Pro-tip for videos of this kind: if you're talking about the details of a lot of paintings (Munch) maybe cut away to an image of the painting being referred to as it's being talked about. Having to interrupt the narrative of the discussion, pull yourself out of it and go Googling the paintings is quite disruptive.
The issue with "bad anatomy" in Kitsch painting is that it can often feel unintentional, as if the goal of the artist was to depict the figure accurately but wasn't able to do so. In contrast, Lipchitz made a very clear and intentional choice to abstract the figure which is self-evident in the work. He had no desire to depict accurate anatomy.
Each person defines success differently. Some people define success as being able to walk around all day doing what they want without owning anything because they see ownership as burdensome. In the case of Catholic Monks, it was owning nothing and hours of praying every day while working for the church all day sleeping less than 8 hours per day.
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378because he was sick. basically all his peers lived quite well from their art. but van gogh was unpredictable and very bad at marketing himself. the reason we love van gogh is not because of one painting but because we know so much about him. we see all the selfportraits and the landscapes, we read the letters and know the story. back then they didnt. he was a nobody
Better as Art, I agree. But not as Kitsch. Freud depicts his subjects in an unflattering way. His focus is actually on man as worse than he is in reality.
@@Filmcrewspilbor Kitsch and Art are two sides of the same coin-- both are not real; the kitch painter and artist can both depict their subjects as ugly as they want. When the kitch painter refers to the ugly side of humanity--as depicted in a Goya or Kollwitz piece--he sure doesn't say that the work depicted man as worser than he actually is, because there is (probably) nothing worser than man as he actually is; therefore, I don't think the depiction of Freud's work was valid or fair in this case.
@@Dragonknight761 There's nothing wrong with depicting someone as ugly either. Why does everyone have to be beautified or put on a pedestal? A lot of people are worse than they appear.
minute 45:19 quick question, are you laughing at the hitler comment as if you were agreeing with him? it kind of gives the impression that you're agreeing with hitler in this comment, no disrespect if you are, just wondering, nice chat, cheers
The downfall of a lot of these painters probably has a lot to do with mental illness and drugs (including alcohol). Van Gogh started out as a good painter but declined as his mental illness got worse. Picasso started out good as well but then was heavily into drugs and his work progressively became worse as well. This is not even factoring in that most of these painters were using toxic pigments without even knowing about their toxicity which also could have a huge impact on ones behavior and mental status. If you combine neurotoxicity from the mishandling of pigments containing lead, cadmium, and mercury sulfide with mental illness and alcohol you run into some very serious neurological problems and deficiency's.
That surgeon example was put so well, spectacular episode
Pro-tip for videos of this kind: if you're talking about the details of a lot of paintings (Munch) maybe cut away to an image of the painting being referred to as it's being talked about. Having to interrupt the narrative of the discussion, pull yourself out of it and go Googling the paintings is quite disruptive.
A very interesting conversation
My favorite channel
47:01 "Originality isn't a thing anymore" man that's hilarious... yet powerful!
The issue with "bad anatomy" in Kitsch painting is that it can often feel unintentional, as if the goal of the artist was to depict the figure accurately but wasn't able to do so. In contrast, Lipchitz made a very clear and intentional choice to abstract the figure which is self-evident in the work. He had no desire to depict accurate anatomy.
He drew william as an adult, if he gets that jaw line he will look good as hell.
Son como los teóricos de las conspiraciones , me encanta la gente que piensa.
" Stick to your values, then you will have succes " ( 58 : 47 ) wel, wel ,wel, Vincent van Gogh stuck to his values , but succes came after his death.
you are bringing your concept of succes a contemporary idea of succes to him which is un fair to be praised and rich was not what he search in life.
@@davidaaronartist He could not in any way live from his art, and he killed himself.
Each person defines success differently. Some people define success as being able to walk around all day doing what they want without owning anything because they see ownership as burdensome. In the case of Catholic Monks, it was owning nothing and hours of praying every day while working for the church all day sleeping less than 8 hours per day.
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378because he was sick. basically all his peers lived quite well from their art. but van gogh was unpredictable and very bad at marketing himself. the reason we love van gogh is not because of one painting but because we know so much about him. we see all the selfportraits and the landscapes, we read the letters and know the story. back then they didnt. he was a nobody
completely dissagree about the BS on Lucian Freud...way better than 99% from the Nerdrum school.
Better as Art, I agree. But not as Kitsch. Freud depicts his subjects in an unflattering way. His focus is actually on man as worse than he is in reality.
@@Filmcrewspilbor Kitsch and Art are two sides of the same coin-- both are not real; the kitch painter and artist can both depict their subjects as ugly as they want. When the kitch painter refers to the ugly side of humanity--as depicted in a Goya or Kollwitz piece--he sure doesn't say that the work depicted man as worser than he actually is, because there is (probably) nothing worser than man as he actually is; therefore, I don't think the depiction of Freud's work was valid or fair in this case.
@@Dragonknight761 There's nothing wrong with depicting someone as ugly either. Why does everyone have to be beautified or put on a pedestal? A lot of people are worse than they appear.
minute 45:19 quick question, are you laughing at the hitler comment as if you were agreeing with him? it kind of gives the impression that you're agreeing with hitler in this comment, no disrespect if you are, just wondering, nice chat, cheers
Hitlers reaction to degenerate art was warranted.
He did agree. I don't know why you need Hitler to prove a point. But it was someone who also mentioned Ayn Rand so not so surprising.
The hubris of having his very basic drawings hanging over prints of Munch’s masterpieces.
The downfall of a lot of these painters probably has a lot to do with mental illness and drugs (including alcohol). Van Gogh started out as a good painter but declined as his mental illness got worse. Picasso started out good as well but then was heavily into drugs and his work progressively became worse as well. This is not even factoring in that most of these painters were using toxic pigments without even knowing about their toxicity which also could have a huge impact on ones behavior and mental status. If you combine neurotoxicity from the mishandling of pigments containing lead, cadmium, and mercury sulfide with mental illness and alcohol you run into some very serious neurological problems and deficiency's.
I don't buy that. It's not like Titian, Turner or Rembrandt were adverse to drinking. And they had the same exposure to these materials.