I remember being a part of a conversation where a guy was arguing that the Fountain wasn't real art. Another guy was claiming it was, and basically went through what you said, that the fact the urinal was presented as art makes us engage with it and thus we question it as we question art and think about all the design features and feelings it evokes, and it opens the door to bigger questions about art. The first guy wasn't having any of it and claimed that it wasn't real art like the Mona Lisa, that it was a stain on western civilization (yeah, he was that kind of guy) and he said it produced nothing of value because it wasn't adding anything practical to society, it wasn't changing the world, it wasn't useful to him personally. I will never forget the second guy's response, as he essentially said "if you think art is only art if it's practical, then the urinal is art and the Mona Lisa is not, because you can't piss on the Mona Lisa". Then the conversation naturally changed to how one would be able to piss on the Mona Lisa and get away with it.
Back in the 1990s I visited an exhibition of British artists. One such artist was Marcus Harvey. I came across his portrait of Myra Hindley but had come into the room by the "wrong" door. This resulted in me passing by the portrait while up close to it. I took note of the small child's hand prints that made up the canvas without knowing what the image was. As I walked away from the painting I turned around to see the full image of Hindley. I remember being moved as I was reminded that she once was an innocent child, having seen the child's hand prints first. Years later I met Mr Harvey and told him my experience of the work. He told me the reason he painted the portrait was largely for the sake of controversy, which was lost on me as I had come in the "wrong" door, of course. I was also unaware of the controversy within the art going public at the time I first encountered the portrait. For me, coming in the "wrong" door meant I was moved to compassion rather than the intended outrage. If only we all came in the "wrong" door from time to time.
Hiking the backcountry is one of my most favorite pastimes. One beautiful scene after the other. I'll always take the road less traveled by, no matter what anyone thinks.
“The artist doesn’t dictate the Truth about the artwork’s meaning.” That sentence made me pause the video for about 8 full minutes and think/reflect. Haven’t had that happen in a long time! Thank you! ❤
The underlying love that shines through from you is palpable. Your videos are so moving in their pursuit of truth and pushing us to engage with art. You are an artist and you make me a better artist.
I've always thought of art as a conversation between the artist and the viewer. I may, or may not agree, or even know, what the artist's intentions might have been, but the experience is an individual one, subjective, depending on the viewer.
This is what I have been trying to tell my friends for so long. In my experience with my friends, even if we read the same manga, our different viewpoints on characters aren't right or wrong. We simply interpret the characters' journey differently thus having different opinions on the work. Yet because theirs is a more popular opinion with the audience that mine is now "wrong" even if we love said manga for wildly different reason!
You are not an imposter. As a painter, I create and consume art very intuitively. I would never have come up with such an analysis if I used my own brain. You give artists a new way of perceiving and you offer a glimpse of what a viewer might actually feel looking at something, not just what an artist felt when they made it. That's worth something.
This was fantastic. Your point about different lenses carrying different power, but each still holding some power, really resonated with me. Awesome work!
This is so relevant when discussing queer culture. A lot of films that are considered queer essentials were never meant to be by their creators. Yet for one reason or another they resonated with the community. I compleatly agree with your perspective on the matter. I come from the world of animation, and especially in the era of fan engagement (let's say, fanfiction and fan art) once your work is out there, you have to let it go. You may be the author, but now it has a life of it's own, and it can grow and develop in so many directions.
When you mentioned Roland Barthes so early in the vid, and I checked the runtime, I got worried that this would be either insubstantial or leave open a can of concept worms. On the contrary, this essay was succinct and extremely well worded. So glad I found this channel a few months back.
As a free writer who tranforms literal dreams into stories, my lens is to view all artforms as stories. In my definition, the purpose of art--in all art-forms--is to say more than can be consciously summed up in a bare recitation of facts. But does that mean that a story can mean only one thing? Not in the least! Folktales, for instance, develop like fine sherry, changing over time with new additions blending into mellowing old ones. And even my own modern stories have communicated things deeply meaningful to the readers that I never dreamed of--I can't stop them and say, "No, you got that wrong!" Because the minute I release it to the public view it's no longer mine, it joins the folkstream. It's the same in all the arts. Whether you listen to a hiphop version of Ave Maria or watch a cowboy version of King Lear, you're adding to the complexity of the sherry by processing these works through their reinterpretations. Sometimes the reinterpretation angers you. You might mourn subtleties left out, but your very mourning can put them back in--the keenness of the absence pulls them back into the story. Take for instance the rediscovery that the original German version of "Bambi", which Hitler feared enough to ban, was intended as a metaphor for Jews trying to live their lives in an antisemitic world. You hear that, get angry that it was left out, but then when you rewatch the Disney version you suddenly feel the significance of Bambi battling hunting dogs, getting shot and surviving a near-death experience to recover and thrive. The big cartoon eyes no longer seem cute, but widened with wariness in a dangerous world, even while frolicking. And then you learn that the artist who painted the evocative misty backgrounds (an industry-changer!) was a Japanese man fresh out of an American internment camp and the story gets still more layered.
I teach philosophy and we're currently studying aesthetic and art, and I just want to say that your insights gave me some pretty good ideas to work the subjects with my students. Thank you ❤
These days it seems like the world (and by the world i mean capitalist entities) are desperate for us to disengage, for us not to think about things and distractions are thrown our way constantly so what you do with this channel and what you encourage us to do as viewers is the most radical form of art, to me at least. You're fostering throu art a community of free thinkers and that's artsy as fuck Shawn. So keep it up! 😊
I watch this sh** because your sensitivity, certainly your politics, and your research always, ALWAYS expands my view of a given piece. You are by no means an imposter, and by all accounts a valuable asset for me to study a subject I hold very high. If you spoke of art through a let’s say, Christian lense, much of the value that you offer would be lost. Some of us feel that artists are scribes documenting a more truthful account of society and history. You do brilliantly at this task. So stop it. Your commentary is brilliant and important. ❤
I'm interested in the relationship between the artist, the audience and the critic, so I love videos like this that lay out a cool way of linking them conceptually
I agree with the part about a painting being so massively reproduced/popular that it produces no feelings when you see it, and the need for someone that felt something seeing it/analyzing it so that you can view it from that point of view. It's the same reason I think people need to visit ruins but only if they're with someone that knows and loves that subject. Otherwise it's just another place to take pictures and upload them on social media
this is a beautiful video. we have a test coming up where we need to interpret different artworks and look for meanings inside them. now it feels like it'll be less hard if i do it this way along with what i know about the artwork i was taught. so thank you
Love this. I definitely agree. I have made videos about my hyperfixations allowing me to have a pretty in depth opinion on certain subjects and able to give interesting takes on them. But I also treat the act of analyzing as educational, where it can teach you how to make something interesting yourself.
The notion of the viewer, reader or listener bringing and developing their own meaning and understanding of a piece of art is very much in the theory of (social) constructivism. We each as individuals construct our own understanding of the world around us and our interactions with it, including works of art that we interact with. That doesn't automatically discount the artist's purpose or the purpose of their patrons, but we shouldn't dismiss the validity or importance of the active viewer, reader or listener.
One think is for sure: to truly interpret or "understand" art one needs to be genuinely interested in it - just as for any other human endeavor. Just showing up, leisurely, in the gallery, museum or sifting through the art book is not enough and the viewer is unknowingly deprived of the, hard to describe, most valuable aspect of the creation observed.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still value the intentions of the author the most, although other interpretations can be interesting. Unless they're Freudian.
Agreed. I think it's fine for a piece of art to speak to you in a unique way but the intention of the artist is pretty crucial. We definitely live in a post-modernist world i guess, everyone lives their own truth. Very fascinating era we are entering into...
As always, you bring an interesting and thought-provoking perspective. In this vein, I would like to see a video with your thoughts on the early 20th century Belgian artist James Ensor. He is the first artist who made me feel something; not the first artist whose works I appreciated, but the first artist that I remember that gave me an emotional reaction.
Interesting topic. I think analyzing art takes much imagination and talent to be able to see detail. Keep up the great work and good luck with your artist residency project by the sea. Far from any city, the area offers access to lakes, rivers, mountains and the chance to discover national parks, the famous Percé Rock … a wonderful opportunity for any artist. Coudos for such generosity Mr Canvas ❤
Thanks for sharing. I feel the topic here enters into the zone of, 'how the Brain perceives reality and information?' Different people have different methods of their own, like doing calculations, holding a pen, drawing, writing etc. It's completely wrong to get fixated on one perspective. Universe is vast, while the human perspective is very limited.
I love this (and your channel) thank you! My initial reaction to your point about modern audiences interacting with old art was that it's not necessary. If art from the past is no longer relevant then it can serve as a landmark for the time it was created. We should just keep creating new relevant art and not force outdated ideas back into the lexicon. But I will think more about it and perhaps change my mind. When I listened again I realized I misinterpreted your point, and I now agree with you haha
As an artist and more specifically an abstract expressionsist I'm able to look such work (the adam/god subject matter) purely as the visual movement of forms and colors. When I paint I focus on the least intentional thing. When I paint I don't even know what to paint but I know how to paint it very well. I have some videos here as an example but they are a few years old, 2016 I think. Interesting video sir.
I love your description of art interpretation as engagement and creation of meaning. I think the video-essays on art and artists that you make certainly falls into the category of art, thus you are an artist in your own right. A quick google definition of art: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"; ultimately, I think one can take this further. Expression of imagination, of ourselves as humans, is how we communicate and resonate with those around us, even if it is merely a few people. Therefore, any type of communication through which we can connect with other humans on emotional/intellectual/creative levels, whether a story, visuals, sounds, or movement, is art. I think you are a great story-teller, which makes your videos such good quality art. (Also, I am an interdisciplinary artist and story-teller - your analyses of art have always been inspiration for me, often while art-making, as they are a beautiful balance of description, personal narrative/opinion, and philosophical evocation that gets my creativity flowing :)
I always wonder about the meaning of an artworks, and I must tell you that I astonished by your video about "The Creation of God". I think that it is important to interpret the artworks in different ways to engage with it and start conversations. And more importantly to interpret them in personal ways to express oneself. By the way, you're doing an amazing job. Keep up the great work.
very good video essay! I also apreciate the reuse of art by changing meanning like that of The Connor Brothers (using ready made pulp cover ilustration by Rein van Looij )in "If You've Got A Skeleton In Your Closet", 2020
Until now, I never understood how derivate art had value. I always thought it was parasitic and exploitative. But I've been on this journey to learn how to understand art at all. I've always appreciated the difficulties of film and the amount of artistic expression required to produce a good film. This has taught me that art can only give different value to those to who view, and even listening to someone else explain it. Thank you
the true meaning of a work transcends the intentions of the author, but not in a way that disregards it. seeing a meaning outside the author's conscious intent is not about *creating* a *new* meaning. if your interpretation of a work tells you nothing of the author's intent, either conscious or unconscious, then you are just talking about yourself, not the work; pure projection. but i believe it is possible to discover real truths about the work that transcend the author's conscious intent; this is about the whole spirit of the work, what true symbolism is about. in the case of your hypothesis about the creation of adam, this is discussing the truth of the piece itself; if correct, most likely in the unconscious intent of michelangelo, rather than the conscious, given the fact of his christianity. i could be convinced that "unconscious" intent is too strong a term; my point is that it may even contradict one's conscious intent, in other words that irony is not simply subjective, and is a real property of a work.
I completely agree with your opinion on art interpretation being a form of art. I am just an ordinary person who has recently found out that is interested in meanings of paintings. Since then I have been watching your videos in order to learn how to find meanings myself , to look at pieces of art under more scrutiny. Thank you Mr. Canvas 🪄
You really should play "The beginner's guide". It's an amazing "game" that illustrates some of the problems with interpreting art, at least in a certain way.
You put a lot into your segments. I have a difficult time to place myself within the layers of paint or frames, whether it is canvas or film. I can not be critical of anybody's work. They have connection to it. I am the audience, looking at it. If it does bring me, to think, to be emotional. Then it has done its job? I can say, with food, music, & drink, can do the same to me. An issue for me, when in the past, there was very little public media. People like you have, to me, immensely to learn about the history of art. Thank you.
This took some thinking. I have never considered video essayists as artists before so initially said no, but then I thought about it and realized aren't directors and actors considered artist? And are you not creating and expressing yourself through your videos? You write them, you perform in them, you edit them, you are creating a unique experience, your own vision. So, I don't think you are an artist because you re-conceptualize the works of others, I think you are an artist because you create and express yourself through your chosen medium.
Hey Canvas! You might be the only person I know, who will find my idea worth discussing. This video allows us to form a new definition of what art is. It goes like this: If interpretation of anything can be art on its own, then art is an idea that is new for the beholder. Not necessarily a revolutionary idea. It can be as small as just a fresh perspective on a topic. Any thoughts? Or am I missing something?
Interested in the residency! Im based in Montreal. Where can I write for more info? BTW I just discovered your channel and I've been watching nom stop, great content! Paco*
You are not an impostor because I engage with pieces of art exclusively through your suggestion, and benefit from your interpretations, whether I agree with them or not. That is not the dynamic of an impostor. Own it. Or you'll lose viewers.
I feel like I can guess the answer to my question, but I wanted to present it anyway to add to engagement: Can you turn content (work that isn't already intended to be art such as video essays) and memes into art by analyzing them through an artistic lens?
love your contents, but I was actually wondering what do you as a content creator follow. which of course I mean any art related source or even beyond that.
Ill have to disagree here. I dont think creating an interpretation of an artwork, be it describing it, making an essay or else is art. To me, its just an exchange on opinion or experience. For example, when I read a book I dont consider myself a writer nor an artist just because I understood X thing, or because I understand that the context is X, the author meant Y, but I got Z. I do not think that that is art, not that I am an artist because of it. To me those are different. At the same time, I get what you mean. I think there is a distinction somewhere. Because interpreting nature with words is art (poems, literature), and with paint, too. But I dont think that explaining what you got from a work of art is art on itself. Personally I think we as a society have gotten way too loose on our use of the word art. The art of war, the art of politics, the art of comunication, the art of living. Is that truly art? At least I think we can agree that those aren't art in the traditional sense. But now we have a small confusion because we have called those art. I think its the same here. Sure, its good for the brain and helps with our unique experience of the artwork, it makes us more open in learning, yes it´s enriching and a beautiful thing to be able to do, hear and experience, but it lacks the "artness" of it. And now we enter the realm of definitions. What is art, what is an artist? What "should" those be? What differentiates a drawing from an artwork? Words from a poem? The definition of art changes by culture and time. But nowadays it feels as blurry as ever. To misquote Syndrome from the Incredibles: "If everything is art, and everyone is an artist, then no one will be". Hope someone responds to this, cause id love to hear counterarguments or agreements.
I think that interpretation of art is not art because it is too didactic. Essays are not art, they have to tell the audience what to think and why. It would have been art for example the redrawing of the Creation of Adam substituting God with a real brain.
Your words seem to over-epic your hard work, I even wont deny that but add mine opinion that where is an passion there is a true art - whatever form it is (so I think same in some way, I just see that art is around us if we look closer at people's passion, at their artworks where their engagement comes out from heart). It is important to confot what we are agree with or not, or just simply share with our opinion and point of view. Sometimes I think that most of people have no idea how their hard work, give a good hope people around them, and mostly even if we dont even notice that, it still it inspire other's ;)
An Artist tries to infuse his particular works with all that he is... which contains multitudes, legion, his conscious self merely attempts to express an encapsulation of all this. A murderous criminal when attempting to extinguish a living organism, a universe; always leaves traces, even when there are none it is evident to those pursuers who can in their meditation look deeper, or from a view removed, or overview. Similarly it's impossible at the other side of the coin for an artist then to not reflect individual or social meaning as he is woven into social fabric, even artists who much as they may chose to boldly not reflect, the artist's audience is ever social in the context of understanding that the art is not to be understood. Artists ever generous, ever entreat an understanding of a greater universe.
Yeah this is totally an art. I've found that a lot of art is down to baiting people into constructing the piece themselves. The viewer constructs their experience by the way they choose to see a painting, the order of things they look at in the painting, and the paintings they're reminded of that recontextualize the painting before their eyes. It's not all solely their creative input, sometimes it's the artist's craft that guides the viewer's eyes... but the artist can almost never predict the kind of frame their work will have far in the future. What if the viewer chooses to look at the frame, veering off of the intended path? That sounds like a creative decision, an input that's impossible for the artist to have put into the viewer's experience. Just... look at all these words I'm using right now. English has so, so, so many homonyms that each so I just wrote was a completely different word. I paused, exaggerated, and appeared like I was repeating myself but it meant something different for every time I wrote so. You had to use context clues because there is so no way you could tell which so I intended to use in this sentence. Now there is a creative decision before you... which sentence do you construct? Which dialect of English is your reading voice? Where do you place emphasis? I have guidelines here, sure, but the only way you could ever have a 1:1 copy of my transmission is if you are me in my entirety. Every imperfection speaks to your personality. It expresses your soul, your background. Are you studious, confident, and one for chasing horizons believing you can catch them? Then you might believe you have a 1:1 copy, but that couldn't be more you.
When an artwork been saw by audience, it's starts to has its own life just like a child.People who have their own interpretation is good, but no need to judge others.
Yeah, I look at the pyramids from a whole new perspective as well since I know that they were built by dinosaurs 🦖😂 I guess these days there is no truth about anything anymore anyway. Time to get creative. ✨
the painting is the concept out of the beliefs of the vatican and in a small part the artist. it does not prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being or christianity.
Art that is not shared is not art. That is just factually incorrect. According to this interpretation having an opinion about something then makes both that thing and the opinion art since you are “interacting” with it. Art is a constant decision making process regardless of the medium. The “rawest” forms of art tend to illicit a strong reaction, but whether anyone has that reaction does not negate the art making process and whether or not it would be classified as such.
Idk tbh I mean I don't think I can interpret a piece of art according to my own will because simply put it isn't mine to begin with. however, this can't stop me from admiring it artistically though. so in the case of adam's creation i don't think we can interpret it religously or athesitcally it has to be interpreted according to Angelo's point of view because if Da Vinci had drawn it for example it would have been completely different and not just because of the artisitic techniques but because i am sure da vinci would have had different intentions while drawing it from angelo. so basically what i am saying is if canvas wants a aetheistic interpretation draw an aetheistic paint, and then tell me what you think if you see me hanging it in a church.
Does art exist without the perception of art? And does art need to be material or does it need to be visualized? Is a blind person doomed to perceive art then?
Not a artist! Can't paint except for fixtures in a house, can't draw except for a fire, can't mould clay to make anything useful or recognisable; the list goes on. In maths 2+2=4. Art, however must be open to interpretation by the viewer with or without knowledge of the creator. Does someone need to understand all the religious iconography to appreciate a painting i.e. St. John has the symbol of an eagle. The same goes where the subject is from Greek mythology.. The sculptures of Henry Moore evoke no reaction in me but the Easter Island statues or those from ancient Egypt at least are more recognisable. I collected some small but different coloured pebbles from beaches with a 1 inch piece of weathered drift wood and placed them within a circular stainless steel part of the housing of the second stage from a damaged diving regulator. Is this art.
Check out the artist residency I opened! It's free! We already have one Canvas viewer coming this summer!
legerminal.ca
Please update de discord link!
The Canvas has gotten meta
wdym his videos are always meta
Nice job team
I remember being a part of a conversation where a guy was arguing that the Fountain wasn't real art. Another guy was claiming it was, and basically went through what you said, that the fact the urinal was presented as art makes us engage with it and thus we question it as we question art and think about all the design features and feelings it evokes, and it opens the door to bigger questions about art. The first guy wasn't having any of it and claimed that it wasn't real art like the Mona Lisa, that it was a stain on western civilization (yeah, he was that kind of guy) and he said it produced nothing of value because it wasn't adding anything practical to society, it wasn't changing the world, it wasn't useful to him personally. I will never forget the second guy's response, as he essentially said "if you think art is only art if it's practical, then the urinal is art and the Mona Lisa is not, because you can't piss on the Mona Lisa".
Then the conversation naturally changed to how one would be able to piss on the Mona Lisa and get away with it.
Amaaazing
Back in the 1990s I visited an exhibition of British artists. One such artist was Marcus Harvey. I came across his portrait of Myra Hindley but had come into the room by the "wrong" door. This resulted in me passing by the portrait while up close to it. I took note of the small child's hand prints that made up the canvas without knowing what the image was. As I walked away from the painting I turned around to see the full image of Hindley. I remember being moved as I was reminded that she once was an innocent child, having seen the child's hand prints first. Years later I met Mr Harvey and told him my experience of the work. He told me the reason he painted the portrait was largely for the sake of controversy, which was lost on me as I had come in the "wrong" door, of course. I was also unaware of the controversy within the art going public at the time I first encountered the portrait. For me, coming in the "wrong" door meant I was moved to compassion rather than the intended outrage. If only we all came in the "wrong" door from time to time.
Hiking the backcountry is one of my most favorite pastimes. One beautiful scene after the other. I'll always take the road less traveled by, no matter what anyone thinks.
so awesome
“The artist doesn’t dictate the Truth about the artwork’s meaning.” That sentence made me pause the video for about 8 full minutes and think/reflect. Haven’t had that happen in a long time! Thank you! ❤
you ARE an artist Mr.Canvas!
The underlying love that shines through from you is palpable. Your videos are so moving in their pursuit of truth and pushing us to engage with art. You are an artist and you make me a better artist.
I've always thought of art as a conversation between the artist and the viewer. I may, or may not agree, or even know, what the artist's intentions might have been, but the experience is an individual one, subjective, depending on the viewer.
This is what I have been trying to tell my friends for so long. In my experience with my friends, even if we read the same manga, our different viewpoints on characters aren't right or wrong. We simply interpret the characters' journey differently thus having different opinions on the work. Yet because theirs is a more popular opinion with the audience that mine is now "wrong" even if we love said manga for wildly different reason!
You are not an imposter. As a painter, I create and consume art very intuitively. I would never have come up with such an analysis if I used my own brain. You give artists a new way of perceiving and you offer a glimpse of what a viewer might actually feel looking at something, not just what an artist felt when they made it. That's worth something.
I SO needed this tonight. You have raised the bar once again. Now I can go back to staring at my canvas. Please don't stop. ❤
This was fantastic. Your point about different lenses carrying different power, but each still holding some power, really resonated with me. Awesome work!
the art of interpreting the art of interpreting art 🤔
This is so relevant when discussing queer culture. A lot of films that are considered queer essentials were never meant to be by their creators. Yet for one reason or another they resonated with the community.
I compleatly agree with your perspective on the matter. I come from the world of animation, and especially in the era of fan engagement (let's say, fanfiction and fan art) once your work is out there, you have to let it go. You may be the author, but now it has a life of it's own, and it can grow and develop in so many directions.
When you mentioned Roland Barthes so early in the vid, and I checked the runtime, I got worried that this would be either insubstantial or leave open a can of concept worms. On the contrary, this essay was succinct and extremely well worded. So glad I found this channel a few months back.
As a free writer who tranforms literal dreams into stories, my lens is to view all artforms as stories. In my definition, the purpose of art--in all art-forms--is to say more than can be consciously summed up in a bare recitation of facts. But does that mean that a story can mean only one thing? Not in the least! Folktales, for instance, develop like fine sherry, changing over time with new additions blending into mellowing old ones. And even my own modern stories have communicated things deeply meaningful to the readers that I never dreamed of--I can't stop them and say, "No, you got that wrong!" Because the minute I release it to the public view it's no longer mine, it joins the folkstream.
It's the same in all the arts. Whether you listen to a hiphop version of Ave Maria or watch a cowboy version of King Lear, you're adding to the complexity of the sherry by processing these works through their reinterpretations.
Sometimes the reinterpretation angers you. You might mourn subtleties left out, but your very mourning can put them back in--the keenness of the absence pulls them back into the story. Take for instance the rediscovery that the original German version of "Bambi", which Hitler feared enough to ban, was intended as a metaphor for Jews trying to live their lives in an antisemitic world. You hear that, get angry that it was left out, but then when you rewatch the Disney version you suddenly feel the significance of Bambi battling hunting dogs, getting shot and surviving a near-death experience to recover and thrive. The big cartoon eyes no longer seem cute, but widened with wariness in a dangerous world, even while frolicking. And then you learn that the artist who painted the evocative misty backgrounds (an industry-changer!) was a Japanese man fresh out of an American internment camp and the story gets still more layered.
I teach philosophy and we're currently studying aesthetic and art, and I just want to say that your insights gave me some pretty good ideas to work the subjects with my students. Thank you ❤
These days it seems like the world (and by the world i mean capitalist entities) are desperate for us to disengage, for us not to think about things and distractions are thrown our way constantly so what you do with this channel and what you encourage us to do as viewers is the most radical form of art, to me at least. You're fostering throu art a community of free thinkers and that's artsy as fuck Shawn. So keep it up! 😊
I watch this sh** because your sensitivity, certainly your politics, and your research always, ALWAYS expands my view of a given piece. You are by no means an imposter, and by all accounts a valuable asset for me to study a subject I hold very high. If you spoke of art through a let’s say, Christian lense, much of the value that you offer would be lost. Some of us feel that artists are scribes documenting a more truthful account of society and history. You do brilliantly at this task. So stop it. Your commentary is brilliant and important. ❤
I'm always enlightened by your insights. Thanks!
There's no one true meaning about this video at all. You just confused with it.
I'm interested in the relationship between the artist, the audience and the critic, so I love videos like this that lay out a cool way of linking them conceptually
I’m so lucky to have found you. We’re all so lucky you exist ❤🖼️🎨
I wish art appreciation and interpretation was taught in school more sincerely
Sick
It makes me happy that you brought this up and that you believe it.
I agree with the part about a painting being so massively reproduced/popular that it produces no feelings when you see it, and the need for someone that felt something seeing it/analyzing it so that you can view it from that point of view.
It's the same reason I think people need to visit ruins but only if they're with someone that knows and loves that subject. Otherwise it's just another place to take pictures and upload them on social media
this is a beautiful video. we have a test coming up where we need to interpret different artworks and look for meanings inside them. now it feels like it'll be less hard if i do it this way along with what i know about the artwork i was taught. so thank you
Love this. I definitely agree. I have made videos about my hyperfixations allowing me to have a pretty in depth opinion on certain subjects and able to give interesting takes on them. But I also treat the act of analyzing as educational, where it can teach you how to make something interesting yourself.
The notion of the viewer, reader or listener bringing and developing their own meaning and understanding of a piece of art is very much in the theory of (social) constructivism. We each as individuals construct our own understanding of the world around us and our interactions with it, including works of art that we interact with. That doesn't automatically discount the artist's purpose or the purpose of their patrons, but we shouldn't dismiss the validity or importance of the active viewer, reader or listener.
One think is for sure: to truly interpret or "understand" art one needs to be genuinely interested in it - just as for any other human endeavor. Just showing up, leisurely, in the gallery, museum or sifting through the art book is not enough and the viewer is unknowingly deprived of the, hard to describe, most valuable aspect of the creation observed.
love this video , sharing it with friends who love art but say they can’t draw or don’t have time heh
people dont realize that they are immersed in are from their coffee cup, to their clothes and beyond, 0but they dont see any of it.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I still value the intentions of the author the most, although other interpretations can be interesting. Unless they're Freudian.
Agreed. I think it's fine for a piece of art to speak to you in a unique way but the intention of the artist is pretty crucial. We definitely live in a post-modernist world i guess, everyone lives their own truth. Very fascinating era we are entering into...
As always, you bring an interesting and thought-provoking perspective. In this vein, I would like to see a video with your thoughts on the early 20th century Belgian artist James Ensor. He is the first artist who made me feel something; not the first artist whose works I appreciated, but the first artist that I remember that gave me an emotional reaction.
Interesting topic. I think analyzing art takes much imagination and talent to be able to see detail. Keep up the great work and good luck with your artist residency project by the sea. Far from any city, the area offers access to lakes, rivers, mountains and the chance to discover national parks, the famous Percé Rock … a wonderful opportunity for any artist. Coudos for such generosity Mr Canvas ❤
Thanks for sharing.
I feel the topic here enters into the zone of, 'how the Brain perceives reality and information?'
Different people have different methods of their own, like doing calculations, holding a pen, drawing, writing etc.
It's completely wrong to get fixated on one perspective.
Universe is vast, while the human perspective is very limited.
Oh my gosh, I’ve never seen how the painting could be a shape of a brain. Whether that’s intended or not that’s incredible
I love this (and your channel) thank you! My initial reaction to your point about modern audiences interacting with old art was that it's not necessary. If art from the past is no longer relevant then it can serve as a landmark for the time it was created. We should just keep creating new relevant art and not force outdated ideas back into the lexicon. But I will think more about it and perhaps change my mind. When I listened again I realized I misinterpreted your point, and I now agree with you haha
I need this. I am such a stupid person when it comes to interpreting art but i definitely know what i like. Sometimes I just don’t know why I like it
As an artist and more specifically an abstract expressionsist I'm able to look such work (the adam/god subject matter) purely as the visual movement of forms and colors. When I paint I focus on the least intentional thing. When I paint I don't even know what to paint but I know how to paint it very well.
I have some videos here as an example but they are a few years old, 2016 I think. Interesting video sir.
Great video. I always wanted to be an artist and you've made me one 😊
I love your description of art interpretation as engagement and creation of meaning. I think the video-essays on art and artists that you make certainly falls into the category of art, thus you are an artist in your own right. A quick google definition of art: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"; ultimately, I think one can take this further. Expression of imagination, of ourselves as humans, is how we communicate and resonate with those around us, even if it is merely a few people. Therefore, any type of communication through which we can connect with other humans on emotional/intellectual/creative levels, whether a story, visuals, sounds, or movement, is art. I think you are a great story-teller, which makes your videos such good quality art. (Also, I am an interdisciplinary artist and story-teller - your analyses of art have always been inspiration for me, often while art-making, as they are a beautiful balance of description, personal narrative/opinion, and philosophical evocation that gets my creativity flowing :)
I always wonder about the meaning of an artworks, and I must tell you that I astonished by your video about "The Creation of God". I think that it is important to interpret the artworks in different ways to engage with it and start conversations. And more importantly to interpret them in personal ways to express oneself.
By the way, you're doing an amazing job. Keep up the great work.
very good video essay! I also apreciate the reuse of art by changing meanning like that of The Connor Brothers (using ready made pulp cover ilustration by Rein van Looij )in "If You've Got A Skeleton In Your Closet", 2020
Sometimes just a caption of writen words changes completly the meaning or angle one views things just like in cinema the use of music as irony etc.
Thank you for this video, I feel less of an imposter now while appreciating and judging art.
I don't know why but I felt slightly emotional like if I understood something I've longed for.
So true! Thanks man!
Thank you!
The goat is back❤
It's REALLY ENLIGHTING, INFORMATIVE & VALUABLE video!
Until now, I never understood how derivate art had value. I always thought it was parasitic and exploitative. But I've been on this journey to learn how to understand art at all. I've always appreciated the difficulties of film and the amount of artistic expression required to produce a good film. This has taught me that art can only give different value to those to who view, and even listening to someone else explain it. Thank you
the true meaning of a work transcends the intentions of the author, but not in a way that disregards it. seeing a meaning outside the author's conscious intent is not about *creating* a *new* meaning. if your interpretation of a work tells you nothing of the author's intent, either conscious or unconscious, then you are just talking about yourself, not the work; pure projection. but i believe it is possible to discover real truths about the work that transcend the author's conscious intent; this is about the whole spirit of the work, what true symbolism is about.
in the case of your hypothesis about the creation of adam, this is discussing the truth of the piece itself; if correct, most likely in the unconscious intent of michelangelo, rather than the conscious, given the fact of his christianity. i could be convinced that "unconscious" intent is too strong a term; my point is that it may even contradict one's conscious intent, in other words that irony is not simply subjective, and is a real property of a work.
Thank you !
Of course what you do is art! Just as a good essay is art. Call yourself an artist and be proud!
quite philosophical
I completely agree with your opinion on art interpretation being a form of art. I am just an ordinary person who has recently found out that is interested in meanings of paintings. Since then I have been watching your videos in order to learn how to find meanings myself , to look at pieces of art under more scrutiny. Thank you Mr. Canvas 🪄
Thanks!
You really should play "The beginner's guide". It's an amazing "game" that illustrates some of the problems with interpreting art, at least in a certain way.
Any chance you can make a video on psychology of Art, basically your view and ideology on the subject. I would appreciate it a lot!! Thank you
Not by Duchamp but by Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. But thanks for making these video's I really enjoy them!
you should do a video on the dali & disney short film. two terrible people making something beautiful
You put a lot into your segments. I have a difficult time to place myself within the layers of paint or frames, whether it is canvas or film. I can not be critical of anybody's work. They have connection to it. I am the audience, looking at it. If it does bring me, to think, to be emotional. Then it has done its job? I can say, with food, music, & drink, can do the same to me. An issue for me, when in the past, there was very little public media. People like you have, to me, immensely to learn about the history of art. Thank you.
great video
Every time I see Duchamp's Urinal, I realize that pretentious hipsters have always existed.
“ My papier mâché hats “
I completely agree with this video! Art is a verb
This took some thinking. I have never considered video essayists as artists before so initially said no, but then I thought about it and realized aren't directors and actors considered artist? And are you not creating and expressing yourself through your videos? You write them, you perform in them, you edit them, you are creating a unique experience, your own vision. So, I don't think you are an artist because you re-conceptualize the works of others, I think you are an artist because you create and express yourself through your chosen medium.
where do you get your music from its soooo coool!?
Hey Canvas! You might be the only person I know, who will find my idea worth discussing.
This video allows us to form a new definition of what art is.
It goes like this:
If interpretation of anything can be art on its own, then art is an idea that is new for the beholder.
Not necessarily a revolutionary idea. It can be as small as just a fresh perspective on a topic.
Any thoughts?
Or am I missing something?
It is such a good video..❤
Interested in the residency! Im based in Montreal. Where can I write for more info? BTW I just discovered your channel and I've been watching nom stop, great content! Paco*
hope you consider yourself an artist now!
You are not an impostor because I engage with pieces of art exclusively through your suggestion, and benefit from your interpretations, whether I agree with them or not. That is not the dynamic of an impostor. Own it. Or you'll lose viewers.
I feel like I can guess the answer to my question, but I wanted to present it anyway to add to engagement: Can you turn content (work that isn't already intended to be art such as video essays) and memes into art by analyzing them through an artistic lens?
love your contents, but I was actually wondering what do you as a content creator follow. which of course I mean any art related source or even beyond that.
Is mayonnaise art?
No, Mayonnaise is not art
Yes it is!
It can be.
Mayonnaise is an instrument
What if the artist don’t know either the meaning of is own painting?
What software is used to make such videos? Premiere pro or after effects?
🙂👍🏾
Unrelated: But will we ever find you on nebula?
Ill have to disagree here. I dont think creating an interpretation of an artwork, be it describing it, making an essay or else is art. To me, its just an exchange on opinion or experience. For example, when I read a book I dont consider myself a writer nor an artist just because I understood X thing, or because I understand that the context is X, the author meant Y, but I got Z. I do not think that that is art, not that I am an artist because of it. To me those are different.
At the same time, I get what you mean. I think there is a distinction somewhere. Because interpreting nature with words is art (poems, literature), and with paint, too. But I dont think that explaining what you got from a work of art is art on itself.
Personally I think we as a society have gotten way too loose on our use of the word art. The art of war, the art of politics, the art of comunication, the art of living. Is that truly art? At least I think we can agree that those aren't art in the traditional sense. But now we have a small confusion because we have called those art. I think its the same here. Sure, its good for the brain and helps with our unique experience of the artwork, it makes us more open in learning, yes it´s enriching and a beautiful thing to be able to do, hear and experience, but it lacks the "artness" of it.
And now we enter the realm of definitions. What is art, what is an artist? What "should" those be?
What differentiates a drawing from an artwork?
Words from a poem?
The definition of art changes by culture and time. But nowadays it feels as blurry as ever. To misquote Syndrome from the Incredibles: "If everything is art, and everyone is an artist, then no one will be".
Hope someone responds to this, cause id love to hear counterarguments or agreements.
yeah im in between as well ngl
I think that interpretation of art is not art because it is too didactic. Essays are not art, they have to tell the audience what to think and why.
It would have been art for example the redrawing of the Creation of Adam substituting God with a real brain.
So, art is a part of semantics
i'm not convinced.
Art criticism is art
thanks, dadaists 🙄
Your words seem to over-epic your hard work, I even wont deny that but add mine opinion that where is an passion there is a true art - whatever form it is (so I think same in some way, I just see that art is around us if we look closer at people's passion, at their artworks where their engagement comes out from heart). It is important to confot what we are agree with or not, or just simply share with our opinion and point of view. Sometimes I think that most of people have no idea how their hard work, give a good hope people around them, and mostly even if we dont even notice that, it still it inspire other's ;)
thought as art
An Artist tries to infuse his particular works with all that he is... which contains multitudes, legion, his conscious self merely attempts to express an encapsulation of all this.
A murderous criminal when attempting to extinguish a living organism, a universe; always leaves traces, even when there are none it is evident to those pursuers who can in their meditation look deeper, or from a view removed, or overview.
Similarly it's impossible at the other side of the coin for an artist then to not reflect individual or social meaning as he is woven into social fabric, even artists who much as they may chose to boldly not reflect, the artist's audience is ever social in the context of understanding that the art is not to be understood. Artists ever generous, ever entreat an understanding of a greater universe.
Yeah this is totally an art. I've found that a lot of art is down to baiting people into constructing the piece themselves. The viewer constructs their experience by the way they choose to see a painting, the order of things they look at in the painting, and the paintings they're reminded of that recontextualize the painting before their eyes. It's not all solely their creative input, sometimes it's the artist's craft that guides the viewer's eyes... but the artist can almost never predict the kind of frame their work will have far in the future. What if the viewer chooses to look at the frame, veering off of the intended path? That sounds like a creative decision, an input that's impossible for the artist to have put into the viewer's experience.
Just... look at all these words I'm using right now. English has so, so, so many homonyms that each so I just wrote was a completely different word. I paused, exaggerated, and appeared like I was repeating myself but it meant something different for every time I wrote so. You had to use context clues because there is so no way you could tell which so I intended to use in this sentence. Now there is a creative decision before you... which sentence do you construct? Which dialect of English is your reading voice? Where do you place emphasis? I have guidelines here, sure, but the only way you could ever have a 1:1 copy of my transmission is if you are me in my entirety. Every imperfection speaks to your personality. It expresses your soul, your background.
Are you studious, confident, and one for chasing horizons believing you can catch them? Then you might believe you have a 1:1 copy, but that couldn't be more you.
When an artwork been saw by audience, it's starts to has its own life just like a child.People who have their own interpretation is good, but no need to judge others.
Yeah, I look at the pyramids from a whole new perspective as well since I know that they were built by dinosaurs 🦖😂
I guess these days there is no truth about anything anymore anyway. Time to get creative. ✨
the painting is the concept out of the beliefs of the vatican and in a small part the artist. it does not prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being or christianity.
But, can I make money with it?
DRAMATURGY
There is no reality, only perception.
Is God more depicted in a brain or a womb in the Creation of Adam?
Art that is not shared is not art. That is just factually incorrect. According to this interpretation having an opinion about something then makes both that thing and the opinion art since you are “interacting” with it.
Art is a constant decision making process regardless of the medium. The “rawest” forms of art tend to illicit a strong reaction, but whether anyone has that reaction does not negate the art making process and whether or not it would be classified as such.
Idk tbh I mean I don't think I can interpret a piece of art according to my own will because simply put it isn't mine to begin with. however, this can't stop me from admiring it artistically though. so in the case of adam's creation i don't think we can interpret it religously or athesitcally it has to be interpreted according to Angelo's point of view because if Da Vinci had drawn it for example it would have been completely different and not just because of the artisitic techniques but because i am sure da vinci would have had different intentions while drawing it from angelo. so basically what i am saying is if canvas wants a aetheistic interpretation draw an aetheistic paint, and then tell me what you think if you see me hanging it in a church.
No. Looking at a painting is not art.
Does art exist without the perception of art? And does art need to be material or does it need to be visualized? Is a blind person doomed to perceive art then?
Not a artist! Can't paint except for fixtures in a house, can't draw except for a fire, can't mould clay to make anything useful or recognisable; the list goes on.
In maths 2+2=4. Art, however must be open to interpretation by the viewer with or without knowledge of the creator. Does someone need to understand all the religious iconography to appreciate a painting i.e. St. John has the symbol of an eagle. The same goes where the subject is from Greek mythology.. The sculptures of Henry Moore evoke no reaction in me but the Easter Island statues or those from ancient Egypt at least are more recognisable.
I collected some small but different coloured pebbles from beaches with a 1 inch piece of weathered drift wood and placed them within a circular stainless steel part of the housing of the second stage from a damaged diving regulator. Is this art.