My favorite art story is: Someone submitted a sculpture to have it displayed, I believe it was some kind of head or face on top of a pedestal. Well the sculpture and the pedestal were shipped separately, and through some error were judged as individual pieces. The sculpture was rejected, the pedestal was accepted and displayed.
My art story: my dad took a sign of from an artwork in a gallery and stuck it on a radiator. People passing admired the radiator and some even made pictures
My watercolor teacher actually hates Bob Ross cause he “makes his trees too big”. My teacher loves everything else Ross does, he just hates the trees so much.
As an artist this is one of the most depressing things. A dot in the wall will make millions in a week yet artists studying for years and working on pieces that take days or weeks will get three likes on Instagram
Well one is something new, that noone dd before in that context. Another is one of the millions wood elves or Zbrush aliens. Everyone does the second, no one can do the first again.
He wanted everyone to be able to make beautiful pieces that they could be proud of, while not needing to train for years. Bob really inspired people to go beyond what he taught on his show, sparking a love for painting in people all across America.
The Mona Lisa is basically an elementary school art project,but Damien Hirsts work is immaculate. It takes years of dedication to properly place a butterfly sticker on a wall Edit:I managed to start an argument over the Mona Lisa,this is a first for me
That's actually something I don't see much people talking about when it comes to the mona lisa. It's the most famous painting in the world, but it's just a simple portrait. I'd expect something like the last supper to be the most famous, but the mona lisa is literally just an ancient selfie. The thing is, it was essentially a commision that someone ordered from Da Vinci. So it's not even his own original idea, it's just a comission. The reason it's so famous is because there was some drama around ww1 when some guys stole the painting, idk remember much of it. But because it has so much drama revolving around it that suddenly it's the best painting in the world.
@@qwertydavid8070 I think it’s very popular because of the skills, and realism for the painting. It may seem like a simple portrait, but you can tell that it’s an actual person with lighting, a background, etc. Not only that, it’s one of the few pieces that we could recover from that time period, along with many other of his famous works. I think possibly because Mona Lisa could be a statement of what the beauty standards were back then. It may be a simple portrait, but it’s nice to look at, and know that actual time/skill went into it. Portraits can be very difficult and time consuming, especially if you’re going for realism and trying to catch every single aspect of the subject you’re creating. But, idk it depends on how you look at it. Damien Hirst however….I don’t even want to go on that road lmao- he’ll probably just print of picture of Mona Lisa and then recolor it seven different times, and some rich person will wet their trousers to buy it
@@imnothere577 i thought it was popular cus it got stolen and nobody knew what it looked like for a long time, so when it got returned everybody went crazy and hyped it up
The art of "bullshitting" is huge. People seem to like abstract stuff because of the random stories/explanation one can have. While I was still in school I always got A+ on English and German, that was because my teacher liked interpretations. Especially in topics like analysis of texts and stuff, you just had too bullshit, but nobody seems to understand that.
During my first semester of my freshman year of college I accidentally took a 300 level Comparative Literature course. I never did any of the reading, I just vaguely went along with what other people in the room were saying. I read the first chapter of a book and extrapolated the rest of it from that, and then wrote my book report. I got a passing grade in that class.
@@phearamax4146 Just read from the blurb then bullshit from there, that was my strategy. Top of my english class from that..... math not so much, you cant bullshit math unfortunately.
@W Shiflet new modern art sucks because a good chunk of it is literally just money laundering. Why put in any effort when you can just paint some dots or splotches and call it a day. Old art was a lot better because they were actually investing in the piece itself for either personal or religious reasons so quality was actually considered. If you look at current art commisions where the actual product is the goal it tends to suck way less ass.
@@cinnamonfairyfluff Pretty much this. I'd even say the same for Kinkade's paintings. They're good in application of technical skill, but they're boring. Something really weird but off-putting would still be art, even if I dislike it. There's been several artistic movements in the span of time people like Charlie are inadvertently referring to when they say "modern art." Sculptures I think are a good example of lots of technical skill application but often being boring as finished products.
As someone who’s going to college to be an illustrator but has to take “fine art” classes… the teachers literally admit that they love when people “draw like children” because it’s like reminiscent to like innocence or like their “original way of drawing” or some shit
That is... such fucking bullshit... why the fuck would someone NOT want to see a detailed, beatiful drawing of... idk a happy squirrel? Or a happy frog with a smiley face? Still simple enough but make it detailed it just gets better!
Felix colgrave does things that reminds me a little of something a child would think of, yet his work takes months and is really well done, i don't like that people see these trash modern "art" pieces and assumes everyone that likes surreal art is pretentious, i don't hate Bob Ross, his paintings are nice, but its nothing really special to me.
Art is subjective but there are objective levels to it. The problem with a lot of people is that they think modern artists just splash paint and don’t put any effort in it. It’s wrong because the artists that make those works put just as much effort as guys like Bob Ross. The only difference is that they don’t look anything alike.
@@LuanMower55 Just gonna say what everyone else be saying which is art is subjective. The reason why detailed portraits or landscapes are disliked by the modern art world is that it isn’t transcendent. I personally love some realism and surrealism but I more so lean to abstraction because it’s all about expressing your inner angst. Jackson Pollock was a womanizer and alcoholic but I still love his work because it was revolutionary for it’s time. Any artist who has some type of talent can, with enough training, paint a detailed portrait but there is no higher meaning, just your ability to paint a pretty picture. No matter what though no one should degrade you on your art taste and if you enjoy that squirrel painting you enjoy that squirrel painting (:
my favourite kind of paintings are the ones where there's more than one image. So like that one picture of two girls sitting down in white dresses around a candle in a dark room also looks like a skull if you squint your eyes. They're just interesting to look at. As opposed to squares and scribbles :/
As an artist who does it for fun, I fully agree with this. Art is fucking confusing sometimes. Why are these scribbles and splatters selling for thousands but artists that are genuinely talented shat on? I don’t know. In my art classes, all we talk about are people like Ed Ruscha and Carmen Herrera and Alexander Calder, who’s works are by the numbers abstractness that make me disassociate (I wish I was kidding), but we never talk about the works of Henry Fuseli or Zdzisław Beksiński, who are my personal favourite artists and inspirations for their dark, dreary tones and obscure meanings. The art community supports nothing but drivel that only a stupid pretentious rich bastard can claim as 'deep' and 'meaningful.'
I love Beksiński's work, and had very similar experiences in school, where we would learn about these people drawing stick figures, which were meant to be beautiful because they had some 'meaning', and i never got the opportunity to develop the skills i wanted to through art, the entire subject became unbearable because we had to study these people's lives to 'understand' their paintings, and was starting to dislike art more and more, even hate it, but when i discovered Beksiński's artwork i enjoyed it so much. He is my favourite painter to this day.
As another artist a hate his works. They are boring and unexpressive. Is it useful? Does it have an audience? Yes. But there is no restraint, no skill, no interesting point or meaning. A lot of modern art is shit too.
The amazing thing about Bob Ross was his ability to convey a technique that anyone can learn. If you do what he does as he does it, you get something kinda sorta like what he gets.
That, and his speedy way of creating art. A painting sometimes takes a long time to finish, going up to months, and most people don't want to bother with art if it takes them over a few hours. Bob Ross had refined his fast painting skills to the point where he was able to produce new paintings constantly, with so much ease that he could maintain a show. That's still mind blowing to me. The guy was making a whole painting in every episode, start to finish.
My Art Teacher said that he hates Bob Ross. Because the episodes lack educational value. I don't hate him but I can see why. Happy little clouds doesn't teach you anything.
As an artist…Charlie’s criticism is so on point. The art world (particularly art dealers who usually cannot paint/draw/sculpt all that well themselves) often rejects people with the most technical skill in favor of those who are good at describing the abstract concepts they base their art around. I’ve legit stood in class and lied about my motivations for making a piece because I knew that “I painted this because I thought it would look pretty/nice” would cause me to get a C- at best.
Dude I feel you. I had a professor who had a major hard on for abstract work for his class. If you made work that looked like something on purpose or accident you would get a C. I had to do the same as you. Just say some fake bullshit meaning behind my work that I know he wanted to hear with his terminology. Ended up with an A and never did the shit again lmao
@@KendrickMegaFan And AIs can create art. No, not talking about synthesizing. Literally just generating something entirely new and improving each time. Your point? It's not about if something else can do what a human can do, it's about how well a human does something. There are literal human printers alive right now that can paint something 1:1 from the real world and I think their art should be held up higher than a lot of modern art pieces. Rate based on the piece itself. The idea behind it isn't worth more than the craftsmanship or the time it took to get there. If everyone can make it and everyone can think of it, its value is low. That simple.
Maybe you should put a little more thought into your work. Make something you don't have to lie about. That class is trying to teach you something, if you don't want to learn it why show up at all?
Dude im constantly bullshitting my art explanations, my art is great dont get me wrong, but a good portion of it (especially schoolwork) was made just because the idea seemed cool. My head was empty while making the fucking thing. If i need to think of a reason before i start the piece i’m gonna hyperfixate on making it good to get my point across. If you just make a thing and then bullshit the explanation you’re just looking at your work in the same way you’d look at another artists work and saying what you think it could mean, which makes the meaning behind it more legit cuz the random ass pieces fall together without you having even tried
i started finding modern art less weird after seeing how memes evolved. Starting with Rage comics displaying relatable situations, then people tried to out-irony each other which lead to "E"
The difference between the markiplier E and contemporary art is that people admit that the meme doesn't mean shit. It's so bad that's it good. Contemporary art people always assert that there's some deep meaning behind the overpriced bullshit they call art. Another thing is that memes die after a few months but this contemporary art fad has been going on for years.
I half-agree with this video. On one hand, I think that art doesn't need to be "good" so it could be legitimate. Judging art by "talent" is itself very subjective and based on historic consensus. On the other hand, I do agree that the art market is pretentious, snobby, inaccessible nonsense that adds economic value to the most personal and subjective thing we do, and then expects the artists themselves to pander to that market in order to feed themselves.
Art critics have always been shit and behind the times, even i ye old days when an artist would only be recognised for their art after their death. Personally i don't like to abstract art but im not going to not call it art since its all subjective unlike some people in the comments arguing over what kind of art is better and whats "true" art.
Picasso created very innovative, abnormal artwork, but he also had technical skill. Because he knew how to portray reality (he has many Realist paintings that are quite good) he could bend the rules effectively and play with abstract ideas. All artists should learn the basics regardless of their style. If you can't properly draw a person or landscape, then you can't effectively bend the rules and create great modern/abstract art. That's the problem with many modern artists. They can't actually paint so instead they write a narrative about what their painting represents, poorly portray the ideas they are trying to convey, and then chide you for being too stupid to see them
Art is subjective, nobody needs to know how to "properly draw a person or landscape" before beginning to create art that they think is good. Of course with any hobby/profession you will have people who will tell you that you are too stupid/don't have enough technical skill/need better equipment, but at the end of the day, if you/other people see the value in a piece of art, that's all there is to it. The people who try to belittle your opinion on art, are irrelevant; you should like what you like, and by the same token, dislike what you dislike. It is all a matter of what you personally can get out of something.
@@BSPancake ah yes, truly this piece brings to light the true tragedy of homelessness. The fact that this turd was left in a dark alley just a few feet away from a busy street, really forces you to understand the difference between those with money and those without.
Art is always going to be up to interpretation, regardless of the author's intentions. Whether it's abstract or straight forward, people are going to read whatever their biases demand. Like how nazi groups rallied behind American History X, while jews were terrified of The Producers. The fact is, art itself is an abstract concept with no singular definition.
When I was in college my art teacher used to always say: “If it makes you view the piece for more than 7 seconds, then it’s successful”. Because of how quickly people just glance at art and move on
I actually see where she's coming from (with the exception of when people are just trying to figure out wtf it is.) I've only had one painting I truly thought was good and it's something people just can't stop staring at. I guess once in a lifetime was more than I ever hoped for but it's hard to reproduce that "something" that captures someone's mind.
Yeah. Seems like the guy had a good idea of what an ideal world would look like. Wasn't realistic at all but it looks nice. Probably part of what drove him crazy.
I like how the creators of the minimalism art movement said it was made to intentionally emotionless and purposely uninteresting, and now every rich person's mansion is so minimalistic it's void of any personality and we wonder why they are never home and always on vacations, it's gotta feel like a prison. Nobody asked but the minimalism movement was created in the 50's to counter abstract art like Jack Pollock which was supposed to be art of no meaning or reason, only feeling. Abstract Expressionism was the most popular form of art in the 50's, Pop Art was the movement that became trendy in the 60's right after Abstract Expressionism and nobody cared about minimalism until recent years it exploded in popularity. Probably my least favorite movement so far but I also see its purpose, in the age of smartphones we over overstimulated with technology and information so minimalism could be a nice break from that, however I could never and will never have my entire house minimalistic, I could see maybe having one reading room or something to be minimalistic to be void of any distractions. I see it's purpose, which is to have no purpose, and can consider it as good art in my eyes if used right, but who the fuck buys a 3 Panel all white painting for $88.8 million I swear that's just a money laundering scheme at this point.
That's why art "trends" are stupid, some minimal is good some is not, if a painting is good, have it in your home. When people have minimal homes filled with only minimal paintings, i would say most of them have got them because it's the fashion usually. Not because they're really big fans of the minimal. And is part of why people have a such a stigma for minimal because a lot of people just are fickle and only focus on it because of trends.
It's the same with minimalist music, which I studied a bit in Uni. It's all about process and trying to remove the artist out of the equation. It's an interesting concept and boundary pushing for sure but it's not something I could listen too or look at for ages. It's more interesting to understand the process rather than the product itself.
@@TheXerosChannel Much of the art world consciously tries to create new movements, trends, and the next big thing, but oftentimes the result is less visually appealing to me than some film production art created simply to establish what a setting looks like or to evoke a mood or feeling.
minimalism was about a lot of things but rich people only use it to feed their pretentious selves it was about accessibility, it was industrial looking so that the artist's input was not something to think about, it was about exploring new ideas when working with a lot of constraints, but as interesting as the process might be, the final product isn't something to glorify like it's the best visual experience you've ever had.
I generally agree that a lot of modern art like this is just a money laundering scheme, however there are some "abstract" art pieces that do actually have a deeper meaning that I personally find interesting. For example, there's an art piece that is essentially just a 175 pound pile of candy that visitors are encouraged to take a piece from. It was made by Félix González-Torres after his partner passed away from AIDS. The 175 pounds represents his partner's body weight from when he was healthy, and the taking of pieces represents how he wasted away before dying. Visitors not knowing about the meaning and taking pieces is also part of the art piece, since it reflects how during the AIDS epidemic people's ignorance led them to be complicit in the deaths of thousands of people. It's definitely one of those things that upon first viewing you'd be like "wow someone dumped a bunch of candy on the floor and is calling it art" but I think sometimes art can have deeply personal meaning that isn't always obvious to the viewer and that's ok.
@@ab-uh1vv Exact reason I love Newman. His work was simple only to piss off people. He spent more time on the paint than he did the painting and he added intricate details only those who care would see. And the people who hated it where apart of it too. His paintings and sculptures, albeit simple, were thrashed and wrecked by Neo-Nazis and angry purists who wanted to see intricate paintings of buildings and fruit and not messy abstract canvases. They would slice them up with box cutters and decorate them with racist and antisemitic slogans. But to me, the backlash to his wonderful art is just as important to the painting as the pigment in the painting.
@@docpossum2460 Dude are you really that boring? Do ypu wanna walk into an art gallery and only see paintings of rich dead white people and if you see a single inkling of anything unrealistic you just attack the picture with a box knife? Like come on, dude. If you wanna fight back against pompous art purist then don't be a pompous art purist. You're just as bad as any abstract soyboy simp and probably even worse.
I’d take kitsch over pretentious. He obviously enjoyed creating his art and it actually looks pretty cool, reminds me of those book covers on fantasy novels. As a former art student I could never understand modern art pieces and rolled my eyes every time I had to write an essay about the conceptual meaning of a banana taped to a wall. This is way more aesthetically pleasing and although these paintings don’t have any deep pretentious meanings, it doesn’t mean that this guy deserves so much hate. He’s not claiming to have created ground-breaking artworks, he just likes them because they look pretty so there’s pretty much nothing to hate on. Personally wouldn’t buy one of his paintings but I wouldn’t buy any modern art either.
I always thought "art" was something someone put their love and soul into. A thing where someone not too good at expressing themselves verbally can on their canvasses or paper. Or any medium, really. Something creative others may or may not be able to recreate and something that instills something, whether just to the artist or into the viewer. Art can be anything from a mural to a stick figure drawn by the hand of a child. It doesn't matter, as long as it means something. That stick figure may be poorly drawn. But to that child, it could be "Mommy", and mean a lot to them. Just like beauty, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Where someone sees perfection, another could see a flaw. That concept applies to art. Art is anything, and if it causes you to feel anger, at least it caused you to feel something. And to me, that is great. On another note, I will bet anything on the fact those "critics" probably couldn't paint anything to that caliber. Maybe it angered them because how nice and realistic it was, how he made that art so quickly and found a method of his own to use, when they likely couldn't themselves. It would take me over an hour to draw a vehicle, whereas my dad can sketch it out in every graphic detail in less than two minutes. He goes around putting motorcycles and trucks all of the time on the walls in our house. Just because someone can do something not only better but quicker than you, doesn't mean you should selfishly hate them for it. Be intrigued or fascinated someone out there can do that. Then learn. Learn how they do it to be as good as they are. No need to sit on your ass behind a computer groveling about it.
my favourite art piece is (whos afraid of red yellow and blue 3) it is a huge painting that concists of red yellow and blue. when i discovered this artpiece it changed my view of art completely. the piece itself is impressive its kinda like a monolith of a painting that is red yellow and blue it has no meaning other than beeing red yellow and blue. the thing about this painting thoe is that it was hated by a lot of people, they where genuinly angry about the art piece. one day a guy walks into the museum with a box cutter and destroys the painting. the vandal made the artpiece whole in a way by destroying it. because it answered the question of "who's afraid of red yellow and blue. the storry of this art piece gave me a new outlook on art, it made me appreciate art more. it showed me that art don't need a initial meaning it doesn't need a profound message it can be art just for the sake of it. it is the bystanders that make the art complete be it by theft vandalisation appreciation or something else
This! As someone who studies Art History at university, the amount of gross misconceptions in this video really, truly bugged me. So thank you for saying this; this video gave me huge toxic energy vibes.
@@feetfinderguy7044 I think this comment, although maybe not meant this way, perfectly applies to both; to the people criticizing the art of the artist featured in the watched video for being kitsch, and to this video in which this specific RUclipsr shits on modern artists for doing something that’s “easily replicable” (which it’s not). Both kinds of arts can and should coexist and both are of equal importance, in my humble opinion!
Ironically Charlie's idea to go under cover as a modern artist to sell "shitty" art to stupid rich people is one of the main ideas behind dadaism, which is the same idea that created some of the most famous "pretentious" art such as Fountain by Duchamp (you know the urinal on its back) just thought the irony was kind of funny, also its a great idea and i think Charlie should try it
Isn't there someone who put a banana on a random table in a museum and he came back 3 days later and find that the said banana is covered with a case? Radiates the same energy
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
@@zoinksrodan7644 Nah, that'll turn him into a martyr within the sh-t art industry. On one of the few occasion this happens, someone made a religion out of it, and the last thing we want is a cult worshipping pills and biohazard waste.
I’m not artist but the one at 10:00 is actually interesting when you look at it, it shows the world inside a tv is so bright a colourful where as are reality is that dark empty room but when we watch and enjoy something we take it in and our world becomes a little more bright. But honestly most modern art has no meaning or it only has meaning to the artist which makes it so much harder for people to interpret
Charlie you have to understand, The Modern Art/Contemporary Era of art was established after the second world war so that nobody would be rejected by art schools.
it makes me, also a small digital freelance artist, ABSOLUTELY BAFFLED bro. u can say whatever you want about their art to bring it up, but the fact is i literally CAN make pieces that are not only the bullshit theyve made, but also BETTER things. They value art for being "just art" but art can also be "just art" and still not look like shit.
The "awful" paintings seem a lot like book illustrations (along the lines of Tolkien's books, for example) and they'd sure make for a nice desktop wallpaper back in the Windows XP through 7 era, before minimalism hit us really hard.
I’m a genuine painter, it pisses me off that these idiots who have no reason be doing art are and they don’t care about what they make, all they want is money
Not far. Even if he wasn't a painter, I still think he's an ass. The thing with Kincade is that he has the skill but not the soul, he makes paintings to sell but not sustain. It's junk food. And like junk food, sometimes it's nice every once and awhile but making it take over your life will only make you ill. I'm not some abstract purist, far from it. I love nearly all forms of art. There's just something so dull about Kincade. I don't hate him but I do find criticising him funny. He made his millions and then died, I doubt anything I can say will hurt his buisness. I just find it dull. I mean, I like Bob Ross' art and he is even more comodified than Kincade. But Kincade is just too apple pie for me.
Hell fucking yeah, Hitler's art is on par with Thomas and Bob Ross' paintings. Dullest fucking shite. Just take a fucking photo. Remember photography killed representational painting
Hitler's art was really sad. I saw a painting of his once, he was trying to make a realistic landscape-type scene with a house, and he totally fucked up the one-point perspective (and it didn't look Picasso-y or Matisse-y enough to still be a good piece, it was just bad)
10/10 masterpiece. Those boxes must be metaphors for humanity being quarantined during the pandemic, as well as businesses closing down and people packing their stuff. It’s so deep
Good news, It’s happened already. Donald Judd’s “Untitled” (1967). It’s literally a bunch of iron boxes lined up on a wall. It was very much a meta critique of “fuck it, I’m gonna make a piece that looks like it was make in a steel factory and there was no human love or human input whatsoever, so annoying art critics can shit themselves in anger over why I bothered to make something so.” He made it as a “fuck you” to the art critic world and thus kick started the Minimalism movement of “our world is so industrialized and capitalized even ‘art’ could be mass produced in a cold, unfeeling factory somewhere” (which it really has unironically become today, look at Rae Dunn’s mass produced “imperfect, handmade-looking” jars and mugs!)
I kinda liked the "I wish I'd sailed the darkened seas" one. I interpreted that one as a guy sitting in the dark in front of his TV/Monitor, reflecting that he wishes he'd done something adventurous with his life.
I can't believe there's someone else who hates abstract art with a passion, whenever I mention that I personally don't care for most abstract art, everyone takes that as an invitation to tell me how I "just don't get it."
well, do you? I woundt consider myself a fan but I enjoy going to the museum or looking up Jackson Pollock paintings, trying to really get to know them. I havent got a problem with people just not interestted iin Art, but I do if someone says "wow a five year old could have done that" because that not what its about. If you want somethiing realistic there are photos and if it needs to be painted there are hyperrealist painter but the thing with Modern art isnt the skill of painting, but the message, emotion, atmosphere a paiting gives off, you cant just have a quick look and think its stupit but you need to try and uunderstand it with the painter, his emotions, the time when it was made, what he made and how he made it in mind otherwise you dont get the full picture of its greatness. If you understand that and still just dont think its interesting, ok, but sometimes pisses me off when ppl dont even give it a real chance. p.s. yes iit still iis complletely stupid how expensive they are, that i also think is pretentious
@@24reverse19 yeah, I understand that some art is supposed to represent concepts or emotions, or even nothing instead of actual things. I just don't care for most abstract art and I'm sick of people saying I "just don't understand" and being rude and snobbish because I don't personally like it
@@24reverse19 There is no "emotion, message or atmosphere" from splashing paint on a canvas. There literally isn't. People try to pull meaning from it, but it's literally just paint splashed on a canvas. People (fart huffers) try to convince themselves it has a deep meaning, but ask 1000 art experts what they took from a canvas splash without letting them overhear eachother and they will have 1000 different answers... meaning its nonsense, there is no message or sense made from it. it's actual garbage.
I get the same backlash whenever I tell people I don't like Picasso pieces because they resemble my drawings when I was a kid 😆 Some folks just want to feel intellectually superior to others, even if that meant shoving their "culturedness" to your face, lmao.
@@SauloA333 And so do a lot of other abstract artists. But talent, intelligence and skill are all subjective concepts, like most of life. To me, any abstract painter is just as talented as any classically trained artist and any classically trained artist is just as talented as any abstract artist. The commodification of art is the problem, not the art or artist themself. Dadaism is one of my favourite forms of art. I love it. The same way I love the Mona Lisa or A Stary Knight. Art is, but more importantly it isn't.
As an artist his art reminds me of Bob Ross, it gives me comfort, it's like a window to a world I would like to live in. And that's enough for me! Is it meaningful and deep? No! But sometimes art isn't about what it says, but what it makes you feel. And Bob Ross makes me feel at home.
@Assjuice jr they are pretty, but they don't have the same dreamy atmosphere, Bob's paintings are like a perfect world that he constructs to live in, but Hitler's are only pictures. Don't know if that makes sense.
@@helix2331 I think that's what seperates his artwork compared to Bob Ross', atleast for me. His artwork tends to be really excessive, and just kinda comes off as artificial, whilst you could see Bob's passion for his artwork and his simple landscapes imo. Comparing the two I don't think really holds up, like they're similar, sure, but in expression, I can feel Bob's joy for his work, with Thomas' it just feels corporate, if that makes sense.
As an artist who doesn't like modern/abstract art, I appreciate this so much. It's so hard to make a living when you don't just arbitrarily throw paint at a canvas.
yeah im pretty sure half of these people just dont know what they are doing and just talk about it like it has meaning and not a bucket of piss thrown at a canvas.
the only 'abstract' artist i like is wassily kandinsky. he did have some other types of paintings, kinda similar to impressionism i think? idk i dont remember art terminology properly i think it was called that. i like the fact his abstract art actually has structure, pleasing composition and well chosen colours. still understand if someone finds it boring, there's nothing deep about his abstract work it's just weird mathematical colour splatter tbh but i enjoy it
One of the only abstract artist I absolutely love is Wassily Kandinsky, his art makes me so damn happy just looking at it. I fucking love staring at his work.
Well at least his art has actual shapes and form to them to make it look like actual art instead of squiggles and drops of paint on a canvas that means nothing (though he has those kinds of art too).
Modern art ended in the 70's BTW. We're now in the contemporary art period. There is one art piece that explained to me what current art is all about, and it's not the art. If I recall correctly, the artist home brewed 18 bottles of beer and sealed them as they fermented. The artist claimed in each bottle there was a unique universe being formed, that the fermentation was always going to create slightly different results. His art was just beer, but his opening speech in the gallery went on forever. That's when I realised contemporary art is no longer about the art, it is about the concept and who has the best sales pitch. I think it sold for a decent price as well.
welll yeh and no, contemporary Art just means current, recent, over the last couple decades. and yeh we have moved away from "Art" in favour of the concept, errrrrrrrrr the concept is the art. if you can explain it well enough you get a pass ahahaha
And why not. Interesting ideas should always be at the forefront. I really don't see why we should hate art like this in a vacuum. The market is a different place.
@@hexcodeff6624 Because the art means nothing if you have to know its meaning or intent. When art is only about the idea and it can't be seen in the work without a written statement to support it then are you supporting visual art or written work? I like modern art, I like conceptual works, but there are times when the art has no purpose when it can't be conveyed without supporting material.
@@redkittyproject No one necessarily had to explain the thing about the beer for people to enjoy the act of selling those cans as an artistic performance.
The only reason the "real art" holds value, is because these people are willing to spend it. You can have one person smearing literal shit on a canvas, and they would start bidding right away. The art I would prefer is the kind from a talented artist that sells it for a decent price. As long as it's an original, non mass produced piece, I would buy it.
True, how many now revered artists will be remembered a century from now? I mean there's literally only so long you can tape a banana to a wall and not ask "why?"
@@complimentbotd7232 Once the shock value wears off, which these days is quite fast, the value of those modern pieces drops to zero. Intrinsically worthless, because no effort was really made for them to be loved, only seen.
Honestly all of them required a great deal of effort/work, most people couldn't make those paintings, it takes skill to blend the colors so well and make the whole scene come together. I surely couldn't do it, but I know I could copy and paste twleve emojis and recolor them in photoshop, I could tape a banana to a wall, or throw paint at a canvas. The value of modern artist is nearly completely incomprehensible to me, from what little I can decipher artist/art critics are so far up their own ass they believe the "Message" is more important then the piece itself, their ability to overanalyze the work and come to arbitrary conclusions/ideas is more valuable then how it actually looks... In other words its total nonsense of people sniffing their own assholes an deriding anything that doesn't allow one to make up meaning where their is none.
Ikr why do people need to make it so political I care about the art not the artist. Like I came here to see art that looks nice and enjoy myself not to get riled up about stupid shit that doesn't matter.
They look fine! The effort put in is just sort of... unimportant to art. Creating art to be marketed is pretty frowned upon by humans, and most of his work is pretty boring. A good analogy is in music. Jazz can get weird, sound unpleasant, and ruin all chance of commercial success; but there's these sequences of true outstanding beauty. A jazz musician flows from sequence to another, entirely improvised. You've never heard a better piano performance, and you'll never hear it again. It sticks with you. Thomas Kinkade is playing fucking wonderwall really well
Me and my art class had walked around New York looking at art galleries for a field trip and for every gallery that was displaying interesting, detailed, beautiful art... there were five more that were just gradients or circles galore. It even got to the point where my teacher would just kind of poke his head in, see a circle, and tell the group to just move on to the next gallery
One of my favorite parts about going to anime cons is buying stuff in the Artist Alleys, and I buy a lot. There are many absolutely unreal talents just sitting in booths busting their asses trying to make a few extra bucks on the weekend to support the thing they love to do. I respect that and I like supporting them. But I don't spend money simply to support the; they do amazing work I feel compelled to own. While much of it is by definition "derivative" since it's fanart, it's anything but "derivative" in a pejorative sense. The sheer breadth of style differences and clever approaches is mindboggling. There's also a fair amount of just absolutely gorgeous original art. Having been to plenty of both, I feel completely comfortable saying that there's more collective talent in the Artist's Alley at any mid-sized con than there is in many, if not most, art museums, art schools, art exhibitions, etc. And in terms of artistic passion, it's no contest. Compare that with "The Art World" where to be "artistic" seems to mean to have utter disdain for anything beautiful, anything requiring effort, and anything that any normal person would look at and say "I want to own that because I love it." Is love even a thing in "capital A" Art anymore? It feels more like all there is is contempt, hubris, sloth, and endless circlejerking.
pollock was incredibly skilled in a bunch of different areas of painting tho, his earlier stuff legitimately does showcase a mastery of the human figure. i totally understand not liking more impressionistic art, but you cant deny that the man had tons of skill
Yeah I don't think charlie knows much about pollock; he's probably only aware of the drip paintings that made pollock famous. In reality pollock was legitimately a skilled artist
@@josephwoo69 This what annoys me about Charlie most of the time on his art takes, he vaguely knows about art shit and talks like a smartass when he says his opinion, the most braindead takes most of the time.
@@DoctorDafaria yeah his opinion pretty much mirrors that of people that don’t know anything about art history and/or can’t make good art themselves. I notice that most people that shit on all modern/contemporary art do it because they themselves suck at art, so it makes them angry when they see people being successful without showing technical skill because they think “hey wtf, I could’ve done that easily. Why did I spend all this time trying to get good when I could’ve just splashed paint around”. Which is probably true, but the difference between Jackson Pollock and a random guy that splashes paint on a canvas is that Pollock was a very skilled artist that just got bored of traditional painting
i have been in art schools and programs for a solid decade now. i have never met anyone who has a style like the artists in fine art museums. not teachers, students, art enjoyers… literally not once. it feels like it’s fake, like a part added to the simulation to spice things up and piss me off.
as someone working towards an art degree when charlie started pondering the boxes it dead ass sounds like a professor in a university. the art world really is that contrived. no meme needed.
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
What most people confuse is the craftsmanship of painting and art. If you evaluate the first you can criticize the technique and effort, for the second you have to look at what it does to you, your emotions while looking at it. The more emotions it evokes the better
Literally my guess is they like it cause " They can do it too " it's on their level of intelligence and capabilities. so basically cavemen. It takes a proper evolved person to understand true art indeed. People who support the modern art really are out of date.
Art is like America's Got Talent, if the artist has a sad backstory. It is automatically deemed better than anyone with pure talent. That or your Damien Hirst
H.R. Giger had quite unremarkable life outside his art. Very uneventful, calm and almost boring. It did have some weird elements like father giving him a skull (human skull) at age of six, but nothing really externally dramatic. On the other hand Zdzisław Beksiński was Polish artist who was born 1929 and that makes him have very dramatic backstory which might justify his artistic views.
Van gogh was living an already terrible life, the dude went crazy eating his lead paints cause he thought the color yellow would make him happy. No one gaf until he died. It pisses me off to no end walking into an art gallery and seeing simple crap being sold for hundreds even thousands. Family ask me why I dont sell art and its because I don't want to struggle to be a starving artist. No one wants time an effort.... unless it's on some furry level type stuff- and I'd rather not.
trying to live from your art makes you sad, that just comes with the job. As an artist what I've noticed in the art scene is that its just the same small group of people sucking eachother and making meaningless art. It's all obout appearance and being a tool
So here is the tea on Thomas Kincade. Most of the people who don’t like his art dislike it because it is artificial. I’m not talking about his candy, dream-land depiction of the world, I’m talking about the process of him making his paintings. He hired artists to become experts in the “kincade” style and paint on his behalf. He would tell his painters he wanted “a cottage scene with a wind mill and small stream” and they would paint it without further input or supervision. He then called these paintings “kincade originals”. He also hired people to print out copies of these manufactured paintings and apply texture to the surface of the print in order to sell prints as oil paintings. While It’s a technically legal business practice the art community found it morally abject to call these prints with added paint originals and then charge a full gallery price for them. People were fanatically devoted to him, which he took full advantage of by spending the majority of his working hours signing copies of his art which increased the selling price by thousands of dollars. You see, in the art community, you have the choice between being a fine artist (which tends to be more pretentious and derives value from having each work be the only one in existence, original) and then you have illustrators (whose goal it is to sell their art as many times over as you can). He portrays himself as a fine artist but resales like an illustrator while charging original prices. He isn’t an artist but a brand. It would be like going to a Disney movie that was advertised as being directed, animated, voice acted, musically composed, etc. by Walt Disney himself for the price of 200$ a ticket. Some people dislike him for political reasons, or aesthetic reasons. I dislike him because he undermines the integrity of art by taking the worst of both artist options. He sells at inaccessible prices while misusing artistic terms to take advantage of people who don’t know better. In summery, however he started out, he ended up being not an artist, but a manufacturer, with absolutely no contribution to the creative process. Like him or hate him, that’s your choice, but just understand where the art came from.
I remember a publicly funded art gallery in Australia spent somewhere between $30,000 to $60,000 on "Le Artist's Shit", which was basically a few cans of Campbell's Soup with "Le Artist's Shit" written on them. Turns out, they didn't even have the artist's shit in them. What a rip off.
I visited to the RISD school of art's galley/museum about 4 years ago, one of the pieces were two fishing lures. No, they were not made by the artist, they were purchased from a RI bait & tackle shop and were meant to signify something along the lines of "the horrors that aquatic animals must face"
Honestly I *hope* that that's his reason. Because if so, then my respect for him significantly rises. Because anything to separate an ostentatiously rich fool and money is a win in my book.
You are giving him too much credit-he's very much convinced, at least, of his popular pieces, like the *The Physical Impossibility of Death.* His one redeeming quality is his reluctance to accept the greatest of praise that likens him to historic masters, but, nonetheless, he enjoys the spotlight and thinks it just. I should also take this occasion to say that the art world is actually rather divided on Hirst. Like modern art or not, it is silly to deny that there is no *artistry*-that is, deeper thought or methodology-in some of it. Considering that, it is no surprise that the same critics who hail pieces that the public commonly derides should condemn Hirst. He is a brazing con man who maintains status and wealth purely by marketing shallow decorations, not an artist.
@@pilzening2810 I agree that he certainly considers himself an artist. But I don't think that means he thinks his hotel rooms, or the drake album cover, are art. He just happens to be in a position where he can sell low effort shit to rich people and make millions, and at the same time put his actual art in museums and galleries around the world. I went to his 'Cherry Blossoms' exhibit a few months ago and I enjoyed it. I never found myself thinking "it's a scam" or anything like that. As for "The Physical Impossibility [...]" it honestly looks pretty awesome. If it was shown in a museum where I live I'd certainly go see it. So I don't see why he shouldn't be convinced of it.
@@frareanvidal I just cited the work as an example of Hirst taking himself seriously. He's acted similarly over some of his most behated pieces. Ultimately, we cannot know his thoughts, but Hirst's thus far documented persona points in the direction of a self-aggrandising fool rather than an utterly cunning thief. Besides, it could well be a mixture of both.
@@pilzening2810 You mean he didn't go on television to say "haha fuck you rich people I stole money from you ?" How surprising. I'll go for a mixture of both.
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
Imagine hating arts with beautiful subject that had actual craftsmanship while liking pretentious self-expression art made of some random ugly stain with absolutely zero craftsmanship... If every self-expression is art, those scatological stain that fortuitously engraved on my porcelain throne that I sit on as I contemplate the meaning of existence should be worth millions
yea as an art major constantly looking into the community and famous artists (bc school makes us) and even interacting with my teachers and sometimes fellow students, there is this pretentious view over everything and its so strange where they choose to draw the line. I often feel like things I make or show are weird or that im judged but then in the same day something I think is much crazier is praised as being amazing. It just leaves me confused and often feeling invalidated in general.
The one thing that annoys me most is there's nothing to *see* in modern art. I could see something that looks just like some of these modern paintings by staring at the sun for a few minutes then closing my eyes and studying the imprint it burns into my retinas. I'd much rather have a picture some random furry drew with passion in my house than a Damien Hirst.
I think you’ve been looking in the wrong places for good art. I’ve probably been to more museums than you have and yeah, a lot of the stuff there isn’t very interesting (to me) unless it’s political or with a clear meaning. I’ve seen some really cool stuff that has a real message you can see without having to read about it. That’s my favorite part of seeing art. I really love art that you can see the message in just from looking at it but from time to time I do really enjoy art that has no meaning or is just eye candy. It’s all interesting and thought provoking to me. I think which art is “better” is just personal preference. Not liking something doesn’t mean it’s bad and other people can’t enjoy it jeez
@@elrinmeyers1560 I've been to a few museums and there about 60% bullshit and 25% good, usually the bigger the better, although these people call me a simpleton
Art critics are the worst kind of people, like “ah yes, this singular yellow square on on a canvas speaks to me, but this detailed landscape is simply horrendous due to its overdone nature.” Art people are weird, man
Agreed. I would fucking kill to be able to paint like that and critics are just like, "Lol, what dogshit, btw have you seen Kanye's new album art? Absolute genius."
They built a modern art section at our art museum years ago. There was a single purple stick light with 4 paragraphs explaining the artists intentions. I promptly went back to the photo realistic rennaissance era art section.
Ugh, photorealism is soooo boring imo. Yeah, it takes effort and skill, and I can appreciate it for that, but it lacks imagination most of the time. It's not really the art itself that I hate, just the people who try to act like realism is the only artstyle of value. People who gatekeep art really get on my nerves. Edit: It would seem my comment sparked a bit of debate, so I just wanted to add to my previous statement. I don't consider photorealism less valuable than any other art styles. What I meant to get across was that I personally prefer art with more emotion. Photorealism is fine and pretty to look at, but it just doesn't get the emotional aspect for me most of the time. Many people like to act like photorealism is the only art style that takes skill and hold it above other styles as "more valuable," which is not only wrong, it's just dumb. All art forms and styles are valuable because they all hold a unique purpose that cannot be replaced. Yes, even modern art is valuable, whether you like it or not. You don't have to like modern art, but to imply that it's somehow less than, is just stupid and juvenile. Art is subjective. Your preferences may disagree with mine and that's cool. People having differing opinions and tastes is what makes art fun. Can you imagine if we all liked and made the same exact art? That would be lame. My point is that arguing over something as subjective as art is pointless.
@@cinnamonfairyfluff splashing random blobs of paint and drawing regular shapes and sculpting literal boxes is "creative" read what you said and see how dumb you sound
"I've seen NOBODY on the internet defending this!" 1. Has this man never heard of Jacob Geller? 2. Can I have whatever amnestics he's taken so I can forget about Jacob Geller?
I actually have a puzzle set of one of his paintings in my house. It’s sitting in our storage room, and as you can probably guess, gathering a few layers of dust
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
The reason why Jackson Pollock is so highly regarded is because the timing of which he gained notoriety. Wildly abstract art like his was entirely new at the time he was making it, and that made him a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement. It was popular because it was new and different, and had he started making artwork decades later, I doubt anyone would bat an eye.
It's not just that abstract expressionism was a new way of making art at the time, it's that the movement picked up right at the end of world war 2. There is a point to the nonsensical nature of abstract expressionism, and it's to visually capture the uncertainty and unease that a lot of people were feeling coming out of one of the biggest wars in human history, and it resonated with people. I don't like Pollock's work myself, as with most non-figurative art in general, but I feel like if people would take just half a second to think about the historical context of stuff like abstract expressionism, they might at least hate it a bit less.
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
@@carlterwedow5000 What does the context do for me if the art still looks like trash? A trash can can have the most immaculate, beautiful backstory of the century, but it's still a trash can.
Someone makes a beautiful painting: “this art is dogshit, get that out of here!” Banana taped to a wall and Jackson Pollock paintings: “ArT iS sUbJeCtIvE”
"The essence of contemporary art", writes Baudrillard, "lies in this: claiming nullity, insignificance, nonsense, aiming at nullity being already null. Contemporary art makes use of the impossibility of a well-founded aesthetic judgment , and speculates on the guilt of those who do not understand anything of what it produces, and have not understood that there was nothing to understand. "
„An abstract painting will react to you if you react to it. You get from it what you bring to it. It will meet you half way but no further. It is alive if you are. It represents something and so do you. YOU, SIR, ARE A SPACE, TOO.“ -Ad Reinhardt
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞 (◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over RUclips: This is fine Someone: Says "heck" RUclips: Be gone #однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
It always pisses me off the "art" critics say that you need to convey some obscure or dramatic meaning and emotion. Like, maybe I just wanted to paint a mountain range because I fucking felt like it. Don't shame an artist for being bored with painting supplies.
I think that sincerity is what's most important in art. A piece made with full sincerity by the artist WILL convey that passion the artist had while making the piece. A soulless work will FEEL soulless. Something with heart in it, you can look at & say "yeah, I get it"
I gotta say I, really like the "BER" by matthias Hoch and "Halcyon And On And On" by Franz Kaka. Even if they don't portray something immediately recognizable, they do portray a mood that couldn't be communicated normally. I do like certain modern art because of this effect.
Lol so much Pollock hate... I enjoy his art, just nice to look at.- nothing more It's not his fault that people idolize his paintings, I don't think that he personally believed his paintings were worth the money. How many of you wouldn't become absolute sell-outs if you were told that the scribbles in your drawer were worth millions? Good art usually makes sense, the art world is nonsensical though.
Yeah like pollock’s work definitely has an aesthetic value but it’s definitely not worth millions and in no way is it deep, I and I think most competent people wouldn’t pay more than a few hundred dollars for pollock’s paintings.
Развлечения
My favorite art story is: Someone submitted a sculpture to have it displayed, I believe it was some kind of head or face on top of a pedestal. Well the sculpture and the pedestal were shipped separately, and through some error were judged as individual pieces. The sculpture was rejected, the pedestal was accepted and displayed.
You gotta be shitting me...
My art story: my dad took a sign of from an artwork in a gallery and stuck it on a radiator. People passing admired the radiator and some even made pictures
Was it a well made pedestal? Or did it simply hold some meaning.
Dude, just out of curiosity, there some link where I can read about this? Cause I can't find it
Well now I wanna go see it in a museum
Hate him or love him, his art makes decent jigsaw puzzles
Agree
every time i go to me grandma's house she's doing a jigsaw puzzle with this man's art on it
Can confirm, would puzzle some more
Lmao the moment I heard that voice I knew exactly which channel he clicked on and who he was talking about. Dude actually has some good stuff.
I agree. The snow one was hard as shit. All white grey and orange
My watercolor teacher actually hates Bob Ross cause he “makes his trees too big”. My teacher loves everything else Ross does, he just hates the trees so much.
But... but .... there just happy little trees :(
Lmao
Hahaha that’s actually pretty funny 😆
Huh weird show the teacher actual real trees. I know there are some small trees but god damn
Has the teacher ever visited a forest before? Trees can get pretty fucking big.
As an artist this is one of the most depressing things. A dot in the wall will make millions in a week yet artists studying for years and working on pieces that take days or weeks will get three likes on Instagram
Well one is something new, that noone dd before in that context. Another is one of the millions wood elves or Zbrush aliens. Everyone does the second, no one can do the first again.
@@Cyborg_Lenin bullshit , the first one is just an essay with a illustration.
@@Cyborg_Lenin So no one nowadays can draw someone screaming or some dots on top of a square?
@@LeeLikesToDraw they could. But you can only be first at sorting once. If someone were to do it now, it would be just a copy.
@@Cyborg_Lenin *OCs and other original drawings crying in the corner*
Bob ross could paint really really well. He only painted simply because his show was more of a tutorial rather than watching him being talented
Aynen aga
The only painter I watched
He wanted everyone to be able to make beautiful pieces that they could be proud of, while not needing to train for years. Bob really inspired people to go beyond what he taught on his show, sparking a love for painting in people all across America.
@@theonionqueen3519 nothing like we see today. I'm glad his son took his reins in a way.
All while being so entertaining, I miss that guy💙
The Mona Lisa is basically an elementary school art project,but Damien Hirsts work is immaculate. It takes years of dedication to properly place a butterfly sticker on a wall
Edit:I managed to start an argument over the Mona Lisa,this is a first for me
That's actually something I don't see much people talking about when it comes to the mona lisa. It's the most famous painting in the world, but it's just a simple portrait. I'd expect something like the last supper to be the most famous, but the mona lisa is literally just an ancient selfie. The thing is, it was essentially a commision that someone ordered from Da Vinci. So it's not even his own original idea, it's just a comission. The reason it's so famous is because there was some drama around ww1 when some guys stole the painting, idk remember much of it. But because it has so much drama revolving around it that suddenly it's the best painting in the world.
@@qwertydavid8070 I think it’s very popular because of the skills, and realism for the painting. It may seem like a simple portrait, but you can tell that it’s an actual person with lighting, a background, etc. Not only that, it’s one of the few pieces that we could recover from that time period, along with many other of his famous works. I think possibly because Mona Lisa could be a statement of what the beauty standards were back then. It may be a simple portrait, but it’s nice to look at, and know that actual time/skill went into it. Portraits can be very difficult and time consuming, especially if you’re going for realism and trying to catch every single aspect of the subject you’re creating. But, idk it depends on how you look at it. Damien Hirst however….I don’t even want to go on that road lmao- he’ll probably just print of picture of Mona Lisa and then recolor it seven different times, and some rich person will wet their trousers to buy it
@@imnothere577 i thought it was popular cus it got stolen and nobody knew what it looked like for a long time, so when it got returned everybody went crazy and hyped it up
If yall think mona lisa is a simple portrait then you need to at least do some research
legit i pray to his butterflies everyday
The art of "bullshitting" is huge. People seem to like abstract stuff because of the random stories/explanation one can have. While I was still in school I always got A+ on English and German, that was because my teacher liked interpretations. Especially in topics like analysis of texts and stuff, you just had too bullshit, but nobody seems to understand that.
During my first semester of my freshman year of college I accidentally took a 300 level Comparative Literature course. I never did any of the reading, I just vaguely went along with what other people in the room were saying. I read the first chapter of a book and extrapolated the rest of it from that, and then wrote my book report. I got a passing grade in that class.
@@phearamax4146 Just read from the blurb then bullshit from there, that was my strategy. Top of my english class from that..... math not so much, you cant bullshit math unfortunately.
You find out how, tell me@@Jim-dy4wv
They would had been better off in literature
I BULLSHITTED my way throughout university
"That art hurt me. That art sucks. These guys are living a lie, they're living a lie."
-Aric Endre
that was such a funny skit
i hate that you swapped the first letters of his first and last name
I love modern art
Lmao I remember that episode. Underrated comment
@@hidefiance I hate that you hate that.
"If rich, dumb people won't buy it, then it isn't a good piece of art" - Modern Artists
@W Shiflet new modern art sucks because a good chunk of it is literally just money laundering. Why put in any effort when you can just paint some dots or splotches and call it a day. Old art was a lot better because they were actually investing in the piece itself for either personal or religious reasons so quality was actually considered. If you look at current art commisions where the actual product is the goal it tends to suck way less ass.
You have to love a replies section when most of the replies have "read more" on them.
@@damuffin91 not exactly money laundering, more of tax evasion
@@pomelo9840 more like both
I think half of people commenting here have their opinions based on scandalous art that made news on mainstream media
you're telling me spamming the pregnant woman emoji on a canvas isn't art?
@yes No.
Yes, and I’m tired of pretending it’s not.
It is art. It's not good imo but it certainly is art.
@@cinnamonfairyfluff Pretty much this. I'd even say the same for Kinkade's paintings. They're good in application of technical skill, but they're boring. Something really weird but off-putting would still be art, even if I dislike it. There's been several artistic movements in the span of time people like Charlie are inadvertently referring to when they say "modern art."
Sculptures I think are a good example of lots of technical skill application but often being boring as finished products.
@@kylegonewild you got a pretty weird definition of boring.
“Everybody’s a critic” - Squidward
Say the name of the person your quoting backwards
@@priestofronaldalt well looks like I’ll be adding that to the list of ruined childhood memories… 💀
@@priestofronaldalt why
I would honestly buy Squidward's paintings
Not everyone can be an artist but ANYONE can be a critic.
As someone who’s going to college to be an illustrator but has to take “fine art” classes… the teachers literally admit that they love when people “draw like children” because it’s like reminiscent to like innocence or like their “original way of drawing” or some shit
That is... such fucking bullshit... why the fuck would someone NOT want to see a detailed, beatiful drawing of... idk a happy squirrel? Or a happy frog with a smiley face? Still simple enough but make it detailed it just gets better!
Felix colgrave does things that reminds me a little of something a child would think of, yet his work takes months and is really well done, i don't like that people see these trash modern "art" pieces and assumes everyone that likes surreal art is pretentious, i don't hate Bob Ross, his paintings are nice, but its nothing really special to me.
Lmao let me guess, they made you write an essay about it too
Art is subjective but there are objective levels to it. The problem with a lot of people is that they think modern artists just splash paint and don’t put any effort in it. It’s wrong because the artists that make those works put just as much effort as guys like Bob Ross. The only difference is that they don’t look anything alike.
@@LuanMower55
Just gonna say what everyone else be saying which is art is subjective. The reason why detailed portraits or landscapes are disliked by the modern art world is that it isn’t transcendent. I personally love some realism and surrealism but I more so lean to abstraction because it’s all about expressing your inner angst. Jackson Pollock was a womanizer and alcoholic but I still love his work because it was revolutionary for it’s time. Any artist who has some type of talent can, with enough training, paint a detailed portrait but there is no higher meaning, just your ability to paint a pretty picture. No matter what though no one should degrade you on your art taste and if you enjoy that squirrel painting you enjoy that squirrel painting (:
I went to an art gallery with an exhibition called "The Death of Art". It was just a room with 6 blank canvasses.
It was their featured exhibition.
MASTERPIECE. 5 million !
That is pretty accurate
Interesting. It’s almost meta in a way. Damn I wish I could’ve gone
I think that one deserves a pass purely because it's honest.
I bet the next exhibit won't even have the canvases
No piece of art is greater than “King Kong Balls” by Denis Defrancesco.
true
thats true art. praag would not be the same whit out it.
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
Nice pfp
That's true
my favourite kind of paintings are the ones where there's more than one image. So like that one picture of two girls sitting down in white dresses around a candle in a dark room also looks like a skull if you squint your eyes. They're just interesting to look at. As opposed to squares and scribbles :/
I can't find the painting you're talking about, can you link it or something? I'm really interested.
Yea me too no idea how to look for this😂
@@levimeijer821 it’s called two girls and their bunny I think
those types of images fall under the category of "optical illusions"
So like, the ones that are supposed to tell you smth about your personality, based on which image you saw first?
As an artist who does it for fun, I fully agree with this. Art is fucking confusing sometimes. Why are these scribbles and splatters selling for thousands but artists that are genuinely talented shat on? I don’t know. In my art classes, all we talk about are people like Ed Ruscha and Carmen Herrera and Alexander Calder, who’s works are by the numbers abstractness that make me disassociate (I wish I was kidding), but we never talk about the works of Henry Fuseli or Zdzisław Beksiński, who are my personal favourite artists and inspirations for their dark, dreary tones and obscure meanings. The art community supports nothing but drivel that only a stupid pretentious rich bastard can claim as 'deep' and 'meaningful.'
I love Beksiński's work, and had very similar experiences in school, where we would learn about these people drawing stick figures, which were meant to be beautiful because they had some 'meaning', and i never got the opportunity to develop the skills i wanted to through art, the entire subject became unbearable because we had to study these people's lives to 'understand' their paintings, and was starting to dislike art more and more, even hate it, but when i discovered Beksiński's artwork i enjoyed it so much. He is my favourite painter to this day.
As another artist a hate his works. They are boring and unexpressive. Is it useful? Does it have an audience? Yes. But there is no restraint, no skill, no interesting point or meaning.
A lot of modern art is shit too.
@@Cyborg_Lenin Ed or Alex?
@@zuskull1 ?
@@Cyborg_Lenin you said you hated *his* works but I don’t know who the 'his' is supposed to be.
The amazing thing about Bob Ross was his ability to convey a technique that anyone can learn. If you do what he does as he does it, you get something kinda sorta like what he gets.
That, and his speedy way of creating art. A painting sometimes takes a long time to finish, going up to months, and most people don't want to bother with art if it takes them over a few hours.
Bob Ross had refined his fast painting skills to the point where he was able to produce new paintings constantly, with so much ease that he could maintain a show. That's still mind blowing to me. The guy was making a whole painting in every episode, start to finish.
@@anecro two paintings actually. He always made one before every episode of the show and then recorded making the second one. That's crazy
@@gtatielmehdi369 God damn
@@Yayyyyyyyyyy why did he hate him?
My Art Teacher said that he hates Bob Ross. Because the episodes lack educational value. I don't hate him but I can see why. Happy little clouds doesn't teach you anything.
As an artist…Charlie’s criticism is so on point. The art world (particularly art dealers who usually cannot paint/draw/sculpt all that well themselves) often rejects people with the most technical skill in favor of those who are good at describing the abstract concepts they base their art around. I’ve legit stood in class and lied about my motivations for making a piece because I knew that “I painted this because I thought it would look pretty/nice” would cause me to get a C- at best.
Dude I feel you. I had a professor who had a major hard on for abstract work for his class. If you made work that looked like something on purpose or accident you would get a C. I had to do the same as you. Just say some fake bullshit meaning behind my work that I know he wanted to hear with his terminology. Ended up with an A and never did the shit again lmao
Because art isn’t about just replicating what you see, that’s what cameras are for
@@KendrickMegaFan And AIs can create art. No, not talking about synthesizing. Literally just generating something entirely new and improving each time. Your point?
It's not about if something else can do what a human can do, it's about how well a human does something. There are literal human printers alive right now that can paint something 1:1 from the real world and I think their art should be held up higher than a lot of modern art pieces.
Rate based on the piece itself. The idea behind it isn't worth more than the craftsmanship or the time it took to get there. If everyone can make it and everyone can think of it, its value is low. That simple.
Maybe you should put a little more thought into your work. Make something you don't have to lie about. That class is trying to teach you something, if you don't want to learn it why show up at all?
Dude im constantly bullshitting my art explanations, my art is great dont get me wrong, but a good portion of it (especially schoolwork) was made just because the idea seemed cool. My head was empty while making the fucking thing. If i need to think of a reason before i start the piece i’m gonna hyperfixate on making it good to get my point across. If you just make a thing and then bullshit the explanation you’re just looking at your work in the same way you’d look at another artists work and saying what you think it could mean, which makes the meaning behind it more legit cuz the random ass pieces fall together without you having even tried
i started finding modern art less weird after seeing how memes evolved. Starting with Rage comics displaying relatable situations, then people tried to out-irony each other which lead to "E"
Truth.
The difference between the markiplier E and contemporary art is that people admit that the meme doesn't mean shit. It's so bad that's it good. Contemporary art people always assert that there's some deep meaning behind the overpriced bullshit they call art. Another thing is that memes die after a few months but this contemporary art fad has been going on for years.
So what you're saying is modern art are just shitposts
@@tobiassiagian2562 conceptual shitposts.
The thing is, the E meme is funny as fuck whereas modern art is just pretentious and depressing. E is like like the antithesis of pretentiousness
I half-agree with this video.
On one hand, I think that art doesn't need to be "good" so it could be legitimate. Judging art by "talent" is itself very subjective and based on historic consensus.
On the other hand, I do agree that the art market is pretentious, snobby, inaccessible nonsense that adds economic value to the most personal and subjective thing we do, and then expects the artists themselves to pander to that market in order to feed themselves.
wrong everything in life need skill talent or at least training
Or else it worth nothing in the world
Art critics have always been shit and behind the times, even i ye old days when an artist would only be recognised for their art after their death. Personally i don't like to abstract art but im not going to not call it art since its all subjective unlike some people in the comments arguing over what kind of art is better and whats "true" art.
@@m7mad182 His comment does not contradict your point of view, so I don't see how he's "very wrong".
Picasso created very innovative, abnormal artwork, but he also had technical skill. Because he knew how to portray reality (he has many Realist paintings that are quite good) he could bend the rules effectively and play with abstract ideas. All artists should learn the basics regardless of their style. If you can't properly draw a person or landscape, then you can't effectively bend the rules and create great modern/abstract art. That's the problem with many modern artists. They can't actually paint so instead they write a narrative about what their painting represents, poorly portray the ideas they are trying to convey, and then chide you for being too stupid to see them
Art is subjective, nobody needs to know how to "properly draw a person or landscape" before beginning to create art that they think is good. Of course with any hobby/profession you will have people who will tell you that you are too stupid/don't have enough technical skill/need better equipment, but at the end of the day, if you/other people see the value in a piece of art, that's all there is to it. The people who try to belittle your opinion on art, are irrelevant; you should like what you like, and by the same token, dislike what you dislike. It is all a matter of what you personally can get out of something.
“art makes no sense”
abstract artists:
“…and I took that personally”
Lets be honest no one enjoy abstract art other than people who thinks they know art, or rich people who has a mansion that needs decoration
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
@@zoinksscoob6523 I like abstract art, and I fall under none of those, so......
@@zoinksscoob6523 I'm poor and I love abstract art
@@zoinksscoob6523 I think some of them are just pretty, you know
“It’s not what it says, its what it doesn’t”
Probably because it doesn’t say anything
Yeah, and with that logic a turd left in an alley way by a homeless man would be considered the most beautiful modern art to date.
@@BSPancake ah yes, truly this piece brings to light the true tragedy of homelessness. The fact that this turd was left in a dark alley just a few feet away from a busy street, really forces you to understand the difference between those with money and those without.
@@OneFinalAutumn A true reflection of today's society.
Art is always going to be up to interpretation, regardless of the author's intentions. Whether it's abstract or straight forward, people are going to read whatever their biases demand. Like how nazi groups rallied behind American History X, while jews were terrified of The Producers. The fact is, art itself is an abstract concept with no singular definition.
That's the thing about art. Your response is enough. These art pieces are invoking a response that no Rembrandt, Picasso, or Van Gogh ever did.
Ever since Hitler wasn't allowed into art school, the quality of art has dropped substantially
Oh dear god
His instructor must be an abstract artist.
--- __
O O
\
-------
We have to preserve the timeline, mechahitler is/was a serious problem in the alternate past
nazi posting bro
When I was in college my art teacher used to always say: “If it makes you view the piece for more than 7 seconds, then it’s successful”. Because of how quickly people just glance at art and move on
By this metric the most successful art in human existence are "Where's Waldo?" panels. Genius.
@@tonyhouse8500 looool so true xD
I actually see where she's coming from (with the exception of when people are just trying to figure out wtf it is.) I've only had one painting I truly thought was good and it's something people just can't stop staring at. I guess once in a lifetime was more than I ever hoped for but it's hard to reproduce that "something" that captures someone's mind.
Seeing Charlie pretend to critique art sarcastically while really critiquing art is comedy gold to me.
"There's a pattern to it there's order in the chaos" 😭
He's legitimately making critiques that pretentious artists would genuinely discuss about those works lmao
I went to art college, Charlie needs to watch Exit Through the Gift Shop, you'll understand this nonsense and why it's worth what it's worth
Charles White: Art critic
Charlie isn't the art critic we asked for, but the art critic we need.
Honestly, I love that you watched that video. I love Solar Sands, and seeing you interact with his videos is so nice.
Honestly, his newest video blew my mind
Im actually surprised he's watching it too.
Yea, the amount of research and interpretation in the monumentality one is amazing
My childhood and my teenage life have come full circle with this one comment.
solar sands makes a lot of good points everytime he makes a video so i can see why charlie is interested
Never heard of the guy, nor seen any of his paintings, but I'm not ashamed to say I like the paintings, they're nice.
Watch the original video. It goes more in depth than this.
We have 2 of his paintings and it was jigsaw puzzle
Yeah. Seems like the guy had a good idea of what an ideal world would look like. Wasn't realistic at all but it looks nice. Probably part of what drove him crazy.
@@hexcodeff6624 Yeah and the "critics" were so annoying lol even the painter himself isn't exactly the nicest person either
@@SubstanceD91 God I forgot, but how and why exactly did his life went to shit? I know he was an alcoholic, but how much worse did his life get?
I'll just stick to the nice art and fanart I see on twitter
Twitter really? With everyone being so sensitive and cancelling each other every minute, good luck lol
@@MiloPee You can turn a blind eye to that, you'll probably get cancelled for being an ableist.
@@f4ishal996 true true
Despite Twitter being the worst place on the internet at least the art is nice
nice art indeed....
I like how the creators of the minimalism art movement said it was made to intentionally emotionless and purposely uninteresting, and now every rich person's mansion is so minimalistic it's void of any personality and we wonder why they are never home and always on vacations, it's gotta feel like a prison.
Nobody asked but the minimalism movement was created in the 50's to counter abstract art like Jack Pollock which was supposed to be art of no meaning or reason, only feeling. Abstract Expressionism was the most popular form of art in the 50's, Pop Art was the movement that became trendy in the 60's right after Abstract Expressionism and nobody cared about minimalism until recent years it exploded in popularity. Probably my least favorite movement so far but I also see its purpose, in the age of smartphones we over overstimulated with technology and information so minimalism could be a nice break from that, however I could never and will never have my entire house minimalistic, I could see maybe having one reading room or something to be minimalistic to be void of any distractions.
I see it's purpose, which is to have no purpose, and can consider it as good art in my eyes if used right, but who the fuck buys a 3 Panel all white painting for $88.8 million I swear that's just a money laundering scheme at this point.
That's why art "trends" are stupid, some minimal is good some is not, if a painting is good, have it in your home. When people have minimal homes filled with only minimal paintings, i would say most of them have got them because it's the fashion usually. Not because they're really big fans of the minimal. And is part of why people have a such a stigma for minimal because a lot of people just are fickle and only focus on it because of trends.
It's the same with minimalist music, which I studied a bit in Uni. It's all about process and trying to remove the artist out of the equation. It's an interesting concept and boundary pushing for sure but it's not something I could listen too or look at for ages. It's more interesting to understand the process rather than the product itself.
@@TheXerosChannel Much of the art world consciously tries to create new movements, trends, and the next big thing, but oftentimes the result is less visually appealing to me than some film production art created simply to establish what a setting looks like or to evoke a mood or feeling.
minimalism was about a lot of things but rich people only use it to feed their pretentious selves
it was about accessibility, it was industrial looking so that the artist's input was not something to think about, it was about exploring new ideas when working with a lot of constraints,
but as interesting as the process might be, the final product isn't something to glorify like it's the best visual experience you've ever had.
@@TheXerosChannel yeah minimalism fucking sucks for any purpose that isn't background noise
I generally agree that a lot of modern art like this is just a money laundering scheme, however there are some "abstract" art pieces that do actually have a deeper meaning that I personally find interesting. For example, there's an art piece that is essentially just a 175 pound pile of candy that visitors are encouraged to take a piece from. It was made by Félix González-Torres after his partner passed away from AIDS. The 175 pounds represents his partner's body weight from when he was healthy, and the taking of pieces represents how he wasted away before dying. Visitors not knowing about the meaning and taking pieces is also part of the art piece, since it reflects how during the AIDS epidemic people's ignorance led them to be complicit in the deaths of thousands of people. It's definitely one of those things that upon first viewing you'd be like "wow someone dumped a bunch of candy on the floor and is calling it art" but I think sometimes art can have deeply personal meaning that isn't always obvious to the viewer and that's ok.
An art piece with an actual deep meaning, damn that's clever. Thanks for sharing!
@@ab-uh1vv Exact reason I love Newman. His work was simple only to piss off people. He spent more time on the paint than he did the painting and he added intricate details only those who care would see. And the people who hated it where apart of it too. His paintings and sculptures, albeit simple, were thrashed and wrecked by Neo-Nazis and angry purists who wanted to see intricate paintings of buildings and fruit and not messy abstract canvases. They would slice them up with box cutters and decorate them with racist and antisemitic slogans. But to me, the backlash to his wonderful art is just as important to the painting as the pigment in the painting.
@@ActuallyHoudini His art is trash and the attacks resulted in no great loss.
@@docpossum2460 make some better art then you hateful person
@@docpossum2460 Dude are you really that boring? Do ypu wanna walk into an art gallery and only see paintings of rich dead white people and if you see a single inkling of anything unrealistic you just attack the picture with a box knife? Like come on, dude. If you wanna fight back against pompous art purist then don't be a pompous art purist. You're just as bad as any abstract soyboy simp and probably even worse.
I’d take kitsch over pretentious. He obviously enjoyed creating his art and it actually looks pretty cool, reminds me of those book covers on fantasy novels. As a former art student I could never understand modern art pieces and rolled my eyes every time I had to write an essay about the conceptual meaning of a banana taped to a wall. This is way more aesthetically pleasing and although these paintings don’t have any deep pretentious meanings, it doesn’t mean that this guy deserves so much hate. He’s not claiming to have created ground-breaking artworks, he just likes them because they look pretty so there’s pretty much nothing to hate on. Personally wouldn’t buy one of his paintings but I wouldn’t buy any modern art either.
I always thought "art" was something someone put their love and soul into. A thing where someone not too good at expressing themselves verbally can on their canvasses or paper. Or any medium, really.
Something creative others may or may not be able to recreate and something that instills something, whether just to the artist or into the viewer.
Art can be anything from a mural to a stick figure drawn by the hand of a child. It doesn't matter, as long as it means something.
That stick figure may be poorly drawn. But to that child, it could be "Mommy", and mean a lot to them.
Just like beauty, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Where someone sees perfection, another could see a flaw. That concept applies to art.
Art is anything, and if it causes you to feel anger, at least it caused you to feel something. And to me, that is great.
On another note, I will bet anything on the fact those "critics" probably couldn't paint anything to that caliber. Maybe it angered them because how nice and realistic it was, how he made that art so quickly and found a method of his own to use, when they likely couldn't themselves.
It would take me over an hour to draw a vehicle, whereas my dad can sketch it out in every graphic detail in less than two minutes. He goes around putting motorcycles and trucks all of the time on the walls in our house.
Just because someone can do something not only better but quicker than you, doesn't mean you should selfishly hate them for it. Be intrigued or fascinated someone out there can do that. Then learn. Learn how they do it to be as good as they are. No need to sit on your ass behind a computer groveling about it.
my favourite art piece is (whos afraid of red yellow and blue 3) it is a huge painting that concists of red yellow and blue. when i discovered this artpiece it changed my view of art completely. the piece itself is impressive its kinda like a monolith of a painting that is red yellow and blue it has no meaning other than beeing red yellow and blue. the thing about this painting thoe is that it was hated by a lot of people, they where genuinly angry about the art piece. one day a guy walks into the museum with a box cutter and destroys the painting. the vandal made the artpiece whole in a way by destroying it. because it answered the question of "who's afraid of red yellow and blue.
the storry of this art piece gave me a new outlook on art, it made me appreciate art more. it showed me that art don't need a initial meaning it doesn't need a profound message it can be art just for the sake of it. it is the bystanders that make the art complete be it by theft vandalisation appreciation or something else
.
This! As someone who studies Art History at university, the amount of gross misconceptions in this video really, truly bugged me. So thank you for saying this; this video gave me huge toxic energy vibes.
@@egel7736 do you mean Solar Sand's video or Charlie's reaction?
@@feetfinderguy7044 I think this comment, although maybe not meant this way, perfectly applies to both; to the people criticizing the art of the artist featured in the watched video for being kitsch, and to this video in which this specific RUclipsr shits on modern artists for doing something that’s “easily replicable” (which it’s not). Both kinds of arts can and should coexist and both are of equal importance, in my humble opinion!
Ironically Charlie's idea to go under cover as a modern artist to sell "shitty" art to stupid rich people is one of the main ideas behind dadaism, which is the same idea that created some of the most famous "pretentious" art such as Fountain by Duchamp (you know the urinal on its back)
just thought the irony was kind of funny, also its a great idea and i think Charlie should try it
Isn't there someone who put a banana on a random table in a museum and he came back 3 days later and find that the said banana is covered with a case? Radiates the same energy
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
@@olivia-hk5tu
“robots are going to take over the world!”
bots :
I'm not a 100% on this, but isn't pumping up the speculative value of an item by fake buying it for millions of dollars illegal?
@@averageohiocitzen3148 ok lemme search for who asked first
If I were a rich man I'd commission Damien Hirst to do a piece of Charlie, just to see what the reaction would be.
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
If I was rich I'd hire a hitman to take him out so I don't have to see his horrible "art"
@@zoinksrodan7644 fr he's a con artist
@@zoinksrodan7644 Nah, that'll turn him into a martyr within the sh-t art industry. On one of the few occasion this happens, someone made a religion out of it, and the last thing we want is a cult worshipping pills and biohazard waste.
The worst part is that he can make art, like the anatomy of an angel is a good piece. He just chooses to have no dignity
I’m not artist but the one at 10:00 is actually interesting when you look at it, it shows the world inside a tv is so bright a colourful where as are reality is that dark empty room but when we watch and enjoy something we take it in and our world becomes a little more bright.
But honestly most modern art has no meaning or it only has meaning to the artist which makes it so much harder for people to interpret
Charlie you have to understand, The Modern Art/Contemporary Era of art was established after the second world war so that nobody would be rejected by art schools.
H I T L E R
to be fair "i wish that i sailed the darkened seas" looks kinda cool, wouldn't mind looking at it for a bit longer
Yeah I agree that one was pretty dope
True
there was a face at the end of the lightrays, pretty hard since you can't be that precise with chalk
or maybe there's a technique im missing
It depends how big the picture actually is,
I think the artist used a tape on the outlines and removed it after the chalking was done
It's actually a TV sending waves over a face which is a cool idea not gonna lie but a shirt worthy one at best. Not millions of dollars.
Seeing modern art like that makes me, a small digital freelance artist, feel better about my artwork
Looked at your channel just now, I seriously don’t think Damien Hurst would be able to do the same
@@midnightoil725 all of my videos are old af cringe from middle school but your point still stands LOL
it makes me, also a small digital freelance artist, ABSOLUTELY BAFFLED bro. u can say whatever you want about their art to bring it up, but the fact is i literally CAN make pieces that are not only the bullshit theyve made, but also BETTER things. They value art for being "just art" but art can also be "just art" and still not look like shit.
@@restlessparadox1953 you can but you didn’t
How small are you?
The "awful" paintings seem a lot like book illustrations (along the lines of Tolkien's books, for example) and they'd sure make for a nice desktop wallpaper back in the Windows XP through 7 era, before minimalism hit us really hard.
I’m a genuine painter, it pisses me off that these idiots who have no reason be doing art are and they don’t care about what they make, all they want is money
"Most hated artist"
Charlie: Damien Hirst
*Not Damien*
Me: Oh I know! Hitle...
*Thomas Kincade*
Me: Oh...
Not far.
Even if he wasn't a painter, I still think he's an ass.
The thing with Kincade is that he has the skill but not the soul, he makes paintings to sell but not sustain. It's junk food.
And like junk food, sometimes it's nice every once and awhile but making it take over your life will only make you ill.
I'm not some abstract purist, far from it. I love nearly all forms of art. There's just something so dull about Kincade. I don't hate him but I do find criticising him funny. He made his millions and then died, I doubt anything I can say will hurt his buisness. I just find it dull. I mean, I like Bob Ross' art and he is even more comodified than Kincade. But Kincade is just too apple pie for me.
Hell fucking yeah, Hitler's art is on par with Thomas and Bob Ross' paintings. Dullest fucking shite. Just take a fucking photo.
Remember photography killed representational painting
You're not alone. I felt the same
Hitler's art was really sad. I saw a painting of his once, he was trying to make a realistic landscape-type scene with a house, and he totally fucked up the one-point perspective (and it didn't look Picasso-y or Matisse-y enough to still be a good piece, it was just bad)
@@sholem_bond yup, check out if Hitler was a hippie by the Chapman brothers, they improved his work tenfold 😂😂😂😂
I want an artist to do something like that stack of boxes and just name it “literally just a bunch of boxes”.
Metal gear style
look up carl andre, he does exactly that just with bricks instead
10/10 masterpiece. Those boxes must be metaphors for humanity being quarantined during the pandemic, as well as businesses closing down and people packing their stuff. It’s so deep
Good news, It’s happened already. Donald Judd’s “Untitled” (1967). It’s literally a bunch of iron boxes lined up on a wall. It was very much a meta critique of “fuck it, I’m gonna make a piece that looks like it was make in a steel factory and there was no human love or human input whatsoever, so annoying art critics can shit themselves in anger over why I bothered to make something so.” He made it as a “fuck you” to the art critic world and thus kick started the Minimalism movement of “our world is so industrialized and capitalized even ‘art’ could be mass produced in a cold, unfeeling factory somewhere” (which it really has unironically become today, look at Rae Dunn’s mass produced “imperfect, handmade-looking” jars and mugs!)
I kinda liked the "I wish I'd sailed the darkened seas" one. I interpreted that one as a guy sitting in the dark in front of his TV/Monitor, reflecting that he wishes he'd done something adventurous with his life.
I can't believe there's someone else who hates abstract art with a passion, whenever I mention that I personally don't care for most abstract art, everyone takes that as an invitation to tell me how I "just don't get it."
well, do you? I woundt consider myself a fan but I enjoy going to the museum or looking up Jackson Pollock paintings, trying to really get to know them.
I havent got a problem with people just not interestted iin Art, but I do if someone says "wow a five year old could have done that" because that not what its about. If you want somethiing realistic there are photos and if it needs to be painted there are hyperrealist painter but the thing with Modern art isnt the skill of painting, but the message, emotion, atmosphere a paiting gives off, you cant just have a quick look and think its stupit but you need to try and uunderstand it with the painter, his emotions, the time when it was made, what he made and how he made it in mind otherwise you dont get the full picture of its greatness.
If you understand that and still just dont think its interesting, ok, but sometimes pisses me off when ppl dont even give it a real chance.
p.s. yes iit still iis complletely stupid how expensive they are, that i also think is pretentious
@@24reverse19 yeah, I understand that some art is supposed to represent concepts or emotions, or even nothing instead of actual things. I just don't care for most abstract art and I'm sick of people saying I "just don't understand" and being rude and snobbish because I don't personally like it
@@24reverse19 There is no "emotion, message or atmosphere" from splashing paint on a canvas. There literally isn't. People try to pull meaning from it, but it's literally just paint splashed on a canvas. People (fart huffers) try to convince themselves it has a deep meaning, but ask 1000 art experts what they took from a canvas splash without letting them overhear eachother and they will have 1000 different answers... meaning its nonsense, there is no message or sense made from it. it's actual garbage.
@@martymcfly420mph6 there's a reason I said some, not all.
I get the same backlash whenever I tell people I don't like Picasso pieces because they resemble my drawings when I was a kid 😆 Some folks just want to feel intellectually superior to others, even if that meant shoving their "culturedness" to your face, lmao.
Modern artist: *Just draw a Straight line in the canvas*
Rich people: *Oh my fucking God! This is art! THIS IS ART!*
meanwhile in the Philippines:
famous person: *paints a yellow dick with pee lines*
appraisers: *GLORIOUS! TRULY AN EXPRESSION OF MODERN ART! HUZZAH!*
Dadaists: "Fuck off, leave us alone. We're trying to be gay in pre-war Germany here."
@@ActuallyHoudini The irony is that dadaists had actual talent...
@@SauloA333 And so do a lot of other abstract artists. But talent, intelligence and skill are all subjective concepts, like most of life. To me, any abstract painter is just as talented as any classically trained artist and any classically trained artist is just as talented as any abstract artist. The commodification of art is the problem, not the art or artist themself. Dadaism is one of my favourite forms of art. I love it. The same way I love the Mona Lisa or A Stary Knight. Art is, but more importantly it isn't.
That's money laundering for you
As an artist his art reminds me of Bob Ross, it gives me comfort, it's like a window to a world I would like to live in. And that's enough for me! Is it meaningful and deep? No! But sometimes art isn't about what it says, but what it makes you feel. And Bob Ross makes me feel at home.
@Assjuice jr they are pretty, but they don't have the same dreamy atmosphere, Bob's paintings are like a perfect world that he constructs to live in, but Hitler's are only pictures. Don't know if that makes sense.
the difference is bob ross wasn't putting on some facade
@@helix2331 I think that's what seperates his artwork compared to Bob Ross', atleast for me. His artwork tends to be really excessive, and just kinda comes off as artificial, whilst you could see Bob's passion for his artwork and his simple landscapes imo. Comparing the two I don't think really holds up, like they're similar, sure, but in expression, I can feel Bob's joy for his work, with Thomas' it just feels corporate, if that makes sense.
As an artist who doesn't like modern/abstract art, I appreciate this so much. It's so hard to make a living when you don't just arbitrarily throw paint at a canvas.
yeah im pretty sure half of these people just dont know what they are doing and just talk about it like it has meaning and not a bucket of piss thrown at a canvas.
@@DoctorBones1 fr
@@DoctorBones1 facts
the only 'abstract' artist i like is wassily kandinsky. he did have some other types of paintings, kinda similar to impressionism i think? idk i dont remember art terminology properly i think it was called that. i like the fact his abstract art actually has structure, pleasing composition and well chosen colours. still understand if someone finds it boring, there's nothing deep about his abstract work it's just weird mathematical colour splatter tbh but i enjoy it
One of the only abstract artist I absolutely love is Wassily Kandinsky, his art makes me so damn happy just looking at it. I fucking love staring at his work.
Well at least his art has actual shapes and form to them to make it look like actual art instead of squiggles and drops of paint on a canvas that means nothing (though he has those kinds of art too).
it looks cool, means nothing and is easy to do, but it has his personality
His name is Vasily Komatski??
Modern art ended in the 70's BTW. We're now in the contemporary art period. There is one art piece that explained to me what current art is all about, and it's not the art. If I recall correctly, the artist home brewed 18 bottles of beer and sealed them as they fermented. The artist claimed in each bottle there was a unique universe being formed, that the fermentation was always going to create slightly different results. His art was just beer, but his opening speech in the gallery went on forever. That's when I realised contemporary art is no longer about the art, it is about the concept and who has the best sales pitch. I think it sold for a decent price as well.
welll yeh and no, contemporary Art just means current, recent, over the last couple decades. and yeh we have moved away from "Art" in favour of the concept, errrrrrrrrr the concept is the art.
if you can explain it well enough you get a pass ahahaha
And why not. Interesting ideas should always be at the forefront. I really don't see why we should hate art like this in a vacuum. The market is a different place.
@@hexcodeff6624 Because the art means nothing if you have to know its meaning or intent. When art is only about the idea and it can't be seen in the work without a written statement to support it then are you supporting visual art or written work? I like modern art, I like conceptual works, but there are times when the art has no purpose when it can't be conveyed without supporting material.
@@redkittyproject No one necessarily had to explain the thing about the beer for people to enjoy the act of selling those cans as an artistic performance.
@@hexcodeff6624 Sure, but that's not what happened.
The only reason the "real art" holds value, is because these people are willing to spend it. You can have one person smearing literal shit on a canvas, and they would start bidding right away. The art I would prefer is the kind from a talented artist that sells it for a decent price. As long as it's an original, non mass produced piece, I would buy it.
The thing is tho u gotta respect the people with the balls to post white canvas. Respect the scam lol.
The thing is tho u gotta respect the people with the balls to post white canvas. Respect the scam lol.
The real art is the marketing
True, how many now revered artists will be remembered a century from now? I mean there's literally only so long you can tape a banana to a wall and not ask "why?"
@@complimentbotd7232 Once the shock value wears off, which these days is quite fast, the value of those modern pieces drops to zero. Intrinsically worthless, because no effort was really made for them to be loved, only seen.
Honestly, if i had to choose between modern art for 15 dollars, and random fanart on twitter for $1500, im choosing the fanart
I could walk into an art museum stand in the middle and do nothing for a few hours and I’d become an exhibit
I don't care about the controversy, some of those paintings were incredible.
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html ..
Honestly all of them required a great deal of effort/work, most people couldn't make those paintings, it takes skill to blend the colors so well and make the whole scene come together. I surely couldn't do it, but I know I could copy and paste twleve emojis and recolor them in photoshop, I could tape a banana to a wall, or throw paint at a canvas.
The value of modern artist is nearly completely incomprehensible to me, from what little I can decipher artist/art critics are so far up their own ass they believe the "Message" is more important then the piece itself, their ability to overanalyze the work and come to arbitrary conclusions/ideas is more valuable then how it actually looks...
In other words its total nonsense of people sniffing their own assholes an deriding anything that doesn't allow one to make up meaning where their is none.
Ikr why do people need to make it so political I care about the art not the artist. Like I came here to see art that looks nice and enjoy myself not to get riled up about stupid shit that doesn't matter.
They look fine! The effort put in is just sort of... unimportant to art. Creating art to be marketed is pretty frowned upon by humans, and most of his work is pretty boring. A good analogy is in music. Jazz can get weird, sound unpleasant, and ruin all chance of commercial success; but there's these sequences of true outstanding beauty. A jazz musician flows from sequence to another, entirely improvised. You've never heard a better piano performance, and you'll never hear it again. It sticks with you. Thomas Kinkade is playing fucking wonderwall really well
@@germyforev4495 Modern art is a method of money laundering. People don't actually believe in the value of modern art.
Me and my art class had walked around New York looking at art galleries for a field trip and for every gallery that was displaying interesting, detailed, beautiful art... there were five more that were just gradients or circles galore. It even got to the point where my teacher would just kind of poke his head in, see a circle, and tell the group to just move on to the next gallery
THAT'S a cool teacher
One of my favorite parts about going to anime cons is buying stuff in the Artist Alleys, and I buy a lot. There are many absolutely unreal talents just sitting in booths busting their asses trying to make a few extra bucks on the weekend to support the thing they love to do. I respect that and I like supporting them. But I don't spend money simply to support the; they do amazing work I feel compelled to own. While much of it is by definition "derivative" since it's fanart, it's anything but "derivative" in a pejorative sense. The sheer breadth of style differences and clever approaches is mindboggling. There's also a fair amount of just absolutely gorgeous original art.
Having been to plenty of both, I feel completely comfortable saying that there's more collective talent in the Artist's Alley at any mid-sized con than there is in many, if not most, art museums, art schools, art exhibitions, etc. And in terms of artistic passion, it's no contest.
Compare that with "The Art World" where to be "artistic" seems to mean to have utter disdain for anything beautiful, anything requiring effort, and anything that any normal person would look at and say "I want to own that because I love it." Is love even a thing in "capital A" Art anymore? It feels more like all there is is contempt, hubris, sloth, and endless circlejerking.
pollock was incredibly skilled in a bunch of different areas of painting tho, his earlier stuff legitimately does showcase a mastery of the human figure. i totally understand not liking more impressionistic art, but you cant deny that the man had tons of skill
Yeah I don't think charlie knows much about pollock; he's probably only aware of the drip paintings that made pollock famous. In reality pollock was legitimately a skilled artist
@@josephwoo69 This what annoys me about Charlie most of the time on his art takes, he vaguely knows about art shit and talks like a smartass when he says his opinion, the most braindead takes most of the time.
@@DoctorDafaria yeah his opinion pretty much mirrors that of people that don’t know anything about art history and/or can’t make good art themselves. I notice that most people that shit on all modern/contemporary art do it because they themselves suck at art, so it makes them angry when they see people being successful without showing technical skill because they think “hey wtf, I could’ve done that easily. Why did I spend all this time trying to get good when I could’ve just splashed paint around”. Which is probably true, but the difference between Jackson Pollock and a random guy that splashes paint on a canvas is that Pollock was a very skilled artist that just got bored of traditional painting
Just cuz he had skill to make good art doesn't make his dripy art any less shit tho 🤡
@@klararotenmayer7186 i like his drip art :)
'people love to find meaning, even in things that have none' -sun tzu probably
people make up meaning and sell it
I broke an egg on this wall .be happy .
My parents and grandparents had some of his paintings and they give me a sort of nostalgic feeling
Same here. He was a shitty person but I always associate Kinkade with the warmth of my grandmother's home.
His stuff is really pretty
i have been in art schools and programs for a solid decade now. i have never met anyone who has a style like the artists in fine art museums. not teachers, students, art enjoyers… literally not once. it feels like it’s fake, like a part added to the simulation to spice things up and piss me off.
as someone working towards an art degree when charlie started pondering the boxes it dead ass sounds like a professor in a university. the art world really is that contrived. no meme needed.
Since Charlie didnt say or show it, the RUclipsr is "Solar Sands." He's got some incredible videos, highly recommended checking his videos out
His thalassophobia video still creeps me out
He has a great Jackson Pollock video too
Good seeing he doesnt shit on deviantart kids anymore
nice profile
I’ve seen every video on his channel I think
For real though I unironically liked that "I wish that I sailed the darkened seas" piece. I just wish they chose literally any other name for it.
yeah i thought it looked kinda cool too still dumb as hell tho
Same it looked nice
The title makes it cooler honestly
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
I liked it too, love how the colors pop out
What most people confuse is the craftsmanship of painting and art. If you evaluate the first you can criticize the technique and effort, for the second you have to look at what it does to you, your emotions while looking at it. The more emotions it evokes the better
Tbh, seeing the same objects painted over and over gets old super quick. It’s pretty amazing to see something unrecognizable and feel for it
Nice nature scenery
"This sucks ass!"
Finger paintings
"Oh my, what masterpeice! This has so much meaning!"
Literal clay on a wall
“Truly astonishing, I must throw money at this.”
Did you, listen to the video.
It's only the case where the same person is a hipocrite.
they prbly the same ppl who would spend $39 million on that ugly nyc loft apartment if they had that money
Literally my guess is they like it cause " They can do it too " it's on their level of intelligence and capabilities. so basically cavemen. It takes a proper evolved person to understand true art indeed.
People who support the modern art really are out of date.
Art is like America's Got Talent, if the artist has a sad backstory. It is automatically deemed better than anyone with pure talent. That or your Damien Hirst
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
H.R. Giger had quite unremarkable life outside his art. Very uneventful, calm and almost boring. It did have some weird elements like father giving him a skull (human skull) at age of six, but nothing really externally dramatic. On the other hand Zdzisław Beksiński was Polish artist who was born 1929 and that makes him have very dramatic backstory which might justify his artistic views.
My Damien Hirst!?
I don't have such a thing...
Van gogh was living an already terrible life, the dude went crazy eating his lead paints cause he thought the color yellow would make him happy. No one gaf until he died. It pisses me off to no end walking into an art gallery and seeing simple crap being sold for hundreds even thousands. Family ask me why I dont sell art and its because I don't want to struggle to be a starving artist. No one wants time an effort.... unless it's on some furry level type stuff- and I'd rather not.
trying to live from your art makes you sad, that just comes with the job. As an artist what I've noticed in the art scene is that its just the same small group of people sucking eachother and making meaningless art. It's all obout appearance and being a tool
"I don't understand why more people don't hate Damian Hirst and Jackson pollock" he says watching a guy about to make a defense of Jackson Pollock
11:10 Sir please get out of the warehouse. You are not allowed in here
Modern art is basically just the King's Robe story personified
The Emperor's New Clothes? I totally agree
I've had to actually look for a plaque to even know if something was supposed to be art or just something temporary thrown on the wall by a laborer.
Considering an invisible statue was sold for 18 grands, you're not far off
So here is the tea on Thomas Kincade. Most of the people who don’t like his art dislike it because it is artificial. I’m not talking about his candy, dream-land depiction of the world, I’m talking about the process of him making his paintings. He hired artists to become experts in the “kincade” style and paint on his behalf. He would tell his painters he wanted “a cottage scene with a wind mill and small stream” and they would paint it without further input or supervision. He then called these paintings “kincade originals”. He also hired people to print out copies of these manufactured paintings and apply texture to the surface of the print in order to sell prints as oil paintings. While It’s a technically legal business practice the art community found it morally abject to call these prints with added paint originals and then charge a full gallery price for them. People were fanatically devoted to him, which he took full advantage of by spending the majority of his working hours signing copies of his art which increased the selling price by thousands of dollars.
You see, in the art community, you have the choice between being a fine artist (which tends to be more pretentious and derives value from having each work be the only one in existence, original) and then you have illustrators (whose goal it is to sell their art as many times over as you can). He portrays himself as a fine artist but resales like an illustrator while charging original prices. He isn’t an artist but a brand. It would be like going to a Disney movie that was advertised as being directed, animated, voice acted, musically composed, etc. by Walt Disney himself for the price of 200$ a ticket.
Some people dislike him for political reasons, or aesthetic reasons. I dislike him because he undermines the integrity of art by taking the worst of both artist options. He sells at inaccessible prices while misusing artistic terms to take advantage of people who don’t know better.
In summery, however he started out, he ended up being not an artist, but a manufacturer, with absolutely no contribution to the creative process. Like him or hate him, that’s your choice, but just understand where the art came from.
130mil tho he's banking whether we live or hate him the deed is done cus that's the main aim rite
Thanks for the explanation!
I didn't know he turned artists into factory workers. That is possible the worst thing I've ever seen an artist do to a fellow artist.
@@reka10 that's dependent on if they were paid well or not.
In short he's a businessman posing as an artist
4:54 charlie explaining how NFTs work
12:26 I wasn't prepared for that. LMFAO.
Charlie you just clearly can’t comprehend the art of polka dots and emojis in different colours.
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
Exactly
Only Bob Ross was able to give art meaning for me.
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
I remember a publicly funded art gallery in Australia spent somewhere between $30,000 to $60,000 on "Le Artist's Shit", which was basically a few cans of Campbell's Soup with "Le Artist's Shit" written on them. Turns out, they didn't even have the artist's shit in them. What a rip off.
I visited to the RISD school of art's galley/museum about 4 years ago, one of the pieces were two fishing lures. No, they were not made by the artist, they were purchased from a RI bait & tackle shop and were meant to signify something along the lines of "the horrors that aquatic animals must face"
At least Damien Hirst is honest and knows his work is garbage, doing it purely to milk stupid rich people, and that absolutely warrants respect.
Honestly I *hope* that that's his reason. Because if so, then my respect for him significantly rises. Because anything to separate an ostentatiously rich fool and money is a win in my book.
You are giving him too much credit-he's very much convinced, at least, of his popular pieces, like the *The Physical Impossibility of Death.*
His one redeeming quality is his reluctance to accept the greatest of praise that likens him to historic masters, but, nonetheless, he enjoys the spotlight and thinks it just.
I should also take this occasion to say that the art world is actually rather divided on Hirst. Like modern art or not, it is silly to deny that there is no *artistry*-that is, deeper thought or methodology-in some of it. Considering that, it is no surprise that the same critics who hail pieces that the public commonly derides should condemn Hirst. He is a brazing con man who maintains status and wealth purely by marketing shallow decorations, not an artist.
@@pilzening2810 I agree that he certainly considers himself an artist. But I don't think that means he thinks his hotel rooms, or the drake album cover, are art.
He just happens to be in a position where he can sell low effort shit to rich people and make millions, and at the same time put his actual art in museums and galleries around the world.
I went to his 'Cherry Blossoms' exhibit a few months ago and I enjoyed it. I never found myself thinking "it's a scam" or anything like that.
As for "The Physical Impossibility [...]" it honestly looks pretty awesome. If it was shown in a museum where I live I'd certainly go see it. So I don't see why he shouldn't be convinced of it.
@@frareanvidal
I just cited the work as an example of Hirst taking himself seriously. He's acted similarly over some of his most behated pieces.
Ultimately, we cannot know his thoughts, but Hirst's thus far documented persona points in the direction of a self-aggrandising fool rather than an utterly cunning thief. Besides, it could well be a mixture of both.
@@pilzening2810 You mean he didn't go on television to say "haha fuck you rich people I stole money from you ?"
How surprising.
I'll go for a mixture of both.
steps to appreciate art
1. hate on this guy's art
2. admire damien hirst's medical waste bar
@yes yes?
I don’t like either of them honestly but I do love myself some abstract / modern art
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
can u explain to me what modern art is? i am confused as to why either kinkade or hirst are relevant to art from about a century ago?
@W Shiflet satirical comment, but i edited it just for you (and some other guy) :D
Imagine hating arts with beautiful subject that had actual craftsmanship while liking pretentious self-expression art made of some random ugly stain with absolutely zero craftsmanship...
If every self-expression is art, those scatological stain that fortuitously engraved on my porcelain throne that I sit on as I contemplate the meaning of existence should be worth millions
yea as an art major constantly looking into the community and famous artists (bc school makes us) and even interacting with my teachers and sometimes fellow students, there is this pretentious view over everything and its so strange where they choose to draw the line. I often feel like things I make or show are weird or that im judged but then in the same day something I think is much crazier is praised as being amazing. It just leaves me confused and often feeling invalidated in general.
"Modern art looks like a child's urine on a canvas"
- Oversimplified
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html .
I guarantee you someone has actually done that and called it art.
I mean their is lots of very cool art on insta I have seen the art is just super supressed and hard to find
@@jexxer someone did shit on a canvas I believe
thats out of context lol
The one thing that annoys me most is there's nothing to *see* in modern art. I could see something that looks just like some of these modern paintings by staring at the sun for a few minutes then closing my eyes and studying the imprint it burns into my retinas. I'd much rather have a picture some random furry drew with passion in my house than a Damien Hirst.
I think you’ve been looking in the wrong places for good art. I’ve probably been to more museums than you have and yeah, a lot of the stuff there isn’t very interesting (to me) unless it’s political or with a clear meaning. I’ve seen some really cool stuff that has a real message you can see without having to read about it. That’s my favorite part of seeing art. I really love art that you can see the message in just from looking at it but from time to time I do really enjoy art that has no meaning or is just eye candy. It’s all interesting and thought provoking to me. I think which art is “better” is just personal preference. Not liking something doesn’t mean it’s bad and other people can’t enjoy it jeez
@@elrinmeyers1560 I've been to a few museums and there about 60% bullshit and 25% good, usually the bigger the better, although these people call me a simpleton
Don't pretend there are things worse than furry art
@@pidza_hub7532 there are though. What about furry *inflation* art?
@@decanusservius9180 that's a subgenre, doesn't really count for furry art as a blanket term.
One time I was at an art gallery and one of the paintings was the wikipedia definition of society. It's hanging at the Harvard art museum.
10:35 "This is like when Squidward went to that place to be all alone"
LMAO
Art critics are the worst kind of people, like “ah yes, this singular yellow square on on a canvas speaks to me, but this detailed landscape is simply horrendous due to its overdone nature.” Art people are weird, man
Calling these “critics” art people is an insult to actual art people, like art people are weird but they’re not nutjobs
Agreed. I would fucking kill to be able to paint like that and critics are just like, "Lol, what dogshit, btw have you seen Kanye's new album art? Absolute genius."
they are just losers that have no real talent other than saying total bullshit that doesn't have any value
right, music is better to me
this reply section be spittin straight FACTS
They built a modern art section at our art museum years ago. There was a single purple stick light with 4 paragraphs explaining the artists intentions. I promptly went back to the photo realistic rennaissance era art section.
And someone would've spend $200 million on those paintings
@@blacktigerpaw1 And I hate them for it lol
Ugh, photorealism is soooo boring imo. Yeah, it takes effort and skill, and I can appreciate it for that, but it lacks imagination most of the time. It's not really the art itself that I hate, just the people who try to act like realism is the only artstyle of value. People who gatekeep art really get on my nerves.
Edit: It would seem my comment sparked a bit of debate, so I just wanted to add to my previous statement. I don't consider photorealism less valuable than any other art styles. What I meant to get across was that I personally prefer art with more emotion. Photorealism is fine and pretty to look at, but it just doesn't get the emotional aspect for me most of the time. Many people like to act like photorealism is the only art style that takes skill and hold it above other styles as "more valuable," which is not only wrong, it's just dumb. All art forms and styles are valuable because they all hold a unique purpose that cannot be replaced. Yes, even modern art is valuable, whether you like it or not. You don't have to like modern art, but to imply that it's somehow less than, is just stupid and juvenile. Art is subjective. Your preferences may disagree with mine and that's cool. People having differing opinions and tastes is what makes art fun. Can you imagine if we all liked and made the same exact art? That would be lame. My point is that arguing over something as subjective as art is pointless.
@@cinnamonfairyfluff splashing random blobs of paint and drawing regular shapes and sculpting literal boxes is "creative" read what you said and see how dumb you sound
@@tentedkarma7465 they literally just explained why they dont like photorealistic art, why do you feel so attacked lol
Probably a good painting idea to put in art museum is a giant middle finger
Definitely has already been done
"I've seen NOBODY on the internet defending this!"
1. Has this man never heard of Jacob Geller?
2. Can I have whatever amnestics he's taken so I can forget about Jacob Geller?
Ah yes, Mr 'If you don't like modern art you are a nazi' Geller.
I actually have a puzzle set of one of his paintings in my house. It’s sitting in our storage room, and as you can probably guess, gathering a few layers of dust
My professor hated him with a passion for just how ubiquitous his stuff is lol.
@@scottydu81 thanks for the new word
@@quill7889 what??
@@ko-Daegu what do u mean what?
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
The reason why Jackson Pollock is so highly regarded is because the timing of which he gained notoriety. Wildly abstract art like his was entirely new at the time he was making it, and that made him a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement.
It was popular because it was new and different, and had he started making artwork decades later, I doubt anyone would bat an eye.
It's not just that abstract expressionism was a new way of making art at the time, it's that the movement picked up right at the end of world war 2. There is a point to the nonsensical nature of abstract expressionism, and it's to visually capture the uncertainty and unease that a lot of people were feeling coming out of one of the biggest wars in human history, and it resonated with people.
I don't like Pollock's work myself, as with most non-figurative art in general, but I feel like if people would take just half a second to think about the historical context of stuff like abstract expressionism, they might at least hate it a bit less.
He was also propped up by the CIA, but people tend to forget that
@@karawethan weird way of saying "the CIA co-opted his work against his ideology, after he died" but go off ig
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
@@carlterwedow5000 What does the context do for me if the art still looks like trash? A trash can can have the most immaculate, beautiful backstory of the century, but it's still a trash can.
Someone makes a beautiful painting: “this art is dogshit, get that out of here!”
Banana taped to a wall and Jackson Pollock paintings: “ArT iS sUbJeCtIvE”
"The essence of contemporary art", writes Baudrillard, "lies in this: claiming nullity, insignificance, nonsense, aiming at nullity being already null. Contemporary art makes use of the impossibility of a well-founded aesthetic judgment , and speculates on the guilt of those who do not understand anything of what it produces, and have not understood that there was nothing to understand. "
in other words, you can resell a diaper for $50k because it's contemporary art
@@henrijs1733 basically people should stop making art if this is what art means.
“This painting is unique”
The painting: ♾🟢🔺🟦
ruclips.net/video/ul2WyUBU7XQ/видео.html
And that will be a million dollar
How much is this one worth? I’d give 22k for it
„An abstract painting will react to you if you react to it. You get from it what you bring to it. It will meet you half way but no further. It is alive if you are. It represents something and so do you. YOU, SIR, ARE A SPACE, TOO.“
-Ad Reinhardt
The funny thing is it's not even unique cuz everybody ever is doing that
Why can’t I just have a happy little trees, not weird squiggly lines
You can have trees.
Some people find as much meaning in a tree as they do squiggly lines
You can have both
@@ohwow9870 yea why not both
If you like trees, you can have trees, and the people who like lines can have lines. Both are good.
Art community doesn't like stuff that takes talent cause a lot have no talent. lol
"Abstract Art: A product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered" Al Capp
I think Gunnery Sergeant Hartman put it best when he said “You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece” 😂
Thats marvelous
AISURU.TOKYO/eunji?💞
(◍•ᴗ•◍)✧*。18 years and over
RUclips: This is fine
Someone: Says "heck"
RUclips: Be gone
#однако #я #люблю #таких #рыбаков #Интересно #забавно #девушка #смешная #垃圾
It always pisses me off the "art" critics say that you need to convey some obscure or dramatic meaning and emotion. Like, maybe I just wanted to paint a mountain range because I fucking felt like it. Don't shame an artist for being bored with painting supplies.
I think that sincerity is what's most important in art. A piece made with full sincerity by the artist WILL convey that passion the artist had while making the piece. A soulless work will FEEL soulless. Something with heart in it, you can look at & say "yeah, I get it"
I gotta say I, really like the "BER" by matthias Hoch and "Halcyon And On And On" by Franz Kaka. Even if they don't portray something immediately recognizable, they do portray a mood that couldn't be communicated normally. I do like certain modern art because of this effect.
Lol so much Pollock hate...
I enjoy his art, just nice to look at.- nothing more
It's not his fault that people idolize his paintings, I don't think that he personally believed his paintings were worth the money. How many of you wouldn't become absolute sell-outs if you were told that the scribbles in your drawer were worth millions?
Good art usually makes sense, the art world is nonsensical though.
Yeah like pollock’s work definitely has an aesthetic value but it’s definitely not worth millions and in no way is it deep, I and I think most competent people wouldn’t pay more than a few hundred dollars for pollock’s paintings.