How to Look at Art: Crash Course Art History #2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- How long do you typically look at an artwork, and what can you learn in that time? In this episode of Crash Course Art History, we’ll acquire a toolbox of terms to help us discover how all art is influenced by the time and place it was made in.
Introduction: Art in Context 00:00
Art Historians' Tools & Spring Way 00:53
Art's Function & an Elephant Mask 03:56
Using Context to Compare & Contrast 06:23
Review & Credits 10:19
Image Descriptions: docs.google.com/document/d/1E...
Sources: docs.google.com/document/d/1G...
***
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Leah H., David Fanska, Andrew Woods, DL Singfield, Ken Davidian, Stephen Akuffo, Toni Miles, Steve Segreto, Kyle & Katherine Callahan, Laurel Stevens, Burt Humburg, Perry Joyce, Scott Harrison, Mark & Susan Billian, Alan Bridgeman, Breanna Bosso, Matt Curls, Jennifer Killen, Jon Allen, Sarah & Nathan Catchings, team dorsey, Bernardo Garza, Trevin Beattie, Eric Koslow, Indija-ka Siriwardena, Jason Rostoker, Siobhán, Ken Penttinen, Nathan Taylor, Barrett & Laura Nuzum, Les Aker, William McGraw, Vaso, ClareG, Rizwan Kassim, Constance Urist, Alex Hackman, Pineapples of Solidarity, Katie Dean, Stephen McCandless, Wai Jack Sin, Ian Dundore, Caleb Weeks
__
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Instagram - / thecrashcourse
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
"these stones. In his HANDS." 💀
😂😂funny and informative 9:10
Wonderful that art is discussed from different places and cultures and isn't limited to Europe. Speaking of the Aztec Moon Goddess sculpture together with the Italian David was eye opening. Thanks so much.
Could there be a reason why there is a heavy focus on European art?
Having filthy rich families (after exploiting other nations of course) may lay the foundation for what they would define as philanthropy.
Michelangelo could not have created his god like master pieces without having a wealthy catholic church paying for his expenses.
Imagine what you could achive if money is no issue and if there would be no internet to distract you.
But when you hustle for your daily meals there may not be much energy left for creating extreme art.
That may just be the reason why European art is so "heavy".
I love how this episode cam out a day after my country- Wales'- government announced massive cuts to our national museum (Yr Amgueddfa Genedlaethol). It's given me a massive boost to learn a bit more about art.
For anyone in Wales, btw, I'd suggest signing the petition imploring the govt not to cut the funding, and to visit your local galleries and museums and leave a tip- these places are important not only in preserving our art, antiquaries and culture, but also to understanding the country's past, present and future.
I could listen to Sarah talk about art all day
I had to take an Art class for my undergrad degree. I was NOT looking forward to it. I decided on Art History. The Prof taught a lot like you do. I ended up loving the class. I learned more than just art history, I learned a new way of looking at the world around me and appreciating all the seemingly insignificant things in it.
Really enjoyed the comparison between the moon goddess carving and the statue of David. Can't wait to see what else we learn!
This is the first time I've actually heard WHY Michelangelo made the David statue, and its context. Had no idea about any of that, only the memes and the (sometimes silly) debates about his nudity. It makes the whole statue seem completely different when set into that context!
Also, I VERY much appreciated that sly little pun on "stones." Had me laughing aloud!!
It'll definitely be interesting to hear you talk about museums. I couldn't help but think about the problem of museums while you were discussing the elephant mask - how it got to the Brooklyn Museum and why it's in a glass case instead of being held by the people whose culture it belongs to. Indicative of a large problem at hand, I know, but I'm curious about your take on it.
yeah, i really hope this context makes it in to the next one.
John oliver did an episode on museums, it was very interesting.
Love this.
I usually watch the playlists when it's all said and done but this is the first one I am here on the ride for!
Let's go time for CrashCourse, one of the great education content on UA-cam
Excellent video! The only relationship most people will ever have with an artist is with their ART. Never the person or people who made it. This shows the many ways in which we can relate to something that's not even alive in the biological sense. It can tell you as much or as little depending on YOUR own context. And it can change with time, as one grows and changes ones views, learns more, lives more. It's beautiful and fluid.
My context makes me ask how a mask from Cameroon ended up in Brooklyn. 😅 That is also part of the context for art and museum pieces that should not be left behind.
one of my favorite experiences, related to this, is finding artwork i loved again. this is a privilege i have from livong in a culturally rich city and being able to travel. it's not too common, but it does happen sometimes. seeing the same piece in another context almost always enriches the work itself
Excellent presentation! It really helps to show the works along with people. That elephant mask is huge, which makes it more powerful and a testimony to the skill of the artist.
(I always imagine what the people in a painting are thinking.)
I’m really loving this series! Thanks Sarah and Crash Course team!
I'm already loving this series so much!
Character in a book: I like crows
Normal people: he likes crows.
Your literature teacher: he is depressed.
PSA: If you like this, you'll probably like the channel Smarthistory a lot. (I ended up there after Sarah recommended it on the Art Assignment - since then, I've watched every video they've uploaded.)
I absolutely love this series! Thank you!
Yay! This was great. You introduced so many terms and concepts so gracefully. I’m amazed the two sculptures were made within similar times in the past!
I had no idea that David had been on public display. Even famous works need context. And to folks trying to keep their culture around for thousands of years, make it too heavy to move, and easy to cover with dirt. It will be found one day.
Thank you so much for your hard work! Awesome as always!!
I’m excited to watch more of this tomorrow but I wanted to comment to bump the analytics
I love this. Looking forward to future episodes
I always wished I could have gone to art school! The closest I got was one beginning drawing course and one art history course to satisfy my art and history credit respectively. Can’t imagine how excited I was to see this new course being released. Greatly appreciate crash course team for making this series happen because it’s never too late to learn about anything
Edit: or as Sarah so eloquently puts “ there’s always something to discover” ❤️
Love love love love!!!
Let there be gazillions of episodes 🙇♂️
This was so interesting! I'm so excited for this series
I’m genuinely so excited and happy about this crash course art history
Can’t wait to show this to my students. Brilliant video
Random Florian, in the 1600s, looking at David: he just like me fr 😭
Gonna be a great series
What a great series so far. I love going to art museums but I don't know anything about art. By the time this series is done, I'll be prepared.
I was talking to somebody just yesterday about how it's important to view the Michelangelo David in the context of all the 'other' Davids. The key standout of Michelangelo's that she pointed out was that other sculptors had tended to portray David as relatively lithe, skinny even, relying on the strength of God to aid him. Whereas Michelangelo's David is kind of... ripped! He is bringing his own physical strength to bear.
i'm interested in how this first statistic was reached. if i go to a gallery, i scan for things that speak to me, and then i spend a lot of time with those things. thus i would spend maybe half a minute per artwork in total, when in fact i spend about 10 minutes per artwork that speaks to me at first, and about 10 seconds or less with all the others.
(and then i might come back another day, and will focus on other pieces
Very insightful thanks.
I am looking forward to seeing future episodes :) I remember the plot in "Intouchables" the movie, where the character was baffled that some random-looking paint on canvas was so expensive. Hopefully this crash course will give us some answeres 😆
what i'd give to have this video before i got my degree! so well done :)
fantastic, cannot wait for more!!!!!
Art History meets Cultural Anthropology! What i always wanted to hear talk about, this is how you explain Art History in the good way.
Amazing Sarah! thank you
I can't wait to put my class of seniors/retired persons onto this series!!!
Wow awesome episode
Fascinating ❤
Literally going to send this video to someone the next time I hear "Modern art isn't real art!" It's about material, and form, and color, and most importantly, context! Art without context is only 1/3 of the story!
Kinda wish I'd seen this before my recent trip to Glenstone -- but also curious about the choices museums make to often show very little context (such as an artist name and year only) versus when more explanation is given.
Thank you!
In order to gain a better understanding of art, it must be viewed with a historical context?
No.
Historical context is only one of many perspectives.
Artists view pieces with a different interest. They obviously don't want to copy the artists way of life but rather his technique. I.e. the sfumato technique by Leonardo da Vinci.
Musicians view pieces with a heavy interest in inspiration. Obviously one form of art can be translated into another form of art.
And some go wild and completly imagine a new meaning into pieces of art and by that manage to translate the art into modernity thereby making it relevant for today.
You can also ignore the historical context and relate to the artist him self. He was only human, you are human, and therefore it may be a fun exercize to fantasize about what it would have been like if you were in his shoes, aksing the question "would I have painted this picture in the same way?"
Thank you.
I would never thought a video about art would make me think so much...
These shows should have a long episode at the end of the corse, we learned all this stuff we should have an episode to just discuss it in a long form episode like a just talking about it episode.
Sarah rules. More please.
The person in "Spring Way" is actually walking DOWN the stairs, not up--you can tel by the way his knees are bent.
Having knowledge about the artist and the particular piece of art . It make us understand and enjoy it more
I can’t remember the last time I lifted an adult T-Rex.
It would be easier if the plaque mounted on the museums walls next to pieces of art wouldn't simply describe what I can see with novice eyes.
Example : "Here you see a beautiful green landscape of outer skirts of Amsterdam in the late 1600 by xyz."
The flyers I get handed at the entrance (if there are flyers) are practically copies of the text from the plaques.
The audio guide is a little better, but still lack the skip-button that again only regurgitate what I already see.
The group tours are better than the audio guides, but I get to ask 1 question because we're all on a tight schedule.
And a museums guide can always be found in the shop at the exit after I have seen the art.
And even the books don't go into deep detail. They too often just scratch the boring surface.
What I expect from an art context is:
1. This is me - that is him - where can I relate to the master?
2. What is the message of the art?
3. Is there a story to the art piece it self?
4. Why is this piece of art a master piece?
5. What do we know about the artist him self?
And from an artists perspective, I need to know:
1. Where is the composition?
2. Where is the contrast or highlights or special light efect?
3. What can we say about the underpainting?
4. What do we know about the making process?
5. What technique can we learn from this piece or the artist?
6. Why did the artist chose these pigments?
Historians obviously have a different set of questions.
And depending on age we find new questions that suit the age we are in right now.
9:26 "it me" ahahahahahahaha
*throw a banana peel on the ground*
Omg that's litering!
*throw a banana peel on the floor in an art gallery*
I'll give you three million dollars for it. Genius. Inspiring. This is art.
2:23 Hang on. Isn't that figure coming down those steps. Or, looking again, maybe standing there.
It's like that animation of a spinning dancer in silhouette. She could be turning clockwise or counterclockwise, and you can make yourself see her the other way after seeing her one way if you concentrate. The figure in the artwork is also a solid black shape; without the details of his face or clothing, you don't know which way he's facing. He may even be a shadow, an abstraction, a person-shaped void representing an absence of people.
8:19 w-what happened to france?
Yaaaaay!!
It me! 😆
This is a quibble, but it certainly caught my eye. At 8:20, what the heck happened to the map of Europe? France is missing. It's an ocean. Iberia isn't a peninsula, it's an island. Is it ironic that a video on art has a mishap with its artwork?
Nice
18:18 AYO WTF HAPPEND TO FRANCE 🇫🇷 😭
I'd very much love it if there were an episode on the future of art/painting in the age of AI.
It's certainly a hotly debated subject in the field of photography right now, I can tell you that.
It is only an interesting topic if we think of AI as something similar to human intelligence.
The technical experts differenciate between AI and general AI. They mean the latter to be comparable with human intelligence.
But why?
Because the AI we have with Dal-E and Chat-GPT is not "intelligence" at all. Instead it must be understood as "machine learning".
But even the term "machine learning" is false. The machines do not learn as we understand what "learning" is.
Therefore the best term to use on Chat-GPT and Dal-E or Stablediffusion must be "model training" based on super complex mathematical statistical algorithms.
And that packs the key to understand why the modern technology can not substitute what we understand as intelligence.
And thus what ever comes out of these technologies can not be understood as "art" but rather as a "product".
It is only after the human refinement the product turns into art.
After all, who is the artist in the long chain that produced a piece of art in the end?
You who typed in "Dog with a funny hat"?
The software that statistically guessed the closest match of what you expected to see?
The program that generated the complex statistical model that is the basis for the guesses?
The artists who have posted their work all over social media platforms, that have been scraped and collected in order to feed the algorithm?
It is the same question as : Who created the cake? The consumer who demands cake? The factory who follows fixed processes? The granny who once thought it may be a good idea to combine ingredients?
Bottom line, AI does not create art.
davinicic
🤖 ART HISTORY 🤖
🎵 More than meets the eye... 🎵
lol
Rule 1: use your eyeballs
This comment is intended only to boost the algorithm. 😏
Less than 30 seconds. That's how long I can hold my breath
Anybody else immediately checked to make sure how long they can hold their breath? Just me?
(I just checked to make sure I can last a minute, honestly.)
How to look at art?
preferably with your eyes.
@8:20 Where France at bro? haha
❤❤❤❤
Thank you!
Thank you.