The 10 most EXPENSIVE Artworks EVER SOLD!... *Insane!*
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- Get 2 free months of Premium Membership (sponsored): skl.sh/drawwithjazza4mg20 - Limited to 500 members, Don't miss out!
--------------------------------
🖌️ GET MY APP, BRUSHES, MERCH and MORE!
www.jazzastudios.com/pages/shop
➨ MERCH - Shirts, Hoodies and more:
www.jazzastudios.com/merch
➨ ART PRINTS and POSTERS:
www.redbubble.com/people/jazz...
--------------------------------
MORE OF ME! - Follow/Sub ↴
--------------------------------
▶ DAILY VLOG: / @jazzavlog
▶ Instagram+IGTV: / jazzastudios
▶ TikTok: / jazzastudios
▶ Twitter: / jazzastudios
▶ Facebook: / jazzaofficial
-------------------------------- 
Развлечения
![DRAGON BALL: Sparking! ZERO - Fused Warriors Trailer [BUDOKAI TENKAICHI Series]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/84p4Lvyfyes/mqdefault.jpg)
Okay wait “Salvator Mundi” actually has a very fascinating history. I would recommend reading about it. To give a synopsis, it was originally “restored” a couple hundred years ago but was so badly done that it looked like a poorly done copy. This coupled with the fact that it was moved around so much lead people to believe it was a fake. However in the late 1900s a conservator made a case that this was the original and was so compelling that art historians believed her. When it went up for auction in the early 2000s it sold for only like $10,000 and the owners decided to have it looked at and restored. During this restoration they discovered that it was most likely the original based on the fact that there were hesitation marks on design choice under the final paint layer. This showed that there was decision making happening while the piece was being created.
Imagine a painting named "Jerry" and was sold for millions of dollars
yea I would buy this for 4 million dollars: i.imgflip.com/1o1rci.jpg
Please see this photograph of my painting "Jerry" here:
www.businesstimes.com.sg/sites/default/files/styles/article_img/public/image/2019/09/02/DeanJerry_0.JPG?itok=d8Zxo6Q6
I am accepting offers starting from $160 million. Originally, I wasn't wanting to let it go for any less than 200 million, but in the end I felt charitable and I decided to sell it for just $250 million. So yeah, just get your bids in - starting from $300 million, the winner can send the $400 million by post, and I shall have the painting air lifted by helicopter to your address once I have received your $450 million payment.
Happy bidding!
and then tom sold for 3 bucks
There’s a whole entire conspiracy that insanely expensive artwork like that is a large legal money laundering scheme. That’s why so many of the people who own these leave them at museums bc it’s a “donation”, a tax cut and a way to ensure their money 💰
Edit: if you look into the artists, a lot of them are associated with some sketchy stuff
Yes you are right but people buy those yucky artworks
The high art scene has been about money laundering for pretty much it's entire existence.
I’m actually surprised Jazza didn’t know Rembrandt, or Cèzanne.
Yeah
Elia Rigolini Modigliani is the finest painter of them all to me, close second is Francis bacon.
I don't think Jazza studied much art history, which is where most of the more obscure artists are talked about. And by obscure, I mean not insanely popularized by mainstream media. I was actually surprised he didn't know Pollock tbh. 😂
Gunning Twice didn’t he study fine art?
Jazza is probably more into comic artists and less into illustrations and painting. And let's be honest, no one cares about the abstract painters.
Some things to note: *rarely* do the artists get this kind of money when they originally sold their paintings. Many "famous" artists spent their lives in poverty.
Most of the time, the value of these collector type paintings is based on something other than the artistic content of the painting, and a lot of times is more for the controversy over the painting, or some impact the artist or painting had at some point. The more public controversy that surrounds a painting, the more people want to posses it - not because it goes with the drapes in the living room or because it's "a pretty picture". Artists like Pollock, Kooning, and Rothko were part of a movement to reduce the art of painting to it's barest essentials, ie; form or shape, color and contrast, and composition and balance. Yes, Pollock's paintings look totally random, and although he allowed physics to determine what the paint did once it hit the canvas, he remained in control of *where* the paint went on the canvas. They purposely left out any hint of "subject matter" believing a painting should be evaluated strictly on those three criteria. In some sense, they were protesting the idea that a painting should sell for such exorbitant amounts just because of who painted it, regardless if the painting itself might not be all that good. The Mona Lisa is not so much an exceptional portrait, but the fact that it's recognized, known and discussed world wide is what makes it "priceless".
still doesn't justify the price. It's just for money laundering or plain stupidity. Humans just have the tendency to put stories and meaning behind things that don't make sense. And these paintings simply don't make sense. Now you can make up a glorious story that how its an artist's protest by not making sense. That story would be nothing but pretentious
Thank you fot this. It makes me mad when people only think of how an artwork looks without taking the context of when it was made and what was the intention behing it.
@LunaNightshade Again. Calling it revolutionary is just another attempt to justify the price that is senseless and stupid. Its just an Halo effect, if the same painting with the same history would have been sold for $200, you the same person would not be calling it ''revolutionary".
Assigning words with random crap is nothing but pretentious
I'd also like to note that the sheer size of many paintings like Rothko's make them pretty cool, and tend to raise the value. And some famous guy in Hollywood religiously collects Rothkos, so I'm sure that doesn't help the price on paintings that most people assume are talentless.
Rothko is my fave; there is something humbling about his artwork even though it doesn't seem like anything to most people. It's always interesting to see reactions to No. 6 , especially when they learn how much it sold for lol
Thank you for commenting this! It is a little disappointing to hear Jazza pissing over these pieces simply because of the prices rich people pay for them. They are so much more than their price tags.
And today we learned that Jazza does not like abstract art
I got inspired when he said " go create " turns out he would just think its trash. I'm actually a little sad.
It's not that he dosen't like it, it's the fact that a seemingly low effort painting was bought for several hundred millions of dollars...
Well abstract art is neither low effort art, neither you can say that Rothko's art is just "Why?". Rothko was a master of colors. He made his own colors and presented them in such an abstract painting that most of the times had really big dimensions. When there is art you can not understand, it is better to do research. Usually abstract artists have a great amount of history on their back and a very unique way of thinking, that makes their pieces so expensive.
@@valiantaloof For me personally I like to have a painting speak for itself. It's not about whether the art is low effort or took more or less time to create than something else. If I need to read a dissertation to feel or think something about a piece of art or to 'understand' a point of view it just doesn't work for me. I can look at a Kandinsky and feel, I look at a Rothko and think 'meh'.
@@morganalexis3883 It really bothered me too. Like he is being so critical of abstract painting but...look at his background that he painted. It's abstract...I don't like this whole pretentious "I don't like your art so it doesn't count" bull that I'm seeing a lot of lately. If you want to do abstract painting you go for it and don't let his poor attitude sway you from it. He isn't the master of art. No one is. His opinion doesn't take away the value/meaning of your art. Do what you love.
It’s not the paintings alone that are so valuable, rich people can avoid taxes on items like paintings, so they buy them as something that can be resold later if they want money.
I've made no research about that nor have I seen any sources for that information. But that sounds like it makes sense and I am lazy, so I'm gonna trust you on that one, random internet person
I swear this is guy is Justin Y cuz Justin Y stopped appearing when this guy appears
Just Some Guy without a Mustache why are you everywhere
I think also criminals wash their money by buying expensive things
I love Jellal 💜💜
Jazza please make an “I am an uncultured walnut” shirt
YES! Why does this not have more support!? Yes, yes, yes, a million times yes! If he doesn't make it I will.
Who ever made that uncultured walnut insult should be a worldwide star of savages.
**YES**
I volunteer as a graphic designer to create it!
ewelch 18 yesss
The most expensive piece of art I’ve ever paid for is a burger from Chick-fil-a.
Got eem
Mine was my very own life.
KXI ._. Lmao
@@BorisArthur lol
_burn_
You know it's serious when Jazza starts making Top 10 videos.
Watchmojo are quaking
But don't you want more?
Hey, JAZZA! EPISODE IDEA! MAKE YOUR OWN POLLOCK RECREATING POLLOCK'S PROCESS!! OMG I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT!
I’d be interested in that! It’s not as simple as splashing paint around, Pollock actually carefully composed his pieces.
Rothko’s paintings generally revolves around color theory. Its how colors interact with each other in the composition. There’s a lot more about it than just spreading paint on canvas.
I'm glad someone here can give a good explanation. The art still makes me kinda angry tho
But I do stuff like that in art class and I’m not making millions of dollars? I’ll never understand these types of abstract art
mollidy it honestly looked like watered down, poorly mixed, rusty paint. Like someone left it outside for too long.
Two words: Halo effect.
@@grobble_ so no mater how bad it looks if it's something only the person themselves can do it autimatically majes the value shoot up? Usually the eay it works outside of this eeied world of modern art was thay if it looks craply people juat don't care, being thr only one if its craooy it cant only be the redeeming value of it.That can't be it, theres gotta be something else to it, how they manage to do this crap.
Alternative Title: Jazza is struggling to pronounce old artists names for 11 minutes
This killed me xDD Thanks :'DD (but I totaly agree) xD
Also: Artist HATES ABSTRACT ART?! They sold for HOW MUCH?
They are all called Jerry
The artists barely get any money it's just a way to transfer black money (artworks like no 6.) from person to person
Aryan Shukla They're often dead by the time their paintings are worth a lot as well
Aryan Shukla yep! Terrorist group have actually used artwork to transfer money, because it’s hard to trace.
😔😔😔rip these artists that never seen there dream come true when they were alive
When it comes to art, it is very up to the artist on what they want to paint and what they enjoy doing and their own personal techniques. However, as a consumer I totally agree with you. If I'm going to buy a piece I would like an artwork with detail and intricacy. Honestly, I believe art is about whatever floats your boat.
Rothko and Pollock both have had major impact on the way we look at art. I think it is a shame that they are often reviewed as artists who are overrated, unskilled and "I can do this myself" kinda artists. It is often forgotten that there is more context, the time, the place, the concept. The money that a painting is sold for has in many of these cases, nothing to do with the artist. That artists actually make tons of money themselves, because they know how to market their art, is something of modern day. Abstract art is, for many people, hard to understand. For good reason, not every concept appeals to every person. But that does not make an artist less of an artist or their art lesser art. Like you said in the end, taste is subjective. But don't forget, defining what is skill and what is a good concept is subjective too.
The reason only one renaissance painting was on the list is because there are worth more than plain money.... Madonna del Prato ( Rafael) you cant even put a number on it nor you should.
so does those pieces never change hands ? or maybe only trade in exchange for other art pieces ?
@@BicheTordue the most expensive pieces of art are ones that are never sold. Like in museums and things
Its not the painting themselves that are valuable. But rich people can avoid taxes on items like paintings so they buy them as something that can be resold later if they want money
Eggg zactly
bang on the money there ;)
Until the art bubble pops!
until I fart
I mean smart tbh
Pollock’s works are a mess. BUT they are such a balanced mess. It’s really hard to create something like that, hard to not overdo.
Jazza should actually try that.
Every time I see someone say that a monkey could have painted some abstract piece I have this reaction. Who thinks like that should try doing some abstract painting and see if they can come up with anything pleasing to look at.
@@prytooblack art is subjective but Rothko's stuff don't look pleasing to me
@@prytooblack i personally think the one of pollocks that sold for 200 million looks awful so i think it would be quite easy to atleast make something pleasing to the eye instead of that yellow puke
@@prytooblack Why would the person doing the challenge have to come up with something pleasing to look at when Pollock clearly didn't? It looks like my college art room floor.
how can something that's a mess, like you said, be sold for millions of dollars?
I’d love to see Jazza try and paint like rothko without researching his techniques
Hey I’m a French Canadian and btw: Nu Couché means naked lying and the real traduction of red nude is “ nu rouge ”! Voilà
Still not nude cushions
I'm assuming "traduction" id french for "translation"?
@@roccov3614 yes
I was just thinking that this isn't how u say red in french 😂 i may haven't studied french for like 4 years but i can tell this doesn't have " red " word in it
I dig the "traduction". It's the sort of thing people that speak my language (portuguese) would do. From "Tradução"
“The most expensive art ever bought” 10 year old me selling art for 3 bucks to school friends: *pathetic*
That actually IS impressive tho, how did you do it?!?!
Not at all pathetic. I traded fan art doodles in grade school for lunchmates' side dishes. Especially if it was cornbread, brownies or cookies.
Dumbass me refusing to sell my crappy goku's saying it was art
masfand ABO STONKS
6:42 This required skill. I’ve seen multiple Jackson Pollocks while visiting art museums and am blown away by them. Although I’ve always liked Jackson Pollock paintings. I saw one in a book at the age of like 3 and loved it. Without his work I would’ve never gotten into art.
I personally love abstract artworks. I paint in this style too. They go amazingly with the interior design. Hearing Jazza call it “lack of talent” makes me upset
Leaves me never want to try to make art ever again. According to him, I am clearly not talented at all unless I can do Realism, and I do not have that ability so... 😕
@@aquadonia aquadonia Hey don't let it get to you. Jazza clearly doesn't know anything about abstract art and was pretty rude and ignorant in this vid, but there are other people out there who will appreciate your work. I'm sure you're a great artist. Don't give up!
I don't think you lack talent. Abstract art takes a lot of talent as well, I certainly couldn't do it! So keep it up!
I think it’s more those particular pieces do genuinely require no skill or talent. It requires no skill to splash pain on a canvas. And no skill to pain horizontal stripes on a canvas. Some abstract art doe’s genuinely require talent or actual effort. But the Jackson painting and the one with the like solid colour and nothing else really don’t have much to them and it’s really sad that artists who actually put thought and time and skill into their work are ignored next to people who do that.
When u knew who almost all the painters were...
Flashback to art history
I keep forgetting Jazza is self-taught lol
Stop flexing
@@ruthisgone to be fair, I knew almost all of them, but I've only had art history in high school...
ME! I love art history and I am just talking about the artists and what was going on at the time and why they are so expensive.
Yeah I was expecting at least one banksy
5:47 Jazza single handedly offending all the abstract artist in a couple of seconds haha 😂😂😂
Melinda Rivera it’s so hard to judge paintings because people can get extremely offended by it because it’s something someone spent time and work on. And emotion goes into it. And I don’t think abstract is completely just color and no talent I can see it takes a bit. But if you compare a painting with lines of color on it to a painting that took years to make. It almost seems unfair. Idk just my opinion
They are just ways for rich people to transfer money without dealing with taxes.
Maggie Reid Exactly, the Mona Lisa took years and wasn’t sold for 300million dollars. I will never understand it but I respect it
I love Jackson Pollockks style nd I learned about Mark in Art. I believe he only sold to people who reacted right to his paintings when he was alive, he would only sell the paintings if he believe the person truly wanted it for the painting not for the fact that they will have a painting done by him.
Well, I think some of them look nice, but it's not nearly worth that much money.
@@melonlord1414 , art is subjective and naturally so is its value.
I think, that abstract art isn’t about skill, but about pouring thoughts, emotions and artist’s soul onto a canvas to such an extent that the artwork becomes a gateway to his mind. People buy these paintings not to be amazed, but to have this kind of connection with an artist. Some people also buy them to flex, but to me, it doesn’t mean that artwork is bad.
I’m not native english speaker, sorry for mistakes
Firstly) No mistakes this is better than 90% of what's typical.
Secondly) I agree that it's about the emotion, but often you need some amount of basis to form the connection off of when doing abstract work. That's why the names of pieces in the world of the abstract is vital; it gives you the base idea of what the artist was thinking, and it's what I saw as most lacking here. Like "Green and red". Really? Personally I see abstraction as removing the unneccasary to find that which makes it true.
I don't know if my personal definition of "abstract art" is off, but in my opinion it has a lot to do with colors, shapes and composition. At least when I do it. In my eyes you have to have knowledge and also skills about color schemes, compositioning elements etc. to express your thoughts at all.
Take away the letter of authenticity and the painting loses its value. Most people putting this kind of money into paintings consider it an investment - almost like bitcoins of the 20th century. That said, they can still like the paintings.
Yeah, to me, it’s not about the art itself. Most of the time, anyone could paint a dot on a wall or tape a banana to a wall. I think it’s more about what they artist can say about the piece to make it sound like it is just magnificent. This isn’t hate, just don’t feel like typing out a better explanation.
Honestly, it’s all about how big of words can they mash together to make it sound like this piece was just mindblowing.
There definitely is skill needed for a lot of abstract pieces, it's just different skills than you need for say realism. It's a lot of color theory and knowledge about shapes and composition. A lot of abstract artists have the basics of art down, especially the ones that made the first abstract pieces were artists who could draw realistically perfectly fine but since photography was invented back then, it wasn't needed anymore and that's where the abstract expression came in that you talked about. There is definitely skill needed to know how to convey your emotions and feelings through color and compositing only shapes or mere brush strokes.
As soon as I saw the first "modern art" I though of Bob Ross saying "If you mess up on a painting that's ok, just call it modern art"
4:18
"We're barely moving!"
*amount increases by more than my entire life earning*
I actually like Jackson Pollocks paintings a lot, and here's the reason:
You know how looking at clouds you can always make them resemble something using your imagination? I can't make Pollocks paintings look like anything, which is actually very hard to achieve. If you just splattered random paint on a canvas, it would almost certainly look like *something*, like the clouds.
Someone in RUclips in 2110: And this painting was drawn by a artist called "Jazza" in 2017 on an edge a sketch and sold for 100 million dollar after his death in a tragic car accident in his cybertruck in 2100.
@@Bean-mr8sf more like 150
With the hyperinflation soon to come a 100 million will be the cost of Kleenex by 2050. Even if that doesn’t happen with the time value of money by 2110 that amount would not be that much.
@@eberry023 Okay are you kidding me, with that type of hyperinflation, countries can just have a new starting point for their currency with a new name. Something which a lot of countries have done in the past.
You should totally look up the history behind the Salvator Mundi it‘s incredibly interesting, especially since it has kinda disappeared now (still so not worth the money)
JAZZA!!! Abstract art requires so much skill. These artists learned from the best of all artists and developed their style from the inner most depths of their hearts. Abstract paintings have so much sole and often took much longer than a basic painting to make because of their deep meaning to the artist. Anyone can look at a mountain for years and paint it over and over and over again until it looks perfect, but only true artists can find meaning in the simple strokes of paint that others might call madness.
well said
Jazza: no more abstract! Give me some reasoning!
His background: 😳
Emily there is a reason for his background. It can’t have anything recognizable for copyright purposes, and it’s meant to look like a splash of color. But he’s not trying to sell it. It’s a backdrop, nothing more.
Me: makes joke
RUclips comments section: aCtUaLlY
(Note: this is also a joke. I’m not attacking anyone lol)
Okay, abstract art isn't everyone's cup of tea. But the fact that it can make people so angry and emotional is really interesting.
If you pay $500 for a piece of art, it’s because you like it, if you pay $500,000 it’s because everyone else likes it
and if you pay 500 million, it's because you're laundering dirty money
Not really, because most of this art, most people don't like them just for their artistic merit.
Matt Mcdonald people are paying ridiculous prices for it because everyone in the art world has decided it’s good and not just because the buyer themselves likes it. It’s expensive because everyone else likes it.
Simplest way to describe it.
@@AnarchyPenguin Thats not really true, its nothing to do with likable art. It's actually a combo rarity, supply, demand, financial deals. Rarely do art deals have anything to do with the art being atractive. Banana on a wall? attractive? No, 120 grand for a banana on a wall. Thats not attractive, its a financial transaction for 'other purposes' the root of the entire art trading community. Has nothing to do with the visual pleasure given by 'art'.
So. Modern art is artificially expensive. Rich people buy it for obscene prices and donate them so they can write it off on their taxes
Yeeeeeeep 🥴
I’m dumb I don’t know anything about taxes yet could u plz explain what u mean by writing it off?
@@xo3007 im not an expert either, but as far as i know, money u give away to charity is deducted from your taxable income, resulting in sizable tax breaks.
Aysar Aburrub ohh wow I had no idea! thank u so much for explaining that
X O to elaborate if you just donated money you’d get no benefits because you wouldn’t be able to cancel out any more taxes than you donate.
But if you were to commission someone to make a painting for you for say $20,000 and then had someone appraise it for say $20,000,000 you could write off more in taxes than you spent if you donate that painting.
It’s a bit oversimplified, but the point should get across.
I always get so bothered by the disregard of abstract art, especially Rothko's work. His pieces specifically do not translate well at all to the flatness of digital viewing, and it's a huge shame.
I was fortunate enough to see a Rothko face to face at a local museum, and the EXPERIENCE of viewing that piece was utterly astounding. There's innumerable delicate layers carefully applied and worked to create these beautiful gradients and shades that shift and change depending on the viewing angle, and I was extremely disappointed when my digital photographs failed utterly to capture the insane levels of depth and detail.
Not every abstract piece has this level of deceptive detail, but I will defend Rothko to the day I die.
I felt the same way as the average person when it came to abstract work but recently my boyfriend has been doing a college thesis on Rothko and I now know way too much about him and his work lol
I can appreciate his work and understand that his works jsut simply dont translate in a digital medium.
Well that makes more sense.
I honestly don't really like abstract art because is much more about status and name of who made it than the art itself, a disgrace in my opinion.
BUT there have been some abstract paintings that actually provoked something on me, some that made me have some fate on the genre.
If you tell that such sutil detail goes into that painting then it might be one of the few that actually have value for themselves and I would love to see them live.
I recently went to an exposition of Manuel Felguerez (before the virus stuff), and beyond of their pure aesthetic there wasn't much on many of his pieces, especially the small ones, tho as I understand they were meant to be experiments of the shapes. Also there were a few with such interesting background, but on those cases the history behind the work was more interesting than the work itself, and many of those were pretty much like the Pollock one he showed.
I think the ones that actually had a full on history, concept and display that called most of the visitants were one that was on a movie about sexuality and a mural made of metalic pieces that included instruments (can't remember the names at the moment). Those were so pure by themselves that didn't need no explanation to make you feel something.
And I agree with you that digital media doesn't pay the abstract works justice, they not only consist on the look but the textures, layers, the way they were made (that some capture as a video that has value of itself) and the way they are displayed also plays part to it.
But I also agree with Jazza that maybe some specific ones shouldn't cost that much. There are so many good ones that have such power by themselves, but again, the status and the art authority who basically use art to wash money and past it on between themselves but more expensive to make themselves even more rich... Yeah, that is the part of it that definitely take some of their value away for me.
I can't help but to remember Duchamp's Fountain and Manzoni canned "Artists shit" when it come to POPULAR abstract art, more especially now days "Abstract Art".
THANK YOU
"Nu couché" means naked laying down
"Les femmes d'algère" means algere's wives
Thanks you French people are awesome
"Les femmes d'Alger" actually means Algiers women ^^
Era - Algerian, but same thing
@@problame2249 Algerian would mean women from the country.. I would say "Women from Algiers".
its about the women from Algeria because picaso lived there and really admired the Algerian women
Let me take a crack at justifying a Pollock. They are abstract, but would you believe that there is a nearly universal emotion evoked by his pieces. Being able to portray an emotion in the abstract is at least interesting.
When the pollock painting showed up, It looked to me like like a totally mess of paint and structure.
I honestly like it though, it feels confusing in a good way.
This is why I love pollocks work, it’s thought provoking, if you’ve seen the film Ex Machina they talk about pollocks work and why he paints, is powerful
I agree
Rothkos are expensive because he would dilute his pigments to almost colorless and would layer rainbows worth of different colors that would eventually stack up to his very pigmented shades. Let alone his giant room sized canvases. That’s a lot of time and art supplies there. When you walk up close to one you can see all the different colors.
that dosnt really explain it though. any idiot could do what he did and it wouldnt be worth anything.
@@erikcarl2384 OP is saying Rothko's paintings are expensive by the virtue of how timely the process of glazing is (especially when it's oil paint). Selling a painting that takes several days (if not weeks) for a few hundred dollars is not sustainable. Also, Rothko was experimental and secretive with his process; Any Idiot couldn't mimic his style. It had to take forensic scientists to find out what was mixed with the pants.
@@erikcarl2384 well than invent something that is new and wasn't painted before. ;)
Paintings are expensive because they're one of a kind. Notice how the most expensive paintings are rarely recognized until that artist is dead. Art is a limited quantity commodity. Nothing wrong with it, but I hate to see the people who lose hope for their passion when they see the top paintings. Just paint what you paint.
@@sameaston9587 there is a very big difference between a few hundred dollars and 170 million, anyways it also takes forensic scientists to find out how much cum there is on my sofa. that does not make my sofa impressive in anyway whatsoever
5:49
Well, it might not be worth 200 Million dollars,
this painting does take a lot of skill to make.
Chosing the colors, where to put the lines, how long to make the lines themselves, what to put on the background
you have to know a LOT about color theory to make something like this that actually looks good. Also he didn't just carelessly splatter paint, he carefully and tediously dripped paint from his brush onto the canvas so that the painting would be interesting for your eye to look at. There doesn't have to be some dumb, BS "secret meaning" behind it, it just looks good
I get it when people look at abstract art and go “hey I could do this”, but honestly most likely you can’t. There’s a lot of colour theory in those paintings. There’s a reason they look pleasing to the eye. Sure, you could make one on accident, but it requires some effort to make one on purpose. It’s one of those things that’s hard to pin down. You need a feel for it.
O.O Those things did not look pleasent to the eye... But I guess that the art is in the eye of the beholder. That's why this paintings were aquired for old people. And were probably color blind.
Im me I was just talking about abstract paintings in general. There’s a lot variety in the movement and the quality of the art is subjective. I don’t have to be talentless to point out that abstract paintings are often more complicated than “just some paint on a canvas”. Putting Rothko to the side, a lot of classically trained painters have tried their hand at abstract. You don’t have to be talentless to enjoy them, or make them. “Only untalented people would say those things you said,” why would you even say this? You’re strongly implying that I have no talent, but you mean no disrespect? This claim of yours is so bold it left no wiggle room whatsoever. Only untalented people... however will I refute this. On a completely unrelated note, my Instagram handle is @sindrart.
@Im me couldn't agree more
I don't think they did those knowing how it would end up. I can never accept how abstract art is so overrated.
Im me it looks like we’re in agreement. Perverting art into a capitalist money laundering scheme is fucked up and wrong in so many ways.
However, I still believe abstract art has value, wether or not it’s in purely in within the brain of the audience. Your example of your professor’s apron is perfect, actually. The students took a serious look at it and felt it to be art. And that’s the whole point; feeling.
You look at a thing and feel something. Whether it’s a meticulously crafted piece of abstract art or just the sunset, if it evokes feelings in the audience it’s art.
This is also the principle behind performance art. There was this one guy in my country whose art thesis was stripping naked and living in a glass box for a week and the public went berserk. So many people expressed their opinion by writing articles or commenting online about how ridiculous his art project was, not realizing they themselves were the art. Their reaction was in fact the manifestation of his performance art.
Art is literally anything you label as art. And that’s the point.
Okay, but, I'm going to stand up for Pollock, he is an important person in the art brut, an stream of art made by outsiders. This includes people who do not live or believe by/in the normal standards in life. It is also a stream of art known to have a lot of artists in it who have mental diseases, and Pollock was one of them (due to his alcoholism) and made the art brut stream popular.
The point is people overpriceing art he didint shit on artist l think
@@wegil6095 he called them unskilled and sub-par
He also had a VERY particular way of doing his art. He mixed dirt, debris and various natural elements into his paintings along with experimenting with different paint pouring techniques (fight me IT IS a technique to pour paint in a way that gets you a desired outcome). He also painted on the ground, which at the time was very "different". He also has more paintings that arent as abstract and are more expressionist in nature. Without Pollock we wouldn't have acrylic paint pouring artists or like an entire century's worth of abstract expressionists. He was wildly important to the art scene.
Dude... A 3 year old can do the same thing as Pollock... just saying
Thank you! "Who has money to waste on this crap" and then he sneezes up the painting seems a little harsh.
The reaction people have towards the price of abstract art doesn’t speak on their relationship to the art, but on their relationship with money.
Mark Rothko had a special layering technic that he took to his grave. It remains a mystery til today even tho many have tried to replicate/discover it.
Lollan and just looking at it, nobody would ever know... It just looks like poorly mixed color to me.
My boyfriend is doing his thesis in college on Rothko and I've heard entirely too much about him now 😂 His paintings are apparently only really truly viewable in person due to the layering and subtle colors.
He also made a whole chapel of his work to create a place that invokes specific emotion.
And yet it looks entirely worthless
Ashbranch Juniper lol people who dont have any art education trying to be critical... my favourite type of people
@@shannonhensley2942 There's a good online course from MOMA that goes through all the abstract expressionists. You get to paint in their style. It really gives you an appreciation for their art.
To day their art may seem silly or that you could do it. But at the time they were shifting the centre of the art world from Paris to New York. They were also using techniques and mediums that we really challenging the norm. The other people don't realize is that all of these artist were excellent tradition artists as well and found this was their calling.
It's okay to not like their work, but they shouldn't just be written off as people with no intention or skill.
Justifying abstract art:
It takes an amazing artist to recreate and imagine a beautiful scene or similar subject. It takes even more talent to give simple shapes and emotionally charged brushstrokes and give them enough meaning that they are pleasing to the eye.
I don't love abstract art but it's not great to live with an 'I could paint that' attitude, because if you can, then do it. Abstract art is about being subjective and feelings, it sells so much because of that appeal.
Bubbles Aus Theorist I love art, but abstract art has always escaped me.
Do I know more about "high" art than Jazza?! Wow, that's a surprise!
High art lol that sounds funny xD I assume you're talking about paintings like Da vinci's. In English that's called fine art ^^
Jazza: Why can’t they have normal names like jerry
Me:Because jerry is totally a normal name lol
Me: I totally agree Josiah Brooks 👀
Hey man
@Madeleine Dawson I just noticed that I spelt his name wrong lol
Jazza: doesn't like abstract art
Jazza's backround: AbsTraCt
Me: *confused*
He just said he dosnt understand why it was sold for so much not that he hates abstract
Yeah he made a vid about how to make abstract art but even I get mad about insanely pricey art that has literally no skill put into it.
While I'm not the biggest fan abstract art myself, I do think that calling the pieces (and artist to an extent) to be talentless and trash is a little.. rude.
I was a bit curious myself as to why they were at such a high price and looked up a bit of things and I guess the conclusion I made was that people talked about it or it caught the attention of a lot of people.
I did find background elements of some of the pieces and quite frankly, it was interesting. Supposedly No.17a, which was the 200 million painting by Jackson Pollock, was made through dancing on the canvas and splashing paint. While the artwork itself isn't pretty, the idea of an artist being able to express themself freely on a canvas without shame or fear is a nice one ^^'
I guess the artwork itself isn't really the attention grabber but more so how the artist expressed themself?? Or like.. the artist's intentions??? I really have no idea but I suppose the discussion around the piece would create attention towards it which I suppose.. made it seem desirable???? It's a conversation starter I suppose..? I guess it's also a good idea to note when said artwork was made, the piece could've brought something new and fresh to the art world in those times.
Again, I honestly have no idea but gah, it still felt weird to hear Jazza insult the art pieces and the artist to an extent like that without really seeing their other artworks. Honestly, some of Jackson Pollock's stuff looks really cool/pleasing to the eye like Mural(1943) and The Deep(1953) but that's just my two cents
We really need “uncultured walnut” to become an actual insult!
So you didn't even try to search it on Google to see that it already is an insult.....you uncultured walnut.
😂 I guess not
These Corona times got me back into painting and I actually find my self satisfied with my amateur paintings that I hung them up around my flat
Jazza needs to go on Skillshare and take a Art History class.
I love your videos funny and very artistic which makes it enjoyable to watch. You're one of the reasons I decided to create my own channel, thank you.
As for the price of the artworks, the price is not only for what's in the painting itself (as for shoes or clothes), a "Tableau" aka a painting when sold is sold for the era when it was made, the artist that made it, it's content (the actual thing painted), what it represents (the explicit and implicit meaning, new concept or not, political or not etc) and the environment it was sold in(auction, for charity, etc) when combining all of these it makes sense why a painting might be sold for such a price. And also some paintings might seem "ugly" or very easy to do it doesn't mean the artists weren't very talented cause they all are and VERY skillful and VERY talented.
And whether we like it or not the art is an industry and not only "art-oriented" and what goes in any industry goes into it...
Ps: Check my channel if u are interested to see what I have been up to and subscribe if you like it ❤
m.ruclips.net/channel/UC7-bbAaIzCmWw5a27R3Gkqw
👏🏻👏🏻🙏🏼
Yeah very true btw i like your channel
ok. c fait
Houda - Yeah the art industry nowadays isn't the same as it was years ago and the real winners are not the artists but other entities
To all of the “uncultured walnuts” out there, even tho the english name of the painting is Red Nude, one of the meanings of the word Couché in French is "laying down". You know, how in the Moulin Rouge song French bit. So the correct translation would be something like "Lying Naked" or "Naked Lying". Also, the word for red in French is Rouge.
Thank you for attending my TED Talk.
More specifically, the exact French title means "Nude (noun) laying down (verb)"
@@philllllllll Thank you for the exact translation.
Suzana Nature I thought it meant New Coochie-
Too head of it’s time 😔😔
@@milkboy6914 lol
I re@lly thought it said No coochie 😳😳💀
A lot of these abstract artists have Incredible skills. Abstraction can be obscuring that skill.
I’m not saying they need to be sold for millions but I’m a little hurt by the Jackson Pollock comments. I do fluid art for my business. And it does require a little more thought process then splashing paint on a canvas. The consistency of the paint has to be right or you end up with mud. You need knowledge of the color wheel and how to work with contrasting colors. At least for myself I put more effort in then maybe others do. I also hide things like names etc in the paintings. Definitely not losing a fan, just got under my skin a bit that someone I admire thinks the art I do isn’t necessarily art.
I know what you mean. I feel devalued my someone I admire. It's a shitty feeling.
“But I’m an uncultured walnut.”
I've been trying to remember that insult! Gonna write it down this time
Frick drawing semi-realism and anime, Im smeering essential oils on my canvas and calling it "Le Hope Of Anti-Vaxxers"
Merveilleux
SOLD!
FOR 200M$
If you do it with only your left assscheek or the stump of an amputee, then its art!
@@davewantz1766 holy crap, definitely trying it out!
@@SourFoo Isn't art meant for interpretation?
Yeah, insane, but... You gotta look at what time periods those pieces were made in. The makers were revolutionary for their time. I think in the world of art criticism shallow aesthetic value is kitsch and doesn't necessarily qualify as "true art". I think that's a total snob statement and frankly, art is such a vague term, everything can be art depending on how it's presented. I do recognize, however, part of WHY such (modern art) pieces have their value. I disagree with it, but hey, art is worth whatever a fool is willing to pay for it I suppose. It's a great investment, especially if you're already pretty rich. Works of historical masters generally only become worth more (depending on condition, but that aside).
No-! An internet comment without hyperbole and acknowledging points of view? You must be a unicorn 🦄
Like the banana taped to the wall 🤦🏻♀️😂 some art is just ridiculous and pretentious...and I was an art student 😬
@@EvelynRobinson22 Do you know why that's art? it is art because it encloses the meaning of the gesture and it's a provocation for all the people who think that art is everything with a famous signature behind it. if you really were an art student you would know about Piero Manzoni and his "artist's shit" or the Duchamp fountain. the banana taped to the wall has the same meaning.
@@THE96CRITICAL true
I think as art student and my major is painting that this right , but at the same time I don't really like modern art that much and people who do abstract right now but without learning the basics it's kinda tricky to judge . I really love all the formats of art and idea is the key but i really appreciate more when you see someone spend time and thought into there artworks but its just my opinion in the end .. If take for example one of the artist that are consider abstract artist like Kazimir Malevich he did really serious studies how to break the rules and go on the basics and to that kinda experimental work is justified ... But at the same time would't ever hang one of his artworks on my wall ...
Weirdest thing is that artists are more famous dead than alive
it's not that weird when you think about it, it take time to take a step back
and see wich artist influenced the art world and after that, what they have created is not just art pieces but also something that is part of history
Not really, nothing more valuable than something which can never be added to. An artist does 100 paintings, then they die, there will never be more than 100 of that specific style of painting ever created. Dead artists should economically be more expensive than live ones.
Another thing to consider is that many of these artists were EXTREMELY skilled. They just came to their own style over time and their methods were widely revolutionary. They could draw and paint as well as the renaissance artists but decided to go against the grain. Not to say that 200/300 million isn’t ludicrous for almost any work of art
4:47 This is why i always have and will be calling RUclips's art community "children's art community" these aren't just paintings they have years of history behind themselves and not to mention the movement called abstract art ( which Jazza poorly tried to do once ) is for simplifying shapes into basic geometry followed by expressionism abstract which changed how art looked like , out of sudden art is the trickstery to drive the eyes of the viewer in different parts until making a channel so the painting can channel it's creators feelings and ideas to the viewer much like reading a book but in few minutes ! Which is created under the main elements of rhythm lines texture prespective color and composition all of which many of these RUclips artists lack in their works honestly :))
The point is that the artwork is literally just *three lines* . I get that there may be history and stuff behind all of that, buy the problem is that, as an artwork, it's just not that good.
I have to agree with you there. Unless you study the history behind the artists, their works, inspiration etc. it’s hard to understand how certain pieces, such as Pollock’s work are considered art or creative even. I’m not a hugh fan of abstract art, but I can appreciate what goes into the pieces, with textures, techniques and the use of mixed media
I get it. But why?
agree here
They're pieces of literal garbage. Pretentious "connoisseurs" can call them art all they want, but anybody with any sign of intelligence will only see trash.
I swear there’s 40 different comments saying “first”
What have we come to?
_"Abomination"_
Edit: Maybe think they are early, or maybe they just can't think of any comment...
First
first
Maddie Bryant first😌
Watch the video
Ngl the disregard for abstract art upset me. While I definitely agree that these prices are ridiculous I still appreciate every one of these paintings. I was surprised by the disrespect for Jackson Pollack. It’s pretty well known that he took a lot of time to make his paintings and that he didn’t just randomly splash paint on the canvas. Every splash of paint was deliberate and thought out in order to keep a balance.
As for Rothko, I know he’s always the one that gets a bad rap but like others have said in the comments you really have to see one of his paintings and take some time to look at it to understand his genius. His paintings are all about the colors, how to they work together, and how the shades subtlety shift. They’re actually very technical works. Rothko used many layers of different colors in order to achieve the colors he wanted. Seeing a Rothko in person is an experience unto itself.
Tl:dr There are more types of technical skills in art than just classical drawing and realism. The art market may be stupidly expensive but please don’t dismiss art as “not-skilled” just because you don’t understand the techniques behind it.
I'm not one to be annoyed quickly. But the I bet not many people could make a painting like Pollock's. It looks easy until you really start looking, or better even, untill you start trying.
Edit: The one by de koning too
yeah okay
Yeah, no. He just dribbled paint onto a canvas...
it was very detailed though and interesting to look at, definitely more worthy than the one before it, but then again all art is priceless really :)
@@woolypuffin392 then go ahead and dribble paint unto a canvas, then let's see how good it looks
I mean yeah it does kinda give an abstract effect, which is cool and all, but it is DEFINITELY not worthy of $200M
"I guess the moral of the story is..." and the only thing that comes to my mind is "in the end it's better for me, that's the moral of the story, babe" lmao
''I could do this''
Next Video, Jazza tries forgery.
I'd like to see him try to to do a perfect forgery of a Pollock or a Rothko, since they must be the simplest ones to do. 😏
Thank you!!! For your respect and love for art. For the longest time I never could understand why people act like abstract art is even considered art. It’s so disrespectful in my opinion to compare abstract nothingness, to well thought out and executed pieces of true art! I just acquired a new respect for you good sir.
Okay so the deal with Rothkos is that PICTURES OF THEM REALLY DONT DO THEM JUSTICE. The color was layered and layered and layered and its appearance can only accurately be perceived in person. What I remember from the one art class I took is that Rothko worked very carefully and deliberately. He may have sort of, uh... infused emotion into the pieces. People who sit with the pieces and contemplate them tend to have sudden unexplained outbursts of emotion: rage, serenity, elation, uncontrollable sobbing...
I agree. I’ve seen one of them in person. Jazza’s made me very mad. I especially felt personally offended about the Jackson Pollock one because those paintings got me into art.
@@HuntressLilly I'm sorry, but no individual piece of artwork will appeal to everyone, it's a part of art. Getting angry about someone not understanding your preference for art seems a bit childish. I personally dislike The Mona Lisa, it seems obvious to me that he's just trying to crack jokes about the fact that it seems easy. However, obviously, we are not Pollock, Rothkos, DaVinci, Van Gogh, or any other famous artist of yesteryear, because we didn't innovate or steer a bed path. As such, despite differing tastes I think we should respect them all as visionaries in the field of art.
Edit: "The less talent they seem to require" that seems a bit spiteful to me and outwardly rude, I stand corrected. Your frustration seems much more justified to me now.
abstract art is confusing
People pour emotion into lots of things... emotion shouldn’t translate into dollar value.
They have pills for that
Other RUclipsrs: Raid shadow legends is the most ambitious RPG! Jazza: SKILLSHARE!
Jazza was sponsored by Raid Shadow Legends once
@@san9350 i am pretty sure twice or thrice
Ultimate title: an *adult* failing to read famous people's names for 11 minutes and 40 seconds 😂
+I'm not hating it's just a joke 😂
11 minutes and 39 seconds
@Oliveisasmartcookie I don't know who wrote that first but I swear it was my idea 😅
Oh, Jazza, Jackson Pollock’s paintings didn’t lack meaning or skill. He often mixed his urine in with his paint. So obviously that price is justified!
In art class we actually did something in the style of Jackson Pollock. We made some drip painting and splashed around, it was a lot of fun!
For me the "true skill" in that was to then after we were over with the splashing, take the forms we created and say what we see in it, what it is we painted. We had a giant yellow splash in the middle, and it looked like a Teddy bear, so we built upon that. After we got that done my art partner and my teacher wanted to continue, ya know cover up what we made, but i said no, cuz the artwork was done for me. And since in the group i was ... ahem.... ThE ExPeRiEnCeD aRtIsT (i hate calling myself anything like that) they agreed then to me, even if it was hesitantly ^^
All in all my teacher made me get over the hatred of Artwork that seemingly needs "no skill", even tho it is still a bit frustrating to see many succeed with seemingly baby techniques ^^"
I'm shook that you dont know the legneds Rothko, Pollock,... or methods like actionpainting. There is more meaning and thought behind Mark Rothkos paintings. Maybe Skillshare has some courses in art history.
As a student of art school it's so paintull to hear all those reactions and comments about the amout (acc lack) of skills that was requaired to make those pieces of art. I'm not a fan of abstract art but by learnig about history of art i can uderstand why they are so pricy and important, why they look like that. XX century was very specific time in art due to the WW I and II, change in human mentality and values etc. First educate yourself, then you can substantively evaluate something. As a big youtuber, having this art community you should promote value of different pieces of art, and sometimes when we don't understand something, we should read about it at first then try to make your own opinion with new knowlage.
That was the smoothest flow into a sponsored segment that I'll never see.
Yeah, the thing about "expensive rich people abstract art" is that its usually a form of tax evasion. In the US atleast you can deduct the value of donations from your income for taxes. So the way it works is:
Rich person commissions artwork for $20,000
Rich person has the appraiser on their payroll appraise the artwork for $20,000,000
Rich person donates artwork to have their entire income for that year deducted leaving them having to pay no taxes.
These paintings that didn't look like anything and had "no meaning" actually get a meaning when you're just outraged by how someone could buy this. The real art should make you feel something, even if that thing is pure outrage, sometimes resulting in a real protests being made and the artwork being destroyed.
It's just what the artist wanted to get from people and it's incredible.
Thank you, you really get it. If someone took the time to read some of the things that some artists said or wrote... Like Kandinsky, for example, even if I'm not a fan of his, I appreciate his art because he wanted to make vibrate the soul of the people with his paintings.
i completely aggree those people really were skilled in what they did even if most people cant see that
Well also laundering... many paintings nowadays are used for money laundering and tax write offs. Because you can donate it or whatever and then you can get a write off from your taxes. It's not always a deep meaning when it's a keep rich scheme.
I'm sure some actually mean something to the buyers but there are many that are just "keep myself rich" schemes. Which really sorta sucks on behalf of the artists.
@@albacodina3707 for me art isn't necessarily about skill but also the idea. When you see a giant, realistic portrait or painting with lots of symbols it sometimes lacks the meaning, lacks emotion. The real challange is portraying emotions and ideas by their natural, unconditioned state where you don't just draw a symbol but the actual emotion. It's really hard to for example portray innocence not using anything that reminds you of it like flowers or a lamb.
We are living in a world where everything has been done, everything seen was drawn, and now we are entering an era where the real art isn't to copy nature, but to project your emotions on others by making things outrageous.
It was also a rebellious statement at the time when any art other than decorative and patriotic was simply destroyed. Everyone not fitting in was just mocked.
I really recommend checking out "who's afraid of modern art? " video essay here on RUclips
@@whoahanant using art for money laundering is disgusting. Period.
But when someone who did this painting was known and had a history it just leaks into the meaning of the painting, that can also bump up the price a lot.
I'm totally with Jazza here... It's kind of painful to see what some squares of colour sell for! 😂
Well - one of Rhotko's paintings get vandalized. It came out when they tried to repair it, it was impossible to recreate that specific, deep shade of red that he used. He may not use blood in his paint, but yeah, he mixed it himself. It may be just red square - but the way that this red is, it's shade and depth - that what has value.
Yet so many of the works Jazza and others clearly valued over the abstract art can often be repaired or replicated while the abstract works not as much. Interesting, isn't it?
Surprised Jazza is bewildered by some of these paintings and why they cost so much. Like Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock are super famous artists back in the day. I learned about them in Art History class and many people, both fellow artists and general public, like their work because they like the technique these artists used
Jazza: *looks up a video on youtube of how to airbrush*
Also Jazza: *Get sponsored by skillshare on a reaction video*
“I didn’t recognize it but im an uncultured walnut”
XD
I love your reaction to abstract art. That was how I felt during Art History in college. Especially when I had to write a 6 page paper on abstract art I saw at a local museum
Yea
I spotted that Jackson Pollock SO FAST. his art was intense and amazing!!!!!!!! you have to appreciate it!!!!!!!!! it takes skill!!!!!!!
face palm - It scares me that you haven't a more traditional understanding of art history Jazza. Kids are watching this.
killed me off a little when he said jackson pollock is bad as someone who has just done a dissertation based around him and his wife along with the movement of art they belonged to
I'm torn on this video. I really am. While I am personally a fan of Van Gogh and Monet, I get why the abstract paintings are popular. While it looks like a mess, I know if I tried an abstract painting, it would all turn into a weird brown/black blob. I know it looks like anyone can do it, but people do go to school for it. There is a skill there that not everyone has. I'm always reminded of the saying "My child could make a bunch of scribbles and have it sell for millions... Well, why hasn't your child made millions yet?" .
Hey Jazza, I’m an artist from Qatar and I just wanna say the royal family is really REALLY into art and growing the art community here. We have Katara Cultural Village which is a famous place here dedicated to art and creativity. They provide artists with free courses (along with the tools) to learn and further their art, as well exhibit them for the public to see (again, for free) and much much more. This is put of course by the royal family. (But I gotta agree the prices are still ridiculous)
Pollock, Rothko, and de Kooning were abstract expressionists. Their work didn’t have to have meaning. It’s just about applying paint to canvas. Non objective art can be just as meaningful as objective art. 👍🏿
5:47 I would be carful with discouraging those kinda of paintings, there are still artists today who do those kinds of paintings
I love Jackson Pollock’s paintings. They are some of my favorite pieces in the modern wing of the Met in NYC. Photographs of them really don’t do them justice. You kind of have to see them in person.
It is not always about how difficult the technique is, but that the artist in
question was the first to do it, and by that paved the way for a new view on what could be considered to be art.
Yes, many things are easy to do - once someone has shown you how to.
I'm confused as to why you think Picasso's art required skill but Pollock's didn't?
because Pollock literally just dribbled paint on the floor. If you look at Picasso's early work you can see he had artistic skill and then developed a style from it. Pollock looks like he did the basics in art school, never was any good and so he just made a mess to make a name for himself.
Because it's very liked by people to hate on abstract pieces and Jazza lacks a basic understanding of art history. Picasso is a huge name that everyone has heard, so he just accepted he was on this list regardless of the piece. Just like he wished of some renaissance paintings to be on there because "renaissance". But abstract is still fought about in the general public and since he as well has no clue about it, it is talentless and trashy. He doesn't see that Picassos work was building the pavement to pieces like Pollock and Rothko.
the first thing that Jazza said was literally that “oh it’s made by Picasso, that’s why it’s so expensive”, plus his painting has actual identifiable things in it, it’s not just a sneeze from a giant who had 3 illnesses
@@pmo7780 I think Pollock's go way beyond that, but if someone can actually capture in painting a sneeze from a giant who had 3 illnesses, I'd say that's pretty remarkable.
"I could have painted that."
Yeah, but you didn't.
that's exactly what i think when ppl say this shit, "huh i could've done that" "a children can do that". very well said
@@dakoten8426 There is some abstract art I still think is total bullshit, but Jackson Pollock ain't bs.
A lot of people probably did but could not sell it
Exactly, and a big part of it is the idea. Art is intellectual property. Pollock was the first person to purposefully make art in that way. The idea will always be his.
Doesn't make it any better
It's interesting to may how people think that the abstract/post-modernist art does not deserve to be sold for such a high price when the renaissance art does. To me, when I see a renaissance piece I go like yeah I can appreciate the talent in that but it's boring whereas to me the abstract or post modernist art is fascinating. to me (and this is just my opinion) it feels like an artistic metaphor, it's trying to convey an emotion without having to look like something in particular, it can have aesthetic value without looking like something that people like. It's like your removing all the unneeded intricacies like details or the need to look like something and stripping art to its essentials which to me creates a much more meaningful and expressive picture thats not obstructed by it having to look like something in particular or being technically complex. It's almost as if it's self aware. It's pushing itself to see how far u can deviate from a picture of a real thing but still convey that meaning or emotion. And I'm not saying this to sound intellectual or smart, im saying because I genuinely like abstract art far more than other forms of art - for example realist art just makes me bored - because I find it far more interesting and tbh I'd rather buy that Jackson Pollock painting than the davinci one. Yes it may take less technical skill, yes you may be able to technically paint it yourself. But the point is you didn't. You didn't conceptualise the piece and think how to capture a meaning or an emotion with such little physical imagery or conventual artistic technique
^^ This! All of this!! ❤
JAZZA!!!! this was such a wonderful mixture of education and entertainment, PLEASE KEEP DOING MORE VIDEOS LIKE THIS!!!!