How the CIA Funded Your Favorite Art: A Response to Jacob Geller
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 окт 2024
- Please leave a like, comment and/or subscribe if you want to support the channel!
Also financially support me at:
/ chemicalreaction
Or you can leave a tip here:
streamlabs.com...
And join my discord:
/ discord
And finally follow me on twitter:
/ chemreac1
Thanks for watching!
Citations: What Are Mark Rothko's Biggest Political Controversies? (artnews.com)
www.independen...
/ abstract-expressionism...
www.bbc.com/cu...
/ abstract-impressionism...
Mark Rothko on How to Be an Artist | Artsy
The Artist’s Reality: Mark Rothko’s Little-Known Writings on Art, Artists, and What the Notion of Plasticity Reveals about Storytelling - The Marginalian
At times I feel like this video might come off as a bit of an angry screed. As such I’d recommend watching the video which adds extra textual context rather than just listening to see the full nuance of my arguments. Of course, I know the arguments and evidence I present in this video are strong enough to hold up without resorting to personal attacks or lazy arguments. As such, from now on I will try harder to make my scripts neutral and purely fact-based (and to avoid writing scripts while I’m in a bad mood lmao).
I’ve also probably spread myself too thin between too many different projects, which is another story…
Also, I found the painting used in the thumbnail here: [deleted by user] : r/Art (reddit.com). It is by no means mine. If the artist wants credit or for me to delete this thumbnail, I will happily do so.
Citations:
What Are Mark Rothko's Biggest Political Controversies? (artnews.com)
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
medium.com/@chandlermahoney/abstract-expressionism-and-the-cold-war-d6412811c41a
www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia
medium.com/maryvorontsov/abstract-impressionism-as-the-cias-propaganda-tool-in-the-cold-war-12f522493029
Mark Rothko on How to Be an Artist | Artsy
The Artist’s Reality: Mark Rothko’s Little-Known Writings on Art, Artists, and What the Notion of Plasticity Reveals about Storytelling - The Marginalian
I find this video to be rather unpleasant and how it falls within the pitfalls you critique Geller for making. There also seems to be many examples of lying by omission, such as Rothko's drastic decrease in mental stabillity and work ethic after finding out how much his paintings had been comodified. I also dislike how you use MoMA as somewhat of a group that decides what is or isn't modern art and imply that to this day, modern art centres are staunchly pro-capitalist when galleries such as the Tate Modern have displayed not only anti-capitalist art, but art by staunchly Marxists Soviets. Last time I was there, they had soviet propaganda posters framed and displayed alongside other pieces of art.
Whilst your opinion is valid, I think your bias against this art is too strong and you've found yourself coming off hypocritical. _All_ counter-cultural movements were co-opted by feds to depolitisise them in one way or another, to pretend this is something that is predominantly found within modern art is unrealistic and can even be considered blatant misinformation.
Also, don't use people's art without their permission. Especially in a video where you say that kind of art is "dangerous". That is just mean.
Your feeling is accurate, that's exactly how it comes off.
As someone whose watched your videos for a while now this is honestly such a step down. There's a lot of assumptions made here and honestly, even some appeals to authority in areas where the conversation should be far more subjective. I don't think there's much that can contextualize that.
Also, regardless of the circumstances, you shouldn't use people's artwork without their consent. That's just an obvious no-go. The person isn't able to be credited so you shouldn't use the artwork at all, especially when it's the main draw in the thumbnail.
Everyone makes mistakes, but it should be emphasized that this is exploitative. Using art from an artist that is unknown to you at the time risks fully associating them and their piece with your video which isn't fair to someone who may potentially want nothing to do with this. Ask before taking from others, always.
@dlf7789 I let my personal dislike for modern art get in the way of a good argument and it somewhat clouded the more important message of the video. From now on I'm gonna try to take things a little slower and more level headed.
Counter-culture or "anti-establishment" criticisms without providing a solution or presenting or celebrating an alternative is exactly what the ruling class loves. It's controlled opposition that they can turn on and off like a tap.
Yup. It's why marches are typically permitted as a form of protest but occupation of factories or means of production are not. One of these can accomplish substantive change, so it is forbidden
@@NoMoreCrumbs”saying guy is bad is allowed but not kidnapping said guy? Insane!” Dude what?
Yep, specially when the moral of the story is 'everythings fucked, theres no solution' that causes the perfect apathy to keep things as they are
@@PoorEdward ocupating a factory just stops production, no one is kidnapped
@aguspuig6615 By occupation, he means workers taking control of said means of production. It would probably decrease production, not completely halt it.
and it’s not like the only revolutionary art form out there is highly realistic paintings of farmers or whatever, picasso’s “guernica” is an EXCELLENT piece of forward thinking and avant-garde art as well as a highly poignant work about the barbarity of fascism, the CIA promoted a specific kind of avant garde artist, one more into personal expression and emotion than politics
Yeah no, I'm sorry but that's a gross misinterpretation of 'guernica' as well. I love the painting myself, but Picasso was already wold famous when he made it, and he was criticised for the work at the time because he co-opted a real tragedy for a publicity stunt.
My personal opinion is that it was a critique of both (all) warring parties in the civil war and how his fellow spanish civilians were completely ground underfoot in all the ideological violence. I can only assume though because he made the entire thing in Paris, based on newspaper articles and never actually spoke about its meaning other than its anti-war nature.
@@henkdevriesch How can it be a critique of both when it depicts the bombing of Guernica perputrated by the Naz1s and fascist Italy? 'Guernica' was completed after 'The Dream and Lie of Franco' which were intended to be postcards sold and then donated to the Spanish Republican Government.
I think Geller had good intentions and makes good points in the video. However he definitely doesn’t elaborate enough on “Fascists dislike Rothko yes, but if you dislike Rothko, that doesn’t make you a fascist”.
Personally I love Rothko and he himself didn’t collaborate with the CIA, he was just used by them. I think? From what I know he leaned left politically.
My favorite moment of his is when he was commissioned to paint for a high end restaurant and so wanted to make the most ugly paintings possible, to make the rich there vomit.
However he later goes on to say that he has the sad realization that such an effort would be fruitless because no rich snob would ever even consider looking at his art, nevertheless judge it.
Another thing people might think upon seeing Rothko is similar to other reactions to abstract art “wow how pretentious uninspired and lazy”. However it is inportant to realize 1. Rothko’s techniques are definitely more than just putting a bunch of paint haphazardly on a canvas. And 2. Abstract art is usually a reaction to something. It’s not usually a stand alone piece.
That being said both we and Rothko himself hate/d people who try to ascribe deeper ultra profound meaning to his paintings, like in fact the CIA did with its propaganda.
I mean halfway through the video Geller did say "I'm not about to tell you that not liking modern art makes you fascist" and "If you don't like any of the art I've talked about in this video, 100% fine"
@@Keyboard_ink Yup! My mistake. Although him mentioning it once might still not be elaborating enough. Idk. That’s up to interpretation.
He certainly doesn’t go into, however, how you can dislike the paintings also on political grounds and still be justified and not a fascist.
@@Nightmare-pj4fg I just think its a bit of a misinterpreted oversimplification of his argument. I don't really see how anyone can finish Jacob Gellers video without leaving with the idea that "seeing modern art as a means for societal degradation" is inherently a facist idea. Regardless of how some might interpret it, he never said that "disliking modern art" is fascistic. That just wasn't the point of the essay.
@@Keyboard_ink No for sure. To be honest Chemical Mind confused me a tad bit with this one. May have to rewatch both videos. A person in the comment section who disagreed with chemical completely basically shares my opinions on Gellers video so you can read their synopsis for my whole views.
I love the guy, but he seemed to be too consumed by the culture war in that video, deep down he knows disliking Rothko doesnt make you fascist but at that moment in time he didnt even have those arguments at the ready, all that was in his mind was how great modern art is and how all those who he knows go against it are fascist, he came very close to an ironically very fascist take, were you either like the given thing or youre the enemy
Ok so, I'm writing this as with pure intent and sincerity as an organised leftist.
I simply cannot agree with your thesis such as it is. Your thought process seems a little wishy-washy in this specific video. Yes, liking any kind of art isn't a leftist statement. Disliking any kind of art isn't some fascist statement. With very few exceptions in between for things that are liked FOR their politics and not for their inherent artistic merit (like a Pete Seeger song for instance, which although great, is not a musical masterpiece).
Furthermore, I distinctly remember leaving Jacob's video with a vastly different impression than your own; that being that *hating* a piece of art is rarely a thing people do out of an aesthetical sentiment. If I don't like a certain œuvre I just move on; maybe discuss what I don't like about it with somebody else. I don't make a fuss about hating it. THAT was Jacob's point, I think.
What's more, whenever I have been with more artistically minded leftists, any artist (especially famous ones) mentioned will get the preface of condemnation or important note before taking about them. Modern art is but one of the things hijacked by the CIA and promoted in specific ways to aid their cold war goals. That doesn't diminish the art itself. If anything, leftist thought ought recontextualize such art movements and artists away from reactionary forces and narratives.
I believe this video wasn't up to your usual standards... Lack of definitive thesis, lack of nuance, just... No, comrade. It just comes off like some young self fashioned Komsomol teen coming up to you and saying "hey you know Jackson Pollock was like funded by the CIA? Modern art is reactionary and that's why I don't bother with it" (funnily enough that's a real thing a communist party youth told me when I was in my 1st year of uni)
Lots of love; communist greetings from the balkans.
I agree with you on all of this. Especially my impression on what Jacob Geller was saying in his video. He says that tons of people dislike modern art, and they aren't fascists, but if you vandalise said painting, or protest it being in an exhibit, then you're doing a lot more than just disliking it.
The naivety in this comment is painful.
@@fedweezy4976 I have no clue how so many people overlooked this in Geller's video. Incredible.
There we go, finally a well constructed comment that goes on about the real crux of Geller's video!
@@Samhain23 why would you assume (in lack of concrete evidence) that people "overlooked" something that isn't metatextual but part of the text? Of course some inevitably will, as with any text, but why assume people are too media illiterate and or stupid to listen to words and understand them?
Prior to his stroke, Matt Christman spoke about this, making several of the same points you make here. The retreat from class politics into the personal and individual suited the forces of anti-communism very well. It is the legacy of the failure of the New Left that we are still dealing with these issues.
That big red painting would look better with some tools on it. ☭
You can do it! ;)
I don’t like how this video starts out by fundamentally misreading Jacob Geller’s video essay…he doesn’t say disliking modern art makes you a fascist by default. He’s commenting on the pattern we see with these conservative talking heads using abstract art as a talking point to delegitimize the left.
Also, you could’ve re-recorded that bit about Barnett Newman. I appreciate you pointing out all this stuff about Rothko, but it feels disingenuous to start off the essay with criticizing Geller’s commentary on the whole scandal with Barnett Newman and lumping it into an essay mostly talking Rothko. Everyone has heard of Rothko! Not everyone knows Barnett Newman and the whole box cutter thing just as well.
Idk just make an essay about Rothko? You don’t have to start off “disagreeing” with a popular RUclips essayist. You can make connections to other media, but at least have the grace to do it properly? But idk it’s RUclips, I guess don’t really have any sort of journalistic obligations. Not trying to be rude here. I know it’s still a social media site. Just throwing my two cents into this gaping void of information
I feel like Jacob and many other breadtubers are anarchists and have certain anarchist tendencies and talking points, so his liking of post-modernism and abstract art goes hand in hand with his beliefs.
Very, very well done, comrade! It's not just about the art, it must also be about its provenance and source of funding.
Hello sis :3
@@SlobostanCroatYu Hello!
@@sentientnatalie e
Fascists tend to have strong opinions on art. Hitler viewed European art as superior and the art of "undesirables" to be objectively inferior. All cultures make art, and so fascism must declare that some art is degenerate as they believe is true with humans. In Geller's video, he specifically covers the Nazis museum of art, which categorized art from African cultures, Jewish artists, socialists, and many more as "degenerate art". What was not considered degenerate was roman works, and the works of European masters influenced by them, who tended to produce works that most people in America would probably point to as the first thing that comes to mind when they think of the word "art". Fascism, which is also a capitalist ideology, believes that art is given value by the skill and difficulty in creating it. Within this frame of mind, art that one could arrogantly claim as unskillful is not art at all. Geller is not saying that disliking modern art is fascist, nor is he rejecting that modern American art exists within a capitalist system that rewards (some of) it. He is stating that the attitude towards art that causes some people to HATE abstract art is one possessed by fascists. To a fascist, art is meritocracy, and not about how art makes you feel. That was a big part of his video, that if you view art as good based on the merits to skill and effort it shows, and not on what it makes you feel, then you are viewing art in much the same way a fascist does. Geller didn't really comment on art as a modern industry, but that wasn't what his video was about, his video was about why some people seem to hate modern art. They think it doesn't 'deserve' to be called art at all.
Ps: cia funded abstract art was a direct response to Soviet era expressionism, which was also hated by the nazis. Modern abstract art has socialist roots.
"That was a big part of his video, that if you view art as good based on the merits to skill and effort it shows, and not on what it makes you feel, then you are viewing art in much the same way a fascist does."
I think you need a little more there, I think that one must assign a negative moral character to such abstract art, the artist and those who show preference for it, to approach the fascist ideology. Even still, a fascist could invent a mirror reason to prefer abstract over ultra detailed and realistic works, because fascism embraces incoherence. For some people, abstract just doesn't make them feel shit, so they somewhat understandably come to resent the praise it often gets. I've also seen the opposite occur, putting abstract on a higher pedestal. Ultimately, I think most people invested in art will have strong opinions on it.
Cool video. The CIA is most like involved in every single piece of media we are exposed to. My uncle worked for the apartheid government censoring foreign media for the SABC. After that, he worked in advertising in the UK. In his own words he worked in brainwashing all his life.
I know through my own experiences that my work has been censored, from my comedy to my art to my youtube videos. I've seen youtube views go up exponentially (for my Arican lego video) and then suddenly stop as if someone just turned the video off.
My father was assassinated when I was 2 and when I was 30 I found out that he was executed by the president, when I started telling everyone I was intercepted by an intelligence agent that told me to keep quiet, I didn't, and now my life is completely ruined. Everyone thinks I'm a s** offender. I've been relegated to sitting in my room programming, but I know that once my game is finished they are just going to steal it from me.
Alan Turing was castrated by the British government and started growing breasts before he committed suicide. This is how they treat the best and brightest.
The video "The genius design of Communist Memorials" was a great video on the topic of abstract Socialist Art in Yugoslavia, and shows how unique Socialist Art can be.
Here's the thing. Fascists can make cool art, post modernists can make cool art, hell the CIA itself can make cool art. I hate to break it to you but it is true.
Idk man, this is an interesting fun fact, but speaking as someone who despises capitalism and the american empire with all the hate one man can hold in his heart, this video doesn't really assemble into more than a pile of unrelated factoids, a la a "sack of potatoes".
I don't think the fact that two of the world's most powerful countries at the time used art as geopolitical tools for global influence or to advance their own ideological goals necessarily refutes the idea that it's mostly reactionary groups and movements that have had the most opposition to modern and abstract art. I think there's a difference between those that just dislike how it looks or find very little meaning or value in it and those that straight up see it as part of a broader problem with "postmodernism" or "degeneracy" in modern society like politically reactionary people do, not to say explicitly advocating for campaigns to censor those art movements in favor of what they consider "proper" art . Also, the CIA and other Western, anti capitalist agencies have propped up other things that they claim socialist nations don't have or that are subversive towards them, such as LGBT rights, and this doesn't make LGBT rights inherently capitalist, Western or anti-socialist, it's just a convenient geopolitical tool to attack other nations. And obviously these attacks are not always fully justified since there are socialist countries with a more mixed and nuanced record when it comes to LGBT rights than anti-socialists would have you believe and others that are much better than many supposedly liberal countries such as Cuba. Similarly, I wonder if there were some abstract/expressionist/modernist movements in socialist countries that refute the idea that they are inherently capitalist and that they can be subversive.
Just because the US and the USSR and other socialist countries pushed one or the other doesn't give socialist realism or abstract and modern art an inherent political essence, though I do think it's important to acknowledge that politics also affect art and culture, both passively and also much more directly like governments literally propping up entire movements. I would be interested in knowing how socialist realism came to be so common across so many socialist nations, if it sort of independently arose in a lot of them or if they were all mostly taking inspiration from the USSR and it came to be seen as an inherently subversive and anti capitalist art movement.
Edit: also, regarding your point that because abstract art was propped up by the CIA and the US, which enabled or supported fascists, it couldn't possibly be anti-fascist or something fascists would inherently oppose, something interesting to remember is that many fascist movements have adopted many aesthetic and very superficial aspects of socialist movements or countries (also including slogans or rhetoric), because they understand that they can appeal to the same demographics socialists hope to appeal to (which goes back to my point about how sometimes people use certain ideas as political tools, regardless of the contradictions in doing so, and I don't think this says much about those ideas and more about the people using them), some might also agree with a lot of socialist ideas but still hold an overall strong fascist point of view. And much like with LGBT rights, we don't take the fact that people we oppose might adopt things we support as proof that we need to abandon those things or identify them as something belonging to the opposition.
So, once again, I just don't think the tactics and campaigns that a handful of intellectuals and propagandists from opposing geopolitical blocs were using through art movements says much about said art movements (they need to be understood within their historical context and not be judged solely by how state actors used them for their own goals), but it does say a lot about those pulling the strings.
The art styles between different socialist countries were, at least by my study of their propaganda posters, very stylistically different in a lot of ways, even if the themes were similar
@@chemreac1Do you have any book recommendations regarding art and propaganda in socialist nations?
@@emulator1697 the CIA has never propped up LGBT rights against a socialist country. The United States is the bulwark of reaction in the world and since 1945 the biggest enemy of LGBT liberation, just like women's liberation in the world. Concretely for example, by funding and supporting most of the world's fascists and conservative monarchies
@@chemreac1 No response to any of the rest of this comment? It kind of undermines the entire video, and several commenters have made similar points equally well.
@@fabianheinrich3930Yeah I didn't want to point it out because I thought he would elaborate a bit further later, I still agree with his overall point that some forms of art could influence conformism, though now that I've thought about it long enough I don't know if any of this had a major effect in any of these societies. Perhaps it's soft power for all of these countries, but I don't think this did much to influence anyone into being more radical or conformist, though it's still worth pointing out at what lengths several governments went to just to promote art they thought could change people's minds. I don't think people should make art purely or even partly for propaganda purposes, this mentality is what prevented people that were actually radical compared to Rothko from being remembered due to the state and private interests promoting one artist over others, and I assume a lot of artists in socialist countries that didn't conform to state approved art movements faced similar fates.
I love Jacob, but in that video i felt like he was missing the point. He kept going on about how good modern art is because indeed, a seemingly random spattering of colors can elicit some emotion, and then he kept focusing on the alt right and the alt right and the alt right as the one and only group that dislikes modern art wich is actually the greatest thing.
While not being fully wrong that type of video is what made a younger teenage me start going down the alt right pipeline for a little time
I remember when the topic of CIA funding Modern Art was not common knowledge
Yeah thats a stretch.
As someone who went to art school you most certainly can have a "unique color pallete". For most of history artists would pretty much all have unique color palletes to some degree. While they may be using the same base pigments the additives and measurements would vary greatly. This changes even more if you go from one region to another. As more premade paints or chemicals became produced specifically for painting it allowed artists to gain an even greater degree of control over their paint. If you genuinely think that you can look at a painting with no visible brushstrokes with varying degrees of hue and sheen and reproduce it 1 to 1 with absolutely no idea what was used in its creation i have no idea what to say. That kind of understanding of color theory and deductive skill when it comes to the necessary combination of ingredients to reproduce tbe effect would take an extremely talented artist. Also at no point does he make the claim that you repeat like 100 times in this video. He does say that if you dont like anything in this video thats fine and he even says if you dont like anything produced after the 1800s thats also ok. And then goes on to explain how not liking basically any art at all that has been made after the 1800s does fall in line with certain fascistic views on art. Thats a pretty far cry from "if you dont like rothko your a fascist".
His thesis is not that disliking Rothko's paintings makes you a fascist. He doesnt say anything like that. His essay is about the outrage in response to modern art, which is a completely different issue from liking / disliking
Lenin disliked modern art, i dislike modern art. The outrage response to modern art is not specific to fascism or something that could ever define fascism in a nutshell- in fact art and fascists come from (generally) the same class- the petty borgeoise. Overall outrage response to modern art cannot be meaningfully linked to fascism. The working class have more important things to worry about but the petty borgeoise philosophy of artists and professors are some of those worries.
Alot of abstract art etc is anti communist, its not important or counter-revolutionary. So i think the perspective of the video even if not saying that people who don't like it are fascist the implication is that it leads to or is some kind of signifier. It is neither.
It's difficult to parse my overall thoughts on artists and death of the author / interpretation of pieces. When it comes to modern living artists the parsing issue gets more convoluted, especially when the artists works are decreed to be "The winner of art" by whatever entrenched power structure they are contemporary with. When usefulness to propagandists is layered on top of that all it makes art/art speculation/and artists thoughts on their works a minefield. Once the money laundering and commodification of thought inherent to the field comes up it's difficult to do much more with modern art beyond writing it off entirely which is unfortunate.
Would you please link to Geller's video? It's five years old, so it's not something that will pop up in people's feeds. Not linking to the video you're commenting is... bad. It's a grifter move, and you don't seem like a grifter.
Connecting your video to Geller's seems weird. After your video I watched Geller's, and I find your interpretation to be... let's say hasty. The CIA funding modern art in no way contradicts Geller's point that fascists like to attack modern art. Why bring Geller into this? Your own point would've been better served by not muddying it with a point another video essayist made 5 years ago.
My own first reaction to having watched your video was the uncharitable suspicion that you were trying to create drama to ride the algorithm. I took a step back, though, and decided that you probably would've chosen a fresh video if that's what you wanted to do. But comrade, it's not a good sign when the age of the video you're reacting to is the main thing that keeps you from looking like a dramatuber. Regardless of text disclaimers, you come across as being angry at a person instead of addressing material conditions.
This makes me kinda worried for you, in that weird parasocial way. Be well, comrade!
Nah you ppl are freaks. Its a badge of honor to repel ppl like you.
And you freaks do paint way too wide of a net for who is a fascist. Like almost nobody has actually ripped up a museum display but you freaks are trying to label ppl who haven't done that as fascist for not having your subjective interpretations.
You weirdos were literally calling anyone who wasn't defending Zoe Quinn a fascist. You freaks are so niche.
consooooom
Great video! In the UK kids are studying Animal Farm and being asked to write an essay about Socialist Realism in the light of Animal Farm. Or in the girls schools they study Frida Kahlo and never Diego Rivera.
@@ZhTra Frida was the far better communist, but I get what you mean
@@sinthoras1917 Fair enough! But she is mainly presented like a feminist without any ideology.
@@ZhTra yeah, they always whitewash people, slander them or ignore them
Thank you for this video.
i don't think awareness of the political context of rothko's work is the same thing as the visceral hatred that fascists have for it on the basis of it "not being art", which is the real subject of jacob's video. yes, rothko was able to succeed where similar artists didn't because he didn't challenge the US establishment, but most of our so-called great artists were enmeshed in the dominant class of their era. shakespeare performed for royalty but we can recognize his artistic merit without being monarchists. what jacob is trying to explore is how the idea of "degenerate" modern art operates in fascist psychology, not whether we should like rothko in particular. i do think it's important to bring up the CIA's cultural involvements but it's not really relevant to jacob's thesis and i think you could've made this video without using him as a prop
As guy who makes art, Rothko would have made art like that funding or not and honestly he’s probably the best painter in his “genera”. That guy knew what he was doing. Also like, most art was in human was funded by the powerfu, like the church, aristocracy or monarchy, those ideas were supported in that art. Geller is still using real political issues justify caring about gamergate or some low iq internet thing, but I can’t really care at some point. Not to say I’m a pollock or Picasso fan boy, I just thinks this not that says anything about the art in itself.
You have the same exact voice it sounded like Jacob Geller responding to himself
i think it’s a bit of both. i think that hating modern art doesn’t make you a fascist but it’s a very good indicator, but should not be taken in isolation. and i think that modern art can be very political. it’s a case by case thing.
I feel like you watched like the first 5 minutes of the video got pissed wrote a script and called it a day. While “who’s afraid of red yellow and blue.” Is important to the essay. The rest essay is just dedicated to dozens of other art pieces being attacked by groups that all have this fascistic stance that they can decide what is and is not art. Also what’s with the random like Obama rant. I’m not personally a fan of him but that whole part felt a bit disconnected.
This idea that if someone doesn't like abstract art is a fascist, overlooks the trend where highly reactionary and even outright fascists have adopted AI-art for their own purposes, something that is the most lazy and pretentious form of art there is.
this is a great, and valuable video.
honestly, that is ultimately one of my biggest problems with modern art/esoteric art/arthouse films, stuff of that nature. how judgemental the people who like it, by and large, are of the people like me who don't. like, we can't just have our own opinions on it. we have to be simple-minded cavemen who "just don't get it" or worse, we have to have reprehensible political positions. i just ask for more out of a painting than a red square on a white background. they can't just leave us alone, they have to say something to put us down somehow. it's like it's pathological for them.
It's because for the most part the only reason they like it is ideological, thus not liking it must also be ideological, and what's worse, it must be [enemy team]
@@paloim honestly... yeah. that's exactly why.
I think you're missing the point a bit. He's using Rothco as a stand in for all modern experimental art as a whole. It's not about the dude himself, I dont care for him either. And he's not just talking about abstract expressionism either, he could apply the same arguments to prop up walking simulator games that require tons of talent to create. Socialist realism was just a very tiny piece of Marxist art ever created, and most of it is more creative and unique than the capitalist equivalent. Of course the art industry in the US is tainted by capitalism, everything else is too. But I think you're too attached to the history here when what we're having is a modern day discussion.
If there was a fascist coup tomorrow, the fascists would try to ban games like Disco Elysium or movies like Snowpiercer and the Communists would be the ones trying to preserve the art for future generations. Communism is ultimately about trying to build a more equitable future with creative solutions, so for the most part our art has relied less on tradition. Before Stalin came to power, the early Soviet art was extremely forward thinking. Socialist Realism was heavily promoted because of the material conditions at the time, while other socialist countries across the globe have put much more emphasis on breaking new artistic ground. Stalin was a great leader, i just think his take on art was misguided and hurt the cause more than it helped.
@middaymeds I don't like stalins take on Art either. I think other Art movements should have been allowed to remain. But it's worth pointing out that abstract expressionism was not a natural movement but part of the Cold war
i mean abstract art has the potential to be highly reactionary too, look into the split between italian and russian futurists over the former’s support of fascism
this is mostly true, but it would've been better if it weren't coming from this initially defensive place. You know. The politics of modern art have a fuller complexity that leaves room for both perspectives without contradiction. It's important to understand why most reactionaries reject it, and also how it's been useful as a force of reaction. The CIA backing of abstract art is an important aspect of history, and it usually only gets mileage from people seeking to justify their immediate reaction against it. Geller didn't call you a fascist, and it's unfair to reduce his point to that.
In a way I see the contracted painter my building hires to cover up crayon scribbles a lot like Mark Rothko. There's layers upon layers, mixes of pigment that's never going to be replicated, and a guy who's just doing what he needs to do to feed his kids. Incidentally the building happens to like the egg white painted walls that the painter happens to have no problem painting, the clean and divot free spots that came from drywall patches, and the restraint required to only use one pigment because it's cheaper for the establishment. He's there, he does what he does, and it smooths out the runway for money to be made later down the line. Is he the one to blame for the atmosphere of our mental hospital? I wouldn't pin it solely on him, it's a group effort.
People come in, they scribble on the walls, they punch holes, and our painter comes and does what he does. Our painter is only here due to the values of the establishment, for clean and pristine symmetry and various cost cutting mechanisms, because his work happens to run parallel to both of those values. Incidentally it turned out that it was in the best interests of the establishment to have the painter, and for the painter to paint the establishment. It's not entirely practical for a room to be painted over after being drywall patched, to hire someone to paint it clean and pristine is an aesthetic choice informed by personal values and the projected enjoyment of future patrons. That he does it the same while being paid the same either way speaks to something.
Bare in mind, this isn't an attack on Mark Rothko. I think that if we had no Mark Rothko here then we wouldn't have the backdrop of a variety of discussions about art in general. He painted the walls of this whole discussion in a sense, multi-layered and rich with a variety of emotive expressions. People come in, they sometimes take issue, and then it gets patched up with their criticisms forever interwoven into the very egregore of Mark Rothko, like the walls of my mental hospital. Now there is forever a layer of crayon, in a sense like a layer of brush strokes, like patrons acting through Rothko or children carrying the crayon. The very need to survive, to feed one's kids, to do what needs to be done... It's very heavy when you look at it.
@@owendubs well said
Brother the video was not implying that Rothko was an anti-fascist or that everyone that dislikes his work is fascist.
I dont really see this as a destruction of Geller’s argument. Historically fascism has been the opposition to all kinds of modern art mainly because it expressed raw individuality (like taboo topics and stuff). And I really think this is the role of art, the expression of selfhood. Obviously when it comes to what kind of art to use as a counterculture for a leftist movement, clearly a more political leaning is essential (and modern arte had plenty of those, from pointillist anarchist to Dadaist and surrealist communists). But I think that has to emerge organically, we can force nor incentivise art to conform because it just simply leads to insatisfaction, the only really good revolutionary art (like that of my native mexican muralism) is the one born out of passion and class consciousness, not top down in any means.
As a side note I know modern art has become the nest of simple speculation and a proped up art by the CIA, but I think it has a great liberators message with conscious characters to use as an inspiration for a new art movement. We should engage with it knowing it’s limitations as I think we should do with radical theory also and philosophy in general
I see your point, but I think there are many incredible socialist realism paintings. Look it up if you want
You say the fascists opposed modern art because it expressed raw individuality, yet fascists don't seem to have a problem with individuality. Other than that you make some interesting points.
@@authoritarianleftist3095 Fascists do have a problem with individuality and they always have. They love to enforce rigid social and behavioural norms and to harshly punish anyone who strays too far from them. Fascists opposed modern art because it went against tradition and dogma which is also why it was a favourite of left-aligned artists and was massively funded in the early USSR until after Lenin's death
@@jojomojo508 They have a problem with the avant garde, not so much with individuality. Fascists are happy to promote the individuality of the petty bourgeois cis het neurotypical able-bodied dyadic white man. They are happy to promote the individuality of capital.
"They love to enforce rigid social and behavioural norms and to harshly punish anyone who strays too far from them." - You are absolutely right about this. They do this to maintain existing oppressing structures which in turn facilitate the concentration of capital and the reproduction of labour.
"Fascists opposed modern art because it went against tradition and dogma" You're right when you say it goes against tradition, which is why fascists and conservatives don't like it. But it doesn't necessarily go against dogma, maybe against conservative or fascist dogmas, but not all dogmas.
"was massively funded in the early USSR until after Lenin's death" - I didn't know this. That sounds interesting.
@@authoritarianleftist3095 You're mixing up individuality and individualism. Fascism supports petite bourgeois individualism but rejects individuality.
This speaks to the grumpy contrarian in me (which is in fact, most of what's in me). Well done. 👍🏻
Abstractionism is inherently classist and I am ready to debate whoever disagrees
Your pfp is abstractionist.
Politics aside though i think rothkos paintings are just plain boring
Have you ever stood in front of one?
Like, in person?
@@XxCorvette1xX Pretty weird criteria to decide whether or not an image is uninteresting. Why would that matter?
@@XxCorvette1xX nahhh I havent
@@water1374 they do kind of have a point. Seeing a painting online and seeing a painting in person is different
@@portugeese_man_o_warThey're not different dude, there is no metaphysical change in the artwork that'll make you suddenly like it if you see it in person
To me, the video seemed pretty clear that it wasn't a dislike of modern art that made you fascist, rather a sort of classical fundamentalism. I understand your point, and Jacob did present his argument a little wonky, but I do think it's clear what the video was about.
This is a gross misrepresentation of Geller's argument. He explicitly states at 16:12 in his video that there is nothing wrong with disliking modern art and that disliking it doesn't make you a fascist.
The points in this video about the political manipulation of art could stand alone without trying to refute a terrible strawman of Geller's actual point that calling modern art "degeneracy" does in fact make you a fascist.
have you read "the cultural cold war"?
It is so important to get this counter-current here. I do really like Jacob Geller's works, and I do still like that essay of his, but this is a really important addundment to his video!
Rothko's art is incredibly ugly and unappealing.
Wasn't Rothko chapel redeeming?
Funnily enough, Fascists always did like some abstract art and weren't the same type of conservative that the average American is today. The Futurists of Italy and many other movements were far from conservative, the fascists often hated monarchists and their values, and much of their imagery is abstract and counter-cultural. In contrast to this, most conservatives today want to "RETVRN" to flannel shirts, white picket fences, and the "family unit" while, back then, fascists were more forward thinking than that.
Fascists are "revolutionary reactionaries" which is a paradox, and it leads to situations like that. There are also ultra-reactionary monarchists that hate Fascists because they view all mass movements as "jacobinism".
If society is indeed destined to become Socialist, Fascism is what happens when the old order desperately needs to prevent that future from taking place, so they need to reappropriate "revolutionism" for reactionary ends, as well as form alliances with extremely diverse strata with contradictory aims and ideologies, including a certain type of individualist artist/scientist/intellectual, and the glue that binds this concoction together is anti-communism; on a foundation of the nation-state and "Centrism". It really is slightly closer to "Liberalism under psychosis" instead of genuine, true Monarchist Reaction. Someone with Old beliefs could be more "human" sometimes due to the influence of Feudalist presuppositions.
I was literally just thinking about researching this myself after you made the statement awhile ago lol
Hey could you talk more about Barnett Newman? You showed a lot of his art as well, I was wondering if he is in the same category as Rothko as they were contemporaries but Newman didnt like Rothko much and is not as popular
This has gotta be one of the most F tier leftist channels on RUclips
You're mixing me up with Vaush my friend
I don't understand how abstract art is individualistic.
It's not it's just a stupid video trying to badly Marx its way into justifying abstract art being le bad
@@jojomojo508 This video isn't about abstract art.
@@jojomojo508 I don't think the video was trying to say that abstract art is bad but trying to debunk the idea that abstract art was entirely funded by the CIA.
Art, like anything else, is part of the class struggle. This is the Marxist conception. It picks one side, or another (ambivalences notwithstanding). There is no neutral ground, just as the one deciding to be 'neutral' during slavery was pro slavery, being 'neutral' or 'not ideological' means being pro imperialist monopoly capitalism today.
Is watching videos on RUclips a pro Imperialist monopoly capitalism activity? Do you support imperialist monopoly capitalism?
@@aldgate hardly. Are you you trying to make the iPhone argument?
I disagree. Art, as I've come to realize, is simply human instinct. People make art for many reasons. Emotional expression, aesthetic value/beauty, propaganda, advertising. Art is a part of the human experience.
@@sinthoras1917 Making art is an action, consuming this concept it also an action, what's the difference? I suppose it's the iphone argument, I mean I don't know what it is but from the name alone it's probably the same thing. Then again I'm not really trying to argue anything I just want to know what you think the difference is.
@@Bixnood69 the 'human experience' is necessarily subject to class struggle
When other ML's in the comments are going "bro chill" about "reactionary art" it really is time to chill lol.
I would look at John Berger's Ways of Seeing for a solid starting point evaluating art.
Well, idk about him, but Imma check this out.
you say repeatedly that Geller links "disliking this kind of art" to fascism throughout the video, and that's a flimsy misrepresentation of Geller's point. He's talking about politicians and conservative journalists and gamergate nerds, not about random modern art skeptics.
I do appreciate the rest of your video because it brings up important CIA history and its link with easily coopted "apolitical modern art" that, clearly, was missing in Geller's contextualization, and it does change a bit how I view his video - especially the sparse bits with Rothko - , but Geller was talking about something completely different, specifically the internal US politics of Republicans, and their policing of art in order to create an imagined society like the Nazis did. He addresses this in the broader context of his youtube channel, where he talks about his heritage and family of Holocaust survivors. His preoccupation is how we should never be comfortable with prescriptive conservative speeches about good art and bad art, and the hypocrisy of conservatives protecting the exhibitions showing those paintings they want people to be angry about. They don't want to hide the bad art, they want it on full display to fuel public outrage.
There's an insane difference between someone looking at a painting and saying "oh it's pretentious and pointless", and a guy SLASHING a painting with blades or painting swastikas on them. Like Geller says, all the guys that vandalized Newman's works were white supremacists, that's why the main point of the video is fascism, not "people who dislike this art", you invented that, it's not in his video.
What the CIA history context adds as an interesting layer, is how external and internal US politics sometimes clash with one another, and how conservative views change over time, depending on the political lanscape. The one-party state of the US foreign affairs clashes with the radically different political cultures of Dems and GOP. The CIA was boosting post-modern art to boast prestige against the USSR, the same way the US boast their "feminism" and "progressive values" to paint current enemy countries as backward demons we should invade. That doesn't make them actually feminist, the same guys are passing anti-abortion laws right now. Looking progressive for the outside world is beneficial, but internally, we're bashing progressists' heads with police batons.
In the 60s, many conservatives were actually islamophiles, because at the time we were arming muslim incels against the Russians in Afghanistan, that's why Frank Herbert, homophobic and conservative author of Dune and nephew of John 'Red Scare' McCarthy, fantasized so much about these Jihadists. Hard to imagine a conservative be islamophile now, that's because they like only what suits their imperialistic goals depending on the period.
Your 'clash video' angle really hangs by a thread, and I would have appreciated it a lot more if it was just "i'm adding context on Rothko's anticommunism and his ties with US imperialism" instead of "Jacob Geller is saying not liking modern art is like fascism", it's quite insulting to him, especially.
You weirdos made up a harassment campaign -- that's the nothing burger your dork ass is still obsessed with (Quinn literally got caught sending herself death threats ie open and shut case).
Nobody is going to think you're normal when you're salivating at the prospect of blaming the rise of hitler 2 on gamer gate.
You freaks are universally reviled. Being hated by the right is a badge of honor. In direct contrast, you scolds are hated by everyone.
Within the context of the next 1,000, neither YOU or Geller have any authority on what constitutes art. Do not take the word of a non artist on what does or doesn't mean something to future generations. 👏 This anti "woke" bs trying to discount modern art as psyops. Touch grass.
👏👌👏
Grear video. Subscribed. Although I looked through your video catalogue and got the vibe that I will eventually unsubscribe when you inevitably make a video in support of Russia. Until then
Weirdos online: “If you don’t like this red canvas, you’re a [Word that will get my comment sent to the shadow realm]!1!1!”
People IRL: “Hey man, how’re you doing?”
I seriously thought he was Matt Walsh
My point is that correlation doees not equal causation, relating to why i hate modern art andd its defenders.
This type of video is exactly why left is made fun of so hard on the internet. The video is too long to address every point, so I will talk about only one. The social realism one. The shit you say about is infuriating. "Oh, it was top to bottom too, but atleast it was about common folk"... Yeah, it also dealt so much damage to Russian culture, that it's yet to recover. Shift to it killed so many artists that didn't want to participate, and god knows how many atists were able to publish their work only after USSR died. But it showed common folk in a good light, so all is forgiven :) If you don't want to talk about a topic from all sides, don’t mention it like this(it’s basically what you are mad at Jacob for btw). There is a lot to like about USSR, this is not one of them
The coping meter levels is off charts.
dude it's ten minutes long
Source: My feelings.
How would a bunch overpriced bullshit for pretentious hipsters supposed to "elevate" Russian culture or any culture
It doesn't inspire anything but contempt from the working classes
In USA there was liberty for the Artist to be homeless in streets or killed by police. Freedom of the poor children to never afford art school.
Im from Brazil, and our artistis were killed by our U.S.A-puppet government in the 60s and 70s. What have we lost because of U.S.A imperialism?
The first rule to be a good and true artist born in U.S.A is to be against the machine. Soviet Union had problems, but the art there had one mission: The People
When once in a blue moon you post a video essay, it's a true socialist hyperborean gem 💎
Idk what it is about Jacob but I really dislike him. His liberalism seems to bleed into every aspect of his commentary and ive just never been able to take a video of his seriously. He just comes across as a goofy whiteboy with a loose grasp of the world around him.
Thank You 🙏