With this comparison, I think I'm starting see the issue with what he said, which I didn't see after it was clarified. (Edit): In my defense, I paused the video before commenting, and probably would've realized the issue by watching the rest of the video.
and in this comparison arises much of the discourse I personally loathe around AI or generative art. Synth based music composers have used various algorithms, equations, and programs to manipulate a melody into something new, not explicitely composed by the musician - from taking seabed depth data and mapping it to pitch or other aspects of the piece, to using math to transpose and manipulate a short melody into a longer piece - THE ENTIRE debate around the artistic value of these types of compositions comes down to context. Is what you're doing here saying anything? And if it is how necessary is the data or algorithm you used to create it.
He called the artists he didn’t like “low effort commercial artists” tho And he’s made entire documentaries on just movies he loves and which made him fall in love with VFX he clearly has a normal love for art In his flight of the navigator video he literally does original research and brings old props into the studio just to recreate how the a shot was created doesn’t seem incurious to me seems like healthy engagement with art I don’t even like the art opinion it’s dumb but why did it make everyone here start huffing their own farts lol Everyone alive hates the kitschy balloon animals, they look like shit
I don't really think that's a valid reading of his statement on art. I think it's moreso that he has this bar of "derivitaveness" that invalidates something as being "art"
Alright then. L opinion from Captain D, but certainly props for him to give a concise answer that doesn't increase drama or anything but actually explains his position.
@@Demilich23You're allowed to just not like things. If you don't like a piece of art that's cool, but you not liking it doesn't change whether it's art or not.
*What is the point of art?* Is it to make us feel and think? To produce some kind of reaction in its viewer, some kind of introspection, bring them a new perspective on the world (or at least a small part of the world)? I think those are all fair things to say art is "supposed to do." If that's the case, I don't think *effort* is any kind of reliable metric for judging art. I've seen many projects that clearly had hundreds of hours of effort behind them, but which I still found to be shit. They didn't make me feel anything except "this is... just bad." I think lots of people understand this intuitively, though they accidentally conflate effort with quality, hence "I'm going to randomly scratch a pen on paper and call it art." "So good art is something that both makes you feel something, makes you think, introspect, etc, AND that required a lot of effort to make." Well, at this point, why are we including the effort as a metric? If something makes me feel, think, shifts my perspective, but it was relatively easy to make, does that mean it's any less art? Can art not be simple yet powerful? I'm not saying that all the examples of art in the video make me incredibly emotional or changed my life, I'm just saying that pointing and saying "low-effort" is not enough to discredit it as art.
@@OctovenderRealIf only I had a nickel for every person who's opinion of art boils down to "but how much cash did they nab selling this? If it's too much, then I hate it." I bet I'd have $17m.
@@zarrg5611 I was jokingly stating the obvious, whilst also pointing out that literally speaking, there is worse. My statement is accurate, and can't really be argued against.
im sure we all love the ‘thanks for wa-‘ typical of these videos (I know I do, I laugh every time), so I just need to say: getting the full ‘thanks for watching’ and then having the video slowly, like, shut down was both hilarious and unsettling. thank u
good to know my initial take of "it was an extended, in-character rant from someone whose barometer of 'good art' is solely 'technical skill in VFX', as a joke" was only wrong about the "in-character" and "as a joke" parts
HE'S STILL IN CHARACTER HE'S STILL IN CHARACTER IT'S A JOKE IT'S A JOKE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE IT'S A JOKE HE'S JOKING HE'S SDTILL ING HCAHRACTER PLEASE
@@JasminUwULmao, it could still be a joke. In one of the 30 minute talks on CD’s channel he talks about how you should always appear right on Internet and shows an example as a joke where he sticks to a weird narrative rather than admitting he is wrong for a while.
I have been dragged into the timeline where the ambiguity of sarcasm has been clarified to be no, he really does think that. I want to go back to the ignorance.
If there's a piece of art or an artwork that you hate it doesn't stop being art. If you think the art is shit you have every right to rabidly critique it, but it's still technically a work of art. If it wasn't one, you wouldn't be trying to invalidate that from it. I think this especially annoys me due to point 2 tacitly assuming you think that hobbyist or student art is in some way or in some cases not real art. Like it's true people learning a skill aren't going to be as good at it as they will be in a few years, but their early art is still very much meaningful! Even if it's complete garbage it's still got intrinsic value just due to its necessity as well as how it simply shows continuous effort towards a goal if nothing else. Implicitly saying "you're not going to be a REAL artist for at least like, four years" is just uncool. Uninspiring to the youth at the very least.
I think this kind of take makes it so that things like children's drawings don't count as art. I always think of that one post a parent made showing a drawing that their kid made with the word "safe" in mind. Three people sharing a bed, the little one in the midle, and everyone is smiling. I don't think I can make this any more clear.
People are scared of saying that art can be bad. Because for them being art implies some form of "greatness" that transcends itself or something like that. Art can be amazing, mediocre, awful, or just meh, once you realize that, everything is better.
@@miajajajajajajajajajo Yeah, It can be real meaningful! I just wanted to bank on the absolutely certain fact that you have to draw a whole lotta drawings that are at least mechanically crap until you can make stuff that is mechanically good. Invalidating those is both a dick move and probably untrue. There's usually some real neat stuff in there, like you said :3
I think it’s completely fine to be of the opinion that things that aren’t up to a certain standard aren’t art. I just don’t think that having a definition of art like that is ever helpful. Art is a dumb category. It’s a human thing to do, so as a human you have to decide if and how you can know it when you see it. I think saying that something being derivative makes it bad is dumb unless you have some inspiration quotient you can point to to quantify how derivative something is. Like The Inferno is kind of derivative, of history, and the Bible and whatever whatever. It’s not art? I think musical sampling is a fantastic example. I don’t get a lot out of most art, and when I do, recontextualized versions of that art tend not to do as much as the original. American Gothic just makes me want to stare and stare in a way that no other “interpretation” Does. But that’s not how I feel about music. With music I can absolutely see how a person making their own cover, or adapting a melody, or fully sampling something, can make an entirely new piece of art. I’ll never understand his exact criteria for art with an explanation like that basically.
aren’t you just projecting your gripes on some random dude tho I feel like even if he’s wrong we have to come to terms that people we don’t know have shitty opinions
what was solar sands's horrible opinion? I recall he made cringe compilations in the past but I thought he doesn't make that sort of video anymore @@jossaccountofmadnessandmem1844
@@ratewcropolix he has explained his views on contemporary art, especially fetish art, multiple times on twitter, stating esp that the "overexposure" to fetish art might be the cause of rapid surges in "mental illness" recently. the usual correlation (by time span) = causation kind of deal.
The perlin noise 2:01 is a great joke Artists use tools built up from previous artists to make new art easier than they could before. Just because something doesn't take hours of hand animating cloth physics anymore, doesn't mean it's not art.
I recall a certain adorable doggo claiming art “is not a goddamn endurance sport” and I couldn’t agree more. Edit: misremembered the quote, original did not have the word “endurance” but you know what? It fits.
Well that’s a disappointing clarification, but not a surprising one when his take on more experimental forms of fiction was an appeal to Jospeh Campbell’s hero’s journey structure. He knows a lot about shutter speeds I’ll give him that.
To be fair, he said that about Escher stairwell, and the non-biodegradable nature of that myth. Because damn, can't the coy fella just put (THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION) all over the pl... To be fair, who cares? Honestly, gullible people like myself should just literally believe everything they see online at this point. But for real, yeah, that was weird. Not all stories need that kinda loop.
there's something i find so intriguing about this channel, how it's structured and how each video no matter the topic whether it's something I'm deeply interested in, something I've never heard of, something i agree with or an opinion i absolutely despise, it's still very entertaining and interesting to me. These videos feel exactly like those little conversations i have with myself in my head from time to time about the most random and obscure problems that it's completely meaningless and there's something so comforting yet also motivating about it. I know it doesn't make sense, but... Your videos sort of motivate me to have opinions?? Idk it just feels like im more motivated to notice things and think about it over in my head if that makes sense. Maybe I should try making a channel like this one day it would be interesting to see how it turns out anyway hope you enjoyed my little 12 AM rant thanks for r
This is like if a highly skilled traditional artist looked at a painting or something and said "Oh, but look! The paint they're using is all pre-made and comes from bottles, the brushes were all made in a factory, and the canvas itself was mass produced! So, where's the art?"
@@Demilich23 live a little, let people express themselves however they want. no way of speaking is gonna be more annoying than someone coming into a comment's replies to be a preachy weirdo, shoosh
@@Demilich23 i think i will actually continue to talk however i'd like to, and i think that maybe you should reflect on why something so inconsequential bothers you so much
one of the biggest annoying things other artists do sometimes is claiming a piece of art they don't like is no longer art seemingly just because they don't like it. There is no quality minimum for something to be art, its entirely just intention to make a piece of art and even then sometimes things not intended to be "art" become art. There are whole beloved performance pieces that are like "either read or don't read this sentence" and that is even less effort than anything captain mentioned but its absolutely unquestionably art. I dont know im rambling a bit but it feels like it comes from this misguided sense that art is some elevated thing the average person can't do when its one of the base things that makes human beings unique. Its something to appreciate that every human can make art regardless of quality, if you like it or not, or if its entirely stolen from other people.
Yeah, it's a frustrating posture for him to take. The way that certain artists with a big platform go about things leaving a bad taste in one's mouth is fine, I think, but the framing here and the emphasis on what is or is not derivative feels both a bit shallow and missing the forest for the trees on his part. There are critiques he could have made which I probably would have agreed with but these ones aren't great.
Does Captain D hold the position that art should be based around meritocratic ideals? I dont think so neccesarily, however, I think he still holds a lot of contempt over certain artists for them creating art that isnt based around its perceived "effort". Ive seen this position held a lot in mainstream art discussion and its honestly disheartening how modern art is perceived and thought of in such a negative light in the public eye.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's weird how his takes about art somewhat contradict the very industry he's actively a part of. Would he call his own visual effects art? If I point out the inaccuracies or errors in his effects, do they cease to be art? How much effort or lack of commercial viability is necessary for something to be considered art?
His concern in my interpretation isn’t “is this allowed to be called art?” in a literal sense, but “Is this doing anything as a piece of art to move me? Is it subjectively (to him) greater than the sum of its parts?” His answer is no, and he cites artist like Koons as other examples of artist that don’t make things he finds moving. Seems like a fine opinion to have if he didn’t use “would I call it ‘art’” as his way of saying that.
This is the exact kind of argument that leads people to say music made on a computer isn't "real" music which I would hope at this point has been completely disproven by the absurd amount of evidence.
right, so if i copy a painting should it be held to the same regard as the original? its inherently different since i cant perfectly copy every atom. either youre insane and i have nothing i could possibly argue more about, or you agree the original deserves at least a shitton more praise that my copy. so wheres the line?
@@mikaeus468 really now? so there is a difference then. and perhaps art that highly copies something else withouut adding much of anytihng new to it should be discouraged? you know, the shit people here defend so vehemently?
I am not sure what the original problem was, but it sounds like he is really just saying 'people who make low effort art should not then turn around and start arguing that other people make similar art'
Yeah this is kind of what I suspected. From how judgemental and well poisoning they sound i wouldn't be surprised if they reply with some appeal to neoclassical bs
a lot of people call norman rockwell an illustrator and therefore he is not an "artist" im not really a fan of that take myself, i've always liked his stuff and found it distinct enough to recognize, but idk that seems where captain D's coming from
Captain D also had some takes that I disagree with in... maybe the Gateway to Sedona and the Escherian Stairwell videos? Basically, he blamed the rise of mis/dis/malinformation and conspiracy theories, at least in part, on unbelievable fictional stories that present themselves as fact as part of their framing.
So i remember watching his stuff nearly a decade ago and really enjoying it, but I remember hitting a video but not the specifics of what was said, but I remember going "huh i don't like that take" whether it was art or politics idk. But one way or another he said a thing and left and did not come back. I don't mean this in a "i'm cooler than you cause i stopped watching him earlier" kind of way to be 100% clear and tbh i'm still reeling from "which part of this is the art" like . . . the whole work is the art? Right? I mean i'm not studied on art at all, but that's always how i've thought of things. Like a film score is a piece of art (i was thinking the performance of the score, but i suppose the score on its own without the performance is its own little bit of art too) but it can be used within a film and the film is a piece of art. Art Within Art. So for the example of these little videos . . . it's the video and audio combining. Even if there's other art within the work it's still An Art™ again that's how i see things, maybe i'm wrong. I've never studied media criticism or anything and my Art and English classes in elementary and high school did not teach these things
Ex star wars has a lot of things it derives from just look at the trench run then look at the dam seen from dam busters almost one to one yet we would consider both unique well-made influential scenes with a lot of creative and similarities.
I honestly read his initial rant as confused frustration about how our system applies lame pseudo-philosophical rules to art to determine who "owns" it in order to decide who gets money for the work they did and who gets nothing. But his clarification just tells me that he's big mad about someone making more ad revenue than him from "low effort" work--which is ok to be mad about as long as you're mad at the system that arbitrarily rewards art based on no sensical criteria and not at the lucky people for being lucky.
if the bread is from a bakery, the onions from a farmer, the beef from a butcher, and the cheeze wiz from a factory, what exactly is made in a cheesesteak?????????
I feel like Alex's opinions on the subject seem to... change depending on who he's talking to? In a presentation to the Blender Foundation he jokes(?) about how the animated short films produced by the Blender Animation Studio only gained acclaim (a Webby Award) for their work after they created a derivative animation based on a comic book, likening that to a supposed derivativeness of Hollywood. But in a different short Quick D video (Cup Levitation & Train Track Rescue), he opens the video slanting the whole media landscape of being derivative, and finishing off with a joke(?) at the fact that his persona and aesthetics of his program are also derivative. So I guess he doesn't consider any pop culture to be art then? I don't know anymore. On a related note, Dan Olson made a somewhat related video on the subject of modern art early on in his work, discussing The Cremaster Cycle. I'd like to hear your interpretation of it.
Makes me think about how i felt when i heard his takes on args lol, made me feel really weird like "what?? Is that what he thinks or is that just a joke??" It was something about args being stupid due to "tricking the audience" when it could do the same story with the clarifications that its fiction. Missing the entire point and just assuming args are media meant to lie to people for internet points rather than... a cross reality story? Fascinating how he thinks.
Ive always had an off feeling about captain d cause it always felt like he wasnt teaching people about VFX he was teaching it in *his* way and any other way is wrong. I remember he showed a video that had VFX in it and one of the comments of the original video thought it was done in a specific way and captain d got real pissed off at them for being wrong. He views art as if its boolean and theres right and wrong ways with art
No idea anyone will ever see this as there’s already so many comments. But I’d like to think D’s argument really hinges on his final point. That people with art styles he’s mentioning are somewhat “derivative” then go on to sue other people who they feel are making things “derivative” of their art. As in, according to the artist, fine when they (David Koons) make something that takes influence from another person’s art. But if someone takes influence from David Koons’ art then David will sue them. And that’s inherently unfair, when according to D, the initial art being created isn’t all that original to begin with.
The only person that Captain claims is protective of their IP is romero britto, who does not make obviously derivative work. he just kinda says it in the same sentence as "jeff koons has been criticized for stealing others' work" to make it sound connected.
Oh, I’m actually not to familiar with Koons or the Instagram guy so I was assuming they were included in that. In that case yeah he’s completely lost me as well then lol
despite knowing the name of this channel I misread it as Puppygenic Triangle this time somehow can't put any more relevant thoughts into words right now though so that's the comment
The definition of what is art will always be contested, and while i disagree that art is characterized by work hours i agree that i wouldn't consider something that is mass produced primarily to be sold for profit art (i quite like Britto's art, and he used to be a piece of national pride for me, but he quickly made his art into a production line). Nor would i consider scaling up someone else's work art.
ngl i thought he was just playing a character , as he does in some other segments in his videos if he sincerely believes those things then that s . that s weird
It's ironic that an artist and vfx veteran is critisizing how overprotective artists can get about their work, yet is so overprotective of what they deem "true art" that they'd rather punch down and stomp on people who just want to make stuff. He could've gotten away with it too if he had said that it's part of his character he plays in every video, whos supposed to be kind of unlikeable, but now we know he genuinely believes these things.
Its kind of disappointing that we're having this discourse about what is and isn't art when A.I. generated stuff exists- Like, the fact that A.I. stuff exists, by comparison, makes everything he talks about here seem like art WAYYY more
point of order: it's not AI, it's machine learning. to call machine learning artificial intelligence massively inflates the ability of machine learning algorithms (making them big and r- sorry, memetic infection flareup) and only serves to obfuscate their true nature - to the benefit of the corporations pushing machine learning algorithms as profit generation engines.
@@hideawaysis I think straight AI art without any human decided concept is 'AI art' a new thing that exists outside of normal art, it is made by a machine trying to replicate art it has seen and can be mass produced to a massive degree. Art can be made from AI art though.
@@zarrg5611 why are you trying to make a distinction between "normal" art and ai art, i hate ai art as much as the next guy but objectively it is still art. the only difference is that it's made by a neural network and not a human being, and even then, how does that make it different from art made by humans? it's still art. would art created by a monkey be classified as separate from art because it's not made by a human either? i don't understand.
@@hideawaysis Well a neural network is not a self aware thing, one may say that the wind eroding the rock is creating art. I don't 'Hate' it really though, it has some very bad applications but it can be used for anything like any other tool, If they had twitter in the 19th century then I would be cancelled because I am a photographer.
If I had an assumption onto why he said it: Artists don't have to be good critics to be artists the same way good musicians don't need to know how to read sheet music.
Tho I think these structural points of individual failure are kind of not even that unusual IMO. You see these kinds of lapses of awareness constantly in bureaucratic or corporate structures.
@@Demilich23 bro, just because you didn't understand what was said doesn't mean you should start trying to insult people with terms you don't understand.
@@Demilich23 No, just read a lot. Humanity is full of interesting foibles. Like how you make a hobby out of insulting people on your 11 year old youtube account.
@@lightningninja6905 boo hoo Also that implies that you’re taking the least charitable interpretation as you can in order to make captain’s take look as worse as possible
@@nomansland1494 pretty sure interpreting someone's words as meaning something entirely different, literally providing the different words they would have needed to say for that interpretation to be correct at all in the first place, is as least charitable as an interpretation can be at all it's like, if someone says "i like blue", interpreting that as "i hate yellow" would not be very charitable, but claiming that by "i like blue" they actually really meant to say "i like green" just straight up dismisses the words the whole discussion is about in the first place, which is arguably worse lol
I mean like, yeah, he's not an art critic. He's expressed ties to the "Skeptic" community and they're like, how do i put this, mostly the kind of autistic guys who think autism makes them Superior. He's, like, kinda a Reddit Guy, even if his internet presence predates reddit, and even if he's on the good end of the Reddit Guy spectrum This kinda take is the end result of a philosophy of criticism thats rooted entirely in criticisms of form, of execution Thats what the hoax debunking form was - pulling at threads and failures of CG until it falls apart. That obviously falls to bits once you apply that philosophy to art criticism, and why yeah he does poison the well by criticising the execution
@@LimeyLassen i mean, no, it evolved as a response to gamergate. And CD is definitely not a "breadtuber," he's a staunchly apolitical film guy with a bill nye aesthetic
@@PlurCo that's kinda ahistoric, when gamergate was happening a lot of skeptic community guys showed up with the same attitude towards feminism that they had against theology - they were trying to tear it down and prove it wrong with facts and logic. "breadtube" was a response to that, for example hbomb's (ahem) bread and butter early on was responding to people like thunderfoot and davis aurini captain d is/was actually associated with the sceptic community, he's been to sceptic conferences and used to see people like neil degrasse tyson and penn jilette as idols somewhat. he's talked about being disappointed in how some of them have made "being right on the internet" into their whole thing which has turned them into assholes (he talked about it in a conference presentation of his own, a recording of it is up on his channel and he's in character the whole time, it's actually a fun watch from what i remember)
I think people in the comments are being a little too hard on the Captain 1: It's clear that there is some threshold where he fields something is "too" derivative to count as art for his personal taste. Some comments are turning this into "all art that's derivative isn't art", which is not what he's saying at all? Like, I don't agree with him, but I can acknowledge that some forms of usage is more derivative than others. 2: Low effort *is* a valid critique of art, though I personally believe low effort art to still be art. If somebody were to just plop a blue filter on random viral videos over and over, then critiquing it for being lazy is fine. Like, once it might be interesting, especially if it adds to the context of the video, but the 30th time you put the same blue filter on a video it might not feel the same. Though then again, a lot of people love nightcore or ai song covers, which in a way is pretty similar to what I described above /shrug. But yeah, I completely agree that he had an L take, but I don't like some of the comparisons people make in the comments.
im not sure i understand the issue with his take? (or maybe i misunderstood it?) from what i understood: in his opinion, he believes that "art" that has no personality (not sure if thats the right word) or effort put into it isnt really art i saw someone in the comments compare this to saying "sampling isnt a valid form of composing music", but i dont see how thats comparable when you sample music, you dont make a song ENTIRELY from samples, and regardless even if you did, it still takes work and creative choices on how you put that all together into a new song, with the cloth videos on the other hand, the song choice and dance are both not their own work, the cloth physics are computer generated (therefore also not their work), and the combination of them all isnt very creative and doesnt take much effort (correct me if im wrong but, i dont think these have a deep meaning behind them) im not saying i have anything against these people, or that you should have something against them, or even that i 100% agree with the captain here, i just dont understand how his take is an issue?
It's unfortunate, but it seems like Captain D is just taking the world as it is for granted. In a capitalist world, with intellectual property rights as we have them, the important thing is that the person who creates something "truly novel" gets paid for it, and gets at least residuals on any interpretations or recreations of it. I don't blame him 100%, because the fact is that *is* the world we currently live in, and if we were to just drop our intellectual property laws tomorrow, artists would almost all be broke as companies profited off their work without credit. But it sure would be nice if he knew more about the developments of modern and post-modern art, looking deeper at the problem, and realized that things like "true novelty" are impossible to put solid boundaries on (because, as you said, context matters), and the false walls that capitalism and our intellectual property system puts around things *should* be broken down, and replaced with something better, that allows for everyone to explore their creativity without concern for where their next meal will come from. All in all, it won't stop me from watching Captain D, but I will keep in mind that until something changes with him, his analysis will only go so deep.
I have no idea if this is something you were looking for comment on, and god only knows if you feel somewhat unequipped to respond to that UA-camr (which, this was great, so totally not), I'm at the bottom of a well yelling up, so feel free to ignore. That said, I haven't seen too many dissenting opinions in the comments, so: I feel there is something to be said here, not in procedural animation being used in art, but intent and complexity. What was the artistic intent of those videos? What are they hoping to evoke? Presumably, just the thought that dancing sheets look pretty rad, which to be entirely fair, is a perfectly valid art form. But with the context that it is just two elements (three when you count the backdrop) that can be really varied, all of which don't demand much effort to obtain individually, or meld together... it definitely doesn't cease to be art, but I assume it's upsetting for him that it's successful art. It's probably the same feeling some people get when watching a film that really affects them on a deep level, only to see its box office in comparison to others. In a way, it's quite elitist, but also totally understandable. It's okay to have standards. Granted, should he have put that opinion in a video? Eh... You're probably right that it should've been left unsaid, at least to a wider audience in such an authoritative manner.
Captain D has been a super active member of the still-existing “skeptics” community that a lot of right-wing atheism eventually spun out of. I don’t think he or the community would take kindly to being referred to as right wing (and i don’t think they necessarily share a lot of opinions with any of the splinter groups). but those kinds of ideologies seem to regard most deviations from (AT MOST*) modern art as a hoax or scam * (like “dang! splatter canvases in abstract expressionism have a measurable fractal dimension! i guess that guy WAS an artist”)
Hearing the full "thanks for watching" and holding on complete silence made my bones shiver
With the elements cutting out I felt like it was building up for a goddam jump scare.
agree with you guys, she basically subverted herself this time
i hope she cuts the video like a minute short next time to make up for it
@@cupofdirtfordinner nah
spoiler >:(
thanks for the big spinning captain, the mario cam simply wasn't doing it for me anymore
Yeah, what’s up with all that…
Captain D's take feels like the VFX equivalent of saying sampling isn't a valid form of composing music
With this comparison, I think I'm starting see the issue with what he said, which I didn't see after it was clarified.
(Edit): In my defense, I paused the video before commenting, and probably would've realized the issue by watching the rest of the video.
It isn't.
@@Demilich23bro,
bro you have to say _why_ you think that
do you want anyone to take you seriously or not
and in this comparison arises much of the discourse I personally loathe around AI or generative art. Synth based music composers have used various algorithms, equations, and programs to manipulate a melody into something new, not explicitely composed by the musician - from taking seabed depth data and mapping it to pitch or other aspects of the piece, to using math to transpose and manipulate a short melody into a longer piece - THE ENTIRE debate around the artistic value of these types of compositions comes down to context. Is what you're doing here saying anything? And if it is how necessary is the data or algorithm you used to create it.
@@Demilich23do you know what channel you are on right now
Captain Disillusion's definition of art seems to be "Would I pay someone for this?" which comes across a bit shallow and incurious.
He called the artists he didn’t like “low effort commercial artists” tho
And he’s made entire documentaries on just movies he loves and which made him fall in love with VFX he clearly has a normal love for art
In his flight of the navigator video he literally does original research and brings old props into the studio just to recreate how the a shot was created doesn’t seem incurious to me seems like healthy engagement with art
I don’t even like the art opinion it’s dumb but why did it make everyone here start huffing their own farts lol
Everyone alive hates the kitschy balloon animals, they look like shit
@@digdogbulldogdog I like the kitschy balloon animals :(
Better than "vibes" tbh
I don't really think that's a valid reading of his statement on art. I think it's moreso that he has this bar of "derivitaveness" that invalidates something as being "art"
@@digdogbulldogdogFirst time I’m hearing that people hate balloon animals.
Alright then. L opinion from Captain D, but certainly props for him to give a concise answer that doesn't increase drama or anything but actually explains his position.
the day we stop using "effort" as a metric in determining the validity and quality of art will be the day i'll finally make peace with the world
only failures like you want to remove standards from artistic canon
@@Demilich23You're allowed to just not like things. If you don't like a piece of art that's cool, but you not liking it doesn't change whether it's art or not.
@@Demilich23what standards are you talking about, bro? art is vibes based, not standards based.
*What is the point of art?* Is it to make us feel and think? To produce some kind of reaction in its viewer, some kind of introspection, bring them a new perspective on the world (or at least a small part of the world)? I think those are all fair things to say art is "supposed to do."
If that's the case, I don't think *effort* is any kind of reliable metric for judging art. I've seen many projects that clearly had hundreds of hours of effort behind them, but which I still found to be shit. They didn't make me feel anything except "this is... just bad." I think lots of people understand this intuitively, though they accidentally conflate effort with quality, hence "I'm going to randomly scratch a pen on paper and call it art."
"So good art is something that both makes you feel something, makes you think, introspect, etc, AND that required a lot of effort to make."
Well, at this point, why are we including the effort as a metric? If something makes me feel, think, shifts my perspective, but it was relatively easy to make, does that mean it's any less art? Can art not be simple yet powerful?
I'm not saying that all the examples of art in the video make me incredibly emotional or changed my life, I'm just saying that pointing and saying "low-effort" is not enough to discredit it as art.
@@OctovenderRealIf only I had a nickel for every person who's opinion of art boils down to "but how much cash did they nab selling this? If it's too much, then I hate it."
I bet I'd have $17m.
The captain, he's accelerating...
my gosh... what do we do?!
@@tabescentpawsTell him Jesus loves you
rap battle now
Or do it the controversy Spanish youtuber way and set up a boxing match
@@miajajajajajajajajajo oh no is this what we're famous for
@@unblorbosyourshows9635 I say this as someone who speaks spanish; I'm the one snitching to the gringos
EMINEM VS IBS
Relegated to the tumble dryer for the crime of bad opinions
this quote goes
not in any particular direction or having any specific quality
it just goes
Also, I can't imagine any other hot take that would make him sound less like a professional and more like a typical UA-camr.
If he said literally anything even slightly more bigoted, he'd sound atleast slightly less professional.
@@cyl_genderfluid-furry Yeah, but this is pretty bad, he would have to go on a ten minute tirade against any post 1900 art or something.
@@zarrg5611 I was jokingly stating the obvious, whilst also pointing out that literally speaking, there is worse. My statement is accurate, and can't really be argued against.
@@cyl_genderfluid-furry I'm sorry if I was too ‘but aktually’, I can see how that can be irritating, I just didn't quite understand your comment.
im sure we all love the ‘thanks for wa-‘ typical of these videos (I know I do, I laugh every time), so I just need to say:
getting the full ‘thanks for watching’ and then having the video slowly, like, shut down was both hilarious and unsettling. thank u
I was legit getting worried there'd be a jumpscare lmao
I just thought it was pretty.
good to know my initial take of "it was an extended, in-character rant from someone whose barometer of 'good art' is solely 'technical skill in VFX', as a joke" was only wrong about the "in-character" and "as a joke" parts
HE'S STILL IN CHARACTER HE'S STILL IN CHARACTER IT'S A JOKE IT'S A JOKE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE IT'S A JOKE HE'S JOKING HE'S SDTILL ING HCAHRACTER PLEASE
@@frumbolo what?
@@ebucario They're coping and seething in real time
@@JasminUwULmao, it could still be a joke. In one of the 30 minute talks on CD’s channel he talks about how you should always appear right on Internet and shows an example as a joke where he sticks to a weird narrative rather than admitting he is wrong for a while.
I have been dragged into the timeline where the ambiguity of sarcasm has been clarified to be no, he really does think that. I want to go back to the ignorance.
I wish I didn't know he thought this tbh
I was really expecting the Mario Cam to be the last element of the video standing
immediately thought of duchampe's fountain when reading his definitions
also, excellent subversion of the "thanks for wa-" bit in your previous videos
If there's a piece of art or an artwork that you hate it doesn't stop being art. If you think the art is shit you have every right to rabidly critique it, but it's still technically a work of art. If it wasn't one, you wouldn't be trying to invalidate that from it.
I think this especially annoys me due to point 2 tacitly assuming you think that hobbyist or student art is in some way or in some cases not real art. Like it's true people learning a skill aren't going to be as good at it as they will be in a few years, but their early art is still very much meaningful!
Even if it's complete garbage it's still got intrinsic value just due to its necessity as well as how it simply shows continuous effort towards a goal if nothing else. Implicitly saying "you're not going to be a REAL artist for at least like, four years" is just uncool. Uninspiring to the youth at the very least.
I think this kind of take makes it so that things like children's drawings don't count as art. I always think of that one post a parent made showing a drawing that their kid made with the word "safe" in mind. Three people sharing a bed, the little one in the midle, and everyone is smiling. I don't think I can make this any more clear.
People are scared of saying that art can be bad. Because for them being art implies some form of "greatness" that transcends itself or something like that. Art can be amazing, mediocre, awful, or just meh, once you realize that, everything is better.
@@miajajajajajajajajajo Yeah, It can be real meaningful! I just wanted to bank on the absolutely certain fact that you have to draw a whole lotta drawings that are at least mechanically crap until you can make stuff that is mechanically good. Invalidating those is both a dick move and probably untrue. There's usually some real neat stuff in there, like you said :3
I think it’s completely fine to be of the opinion that things that aren’t up to a certain standard aren’t art. I just don’t think that having a definition of art like that is ever helpful. Art is a dumb category. It’s a human thing to do, so as a human you have to decide if and how you can know it when you see it.
I think saying that something being derivative makes it bad is dumb unless you have some inspiration quotient you can point to to quantify how derivative something is. Like The Inferno is kind of derivative, of history, and the Bible and whatever whatever. It’s not art? I think musical sampling is a fantastic example. I don’t get a lot out of most art, and when I do, recontextualized versions of that art tend not to do as much as the original. American Gothic just makes me want to stare and stare in a way that no other “interpretation” Does.
But that’s not how I feel about music. With music I can absolutely see how a person making their own cover, or adapting a melody, or fully sampling something, can make an entirely new piece of art.
I’ll never understand his exact criteria for art with an explanation like that basically.
aren’t you just projecting your gripes on some random dude tho
I feel like even if he’s wrong we have to come to terms that people we don’t know have shitty opinions
love how the captain d picture in the corner kept spinning faster
i cant believe captain disillusion is now a 3d animated vfx motion simulated milkshake duck
yeah so it's as I thought it's another Solar Sands situation.
whats a solar sands situation
@@dragonusmolamola4140 art-related creator having horrible opinions about art despite his work
what was solar sands's horrible opinion? I recall he made cringe compilations in the past but I thought he doesn't make that sort of video anymore @@jossaccountofmadnessandmem1844
@@jossaccountofmadnessandmem1844 when did solar sands do this
@@ratewcropolix he has explained his views on contemporary art, especially fetish art, multiple times on twitter, stating esp that the "overexposure" to fetish art might be the cause of rapid surges in "mental illness" recently. the usual correlation (by time span) = causation kind of deal.
well, that's egg on the face of people saying he was being sarcastic somehow lol
The perlin noise 2:01 is a great joke
Artists use tools built up from previous artists to make new art easier than they could before. Just because something doesn't take hours of hand animating cloth physics anymore, doesn't mean it's not art.
I recall a certain adorable doggo claiming art “is not a goddamn endurance sport” and I couldn’t agree more.
Edit: misremembered the quote, original did not have the word “endurance” but you know what? It fits.
Well that’s a disappointing clarification, but not a surprising one when his take on more experimental forms of fiction was an appeal to Jospeh Campbell’s hero’s journey structure. He knows a lot about shutter speeds I’ll give him that.
What video was that in? I kinda am morbidly curious to watch it
@@hazelschannel162 the Escher staircase I think.
To be fair, he said that about Escher stairwell, and the non-biodegradable nature of that myth. Because damn, can't the coy fella just put (THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION) all over the pl...
To be fair, who cares? Honestly, gullible people like myself should just literally believe everything they see online at this point.
But for real, yeah, that was weird. Not all stories need that kinda loop.
there's something i find so intriguing about this channel, how it's structured and how each video no matter the topic whether it's something I'm deeply interested in, something I've never heard of, something i agree with or an opinion i absolutely despise, it's still very entertaining and interesting to me. These videos feel exactly like those little conversations i have with myself in my head from time to time about the most random and obscure problems that it's completely meaningless and there's something so comforting yet also motivating about it. I know it doesn't make sense, but... Your videos sort of motivate me to have opinions?? Idk it just feels like im more motivated to notice things and think about it over in my head if that makes sense. Maybe I should try making a channel like this one day it would be interesting to see how it turns out anyway hope you enjoyed my little 12 AM rant thanks for r
This is like if a highly skilled traditional artist looked at a painting or something and said "Oh, but look! The paint they're using is all pre-made and comes from bottles, the brushes were all made in a factory, and the canvas itself was mass produced! So, where's the art?"
MORE LIKE CAPTAIN PISSILLUSION
the way the video disintegrated piece by piece after the "thanks for watching" was oddly chilling in a way i wish i had the words to describe
please stop talking like that it's beyond insufferable
@@Demilich23 live a little, let people express themselves however they want. no way of speaking is gonna be more annoying than someone coming into a comment's replies to be a preachy weirdo, shoosh
@@Demilich23 why do you care?
@@Demilich23 ?????? how
@@Demilich23 i think i will actually continue to talk however i'd like to, and i think that maybe you should reflect on why something so inconsequential bothers you so much
that take is so inflammatory and silly, im honestly shocked he still holds it and doubles down on it after 5 years of it being up
CD has gained a status that kind of prevents him from ever displaying his takes, which isnt a good thing
wonder if the captain got dizzy here
i never expected Patricia taxxon and captain D beef
one of the biggest annoying things other artists do sometimes is claiming a piece of art they don't like is no longer art seemingly just because they don't like it. There is no quality minimum for something to be art, its entirely just intention to make a piece of art and even then sometimes things not intended to be "art" become art. There are whole beloved performance pieces that are like "either read or don't read this sentence" and that is even less effort than anything captain mentioned but its absolutely unquestionably art. I dont know im rambling a bit but it feels like it comes from this misguided sense that art is some elevated thing the average person can't do when its one of the base things that makes human beings unique. Its something to appreciate that every human can make art regardless of quality, if you like it or not, or if its entirely stolen from other people.
Yeah, it's a frustrating posture for him to take. The way that certain artists with a big platform go about things leaving a bad taste in one's mouth is fine, I think, but the framing here and the emphasis on what is or is not derivative feels both a bit shallow and missing the forest for the trees on his part. There are critiques he could have made which I probably would have agreed with but these ones aren't great.
Does Captain D hold the position that art should be based around meritocratic ideals? I dont think so neccesarily, however, I think he still holds a lot of contempt over certain artists for them creating art that isnt based around its perceived "effort". Ive seen this position held a lot in mainstream art discussion and its honestly disheartening how modern art is perceived and thought of in such a negative light in the public eye.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's weird how his takes about art somewhat contradict the very industry he's actively a part of. Would he call his own visual effects art? If I point out the inaccuracies or errors in his effects, do they cease to be art? How much effort or lack of commercial viability is necessary for something to be considered art?
captain d seems to treat art and storytelling as a kind of methodical engineering (eg the ending of the escherian stairwell video)
His concern in my interpretation isn’t “is this allowed to be called art?” in a literal sense, but “Is this doing anything as a piece of art to move me? Is it subjectively (to him) greater than the sum of its parts?” His answer is no, and he cites artist like Koons as other examples of artist that don’t make things he finds moving.
Seems like a fine opinion to have if he didn’t use “would I call it ‘art’” as his way of saying that.
Ah, so this ended up being a one of those "jokes" where the contempt isn't even given plausible deniability by being told in joke format. Hmm
This is the exact kind of argument that leads people to say music made on a computer isn't "real" music which I would hope at this point has been completely disproven by the absurd amount of evidence.
There is no such thing as 100% original art. Most, if not all art is derivative in some way, some more than others.
Yeah this is what throws me off about takes like his, everything in history is a cause and effect, how is art any different?
right, so if i copy a painting should it be held to the same regard as the original? its inherently different since i cant perfectly copy every atom. either youre insane and i have nothing i could possibly argue more about, or you agree the original deserves at least a shitton more praise that my copy. so wheres the line?
@@Helperbot-2000We can praise art in different amounts.
@@mikaeus468 really now? so there is a difference then. and perhaps art that highly copies something else withouut adding much of anytihng new to it should be discouraged? you know, the shit people here defend so vehemently?
@@Helperbot-2000 Why would we discourage it? It's fun to draw from reference.
That subversion of expectation at the end made me smile so much.
the inversion of the "thanks for watching" bit 😱😱😱😱😱
GREAT video, thanks Patricia ❤
I am not sure what the original problem was, but it sounds like he is really just saying 'people who make low effort art should not then turn around and start arguing that other people make similar art'
This take is cool
Yeah this is kind of what I suspected. From how judgemental and well poisoning they sound i wouldn't be surprised if they reply with some appeal to neoclassical bs
we figured out (he told us) what he was getting at, there
a lot of people call norman rockwell an illustrator and therefore he is not an "artist"
im not really a fan of that take myself, i've always liked his stuff and found it distinct enough to recognize,
but idk that seems where captain D's coming from
Spinning Captain D, eh? Wutcha tryna do, put him in a...blender?
Captain D also had some takes that I disagree with in... maybe the Gateway to Sedona and the Escherian Stairwell videos? Basically, he blamed the rise of mis/dis/malinformation and conspiracy theories, at least in part, on unbelievable fictional stories that present themselves as fact as part of their framing.
Antivax people exist because of bigfoot for some reason
2:17 this, exactly. thank you!
So i remember watching his stuff nearly a decade ago and really enjoying it, but I remember hitting a video but not the specifics of what was said, but I remember going "huh i don't like that take" whether it was art or politics idk. But one way or another he said a thing and left and did not come back. I don't mean this in a "i'm cooler than you cause i stopped watching him earlier" kind of way to be 100% clear
and tbh i'm still reeling from "which part of this is the art" like . . . the whole work is the art? Right? I mean i'm not studied on art at all, but that's always how i've thought of things. Like a film score is a piece of art (i was thinking the performance of the score, but i suppose the score on its own without the performance is its own little bit of art too) but it can be used within a film and the film is a piece of art. Art Within Art. So for the example of these little videos . . . it's the video and audio combining. Even if there's other art within the work it's still An Art™
again that's how i see things, maybe i'm wrong. I've never studied media criticism or anything and my Art and English classes in elementary and high school did not teach these things
I think you’re very good at talking and putting points together it’s actually refreshing on the internet :3
I read this as "capitalist disillusion" and was confused but now I know
thank you
hexagon..
Ex star wars has a lot of things it derives from just look at the trench run then look at the dam seen from dam busters almost one to one yet we would consider both unique well-made influential scenes with a lot of creative and similarities.
"the other mass-produces colourful doodles that he has his assistants fill with colours" MATISSE?
Yapping levels today: catastrophic
spinny captain d go brrrr
can we also have spinning captain d in the corner of the screen with mario cam in every video going forward
WHY IS THANKS FOR WATCHING LONG
oh my fucking god lol
by god that argument had a family!
I honestly read his initial rant as confused frustration about how our system applies lame pseudo-philosophical rules to art to determine who "owns" it in order to decide who gets money for the work they did and who gets nothing. But his clarification just tells me that he's big mad about someone making more ad revenue than him from "low effort" work--which is ok to be mad about as long as you're mad at the system that arbitrarily rewards art based on no sensical criteria and not at the lucky people for being lucky.
Your captain disilution voice was spot on.
Gonna internally start calling these "Captain Delusional" moments whenever his vids have a take like this
oof man i totally forgot about this take im so tired of people thinking they can decide what art is
if the bread is from a bakery, the onions from a farmer, the beef from a butcher, and the cheeze wiz from a factory, what exactly is made in a cheesesteak?????????
yo somethin about how the elements popped out of existence at the end one by one. I feel tingly.
Rapidly increasing in velocity Captiulious Disollution
I feel like Alex's opinions on the subject seem to... change depending on who he's talking to? In a presentation to the Blender Foundation he jokes(?) about how the animated short films produced by the Blender Animation Studio only gained acclaim (a Webby Award) for their work after they created a derivative animation based on a comic book, likening that to a supposed derivativeness of Hollywood. But in a different short Quick D video (Cup Levitation & Train Track Rescue), he opens the video slanting the whole media landscape of being derivative, and finishing off with a joke(?) at the fact that his persona and aesthetics of his program are also derivative. So I guess he doesn't consider any pop culture to be art then? I don't know anymore.
On a related note, Dan Olson made a somewhat related video on the subject of modern art early on in his work, discussing The Cremaster Cycle. I'd like to hear your interpretation of it.
captain doggy
minha cabeca 🤯
Makes me think about how i felt when i heard his takes on args lol, made me feel really weird like "what?? Is that what he thinks or is that just a joke??" It was something about args being stupid due to "tricking the audience" when it could do the same story with the clarifications that its fiction. Missing the entire point and just assuming args are media meant to lie to people for internet points rather than... a cross reality story? Fascinating how he thinks.
Ive always had an off feeling about captain d cause it always felt like he wasnt teaching people about VFX he was teaching it in *his* way and any other way is wrong. I remember he showed a video that had VFX in it and one of the comments of the original video thought it was done in a specific way and captain d got real pissed off at them for being wrong. He views art as if its boolean and theres right and wrong ways with art
This outro was the best one yet, next should be even longet
No idea anyone will ever see this as there’s already so many comments. But I’d like to think D’s argument really hinges on his final point. That people with art styles he’s mentioning are somewhat “derivative” then go on to sue other people who they feel are making things “derivative” of their art. As in, according to the artist, fine when they (David Koons) make something that takes influence from another person’s art. But if someone takes influence from David Koons’ art then David will sue them. And that’s inherently unfair, when according to D, the initial art being created isn’t all that original to begin with.
The only person that Captain claims is protective of their IP is romero britto, who does not make obviously derivative work. he just kinda says it in the same sentence as "jeff koons has been criticized for stealing others' work" to make it sound connected.
Oh, I’m actually not to familiar with Koons or the Instagram guy so I was assuming they were included in that. In that case yeah he’s completely lost me as well then lol
despite knowing the name of this channel I misread it as Puppygenic Triangle this time somehow
can't put any more relevant thoughts into words right now though so that's the comment
I swear it's the fate of skeptic channels to end up "debunking" intangibles because they've run out of content and their audience is getting restless.
I just stumbled across the previous video and this one, why is a mario cam here
She made a couple short videos criticizing that scene from the Mario film. There's no other context, it's tomfoolery.
The definition of what is art will always be contested, and while i disagree that art is characterized by work hours i agree that i wouldn't consider something that is mass produced primarily to be sold for profit art (i quite like Britto's art, and he used to be a piece of national pride for me, but he quickly made his art into a production line). Nor would i consider scaling up someone else's work art.
Can the spinning Captain D return in future videos please.
Someone needs to summon CJ the X to yell at Capt. D about art lol
ngl i thought he was just playing a character , as he does in some other segments in his videos
if he sincerely believes those things then that s . that s weird
It's ironic that an artist and vfx veteran is critisizing how overprotective artists can get about their work, yet is so overprotective of what they deem "true art" that they'd rather punch down and stomp on people who just want to make stuff. He could've gotten away with it too if he had said that it's part of his character he plays in every video, whos supposed to be kind of unlikeable, but now we know he genuinely believes these things.
I wonder how he feels about Duchamp's "Fountain?"
that ending...
Its kind of disappointing that we're having this discourse about what is and isn't art when A.I. generated stuff exists- Like, the fact that A.I. stuff exists, by comparison, makes everything he talks about here seem like art WAYYY more
...ai art is art too?? why wouldn't it be art. bad art has the capability of existing yknow
point of order: it's not AI, it's machine learning. to call machine learning artificial intelligence massively inflates the ability of machine learning algorithms (making them big and r- sorry, memetic infection flareup) and only serves to obfuscate their true nature - to the benefit of the corporations pushing machine learning algorithms as profit generation engines.
@@hideawaysis I think straight AI art without any human decided concept is 'AI art' a new thing that exists outside of normal art, it is made by a machine trying to replicate art it has seen and can be mass produced to a massive degree. Art can be made from AI art though.
@@zarrg5611 why are you trying to make a distinction between "normal" art and ai art, i hate ai art as much as the next guy but objectively it is still art. the only difference is that it's made by a neural network and not a human being, and even then, how does that make it different from art made by humans? it's still art. would art created by a monkey be classified as separate from art because it's not made by a human either? i don't understand.
@@hideawaysis Well a neural network is not a self aware thing, one may say that the wind eroding the rock is creating art. I don't 'Hate' it really though, it has some very bad applications but it can be used for anything like any other tool, If they had twitter in the 19th century then I would be cancelled because I am a photographer.
If I had an assumption onto why he said it: Artists don't have to be good critics to be artists the same way good musicians don't need to know how to read sheet music.
Tho I think these structural points of individual failure are kind of not even that unusual IMO. You see these kinds of lapses of awareness constantly in bureaucratic or corporate structures.
@@SuperQuadocky terminally online pseudo intellectual
@@Demilich23 bro, just because you didn't understand what was said doesn't mean you should start trying to insult people with terms you don't understand.
@@Demilich23 No, just read a lot. Humanity is full of interesting foibles. Like how you make a hobby out of insulting people on your 11 year old youtube account.
i suppose this is the expected response form the guy who thinks that creating unfiction means you're lying to your audience
rotato
ranana
Why does your video have 12 seconds of dead air at the end
If captain replaced “I don’t think it’s art” with “I think it’s bad art”, y’all wouldn’t be complaining nearly as much
Yeah, but like, Captain said what he said. It's not other people's job to misinterpret him to give a more generous take.
@@lightningninja6905 boo hoo
Also that implies that you’re taking the least charitable interpretation as you can in order to make captain’s take look as worse as possible
@@nomansland1494 pretty sure interpreting someone's words as meaning something entirely different, literally providing the different words they would have needed to say for that interpretation to be correct at all in the first place, is as least charitable as an interpretation can be at all
it's like, if someone says "i like blue", interpreting that as "i hate yellow" would not be very charitable, but claiming that by "i like blue" they actually really meant to say "i like green" just straight up dismisses the words the whole discussion is about in the first place, which is arguably worse lol
Yes, because those are two different things genius
I mean like, yeah, he's not an art critic. He's expressed ties to the "Skeptic" community and they're like, how do i put this, mostly the kind of autistic guys who think autism makes them Superior. He's, like, kinda a Reddit Guy, even if his internet presence predates reddit, and even if he's on the good end of the Reddit Guy spectrum
This kinda take is the end result of a philosophy of criticism thats rooted entirely in criticisms of form, of execution
Thats what the hoax debunking form was - pulling at threads and failures of CG until it falls apart. That obviously falls to bits once you apply that philosophy to art criticism, and why yeah he does poison the well by criticising the execution
That is true, but the whole Breadtube scene evolved out of the skeptic community. I think this take is part of a systemic problem.
The bread tube scene evolved kinda specifically out of Contrapoints 😄
@@LimeyLassen i mean, no, it evolved as a response to gamergate. And CD is definitely not a "breadtuber," he's a staunchly apolitical film guy with a bill nye aesthetic
We were already claiming that Natalie invented bisexual lighting, now we’re saying she invented breadtube???
@@PlurCo that's kinda ahistoric, when gamergate was happening a lot of skeptic community guys showed up with the same attitude towards feminism that they had against theology - they were trying to tear it down and prove it wrong with facts and logic. "breadtube" was a response to that, for example hbomb's (ahem) bread and butter early on was responding to people like thunderfoot and davis aurini
captain d is/was actually associated with the sceptic community, he's been to sceptic conferences and used to see people like neil degrasse tyson and penn jilette as idols somewhat. he's talked about being disappointed in how some of them have made "being right on the internet" into their whole thing which has turned them into assholes (he talked about it in a conference presentation of his own, a recording of it is up on his channel and he's in character the whole time, it's actually a fun watch from what i remember)
I think people in the comments are being a little too hard on the Captain
1: It's clear that there is some threshold where he fields something is "too" derivative to count as art for his personal taste. Some comments are turning this into "all art that's derivative isn't art", which is not what he's saying at all? Like, I don't agree with him, but I can acknowledge that some forms of usage is more derivative than others.
2: Low effort *is* a valid critique of art, though I personally believe low effort art to still be art. If somebody were to just plop a blue filter on random viral videos over and over, then critiquing it for being lazy is fine. Like, once it might be interesting, especially if it adds to the context of the video, but the 30th time you put the same blue filter on a video it might not feel the same.
Though then again, a lot of people love nightcore or ai song covers, which in a way is pretty similar to what I described above /shrug.
But yeah, I completely agree that he had an L take, but I don't like some of the comparisons people make in the comments.
oh yikes. great analysis as always
Genuine question you said that the dancing phantoms aren’t “merely a collage” so are collages not art in your point of view?
Why does the spinning captain keep getting faster
Is he about to take off?
im not sure i understand the issue with his take? (or maybe i misunderstood it?)
from what i understood:
in his opinion, he believes that "art" that has no personality (not sure if thats the right word) or effort put into it isnt really art
i saw someone in the comments compare this to saying "sampling isnt a valid form of composing music", but i dont see how thats comparable
when you sample music, you dont make a song ENTIRELY from samples, and regardless even if you did, it still takes work and creative choices on how you put that all together into a new song, with the cloth videos on the other hand, the song choice and dance are both not their own work, the cloth physics are computer generated (therefore also not their work), and the combination of them all isnt very creative and doesnt take much effort (correct me if im wrong but, i dont think these have a deep meaning behind them)
im not saying i have anything against these people, or that you should have something against them, or even that i 100% agree with the captain here, i just dont understand how his take is an issue?
What is happening? Is there discourse?
It's unfortunate, but it seems like Captain D is just taking the world as it is for granted. In a capitalist world, with intellectual property rights as we have them, the important thing is that the person who creates something "truly novel" gets paid for it, and gets at least residuals on any interpretations or recreations of it.
I don't blame him 100%, because the fact is that *is* the world we currently live in, and if we were to just drop our intellectual property laws tomorrow, artists would almost all be broke as companies profited off their work without credit. But it sure would be nice if he knew more about the developments of modern and post-modern art, looking deeper at the problem, and realized that things like "true novelty" are impossible to put solid boundaries on (because, as you said, context matters), and the false walls that capitalism and our intellectual property system puts around things *should* be broken down, and replaced with something better, that allows for everyone to explore their creativity without concern for where their next meal will come from.
All in all, it won't stop me from watching Captain D, but I will keep in mind that until something changes with him, his analysis will only go so deep.
I have no idea if this is something you were looking for comment on, and god only knows if you feel somewhat unequipped to respond to that UA-camr (which, this was great, so totally not), I'm at the bottom of a well yelling up, so feel free to ignore. That said, I haven't seen too many dissenting opinions in the comments, so:
I feel there is something to be said here, not in procedural animation being used in art, but intent and complexity. What was the artistic intent of those videos? What are they hoping to evoke? Presumably, just the thought that dancing sheets look pretty rad, which to be entirely fair, is a perfectly valid art form. But with the context that it is just two elements (three when you count the backdrop) that can be really varied, all of which don't demand much effort to obtain individually, or meld together... it definitely doesn't cease to be art, but I assume it's upsetting for him that it's successful art. It's probably the same feeling some people get when watching a film that really affects them on a deep level, only to see its box office in comparison to others. In a way, it's quite elitist, but also totally understandable. It's okay to have standards. Granted, should he have put that opinion in a video? Eh... You're probably right that it should've been left unsaid, at least to a wider audience in such an authoritative manner.
Captain D has been a super active member of the still-existing “skeptics” community that a lot of right-wing atheism eventually spun out of. I don’t think he or the community would take kindly to being referred to as right wing (and i don’t think they necessarily share a lot of opinions with any of the splinter groups).
but those kinds of ideologies seem to regard most deviations from (AT MOST*) modern art as a hoax or scam
* (like “dang! splatter canvases in abstract expressionism have a measurable fractal dimension! i guess that guy WAS an artist”)