I said "I could do that" about photography a few years ago, and turns out I couldnt but really enjoyed the process so now I'm learning to be a better photographer
The incredible thing is, odds are there are many who could never photograph exactly like you. In my first college photography class one of our tasks to help develop a knowledge of our equipment and lighting was to all take pictures of objects around the room. Even though we were all photographing the same subject, we all pretty much had our own way of doing so; the way our bodies moved to capture what we each though was the perfect angle, how we each perceived the perfect amount of light, what we each decided the iso and aperture should be, etc. The professor showed a lot of our photos next to each other and they were all similar, but no two were identical. No matter what we photograph, even if it's the same subject, no two people will take the exact same picture. There are too many variables to do so. The biggest of which is how you see the world and how you want others to view it.
As someone who was a self trained photographer and then went back to University later in life to study it (Photojournalism and Documentary Photography), I have a profound respect of the idea of a project, rather than seeing the physical manifestation of it. I'm now working on multiple exposure and developing the idea further (8 years so far) The good thing is that you're learning (like we all do) - the idea someone plateaus later in life in the desire of knowledge now seems absurd to myself. Life is learning. (I used to be one of those "I could do that" type of person) Good luck with your visual journey!
photography is extremely tricky, it's a lot more than a click of a shutter button. i hope your journey with photography is improving and that you're loving it!
What's funny is when I think, "I could do that." What I'm actually saying to myself is, "I should try that." Seeing other pieces of work encurages me to try different art styles if I want to attempt to execute a similar feel. Just with my own twist.
Yeah, some conceptual art has actually inspired me to try painting, which might be weird because a lot of conceptual art doesn't involve painting but it was more about how those artists sent messages in their art that inspired me to try something similar but with what I'm familiar with.
Definitely refreshing perspective about art. I would have never thought that modern art was intentionally "deskilling" to focus on the meaningful execution of ideas behind the piece of art. But I still feel that iconic works of traditional forms of art just has that special unexplainable feeling that I find very attractive.
"This art doesnt show the artist's technical skills but does show their mastery In public relation by tricking art collectors into thinking it has value"
@@madelineella5731 nah what they wrote was pretty spot on actually. Everyone can draw scribbles like an infant, only few of those are lucky enough to have their scribbles worth be in millions
Man, I remember, over a decade ago, when my art teacher told us students to paint a picture on an A3 sheet for homework. It could be any picture as long as you were inspired by the works of any painter. So, I spotted a painting on the back of a Reader's Digest magazine. It was a red square with a thin white strip in the middle - I can't remember the name. Anyway, I decided to paint a blue square with a thin black strip in the middle. It was a last minute thing. Other students made paintings of themselves and still life in cubist form, abstract form and whatever but I can't be bothered. Anyway, everyone received their graded homework the next lesson and of course I got an F. I couldn't be bothered. But, there was a "See me." So, I went to see her, she was furious and called me "lazy," which was probably true but I'd like to think of myself as "efficient" as I completed the homework in a few minutes. She tried to embarrass me in front of the other students but I wasn't intimidated. I dug out the small magazine, turned it over and showed her and everyone the painting, then called her a "hypocrite." Silence. I returned to my seat and never got a retort, let alone a punishment. I never got an excellent grade in the subject either but I did not fail. Moral of the story - Yes, you could actually replicate the artwork you see but you may not get the same positive response even if the responders are ignorant of the original work simply because you are nobody. Even if the work you generate is original, people will always put you down, especially your teachers who will always say something like "it's too simple." At least, that is how things are for me. You have to be somebody first, for example, you could be an obsequious student - that could be a starting point.
+Buenomars I'm not sure that's the moral of the story. As a teacher, I'd say the moral is to be careful how you word an assignment, because saying "you can paint any picture" is too general. As a teacher, you need to know that students will always find loopholes to get out of doing homework. As a student who wants good grades, the moral is to learn how to read between the lines, and give your teacher what he or she wants to get that good grade. As a student who doesn't care so much about grades (just a letter on a piece of paper) as about learning, the moral is to open up to new ideas, and take the teacher's lesson to heart, challenging yourself with a harder subject and getting more out of it. Your teacher wasn't wrong to complain about your work, she just should've given more directions from the start. It takes a great deal of time to make a decent artwork. When artists talk about efficiency, they're not looking at a clock, they're counting brush strokes.
For me, looking at art and getting the feeling that I could do it myself is an AWESOME feeling. It's not an attempt to tear down what an artist did, which is a way I've heard other people reacting sometimes - it inspires and fuels my own creativity. Like you mentioned, art is not always about technical skill, and I tend to get in my own way sometimes when I worry that I am not skilled enough to create something. Art like that makes me want to make something again. It reminds me that the effort that goes in and the thought behind a piece is just as important as how the finished product turns out.
Lauren Fairweather I actually thought of you when I was watching this video, and other youtubers who make videos where in they basically tell people "You can do this!" By teaching them how to make something. Is crafting art? I would say yes, but in a more abstract way as crafting is more of a... well... craft! What you do takes skill, as both an artist and a teacher, and is therefore art. Being able to replicate something doesn't necessarily devalue it. In the case of your crafts, and your video's I'd say it only adds value to it. Because while I could do that, I couldn't have done it without being taught how, or being given the idea by you! (and many other youtubers, but I make plushies now and that is 100% your fault.)
“Freaking amazing scribbles” why are they freaking amazing? Crickets….😂. Like every single other profession Artists use to need technical skills to be at the top. Actually not every profession requires skill abstract artists ,like Pollock, are exactly like politicians. You can lack any kind of skill in either profession but still be successful if you’re friends of the wealthy. Today there are absolutely no qualifications to be a “master artist” other than being accepted by the rich.
The thing is, what's annoying is when I say "I could do that" and the answer is "but you didn't" the problem is that if I did do it, it would sit in my house or something, but because someone who did do it is already established it ends up in MOMA or something. Like it's something that if I did, i'd get like 12 notes on tumblr, but b/c they did it, it's in MOMA A sheet hanging from 3 places, a white wall that has a title of "this wall is painted by a single bb gun shot" which actually wasn't, or another example. That douchebag that steals people's instagram photos that he comments on and sales them for like $10k or something. Like, last time I was at MOMA I thought a lot about this, like thought critically on it, not just "oh, I could do that" and stopped.
and to be clear, I'm not being judgy of the ones I could do (except for the asshole who steals instagram photos, I totally judge him), like this is just me thinking about them, not being like "oh, that sucks, i could do it" but I guess I am judging the people that make the decision to put it in the museum, but also not in a "they're dumb" way, but more in a "this system is set up in a way i'm not sure about"
jag519 I agree. feel like it's kind of like politics, especially national politics like the presidency. Like, yeah the people who are elected probably have some good ideas (or at least ideas that a lot of people think are good), but not anyone with those ideas could run and win. You usually have to have a lot of resources and already be well known.
Art, as mentioned in the video, is not always about skill. Sometimes it's more about social commentary or protest. Never mind the critics: do research about the context and the reasons why an artist did what, and if it resonates with you, then that's all that matters. Art doesn't need to be in a museum to be art, and many artists become established because they devote their lives to their art and philosophy. You cannot do one piece with no philosophical content whatsoever and expect to become a recognized artist. I have been drawing for the good part of 20 years now, but I don't consider myself an artist because I just do it for fun.
Katya Hernández That is a pretty helpful explanation, thanks. The one thing I disagree with is that you still make art, so you are an artist. Yeah, you do it for fun and stuff, but yeah, you've got 20 years of practice, pretty sure that means you're an artist, even if you're not making museum pieces and stuff. haha
Who else found this video incredibly unconvincing? What's more inspiring is finding a painting that makes you say, "Wow, I wish I could do that!" or "How did they do that?"
I totally agree, when I was at the Seattle Art Museum looking at their flesh and blood exhibition, the one with paintings from the old masters . It was more breath taking to see the things I aspire to be able to do, rather when I was looking at the more simplistic work they have elsewhere within the museum
"the quality and character of his line work is astounding" ... is it? What makes it so good? Why is it masterful or "fricking amazing scribbles"? You're clearly very passionate and I love that, but I'm really trying to learn here and this sort of answer isn't helping.
I'll tell you. Because the way things are at the moment there are people who make big money from this. If you don't praise it then it might fall apart and you lose the moneymaking machine. They're desperate to even convince themselves
There is a sense of mastery in lines ya twit , its honestly a thing there is difference in how artsit use lines , you should be able to pick up on it in the individual's work , lines can show expression , his ability is in the way he can actually do that , there is a taught process behind that. Its not just a scribblebs ....its scribbles with expression , by a master who had learned the ability to make his lines express more and have more feeling.
This reminds me of the episode of Adam Ruins Everything where they highlighted a study in which they gave wine connoisseurs two glasses of the same white wine, but one was dyed red. The subjects went on and on about the differences between the "red" and white wine. I feel like there is a strong parallel between that and paintings in a gallery. Is it art in the context of the gallery because that is where you expect to see art? You attribute all of these qualities to the piece that may or may not have been intended by the artist. Not much on the canvas? They showed restraint. Canvas flooded? They showed passion and emotion. Ultimately art is whatever it evokes from you, but to say that some of these paint splatter or scribble pieces that end up there are much harder to create than they look seems a bit foolish to me. People will find what they want to in an abstract piece. I feel that art critics, much like the wine connoisseurs, could easily praise a piece that was made by someone with no "artistic ability" if they thought it came from someone special.
But that is the nice thing about abstract art. Tells the beholder a lot about themselves. Like a Rorschach test. Color and line speaking to a simpler portion of our brains allowing us a conduit to look inward. Or to use a less poetical example, a comedian telling an anecdote that is broad enough for several people to have experience of BUT the version of that anecdote are unique to each individual person in the audience. There's always gonna be shysters in everything. But the nice thing about abstract art is that the audience is what makes it special not the artist(practically speaking, the audience's intellectual participation is vital). That's probably why there are more modern artists that troll. "lol you thought them glasses on the floor were some big deep thing that if you understand your better than everyone else but really i want you to stop getting too big for your britches 'cause they just glasses."
I mean, yeah, that's true. What Adam Ruins Everything was saying though (I reckon) is that you don't need a wine snob to /tell/ you that that wine is good. It's your own judgment. In the same way that art is subjective, and you don't NEED an art critic to tell you that art is meaningful, but it's also your choice to believe them.
Matthew S ....Quite right. An art teacher showed his class what he said was a Jackson Pollock painting. They went on about the effective use of color, line etc. Then he revealed that the “Pollock” was a close up of his painting apron!
Imagine the following: "Beethoven is far superior in technical skill than Nirvana so Nirvana aren't real artists". This is obviously false. There is a different aesthetic that cannot be achieved in the same way as the other. Just because something is simpler does not make it less valuable. It depends on individual taste and if the work is cohesive.
Yep. There are a bunch of people in the comment section making the argument that works of art which are easier to do (when it comes to technical skill) are deserving of less respect.
mossy1 It's not simple learning how to incorporate thematic transformation, leitmotifs, codas, and various other musical techniques. First you have to comprehend them and that can take a lifetime
For a lot of modern art it is more like beethoven is far superior to a fart autotuned by a phone (and the promise that there is deep meaning to it). Plenty of scatological garbage selling for fortunes. The thing is that a lot of the people promoting this stuff are former brokers and stock sellers which found much easier to inflate the price of something controversial (there is no such a thing as bad publicity attitude) than of the art of a skilled painter. A very skilled painter also might make only 4 or 5 paintings every year but a modern artist can made hundreds, if you can convince people that those are worth 50.000$ each it's more profitable to promote a modern artist than a classic one.
often when someone says "i could do that" about a piece of art that doesn't demonstrate "skill" to them, they also feel like the piece ALSO doesn't have any communicable meaning to them. I know how to operate a camera (and often do), for example, but powerful photos are still meaningful because they communicate an emotion or some meaning. a piece of abstract art that appears to just be scribbles doesn't always communicate much and it is unfair to expect the viewer to always know the context of the art out of the blue. i think art should be able to stand on it's own, regardless of context (though it can be enhanced by understanding the circumstances in which it was created), and part of that art is, as Tolstoy says, communication of meaning.
There's a big problem here. You're assuming that the communication of meaning has to happen in a vacuum, devoid of all context. The context in which a piece is made dramatically changes its capacity to communicate meaning.
That art could stand on it's own, regardless of context.... I think this was one of the answers I have been trying to find about my doubts of what I consider good art.
Chok1 almost no art does though. You need context to appreciate most art I would argue. A portrait of a great monarch means nothing if you think it’s just a picture of a guy in a silly costume, Starry Night is just a blurry landscape, the Last Supper is a dude and his friends eating at a table weirdly. Some art won’t connect with you and that’s okay. But I don’t think it’s okay to say that the art in question is lesser, or other people are wrong to connect with it or value it.
guys, nat geo made a doc on modern art, they gave a chimp some paint and a canvas, then showed it to an art critic, and the woman kept guessing artists names and they told her it was a chimp, and she was like "...oh, right"
If you paid attention to the video you'd know that context is everything. You can admire the chimp painting as well.. but it means something completely different when done by a human than a chimp... again its because of context. Technical skill is nice but its just craft. I'm actually a realist painter but realistic painting often doesn't serve the feeling or expression I want to convey. Its just like simple rock and roll vs Beethoven. Its an aesthetic.
Reductio ad absurdum: following the logic in this video, let’s appreciate how my child felt in time out during school which prompted him to take up the crayons and draw on the wall while contemplating his actions. Art. Your welcome. $100000 for this art installation.
No matter how much these idiots try to persuade us, these shitty abstract “artworks” lack any visible effort, and stir no feeling of love or interest within the viewer towards that artwork.
Art like this only holds influence because people like this woman help to endorse it. I identify as an artist myself and would never hold these pieces with esteem.
Art holds influence because people give it merit yes, that's not news and does not prove such works of art aren't valuable. Technical art holds influence because people give value to technique. This value is by no means objective, painting a perfect recreation of what's in front of you for example is a technical feat, but merely copying is something that can be done by a camera, making it much less valuabe in a sense that it does not add a narrative or an expression. That is not to say simple copying is bad, but just to paint a picture on how subjective the value of such art really is.
@Derek Cunningham I've always wondered what artists think about other artists' works... Also, may I ask what do you think the next art movement/style would be?
One of my favorite parts about this series is the explanations and analysis. I don't really naturally have the eye to look at a piece snd see all the nuances, but im very susceptible to them once ive heard it, so hearing the artists talk often opens my eyes to new ideas. That makes videos like these so much more meaningful to me, it helps me make my experience of looking at art go from trying to get out quickly, to understanding more about the piece itself.
“They’re freakin amazing scribbles!” Translated: I have no way of explaining why these lines are significant, but I was told they are important, so I believe it.
she went into a little detail about how his control of the materials and colours are masterful but she wasnt going to spend the whole video simply talking about him because the question was asking about Gonzalez instead. like literally think for five seconds before typing something.
This is by far the best "explanation" on contemporary art I've heard in my life, being a Fine Arts student for years. Clear, concise and most of all, accurate. Thank you!
Artist: *Shits on ground* Me: "WTF!! Well i could do that!" This Video: "No you can't and you did not! You should ask why he/she did it!!" Me: *calls 911*
Noobkin you would not be original Piero Manzoni already did that, canned it sold it in 1961. Tape an apple to a light post and eat it...that’s almost been done
One of my favorite movements in art was German Expressionist painting and film of the early 20th century. It moved from realistic or naturalistic representation to expressing what lay beneath and how the world is perceived through emotion and a psychological reaction to human experience.
I want art that possesses the ability to move, inspire or impress me regardless of who’s name is attached to it. I want the work the be as equally worth admiration when the piece is anonymous as when it’s creator is credited. Context can contribute, but I am tired of art that is propped up by who made it rather than what they made. Being able to be in awe of a piece without the art world telling me I should because of who did it is and has always been my standard. Often times that means technical skill, but also a great usage of color, composition, form, framing, or subject can supplement or even replace the need for great talent. Forget who made it, let’s just appreciate whether a piece is good on its own or not.
If you refer to the Mondrian work, he literally couldn't use tape, it wasn't available then! Only later as he moved to America, where it started to become available outside of industrial use, did he discover it, and he started making compositions with that stuff instead. But I'm sure you don't really care, you just wanted to dismiss the guy
@@jakobvanklinken I'm sure the artist could afford a roll of tape. Do you know how much those paintings sell for? Even if he only sold 1 painting, that's more then enough enough to buy a roll of tape. Paintings like that are worth millions., and tape only cost a dollar or 2.
Jakob van Klinken having a thoughtful exchange about art on UA-cam, I don’t know if that’s going to work. I think it’s crazy though that I can’t tell if the guy is trolling or just extremely dumb.
art is like a closed cave with artists in it scratching the walls making it bigger day by day. a new artist might go to the edge of the room and say: its easy to stand here not realizing that it took hard work before to get to that spot because there was stone before.
8 років тому+55
Of course, everybody can do Artworks. The difficult thing is to be successful...
Even if I did create these more "simplistic" art pieces, they wouldn't be worth millions of dollars, as these examples (probably) are. That's what really irks me about such scribbles, blotches of paint, lines, etc. -- they're displayed in famous art museums all over the world and garner praise for having "exquisite restraint" or "astounding linework." If I scribbled on a wall and had it displayed, I'm sure I'd get the complete opposite reaction.
I mean, maybe you could though. If you're scribbles on a wall we're actually an art project - if you sat down and really thought about what these scribbles mean, the colors, the lines, the message of the wall, and you went around to art galleries and stuff, you could probably find someone who looked at the art you made and felt something meaningful from it. Hell, if you took a bunch of scribbles that you made from randomly picking up some crayons, closing your eyes and moving the crayons over the canvas completely blidn to the sound of to a piece of music, and then repeated the process with a blank canvas, the same crayons and the same music, but still blind, and did that two or three times and displayed the differnt canvases, all created by teh same mechanical process with the random aspect of the crayon colors/the blindfold and title the three works "Tryptich in Crayon To Johhny Cash" or whatever, you could get someone to hang that in a gallery because guess what? You made a meaningful piece of art through a repeatable, mechanical process that expresses a concrete message about the world.
+Julia Revzin Heh, "thought about what those mean". Anyone can make up any sort of BS like "this scribble represents my internal struggle with alcoholism", and if enough people buy that BS, you've got art on your hands.
+thedman113 Exactly! I could crumple up a piece of paper, take a photo of it with a sepia filter or something and call it "nostalgia" and that's art! Now, that doesn't mean anyone would buy it, or like it but as long at it illicits some sort of emotional reaction, it's art. My definition of what constitutes art is basically "why does art need to be defined at all", so if someone flipped a cup upside down, surrounded it with duct tape, called it "Existentialism" and pronounced it art I would say "Okay. It's art." and then move on. I have no idea why people need art to have meaning outside the personal but they definitely do! Which is why we get all these debates about real or fake art or whatever.
+thedman113 What do you consider art? Where do you draw the line? Is it the subject? Is it the technical skill? Is it the medium? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm really interested. I've been involved in art for many years and I like to know where people draw the line.
So the piece of art that I've had the strongest emotional reaction to was "Mogamma (A Painting in Four Parts) (Part II)" by Julie Mehrutu that I saw at the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, which I might have dismissed otherwise had I not read its context and understood what such an abstract painting could mean. Initially all I could see was some architectural sketching that was overrun with a busy black massses of scribbling in various areas and a few colorful curved lines, but the metaphor she was conveying about the complexity of the relations between the movements of the Arab Spring were so visualized with what I had felt, that to me It was like I'd never seen a better visual representations for what it felt like. Point is that conveying of emotion is the reason I appreciate that piece so much, even if I could with my amateur drafting skills attempt something similar. We don't patronize Walt Whitman because how easy it is with our ability to read and write to reproduce one of his poems, it makes no sense to do the same with material or performance artists.
In general a lot of abstract art is about trying to convey emotions because it's a really difficult thing to directly convey an emotion. Sure you can use metaphor but a lot of artists really wanted to get at that core emotion with nothing in between.
Speaking as an artist, I have to disagree with a lot of what's brought up here. I think the "I could do that" statement is more insightful and piercing than I think is given credit. In the past, Great artists were treated like celebrities, both in and out of their times. Artists like Michelangelo, Bernini, Canova were treated as national treasures. They created magnificent works that were to be prized and championed beyond their lifetimes, but they also very importantly captured a beautiful thought in a beautiful frame. Both the idea and the Aesthetic were important because it in many ways redeems a culture and rescues it from its own ugliness. The chaos and tumult of the 15th Century Florentine Republic is given direction and new meaning, once the David and his careful rationality are put on display in the public square. But for many artists today the beauty and care of the image is subperior to the idea involved. All of the value of the work is in the concept, and that concept has to be articulated, it has to be written or spoken. It has to be explained why a thing looks like it is, rather than the work speaking for itself. A properly executed painting, sculpture, etc that is worth remembering, and its artist worth lionizing, is one that has its own life and voice. And we need artists to go onto the frontiers and bring back that to the masses. But artists seem less interested in revivifying and reawakening our culture, and much more willing to mock and sneer at it. So why are we privileging them and their work as it becomes more contemptuous of Form, Beauty, and its audience and unyieldingly ugly and scatological. Saying "I could do that" in my mind is really asking, "Is the arts even worth preserving if this is what they come up with?"
I agree with you. For those so-called artists, if they could put shit there, why couldn't we say ""I could do that""? I believe the "I could do that"" statement is also our RIGHT to say and to challenge their work.
It's a comment I often get regarding my work. I work instinctually, attempting to achieve a state of 'flow', where my subconscious and conscious come together and I keep working until I feel that the piece is done. Then I hang it in my flat, and look at it now and again for a few weeks before either taking it back into the studio or photographing it for my website/IG for sale. I'm not saying someone couldn't make a painting that looked similar, but the process of copying and creating are very different. I liked this video btw- concise and to the point, unlike many commentators of art.
I agree, but I also find it incredibly hypocritical that the same people who pursue art that purposefully avoids traditional notions of beauty are often the first to lament that art is unappreciated in our society.
+deadeaded Right. That is indeed hypocritical. Well, there's always going to be art that avoids traditional notion of beauty AND is not very good. And it's hard to realize that your work is not very good. But there's also the reality that good artwork gets made and is not properly acknowledged or celebrated. The art system, just like publishing and many other fields, isn't fair.
After watching this I went out and painted like Rothko and now it hangs in room for a while. Some of us are experienced painters and we actually can do it. Ps now the running joke in house is that this is the most expensive painting in house. I wait for these true art critics to buy it for few millions like they would have if it was a Rothko.
I like that story. I guess the difference is if you had come up with painting like Rothko before Rothko had that idea you might have been super successful, you never know. But the point is it was his idea first:)
@@phanders6236 if money is your idea of success then i MIGHT be successful too since i own a small company that sells software. Plan to sell the company and retire at some point of time. As far as painting goes i do paint pretty good. I don't do rothko type of nonsense other than say once.
@@phanders6236 I started to paint in oil in year 1989 so I guess over the years have learned to paint too. Putting layers of paint is not something new here. Once i stop working in software (in a year or two depending on partner company) painting will be full time thing then. I really do not like someone saying that well you could not do it. If it was Titian or Rubens it would be different.
It’s not about copying the art but about the idea behind the actual painting. I can copy artists, but when it comes to create a painting, that would take months and years before an idea hits me! That’s what an artist is, creator, inventor, and artist.
Then if the idea is the important thing why is the inability to convey it correctly ignored? If it's important wouldn't it being conveyed well be of the utmost importance? What are we to make of idea and it's importance from the fact that the transfer of the message via the art piece usually fails? And if the idea is the important thing once the idea is thought up and the value is in that, there is no need for the art piece, just a technical description of the idea, text. Thus the art piece is redundant or trash, because the value is in the idea. If you look at the cycle of logic stemming from what you said and compare it with the results in these modern art pieces then we see that it's either the the idea is trash, not important enough to convey, or the artistic merit of the artist not good enough to convey it...and that's giving the creator the benefit of the doubt that all three aren't happening at the same time, which usually seems to be the case.
Some of top comments are really disrespectful and dismissive of modern art. Due to the fact that they don't understand it and is neither educated on it. This is an education channel and this is why I love it and subscribe to it. You shouldn't be on this channel if you can't make the due diligence to do your homework to make a legitimate argument of public comment.
This was wonderfully explained Sarah!! I especially liked when you said "it's not that these things don't take skill - they just take different kinds of skill." I personally think while high craftsmanship in art is admirable - the most powerful works are artworks that can drive ideas. And of course - ideas can be driven in many different ways - whether it's through high technical artistic skill, or simple, direct messages.
Cy Twombly is like, the perfect artist to talk about in this context. The Felix Gonzalez-Torres example isn't so easy because once you learn the story behind his pieces, they becoming pretty obviously monumental. I once took a piece of candy from his "Portrait of Ross" and I will be able to recall that exact taste for a very long time knowing what it represents. Twombly doesn't have that kind of stuff. The answer to "what is this about" with his work is almost always "Feelings" and little else. I know that I like it, and that when I see it I'm always surprised in a way that I really like. Because they are scribbles. And they are fantastic scribbles. It's different from everything else around it because of those little scribbles that most artists would balk at using. They're fun and playful and engaging because of their context. After spending a day at a museum looking at really incredible craftsmen, it's really refreshing to see scribbles in there too.
@@callumsutherland2954 I assume the masking tape is applied to dry canvas before oil paint goes near it, and the strip of tape is later removed after the paint has dried. That's not difficult; you're merely using straight adhesive to create a sharp edge of paint beside it.
@@eduardo_corrochio I'm not saying it's difficult to apply it, but trying to: a) find a masking tape which won't bleed when used with oil paint; b) find a paint texture which isn't too thick or too thin to work with the masking tape; c) remove it without it tearing the tape or ruining your straight line; d) remove it without speckling, lifting, or otherwise marring the paint (the necessary undercoats etc; the tape would never be on dry canvas, dried layers of paint but not dry canvas) beneath the tape; and c) create a neat, deliberate composition while balancing all these practicalities - well, it's damn difficult.
My reply whenever somebody says "I could do that" is "well, why don't you do that?". A lot of people answer with "I don't want to" "there's no point", which really sums up why the piece is significant in its own merit.
My key takeaway “this doesn’t display a remarkable amount of technical skill and that’s what I really look for in art”. That statement summed up my attitude to art. Never seen the appeal of modern art in the same way that I’ve never seen the appeal of industrial metal like Rammenstein, or the hip hop pop music of Nikki Minaj either. I guess the bigger question is who gets to decide what is and isn’t art? Funny how subjective questions of style and taste can become moral absolutes demanding absolute obedience.
Having a 6 year old son made me realise how the statement "I could do that" couldn't be farther from the truth. Take your kids' paintings, any simple "run of the mill" 4/6 year old splash of paint and try and do the same. Try and achieve the same simplicity, the same carelessness the same freedom, just try not to paint any thing. You are always drawn to making sense, to giving a direction to your brush or your pencil. Painting like a 5 year old is goddam difficult. Anybody who says "I could do that" actually never tried.
@Timothy Clark Then do it and prove to us that it is so simple as you claim, don't hide behind excuses like "most are also sensible enough to not do it." that's just a fucking bullshit excuse. Also how the fuck do you think the art market functions to make a statement like that? Do you seriously think you'll be driving down the value of the really expensive art which basically is only that expensive because of speculation?
I used to teach art to children and from my observations most 4 - 6 year olds make amazing abstract art. Unfortunately, but the end of grade 1 or 2 it's gone. I don't know why and have often thought - man if you could keep that thing you had when you were 5 into adult years...
@@mard9802 Because children begin to organize their thoughts and want their art to more or less reflect the world they understand, they just lack the skill to execute with any accuracy. The "abstract" art made earlier isn't art at all, but the child finding delight in changing colors on paper. They are not expressing, they are experimenting. But pretentious adults try to assign meaning to what amounts to visual gibberish.
that's the first time that I've heard compelling arguments in favor of modern art. or maybe the first time that I cared to listen. a lesson for today- don't stay in your bubble folks.
Art seems to be the most common victim of the ‘I could do that’ line of thinking. Not many people read a book, watch a movie or listen to a song and immediately think ‘I could do that.’ And I think that’s because modern art has in many ways gone a little too far. I can appreciate certain pieces of modern art - when I first read about the two clocks I felt moved to tears even though I had never even seen the piece in person, that’s how beautiful the very idea of it was. But sometimes scribbles, even freaking amazing scribbles, are just that: scribbles.
They are scribbles to a lot of people but might mean something more to others. I personally love modern art that is super abstract and try to see beyond just the superficial, snobby "meh" reaction. The thing about art is that it is much more democratic now and more ideas can be explored.
@@phanders6236 see labelling other people's reactions to modern art as 'superficial', 'snobby' is part of the problem. It's dismissive and tends to alienate your potential audience without trying to help people understand *why* the artwork is special. I still don't know why this scribble gets more attention than any other scribble. To me (and to a lot of others) they just are scribbles. Yes, to some they might mean more than that, but I don't really feel anything when I see them other than a vague sense of confusion as to why it is displayed in a gallery in the first place. And I actually think art is in no way democratic, then or now. Who can really afford to be an artist in this day and age when student loans, hosing, unemployment and healthcare are genuine issues that we face everyday? Only a privileged few who either 'make it' or have a trust fund. And who can actually own these artworks? I certainly cannot afford any of it, and I bet a lot of others can't either. It's still elitist, except now you're also supposed to accept the inherent value of a scribble in the name of art.
@@prufrockj.a8532 With snobby I mean "Mozart was great but anything new is crap." It is often that argument that is used when discussing art. "These scribbles don't mean anything because they don't depict something that makes sense to me so therefore it is dumb. I don't get it so no one else should."
@@phanders6236 I actually don't think a lot of people see modern art in such a narrow way. Most people appreciate something about new art movements and those who truly care really do put in the effort to try and understand why an artwork is special. In my personal experience, most people who attend art galleries and have discussions about art aren't saying that art took a turn for the worse after the impressionist movement ended - they are trying to learn why one artwork is prized over another. Maybe my initial comment came off a tad dismissive about the overall merit of scribbles, but I do not hate all works of modern art. I just don't understand why this particular piece of art is given the opportunity to shine over others. What makes this better than all the other artworks that were not given the same amount of attention? Even you don't explain why you're defending the scribbles. And all the lady in the video has to say about it is that the scribbles are amazing. And that's fine. A thing can be amazing. But that does not necessarily mean it should be put in gallery where everyone is encouraged to admire it.
A really good book I read on photography (more so the artistic) was “why it does not have to be in focus” by Jackie Higgins. Admittedly there were many pieces in the book that left me asking the same question at first glance but the book is excellent at explaining the process and the thought behind the piece and the photos made perfect sense after and I left understanding why so many of them were considered works of art
This is an interesting video as I have little to no appreciation for most abstract work since it requires such a low technical skill to achieve. I do often say "I could do that" as I am an artist and I have more than enough technical skill and creativity to do so. The interesting aspect to me, as the host in the video showcased, was that the "why" is so important to her (and I assume many others) so that even the simplest creations are somehow relevant. To my mind, that's just the spin that the artist is putting on the piece. That spin is increasingly important when a piece of art is so simple and basic that it needs the story to bring it up to a perceived level of excellence that should be studied and admired. In summary, I plan to put together much more elaborate and interesting stories to help my own art be perceived as something more than it is. Maybe I'll become the next Pollock.
Maybe you will! I hope to see that one day. I just wonder why you're so automatically distrustful of the stories connected to these works that you decide to call it a "spin". That is as you say entirely in your mind so it seems weird to me that you use this to judge it.
As an abstract painter myself, im offended by you're lack of imagination. You may be highly technical in you're application of you're medium, even i appreciate technical ability, but too criticize another artists 🎨 imagination to explore a visual creation not based in our reality is backwards and not the thinking of a free thinker. The first one now will later be last...for the times they are a changing
I am an EFL teacher in a country where art is not really important. One of the books I use, has an unit about art and most of the times students are so reluctant to talk about art, to even consider it! I have gotten this comment so many times, "teacher, that's not art... I could have done that." It makes me angry, because for me art is very meaningful. And I might not know much about it, but I think Art should make you feel something and that is what counts. I will show this video to my students next time I am teaching that unit... Hopefully they will open their minds to art, all kinds of art! :)
For me, this video,comments and opinions just raised more questions than answer any. Like, what is art? What are the things that makes something an art? Does it need any particular person(critics, appreciator, artist) to become "art"? Is there a degree of difficulty(or easy-ness), materials, back story, etc. that makes something to the "artwork" category? What separates a good art to mediocre ones? What happens if we switched two abstract works hanging from a luxurious art show to a yard sale item? **insert more questions here** If art only comes down to perspective, doesn't that make these arguments become justifications/excuses to consider something an art. Making 'everything is an art'. Or rather, 'nothing is an art'.
+Janus A I hear you. For me, studying art and thinking about art and experiencing art is all about asking questions. I find it productive and rewarding to think about these things, and that's part of the experience for me. I've been studying art or working in the arts for a number of years now, and my responses to the questions you pose have changed dramatically over the years and I suspect will continue to do so. Through The Art Assignment, we release weekly videos that tackles these questions piece by piece, artist by artist. It's my hope that after watching regularly, you might over time develop your own answers to those questions. You're completely right that one video can't do that. Thanks for watching.
> Like, what is art? That's a question that there doesn't exist a solid answer to. > Does it need any particular person(critics, appreciator, artist) to become "art"? The point of a lot of 20th century art was to challenge that idea, to challenge the idea that any one group or class had a monopoly on defining art. > Is there a degree of difficulty(or easy-ness), materials, back story, etc. that makes something to the "artwork" category? Probably not but maybe. > What separates a good art to mediocre ones? Generally people prefer to more talk about interesting art vs boring one. It's usually more about what the art did and what historical significance it had rather than it being good, it can in fact be literal shit. > What happens if we switched two abstract works hanging from a luxurious art show to a yard sale item? You'd probably get arrested, but a lot of artists have basically done that and then learned that apparently art collectors will buy fucking anything. > If art only comes down to perspective, doesn't that make these arguments become justifications/excuses to consider something an art. Making 'everything is an art'. Or rather, 'nothing is an art'. This is kinda the point of a lot of 20th century art, to assert that in some way everything we do is art and deserves appreciation. No matter what art would always be about perspective as being objective is literally impossible, the struggle in the last few centuries has mostly been about what perspective gets to be the dominant one. A lot of artists who became famous in the 20th century tried to argue the case that we should not only consider the perspective of the wealthy but also the every day man. The issue just is that money continues to dominate our world so that means that the wealthy in large part get to determine what is considered art. Hopefully one day we'll learn that monetary value is only that and should not be taken as a mark of anything else, think about how many speculator bubbles there have been from comic books to beanie babies, that's basically the situation art is in today but it's a speculator bubble for the ultra wealthy.
Skill, knowledge, experience, composition, color theory, technique, stroke, personality, meaning, power, detail, talent. It's not that hard to know what's art.
I encountered my first real-life Felix Gonzalez-Torres piece today. It was "Untitled (L.A.)," and I hadn't been expecting it in the museum I was visiting at all. Apparently it's a new acquisition of theirs. But when I saw it, read the wall label, and then participated by taking one of the pieces of candy (which was delicious), I was overcome. It was an incredibly unique emotional experience with art, one that I don't think I've ever felt before. Something like a mix of sorrow and awe and gratitude. I felt a real connection to Gonzalez-Torres, and to all of the other people contributing to his work.
Every time I see someone looking at masterpieces and say they can do the same, I’d just ask them do it then as expected, they always failed. So lesson learned is, every time I heard someone say that again I’ll try every way to kick them out.
I love art. I love the expression of ideas. But art requires at least one of two things, at least in my opinion. It either needs to be fascinating to look at, or communicate an important message. The former can exist on its own, but the latter must have the former to be effective. Maybe some of those minimalistic pieces required a lot of technical skill, but... they look like NOTHING. They aren't interesting, they aren't beautiful. The squares one just looks like mismatched bathroom tiling. As much as I want to understand it, I just don't. And as for the scribbles one, I really fail to see how that requires any skill... I don't care what the message is in a lot of those pieces. As long as they fail to hold the attention of general audiences, then they aren't "good" art. If you need to be a snob to "get it", then it stops becoming a tool for the people and instead becomes a way for snobs to wank each other off.
Maybe it would help if you considered that what you find fascinating or beautiful is completely subjective- defining art as something that has technical skill or is just something you personally like isn’t really that helpful bc obviously people find different things pretty or interesting! Or that different contexts and messages resonate differently-just because you don’t care about the message doesn’t mean others wont care. Not everything has to appeal to the ‘general audience’ and not everything has to appeal to you- I get how sometimes it can feel frustrating when someone expects you to find enjoyment or some greater purpose in a piece you just don’t like (bc it’s rude) but it is also a little rude to say that the enjoyment someone else got out of it doesn’t matter because you don’t personally see the point
The incredulous statement "I could do that..." should be changed to "I could do that!" If you really think you have the means to do it, then maybe you should. It'll be a good learning opportunity with you either completing a thing or coming to the conclusion of "Wow, that was harder than I thought. I appreciate this more than I did before." Art is not merely making the thing because you can make a thing; that's just killing time. It's asking questions about that thing and the relationship to the environment.
Also y'know we'd probably all be better off if we spent a little more time developing our creative skills. You might not end up doing that same thing but it can hopefully inspire you to do something.
I watched this video this morning, and I've been thinking about it all day. I've never disregarded modern art, but kinda thought it was 'half-art', like creativity without the skill, which are equal parts. Watching this video, I've realised that art IS the idea. Otherwise, if we valued skill in itself, reproductions would be worth much more to us.
Good point. I think you just have to get it about right enough and reach some people, so it can be considered published and the essence of the idea is clear. Execution is secondary. There are very few remixes or hommages that get equal or more credit than the original. That's at least my impression. It would be interesting to try to improve upon the classics, though.
In highschool, I said the same thing about Picasso. After a while, my teacher gave me the assignment to "reproduce" three famous paintings. One them being Picasso's "Guernica". What a hell of a time I had. I certainly got off my high horse.
This explanation, to me at least, says that "I could do that" type artworks can't be evaluated the way we evaluate art that requires skilled execution. These works are about the artist's intention, and not the final product. If the physical art itself can be convincingly reproduced or imitated by a craftsman with minimal skill, then the original is more artifact then artwork. It's like on Antiques Roadshow, when some common item has an historic story attached, the value can not be found in the piece itself. If someone found "Untitled"(Perfect Lovers) in a box in their attic without any documentation; it would be imposible to show it was anything other then a pair of clocks, and maybe that Felix had touched them. But If someone found an undocumented Da Vinci, It may not obtain a Da Vinci price tag, but it would be easy to show that it was of some value beond a random amateur painting. So, if we can't even evaluate them on the same criteria as all other art, then haven't we now contorted the term "art" to a point where it's lost any useful meaning? Is something art just because someone says it is? Can art be created without skill?
Ian Albert That - I think - is a good point. In a way you can say: If everything can be art then nothing is art, because the term loses meaning at that point. But, I think that whole large bits of the art movements in the 20th century have focused around this question, well what is 'art' and how far can we stretch it? Now this is where it gets interesting and frustrating, mostly because it is beautiful to see these questions asked in and through art but it is frustrating because eventually you go far enough down the rabbit hole and you kind of lose a lot of your ability to discern between a Duchamp exhibit and like... an actual toilet/random garage. Now, i do love this, still, because, I find it infinitely more interesting to think about these questions and think about art in this way than to simply give up and just start labeling things 'art'|'not art'|'art'|etc. I don't know, the whole thing, that started in the 20th century still seems kind of young, and maybe it will stand the test of time and maybe it wont, your questions are valid and certainly can raise some interesting questions of their own with some very interesting answers that can kind of go on for ever.
glorb It is an exaggeration to say (when talking about the Mondrian) "...no amateur did this.", implying that only a professional artist can paint a strait black line, a good house painter can do that. But the larger point is that you no longer have to be a great painter to be a great artist in the world of painting. In a literal sense, enhance and restrict are not mutually exclusive. By not accepting all art as good art elevates the status of the good art.
glorb Elevating good quality and rejecting the bad is how every field works. You are not a singer if you can't carry a tune, you are not an architect if you're buildings won't stand, you're not a baseball player if you can't hit the ball.
My father and I we're at the MoMA in Los Angeles, we came across an installation of stacked and previously used five gallon paint buckets. My father paints houses for a living. We have a similar installation in our backyard.
I was also in MoMA many years ago, and on the floor was a pile of broken window panes. Big ones, maybe 7 feet long. As though the sky light had been replaced and the discarded glass had been broken in the process and swept to the middle of the room. "Oh no!" I thought "They neglected to clean up this mess before the Museum opened up!" Nope! How wrong I was! A pile of garbage was in fact "brilliant" art, apparently.
Your video changed my mind on Felix Gonzalez-Torres and Piet Mondrian and I just saw their work in a new light Cy Twombly on the other end, I don't know I will be convinced from his work any day soon. Even after a vast amount of explanation, I've never been able to feel anything from his "work"
If someone believes that the statement "I can do that" means "That isn't art" they are doing themselves a massive disservice. You can do art! You just don't
Sometimes easy-looking things are deceptive. For the Jackson Pollock exhibition at MoMA in 1998, staff tried to reproduce some of his famous drips, as part of an educational display. They discovered that Pollock had his own distinctive moves, and recreating them was very difficult.
Stephen Persing I could be misunderstanding what they were trying to do, but I feel like that's just because his work was so disordered. Like from the second law of thermodynamics, disordered states are more probable because they can be composed of more microstates. Just because it's hard to splatter paint on the canvas in the exact same way doesn't mean it was hard to do in the first place.
They found that he had particular motions, like a pitcher's in baseball. Spattering alone is not hard - other artists have done it - but spattering doesn't automatically make it a Pollock.
Interesting, I guess that shows that not anyone could do it. But does his particular motion add any value to the art besides monetary value? (I'm asking sincerely.)
wolverinenerdfighter That's a really good question, and I wish I knew the answer. He saw something in these movements that made him repeat them, so they had value to him. Other than that, I'm not sure.
+Stephen Persing As an artist, you'll always have something that becomes 'your trademark method'. I compose neoclassical music and - guess what - often enough when I'm just mindlessl writing down music, it tends to resemble my other works (without doing it on purpose). This does NOT add any value at all to my work - but rather makes it distinctively MY work. Art to me is more aesthetic than conceptual - if something is not in some way pleasant to look at, why would you?
People, in general, want to view art on their own terms. When they are confronted with something they don't understand or don't try and understand they become angry. They feel they and they alone are the one who should judge the value of art, and that is true, but only for them.
when people says "I Could Do That" they just see it as a work of 0 effort, 0 skill, lazy presentation, they can't see the beauty in it & it's true, you can't blame them, you create that kind of art for yourself not for people to enjoy.
Yeah yeah...but the perceived value of modern art is basically all about who last paid what for it, who says its good (their social status in the art world) and the venue where it is displayed/hanging, in any order. Which boils down to circumstantial the luck and right connections.
I think you mean monetary value, it's really not at all the art that's expensive that people who are actually into art like. One of my favourite pieces is the sky from Mario 3, that thing also can't become a high value piece because it's literally just software that also is already copyrighted.
I once went to an art gallery with a friend who was generally very critical of modern art. It was a gallery where anybody could reserve a square on the wall and create a work of art on it. Most of it was done by professional artists who wanted to help support the gallery. My friend saw this on the wall and said "I could do that" hallspacedrawingproject.tumblr.com/post/95411429339/bill-flynn-illusions-sold So I told him he should, and after much convincing he reserved a space, bought the materials, and made this: hallspacedrawingproject.tumblr.com/post/98652039139/kevin-cannon-poorly-delivered-sarcasm Now he doesn't say "I could do that" quite as often when he looks at modern art.
I hate that some people think about art as "pretty paintings" and nothing else. In my opinion, art isn't about skill, it's about expression, skill is just what's required to express something more accurately
Who wouldn't want to get rich and famous by just hanging a blank canvas on the wall? You have to hand it to these "artists" ,they really know how to milk idiots out of their money!
The way I see it, and I have also shared the same "i could do that" thought a few times before myself, is that ART is about creating, and not only replicating. Therefore, me saying that i can replicate someone else's original idea does not make me an artist but a rather skilled copycat. And i believe this is where the true meaning/nature of art exists, in the creation of an idea, in the newfound form of expressing a thought or looking at something that the rest of us kept seeing as not noteworthy.
it's basically the understanding of the artist that makes all the difference. it's getting to know the artist and his or her intent, mentality, inspirations, passions, obsessions, etc. without that, a scribble is just a scribble. understanding the reasoning behind it, is what sets the work apart and ultimately determines whether or not it will be deemed a piece of art.
I think that in this case we will not value de painting itself, but its history or context So, if it wasn't in that context it wouldn't had that importance or value.
1:07 okay, but see, this is just why the rest of the world is so quick to roll their eyes at artist-types like us. You zoomed in to this painting and said “take a closer look: the quality and character of his line work is astounding; the restrained use of color is exquisite” and then jumped to the next point. I can’t assess offhand what’s special about that scribble, it really looks like a crayon scribble. It would have been infinitely more helpful in arguing the point if you had taken a bit more time to explain what you mean when you say that. How you define “quality” and “character” of lines or what makes the color choices “exquisite”- “showing your work”, so to speak, so that everyone understands and feels included and really learns something. You said just enough to make yourself appear smart but not enough to educate the audience. If this had been part of the vid that moves past pure technical skill, that would be different because the meaning could maybe lie elsewhere. It’s just frustrating that we’re supposed to assume that there IS a high level of skill in front of us, and we’re almost shown why, but if it’s not explained it just ... feels like being teased.
Thank you so much, this is exactly what I felt at this point of the video and was thinking “huh? I still don’t get it.” I then proceeded to look into Cy Twombly’s work and legacy, and honestly, months later I’m still not sure what makes his mark making so “masterful”.
exactly... wt i think people are misguided by perfectness of sumthing to art... to draw sumthing perfectly is diffrent. n to draw wt u feel at tht time... n wt ur mind is telling u or wt u see...is real art.
I say "I could do that", because I REALLY COULD, and it often drives me to try new things in art. I'm a young artist, and I'm thinking of going into the arts when I grow up.
I think the purpose of art is to convey a message. That message can be a thought, and idea, an emotion, a feeling, or even the induction of bodily reaction, like nausea, or arousal. The thing is, when an art piece fails to fulfill the purpose of delivering that message, it fails being art. Sure, you can ask the artist, in which case these kinda art pieces are IMMENSELY powerful tools of communication, but that artist won't always be there. They might have other business, their audience might be too big to answer everyone's question, or they might just be dead. For something to be art, its message has to be interpretable regardless of its complexity, at any given time of the art piece's existance. These superduper abstract things fail to be art right in the moment you remove the little explanation placquette from next to them.
+The Art Assignment Beck A., I'm really glad you pushed on this question! You are right, we art folk often give very unsatisfactory short answers. Sarah, though, when asked to explain more fully, came through aces. In my opinion, anyway.
You use so many emotive adjectives like "amazing" and "exquisite". It's still scribbles, even if something convinced you they are so wonderful. Prove your point, with facts.
Art is more than the technique, implements, skill The artist is transmitting their state of being, emotional state or state of mind. Art can open you to new, foreign or old states of being, emotion, understanding.
Hey I wanted to thank you guys for using that specific picture as your thumbnail. I have the same condition as the man in the picture and struggle with being open about it and accepting. Seeing the thumbnail made me feel better somehow. Thank you :)
+ljmasternoob Right on. I have a tote bag with art by Lawrence Weiner on it that says: "LEARN TO READ ART." I find that to be a really helpful way to think about art education.
The Art Assignment I realize this isn't exactly what the Art Assignment does, but I would really appreciate a series of videos that examine some famous works of art (with more of a focus on modern works) and explains what makes them remarkable. I confess that I am one of those people who finds themselves thinking, 'I could do that', and this video really made me examine that statement. I find it very easy to see what is beautiful about Renoir or Monet, but struggle to see the beauty or value (not quite the right word) in something like Rothko's Untitled (Green on Maroon). I would really love it if you could do a series on "modern art 101" or something similar to help people like me not be as ignorant. Thank you for reading this! DFTBA
Ok : the chapelle sixtine represents all kinds of Christian imagery,depictions of Adam & God,etc... Manzoni put his feces in a box. (Thats not a lot of words)
WOW. Truly EYE-OPENING!! I had previously been convinced, if only partially, that certain art is about the process more than the end product, and it helped me appreciate more art, but still not all of it.. Now I understand so much better that it can be about the effect it has, the context of the time period or the artist, people's reaction or interaction with the art. Thank you!!
There was a story told, quite famous now, about Jackson Pollock in his heyday: Stan Brakhage was visiting Pollock at his studio, and talked to Pollock about the wonder of the "chance operations" of Pollock's art. 'This really angered Pollock very deeply and he said, "Don't give me any of your 'chance operations.'" He said, "You see that doorknob?" and there was a doorknob about fifty feet from where he was sitting that was, in fact, the door that everyone was going to have to exit. Drunk as he was, he just with one swirl of his brush picked up a glob of paint, hurled it, and hit that doorknob smack-on with very little paint over the edges. And then he said, "And that's the way out."' -- Stan Brakhage's words. It's like that. You can call the lines random all you like, but that artist knew where _every_ line went, and they went there with a purpose. That artist created a complex composition, creating movement and depth with lines and planes. That painting utilised texture, colour, and composition to create a viscerally moving work of art. Don't ignore that, and don't discount that work's ability to move, to emote, without having seen it or given it some genuine consideration. And don't let a lack of representation affect how you view a work of art.
benzo boi no that’s not right, go ahead, try. I’m an art student in Paris and at first I had the same mindset, I was triggered when I saw simple art being celebrated, but when I tried to do it even tho I have a talent and I’m very good in art, I still couldn’t do it. You don’t have to know how to draw to be an artist, art is so open, you just have to be invested in it and have an idea. (That idea can be not having an idea”
I’ve been painting for 15 years. Here is my progression: 1-5 years: “Abstract art is trash, realism is the only way to show skill.” 6-10 years: “Abstract art should only be attempted after rigorous academic studies of realism.” 15 years: “Abstract art is cool, everyone should try this.”
Very pertinent subject and amazing explanation. I really don't see why people are being so dismissive here, I didn't see a single comment effectively attacking the arguments made on the video. How hard is it to understand that art isn't about skill alone (or even at all), but about meaning?
"the quality and character of his line work is astounding"... really? I think you need to branch out and look for some better benchmarks... so easily impressed... I'll offer my thoughts, feel free to discard them, this is the internet after all. A person who is involved in these kinds of art spheres is surrounded by peers and a culture which insist on others conforming to their rules. They do not conform knowingly, i think it happens in the following way. The person will think, everyone I associate with tells me that the line work is exquisite, I don't see it, but If i'm the only one who says it's rubbish, I will be ostracised. Over time, once firmly entrenched withing the group, that sentiment begins to change to, we all understand something that others can't because we see something deeper within the work that others don't. This thought process is a rationalisation known and documented by modern psychological science which involves the human brain constructing narratives designed to alleviate cognitive dissonance; an experience which arises when someones understanding of reality conflicts with their social, religious, cultural, or ideological beliefs about reality. The individual is forced to either change their belief, or construct some kind of emotionally satisfying narrative or explanation to maintain the belief and adopt it into their understanding of reality. These artistic movements are important, they had to happen to allow more freedom of expression, but that time has passed and it has become more of an authoritarian regime. Modern art is now the Amway of art, an abusive business model dressed up like a wonderful product. The fact is that there are a lot of reputations on the line, if we were all to be honest and call a spade a spade, we could agree that the line work in that painting is very shitty, but what does that mean for the whole establishment? Are the hundreds of critics, curators, and most importantly, the rich people who they extracted huge sums of money from for this painting, all just a bunch of idiots? did they buy into the marketing campaign? drink the coolaid? Abstract and modern art deserves to exist, it is a valid form of expression, but think carefully before taking that next step towards validating it's technical prowess if it isn't actually present. Just accept it for what it is, a big middle finger to those who try to say it is worthless, or try to put a box around art and tell you that you can only play inside it. If you attach undue labels like "astounding" to shitty lines, not only do you misunderstand the art, you expose your bias to anyone who is standing outside of your artistic sphere of peer pressure and conformist ideas. It's the emperor's new clothes,, and you see a beautiful garment.
I agree... Hell, they should probably try checking out the mangaka of Berserker if they want some serious line work analysis to do. Yeah, it's hatch and cross-hatch shading, but all hatching is small lines being bunched together or drawn apart to display values. Would seriously use graphic novels and manga for line work studies rather than a painting with 3 crayons and a colored pencil that uses the same technique as a 3 year old being asked to draw anger as it feels, not how it looks.
So disappointed in myself for reading through all the garbage you wrote. That line really is impressive, use oil paints and recreate it and upload it with a time stamp and send a link to prove otherwise
I said "I could do that" about photography a few years ago, and turns out I couldnt but really enjoyed the process so now I'm learning to be a better photographer
The incredible thing is, odds are there are many who could never photograph exactly like you. In my first college photography class one of our tasks to help develop a knowledge of our equipment and lighting was to all take pictures of objects around the room. Even though we were all photographing the same subject, we all pretty much had our own way of doing so; the way our bodies moved to capture what we each though was the perfect angle, how we each perceived the perfect amount of light, what we each decided the iso and aperture should be, etc. The professor showed a lot of our photos next to each other and they were all similar, but no two were identical. No matter what we photograph, even if it's the same subject, no two people will take the exact same picture. There are too many variables to do so. The biggest of which is how you see the world and how you want others to view it.
As someone who was a self trained photographer and then went back to University later in life to study it (Photojournalism and Documentary Photography), I have a profound respect of the idea of a project, rather than seeing the physical manifestation of it. I'm now working on multiple exposure and developing the idea further (8 years so far)
The good thing is that you're learning (like we all do) - the idea someone plateaus later in life in the desire of knowledge now seems absurd to myself. Life is learning.
(I used to be one of those "I could do that" type of person)
Good luck with your visual journey!
photography is extremely tricky, it's a lot more than a click of a shutter button. i hope your journey with photography is improving and that you're loving it!
People are dumb and stupid . I be , pissed whoever said that shit !
Learning how to do something helps you appreciate what it takes to make art, and deepens your understanding of it.
I could make this video.
lol
John Fullmer Comment of the century
I could make that comment.
ThunderPunch23 i could make that comment
Mister McCool face i could make that reply
What's funny is when I think, "I could do that." What I'm actually saying to myself is, "I should try that." Seeing other pieces of work encurages me to try different art styles if I want to attempt to execute a similar feel. Just with my own twist.
Yeah, some conceptual art has actually inspired me to try painting, which might be weird because a lot of conceptual art doesn't involve painting but it was more about how those artists sent messages in their art that inspired me to try something similar but with what I'm familiar with.
What inspires me more is finding a painting that would make me say, "Wow, I wish I could do that!"
Definitely refreshing perspective about art. I would have never thought that modern art was intentionally "deskilling" to focus on the meaningful execution of ideas behind the piece of art. But I still feel that iconic works of traditional forms of art just has that special unexplainable feeling that I find very attractive.
Some art "looks," like if one could do that . Abstract mostly ..
"Art is what you can get away with." Andy Warhol.
The problem is that that answer really doesn't help us to answer the question "what should we let people get away with?"
I've been saying Warhol was a precursor to Trump in a lot of ways...
Warhol was a hack though who said that to legitimatize his on stuff
Warhol's real love was for classical art. He fooled everyone - he did get away with it!
@@guzzopinc1646 with all do respect, how so?
"This art doesnt show the artist's technical skills but does show their mastery In public relation by tricking art collectors into thinking it has value"
as an art dealer, for some paintings, that's exactly how this works..
Yes, you understood the message of the video /s
Fragenzeichenplatte lmaoo honestly i think he just commented this without watching the fkng video at all
@@madelineella5731 nah what they wrote was pretty spot on actually. Everyone can draw scribbles like an infant, only few of those are lucky enough to have their scribbles worth be in millions
Man, I remember, over a decade ago, when my art teacher told us students to paint a picture on an A3 sheet for homework. It could be any picture as long as you were inspired by the works of any painter. So, I spotted a painting on the back of a Reader's Digest magazine. It was a red square with a thin white strip in the middle - I can't remember the name. Anyway, I decided to paint a blue square with a thin black strip in the middle. It was a last minute thing. Other students made paintings of themselves and still life in cubist form, abstract form and whatever but I can't be bothered. Anyway, everyone received their graded homework the next lesson and of course I got an F. I couldn't be bothered. But, there was a "See me." So, I went to see her, she was furious and called me "lazy," which was probably true but I'd like to think of myself as "efficient" as I completed the homework in a few minutes. She tried to embarrass me in front of the other students but I wasn't intimidated. I dug out the small magazine, turned it over and showed her and everyone the painting, then called her a "hypocrite." Silence. I returned to my seat and never got a retort, let alone a punishment. I never got an excellent grade in the subject either but I did not fail.
Moral of the story - Yes, you could actually replicate the artwork you see but you may not get the same positive response even if the responders are ignorant of the original work simply because you are nobody. Even if the work you generate is original, people will always put you down, especially your teachers who will always say something like "it's too simple." At least, that is how things are for me. You have to be somebody first, for example, you could be an obsequious student - that could be a starting point.
+Buenomars I'm not sure that's the moral of the story. As a teacher, I'd say the moral is to be careful how you word an assignment, because saying "you can paint any picture" is too general. As a teacher, you need to know that students will always find loopholes to get out of doing homework. As a student who wants good grades, the moral is to learn how to read between the lines, and give your teacher what he or she wants to get that good grade. As a student who doesn't care so much about grades (just a letter on a piece of paper) as about learning, the moral is to open up to new ideas, and take the teacher's lesson to heart, challenging yourself with a harder subject and getting more out of it. Your teacher wasn't wrong to complain about your work, she just should've given more directions from the start. It takes a great deal of time to make a decent artwork. When artists talk about efficiency, they're not looking at a clock, they're counting brush strokes.
Picasso was never that minimalist.
" obsequious" .... I don't think that word means what you think it means. Pretty sure you meant "obnoxious"?
lmao that class would of loved to of seen the teachers expression
Yes Im sure this happened Buenomars
For me, looking at art and getting the feeling that I could do it myself is an AWESOME feeling. It's not an attempt to tear down what an artist did, which is a way I've heard other people reacting sometimes - it inspires and fuels my own creativity. Like you mentioned, art is not always about technical skill, and I tend to get in my own way sometimes when I worry that I am not skilled enough to create something. Art like that makes me want to make something again. It reminds me that the effort that goes in and the thought behind a piece is just as important as how the finished product turns out.
Lauren Fairweather I actually thought of you when I was watching this video, and other youtubers who make videos where in they basically tell people "You can do this!" By teaching them how to make something. Is crafting art? I would say yes, but in a more abstract way as crafting is more of a... well... craft! What you do takes skill, as both an artist and a teacher, and is therefore art. Being able to replicate something doesn't necessarily devalue it. In the case of your crafts, and your video's I'd say it only adds value to it. Because while I could do that, I couldn't have done it without being taught how, or being given the idea by you! (and many other youtubers, but I make plushies now and that is 100% your fault.)
Yeah, but why would you want to replicate such empty, boring, pretentious garbage?
“Freaking amazing scribbles” why are they freaking amazing? Crickets….😂. Like every single other profession Artists use to need technical skills to be at the top. Actually not every profession requires skill abstract artists ,like Pollock, are exactly like politicians. You can lack any kind of skill in either profession but still be successful if you’re friends of the wealthy. Today there are absolutely no qualifications to be a “master artist” other than being accepted by the rich.
@@kev3dwhat is garbage to u is precious to someone else..
Prob with ur kind is that u only bark but never do anything creative
I was standing and staring at the dog shit on the street, couldn't believe how many people just walked by and ignored that masterpiece.
The thing is, what's annoying is when I say "I could do that" and the answer is "but you didn't" the problem is that if I did do it, it would sit in my house or something, but because someone who did do it is already established it ends up in MOMA or something.
Like it's something that if I did, i'd get like 12 notes on tumblr, but b/c they did it, it's in MOMA
A sheet hanging from 3 places, a white wall that has a title of "this wall is painted by a single bb gun shot" which actually wasn't, or another example. That douchebag that steals people's instagram photos that he comments on and sales them for like $10k or something.
Like, last time I was at MOMA I thought a lot about this, like thought critically on it, not just "oh, I could do that" and stopped.
and to be clear, I'm not being judgy of the ones I could do (except for the asshole who steals instagram photos, I totally judge him), like this is just me thinking about them, not being like "oh, that sucks, i could do it"
but I guess I am judging the people that make the decision to put it in the museum, but also not in a "they're dumb" way, but more in a "this system is set up in a way i'm not sure about"
jag519 I agree. feel like it's kind of like politics, especially national politics like the presidency. Like, yeah the people who are elected probably have some good ideas (or at least ideas that a lot of people think are good), but not anyone with those ideas could run and win. You usually have to have a lot of resources and already be well known.
+jag519 these people can't sell paintings outside of government funding.
Art, as mentioned in the video, is not always about skill. Sometimes it's more about social commentary or protest. Never mind the critics: do research about the context and the reasons why an artist did what, and if it resonates with you, then that's all that matters. Art doesn't need to be in a museum to be art, and many artists become established because they devote their lives to their art and philosophy. You cannot do one piece with no philosophical content whatsoever and expect to become a recognized artist. I have been drawing for the good part of 20 years now, but I don't consider myself an artist because I just do it for fun.
Katya Hernández That is a pretty helpful explanation, thanks.
The one thing I disagree with is that you still make art, so you are an artist. Yeah, you do it for fun and stuff, but yeah, you've got 20 years of practice, pretty sure that means you're an artist, even if you're not making museum pieces and stuff. haha
"his battery lasted a little bit longer" hhnnngg *feels
Who else found this video incredibly unconvincing? What's more inspiring is finding a painting that makes you say, "Wow, I wish I could do that!" or "How did they do that?"
That maybe what you think is inspiring, but that doesn't mean that other people feel the same.
I totally agree, when I was at the Seattle Art Museum looking at their flesh and blood exhibition, the one with paintings from the old masters . It was more breath taking to see the things I aspire to be able to do, rather when I was looking at the more simplistic work they have elsewhere within the museum
"the quality and character of his line work is astounding" ... is it? What makes it so good? Why is it masterful or "fricking amazing scribbles"? You're clearly very passionate and I love that, but I'm really trying to learn here and this sort of answer isn't helping.
I'll tell you. Because the way things are at the moment there are people who make big money from this. If you don't praise it then it might fall apart and you lose the moneymaking machine. They're desperate to even convince themselves
It's just hollow words to describe a hollow painting.
There is a sense of mastery in lines ya twit , its honestly a thing there is difference in how artsit use lines , you should be able to pick up on it in the individual's work , lines can show expression , his ability is in the way he can actually do that , there is a taught process behind that. Its not just a scribblebs ....its scribbles with expression , by a master who had learned the ability to make his lines express more and have more feeling.
he's freaking cy twombly, please read thephilosophersmail.com/perspective/the-great-artists-cy-twombly/
Y'all are so sad and cynical. Ike she said, if it's that easy, try and do it yourself.
no one:
me: crying about the clock analogy because i'm on my period
Hey, I cried too :)
I really thought that was an incredible idea, simple and elegant but with so much meaning and power.
This might be the first "Nobody:" comment I've seen that actually uses the template correctly
I'm gay and I cried too!
Yes, I am heart break right now!
"There are a lot of know-nothing boobs who don't think very much of modern art.
I know this is true because I'm one of them." - Andy Rooney
Rip Andy Rooney. Miss him.
Those two clocks just sent shivers down my spine when you revealed the story behind them. Beautiful.
Yes, the story did. The art, no.
This reminds me of the episode of Adam Ruins Everything where they highlighted a study in which they gave wine connoisseurs two glasses of the same white wine, but one was dyed red. The subjects went on and on about the differences between the "red" and white wine. I feel like there is a strong parallel between that and paintings in a gallery. Is it art in the context of the gallery because that is where you expect to see art? You attribute all of these qualities to the piece that may or may not have been intended by the artist. Not much on the canvas? They showed restraint. Canvas flooded? They showed passion and emotion. Ultimately art is whatever it evokes from you, but to say that some of these paint splatter or scribble pieces that end up there are much harder to create than they look seems a bit foolish to me. People will find what they want to in an abstract piece. I feel that art critics, much like the wine connoisseurs, could easily praise a piece that was made by someone with no "artistic ability" if they thought it came from someone special.
But that is the nice thing about abstract art. Tells the beholder a lot about themselves. Like a Rorschach test. Color and line speaking to a simpler portion of our brains allowing us a conduit to look inward. Or to use a less poetical example, a comedian telling an anecdote that is broad enough for several people to have experience of BUT the version of that anecdote are unique to each individual person in the audience. There's always gonna be shysters in everything. But the nice thing about abstract art is that the audience is what makes it special not the artist(practically speaking, the audience's intellectual participation is vital). That's probably why there are more modern artists that troll. "lol you thought them glasses on the floor were some big deep thing that if you understand your better than everyone else but really i want you to stop getting too big for your britches 'cause they just glasses."
Wow, I hadn't even thought about that. Good point!
I mean, yeah, that's true. What Adam Ruins Everything was saying though (I reckon) is that you don't need a wine snob to /tell/ you that that wine is good. It's your own judgment. In the same way that art is subjective, and you don't NEED an art critic to tell you that art is meaningful, but it's also your choice to believe them.
Matthew S ....Quite right. An art teacher showed his class what he said was a Jackson Pollock painting.
They went on about the effective use of color, line etc.
Then he revealed that the “Pollock” was a close up of his painting apron!
@Betsy Lee Precisely why I love abstract art so much! Well said!
Imagine the following: "Beethoven is far superior in technical skill than Nirvana so Nirvana aren't real artists".
This is obviously false. There is a different aesthetic that cannot be achieved in the same way as the other. Just because something is simpler does not make it less valuable. It depends on individual taste and if the work is cohesive.
Did somebody actually say that?
Yep. There are a bunch of people in the comment section making the argument that works of art which are easier to do (when it comes to technical skill) are deserving of less respect.
mossy1 It's not simple learning how to incorporate thematic transformation, leitmotifs, codas, and various other musical techniques. First you have to comprehend them and that can take a lifetime
Agreed. :)
For a lot of modern art it is more like beethoven is far superior to a fart autotuned by a phone (and the promise that there is deep meaning to it).
Plenty of scatological garbage selling for fortunes.
The thing is that a lot of the people promoting this stuff are former brokers and stock sellers which found much easier to inflate the price of something controversial (there is no such a thing as bad publicity attitude) than of the art of a skilled painter. A very skilled painter also might make only 4 or 5 paintings every year but a modern artist can made hundreds, if you can convince people that those are worth 50.000$ each it's more profitable to promote a modern artist than a classic one.
often when someone says "i could do that" about a piece of art that doesn't demonstrate "skill" to them, they also feel like the piece ALSO doesn't have any communicable meaning to them. I know how to operate a camera (and often do), for example, but powerful photos are still meaningful because they communicate an emotion or some meaning. a piece of abstract art that appears to just be scribbles doesn't always communicate much and it is unfair to expect the viewer to always know the context of the art out of the blue. i think art should be able to stand on it's own, regardless of context (though it can be enhanced by understanding the circumstances in which it was created), and part of that art is, as Tolstoy says, communication of meaning.
readcomplain !!!
readcomplain Tolstoy’s essays on art. Great material.
There's a big problem here. You're assuming that the communication of meaning has to happen in a vacuum, devoid of all context. The context in which a piece is made dramatically changes its capacity to communicate meaning.
That art could stand on it's own, regardless of context.... I think this was one of the answers I have been trying to find about my doubts of what I consider good art.
Chok1 almost no art does though. You need context to appreciate most art I would argue. A portrait of a great monarch means nothing if you think it’s just a picture of a guy in a silly costume, Starry Night is just a blurry landscape, the Last Supper is a dude and his friends eating at a table weirdly.
Some art won’t connect with you and that’s okay. But I don’t think it’s okay to say that the art in question is lesser, or other people are wrong to connect with it or value it.
guys, nat geo made a doc on modern art, they gave a chimp some paint and a canvas, then showed it to an art critic, and the woman kept guessing artists names and they told her it was a chimp, and she was like "...oh, right"
so yeah, this is a load of tosh
Jimmy Hendarta i have no clue dude, i don't even know for sure if it was national geographic :|
+Kavi Gosai haha
+Jimmy Hendarta Look up Pierre Brassau.
If you paid attention to the video you'd know that context is everything. You can admire the chimp painting as well.. but it means something completely different when done by a human than a chimp... again its because of context. Technical skill is nice but its just craft. I'm actually a realist painter but realistic painting often doesn't serve the feeling or expression I want to convey. Its just like simple rock and roll vs Beethoven. Its an aesthetic.
Reductio ad absurdum: following the logic in this video, let’s appreciate how my child felt in time out during school which prompted him to take up the crayons and draw on the wall while contemplating his actions. Art. Your welcome. $100000 for this art installation.
No matter how much these idiots try to persuade us, these shitty abstract “artworks” lack any visible effort, and stir no feeling of love or interest within the viewer towards that artwork.
Art like this only holds influence because people like this woman help to endorse it. I identify as an artist myself and would never hold these pieces with esteem.
Art holds influence because people give it merit yes, that's not news and does not prove such works of art aren't valuable. Technical art holds influence because people give value to technique. This value is by no means objective, painting a perfect recreation of what's in front of you for example is a technical feat, but merely copying is something that can be done by a camera, making it much less valuabe in a sense that it does not add a narrative or an expression. That is not to say simple copying is bad, but just to paint a picture on how subjective the value of such art really is.
@Derek Cunningham I've always wondered what artists think about other artists' works... Also, may I ask what do you think the next art movement/style would be?
One of my favorite parts about this series is the explanations and analysis. I don't really naturally have the eye to look at a piece snd see all the nuances, but im very susceptible to them once ive heard it, so hearing the artists talk often opens my eyes to new ideas. That makes videos like these so much more meaningful to me, it helps me make my experience of looking at art go from trying to get out quickly, to understanding more about the piece itself.
“They’re freakin amazing scribbles!”
Translated: I have no way of explaining why these lines are significant, but I was told they are important, so I believe it.
can you explain why they are not freaking amazing?
@@SlushyOrangutan he didnt make that claim, the onus is on her to justify hers.
"They are freaking amazing because if I disagree I lose my freaking job okay? I got bills to pay, man! "
she went into a little detail about how his control of the materials and colours are masterful but she wasnt going to spend the whole video simply talking about him because the question was asking about Gonzalez instead. like literally think for five seconds before typing something.
This is by far the best "explanation" on contemporary art I've heard in my life, being a Fine Arts student for years. Clear, concise and most of all, accurate. Thank you!
Artist: *Shits on ground*
Me: "WTF!! Well i could do that!"
This Video: "No you can't and you did not! You should ask why he/she did it!!"
Me: *calls 911*
Noobkin you would not be original Piero Manzoni already did that, canned it sold it in 1961. Tape an apple to a light post and eat it...that’s almost been done
One of my favorite movements in art was German Expressionist painting and film of the early 20th century. It moved from realistic or naturalistic representation to expressing what lay beneath and how the world is perceived through emotion and a psychological reaction to human experience.
I want art that possesses the ability to move, inspire or impress me regardless of who’s name is attached to it. I want the work the be as equally worth admiration when the piece is anonymous as when it’s creator is credited. Context can contribute, but I am tired of art that is propped up by who made it rather than what they made. Being able to be in awe of a piece without the art world telling me I should because of who did it is and has always been my standard. Often times that means technical skill, but also a great usage of color, composition, form, framing, or subject can supplement or even replace the need for great talent. Forget who made it, let’s just appreciate whether a piece is good on its own or not.
You said what's been bugging me for years
"Can I do that?" is always my favorite question.
Actually to make straight lines you can use tape to get rid of excess paint.
And use white-out too
If you refer to the Mondrian work, he literally couldn't use tape, it wasn't available then! Only later as he moved to America, where it started to become available outside of industrial use, did he discover it, and he started making compositions with that stuff instead. But I'm sure you don't really care, you just wanted to dismiss the guy
@@jakobvanklinken I'm sure the artist could afford a roll of tape. Do you know how much those paintings sell for? Even if he only sold 1 painting, that's more then enough enough to buy a roll of tape. Paintings like that are worth millions., and tape only cost a dollar or 2.
@@pawpatrolnews are you trolling? As I said, it wasn't available to him - tape wasn't such a common thing in 1920s Europe
Jakob van Klinken having a thoughtful exchange about art on UA-cam, I don’t know if that’s going to work. I think it’s crazy though that I can’t tell if the guy is trolling or just extremely dumb.
It is significative when the concept of beauty isn't mentioned in a talk about art. If I am not mistaken, not even a word. Wow
art is like a closed cave with artists in it scratching the walls making it bigger day by day. a new artist might go to the edge of the room and say: its easy to stand here not realizing that it took hard work before to get to that spot because there was stone before.
Of course, everybody can do Artworks. The difficult thing is to be successful...
And that part doesn't even relay on the artist or his skills.
Even if I did create these more "simplistic" art pieces, they wouldn't be worth millions of dollars, as these examples (probably) are. That's what really irks me about such scribbles, blotches of paint, lines, etc. -- they're displayed in famous art museums all over the world and garner praise for having "exquisite restraint" or "astounding linework." If I scribbled on a wall and had it displayed, I'm sure I'd get the complete opposite reaction.
I mean, maybe you could though. If you're scribbles on a wall we're actually an art project - if you sat down and really thought about what these scribbles mean, the colors, the lines, the message of the wall, and you went around to art galleries and stuff, you could probably find someone who looked at the art you made and felt something meaningful from it. Hell, if you took a bunch of scribbles that you made from randomly picking up some crayons, closing your eyes and moving the crayons over the canvas completely blidn to the sound of to a piece of music, and then repeated the process with a blank canvas, the same crayons and the same music, but still blind, and did that two or three times and displayed the differnt canvases, all created by teh same mechanical process with the random aspect of the crayon colors/the blindfold and title the three works "Tryptich in Crayon To Johhny Cash" or whatever, you could get someone to hang that in a gallery because guess what? You made a meaningful piece of art through a repeatable, mechanical process that expresses a concrete message about the world.
+Julia Revzin Heh, "thought about what those mean". Anyone can make up any sort of BS like "this scribble represents my internal struggle with alcoholism", and if enough people buy that BS, you've got art on your hands.
+thedman113 Exactly! I could crumple up a piece of paper, take a photo of it with a sepia filter or something and call it "nostalgia" and that's art! Now, that doesn't mean anyone would buy it, or like it but as long at it illicits some sort of emotional reaction, it's art. My definition of what constitutes art is basically "why does art need to be defined at all", so if someone flipped a cup upside down, surrounded it with duct tape, called it "Existentialism" and pronounced it art I would say "Okay. It's art." and then move on. I have no idea why people need art to have meaning outside the personal but they definitely do! Which is why we get all these debates about real or fake art or whatever.
+Julia Revzin Because if everything is art, then nothing is. It cheapens the term.
+thedman113 What do you consider art? Where do you draw the line? Is it the subject? Is it the technical skill? Is it the medium?
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm really interested. I've been involved in art for many years and I like to know where people draw the line.
So the piece of art that I've had the strongest emotional reaction to was "Mogamma (A Painting in Four Parts) (Part II)" by Julie Mehrutu that I saw at the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, which I might have dismissed otherwise had I not read its context and understood what such an abstract painting could mean. Initially all I could see was some architectural sketching that was overrun with a busy black massses of scribbling in various areas and a few colorful curved lines, but the metaphor she was conveying about the complexity of the relations between the movements of the Arab Spring were so visualized with what I had felt, that to me It was like I'd never seen a better visual representations for what it felt like. Point is that conveying of emotion is the reason I appreciate that piece so much, even if I could with my amateur drafting skills attempt something similar. We don't patronize Walt Whitman because how easy it is with our ability to read and write to reproduce one of his poems, it makes no sense to do the same with material or performance artists.
In general a lot of abstract art is about trying to convey emotions because it's a really difficult thing to directly convey an emotion. Sure you can use metaphor but a lot of artists really wanted to get at that core emotion with nothing in between.
Speaking as an artist, I have to disagree with a lot of what's brought up here. I think the "I could do that" statement is more insightful and piercing than I think is given credit. In the past, Great artists were treated like celebrities, both in and out of their times. Artists like Michelangelo, Bernini, Canova were treated as national treasures. They created magnificent works that were to be prized and championed beyond their lifetimes, but they also very importantly captured a beautiful thought in a beautiful frame. Both the idea and the Aesthetic were important because it in many ways redeems a culture and rescues it from its own ugliness. The chaos and tumult of the 15th Century Florentine Republic is given direction and new meaning, once the David and his careful rationality are put on display in the public square.
But for many artists today the beauty and care of the image is subperior to the idea involved. All of the value of the work is in the concept, and that concept has to be articulated, it has to be written or spoken. It has to be explained why a thing looks like it is, rather than the work speaking for itself. A properly executed painting, sculpture, etc that is worth remembering, and its artist worth lionizing, is one that has its own life and voice. And we need artists to go onto the frontiers and bring back that to the masses. But artists seem less interested in revivifying and reawakening our culture, and much more willing to mock and sneer at it. So why are we privileging them and their work as it becomes more contemptuous of Form, Beauty, and its audience and unyieldingly ugly and scatological. Saying "I could do that" in my mind is really asking, "Is the arts even worth preserving if this is what they come up with?"
I agree with you. For those so-called artists, if they could put shit there, why couldn't we say ""I could do that""? I believe the "I could do that"" statement is also our RIGHT to say and to challenge their work.
@@KaiL806
Don't just say it, then. Do it.
If you talk the talk, then walk the walk.
@@OGEdger Why not? That is my right to say, even in public. Also, either "DO IT" or "NOT" are both my right. Artists should be ready for critiques.
@@KaiL806 I absolutely agree. My previous comment never denied that you had the right to do that. I don't know what you're going off about.
@@OGEdgerYou said "Don't just say it, then. Do it". I meant why not, I just want to say it but not interested in doing it...Sorry for the ambiguous.
It's a comment I often get regarding my work. I work instinctually, attempting to achieve a state of 'flow', where my subconscious and conscious come together and I keep working until I feel that the piece is done. Then I hang it in my flat, and look at it now and again for a few weeks before either taking it back into the studio or photographing it for my website/IG for sale. I'm not saying someone couldn't make a painting that looked similar, but the process of copying and creating are very different. I liked this video btw- concise and to the point, unlike many commentators of art.
I agree, but I also find it incredibly hypocritical that the same people who pursue art that purposefully avoids traditional notions of beauty are often the first to lament that art is unappreciated in our society.
+deadeaded Exactly! if you talk in a made up gibberish language, don't be surprised if your message is lost.
+deadeaded Right. That is indeed hypocritical. Well, there's always going to be art that avoids traditional notion of beauty AND is not very good. And it's hard to realize that your work is not very good. But there's also the reality that good artwork gets made and is not properly acknowledged or celebrated. The art system, just like publishing and many other fields, isn't fair.
What frustrates me about _some_ art is that it is respected and valued because of the artist, the name is what matters.
They usually GOT to be "a name" for a reason though, soooo....
After watching this I went out and painted like Rothko and now it hangs in room for a while.
Some of us are experienced painters and we actually can do it.
Ps now the running joke in house is that this is the most expensive painting in house. I wait for these true art critics to buy it for few millions like they would have if it was a Rothko.
I like that story. I guess the difference is if you had come up with painting like Rothko before Rothko had that idea you might have been super successful, you never know. But the point is it was his idea first:)
@@phanders6236 if money is your idea of success then i MIGHT be successful too since i own a small company that sells software. Plan to sell the company and retire at some point of time.
As far as painting goes i do paint pretty good. I don't do rothko type of nonsense other than say once.
@@parthsavyasachi9348 I meant in other ways not just in terms of money (name recognition etc.).
@@phanders6236 I started to paint in oil in year 1989 so I guess over the years have learned to paint too.
Putting layers of paint is not something new here.
Once i stop working in software (in a year or two depending on partner company) painting will be full time thing then.
I really do not like someone saying that well you could not do it. If it was Titian or Rubens it would be different.
@@parthsavyasachi9348 Of course you can do it (I was not questioning your painting abilities) but the idea came from Rothko, that was my point.
It’s not about copying the art but about the idea behind the actual painting. I can copy artists, but when it comes to create a painting, that would take months and years before an idea hits me! That’s what an artist is, creator, inventor, and artist.
Then if the idea is the important thing why is the inability to convey it correctly ignored? If it's important wouldn't it being conveyed well be of the utmost importance? What are we to make of idea and it's importance from the fact that the transfer of the message via the art piece usually fails? And if the idea is the important thing once the idea is thought up and the value is in that, there is no need for the art piece, just a technical description of the idea, text. Thus the art piece is redundant or trash, because the value is in the idea.
If you look at the cycle of logic stemming from what you said and compare it with the results in these modern art pieces then we see that it's either the the idea is trash, not important enough to convey, or the artistic merit of the artist not good enough to convey it...and that's giving the creator the benefit of the doubt that all three aren't happening at the same time, which usually seems to be the case.
Some of top comments are really disrespectful and dismissive of modern art. Due to the fact that they don't understand it and is neither educated on it. This is an education channel and this is why I love it and subscribe to it. You shouldn't be on this channel if you can't make the due diligence to do your homework to make a legitimate argument of public comment.
This was wonderfully explained Sarah!! I especially liked when you said "it's not that these things don't take skill - they just take different kinds of skill." I personally think while high craftsmanship in art is admirable - the most powerful works are artworks that can drive ideas. And of course - ideas can be driven in many different ways - whether it's through high technical artistic skill, or simple, direct messages.
It takes skill to scribble like an idiot?
@@kev3d It certainly takes skill to so convincingly make yourself look like one like you just did.
Cy Twombly is like, the perfect artist to talk about in this context. The Felix Gonzalez-Torres example isn't so easy because once you learn the story behind his pieces, they becoming pretty obviously monumental. I once took a piece of candy from his "Portrait of Ross" and I will be able to recall that exact taste for a very long time knowing what it represents. Twombly doesn't have that kind of stuff. The answer to "what is this about" with his work is almost always "Feelings" and little else. I know that I like it, and that when I see it I'm always surprised in a way that I really like. Because they are scribbles. And they are fantastic scribbles. It's different from everything else around it because of those little scribbles that most artists would balk at using. They're fun and playful and engaging because of their context. After spending a day at a museum looking at really incredible craftsmen, it's really refreshing to see scribbles in there too.
Piet Mondriaan used tape to create hard lines
Have you ever tried to use tape with oil paint? Maybe it was better back in the day, but boy, trying to tape off any decent paint now is impossible.
so?
@@callumsutherland2954 I assume the masking tape is applied to dry canvas before oil paint goes near it, and the strip of tape is later removed after the paint has dried. That's not difficult; you're merely using straight adhesive to create a sharp edge of paint beside it.
@@eduardo_corrochio I'm not saying it's difficult to apply it, but trying to:
a) find a masking tape which won't bleed when used with oil paint;
b) find a paint texture which isn't too thick or too thin to work with the masking tape;
c) remove it without it tearing the tape or ruining your straight line;
d) remove it without speckling, lifting, or otherwise marring the paint (the necessary undercoats etc; the tape would never be on dry canvas, dried layers of paint but not dry canvas) beneath the tape; and
c) create a neat, deliberate composition while balancing all these practicalities -
well, it's damn difficult.
@@callumsutherland2954 Understood. I was simplifying it.
My reply whenever somebody says "I could do that" is "well, why don't you do that?". A lot of people answer with "I don't want to" "there's no point", which really sums up why the piece is significant in its own merit.
My key takeaway “this doesn’t display a remarkable amount of technical skill and that’s what I really look for in art”. That statement summed up my attitude to art. Never seen the appeal of modern art in the same way that I’ve never seen the appeal of industrial metal like Rammenstein, or the hip hop pop music of Nikki Minaj either. I guess the bigger question is who gets to decide what is and isn’t art? Funny how subjective questions of style and taste can become moral absolutes demanding absolute obedience.
Absolute obedience? What are you referring to?
Having a 6 year old son made me realise how the statement "I could do that" couldn't be farther from the truth. Take your kids' paintings, any simple "run of the mill" 4/6 year old splash of paint and try and do the same. Try and achieve the same simplicity, the same carelessness the same freedom, just try not to paint any thing. You are always drawn to making sense, to giving a direction to your brush or your pencil. Painting like a 5 year old is goddam difficult. Anybody who says "I could do that" actually never tried.
@Timothy Clark Then do it and prove to us that it is so simple as you claim, don't hide behind excuses like "most are also sensible enough to not do it." that's just a fucking bullshit excuse.
Also how the fuck do you think the art market functions to make a statement like that? Do you seriously think you'll be driving down the value of the really expensive art which basically is only that expensive because of speculation?
I used to teach art to children and from my observations most 4 - 6 year olds make amazing abstract art. Unfortunately, but the end of grade 1 or 2 it's gone. I don't know why and have often thought - man if you could keep that thing you had when you were 5 into adult years...
@@mard9802 Because children begin to organize their thoughts and want their art to more or less reflect the world they understand, they just lack the skill to execute with any accuracy. The "abstract" art made earlier isn't art at all, but the child finding delight in changing colors on paper. They are not expressing, they are experimenting. But pretentious adults try to assign meaning to what amounts to visual gibberish.
"I could do that." would be a fun Art Assignment. On second thought, every Art Assignment is an "I could do that".
that's the first time that I've heard compelling arguments in favor of modern art.
or maybe the first time that I cared to listen.
a lesson for today- don't stay in your bubble folks.
I really really like the motivation of creating works of art that will never be considered “trophies for the rich”.
Art seems to be the most common victim of the ‘I could do that’ line of thinking. Not many people read a book, watch a movie or listen to a song and immediately think ‘I could do that.’ And I think that’s because modern art has in many ways gone a little too far. I can appreciate certain pieces of modern art - when I first read about the two clocks I felt moved to tears even though I had never even seen the piece in person, that’s how beautiful the very idea of it was. But sometimes scribbles, even freaking amazing scribbles, are just that: scribbles.
They are scribbles to a lot of people but might mean something more to others. I personally love modern art that is super abstract and try to see beyond just the superficial, snobby "meh" reaction. The thing about art is that it is much more democratic now and more ideas can be explored.
@@phanders6236 see labelling other people's reactions to modern art as 'superficial', 'snobby' is part of the problem. It's dismissive and tends to alienate your potential audience without trying to help people understand *why* the artwork is special. I still don't know why this scribble gets more attention than any other scribble. To me (and to a lot of others) they just are scribbles. Yes, to some they might mean more than that, but I don't really feel anything when I see them other than a vague sense of confusion as to why it is displayed in a gallery in the first place. And I actually think art is in no way democratic, then or now. Who can really afford to be an artist in this day and age when student loans, hosing, unemployment and healthcare are genuine issues that we face everyday? Only a privileged few who either 'make it' or have a trust fund. And who can actually own these artworks? I certainly cannot afford any of it, and I bet a lot of others can't either. It's still elitist, except now you're also supposed to accept the inherent value of a scribble in the name of art.
@@prufrockj.a8532 With snobby I mean "Mozart was great but anything new is crap." It is often that argument that is used when discussing art. "These scribbles don't mean anything because they don't depict something that makes sense to me so therefore it is dumb. I don't get it so no one else should."
@@phanders6236 I actually don't think a lot of people see modern art in such a narrow way. Most people appreciate something about new art movements and those who truly care really do put in the effort to try and understand why an artwork is special. In my personal experience, most people who attend art galleries and have discussions about art aren't saying that art took a turn for the worse after the impressionist movement ended - they are trying to learn why one artwork is prized over another. Maybe my initial comment came off a tad dismissive about the overall merit of scribbles, but I do not hate all works of modern art. I just don't understand why this particular piece of art is given the opportunity to shine over others. What makes this better than all the other artworks that were not given the same amount of attention? Even you don't explain why you're defending the scribbles. And all the lady in the video has to say about it is that the scribbles are amazing. And that's fine. A thing can be amazing. But that does not necessarily mean it should be put in gallery where everyone is encouraged to admire it.
A really good book I read on photography (more so the artistic) was “why it does not have to be in focus” by Jackie Higgins. Admittedly there were many pieces in the book that left me asking the same question at first glance but the book is excellent at explaining the process and the thought behind the piece and the photos made perfect sense after and I left understanding why so many of them were considered works of art
This is an interesting video as I have little to no appreciation for most abstract work since it requires such a low technical skill to achieve. I do often say "I could do that" as I am an artist and I have more than enough technical skill and creativity to do so. The interesting aspect to me, as the host in the video showcased, was that the "why" is so important to her (and I assume many others) so that even the simplest creations are somehow relevant. To my mind, that's just the spin that the artist is putting on the piece. That spin is increasingly important when a piece of art is so simple and basic that it needs the story to bring it up to a perceived level of excellence that should be studied and admired. In summary, I plan to put together much more elaborate and interesting stories to help my own art be perceived as something more than it is. Maybe I'll become the next Pollock.
Maybe you will! I hope to see that one day. I just wonder why you're so automatically distrustful of the stories connected to these works that you decide to call it a "spin". That is as you say entirely in your mind so it seems weird to me that you use this to judge it.
What an interesting analysis you've had, i do hope you came to a point now two years later that is a bit closer to that goal you had 😁
As an abstract painter myself, im offended by you're lack of imagination. You may be highly technical in you're application of you're medium, even i appreciate technical ability, but too criticize another artists 🎨 imagination to explore a visual creation not based in our reality is backwards and not the thinking of a free thinker. The first one now will later be last...for the times they are a changing
Even the most elaborate and refined work of art is just a sign for your brain to interpret.
I am an EFL teacher in a country where art is not really important. One of the books I use, has an unit about art and most of the times students are so reluctant to talk about art, to even consider it! I have gotten this comment so many times, "teacher, that's not art... I could have done that." It makes me angry, because for me art is very meaningful. And I might not know much about it, but I think Art should make you feel something and that is what counts. I will show this video to my students next time I am teaching that unit... Hopefully they will open their minds to art, all kinds of art! :)
For me, this video,comments and opinions just raised more questions than answer any.
Like, what is art? What are the things that makes something an art?
Does it need any particular person(critics, appreciator, artist) to become "art"?
Is there a degree of difficulty(or easy-ness), materials, back story, etc. that makes something to the "artwork" category?
What separates a good art to mediocre ones?
What happens if we switched two abstract works hanging from a luxurious art show to a yard sale item?
**insert more questions here**
If art only comes down to perspective, doesn't that make these arguments become justifications/excuses to consider something an art.
Making 'everything is an art'. Or rather, 'nothing is an art'.
+Janus A I hear you. For me, studying art and thinking about art and experiencing art is all about asking questions. I find it productive and rewarding to think about these things, and that's part of the experience for me. I've been studying art or working in the arts for a number of years now, and my responses to the questions you pose have changed dramatically over the years and I suspect will continue to do so. Through The Art Assignment, we release weekly videos that tackles these questions piece by piece, artist by artist. It's my hope that after watching regularly, you might over time develop your own answers to those questions. You're completely right that one video can't do that. Thanks for watching.
+Janus A Art is a little tweeting bird in a meadow.
Art is a wreath of pretty flowers, which smells bad.
Ask Marcel Duchamp
> Like, what is art?
That's a question that there doesn't exist a solid answer to.
> Does it need any particular person(critics, appreciator, artist) to become "art"?
The point of a lot of 20th century art was to challenge that idea, to challenge the idea that any one group or class had a monopoly on defining art.
> Is there a degree of difficulty(or easy-ness), materials, back story, etc. that makes something to the "artwork" category?
Probably not but maybe.
> What separates a good art to mediocre ones?
Generally people prefer to more talk about interesting art vs boring one. It's usually more about what the art did and what historical significance it had rather than it being good, it can in fact be literal shit.
> What happens if we switched two abstract works hanging from a luxurious art show to a yard sale item?
You'd probably get arrested, but a lot of artists have basically done that and then learned that apparently art collectors will buy fucking anything.
> If art only comes down to perspective, doesn't that make these arguments become justifications/excuses to consider something an art.
Making 'everything is an art'. Or rather, 'nothing is an art'.
This is kinda the point of a lot of 20th century art, to assert that in some way everything we do is art and deserves appreciation. No matter what art would always be about perspective as being objective is literally impossible, the struggle in the last few centuries has mostly been about what perspective gets to be the dominant one. A lot of artists who became famous in the 20th century tried to argue the case that we should not only consider the perspective of the wealthy but also the every day man. The issue just is that money continues to dominate our world so that means that the wealthy in large part get to determine what is considered art. Hopefully one day we'll learn that monetary value is only that and should not be taken as a mark of anything else, think about how many speculator bubbles there have been from comic books to beanie babies, that's basically the situation art is in today but it's a speculator bubble for the ultra wealthy.
Skill, knowledge, experience, composition, color theory, technique, stroke, personality, meaning, power, detail, talent. It's not that hard to know what's art.
Great explanation. I still prefer art that displays technical capability, but I think I understand much better now.
You can definitely still see plenty of that.
I encountered my first real-life Felix Gonzalez-Torres piece today. It was "Untitled (L.A.)," and I hadn't been expecting it in the museum I was visiting at all. Apparently it's a new acquisition of theirs. But when I saw it, read the wall label, and then participated by taking one of the pieces of candy (which was delicious), I was overcome. It was an incredibly unique emotional experience with art, one that I don't think I've ever felt before. Something like a mix of sorrow and awe and gratitude. I felt a real connection to Gonzalez-Torres, and to all of the other people contributing to his work.
Every time I see someone looking at masterpieces and say they can do the same, I’d just ask them do it then as expected, they always failed. So lesson learned is, every time I heard someone say that again I’ll try every way to kick them out.
I love art. I love the expression of ideas. But art requires at least one of two things, at least in my opinion. It either needs to be fascinating to look at, or communicate an important message. The former can exist on its own, but the latter must have the former to be effective. Maybe some of those minimalistic pieces required a lot of technical skill, but... they look like NOTHING. They aren't interesting, they aren't beautiful. The squares one just looks like mismatched bathroom tiling.
As much as I want to understand it, I just don't. And as for the scribbles one, I really fail to see how that requires any skill... I don't care what the message is in a lot of those pieces. As long as they fail to hold the attention of general audiences, then they aren't "good" art. If you need to be a snob to "get it", then it stops becoming a tool for the people and instead becomes a way for snobs to wank each other off.
Maybe it would help if you considered that what you find fascinating or beautiful is completely subjective- defining art as something that has technical skill or is just something you personally like isn’t really that helpful bc obviously people find different things pretty or interesting! Or that different contexts and messages resonate differently-just because you don’t care about the message doesn’t mean others wont care. Not everything has to appeal to the ‘general audience’ and not everything has to appeal to you- I get how sometimes it can feel frustrating when someone expects you to find enjoyment or some greater purpose in a piece you just don’t like (bc it’s rude) but it is also a little rude to say that the enjoyment someone else got out of it doesn’t matter because you don’t personally see the point
The incredulous statement "I could do that..." should be changed to "I could do that!"
If you really think you have the means to do it, then maybe you should. It'll be a good learning opportunity with you either completing a thing or coming to the conclusion of "Wow, that was harder than I thought. I appreciate this more than I did before."
Art is not merely making the thing because you can make a thing; that's just killing time. It's asking questions about that thing and the relationship to the environment.
Also y'know we'd probably all be better off if we spent a little more time developing our creative skills. You might not end up doing that same thing but it can hopefully inspire you to do something.
This channel has helped me appreciate art..And I never thought I would really understand art..So thank you
I watched this video this morning, and I've been thinking about it all day. I've never disregarded modern art, but kinda thought it was 'half-art', like creativity without the skill, which are equal parts. Watching this video, I've realised that art IS the idea. Otherwise, if we valued skill in itself, reproductions would be worth much more to us.
Good point. I think you just have to get it about right enough and reach some people, so it can be considered published and the essence of the idea is clear. Execution is secondary. There are very few remixes or hommages that get equal or more credit than the original. That's at least my impression. It would be interesting to try to improve upon the classics, though.
In highschool, I said the same thing about Picasso. After a while, my teacher gave me the assignment to "reproduce" three famous paintings. One them being Picasso's "Guernica".
What a hell of a time I had. I certainly got off my high horse.
It's worth noting that if you stare at kitsch long enough it will become profound and meaningful.
I like that :)
This explanation, to me at least, says that "I could do that" type artworks can't be evaluated the way we evaluate art that requires skilled execution. These works are about the artist's intention, and not the final product.
If the physical art itself can be convincingly reproduced or imitated by a craftsman with minimal skill, then the original is more artifact then artwork.
It's like on Antiques Roadshow, when some common item has an historic story attached, the value can not be found in the piece itself. If someone found "Untitled"(Perfect Lovers) in a box in their attic without any documentation; it would be imposible to show it was anything other then a pair of clocks, and maybe that Felix had touched them. But If someone found an undocumented Da Vinci, It may not obtain a Da Vinci price tag, but it would be easy to show that it was of some value beond a random amateur painting.
So, if we can't even evaluate them on the same criteria as all other art, then haven't we now contorted the term "art" to a point where it's lost any useful meaning? Is something art just because someone says it is? Can art be created without skill?
Ian Albert That - I think - is a good point. In a way you can say: If everything can be art then nothing is art, because the term loses meaning at that point. But, I think that whole large bits of the art movements in the 20th century have focused around this question, well what is 'art' and how far can we stretch it? Now this is where it gets interesting and frustrating, mostly because it is beautiful to see these questions asked in and through art but it is frustrating because eventually you go far enough down the rabbit hole and you kind of lose a lot of your ability to discern between a Duchamp exhibit and like... an actual toilet/random garage. Now, i do love this, still, because, I find it infinitely more interesting to think about these questions and think about art in this way than to simply give up and just start labeling things 'art'|'not art'|'art'|etc.
I don't know, the whole thing, that started in the 20th century still seems kind of young, and maybe it will stand the test of time and maybe it wont, your questions are valid and certainly can raise some interesting questions of their own with some very interesting answers that can kind of go on for ever.
glorb It is an exaggeration to say (when talking about the Mondrian) "...no amateur did this.", implying that only a professional artist can paint a strait black line, a good house painter can do that. But the larger point is that you no longer have to be a great painter to be a great artist in the world of painting.
In a literal sense, enhance and restrict are not mutually exclusive. By not accepting all art as good art elevates the status of the good art.
glorb Elevating good quality and rejecting the bad is how every field works. You are not a singer if you can't carry a tune, you are not an architect if you're buildings won't stand, you're not a baseball player if you can't hit the ball.
glorb What?
My father and I we're at the MoMA in Los Angeles, we came across an installation of stacked and previously used five gallon paint buckets. My father paints houses for a living. We have a similar installation in our backyard.
I was also in MoMA many years ago, and on the floor was a pile of broken window panes. Big ones, maybe 7 feet long. As though the sky light had been replaced and the discarded glass had been broken in the process and swept to the middle of the room. "Oh no!" I thought "They neglected to clean up this mess before the Museum opened up!"
Nope! How wrong I was! A pile of garbage was in fact "brilliant" art, apparently.
wow the clocks really are heart wrenching as soon as you know who the artist is....
Your video changed my mind on Felix Gonzalez-Torres and Piet Mondrian and I just saw their work in a new light
Cy Twombly on the other end, I don't know I will be convinced from his work any day soon. Even after a vast amount of explanation, I've never been able to feel anything from his "work"
She didn't have to hit me in my feels like that when she was discussing the clocks... she didn't
If someone believes that the statement "I can do that" means "That isn't art" they are doing themselves a massive disservice. You can do art! You just don't
Sometimes easy-looking things are deceptive. For the Jackson Pollock exhibition at MoMA in 1998, staff tried to reproduce some of his famous drips, as part of an educational display. They discovered that Pollock had his own distinctive moves, and recreating them was very difficult.
Stephen Persing I could be misunderstanding what they were trying to do, but I feel like that's just because his work was so disordered. Like from the second law of thermodynamics, disordered states are more probable because they can be composed of more microstates. Just because it's hard to splatter paint on the canvas in the exact same way doesn't mean it was hard to do in the first place.
They found that he had particular motions, like a pitcher's in baseball. Spattering alone is not hard - other artists have done it - but spattering doesn't automatically make it a Pollock.
Interesting, I guess that shows that not anyone could do it. But does his particular motion add any value to the art besides monetary value? (I'm asking sincerely.)
wolverinenerdfighter That's a really good question, and I wish I knew the answer. He saw something in these movements that made him repeat them, so they had value to him. Other than that, I'm not sure.
+Stephen Persing As an artist, you'll always have something that becomes 'your trademark method'. I compose neoclassical music and - guess what - often enough when I'm just mindlessl writing down music, it tends to resemble my other works (without doing it on purpose). This does NOT add any value at all to my work - but rather makes it distinctively MY work.
Art to me is more aesthetic than conceptual - if something is not in some way pleasant to look at, why would you?
People, in general, want to view art on their own terms. When they are confronted with something they don't understand or don't try and understand they become angry. They feel they and they alone are the one who should judge the value of art, and that is true, but only for them.
Thanks for proving my point. All caps too.
when people says "I Could Do That" they just see it as a work of 0 effort, 0 skill, lazy presentation, they can't see the beauty in it & it's true, you can't blame them, you create that kind of art for yourself not for people to enjoy.
Yeah yeah...but the perceived value of modern art is basically all about who last paid what for it, who says its good (their social status in the art world) and the venue where it is displayed/hanging, in any order. Which boils down to circumstantial the luck and right connections.
I think you mean monetary value, it's really not at all the art that's expensive that people who are actually into art like. One of my favourite pieces is the sky from Mario 3, that thing also can't become a high value piece because it's literally just software that also is already copyrighted.
Is that a bottle of booze in the background with a book near it titled “Do It”? Suddenly I want a drink....
I once went to an art gallery with a friend who was generally very critical of modern art. It was a gallery where anybody could reserve a square on the wall and create a work of art on it. Most of it was done by professional artists who wanted to help support the gallery. My friend saw this on the wall and said "I could do that"
hallspacedrawingproject.tumblr.com/post/95411429339/bill-flynn-illusions-sold
So I told him he should, and after much convincing he reserved a space, bought the materials, and made this:
hallspacedrawingproject.tumblr.com/post/98652039139/kevin-cannon-poorly-delivered-sarcasm
Now he doesn't say "I could do that" quite as often when he looks at modern art.
His looks better
This remains to e my favorite video of the channel. I can finally explain things to relatives and friends who say things like "I could do that."
I hate that some people think about art as "pretty paintings" and nothing else. In my opinion, art isn't about skill, it's about expression, skill is just what's required to express something more accurately
I love how this implies all the way down that art made with skills will lacks meaning & ideas.
no it doesn't, its just trying to help people understand that art made without obvious skill also has meaning and uses less obvious skills.
If I see something like "I could have done that" I think right away: "I should have done that". It's more a point of jealousy XD
Who wouldn't want to get rich and famous by just hanging a blank canvas on the wall? You have to hand it to these "artists" ,they really know how to milk idiots out of their money!
Throughout the video there's this orange book in the background saying "do it". What more do we need? :-D
The way I see it, and I have also shared the same "i could do that" thought a few times before myself, is that ART is about creating, and not only replicating. Therefore, me saying that i can replicate someone else's original idea does not make me an artist but a rather skilled copycat. And i believe this is where the true meaning/nature of art exists, in the creation of an idea, in the newfound form of expressing a thought or looking at something that the rest of us kept seeing as not noteworthy.
it's basically the understanding of the artist that makes all the difference.
it's getting to know the artist and his or her intent, mentality, inspirations, passions, obsessions, etc.
without that, a scribble is just a scribble. understanding the reasoning behind it, is what sets the work apart and ultimately determines whether or not it will be deemed a piece of art.
I think that in this case we will not value de painting itself, but its history or context
So, if it wasn't in that context it wouldn't had that importance or value.
1:07 okay, but see, this is just why the rest of the world is so quick to roll their eyes at artist-types like us. You zoomed in to this painting and said “take a closer look: the quality and character of his line work is astounding; the restrained use of color is exquisite” and then jumped to the next point. I can’t assess offhand what’s special about that scribble, it really looks like a crayon scribble. It would have been infinitely more helpful in arguing the point if you had taken a bit more time to explain what you mean when you say that. How you define “quality” and “character” of lines or what makes the color choices “exquisite”- “showing your work”, so to speak, so that everyone understands and feels included and really learns something. You said just enough to make yourself appear smart but not enough to educate the audience.
If this had been part of the vid that moves past pure technical skill, that would be different because the meaning could maybe lie elsewhere. It’s just frustrating that we’re supposed to assume that there IS a high level of skill in front of us, and we’re almost shown why, but if it’s not explained it just ... feels like being teased.
Thank you so much, this is exactly what I felt at this point of the video and was thinking “huh? I still don’t get it.” I then proceeded to look into Cy Twombly’s work and legacy, and honestly, months later I’m still not sure what makes his mark making so “masterful”.
exactly... wt i think people are misguided by perfectness of sumthing to art... to draw sumthing perfectly is diffrent. n to draw wt u feel at tht time... n wt ur mind is telling u or wt u see...is real art.
I still think about this video all the time. Thank you, Art Assignment!
I say "I could do that", because I REALLY COULD, and it often drives me to try new things in art.
I'm a young artist, and I'm thinking of going into the arts when I grow up.
I think the purpose of art is to convey a message. That message can be a thought, and idea, an emotion, a feeling, or even the induction of bodily reaction, like nausea, or arousal. The thing is, when an art piece fails to fulfill the purpose of delivering that message, it fails being art. Sure, you can ask the artist, in which case these kinda art pieces are IMMENSELY powerful tools of communication, but that artist won't always be there. They might have other business, their audience might be too big to answer everyone's question, or they might just be dead. For something to be art, its message has to be interpretable regardless of its complexity, at any given time of the art piece's existance. These superduper abstract things fail to be art right in the moment you remove the little explanation placquette from next to them.
By that definition anything not made in a language you speak isn't art because you can't understand it.
...oh hey. I made it to an Art Assignment video. (Kind of).
Thanks for making this video, Sarah :)
+Becky A You are welcome, Becky. Hope this answer was a little more substantive!
+The Art Assignment Beck A., I'm really glad you pushed on this question! You are right, we art folk often give very unsatisfactory short answers. Sarah, though, when asked to explain more fully, came through aces. In my opinion, anyway.
You use so many emotive adjectives like "amazing" and "exquisite". It's still scribbles, even if something convinced you they are so wonderful. Prove your point, with facts.
Art is more than the technique, implements, skill
The artist is transmitting their state of being, emotional state or state of mind. Art can open you to new, foreign or old states of being, emotion, understanding.
Hey I wanted to thank you guys for using that specific picture as your thumbnail. I have the same condition as the man in the picture and struggle with being open about it and accepting. Seeing the thumbnail made me feel better somehow. Thank you :)
A picture paints a thousand words. Read them.
+ljmasternoob Right on. I have a tote bag with art by Lawrence Weiner on it that says: "LEARN TO READ ART." I find that to be a really helpful way to think about art education.
The Art Assignment
Now I need to see this tote bag!
The Art Assignment I realize this isn't exactly what the Art Assignment does, but I would really appreciate a series of videos that examine some famous works of art (with more of a focus on modern works) and explains what makes them remarkable. I confess that I am one of those people who finds themselves thinking, 'I could do that', and this video really made me examine that statement. I find it very easy to see what is beautiful about Renoir or Monet, but struggle to see the beauty or value (not quite the right word) in something like Rothko's Untitled (Green on Maroon). I would really love it if you could do a series on "modern art 101" or something similar to help people like me not be as ignorant. Thank you for reading this! DFTBA
ljmasternoob how can you read and appreciate scribbles and squares..
Ok : the chapelle sixtine represents all kinds of Christian imagery,depictions of Adam & God,etc...
Manzoni put his feces in a box. (Thats not a lot of words)
WOW. Truly EYE-OPENING!! I had previously been convinced, if only partially, that certain art is about the process more than the end product, and it helped me appreciate more art, but still not all of it.. Now I understand so much better that it can be about the effect it has, the context of the time period or the artist, people's reaction or interaction with the art. Thank you!!
.... the painting at 1:12 can be done by anyone i don't get it... "astounding line work"? lmao nah
There was a story told, quite famous now, about Jackson Pollock in his heyday: Stan Brakhage was visiting Pollock at his studio, and talked to Pollock about the wonder of the "chance operations" of Pollock's art. 'This really angered Pollock very deeply and he said, "Don't give me any of your 'chance operations.'" He said, "You see that doorknob?" and there was a doorknob about fifty feet from where he was sitting that was, in fact, the door that everyone was going to have to exit. Drunk as he was, he just with one swirl of his brush picked up a glob of paint, hurled it, and hit that doorknob smack-on with very little paint over the edges. And then he said, "And that's the way out."' -- Stan Brakhage's words.
It's like that. You can call the lines random all you like, but that artist knew where _every_ line went, and they went there with a purpose. That artist created a complex composition, creating movement and depth with lines and planes.
That painting utilised texture, colour, and composition to create a viscerally moving work of art. Don't ignore that, and don't discount that work's ability to move, to emote, without having seen it or given it some genuine consideration. And don't let a lack of representation affect how you view a work of art.
benzo boi no that’s not right, go ahead, try. I’m an art student in Paris and at first I had the same mindset, I was triggered when I saw simple art being celebrated, but when I tried to do it even tho I have a talent and I’m very good in art, I still couldn’t do it. You don’t have to know how to draw to be an artist, art is so open, you just have to be invested in it and have an idea. (That idea can be not having an idea”
@@chrisjonathon2658 how about the contemporary pieces that are literally just blank canvasses?
@@chrisjonathon2658 maybe the reason why you couldn't copy it is because its just a random scribbles and shit
I’ve been painting for 15 years. Here is my progression:
1-5 years: “Abstract art is trash, realism is the only way to show skill.”
6-10 years: “Abstract art should only be attempted after rigorous academic studies of realism.”
15 years: “Abstract art is cool, everyone should try this.”
I rarely see someone get more stupid over time... impressive
@@KolyaUrtzyou gonna explain yourself or you just gonna insult people?
Very pertinent subject and amazing explanation. I really don't see why people are being so dismissive here, I didn't see a single comment effectively attacking the arguments made on the video. How hard is it to understand that art isn't about skill alone (or even at all), but about meaning?
Can I get the script? I want to translate this in Korean so that people around me can understand better.
why do you want to translate it ? This video is pure "art", just let them "interpret" what she says... its way more "personal" that way
username but they need to understand the explanations too?? Um?
"the quality and character of his line work is astounding"... really? I think you need to branch out and look for some better benchmarks... so easily impressed...
I'll offer my thoughts, feel free to discard them, this is the internet after all.
A person who is involved in these kinds of art spheres is surrounded by peers and a culture which insist on others conforming to their rules. They do not conform knowingly, i think it
happens in the following way. The person will think, everyone I associate with tells me that the line work is exquisite, I don't see it, but If i'm the only one who says it's rubbish, I will be ostracised. Over time, once firmly entrenched withing the group, that sentiment begins to change to, we all understand something that others can't because we see something deeper within the work that others don't. This thought process is a rationalisation known and documented by modern psychological science which involves the human brain constructing narratives designed to alleviate cognitive dissonance; an experience which arises when someones understanding of reality conflicts with their social, religious, cultural, or ideological beliefs about reality. The individual is forced to either change their belief, or construct some kind of emotionally satisfying narrative or explanation to maintain the belief and adopt it into their understanding of reality.
These artistic movements are important, they had to happen to allow more freedom of expression, but that time has passed and it has become more of an authoritarian regime.
Modern art is now the Amway of art, an abusive business model dressed up like a wonderful product. The fact is that there are a lot of reputations on the line, if we were all to be honest and call a spade a spade, we could agree that the line work in that painting is very shitty, but what does that mean for the whole establishment? Are the hundreds of critics, curators, and most importantly, the rich people who they extracted huge sums of money from for this painting, all just a bunch of idiots? did they buy into the marketing campaign? drink the coolaid?
Abstract and modern art deserves to exist, it is a valid form of expression, but think carefully before taking that next step towards validating it's technical prowess if it isn't actually present. Just accept it for what it is, a big middle finger to those who try to say it is worthless, or try to put a box around art and tell you that you can only play inside it.
If you attach undue labels like "astounding" to shitty lines, not only do you misunderstand the art, you expose your bias to anyone who is standing outside of your artistic sphere of peer pressure and conformist ideas. It's the emperor's new clothes,, and you see a beautiful garment.
I agree...
Hell, they should probably try checking out the mangaka of Berserker if they want some serious line work analysis to do. Yeah, it's hatch and cross-hatch shading, but all hatching is small lines being bunched together or drawn apart to display values.
Would seriously use graphic novels and manga for line work studies rather than a painting with 3 crayons and a colored pencil that uses the same technique as a 3 year old being asked to draw anger as it feels, not how it looks.
So disappointed in myself for reading through all the garbage you wrote. That line really is impressive, use oil paints and recreate it and upload it with a time stamp and send a link to prove otherwise