There was never a real division between craftsmanship (artisanship) and "art" until the late 19th century. Now there is. The "art" of the artist is no longer artisanship, it is the "art" of the used car salesman. Your piece of art is irrelevant, what you can convince others to pay for it is relevant. Hence "modern art" has no value other than the money paid for it.
🤣 The painting Burger did stood out to me when he first showed it. I thought to myself "that actually looks interesting. I quite like that one." It turns out I was just one plebeian appreciating another plebeians art.
Ideas being conveyed by means other than visual information sounds suspiciously like writing. Nothing wrong with having a writing piece accompany a visual piece, but why would you be expected to know information not in the actual painting if the painting is the while piece?
I think the issue with modern art is that often times, it is shock value and nothing else. Lots of modern art and performance art can say something, ask questions about what art can be, how we think about art, what we consider art. But these questions have been asked so many times by modern art that most people don't really put a new spin on it-they just tape a banana to a wall.
I recommend jacob gallery video "who is afraid of modern art" which goes into how some people don't just not care but actively hate and seek to destroy art which falls outside 'good art. Not as a counter video but as a companion piece
The clip of Zizek sniffing right after you said “I claim” had me dying You should do that more often after certain phrases, e.g “here I am a total [insert label]”, “how should I put it”, etc
I think what killed modern art was going from natural forms to blockism, unnatural/abstract geometry and art that lacks history/provenance ie: making art for right now with only the most modern references Ex: pop art. Modern art was said to democratize art with how easy it is to create but that didn't happen and that's most people's complaint about it other than it's ugly and vapid. Art Nouveau and The Arts and Crafts Movement made great strides to make art cheap and common so it's disappointing how things historically turned out. :)
I have an art history degree (unfortunately) and have always hated the snobbery and pretentiousness of how we view art and use art in modern society. The 'valuable' stuff looks like vague splashes and shapes or media that you are just supposed to 'get'. The most creative art and free expression is done by people who don't make it for money, and so we don't value it as a society. Graffiti, working class art done on the side when the artist isn't working a day job, stuff you can touch and hang on your wall and appreciate. The art world strangled itself to death.
Hey, just want to say I was credited with one of the earliest images. the artist is actually Alex Ries who's a fantastic artist and person, if you could adjust the credit in the description that would be great :)
Modern Art is such an umbrella term these days. And obviously is purely subjective. Most contemporary art is going to become irrelevant in the future. I dare say memes will become more relevant in context as art due to its cultural impact. Most art movements were just trying to break away from the mold and the academy until they too became commercial.
It's depressing that a lot of art specifically animation and digital art are not appreciated and are considered like chump change when both are the most competitive and exhausting
Yes, the real artists continue to express themselves even unheard, unseen while modern art is like a display of creative impotence: oh, all the beautiful things are done so I now start to paint with dog shit. Look how new..how original... and I have paper clips to add too !!
Dope video my man, I agree with you pretty much in full. I am working on a kind of mission statement involving democratizing art for the masses to stray away from the stinky upper echelon of art collectors and gallery owners. I want it to be more commonplace for people to have art shows in their homes, restaurants, etc. Just thoughts and ramblings of another artist. Keep up the great work! I'm sharing this video on my discord.
As someone that paints I should probably add something... Like I like the difference that is being drawn here between the "made for money laundering art". The "you would have to read the wiki art". And the "art that actually looks good and skillful". But in that "art that actually looks good and skillful" there is also a difference to be drawn between the photo bashed done in 20 minutes by someone that just wants to go home and take a shower, video game concept art. And stuff that... isn't that. And yes that is a difference mostly in intent. But it's the difference akin to the one between the money laundering and that piece you made to play with colors. There is also something to be said about the pieces that don't get into the front page. The stuff that gets the views. As is with YT is stuff that games the algorithm. Stuff made by people that are famous. And stuff that is lucky. There is plenty of "looks good art" that nobody sees. So it's not just the "modern art" that sucks.
3:54 Actually the Mona Lisa was quite daring in its time. Back then paintings would depict women such that their role as a woman is made clear in the details - they'd be wearing family regalia, they'd be located in homes or gardens, they'd never look at the viewer, they'd be clean shaven and dressed modestly, they'd have long necks which was a beauty standard in those days, they'd have the bible in the background, the painting would include their husband's signature, etc. Mona Lisa has none of that. She's out in the open, dressed without any fancy accessories, there's no sign of religion or there being a man in her life, and she has the gall to smile directly at the viewer, suggesting she is their equal.
I agree with a lot of this, but I think the argument that "the only reason you enjoy it is because you went to art school" is shaky. I know nothing about the process of painting or the history of a lot of abstract paintings I've seen, but I still get something from them. I've heard similar sentiments from others. It's like how most moviegoers don't know anything about film theory, shot composition, etc. but they're still affected by them.
being in art school i initially wasnt liking what you were saying but you know what youre absolutely right about people saying that i guess the word is 'illustrative' ( although i liked your point about that being a term to shit on uncoded or accessible art ) is somehow inherently worse than something like twombly. I try and tread this line by making art all can connect and enjoy to in this way as i stilll love love modern art. Go see cathedra by barnett newman in person if you can pllsss!
Adam and God on the Sistine chapel are just two buff dudes touching fingers if don't look the Wikipedia page. Loads of art demand that you know the context. Loads of it. There is music being played and sung by people right now with deeper meanings than the people listening to it know. Art that is not considered "modern art" is just art that masquerades their deeper meaning or art that simply has none (which is why some more elitist artists say they're illustrations/pop and not real art).
instagram is annoying.Thery'e always troll spamming people with ''you should have used this grid'' ''use anatomy'' ''use the fundamentals'' it's like did you draw it? no? then stop it. 🙄
Over the last few years my headcanon definition of Modern Art has shifted from ''abstract/amorphous colorful shape-y stuff'' to ''NFTs, colorful twitter bios and basically the front page of FurAffinity''
Hey don't you put NFTs in the same category as furry art. There's some really impressive furry art out there, even if it's not my thing. NFTs are just simply awful.
I only use "illustration" to describe art taken to the canvas or crafted with the pen and brush. Also, I resent calling them "ruthless capitalists" when their practices go so many ways to get around capitalism.
1:04 Art historian in the making here (I'm currently at the second uni year out of five). Modern art is complete stinking poo poo garbage to us as well. Gothic is where it's at imo. also reading what artist has to say about art is useless. They don't know jack about art, besides the technical stuff like paint mixing and how different materials react to paint being laid on them.
tl;dr: "Modern art" doesn't suck, rich people/capitalism/the 'Art world' do and they turned an influential art movement into a joke with no punch line. As an "trained" "artist", it annoys me so when people call everything art related they don't like as "modern art", like fuck you mean by that? Expresionism? Abstractism? Cubism? "Modern art" is an umbrella term that covers such a wide array of artistic movements that come from the 18th century to the seventies (if I remeber my art history classes right) fucking van Gogh and Manet are modern art, but people complaining about "muh moder art" would praise the shit out of their paintings because "they took time and effort" whatever the fuck that means. I feel like what people want to critique is "Modernism" or "Post modern" art, but even that has it's own series of problems since "shit smeared on a canvas with a sticker of 'me art' on the side" and Internet memes are in the same catergory, not to mention Dada that by design doesn't have any meaning, not even attributed by others since is poking fun at the "art world". The hyper capitalistic and shady bussiness "underworld" of the so-called art world, is what makes people believe that "bizzare experimental art pieces" are bad on their own (and they certainly can be, the canned "artist's shit" as funny as it is, shouldn't be value at 70, 000 grand or so). Like outside the money laudering aspect of it, the elitism breed within that community has existed since the renaissance, but it seems that it got worse after the invention of the camera and the rich folks started demanding more "refined" pieces. So, at least within the "art world", it became less of an artist expression and more of "how can I sell this?" it was/is no longer about the artt but "refined art". Like, I like Duchamp's urinal, is funny and has a point, but that point has been, like all other 'counter culture' stuff, co-opted by capitalism and made into a monster that even the founders of Dada would probably reffer too as "tasteless". To quote my proffesor, "If you want money for your art in the 'high' class, you art is the least important aspect, is the words and buzzwords you sweet talk some rich guy to pay you for". Also, side note, this is not a dismissiveness on "commercial" art (like cartoons, 3d animations etc), after all an artist gotta eat too, not to mention they can be pretty influencial for kids/young artist, not to mention they can be a pretty good way to introduce a wider audience to other artistic movements that other wise would just be known by elitist internet art communities.
Aside that nfts are not worthy being called arc, But modern art can be fun. Hell shitposting , is an art. Memes , can be art. I would say its the best and probably worst of it. Because the meaning is likely clear and not commertial. And people liking what they like is fine outside, well yeah capitalism makes it bad. Warhol did , its really depending if artists actually put thought into it. Agree capitalism yeah makes art general worse, especially modern even more used as grift. Like i respect warhol and the artist who made a piece that gets destroyes by a shredder upon bought. Dunno if memes with art are art but they might be.
@@marocat4749 I consider memes as such, after all, they can be re-invented/imagine, serve as an expression of ones own emotions, can be abstract and/or experimental as all hell, mesh and can influence other art movements. I feel pretty confident that they are part of the "post modern" art movement.
Totally agree with your critiques of high art culture. I do have a few critiques of your critique though: 1. The enjoyment of the painting is not just lost in the lack of understanding of the context, but also in the lack of understanding of representation itself. Like, you can show that picture of spam and say “ah yes this is spam” but you can’t make art that talks about anything broader than what objects you are directly seeing (something that is pretty surface level) without playing with representation and going beyond direct representation. 2. You can’t say one style is democratic and one isn’t. They both aren’t, because, as you’ve admitted yourself they both assume a certain level of education or lack thereof generally speaking. If everyone had a high level of art education I guarantee you more people would like high art. Most would probably just like them both the same, but some would be naturally drawn one or the other, and that’s ok. Point is, it isn’t democratic if the material conditions prevent some from having the means to appreciate it. 3. I think it’s fair to critique and resent those that say that high art is definitively better than mainstream styles. However, I do think they have a point in one respect. High art is good at being more than just serving a utility. It is good at saying things. Mainstream art is what it displays. That is fine and serves many purposes, but it is impossible for mainstream art to do more than that, and if it did I would consider it high art, even if the snobs didn’t. I’m sorry but I do find something more profound in something that has the ability to be profound, and not just beautiful. I think that’s valuable. I see that as no reason to look down on mainstream art though, which wasn’t trying to be profound to begin with.
Higher effort doesn't make art more worthy of being art. It's fine to not like modern art, but to cast every example off as pretentious is purposefully putting fingers in your ears instead of trying to think about what ideas the artist might be trying to say.
my measure for the minimum quality of quality is the style ignoring criteria of visible deliberation. because art is experiencing someone elses concious imprint on reality. and if there is no conciousness, thats that. if the piece would be indistinguishable after simple and quick vandalism for people not thoroughly studying the specific piece, it stretches the idea of applied will present in deliberation. if the piece is identical to something basicly everbody could make without deliberation, it needs a punchline related to said "incompletenes" or seemingly fudged nature
Class-criticism aside, anti-intellectual bullshit take and also the most common one when it comes to "modern art" (as in - the lazy immediate unreflective reaction that one sees mostly in this comments section). I'll also note that it's also a cop-out to say that "terms are made up" to not be specific about what you are talking about, as really, modern art encompasses more than a 100 years of artists now, working in wildly different intellectual eras, ideological and social backgrounds. As if something needing time and effort to understand makes it worse. Its not as if more representative, kitsch art (or illustrations) are less commodified or less completely oriented to market logic, as in needing to conform to the standards and styles set by the massive fucking capitalist company of Wizards of the Coast for D&D or MtG (not more financially viable? really? compared to what? the average art-student working from a minimal-rent loft creating abstract art? is this art really more democratic or is it lining the pockets of shareholders?) Relying on the immediate effect and legibility of artworks lends itself well to making it a simple consumer product.
A huge chunk until pretty recently of mtg card illustrations was fan submissions. Come off it ya pretentious shit house. Shitting on rich tax dodgers isnt "anti intellectual" and we all know whats being reffered to when one says modern art.
this sounds very pretentious to me, there is a much larger reason for "modern" art's existence, Modernists (from the 20th and 19th century) were by the most privileged members of society, Postmodernists are marginalised and working class people rejecting those conventional art forms. Saying that modern artist's only intention is to be enjoyed by rich people is extremely ignorant and disrespectful to most artists. The examples you used for "democratic" art are the most corporate and capitalist art you could make, they are made to be commissioned or used for another project, not to make a point. Obviously one is not better than the other but you sure make it sound that way. "Modern" art is meant to be seen and relatable to the working class, sure it may be better understood with an art education but research and context is not the only tools to relate to them. In fact, part of the idea of art education is to understand the meaning and draw insight from a work without knowing any context. Rare TheBurgerkrieg L.
I wanna refute this video with my art knowledge I learned from a private school but I’m drunk and don’t know how to push the points back. You’ve conflated modern art with the ‘modern’ art market, most modern art is similar to Socratic and post-modern analysis in finding what art is. I hated modern art until I actually researched the topic. You’re conflating modern art with the market and capitalism, the highest selling paintings are usually not modern art I mean the fucken Salvatore Mundi sold for 450mil and it was a divinci. Modern art isn’t gallery art modern art just attempts to discuss the boundaries of art. If you want I can send you all of the useless art bullshit I had to study but generally modern art gets tied into art based around raising capital when really that’s a symptom of the art market not modern art. If you’re genuinely interested in this topic please bro let me talk to you about this shit because all im doing with my highschool education is keeping up with the Ukraine situation so art analysis and discussion would be a way more fun topic to be giving a shit about. I made a toilet stall and had the students and faculty draw dicks on it my mum drew a mans gaping asshole modern art isn’t pretentious it’s absurd that’s the whole point. Have a great day and please if really like to change your mind tm cr
To me modern art becomes trash when the art itself only exists to make people go wtf is that so that the artist can then recite their pretentious political essay. Real art can say something and look appealing and be made with skill and envoke the exact response the artist wants through the subject of the art alone and not need a Wikipedia entry to give it meaning. If you just make some shitty monstrosity and attach some message to it you're just being lazy. You're just skipping all the hardest parts of making good art. It's like writing a book. You can just vomit up whatever incoherent drivel you want and publish it, but that doesn't make it good or meaningful. You are exp4ct4d to put thought into the structure of the story and how information is delivered and the quality of the prose. The same goes for art. We expect you to consider your subject, composition, colors, and techniques so that it conveys what you want in the most meaningful way. And if what you come up with requires and explanation that a 14 yr old could invent to be their art teacher then you've failed to create good art.
Don't listen to the contemporary artists or most of the critics or the art historians regarding modern art. They are desperate to convince you of the value of modern art because their careers are reliant upon you not knowing the truth. And the truth is that likely none of them have any artistic ability when really all these professionals of the art field should be and could be replaced by artists who actually have talent and are interested in sharing what they and their art perform. Ask any of these non-artists what the function of art is (what does art do for the public/others) and you won't get reliable answers. There are four primary functions that have existed for thousands of years in all cultures all over the world. Modern art performs almost none of them, and if so, usually by accident. The innate humanistic functions that art performs are currently found in popular art (the Low Arts) while High Art is waning or near vanishing, and Fine Art (subjective nonsense) is very popular because it is incredibly egalitarian (anyone can do it) and valuable as a stock objects. Modern artists reveal a great deal of cowardice and ignorance or disinterest because they are either unable to, or afraid to communicate what they might actually believe about the world. And content free art is the best to collect because it exists without political and social discourse. The "artist" allows you to make up your own subject matter, while the "artist" hopes that they themselves become the subject - "Look at me!" Anyway, thanks for the video. Always a thorny thing to talk about.
There was never a real division between craftsmanship (artisanship) and "art" until the late 19th century. Now there is. The "art" of the artist is no longer artisanship, it is the "art" of the used car salesman. Your piece of art is irrelevant, what you can convince others to pay for it is relevant. Hence "modern art" has no value other than the money paid for it.
modern art = stock = crypto = NFT
🤣 The painting Burger did stood out to me when he first showed it. I thought to myself "that actually looks interesting. I quite like that one." It turns out I was just one plebeian appreciating another plebeians art.
It's tough being a prole, but we can get through it together :)
Ideas being conveyed by means other than visual information sounds suspiciously like writing.
Nothing wrong with having a writing piece accompany a visual piece, but why would you be expected to know information not in the actual painting if the painting is the while piece?
I think the issue with modern art is that often times, it is shock value and nothing else. Lots of modern art and performance art can say something, ask questions about what art can be, how we think about art, what we consider art. But these questions have been asked so many times by modern art that most people don't really put a new spin on it-they just tape a banana to a wall.
I recommend jacob gallery video "who is afraid of modern art" which goes into how some people don't just not care but actively hate and seek to destroy art which falls outside 'good art. Not as a counter video but as a companion piece
The Lamentations of the Flame Princess piece is by Jason Rainville. (I commissioned the piece.)
The clip of Zizek sniffing right after you said “I claim” had me dying
You should do that more often after certain phrases, e.g “here I am a total [insert label]”, “how should I put it”, etc
I think what killed modern art was going from natural forms to blockism, unnatural/abstract geometry and art that lacks history/provenance ie: making art for right now with only the most modern references Ex: pop art. Modern art was said to democratize art with how easy it is to create but that didn't happen and that's most people's complaint about it other than it's ugly and vapid. Art Nouveau and The Arts and Crafts Movement made great strides to make art cheap and common so it's disappointing how things historically turned out. :)
I have an art history degree (unfortunately) and have always hated the snobbery and pretentiousness of how we view art and use art in modern society. The 'valuable' stuff looks like vague splashes and shapes or media that you are just supposed to 'get'. The most creative art and free expression is done by people who don't make it for money, and so we don't value it as a society. Graffiti, working class art done on the side when the artist isn't working a day job, stuff you can touch and hang on your wall and appreciate. The art world strangled itself to death.
It's okay Burger, I liked your Magic joke.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then beauty is something that can’t be shared or understood. Frankly, I refuse to believe that.
Then why do I disagree with my boyfriend about what paintings are most beautiful?
@@justcallmenoah5743 because beauty is subjective ie NOT just in the eye of the beholder.
Hey, just want to say I was credited with one of the earliest images. the artist is actually Alex Ries who's a fantastic artist and person, if you could adjust the credit in the description that would be great :)
I will correct this post-haste, thank you very much. Still love your art in general though!
@@TheBurgerkrieg Thank you! On both counts
Modern Art is such an umbrella term these days. And obviously is purely subjective. Most contemporary art is going to become irrelevant in the future. I dare say memes will become more relevant in context as art due to its cultural impact. Most art movements were just trying to break away from the mold and the academy until they too became commercial.
That is why art movements became important. Nowadays we are so globalized that I doubt you will find the same in the traditional art world.
Interesting! I remembered there's this great essay by Umberto Ecco on the death of art where he makes similar points about modern art as you
It's depressing that a lot of art specifically animation and digital art are not appreciated and are considered like chump change when both are the most competitive and exhausting
Yes, the real artists continue to express themselves even unheard, unseen while modern art is like a display of creative impotence: oh, all the beautiful things are done so I now start to paint with dog shit. Look how new..how original... and I have paper clips to add too !!
Dope video my man, I agree with you pretty much in full. I am working on a kind of mission statement involving democratizing art for the masses to stray away from the stinky upper echelon of art collectors and gallery owners. I want it to be more commonplace for people to have art shows in their homes, restaurants, etc. Just thoughts and ramblings of another artist. Keep up the great work! I'm sharing this video on my discord.
As someone that paints I should probably add something... Like I like the difference that is being drawn here between the "made for money laundering art". The "you would have to read the wiki art". And the "art that actually looks good and skillful".
But in that "art that actually looks good and skillful" there is also a difference to be drawn between the photo bashed done in 20 minutes by someone that just wants to go home and take a shower, video game concept art. And stuff that... isn't that. And yes that is a difference mostly in intent. But it's the difference akin to the one between the money laundering and that piece you made to play with colors.
There is also something to be said about the pieces that don't get into the front page. The stuff that gets the views. As is with YT is stuff that games the algorithm. Stuff made by people that are famous. And stuff that is lucky. There is plenty of "looks good art" that nobody sees.
So it's not just the "modern art" that sucks.
You had me at Žižek.
"Categories are literally a made-up thing. You can just change them."
Uhhh based??
3:54 Actually the Mona Lisa was quite daring in its time. Back then paintings would depict women such that their role as a woman is made clear in the details - they'd be wearing family regalia, they'd be located in homes or gardens, they'd never look at the viewer, they'd be clean shaven and dressed modestly, they'd have long necks which was a beauty standard in those days, they'd have the bible in the background, the painting would include their husband's signature, etc. Mona Lisa has none of that. She's out in the open, dressed without any fancy accessories, there's no sign of religion or there being a man in her life, and she has the gall to smile directly at the viewer, suggesting she is their equal.
it's squidward logic to say you ''need'' a book to make good art. And remember that spongebob crafted a whole statue without squidward's help......
Lol. The high art piece that was yours was the one where I thought "that looks cool".
I agree with a lot of this, but I think the argument that "the only reason you enjoy it is because you went to art school" is shaky. I know nothing about the process of painting or the history of a lot of abstract paintings I've seen, but I still get something from them. I've heard similar sentiments from others. It's like how most moviegoers don't know anything about film theory, shot composition, etc. but they're still affected by them.
being in art school i initially wasnt liking what you were saying but you know what youre absolutely right about people saying that i guess the word is 'illustrative' ( although i liked your point about that being a term to shit on uncoded or accessible art ) is somehow inherently worse than something like twombly. I try and tread this line by making art all can connect and enjoy to in this way as i stilll love love modern art.
Go see cathedra by barnett newman in person if you can pllsss!
Adam and God on the Sistine chapel are just two buff dudes touching fingers if don't look the Wikipedia page.
Loads of art demand that you know the context. Loads of it.
There is music being played and sung by people right now with deeper meanings than the people listening to it know.
Art that is not considered "modern art" is just art that masquerades their deeper meaning or art that simply has none (which is why some more elitist artists say they're illustrations/pop and not real art).
Could you do a video in German with English subtitles? Literally any topic. I think it will be fun to hear you speaking your mother tongue
Modern Art everybody gets a trophy.
Oh, but what about art vs.... decor?? (or shall we say décor??)
i thought this was a film theory from matpat judging from the thumb nail
that magic joke earned my like loool
instagram is annoying.Thery'e always troll spamming people with ''you should have used this grid'' ''use anatomy'' ''use the fundamentals'' it's like did you draw it? no? then stop it. 🙄
Over the last few years my headcanon definition of Modern Art has shifted from ''abstract/amorphous colorful shape-y stuff'' to ''NFTs, colorful twitter bios and basically the front page of FurAffinity''
Hey don't you put NFTs in the same category as furry art. There's some really impressive furry art out there, even if it's not my thing.
NFTs are just simply awful.
Modern art should be abstract and include the quality of traditional art
I only use "illustration" to describe art taken to the canvas or crafted with the pen and brush. Also, I resent calling them "ruthless capitalists" when their practices go so many ways to get around capitalism.
What is modern art? This video.
1:20 You've credited the wrong artist, "Internal Farm by Sam Santala" Is actually "Sunrise" by Abiogenisis (Alex Ries)
I was just coming in here to say this. Thank you for pointing it out, Alex is a fantastic artist who deserves that recognition.
Can the same be said about movies since they're also considered art?
1:04
Art historian in the making here (I'm currently at the second uni year out of five).
Modern art is complete stinking poo poo garbage to us as well. Gothic is where it's at imo.
also reading what artist has to say about art is useless. They don't know jack about art, besides the technical stuff like paint mixing and how different materials react to paint being laid on them.
Aesthetics from the consumer's perspective.
tl;dr: "Modern art" doesn't suck, rich people/capitalism/the 'Art world' do and they turned an influential art movement into a joke with no punch line.
As an "trained" "artist", it annoys me so when people call everything art related they don't like as "modern art", like fuck you mean by that? Expresionism? Abstractism? Cubism? "Modern art" is an umbrella term that covers such a wide array of artistic movements that come from the 18th century to the seventies (if I remeber my art history classes right) fucking van Gogh and Manet are modern art, but people complaining about "muh moder art" would praise the shit out of their paintings because "they took time and effort" whatever the fuck that means. I feel like what people want to critique is "Modernism" or "Post modern" art, but even that has it's own series of problems since "shit smeared on a canvas with a sticker of 'me art' on the side" and Internet memes are in the same catergory, not to mention Dada that by design doesn't have any meaning, not even attributed by others since is poking fun at the "art world".
The hyper capitalistic and shady bussiness "underworld" of the so-called art world, is what makes people believe that "bizzare experimental art pieces" are bad on their own (and they certainly can be, the canned "artist's shit" as funny as it is, shouldn't be value at 70, 000 grand or so). Like outside the money laudering aspect of it, the elitism breed within that community has existed since the renaissance, but it seems that it got worse after the invention of the camera and the rich folks started demanding more "refined" pieces. So, at least within the "art world", it became less of an artist expression and more of "how can I sell this?" it was/is no longer about the artt but "refined art". Like, I like Duchamp's urinal, is funny and has a point, but that point has been, like all other 'counter culture' stuff, co-opted by capitalism and made into a monster that even the founders of Dada would probably reffer too as "tasteless".
To quote my proffesor, "If you want money for your art in the 'high' class, you art is the least important aspect, is the words and buzzwords you sweet talk some rich guy to pay you for".
Also, side note, this is not a dismissiveness on "commercial" art (like cartoons, 3d animations etc), after all an artist gotta eat too, not to mention they can be pretty influencial for kids/young artist, not to mention they can be a pretty good way to introduce a wider audience to other artistic movements that other wise would just be known by elitist internet art communities.
Aside that nfts are not worthy being called arc,
But modern art can be fun. Hell shitposting , is an art. Memes , can be art. I would say its the best and probably worst of it. Because the meaning is likely clear and not commertial.
And people liking what they like is fine outside, well yeah capitalism makes it bad. Warhol did , its really depending if artists actually put thought into it.
Agree capitalism yeah makes art general worse, especially modern even more used as grift.
Like i respect warhol and the artist who made a piece that gets destroyes by a shredder upon bought.
Dunno if memes with art are art but they might be.
@@marocat4749 I consider memes as such, after all, they can be re-invented/imagine, serve as an expression of ones own emotions, can be abstract and/or experimental as all hell, mesh and can influence other art movements. I feel pretty confident that they are part of the "post modern" art movement.
@@mechanicaltapeworm4062 Ok i to that from tom nicolas youtub video about mmes and dadaism,.thy are
@@mechanicaltapeworm4062 Called the art of shitposting
Totally agree with your critiques of high art culture. I do have a few critiques of your critique though:
1. The enjoyment of the painting is not just lost in the lack of understanding of the context, but also in the lack of understanding of representation itself. Like, you can show that picture of spam and say “ah yes this is spam” but you can’t make art that talks about anything broader than what objects you are directly seeing (something that is pretty surface level) without playing with representation and going beyond direct representation.
2. You can’t say one style is democratic and one isn’t. They both aren’t, because, as you’ve admitted yourself they both assume a certain level of education or lack thereof generally speaking. If everyone had a high level of art education I guarantee you more people would like high art. Most would probably just like them both the same, but some would be naturally drawn one or the other, and that’s ok. Point is, it isn’t democratic if the material conditions prevent some from having the means to appreciate it.
3. I think it’s fair to critique and resent those that say that high art is definitively better than mainstream styles. However, I do think they have a point in one respect. High art is good at being more than just serving a utility. It is good at saying things. Mainstream art is what it displays. That is fine and serves many purposes, but it is impossible for mainstream art to do more than that, and if it did I would consider it high art, even if the snobs didn’t. I’m sorry but I do find something more profound in something that has the ability to be profound, and not just beautiful. I think that’s valuable. I see that as no reason to look down on mainstream art though, which wasn’t trying to be profound to begin with.
Modern art is art made from the late 1800's and last 70's. That is all it is. Nothing more or nothing else. Magic the Gathering is CONTEMPORY ART.
Is that how it is? you call your audience cunts but we're not allowed to turn it back on you?
Yeah thats just clearly not how the terms are used
Higher effort doesn't make art more worthy of being art.
It's fine to not like modern art,
but to cast every example off as pretentious is purposefully putting fingers in your ears instead of trying to think about what ideas the artist might be trying to say.
Swag video
my measure for the minimum quality of quality is the style ignoring criteria of visible deliberation. because art is experiencing someone elses concious imprint on reality. and if there is no conciousness, thats that.
if the piece would be indistinguishable after simple and quick vandalism for people not thoroughly studying the specific piece, it stretches the idea of applied will present in deliberation.
if the piece is identical to something basicly everbody could make without deliberation, it needs a punchline related to said "incompletenes" or seemingly fudged nature
I'm sick of the old ''use the fundamentals,reeeee!'' thing people keep saying about art. Did jackson pollock use them? probably not! 🙄
Isn’t that first artwork by Alex Ries?
Art more like fart, no I'm not 12 I'm 28 why do you ask?
Drug Barons.
Isn't a baron are type of lord? :)
Class-criticism aside, anti-intellectual bullshit take and also the most common one when it comes to "modern art" (as in - the lazy immediate unreflective reaction that one sees mostly in this comments section). I'll also note that it's also a cop-out to say that "terms are made up" to not be specific about what you are talking about, as really, modern art encompasses more than a 100 years of artists now, working in wildly different intellectual eras, ideological and social backgrounds.
As if something needing time and effort to understand makes it worse. Its not as if more representative, kitsch art (or illustrations) are less commodified or less completely oriented to market logic, as in needing to conform to the standards and styles set by the massive fucking capitalist company of Wizards of the Coast for D&D or MtG (not more financially viable? really? compared to what? the average art-student working from a minimal-rent loft creating abstract art? is this art really more democratic or is it lining the pockets of shareholders?) Relying on the immediate effect and legibility of artworks lends itself well to making it a simple consumer product.
A huge chunk until pretty recently of mtg card illustrations was fan submissions.
Come off it ya pretentious shit house. Shitting on rich tax dodgers isnt "anti intellectual" and we all know whats being reffered to when one says modern art.
this sounds very pretentious to me, there is a much larger reason for "modern" art's existence, Modernists (from the 20th and 19th century) were by the most privileged members of society, Postmodernists are marginalised and working class people rejecting those conventional art forms. Saying that modern artist's only intention is to be enjoyed by rich people is extremely ignorant and disrespectful to most artists. The examples you used for "democratic" art are the most corporate and capitalist art you could make, they are made to be commissioned or used for another project, not to make a point. Obviously one is not better than the other but you sure make it sound that way. "Modern" art is meant to be seen and relatable to the working class, sure it may be better understood with an art education but research and context is not the only tools to relate to them. In fact, part of the idea of art education is to understand the meaning and draw insight from a work without knowing any context.
Rare TheBurgerkrieg L.
Also the idea of Modern art having less technical prowess, is what fascists use as a criticism to discredit marginalised artists.
no...
Science School, LOL.
ok plumbers electricians street cleaners make a decent amount of money not rich but deffently not paycheck to paycheck
Yeah man, imagine people objecting to you talking about things you dont know jack shit about.
tired of hearing ''ReAl ArTiStS USe AlL ThEsE RuLeS!'' rules can restrict if used too often! some of the best art was created spontaneously! 🙄
??o?o?? ?
I wanna refute this video with my art knowledge I learned from a private school but I’m drunk and don’t know how to push the points back. You’ve conflated modern art with the ‘modern’ art market, most modern art is similar to Socratic and post-modern analysis in finding what art is. I hated modern art until I actually researched the topic. You’re conflating modern art with the market and capitalism, the highest selling paintings are usually not modern art I mean the fucken Salvatore Mundi sold for 450mil and it was a divinci. Modern art isn’t gallery art modern art just attempts to discuss the boundaries of art. If you want I can send you all of the useless art bullshit I had to study but generally modern art gets tied into art based around raising capital when really that’s a symptom of the art market not modern art. If you’re genuinely interested in this topic please bro let me talk to you about this shit because all im doing with my highschool education is keeping up with the Ukraine situation so art analysis and discussion would be a way more fun topic to be giving a shit about. I made a toilet stall and had the students and faculty draw dicks on it my mum drew a mans gaping asshole modern art isn’t pretentious it’s absurd that’s the whole point. Have a great day and please if really like to change your mind tm cr
@@cyberanimealien thank you I did linguistics but when you’re done with a pub crawl grammar is hard
I love how every counter to this is just pedantic bs on what "modern art" means. When its VERY clear whats being reffered to
I draw what i want 😒
Do not answear this comment
To me modern art becomes trash when the art itself only exists to make people go wtf is that so that the artist can then recite their pretentious political essay. Real art can say something and look appealing and be made with skill and envoke the exact response the artist wants through the subject of the art alone and not need a Wikipedia entry to give it meaning. If you just make some shitty monstrosity and attach some message to it you're just being lazy. You're just skipping all the hardest parts of making good art. It's like writing a book. You can just vomit up whatever incoherent drivel you want and publish it, but that doesn't make it good or meaningful. You are exp4ct4d to put thought into the structure of the story and how information is delivered and the quality of the prose. The same goes for art. We expect you to consider your subject, composition, colors, and techniques so that it conveys what you want in the most meaningful way. And if what you come up with requires and explanation that a 14 yr old could invent to be their art teacher then you've failed to create good art.
Art is a social construct.
Don't listen to the contemporary artists or most of the critics or the art historians regarding modern art. They are desperate to convince you of the value of modern art because their careers are reliant upon you not knowing the truth. And the truth is that likely none of them have any artistic ability when really all these professionals of the art field should be and could be replaced by artists who actually have talent and are interested in sharing what they and their art perform. Ask any of these non-artists what the function of art is (what does art do for the public/others) and you won't get reliable answers. There are four primary functions that have existed for thousands of years in all cultures all over the world. Modern art performs almost none of them, and if so, usually by accident. The innate humanistic functions that art performs are currently found in popular art (the Low Arts) while High Art is waning or near vanishing, and Fine Art (subjective nonsense) is very popular because it is incredibly egalitarian (anyone can do it) and valuable as a stock objects. Modern artists reveal a great deal of cowardice and ignorance or disinterest because they are either unable to, or afraid to communicate what they might actually believe about the world. And content free art is the best to collect because it exists without political and social discourse. The "artist" allows you to make up your own subject matter, while the "artist" hopes that they themselves become the subject - "Look at me!" Anyway, thanks for the video. Always a thorny thing to talk about.