All these people who criticize Modern and Contemporary Art, remember the Renaissance and Baroque were equally criticized in their time, and now their artists are our idols.
***** You said the right words. They were poorly understood. People just don't get the reasons in modern/contemporary art, and start yelling "trash!" and "shit!". Maybe a little more study about and a little less common sense would help you to understand it.
I love how everyone os critisizing modern art comparing it with the Renaissance art. These were two different Eras and the conception of art was sightly different. Picasso alrready knew how to paint breathtaking realistic pictures at the age of 15. He just tought it was a nonsense since the photography could do it in a few seconds. Art had to be redefined.
Oh my god did any of you listen to the first sentence? The stuff you see these days is CONTEMPORARY art; modern art is older stuff like Van Gogh, Matisse, Monet, Picasso, etc.
I absolutely love it when people innovate and push the boundaries of acceptable creativity and art, it's not okay imo when people abuse the system though, putting profit/fame over creativity.
One of the greatest neo-expressionistic, extraordinary and prolific artist (and my favorite too) is the AFRICAN-American painter JEAN-MICHEL BASQUIAT. He began as a graffitti street artist und his works sell for two digit million dollars now. He died regrettably with only 28 y of heroin overdose in New York City 1988. (And regrettably too: I dont have the millions to buy one)
Sad to see so many upvoted comments (presumably subscribers) ignorant towards modern art on a channel promoting education. Perceived talent aside, art is an expression of humanity. It represents mankind of a certain time. Or it represents nothing at all and the interpretation is left for the viewer/ listener. The beauty, in fact, is the act of exploring something different and unique.
Renaissance and Modern (and Postmodern) art aren't to be compared, at least not in terms of aesthetics, (which I will point out are personal) skill, or intention. Renaissance art is about the detail the perfection of form and the realistic representation. Modern art is about looking pears what can be done better, how we can change how art is done, while still owning a lot to traditional methods. Postmodern art is about incredibly expressive works, emotional and abstract. It is also about challenging you, the audience, and by you commenting on how a near blank canvas is art is exactly what the artist wants. They want to be thought of as ridiculous, and scrutinized, because that is the purpose of their art.
I love ted-ed, I've noticed a theme that may be due to the american celebration in feb of black history. Im loving it but in addition to appreciation I need african artefact to be return #vatican #britishmuseum
In other words, Western Modern art is a mixture of underrated art from other cultures that Westerners were inspired by and are now given credit for? I'm I missing something?
i'm not blaming you picasso. but *thanks* for creating many arrogant pricks that create a pure solid white painting with a few scratch in it and still thinks that their artwork are absolutely worth 10x better than leonardo da vinci's masterpiece
+Raiden Noeramrin just to clarify, i honestly didn't know that much about art knowledge. but i believe that things like these really ruin traditional artist' dedication toward art because of these people. just watch ethan on H3H3production. he made a point about these modern "artist"
+Raiden Noeramrin No one thinks it's better. The difference is that Da Vinci's movement (Renaissance) is already over, there's no sense in keep painting the same stuff of a dead movement. It's not a matter of being better or worse, it's a matter of the context (time and place) you're in.
If "modern" art is the appropriation of other's style, then DeviantArt is the haven of appropriation. Full-scale lifting the artistic styles of Japanese animu who in turn at some point the early development of anime appropriated in turn from American cartoon style. :^)
I really don't get the hate on 'cultural appropriation'... Nobody is stealing anything, ideas can be replicated as much as you like so even more people can benefit from them.
+TED-ed Can you make a video on why many pieces of art that don't look complicated like the geometrical series and why they are considered amazing pieces of art and sell for millions.
Lol, everyone is ranting about postmodern art, not modern art. Come on. Learn a thing or two before you comment on a video which literally says as its first words "modern art doesn't just mean contemporary art". Jesus.
+Ali Silcox Look at the PragerU video on modern art. It's horribly cynical and ignorant of the craftsmanship and ingenuity of contemporary art as a whole. EDIT: I mean recent art creations when I say "contemporary." It seems any single word describing art that's been created in the last 40 years until now (modern, contemporary, even postmodern, which has its own interesting qualities) has been rubbed with the feces of ignorant false judgements.
+Tympanista Quite. I have to catch myself in correcting people who say modern art is too effortless and floaty, about silly ideas and involving things like blank canvases and bricks. Those are facets of postmodern art, not modern art - but even recent contemporary art including much postmodern stuff has value. While not postmodern, as far as my poorly trained eye can tell; making as it does no comment on modernism, this piece is interesting: Marco Chiandetti is trying to display a series of aviaries with birdseed sculptures of various objects in a gallery in Australia. The aviaries are to be full of Indian myna birds- considered a pest. This has sparked a debate over is he can display birds as art, and the bureaucracy around how they will be treated, despite the fact that the same government authority exterminates myna birds. This is great, because his piece is a commentary on the migrant crisis, and what is happening has cool parallels. To my mind his art is the whole situation.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from other cultures. All art is derivative. Nothing is original. This "cultural appropriation" bullshit needs to stop. Cultural diffusion has been happening constantly since the dawn of humanity, and will continue constantly into the future. It's nothing new, and to say that it is bad is to fundamentally misunderstand what culture is in the first place.
+Inferno Cop Cultural appropriation is more than just getting inspiration from another culture. Most of the time is steeling (plagiarizing is a crime bro) the exact idea and profiting from it. Shit, contemporary fashion does this so well. Cultural appropriation is only bullshit when you don't have a culture yourself.
Izcoatl .Maximo Yep, and the cultures getting plagiarized got their culture by plagiarizing other cultures in the past. Cultures are constantly diffusing, changing, and adopting bits of each other. It just happens faster today, since cultures can communicate so much faster, and there's so much international travel. It's the same process that's been going on for thousands of years, just faster.
+Inferno Cop Don't get it twisted. Assimilation and cultural appropriation are not the same thing. Assimilation is adapting appropriation is steeling. Get it straight bro.
"One professor is hailed for his visionary style of painting triangles...." - John Malkovich in Artschool Confidential www.reelviews.net/reelviews/art-school-confidential - its a brillant spoof of the artsy scene today.
People have been arguing over this for thousands of years. You are ALL right! It's beautiful, it's ugly, it's awe inspiring, it's crap, it's sublime, but "Made you look..."! And just who is this guy named "Buddy"?
I don't really like modern art, or the kind of art where you have to guess what it's a painting of. I like to see art that's got lots of time and effort into it like Leonardo da Vinci, not a few dots on a canvas.
Well, I like all kinds of Art, but I guess your opinion may be that art has to be a portrayal or deception of something. Modern art (which is actually quite old) doesnt tell you thatyou SHOULD SEE something, it can have you guessing, or letting subconsciousness form a picture, or just wants you to feel, think or recognize nothing. At all. Many Artist want to make their art as medium, or deceptionof a expression, be a impression, and the results van have many different (or not) results (or... not).But maybe you just like art a lot of work and skill has been put and is recognizable, which is nothing bad at all.
+Bay :3 Just thought I'd mention that just because the painting contains fewer brushstrokes or recognizable images or whatever, it doesn't mean less effort went into it.
Very interesting. But I believe, the radical difference between modern art and the classical art is because of the differences in their subjects. Previously it was largely an imitation but slowly artists used the objects of their paintings and sculptures as symbols, the objects became a material not the subject of their art. If you remove modern art from the history, today, the role of painting can be completely replaced by photography without any loss of knowledge or expression.
"Appropriated from people THEY considered primative" or appropriated from cultures YOU consider primitive. Nobody ever accuses a primitive or equally advanced society of cultural appropriation because the idea of cultural appropriation needs the appropriated property to come from a LESSER civilization, society, or people. It is a bad idea to organize individuals into monolithic cultures races and civilizations in your mind. When you bring it to its logical conclusion it becomes prejudice but for now it is just incoherent.
Appropriation is simply just stealing from another culture. No where have I seen it implied that it is stealing from a lesser civilization. That’s just your own interpretation. A lot of the artifacts in which these artists draw inspiration from were taken from cultures that Europeans considered primitive. That was how they justified colonization that allowed them to even acquire those masks for example. It’s not like they were subtle about their superiority over other cultures. Also if there was culture appropriation being done by smaller or less advanced civilizations is not being talked about as much because they just aren’t as well known the others people tend to talk about.
This is a stretch. Yes some works had influences from Ancient African Art, but to say the Modern Art Movement originated in Africa is an outlandish claim.
Just to keep it real, I would like to remind people that the only reason cubist paintings are not considered garbage is because billionaires aggree to buy them. If there was not a market for it (and a financial bubble) no one in it's right mind would consider "les demoiselles d'avignons" to be a masterpiece. (and that's not french bashing, I am myself french)
Picasso is a fraud! "It was at once aggressive and abstract; distorted yet primal in its raw geometry" that's what you literally say. We have a word for that in french: "Neocon". The special kind of people trying to pass emptyness as talent by giving seemingly complicated sentences explaining the qualities of the painting. Their goal is to discourage people from trying to understand art. By reminding uneducated people of their status you try to assert yourself as a figure of authority not to be questioned. But sadlythat is a very politician move, using big words to say nothing. The real problem with art (be it shakespeare, paintings, operas... you name it) is that it used to be a signal of class. Poor people didn't go to the opera. But, as new technologies were invented the poor was able to listen and see the same art. Therefore, the new trick was to make art inaccessible for the common folk. The rich does not understand it either, since there is nothing to understand, but he can pretend, and therefore distinguish himself from the rest. This is because of such quests for inaccessibility that we traded mozart and bach for Boulez... what a joke... The point of art is to move the people exposed to it, be it music, paintings or poetry, if art is not understood, or undistinguished from everyday items (like the Fontaine of Duchamp) it failed as art and is nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
+Calimero Hœnir - For the most part I agree with your statement. I didnt knew "Fontaine" and looked it up in wikipedia: There is a really long article about that piece and insofar its a good example of a very successful "intellectual masturbation", even inflated to "intellectual group masturbation". In Germany we have the good forger (unfortunately exposed) Wolfgang Beltracchi, who exploited the hypocrisy of the art experts for many years and made millions. He is a celebrity now! Justifiably!
The earlier influence of Chinese and Japanese painting, sumi-e, or ukiyo-e, on Impressionist painters is not mentioned here. What I find unacceptable is to proclaim that modern art is an "overcoming" of representational art. In many, many cases, modern art is "a step backward". Many very expensive works exhibited in museums are simply a bluff.
Modern art sucks, really! I think in the future we're gonna look back at it and say: "This was the time when no artist was skillful enough to create nicer arts than the ones that came before it, so they said: Fuck off, I don't care, I'm gonna paint something that is different, but ugly, so everyone will pay attention at me". So modern art is that: No compromise with beauty, but calling the attention that usually comes with money along.
I am getting really tired of repeated talk of cultural appropriation when at times it can be simplified attributes or key characteristics or transformative interpretation of somethings as though it were a "blatant rip-off" of other's artwork or style and that it had never existed before. Everyone is going to influence everyone else. So get over this nonsense of comparing ones like Picasso being equivalent to a conquistador. That's BS If anything you should be investigating this nonsense of no-talent ,lackies of putting a banana on the wall or "invisible sculpture" only to call it " conceptual art"
Yeah, well, not a chance for the last idea spoken in video to become true. After Picasso and his followers novelty became the only thing anybody cared about and soon after that, when artist exhausted every possible approach and appropriated anything that could be appropriated, we've gotten modern art in its current form where nothing new or interesting is possible because all the forms of expression were already used up in some way or another. Nowadays them artists proud themselves on how art can't be defined, measured, and only understood by some elitist group of people, who see beauty in pile of shit when it's made by somebody recognized in the art community. And again, there has been so much attempts to make something novel that it became meaningless to even try.
+Peter Due "Ancient art is too difficult" when I was 9 I could paint like the Egyptian walls with guache, and until today I wish I was a genius like Edvard Munch.
The conquistadors and colonizers were the conquistadors and colonizers. The artists were simply civies who woke up one morning and were influenced by what they saw 🤷🏿♂️
+Andrew Sang Modern art came to be to show that art itself it's not about beauty. You calling modern art ugly is a clear sign that you know nothing about modern art.
+Andrew Sang who says it should be a medium of beauty? The purpose of art is to bring about a state of mind that the artist intended to invoke in others
But were those masks and other African artworks not still being created at the time colonization was occurring? If so, why are they considered “ancient”?
Mostly racism, as unfortunate as it may be, but you're right. They were still being made, and are still made today. The reason those artists considered them ancient is because they saw them as "primitive"
+Brent Sewell you should know that Picaso could paint good as (if not better than) any Renaissance painter already in his teens... you can google it and check it yourself. He found it boring to paint something that resembles reality (there are cameras for that) when he could literally paint anything. I am not saying that his Cubism works are pleasing to the eye, nor that this type of paintings require exquisite talent in general, but Picaso actually was very talented and he first proved himself as a painter in the traditional way.
[sorry my english, I'm French] There are a lot of people here who say that modern art is bad because it isn't realistic and beautiful. But I think they don't understand what modern art is : it doesn't want to be beautiful or realistic but it want to make people reflect and it want to challenge the dogmas of classic art.
Yeah...I much prefer Picasso "modern art" over the crap in museums. If you consider any artist today who isn't following the techniques used before the 20th century a modern artist, I do love modern art, but for some reason, modern art museums find the shittiest artwork on the planet and insist on placing that in their museums instead of actually well made artwork by hard working artisans expressing themselves for the joy of it (not easy cash by making a literal shit statue). I think I hate the simple shapes "art" the most. If they actually tried to make simple shapes look beautiful, then I may like it, but splitting a square in half and filling one half in red using MS paint is not art.
Yes, of course. But I think no one has the right to define what is art or not. People can like or dislike a work of art, but they can't create limits. Let art be. You know what I mean? Here in Brazil, when poor people from "favela" started to make music, other people thought it was pure "crap" and that it wasn't real art or music. But it's a way of expression, then it's art. It doesn't matter my personal taste, I respect it. Art isn't made to please everyone. And it doesn't need any legitimation. Art is more than just pretty things, it has the power to break boundaries. So let's break them.
Why is appropriation bad again? I think it would be great to inspire other artists in making their work. As long as they don't totally discredit their inspiration sources there is nothing wrong with it.
Yeah, no. Modern art is still just crap. The Impressionists were the last great artists of the Western world (though some Mathematical works are rather breathtaking)
+Crick1952 I mean, there are hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of talented artists in the Western world and elsewhere. The problem is, people with actual skill are not recognized in museums. The people who will *literally make a statue that intentionally resembled a piece of shit* just for some easy money are the ones who get in museums. It is my biggest peeve about the art world. To get into a modern art museum, your requirement is to have zero artistic skill.
+Crick1952 *Sigh*You know Picasso had at least as good skill and technique as the best impressionists? Check it out, he has some impressionistic paintings. He just found it boring to paint an object exactly as it looks. The job of the artist, any artist, is to challenge perceptions and make us see the world differently - not see it exactly as we already do, although an impressive show of skill and technique also is pleasant to look at.
Who had to watch this for homework
me
Me
Me 🙄
meeeeeeee
Meeeeee🥺
As a beginner, I absolutely love the art analysis. Need more videos like this
All these people who criticize Modern and Contemporary Art, remember the Renaissance and Baroque were equally criticized in their time, and now their artists are our idols.
+augusto thales By that logic, any recent trend, no matter how silly or irrational, should be heralded as the start of a revolution.
Well should you be proud of a man throwing tons of paint randomly in a screen.
+augusto thales Yeah, but one a can't recreate the David by glue trash together.
***** You said the right words. They were poorly understood. People just don't get the reasons in modern/contemporary art, and start yelling "trash!" and "shit!". Maybe a little more study about and a little less common sense would help you to understand it.
+augusto thales That's not a counter argument. Modern art looks bad because it is bad, it's not skilled and it looks ugly.
I love how everyone os critisizing modern art comparing it with the Renaissance art. These were two different Eras and the conception of art was sightly different.
Picasso alrready knew how to paint breathtaking realistic pictures at the age of 15. He just tought it was a nonsense since the photography could do it in a few seconds. Art had to be redefined.
This video’s animation style is a true masterpiece!
Oh my god did any of you listen to the first sentence? The stuff you see these days is CONTEMPORARY art; modern art is older stuff like Van Gogh, Matisse, Monet, Picasso, etc.
True, but most people think of the general word 'modern' as from 'now' or 'contemporary'. The first sentence is explaining just that.
I absolutely love it when people innovate and push the boundaries of acceptable creativity and art, it's not okay imo when people abuse the system though, putting profit/fame over creativity.
One of the greatest neo-expressionistic, extraordinary and prolific artist (and my favorite too) is the AFRICAN-American painter JEAN-MICHEL BASQUIAT. He began as a graffitti street artist und his works sell for two digit million dollars now. He died regrettably with only 28 y of heroin overdose in New York City 1988. (And regrettably too: I dont have the millions to buy one)
props to the artists and animators of this video ! *applause*
Sad to see so many upvoted comments (presumably subscribers) ignorant towards modern art on a channel promoting education.
Perceived talent aside, art is an expression of humanity. It represents mankind of a certain time. Or it represents nothing at all and the interpretation is left for the viewer/ listener. The beauty, in fact, is the act of exploring something different and unique.
it is very instructive, interesting and I am glad that the teacher showed me this
hey Ted ed your videos are awesome keep up the good work
Renaissance and Modern (and Postmodern) art aren't to be compared, at least not in terms of aesthetics, (which I will point out are personal) skill, or intention. Renaissance art is about the detail the perfection of form and the realistic representation. Modern art is about looking pears what can be done better, how we can change how art is done, while still owning a lot to traditional methods. Postmodern art is about incredibly expressive works, emotional and abstract. It is also about challenging you, the audience, and by you commenting on how a near blank canvas is art is exactly what the artist wants. They want to be thought of as ridiculous, and scrutinized, because that is the purpose of their art.
For me the best art balances between aesthetic quality and intellectual challenge.
As an art major. I loved this
I love ted-ed, I've noticed a theme that may be due to the american celebration in feb of black history. Im loving it but in addition to appreciation I need african artefact to be return #vatican #britishmuseum
Art isn't about accomplishing anything. It's about evoking feeling.
+Katz Pajamas Yes. Crying is art, because it doesn't accomplish anything, it just evokes feeling.
+fa18hornet you sound like a regular Jackson Pollock
Katz Pajamas ???
4:20 That new art form is memes.
Wait is that Bob Ross?? It reminds me of him because of the afro lmao
Wait is that Bob Ross?? It reminds me of him because of the afro lmao
@@k1zuki_ Wait is that Bob Ross?? It reminds me of him because of the afro lmao
@@k1zuki_ yes
@@mamasapano3291 yes
In other words, Western Modern art is a mixture of underrated art from other cultures that Westerners were inspired by and are now given credit for? I'm I missing something?
everyone knows h3h3's beanie is the greatest piece of modern art ever
+Ryan Husted all hail the papa's beanie
Raiden Noeramrin papa bless
+Ryan Husted what did it sell for in the end or is it still on ebay?
+Ryan Husted Great moves Ryan, keep it up. Proud of you.
+Dave Birney I don't think he was selling it for real, and ebay kept taking the post auction down, 4 times I believe XD
I did art history in high school, and this recap was nice.
i'm not blaming you picasso. but *thanks* for creating many arrogant pricks that create a pure solid white painting with a few scratch in it and still thinks that their artwork are absolutely worth 10x better than leonardo da vinci's masterpiece
+Raiden Noeramrin just to clarify, i honestly didn't know that much about art knowledge. but i believe that things like these really ruin traditional artist' dedication toward art because of these people.
just watch ethan on H3H3production. he made a point about these modern "artist"
+Raiden Noeramrin totally agree, it's crazy!
+Raiden Noeramrin No one thinks it's better. The difference is that Da Vinci's movement (Renaissance) is already over, there's no sense in keep painting the same stuff of a dead movement. It's not a matter of being better or worse, it's a matter of the context (time and place) you're in.
+Raiden Noeramrin picasso made cubism. Not the abstract style you are talking about. He really isnt at fault for it
+augusto thales agreed, but from my point of view. art doesn't have to be colorful nor complex, but art should be created with dedication and passion.
If "modern" art is the appropriation of other's style, then DeviantArt is the haven of appropriation. Full-scale lifting the artistic styles of Japanese animu who in turn at some point the early development of anime appropriated in turn from American cartoon style.
:^)
+Aaron MK Yeah, after being on that site for a couple years, I would say that is about 99% of DeviantArt right there.
I really don't get the hate on 'cultural appropriation'... Nobody is stealing anything, ideas can be replicated as much as you like so even more people can benefit from them.
+TED-ed Can you make a video on why many pieces of art that don't look complicated like the geometrical series and why they are considered amazing pieces of art and sell for millions.
Information and Animation where - dope.
Arts Appreciation brought me here.
Lol, everyone is ranting about postmodern art, not modern art. Come on. Learn a thing or two before you comment on a video which literally says as its first words "modern art doesn't just mean contemporary art". Jesus.
+Ali Silcox Look at the PragerU video on modern art. It's horribly cynical and ignorant of the craftsmanship and ingenuity of contemporary art as a whole.
EDIT: I mean recent art creations when I say "contemporary." It seems any single word describing art that's been created in the last 40 years until now (modern, contemporary, even postmodern, which has its own interesting qualities) has been rubbed with the feces of ignorant false judgements.
+Tympanista Quite. I have to catch myself in correcting people who say modern art is too effortless and floaty, about silly ideas and involving things like blank canvases and bricks. Those are facets of postmodern art, not modern art - but even recent contemporary art including much postmodern stuff has value. While not postmodern, as far as my poorly trained eye can tell; making as it does no comment on modernism, this piece is interesting: Marco Chiandetti is trying to display a series of aviaries with birdseed sculptures of various objects in a gallery in Australia. The aviaries are to be full of Indian myna birds- considered a pest. This has sparked a debate over is he can display birds as art, and the bureaucracy around how they will be treated, despite the fact that the same government authority exterminates myna birds. This is great, because his piece is a commentary on the migrant crisis, and what is happening has cool parallels.
To my mind his art is the whole situation.
'Cubism', you say, Pablo? Gee, I dunno. I see many triangles... How about calling it 'Triangulism'?
then there'll be rectangularism..spherism..cylinderism..imagine :-)
The way the word "inspiration" is used translates into "copy". Just say "copy".
Do one on René Magritte, please. 🎨
Could have also mentionned the influence of japanese painting
*Algum brasileiro assina esse canal! Que canal Fod@* #Muitasvisualizações #6M
I was told not to harass anyone in the comment section
What influenced modern art is a bad LSD trip
***** so what
+Jommy Davi No.
I think people on an LSD trip can make nicer 21st century modern art than the crap you see in modern art museums.
Ryan Smith
Made their way into the hands of collectors.
In other words countries were invaded, people were murdered and artefacts were stolen.
Think about the Smile ☺
So minimal, yet so cute.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from other cultures.
All art is derivative. Nothing is original. This "cultural appropriation" bullshit needs to stop. Cultural diffusion has been happening constantly since the dawn of humanity, and will continue constantly into the future. It's nothing new, and to say that it is bad is to fundamentally misunderstand what culture is in the first place.
+Inferno Cop Yes, exactly! That dig at white European artists as "conquistadors" reeks of ignorance.
+Inferno Cop
If cultural apprpriation wouldn't be a thing, most civilizations would still live in caves and clay huts.
+Inferno Cop Cultural appropriation is more than just getting inspiration from another culture. Most of the time is steeling (plagiarizing is a crime bro) the exact idea and profiting from it. Shit, contemporary fashion does this so well. Cultural appropriation is only bullshit when you don't have a culture yourself.
Izcoatl .Maximo
Yep, and the cultures getting plagiarized got their culture by plagiarizing other cultures in the past. Cultures are constantly diffusing, changing, and adopting bits of each other.
It just happens faster today, since cultures can communicate so much faster, and there's so much international travel. It's the same process that's been going on for thousands of years, just faster.
+Inferno Cop Don't get it twisted. Assimilation and cultural appropriation are not the same thing. Assimilation is adapting appropriation is steeling. Get it straight bro.
And to end the video, Malevich's square. Brilliant.
"One professor is hailed for his visionary style of painting triangles...." - John Malkovich in Artschool Confidential www.reelviews.net/reelviews/art-school-confidential - its a brillant spoof of the artsy scene today.
Rock n roll, all over again
my techer shows me that video ..nice video and good explain.
People have been arguing over this for thousands of years.
You are ALL right!
It's beautiful, it's ugly, it's awe inspiring, it's crap, it's sublime, but "Made you look..."!
And just who is this guy named "Buddy"?
Constantin Brâncuși ( 3.19) is an romanian artist, not a french one.
I don't really like modern art, or the kind of art where you have to guess what it's a painting of. I like to see art that's got lots of time and effort into it like Leonardo da Vinci, not a few dots on a canvas.
Well, I like all kinds of Art, but I guess your opinion may be that art has to be a portrayal or deception of something. Modern art (which is actually quite old) doesnt tell you thatyou SHOULD SEE something, it can have you guessing, or letting subconsciousness form a picture, or just wants you to feel, think or recognize nothing. At all. Many Artist want to make their art as medium, or deceptionof a expression, be a impression, and the results van have many different (or not) results (or... not).But maybe you just like art a lot of work and skill has been put and is recognizable, which is nothing bad at all.
+Ryan Smith that's the wine talking
+Ryan Smith Hope that's meant to be positive for my opinion.
+Phirion yah I understand, I just think LAZY art isn't that great, something like Kim kardashian, famous for being famous
+Bay :3 Just thought I'd mention that just because the painting contains fewer brushstrokes or recognizable images or whatever, it doesn't mean less effort went into it.
Great story I love it!
4:00 Lol those are just squares.
Big squares
Very interesting. But I believe, the radical difference between modern art and the classical art is because of the differences in their subjects. Previously it was largely an imitation but slowly artists used the objects of their paintings and sculptures as symbols, the objects became a material not the subject of their art. If you remove modern art from the history, today, the role of painting can be completely replaced by photography without any loss of knowledge or expression.
TED-Ed just worth sharing : )
The Harlem, African Rennaissance and others are my favorite art.
"Appropriated from people THEY considered primative" or appropriated from cultures YOU consider primitive. Nobody ever accuses a primitive or equally advanced society of cultural appropriation because the idea of cultural appropriation needs the appropriated property to come from a LESSER civilization, society, or people. It is a bad idea to organize individuals into monolithic cultures races and civilizations in your mind. When you bring it to its logical conclusion it becomes prejudice but for now it is just incoherent.
Appropriation is simply just stealing from another culture. No where have I seen it implied that it is stealing from a lesser civilization. That’s just your own interpretation. A lot of the artifacts in which these artists draw inspiration from were taken from cultures that Europeans considered primitive. That was how they justified colonization that allowed them to even acquire those masks for example. It’s not like they were subtle about their superiority over other cultures.
Also if there was culture appropriation being done by smaller or less advanced civilizations is not being talked about as much because they just aren’t as well known the others people tend to talk about.
modern art cant exist without art gallery...
:( there's still no Quality
#MakeUA-camGradeAgain
Ted Ed is back
#saveyoutube
+Beam Toast Dude, they upload like almost every day.
Ancient art: Detailed painting of a woman with no eyebrows or eyelashes.
Art in 2016: Nicki Minaj twerking to a song about a snake.
+David Lewis More like someone spewing period blood or colourful vomit on a canvas.
Mona Lisa actually had eyebrows and eyelashes when it was painted :)
Maybe most of these modern or impressionists artists just can't paint well..... but we're too much of a hipster and call it avant garde!
i love your videos
Ted is sus
GREAT.
who says ''i do not seek,i find'' ? i need the answer very fast bcz of homework :)
guys the homework grind is on
uhh.. am early... let me make joke
modern art
+Ferdy Hoshigaki Tube savage >_
This is a stretch. Yes some works had influences from Ancient African Art, but to say the Modern Art Movement originated in Africa is an outlandish claim.
The author of this should name his daughter Monica
+Juan David Garrido Spanish speakers will understand
Just to keep it real, I would like to remind people that the only reason cubist paintings are not considered garbage is because billionaires aggree to buy them. If there was not a market for it (and a financial bubble) no one in it's right mind would consider "les demoiselles d'avignons" to be a masterpiece. (and that's not french bashing, I am myself french)
Picasso is a fraud!
"It was at once aggressive and abstract; distorted yet primal in its raw geometry" that's what you literally say. We have a word for that in french: "Neocon". The special kind of people trying to pass emptyness as talent by giving seemingly complicated sentences explaining the qualities of the painting. Their goal is to discourage people from trying to understand art. By reminding uneducated people of their status you try to assert yourself as a figure of authority not to be questioned.
But sadlythat is a very politician move, using big words to say nothing. The real problem with art (be it shakespeare, paintings, operas... you name it) is that it used to be a signal of class. Poor people didn't go to the opera. But, as new technologies were invented the poor was able to listen and see the same art. Therefore, the new trick was to make art inaccessible for the common folk. The rich does not understand it either, since there is nothing to understand, but he can pretend, and therefore distinguish himself from the rest.
This is because of such quests for inaccessibility that we traded mozart and bach for Boulez... what a joke...
The point of art is to move the people exposed to it, be it music, paintings or poetry, if art is not understood, or undistinguished from everyday items (like the Fontaine of Duchamp) it failed as art and is nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
+Calimero Hœnir - For the most part I agree with your statement. I didnt knew "Fontaine" and looked it up in wikipedia: There is a really long article about that piece and insofar its a good example of a very successful "intellectual masturbation", even inflated to "intellectual group masturbation".
In Germany we have the good forger (unfortunately exposed) Wolfgang Beltracchi, who exploited the hypocrisy of the art experts for many years and made millions. He is a celebrity now! Justifiably!
The earlier influence of Chinese and Japanese painting, sumi-e, or ukiyo-e, on Impressionist painters is not mentioned here. What I find unacceptable is to proclaim that modern art is an "overcoming" of representational art. In many, many cases, modern art is "a step backward". Many very expensive works exhibited in museums are simply a bluff.
Module brought me here
2:48Woah.... woah.... Woah! Woahwoahwoahwoahwoah!
who has to watch this from 631 ?
Hi like art all the pictures are beautiful
good post
Modern art sucks, really! I think in the future we're gonna look back at it and say: "This was the time when no artist was skillful enough to create nicer arts than the ones that came before it, so they said: Fuck off, I don't care, I'm gonna paint something that is different, but ugly, so everyone will pay attention at me". So modern art is that: No compromise with beauty, but calling the attention that usually comes with money along.
Thank you for an honest portrayal.
my module brought me here
The title to this video clip should be renamed to''How AFRICAN art influenced modern art''
i love this
I am getting really tired of repeated talk of cultural appropriation when at times it can be simplified attributes or key characteristics or transformative interpretation of somethings as though it were a "blatant rip-off" of other's artwork or style and that it had never existed before. Everyone is going to influence everyone else. So get over this nonsense of comparing ones like Picasso being equivalent to a conquistador. That's BS
If anything you should be investigating this nonsense of no-talent ,lackies of putting a banana on the wall or "invisible sculpture" only to call it " conceptual art"
But I don't think I'll be buying a blank canvas for a million dollars any time soon ;)
cool video
Yeah, well, not a chance for the last idea spoken in video to become true. After Picasso and his followers novelty became the only thing anybody cared about and soon after that, when artist exhausted every possible approach and appropriated anything that could be appropriated, we've gotten modern art in its current form where nothing new or interesting is possible because all the forms of expression were already used up in some way or another. Nowadays them artists proud themselves on how art can't be defined, measured, and only understood by some elitist group of people, who see beauty in pile of shit when it's made by somebody recognized in the art community. And again, there has been so much attempts to make something novel that it became meaningless to even try.
Constantin Brâncuși
How it influenced Modern Art? Ancient art was too difficult for newer artist to make, so they just threw paint at a wall and sold it for 50 million
+Peter Due "Ancient art is too difficult" when I was 9 I could paint like the Egyptian walls with guache, and until today I wish I was a genius like Edvard Munch.
The conquistadors and colonizers were the conquistadors and colonizers. The artists were simply civies who woke up one morning and were influenced by what they saw 🤷🏿♂️
Let's be honest, modern art is pretty ugly
+Andrew Sang
Modern art came to be to show that art itself it's not about beauty.
You calling modern art ugly is a clear sign that you know nothing about modern art.
True, I don't know anything about art. However, art as a medium SHOULD IMO be a medium for beauty, and modern art is ugly AF.
+Andrew Sang who says it should be a medium of beauty? The purpose of art is to bring about a state of mind that the artist intended to invoke in others
Sure, whatever. Call me uncultured, but I ain't paying to see a modern art exhibition, that's for sure
Atlas The Tiger apparently more than 30 people care a little. What does art school not pay the bills?
Most contemporary art is fool's gold though
right now the source is... pick 1 color/ just dont paint the canvas
But were those masks and other African artworks not still being created at the time colonization was occurring? If so, why are they considered “ancient”?
Mostly racism, as unfortunate as it may be, but you're right. They were still being made, and are still made today. The reason those artists considered them ancient is because they saw them as "primitive"
How has cubism regain popularity when it is absolute crap and Renaissance art actually took talent.
+Brent Sewell you should know that Picaso could paint good as (if not better than) any Renaissance painter already in his teens... you can google it and check it yourself. He found it boring to paint something that resembles reality (there are cameras for that) when he could literally paint anything. I am not saying that his Cubism works are pleasing to the eye, nor that this type of paintings require exquisite talent in general, but Picaso actually was very talented and he first proved himself as a painter in the traditional way.
Can you make subtiles please ? :(
@Caitlyn McMunn damn thanks ! :P
[sorry my english, I'm French] There are a lot of people here who say that modern art is bad because it isn't realistic and beautiful. But I think they don't understand what modern art is : it doesn't want to be beautiful or realistic but it want to make people reflect and it want to challenge the dogmas of classic art.
Keep this comment at an even number of likes. Because this comment is totally original.
modern art is a disgrace
Why ?
new unlikely source = physics
Yeah...I much prefer Picasso "modern art" over the crap in museums.
If you consider any artist today who isn't following the techniques used before the 20th century a modern artist, I do love modern art,
but for some reason, modern art museums find the shittiest artwork on the planet and insist on placing that in their museums instead of actually well made artwork by hard working artisans expressing themselves for the joy of it (not easy cash by making a literal shit statue).
I think I hate the simple shapes "art" the most. If they actually tried to make simple shapes look beautiful, then I may like it, but splitting a square in half and filling one half in red using MS paint is not art.
I hate when people try to define what's art and what's not.
+Steven H. Why is that? Definitions exist for a good reason. If all definitions were blurred, communication would be impossible.
Yes, of course. But I think no one has the right to define what is art or not. People can like or dislike a work of art, but they can't create limits. Let art be. You know what I mean?
Here in Brazil, when poor people from "favela" started to make music, other people thought it was pure "crap" and that it wasn't real art or music. But it's a way of expression, then it's art. It doesn't matter my personal taste, I respect it.
Art isn't made to please everyone. And it doesn't need any legitimation. Art is more than just pretty things, it has the power to break boundaries. So let's break them.
Why is appropriation bad again? I think it would be great to inspire other artists in making their work. As long as they don't totally discredit their inspiration sources there is nothing wrong with it.
Bob Ross is that you?
do history vs kanuni süleyman or fatih sultan mehmet...please
Yeah, no.
Modern art is still just crap.
The Impressionists were the last great artists of the Western world (though some Mathematical works are rather breathtaking)
+Crick1952 I mean, there are hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of talented artists in the Western world and elsewhere.
The problem is, people with actual skill are not recognized in museums.
The people who will *literally make a statue that intentionally resembled a piece of shit* just for some easy money are the ones who get in museums.
It is my biggest peeve about the art world. To get into a modern art museum, your requirement is to have zero artistic skill.
+Crick1952 Guernica is crap? Matisse's work is crap? How can somebody in their right mind say something like this...
+Crick1952 *Sigh*You know Picasso had at least as good skill and technique as the best impressionists? Check it out, he has some impressionistic paintings. He just found it boring to paint an object exactly as it looks. The job of the artist, any artist, is to challenge perceptions and make us see the world differently - not see it exactly as we already do, although an impressive show of skill and technique also is pleasant to look at.
Gitan aw ni namo tungod sa activity
Seen
There is no real art anymore. I could shit on a canvas and someone would buy it.