The poors aren't good enough for art museum attendance, but they are terrific for art as subject fodder. See: The Potato Eaters The Onion Eaters The Garlic Eaters Apparently, the poors enjoy carbs and have bad breath.
Thank you so much for this video. I think sometimes we forget to step back and look at the context of why these sorts of things happen, even if the reasons are right in front of us.
I have a mate that does fake banksy pieces for fun. The council will spray over their graffiti and any near it but not the fake banksy. Even when it's obvious it's not him.
Oh dang, me love talk about art world good stuff! 🤓 Edit: Also! Fun fact, one of those coastal UK pieces that Banksy did was just up the road from me on the side of an old building and the landlord paid for a construction crew to remove the entire wall hoping that he might be able to sell it on for big bucks, which meant that the person that was living in the house that that wall was a part of was forced out and made to live in an Airbnb while the place they were renting was literally pulled apart so some grubby leech could profit off a piece of street art, the kind of which he had uncaringly scrubbed off that very wall a hundred times before. I don't know if I've ever seen a situation that summed up the mad hypocrisy at play surrounding Banksy's work more perfectly than that. Anyway! Great video as always!
As a native of Portland I briefly got excited that you maybe lived in the same city as me.. then I slowly realized that you were in the OTHER Portland. Alas.
I love this channel so much, still can't believe how underrated your content is. I love listening to these while I work and chewing over what you talk about. The humor and info is wonderful as always!
It's incredible, you mentiones plenty of examples that I also had in mind conecrning this topic! I read about the slashing of Velazco's Venus in Gell's "Art and Agency", and even mentioned the similarity of this case with contemporary environmental protests during my exam about Anthropology of Art! A friend of mine, a fellow anthropology student, has written a short paper (not published, just a small dissertation as homework) about the vandalisation of statues of slave owners in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. About Ai Weiwei, I did not remeber his name but I remember reading an article about an artist dipping ancient ceramics into paint and another artist smashing them as an art performance of protest. I remember that this made me wonder about the poower of art, and how crimes might be recontextualised as art and accepted in some cases. And in some other Anthropology seminars we talked about street art as a way for social minorities to reappropriate the public space and a tool for them to participate to public life even when they are excluded from it. However, I had never linked all these examples under the same topic, but rather reflected on each one individually in different occasions and focusing on different specificities. So, I think that your video essay is super interesting, thank you for sharing your perspective on the vandalism of art.
Sports is all about the exploitation of black bodies, and the language of ownership is all over the sports world. Alabaster men own the teams, run alumni clubs, do not provide for the players' wellness in retirement, and exploit players' athleticism for profit. There is a constant, free farm system in collegiate structure, and the NCAA exerts unreasonable control over the players' abilities to earn from their likenesses and abilities. Because of the coach-to-administrator pipeline, women and BIPOC have vanishingly small odds of climbing the ladders of power that would provide more balanced and representational influence in this hugely patriarchal and top-down structure. As a labor rights advocate, I believe in players being able to charge whatever they want for their coveted abilities and likenesses. I also believe that team owners must pay for team facilities and stadia, not the taxpayers. If an owner desired to forfeit team ownership to a given city in exchange for a taxpayer funded facility, I would have no objection to that, either.
Throughout history Art van Dal will be known as the ultimate critic expressing in action what others couldn’t opine with a thousand words. That Art chose your art may be the ultimate combination of compliment and insult. Your art stands out as an ignition of passion and provocation of ire. Consider it as Banksy choosing your work to add a personal touch.
that bit about being able to afford to get into the museum hot on the heels of me visiting an art museum for the equiv of 50 cents USD reminded me violently again that other places sure do love to gatekeep art. this is my comment for the algorithm gods
~33:30 - "I'd just like to give a shoutout to Cosmo. Funniest tuxedo/black-and-white on YT. An inspiration to us all." - translated from my cat, Kord, who meowed in agreeance from my lap at this point, and is also a black-and-white cat. He is also currently trying to decide whether on the lap or off the lap is more comfortable. It is not fun. :/ ... Yeah, you know how they say orange cats are missing brain cells? Well I think black-and-white cats are clowns. Sweeties, but absolute clowns, in every definition. XD
Word offering to Al'Khwarismi's shade: It is worthwhile for one to intervene one's readymade ornamentation as to the pow!er of art vandalism one must consider how fraught shit got in Istambul during the Icomomaxy of dhe 8 & 9Cs
If we’re gonna be honest, the Just Stop Oil kids haven’t generally damaged any paintings. They threw soup on the bullet-proof glass and then glued themselves to the wallpaper. The real enemy is the wallpaper. You know, like Joanne’s moldy wallpaper? That wallpaper is a crime.
Well said abd very well put together. St. Louis City Art Museum is free and not sure now but, the paid exhibits were free on Frdays where I saw Van Gogh's and my favorite was there. Starry Night. Thanks for this one Cat.
art is important because it has cultural meaning and conveys a message. if the message it sends is harmful, or it props up people doing harmful things, destroying it can be good actually. and saying things should be handled while respecting private property is just placing legality over morality
Idk at what point that being condescending to the viewer became adopted by gay Internet comedians... But its fairly insufferable. I also detest the running theme of young critics simply glancing at etymology and saying "Now we have an understanding of what vandalism truely is." Thats a really underhanded method of attaching intention to an action without taking the specific action into context. The only type of vandalism you outlined that has any justification, is the vandalism of public monuments. Because the public has the power to decide what they are subjected to seeing every day. Those statues impose over the people, and are an eyesore to those who are harmed by their message. I DO think there should be a historical effort to save the statues, as they are modern relics of human history, and will one day be ancient history to people looking back. Just like how we look back on relics of civilizations rife with suffering and immoral practices to contextualize the times we live in today. Art IS free. Just because you have found art in a private collection that you have to pay to see doesnt mean "art isnt free". There are plenty of public art museums freely viewable. There is plenty of art in cities, in local shows, on the walls around you everywhere. Art is free. Keeping the power on in a gallery, staffing it, and paying professionals to keep up and restore the pieces is NOT free. Galleries preserve art. This is something a lot of people totally neglect to acknowledge bc i suppose people think that we would somehow still have all these works otherwise. It is SELFISH to insist you are obligated to view anything you want for no charge. It is SELFISH to insist that the vandalism of private art is justified because you dont like paying to see art, or something unrelated happening in the world. This video is filled with connect the dots BS, all as an attempt to justify a single controversial idea (vandalism). Its so unfortunate how severely this generation of people take for granted... Pretty much everything they have. Edit: Deflecting your personal shortcomings in this situation with "Well thats hypocritical because the art galleries have stollen relics and thats selfish" is a thought process id expect based on this videos themes. Yes, art was stolen. Not from you, however. So unless you have any connection to the stolen relics, dont even begin to try preach about the vandalism of private connections. Ive seen plenty of non destructive protests (some successful) demonstrations by INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. Dont expect me to think you care about a cause if you only cared enough to use glue or soup to prove a point. Thats NOT THOUGHTFUL.
If people vandalize art because they hate the artist and their legacy or the person they depict I can accept that and it makes sense. I actually respect that target. Otherwise it misdirects attention. Why vandalize art, when you can instead vandalize a private jet, a car, a building, or a structure belonging to the company or person you are against? I think these Just Stop Oil attacks on art are just marketing for people to donate to their company and to make more money and nothing more. It is just very priviledged "activists" trying to make noise instead of doing things that help people, just disgusting. And as I was writing the comment we reached the 17:00 mark where I agree with the idea behind the vandalism target here. Maybe if its about the person that made the statue its a bit of a 50/50, due to the person it depicts, depends on how you view the art piece as an extension of the artist and a showcase of their techinique or just as a representation of the person it depicts and the others have no value to you. Defacing and permanently destroying a historical item that carries so much legacy and memory like with Ai Weiwei, I can agree when the item represents the history of the country he is against and destroying it destroys the history not worth preserving and destroys the "country's leaders". Like if I deface your art that you bring up around 31:00 to pretest the USA imperalism on culture I would be called pretty dumb and stupid due to picking your art as the target and you catching strays through me picking your art piece to deface. If i pick the art of a terrible person and specifically choose an art piece whose destruction represents my point loudly then more people would accept my protesting through the destruction of art. The variables of acceptance to me are: 1 . Who the artist is and what they stand for, 2. What the art piece is, why it is famous, and what it depicts, 3. What my cause is, how much my cause and protest relates to the art piece, and how destroying and defacing it enhances my points. If all 3 variables are in sync, then deface all you want, if not, then pick a better target. The target doesnt even have to be an art piece. Like when activists spray painted a private jet and when the person destroyed the vase in front of the pictures of Ai Weiwei doing the same, im all for it. 43:28 Again with street art depends on 1. Target that was painted, 2. Who painted it and why, 3. What the art depicts and its message if any. If someone just spay paints something on the home of my neighbor and sprays their car, then it is not street art worth preserving. Even if the art might look pretty. But, what if they paint something brilliantly done that seems excellent to outsiders, without using slurs just to bother them? Does the artistry of the vandal matter more than the will of the person who owns the house? What if the vandal does it because their neightbor is X ethnicity or X class or X sexuality and they want to harass them? If they paint the wall at the public playground then it is street art that is probably worth keeping around, but maybe if the only thing written is hateful language then the scales tilt towards the "get rid of it" side. If they paint the front of a bank to protest them, then it is street art that is sometimes worth preserving. It's all about variables and whether the vandalism justifies itself strongly enough to get support.
That is genuinely one of the best thumbnails I've ever seen...it feels like it's from a different earth where mrbeastification isn't destroying art and commerce, resulting in all static images becoming Bliss faster than all fauna is becoming crab. 🦀 **pinch** 🫶
Haha let me tell you, this economy is getting a real kick in the hiney! Lm and nmoK! Y'all there's somebody broke down people out here and some f***** up s*** going on. Teachers have it so good! Do you know how hard it is to get a job? Fu roadblock.... 🗞️🪪🥁👾🌐
Somebody HELP ME! I’M DYING!!! KAT DIDN’T SAY, “Do an art.”
The poors aren't good enough for art museum attendance, but they are terrific for art as subject fodder.
See: The Potato Eaters
The Onion Eaters
The Garlic Eaters
Apparently, the poors enjoy carbs and have bad breath.
Wow, I do enjoy carbs and have bad breath! I feel so seen
Thank you so much for this video. I think sometimes we forget to step back and look at the context of why these sorts of things happen, even if the reasons are right in front of us.
I have a mate that does fake banksy pieces for fun. The council will spray over their graffiti and any near it but not the fake banksy. Even when it's obvious it's not him.
"I don't wanna be frank, that's why I transitioned" 😂🧡
wonderful video!
Oh dang, me love talk about art world good stuff! 🤓
Edit: Also! Fun fact, one of those coastal UK pieces that Banksy did was just up the road from me on the side of an old building and the landlord paid for a construction crew to remove the entire wall hoping that he might be able to sell it on for big bucks, which meant that the person that was living in the house that that wall was a part of was forced out and made to live in an Airbnb while the place they were renting was literally pulled apart so some grubby leech could profit off a piece of street art, the kind of which he had uncaringly scrubbed off that very wall a hundred times before. I don't know if I've ever seen a situation that summed up the mad hypocrisy at play surrounding Banksy's work more perfectly than that. Anyway! Great video as always!
That "uploaded 22 seconds ago" team
Wow. The hypocrisy in the Banksy section is infuriating. It'd be cool if he started vandalizing his own art.
girl this was such a fascinating video. thanks from this stem grad student for teaching me about the art world
As an artist _and_ engineer this heartens me greatly 🫶 I wish art and science could always get along so well ☺️ best of luck in grad school!
5:36 auto-destructive art would like a word
The chaos that is Cosmo matches my own cat's freak, lol!
As a native of Portland I briefly got excited that you maybe lived in the same city as me.. then I slowly realized that you were in the OTHER Portland. Alas.
HECK yeah, Cat, this is an excellent and well-thought-out video! it's awesome to see a new vid rom you! also: COSMOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I love this channel so much, still can't believe how underrated your content is. I love listening to these while I work and chewing over what you talk about. The humor and info is wonderful as always!
i was recently racially profiled at that very museum :D
As a young'un I was poverty profiled in museums and totally stalked by the museum guards.
Create don't destroy ☮✌
the SPEED in which I ordered that shirt
It's incredible, you mentiones plenty of examples that I also had in mind conecrning this topic! I read about the slashing of Velazco's Venus in Gell's "Art and Agency", and even mentioned the similarity of this case with contemporary environmental protests during my exam about Anthropology of Art! A friend of mine, a fellow anthropology student, has written a short paper (not published, just a small dissertation as homework) about the vandalisation of statues of slave owners in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. About Ai Weiwei, I did not remeber his name but I remember reading an article about an artist dipping ancient ceramics into paint and another artist smashing them as an art performance of protest. I remember that this made me wonder about the poower of art, and how crimes might be recontextualised as art and accepted in some cases. And in some other Anthropology seminars we talked about street art as a way for social minorities to reappropriate the public space and a tool for them to participate to public life even when they are excluded from it. However, I had never linked all these examples under the same topic, but rather reflected on each one individually in different occasions and focusing on different specificities. So, I think that your video essay is super interesting, thank you for sharing your perspective on the vandalism of art.
Halfway through and really happy to hear your take on it. Happy for another video too!
Sports is all about the exploitation of black bodies, and the language of ownership is all over the sports world.
Alabaster men own the teams, run alumni clubs, do not provide for the players' wellness in retirement, and exploit players' athleticism for profit.
There is a constant, free farm system in collegiate structure, and the NCAA exerts unreasonable control over the players' abilities to earn from their likenesses and abilities.
Because of the coach-to-administrator pipeline, women and BIPOC have vanishingly small odds of climbing the ladders of power that would provide more balanced and representational influence in this hugely patriarchal and top-down structure.
As a labor rights advocate, I believe in players being able to charge whatever they want for their coveted abilities and likenesses.
I also believe that team owners must pay for team facilities and stadia, not the taxpayers. If an owner desired to forfeit team ownership to a given city in exchange for a taxpayer funded facility, I would have no objection to that, either.
your curls are so beautiful!
I always learn something from your vids, Cat, and this time the learnin' was big. Thankyou.
need that shirt so bad. have had that goya recreation as my screensaver ever since it dropped on Patreon :')
another great video. i really like your angle on this. and the tom nicholas hint was very nice, thanks.
Throughout history Art van Dal will be known as the ultimate critic expressing in action what others couldn’t opine with a thousand words. That Art chose your art may be the ultimate combination of compliment and insult. Your art stands out as an ignition of passion and provocation of ire. Consider it as Banksy choosing your work to add a personal touch.
I'm so happy when I see you have posted a new video. ♥
Thank you for the video! Would love to hear you talk more about how the context changes how we interpret art, like Ways Of Seeing by John Berger
that bit about being able to afford to get into the museum hot on the heels of me visiting an art museum for the equiv of 50 cents USD reminded me violently again that other places sure do love to gatekeep art. this is my comment for the algorithm gods
~33:30 - "I'd just like to give a shoutout to Cosmo. Funniest tuxedo/black-and-white on YT. An inspiration to us all." - translated from my cat, Kord, who meowed in agreeance from my lap at this point, and is also a black-and-white cat.
He is also currently trying to decide whether on the lap or off the lap is more comfortable. It is not fun. :/
... Yeah, you know how they say orange cats are missing brain cells? Well I think black-and-white cats are clowns. Sweeties, but absolute clowns, in every definition. XD
Art vandalism is the nickname of a guy named Arthur from Southern Poland
Word offering to Al'Khwarismi's shade: It is worthwhile for one to intervene one's readymade ornamentation
as to the pow!er of art vandalism one must consider how fraught shit got in Istambul during the Icomomaxy of dhe 8 & 9Cs
If we’re gonna be honest, the Just Stop Oil kids haven’t generally damaged any paintings. They threw soup on the bullet-proof glass and then glued themselves to the wallpaper. The real enemy is the wallpaper. You know, like Joanne’s moldy wallpaper? That wallpaper is a crime.
Well said abd very well put together. St. Louis City Art Museum is free and not sure now but, the paid exhibits were free on Frdays where I saw Van Gogh's and my favorite was there. Starry Night. Thanks for this one Cat.
Damn, that was a great video
art is important because it has cultural meaning and conveys a message. if the message it sends is harmful, or it props up people doing harmful things, destroying it can be good actually. and saying things should be handled while respecting private property is just placing legality over morality
people trying to gatekeep art generally have zero background in international art, anthropology, or secular history
commenting to feed the algorithm
Oh no. Look at this street art I accidentally did. It is most certainly deserving of punishment. lmao
Idk at what point that being condescending to the viewer became adopted by gay Internet comedians... But its fairly insufferable.
I also detest the running theme of young critics simply glancing at etymology and saying "Now we have an understanding of what vandalism truely is." Thats a really underhanded method of attaching intention to an action without taking the specific action into context.
The only type of vandalism you outlined that has any justification, is the vandalism of public monuments. Because the public has the power to decide what they are subjected to seeing every day. Those statues impose over the people, and are an eyesore to those who are harmed by their message. I DO think there should be a historical effort to save the statues, as they are modern relics of human history, and will one day be ancient history to people looking back. Just like how we look back on relics of civilizations rife with suffering and immoral practices to contextualize the times we live in today.
Art IS free. Just because you have found art in a private collection that you have to pay to see doesnt mean "art isnt free". There are plenty of public art museums freely viewable. There is plenty of art in cities, in local shows, on the walls around you everywhere. Art is free. Keeping the power on in a gallery, staffing it, and paying professionals to keep up and restore the pieces is NOT free. Galleries preserve art. This is something a lot of people totally neglect to acknowledge bc i suppose people think that we would somehow still have all these works otherwise.
It is SELFISH to insist you are obligated to view anything you want for no charge. It is SELFISH to insist that the vandalism of private art is justified because you dont like paying to see art, or something unrelated happening in the world.
This video is filled with connect the dots BS, all as an attempt to justify a single controversial idea (vandalism). Its so unfortunate how severely this generation of people take for granted... Pretty much everything they have.
Edit: Deflecting your personal shortcomings in this situation with "Well thats hypocritical because the art galleries have stollen relics and thats selfish" is a thought process id expect based on this videos themes. Yes, art was stolen. Not from you, however. So unless you have any connection to the stolen relics, dont even begin to try preach about the vandalism of private connections. Ive seen plenty of non destructive protests (some successful) demonstrations by INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. Dont expect me to think you care about a cause if you only cared enough to use glue or soup to prove a point. Thats NOT THOUGHTFUL.
Yay my favorite artist on here
If people vandalize art because they hate the artist and their legacy or the person they depict I can accept that and it makes sense.
I actually respect that target. Otherwise it misdirects attention.
Why vandalize art, when you can instead vandalize a private jet, a car, a building, or a structure belonging to the company or person you are against?
I think these Just Stop Oil attacks on art are just marketing for people to donate to their company and to make more money and nothing more.
It is just very priviledged "activists" trying to make noise instead of doing things that help people, just disgusting.
And as I was writing the comment we reached the 17:00 mark where I agree with the idea behind the vandalism target here. Maybe if its about the person that made the statue its a bit of a 50/50, due to the person it depicts, depends on how you view the art piece as an extension of the artist and a showcase of their techinique or just as a representation of the person it depicts and the others have no value to you.
Defacing and permanently destroying a historical item that carries so much legacy and memory like with Ai Weiwei, I can agree when the item represents the history of the country he is against and destroying it destroys the history not worth preserving and destroys the "country's leaders".
Like if I deface your art that you bring up around 31:00 to pretest the USA imperalism on culture I would be called pretty dumb and stupid due to picking your art as the target and you catching strays through me picking your art piece to deface. If i pick the art of a terrible person and specifically choose an art piece whose destruction represents my point loudly then more people would accept my protesting through the destruction of art.
The variables of acceptance to me are: 1 . Who the artist is and what they stand for, 2. What the art piece is, why it is famous, and what it depicts, 3. What my cause is, how much my cause and protest relates to the art piece, and how destroying and defacing it enhances my points.
If all 3 variables are in sync, then deface all you want, if not, then pick a better target. The target doesnt even have to be an art piece.
Like when activists spray painted a private jet and when the person destroyed the vase in front of the pictures of Ai Weiwei doing the same, im all for it.
43:28 Again with street art depends on 1. Target that was painted, 2. Who painted it and why, 3. What the art depicts and its message if any.
If someone just spay paints something on the home of my neighbor and sprays their car, then it is not street art worth preserving. Even if the art might look pretty. But, what if they paint something brilliantly done that seems excellent to outsiders, without using slurs just to bother them? Does the artistry of the vandal matter more than the will of the person who owns the house? What if the vandal does it because their neightbor is X ethnicity or X class or X sexuality and they want to harass them?
If they paint the wall at the public playground then it is street art that is probably worth keeping around, but maybe if the only thing written is hateful language then the scales tilt towards the "get rid of it" side. If they paint the front of a bank to protest them, then it is street art that is sometimes worth preserving. It's all about variables and whether the vandalism justifies itself strongly enough to get support.
I'm too drunk to watch this right now, but I just wanted to say that thumbnail is sexy as hell.
tysm
i think my comment got deleted because youtube percieved it as a threat 😔. great video!
i love you dont explode pls pls pls
missed your face ;0;
fucking ready
here's a comment
PMA has no rights anyway they fired all their union staff
we wove the wat pwease cwom agwain
You look like a girl version of drew gooden i love ur hair
No, its not.
Whataboutism is cute
“More uncommon” = less common. Nazis slashed and destroyed artworks. What are you talking about?😊
Get to the fucking point
That is genuinely one of the best thumbnails I've ever seen...it feels like it's from a different earth where mrbeastification isn't destroying art and commerce, resulting in all static images becoming Bliss faster than all fauna is becoming crab. 🦀
**pinch**
🫶
Haha let me tell you, this economy is getting a real kick in the hiney!
Lm and nmoK!
Y'all there's somebody broke down people out here and some f***** up s*** going on. Teachers have it so good!
Do you know how hard it is to get a job?
Fu roadblock.... 🗞️🪪🥁👾🌐