's ideologies are really based on self flattery and self serving veiled as nobleness.
I don't think beautiful art wen't away, it just moved mediums (film, TV, video games...etc).
Well, you're wrong. The new Doom is definitely art.
What about Overwatch? Tracers ass is art
Damn.... you're so right. Good job
Video games are a business but so are most other forms of art. You think a novelist isn't writing in hopes of a paycheck?
Saying that "Video games aren't art" implies a great level of ignorance... I could spent lines, talking about how Video games, specially nowadays, are taking steps further in "high art" aspects, but even since the 90's, were presented great examples of games that gave the conception that gaming as a whole could go further in it's meaning, such as Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy, the 6th generation brought us games like Beyond Good & Evil, God of War, Okami and Shadow of the Colossus, the 7th brought us Mass Effect, Dark Souls, Skyrim, the Witcher 2, the Last of Us and now in the 8th, video games evolved even more and were able to produce masterpieces like the Witcher 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, No man's sky, the New God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn... Even the Indie genre has some great titles like Limbo, Brothers: a tale of two sons, Dust: an Elysian Tail, Undertale and Journey... not to mention the technical aspects, every era had games that showed what hardware complexity could do, and some pushed it to it's limits, if it's hard enough learning programing languages, imagine descending to the level of creating Graphical Engines?... For instance, one reason why i appreciate the Michelangelo, is due to the astounding fact that the same was carved from a Rock, and in the same way of technical complexity, i consider video games as a whole, a High Art form, just like Books, Music and Movies...
Ps: I probably forgot to mention a whole lot of other games that deserve praise, those above i mentioned are the ones i know and/or played
My favorite part: Leonardo Di Vinci carved his David out of a rock. Today all the modern art museum gives us is a rock. All 350 tons of it.
Michael not Leonardo. If that mistake was made on purpose... nice try. Anyhow its sad you have been corrected after 3 months.
Filo Nautic lol
And that's not how to write Leonardo's second name.
Oryx
Notronin not his second name, da vinci means Leonardo from Vinci. Vinci is a place.
Take another look at the graph at 2:05 and ask yourself: what is it measuring? We can probably assume it’s made up, as an illustration of the speaker’s point. But what *could* it be measuring? Opinion polls? Level of photorealism? Some kind of scoring system based on how many sunsets, pretty women, mythical figures etc are present? Does any of that seem like the correct way to judge the quality of art? And what happens in 1965? Do all artists suddenly start smearing shit on canvas? Has not a single work of value been produced in the past half century?
Yes, celebrate what is good and ignore what you feel is bad - but don’t let this putz tell you which is which.
I think bad art is basically made famous by people like this, people who are too lazy to look for good art, or people who cherry pick to prove a point.
Reactionary pieces are just that, reactionary, meant to evoke discussion on the nature of art.
Every time PragerU or PJW makes a video on them, their point is proved.
The message here seems to be, in large part, that everyone should "follow the rules, stay in line" and that "exploring and experimenting is mostly bad." What a bland world this message describes.
ironic considering the modern art is just following the rules of art critics, where people are afraid to give their actual opinions
I agree with both you and the @vinesthemonkey guy.
The 2 follows the very same thing, just different bs to follow.
Hate the game not the player I guess.
Alternative theory: there has always been lousy art, but after centuries most of the ones that survive are the good works.
Survivor bias. Yup, that's probably a big thing here.
Intresting opinion
This is definitely a factor, but in previous eras there was a philosophical goal of creating something transcendent, whereas that is specifically rejected in the modern paradigm.
@@pierrealexandersmith What do you mean by 'transcendent' in this context?
@@mrmann69 overcomming limits
3:17 Actually, I thought to myself "that doesn't look at all like a Jackson Pollock painting". I'm not a trained artist but the moment he showed the apron I knew it was not a Pollock.
Same, thought there were too many colors and no overall structure.
Congrats, you've studied a meaningless abstract painting so many times that you can now identify when its just an artist's smock or the meaningless abstract technique you've studied so much.
Money well spent.
I've never studied any art. I went to the NYC MoMA once and saw a few of Polluck's paintings that are in the MoMA's permanent collection. I think they have 3 or 4 of them. The ones I saw had a very deliberate quality that made the paint dribbled smock obviously not a Polluck painting.
You can literally go on paint, draw one layer of scribbles of a specific color all over the screen, draw another layer of scribbles of a different color over the screen in a different direction (repeat 10 or so times), and then place lines or scribbles (not constant like the layers) sporadically on top of the previous layers in different colors to create that type of "art". I've done it myself, and while I won't deny that I like how it looks purely based off of aesthetics (it is after all colorful and interesting to look at, sometimes pretty), it would be convoluted at best, and dishonest at worst to claim that it is anything other than spontaneously or randomly created scribbles or splatters. Also, if your argument that it is purely about aesthetic, or how much a person likes it, or how we think about it (the basic argument in favor of this kind of modern art), then the apron splatter is as much art as the aforementioned paintings or pictures.
Yes I agree. It has none of the essence of an authentic Pollock. The apron is far better.
Any graduate art student that believed that was supposed to be a Jackson Pollock painting should have all of their art qualifications revoked.
And this is why video games and anime are the 2 most popular 'artforms' nowadays...
I think modern art is just the result of obnoxious art critics.
Who else is here after a guy ate the $120,000 banana duck taped to a wall sculpture?
Here
Wait... What
$ 150, 000 .ruclips.net/video/so8sB25IL4o/видео.html
They guy was an artist, claiming to be creating another art piece called "the starving artist." No joke. Of course, everyone can see how much of a joke it is, but hey, that's what the world of art has come to: shock, suprise, express, feel. Sorry, but no. Art is not just expression or feeling. It has to be aesthetically pleasing to be considered actual art. In a few hundred years, real artists are going to look back on this post-modern era of artwork with disappointment and/or chagrin, and making jokes about it in their art classes.
@@user-mi5xq8zj7u This post-modern form of art is not a result of capitalism. Where did you get *that* idea? (If you say leftist professors, I wouldn't be surprised.) Are you anti-capitalist? No, that's not where it came from.
Pick up any art history book, and you will learn where post-modern art has its roots: in the modern era of artwork that derived its abstractions straight out of the works of the post-victorian masters, like Picasso and Braque who still maintained overall form. Unfortunately, after them, lesser hands, who understood less about art, decided they would push abstractions to their limit and force them to embody an artform of their own.
Then the 50s-60s happened, pushing that limit to a vulgar and demeaning level that art should never have gone to. Since then, we've seen the likes of child's play splotching and bland color choices that make no artistic sense whatsoever.
Nowadays, artists give away certificates of "authenticity" so that their "fans" can demonstrate the same kind of art, on their own. It doesn't seem to me that these artists understand the meaning of accessibility at all.
Paint-by-numbers is child's play. Why are "artists" doing that nowadays? 'Cause they're lazy, that's why. It's this push into the degrading and uninspiring that has brought about this kind of artwork, and of course, the lack of accountability from the critics and collectors. If collectors started demanding quality, realism, and inspired/inspiring work, they'd get it. If critics started lamenting the loss of aestheticism, you'd see it return. Alas, this is what we get because no one is any wiser, or brave enough to demand that "artists" put more effort into their work.
Okay but hear me out, who said that the point of art is to be "good" and to please everyone? Music is an art form and yet much of it we call "bad music". This is because music, like art, is subjective. Some people love The Beatles while other people may say they are the worst. Not everyone loves and agrees that The Mona Lisa is amazing art. I think it's boring personally. Art is made to make us feel things, even if somethings that feeling is anger, confusion, or disappointment.
I think he is talking about the skill set of the artist not the liking of the people for the art work...
Art is something whose primary concern isn't beauty but expression of something but there are geniuses who tape bananas to a canvas calling it art
Well, many people have really low taste and would appreciate low quality art and then it becomes a trend. As generation goes, we’ll only have low quality arts. Doesn’t it mean civilization is decline?
I understand what you’re saying and agree to an extent. I myself enjoy the aesthetic of something like a Jackson pollock painting. The problem is when people aclaim that type of stuff to be “genius” or “extravagant” and sell it for enormous amounts of money when in reality it’s just some paint splattered on a canvas that could have just as easily been done by a toddler. Hence the example he used in the video about tricking his students to thinking his apron was a painting
its not that deep but i guess being pretentious is the charm of it
This video made me realize that the anti-SJW community was being co-opted by conservatives.
i mean anti-SJW people were always conservative? You thought people who talked about how games are too liberal because of women were liberals?
I wonder if photography contributed to the demise of real art?
Once we had photography, there was less need for accurate depictions to be painted. It was more efficient, and accurate, to just take a photo.
So instead of artists painting what they see, they paint what they feel.
*****
I did not copy and paste anything. It is a real opinion.
Kind of rude to make baseless accusations, don't you think?
*****
Here is what I posted: "I *wonder* if photography *contributed* to the demise of real art?"
So please don't put words in my mouth.
+walter byrd
Yes, photography contributed to the demise of photo-realistic art because art no longer had to reflect exactly how the world was. The Impresionists, Cubists, Surrealists, and numerous other movements concerned themselves with truly capturing emotions they felt or describing unreal conditions. I personally love the Surrealist Dali and the Absurdist Magritte, but these are people who are clearly talented and showing portals into emotion with clear and understandable images. There is no excuse for this current postmodernism where a person paints like a five year old or makes dots and dashes and considers it art.
What do you mean by "real art"? By that do you mean what was called 'salon art'? Well yes, in a way photography did contribute to the demise of that type of art which was based on algorithms and technique. No matter how good your technique was, you couldn't beat a photograph in terms of realism so painters such as Monet and Degas started down a different route with Impressionism. I adore Monet because his paintings conveyed something that photography never can with brush strokes and viewer interpretation. Van Gogh later on was still very much real art. I now think that photography itself is starting to become too technical, just like salon art was back in the 1800s. Nevertheless, paintings and photographs are very different in art but photographs are definitely still art and what I myself would call real art. I also strongly agree with the "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" mindset. That said, the modern art movement is just not technical enough. But still, it is art.
+walter byrd Yeah but sometimes some really shitty, boring, blank photos are taken and sold as modern art
someone pays 1,000,000 dollars for a rock, but if someone wants art from me that's actually great, $100 dollars is too much.
Look, everyone can . But can *you* lift a giant rock to a museum?
But I agree completely. I was in the Louvre the other day. Of course the Mona Lisa was packed by hordes of Asian tourists, but the adjacent hallway (Display the Coronation of Napoleon and Liberty Leading the People) was empty except for three or four persons. Such great works of art, completely unnoticed.
They were there for the Mona Lisa's reputation, not for its story and context. Ask any of them how much they think about what they consume. Most will probably say not much.
5:08 THIS this is the phrase that destroys everything especially now
My poop just sold for 1 million $. The new owner says it has a beautiful strong brown color, a unique smell and a velvet consistency. He loves my poop!
Most modern art is essentially just a gross-out competition to see who can smear the most bodily fluids everywhere, either that or it's a competition to see who can put the least effort into doing something, random paint splotches, dots and even blank canvases are considered art nowadays. If you put more time and effort into thinking up an explanation for why your work is art than you do actually making it, then it's probably shit.
Uhhh... just wanted to let you know anime is generally considered modern art... soooo yeah.
Catchy_Name
Even anime has more meaning and skill than modern "art".
Alvaro Ceballos Anime still falls into the modern art category. The reason is because it was invented after the industrial revolution. That's when the modernist age began. You could say that anime is just another form of realism, but it fails to use normal body proportions. For example, the eyes are generally larger then real life. along with little detail of the face (other then the eyes) and massive amounts of detail on the hair and clothes. (You might come up with a counter-example of this) This doesn't fall into the category of art forms this video addresses like neoclassicism. If anything, the broad spectrum of modern art is often dwindled down to forms like cubism and modernism by people like you who fail to understand what modern art is.
Works like these are even modern art:
static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Travel/Pix/pictures/2012/1/25/1327493189818/Mizuma-Art-Gallery-Tokyo-001.jpg
i.imgur.com/SjcvdN4.jpg
***** Have you ever taken an art history class? If yes, then I hope you didn't fail it. Art history focuses more on the people who shaped what art is, not on the different forms of art. I can understand where your coming from, because in your mind, modern art is really just cubism, modernism, and minimalism. Modern art really isn't a category, its a term given to the many forms of art invented during and after the industrial revolution.
Catchy_Name I'm google searching "modern art" but I'm not finding any pics of anime.
Throw a bucket of red paint on a painting
Everyone: beautiful, genius, very well thought out!!!
I love the presintation
When I do it in school i get baddest rating :(
Huginix your teacher has more knowledge of art than these ppl then
I'll give you $9000000000000000000000000000 Dollars!!!! Take my f****** money!!!!!!
Jacob Montoya
Someone paints a human on canvas*
Everyone: awful, dumb, so unoriginal!!!
A giant rock being considered art is like the sound of someone coughing being considered music.
It’s not about the rock in general, it’s more of the experience of walking underneath the boulder that makes it in the art form that it is. You won’t necessarily get that same immersion from walking under the David statue.
4:48 If that isn’t decadence, I don’t know what is.
I wonder what da vinci would think about petra the urinating policewoman
@rodrigo
I knew Leonardo, and you're wrong.
@88
Your talent for humor equals your understanding of grammar.
He would love it!
He would be pissed
he would say "that isn't art! thats just a police woman urinating!" and present his art to replace it. :3
I swear to god ive found better paintings on deviantart then ive found in world famous museums
MindCraftSteev same
Man Deviantart is lit! I can't tell you how many beautiful pictures I've found just by Googling it and going into images.
(Yes IK there's plenty of garbage and they have this weird obsession with pregnancy and a little bit of furry but other than that they're pretty good.)
For real, this is why anime and anime-style art is taking over the world. That's making lefties nervous.
MindCraftSteev
Case in point:
www.deviantart.com/whiteabsol/art/I-m-Sorry-801570554
Heck, you can at least say a kid using MS Paint to paint his family at least try.
"Standards declined until there were no standards and reduced to personal expression." So art was reduced to art? I'm all for that
As a european art specialist, i've seen the market change over the past 20 years.
It is now cheaper to furnish your house with antiques than buy it at Ikea!!!
That can't be right.....
So in short: "I find this art distasteful, so it's bad."
More like:"Most people find this art distasteful, so it's bad." Which, if we are being honest, is the standard metric of something being bad, take a million people and I bet you'd be able to find a few cooks who genuinely think murder is ok but most of us would disagree right? :P
Nemanja Colic People thought Van Gogh was a crap artist until years after he died. Public opinion isn't what determines whether art is good or bad. The thing most people don't understand about modern art is that it's a statement. People who think all modern art is bad are just too dumb to understand what the artists are trying to say.
I'm not saying all modern art is good, but how "tasteful" a piece of art is has nothing to do with its quality.
***** Let's say I could paint the most disturbing, distasteful images you've ever seen in your life, but use flawless artistic technique to do so. Is that good or bad art? According to you, it's automatically bad simply because it's distasteful, even if it's the single most technical piece of art on the planet. Your own criteria makes no sense.
***** You said, and I quote, "Well the point of there being any quality in art is so that people would find it 'tasteful'". That sentence seems to disqualify anything distasteful as art.
As for the "who can do the least work and get paid the most for it" argument, that's just market forces at work. If you knew you could take a crap and sell it to some dumbass for millions, I doubt you'd turn down the chance. That's not the fault of the artist. It's the fault of the people willing to buy it.
And on the subject of art shouldn't be just a statement: art *is* a statement. Period. If there is no statement, it isn't really art and is just some pretty pictures. Art, in its purest sense, is nothing more than the feelings and emotions of the artist expressed through some medium. What better way to show your disdain for the Elite than selling them a pile of shit?
Art should be beautiful and awe inspiring and MOST of modern art I've seen is simply not. What is awe inspiring or beautiful in a girl pissing, an empty canvas or just some random blobs of paint? And fyi I prefer the hyper realistic pictures of the past to Van Gogh, but as the vid notes the early impressionists were good, their work has some beauty and effort which is important for the awe part of a good painting. Even Picasso pictures I like have form, they have meaning that is clearly presented through what is painted, it has effort.
Ultimately while I don't much care if some rich dumbass pays a fortune for a shit stain it gives signals to distributors and artists that this kind of art is what we want and appreciate which is just not true for the vast majority of humanity.
I agree. Spilling your chocolate milk on a canvas doesn't mean you're an artist.
It means you're clumsy.
Eaglewings 737 but what if leanrdo da Vinci spilt some paint and made the Mona Lisa? (DUUUUM)
At this point i can just sell my little sister's scribble drawings for millions of dollars and say they're on par with Da Vinci's works with deep meanings
Nah you have to have gallery or money laundering connections.
Yes you can. Exactly as people can read meanings in books despite that not being the true intentions of the author
It's exactly like what happened to music.
Nowadays beautiful melodies are no longer something in the classical music community, they only make ugly music and say stuff like "The world is too ugly to make beautiful music".
By classical you mean western, hindustani or carnatic classical music?
@@anonymousinfinido2540 Western Classical Music
when you say ugly do you mean it is of poor quality or does it convey negative emotions?
If I have a low opinion of it, then its not good art. There, its settled. No other points of view are needed. Move along.