I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who finds the male artists of that time to be creeps. In saying that regardless of what Klimt meant it to be this painting has formed a life of it's own for people. It has become symbol of romance for many as the body language and expressions can be read either way.
You could argue that we as a society have evolved and improved, so looking at these historic pieces it makes sense to acknowledge they’re unevolved and lesser as a result of their outdated ideas. Maybe they were the best in their time, but we’ve since advanced. So are you trying to determine if the artwork was good, or just good for its time?
@@genericname8727 We can't avoid having our judgements become outdated as well, so what's the use in asking if an artwork is good without regard to temporal context? And there's no reason to assume that just because we are different from our ancestors that we are more "advanced" or "evolved". Culture, like evolution, has no end goal; thus there is no objective way to determine if a change is progressive or regressive. Saying that we are better than our ancestors is meaningless since you base your superior status on the assumption that your values and beliefs are superior to theirs, creating a circular argument: "I'm better than you because I'm better at conforming to my ideals than you are. Your conformity to your own ideals doesn't count because my ideals are better." The best you can ever do to judge an artwork is to ask, "is this artwork good according to my values/taste and the values/taste of others?" That still only tells you if the artwork is good for its time, in the sense that your place in time is very small compared to the vast amounts of time left for the artwork to be judged.
As a woman, I think it’s fair to say our current society’s values are better because they’ve given me far more rights. If I take the stance that “who am I to say it’s better to have rights and be respected as an equal?” Then why bother having any opinions at all. I think looking at our past and learning from it is how we advance and to do that we need to recognise when things were flawed. I agree with the idea that saying an artwork is good by the standards of your own beliefs, values, and tastes is the best you can do because the way we view art is impacted by the society we live in. What’s brilliant today could be crap by tomorrow’s standards. I feel like when I said, “You could argue that we as a society have evolved and improved, so looking at these historic pieces it makes sense to acknowledge they’re unevolved and lesser as a result of their outdated ideas”, I shouldn’t have described past artworks as “unevolved”. I just used it because it was the opposite of evolved, but I feel like “unevolved” has an unintended negative connotation. I recognise these artworks are obviously valued for a reason. Also, I don’t feel particularly strong about this. My original comment was more playing devil’s advocate. I do think “are you trying to determine if the artwork was good, or just good for its time?” is a valid question to ask though. It’s good to determine what lens you’re analysing them through.
In our "Crit Clash" videos, we assign a point of view to each artist for the purposes of this debate. Our intent with these debates is to provide a broader look at how artists and artworks are perceived. The arguments that you hear our staff artists present within this video are not necessarily what their true opinions are on the artist/artworks in real life. In many cases our staff artists may well be presenting arguments that are the opposite of their true opinion. After the live stream ends, we meet in the #crit-clash-reveals channel in the Art Prof Discord server (invite link: discord.gg/g5XQRpT) so that our staff can reveal what their true opinions are, so please join us there! Watch more Crit Clash videos in this playlist: ua-cam.com/video/sHhuSCt_cac/v-deo.html
Klimt was playing with his audiences' head. Was this a painting just for decorative effect? No; this is commentary on the differing experience of sexuality in his culture, and its composition is awkward because the power dynamic in relationships is awkward, and uncomfortable. Both figures are overwhelmed by the social patterns imposed on them. It's not sexy as this isn't the male gaze for the sake of male salaciousness. The man in the piece is rendered faceless, so his emotional cues can only be taken from his gesture. Why because, it is about the woman's emotions, and everything is in relationship and contrast to her and she seems almost contradictory herself. The stillness in her face contrasts with the rictus in her hands and feet. This isn't the painting of a womaniser. There is simply too much tension in the piece for it to be that. Moreover, when you look at his other piece, "Life and Death", you see that this is a continuation of that oppositional tension in his thinking. A postcard of Klimt's The Kiss was the first piece of art I bought for myself, because on the surface it was so sumptuous and looked nothing like any other romantic representation of relationships. Something in me was attracted to it's contradictions. And that is the point of the piece: look beyond the surface allure, as there is a lot more going on.
BigHenFor I totally I agree. I think to read this painting more loosely, I don’t think it’s necessary about women and men dynamic. It’s more about these two identities that are intertwining and opposing each other at the same time. Even the dizzying arrays of patterns further adds to the discombobulation of their role/place in their environment.
OH MY GOODNESS THANK YOU. I don't really have anything in the way of an art education or background, but it's always made me feel crazy whenever I've seen The Kiss prints sold in stores or displayed in homes as this sort of very conventional, lovely, romantic image, when I can't look at it without an overwhelming sense of visceral rigor mortis (I think it's an amazing piece of art, but looking at it has always upset me, and I couldn't get past the feeling that I was *supposed* to be upset by it.) Anyway, I just wanted to express my relief and gratitude for stumbling across this video and this comment, so that I can stop feeling like I'm failing a Rorschach test every time I look at this painting.
@@JBGreenASMR I'm with you. Klimt may not have been very empathetic with women in the early stages of his sexual life, but I think at the stage he painted this, he understood more about the inner life of women and how conflicted it could be. The man is all wrapped up in the moment of passion, but she is experiencing something diametrically opposite. He is kissing her but I don't think his feelings are reciprocated by her. She isn't feeling the same way. Just like their sumptuous, almost byzantine patterns Klimt has enrobed them in. The tension isn't erotic at all.
@@arikathehuman2025 I don't think they are intertwining. I think that the man is seeking that, but look at her body and her face. Where is the reciprocality? Rictus in the body is accompanied by pain. She is being acted on, not acting with. Moreover, the environment Klimt has provided is neutral and receding. The eye is drawn to the patterns and the people, and the patterns are energy. The man's energy is different to the woman, to the extent that he is the soft one. She is hard, in tension if not in pain. Passive, yet resistant to the man. No, the tension and conflict is here between the man and the woman, and the patterns each has reflect their emotional state.
Why do some people think it is abnormal or wrong to feel weakened by a man we're attracted to? Are we supposed to have feelings of respectful indifference?
I more-so feel like the idea was that the woman wants to be there (even if not particularly successfully executed), which I think is even worse, as he is portraying women as wanting to be (or intrinsically being) the passive party, needing to be dominated, etc. and that being a symbiotic relationship. It definetly seems like he is trying to portray 'tenderness' and her sort of 'letting go' - submitting to her man. The whole 'mother earth' and women parallel isn't much better in terms of misogyny either.
You guys have talked a lot about male gaze during crit clashes. Maybe do a stream specifically about the male/female gaze, and how can we use it when critiquing works?
The thing I liked about Klimt is how his work evolved. His earlier theater commission, I don't find very interesting. It is after that when his work really shine. I really have grown to appreciate his landscapes more than his figurative works. Congrats Prof. Lieu on your win.
Why would they say that, in the begining, that "disclaimer".. that "what we say may not be they necessarily what they believe in real life"?! Is this some kind of "intellectual protection"? lol
Lol, no we just like to have fun arguing against our own views and biases sometimes. Also it makes it more fun for our audience to guess what we really think at the end. -Lauryn, Art Prof Teaching Artist
I had this picture on the cover of a notebook I owned once! The colours were pretty but I just thought some random person came up with it after like 15 minutes in Paint and went, "eh, good enough, ship it out!" X,D
Bad composition or not he has placed them on the edge of a cliff with him holding her by the neck. I see a woman who is both rescued and captured, a perfect picture of romantic love at the time.
Interesting discussion. I love Klimt's work with all the patterning and gold. If you haven't seen the film "Woman in Gold" it's worth a view. I agree that the composition in "The Kiss" sucks and it's not my favourite of his paintings. I've never thought of the woman being dominated in this picture - rather, it speaks to me of tenderness. The Crit Clash is a great idea - really helps one see so much more in a particular painting and the other work of an artist. I think there's far too much agonising these days abot the roles of the sexes as if it's the only thing that matters in society. Early feminism was good and necessary, to give women equal rights as far as property, salaries etc. were concerned but it's gone way too far these days and everyone seems to be anti-man today which I think is awful. This is constantly beng pushed in the media and advertising. Men and women are not the same - we are equal in value and status, but different in role. Obviously there are examples of abuse by one sex over the other and this is totally wrong, but if people behave properly, we can celebrate our difference. I love to be made to feel feminine and protected by a strong man - it makes me feel very happy and secure being a woman, and free to express myself as such. Being content with what we are and what we have is one of the greatest gifts in life. It liberates us to explore so many different aspects of life in general because it enables us to move beyond the kind of pressures society is putting on us all these days. I'm loving all your videos! As a developing artist I am learning so much, and the breadth of subject matter on your UA-cam channel and website is just fabulous - so much to learn and enjoy! I adore the humour too - none of that stupid preciousness and pretention you so often see in the art world. You folks are real, honest about your feelings and shortcomings and always ready to see the lighter, and funnier side of art and life! Keep up the good work. PS Used to watch Bob Ross all the time - he got me started with painting! Pretty kitch and samey for me these days but I think he was a great influencer and opened up the world of art to so many people. Kudos to him - a sweet man.
We're so glad you resonate with our content! Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment-- it's always lovely when art sparks conversations like these :) - Mia, Art Prof Staff
@@artprof Thank you so much for your lovely (and very prompt!) reply to my ramblings! I've decided I am now an Art Prof addict. "Hello, my name is Shoshi and I'm an Art Prof addict." Maybe I need rehab!! (Not going to, though, this is far too much fun!)
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who finds the male artists of that time to be creeps. In saying that regardless of what Klimt meant it to be this painting has formed a life of it's own for people. It has become symbol of romance for many as the body language and expressions can be read either way.
Completely don't understand those that would argue today's standards/morals into historic pieces. It was a completely different time.
You could argue that we as a society have evolved and improved, so looking at these historic pieces it makes sense to acknowledge they’re unevolved and lesser as a result of their outdated ideas. Maybe they were the best in their time, but we’ve since advanced. So are you trying to determine if the artwork was good, or just good for its time?
@@genericname8727 We can't avoid having our judgements become outdated as well, so what's the use in asking if an artwork is good without regard to temporal context? And there's no reason to assume that just because we are different from our ancestors that we are more "advanced" or "evolved". Culture, like evolution, has no end goal; thus there is no objective way to determine if a change is progressive or regressive. Saying that we are better than our ancestors is meaningless since you base your superior status on the assumption that your values and beliefs are superior to theirs, creating a circular argument: "I'm better than you because I'm better at conforming to my ideals than you are. Your conformity to your own ideals doesn't count because my ideals are better."
The best you can ever do to judge an artwork is to ask, "is this artwork good according to my values/taste and the values/taste of others?" That still only tells you if the artwork is good for its time, in the sense that your place in time is very small compared to the vast amounts of time left for the artwork to be judged.
As a woman, I think it’s fair to say our current society’s values are better because they’ve given me far more rights. If I take the stance that “who am I to say it’s better to have rights and be respected as an equal?” Then why bother having any opinions at all. I think looking at our past and learning from it is how we advance and to do that we need to recognise when things were flawed. I agree with the idea that saying an artwork is good by the standards of your own beliefs, values, and tastes is the best you can do because the way we view art is impacted by the society we live in. What’s brilliant today could be crap by tomorrow’s standards.
I feel like when I said, “You could argue that we as a society have evolved and improved, so looking at these historic pieces it makes sense to acknowledge they’re unevolved and lesser as a result of their outdated ideas”, I shouldn’t have described past artworks as “unevolved”. I just used it because it was the opposite of evolved, but I feel like “unevolved” has an unintended negative connotation. I recognise these artworks are obviously valued for a reason.
Also, I don’t feel particularly strong about this. My original comment was more playing devil’s advocate.
I do think “are you trying to determine if the artwork was good, or just good for its time?” is a valid question to ask though. It’s good to determine what lens you’re analysing them through.
In our "Crit Clash" videos, we assign a point of view to each artist for the purposes of this debate. Our intent with these debates is to provide a broader look at how artists and artworks are perceived. The arguments that you hear our staff artists present within this video are not necessarily what their true opinions are on the artist/artworks in real life. In many cases our staff artists may well be presenting arguments that are the opposite of their true opinion. After the live stream ends, we meet in the #crit-clash-reveals channel in the Art Prof Discord server (invite link: discord.gg/g5XQRpT) so that our staff can reveal what their true opinions are, so please join us there! Watch more Crit Clash videos in this playlist: ua-cam.com/video/sHhuSCt_cac/v-deo.html
Klimt was playing with his audiences' head. Was this a painting just for decorative effect? No; this is commentary on the differing experience of sexuality in his culture, and its composition is awkward because the power dynamic in relationships is awkward, and uncomfortable. Both figures are overwhelmed by the social patterns imposed on them. It's not sexy as this isn't the male gaze for the sake of male salaciousness. The man in the piece is rendered faceless, so his emotional cues can only be taken from his gesture. Why because, it is about the woman's emotions, and everything is in relationship and contrast to her and she seems almost contradictory herself. The stillness in her face contrasts with the rictus in her hands and feet. This isn't the painting of a womaniser. There is simply too much tension in the piece for it to be that. Moreover, when you look at his other piece, "Life and Death", you see that this is a continuation of that oppositional tension in his thinking. A postcard of Klimt's The Kiss was the first piece of art I bought for myself, because on the surface it was so sumptuous and looked nothing like any other romantic representation of relationships. Something in me was attracted to it's contradictions. And that is the point of the piece: look beyond the surface allure, as there is a lot more going on.
BigHenFor I totally I agree. I think to read this painting more loosely, I don’t think it’s necessary about women and men dynamic. It’s more about these two identities that are intertwining and opposing each other at the same time. Even the dizzying arrays of patterns further adds to the discombobulation of their role/place in their environment.
OH MY GOODNESS THANK YOU. I don't really have anything in the way of an art education or background, but it's always made me feel crazy whenever I've seen The Kiss prints sold in stores or displayed in homes as this sort of very conventional, lovely, romantic image, when I can't look at it without an overwhelming sense of visceral rigor mortis (I think it's an amazing piece of art, but looking at it has always upset me, and I couldn't get past the feeling that I was *supposed* to be upset by it.) Anyway, I just wanted to express my relief and gratitude for stumbling across this video and this comment, so that I can stop feeling like I'm failing a Rorschach test every time I look at this painting.
@@JBGreenASMR I'm with you. Klimt may not have been very empathetic with women in the early stages of his sexual life, but I think at the stage he painted this, he understood more about the inner life of women and how conflicted it could be. The man is all wrapped up in the moment of passion, but she is experiencing something diametrically opposite. He is kissing her but I don't think his feelings are reciprocated by her. She isn't feeling the same way. Just like their sumptuous, almost byzantine patterns Klimt has enrobed them in. The tension isn't erotic at all.
@@arikathehuman2025 I don't think they are intertwining. I think that the man is seeking that, but look at her body and her face. Where is the reciprocality? Rictus in the body is accompanied by pain. She is being acted on, not acting with. Moreover, the environment Klimt has provided is neutral and receding. The eye is drawn to the patterns and the people, and the patterns are energy. The man's energy is different to the woman, to the extent that he is the soft one. She is hard, in tension if not in pain. Passive, yet resistant to the man. No, the tension and conflict is here between the man and the woman, and the patterns each has reflect their emotional state.
The patterns could also be saying men are rigid and very literal and women are earthy and soulful more emotionally connected.
What a wonderful debate! I'm a big Klimt fan, and understand that he was.....ummm....a man of his time.
Why do some people think it is abnormal or wrong to feel weakened by a man we're attracted to? Are we supposed to have feelings of respectful indifference?
I more-so feel like the idea was that the woman wants to be there (even if not particularly successfully executed), which I think is even worse, as he is portraying women as wanting to be (or intrinsically being) the passive party, needing to be dominated, etc. and that being a symbiotic relationship. It definetly seems like he is trying to portray 'tenderness' and her sort of 'letting go' - submitting to her man. The whole 'mother earth' and women parallel isn't much better in terms of misogyny either.
You guys have talked a lot about male gaze during crit clashes. Maybe do a stream specifically about the male/female gaze, and how can we use it when critiquing works?
Excellent idea, Neil! -Lauryn (Art Prof Teaching Artist)
The thing I liked about Klimt is how his work evolved. His earlier theater commission, I don't find very interesting. It is after that when his work really shine. I really have grown to appreciate his landscapes more than his figurative works. Congrats Prof. Lieu on your win.
how funny i love bob ross he did get me started in my art passion
I like that Klimt use a tangeant to convey that they are kissing. It's a good example of breaking a rule to tell something
Why would they say that, in the begining, that "disclaimer".. that "what we say may not be they necessarily what they believe in real life"?!
Is this some kind of "intellectual protection"? lol
Lol, no we just like to have fun arguing against our own views and biases sometimes. Also it makes it more fun for our audience to guess what we really think at the end. -Lauryn, Art Prof Teaching Artist
I had this picture on the cover of a notebook I owned once! The colours were pretty but I just thought some random person came up with it after like 15 minutes in Paint and went, "eh, good enough, ship it out!" X,D
Omg great story! 😂-Prof Lieu
Bad composition or not he has placed them on the edge of a cliff with him holding her by the neck. I see a woman who is both rescued and captured, a perfect picture of romantic love at the time.
Interesting discussion. I love Klimt's work with all the patterning and gold. If you haven't seen the film "Woman in Gold" it's worth a view. I agree that the composition in "The Kiss" sucks and it's not my favourite of his paintings. I've never thought of the woman being dominated in this picture - rather, it speaks to me of tenderness. The Crit Clash is a great idea - really helps one see so much more in a particular painting and the other work of an artist.
I think there's far too much agonising these days abot the roles of the sexes as if it's the only thing that matters in society. Early feminism was good and necessary, to give women equal rights as far as property, salaries etc. were concerned but it's gone way too far these days and everyone seems to be anti-man today which I think is awful. This is constantly beng pushed in the media and advertising. Men and women are not the same - we are equal in value and status, but different in role. Obviously there are examples of abuse by one sex over the other and this is totally wrong, but if people behave properly, we can celebrate our difference. I love to be made to feel feminine and protected by a strong man - it makes me feel very happy and secure being a woman, and free to express myself as such. Being content with what we are and what we have is one of the greatest gifts in life. It liberates us to explore so many different aspects of life in general because it enables us to move beyond the kind of pressures society is putting on us all these days.
I'm loving all your videos! As a developing artist I am learning so much, and the breadth of subject matter on your UA-cam channel and website is just fabulous - so much to learn and enjoy! I adore the humour too - none of that stupid preciousness and pretention you so often see in the art world. You folks are real, honest about your feelings and shortcomings and always ready to see the lighter, and funnier side of art and life! Keep up the good work.
PS Used to watch Bob Ross all the time - he got me started with painting! Pretty kitch and samey for me these days but I think he was a great influencer and opened up the world of art to so many people. Kudos to him - a sweet man.
We're so glad you resonate with our content! Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment-- it's always lovely when art sparks conversations like these :) - Mia, Art Prof Staff
@@artprof Thank you so much for your lovely (and very prompt!) reply to my ramblings! I've decided I am now an Art Prof addict. "Hello, my name is Shoshi and I'm an Art Prof addict." Maybe I need rehab!! (Not going to, though, this is far too much fun!)
I am wearing a pair of socks with the kiss on it. Fun day to have this pop up in my reccomendations
omg HAHAHAHA love it!!! -Prof Lieu
I don't see anything wrong with art being sinister.
Prof Lieu, you win this one :D
it's a bit Bram Stoker Draculaish