One criticism..... You treat colors in isolation, as though a color were a unitary object, whereas perceptually, colors (it seems to me) are very much contextual. For example, one object is more or less blue than another, more or less red than another. What I'm trying to say is that perceptually and psychologically, color is perhaps, very likely, not constant, but rather relative.
As a professional concept artist I've grown to understand.. "people like what they know they like". It's a strange thought yes but it means once someone like something they like all thing similar. This seems to happen in different levels, in context, like if someone likes oranges, they will like all art associated with oranges, high quality or low quality. Another level would be craftsmanship, example all art that shows a high level of skill to make is appealing weather the subject is an orange or a banana so long as it's done well it's liked. Another aspect could be what story is being told, but that also context. I feel people are more bound by social standards than they know when it comes to liking what they like. Often those choices are made unconsciously so they can't know, but the reason isn't so much the art. Think along this line, often people just want to be liked so they like the things that best enhance that experience. Consciously people would disagree with that, but not there actions. Stepping outside who you think you are relative to the world around is new territory, doing so is risky for anybody. Whether you spend your time staying on top of all trends in your niche culture, or just spend time studying techniques in the abstract...So context and quality, once a group picks a context then they fight is over quality. Just so a person can master the group and be associated with knowing it's best art to define that group.
Cool! I guess you stumbled across this video researching the subject. I've been reading The Woman Who Changed Her Brain, by Barbara Arrowsmith, what she shows is how true that is, and how the brain being a plastic kind of muscle the established neural pathways based off conscious efforts and then it automates those efforts to make it easier to access those thoughts.
The way I see it - art, whatever we may mean by that, is a human intended projection of meaning to whom it may concern. Artistic intentionality is importance in this regard.
The fact that the audience laughed at Duchamp's Urinal means, to me, that it isn't art. It is an object of comedy. If an audience laughed at it when it was first introduced by Duchamp, laugh at it today, and will laugh at it 1,000 years from now, means it isn't art. Instead, it is an object of ridicule when the attempt is to present it seriously. Of course, certain art will always appeal to some.
“Michaelangelo’s david isn’t art, it’s an object of admiration” When an object is presented with the purpose of making the viewer feel a particular way or interpet it a particular way, it’s art. The average urinal is not made to be laughed at, it’s made to be pissed into. The fact that you identify it as an object of ridicule and not an object of hygienic utility is why it is art. A crude, hilarious work of art.
4 місяці тому
It was probably meant as a critique of art and the viewers/consumers of art. It's social commentary, not art. He was literally taking the piss.
4 місяці тому
If an artist can make something stupid (like modern art) but also has artistic talent and can make something beautiful, then maybe I would consider it art (in terms of personal self expression). Otherwise it is just someone without any artistic sensibility trying to be an artist when they clearly aren't.
I reckon that theres a factor that this guy isnt taking into account when he talks about colour associations to music - People could be subconsciously thinking of the colour of the instrument itself. So when they hear horns they might think of yellow, clarinets they might think of darker blues and browns, etc.
Scientist really need to understand that especially contemporary works of art are not about matter, composition, color. Art constitutes a language, hence the work is trying to communicate something. All these elements are put in such a way in order to facilitate this communication, but they are not the work itself. Still, Shimamura's research might probably getting closer to the point. And indeed, MEMORY and its role in understanding the work has to be studied.
GRIGORIOS RIZAKIS Agree. Not only just scientists either. Western culture has unconsciously assimilated "scientism" which dictates and expects that only science or reductive materialism has any answers or truths. That is not exactly science but it is how Westerners think. It came out of the so-called "Enlightenment" and profoundly misused Newtonian propositions which are good but not the only way to know.
Why do they have to be bothered with contemporary (conceptual) art, when its significance is negligible, marginal in several hundred years old history of art? Think about it. Visual art, appreciation of visual, aesthetic aspects of art such as color, composition is observed universally observed across times and cultures in history of art, whereas ignoring such aspects - contemporary conceptual art - is confined to quite limited, insignificant kind of art (less than just 100 years history, with a limited cultural origin, Europe and US ). The latter is really marginal, insignificant, exceptional in comparison with the former.
+dsa boo would take a lot of space to properly analyze\answer to all these. However, and sorry to tell you, looks like you are quite uninformed. Contemporary art is not named conceptual art. What is the connection of these two however, is an other long story. b) you have to define what a universal is, but for now seems you misunderstand an already problematic term. c) what you name conceptual art, is also characterized by mere optic attributes, like a painting does. When we visit museums, galleries etc., we try to see how what we are looking at fits the era we live in. Impressionism, for example is primarily of historical importance and there is nothing to see in it. Also try to have this in mind: dealing only with color, composition, shapes etc, is not what makes an artist. This makes him a decorator. In any case though, you should watch again Shimamura`s part, which focuses on memory, learning and understanding.
a) Contemporary art is not named conceptual art. ==> What you wrote sounds more about conceptual art, rather than contemporary art in general. In other words, I assumed that you used the two terms, 'contemporary art' and 'conceptual art' interchangeably. b) you have to define what a universal is, but for now seems you misunderstand an already problematic term. ==> In my comment, 'Universally' was used in a quite plain sense of the word, that is, in every instance or place. The word is no more problematic than other words you used such as 'art', 'contemporary', 'communication' etc. You don't have difficulty with understanding the following sentence, "Violence appears to be an universally observed phenomenon in every human society/culture". Do you? c) what you name conceptual art, is also characterized by mere optic attributes... ==> My point still stands. It puts much more emphasis on idea, concept than matter, composition and color. d) dealing only with color, composition, shapes etc, is not what makes an artist. This makes him a decorator. ==> You seem to ascribe to me what I didn't say. Visual aspect (color, composition) is one of several aspects of art. Communication of something is another one of those aspects. Maybe, you have to keep this in mind: dealing only idea, communication is not what makes an artist. This might make him a good news reporter though. f) Impressionism, for example is primarily of historical importance and there is nothing to see in it. ==> Wrong. It has as many (or possibly more) things to look at as Hirst's shark in formaldehyde. It's only that you are unable to see something from it.
+dsa boo still forgot the most important: never say all of the above to any artist (including myself), in person... it is the most offensive thing one can do ;). And btw, Hirst is a product, not an artist... It is always good in general to be aware of our own ignorance before rushing into conclusions. What you have writen so far represents typical misconceptions, therefore you should question your own self to what extend you are capable of understanding art and what you expect from it.
Nothing about Duchamps fountain was meant to be aesthetically pleasing, its a conceptual piece. It makes us think about what art is and challenges our notions of the very idea of "high art".
I didn't realize Fountain had been tossed and it was never more than photograph all this time (recreations aside). I think that's perhaps why I do find it aesthetically pleasing. It never really occurred to me it existed outside that form and that perhaps in person, in whatever way it was intended to be sat and displayed, I would find it decidedly less agreeable.
There's nothing controversial about taking the artist into account for people who *actually* 'know about postmodernism'.. the point isn't that the artist doesn't matter, but that the effects generated by knowing about the artist become flattened into the artwork-as-text. /2ç
we see the new and think "Meh- uninteresting... nope- don't like it- don't understand it", but what we don't realize is that we are supposed to love the new because the new is always evolving and because it "Reveals the mind and/or intentions of the artist", and so should our likes and appreciation of the new should evolve too. So, those in the know who like the new buy the new en mass knowing that the unwashed masses (those of us who don't know we are supposed to like the new) will be whipped into submission and learn to love the new that we are currently viewing and 'attempting to understand", and as such, prices on the new works will skyrocket as everyone suddenly discovers that they are supposed to love the new, and everyone scrambles to buy the new as an investment for the future. The appreciation of New movements in Art is achieved when one learns to like the things that they don't currently like, because we don't know we are supposed to like them, and results in us buying and hoarding them as the works trend upwards in value and desirability because so many new people are learning that they love them- Then and only then are we enlightened (I kid of course... I think)
This is the most I've ever been bored through out all time. There were moments that lasted like paint drying on a long day in the middle of a parking lot that stretches in all directions forever
The aesthetic part of the object is not necessary anymore in Modernist art, actually what i understand from art history class, is that this is the big difference between art before and after 20 century, when for the first time in history an artwork was not necessary intended for aesthetic evaluation. But i didn't understand what DO we evaluate. Creativity? Statement? Building effort? Neither of these don't seem like art by them selves and some modern art pieces have none. I do bellieve that you have to evaluate what the artist intends to be evaluated, so first you must understand this. Maybe i just don't understand.
tudor mitrea why get all complicated about it? Me look at art. Me have reaction. Me enjoy or dislike reaction. Very simple. There isn't more to the aesthetic part. If you want to get all high horse you can ad in all the information about the artist, art history, artists intention blah blah blah but that has nothing to do with the hedonistic reaction which is what aesthetics is.
I fucking hate Duchamp's fountain. Nothing about that is aesthetically pleasing or interesting. If the museum janitor had originally created that piece, it wouldn't even have entered our lexicon of aesthetics. It probably wouldn't have made headlines outside the building, let along through art history.
One criticism.....
You treat colors in isolation, as though a color were a unitary object, whereas perceptually, colors (it seems to me) are very much contextual. For example, one object is more or less blue than another, more or less red than another. What I'm trying to say is that perceptually and psychologically, color is perhaps, very likely, not constant, but rather relative.
As a professional concept artist I've grown to understand.. "people like what they know they like". It's a strange thought yes but it means once someone like something they like all thing similar. This seems to happen in different levels, in context, like if someone likes oranges, they will like all art associated with oranges, high quality or low quality. Another level would be craftsmanship, example all art that shows a high level of skill to make is appealing weather the subject is an orange or a banana so long as it's done well it's liked. Another aspect could be what story is being told, but that also context. I feel people are more bound by social standards than they know when it comes to liking what they like. Often those choices are made unconsciously so they can't know, but the reason isn't so much the art. Think along this line, often people just want to be liked so they like the things that best enhance that experience. Consciously people would disagree with that, but not there actions. Stepping outside who you think you are relative to the world around is new territory, doing so is risky for anybody. Whether you spend your time staying on top of all trends in your niche culture, or just spend time studying techniques in the abstract...So context and quality, once a group picks a context then they fight is over quality. Just so a person can master the group and be associated with knowing it's best art to define that group.
I get it. I agree.
Cool! I guess you stumbled across this video researching the subject. I've been reading The Woman Who Changed Her Brain, by Barbara Arrowsmith, what she shows is how true that is, and how the brain being a plastic kind of muscle the established neural pathways based off conscious efforts and then it automates those efforts to make it easier to access those thoughts.
Darran Douglas agreed also
Darran Douglas i
Definitely agree!
Very interesting talk with some great findings.
The way I see it - art, whatever we may mean by that, is a human intended projection of meaning to whom it may concern. Artistic intentionality is importance in this regard.
Have you tried the Vertical Position poll changing the darker color to be the predominant one in the positions that were chosen as preferred?
The fact that the audience laughed at Duchamp's Urinal means, to me, that it isn't art. It is an object of comedy. If an audience laughed at it when it was first introduced by Duchamp, laugh at it today, and will laugh at it 1,000 years from now, means it isn't art. Instead, it is an object of ridicule when the attempt is to present it seriously. Of course, certain art will always appeal to some.
How do you then describe Greek herma?
“Michaelangelo’s david isn’t art, it’s an object of admiration”
When an object is presented with the purpose of making the viewer feel a particular way or interpet it a particular way, it’s art. The average urinal is not made to be laughed at, it’s made to be pissed into. The fact that you identify it as an object of ridicule and not an object of hygienic utility is why it is art. A crude, hilarious work of art.
It was probably meant as a critique of art and the viewers/consumers of art.
It's social commentary, not art. He was literally taking the piss.
If an artist can make something stupid (like modern art) but also has artistic talent and can make something beautiful, then maybe I would consider it art (in terms of personal self expression).
Otherwise it is just someone without any artistic sensibility trying to be an artist when they clearly aren't.
7:18 this shit starts
Thank you
I reckon that theres a factor that this guy isnt taking into account when he talks about colour associations to music - People could be subconsciously thinking of the colour of the instrument itself. So when they hear horns they might think of yellow, clarinets they might think of darker blues and browns, etc.
Mr Wolfe could be true of musicians but i don't even know what color an instrument is so that can't be true for me
Golds and shining
Opulence
And big band
Scientist really need to understand that especially contemporary works of art are not about matter, composition, color. Art constitutes a language, hence the work is trying to communicate something. All these elements are put in such a way in order to facilitate this communication, but they are not the work itself. Still, Shimamura's research might probably getting closer to the point. And indeed, MEMORY and its role in understanding the work has to be studied.
GRIGORIOS RIZAKIS Agree. Not only just scientists either. Western culture has unconsciously assimilated "scientism" which dictates and expects that only science or reductive materialism has any answers or truths. That is not exactly science but it is how Westerners think. It came out of the so-called "Enlightenment" and profoundly misused Newtonian propositions which are good but not the only way to know.
Why do they have to be bothered with contemporary (conceptual) art, when its significance is negligible, marginal in several hundred years old history of art?
Think about it. Visual art, appreciation of visual, aesthetic aspects of art such as color, composition is observed universally observed across times and cultures in history of art, whereas ignoring such aspects - contemporary conceptual art - is confined to quite limited, insignificant kind of art (less than just 100 years history, with a limited cultural origin, Europe and US ).
The latter is really marginal, insignificant, exceptional in comparison with the former.
+dsa boo would take a lot of space to properly analyze\answer to all these. However, and sorry to tell you, looks like you are quite uninformed. Contemporary art is not named conceptual art. What is the connection of these two however, is an other long story. b) you have to define what a universal is, but for now seems you misunderstand an already problematic term. c) what you name conceptual art, is also characterized by mere optic attributes, like a painting does.
When we visit museums, galleries etc., we try to see how what we are looking at fits the era we live in. Impressionism, for example is primarily of historical importance and there is nothing to see in it. Also try to have this in mind: dealing only with color, composition, shapes etc, is not what makes an artist. This makes him a decorator.
In any case though, you should watch again Shimamura`s part, which focuses on memory, learning and understanding.
a) Contemporary art is not named conceptual art.
==> What you wrote sounds more about conceptual art, rather than contemporary art in general. In other words, I assumed that you used the two terms, 'contemporary art' and 'conceptual art' interchangeably.
b) you have to define what a universal is, but for now seems you misunderstand an already problematic term.
==> In my comment, 'Universally' was used in a quite plain sense of the word, that is, in every instance or place. The word is no more problematic than other words you used such as 'art', 'contemporary', 'communication' etc. You don't have difficulty with understanding the following sentence, "Violence appears to be an universally observed phenomenon in every human society/culture". Do you?
c) what you name conceptual art, is also characterized by mere optic attributes...
==> My point still stands. It puts much more emphasis on idea, concept than matter, composition and color.
d) dealing only with color, composition, shapes etc, is not what makes an artist. This makes him a decorator.
==> You seem to ascribe to me what I didn't say. Visual aspect (color, composition) is one of several aspects of art. Communication of something is another one of those aspects.
Maybe, you have to keep this in mind: dealing only idea, communication is not what makes an artist. This might make him a good news reporter though.
f) Impressionism, for example is primarily of historical importance and there is nothing to see in it.
==> Wrong. It has as many (or possibly more) things to look at as Hirst's shark in formaldehyde. It's only that you are unable to see something from it.
+dsa boo still forgot the most important: never say all of the above to any artist (including myself), in person... it is the most offensive thing one can do ;). And btw, Hirst is a product, not an artist... It is always good in general to be aware of our own ignorance before rushing into conclusions. What you have writen so far represents typical misconceptions, therefore you should question your own self to what extend you are capable of understanding art and what you expect from it.
Nothing about Duchamps fountain was meant to be aesthetically pleasing, its a conceptual piece. It makes us think about what art is and challenges our notions of the very idea of "high art".
I didn't realize Fountain had been tossed and it was never more than photograph all this time (recreations aside). I think that's perhaps why I do find it aesthetically pleasing. It never really occurred to me it existed outside that form and that perhaps in person, in whatever way it was intended to be sat and displayed, I would find it decidedly less agreeable.
interesting presentations.
There's nothing controversial about taking the artist into account for people who *actually* 'know about postmodernism'.. the point isn't that the artist doesn't matter, but that the effects generated by knowing about the artist become flattened into the artwork-as-text. /2ç
This video gave me great notes for my Art Class. Thanks
Very interesting and educational, thanks for posting!
how can I get on the mailing list?
1:11:39, Chomsky?
omg lol
8:00 Skip the intro
Beautiful talks
Art is, at its base level, stylised communication. That's it. That's the definition. Anything beyond that simply adds to this definition.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I can understand how one could argue endlessly on the topic.
the video is very informative thank you for sharing
we see the new and think "Meh- uninteresting... nope- don't like it- don't understand it", but what we don't realize is that we are supposed to love the new because the new is always evolving and because it "Reveals the mind and/or intentions of the artist", and so should our likes and appreciation of the new should evolve too.
So, those in the know who like the new buy the new en mass knowing that the unwashed masses (those of us who don't know we are supposed to like the new) will be whipped into submission and learn to love the new that we are currently viewing and 'attempting to understand", and as such, prices on the new works will skyrocket as everyone suddenly discovers that they are supposed to love the new, and everyone scrambles to buy the new as an investment for the future.
The appreciation of New movements in Art is achieved when one learns to like the things that they don't currently like, because we don't know we are supposed to like them, and results in us buying and hoarding them as the works trend upwards in value and desirability because so many new people are learning that they love them- Then and only then are we enlightened
(I kid of course... I think)
forever mirin'
Thank you guys! I'm able to add value to my teaching philosophy online with your work!
This is the most I've ever been bored through out all time. There were moments that lasted like paint drying on a long day in the middle of a parking lot that stretches in all directions forever
I enjoyed this, thank you....
what an intressting lecture
The aesthetic part of the object is not necessary anymore in Modernist art, actually what i understand from art history class, is that this is the big difference between art before and after 20 century, when for the first time in history an artwork was not necessary intended for aesthetic evaluation.
But i didn't understand what DO we evaluate. Creativity? Statement? Building effort? Neither of these don't seem like art by them selves and some modern art pieces have none.
I do bellieve that you have to evaluate what the artist intends to be evaluated, so first you must understand this. Maybe i just don't understand.
tudor mitrea why get all complicated about it? Me look at art. Me have reaction. Me enjoy or dislike reaction. Very simple. There isn't more to the aesthetic part. If you want to get all high horse you can ad in all the information about the artist, art history, artists intention blah blah blah but that has nothing to do with the hedonistic reaction which is what aesthetics is.
Thought that was saul goodman in the thumbnail
Should test in unindustrialized places those results would probably be a lot different
Thks
I came for the Zyzz
To say I like this or that says more about you than what you like
💘
23:45
I consider this video Art
Would beauty have something to do with what we innately find attractive in the opposite sex? There could b biological factor at play here!
YOU MIRIN BRAH?
I fucking hate Duchamp's fountain. Nothing about that is aesthetically pleasing or interesting. If the museum janitor had originally created that piece, it wouldn't even have entered our lexicon of aesthetics. It probably wouldn't have made headlines outside the building, let along through art history.
Fixed. Psychology of Mir'in
Study of Aesthetics? Where's Zyzz brah?
In the sauna
i have to do this shit for homework bro
57:35 LOLLOL
DAFAQ IS THIZ SHIT BRAH......DAT AIN'T NO SHREDDING
Why do they use so many onomatopoeias instead of actual words? It is a very interesting presentation but both seem quite ignorant of visual lexicon.
That's quite a mouthful from someone accusing others of trying to sound smart.
zyzz brah.
Drawing conclusions based on what anonymous people like only muddies the process of figuring out what you like and why. No answers here.
Who has baby poo colored nipples? I thought pink was normal.
knowledge drive aesthetics ... lol ok
I dont like your blue shirt and purple tie😂