Why this Black Square is Art! Kazimir Malevich's Suprematism | LittleArtTalks
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Fun Fact: Time has not treated Black Square well, it is now covered with cracks. www.tate.org.uk...
Check out my latest videos on Art History
• How a Urinal Changed A...
Subscribe to Little Art Talks for more art-filled educational videos: goo.gl/89YzFS
Be sure to click the bell next to the “Subscribe" button to be notified when new videos are published!
Help us caption & translate this video!
www.youtube.com...
Support Little Art Talks directly on Patreon: goo.gl/Nkr9VO
MERCHANDISE:
Arden Cove Bags & Backpacks: goo.gl/f41Bgy
Let’s Connect!
WEBSITE: goo.gl/8CnhJp
FACEBOOK: goo.gl/YScjms
TWITTER: goo.gl/UuSvyp
INSTAGRAM: goo.gl/MeahG0
TUMBLR: goo.gl/UvZQB1
PINTEREST: goo.gl/Cazd5J
GOOGLE+: goo.gl/RIE8pN
GOODREADS: goo.gl/by7dUF
Karin’s Links:
WEBSITE: goo.gl/f41Bgy
RUclips: goo.gl/m64WCw
INSTAGRAM: goo.gl/mh12cV
TWITTER: goo.gl/MZ59mt
Thanks so much for watching! Here at Little Art Talks, I make free educational videos on art history and all things art related. From ancient Japanese paintings to Duchamp’s readymades, we want to talk about what makes these objects art, and attempt to better understand them. Come join us in the discussion :)
If you liked this video, please share it with your friends.
FAQ:
What camera equipment do you use?
Camera amzn.to/2ih4HXR
Lights amzn.to/2ikUrJW
Microphone amzn.to/2ih9AQD
Edit in Premiere amzn.to/2ihcSDz
---
Images: Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain, Fair Use
Knowing the history makes art so much more interesting!
+Friso Talks I agree! :D
Love the way you explained the black square's historical context such as being hung high on the corner of a room. On my docent shifts, I try to explain to visitors that contemporary art often requires context to be understood and needs to be considered against its historic backdrop and how it was used/displayed originally. And this is one of the drawbacks and limitations of displaying contemporary art in a traditional museum or art gallery setting - it often takes the works out of context and make it harder to perceive.
Yes, It can be a quite a challenge to decide how to display art, especially as there are more installation/ site specific pieces. Can you recreate it after the artist passes away? What if they didn't leave specify instructions? Is using photographs as reference good enough? Do you display the photographs or videos that documented the work? Tough questions for sure!
If the art requires explanation, that's not an art.
I'm a musician and once had the idea of recording a silent track on a record to make a statement about the constant noise of the media and daily life. I then thought the idea kind of absurd and thought that one can't copyright a score of rests. But I was wrong. I found out that it had been done by John Cage for different reasons like the idea of no self in Buddhism. So I can appreciate the black square as a concept, but I don't enjoy the painting.
soupbonep hello, are you here my friend?:) Greetings from Russia and welcome to the world of the Alphonse Alles and Paul Bilhaud. These friends came up with an ironic ideas of doing full black/red/white paintings and a full silent "Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man" in the 19th century. The black painting was called "Negroes fighting in a tunnel" and that letters are wrote under Malevich's Black Square. That letters were found after the release of that ecaxt video that we are watching, so imagine if there wouldn't be any letters. I bet you a billion dollars that they would call you a stupid idiot and that Malevich was the original founder of The Square and never heard anything about the "Negroes". So basically Malevich stole somebody's ironic idea and just by his own words built a great hoax around it. And the critiques were too scary to ask him anything and considered that piece of crap as an original and great work.
Bilhaud's painting have a great meaning and i like it.
Malevich only have his long tongue and fuckton of people scared of the society.
Malevich was interested in Music and wrote about composing music without any sound. He foreshadowed John Cage and your good self
(aka 'Malevich Squared' on insta)
@@paulrouhan7288 So Malevich was just... a denier. That's why he fit so well with Soviet Russia. Communist and denier, what would else you expect from that kind of person in any form of creativity? Right. Just deny everything and blame it as "old-fashined" and "outdated".
@@Rai2M That was one idea of many. Malevich was super creative. He refigured what art was. Pure painting based on colour and shape. Or just repeat the world around you and remain with the object in some way. The most profound artists followed him since, in their own way.
Also, in 1915 when he created the BLACK Square and 38 other Suprematist paintings, that old world needed denying and remaking. It was worth a try. Humanity paid the price in the terrible 30s and 40s.
@@Rai2M "That's why he fit so well with Soviet Russia." 😂 He didn't, you're an idiot.
Yes anyone could do this, but the fact is that he was the first to do this making it a very collectible piece, a one of a kind, making it highly valuable. It is not art, is is a collectible.
One of a kind, my ass. I could knock out a hundred of them today, alone. There is nothing special or collectable about this. Malevich was a good BULL SHIT SCAM "Artist" with a half ass story to feed all the gullibles. YOU happen to be one those, standing in line with your plate out, waiting to be served up a heaping pile.
I get what you are saying but I would put it this way...”Although he was not the first to ever cover a canvas in a dark monotone, he was the first to say, ‘Finished’.”
I may try this. I don’t know if anyone has done what i am going to say but just in case no one has, remember you heard it here first....take a blank canvas and sign it. Title: The Point & Sum of Abstract Art. Well...what we are calling “abstract” today anyway.
@@kelymknowles1 Why does this work inspire so much anger in you? Malevich had a real talent as an artist, yet chose to go down this abstract line. Is it not of some interest to you. It is to me.
Username checks out - deaf to reasonable explanation
Right. Everything she said just went above your head.
So, basically Kazimir's artwork is worthless; it's the story attached to it that sells it. It's just like a famous soccer player's shoes; they may not be intrinsically worth that much but because so-and-so used them to score goals in the world cup suddenly people are throwing away ludicrous sums of money to get it.
Well it depends on how you determine value, if you judge it simply in financial terms based on the amount of physical labour endured to paint it than you could argue that it isn't worth much. In the context of the art it is worth millions for a verity of reasons, 1.the guy who produced it 2. the concept he applied to its creation 3. the thought and debate it provokes to this day and so on. Good art challenges the viewer to question, to break out of conformative thinking patterns and to hopefully propel the viewer to a progressive plane of thought based on their observations. even if it is only a black square it should and dose provoke a whole wide range of thought, what does it mean, what else could it be, is it a black square on a white surface or is it a white square frame on a black surface. The point is that it isn't simply just a black square and at the same time it is, what dose it provoke? annoyance? calm? some other third thing ? and why?
Every single painting is the same thing, some chemicals over a piece of wood or cloth. Everything else is vallue we attach to them. Even when people say that a painting take skills, this itself is the virtuoso discourse over the painting.
It might be my ignorance, but I don't like most modern, post-modern and contemporary art due to the fact that I can't seem to find any meaning or emotion. This video made me value all of that a whole lot more, because I now know that people can genuinely appreciate a lack of symbolism and imagery.
In the video you ask "why can't art be something else than just a pretty picture on the wall?" I don't think that's art at all, For me, art is visual stimulation that is designed to trigger emotions and sensations. That could be anything, however I do personally like when a piece is "pretty" and the artist shows skill. However, I don't think Malevich's work fits into my definition of art. It's not more than just a pretty picture, it's less. It provokes no emotion or sensation, as it lacks in symbolism and imagery itself and shows absolutely no skill or aesthetic value. I couldn't say that my kid could make something like this, because I have no kids, but I would, because I believe a kid could. It would certainly not be valuable, as I think Malevich's just happened to be made at the right time, at the right place, with the right people and Malevich could justify his creation, but if you ask me, the piece has no value whatsoever and the idea behind it is ridiculous.
Please let me know what you think, I'd like to appreciate or/and understand art like this, as I fear my ignorance doesn't allow me. So if you can, please, enlighten me.
It's so interesting that you say there is no symbolism in this painting, because that is exactly one of the area's in which something interesting happens in this work. Malevitsj tried to create a picture that was not a reference to anything. When people look at it, they're supposed to see nothing but what is truly there. this is actualy quite difficult, because even something like two dots and a line :) make us think of a face without even trying.
So Malevitsj got very close, and people just see a black square when they see the painting. Nothing more, nothing less. But he moved on to turn the work into a symbol itself. The work became the symbol for the search for art that is absolutely independent. The search for creating something that isn't linked to anything else that already exists.
You say you like art that makes you feel things, and that's why this doesn't feel like art. I agree. To me this particular painting is art because it makes me feel emotions and sensations. To me, the thought of looking at an art piece that isn't depicting anything and can't be interpreted any other way is an overwhelmingly interesting sensation, as no other artpiece made before this one could do that. It feels like explporing what is truly the essence of painting as an artform. A picture, created with paint.. and a person observing the shapes they see and trying to find out what they depict. While with most paintings you could instantly recognise things from the real world represented in the shapes, kind of like watching clouds, In this work you can't do that. You're stuck in that instant of time before recognising what the picture is depicting.
The fact that this painting is a symbol for that movement makes me feel the excitement of their rebellion and their extreme out-of-the-box way of thinking. also oops, I just now saw your comment is over 4 years old.
@Josh Levan hahah super funny... five years later in I'm half way through a fine art degree and now a full-on conceptual artist in the making. I'll have a read on my comment and re-watch the video. I'm interested on what my 15-year-old self had to say about my current views.
Well, art isn't about skill or aesthetics. Its about the idea that the art represents.
The black square is just a black square. It lacks any symbolism or expression, which is the point of the piece. I see a contradiction here; is the lack of meaning not a meaning itself? It kinda negates the whole thing.
Good point. It creates a paradox.
The painting throws itself back at you. You ask, not 'what should I feel about this?' but what do I feel about this? It may not get you through the rigours of life, but it is interesting.
Wow) I am a Russian art historian and I am SO pleased to see, that the work of Malevitch is appreciated and understanded!! A very good video. ***
It isn`t completely devoid of meaning(meaningfulness) , it just doesn`t have a definitive referent. All these paintings were a part of a project of finding "true emotion".
He wanted to ""free art from the burden of the object". He thought that the whole realist movement of the western civilization was a bad idea. For him,art should be about emotion, not depiction, since depiction "takes that what is alive in nature and kills it in the painting". Thats why he considered himself a new realist.
He was a bit disrespectful towards the giants of western art, but hey, it was in the heat of the moment. He was a mystic, he believed that art is religion, and that "worldly content" isn`t gonna do it. Banishing worldly content from painting is a bit too much, but still, his project deserves appreciation, imo.
and yeah, good video :D
In my local Art Museum (Waldenbuch; Germany) there were also black squares shown. what i liked about them was that the color was totally homogeneous and the black pulled you in. it was cearly nothing that I could do withot practice.
Once, russian brain scientist Sergey Savelyev was offered to present one of his photos (his hobby) at the exhibition dedicated to K. Malevich (he is famous for his "black square"). Photo was a bunch of colorful blurry stains - perfect for the theme of the event. Observers noted, that Savelyev captured the very essence of suprematism. Savelyev responded: "Indeed, a micro photography of a piece of a colon of a dead painter can be more interesting than the whole heritage of that artist!" He was never invited to that gallery since.
I find your videos very informative; you research your subject well, your enthusiasm is communicated to your audience and the addition of the little illustrations provide just enough visual stimulation to keep it interesting when trying to keep track of all the information you provide. We will talk about Malevich tomorrow in art history class, and we will watch your video in help engender discussion. Keep up the good work.
Tom Tobias Thanks so much for your feedback, Tom. It's really helpful to hear what you think. Hope your class discussion went well :)
WOW! I am an art critic and you are brilliant at explanation! Thanks for digging deep into history
Oleg Teplyakov Thanks so much for your kind complement! I try my best to make it easy to understand so I'm relieved to hear your thoughts :)
You can find meaning in absolutely anything you want. A shoelace a box whatever it is, there will be significance. The deeper you go with the concept, the more you can find. But to say that a black square is near revolutionary because the creator says so is ridiculous.
Of course it wasn't just him saying. People, artists around agreed. And it makes this picture something that influenced masses. Which makes this picture an art.
She is right that the Square has a lot to do with the history behind it. The problem is that there are two camps of people, those who stand to benefit from arguments that the Square is genuine art, and those who'd better just keep their mouths shut and walk away. I'd much rather be in the former. I'd feel so aristocratic and cultured by having something to gain by that Square being art. I'd be in the know. I'm be en vogue. I'd know my history. I'd be a part of the art world. But somehow, unfortunately, I don't feel that Square is really part of my heritage, and I don't stand much to gain from it personally, unless I just fake it to win the favors of some art school chick or something. I'm not in the loop. I like genuine art. It's not that, "My 6 year old could do that," but rather that I'm not initiated into this artistic lineage to recognize it as a genuine feat. I wish I were. I wish I had something to gain. I wish I were a part of this. But being among the uninitiated, and wanting to make art, I am sort of cast out of Eden and must actually make real genuine craftsman art in order to be an artist, and sweat from my brow, and have the pains of childbirth and so forth. I stand not to gain from being this Square art, however much wish I that did I.
Before this video, I was throughly annoyed with this piece. Now, I totally get it, but I think there is some ambiguity in your expression. My interpretation is that The Black Square is so objectiveless that you couldn't analyze it in any way possible. This was probably the first of it's kind where the artist went out of his way to create something to which you could attach no meaning, emotions whatsoever. This painting, alone, relieved Art of all expectations from the audience. That is precisely why this was the zero degree.
I believe that this was one of it's kind - other Suprematist Compositions are not required to make the same assertion in various inefficient ways.
Also, The Black Square is NOT more than a pretty picture, it's less - and that's precisely the point!
PS: I may have got this all about its head - if you find some concrete alternative, please, please reply.
And yet its original placement was very significant. Hence the painting's eternal resonance.
Nice insight!
I'm no art major but I still think that anyone's kid could have made it. It's the _reason_ that justifies the existence of a given painting and its value (not only money-wise).
Artist is an child forever. Scientist too. So yes, i agree with things you saying. But this painting isn't about technics.
It is interesting to see how many effort people do to avoid the fact that they have been fooled. The phenomenon is called "Emperor`s new clothes" and the explanation to that is - survival and replication. Those that praised the non existing emperors clothes did not lied. They really saw "the clothes".
People have a natural resentment towards anything that appears to take very little thought, or very little effort - especially when it makes other people tons of money. What's "nice" about abstract art is how the creator really doesn't *need* to think about it, as observers will do all of the thinking for them.
I don't think anyone living through Russia in the first part of the twentieth century was thinking of money. Survival was much more important.
Actually art has become paying for whaever an artist does and not about the art. Just look at the Picassos, Rothkos, Pollocks, etc, etc. Any kid would have made those, that comment is 100% true but that kid wouldn't have sold it for 100 million dollars because he's not a famous dude who represent status for some rich moron who wants to fake the depth that he doesn't have. I have to respect Kasimir, at least he told it like it was, that is a black square, there's nothing more to it, even if the fanboys try hard to find it more significant. He didn't try to fool anyone, unlike the abstract expressionists who faked depth and sold horrible pieces without any meaning, they didn't explain any of their works they just talked about depression and feelings.
Uhhh mate. A LOT of horseshit spewing forth from your mouth..
"look at the Picassos, Rothkos, Pollocks, etc, etc. Any kid would have made those"
-- if you are talking about technical skill then yes, perhaps a kid could have made those, but you said WOULD, not COULD, and this is a point which is just completely fucking untrue. a "kid" would instinctively paint representationally, he might paint a house or some flowers or his mother or whatever but he would not just paint a black square or a field of colour (just dig out the drawings you did at art class in school). people who similarly condemn Twonbly's work as childish are, like you, missing the point. very broadly speaking, modern art's focus is not simply on technical ability or representational likeness but on ideological upheaval and a rejection of past art historical tradition which in turn manifested itself in the form of painting.
the video has simplified malevich's black square and suprematism for the purpose of your enlightenment and yet you seem completely clueless so let me fill you in before you go about saying stupid shit like "i have to respect kazimir" because damn right you do he was probably the first to formally abandon all forms of representation and put and end as it were to the entire tradition of painting as a medium of replicating reality.
also, the fanboys you speak of generally have PhDs in art history, and you probably work at McDonalds, they know what they're talking about, and you don't, so know your place you dog. these critics certainly did not try to "fool anyone", you little rat of a conspiracy theorist, you.
on a similar note, what is this "depth" you speak of?? i am assuming it refers to a broader sense of cultural appreciation. once again, you seem to be accusing collectors, patrons and even artists of feigning erudition, a statement which is not only wholly untrue but completely unsupported and hints at systemic disillusionment and possible psychosis.
I wouldn't like to speculate but it seems to me that based on your overwhelmingly emetic personality of opinionated ignorance coupled with your feelings of suspicion that you must generally be an inadequate outsider without much of education and even less oojah. stop talking about fucking rothkos and pollocks like you fucking wrote a PhD thesis on them.
you don't know a lot about art or the art market or art history or the european tradition of artistic patronage so the least you could do despite not managing to understand this simple video is stfu.
cheers
what if people with PhDs think they undestand something that doesn't even have a meaning, 90% of abstract artists are so deep that their art is only for fanboys who think they are part of something cool just because most people cannot understand a thing about those paintings. I only respect a few abstract artists because they were direct about what they were doing, Rothko says his paintings connect you to raw human feelings, I don't feel shit by looking at his paintings, I think they are just lazy as fuck, maybe innovative but innovative could be a turd on canvas too.
the NY artists were the biggest cons I've seen, all of them have pretty horrible and meaningless works.
Even Dali was amazed by his technics. Sure, he did some simple ass paintings. But most off them are little. And he prolly did them for fun. It's look simple, but if you look closer, there's milions of lines, and colours. What's most GOOD in Picasso's works, it's that, that he make all this technics and colours into harmony. Rothko is an decorate artist. His works are about simplicity, simply emotions. He wanted to make rooms full, he wanted to make his paintings not provocative, but deep (pleasant to eye). He's one of frist decorate artists like that. His works were simple to make, but we still don't know, how he do his works. And. Rothko was doing thousands of artworks..
Molly explain a Jackson Pollock....
Molly I agree with the title of “Decorate Art” over “Abstract Art”.
Your explanation was interesting and thought-provoking. Your videos on abstract art are my favorite!
Thanks Bethany! I'm glad you like them. I have a minimalism video coming up :)
Yes, my kid could˙´ve done these, and yours... but not every grown man, because our minds are filled with reasoning and objectivity and explainations and rules how to draw something, what something means... Kids still can do this... very young kids.
Thanks for your comment! Perhaps the most common example for this thought was the Jean Dubuffet and art brut. Even Picasso has a famous quote "All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up."
Practically all art has to be seen as the real thing and not a picture in a book to get across how good or bad it is.
While in Paris I visited a few of the museums and was blown away by Van Goghs paintings,
A picture in a book cannot possibly do them justice and how intense they are.
I agree about Van Gogh, but most of us can only see his work in a book, sadly.
There is actually an exhibition all about Mavlevich's black square and suprematism going on at Whitechapel Galleries in London at the moment. I went to it recently (my first art exhibition) and that exhibition and this video (along with some of your other videos) are really helping me get into art. Definitely subscribing!
Seano299 Yay! :D
Wasn’t Black Square somewhat of a manifesto painting, primarily aimed at fellow artists showing a sort of “ground zero” for art, pushing suprematism to its limits, and making the point that the supremacy of pure feeling was the important thing about non-objectivity in art? Anyway, I love your videos Karen. You are a great art history lecturer, keeping to the important points and explaining them succinctly and with clarity. I’d love to take a class with you, I feel I’d learn so much. Long may your work continue
a 4 year old could paint that...true..but it is not "the what", but "the why" and "when" that counts. he was the first, he had a reason behind it. Same as pollock drips, a million people have re done it. but it's just not the same as when it was first done.
Shaun Kennedy I get the “why” and “when” but certainly not the first to ever have made one...the first to put it out as a professional finished piece yes. Same for Pollocks. Not the first to ever have created a piece of canvas with paint drips...those are called tarps, with perhaps a million or two who created them before him.
@@richiejourney1840 Nobody drips like Pollock.
Glorious video..... talented men create art to compete against stronger men, black squares are made to compete against more talented artists.... Being good at explaining why your art is good is a talent too........ 😎
It is a masterpiece without a doubt. Simple the fact that it raised to many questions , so many people argued about it, what more , from an artist point of view, can you achieve? Could something like this be done today? I doubt it. The time when it was created was also very special. There was a big movement to create something new, to drop all the custom traditions , like man and women could only live together if they were married, the idea of divorce, the right to vote for women and many more very progressiv things even seen from today. So, as a statement the black square worked and works.
A good short talk. I just wished more artists of today understood what Malevich had to endure: the state is not your friend.
Please do make more videos on art history or recommendation of art theory books!! I really enjoy watching all of your videos!!
You've given me a lot to think about! Being self taught, there is a lot I never learned, I stumbled on your channel and haven't stopped devouring the videos since. I'd say you have all the information I never knew I needed to know. So much valuable information, I can tell you really did your homework and getting the run down of various art topics, especially really heavy subjects like abstract art is amazing, it's something I've never known quite what to think of, and wouldn't know where to start on my own. You've given me just enough information to get my attention and leave me wanting more, which is invaluable. keep up the excellent work!
Thanks so much for your kind comments; I'm so happy to hear this has helped! Makes my time working on these worthwhile :)
I agree that the effect and context of any artwork is vital towards its interpretations and general reception, but this example "zero degree" painting can only go so far before becoming repetitive. In fact, our responses today about the insignificance of abstract art today demonstrates how we are currently craving artwork that doesn't simply negate everything but incorporates this zero-degree traumatic zone as a meaningful symbolic function within compositional forms. For example, look at the way Francis Bacon uses a black void-like background in much of his work. It is no longer simply negativity as such, but negativity reappropriated into a new expressive meaning.
No the child can't paint such a thing as it has to be seen in context and this is a pretty good comment on why Malevich chose to do it. As Susan Sontag says in 'Against Interpretation' works such as those of Pollock or others resist interpretation. Whether the artist simply thinks: "Bother it, I'll paint a black square today," or it is part of his art practice and a wider theory, doesn't necessarily matter. It helps if the complex significance is anticipated. But in a way, it seems, he "discovered it", but his art practice may have been moving towards this point. I think Duchamp's answer to someone who said, of some work he did or produced: "I could have done that." was: "But you didn't, the importance is that I did it first." !!
Great video! I wouldn't have gave this black square any thought without your video but it truly is amazing. To think something so simple could be interpreted so differently and also can change meaning based on the context (eg. where to hang it). For those that are closed minded this would have created heated arguments and for those with patience and understanding and an open mind this would have led to eureka moments (eg. the feeling you discovered the creation of light bulb).
Thanks to young people like you the future should be pretty good, for the arts and all else.Great channel you created!.
I think that Malevich was one of best artist, when it comes to understanding art. This black square did what is suppose to do. It provocate you. Make you think, bad, or good things. It's not an masterpiece, but it's showing to us what art can do. Even simple art. And it should be on exams in art school. Artist can't be ignorant, ignorant artist is an bad artist, who don't understand or don't want to understand this paint, should not pass the exam.
i really love your concept and especially the topic of the video. but one thing that stood out to me is that you keep your voice fairly monotone and it can be hard to keep track of the stories that all seem increadibly scripted....
Thanks for the feedback! Definitely something that I can work on :)
I think you did a lovely interpretation.
in a technical sense, yes anyone's child could paint a solid black square. However, the art is not in the black square itself but in what the black square is suppose to represent. The real art is the thoughts, ideas and the artist interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the black square which is rooted in Russian history and culture, (the unseen).
Because most people can only see a simple black square and are unfamiliar with the historical context of the painting to the artist and Russian culture overall during that time period, the only thing they have to go on critic wise IS a simple black square.
If you look at suprematism in terms of semantics, you'll find the true value of the art.
Look at a semantic triangle, then one of these paintings.
There is no symbol, there is no referent, there is only thought (or reference). In that sence, suprematism is purely an experience.
Funny how (in general), the occident is increasingly obsessed with sophistication, but towards what? A kind of spiritualism that can exist without all that stuff? On that note, I think you might like Ryoji Ikeda's project: "C4i"!! If you check it out, please let me know what you think.
cheers
I do! Now excused me as I go watch all the other videos/recordings :P
First off kids use representation all the time they paint a house and it means family their family. Their pet and what the pet likes to eat even if it looks like a poor shaped square and we see none of this it is in the child's mind. Seriously ask a child about their picture some day in most cases it will be astounding how much meaning they have put into their work even if we don't see any of it. In this regards I say his work could be done by a child both have the same amount of meaning and the "why" they did it to back it up as art.
I however look at art different it is what we do with two dimensions and in trying to represent three and some times four dimensions that actually matters. It takes skill and thought to do this.
Thanks! This is very helpful, it's taken me a few steps further in knowing how to approach Suprematism, and it is much more fair to Malevitch to have this context. Nicely presented down to earth and knowledgable, and without any wasted time not that the last is that important.
Great video! Tnx
beautiful
But there's quite a lot going on in the black square which is mainly overlooked...it's a lot more than a black square.
Wiittgenstein's picture theory (2.131 Tractatus) says the elements of the picture are representative of objects, but it one looks through a telescope and it's all black, it would be hard to prove that the blackness was representative of objects because one couldn't know for sure from the 2D data.
Malevich's 'Black Square' is labelled as a 2D shape, so it could be said to state the proof of consciousness for being a 2D shape in a perceived external world of three dimensions. I prefer not to identify with the square because I'd rather be something else inside (:-)). One recognizes it, because it's wrong, wrong ,wrong.
One could say that of any picture, though. That it identifies that consciousness is because one can perceive form and space on a 2D surface, the illusory equivalent of seeing space through solid matter.
In actual fact his square is a trapezoid. Was he really so lousy at art? Did he not own a ruler? Perhaps calling it a square when it's not, is a presentation of the work as a notion of, or a concept of a square in the mind, so is it not representative? If he'd labelled it 'Black 2D shape surrounded by white 2D shape' then it is not representative as such.
Your video seems to be saying that it is a joke on art theory, to say 'What does it matter anyway?, A picture is a picture, get over it.
Those snide comments are as valid as the bs some artist vomit about their low effort work. Just because it's snide, doesn't mean it's not true.
Great videos! im just starting a carreer on contemporary art, and its really helpfull to find this information!
What i got from this is that an artist should strive and aspire to create his own unique individual artistic statement.,,,,To think outside the box of the status-quo ,
Ironically most of the people in this comment section calling people who like abstract art pretentious seem to have that snobby attitude that they think others have. Saying "It's bad but you can't understand that because your dumb/have been indoctrinated by the system" is pretty much the same as an art snob saying "this lady pushing eggs out of her vagina onto a canvas is amazing and you can't understand it because you are stupid". It's all the same, can people not accept that different people value different aspects of art?
Hi. I was wondering if you could share the process of how popular contemporary exhibitions decide what to show at their exhibitions. I've heard that the contemporary works that are shown are based on the tastes of the extremely wealthy and the reasons for the legitimacy of the art is developed simultaneously. Maybe while explaining this subject you could touch on Outsider Art (both the original movement and contemporary Outsider Art). If not, it's okay. You just explain these more difficult aspects of art history well and I'd like to learn how you see these issues. Either way, I'm subscribing.
Sage Llivokin That's a really great question. Museum exhibitions are usually organized by curators (and their team) who are experts in that area and they do a lot of research to put the shows together. Legitimizing art can be really complicated - there's a lot of aspects that can go into consideration, and it really depends who you're asking (who determines if it is legitimate?)
I'll probably talk more about it in a video one day, but yes, super difficult! Thanks so much Sage :)
Little Art Talks I'm open to both refrigerator art and the perspectives I gain by relating to a complicated intent, but what I don't like is being duped. Even organizations that should be viewed as important because of their intrinsic value to society depend on marketing and politics to stay relevant to the masses. The science establishment is an example of what I mean: using figures like Dr. Tyson to make science entertaining and naming telescopes after famous people to kind of force funding for the equipment. I'm wondering if the art establishment does the same to stay funded and relevant which is not a bad thing, but I think art in a macro sense loses a natural progression for a more manufactured progression. Plus, I would like to know if the art I'm consuming at a gallery is actually the most impactful to our era or if history is being forged by unnatural causes.
I'm also curious as to what kind of research the teams do when preparing for an exhibition.
I know that's a bit to mull over. These are the kind of weird comments you're going to get while your channel grows though haha Take care.
Awesome!
Did the New York street brand Supreme, draw inspiration from suprematism? The classic red box supreme logo has that feel to it.
+10000yrs Supreme is mostly based on Barbara Kruger's type/style
As a species we have enhanced our knowledge through defining things more as we learn more of the make up of them, from the atom to the heavens..,but making up silly names and calling anything art is regressive, these people will sell anything others are stupid enough to buy.
pretty sure the only reason this is seen as 'art' and 'valuable' is due to the time period it was made in and the circumstances around its creation. not because the piece is particularly thought provoking or intreaging, someone just happened to sell a good story to go with it.
That's all most modern art is...who's serving up the biggest glass of bullshit, lol.
I get how the Black Square isn't supposed to have any carried meaning to it beyond it being a literal black square on a white background, but the story behind its creation still gives it meaning, which that by itself is what a child can't recreate. In addition to that, the story itself carries a meaning with it, which seems to be: questioning what is or what has always been (art) for the sake of questioning it and for the sake of rebellion. That's what annoys me to an extent, why attempt to strip all meaning from art that has always carried meaning, to so many people throughout mankind's history?
But, again I'm only annoyed to an extent because to me the Black Square didn't succeed. Maybe during its first year it was successful to its purpose, but the moment Kazimir Malevich realized what exactly he created, it failed. The moment Malevich saw its value as something that lacks any meaning, he made that the point of the piece which gave it meaning, which took away its meaning. It's paradoxical and not completely true to the creator's intention. The added value of its history doesn't help it either, just gives it more meaning.
I still consider it a good piece of art though, because it's an example of how you can give meaning to literally anything. Arguably, you can't really escape having meaning or purpose, you or someone else can always create meaning for you. But all this is just my opinion.
Thanks for your talk....I just got to see this in Buenos Aires and wish I'd seen your you tube video first....you make it simple to digest
I agree that one can look too deeply or with blinders on and sure not your average kid could use the full range of techniques to create some abstract art. It may be in the eye of the beholder but if the black square needs to be tallked about to convey the message and this isnt part of the art work as completed then we either take the position that the art is not just in the painting but the viewing and discussion of or it seems more of a novell idea that (to me) isnt worth realising other than as a gedanken. Im obvs not a big fan of abstract art but can get some aesthetic appreciation from some pieces, my pet art hate is a painting in Brisbanes art gallery that is just a white canvas with black orthagonal grid on it. I love graph paper lol but to call it art to me is a stretch. To each thier own though :P
uh.. I'm a child so I don't know if I could do that but probably yeah
If I understand this correctly: the point was to have no context to the work? but that it's place in the art world is due only to the context of its creation? (lol kinda funny/ironic if I understood that right)
Jesus , you need to do a long talk. I could listen to you for hours!!!!
good job, nicely packaged thoughts :-)
This is a perfect example of the kind of pretentiousness that turns people off to art. My kid actually did paint a canvas that looks like this, and if the value of a piece is dependent on how much it is monetarily worth, then there is no hope for art. (FYI: my sons is worth much more that Maleviches pointless splattering.)
Nothing exists without a purpose, and art is fortunate enough to have many reasons for existing. Art is supposed to enlighten, instruct, and record. It is for entertainment, inspiration, and the preservation of history. Art is the keeper and discoverer of ideas. It mocks, praises, mourns and celebrates. At its most basic level, art must do something or it is not art.
The fact that the artist was unaware he had even created something for two years demonstrates that this was never meant to be anything more than a random set decoration. It was forced to be something, and anyone who says they grasp the empty message is deluding themselves. Attempting to appear intellectual, people will mindlessly glom on to these types of ridiculous art movements. God forbid they should not understand the existential meanings of these higher order geniuses! But the truth is so much simpler, and less glamorous. It is nothing more than an afterthought, wrapped in pretty, descriptive words and lifted high for the ignorant art sycophants to gape and fawn over. It is one big practical joke. If you say you understand it, then the joke is on you.
In truth, any child can see “The emperor wears no clothes.”
Thank you. This was enlightening.
I believe that all art forms including non-visual ones can inform and help other art forms. Though I don't agree with these kinds of works, what do you think a traditional painter can learn from such things? Like much of abstract art is an exercise in pure composition and colors... what about works like this black square?
I wish you touched on colour symbolism when you spoke about pictorial representations and the non-representational. Did Malevich understand that his work could be rationalized through colour - especially relative colour as with other artists of the Russian avant-guard?
Given that the hanging of the work is such a culturally specific reference, and a significant one, is the focus on the minutiae of what is within the frame more prevalent among westerners?
Wow you just educated me! nice presentation :D
So let me get this straight. The reason this black box is so amazing/well known is due to its background and not the painting itself? I get that it doesn't mean anything but than why is it so important? There are different forms of art and different people like art for different reasons but I cant wrap my mind around what makes this piece of art and Suprematism in general so great. Not knocking on the style or anything and some Suprematistic works are interesting to look at but pieces like these... Idk i think I think I missed something :/.
Abstract art basics:
1) come up with a stupid philosophical reason that no one wrap their heads arounds.
2) just draw two black squares on a white paper
3) make sure that anyone who doesn't get it feels like they are stupid.
praneeth nalla haha in a nutshell ya
Can you do a video on good artwork versus bad art work and is everything the popular famous top notch art critics say true?... like if they tell you that your art is a taste hack does that necessarily mean that it is true?
I'm enjoying all of your segments! Thank you so much for sharing this! Was Rothko influenced by this movement? I've just started learning about art and its history and, for some reason, Rothko popped into my head as I was watching this.
Ramona Contreras Yes, he influenced a number of similar artists :)
Great video, thanks!
Very well explained!
I appreciate your channel. Thank you!
المربع الاسود 🔳 بكل بساطة وسهولة يعني البعد الروحي .
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
البصيرة هي ما يدركة العقل و تجهله العين.
🦢🦢🦢🦢🦢🦢🦢🦢🦢
Love your channel!
Money laundering and tax evasion is the reason.
did you slow your video to half speed? seems to talk slow pace
Great!
Thank you for your explanation. You convinced me.
I agree, this is a very good explanation. Thank you for sharing!
Joe Blow Graceful e Thanks for watching! :)
I was absent in class so the next time I saw that square I was like What is this crap? Now I know :D
you are amazing, thank you for explaining
Seen it. It's beautiful
Thanks, I really enjoyed it. :)
Every artist know its not a square if u look close
I like your information.can I know short meaning of sublime and what is relation between Kazimir Malevich and Sublime?
makwana usha That's a great suggestion! I will try to brainstorm some ways to explain it
Could you say Rothko is expressionist or expressionist-suprematist ? Or something else?
Aidurrr Rothko is part of a movement of Color Field painters, which is considered an early part of the Abstract Expressionist.
Very honet haha thanks for sharing!
you know that feeling of anger/resentment/condescension you get from this piece, the one that drives you to write a comment stating once again (as if it would matter what you think) that you don't believe this is art?... yea well that's kind of the point. it forces you to pose a question about it. at least one, maybe more if you like to think.
whether or not you like it is irrelevant. the fact is that this painting is still forcing us to ask questions about ourselves and our relation to the world.
can you take a good hard look at the banal abjection of your life?
...
Who the Hell are you and where did you come from? I am blown away. Thank You.
Counter Strike SEM You are too kind! Thanks for watching :)
exactly it would not cost as much as that one coz art has been reduced to branding, not to the value and art in itself. please people stop trying to be "sophisticated" and call out mediocre art as it is.
coz if it was about expression, then a kid's drawing should cost just as much as this black box. art for it's value, not its brand.
I know I commented on a bunch of ur vids this week XD. They're great!
Ok what bothers me is people profiting off of the "mystique" of it all. It really bothers me that stories behind artists have been kept in the dark and made to be "pretentious" by ppl who wanted it that way. It holds people back!
Throughout history, these real stories of REAL peoples lives and REAL social struggles SHOULD have been presented to bring unity and awareness.
I saw a documentary on abstract art where it was drawn by people in mental hospitals. Instead of history teaching the awareness of mental health, it was treated as a money maker to the public, that pretention creating yet another gap between us and others.
Why doesn't history VALUE the people and their STORIES. Art could bring every1 together if it was openly educated!
I highly respect being taught in college how to critique a piece "intellectually" to see many things it, but are we doing it to make money or to make awareness?
Once again, another attempt to justify why something like Black Square is so important. I think what so called abstract artists and their followers need to accept is that they are part of a very select group of the population, a group that enjoys blathering on about lofty concepts and esoteric nonsense. They can perpetuate their ideas within their own society just fine, but stop thinking that the rest of the population needs to take all of abstract art seriously.
We all use abstract. Get out. Designs copied from abstract painters and pop artist are everywhere.
Actually it is just to launder money.
The modern art indstury is just legal tax evasion.
it's Malewicz not Malevichizzdsfx-something :) wicz is like in itch (ale- like in hebrew letter alef) and mal like in mal-wale.
I think you are the real art here!
This is my favorite video by far! I think I understand. My kids can definitely make a black square on a white background, but it won't hold the same significance in accordance to the time period and the culture and beliefs associated with it like the original. Someone can make a copy and sell it, but that's plagiarism and illegal and they're going to jail.
I'm so glad you liked it! :) Yes, you can have something that looks similar, but it won't hold the same importance due to a number of these reasons.
So why cant an average person make it? What makes it so hard to paint
It's not so much the skill required, it's more about the thought behind the painting.
+grandevive1 As she mentioned in the vid - Malevich did not make it as an art - it was a stage backdrop (as a huge screen it would have looked pretty imposing and relevant). When he actually got the idea later on, he knew very well that no skill would be required here - what mattered was the content and presentation.
What would antisuprematism be?
She looks like Cho Chang but prettier
I think the black square has fooled a lot of people. It was meant to mock art students.
abshhhhtract art