**Edit:** Hey all, I made a new video on the topic of AI Art. You can check it out here! ua-cam.com/video/-fD9UNah7TU/v-deo.html I don't know or when how this video suddenly blew up, but first, I'd like to thank everyone for your constructive comments! You've all raised some really important points that I failed to consider or address in my video--Especially about many major inaccuracies on historical details--which, well, was pretty hastily put-together for a class I had to pass. Either way, thanks for taking the time to check out the video and for leaving your comments!
I've lost respect for art, even though I do it. I think the problem with art is the same reason why anyone would love art: it's subjective. Pisschrist is art just as the Mona Lisa is. Tying your dick to a pole and smacking the pole on another pole is art. Oko Yono screaming for 4 hours is art. DaVinci is an artist, Van Gough is an artist, H.R. Giger is an artist. The asshole who made a golden toilet and labeled it America is not a fucking artist. It's juvenile, impractical, and no skill. Martial arts have rules, so should any in my opinion.
Hey, I think your ideas are really interesting, and I among others have left in the comments, some counterpoints. I'd love to hear your take on these, if you'd be inclined to give it.
i don't think this is a problem within modern art itself, its a wider problem that deals with the monetization and capitalization of art in general. attach a piece to a famous name and you suddenly got yourself a masterpiece
That’s wrong. It’s the period and the artist that attach the value. Picasso did some really bad stuff at some point particularly with his potteries which attract very little value with the only people buying it, buying it to say they have a Picasso.
i think it looks interesting mostly because that pattern (if you can call it that) will never happen exactly again. not saying it’s worth millions to me. but it is pretty sometimes. but ALSO rich people buy art to save on taxes and park their money.
For me personally the best prize for this painting should be at 50.000$ and i drop it way too low because it's kind of silly to get millions with a piece that is easy to make even tho the "pattern" is unique
i am a big fan of modern art and i really agree with you, modern art becomes super expensive for no reason that it just feels like its money laundering, a lot of modern art and other abstract pieces are looking for money and the painting is just lazy but they say it "has a lot of meaning" and is "abstract", and there are people like jean michel basquiat and piet mondrian making actual masterpieces through the means of modern and contemporary or just abstract art.
Abstract art is, a lot of times, an expression of the artist's feelings and/or thoughts and if done well, it can make others feel that same way. Some pieces are better than others but most do have "meaning", or at least are intended to. Also, I don’t believe there is such thing as a “lazy painting”. They’re not all supposed to look the same. More minimalistic paintings are supposed to be exactly that - minimalistic. It’s not because the artist was “lazy” it’s because they aimed to capture/create a more simplistic look.
Because real artist learn how to do anatomy even someone like Bruce Timm he still does what regular artist does but more stylised way. And Todd McFarlane as well was rejected by marvel and DC 700 times because he’s drawings weren’t good so he worked on pieces of anatomy like he do hands, feet whatever. Artist have to learn colour theory lighting, shading and what colours do they want. Do they went muted or saturated colours it’s really complex and something that builds and earns overtime. Which is why artists are respected and called talented. But modern artists require none of that and all you need to do is have a high status, a banana and tape and you have millions money. They don’t earn the fame and money because people like Jack Kirby don’t get what their earned but modern artist are some of the famous artist of the world. Plus it’s just a money laundering scheme for rich people to get richer. Sorry for the late reply. ua-cam.com/video/Dw5kme5Q_Yo/v-deo.htmlsi=swstw2IGP1KmxYwr ua-cam.com/video/ZZ3F3zWiEmc/v-deo.htmlsi=MTf74B8b_5Yd5DWu
@@dante_0962 Knowing how to do anatomy is not what defines a “real artist.” Would you tell artists like Van Goh, Monet or Bob Ross (to name a few) that they’re not “real artists” because they don’t do anatomy? Regardless of what kind of art one does, there are many things to learn and apply to one one’s work. Even with abstract art, there are things to learn such as values (color), composition and techniques for creating different effects. There are also psychological challenges, like embracing imperfection and understanding the importance of *not* becoming too attached to certain detail (this is far easier said than done.) Every category of art has skill to learn and knowledge to develop over time. I did landscape and “realistic” art for over a decade and it wasn’t until recent years that I started to do abstract art. There are clear differences in the abstract work I did as a beginner and the abstract paintings I’m doing now and I’m still learning. It is certainly not without its challenges. Something may appear to be “simple” but that doesn’t always mean it is. I don’t have high status, nor do I use tape and bananas. Art is a broad subject and each category is created, utilized, viewed and appreciated differently.
If you considered its history and went back you'd find that abstract art had its purpose. Same with all movements of art that challenged the traditional standards of art during the turn of the century. It's just sad that the dictates of the art market took advantage of modern art making it loose its meaning and instead became an avenue for pretention.
its also sad when you learn that a lot abstract artists like Hilma af Klint or Mondrian were tied to spiritual movements and using basic colors and shapes was a way for them to reach spirituality, meditation, some kind of primal source of creation. and now Mondrian's paintings has been turned into patterns and printed onto mugs, pillows and anything that can be sold. it really loses any meditative aspects the artists had in mind
I also randomly splashed paint on an oversized canvas like Jackson Pollock. I was motivated by my "art spirituality" and my "inner desire" to splashed paint on the canvas and to get in touch with my "philosophical consciousness." I then ask people for $100 million dollars for my art.
@@johndorilag4129 same thing would happen if you.. lets say filled a patent for an invention that's already patented. why try to copy somebody instead of making something new on your own? also your problen is that you do it for money, pollock did it for self expression and discovering new visual forms, only later he got popular among art collectors
I lost faith in modern art when i went to an art museum and the "sculptures" were a pile of bricks, a stick, a boat, a coat and literally a box full of bull crap
In my museum they had a toilet screwed to the celling and a empty can of coke on a table that was cordoned off. I like to think that the artest frogot his coke amd when the museum came and asked to pay money for it they were like "lul sure buddy, 5 million." Modern art is a joke.
@@dirtyshinobii nah I've seen this kind of stuff before. It's laughable. I think a banana and duck tape sold for 10s of thousands. Forgot the artists name. But yes...
@@dirtyshinobii You should look up the story of the famous installation named _Fettecke_ which means _A corner of fat_ by the German artist Joseph Beuys. After the 5 Kg of butter accidentally were cleaned away by the janitor, who mistook it for the trash it was, some months after Beuys' death, a friend of him declared that the piece of art was dedicated to him, saved the remains from a trash bin and made a piece on his own called _Reste einer staatlich zerstörten Fettecke_, or _Remains of a state-destroyed corner of fat,_ "state" because it happened in an acadamy of arts run by the state. Obviously a court also granted his friend a 5 digit compensation for the destroyed "piece of art", paid by the county aka tax payer. 👍
From someone who is currently in art school, there are many, many talented artists that ive had the pleasure of working with. There are also those snobby rich kids who attended art school, not because of their talent, but because of the money their parents had. They all resort to Abstract Expressionism due to their lack of talent. This isn't exactly related to this video, but I thought it was worth sharing.
@@chrystianaw8256 okay but that is no reason to hate a whole movement or genre of art. People imitating creativity and talent have always existed, putting a price tag on art only sharpens this, so to me and I think, as it should be for everyone artistic, you should not even consider the price of a painting while enjoying/judging it. Especially to abstract art that cannot easily be judged in meaning or skill needed
In modern art the artist seems to be more important than the art itself If a three year old splashes random colors on a canvas, no one cares When a known artist does it, the "art" is sold for millions
has always been the case my friend. Johannes vermeer's girl with the pearl earring was sold in 1881 for 2 Dutch gulden and 30 cents administrative fee.
yup, nailed it. i had an interview with a director of an art school. so, naturally, i show him my portfolio… and then he proceeds to ask me very personal questions. then, he told me that they were looking for people with “unique” stories - as I was a mixed-race girl from the countryside of France who had a troubled family, he was interested in me. ever since, i’ve been really disgusted by the industry of contemporary art.
I love how the community is giving constructive criticism to the video’s thesis. I honestly don’t know where to start but you all dissected the video well! Hopefully this counts as my discussion post lol
Pollock's pieces sold for nothing while he was alive. The art community mocked his approach to composition, splatter painting and incorporation of outside materials like cigarette butts and glass the entire time he was alive. He was considered an alcoholic rube. It was only after he died, his wife (who was pretty pissed at him because he was a serial adulterer) basically gamed the market by saying the value of his work would go up now that he was dead and could no longer create that way she could get some income when he left her nothing. Something people forget about Modern Art (as opposed to Postmodern Art) is that artists like Pollock were classically trained but wanted to create art outside of the traditional boundaries of the notoriously strict and pretentious Western Art tradition. The question raised was "If they *could* do this normally, *why* do they choose to do it this way?" Postmodern Art meanwhile was where art shifted to be about the concept rather than the art itself, and is when you get people who don’t know what they are doing hop in to try and make money (because the idea behind Postmodernism is that everything has been done already so we just rehash the past in tweaked ways). So many people seem to be so stupidly attached to the Western Academic art tradition and rail against Modern Art while also knowing absolutely nothing about what made it special to begin with
I'm just tired of this notion that art has to be constantly evolving and pushing boundaries. I feel like pushing boundaries just for the sake of it is stupid. I prefer the Renaissance way where art was just an important aspect of society and you had apprenticeship and masters like any other profession. You can create originality within the boundaries of actual artistic tradition and skill. You don't need to deconstruct everything until you're not even creating art anymore. Good art to me is art that anyone can appreciate. If you need a degree just to understand what is going on then you've failed. We in the modern age have this idea that we're so special and unique from the rest of history and we're proving to be very vapid and empty
I make abstract art myself. However not for the sake of making something, it's almost always while I'm on the verge of a breakdown. Whether it's a PTSD, borderline personality, panic attack, or anxiety disorder meltdown just depends. My art is a form of release and sometimes it ends up looking really nice. Each of my paintings has a psychedelic quality, and sometimes no direct focus, just what looks like a dream. My most recent painting is full of vibrant colors, something not quite solid from watercolor oozing acrylic in harsh blended brightness, painted while struggling with drug cravings and hallucinations. Expensive modern art irritates me for the same reason. It's just sort of pointless. Abstract itself can be really fun and really pretty, but GOD
Expensive art are usually of dead artist. In the top 100, all were dead when they went for hundred of millions. Rarely artist are making the money, it's gallery and middle men that are making the money.
So what I got from this video is that you don't actually hate the art itself, you hate the art market... which many of the artists you mention themselves hated and wanted to mock with their artwork lol Edit: damn I pissed more people off with my pfp than with my comment itself LMAO
No because the art is bad and so it doesn’t deserve to fetch those values. It’s not about the mockery or whatever bs you want to make it about; it’s pointless squiggles or blobs which aren’t ‘art’.
I think good art evokes some kind of feeling or emotion upon looking at something where the more you look at it the more interesting it becomes, I don't think there needs to be any meaning, I think a lot of older abstract art shocked people because no one had done it before, abstract art today is worse because it's overdone everyone is trying to do it, the shock value is gone and it's just boring to look at after you've seen a few you've seen them all.
He said here that it was a celebration of the activity of painting itself, which imo is definitely a meaning, and also quite beautiful. It’s just really a shame that it lost that meaning along the way, and just became what it is now
I know some people say that it just looks cool and you have to 'use your imagination" but I agree. You could say that a 5-year-old painted that, anyone could just get a bucket of paint and drizzle it across a canvas on the floor. If that's what art is then, Is everyone a genius painter? No. I can understand that back in the 40's and 50's, that type of design was not very common in that time period, like stripes of different colors. Maybe that's why people think it's so cool, because it was a very new thing back then, it's almost like Pollock created that pattern. Either way, it's odd to think that people today think that it's "genius" and that it's "perfect", I don't know if people say that because of the great new trend of colors mixed like that was very important to today's society. I don't care, it's not genius to put a bunch of colors on a canvas with no picture, it's "meaningless" like you said.
It's basically the 1950s version of acrylic pour painting (something that most people see as a tacky novelty). But people don't say that because Pollock has been turned into this hipster genius art-star. I find it sad that he's seen as one of America's great artists
A major art museum went to a woman's studio and gathered all the paintings for display. Critics praised each one as a masterpiece, each one showing off the artist's skill and style wonderfully. The artist later had to admit that some of those paintings were done by her 8 year old daughter. The "experts" couldn't tell the difference.
Anyone can call themselves or somebody else a critic or an expert. Maybe you should start to be the one to judge who you consider these things. It's very easy to noone can do deep and profound analysis of work like this, when the people you call critics and experts are holy fools that got their credentials from rich people needing an "expert" to help them evade some taxes in an art deal. Find someone who can teach you to appreciate things you weren't able to see the merit in before, because analysis, evaluation, appreciation and criticism are skills that need to be trained. If you find someone that can help you foster those abilities in yourself, then you have a real expert and not a charlatan.
I went to a gallery recently, and was frustrated by the amount of effortless, hollow, cash-grab type paintings that dominated the gallery. White canvases, lines and scribbles. It hurts me I could spend hours painting something with as much detail and skill and possible and achieve nothing, and these people could sell nothing for millions. Edit: I don't mind modern art in how it looks, only how much it sells for. I don't mind some nice scribbles, they aren't eye-bleeding or anything, but the prices certainly are. Also, I'm not a good artist, but I try my best at it, I put time and I put effort into it, which is something that can't be said for some painting I see going for millions.
1) Stop going to galleries if they cause you pain. For example--if galleries contained nothing but still life paintings, portraits and landscapes, I would stop going to them. 2) Did you just now discover that modern art exists? 3) Apparently, in your mind, art is little more than a display of technical abilities.
I've always hated modern art because of how it's viewed as superior to portraits or nature's landscape painting. I'm a first year art student and one of my first paintings for my portfolio was 3 large hibiscus flowers and as I showed it to the lecturers I was told it wasn't chaotic enough so when I went home I splashed diluted paint all over the painting that took me a few minutes and a bit of anger from being dismissed, the next time the lecturer saw the painting he said it looked better which troubled me a lot. Because of that I have made it a point in my artworks to not splash paint on any of my canvas' even if it's abstract in a way.
Maybe you are in the wrong art school. If what you want to paint is realism, you should have gone to a more traditional art school. The thing is, flowers are a traditional art theme, and has been used countless times throughout art history. Still life is also a pretty calm subject, and after you destroyed your piece, it wasnt just about artists passion and dedication, but also about the anger and frustration you felt. Therefore, it conveys all the aspects of your struggles as an art student, which makes it much more interesting. You probably feel like you ruined your work, but maybe you could use your experience as a way to learn more about the world of art. Its great to try the most challenging things in the art world, because, who knows, maybe by accident you will create something that will revolutionise art forever ! Maybe it’s worth the risk ? But prehaps you just like drawing pretty subjects, and while it may not impress your art teachers or other artists, it will be enough for you and will impress most people on tik tok anyways. I hope i wasn’t offensive, i just would love to have the chance to have a teacher like yours to make me take risks and challenge myself.
I absolutely agree that there is an extremely modern/simplistic problem in the art world led by greedy people. all ways of expressio should be valued, there are abstract artists who make absolutely stunning art, and everyone has their own taste, yet I can’t help but get frustrated with paintings like the black dot on the canvas that sold for millions or other just ridiculously simple things like that.
@@munnoh-tw6ywstop cherry-picking examples, everyone brings up Comedian and says it’s the worst art. That is just something that non-artists say. Now do I love it, no. But it sure is better than the 40th fucking boring ass Kinkade painting in hotel lobbies. They’re both jokes but one is a purposeful joke. Also people who say this shit don’t actually go to art museums. Some of my favorite works are super simplistic like the Fragile future works or Mel Chin’s Spirit. Yes the banana is a fucking joke, and that is the point (Also classical art also has money laundering behind it, most art does) also this umbrella term of modern art is stupid. So many cultures have so many kinds of art that are not just the same few boring ass classicism in inspired pieces.
“The painting speaks! Do you not hear what it says?” “Yeah, it says ‘don’t drink while you’re painting.’” -from _Top Cat,_ aptly summarizing modern art all the way back in 1962
I like looking at abstract art as a texture, it can be used as decoration in many kinds of things, but the monetary value makes little sense and it's more about the painter's name than anything else
This is purely constructive criticism, and I hope you take it that way. Your perspective strikes me as someone who isn't a painter, there are some holes in your art/artist/audience model of meaning, and there are questionable things about your emphasis on 'easy' and 'hard'. Several of my freshmen and sophomore peers in college (they weren't Painting majors) brought presentations like this to Art History classes - the problem is that they thought they knew more than they actually did about the subject. It seems a bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect. You perhaps don't realize how much you don't know. Rothko's work isn't easy to make, especially when he was developing it. He had to develop a methodology to make his paint be extremely flat, mostly conceal brushstrokes, and for his color fields to blend into one another with extremely thin paint without pouring/dripping/crazing/dragging. Do you know how complicated paint can be to handle, and know how to manipulate it to exact expectations? He developed a personal approach and compositional arrangements that are blatantly obvious when anyone has tried to appropriate them since. That's a rare artistic feat historically, and it applies to Pollock too. 'Easy' doesn't matter at all in the context of their work, and there's limited amounts of it in existence so...immense value. Cubism isn't easy to paint, *especially* during the time when it was being invented. It's hard to imagine today, but there was a time when it was absolutely alien to everyone who saw it. It took remarkable, inventive compositional and subject-altering leaps. The perspective on painting fundamentally changed. There's a reason why it exploded, and why it's now an inseparable part of Western history. It's easy to take for granted what you've casually seen, however, it's borderline impossible to imagine an art approach you haven't seen because it hasn't been invented yet. That phenomenon happened frequently from around the 1850s to about the 1980s-90s. There are artists in the representational vein who were highly controversial (Caravaggio, Manet) due to their work, but now many people naively see their work as run of the mill for their eras because of bad habits like superficial skimming through image searches on Wiki/Google or being shown a poorly contextualized presentation. It's easy to underestimate the value of context. The irony of painting approaches that appear to have a high talent floor (classical-leaning representational painting) is that they're actually relatively easy to teach because they're almost entirely technical in nature. They can be learned like driving (albeit more difficult). Making master copies of famous artwork is a direct example. Creativity can entirely take a backseat to learning the skills needed to make representational paintings from many eras. The academy was literally this as a machine, and was rejected by many artists because art is more than a trade. Talent doesn't quite matter as much as you think regarding the work you seem to admire. You're conflating skill and talent. On Pollock's work being meaningless: that is only possible if the artist has absolute control over the meaning of the work, which is a problem that was delved into via text like "Death of an Author" by Roland Barthes, back in 1967. Artists often don't even have full clarity of what their work means to themselves. Meaning is far more complicated than I think you realize, especially in a field like art.
hard agree. the fact that he showed a picasso while saying it took little years of practice (despite picasso literally being formally trained since before his teens) was completely absurd. I used to think the same thing about nonrepresentational/abstract art, then I actually *researched* the point of the movements and realized that wassily didn’t paint the way he did because it was “easier”
@@saadvon yes! I remember Picasso literally said he only took a few years to paint like the old masters but took forever to develop the style we know him for “drawing like a child”, he says
Once Andy Warhol made a name for himself he changed his art into a personal joke. He was saying "People see me as an artist therefore I can make anything, no matter how bad, and call it art". Then people copied this message, took it to extremes and eventually evolved into people with no talent calling themselves artists and criminals trading this art as a way of laundering money.
Modern art had to be a revelation for drugdealers. If i were a drugdealer i would totally splash some colors on some paper, call it art and my money coming in would be fresh and clean like a summer breeze. And my customers of course would probably throw my art away pretty soon to make space for my next masterpiece
Yeah that’s the absurdity behind it. Artists KNOW that all they have to do is splash some paint around and some critic will spend hours contemplating it’s deeper meaning. Artists KNOW that the public will buy literally anything.
I think his lack of structure or emphasis on his point made it easy to assume that he's just another person confused why "talentless and easy" art grosses such big prices, WHICH WAS HEAVILY EMPHASISED , and was pretty annoying but also he brought up some good points about how people used this form of art to express themselves in "easy and accesible" ways, only for them to be selectively idolized and their art sold for millions making people discredit the movement. Or that's what I got out of this, cause most of the video is annoying rambling from a non experienced in the topic person.
You’ve combined art history and art market (completely different things) together to make a poorly articulated point that’s based on the lack of understanding of said movements. It’s basically “my child can draw this too” argument but using fancier words. Even Clement Greenberg, the ultimate anti-post-modern thinker, was the biggest defender of abstract expressionism.
On the contraire... If you ever studied art history then you'll understand the notion of how art has crossed borders in a global society. Art history and the commodity of art go hand-in-hand. Educate yourself. Henry, I totally see your point and have had the same reservations in regards to simplicity of some gestural art (as well as Duchamp's ready-mades, lol) but I also see the genius behind it and understand why it may be faired at those ridiculous prices. The rebellious and revolutionary actions of the Dada avant-garde have indeed fallen into the hands of the rich again.
I think that's the point here. I think the point he's trying to say is that modern art is not supposed to be our shouldn't be a shortcut for those who don't want to work hard to improve towards success.
i kind of understand the point of abstract expressional art. it's meant to invoke a certain feeling like home-y warmth or that old nostalgic feel from old cartoons. problem is it's not worth 500x buying a house outright.
@@h410-pr0 some beholders are blind. They only see the prestige and not effort and skill. Even a persons fart sounds good for those people and call it HIGH ART.
i personally like abstract art, and modern sculptures. but only when you can genuinely see the meaning (ex- “i can’t help myself” i think it’s called?)
A lot of abstract pieces today have no soul, no meaning, no value to it, they're just there so rich people can buy it and show off. Ironically, that is not the purpose of modern art, not the original at least; of it being the presentation of self, feelings, emotions and even protest against something.
I myself am an emerging artist, and my thoughts are this: "If I need to read a plaque to understand that something is a piece of art, then it isnt art. Period." (I went to a modern art mseum once, and it's only because of the tour guide that I found out one of the art pieces was a curtain made out of floor sheets covered in paint)
@@spudpud-T67 Man, what is that bullshit u said right now? Mainly still lives are made for practicing your eyes, to see all the shapes, all the shadows, obv, they might put the painting there just for the room not to be empty, but that doesn't mean, that it was meaningless for the artist who made that painting, if u know shit about art just keep quiet.
@@spudpud-T67 Man, why so sarcastic, just cuz u can't even use Google to search what still lives means and why people draw it, i just told u. Sorry that i say facts and logic, i guess it's too much for your brain😂
I feel like at least some of these paintings must have been made as a dare or an experiment, basically the artists asking themselves how stupidly simple can we make these paintings without the art critics finally saying "Ok, now you're just taking the piss".
The irony is that that's sort of how the Modern Art movement was born. Back in the early 1900's, when Impressionism and the like were still seen as a new and controversial medium, Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven anonymously submitted the piece "Fountain"-a urinal placed on its side and signed "R. Mutt, 1917"-to the Society of Independent Artists. At first glance, it sounds ridiculous, but the moment you try to dig up meaning, it oozes with the stuff. It's first and foremost a middle finger to the stodgy art elitists, proclaiming that anything can be made into art, so long as there was meaning behind it, while also lowkey saying "Your art's comparable to a piss pot." "Fountain" was provocative, to say the least. The piece was almost rejected out of hand as nothing but a prank by the society's ranking members, and led to a heated debate as some tried to fight for "Fountain's" validity as a piece of art. "Fountain" was eventually lost, possibly destroyed by a disgruntled society member, but its impact lasted through the century. It encouraged artists to continue pushing the boundaries of art and meaning, and to never settle for the status quo. All this from a urinal, and an artist who was, quite literally, "Taking the piss" on the art world. (Honestly, "Fountain" is just a fascinating piece of art history, especially since it's spent the better part of the past century accredited to the wrong person-Marcel Duchamp, an artist with a similar style to "Fountain" and who claimed credit for it late in his life, after Baroness Elsa and everyone who could've known the true creator of "Fountain" was dead. It's still a point of controversy to this day, such that many sources, including even Wikipedia, continue to tout Duchamp as "Fountain's" creator. It's a story well worth looking into.)
Please see my stupidly large comment lol. Basically all of this was down to CIA involvement, encouraging (and enabling/funding) artists in a creative cold war with USSR The people desperately trying to find meaning in a lot of these abstract pieces are complete fools, duped into thinking they're being 'deep'... Even the bloody artists were joking at the time they had no idea what they were doing (there are videos of this). Then its subsequently spawned a whole movement of people copying and being deeeeeep.
I think context is super important with a lot of these. I believe there are a lot of pieces that if they are made today would truly be meaningless but at the time they were made did indeed have a lot of power due to the social context, controversy they may have caused, political implications etc. like if someone made a pollock style now, it wouldn’t carry much weight but at the time it was huge because he was calling attention to the process of creating as an art form etc etc etc. even within that i could argue that that’s stolen from African artists who were making that point for a long time, and I personally am not a pollock fan..I don’t want to get into all that but it’s just one example
@@vurrunna Actually from what I have read it's only a theory that two guys claimed to be true, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it being true and it doesn't really look like a sculpture from that women but looks a lot like a work from Duchamp... But it's a really debatable subject and maybe we shouldn't bother that much about who made it in the end. The impact it made to the art scene should be what we remember of it in my opinion.
@@gudlike3634 Ironically, I think "Fountain" matches Baroness Elsa's style far more than Duchamp's. They both had styles that relied on taking ordinary objects and turning them into art pieces, but where Baroness Elsa generally created pieces that held deeper meaning to them (much like modern art does), Duchamp made much of his art with the express purpose of having no purpose. For reference, Baroness Elsa also created a piece entitled "God," a twisted sewer pipe made as a bit of a commentary on Duchamp himself, in part criticizing his egoism and self agrandisement. By contrast, Duchamp created a series of sculptures known as ready-mades, sculptures that just took ordinary junk like chairs and bike parts and declared them "art." Many claim that "Fountain" fits Duchamp's style of ready-mades, but the whole point of the ready-made was that it had no meaning; the meaning was in the context, of seeing a bunch of junk laying around an art gallery and calling it "art." The objects themselves were not chosen with much consideration beyond being stuff you wouldn't expect to see in an art gallery. "Fountain," by contrast, was a piece just dripping with meaning. It's not that Duchamp couldn't have made it, but rather that it was rather a bit more thought out than was often his style. I'll admit, there's a good chance I might be biased on this-I originally learned the story (including Baroness Elsa) from my modern art history professor, who was adamant that Baroness Elsa had made "Fountain." However, he also spent an entire sabbatical exploring woman's history in the art world, a good part of which involved investigating the story of "Fountain" and who really made it. At the end of the day, we'll never _really_ know who made "Fountain," simply because all of the evidence is circumstantial at best; Baroness Elsa never made any claims to have made it, and Duchamp only ever made claims later in life when everyone who could have possibly known was already dead. When comparing the two, however, I feel like there are many more circumstances in favor of Elsa than of Duchamp. Why it matters is the very reason "Fountain" matters-it was all about how we perceived and talked about art and the art world. By the same vein, just letting the story slide potentially ignores a great female artist in history; which, given how few there were until relatively recently (due to a vast array of factors, mostly that not many women had the chance to create art in the first place), would be a crying shame. It becomes a part of the piece's very impact, that even to this day it remains a point of controversy and discussion in the art world. Anywho, that's just my thought on it; I don't claim to be an expert, just a guy who learned a cool story in college and likes to share it whenever I get the chance. :)
The modern and abstract art I admire the most is done by artists who have been thoroughly trained in the traditional arts. Picasso is a good example of this. He could paint very realistic portraits for example Le Moulin de la Galette”, 1900. Having this artistic background makes his abstract painting extremely meaningful. Pollack's earlier work also exemplified an understanding of figurative art and thus his dripping style paintings also reflect that.
Picasso was a fraud and petty criminal and guilty of mysoginy. Pollock was an alcoholic who drove his car into a tree. Real art is shamanic and that is as ancient as mankind.
@@cicada1239 Pablo Picasso was not primarily known as an abstract artist, although he made significant contributions to the development of abstract art. Picasso is best known for his role in the development of modern art, particularly as a co-founder of the Cubist movement. Cubism is characterized by the representation of objects or subjects from multiple viewpoints and the use of geometric shapes and abstract forms to depict the essence of the subject. While Cubism can be seen as a precursor to abstract art, it still retained some degree of representational elements, and Picasso's work often featured recognizable subjects, even if they were deconstructed or reimagined in an abstract way. It's important to note that Picasso's career spanned many decades, and he explored various artistic styles and movements, including Surrealism and abstraction, later in his life. In the later stages of his career, Picasso did create some purely abstract works, but he is primarily celebrated for his contributions to Cubism and his innovative approach to representing the world in a new and transformative way.
Very interesting title. Especially considering that Pollock, Rothko, Picasso are NOT modern artists. Most famous and innovative art made after the 1920's is considered post-modern. Modernism was the art of Paris, but when the art world shifted to New York in the 1900s it became post-modern. The art of today is considered contemporary or new digital art. Greetings from someone who studied art history at university for four years.
@@BigBossEats I think that his opinion still stands even if he didn't use the proper era names. I have to agree with him to some extent, as someone who studied fine arts for well over 10 years now, post-modern trends rooted in great ideology but quickly got tarnished by the elite. Nowadays, i see people claiming to be professional artists without even knowing human proportions, color theory or story telling only because they can splash colors onto a surface. I find it sickening. Even art has it's Wal-Mart version now, and those cheap laborers make it even harder for "real" artists to earn their bidding. I hate post-modernism. It's good as an Ikea piece, worthless as an exhibit piece.
@@junosquill Paint mop girl comes to mind. She acts like she’s doing something riveting and new. She’s making a circle on a canvas with a mop instead of a paintbrush. A simple circle. Sometimes there’s 2 circles! Her latest escapades have been lying on a canvas in the same pose every time while her kids dump paint on her. It looks. Fine. Not great. Not *that* bad. But not good. The art is supposed.. To be her. Not the canvas, not the paint on the canvas. Her. Her on the canvas. And it baffles me. What does it represent? It’s the same thing every time with the 2 colors swapped out. What does it mean other than “I’m rich and can do this and make profit because other rich people love me!” Her art makes me angry for all hardworking artists out there. She doesn’t even do the art in her latest things. Someone else does the paint part. What the fuck
I mean, he clearly wasn’t talking about the movement of Modernism. “Modern”’s meaning can still be interpreted as “contemporary”. This is some good demagogy
i think the main problem with art is nowadays it isnt the art itself, but who made it if their famous the art will sell for more than if you were unknown in short it isn't the art it's the creator of art
They may be two different things, but the market always influences how art is made and viewed. Artists are as motivated by money as anyone else, and seeing a paint splatter sell for millions of dollars absolutely has an effect on what kinds of art young people are incentivized to make.
@@justcole0139its not art its an insult to all the artist that spent years perfecting their skill to be good for either hobby purposes or as a career simply putting a paper and putting duct tape over it doesnt make it art theres no effort the "artist" That made it didnt spend sweat, tears and blood on it which why it shouldn't have value and idk why people are still going there which just feeds who ever acoustic, son of a tree that started abstract art
@justcole0139 that might be true, but that doesn't make it expensive real art, maybe just around a few dollars. But absolutely not 1 million for that thing.
Modern Art definitely is filled with extreme talent and masterpieces, unfortunately you just have to sift through a huge pile of **** to find it. I don't think you dislike modern art, i think you dislike modern art that makes the news for being sold for an obnoxious price to obnoxious people. But unfortunately this has existed throughout the history of almost anything creative. WAP by Cardi B has sold over 2 million records, went straight to no.1 in the charts, won numerous awards, you think Beethoven is writing a youtube video about how he hates Pop Music?
you're the same kind of person that would back in the day tell van gogh and other expresionists and impresionists that their art is shit, because it doesn't align with the rules of french academy of art. stop gate keeping and being a snob who can't recognise that wap is a joke song and shouldn't be taken seriously
@@odomisan it’s okay to want to express female sexuality I don’t see you people writhing upset about the vast exploitative industry that is pornography, so chill
To be fair, when you look at a ditigal photo of Pollocks work, it is so much more flat than in person, especially 1:22 it looks pretty 2 dimensional almost like a decorative pattern. But in person, its like your vision is completely surrounded by these shapes. I used to be neutral about abstract paintings but when I saw Pollocks work in person it was like watching little kites or fire flies flying around you and leaving traces in the air. I dont know how to describe it but something about the way the lines moved was so mesmorizing and thought provoking to me. Im not trying to sound pretentious but as a visual person I really enjoyed the experience and Im sure it has inspired a lot of non-abstract art as well.
Omg I just finished my Art course in college and let me tell you, seeing artists like Jackson Pollock, Helen Frankethaler, Arshille Gorky, Mark Rothko during history class really changed my perspective in the stuff that I paint. Actually helped me be more expressive and 'loose'/gestural with my ideas. I have a really hard time at making abstract compositions (my mind cannot think of subject matter with no boundaries if that makes sense) and I take a lot of inspiration from Antony Gormley sometimes whenever I paint something for fun.
It's not easy to be the artist you can't call yourself artist just by throwing thw paints, to become the real artist you have to practice and do hardwork on your art and show something representable and meaningful.
@@jpm199it means you have to express a story. You have to convey a message. Or sometimes, it can be art that doesn't necessarily convey a story or message, but allows you to feel the way the artists felt in that moment. In the old renaissance paintings, they all conveyed a story, or they conveyed a message of some sort. The Impressionists and post-impressionists like Van Gogh didn't necessarily convey a message or story, they were more geared towards conveying how the artist felt when they looked at that particular scene or subject. A lot of the time, these impressionist paintings are interesting because, like Van Gogh, these artists were going through extreme bouts with mental illness, or maybe the artist had an alternate vision of the subject. Maybe instead of trying to duplicate a photograph, the artist wanted to simply add some style to it by making the colors pop more, or by using short, vibrant strokes. The thing I have a problem with is that these modern "artists" are able to just paint a square, or screw a nut onto a bolt and all of a sudden, BOOM, it is some sort of slillful masterpiece. The artist shouldn't have to explain the artwork. The artwork should explain the artist. It takes absolutely ZERO talent to splash some paint onto a canvas and try to portray it as some sort of masterpiece. In this modern art era, there is no subject. There is no message. You aren't even getting a genuine dive into the mind of the artist. Or, even if you are, it doesn't negate the fact that it took zero talent. It is still art, but I, and many others, view it as entirely unfair for this talentless art to recieve so much praise and value while there are tons of artists out there with much more talent, who have invested countless hours behind a canvas perfecting their craft, only to live paycheck to paycheck. To me, the thing that makes art so special and unique is that it takes so much effort and time to be able to produce such magnificent paintings, and no artist sees the same subject. Each artist sees it a little different, so they use their talent and skill to paint what they see and put it on canvas for others to really understand them. You lose all of that when the art being produced requires the same skill and dedication and talent as anyone else. It isn't special. It isn't unique. It is just dumb. There is nothing special or talent-full about splashing a single paint color onto a canvas. Telling a story, conveying a message, or allowing the viewer to see the subject how you see it through your paintings which were painted with dedication and true effort is real art. That is something special.
@@Bailark it realy doesnt. None whatsoever. All it takes is good marketing, knowing the right people . We all know that abstract art is used to money wash, people dont buy it because they actually admire the art.
@@yenisketches6047 Save it, Yeni. Your argument is weak because it doesn’t serve as a principle. Lots of things/industries are used for money laundering. That mere fact does not eliminate the value of the entire industries. Real estate, for example, is used for money laundering also. That does not mean that some expensive homes or commercial properties dont hold legitimate value. Therefore, just because some use art to launder money does not mean art has no value. If you re a lawyer…don’t tell anybody. That was an absurdly weak argument.
You are meant to understand the meaning and general context of the painting just by looking at it. With abstract expressionism this usually isn't the case. You have to inform people of what your random splashes on the canvas represents.
@@bruhmaster6923 out of all the abstract art pieces in the video the only one I've guessed was no.5, it had no meaning. It might have meaning to the author or the process of making it had a meaning, but for the viewer of a finished product there is none.
Its not really about the meaning in abstract art Its more about the feeling the colors and the compisitions vibe you. Thats why Its so good its never about meaning thats just a missconception.
@@bruhmaster6923 I wouldn’t say it makes you think so much as it makes you wildly grasp for meaning where there is none. It has fake depth and is worth no more than any random object that might “make you think”.
I don't consider myself a "Modern artist", 'cause I don't do that kind of art. I mostly just draw characters. I start off with sketches on physical paper, and then I take pictures of them and do them on my PC or phone. In a way I technically am a "Modern artist", but I really don't consider myself to be that kind of artist. I just draw whatever comes across my mind, in my very cartoony style.
When I was a teenager we went to an art gallery and the one piece that sticks in my mind was a huge canvas painted black with a smaller red square in the middle. That's it. Anyone could have painted it. And it was called 'breakfast'. We just had a good laugh at it.
Lol, I bet that art is so funny to you 😂 if I was there, I would instantly laugh so hard and mocks the artist for being "I'm sure you only want the money and that art you made is nothing than a void meaning" And continue psychotic laughing (I'm suffering bipolar disorder, I can't stop it)
I wouldn't be happy with my time wasted. Especially when I want to learn and be inspired. I'm fine with some modern art like that, but not in a museum or expensive. It would be fine like as a doodle or a pattern on clothing.
@@DoctorBones1 If someone says that, that's like saying nazism is memorable to some people "therefore it was good". That would just be twisting what people say, projecting, pushing their views on people, and trying to dictate to people on how to think. There is such a thing as bad publicity and being notorious, which means famous for something bad. I don't think bad publicity is good.
Hey man, I’m an artist and fine arts major who used to hate modern art until I took modern art history classes. The whole point of the modern art movement (except for Dada) was to find new meaning in art (other than god, king, and country). I fell in love with this style after I was educated on the subject and I’m sure you can too. There are a ton of inaccuracies in this video.
Do you think its a good thing that people try to wash modern and classical art together? They have entirely different reasons for why they are special, but I see that a lot of people want to see modern art the same way they do classical. For example if they say that an abstract art is as good as a Caravaggio piece,first it would make no sense, and second it would just make Caravaggio's art look worse, if we compare the two together. Many people today say that everything can be art, but doesn't that devaluate the works of people that actually put something great down on the table?
@@tamas9554 I think that’s the problem when it comes to people misunderstanding modern art. They compare it to art that falls under the classical ideal when it’s trying to do something completely different. I’ve noticed that if you take a movement that falls under modern art and you put it in the correct historical or ideological context, it clicks with people. About your second question, I think that’s describing post-modern art and I haven’t been able to buy into that. I really really dislike post-modern art and it seems like a lot of what people don’t like about modern art are things they are confusing with post-modern art.
@@FromHellDesigns Most likely they confuse the two, although I can't speak about it much myself, since we will only learn about modern art next year, and I don't think they teach post-modern art in middle school.
@@tamas9554 if you’re interested my professor put up all his lectures on UA-cam during the pandemic. They are actually really entertaining. His channel is Art History with Travis Lee Clark and just go to his playlists and click on ARTH3120 Contemporary Art .
So... You don't dislike the fundamental idea of "modern abstract art", you just hate the commodification of art as a whole. Which is fine, and hating people who see art styles like this as a cash grab is okay too. You're right, it does go against exactly what these paintings were designed to convey and their original purpose. But that is the MO of the rich: to commodify things to build their own sense of worth. They own a Picasso, they own this rare area of land, they own this milk bottle top that was miss printed. It gives them a sense of superiority, that they are above those who don't have what they have. When things like art pieces come up, having a one of one of a famous artist, will always end up being commodified and subsequently bastardized by the greedy. Don't take it out on the art, take it out on those who bastardize it.
You're fighting the elitism of modern art by defending the elitism of old art. The only thing why "old" art seems to be of higher quality is, that there wasn't much option to create bad artworks. Most people lived in poverty and worked 18 hours a day, nobody had the time or access to paint in their free time like now, so art was created just by a small group of people who studied it and were professionals, nowadays art is created by anyone and so the amount of bad artworks is higher. And of course, most people react better to realistic paintings as they are the easiest to understand. Art is not about how realistically is something painted - this is a skill/technique, the art is something more. Modernism is amazing and it finally gave people freedom. It is way more exciting than tedious realistic paintings of people, landscape,s or fruit in a bowl. Abstract and modern art is great and I don't get why anyone should be studying art for years before he could be considered a good artist. Same as for a great song you don't have to be a virtuoso for a good painting you don't have to be Leonardo DaVinci. The result is important. I like old masters but I much more like modernism with its originality and playfulness. I really don't wanna have Mona Lisa at home but Picasso or Pollock? Fits any kind of place and does not look off. It is timeless. While old masters really fit mostly museums or historical places.
"You're fighting the elitism of modern art by defending the elitism of old art" is fantastic! I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that next time someone tells me they hate modern art!
Yet despite the apparent hypocrisy, modern art can and often is also as hypocritical in concept rather than argumentation. Whereas something as representative as classical or Renaissance is more accessible to the masses (in that it is easier to derive meaning) Abstract art on the other hand is far more demanding of a priori knowledge in comparison to fully be appreciated. In simple terms, A Classical Artist's skill and work can easily be appreciated by laymen whereas a Modern Artist's skill and work requires far far more knowledge to understand. So at the end of the day Art remains of some form of elitism, either by value, skill or knowledge. Modern Art just attracts the most accusations of such because it tries so hard to be subversive rather than the opposite.
the elitism of old art had premise to it. it had genuine reason to be elite. its similar to how there is a difference between cheaply made food and food that requires skill and talent to prepare. art is treated as though its fully subjective whereas "old art" wasnt based on this concept
there was this one painting that i learned about in school. you wanna know what the painting was? a dot. it could be any colour, just a dot. and my teacher asked me what i felt about it and what i thought it expressed. i felt that it was a lazy and meaningless piece of art - nobody is able to actually understand what it is supposedly about because it was just a plain circle on a large canvas.
@@boombox2ikik239 thank you. i believe it is impossible to create something that is meaningless, or to create without purpose, there is never just a dot. though if someone tries to create just a dot i would definitely be interested in what they create
I don’t agree. You’re complaining about elitism, then saying arts only worth something if it took years of practice. I respect your opinion but that sounds pretty elitist to me 😂
Not to sound like artistically arrogant, but is not a lot of the fun finding meaning in abstract art yourself? A lot of the time these artworks have a subject or plan to them, even if it is hard to see, but it is not apparent what it means. I always find that is what I like about modern art, especially with how it relishes in the often quite absurd. Also like a lot of abstract art painting at museums do have like these information stands next to the painting.
@ oh of course. But take Mark Rothko for example. His last painting “black on gray” isn’t exactly groundbreaking itself. I mean I like it, but others might not. It’s after knowing he committed suicide soon after painting it that gives it that extra impact. I see hundreds of of modern art bashing videos that will see something like “Merlin Carpenter” and instantly go “this is stupid! It’s just boxes!” But have ignored the context and the fact that the boxes are filling an entire Synagogue. I totally agree with you though. I just think Pollock’s “after many drinks” hits a lot harder when you learn it’s a painting of hell
My art teacher is making us do an assignment where we need to put down 2 artists and 2 readings that inspire us and do 10+ sentences about why we chose it and how it inspires us. Now that wouldn’t be an issue if she didn’t limit who and what we’re allowed to be inspired by. She literally gave us 4 sources that we MUST use to choose our readings and artists. Almost all the artists we were allowed to choose from only did modern art Edit: I’m dropping out : )
If she didn't limit the sources some students might choose a very *interesting* artist. Then again she could just say to keep the artist somewhat normal or something like that.
I'm sorry to say this but you have a bad art teacher The point of art is to express one's self using your own creative methods Choosing what you get to ge inspired by is missing the whole point Being an art teacher she should know this better than anyone
I love abstract art, because of the way it shows expression. No i don’t like looking at random blobs on a canvas, but I like learning about the way things are expressed and learning from them. It doesn’t really have to be easy or hard, but just…. Expression.. basically, I’m a big nerd :)
Yes ! ! I love looking at all the details to see if there’s a bigger meaning or another painting entirely behind all those colors ! I also think it’s because my mind works like “pretty colors ? I like :)”
I agree. I don’t like when “abstract” is meant to mean art with no creativity or skill needed. The point is just that it doesn’t have any underlying meaning to it.
I like abstract art. I like expression in art. I HATE Abstract Expressionism with a fiery passion. I once got lost in the abstract expressionism wing of an art museum and the only feeling that welled up inside me on looking at those "masterpieces" was utter disgust and a desire to run out of the room to find the 'good art.'
I used to feel this way until a roommate of mine decided to go to a party as a Jackson Pollack. He got a white suit coat used and splattered it with paint. He did the front one day and the back the next. They looked similar but gave me different feelings. The front seemed to be exuberant, the back a little pissed off. Then he told me that he had gotten into a kerfuffle with his girlfriend after the front but before the back. I had to acknowledge there was something to this stuff.
If u don't mind me n my opinion here.. for me, modern and contemporary art, includes abstract impresionism art style is indeed easy and seems like a nonsense. But what i study as a pupil in art school, actually only few artist that can accomplished all naturalism, realism, romanticism, surrealism, or other kind of 'copying nature or real life object' to a canvases can then get 'qualified' to make an abstract or conseptual work of art. They must master all of it first. And then, many artist will then feel to do something more, they want to make something so new; since we already have photography that can actually copy the image eyes can see, theres not so much need to make a realistic pictures: except if they want it and they passionate on it. So, a better way is to test some contemporary artists or abstract artists about their actuall skill on drawing a realism painting. But, once again since we live in the post-truth era, and the value of art and aesthetic is no longer hold straight, anything can be right; anything can be art, as long as there are people who agree :v
I remember in 2008 I was in this modern art show and I said I didn't like any of the paintings. So this artist starts telling me why they're so amazing. To this day, I think modern art is made by someone who lacks talent, but still wants to call themselves artists.
@@munnoh-tw6yw If I walk away uninspired and disinterested I pretty much don't care what the "true meaning" of the painting was. I've never had to ask the meaning of the cathedral or the context of it's construction to be awe struck and amazed. I believe that's what separates good art from mediocre art. Mediocre art has to be explained and post hoc rationalized as good whereas actual good art is something people strive to recreate and draw inspiration from.
Your title "Why I hate Modern Art", is false, you hate how much people want to pay for it. What you hate are people that value specific art you don't find meaning in that they are willing to pay 7 figures for that you can't. If you spent time to research why they pay this amount, how they can afford to do so and what the specific art means in the context of art history, the influence it had in moving art forward and how that impacts culture specifically in design, science, philosophy, religion, psychology, identity etc and also art as a store of value against the ever inflating dollar - losing buying power, then you might have a different perspective. It's fine to have an opinion, but it falls apart and becomes meaningless when it's born from ignorance.
im sure theres plenty of badly made tools that were designed to make tasks easier for normal people that are worth a lot of money because theyre 6000 years old, and hence have historical importance. its not even something specific to art, its almost nothing to do with art, its just history.
Honestly it's always "rich people bad, why they paying so much for these art pieces" because they have fucking value. If those things weren't valued at millions of dollars they would be treated with less care, imagine all the fossyls and old things that would've been destroyed cause "it's just old shit", their value protect them lol And I find nothing wrong in billionaires using art as tax write offs, better that money goes into museums then the state
@skin dot com not exactly, let's say you're a billionaire with companies facturing billions, you buy an art piece valued at 10 millions, then it's valued at 50 millions and you donate it to a museum: you have to pay 50 millions less in taxes, minus the 10 you spent means you get to keep 40 millions more than what you would've kept. It's an exageration and not all situation are like this but you get that it's a powerful tool to pay less taxes Money laundering on the other hand, idk how it's done with art pieces, sure there's a way but it's not easy to pay millions of dollars with drug money Unless you meant money laundering as the process of paying less taxes, which is not, it's legal (morally speaking you get to think whatever you like, it's just the way to get screwed less)
I don’t admire abstract and modern paintings because I see that most them lack fine details, story, and an interesting view to look at as other art/painting genres do. However, I have to say modern and abstract sculptures can be very impressive.
Yeah, definitely. My bone to pick with modern/abstract art is that art for me is a craft; a very expressive craft with a wide variety but a craft nevertheless. The author is making something, be it a painting, a drawing, an architectural plan, a sculpture, some music; they're making SOMETHING. And my thing with any craft is that I like to admire the work and effort, and the skill of the author. Like, you know that statue of the birdwoman that became the face of a urban legend on the internet? Yeah, I find that thing interesting as heck because the level of detail put into it and the skill needed to do it is incredible. Or, let's say, fursuits; as ridiculous as it is, it takes a lot of work to make one, and some people can make some REALLY impressive ones; the skill of the maker (which goes from sewing, to air brushing, painting, and in some cases even eletric work to wire LED just to mention a few things) and the effort put into making one of them make them fascinating just because of the craft of it. And when I look at a lot abstract and modern art, more often than not I see some random thing that looks like something I would do when I was 5yo playing with paint. There's no craft, no skill, barely any effort; it's just a bunch of random shapes, or paint thrown at a canvas; that's not interesting, it's not admirable. I wouldn't spend more than 5 seconds looking at a pollock painting because that thing is so utterly boring and soulless, it's just paint thrown at a canvas with no significant pattern at all. I 100% would rather observe a cosplayer crafting their costume, because I find the effort they put into making the outfits and matching the details, as well as the final product of all that work, so much more fascinating than what many of these modern artists do. (And I'm not entirely convinced that a lot of these super expensive modern paintings aren't just super rich people using it as a scam to get a tax exemption)
@@gabrielabatista6016 I used to share a similar sentiment to this, the "my 8yo could do this" view. And don't get me wrong, technical ability is a big factor in my appreciation of a piece. But, two things. First, a lot of modern art that looks like it isnt much, is much. Take Barnett Newman's "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, And Blue? III", which consists of three solid colors rectangles. Museum visitors to where the piece was held filed lengthy complaints about why they hated it, and it was eventually attacked and slashed with a boxcutter- very strong emotional reactions for a "boring" and "soulless" piece. Not to mention after it's destruction, restoration efforts failed to repair the red rectangle. The paint was filled back in, but something, some subtly which Newman achieved in the weeks he spent creating the piece, was unable to be recreated. It was more than just some blobs. Similarly, Rothko's work contains a very technically impressive understanding and application of paint. Second, and what I asked myself that led me out of the "my 8yo could do this" perspective is, why does it matter? If someone produces a painting and it brings me to tears, what difference does it make that it was created through months of delicate procedure by a master, or in five minutes by an amateur? My reaction is not invalidated by someone's perceived skill or care. Furthermore, as I became more interested and looked into the background and meaning of popular abstract pieces I reflected back on famous pieces that were not modern abstraction, where I realized I was just as clueless as I was to Rothko. I can identify that in the Mona Lisa there is a woman, but there is surely much more I do not know simply by identifying the literal subjects. In the case of modern abstraction, there is as well, much I do not know. Apologies that this is a little long, and if it comes across as rude. I find this a very interesting topic as a person who shifted from the perspective that this stuff isn't even art to anything is art. Oh and, fursuits are pretty cool uwu
"about the energy of the splashing lines of paint" No it isn't, it's a document of what happened on that occasion, when a human, his conscious and subconscious created a painting using that method, on that day, at that time.
I saw a plain long blue pole in the corner of a room once at our local art gallery, along with several other abominations masquerading as "art." I was disgusted. I couldn't keep quiet about it, much to the embarrassment of the friends I was with. I don't think the gallery porters appreciated my comments either, LOL.
I feel that the more that Banana is mentioned, the more it is discussed, the more it is validated. Using it as critique for modern art gives it meaning, I think. Maybe we should allow it to fall into obscurity.
When a person puts Picasso into the category of "guys who can't paint so they did easy stuff" I hear them saying "I don't really grasp my subject matter."
Yeah I got pretty confused when he mentioned picasso 😂 While I can understand thinking Rothkos are simple (though I’d disagree), the Picasso piece was pretty complex and beautiful and I think most would agree
i’m pretty sure there’s a story about how picasso finished a masterful oil painting in like 1 hour because one of his wives needed money or something. If you don’t know oil is super hard to work with especially in only an hour.
there are two points to distinguish art from scam 1. if you were given all the required items, colors, materials; could you do roughly the same yourself? 2. if you were given a chainsaw, a baseball bat, a knife or just a dart; would it be possible to essentially worse the art piece or would it roughly look the same?
If you told people hyping up a poor or simple or easy piece to pays thousands for it, would they do it or would they suddenly change their tune? If you let people choose one piece to have, a simple modern one or a realistic landscape, which would most people choose?
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c it doesn’t matter if someone else could come along and copy the artwork later, because they didn’t come up with the idea and create it in the first place. Artists express their original ideas and intentions through artworks. I’ve seen plenty of people say Rothko’s works are just rectangles, but did you realize he mixed those colours accord to his imagination, with the goal to elicit an emotional reaction from the viewer in response to the depth, purity, etc of the colours?
I very much agree. An artwork from back then that someone spend years training to be able to make can be sold for just as much or even less than someone’s artwork that probably took 15 minutes by just throwing paint on a canvas, or even easier: painting a few colored lines. This also applies to nowadays commissions. An artist can spend hours making a drawing for someone, only to be paid about 20 dollars. I think art value should become more fair and if people are going to have to pay $180M for a painting LITERALLY ANYONE can make, then they should be able to pay higher for an artwork that took hours, or even years.
why would the time spent making the art matter? i can spend a year on something and still have it be trash. the artists were making art that was saying or expressing something, that's why there was a demand for it. also it stood out
:/ I feel like you guys really fundamentally don’t understand modern art. I mean the “history” section was ridiculously brief and didn’t go into how we shifted to an abstract culture or how art became priced as high as it is. And the assumption that artists like pollock and Picasso don’t have decades or practice across multiple mediums and and incredible understanding of representational form and abstract composition. It’s insulting and it’s inaccurate. Not to mention the whole video equates modernism with abstract art and they aren’t the same at all. From like the 70s onward hyper realism has come into vogue. I mean this video is just really poorly researched and shows a complete lack of understanding of the art world. I mean I agree certain artists from the early modernist movements worked on a cult of personality (especially Picasso and pollock) or how certain mentalities from the modernist movement have corroded art education. But you’re clearly not educated enough on those topics to hold a conversation about it. I just sort of question why you made this video. You clearly don’t know what your talking about to anyone who’s researched the topic.
I fully agree. He calls these piece meaningless, what he should say is that he cannot personally find meaning in it. Presenting opinion as fact shows his lack of perspective on modern art too and saying a painting by Rothko takes no skill is just naive.
Modern Art is an much discussed topic since lots of people don‘t seem to like it, which I absolutely understand. The problem with modern Art nowadays is that those old paintings, which are being sold for atrocious prices, didn‘t have the chance to sell in the time they were painted. Modern Art did alot for the Art community, since people finally stopped to just draw realism or important people. Impressionism, Expressionism or Dadaism, all these art movements and those artist didn‘t really want to sell their paintings. It was just an art movement, against acadamism or the art rules that were normal back then. Abstract Art usually doesn‘t have meaning because those Artist drew what they felt, and it was different, something completely new, which can‘t be replicated. Thats why it‘s sold with such high prices. I understand if just an black canvas is sold for 100 mio dollars, but it was revolutionary back then and it can‘t be replicated. If someone did that nowadays no one would bat an eye, but considering that abstract art was so outrageous. I kinda get it. It‘s not most peoples cup of tea but if you know the history, it‘s kinda understandable.
I think abstract art began as an interesting concept, the idea being to expand the definition of art beyond what was commonly accepted. I would even go so far as to say that the artist's ability to convince critics that his work (streaks of paint scattered haphazardly across his canvas) was a form of art would have been far more important than the work itself. After a while, I guess people noticed the high prices that such paintings often command as well as the (comparatively) low level of talent required for this form of art, and saw the potential in making money creating paintings that could easily pass for the scribblings I made at the age of three. I know some people might take issue with this analogy, but it sort of reminds me of what rap music has turned into. Originally, it was a genre that took a certain degree of skill to be successful in, but now you see thousands of talentless hacks who call themselves "rappers" because they can rhyme random words together. They see that they can get famous by putting in the minimum amount of effort, and some actually do.
Besides art being for the rich,my main problem with art is the lack meaning nowadays in these pieces. A giant rock with a weird title or circles painted with a mop only tells me you wanted money
As an artist, 1) you simply just don’t understand art 2) it’s for laundering money for mafias/tax avoidance But think of art like memes, sometimes what makes it good art, is that it’s just a rock. It’s ironic etc. Hyper realism is so boring. You’re just being shown what something is. Art is so much more than that, you can paint literally anything your mind can come up with, limited only by your personal imagination, and you just want to paint a realistic looking rock? Just take a picture. All art has its place, but now you’re learning that art is subjective and market driven. I can do hyper realism, but it’s boring, unimaginative and uninspired. Like a child with Lego or Minecraft, do you build a normal everyday house, or do you build a massive supervillain lair with a lava skull volcano etc? It’s also time consuming. I can paint something as realistic as a photograph, but I get bored. I rather paint something in a few hours than a few weeks. Impressionism is my personal favourite. You can explore different senses and emotions through art, it’s a window into what that artist was thinking at the time. Like VVG, his paintings are full of emotion, they’re not realistic at all, but they do show what he was feeling at the time. That’s why he’s so famous. I would much rather a black canvas with some hot pink slashes through it hanging in my home, than some depressing proration of Henry the 8th or something. Art is about what you the viewer see and love. I have a painting of squidward in my home, the abstract modern art squidward painting is one of my favourite pieces in the world hahah. I can acknowledge the skill and the appeal to certain pieces, like Picasso, but I don’t personally like them.
@@user-jz3gj9et4k It matters to me. I don't try to sell any of my work because I put so much time and effort into it that I would need to charge hundreds of dollars just to make minimum wage. At those kinds of prices, the only people with that kind of money to throw around are the same people who despise artists because we don't make much money. I resent that. I also don't want to help lower the prices for everyone by helping to saturate the market. So why do it at all? Because it's just worth doing, and it adds meaning to my life. My kids will inherit it all. I'll let them decide what's to be done with it. BTW I knew when I got my BFA that I would need another job to live on. But for me, money isn't the end for which what I do is the means. No, what I do is the end for which money is the means. I don't need much.
I think the point of some expressionism is to challenge the viewer's idea of what art is, and artists like Rothko and Pollock made incredibly complex pieces that would spark outrage in their critics. And also, actually look into some of the techniques Rothko and Newman would use to alter the paint itself.
@@mitab1 limiting art to just be beautiful is a reductive thought process that sours the whole concept. If you like only pretty art, then power to you, but to say it's purpose is just to be that is limiting.
@@rowanconstable7824 you missed the point, I am saying not saying that art should only be a beautiful picture, i am saying that the first thing an art piece should do is be beautiful, otherwise I wouldn't care what the artist want to say, even if your art is full of meanings, if it's ugly to look at, It's Messenges fall flat
I still disagree. Sometimes ugly things are captivating, while beautiful things fall flat. That's why Kinkade is not well regarded and Picasso and Goya are.
I think it’s really interesting hearing about this kind of opinions about modern art, I’ve found that a lot of people share the same thoughts on how “cheap” and “lazy” many of the paintings on display look. I just would really like to indulge many of the people thinking this way to investigate and learn a little about for example the time and effort Rothko puts into his canvases, it’s really hard to see it digitally but his paintings are absolutely impressive irl. Also, if I may add on the subject of pricey pieces of art, I think that is a whole topic that doesn’t necessarily correlate to abstract expressionism or any other type of art. I think a good exercise is to invest a little time into looking outside the big artists like Picasso and find that there are many other artists online that really need to be recognized more.
I got a few things from this. 1. You don't hate modern art, or any genre in particular, per se. You hate the commoditization of art and the ultra rich, not uncommon. 2. Placing the meaning of art in the work that precedes its existence is, in a sense, commodizing art, viewing it as a product rather than expression, that leads to: 3. The way someone is personally affected by a piece. You might not like Rothko's pieces, seeing it as streaks of paint, and that is ok, but i personally feel oddly subjugated by the sheer size of these bigger absurdist pieces, it all boils down to what it makes YOU feel. Not liking it because you get anything out of it is ok.
A very complex situation for me. Klimt is also considered modern art but I feel very different for his style than some of the other paintings I had to study about modern art. Tbh I like the thought process going behind some artists of the time and how they tried everything to break out of rigid art rules so that every style we use today can be viewed as art without needing to be too much accurate to how human looks. But I also value the time and effort put behind every piece of art and while some of these paintings have interesting concepts they do not require much effort to be made. My my, this is a difficult spot...
Nemnemi, a little reminder that you don't have to pick a side. Furthermore, what would be the issue with something not requiring much effort to be made? At this point one isn't looking anymore at the art piece, but rather at his own rigid idea of what 'Art' should be.
@@lemony254 I appreciate the thought put behind art but I personally wouldn't buy something that I too could make. I think there's a difference between art and the art market and that's when things start to confuse people. I surely don't undermine someone for illustrating something in a different way and in some cases I like that artistic direction but again, I wouldn't buy it because it has not much monetary worth but more a meaning worth
@@nemnemi111 Not liking something because you can 'make it' is a curious statement. Consider you learn to paint well. Would you cease appreciating Rubens, Blake, Rembrandt? If the answer is negative, why such case cannot be made for the modern art as well? Some 'meaning worth' of a piece is not linked in any way with how hard it was to make.
@@lemony254 I mean that there's a difference between the bigs who thought of painting that way first and artists that makes something similar to it. I'd pay for Rubens but if I want to own something similar to Rubens and not the original and I have the skills to do so I don't actually feel the necessity to buy someone's else's work in that case. If it's something I cannot replicate than I'll buy it because there's no other chance for me to get it. So yeah, if someone makes something as cubism nowadays I don't feel like I'd buy it because I too can perform it and if someone makes something similar to Michelangelo's drawings or whatever I don't feel, again, the need to buy it as I too can make it. But if it's done with particular techniques I cannot replicate than I'll buy it. But that's just my own way to see things and I don't want to force others to feel the same
@@lemony254 Also I know you put me in the "imagine if you learn to paint well" and I currently can hence yeah I do not really feel the need to buy Rubens. Appreciation however, it's another thing. As I explained in my previous statements I bring respect for the ideas of modern art but I wouldn't buy the ones similar to them (unless they are the originals) because they do not hold the same historical importance and they're also easy to reproduce
I don't like abstract art either, I never really understood it, but I wouldn't fault others for liking or finding it appealing. But I wouldn't make any arguements to defend myself other than just, 'not my cup of tea' and therefore you won't be able to convince me to like it. I like your point of an art form that was made so anyone could enjoy being once again monopolized by the rich, but perhaps you put a little too much time into saying 'anyone could do this' than many disagreed with you.
is not about how difficult it is to make those paintings. is about what's behind them. some people don't even want their paintings sold. the money comes in second place. it's not something that's made for rich to enjoy, it's the rich that take the paintings to themselves. every example that you did had a message behind, and it's because people don't understand what's behind those pieces that modern art is so hated. (sorry for any grammar mistake, feel free to correct me.)
I don't like abstract painting for being something so easy yet infamous, but there's one abstract artist I love: John Beckley. His paintings aren't just a bunch of nonsense and chaos, he actually thinks of color theory and composition in every work he does. I really admire him for knowing how to think of those complicated things while doing something so simple. At the end of the day, all of his paintings are amazing and each one has a understandable mood.
I agree with your opinion on art’s modern monetary reputation, but as for the rest, I disagree. I’ve begun to realize in recent years that the most captivating art isn’t a measure of what a person can do, but of what a person can think. This doesn’t mean that I enjoy the work of Jackson Pollock and others like him, I actually find his work pretty boring, but I think art should always be as accessible as a medium as music (anyone can use their voice to create a melody, and anyone can use their hands to tap out a rhythm). I think when we open the gates to all skill levels in an art form, we will inevitably get a lot of boring work, but also some gems from people with a truly unique way of thinking that we may not have seen otherwise because their skill isn’t as developed as others.
I totally agree. I find it incredibly boring when people draw photorealistic portraits. Incredible skill? No doubt about it. But copy-paste drawing / painting can be absolutely souless and kind of pointless. There is no artistic value in it, only pure skill that can be beat by a printer. I prefer art where the artist has an emotion or set of thoughts as inspiration, she/he selects the colours, mixes them to match these emotions and thoughts and then paints. It's about colour, composition, meaning etc. Simple art can be absolutely moving. Not saying that a single stroke on a canvas should be worth of 150 billion, but it can still move something in you. Art to me is about expressing feelings when words are not enough. It's not about money. There's an huge difference between having something to say and expressing yourself vs painting pretty pink roses, coz the Barbie movie is trending and those pink roses can bring a good buck.
You're right. Anyone can use their voice for a melody and tap a rhythm. You know what stops just anyone from becoming a highly paid musician? TALENT and SKILL. For every douchebag that owns a guitar and can play smells like teen spirit how many can play to the level of the John Petruccis or Joe Satrianis or Paul Gilberts of the music world? Being accessible to people is not the same as being good at it. Ab Ex is the participation award of the art world and nothing more. It's for every talentless loser to feel they can do SOMETHING.
The thing I find cool about abstract expressionism is that in paintings with a lot of lines and figures (like No. 5) you could be looking at the painting for the rest of your life and still find new combinations of shapes that could be construed as something.
A thing that looks like something else, have a look at rocks, tree bark, the clouds, it's free, it always has been. Every sunset is glorious and is unique. If you cannot see it you take some shrooms.
@@Foxglove963 I've had, the thing is that in the comment I was speaking about the video subject, which is modern art. I never said or implied that abstract is the only thing in existence that can achieve that "always finding something new" effect.
well what is an artist? i’m a musician, a type of artist, and believe that anybody can and should be able to express themselves to some extent through some medium or another
@@NICKMBRAND i believe any person making art is an artist, but i interpreted this comment as "becoming an artist (for a living) was not something anybody could do" which is definitely true. im an artist in the sense that i make art, but not in the sense that art is my career
I also used to hate abstract and modern art as it was too "easy to do" and that "lack of sense or purpose" but the truth is that in the historical context abstract art and all these movements that challenged academia were and still are extremely important for the history of how we perceive and appreciate both art and aesthetics. the concept of art has also changed a lot over the years and it is very likely that it will continue to change. I think it is important to understand that there is a spectrum between figurative and abstract and neither extreme wants to resemble the other, abstract art has its purpose in being abstract and it does not want or pretend to be like figurative art. so looking with the same eyes at a painting by caravaggio and a painting by rothko is essentially incongruous. think of abstract art as something closer to graphic design. Shapes, colors, textures that do not represent anything but are important in their own ways. The fonts we use when writing, UI in video games and even the patterns used in textile fabrics are much more related to the abstract than to the figurative. abstract art is all that but in its purest form and without a practical purpose. If we start talking about the artist's ability, I think that is also a topic that should not be comparable to figurative artists, because they both do totally different things. I personally do not like Pollock at all, it is true that his work could have been done by anyone but he was the one who did it first or at least gave it the importance he gave it, but even in his "lack of skill" he created paintings with a very marked aesthetic, which do nothing more than visually nourish us all. I don't think modern art is really the problem, I think the real problem is billionaires, rich people who produce elitism and money laundering.
No, the democratisation of art never was the scope of abstract expressionism. People like Mark Rothko were extremely well-read and the theory behind abstract painting is fairly complex, (cf. Concerning the Spiritual in Art, W. Kandinsky), which is why saying that those artists were aiming at having everyone express themselves because the stuff they created was technically easy to do is misleading. This idea of democratisation would also imply that a piece created by someone who imitates the style or technique of a given artist ends up having the same value as that of the artist, not only from an aesthetic point of view, which, as we saw, is a dubious claim, but also from a metaphysical perspective which is an idea that was extremely controversial at the time (cf. works by W. Benjamin).
I used to prefer older paintings too, until I saw Pollock in Stockholms gallery. I could look at it for hours and not get bored of it. Dont know why, but the feeling is totally gone when you see his paintings on photos or displays. He is one of my favourite painters since then.
For me, it's not about how much it's being sold for, or how "simple" it is. There's just no connection to me. When I look at a Pollock or Rothko, I feel nothing.
Lol there was a Danish guy who was paid something like $90K by a museum to paint a huge canvas. He submitted a blank canvas and titled it "Take the Money and Run"
The problem with modern art is the gatekeepers. Those who determine that one artist is of a pedigree worthy of valuing such art in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and even hundreds of millions of dollars, whilst similar art is worth nothing. When art is not about the ability to beautifully represent reality, but rather to splash paint on canvas, it becomes a classist endeavor in determining which splashes of paint are genius, and which splashes of paint are child's play shit. This is where social dynamics and favoritism become the determining factors, and utterly nullify any valid evaluation of any given piece. It's all about social proof and predetermination that any given artist is a genius, and less about the product itself. It's the artist, and not the art, that is celebrated. This is a social game, and not a talent game.
1. "Modern Art" is a term that refers to work created in the late 1800's starting with the Impressionists and ending in the 1960's with the advent of " Contemporary Art"...the period we seem to be in at the moment. 2. Something radical has happened to the art scene in the past 60 years. Cubism slid into non-representational art....what is often called Abstract. Abstract or non-representational art is a legitimate and often profound genre. But, to many people, it appeared as if this new style had no structure, principles or standards of evaluation. It’s markings seemed random and arbitrary. Something that anyone could do. Any composition of blotches or scribbles was “Abstract Art”. This was the slippery slope that led to the abandonment of standards in art. Art is what I say it is....and lots of people jumped on the art bandwagon. ''Anyone can be an artist.'' Anyone can mount a show. And who is to say if it has value or not ? A tacit agreement has formed among critics, galleries, publications and auction houses to promote and celebrate certain artists and styles. Objects with no artistic merit are touted and praised . Their value increases with every magazine article, every exhibition in a prestigious gallery. (This is analogous to the cult of celebrity in pop culture where you are famous for being famous. Think Paris Hilton, the Kardashians etc.) And when these art works come up for auction, sometimes the auction houses will lend vast sums to a bidder so that it appears as if the work of the particular artist is increasing in value. The upward spiral begins and fortunes are made. And many are reluctant to declare that the Emperor is, in fact, naked lest they appear boorish unsophisticated Philistines ! This is what dominates the art market today. The love of money is the root of all evil. It has corrupted politics. It has corrupted sport. It has corrupted healthcare. It has corrupted religion. And now it has corrupted art. Nothing has intrinsic value. If no one liked or wanted to have, own, or see the Mona Lisa, it would have no monetary value. The buyers of the art we see here do not love the work for itself but for how it might appreciate in value in the future. It is an investment no less than shares of stock.
I hope, like The Skull by Basquiat is really a good investment, because $93.1 million is already a very high tag price. I would not even buy it for $50.
Like Weird Tyler says, I find this perfectly put as well. I too think that commercialism has ruined art. I have been browsing on the internet for hours looking for answers to how art has turned so utterly sh*t. I think that contemporary art is a cultural catastrophy. And I'm not just refering to the visual arts, but music as well.
Cubism never became non-representational. In fact, Picasso is noted for hating abstract art lost. I never found his art impressive anyway. I'm more of a fan of Matisse's work
Tell me you don’t understand art history without telling me you don’t understand art history. Pollock didn’t “randomly splatter paint onto a canvas”. If that was the case it would be near impossible to distinguish real pollock pieces from the fakes. Computer analysis of his paintings has found that he was actually painting fractals. Before fractals were even discovered. And that’s just for starters, there’s a great series on Jackson pollock by a podcast called art holes. I recommend all of them, they’re very informative. And modern art wasn’t made to be “easy and accessible to everyone” the styles that you mentioned still require extensive knowledge of composition, lighting, color relationships, perspective and so on. In order to distort reality properly, you have to understand its rules first. The poor was mostly to oppose the strictness of academism and make space in the art world for more freedom of expression, but that doesent mean “let people who have no skills become great artists”. The greatness of those paintings you call meaningless (which I guarantee you will find they are not once you try to learn a bit more about the artists as people) lies in the way that they broke rules considered to be sacred (remember this was stuff that had never been done before), in the emotion or tension expressed through such simple forms. I’m not saying that everyone has to like it, I’m not the biggest fan of most modern art myself, but before you dismiss something as meaningless and poor quality and make a whole video about it, at least try to dig into it a bit more than reading the first paragraph of a couple Wikipedia articles.
You said it 1:04 It’s about the activity it self. A free activity, lost in thought. Look at a tree, it doesn’t hurry to grow, yet everything is in place. That’s the meaning of the abstract painting
@@ClaudeSpeed6 when you study nature, you realize there are no straight lines in nature. To which I think art seen as the process of just what is happening being the closest to what we endure.
i think it's completely valid to not be moved by modern art. one early frustration i had with it was that, it felt composed in a way that expected me to be moved by its abstractness or, in the case of no.5, its unbridled chaos. but no matter what sum of money it sells for, what the artist meant for it to represent, or if i could do it myself or not, it either moves me or not. i believe art is expression, so let people express themselves how they want, and let history conclude that this is, indeed, not very good or some rich community play-thing. through both the bright and dark eras of art, can the art that is intrinsically good, what fulfills the heart of the onlooker, what captures the essence of a world and feels alive as the day it was completed, come into being. like that one meme: "mom, there's no such thing as a permanent concept of the self!" art is a movement, and we're simply caught in a very controversial one for some.
I feel like you could find and make art like this anywhere, but just as we as a society do, we buy for name brand. $3 Ray ban glasses we buy for hundreds just for the name, and sadly this now relates to art, which is ridiculous, I’ve seen many talented people in my time who could probably never sell their piece over 20 even though they are amazing bc they have no name
**Edit:** Hey all, I made a new video on the topic of AI Art. You can check it out here! ua-cam.com/video/-fD9UNah7TU/v-deo.html
I don't know or when how this video suddenly blew up, but first, I'd like to thank everyone for your constructive comments! You've all raised some really important points that I failed to consider or address in my video--Especially about many major inaccuracies on historical details--which, well, was pretty hastily put-together for a class I had to pass. Either way, thanks for taking the time to check out the video and for leaving your comments!
I've lost respect for art, even though I do it. I think the problem with art is the same reason why anyone would love art: it's subjective. Pisschrist is art just as the Mona Lisa is. Tying your dick to a pole and smacking the pole on another pole is art. Oko Yono screaming for 4 hours is art. DaVinci is an artist, Van Gough is an artist, H.R. Giger is an artist. The asshole who made a golden toilet and labeled it America is not a fucking artist. It's juvenile, impractical, and no skill. Martial arts have rules, so should any in my opinion.
yeah no problem!
Hey, I think your ideas are really interesting, and I among others have left in the comments, some counterpoints. I'd love to hear your take on these, if you'd be inclined to give it.
haha the almighty algorithm found it and plugged it into a bunch of our feeds :) i like the subtle comedic style of your video essay
:D
I do feel like nowadays, artists speak much more for their paintings and not the other way around anymore.
A picture can say a thousand words, and yet they don’t seem confident enough to let their work speak for itself
Just like a shit movie. Lots of narration, but less really happen
Chess speaks for itself
i mean most of the paintings scream the artist was lazy
So that's why Minimalism was created and it's still shit
i don't think this is a problem within modern art itself, its a wider problem that deals with the monetization and capitalization of art in general. attach a piece to a famous name and you suddenly got yourself a masterpiece
i agree with you
Thank you. This guy just has a personal bias against modern art cause he thinks it’s “easy” his real problem is with capitalism
That’s wrong. It’s the period and the artist that attach the value. Picasso did some really bad stuff at some point particularly with his potteries which attract very little value with the only people buying it, buying it to say they have a Picasso.
@@mattys_room There's still so much people liking and buying talented art, and/or ignoring elites. Is that's capitalism doing wrong too?
You are the only one who gets it.
i think it looks interesting mostly because that pattern (if you can call it that) will never happen exactly again. not saying it’s worth millions to me. but it is pretty sometimes. but ALSO rich people buy art to save on taxes and park their money.
For me personally the best prize for this painting should be at 50.000$ and i drop it way too low because it's kind of silly to get millions with a piece that is easy to make even tho the "pattern" is unique
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣that is why i love modern and pop art
But by that logic any combination of splatters can be presented as a masterpiece worth millions
Who is going to buy it back from rich people with that price also, so how its parking your money then?
bro wtf are you doing here
i am a big fan of modern art and i really agree with you, modern art becomes super expensive for no reason that it just feels like its money laundering, a lot of modern art and other abstract pieces are looking for money and the painting is just lazy but they say it "has a lot of meaning" and is "abstract", and there are people like jean michel basquiat and piet mondrian making actual masterpieces through the means of modern and contemporary or just abstract art.
Abstract art is, a lot of times, an expression of the artist's feelings and/or thoughts and if done well, it can make others feel that same way. Some pieces are better than others but most do have "meaning", or at least are intended to. Also, I don’t believe there is such thing as a “lazy painting”. They’re not all supposed to look the same. More minimalistic paintings are supposed to be exactly that - minimalistic. It’s not because the artist was “lazy” it’s because they aimed to capture/create a more simplistic look.
@@Mr20001as a self taught artist that is wrong.
@@dante_0962 Interesting. Explain, please.
Because real artist learn how to do anatomy even someone like Bruce Timm he still does what regular artist does but more stylised way. And Todd McFarlane as well was rejected by marvel and DC 700 times because he’s drawings weren’t good so he worked on pieces of anatomy like he do hands, feet whatever. Artist have to learn colour theory lighting, shading and what colours do they want. Do they went muted or saturated colours it’s really complex and something that builds and earns overtime. Which is why artists are respected and called talented. But modern artists require none of that and all you need to do is have a high status, a banana and tape and you have millions money. They don’t earn the fame and money because people like Jack Kirby don’t get what their earned but modern artist are some of the famous artist of the world. Plus it’s just a money laundering scheme for rich people to get richer. Sorry for the late reply.
ua-cam.com/video/Dw5kme5Q_Yo/v-deo.htmlsi=swstw2IGP1KmxYwr
ua-cam.com/video/ZZ3F3zWiEmc/v-deo.htmlsi=MTf74B8b_5Yd5DWu
@@dante_0962
Knowing how to do anatomy is not what defines a “real artist.” Would you tell artists like Van Goh, Monet or Bob Ross (to name a few) that they’re not “real artists” because they don’t do anatomy? Regardless of what kind of art one does, there are many things to learn and apply to one one’s work. Even with abstract art, there are things to learn such as values (color), composition and techniques for creating different effects. There are also psychological challenges, like embracing imperfection and understanding the importance of *not* becoming too attached to certain detail (this is far easier said than done.) Every category of art has skill to learn and knowledge to develop over time. I did landscape and “realistic” art for over a decade and it wasn’t until recent years that I started to do abstract art. There are clear differences in the abstract work I did as a beginner and the abstract paintings I’m doing now and I’m still learning. It is certainly not without its challenges. Something may appear to be “simple” but that doesn’t always mean it is. I don’t have high status, nor do I use tape and bananas. Art is a broad subject and each category is created, utilized, viewed and appreciated differently.
If you considered its history and went back you'd find that abstract art had its purpose. Same with all movements of art that challenged the traditional standards of art during the turn of the century. It's just sad that the dictates of the art market took advantage of modern art making it loose its meaning and instead became an avenue for pretention.
Well said
its also sad when you learn that a lot abstract artists like Hilma af Klint or Mondrian were tied to spiritual movements and using basic colors and shapes was a way for them to reach spirituality, meditation, some kind of primal source of creation. and now Mondrian's paintings has been turned into patterns and printed onto mugs, pillows and anything that can be sold. it really loses any meditative aspects the artists had in mind
I also randomly splashed paint on an oversized canvas like Jackson Pollock. I was motivated by my "art spirituality" and my "inner desire" to splashed paint on the canvas and to get in touch with my "philosophical consciousness."
I then ask people for $100 million dollars for my art.
@@johndorilag4129 then u wd just be copying pollock but pollock copied no one
@@johndorilag4129 same thing would happen if you.. lets say filled a patent for an invention that's already patented. why try to copy somebody instead of making something new on your own?
also your problen is that you do it for money, pollock did it for self expression and discovering new visual forms, only later he got popular among art collectors
It's a mistake to put Picasso in with the abstract expressionists. His work spanned the entire modern era.
Plus many artists wanted to escape the stranglehold Picasso had had on art at the time.
🤓
🤓🤓
@@RmationYT yea we're not talking about that, if you judge art you judge it by itself, not the artist
@@RmationYT it was dozens of years ago
I lost faith in modern art when i went to an art museum and the "sculptures" were a pile of bricks, a stick, a boat, a coat and literally a box full of bull crap
You're kidding..right..??
In my museum they had a toilet screwed to the celling and a empty can of coke on a table that was cordoned off.
I like to think that the artest frogot his coke amd when the museum came and asked to pay money for it they were like "lul sure buddy, 5 million."
Modern art is a joke.
@@dirtyshinobii nah I've seen this kind of stuff before. It's laughable. I think a banana and duck tape sold for 10s of thousands. Forgot the artists name. But yes...
@@dirtyshinobii You should look up the story of the famous installation named _Fettecke_ which means _A corner of fat_ by the German artist Joseph Beuys. After the 5 Kg of butter accidentally were cleaned away by the janitor, who mistook it for the trash it was, some months after Beuys' death, a friend of him declared that the piece of art was dedicated to him, saved the remains from a trash bin and made a piece on his own called _Reste einer staatlich zerstörten Fettecke_, or _Remains of a state-destroyed corner of fat,_ "state" because it happened in an acadamy of arts run by the state. Obviously a court also granted his friend a 5 digit compensation for the destroyed "piece of art", paid by the county aka tax payer. 👍
04’ the Moma, blue canvas with animal foot prints and various animal shit. Totally broke me.
I hate how art teachers alqays felt like rhey were trying to make you feel bad if you dont like abstract art.
Art teachers are assholes. Only had one that i liked kinda.
I "get" abstract art. I just think it sucks and is not interesting.
From someone who is currently in art school, there are many, many talented artists that ive had the pleasure of working with. There are also those snobby rich kids who attended art school, not because of their talent, but because of the money their parents had. They all resort to Abstract Expressionism due to their lack of talent. This isn't exactly related to this video, but I thought it was worth sharing.
Are you austrian by any chance?
Exactly. These abstract artist have no talent and that's why they hide under the abstract umbrella
@@chrystianaw8256 okay but that is no reason to hate a whole movement or genre of art. People imitating creativity and talent have always existed, putting a price tag on art only sharpens this, so to me and I think, as it should be for everyone artistic, you should not even consider the price of a painting while enjoying/judging it. Especially to abstract art that cannot easily be judged in meaning or skill needed
@@giannistaz I agree with him
no reason I just hate abstract art
Goofy as shit
I mean there have been snobs riding each art movement to the ground, that's what art history is
In modern art the artist seems to be more important than the art itself
If a three year old splashes random colors on a canvas, no one cares
When a known artist does it, the "art" is sold for millions
It is also done for money laundering purposes or something:/
has always been the case my friend. Johannes vermeer's girl with the pearl earring was sold in 1881 for 2 Dutch gulden and 30 cents administrative fee.
this is similar for expensive clothing brands like gucci.
It may look ugly,
but it's gucci
yup, nailed it. i had an interview with a director of an art school. so, naturally, i show him my portfolio… and then he proceeds to ask me very personal questions. then, he told me that they were looking for people with “unique” stories - as I was a mixed-race girl from the countryside of France who had a troubled family, he was interested in me. ever since, i’ve been really disgusted by the industry of contemporary art.
@@nolwennlebourhis5597 lol
I love how the community is giving constructive criticism to the video’s thesis. I honestly don’t know where to start but you all dissected the video well! Hopefully this counts as my discussion post lol
Yeah, I very much appreciate it! 😅
ua-cam.com/video/fSZQc6g8Q3w/v-deo.html I dont like modernity
Pollock's pieces sold for nothing while he was alive. The art community mocked his approach to composition, splatter painting and incorporation of outside materials like cigarette butts and glass the entire time he was alive. He was considered an alcoholic rube. It was only after he died, his wife (who was pretty pissed at him because he was a serial adulterer) basically gamed the market by saying the value of his work would go up now that he was dead and could no longer create that way she could get some income when he left her nothing.
Something people forget about Modern Art (as opposed to Postmodern Art) is that artists like Pollock were classically trained but wanted to create art outside of the traditional boundaries of the notoriously strict and pretentious Western Art tradition. The question raised was "If they *could* do this normally, *why* do they choose to do it this way?" Postmodern Art meanwhile was where art shifted to be about the concept rather than the art itself, and is when you get people who don’t know what they are doing hop in to try and make money (because the idea behind Postmodernism is that everything has been done already so we just rehash the past in tweaked ways). So many people seem to be so stupidly attached to the Western Academic art tradition and rail against Modern Art while also knowing absolutely nothing about what made it special to begin with
I'm just tired of this notion that art has to be constantly evolving and pushing boundaries. I feel like pushing boundaries just for the sake of it is stupid. I prefer the Renaissance way where art was just an important aspect of society and you had apprenticeship and masters like any other profession. You can create originality within the boundaries of actual artistic tradition and skill. You don't need to deconstruct everything until you're not even creating art anymore. Good art to me is art that anyone can appreciate. If you need a degree just to understand what is going on then you've failed. We in the modern age have this idea that we're so special and unique from the rest of history and we're proving to be very vapid and empty
I make abstract art myself. However not for the sake of making something, it's almost always while I'm on the verge of a breakdown. Whether it's a PTSD, borderline personality, panic attack, or anxiety disorder meltdown just depends. My art is a form of release and sometimes it ends up looking really nice. Each of my paintings has a psychedelic quality, and sometimes no direct focus, just what looks like a dream. My most recent painting is full of vibrant colors, something not quite solid from watercolor oozing acrylic in harsh blended brightness, painted while struggling with drug cravings and hallucinations.
Expensive modern art irritates me for the same reason. It's just sort of pointless. Abstract itself can be really fun and really pretty, but GOD
For real, I make art too when I'm trying to release my mental illness, but it turns out so bad that my thoughts were messy. But hey, it's worth it
Sone abstract art requires skill. Not everything has to be realism. But throwing a can of paint on a wall isn’t art. That’s my issue.
The point of abstract art is the self expression, which is specifically why it's weird to see so many capitalization around it.
@@idunnoalaska Everything is art.
Expensive art are usually of dead artist. In the top 100, all were dead when they went for hundred of millions. Rarely artist are making the money, it's gallery and middle men that are making the money.
So what I got from this video is that you don't actually hate the art itself, you hate the art market... which many of the artists you mention themselves hated and wanted to mock with their artwork lol
Edit: damn I pissed more people off with my pfp than with my comment itself LMAO
mocking it worked and still fueled the marked nontheless
L pfp
@@lurji what
No because the art is bad and so it doesn’t deserve to fetch those values. It’s not about the mockery or whatever bs you want to make it about; it’s pointless squiggles or blobs which aren’t ‘art’.
@@rbanerjee605 what exactly would you say is art, then?
I think good art evokes some kind of feeling or emotion upon looking at something where the more you look at it the more interesting it becomes, I don't think there needs to be any meaning, I think a lot of older abstract art shocked people because no one had done it before, abstract art today is worse because it's overdone everyone is trying to do it, the shock value is gone and it's just boring to look at after you've seen a few you've seen them all.
I agree, his arguments would go better against contemporary art
This! I was looking for someone to say this
He said here that it was a celebration of the activity of painting itself, which imo is definitely a meaning, and also quite beautiful. It’s just really a shame that it lost that meaning along the way, and just became what it is now
To be fair currently there are so many good artists taking inspiration from hyperrealism to surrealism. Today good art doesn't equal market value.
ah yes, the good ol back in these times this was better than nowadays
I know some people say that it just looks cool and you have to 'use your imagination" but I agree. You could say that a 5-year-old painted that, anyone could just get a bucket of paint and drizzle it across a canvas on the floor. If that's what art is then, Is everyone a genius painter? No. I can understand that back in the 40's and 50's, that type of design was not very common in that time period, like stripes of different colors. Maybe that's why people think it's so cool, because it was a very new thing back then, it's almost like Pollock created that pattern. Either way, it's odd to think that people today think that it's "genius" and that it's "perfect", I don't know if people say that because of the great new trend of colors mixed like that was very important to today's society. I don't care, it's not genius to put a bunch of colors on a canvas with no picture, it's "meaningless" like you said.
It's basically the 1950s version of acrylic pour painting (something that most people see as a tacky novelty). But people don't say that because Pollock has been turned into this hipster genius art-star. I find it sad that he's seen as one of America's great artists
A major art museum went to a woman's studio and gathered all the paintings for display. Critics praised each one as a masterpiece, each one showing off the artist's skill and style wonderfully.
The artist later had to admit that some of those paintings were done by her 8 year old daughter. The "experts" couldn't tell the difference.
Anyone can call themselves or somebody else a critic or an expert. Maybe you should start to be the one to judge who you consider these things. It's very easy to noone can do deep and profound analysis of work like this, when the people you call critics and experts are holy fools that got their credentials from rich people needing an "expert" to help them evade some taxes in an art deal. Find someone who can teach you to appreciate things you weren't able to see the merit in before, because analysis, evaluation, appreciation and criticism are skills that need to be trained. If you find someone that can help you foster those abilities in yourself, then you have a real expert and not a charlatan.
The source is that i made it the fuck up !
so does that mean there is no value in the the child’s drawings?
Source?
Nonsense.
I went to a gallery recently, and was frustrated by the amount of effortless, hollow, cash-grab type paintings that dominated the gallery. White canvases, lines and scribbles. It hurts me I could spend hours painting something with as much detail and skill and possible and achieve nothing, and these people could sell nothing for millions.
Edit: I don't mind modern art in how it looks, only how much it sells for. I don't mind some nice scribbles, they aren't eye-bleeding or anything, but the prices certainly are. Also, I'm not a good artist, but I try my best at it, I put time and I put effort into it, which is something that can't be said for some painting I see going for millions.
Exactly 😭 I cry when I look at art platforms like Saatchi it’s so absurd. It’s just INSANE
Art is a mirror
@@popdoom4979 no..it's a skill
Last art walk I went on, most of the art sucked. It was so much better the before the 2010s when the galleriea had standards.
1) Stop going to galleries if they cause you pain. For example--if galleries contained nothing but still life paintings, portraits and landscapes, I would stop going to them.
2) Did you just now discover that modern art exists?
3) Apparently, in your mind, art is little more than a display of technical abilities.
I've always hated modern art because of how it's viewed as superior to portraits or nature's landscape painting. I'm a first year art student and one of my first paintings for my portfolio was 3 large hibiscus flowers and as I showed it to the lecturers I was told it wasn't chaotic enough so when I went home I splashed diluted paint all over the painting that took me a few minutes and a bit of anger from being dismissed, the next time the lecturer saw the painting he said it looked better which troubled me a lot. Because of that I have made it a point in my artworks to not splash paint on any of my canvas' even if it's abstract in a way.
I would not ruin my art like that. Then I don't think people should go to art school. You can learn some basics and tips on yt.
I am proud of you.
Abstract art expresses emotion. A portrait is just a portrait.
@@elevate000 a portrait requires skill. Most abstract art doesn't.
Maybe you are in the wrong art school. If what you want to paint is realism, you should have gone to a more traditional art school. The thing is, flowers are a traditional art theme, and has been used countless times throughout art history. Still life is also a pretty calm subject, and after you destroyed your piece, it wasnt just about artists passion and dedication, but also about the anger and frustration you felt. Therefore, it conveys all the aspects of your struggles as an art student, which makes it much more interesting. You probably feel like you ruined your work, but maybe you could use your experience as a way to learn more about the world of art. Its great to try the most challenging things in the art world, because, who knows, maybe by accident you will create something that will revolutionise art forever ! Maybe it’s worth the risk ? But prehaps you just like drawing pretty subjects, and while it may not impress your art teachers or other artists, it will be enough for you and will impress most people on tik tok anyways.
I hope i wasn’t offensive, i just would love to have the chance to have a teacher like yours to make me take risks and challenge myself.
Art is not about who can do it , it's about who does it.
I absolutely agree that there is an extremely modern/simplistic problem in the art world led by greedy people. all ways of expressio should be valued, there are abstract artists who make absolutely stunning art, and everyone has their own taste, yet I can’t help but get frustrated with paintings like the black dot on the canvas that sold for millions or other just ridiculously simple things like that.
Agreed
@@munnoh-tw6ywstop cherry-picking examples, everyone brings up Comedian and says it’s the worst art. That is just something that non-artists say. Now do I love it, no. But it sure is better than the 40th fucking boring ass Kinkade painting in hotel lobbies. They’re both jokes but one is a purposeful joke. Also people who say this shit don’t actually go to art museums. Some of my favorite works are super simplistic like the Fragile future works or Mel Chin’s Spirit. Yes the banana is a fucking joke, and that is the point (Also classical art also has money laundering behind it, most art does) also this umbrella term of modern art is stupid. So many cultures have so many kinds of art that are not just the same few boring ass classicism in inspired pieces.
“The painting speaks! Do you not hear what it says?”
“Yeah, it says ‘don’t drink while you’re painting.’”
-from _Top Cat,_ aptly summarizing modern art all the way back in 1962
Wait, the Show Top Cat?
I like looking at abstract art as a texture, it can be used as decoration in many kinds of things, but the monetary value makes little sense and it's more about the painter's name than anything else
Haa haa, I remember that episode very well. TC is my favorite cartoon.
Lol
This is purely constructive criticism, and I hope you take it that way.
Your perspective strikes me as someone who isn't a painter, there are some holes in your art/artist/audience model of meaning, and there are questionable things about your emphasis on 'easy' and 'hard'. Several of my freshmen and sophomore peers in college (they weren't Painting majors) brought presentations like this to Art History classes - the problem is that they thought they knew more than they actually did about the subject. It seems a bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect. You perhaps don't realize how much you don't know.
Rothko's work isn't easy to make, especially when he was developing it. He had to develop a methodology to make his paint be extremely flat, mostly conceal brushstrokes, and for his color fields to blend into one another with extremely thin paint without pouring/dripping/crazing/dragging. Do you know how complicated paint can be to handle, and know how to manipulate it to exact expectations? He developed a personal approach and compositional arrangements that are blatantly obvious when anyone has tried to appropriate them since. That's a rare artistic feat historically, and it applies to Pollock too. 'Easy' doesn't matter at all in the context of their work, and there's limited amounts of it in existence so...immense value.
Cubism isn't easy to paint, *especially* during the time when it was being invented. It's hard to imagine today, but there was a time when it was absolutely alien to everyone who saw it. It took remarkable, inventive compositional and subject-altering leaps. The perspective on painting fundamentally changed. There's a reason why it exploded, and why it's now an inseparable part of Western history. It's easy to take for granted what you've casually seen, however, it's borderline impossible to imagine an art approach you haven't seen because it hasn't been invented yet. That phenomenon happened frequently from around the 1850s to about the 1980s-90s.
There are artists in the representational vein who were highly controversial (Caravaggio, Manet) due to their work, but now many people naively see their work as run of the mill for their eras because of bad habits like superficial skimming through image searches on Wiki/Google or being shown a poorly contextualized presentation. It's easy to underestimate the value of context.
The irony of painting approaches that appear to have a high talent floor (classical-leaning representational painting) is that they're actually relatively easy to teach because they're almost entirely technical in nature. They can be learned like driving (albeit more difficult). Making master copies of famous artwork is a direct example. Creativity can entirely take a backseat to learning the skills needed to make representational paintings from many eras. The academy was literally this as a machine, and was rejected by many artists because art is more than a trade. Talent doesn't quite matter as much as you think regarding the work you seem to admire. You're conflating skill and talent.
On Pollock's work being meaningless: that is only possible if the artist has absolute control over the meaning of the work, which is a problem that was delved into via text like "Death of an Author" by Roland Barthes, back in 1967. Artists often don't even have full clarity of what their work means to themselves. Meaning is far more complicated than I think you realize, especially in a field like art.
Well said
YES THANK YOU, this comment is very underrated
hard agree. the fact that he showed a picasso while saying it took little years of practice (despite picasso literally being formally trained since before his teens) was completely absurd. I used to think the same thing about nonrepresentational/abstract art, then I actually *researched* the point of the movements and realized that wassily didn’t paint the way he did because it was “easier”
Totally agree !!
@@saadvon yes! I remember Picasso literally said he only took a few years to paint like the old masters but took forever to develop the style we know him for “drawing like a child”, he says
You probably could've just titled this video "Why I hate high art auctions".
Once Andy Warhol made a name for himself he changed his art into a personal joke. He was saying "People see me as an artist therefore I can make anything, no matter how bad, and call it art". Then people copied this message, took it to extremes and eventually evolved into people with no talent calling themselves artists and criminals trading this art as a way of laundering money.
Modern art had to be a revelation for drugdealers.
If i were a drugdealer i would totally splash some colors on some paper, call it art and my money coming in would be fresh and clean like a summer breeze.
And my customers of course would probably throw my art away pretty soon to make space for my next masterpiece
Warhol came later, and he created some interesting things that clearly took passion and effort.
Andy Warhol is a hack
Yeah that’s the absurdity behind it. Artists KNOW that all they have to do is splash some paint around and some critic will spend hours contemplating it’s deeper meaning. Artists KNOW that the public will buy literally anything.
Warhol was all about how mass production of art is good actually. They were fine art pieces celebrating how consumerism was creating egalitarianism.
In the beginning he said I hate abstract expressionism but not for the reason you think. And then he said the exact thing I thought he would say.
Oooo
I think his lack of structure or emphasis on his point made it easy to assume that he's just another person confused why "talentless and easy" art grosses such big prices, WHICH WAS HEAVILY EMPHASISED , and was pretty annoying but also he brought up some good points about how people used this form of art to express themselves in "easy and accesible" ways, only for them to be selectively idolized and their art sold for millions making people discredit the movement. Or that's what I got out of this, cause most of the video is annoying rambling from a non experienced in the topic person.
You’ve combined art history and art market (completely different things) together to make a poorly articulated point that’s based on the lack of understanding of said movements. It’s basically “my child can draw this too” argument but using fancier words.
Even Clement Greenberg, the ultimate anti-post-modern thinker, was the biggest defender of abstract expressionism.
Exactly.
Yes.
abstract expressionism wasn't really postmodern
You know modern art is bullshit. So why are you pretending it isn't?
On the contraire... If you ever studied art history then you'll understand the notion of how art has crossed borders in a global society. Art history and the commodity of art go hand-in-hand. Educate yourself. Henry, I totally see your point and have had the same reservations in regards to simplicity of some gestural art (as well as Duchamp's ready-mades, lol) but I also see the genius behind it and understand why it may be faired at those ridiculous prices. The rebellious and revolutionary actions of the Dada avant-garde have indeed fallen into the hands of the rich again.
calls the painting meaningless, immediately goes on to explain the meaning of the painting
That painting has a hidden meaning. It's so hidden that the artist had to give an extra explanation for it 😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 @@suspicioussand
Just the fact that splattered paint can achieve such great value, makes me feel much better about my art.
It's not enough to do lazy art, you gotta have a famous name to go along with it.
@@luckystar9279 thats the only hard part
Like it's kinda pretty I guess, but it's not worth more than like 20$
I think that's the point here. I think the point he's trying to say is that modern art is not supposed to be our shouldn't be a shortcut for those who don't want to work hard to improve towards success.
i kind of understand the point of abstract expressional art. it's meant to invoke a certain feeling like home-y warmth or that old nostalgic feel from old cartoons. problem is it's not worth 500x buying a house outright.
what I personally think about modern abstract arts is that they are more like expensive collectibles rather than masterpieces
yep.
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - some random person at some point
@@h410-pr0 some beholders are blind. They only see the prestige and not effort and skill. Even a persons fart sounds good for those people and call it HIGH ART.
'expensive collectibles" have included furbies, pogs, garbage can kids and pencil eraser trolls. that says it all.
Aye, expensive colletibles to do some money laundering with.
i personally like abstract art, and modern sculptures. but only when you can genuinely see the meaning (ex- “i can’t help myself” i think it’s called?)
Agreed. Abstract art is suppose to at least have meaning. A lot of these modern art pieces are amorphous blobs
This!
A lot of abstract pieces today have no soul, no meaning, no value to it, they're just there so rich people can buy it and show off. Ironically, that is not the purpose of modern art, not the original at least; of it being the presentation of self, feelings, emotions and even protest against something.
There's a difference between abstract and just plain shit
You guys seriously need to google what modern art is, as does the creator of the video
@@heckinbasedandinkpilledoct7459
I myself am an emerging artist, and my thoughts are this: "If I need to read a plaque to understand that something is a piece of art, then it isnt art. Period."
(I went to a modern art mseum once, and it's only because of the tour guide that I found out one of the art pieces was a curtain made out of floor sheets covered in paint)
Good art is universally good. That's why it takes years and tons of effort to learn how to make. Because we all know when something is crap or not
I was at a hotel and there were two paintings that were just reddish orange. Super meaningful, changed my life
Depends on what it was, if it was still life that has been modified with different colours, it does have meaning.
@@LightYagami-DN Were you there. Was their experience less because you weren't there. Do you exist and have meaning?
@@spudpud-T67 Man, what is that bullshit u said right now? Mainly still lives are made for practicing your eyes, to see all the shapes, all the shadows, obv, they might put the painting there just for the room not to be empty, but that doesn't mean, that it was meaningless for the artist who made that painting, if u know shit about art just keep quiet.
@@LightYagami-DN Your incoherence defines all clarity. We all bow to your ...whatever.
@@spudpud-T67 Man, why so sarcastic, just cuz u can't even use Google to search what still lives means and why people draw it, i just told u. Sorry that i say facts and logic, i guess it's too much for your brain😂
I feel like at least some of these paintings must have been made as a dare or an experiment, basically the artists asking themselves how stupidly simple can we make these paintings without the art critics finally saying "Ok, now you're just taking the piss".
The irony is that that's sort of how the Modern Art movement was born. Back in the early 1900's, when Impressionism and the like were still seen as a new and controversial medium, Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven anonymously submitted the piece "Fountain"-a urinal placed on its side and signed "R. Mutt, 1917"-to the Society of Independent Artists. At first glance, it sounds ridiculous, but the moment you try to dig up meaning, it oozes with the stuff. It's first and foremost a middle finger to the stodgy art elitists, proclaiming that anything can be made into art, so long as there was meaning behind it, while also lowkey saying "Your art's comparable to a piss pot."
"Fountain" was provocative, to say the least. The piece was almost rejected out of hand as nothing but a prank by the society's ranking members, and led to a heated debate as some tried to fight for "Fountain's" validity as a piece of art. "Fountain" was eventually lost, possibly destroyed by a disgruntled society member, but its impact lasted through the century. It encouraged artists to continue pushing the boundaries of art and meaning, and to never settle for the status quo.
All this from a urinal, and an artist who was, quite literally, "Taking the piss" on the art world.
(Honestly, "Fountain" is just a fascinating piece of art history, especially since it's spent the better part of the past century accredited to the wrong person-Marcel Duchamp, an artist with a similar style to "Fountain" and who claimed credit for it late in his life, after Baroness Elsa and everyone who could've known the true creator of "Fountain" was dead. It's still a point of controversy to this day, such that many sources, including even Wikipedia, continue to tout Duchamp as "Fountain's" creator. It's a story well worth looking into.)
Please see my stupidly large comment lol. Basically all of this was down to CIA involvement, encouraging (and enabling/funding) artists in a creative cold war with USSR
The people desperately trying to find meaning in a lot of these abstract pieces are complete fools, duped into thinking they're being 'deep'... Even the bloody artists were joking at the time they had no idea what they were doing (there are videos of this). Then its subsequently spawned a whole movement of people copying and being deeeeeep.
I think context is super important with a lot of these. I believe there are a lot of pieces that if they are made today would truly be meaningless but at the time they were made did indeed have a lot of power due to the social context, controversy they may have caused, political implications etc. like if someone made a pollock style now, it wouldn’t carry much weight but at the time it was huge because he was calling attention to the process of creating as an art form etc etc etc. even within that i could argue that that’s stolen from African artists who were making that point for a long time, and I personally am not a pollock fan..I don’t want to get into all that but it’s just one example
@@vurrunna Actually from what I have read it's only a theory that two guys claimed to be true, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it being true and it doesn't really look like a sculpture from that women but looks a lot like a work from Duchamp... But it's a really debatable subject and maybe we shouldn't bother that much about who made it in the end. The impact it made to the art scene should be what we remember of it in my opinion.
@@gudlike3634 Ironically, I think "Fountain" matches Baroness Elsa's style far more than Duchamp's. They both had styles that relied on taking ordinary objects and turning them into art pieces, but where Baroness Elsa generally created pieces that held deeper meaning to them (much like modern art does), Duchamp made much of his art with the express purpose of having no purpose.
For reference, Baroness Elsa also created a piece entitled "God," a twisted sewer pipe made as a bit of a commentary on Duchamp himself, in part criticizing his egoism and self agrandisement. By contrast, Duchamp created a series of sculptures known as ready-mades, sculptures that just took ordinary junk like chairs and bike parts and declared them "art." Many claim that "Fountain" fits Duchamp's style of ready-mades, but the whole point of the ready-made was that it had no meaning; the meaning was in the context, of seeing a bunch of junk laying around an art gallery and calling it "art." The objects themselves were not chosen with much consideration beyond being stuff you wouldn't expect to see in an art gallery. "Fountain," by contrast, was a piece just dripping with meaning. It's not that Duchamp couldn't have made it, but rather that it was rather a bit more thought out than was often his style.
I'll admit, there's a good chance I might be biased on this-I originally learned the story (including Baroness Elsa) from my modern art history professor, who was adamant that Baroness Elsa had made "Fountain." However, he also spent an entire sabbatical exploring woman's history in the art world, a good part of which involved investigating the story of "Fountain" and who really made it. At the end of the day, we'll never _really_ know who made "Fountain," simply because all of the evidence is circumstantial at best; Baroness Elsa never made any claims to have made it, and Duchamp only ever made claims later in life when everyone who could have possibly known was already dead. When comparing the two, however, I feel like there are many more circumstances in favor of Elsa than of Duchamp.
Why it matters is the very reason "Fountain" matters-it was all about how we perceived and talked about art and the art world. By the same vein, just letting the story slide potentially ignores a great female artist in history; which, given how few there were until relatively recently (due to a vast array of factors, mostly that not many women had the chance to create art in the first place), would be a crying shame. It becomes a part of the piece's very impact, that even to this day it remains a point of controversy and discussion in the art world.
Anywho, that's just my thought on it; I don't claim to be an expert, just a guy who learned a cool story in college and likes to share it whenever I get the chance. :)
The modern and abstract art I admire the most is done by artists who have been thoroughly trained in the traditional arts. Picasso is a good example of this. He could paint very realistic portraits for example Le Moulin de la Galette”, 1900. Having this artistic background makes his abstract painting extremely meaningful. Pollack's earlier work also exemplified an understanding of figurative art and thus his dripping style paintings also reflect that.
Picasso was a fraud and petty criminal and guilty of mysoginy. Pollock was an alcoholic who drove his car into a tree. Real art is shamanic and that is as ancient as mankind.
Picasso isn't an abstarct artist
@@cicada1239 Pablo Picasso was not primarily known as an abstract artist, although he made significant contributions to the development of abstract art. Picasso is best known for his role in the development of modern art, particularly as a co-founder of the Cubist movement. Cubism is characterized by the representation of objects or subjects from multiple viewpoints and the use of geometric shapes and abstract forms to depict the essence of the subject.
While Cubism can be seen as a precursor to abstract art, it still retained some degree of representational elements, and Picasso's work often featured recognizable subjects, even if they were deconstructed or reimagined in an abstract way.
It's important to note that Picasso's career spanned many decades, and he explored various artistic styles and movements, including Surrealism and abstraction, later in his life. In the later stages of his career, Picasso did create some purely abstract works, but he is primarily celebrated for his contributions to Cubism and his innovative approach to representing the world in a new and transformative way.
@@RussMcClay that’s fair. I assumed you meant his popular cubist pieces are abstract art.
He was an impressionist, actually
You're the first person actually talking about modern art tgank you so much, I've been searching and mostly describe as modern what is contemporary
Very interesting title. Especially considering that Pollock, Rothko, Picasso are NOT modern artists. Most famous and innovative art made after the 1920's is considered post-modern. Modernism was the art of Paris, but when the art world shifted to New York in the 1900s it became post-modern. The art of today is considered contemporary or new digital art. Greetings from someone who studied art history at university for four years.
You're correct. I feel like the video creator was talking out of his ass.
@@BigBossEats However, he's still right.
@@BigBossEats I think that his opinion still stands even if he didn't use the proper era names. I have to agree with him to some extent, as someone who studied fine arts for well over 10 years now, post-modern trends rooted in great ideology but quickly got tarnished by the elite. Nowadays, i see people claiming to be professional artists without even knowing human proportions, color theory or story telling only because they can splash colors onto a surface. I find it sickening. Even art has it's Wal-Mart version now, and those cheap laborers make it even harder for "real" artists to earn their bidding.
I hate post-modernism. It's good as an Ikea piece, worthless as an exhibit piece.
@@junosquill Paint mop girl comes to mind. She acts like she’s doing something riveting and new. She’s making a circle on a canvas with a mop instead of a paintbrush. A simple circle. Sometimes there’s 2 circles!
Her latest escapades have been lying on a canvas in the same pose every time while her kids dump paint on her. It looks. Fine. Not great. Not *that* bad. But not good. The art is supposed.. To be her. Not the canvas, not the paint on the canvas. Her. Her on the canvas. And it baffles me. What does it represent? It’s the same thing every time with the 2 colors swapped out. What does it mean other than “I’m rich and can do this and make profit because other rich people love me!”
Her art makes me angry for all hardworking artists out there. She doesn’t even do the art in her latest things. Someone else does the paint part. What the fuck
I mean, he clearly wasn’t talking about the movement of Modernism. “Modern”’s meaning can still be interpreted as “contemporary”. This is some good demagogy
i think the main problem with art is nowadays it isnt the art itself, but who made it if their famous the art will sell for more than if you were unknown in short it isn't the art it's the creator of art
You dont hate contemporary art, you hate the contemporary art market. Those are two different things my friend.
agreed
just say you play with paint. lol
@@whoopdewhoop7154 🤣🤣 agree
Forgive him, he’s dumb
They may be two different things, but the market always influences how art is made and viewed. Artists are as motivated by money as anyone else, and seeing a paint splatter sell for millions of dollars absolutely has an effect on what kinds of art young people are incentivized to make.
Someone will duct tape a paper to a wall and it will sell for $500000000000000000
They say real art invokes strong feelings in the observer so the fact you hate this is what makes it real art quite ironic
@@justcole0139its not art its an insult to all the artist that spent years perfecting their skill to be good for either hobby purposes or as a career simply putting a paper and putting duct tape over it doesnt make it art theres no effort the "artist" That made it didnt spend sweat, tears and blood on it which why it shouldn't have value and idk why people are still going there which just feeds who ever acoustic, son of a tree that started abstract art
@@manuelbayot4491 your proving my point
with a banana ofc
@justcole0139 that might be true, but that doesn't make it expensive real art, maybe just around a few dollars. But absolutely not 1 million for that thing.
Modern Art definitely is filled with extreme talent and masterpieces, unfortunately you just have to sift through a huge pile of **** to find it. I don't think you dislike modern art, i think you dislike modern art that makes the news for being sold for an obnoxious price to obnoxious people. But unfortunately this has existed throughout the history of almost anything creative. WAP by Cardi B has sold over 2 million records, went straight to no.1 in the charts, won numerous awards, you think Beethoven is writing a youtube video about how he hates Pop Music?
@@Peem_pom Don't make it about race, I used classical music as an example.
you're the same kind of person that would back in the day tell van gogh and other expresionists and impresionists that their art is shit, because it doesn't align with the rules of french academy of art. stop gate keeping and being a snob who can't recognise that wap is a joke song and shouldn't be taken seriously
@@Peem_pom thanks for defending how low the society has sunked. WAP not only serve the culture it reflects it.
@@odomisan it’s okay to want to express female sexuality I don’t see you people writhing upset about the vast exploitative industry that is pornography, so chill
@@Peem_pom why the hell do certain people on the internet always have to bring up the topic of race on every damn conversation
To be fair, when you look at a ditigal photo of Pollocks work, it is so much more flat than in person, especially 1:22 it looks pretty 2 dimensional almost like a decorative pattern. But in person, its like your vision is completely surrounded by these shapes. I used to be neutral about abstract paintings but when I saw Pollocks work in person it was like watching little kites or fire flies flying around you and leaving traces in the air. I dont know how to describe it but something about the way the lines moved was so mesmorizing and thought provoking to me. Im not trying to sound pretentious but as a visual person I really enjoyed the experience and Im sure it has inspired a lot of non-abstract art as well.
That's a valid and very interesting point.
Omg I just finished my Art course in college and let me tell you, seeing artists like Jackson Pollock, Helen Frankethaler, Arshille Gorky, Mark Rothko during history class really changed my perspective in the stuff that I paint. Actually helped me be more expressive and 'loose'/gestural with my ideas. I have a really hard time at making abstract compositions (my mind cannot think of subject matter with no boundaries if that makes sense) and I take a lot of inspiration from Antony Gormley sometimes whenever I paint something for fun.
It's not easy to be the artist you can't call yourself artist just by throwing thw paints, to become the real artist you have to practice and do hardwork on your art and show something representable and meaningful.
There's no set criteria for being an artist. If you produced art regardless of what value others see in it you're still an artist.
Thankyou o great arbiter of art
Representable and meaningful wtf does that mean
@@jpm199it means you have to express a story. You have to convey a message. Or sometimes, it can be art that doesn't necessarily convey a story or message, but allows you to feel the way the artists felt in that moment. In the old renaissance paintings, they all conveyed a story, or they conveyed a message of some sort. The Impressionists and post-impressionists like Van Gogh didn't necessarily convey a message or story, they were more geared towards conveying how the artist felt when they looked at that particular scene or subject. A lot of the time, these impressionist paintings are interesting because, like Van Gogh, these artists were going through extreme bouts with mental illness, or maybe the artist had an alternate vision of the subject. Maybe instead of trying to duplicate a photograph, the artist wanted to simply add some style to it by making the colors pop more, or by using short, vibrant strokes. The thing I have a problem with is that these modern "artists" are able to just paint a square, or screw a nut onto a bolt and all of a sudden, BOOM, it is some sort of slillful masterpiece. The artist shouldn't have to explain the artwork. The artwork should explain the artist. It takes absolutely ZERO talent to splash some paint onto a canvas and try to portray it as some sort of masterpiece. In this modern art era, there is no subject. There is no message. You aren't even getting a genuine dive into the mind of the artist. Or, even if you are, it doesn't negate the fact that it took zero talent. It is still art, but I, and many others, view it as entirely unfair for this talentless art to recieve so much praise and value while there are tons of artists out there with much more talent, who have invested countless hours behind a canvas perfecting their craft, only to live paycheck to paycheck. To me, the thing that makes art so special and unique is that it takes so much effort and time to be able to produce such magnificent paintings, and no artist sees the same subject. Each artist sees it a little different, so they use their talent and skill to paint what they see and put it on canvas for others to really understand them. You lose all of that when the art being produced requires the same skill and dedication and talent as anyone else. It isn't special. It isn't unique. It is just dumb. There is nothing special or talent-full about splashing a single paint color onto a canvas. Telling a story, conveying a message, or allowing the viewer to see the subject how you see it through your paintings which were painted with dedication and true effort is real art. That is something special.
Modern abstract art is type of art that makes talentless people like me feel like artists
Respectfully, there is a test for your theory. Remember, the Pollack described sold for $140 million dollars. If it does not require talent…do it.
@@Bailark it realy doesnt.
None whatsoever.
All it takes is good marketing, knowing the right people . We all know that abstract art is used to money wash, people dont buy it because they actually admire the art.
@@yenisketches6047 sounds like you have it all figured out. Now there is nothing between you and tens of millions of dollars.
DO IT.
@@Bailark There is.
I am a lawyer, doing my masters.
I cannot get involved into money washing. However, I can get involved in catching those who do
@@yenisketches6047 Save it, Yeni. Your argument is weak because it doesn’t serve as a principle. Lots of things/industries are used for money laundering. That mere fact does not eliminate the value of the entire industries. Real estate, for example, is used for money laundering also. That does not mean that some expensive homes or commercial properties dont hold legitimate value. Therefore, just because some use art to launder money does not mean art has no value.
If you re a lawyer…don’t tell anybody. That was an absurdly weak argument.
You are meant to understand the meaning and general context of the painting just by looking at it. With abstract expressionism this usually isn't the case. You have to inform people of what your random splashes on the canvas represents.
Well abstract art has the purpose of making you think, the meaning is whatever it make you think and what you think it means.
@@bruhmaster6923 making people confused doesn't make it art
@@bruhmaster6923 out of all the abstract art pieces in the video the only one I've guessed was no.5, it had no meaning. It might have meaning to the author or the process of making it had a meaning, but for the viewer of a finished product there is none.
Its not really about the meaning in abstract art Its more about the feeling the colors and the compisitions vibe you. Thats why Its so good its never about meaning thats just a missconception.
@@bruhmaster6923 I wouldn’t say it makes you think so much as it makes you wildly grasp for meaning where there is none. It has fake depth and is worth no more than any random object that might “make you think”.
This has to be the coldest take on modern art you could’ve had
could you tell me your take on it then?
@@ryujinswife1482 Why should he?
@@beanieweenie1349 cause im interested to know ??
@@ryujinswife1482 Oh, ok, my bad
@@beanieweenie1349 Because that's called constructive criticism
I don't consider myself a "Modern artist", 'cause I don't do that kind of art. I mostly just draw characters. I start off with sketches on physical paper, and then I take pictures of them and do them on my PC or phone. In a way I technically am a "Modern artist", but I really don't consider myself to be that kind of artist. I just draw whatever comes across my mind, in my very cartoony style.
When I was a teenager we went to an art gallery and the one piece that sticks in my mind was a huge canvas painted black with a smaller red square in the middle. That's it. Anyone could have painted it. And it was called 'breakfast'. We just had a good laugh at it.
Lol, I bet that art is so funny to you 😂 if I was there, I would instantly laugh so hard and mocks the artist for being "I'm sure you only want the money and that art you made is nothing than a void meaning"
And continue psychotic laughing (I'm suffering bipolar disorder, I can't stop it)
Waiting for the reply that says "But it did stick in your mind, so thats why its very good and requires skill duh!"
I wouldn't be happy with my time wasted. Especially when I want to learn and be inspired. I'm fine with some modern art like that, but not in a museum or expensive. It would be fine like as a doodle or a pattern on clothing.
@@DoctorBones1 If someone says that, that's like saying nazism is memorable to some people "therefore it was good". That would just be twisting what people say, projecting, pushing their views on people, and trying to dictate to people on how to think. There is such a thing as bad publicity and being notorious, which means famous for something bad. I don't think bad publicity is good.
And yet it’s the one piece that sticks out in your mind. Let that resonate.
100 years later and people are gonna hate the art we have today.
No kidding, you don’t think NFT’s will hold up?
Of course, because we already hate the art we have today
Well, they'll hate our art because AI will generate art better than ourselves
Hey man, I’m an artist and fine arts major who used to hate modern art until I took modern art history classes. The whole point of the modern art movement (except for Dada) was to find new meaning in art (other than god, king, and country). I fell in love with this style after I was educated on the subject and I’m sure you can too. There are a ton of inaccuracies in this video.
Do you think its a good thing that people try to wash modern and classical art together? They have entirely different reasons for why they are special, but I see that a lot of people want to see modern art the same way they do classical. For example if they say that an abstract art is as good as a Caravaggio piece,first it would make no sense, and second it would just make Caravaggio's art look worse, if we compare the two together. Many people today say that everything can be art, but doesn't that devaluate the works of people that actually put something great down on the table?
@@tamas9554 I think that’s the problem when it comes to people misunderstanding modern art. They compare it to art that falls under the classical ideal when it’s trying to do something completely different. I’ve noticed that if you take a movement that falls under modern art and you put it in the correct historical or ideological context, it clicks with people. About your second question, I think that’s describing post-modern art and I haven’t been able to buy into that. I really really dislike post-modern art and it seems like a lot of what people don’t like about modern art are things they are confusing with post-modern art.
Dada was the only good art movement, it embraced the shitposting nature of modern art instead of pretending to be high art.
@@FromHellDesigns Most likely they confuse the two, although I can't speak about it much myself, since we will only learn about modern art next year, and I don't think they teach post-modern art in middle school.
@@tamas9554 if you’re interested my professor put up all his lectures on UA-cam during the pandemic. They are actually really entertaining. His channel is Art History with Travis Lee Clark and just go to his playlists and click on ARTH3120 Contemporary Art .
So... You don't dislike the fundamental idea of "modern abstract art", you just hate the commodification of art as a whole. Which is fine, and hating people who see art styles like this as a cash grab is okay too. You're right, it does go against exactly what these paintings were designed to convey and their original purpose. But that is the MO of the rich: to commodify things to build their own sense of worth. They own a Picasso, they own this rare area of land, they own this milk bottle top that was miss printed. It gives them a sense of superiority, that they are above those who don't have what they have. When things like art pieces come up, having a one of one of a famous artist, will always end up being commodified and subsequently bastardized by the greedy. Don't take it out on the art, take it out on those who bastardize it.
You're fighting the elitism of modern art by defending the elitism of old art.
The only thing why "old" art seems to be of higher quality is, that there wasn't much option to create bad artworks. Most people lived in poverty and worked 18 hours a day, nobody had the time or access to paint in their free time like now, so art was created just by a small group of people who studied it and were professionals, nowadays art is created by anyone and so the amount of bad artworks is higher. And of course, most people react better to realistic paintings as they are the easiest to understand. Art is not about how realistically is something painted - this is a skill/technique, the art is something more.
Modernism is amazing and it finally gave people freedom. It is way more exciting than tedious realistic paintings of people, landscape,s or fruit in a bowl. Abstract and modern art is great and I don't get why anyone should be studying art for years before he could be considered a good artist. Same as for a great song you don't have to be a virtuoso for a good painting you don't have to be Leonardo DaVinci. The result is important. I like old masters but I much more like modernism with its originality and playfulness. I really don't wanna have Mona Lisa at home but Picasso or Pollock? Fits any kind of place and does not look off. It is timeless. While old masters really fit mostly museums or historical places.
"You're fighting the elitism of modern art by defending the elitism of old art" is fantastic! I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that next time someone tells me they hate modern art!
…….But at what cost?
Yet despite the apparent hypocrisy, modern art can and often is also as hypocritical in concept rather than argumentation. Whereas something as representative as classical or Renaissance is more accessible to the masses (in that it is easier to derive meaning) Abstract art on the other hand is far more demanding of a priori knowledge in comparison to fully be appreciated.
In simple terms, A Classical Artist's skill and work can easily be appreciated by laymen whereas a Modern Artist's skill and work requires far far more knowledge to understand.
So at the end of the day Art remains of some form of elitism, either by value, skill or knowledge. Modern Art just attracts the most accusations of such because it tries so hard to be subversive rather than the opposite.
no, I think there definitely was bad art in the past, it's just that time will only let good art be remembered
the elitism of old art had premise to it. it had genuine reason to be elite. its similar to how there is a difference between cheaply made food and food that requires skill and talent to prepare. art is treated as though its fully subjective whereas "old art" wasnt based on this concept
there was this one painting that i learned about in school. you wanna know what the painting was? a dot. it could be any colour, just a dot.
and my teacher asked me what i felt about it and what i thought it expressed.
i felt that it was a lazy and meaningless piece of art - nobody is able to actually understand what it is supposedly about because it was just a plain circle on a large canvas.
Do you remember what the piece was titled or who made it? Im intrigued, sounds interesting.
@@whoare9201 I think he’s referring to the Blue Spot by Bernard Cohen, and yea like he said, it’s just a dot on a large canvas
@@boombox2ikik239 thank you. i believe it is impossible to create something that is meaningless, or to create without purpose, there is never just a dot. though if someone tries to create just a dot i would definitely be interested in what they create
@@whoare9201 agreed, there’s always something behind it, but I guess it all matters on how important one sees it as that works
@@boombox2ikik239 Yes, the something behind it is "easy money that idiots will lap up eagerly".
I don’t agree. You’re complaining about elitism, then saying arts only worth something if it took years of practice. I respect your opinion but that sounds pretty elitist to me 😂
And he acts like painters like pollock, rothko didn't have years of practice before they went abstract
Yessss
If you want a modern abstract beauty may I direct you to ENA by JOEL GUERRA CASTIO
@@Barakon i LOVE ENA, it is not abstract, it is surreal. Abstract is usually something without narrative, ENA has a narrative.
@@coldjune_parallax I’d say it’s both :)
Art needs context. A lot of the modern art mentioned wasn’t given its context. Art isn’t just for looking pretty
Not to sound like artistically arrogant, but is not a lot of the fun finding meaning in abstract art yourself? A lot of the time these artworks have a subject or plan to them, even if it is hard to see, but it is not apparent what it means. I always find that is what I like about modern art, especially with how it relishes in the often quite absurd. Also like a lot of abstract art painting at museums do have like these information stands next to the painting.
@ oh of course. But take Mark Rothko for example. His last painting “black on gray” isn’t exactly groundbreaking itself. I mean I like it, but others might not. It’s after knowing he committed suicide soon after painting it that gives it that extra impact. I see hundreds of of modern art bashing videos that will see something like “Merlin Carpenter” and instantly go “this is stupid! It’s just boxes!” But have ignored the context and the fact that the boxes are filling an entire Synagogue. I totally agree with you though. I just think Pollock’s “after many drinks” hits a lot harder when you learn it’s a painting of hell
My art teacher is making us do an assignment where we need to put down 2 artists and 2 readings that inspire us and do 10+ sentences about why we chose it and how it inspires us. Now that wouldn’t be an issue if she didn’t limit who and what we’re allowed to be inspired by. She literally gave us 4 sources that we MUST use to choose our readings and artists.
Almost all the artists we were allowed to choose from only did modern art
Edit: I’m dropping out : )
If she didn't limit the sources some students might choose a very *interesting* artist. Then again she could just say to keep the artist somewhat normal or something like that.
@@midastanggiat2266 I wanted all of mine to be inspired by the pre Raphaelite and art nouveau style because it was more fun
@@cinderfox5217 well that actually is normal my first thought was you were gonna put in some R34 artist
@@midastanggiat2266 oh I see what you mean, the fanart creators ect.
I'm sorry to say this but you have a bad art teacher
The point of art is to express one's self using your own creative methods
Choosing what you get to ge inspired by is missing the whole point
Being an art teacher she should know this better than anyone
I love abstract art, because of the way it shows expression. No i don’t like looking at random blobs on a canvas, but I like learning about the way things are expressed and learning from them. It doesn’t really have to be easy or hard, but just…. Expression.. basically, I’m a big nerd :)
Yes ! ! I love looking at all the details to see if there’s a bigger meaning or another painting entirely behind all those colors ! I also think it’s because my mind works like “pretty colors ? I like :)”
I agree. I don’t like when “abstract” is meant to mean art with no creativity or skill needed. The point is just that it doesn’t have any underlying meaning to it.
I like abstract art. I like expression in art. I HATE Abstract Expressionism with a fiery passion. I once got lost in the abstract expressionism wing of an art museum and the only feeling that welled up inside me on looking at those "masterpieces" was utter disgust and a desire to run out of the room to find the 'good art.'
Sorry but I don't know where you can add expressions through abstract arts? My 4 year old niece could draw this..
@@xunvenile I think they mean the expression shown thru the colors and intensity of the paint, like as if someone scribbled on a paper angrilly
I used to feel this way until a roommate of mine decided to go to a party as a Jackson Pollack. He got a white suit coat used and splattered it with paint. He did the front one day and the back the next. They looked similar but gave me different feelings. The front seemed to be exuberant, the back a little pissed off.
Then he told me that he had gotten into a kerfuffle with his girlfriend after the front but before the back. I had to acknowledge there was something to this stuff.
Now imagine if he put those emotions into an actual painting instead of flinging it around like bird-shit.
If u don't mind me n my opinion here.. for me, modern and contemporary art, includes abstract impresionism art style is indeed easy and seems like a nonsense. But what i study as a pupil in art school, actually only few artist that can accomplished all naturalism, realism, romanticism, surrealism, or other kind of 'copying nature or real life object' to a canvases can then get 'qualified' to make an abstract or conseptual work of art.
They must master all of it first. And then, many artist will then feel to do something more, they want to make something so new; since we already have photography that can actually copy the image eyes can see, theres not so much need to make a realistic pictures: except if they want it and they passionate on it.
So, a better way is to test some contemporary artists or abstract artists about their actuall skill on drawing a realism painting.
But, once again since we live in the post-truth era, and the value of art and aesthetic is no longer hold straight, anything can be right; anything can be art, as long as there are people who agree :v
I remember in 2008 I was in this modern art show and I said I didn't like any of the paintings. So this artist starts telling me why they're so amazing. To this day, I think modern art is made by someone who lacks talent, but still wants to call themselves artists.
Squidward has more talent than them
@@munnoh-tw6yw If I walk away uninspired and disinterested I pretty much don't care what the "true meaning" of the painting was. I've never had to ask the meaning of the cathedral or the context of it's construction to be awe struck and amazed. I believe that's what separates good art from mediocre art. Mediocre art has to be explained and post hoc rationalized as good whereas actual good art is something people strive to recreate and draw inspiration from.
@@jamescobblepot4744 Then anything you don't immediately admire or understand is irrelevant, I don't believe this.
Your title "Why I hate Modern Art", is false, you hate how much people want to pay for it. What you hate are people that value specific art you don't find meaning in that they are willing to pay 7 figures for that you can't. If you spent time to research why they pay this amount, how they can afford to do so and what the specific art means in the context of art history, the influence it had in moving art forward and how that impacts culture specifically in design, science, philosophy, religion, psychology, identity etc and also art as a store of value against the ever inflating dollar - losing buying power, then you might have a different perspective. It's fine to have an opinion, but it falls apart and becomes meaningless when it's born from ignorance.
im sure theres plenty of badly made tools that were designed to make tasks easier for normal people that are worth a lot of money because theyre 6000 years old, and hence have historical importance. its not even something specific to art, its almost nothing to do with art, its just history.
Honestly it's always "rich people bad, why they paying so much for these art pieces" because they have fucking value. If those things weren't valued at millions of dollars they would be treated with less care, imagine all the fossyls and old things that would've been destroyed cause "it's just old shit", their value protect them lol
And I find nothing wrong in billionaires using art as tax write offs, better that money goes into museums then the state
Not even worth it explaining it too this guy
@@necaacen still valuable tho as artefacts
@skin dot com not exactly, let's say you're a billionaire with companies facturing billions, you buy an art piece valued at 10 millions, then it's valued at 50 millions and you donate it to a museum: you have to pay 50 millions less in taxes, minus the 10 you spent means you get to keep 40 millions more than what you would've kept. It's an exageration and not all situation are like this but you get that it's a powerful tool to pay less taxes
Money laundering on the other hand, idk how it's done with art pieces, sure there's a way but it's not easy to pay millions of dollars with drug money
Unless you meant money laundering as the process of paying less taxes, which is not, it's legal (morally speaking you get to think whatever you like, it's just the way to get screwed less)
I don’t admire abstract and modern paintings because I see that most them lack fine details, story, and an interesting view to look at as other art/painting genres do. However, I have to say modern and abstract sculptures can be very impressive.
Yeah, definitely.
My bone to pick with modern/abstract art is that art for me is a craft; a very expressive craft with a wide variety but a craft nevertheless. The author is making something, be it a painting, a drawing, an architectural plan, a sculpture, some music; they're making SOMETHING.
And my thing with any craft is that I like to admire the work and effort, and the skill of the author. Like, you know that statue of the birdwoman that became the face of a urban legend on the internet? Yeah, I find that thing interesting as heck because the level of detail put into it and the skill needed to do it is incredible. Or, let's say, fursuits; as ridiculous as it is, it takes a lot of work to make one, and some people can make some REALLY impressive ones; the skill of the maker (which goes from sewing, to air brushing, painting, and in some cases even eletric work to wire LED just to mention a few things) and the effort put into making one of them make them fascinating just because of the craft of it.
And when I look at a lot abstract and modern art, more often than not I see some random thing that looks like something I would do when I was 5yo playing with paint. There's no craft, no skill, barely any effort; it's just a bunch of random shapes, or paint thrown at a canvas; that's not interesting, it's not admirable. I wouldn't spend more than 5 seconds looking at a pollock painting because that thing is so utterly boring and soulless, it's just paint thrown at a canvas with no significant pattern at all. I 100% would rather observe a cosplayer crafting their costume, because I find the effort they put into making the outfits and matching the details, as well as the final product of all that work, so much more fascinating than what many of these modern artists do. (And I'm not entirely convinced that a lot of these super expensive modern paintings aren't just super rich people using it as a scam to get a tax exemption)
@@gabrielabatista6016 I used to share a similar sentiment to this, the "my 8yo could do this" view. And don't get me wrong, technical ability is a big factor in my appreciation of a piece. But, two things. First, a lot of modern art that looks like it isnt much, is much. Take Barnett Newman's "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, And Blue? III", which consists of three solid colors rectangles. Museum visitors to where the piece was held filed lengthy complaints about why they hated it, and it was eventually attacked and slashed with a boxcutter- very strong emotional reactions for a "boring" and "soulless" piece. Not to mention after it's destruction, restoration efforts failed to repair the red rectangle. The paint was filled back in, but something, some subtly which Newman achieved in the weeks he spent creating the piece, was unable to be recreated. It was more than just some blobs. Similarly, Rothko's work contains a very technically impressive understanding and application of paint.
Second, and what I asked myself that led me out of the "my 8yo could do this" perspective is, why does it matter? If someone produces a painting and it brings me to tears, what difference does it make that it was created through months of delicate procedure by a master, or in five minutes by an amateur? My reaction is not invalidated by someone's perceived skill or care. Furthermore, as I became more interested and looked into the background and meaning of popular abstract pieces I reflected back on famous pieces that were not modern abstraction, where I realized I was just as clueless as I was to Rothko. I can identify that in the Mona Lisa there is a woman, but there is surely much more I do not know simply by identifying the literal subjects. In the case of modern abstraction, there is as well, much I do not know.
Apologies that this is a little long, and if it comes across as rude. I find this a very interesting topic as a person who shifted from the perspective that this stuff isn't even art to anything is art. Oh and, fursuits are pretty cool uwu
Abstract sculpture is cool not abstract art
@@尔菲 abstract sculpture is abstract art
"about the energy of the splashing lines of paint" No it isn't, it's a document of what happened on that occasion, when a human, his conscious and subconscious created a painting using that method, on that day, at that time.
Modern art be like:
-Banana with a duct tape
-Costs around $500,000+
fr it’s a crying shame 😭
Some random person actually thinks it has meaning 🥴
Eating the Banana was part of the act too.
I saw a plain long blue pole in the corner of a room once at our local art gallery, along with several other abominations masquerading as "art." I was disgusted. I couldn't keep quiet about it, much to the embarrassment of the friends I was with. I don't think the gallery porters appreciated my comments either, LOL.
I feel that the more that Banana is mentioned, the more it is discussed, the more it is validated. Using it as critique for modern art gives it meaning, I think.
Maybe we should allow it to fall into obscurity.
When a person puts Picasso into the category of "guys who can't paint so they did easy stuff" I hear them saying "I don't really grasp my subject matter."
Yeah I got pretty confused when he mentioned picasso 😂 While I can understand thinking Rothkos are simple (though I’d disagree), the Picasso piece was pretty complex and beautiful and I think most would agree
Also wasn’t there once a point where Picasso was drawing traditional art early in his career
@@levitheleviathan2792 yes, he was pretty good at it too. not sure how this guy didn't know that
i’m pretty sure there’s a story about how picasso finished a masterful oil painting in like 1 hour because one of his wives needed money or something. If you don’t know oil is super hard to work with especially in only an hour.
Yeah that's a usually dead giveaway that someone has not taken the time to fully research the artists he's using as an example lol
there are two points to distinguish art from scam
1. if you were given all the required items, colors, materials; could you do roughly the same yourself?
2. if you were given a chainsaw, a baseball bat, a knife or just a dart; would it be possible to essentially worse the art piece or would it roughly look the same?
If you told people hyping up a poor or simple or easy piece to pays thousands for it, would they do it or would they suddenly change their tune? If you let people choose one piece to have, a simple modern one or a realistic landscape, which would most people choose?
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c it doesn’t matter if someone else could come along and copy the artwork later, because they didn’t come up with the idea and create it in the first place. Artists express their original ideas and intentions through artworks. I’ve seen plenty of people say Rothko’s works are just rectangles, but did you realize he mixed those colours accord to his imagination, with the goal to elicit an emotional reaction from the viewer in response to the depth, purity, etc of the colours?
Art then- 🖼🎨🗿
Art now-🍌💩
I very much agree. An artwork from back then that someone spend years training to be able to make can be sold for just as much or even less than someone’s artwork that probably took 15 minutes by just throwing paint on a canvas, or even easier: painting a few colored lines. This also applies to nowadays commissions. An artist can spend hours making a drawing for someone, only to be paid about 20 dollars. I think art value should become more fair and if people are going to have to pay $180M for a painting LITERALLY ANYONE can make, then they should be able to pay higher for an artwork that took hours, or even years.
why would the time spent making the art matter? i can spend a year on something and still have it be trash. the artists were making art that was saying or expressing something, that's why there was a demand for it. also it stood out
:/ I feel like you guys really fundamentally don’t understand modern art. I mean the “history” section was ridiculously brief and didn’t go into how we shifted to an abstract culture or how art became priced as high as it is. And the assumption that artists like pollock and Picasso don’t have decades or practice across multiple mediums and and incredible understanding of representational form and abstract composition. It’s insulting and it’s inaccurate. Not to mention the whole video equates modernism with abstract art and they aren’t the same at all. From like the 70s onward hyper realism has come into vogue. I mean this video is just really poorly researched and shows a complete lack of understanding of the art world. I mean I agree certain artists from the early modernist movements worked on a cult of personality (especially Picasso and pollock) or how certain mentalities from the modernist movement have corroded art education. But you’re clearly not educated enough on those topics to hold a conversation about it. I just sort of question why you made this video. You clearly don’t know what your talking about to anyone who’s researched the topic.
I fully agree. He calls these piece meaningless, what he should say is that he cannot personally find meaning in it. Presenting opinion as fact shows his lack of perspective on modern art too and saying a painting by Rothko takes no skill is just naive.
3:40
me: hmm yes, more impressive than the previous pieces shown
Modern Art is an much discussed topic since lots of people don‘t seem to like it, which I absolutely understand. The problem with modern Art nowadays is that those old paintings, which are being sold for atrocious prices, didn‘t have the chance to sell in the time they were painted. Modern Art did alot for the Art community, since people finally stopped to just draw realism or important people. Impressionism, Expressionism or Dadaism, all these art movements and those artist didn‘t really want to sell their paintings. It was just an art movement, against acadamism or the art rules that were normal back then. Abstract Art usually doesn‘t have meaning because those Artist drew what they felt, and it was different, something completely new, which can‘t be replicated. Thats why it‘s sold with such high prices. I understand if just an black canvas is sold for 100 mio dollars, but it was revolutionary back then and it can‘t be replicated. If someone did that nowadays no one would bat an eye, but considering that abstract art was so outrageous. I kinda get it. It‘s not most peoples cup of tea but if you know the history, it‘s kinda understandable.
I think abstract art began as an interesting concept, the idea being to expand the definition of art beyond what was commonly accepted. I would even go so far as to say that the artist's ability to convince critics that his work (streaks of paint scattered haphazardly across his canvas) was a form of art would have been far more important than the work itself.
After a while, I guess people noticed the high prices that such paintings often command as well as the (comparatively) low level of talent required for this form of art, and saw the potential in making money creating paintings that could easily pass for the scribblings I made at the age of three.
I know some people might take issue with this analogy, but it sort of reminds me of what rap music has turned into. Originally, it was a genre that took a certain degree of skill to be successful in, but now you see thousands of talentless hacks who call themselves "rappers" because they can rhyme random words together. They see that they can get famous by putting in the minimum amount of effort, and some actually do.
Immaculate analogy.
Ur right! All the rap we have now is just the same to the popular ones
Well said!!
What “rappers” have you seen do this. You might be on the wrong side of rap
The fact that there are mediocre rappers does not reflect on rap as a form itself.
Besides art being for the rich,my main problem with art is the lack meaning nowadays in these pieces. A giant rock with a weird title or circles painted with a mop only tells me you wanted money
why does it matter if it's for the rich?
@Jose V Understandable; intentive creation truly causes the piece to be meaningless.
As an artist,
1) you simply just don’t understand art
2) it’s for laundering money for mafias/tax avoidance
But think of art like memes, sometimes what makes it good art, is that it’s just a rock. It’s ironic etc. Hyper realism is so boring. You’re just being shown what something is. Art is so much more than that, you can paint literally anything your mind can come up with, limited only by your personal imagination, and you just want to paint a realistic looking rock? Just take a picture.
All art has its place, but now you’re learning that art is subjective and market driven. I can do hyper realism, but it’s boring, unimaginative and uninspired. Like a child with Lego or Minecraft, do you build a normal everyday house, or do you build a massive supervillain lair with a lava skull volcano etc?
It’s also time consuming. I can paint something as realistic as a photograph, but I get bored. I rather paint something in a few hours than a few weeks. Impressionism is my personal favourite.
You can explore different senses and emotions through art, it’s a window into what that artist was thinking at the time. Like VVG, his paintings are full of emotion, they’re not realistic at all, but they do show what he was feeling at the time. That’s why he’s so famous.
I would much rather a black canvas with some hot pink slashes through it hanging in my home, than some depressing proration of Henry the 8th or something.
Art is about what you the viewer see and love. I have a painting of squidward in my home, the abstract modern art squidward painting is one of my favourite pieces in the world hahah.
I can acknowledge the skill and the appeal to certain pieces, like Picasso, but I don’t personally like them.
@@user-jz3gj9et4k It matters to me. I don't try to sell any of my work because I put so much time and effort into it that I would need to charge hundreds of dollars just to make minimum wage. At those kinds of prices, the only people with that kind of money to throw around are the same people who despise artists because we don't make much money. I resent that. I also don't want to help lower the prices for everyone by helping to saturate the market. So why do it at all? Because it's just worth doing, and it adds meaning to my life. My kids will inherit it all. I'll let them decide what's to be done with it.
BTW I knew when I got my BFA that I would need another job to live on. But for me, money isn't the end for which what I do is the means. No, what I do is the end for which money is the means. I don't need much.
It’s “self expression”! … because “you” are the most profound thing in the universe…
I think the point of some expressionism is to challenge the viewer's idea of what art is, and artists like Rothko and Pollock made incredibly complex pieces that would spark outrage in their critics. And also, actually look into some of the techniques Rothko and Newman would use to alter the paint itself.
Art is Suppose to be beautiful to look at, not some damn commentary, if your art is shit it Is shit
@@mitab1 limiting art to just be beautiful is a reductive thought process that sours the whole concept. If you like only pretty art, then power to you, but to say it's purpose is just to be that is limiting.
@@rowanconstable7824 you missed the point, I am saying not saying that art should only be a beautiful picture, i am saying that the first thing an art piece should do is be beautiful, otherwise I wouldn't care what the artist want to say, even if your art is full of meanings, if it's ugly to look at, It's Messenges fall flat
I still disagree. Sometimes ugly things are captivating, while beautiful things fall flat. That's why Kinkade is not well regarded and Picasso and Goya are.
@@mitab1 the aim of most expressionists and the majority of modern and contemporary art is to change peoples idea of what are is "supposed" to be
I think it’s really interesting hearing about this kind of opinions about modern art, I’ve found that a lot of people share the same thoughts on how “cheap” and “lazy” many of the paintings on display look. I just would really like to indulge many of the people thinking this way to investigate and learn a little about for example the time and effort Rothko puts into his canvases, it’s really hard to see it digitally but his paintings are absolutely impressive irl.
Also, if I may add on the subject of pricey pieces of art, I think that is a whole topic that doesn’t necessarily correlate to abstract expressionism or any other type of art. I think a good exercise is to invest a little time into looking outside the big artists like Picasso and find that there are many other artists online that really need to be recognized more.
I got a few things from this.
1. You don't hate modern art, or any genre in particular, per se. You hate the commoditization of art and the ultra rich, not uncommon.
2. Placing the meaning of art in the work that precedes its existence is, in a sense, commodizing art, viewing it as a product rather than expression, that leads to:
3. The way someone is personally affected by a piece. You might not like Rothko's pieces, seeing it as streaks of paint, and that is ok, but i personally feel oddly subjugated by the sheer size of these bigger absurdist pieces, it all boils down to what it makes YOU feel. Not liking it because you get anything out of it is ok.
A very complex situation for me. Klimt is also considered modern art but I feel very different for his style than some of the other paintings I had to study about modern art. Tbh I like the thought process going behind some artists of the time and how they tried everything to break out of rigid art rules so that every style we use today can be viewed as art without needing to be too much accurate to how human looks. But I also value the time and effort put behind every piece of art and while some of these paintings have interesting concepts they do not require much effort to be made. My my, this is a difficult spot...
Nemnemi, a little reminder that you don't have to pick a side. Furthermore, what would be the issue with something not requiring much effort to be made? At this point one isn't looking anymore at the art piece, but rather at his own rigid idea of what 'Art' should be.
@@lemony254 I appreciate the thought put behind art but I personally wouldn't buy something that I too could make. I think there's a difference between art and the art market and that's when things start to confuse people. I surely don't undermine someone for illustrating something in a different way and in some cases I like that artistic direction but again, I wouldn't buy it because it has not much monetary worth but more a meaning worth
@@nemnemi111 Not liking something because you can 'make it' is a curious statement. Consider you learn to paint well. Would you cease appreciating Rubens, Blake, Rembrandt? If the answer is negative, why such case cannot be made for the modern art as well?
Some 'meaning worth' of a piece is not linked in any way with how hard it was to make.
@@lemony254 I mean that there's a difference between the bigs who thought of painting that way first and artists that makes something similar to it. I'd pay for Rubens but if I want to own something similar to Rubens and not the original and I have the skills to do so I don't actually feel the necessity to buy someone's else's work in that case. If it's something I cannot replicate than I'll buy it because there's no other chance for me to get it. So yeah, if someone makes something as cubism nowadays I don't feel like I'd buy it because I too can perform it and if someone makes something similar to Michelangelo's drawings or whatever I don't feel, again, the need to buy it as I too can make it. But if it's done with particular techniques I cannot replicate than I'll buy it. But that's just my own way to see things and I don't want to force others to feel the same
@@lemony254 Also I know you put me in the "imagine if you learn to paint well" and I currently can hence yeah I do not really feel the need to buy Rubens. Appreciation however, it's another thing. As I explained in my previous statements I bring respect for the ideas of modern art but I wouldn't buy the ones similar to them (unless they are the originals) because they do not hold the same historical importance and they're also easy to reproduce
I don't like abstract art either, I never really understood it, but I wouldn't fault others for liking or finding it appealing. But I wouldn't make any arguements to defend myself other than just, 'not my cup of tea' and therefore you won't be able to convince me to like it.
I like your point of an art form that was made so anyone could enjoy being once again monopolized by the rich, but perhaps you put a little too much time into saying 'anyone could do this' than many disagreed with you.
is not about how difficult it is to make those paintings. is about what's behind them. some people don't even want their paintings sold. the money comes in second place. it's not something that's made for rich to enjoy, it's the rich that take the paintings to themselves. every example that you did had a message behind, and it's because people don't understand what's behind those pieces that modern art is so hated.
(sorry for any grammar mistake, feel free to correct me.)
I don't like abstract painting for being something so easy yet infamous, but there's one abstract artist I love: John Beckley.
His paintings aren't just a bunch of nonsense and chaos, he actually thinks of color theory and composition in every work he does. I really admire him for knowing how to think of those complicated things while doing something so simple.
At the end of the day, all of his paintings are amazing and each one has a understandable mood.
I agree with your opinion on art’s modern monetary reputation, but as for the rest, I disagree. I’ve begun to realize in recent years that the most captivating art isn’t a measure of what a person can do, but of what a person can think. This doesn’t mean that I enjoy the work of Jackson Pollock and others like him, I actually find his work pretty boring, but I think art should always be as accessible as a medium as music (anyone can use their voice to create a melody, and anyone can use their hands to tap out a rhythm). I think when we open the gates to all skill levels in an art form, we will inevitably get a lot of boring work, but also some gems from people with a truly unique way of thinking that we may not have seen otherwise because their skill isn’t as developed as others.
I totally agree. I find it incredibly boring when people draw photorealistic portraits. Incredible skill? No doubt about it. But copy-paste drawing / painting can be absolutely souless and kind of pointless. There is no artistic value in it, only pure skill that can be beat by a printer. I prefer art where the artist has an emotion or set of thoughts as inspiration, she/he selects the colours, mixes them to match these emotions and thoughts and then paints. It's about colour, composition, meaning etc. Simple art can be absolutely moving. Not saying that a single stroke on a canvas should be worth of 150 billion, but it can still move something in you. Art to me is about expressing feelings when words are not enough. It's not about money. There's an huge difference between having something to say and expressing yourself vs painting pretty pink roses, coz the Barbie movie is trending and those pink roses can bring a good buck.
You're right. Anyone can use their voice for a melody and tap a rhythm. You know what stops just anyone from becoming a highly paid musician? TALENT and SKILL. For every douchebag that owns a guitar and can play smells like teen spirit how many can play to the level of the John Petruccis or Joe Satrianis or Paul Gilberts of the music world? Being accessible to people is not the same as being good at it. Ab Ex is the participation award of the art world and nothing more. It's for every talentless loser to feel they can do SOMETHING.
“Ooga booga caveman draw!”
I almost spit out my gum.
They had to make sure everyone got into art school.
Yeah especially after ww2
The thing I find cool about abstract expressionism is that in paintings with a lot of lines and figures (like No. 5) you could be looking at the painting for the rest of your life and still find new combinations of shapes that could be construed as something.
A thing that looks like something else, have a look at rocks, tree bark, the clouds, it's free, it always has been. Every sunset is glorious and is unique. If you cannot see it you take some shrooms.
@@Foxglove963
I've had, the thing is that in the comment I was speaking about the video subject, which is modern art. I never said or implied that abstract is the only thing in existence that can achieve that "always finding something new" effect.
"becoming an artist was not something anybody could do"
THANK YOU!
I found that line kinda funny since that hasn't changed, to be an artist is still one of the most difficult lives to live.
@@whoare9201 especially if you make your living from art.
well what is an artist? i’m a musician, a type of artist, and believe that anybody can and should be able to express themselves to some extent through some medium or another
@@NICKMBRAND i believe any person making art is an artist, but i interpreted this comment as "becoming an artist (for a living) was not something anybody could do" which is definitely true. im an artist in the sense that i make art, but not in the sense that art is my career
um no anybody can become an artist if they want to and if they put in the hours. it's not something anyone is born with.
I also used to hate abstract and modern art as it was too "easy to do" and that "lack of sense or purpose" but the truth is that in the historical context abstract art and all these movements that challenged academia were and still are extremely important for the history of how we perceive and appreciate both art and aesthetics. the concept of art has also changed a lot over the years and it is very likely that it will continue to change.
I think it is important to understand that there is a spectrum between figurative and abstract and neither extreme wants to resemble the other, abstract art has its purpose in being abstract and it does not want or pretend to be like figurative art. so looking with the same eyes at a painting by caravaggio and a painting by rothko is essentially incongruous.
think of abstract art as something closer to graphic design. Shapes, colors, textures that do not represent anything but are important in their own ways.
The fonts we use when writing, UI in video games and even the patterns used in textile fabrics are much more related to the abstract than to the figurative. abstract art is all that but in its purest form and without a practical purpose.
If we start talking about the artist's ability, I think that is also a topic that should not be comparable to figurative artists, because they both do totally different things.
I personally do not like Pollock at all, it is true that his work could have been done by anyone but he was the one who did it first or at least gave it the importance he gave it, but even in his "lack of skill" he created paintings with a very marked aesthetic, which do nothing more than visually nourish us all.
I don't think modern art is really the problem, I think the real problem is billionaires, rich people who produce elitism and money laundering.
Don't judge a painting by its prize.
No, the democratisation of art never was the scope of abstract expressionism. People like Mark Rothko were extremely well-read and the theory behind abstract painting is fairly complex, (cf. Concerning the Spiritual in Art, W. Kandinsky), which is why saying that those artists were aiming at having everyone express themselves because the stuff they created was technically easy to do is misleading. This idea of democratisation would also imply that a piece created by someone who imitates the style or technique of a given artist ends up having the same value as that of the artist, not only from an aesthetic point of view, which, as we saw, is a dubious claim, but also from a metaphysical perspective which is an idea that was extremely controversial at the time (cf. works by W. Benjamin).
I used to prefer older paintings too, until I saw Pollock in Stockholms gallery. I could look at it for hours and not get bored of it. Dont know why, but the feeling is totally gone when you see his paintings on photos or displays. He is one of my favourite painters since then.
same happened to me witnessing a Rothko in real life for the first time - utterly moving
Rothko's color strips strictly resemble the "Aura Soma" color-therapy bottles.
For me, it's not about how much it's being sold for, or how "simple" it is.
There's just no connection to me. When I look at a Pollock or Rothko, I feel nothing.
so when you see abstract you see the beggining of universe?! awesome, wish i could do the same
weird, modern art makes me feel everything. Atleast a lot more than old renaissance or classical pieces
@@immabhonest1 yes same. It’s most of the old classical pieces that don’t evoke anything for me
I feel something: Indignation due to being those used to wash money.
Look into the story of “who’s afraid of red yellow and blue” it completely shifted my stance on modern art
I was just about to comment this. Hating on modern art is just a gateway to fascism.
@@milamila1123 if being unwilling to settle for garbage is "fascism", then you make it sound like a good thing
Guys this empty canvas is a work of art! It’s a master piece! This empty canvas signifies the artists depression so it’s gotta be art!
nah it symbolizes the complete lack of the author's creativity and imagination, and the shallow methods he resorts to to get money
@@kirtil5177 "it symbolises veganism!"
- snobby rich kid
@@SimsyHazel veganism of maybe the most rich diet lmao
Lol there was a Danish guy who was paid something like $90K by a museum to paint a huge canvas. He submitted a blank canvas and titled it "Take the Money and Run"
@@miyousjz4940 yeah but the vegan teacher ruined it
The problem with modern art is the gatekeepers. Those who determine that one artist is of a pedigree worthy of valuing such art in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and even hundreds of millions of dollars, whilst similar art is worth nothing. When art is not about the ability to beautifully represent reality, but rather to splash paint on canvas, it becomes a classist endeavor in determining which splashes of paint are genius, and which splashes of paint are child's play shit. This is where social dynamics and favoritism become the determining factors, and utterly nullify any valid evaluation of any given piece. It's all about social proof and predetermination that any given artist is a genius, and less about the product itself. It's the artist, and not the art, that is celebrated. This is a social game, and not a talent game.
Beautifully said, Beautifully explained 👏🏼 ❤️
Agree
And money laundering.
Ironically most of these people think they are leftists.
1. "Modern Art" is a term that refers to work created in the late 1800's starting with the Impressionists and ending in the 1960's with the advent of " Contemporary Art"...the period we seem to be in at the moment.
2. Something radical has happened to the art scene in the past 60 years.
Cubism slid into non-representational art....what is often called Abstract.
Abstract or non-representational art is a legitimate and often profound genre.
But, to many people, it appeared as if this new style had no structure, principles or standards of evaluation.
It’s markings seemed random and arbitrary.
Something that anyone could do.
Any composition of blotches or scribbles was “Abstract Art”.
This was the slippery slope that led to the abandonment of standards in art.
Art is what I say it is....and lots of people jumped on the art bandwagon.
''Anyone can be an artist.''
Anyone can mount a show.
And who is to say if it has value or not ?
A tacit agreement has formed among critics, galleries, publications and auction houses to promote and celebrate certain artists and styles.
Objects with no artistic merit are touted and praised .
Their value increases with every magazine article, every exhibition in a prestigious gallery.
(This is analogous to the cult of celebrity in pop culture where you are famous for being famous.
Think Paris Hilton, the Kardashians etc.)
And when these art works come up for auction, sometimes the auction houses will lend vast sums to a bidder so that it appears as if the work of the particular artist is increasing in value.
The upward spiral begins and fortunes are made.
And many are reluctant to declare that the Emperor is, in fact, naked lest they appear boorish unsophisticated Philistines !
This is what dominates the art market today.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
It has corrupted politics.
It has corrupted sport.
It has corrupted healthcare.
It has corrupted religion.
And now it has corrupted art.
Nothing has intrinsic value.
If no one liked or wanted to have, own, or see the Mona Lisa, it would have no monetary value.
The buyers of the art we see here do not love the work for itself but for how it might appreciate in value in the future.
It is an investment no less than shares of stock.
I hope, like The Skull by Basquiat is really a good investment, because $93.1 million is already a very high tag price. I would not even buy it for $50.
Perfectly put
Like Weird Tyler says, I find this perfectly put as well.
I too think that commercialism has ruined art.
I have been browsing on the internet for hours looking for answers to how art has turned so utterly sh*t.
I think that contemporary art is a cultural catastrophy. And I'm not just refering to the visual arts, but music as well.
Cubism never became non-representational. In fact, Picasso is noted for hating abstract art lost. I never found his art impressive anyway. I'm more of a fan of Matisse's work
Fuck man love this comment
Tell me you don’t understand art history without telling me you don’t understand art history. Pollock didn’t “randomly splatter paint onto a canvas”. If that was the case it would be near impossible to distinguish real pollock pieces from the fakes. Computer analysis of his paintings has found that he was actually painting fractals. Before fractals were even discovered. And that’s just for starters, there’s a great series on Jackson pollock by a podcast called art holes. I recommend all of them, they’re very informative. And modern art wasn’t made to be “easy and accessible to everyone” the styles that you mentioned still require extensive knowledge of composition, lighting, color relationships, perspective and so on. In order to distort reality properly, you have to understand its rules first. The poor was mostly to oppose the strictness of academism and make space in the art world for more freedom of expression, but that doesent mean “let people who have no skills become great artists”. The greatness of those paintings you call meaningless (which I guarantee you will find they are not once you try to learn a bit more about the artists as people) lies in the way that they broke rules considered to be sacred (remember this was stuff that had never been done before), in the emotion or tension expressed through such simple forms. I’m not saying that everyone has to like it, I’m not the biggest fan of most modern art myself, but before you dismiss something as meaningless and poor quality and make a whole video about it, at least try to dig into it a bit more than reading the first paragraph of a couple Wikipedia articles.
You said it 1:04 It’s about the activity it self. A free activity, lost in thought. Look at a tree, it doesn’t hurry to grow, yet everything is in place. That’s the meaning of the abstract painting
hes not saying he dislikes the literal artwork hes saying he dislikes gow it's portrayed and how it's turned into just a commodity
The tree does hurry to grow, it needs to grow taller to get more sunlight, so that the other plants don't outgrow it.
@@ClaudeSpeed6 when you study nature, you realize there are no straight lines in nature. To which I think art seen as the process of just what is happening being the closest to what we endure.
i think it's completely valid to not be moved by modern art. one early frustration i had with it was that, it felt composed in a way that expected me to be moved by its abstractness or, in the case of no.5, its unbridled chaos. but no matter what sum of money it sells for, what the artist meant for it to represent, or if i could do it myself or not, it either moves me or not. i believe art is expression, so let people express themselves how they want, and let history conclude that this is, indeed, not very good or some rich community play-thing. through both the bright and dark eras of art, can the art that is intrinsically good, what fulfills the heart of the onlooker, what captures the essence of a world and feels alive as the day it was completed, come into being. like that one meme: "mom, there's no such thing as a permanent concept of the self!" art is a movement, and we're simply caught in a very controversial one for some.
Maybe just maybe it was an experiment and he wanted to see how the colors worked together. What’s wrong with trying new things?
i think applying the world of objectivity to the one of subjectivity is a dangerous game
@@deniseberman8633the problem is the price.... And the reason for the price is because it's from a popular "artist"
I feel like you could find and make art like this anywhere, but just as we as a society do, we buy for name brand. $3 Ray ban glasses we buy for hundreds just for the name, and sadly this now relates to art, which is ridiculous, I’ve seen many talented people in my time who could probably never sell their piece over 20 even though they are amazing bc they have no name
There are some people who blindly follow brands or trends, but some brands are good and reliable. So I think that's ok or convenience to follow.
Why don't you buy it, then?
Yep!