I’m so sick of it. Some of the worst things I’ve seen it galleries in museums are: a room full of bags of trash, a pile of carpets, a pot with a hole in it, a trashcan, an entire wall of white canvases. I could go on.
Good video. But I'll add something. Most of the late 19th century artists who were seminal in the creation of modern art were in fact great artists themselves. And they embodied most of the "methods of the masters" that the video mentions. The problem is that they opened the door for much-less-skilled artists who followed them. In any event, in the end it isn't the artists themselves who destroyed art. It was the thought leaders and wealthy patrons who were primarily responsible, as they are always the ones who decide what will end up in the galleries and museums, and sell. Note as well that the general public never followed the thought leaders on this, which led to a further ungrounding of the art world.
yes There is even a quote by Kirchner- a german expressionist on how he lamented rules and skills in art- but he backtracked it and said "Maybe some is needed" upon getting older
Perfectly expressed! The seminal modernists were all classically trained - Picasso had several years under his father, Dali had many years, Van Goghs classical study has been hidden and downplayed and on and on. This subject is SO hidden, nobody seems to know what happened. I studied full-time at a classical Academy in the 90s and believe me we all knew absolutely what was going on. When I did a masters degree at a post modern University, the honours students took figure drawing classes with me for about a month, and it actually started a small rebellion. They demanded to know from their professors why they weren't being taught the things that I was teaching them during their four years at arts school. Those same professors hated me after that, yet it wasn't my doing. All I did was reveal what had been lost. It's absolutely criminal what has happened to art, but no one seems to care. Conservative people in my country Australia have tried to fight back against the cancellation of the study of western culture and civilisation. Yet, when I approached those people about putting more effort into bringing back the ancient tradition of art training, they just ignored me. It's weird - One of the Post Modern dogmas taught at art schools is that 'skill is a construct of the patriarchy'. So absurd, and would this idea be tolerated in any other field of endeavour? Off key singers, can't keep the beat drummers, cack handed sandwich makers, slap dash house renovators, untrained yet 'inspired' or 'deconstructionist' airline pilots? It's all just mind games for the spolit kiddies of the Elite to allow the well connected mediocrarty to inhabit the cache of the artist. However for all 'real' artists (classical, modernist, post modernist) we know who we are, and 'they' can't buy our cool. They can't award it, grant it, critique it into existence - it has to be earnt the old fashioned way.
Actually, the downgrade of quality in lieu of fast food is something we see everywhere. Tv shows and movies used to be so beautifully filmed. Art in many cases. Not of modern productions I've seen for years now. UA-cam is fast food as well. Acting quality has diminished so much compared to the shows I watched from the 70s - 90s. Animation quality has really gone down hill on cartoon too. Hand drawn looked more organic, computer shaded looks hideously sharp. Everyone thinks they're worthy to be an influencer these days lol. I personally think lots of people are out to fit the image of "an artist." The lifestyle. They live out the expectations they have in mind that were imprinted in them by media.
Great vid, Nic! I have the same problems with music too. I am a composer and guitarplayer and love songs or storytelling from the heart. The problem is people are to be told what's good for them... is this art or not? It is a serous problem for future generations... when some media-clown says that music is outdated .Good music or great artwork in general should be TIMELESS.
This obsession with always new and original effects must end. If the existing instruments, twelve notes, the computer techniques, some useful micro-tonal effects like found in Arabic or other cultures are all outdated and not enough to make some coming from the heart (and not only the mind), then.... I find it a bit curious how they think they are the front line of art, when torturing people with a bunch of noises and effects for an hour, while in reality, it's Spielerei, a fringe phenomenon, like free Jazz or brass band music.. For decades now they try to sell this "new music" to us but people applaud politely and then nobody buys a CD. The real art of our time exists but it's found in film music or on all places where there is no shallow pretense and where the artist gives and cares what people will think about it. Of course I admit, that certain things with a lot of noise and effects can be real, high art but they don't represent our time. Even Bach could have made a piece with a broken clavichord, with out of tune notes.
Of course, the starting premise is this - PragerU is an ultraconservative evangelical channel, and their main goal is to convince people that ANYTHING that is "modern" is garbage, and they do the same with anything foreign. Just based on that you can see the flaws - they took pieces of art from a period spanning centuries, completely ignored any other art from the same time, and just compared to something convenient from a modern period. It's pretty thin and see-through, as far as arguments go. It's like saying a boxer is always weaker than someone who does karate by having just a couple of top guys in Karate beat a couple of boxers.
Unless purposefully demolished or destroyed by a cataclysmic earthquake, "Levitated Mass" will still be standing in that location long after everyone has forgotten who the hell Dennis Prager was.
@@Raptor810Blue I say "ultra" because, among conservatives, they definitely fall into the extreme end. If you judge that as being bad, you and I agree on something. Also, a lot of people never liked modern art. Of course, what we consider classics today were also modern at some point - and also hated by many. It's completely arbitrary to judge something as subjective as art on the opinions of contemporary audiences. A lot of people today find classical music boring - does that make it bad? A lot of movies/books now considered classics were almost universally hated by their contemporaries - does that make them bad?
Why do they feel like comparing old realism works to contemporary provocative works is a fair comparison? They should compare historical provocative works to modern ones and compare current realism to historical realism. And do people really care what rich people waste their money on? If they want weird art then so be. I don't have to visit their museums or private collections.
Historical provocative works still were realistic. And current works that follow old canon are not considered "modern art". Modern art is defined as art that breaks off canon, not as something done in the past 150 years.
@@carolinesa91 maybe art majors care about that manner of lingo but I'm not an art major. By modern I mean contemporary. Also the PragerU video is clearly comparing contemporary art with old classics, as though all modern art is purely philosophic or provocative in nature. There is a bit of a problem of nostalgia when it comes to art. We remember the things that had an impact on us and forgot that which was meanless to us, and sometimes the reverse happens and old art that few cared about are suddenly praised as the a great work in later generations. I personally prefer more realistic art styles over the more abstract art styles, but I can understand in an era with photography and a proir 300 years of realism being exalted, some people will want something weird or against the grain to stand out today and in history. I have never in my life ever struggled to find pleasant and beautiful contemporary art. Some old disgruntled man complaining about 'kids these days' or more so eccentric rich people in this case could make a fantastic timeless art piece.
Good points, but the problem I have, as is the case here in Canada, is the lack of support for the popular arts and for artists who really do have talent. We talented and popular/classical artists (High Art and Low Art artists, as opposed to Fine Art artists) are being crowded out by completely talentless people (many are total con-artists) who are unfairly getting government support and support by public and private galleries. Much of contemporary art is intellectual signalling, and doesn't perform any of the functions that art has performed for thousands of years for all cultures the world over. Contemporary art functions are often total inversions of the historical arts. And much of the the history of contemporary art is false. The majority of contemporary art techniques were originally invented by non-western countries and by comic book artists and others, including children. Modernism has an alternate history that very few professors of art will teach. Read The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, by Francis Stoner Saunders. If you've ever met hard core contemporary artists there is often a hatred and nihilism in their hearts that is palpable. Usually it's caused by envy of the talented, and sadly, something they learn from an ideologically bent understanding of art taught at many universities.
Because the patronage of rich people and institutions has always been what fuels great artists, currently there are too few artists who work in figurative realism being paid to create, they have to do it on their own dime and they don't get to reach their full potential.
@@Chamomile369 ye, I'd prefer the rich and corporate folks would fund more aesthetic art that we all can enjoy, but using it as some political gotcha like people do is stupid, unless we suddenly want to dictate what art can be made with government force.
My personal opinion is that much in the same way as a finely designed car, boat, or even something like a samurai sword is a masterpiece; Or, a bottle of fine wine is greatly owed to the vintner and an exquisite meal owed to the Chef. A work of Art very much in the same way, in order for it to be considered, a "masterpiece" requires what those other things do and that is a unique talent alongside a skill that has been honed through diligence and inspired passion. Among other things. How could we consider some of these modern artists as masters of their craft when they really haven't in any way exhibited talent or skillfulness? Some modern art definitely does do this but generally when you go into a modern art museum there is far too many "artworks" that are nothing more than, say, a doll that someone removed the wig from or a piece of human feces in front of some street sign, or a few words on a canvas. What talent is required to make such a thing? Why on earth are we as humans celebrating something so underwhelming and downright hideous in so many instances? Even some of the artworks that are just splatters on Canvas as well, if it can be faked with relative ease, then it truly is nothing to celebrate. Don't get me wrong, some of it is fascinating and wonderful, some of it requires talent. But, will we honestly still remember many of these aforementioned artists several generations from now? It almost feels like humanity as a whole is being duped by accepting this as art and not laughing this sort of a thing out of the art galleries.
On the topic of beauty, old mate's terribly good-looking but his hair is letting him down. I mean I get it, my hair gets like that too when I'm painting. But he could look like Achilles if he'd brush it and trim the beard. This channel is super helpful for me and I'm going to subscribe. I aspire to paint like you do with the money and materials I have.
Thanks for the video. The problem I have, as is the case here in Canada, is the lack of support for the popular arts and for artists who really do have talent. We talented and popular/classical artists (High Art and Low Art artists, as opposed to Fine Art artists) are being crowded out by completely talentless people (many are total con-artists) who are unfairly getting government support and support by public and private galleries. Much of contemporary art is intellectual signalling, and doesn't perform any of the functions that art has performed for thousands of years by all cultures the world over. Contemporary art functions are often total inversions of the historical arts. And much of the the history of contemporary art is false. The majority of contemporary art techniques were originally invented by non-western countries and by comic book artists in Europe, and others, including children. Modernism has an alternate history that very few professors of art will teach. Read The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, by Francis Stoner Saunders. And if you've ever met (or been friends with) hard core contemporary artists there is often a hatred and nihilism in their hearts that is palpable. Usually it's caused by envy of the talented, and sadly, something they learn from an ideologically bent understanding of art taught at many universities.
I am an avid reader of Kant and I can say that Kant wanted human beings to make art that reflects the beauty of nature and the human condition and to do art for the love and sake of art itself. Kant would not see a toilet seat that has been transformed into a fountain as good art. A good example that backs up my claim about Kant's interpretation of art comes from his deep love for poetry. Kant sees poetry as the highest art form because it can break or bend the laws of language but in a charming way. An inverted toilet made into a fountain does not make it charming or good art. It is still art but just not good art in the eyes of Kant.
Everyone is an art critic. But in the end, art is a reflection of the culture that spawned it. The idea that art should be universally understood is lazy and pretentious. Art can be many things,, and it's not the job of the artist to just make whatever the dillantes like.This video is thinly disguised apologetics for Dennis Prager.
Under what i know ART is, MODERN art causes FEELING. Yes, the esthetic is missing and form, however they (modern day artist) make you FEEL something. I understand the history of ART and every culture have a beginning, middle and END periods. We see this in the Italian (ROMAN). GREEK and Egyptian periods of Art. We currently are living in ONE OF THOSE periods where, everyone and anyone has or can create Art. Art is not (at the beginning center around a religion) that is bureaucratic and GROWS with the society! Christianity is the beginning of (earlier 1st and 2nd century) part of this period. We are in the end periods of our culture (Easter Bunny) and Elvis Presley! So, he is missing it on a LARGE scale!! Let the current day Artist make you feel discuss in their work and subject matter!! Its okay its working!! This ART is making you FEEL something....... We are in the end period of our culture. No, there is no new religion surrounding our culture with its purity and purpose (in the begging they create Art around a religion and do not leave their name etc.) " Yes Why is Modern Art so Bad? Because we are living in the END period of our culture !! Enjoy the ride!! Yes, its a little dirty, and nasty, filthy but this symbolizes our society and culture !!
There isn’t some boundary to what is and what isn’t art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you can get mad at people liking a rock more than your art you’ve slaved over for hours but you can’t take that away from them. And, saying it’s bad because it took less work than you or it doesn’t “improve your life”is just your perspective, it’s not objective truth. You just seem bitter because these people making millions don’t fit your antiquated view of what an artist is.
I dunno feels like you're being a bit rigid. Of course PragerU is going to find the worst examples of modern art and certain movements are less meaningful to people than others. But I doubt you'd consider Van Gough, Caillebotte, or Monet to be bad. How about Edward Hopper or Andrew Wyeth? Even less accessible artists like Rothko or Jackson Pollock made great works. As my college art history prof would say to students who claimed they could've made a particular work, "well, you didn't." Conservatives likes to trot out Duchamp or Mapplethorpe whenever they disparage modern art, but at a certain point it feels like nut-picking when there's so much truly great modern art.
Rothko and pollock did not make "great works" you are just saying that because you are obedient and think what youre told by pretentious modern art people.
Combination for art: imagination is used, skill is required. Combination for valuable art both of the above is present but also a degree of time and effort have been expended and there is a degree of the unique, different, quirky or challenging or an extraordinary amount of skill demonstrated. I hate a lot of 'modern' art but I like what Dali and Frida Kahlo. To me they created things worth looking at and thinking about. If however something takes little or no effort, requires no skill and the only imagination applied is answering the question how can I make a lot of money out of idiots? Then that is modern art at its worst and usually at its most expensive.
I think these type of videos always display a lack of knowledge of modern art. I'm foremost a musician, but I paint as well. I disagree with the idea of art as needing to be beautiful, or to have an objective beauty. If we were to compare painting with music, and the arguments put forth in this video all good music would sound like Debussy, Bach or Beethoven. There's nothing wrong with classical music, and I agree that classical music has a level of craftsmanship you don't see in any other kind of music. But you also have jazz, rock, rap, metal and so many other types of music. Some music is simple, some are meant to convey an emotion of anger, of brutality (like punk), some (like jazz) build on collective creation. My point is to see classical esthetic values as the highest form of art is extremely narrow minded in my opinion. Sure, some modern art will suck, but so did some classical art as well, we just don't see it now. Something with modern art. The modern art that will survive is the one that transcends the current ideals and trends. Yet that doesn't mean everything else is garbage.
So I will say I appreciate the video and I feel like you do know good art. But through history we base what we consider ““ good, off a few factors and some of those being technique and relevance. When he’s describing class art what else could he describe besides those works? Yes I guess he could put more obscure da Vinci paintings etc but that wasn’t the point he was trying to make he was simply using that as a vehicle. I’m just saying, I don’t think we need to disregard the video based on those particular pieces that he chose.
I don’t think I said to disregard the video. I agreed with a lot of it if I remember correctly. I think they could’ve made significantly stronger arguments, but I don’t blame them for it since it’s really not widely discussed
I honestly think that yes, art is about know how acquired via practice. The idea that art is everything and has no standard, does not make sense. It is because of this deceptive idea that even shit conserved in tin cans [of piero manzoni] was accepted as super modern art. And even just a blank canvas, which is known as invisible art. Photography is not a rival against traditional art. Obviously, at the time photography was introduced and which marvelled the world, some artists may have been deceived by the thought that people will no more buy their portraits or landscapes paintings anymore. Because we would then already could take photos. Photography is not a rivalry against traditional art, for two main reasons; firstly, if someone in a garden is making a plein air art, we will be attracted to him and not to those taking photos of trees ets with their smart phones. Secondly, if we see a beautiful autumn photo on the net, we normally do not think about its photographer, but we will just save it and share on facebook for eg. However, upon seeing a photorealistic landscape oil painting, we will love to see who made it and also his other artworks. So this makes it clear that photography cannot ruin traditional art. And we do not really need abstract art of personal expression, which is normally poor in skill. And I will like to say that in fact photography instead destroy extreme modern art. Proof: if on a public beach we have a photo of a beautiful waterfall, and also, a canvas painted completely white, then, people will look at the photo and not at that white canvas. Thanks for this beautiful video.
Thanks for sharing this reaction video, Nic. For me at least, I follow the stoic philosophy and say art is neither good or bad, it just is. When the establishment recognizes it as art, it becomes art. Though, I don’t see the point in most modern art, and I think it represents a decline in skills, the establishment follows the money. Today, art is about fame rather than skill, or perceived value rather than what it may be worth. For me, the best part of the video is when you simply tell us to stop spending money on what we think is bad art. However, how do we wake people up and convince them they’ve been conned by the art establishment into thinking bad art is good? But again, there is no good or bad, it just is what it is. As someone who tries to draw and paint in the classical methods, I can only make art that I feel is best for me and improve my skills before I die. I won’t compete with art I consider bad or lacking skill, I can only make art for myself and patrons. One day, the pendulum will swing, and the art world will see that art for art sake, making bold statements, and shocking the world with art that can only shout in a quiet room will be recognized for what it really is.
I am not much of a visual arts person, but I agree with you on a lot of your points. Wealthy patrons of the arts have a tendency to overvalue pieces from certain artists simply to boost the value of their existing collections. At the same time, the value of art is subjective to a degree and can be determined by the viewer. In my opinion, art without a message is meaningless, and while I may not enjoy all works of art, I can certainly appreciate a piece with a well-thought-out message. I for sure hope to see the same changes in the art world that you anticipate.
What matters is your values and your goals. That’s what allows you to determine the quality of a painting. You need clear values. Being stoic doesn’t mean you can’t judge the quality of paintings. You just need to focus on what’s within your control. For example, not wasting your time on modern art, or making paintings that actually matter. I’ll work on a video as soon as possible about some arguments and discussion topics you can use! Also, I would recommend watching videos I’ve made or made by Odd Nerdrum and cave of Apelles about the philosophy. I go very in depth about the philosophy on my patreon at patreon.com/nicthurman Otherwise I hope to bring some of that info here asap
Perhaps modern art is indeed the art of our time representing the shallowness, the absence of real meaning but instead the kick of the day, the hunger for always a new dopamine shot...
After seeing a couple of your videos, I came to the conclusion that you are too narrow to call yourself an artist, indeed, you're merely a painter. You see, if every artist thought the way you think in ancient greece, or renaissance, you would never have today what you consider great art (and the only real art apparently). It is true, a lot of contemporary art is overly pretentious if not total bullshit. I personally visit more frequently the national Gallery in London than the Tate, but again, if to you the Guernica or L'Ange du Foyer are bad art, you a really are just a painter, no matter how good you paint.
Literally had someone posting a bunch of conspiracy videos and cramming opinions and calling everyones art in the server satanic, he posted this very video in the server. Thanks Nic.
It's not just the rock but the entire installation. The LACMA version IS a bit of a failure--it was just too ambitious and the structural integrity needed in an active seismic zone compromised the visual effect of having a giant stone levitating above a trench, which was what the piece was supposedly going for. A much smaller, earlier version of the same piece actually pulled it off, and it was pretty cool--I mean sure, carving a beautiful rendition of a dude from the Bible is one thing, but making it look like a several ton piece of rock is floating in the middle of a city isn't a bad artistic expression. Because of the failure of the main point, it ends up being a pretty mediocre piece of art; maybe still engaging--hey, you can ALMOST see a floating rock, but we couldn't make it float because we have to make sure a minor earthquake doesn't cause the rock to squish people. And how did that rock get there? I mean, there's still some art there. The main problem with the Prager propaganda is the ridiculous cherry-picking; pick THE MOST recognizable pieces of art across centuries and then compare it to perhaps the most absurd examples of modern art. Well, OK, I'm sure I could go into Da Vinci's or Michaelangelo's oeuvre and pull out some stinkers too, even the ones supposedly meeting the "standards"--which, by the way, themselves were not timeless but varied based on the taste of the PATRONS who funded the art (you know like the fucking Medicis) but also charted technological and economic developments of those periods, too. It's just typical reactionary "things used to be better and now everything is crap" bullshit. Maybe ask the average person in 16th century Europe what life was like while Mikey was chipping marble into naked dudes......?
I’m so sick of it. Some of the worst things I’ve seen it galleries in museums are: a room full of bags of trash, a pile of carpets, a pot with a hole in it, a trashcan, an entire wall of white canvases. I could go on.
Good video. But I'll add something. Most of the late 19th century artists who were seminal in the creation of modern art were in fact great artists themselves. And they embodied most of the "methods of the masters" that the video mentions. The problem is that they opened the door for much-less-skilled artists who followed them. In any event, in the end it isn't the artists themselves who destroyed art. It was the thought leaders and wealthy patrons who were primarily responsible, as they are always the ones who decide what will end up in the galleries and museums, and sell. Note as well that the general public never followed the thought leaders on this, which led to a further ungrounding of the art world.
yes
There is even a quote by Kirchner- a german expressionist on how he lamented rules and skills in art- but he backtracked it and said "Maybe some is needed" upon getting older
Perfectly expressed! The seminal modernists were all classically trained - Picasso had several years under his father, Dali had many years, Van Goghs classical study has been hidden and downplayed and on and on. This subject is SO hidden, nobody seems to know what happened. I studied full-time at a classical Academy in the 90s and believe me we all knew absolutely what was going on. When I did a masters degree at a post modern University, the honours students took figure drawing classes with me for about a month, and it actually started a small rebellion. They demanded to know from their professors why they weren't being taught the things that I was teaching them during their four years at arts school. Those same professors hated me after that, yet it wasn't my doing. All I did was reveal what had been lost.
It's absolutely criminal what has happened to art, but no one seems to care. Conservative people in my country Australia have tried to fight back against the cancellation of the study of western culture and civilisation. Yet, when I approached those people about putting more effort into bringing back the ancient tradition of art training, they just ignored me.
It's weird - One of the Post Modern dogmas taught at art schools is that 'skill is a construct of the patriarchy'. So absurd, and would this idea be tolerated in any other field of endeavour? Off key singers, can't keep the beat drummers, cack handed sandwich makers, slap dash house renovators, untrained yet 'inspired' or 'deconstructionist' airline pilots?
It's all just mind games for the spolit kiddies of the Elite to allow the well connected mediocrarty to inhabit the cache of the artist.
However for all 'real' artists (classical, modernist, post modernist) we know who we are, and 'they' can't buy our cool. They can't award it, grant it, critique it into existence - it has to be earnt the old fashioned way.
Actually, the downgrade of quality in lieu of fast food is something we see everywhere.
Tv shows and movies used to be so beautifully filmed. Art in many cases. Not of modern productions I've seen for years now. UA-cam is fast food as well.
Acting quality has diminished so much compared to the shows I watched from the 70s - 90s.
Animation quality has really gone down hill on cartoon too. Hand drawn looked more organic, computer shaded looks hideously sharp.
Everyone thinks they're worthy to be an influencer these days lol.
I personally think lots of people are out to fit the image of "an artist." The lifestyle. They live out the expectations they have in mind that were imprinted in them by media.
Great vid, Nic! I have the same problems with music too. I am a composer and guitarplayer and love songs or storytelling from the heart. The problem is people are to be told what's good for them... is this art or not? It is a serous problem for future generations... when some media-clown says that music is outdated .Good music or great artwork in general should be TIMELESS.
This obsession with always new and original effects must end. If the existing instruments, twelve notes, the computer techniques, some useful micro-tonal effects like found in Arabic or other cultures are all outdated and not enough to make some coming from the heart (and not only the mind), then....
I find it a bit curious how they think they are the front line of art, when torturing people with a bunch of noises and effects for an hour, while in reality, it's Spielerei, a fringe phenomenon, like free Jazz or brass band music..
For decades now they try to sell this "new music" to us but people applaud politely and then nobody buys a CD.
The real art of our time exists but it's found in film music or on all places where there is no shallow pretense and where the artist gives and cares what people will think about it. Of course I admit, that certain things with a lot of noise and effects can be real, high art but they don't represent our time. Even Bach could have made a piece with a broken clavichord, with out of tune notes.
Of course, the starting premise is this - PragerU is an ultraconservative evangelical channel, and their main goal is to convince people that ANYTHING that is "modern" is garbage, and they do the same with anything foreign. Just based on that you can see the flaws - they took pieces of art from a period spanning centuries, completely ignored any other art from the same time, and just compared to something convenient from a modern period. It's pretty thin and see-through, as far as arguments go. It's like saying a boxer is always weaker than someone who does karate by having just a couple of top guys in Karate beat a couple of boxers.
Unless purposefully demolished or destroyed by a cataclysmic earthquake, "Levitated Mass" will still be standing in that location long after everyone has forgotten who the hell Dennis Prager was.
You say “ultra” to make it sound worse. Also, a lot of people don’t like modern art.
@@Raptor810Blue I say "ultra" because, among conservatives, they definitely fall into the extreme end. If you judge that as being bad, you and I agree on something.
Also, a lot of people never liked modern art. Of course, what we consider classics today were also modern at some point - and also hated by many. It's completely arbitrary to judge something as subjective as art on the opinions of contemporary audiences. A lot of people today find classical music boring - does that make it bad? A lot of movies/books now considered classics were almost universally hated by their contemporaries - does that make them bad?
@@vebdaklu What do you define as an ‘extreme’ conservative?
@@Raptor810Blue By how accepting of modern values they are. You?
Why do they feel like comparing old realism works to contemporary provocative works is a fair comparison? They should compare historical provocative works to modern ones and compare current realism to historical realism.
And do people really care what rich people waste their money on? If they want weird art then so be. I don't have to visit their museums or private collections.
Historical provocative works still were realistic. And current works that follow old canon are not considered "modern art". Modern art is defined as art that breaks off canon, not as something done in the past 150 years.
@@carolinesa91 maybe art majors care about that manner of lingo but I'm not an art major. By modern I mean contemporary. Also the PragerU video is clearly comparing contemporary art with old classics, as though all modern art is purely philosophic or provocative in nature. There is a bit of a problem of nostalgia when it comes to art. We remember the things that had an impact on us and forgot that which was meanless to us, and sometimes the reverse happens and old art that few cared about are suddenly praised as the a great work in later generations.
I personally prefer more realistic art styles over the more abstract art styles, but I can understand in an era with photography and a proir 300 years of realism being exalted, some people will want something weird or against the grain to stand out today and in history.
I have never in my life ever struggled to find pleasant and beautiful contemporary art.
Some old disgruntled man complaining about 'kids these days' or more so eccentric rich people in this case could make a fantastic timeless art piece.
Good points, but the problem I have, as is the case here in Canada, is the lack of support for the popular arts and for artists who really do have talent. We talented and popular/classical artists (High Art and Low Art artists, as opposed to Fine Art artists) are being crowded out by completely talentless people (many are total con-artists) who are unfairly getting government support and support by public and private galleries. Much of contemporary art is intellectual signalling, and doesn't perform any of the functions that art has performed for thousands of years for all cultures the world over. Contemporary art functions are often total inversions of the historical arts. And much of the the history of contemporary art is false. The majority of contemporary art techniques were originally invented by non-western countries and by comic book artists and others, including children. Modernism has an alternate history that very few professors of art will teach. Read The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, by Francis Stoner Saunders. If you've ever met hard core contemporary artists there is often a hatred and nihilism in their hearts that is palpable. Usually it's caused by envy of the talented, and sadly, something they learn from an ideologically bent understanding of art taught at many universities.
Because the patronage of rich people and institutions has always been what fuels great artists, currently there are too few artists who work in figurative realism being paid to create, they have to do it on their own dime and they don't get to reach their full potential.
@@Chamomile369 ye, I'd prefer the rich and corporate folks would fund more aesthetic art that we all can enjoy, but using it as some political gotcha like people do is stupid, unless we suddenly want to dictate what art can be made with government force.
My personal opinion is that much in the same way as a finely designed car, boat, or even something like a samurai sword is a masterpiece; Or, a bottle of fine wine is greatly owed to the vintner and an exquisite meal owed to the Chef. A work of Art very much in the same way, in order for it to be considered, a "masterpiece" requires what those other things do and that is a unique talent alongside a skill that has been honed through diligence and inspired passion. Among other things. How could we consider some of these modern artists as masters of their craft when they really haven't in any way exhibited talent or skillfulness? Some modern art definitely does do this but generally when you go into a modern art museum there is far too many "artworks" that are nothing more than, say, a doll that someone removed the wig from or a piece of human feces in front of some street sign, or a few words on a canvas. What talent is required to make such a thing? Why on earth are we as humans celebrating something so underwhelming and downright hideous in so many instances? Even some of the artworks that are just splatters on Canvas as well, if it can be faked with relative ease, then it truly is nothing to celebrate. Don't get me wrong, some of it is fascinating and wonderful, some of it requires talent. But, will we honestly still remember many of these aforementioned artists several generations from now? It almost feels like humanity as a whole is being duped by accepting this as art and not laughing this sort of a thing out of the art galleries.
On the topic of beauty, old mate's terribly good-looking but his hair is letting him down. I mean I get it, my hair gets like that too when I'm painting. But he could look like Achilles if he'd brush it and trim the beard. This channel is super helpful for me and I'm going to subscribe. I aspire to paint like you do with the money and materials I have.
Thanks for the video. The problem I have, as is the case here in Canada, is the lack of support for the popular arts and for artists who really do have talent. We talented and popular/classical artists (High Art and Low Art artists, as opposed to Fine Art artists) are being crowded out by completely talentless people (many are total con-artists) who are unfairly getting government support and support by public and private galleries. Much of contemporary art is intellectual signalling, and doesn't perform any of the functions that art has performed for thousands of years by all cultures the world over. Contemporary art functions are often total inversions of the historical arts. And much of the the history of contemporary art is false. The majority of contemporary art techniques were originally invented by non-western countries and by comic book artists in Europe, and others, including children. Modernism has an alternate history that very few professors of art will teach. Read The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, by Francis Stoner Saunders. And if you've ever met (or been friends with) hard core contemporary artists there is often a hatred and nihilism in their hearts that is palpable. Usually it's caused by envy of the talented, and sadly, something they learn from an ideologically bent understanding of art taught at many universities.
I am an avid reader of Kant and I can say that Kant wanted human beings to make art that reflects the beauty of nature and the human condition and to do art for the love and sake of art itself. Kant would not see a toilet seat that has been transformed into a fountain as good art. A good example that backs up my claim about Kant's interpretation of art comes from his deep love for poetry. Kant sees poetry as the highest art form because it can break or bend the laws of language but in a charming way. An inverted toilet made into a fountain does not make it charming or good art. It is still art but just not good art in the eyes of Kant.
God I live for the Birth of Venus
Everyone is an art critic. But in the end, art is a reflection of the culture that spawned it. The idea that art should be universally understood is lazy and pretentious. Art can be many things,, and it's not the job of the artist to just make whatever the dillantes like.This video is thinly disguised apologetics for Dennis Prager.
Under what i know ART is, MODERN art causes FEELING. Yes, the esthetic is missing and form, however they (modern day artist) make you FEEL something. I understand the history of ART and every culture have a beginning, middle and END periods. We see this in the Italian (ROMAN). GREEK and Egyptian periods of Art. We currently are living in ONE OF THOSE periods where, everyone and anyone has or can create Art. Art is not (at the beginning center around a religion) that is bureaucratic and GROWS with the society! Christianity is the beginning of (earlier 1st and 2nd century) part of this period. We are in the end periods of our culture (Easter Bunny) and Elvis Presley! So, he is missing it on a LARGE scale!! Let the current day Artist make you feel discuss in their work and subject matter!! Its okay its working!! This ART is making you FEEL something....... We are in the end period of our culture. No, there is no new religion surrounding our culture with its purity and purpose (in the begging they create Art around a religion and do not leave their name etc.) " Yes Why is Modern Art so Bad? Because we are living in the END period of our culture !! Enjoy the ride!! Yes, its a little dirty, and nasty, filthy but this symbolizes our society and culture !!
There isn’t some boundary to what is and what isn’t art.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you can get mad at people liking a rock more than your art you’ve slaved over for hours but you can’t take that away from them. And, saying it’s bad because it took less work than you or it doesn’t “improve your life”is just your perspective, it’s not objective truth. You just seem bitter because these people making millions don’t fit your antiquated view of what an artist is.
I dunno feels like you're being a bit rigid. Of course PragerU is going to find the worst examples of modern art and certain movements are less meaningful to people than others. But I doubt you'd consider Van Gough, Caillebotte, or Monet to be bad. How about Edward Hopper or Andrew Wyeth? Even less accessible artists like Rothko or Jackson Pollock made great works. As my college art history prof would say to students who claimed they could've made a particular work, "well, you didn't." Conservatives likes to trot out Duchamp or Mapplethorpe whenever they disparage modern art, but at a certain point it feels like nut-picking when there's so much truly great modern art.
Rothko and pollock did not make "great works" you are just saying that because you are obedient and think what youre told by pretentious modern art people.
Combination for art: imagination is used, skill is required. Combination for valuable art both of the above is present but also a degree of time and effort have been expended and there is a degree of the unique, different, quirky or challenging or an extraordinary amount of skill demonstrated. I hate a lot of 'modern' art but I like what Dali and Frida Kahlo. To me they created things worth looking at and thinking about.
If however something takes little or no effort, requires no skill and the only imagination applied is answering the question how can I make a lot of money out of idiots? Then that is modern art at its worst and usually at its most expensive.
I think these type of videos always display a lack of knowledge of modern art. I'm foremost a musician, but I paint as well. I disagree with the idea of art as needing to be beautiful, or to have an objective beauty. If we were to compare painting with music, and the arguments put forth in this video all good music would sound like Debussy, Bach or Beethoven. There's nothing wrong with classical music, and I agree that classical music has a level of craftsmanship you don't see in any other kind of music. But you also have jazz, rock, rap, metal and so many other types of music. Some music is simple, some are meant to convey an emotion of anger, of brutality (like punk), some (like jazz) build on collective creation. My point is to see classical esthetic values as the highest form of art is extremely narrow minded in my opinion. Sure, some modern art will suck, but so did some classical art as well, we just don't see it now. Something with modern art. The modern art that will survive is the one that transcends the current ideals and trends. Yet that doesn't mean everything else is garbage.
So I will say I appreciate the video and I feel like you do know good art.
But through history we base what we consider ““ good, off a few factors and some of those being technique and relevance. When he’s describing class art what else could he describe besides those works? Yes I guess he could put more obscure da Vinci paintings etc but that wasn’t the point he was trying to make he was simply using that as a vehicle.
I’m just saying, I don’t think we need to disregard the video based on those particular pieces that he chose.
I don’t think I said to disregard the video. I agreed with a lot of it if I remember correctly. I think they could’ve made significantly stronger arguments, but I don’t blame them for it since it’s really not widely discussed
@@NicThurman ok that's fair.
Niccccccccccccc
Can you make a video using acrylics? I love your content but for personal reasons I'm only able to use acrylics :(
I have gone back to do some watercolour work based on a limited pallet and Nerdrums painting philosophy.Light to dark.Works well.
Have you tried water mixable oils?
Nothing will top sculpting something beautiful out of a fucking rock that god made. That’s deeply human
Agreed
I honestly think that yes, art is about know how acquired via practice. The idea that art is everything and has no standard, does not make sense.
It is because of this deceptive idea that even shit conserved in tin cans [of piero manzoni] was accepted as super modern art. And even just a blank canvas, which is known as invisible art.
Photography is not a rival against traditional art. Obviously, at the time photography was introduced and which marvelled the world, some artists may have been deceived by the thought that people will no more buy their portraits or landscapes paintings anymore. Because we would then already could take photos.
Photography is not a rivalry against traditional art, for two main reasons; firstly, if someone in a garden is making a plein air art, we will be attracted to him and not to those taking photos of trees ets with their smart phones. Secondly, if we see a beautiful autumn photo on the net, we normally do not think about its photographer, but we will just save it and share on facebook for eg.
However, upon seeing a photorealistic landscape oil painting, we will love to see who made it and also his other artworks. So this makes it clear that photography cannot ruin traditional art. And we do not really need abstract art of personal expression, which is normally poor in skill.
And I will like to say that in fact photography instead destroy extreme modern art. Proof: if on a public beach we have a photo of a beautiful waterfall, and also, a canvas painted completely white, then, people will look at the photo and not at that white canvas. Thanks for this beautiful video.
Great video as usual!!!
thank you Nic.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the support
Modern art your kids can do it why buy them anyway you can create it yourself and tell everyone its modern art ehe
Thanks for sharing this reaction video, Nic.
For me at least, I follow the stoic philosophy and say art is neither good or bad, it just is. When the establishment recognizes it as art, it becomes art. Though, I don’t see the point in most modern art, and I think it represents a decline in skills, the establishment follows the money. Today, art is about fame rather than skill, or perceived value rather than what it may be worth.
For me, the best part of the video is when you simply tell us to stop spending money on what we think is bad art. However, how do we wake people up and convince them they’ve been conned by the art establishment into thinking bad art is good? But again, there is no good or bad, it just is what it is.
As someone who tries to draw and paint in the classical methods, I can only make art that I feel is best for me and improve my skills before I die. I won’t compete with art I consider bad or lacking skill, I can only make art for myself and patrons.
One day, the pendulum will swing, and the art world will see that art for art sake, making bold statements, and shocking the world with art that can only shout in a quiet room will be recognized for what it really is.
I am not much of a visual arts person, but I agree with you on a lot of your points. Wealthy patrons of the arts have a tendency to overvalue pieces from certain artists simply to boost the value of their existing collections. At the same time, the value of art is subjective to a degree and can be determined by the viewer. In my opinion, art without a message is meaningless, and while I may not enjoy all works of art, I can certainly appreciate a piece with a well-thought-out message. I for sure hope to see the same changes in the art world that you anticipate.
What matters is your values and your goals. That’s what allows you to determine the quality of a painting. You need clear values.
Being stoic doesn’t mean you can’t judge the quality of paintings. You just need to focus on what’s within your control. For example, not wasting your time on modern art, or making paintings that actually matter.
I’ll work on a video as soon as possible about some arguments and discussion topics you can use! Also, I would recommend watching videos I’ve made or made by Odd Nerdrum and cave of Apelles about the philosophy.
I go very in depth about the philosophy on my patreon at patreon.com/nicthurman
Otherwise I hope to bring some of that info here asap
@@NicThurman Fantastic, thank-you for the detailed response.
Perhaps modern art is indeed the art of our time representing the shallowness, the absence of real meaning but instead the kick of the day, the hunger for always a new dopamine shot...
After seeing a couple of your videos, I came to the conclusion that you are too narrow to call yourself an artist, indeed, you're merely a painter. You see, if every artist thought the way you think in ancient greece, or renaissance, you would never have today what you consider great art (and the only real art apparently). It is true, a lot of contemporary art is overly pretentious if not total bullshit. I personally visit more frequently the national Gallery in London than the Tate, but again, if to you the Guernica or L'Ange du Foyer are bad art, you a really are just a painter, no matter how good you paint.
COPE
Literally had someone posting a bunch of conspiracy videos and cramming opinions and calling everyones art in the server satanic, he posted this very video in the server.
Thanks Nic.
Modern art 'rocks'?
It's not just the rock but the entire installation.
The LACMA version IS a bit of a failure--it was just too ambitious and the structural integrity needed in an active seismic zone compromised the visual effect of having a giant stone levitating above a trench, which was what the piece was supposedly going for. A much smaller, earlier version of the same piece actually pulled it off, and it was pretty cool--I mean sure, carving a beautiful rendition of a dude from the Bible is one thing, but making it look like a several ton piece of rock is floating in the middle of a city isn't a bad artistic expression.
Because of the failure of the main point, it ends up being a pretty mediocre piece of art; maybe still engaging--hey, you can ALMOST see a floating rock, but we couldn't make it float because we have to make sure a minor earthquake doesn't cause the rock to squish people. And how did that rock get there? I mean, there's still some art there.
The main problem with the Prager propaganda is the ridiculous cherry-picking; pick THE MOST recognizable pieces of art across centuries and then compare it to perhaps the most absurd examples of modern art. Well, OK, I'm sure I could go into Da Vinci's or Michaelangelo's oeuvre and pull out some stinkers too, even the ones supposedly meeting the "standards"--which, by the way, themselves were not timeless but varied based on the taste of the PATRONS who funded the art (you know like the fucking Medicis) but also charted technological and economic developments of those periods, too.
It's just typical reactionary "things used to be better and now everything is crap" bullshit. Maybe ask the average person in 16th century Europe what life was like while Mikey was chipping marble into naked dudes......?
Hunters Bidens blow tube watercolors sell for $500000 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣