Bach used to add a note at the end of each of his compositions: ‘made for the glory of God.’ Things are created more precisely and with more care when you know it’s being created for a higher purpose.
Childeharold: This is very true. There's a scene in Amadeus that explains that great art is meant to elevate the human race. This is done by tapping into our higher self and connecting to God in ways that can't be done through other means (for most people). There's a reason this connection is not as strong in the modern era. Especially when human beings worship themselves, yet don't understand why they never rise beyond the pettiness and foolishness that plagues our current lives
@thenonartist4366 The proof of God is in the heart. Only Jesus revealed the truth of the heart, where wickedness comes from, and His death and resurrection were the only cure.
when I was about twelve we went on a field trip to a modern art museum and most of us got kicked out for laughing at it. We actually thought it was a joke and we kept asking, when do we get to the real art? TWELVE YEAR OLDS!!!!
@@MrGrimjaw Security gaurd kicked us out for being "disrespectful to the art" I don't think you could sue someone over something like that, wouldn't want to anyway, just glad we got to leave lol
Security guard is a good tip. Go to the person who has nothing to gain by praising or rejecting any piece of art in particular, and only knows what looks beautiful. And because of his station, he knows what moves the most people to honest and strong emotion. I'd rather get a tour of an art gallery from the janitor than from a gallery owner, museum curator, or artist.
When visiting the 25 highlights of renaissance art in one of Washington's great musea, my son called me not to forget visiting the modern art section of that museum as well. However when I did so after the sheer artistry and mastery of the renaissance it felt like dropping steeply from a three dimensional beautiful world into an ugly two dimensional one: The modern art felt completely dead and flat. I had to return the next day just to that section of the collection to appreciate the 'feeling" aspect one gets on seeing the modern stuff.
Thank you for this wonderful presentation. It answered all the questions that I had thought about, but never really took the time to really delve into.
@@eramne I consider the input sources that went into the making of the video and have no problem with them, unlike you. It is your responsibility to present a contrary view and NOT my duty to respond to your open ended and obviously prejudiced point of view.
While a lot of the modern art examples, such as at 3:02 are great representations of really bad modern “art” , the viewpoint expressed here lacks the context necessary to make a broad sweeping opinion of all modern art. For example, Pablo Picassos Guernica is a wonderful example of modern art being used to communicate the terror experienced by the people of Spain during the Spanish revolution. On the contrary to the opinion, art should communicate something , and of course art in the classical period did; most paintings of the classical period, at least 51% or greater referenced Biblical themes. While these may have been themes that everyone was well aware of and the stories behind them, the art gave an insight into someone else’s interpretation of what they were hearing from the Scriptures. This is important; it gave deeper meaning, and pause for reflection, and of course the beauty of the execution made it moving, bringing about an emotional response.
I was a fine arts major in my first year of college. Skill of execution was my biggest criterion. I wrote a paper about it in English class and my professor was offended. It was about Robert Rauschenberg. I called his work Decoupage. I enjoy Picasso because he could paint with the greats but when he switched to cubism and such, it was intentional work.
Picasso can paint individual images with the best of them, BUT Picasso could not and never did understand composition and perspective. He along with Matisse and others, attended the atelier of William-Adolphe Bouguereau. They couldn't grasp perspective so Bouguereau would never allow them to move beyond pencil work. So they all quit, banned their money together, bribed an art seller and an art critic to rave & praise their garbage. They convinced the dealer that they could create 8 works each per day while Bouguereau and other classic academic painters could only produce 1 painting a week. Because of this the dealer would profit 8 fold over selling their garbage. Low and behold they were right in their belief that all that would be required to set their work a rave would be the mere exposure effect and a few wealthy prominent buyers.
same here. i didnt like Dadaism. I felt the same way about the French existentialists. It was like if someone farted in class, everyone laughs, and Raushenberg angrily wont laugh. Also, he was an unbelievable alcoholic. Not like a rockstar party guy artist....he would kill a 5th daily, alone. Total loser imo.
@@sooperd00p agreed!! If that crap was art, the cia wouldn't have had to spend billions of tax payer money attempting to convince people it was. The cia forced modem art and jazz. Both have no place in civilization. No place at all.
" You have no way of knowing if you're being taken for a sucker"- Robert Florczak Right there. I've been saying this for years. I also demonstrated it to my friends by scribbling on the piece of paper and called it art. The only difference between my scribble and the 10k+ "art" is that it's promoted by some art galleries or art critics I have never heard of. To me, it speaks more about YOU- the people who spends thousands to purchase trash, than a so-called "artists" who figure ways to make money.
The designation of anything as “Art “has always been subjective. It’s a perspective we choose to take. It has never been about anything intrinsic to any object.
All the same things can objectively be said about classical music as well. You really should address that next, but it seems like so many people draw a line at music for some reason.
You people really need to learn the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Objectivity isn't when something just *seems* obviously true. Measurements of quality are nothing but subjective because they literally require a subject to have quality. If there are no subjects to observe something, it doesn't have beauty, for example. Beauty is a subjective concept that conferred onto objects by observers, it isn't an intrinsic part of the object.
Not quite the same thing. Classical music and most modern genres have things in common which can be appreciated for different reasons and in different ways: melody, harmony, rhythm, and each occupies a different purpose. Classical music often serves as an accompaniment to action on movies and TV, or at religious services, while popular music works well for dancing, to name one. A better comparison would be comparing Beethoven's 9th symphony to a cat running across a keyboard.
😂 I’m sorry but the “moving and uplifting or static and perverse” part just slayed me! I don’t think I need to explain why. The modern art sculpture says it all. Just look at the time stamp 1:02 and you will see exactly what I mean.
Absolutely correct. The degradation of art mirrored the degradation of our whole culture, and preceded it. This accelerated in the 1960s. I've lived through it. Art exists to communicate a message, but the quality of art is determined by the technical expertise apparent in its execution. It's possible to have art which has little or no actual message.
Saying that art has to be technical to be quality is genuinely laughable. Plenty of guitar players can't shred like Eddie Van Halen but they can still make extremely compelling music. Just because you dislike experimental art doesn't mean it has no merit. Lmfao
Thank you for this! As a public-schooled millennial, I always feel completely lost when it comes to art appreciation. I talked about this with my mom recently, and she says there's a huge difference between how our generations were taught on this subject, mostly because my schools barely touched it. They'll teach you to draw, but they don't teach you how to judge a work and know what is great and what is not.
@@ianmcewan3326The point is you can teach what great art is if you have standards. Today there are no standards, so when you take a dump on the ground and give it to your art teacher you get a gold star for participation, even if it's just a pile of sh*t.
Art is still taught with standards. I'm an art student right now. It's just that if we keep doing art only by the standards it will never evolve so now it's more about learning how and when to bend the standards to improve your art. If we just follow the same standards that were set years ago then art will lose creativity.
While I agree with most of this, the narrative falls down when he says "the great artists of the past didn't care one wit about reflecting their times" which is 100% false. The artists of the Renaissance (Botticelli, Michelangelo and Rafaello to name a few) were absolutely focused on championing the humanist values of their times and even using art to subvert the approved narratives and traditions up to that point as Michelangelo did often. So, sorry...just lost major credibility there.
What is great music and what is not? Is Bach great and Beethoven bad? Is Mozart good and Bartok bad? Is Schoenberg good and Stockhausen bad? Is Beatles good and The Rolling Stones bad? What parameters do you apply?
When I go to a classical art museum I can stay there for hours looking at each painting/artwork carefully and reading everything about it. Something I don’t do for modern art
@@TheSeppomaniaIt's not that it's bad or unnecessary, it's that the art itself motivated one to want to learn more about it. It was the artwork that drove the desire to read the context. Modern art on the other hand many times requires examining the context to understand the art itself. The art isn't standing on it's own. It's standing on it's meaning and/or the fame of the artist.
I think it's important to remember that western classical artistic values have not gone anywhere, and that a lot of the conceptual art fetish has to do with the _business_ of art collection, which requires efficient production of new art upon which a monetary value can be placed. There are still plenty of artists working from western classical values, and producing art that would be right at home in earlier eras.
Very uneducated and close minded take. The experimental and ground breaking modern art styles is what keeps me still interested in art and music. Enjoying the principals of classical art is not bad, but it gets repetitive after some time and is very difficult to recognize for the uneducated viewer. And why is it specifically colour, composition and movement that makes art good for you? Shouldn't art not be pleasing to the eyes and evoking emotions as well? Aren't those the most important things? I want to feel something when I look at or listen to art. I don't want to just analyse it to decide if it is good or bad. By your definition all emotions are lost. You would probably love AI art lol
I don't like when someone claims they can tell me what art is good. Even making up rules that all art should obey.... And I don't care if that person runs a museum, or makes videos for PragerU. Van Gogh's paintings would have been destroyed long ago, if we let people like that dictate art. And though I agree that there is a lot of rubbish in museums today, there are also real gems out there.
I did a design based major in a NYC average level college. The instructors and teachers of the classes which I had to take spent so much effort trying to convince us that there was so much value to be found in the modern destroyers while the few classes I had on form and the several I had about design related topics were far more obvious and sensible. NYC museums are a joke on the whole, I'm sure it's similar elsewhere. The MOMA was one of the most uncomfortable experiences I've ever had.
I’m confused. This video mentions that technique and realism defines classic art and also states that it doesn’t matter. And ultimately ends with “You know it’s good because you know what good is.” So art is objectively subjective? Also I’ve been made a fool plenty of times but never by a painting so I think that might just be a self report.
It’s entirely subjective. Art is a perspective we take on something. No object is intrinsically art. It’s about agreement, and agreement is transitory. Anyone who is talking about art in a qualitative way isn’t telling you about an object, they are just telling you about themselves.
That previous video was 8 years ago, man he aged heavily, no offense as both videos were really good and informative about why we are stuck in an era where even $@#t is seen as art for the sake of common expression within the left. And, how classical art is good not because of what it wants to tell but how good it looks like with the excellence of quality and skill.
@@mayharmon6948 The sides of his hair is gone and his voice is more deeper, although that could be because of the difference in equipment. Technology has sure evolved these past eight years.
There's a painting hanging in the Art Institute of Chicago and it just fascinates me, it's the 'Dot Painting' : 'A Sunday on La Grande Jatte' - 1884, Artist: Georges Seurat. Reason is my Elem School in Chi. had Prints of Classic Paintings on the walls & if you somehow 'misbehaved' in class you had go out and stand against the wall, I got a good look at the 'Dot Painting' on the wall when I was in 4th Grade (😂). I soon realized the entire painting was made of DOTS!! I was determined to see the real thing when 'I grew up' Luckily to my surprise it was right in my hometown Art Museum, I've had many hours of pleasure in the years looking at that masterpiece. I also made sure a family trip was made so my wife & 2 daughters could see it too. (sorry for the long comment. sometimes I go into Tolstoy Mode. 😁)
Well, you might be surprised to learn that this painting is not classical art and depicts men at the river with prostitutes. It’s a fabulous work, but by the definitions in this video it’s bad art.
19th century France had an artistic trend called "pointillisme," compositions consisting of "points," or "dots," as you call them. Strictly speaking, the screen I am typing this on right now is merely a series of dots arranged in particular colors and positions that create images.
@@ChuckNicholsonTRM Well, he didn't actually say that. He said that "standards began to decline in the 1860s" but he never actually passed judgment either way on impressionism. Indeed it seems to me that he specifically avoided doing so.
@@cisium1184 that would certainly make it seem that he is implying that Impressionism is where the decline begins. Would you like to tell me of some other major art movement that began right around 1960?
@@ChuckNicholsonTRM _"that would certainly make it seem that he is implying that Impressionism is where the decline begins."_ That's really more of an inference by us. There are plenty of other reasons to think he's _not_ talking about Impressionism. The painters we regard as Impressionists may have started painting around 1860, but they didn't set up their first exhibition until 1874. In the intervening 14 years they were submitting paintings to the Salon and getting them rejected, then selling them to a few (mostly poor) patrons or to each other or to Caillebotte - so few people were even seeing these pictures. Even after the 1874 exhibition, the works weren't immediately accepted in the Paris Salon, and the broader principles of Impressionism were still subjects of debate in the broader art world after that. In fact by the 1880s many of the Impressionists had moved on to other explorations and the Post-Impressionists had arisen to reject Impressionism. This guy is talking about the values of the elite of the art world, not a small group of outcasts in Paris. In that context, there really isn't a clear basis for pinning that year 1860 to Impressionism. _"Would you like to tell me of some other major art movement that began right around 1960?[sic]"_ He may not be referring to the start of a movement but to the end of one. Neoclassicism fell out of fashion around 1860, and the Renaissance revivalism of the Pre-Raphaelites ended around that time, too. The 1860 reference could be to either of those movements, which were deeply rooted in the traditions the video exhalts. So he may feel that traditional values in art started to die when those movements died, and when they returned in the Realism of the later 19th century they were not as strong. I guess my point is, it certainly could be Impressionism because he didn't show a single Impressionist picture in the video, but we need to remember that Impressionism wasn't the only form of artistic rebellion happening around that time. It was just the most successful one, largely because it was actually rooted in traditional art principles - it just weighted the principles of light and shade more heavily, relative to composition, than many other movements of the time. We also need to remember that Impressionism didn't so much push out other movements as fill a kind of "gap in vision" when nothing stylistically was really happening in art. It may be that this gap, between the end of Neoclassicism and the beginning of Impressionism, is what the 1860 date is really referring to.
When I was 13-14 years old, I went to the Tate museum in London. I left with a headache and full of anger. The whole time I was asking myself, why are those people who created this "art" so famous. If they can be famous, everyone can. But not everyone is an artist...This is the part of my life where I really started to hate modern and apstract art (not all of it) and all those pretentious artists who think that every dump they make has a deep meaning
Photography essentially made realistic painting obsolete. It's a lot faster and cheaper to have your portrait done by a photographer than a painter. In conservative terms, art was adapting to the new market forces brought forth by technological advancements.
Excellent video essay. I've felt this understanding before in my life, but I haven't ever been able to put it to words. Thank you for making this, guys.
I don’t think all Impressionism or abstract works are bad, but I agree it’s objectively bad when one sets out to glorify crassness, blasphemy, or evil. Mind you it can be necessary to depict evil in order to contrast it with the light. Dostoyevsky is a fantastic example of this. But glorifying darkness in itself is where I draw the line.
Great video! Although, I don't know if I would give the "meaning" of a piece art less importance than it "looking nice." (This video is a very PragerU way of looking at the subject I just realized heh). Without meaning, art is merely decoration, like a beautiful vase or piece of furniture. Actually I don't really like using the word "meaning" either, since a forcefully injected meaning, moral, or message tends to degrade the piece of art. The true power of fine art is to show the transcendent reality of truth and beauty through the physical medium of a visual picture. To "render visible the divine" as it was put in a book I've been reading recently. They talk about this a lot over at Art Renewal Center.
@@alaric3056 But that's stupid. The meaning behind the art gives the art another layer of quality Sure, classical art is aesthetically nice, but it tells you all you need to know. Being able to understand what was going on in the artists head, or, having art that is open to interpretation, makes the art deeper.
Britannica Dictionary definition of ART: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
My late grandfather was an amateur artist in a couple of mediums. Painting and woodworking. His woodworking skills were intermediate as he wasn't like Norm Abrams, but he knew what he could do. He painted mostly nature scenes. He did art as a hobby after he retired. His education in engineering actually helped him. One of his better woodworking art pieces was a whirlygig of a scene from Moby Dick. Turn the handle, and you see the boat with Ahab and the other whalers move while a white whale goes up and down as the gears move everything except the Pequod. That was an independent part of the device. It is a simple piece of art but beautiful on its own.
Personally, I prefer the Lego Sculptures of Nathan Sawaya. Although made of Lego, I’d say they look good enough to fit in with more classical art, perhaps even being remotely inspired by great works such as The Thinker, depicting things such as a person in yellow ripping open their chest to reveal the Lego Brick contents pouting out. To me, they look great, they can have meaning if that’s how you choose to interpret them, or they can simply look colorful and fun. I rather enjoy them, and personally find them as enjoyable to the eye as statues such as Venus. To me, Lego is some of the last of classical art, it just, I dunno, looks kinda like what I think Da Vinci would’ve made if he had Lego to build with. Call me crazy, but I think The Art of the Brick is some of the best art I’ve seen in a while, and is certainly much better than this vulgar crummy ramp and pit plate stuff people are making today. I’m not saying modern art is bad, but there’s a fine line between art and trash, let Squidward teach you that lesson.
This is a perfect example of why this video's thesis is wrong. He's comparing successful art of the past with government funded (Ergo "unsuccessful" by definition) art of the present. Yet, when you look at modern mediums (like Lego etc) you see that there are LOADS of successful artists right now. My kids like to show me Minecraft builds on UA-cam that would take your breath away with their classical beauty. And those channels are making money (without the government having to give them a penny). The second you subsidize art, it turns to garbage, but beautiful art will always be created.
@@rachelrasmussen1101 I don't think he's wrong. I do feel that, even compared to Lego or Minecraft art, classical art is still superior. I just like Lego more than I like art.
Every time I click a video on this channel and see a "premieres in 38 hours" on it, I close it and never watch it. I can't be the only fan here who gets annoyed by this. If you post a video, post the video! Not an RSVP to the video, please!
Both realistic art(Baroque and Southern Renaissance, not Northern Renaissance since it's still rooted in Gothic and Medieval art)and modern art are both garbage and flipsides of each other.. Medieval art and Byzantine art is the solution.
How far back do you want to go? Is impressionism and expressionism still acceptable in your narrow mind? Do you want to do the same in literature, so Shakespeare is ok, but Tolstoy and Mann should be abolished? Maybe you want the same in music, so Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are ok, but Bartok, Schoenberg and Stockhausen should be abolished? You live around 90 years to late. In the 1930s there was a movement and a party wanting to restore traditional art. They labelled modern art "Entartete Kunst" and destroyed it. You would probably have been a dedicated member of the movement.
@@Luminus2 It is quite telling that you avoided the topic and did not address my points. When all you have is deflection and dismissal, then you truly have nothing.
@@Frups12345678 Why should I respond to baseless accusations? All I said was that art should return to the standards mentioned in the video. You're throwing a fit for no reason. Maybe you should grow up a little bit if you can't handle something so simple?
I once worked at an artmuseum. A visitor asked me my opinion on the exhibition. I said I thought it was really shit bad work. She got very angry... (she had bought a ticket....)
If everyone just paint or draw classic, how an artist can express him or herself. Absolutely by having a classic art knowledge you can paint a significant painting, but you just show one kind of your feelings. Modern art have lots of things to say that classical art cannot show it. I love both of them. People are different these days. The life style has change. You can see millions different opinions that you can show with art, but not just with classic art. And, I love Francisco Bacons arts , but you show his artworks as a bad art!!! He was amazing! He was a successful artist. Any art is admirable and we can not call it a bad art.
I nocticed that In the video put Bacon as bad artist and Willem De Kooning too as "inept" while De Kooning was an academic classical artist at first then he changed his painting skills because he joined the abstract expressionists
I have heard it said that modern art is often a money laundering scheme. I don't know about that, but the allegation could never have been made of classical art. Anyone can see the mastery- modernist works (in contrast) often don't demonstrate any skill, and the idea that it is nothing but a scam does come to mind.
What is "Good" or "Great" art? Yes, it considers skill and execution, but only if the skill and execution is able to convey beauty and expression to some people. Yes, as art is a form of visual media it naturally conforms to the system of aesthetics. However, I disagree that the elements of art must be presented in a certain way. The comparison the video puts out of "Good" and "Bad" art merely shows two artworks that have used the elements of art in two different ways in order to demonstrate two different skills convey two different messages, and there is no superior one. For example, for composition, one could argue was trying to create the sense of domestic tranquility and the other of chaos. Is one inherently better than the other? Next, the video argues that the primary goal of art is to create art that looked "Good" rather than convey a meaning. But this was based on their belief that it looked good, not any objective standard - because there is no objectivity in art, since all of the principles of "Good" aesthetics stated earlier are only one branch of thought on how to make art look "good". If modern artists believed that their art looked "Good" and at least some viewers agreed, then it also looks good in some beliefs and therefore is equally valid in beauty as classical art. Next, the video argues that art requires the skillful execution of a visual medium through the painting of details. Skill is undoubtedly important for some art. However, it would be inaccurate to claim that art created without skill is "bad" art. If people find it beautiful, then it is good art to them. Furthermore, modern art also uses skill. It would be hard to argue that, say, great modernist architecture isn't art, but the construction of modern building such as the Burj Khalifa or WTC requires immense skill that the architects of old could have never dreamed of. Finally, the video attempts to distinguish between Quality and Taste as quality is based on long-standing principles. However, who made these principles? They are ultimately tastes that many people agreed upon. And if many other people agreed that other forms of art are beautiful, they have also created their own quality. Therefore, I disagree with this video.
I should clarify. I was being a bit snarky but my larger intent is to show the Nazis cultural perspective was more in line with conservative values than progressive. They despised Hollywood, promoted "traditional values" , were anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-modern art , Nationalistic, etc... Of course it's completely out of line to associate the genocidal aspects of Nazism to American conservatives just as it would be out of line to compare Bernie Sanders social welfare proposals to Stalin or Mao. I'm just really pusing back at the revisionist history promoted by American conservatives that the Nazis were not a right-wing movement. I've come to realize as "location, location, location" is fundamental to real estate "culture, culture, culture" is fundamental to politics.
The MAGA right may not yet mirror the “genocidal aspects” of the Third Reich but there is no question that they peddle “replacement theory” and are increasing militant. Calling for genocide might be a corner the Trump Cult right has not yet turned. But they are on the march. I wouldn’t expect them to simply stop at the art museum.
I didn't like the other video, but I really like this one. The ideas underlying the first video are more clearly anf forcefully expressed here. I still don't agree completely, but still think this is a very well-made case. And what I appreciate about both videos is that Mr. Florczak is making the type of argument that needs yo be made -- one from aesthetic principles rather than intellectual ones. One doesn't treat flower arranging as a form of mathematics, and social commentary, for example, is not art.
Classical art is boring. There are plenty of contemporary, living, artists just as good as those mentioned in this video. But I get the fact that this is a PragerU video and therefore the conservative message is: “new art bad, old art good”
My landlord's cat had three kittens..I named the more delicate one Miro, I named the crazy one Dali, and the big roughneck is called Mantegna..true story...
I'm a painter and guitarist and a writer. I don't do anything to the highest level, and I don't think I'll ever be able to, but I respect the masters. Modern " artists" don't respect their history and pervert the meaning of artistic mastery.
You truly don't understand the function of art. It is only through rebellion, that art evolves. Without the innovation and rebellion, Bach would never have changed music. Without the same rebellion, the Renaissance would never have evolved to the Baroque.
@@Frups12345678 you can innovate without pissing on those who came before you. There are good examples of modern art, but much of it is just being rebellious for the sake of rebellion. You shouldn't attempt to be the rebel without a clue. Instead you should try to be the best you can, and innovate along the way.
@@jamestunedflat8942 What artists were; "pissing on those who came before"? Did Rodin piss on da Vinci, or did Giacometti piss on Rodin? Did Monet piss on Rembrandt, did Signac piss on Monet, or did Lichtenstein piss on Signac? During all times, there has always been more and less important art. The point of the video is that classical art somehow is superior, which is silly at best. There was a previous movement like this in the 1930's, dividing art into classical and modern art. Modern art was depicted as "Entartete Kunst", paintings were destroyed and in some cases the artists were murdered. Luckily this movement came to a halt in 1945.
@@Frups12345678 a giant bean, a butt plug and a urinal have all been displayed at modern art galleries. If the first two examples aren't good enough for you the third should tell you something. I'm not saying all modern artists, instead I was specifically referring to those who think of themselves as year one rebels. If you want a laugh google bad medieval artwork and compare it to modern masterpieces. Bad art is bad art, but at least in the middle ages they tried.
@@jamestunedflat8942 It is interesting and quite telling that you do not even address or refute my claims. I don't know how many modern art museums I have been to around the world, but I suspect that it is +50. There are certain things I adore like German expressionism, I find Russian avantgarde interesting etc., but there are also some modern art that I struggle with like some video installations. Please remember that all the discussions on this thread are in relation to the video where modern art was dismissed.
I had to take at least one art class in college. I entered it with this exact opinion as the video. But I realized I wanted to take more (even though it wasn't my degree), and emerged with the opposite opinion. Why? Because it turned out that the more I thought about it, the more broad and different things I realized I recognized as "art" in my head, and the more broad I realized the purpose of art. So my definition would have to change. What is art? Its a display of some kind meant to evoke a thought or emotion. Sometimes that's a deep social message, sometimes its just trying to get you to think about a specific feeling, sometimes its just there to entertain. And how it can do that is pretty amazing. Because a lot of people think of art as skill, but a lot of it isn't. A lot of it is just about finding clever or creative ways to evoke that thought or message. Hell, we like practical effects in movies rather than CGI, and the CGI is way more complicated. You know what I also learned? Art history isn't some continuous process where we get more detailed at drawing a face. Humans have been doing art for a long time, and sometimes it looked like damned photographs and sometimes it looked like a fever dream. The kicker was that _this was usually on purpose._ Humanity has a long history of deliberately being unrealistic. I learned medieval artists knew damn well how to make paintings that looked good, they chose the style they did because they weren't going for photorealism.
Kandinsky was very modern. But he makes me feel good. His art does not seem random or meaningless. He refused the old but he also had the new to offer.
I rarely say this, and I do not say it lightly, but this video had no element of untruth in it...at all! There was nothing whatsoever in it that was merely personal opinion. It was, instead, an incisive cutting through of the modern art BS message, and a CONCISE laying out of the objective truth of the matter! Kudos to you, sir!
Pretty simple, painting was once all about capturing reality on the only medium they could. Which for ages was through painting and illustrations and sculpture. But photography and quickly film changed all that. By the end of the Civil War almost anyone could take a photo and by the turn of the century almost anyone could film things. So art transformed and became about expression and become more being thought provoking than true skill. Their are still plenty of classical artists. But what a lot of people see today is modern art. Btw as a cartoonist and illustrator I love the classics.
Because it actually took talent to make classic art. Today I could dip my phallic member in a can of paint and slap it on a canvas and get $200K if my name was Hunter...
He’s rebranding what Hitler said about “degenerate art” in an effort to assert the superiority of white European culture over the rest of humanity. It’s evil.
@@jcarp6335 Dude. That's like saying Hitler who was against smoking made prohibiting Smoking evil. Or how Hitler wanted to create Nature reserves made Nature reserves evil by showing the Superiority of European Forest. It's correct. Garbage art would be reviled anywhere in the World. Great art is seen as transcendent because people from all sorts of cultures can Appreciate it.
@@arnowisp6244 Nonsense. Because Hitler didn’t use smoking or nature preserves to assert Aryan superiority. However he endlessly used his theories about art to advance that agenda. Hitler was an aspiring artist. He was embittered about not getting into art school. As with everything else, he blamed Jews. And as chancellor he aggressively denounced what he termed “degenerate art”, established “standards” for what was art, what made it acceptable or established “beauty”. He ordered displays of this “degenerate” art for the purpose of public mockery. He raided European art museums and homes and specifically stole works he considered to be representative of the superiority of white European classical culture. The parallels with what this video is asserting are undeniable. Look up the concept of “degenerate art”
@@arnowisp6244 “Degenerate art (German: Entartete Kunst) was a term adopted in the 1920s by the Nazi Party in Germany to describe modern art. During the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, German modernist art, including many works of internationally renowned artists, was removed from state-owned museums and banned in Nazi Germany on the grounds that such art was an "insult to German feeling", un-German, Freemasonic, Jewish, or Communist in nature. Those identified as degenerate artists were subjected to sanctions that included being dismissed from teaching positions, being forbidden to exhibit or to sell their art, and in some cases being forbidden to produce art. Degenerate Art also was the title of an exhibition, held by the Nazis in Munich in 1937, consisting of 650 modernist artworks chaotically hung and accompanied by text labels deriding the art. Designed to inflame public opinion against modernism, the exhibition subsequently traveled to several other cities in Germany and Austria.”
It’s not… sure it’s much more realistic… but realistic doesn’t always tell the story the best. Sometimes different styles bring more emotion and expression.
Glad I'm not alone in considering classical art better than modern art. Tbh, I never 'got' picasso. It always looked haphazard to me. To each their own. But it just looked messy. I never got the 'emotion' behind it. I like both modern and classical art. But most modern art can't hold a candle to most classical pieces.
Picasso's early and later art are very different. He had such severe mental issues near the end that he showcased it through art, which is why his art is interesting.
you didnt mention the way the material was used. Many artists dont push the limits of the material. Plus two of your “ bad” examples The Bacon and the De Kooning meet all of your requirements for “ good art”
Did you and I watch the same video? I only ask because all this man said was "Art shouldn't have meaning, it should only look pretty" wouldn't call that logical or thinking critically at all, it just sounds like he wants art to be entertainment, which it isn't.
I looked up some of Florczak's paintings and drawings and it is boring kitsch at best. There is an array of amazing classic art: - The way Schalken used light and shadows was phenomenal. - Zurbaran's still life and mystic and powerful paintings. - Duerer's altar pieces are extraordinary. The list goes on and on, but that does not mean that modern art is less valuable or good. It comes down to the question what the role is of art is. From my perspective, I would choose Beckmann, Dix, Hoerle, Ernst etc., over the kitsch that Florczak produces. I just saw a hideous Florzak painting called; "The Brigadier and the Lady" and I could not help to think how much emotion Banksy can create with basic artistic language.
this video is particularly special for me. 6 years ago, I watched this guy's video on why Modern Art is so bad. I could have never imagined where I would end up. After that video, I started watching PragerU; so much that I ended up watching every video and subscribing. During the following year, I began becoming conservative so that by the time of Trump's election, I had become one. Now I am super hardcore conservative and have a channel explaining my views. Thanks so much for this video, it means a lot to me!
I, too, like to only watch videos that reflect my views and avoid encountering opposing viewpoints in the comment section. In this regard, the youtube algorithm is great.
The sad thing is most people when they look at fine art or craftsmanship, even though they may appreciate it, don't give much if any thought to what was involved in creating it. I include myself in that group.
I once went to an art exhibit that showcased a video of a bunch of books being washed in a washing machine. I was floored that anybody thought that was worthy of an exhibit. My toddlers have tossed so many random objects into the washing machine... maybe they were just creating "art," lol.
Aesthetic quality is important because it separates the masters from the amateurs. But is meaning really secondary? It's true what Mr Florczak says that one can find meaning in literature and music, and that art separates itself from those things by being a visual medium. But is it possible for any of these things to be meaningless? And if a piece of art had no meaning at all, would you bother going to see it again? I'm asking these questions because I'm genuinely curious what others think. Are there any artists here who make art that is meaningless? Can art be good if it has no meaning?
Florczak delivers this video essay with the calm, confidence, and impeccable reasoning of someone who has thought deeply about a topic and emerged with answers.
Imagine if Adolf Hitler was born in the Reinassance era instead in the year 1889, then his work of art would be a masterpiece and World War 2 would never happened.
What the hell does he mean classical artist's art didn't reflect their time period???? Has this guy just never studied art history?? And it's not like artists just make the decision to reflect the time period they live in, art is literally what we use to define the history of culture so it is impossible for it to not reflect how culture worked. Medieval artists mainly depicted religious imagery, Renaissance artists depicted philosophers and ancient societies, Rococo artists painted royalty and beautiful gardens, Romantic artists painted dramatic scenes of nature, etc. etc.
The rippaverse comic book artwork is unique. Eric July knows how comic book is good when is a good written stories and good quality artwork. Not pushing identity politics.
If it makes for easy replication, its not that way folks...remember the part about fooling people? Guess who also like to fool people, deceit...lie, yeap money launderers. If it makes for a printable nft for "quicky making a bucky" then is not art, might be an image but not art.
If art is only to "make you think", then why don't we consider propaganda images to be good art? They made people think the desired thoughts. I can see how expressing an idea or principle might be an aspect of a great work, but lots of other things need to be in place as well.
Propaganda pictures are good art too, there are famous propaganda pictures. They just function and exist differently in culture because they're distributed differently
0:50 The one on the right isn't objectively bad. It's just a different style. 0:55 The issue with the one on the right is less garrish collor, and more that it's oversimplifyed. 1:01 So, still lifes aren't art then? Althogh, yeah the one on the right is kind of bland.
Are you an artist yourself? Do you only like art because of how it looks? I'm just asking because art in and of itself is subjective and art always has been trying to convey meaning.
Art IS a product of its time And you said it yourself “art is primary based on how good it looks”. What qualifies as “looking good” Changes with the time Therefore, it is a reflection of its time because what looks good to them changes with the time And I things they choose to paint Also changes with the time In all this video is a poorly misguided attempt to at base value promote conservatism And denounce anything new as “Not art” or “not a sport” Not to mention it makes opinion Somehow on equal footing with truth which is ironic because this channel constantly frames itself As the truth and “woke” (Which is really just a strawman for anyone who disagrees, proves them wrong, or calls them out for lying, not providing sources,or being propaganda
Bach used to add a note at the end of each of his compositions: ‘made for the glory of God.’ Things are created more precisely and with more care when you know it’s being created for a higher purpose.
Too bad he couldn't prove his God existed
Childeharold: This is very true. There's a scene in Amadeus that explains that great art is meant to elevate the human race. This is done by tapping into our higher self and connecting to God in ways that can't be done through other means (for most people).
There's a reason this connection is not as strong in the modern era. Especially when human beings worship themselves, yet don't understand why they never rise beyond the pettiness and foolishness that plagues our current lives
@@thenonartist4366 Why are you interested? Seems like you made your mind up already.
@thenonartist4366 The proof of God is in the heart. Only Jesus revealed the truth of the heart, where wickedness comes from, and His death and resurrection were the only cure.
actually JESUS has nothing to do with the One True G-d of the Torah
when I was about twelve we went on a field trip to a modern art museum and most of us got kicked out for laughing at it. We actually thought it was a joke and we kept asking, when do we get to the real art? TWELVE YEAR OLDS!!!!
Wow who kicked you out? You need sue that art museum
@@MrGrimjaw Security gaurd kicked us out for being "disrespectful to the art" I don't think you could sue someone over something like that, wouldn't want to anyway, just glad we got to leave lol
@@davidyoung6400 bad press is never good hurt the museum
@@MrGrimjaw we probably deserved to be kicked out. This was over 20years ago
Yes. And then everyone cheered, and music played as you were celebrated. 😂
Security guard is a good tip. Go to the person who has nothing to gain by praising or rejecting any piece of art in particular, and only knows what looks beautiful. And because of his station, he knows what moves the most people to honest and strong emotion. I'd rather get a tour of an art gallery from the janitor than from a gallery owner, museum curator, or artist.
There's a lot of truth in what @7league says.
Or the tour they'd give you would amount to, "Well...this one's my favorite." Or they'll just read the cards on the side of each piece aloud!
That is the most virtue signaling thing I've heard today.
When visiting the 25 highlights of renaissance art in one of Washington's great musea, my son called me not to forget visiting the modern art section of that museum as well. However when I did so after the sheer artistry and mastery of the renaissance it felt like dropping steeply from a three dimensional beautiful world into an ugly two dimensional one: The modern art felt completely dead and flat. I had to return the next day just to that section of the collection to appreciate the 'feeling" aspect one gets on seeing the modern stuff.
Thank you for this wonderful presentation. It answered all the questions that I had thought about, but never really took the time to really delve into.
@@eramne I consider the input sources that went into the making of the video and have no problem with them, unlike you. It is your responsibility to present a contrary view and NOT my duty to respond to your open ended and obviously prejudiced point of view.
@@robertjanicki5906 Well Said, @robert
I was feeling the exact same sentiment.
"great work can and should stand on its own without the viewer knowing anything about its meaning".........Absolutely
What's your favorite Robert Florczak painting?
While a lot of the modern art examples, such as at 3:02 are great representations of really bad modern “art” , the viewpoint expressed here lacks the context necessary to make a broad sweeping opinion of all modern art. For example, Pablo Picassos Guernica is a wonderful example of modern art being used to communicate the terror experienced by the people of Spain during the Spanish revolution. On the contrary to the opinion, art should communicate something , and of course art in the classical period did; most paintings of the classical period, at least 51% or greater referenced Biblical themes. While these may have been themes that everyone was well aware of and the stories behind them, the art gave an insight into someone else’s interpretation of what they were hearing from the Scriptures. This is important; it gave deeper meaning, and pause for reflection, and of course the beauty of the execution made it moving, bringing about an emotional response.
You were 100 percent right..I agree as an artist who has been painting for 30 years..
I was a fine arts major in my first year of college. Skill of execution was my biggest criterion. I wrote a paper about it in English class and my professor was offended. It was about Robert Rauschenberg. I called his work Decoupage. I enjoy Picasso because he could paint with the greats but when he switched to cubism and such, it was intentional work.
Picasso can paint individual images with the best of them, BUT Picasso could not and never did understand composition and perspective. He along with Matisse and others, attended the atelier of William-Adolphe Bouguereau. They couldn't grasp perspective so Bouguereau would never allow them to move beyond pencil work. So they all quit, banned their money together, bribed an art seller and an art critic to rave & praise their garbage. They convinced the dealer that they could create 8 works each per day while Bouguereau and other classic academic painters could only produce 1 painting a week. Because of this the dealer would profit 8 fold over selling their garbage. Low and behold they were right in their belief that all that would be required to set their work a rave would be the mere exposure effect and a few wealthy prominent buyers.
The high end art market is a money laundering and tax evasion scheme by the rich for the rich.
@@asimian8500 agreed
same here. i didnt like Dadaism. I felt the same way about the French existentialists. It was like if someone farted in class, everyone laughs, and Raushenberg angrily wont laugh. Also, he was an unbelievable alcoholic. Not like a rockstar party guy artist....he would kill a 5th daily, alone. Total loser imo.
@@sooperd00p agreed!!
If that crap was art, the cia wouldn't have had to spend billions of tax payer money attempting to convince people it was. The cia forced modem art and jazz. Both have no place in civilization. No place at all.
" You have no way of knowing if you're being taken for a sucker"- Robert Florczak
Right there. I've been saying this for years. I also demonstrated it to my friends by scribbling on the piece of paper and called it art. The only difference between my scribble and the 10k+ "art" is that it's promoted by some art galleries or art critics I have never heard of. To me, it speaks more about YOU- the people who spends thousands to purchase trash, than a so-called "artists" who figure ways to make money.
The designation of anything as “Art “has always been subjective. It’s a perspective we choose to take. It has never been about anything intrinsic to any object.
All the same things can objectively be said about classical music as well. You really should address that next, but it seems like so many people draw a line at music for some reason.
You people really need to learn the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.
Objectivity isn't when something just *seems* obviously true. Measurements of quality are nothing but subjective because they literally require a subject to have quality. If there are no subjects to observe something, it doesn't have beauty, for example. Beauty is a subjective concept that conferred onto objects by observers, it isn't an intrinsic part of the object.
Not quite the same thing. Classical music and most modern genres have things in common which can be appreciated for different reasons and in different ways: melody, harmony, rhythm, and each occupies a different purpose. Classical music often serves as an accompaniment to action on movies and TV, or at religious services, while popular music works well for dancing, to name one.
A better comparison would be comparing Beethoven's 9th symphony to a cat running across a keyboard.
😂 I’m sorry but the “moving and uplifting or static and perverse” part just slayed me! I don’t think I need to explain why. The modern art sculpture says it all. Just look at the time stamp 1:02 and you will see exactly what I mean.
I liked that part too.
That is pretty much the point of the statue.
I don't like it myself, but it's funny that it is so obvious that you don't get it.
You have to be perverse to get this one.
Absolutely correct. The degradation of art mirrored the degradation of our whole culture, and preceded it. This accelerated in the 1960s. I've lived through it. Art exists to communicate a message, but the quality of art is determined by the technical expertise apparent in its execution. It's possible to have art which has little or no actual message.
Saying that art has to be technical to be quality is genuinely laughable. Plenty of guitar players can't shred like Eddie Van Halen but they can still make extremely compelling music.
Just because you dislike experimental art doesn't mean it has no merit. Lmfao
hmm, yes, indubitably. *sips brandy from a sippy cup*. Oop! I daresay! It seems I have soiled my undergarments. Perchance I need a fresh Huggy.
This video is about art.
@@RobbieChance The average conservative watching this video.
"Great art will never make a fool of you." One of several essential guidelines concisely stated in this video. Thank You ...
There is almost nothing weirder than the rightwing hysteric who thinks he’s being in some way victimized by modern art.
@@jcarp6335 it really is fascinating.
What's your favorite Robert Florczak painting?
Thank you for this! As a public-schooled millennial, I always feel completely lost when it comes to art appreciation. I talked about this with my mom recently, and she says there's a huge difference between how our generations were taught on this subject, mostly because my schools barely touched it. They'll teach you to draw, but they don't teach you how to judge a work and know what is great and what is not.
teach you what good art is? you can’t teach what good art is because art is subjective, good art is what you like
Imagine thinking you can "teach" good art lmao. Conservatives are truly delusional
@@ianmcewan3326The point is you can teach what great art is if you have standards. Today there are no standards, so when you take a dump on the ground and give it to your art teacher you get a gold star for participation, even if it's just a pile of sh*t.
Art is still taught with standards. I'm an art student right now. It's just that if we keep doing art only by the standards it will never evolve so now it's more about learning how and when to bend the standards to improve your art. If we just follow the same standards that were set years ago then art will lose creativity.
Your first video is my favorite PragerU video. Now I need to add this to the list.😊
This is a great video, so true! I am a artist myself and seeing stuff like this really makes me want to get better at my craft!
While I agree with most of this, the narrative falls down when he says "the great artists of the past didn't care one wit about reflecting their times" which is 100% false. The artists of the Renaissance (Botticelli, Michelangelo and Rafaello to name a few) were absolutely focused on championing the humanist values of their times and even using art to subvert the approved narratives and traditions up to that point as Michelangelo did often. So, sorry...just lost major credibility there.
The same can be said of great music.
What is great music and what is not? Is Bach great and Beethoven bad? Is Mozart good and Bartok bad? Is Schoenberg good and Stockhausen bad? Is Beatles good and The Rolling Stones bad? What parameters do you apply?
As someone who likes Pop and HipHop, I would disagree on that.
Music is Music. No matter when it's beeing produced.
Great art takes years to master
When I go to a classical art museum I can stay there for hours looking at each painting/artwork carefully and reading everything about it. Something I don’t do for modern art
Why are you reading about the paintings? Isn't it unnecessary and bad to get context?
That's at least what this dude in the video says....
You should honestly try to stay longer at modern art museums and read more about each piece! It can be enjoyable
@@TheSeppomaniaIt's not that it's bad or unnecessary, it's that the art itself motivated one to want to learn more about it. It was the artwork that drove the desire to read the context. Modern art on the other hand many times requires examining the context to understand the art itself. The art isn't standing on it's own. It's standing on it's meaning and/or the fame of the artist.
I think it's important to remember that western classical artistic values have not gone anywhere, and that a lot of the conceptual art fetish has to do with the _business_ of art collection, which requires efficient production of new art upon which a monetary value can be placed. There are still plenty of artists working from western classical values, and producing art that would be right at home in earlier eras.
Very uneducated and close minded take. The experimental and ground breaking modern art styles is what keeps me still interested in art and music.
Enjoying the principals of classical art is not bad, but it gets repetitive after some time and is very difficult to recognize for the uneducated viewer.
And why is it specifically colour, composition and movement that makes art good for you? Shouldn't art not be pleasing to the eyes and evoking emotions as well? Aren't those the most important things? I want to feel something when I look at or listen to art. I don't want to just analyse it to decide if it is good or bad.
By your definition all emotions are lost.
You would probably love AI art lol
I don't like when someone claims they can tell me what art is good.
Even making up rules that all art should obey....
And I don't care if that person runs a museum, or makes videos for PragerU.
Van Gogh's paintings would have been destroyed long ago, if we let people like that dictate art.
And though I agree that there is a lot of rubbish in museums today, there are also real gems out there.
I did a design based major in a NYC average level college. The instructors and teachers of the classes which I had to take spent so much effort trying to convince us that there was so much value to be found in the modern destroyers while the few classes I had on form and the several I had about design related topics were far more obvious and sensible.
NYC museums are a joke on the whole, I'm sure it's similar elsewhere. The MOMA was one of the most uncomfortable experiences I've ever had.
I’m confused. This video mentions that technique and realism defines classic art and also states that it doesn’t matter. And ultimately ends with “You know it’s good because you know what good is.”
So art is objectively subjective? Also I’ve been made a fool plenty of times but never by a painting so I think that might just be a self report.
It’s entirely subjective. Art is a perspective we take on something. No object is intrinsically art. It’s about agreement, and agreement is transitory. Anyone who is talking about art in a qualitative way isn’t telling you about an object, they are just telling you about themselves.
You are confused about what "objective" means.
@@cisium1184 oh I thought it was when you define something without your own personal bias or opinion. What am I missing?
That previous video was 8 years ago, man he aged heavily, no offense as both videos were really good and informative about why we are stuck in an era where even $@#t is seen as art for the sake of common expression within the left. And, how classical art is good not because of what it wants to tell but how good it looks like with the excellence of quality and skill.
He just made a few changes to his hairstyle and maybe greyed a little bit. I don't see much "heavy aging" at all; he looks better now IMO.
@@mayharmon6948 The sides of his hair is gone and his voice is more deeper, although that could be because of the difference in equipment. Technology has sure evolved these past eight years.
Never knew how art could knock the breath out of me until I visited Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum and saw Rembrandt's "The Night Watch."
There's a painting hanging in the Art Institute of Chicago and it just fascinates me, it's the 'Dot Painting' : 'A Sunday on La Grande Jatte' - 1884, Artist: Georges Seurat. Reason is my Elem School in Chi. had Prints of Classic Paintings on the walls & if you somehow 'misbehaved' in class you had go out and stand against the wall, I got a good look at the 'Dot Painting' on the wall when I was in 4th Grade (😂). I soon realized the entire painting was made of DOTS!! I was determined to see the real thing when 'I grew up' Luckily to my surprise it was right in my hometown Art Museum, I've had many hours of pleasure in the years looking at that masterpiece. I also made sure a family trip was made so my wife & 2 daughters could see it too. (sorry for the long comment. sometimes I go into Tolstoy Mode. 😁)
Well, you might be surprised to learn that this painting is not classical art and depicts men at the river with prostitutes. It’s a fabulous work, but by the definitions in this video it’s bad art.
19th century France had an artistic trend called "pointillisme," compositions consisting of "points," or "dots," as you call them. Strictly speaking, the screen I am typing this on right now is merely a series of dots arranged in particular colors and positions that create images.
@@ChuckNicholsonTRM Well, he didn't actually say that. He said that "standards began to decline in the 1860s" but he never actually passed judgment either way on impressionism. Indeed it seems to me that he specifically avoided doing so.
@@cisium1184 that would certainly make it seem that he is implying that Impressionism is where the decline begins. Would you like to tell me of some other major art movement that began right around 1960?
@@ChuckNicholsonTRM _"that would certainly make it seem that he is implying that Impressionism is where the decline begins."_
That's really more of an inference by us. There are plenty of other reasons to think he's _not_ talking about Impressionism. The painters we regard as Impressionists may have started painting around 1860, but they didn't set up their first exhibition until 1874. In the intervening 14 years they were submitting paintings to the Salon and getting them rejected, then selling them to a few (mostly poor) patrons or to each other or to Caillebotte - so few people were even seeing these pictures. Even after the 1874 exhibition, the works weren't immediately accepted in the Paris Salon, and the broader principles of Impressionism were still subjects of debate in the broader art world after that. In fact by the 1880s many of the Impressionists had moved on to other explorations and the Post-Impressionists had arisen to reject Impressionism. This guy is talking about the values of the elite of the art world, not a small group of outcasts in Paris. In that context, there really isn't a clear basis for pinning that year 1860 to Impressionism.
_"Would you like to tell me of some other major art movement that began right around 1960?[sic]"_
He may not be referring to the start of a movement but to the end of one. Neoclassicism fell out of fashion around 1860, and the Renaissance revivalism of the Pre-Raphaelites ended around that time, too. The 1860 reference could be to either of those movements, which were deeply rooted in the traditions the video exhalts. So he may feel that traditional values in art started to die when those movements died, and when they returned in the Realism of the later 19th century they were not as strong.
I guess my point is, it certainly could be Impressionism because he didn't show a single Impressionist picture in the video, but we need to remember that Impressionism wasn't the only form of artistic rebellion happening around that time. It was just the most successful one, largely because it was actually rooted in traditional art principles - it just weighted the principles of light and shade more heavily, relative to composition, than many other movements of the time. We also need to remember that Impressionism didn't so much push out other movements as fill a kind of "gap in vision" when nothing stylistically was really happening in art. It may be that this gap, between the end of Neoclassicism and the beginning of Impressionism, is what the 1860 date is really referring to.
Thanks for articulating what I already knew but didn’t know how to say
When I was 13-14 years old, I went to the Tate museum in London. I left with a headache and full of anger. The whole time I was asking myself, why are those people who created this "art" so famous. If they can be famous, everyone can. But not everyone is an artist...This is the part of my life where I really started to hate modern and apstract art (not all of it) and all those pretentious artists who think that every dump they make has a deep meaning
Photography essentially made realistic painting obsolete. It's a lot faster and cheaper to have your portrait done by a photographer than a painter. In conservative terms, art was adapting to the new market forces brought forth by technological advancements.
Excellent video essay. I've felt this understanding before in my life, but I haven't ever been able to put it to words. Thank you for making this, guys.
I don’t think all Impressionism or abstract works are bad, but I agree it’s objectively bad when one sets out to glorify crassness, blasphemy, or evil. Mind you it can be necessary to depict evil in order to contrast it with the light. Dostoyevsky is a fantastic example of this. But glorifying darkness in itself is where I draw the line.
Great video! Although, I don't know if I would give the "meaning" of a piece art less importance than it "looking nice." (This video is a very PragerU way of looking at the subject I just realized heh). Without meaning, art is merely decoration, like a beautiful vase or piece of furniture. Actually I don't really like using the word "meaning" either, since a forcefully injected meaning, moral, or message tends to degrade the piece of art. The true power of fine art is to show the transcendent reality of truth and beauty through the physical medium of a visual picture. To "render visible the divine" as it was put in a book I've been reading recently. They talk about this a lot over at Art Renewal Center.
He spent a whole video explaining why meaning is less significant than being visually pleasing.
Meaning is ultimately subjective. Good art needs to stand on its own.
@@alaric3056 But that's stupid. The meaning behind the art gives the art another layer of quality Sure, classical art is aesthetically nice, but it tells you all you need to know. Being able to understand what was going on in the artists head, or, having art that is open to interpretation, makes the art deeper.
Britannica Dictionary definition of ART: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
Yes I am very particular with looking at art these days. I do not appreciate junk which most things are.
My late grandfather was an amateur artist in a couple of mediums. Painting and woodworking. His woodworking skills were intermediate as he wasn't like Norm Abrams, but he knew what he could do. He painted mostly nature scenes. He did art as a hobby after he retired. His education in engineering actually helped him. One of his better woodworking art pieces was a whirlygig of a scene from Moby Dick. Turn the handle, and you see the boat with Ahab and the other whalers move while a white whale goes up and down as the gears move everything except the Pequod. That was an independent part of the device. It is a simple piece of art but beautiful on its own.
Personally, I prefer the Lego Sculptures of Nathan Sawaya. Although made of Lego, I’d say they look good enough to fit in with more classical art, perhaps even being remotely inspired by great works such as The Thinker, depicting things such as a person in yellow ripping open their chest to reveal the Lego Brick contents pouting out. To me, they look great, they can have meaning if that’s how you choose to interpret them, or they can simply look colorful and fun. I rather enjoy them, and personally find them as enjoyable to the eye as statues such as Venus.
To me, Lego is some of the last of classical art, it just, I dunno, looks kinda like what I think Da Vinci would’ve made if he had Lego to build with.
Call me crazy, but I think The Art of the Brick is some of the best art I’ve seen in a while, and is certainly much better than this vulgar crummy ramp and pit plate stuff people are making today.
I’m not saying modern art is bad, but there’s a fine line between art and trash, let Squidward teach you that lesson.
This is a perfect example of why this video's thesis is wrong. He's comparing successful art of the past with government funded (Ergo "unsuccessful" by definition) art of the present. Yet, when you look at modern mediums (like Lego etc) you see that there are LOADS of successful artists right now. My kids like to show me Minecraft builds on UA-cam that would take your breath away with their classical beauty. And those channels are making money (without the government having to give them a penny). The second you subsidize art, it turns to garbage, but beautiful art will always be created.
@@rachelrasmussen1101 I don't think he's wrong. I do feel that, even compared to Lego or Minecraft art, classical art is still superior. I just like Lego more than I like art.
The 60-year-old artist here, since 5 years old, and professionally in the last 40 years as a portrait and nature artist, I totally agree.
As an art teacher, I really appreciate this video. Very well explained, and very on target!
Art is a reflection of what is available or not within the viewer's mind.
“Art, by definition, is a visual medium.” Only visual?? 🤔
ahh yes, making art restrictive by reducing it to "just looking good"
Every time I click a video on this channel and see a "premieres in 38 hours" on it, I close it and never watch it. I can't be the only fan here who gets annoyed by this. If you post a video, post the video! Not an RSVP to the video, please!
This is already posted on the PragerU website and you can watch it there.
Same here. I skip ALL "premiering in x hours" videos. Either post, or don't. Please don't clog my feed with future stuff.
@@CellaBella241 Oh that is good info. So they post there first then delay the upload to UA-cam, ok I get it now. Maybe I should start following there.
Bruh it premiers like a show on cable television.
Finally a good vid about classical art! I 100% agree. THANK YOU!
I thought he was going to say we're too stupid to create it anymore.
I couldn't have said it better myself, bravo!
A true restoration would be going back to those standards. Modern art doesn't have to be like this nor should it.
Both realistic art(Baroque and Southern Renaissance, not Northern Renaissance since it's still rooted in Gothic and Medieval art)and modern art are both garbage and flipsides of each other.. Medieval art and Byzantine art is the solution.
How far back do you want to go? Is impressionism and expressionism still acceptable in your narrow mind? Do you want to do the same in literature, so Shakespeare is ok, but Tolstoy and Mann should be abolished? Maybe you want the same in music, so Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are ok, but Bartok, Schoenberg and Stockhausen should be abolished?
You live around 90 years to late. In the 1930s there was a movement and a party wanting to restore traditional art. They labelled modern art "Entartete Kunst" and destroyed it. You would probably have been a dedicated member of the movement.
@@Frups12345678 Wow, I didn't think my comment would evoke such a ridiculous response.
@@Luminus2
It is quite telling that you avoided the topic and did not address my points. When all you have is deflection and dismissal, then you truly have nothing.
@@Frups12345678 Why should I respond to baseless accusations? All I said was that art should return to the standards mentioned in the video. You're throwing a fit for no reason. Maybe you should grow up a little bit if you can't handle something so simple?
I once worked at an artmuseum. A visitor asked me my opinion on the exhibition. I said I thought it was really shit bad work. She got very angry... (she had bought a ticket....)
If everyone just paint or draw classic, how an artist can express him or herself. Absolutely by having a classic art knowledge you can paint a significant painting, but you just show one kind of your feelings. Modern art have lots of things to say that classical art cannot show it. I love both of them. People are different these days. The life style has change. You can see millions different opinions that you can show with art, but not just with classic art.
And, I love Francisco Bacons arts , but you show his artworks as a bad art!!! He was amazing! He was a successful artist.
Any art is admirable and we can not call it a bad art.
I nocticed that In the video put Bacon as bad artist and Willem De Kooning too as "inept" while De Kooning was an academic classical artist at first then he changed his painting skills because he joined the abstract expressionists
I have heard it said that modern art is often a money laundering scheme. I don't know about that, but the allegation could never have been made of classical art. Anyone can see the mastery- modernist works (in contrast) often don't demonstrate any skill, and the idea that it is nothing but a scam does come to mind.
What is "Good" or "Great" art? Yes, it considers skill and execution, but only if the skill and execution is able to convey beauty and expression to some people.
Yes, as art is a form of visual media it naturally conforms to the system of aesthetics. However, I disagree that the elements of art must be presented in a certain way. The comparison the video puts out of "Good" and "Bad" art merely shows two artworks that have used the elements of art in two different ways in order to demonstrate two different skills convey two different messages, and there is no superior one. For example, for composition, one could argue was trying to create the sense of domestic tranquility and the other of chaos. Is one inherently better than the other?
Next, the video argues that the primary goal of art is to create art that looked "Good" rather than convey a meaning. But this was based on their belief that it looked good, not any objective standard - because there is no objectivity in art, since all of the principles of "Good" aesthetics stated earlier are only one branch of thought on how to make art look "good". If modern artists believed that their art looked "Good" and at least some viewers agreed, then it also looks good in some beliefs and therefore is equally valid in beauty as classical art.
Next, the video argues that art requires the skillful execution of a visual medium through the painting of details. Skill is undoubtedly important for some art. However, it would be inaccurate to claim that art created without skill is "bad" art. If people find it beautiful, then it is good art to them. Furthermore, modern art also uses skill. It would be hard to argue that, say, great modernist architecture isn't art, but the construction of modern building such as the Burj Khalifa or WTC requires immense skill that the architects of old could have never dreamed of.
Finally, the video attempts to distinguish between Quality and Taste as quality is based on long-standing principles. However, who made these principles? They are ultimately tastes that many people agreed upon. And if many other people agreed that other forms of art are beautiful, they have also created their own quality. Therefore, I disagree with this video.
Because it searches to transcend our world through beauty instead of the search for shocking or critique
I should clarify. I was being a bit snarky but my larger intent is to show the Nazis cultural perspective was more in line with conservative values than progressive. They despised Hollywood, promoted "traditional values" , were anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-modern art , Nationalistic, etc... Of course it's completely out of line to associate the genocidal aspects of Nazism to American conservatives just as it would be out of line to compare Bernie Sanders social welfare proposals to Stalin or Mao. I'm just really pusing back at the revisionist history promoted by American conservatives that the Nazis were not a right-wing movement. I've come to realize as "location, location, location" is fundamental to real estate "culture, culture, culture" is fundamental to politics.
The MAGA right may not yet mirror the “genocidal aspects” of the Third Reich but there is no question that they peddle “replacement theory” and are increasing militant. Calling for genocide might be a corner the Trump Cult right has not yet turned. But they are on the march. I wouldn’t expect them to simply stop at the art museum.
I didn't like the other video, but I really like this one. The ideas underlying the first video are more clearly anf forcefully expressed here. I still don't agree completely, but still think this is a very well-made case. And what I appreciate about both videos is that Mr. Florczak is making the type of argument that needs yo be made -- one from aesthetic principles rather than intellectual ones. One doesn't treat flower arranging as a form of mathematics, and social commentary, for example, is not art.
Classical art is boring. There are plenty of contemporary, living, artists just as good as those mentioned in this video. But I get the fact that this is a PragerU video and therefore the conservative message is: “new art bad, old art good”
My landlord's cat had three kittens..I named the more delicate one Miro, I named the crazy one Dali, and the big roughneck is called Mantegna..true story...
Miro is awesome. The Fundació Joan Miró in Barcelona is mind blowing.
I'm a painter and guitarist and a writer. I don't do anything to the highest level, and I don't think I'll ever be able to, but I respect the masters. Modern " artists" don't respect their history and pervert the meaning of artistic mastery.
You truly don't understand the function of art. It is only through rebellion, that art evolves. Without the innovation and rebellion, Bach would never have changed music. Without the same rebellion, the Renaissance would never have evolved to the Baroque.
@@Frups12345678 you can innovate without pissing on those who came before you. There are good examples of modern art, but much of it is just being rebellious for the sake of rebellion. You shouldn't attempt to be the rebel without a clue. Instead you should try to be the best you can, and innovate along the way.
@@jamestunedflat8942
What artists were; "pissing on those who came before"? Did Rodin piss on da Vinci, or did Giacometti piss on Rodin? Did Monet piss on Rembrandt, did Signac piss on Monet, or did Lichtenstein piss on Signac? During all times, there has always been more and less important art. The point of the video is that classical art somehow is superior, which is silly at best. There was a previous movement like this in the 1930's, dividing art into classical and modern art. Modern art was depicted as "Entartete Kunst", paintings were destroyed and in some cases the artists were murdered. Luckily this movement came to a halt in 1945.
@@Frups12345678 a giant bean, a butt plug and a urinal have all been displayed at modern art galleries. If the first two examples aren't good enough for you the third should tell you something. I'm not saying all modern artists, instead I was specifically referring to those who think of themselves as year one rebels. If you want a laugh google bad medieval artwork and compare it to modern masterpieces. Bad art is bad art, but at least in the middle ages they tried.
@@jamestunedflat8942
It is interesting and quite telling that you do not even address or refute my claims. I don't know how many modern art museums I have been to around the world, but I suspect that it is +50. There are certain things I adore like German expressionism, I find Russian avantgarde interesting etc., but there are also some modern art that I struggle with like some video installations. Please remember that all the discussions on this thread are in relation to the video where modern art was dismissed.
I had to take at least one art class in college. I entered it with this exact opinion as the video. But I realized I wanted to take more (even though it wasn't my degree), and emerged with the opposite opinion. Why? Because it turned out that the more I thought about it, the more broad and different things I realized I recognized as "art" in my head, and the more broad I realized the purpose of art. So my definition would have to change. What is art? Its a display of some kind meant to evoke a thought or emotion. Sometimes that's a deep social message, sometimes its just trying to get you to think about a specific feeling, sometimes its just there to entertain. And how it can do that is pretty amazing. Because a lot of people think of art as skill, but a lot of it isn't. A lot of it is just about finding clever or creative ways to evoke that thought or message. Hell, we like practical effects in movies rather than CGI, and the CGI is way more complicated.
You know what I also learned? Art history isn't some continuous process where we get more detailed at drawing a face. Humans have been doing art for a long time, and sometimes it looked like damned photographs and sometimes it looked like a fever dream. The kicker was that _this was usually on purpose._ Humanity has a long history of deliberately being unrealistic. I learned medieval artists knew damn well how to make paintings that looked good, they chose the style they did because they weren't going for photorealism.
All of this!
Kandinsky was very modern. But he makes me feel good. His art does not seem random or meaningless. He refused the old but he also had the new to offer.
I rarely say this, and I do not say it lightly, but this video had no element of untruth in it...at all!
There was nothing whatsoever in it that was merely personal opinion.
It was, instead, an incisive cutting through of the modern art BS message, and a CONCISE laying out of the objective truth of the matter!
Kudos to you, sir!
You seem really certain about this. Where did you study aesthetics?
@@ivanelrino You seem really passive-aggressive about this. Where did YOU NOT study aesthetics?
Pretty simple, painting was once all about capturing reality on the only medium they could. Which for ages was through painting and illustrations and sculpture. But photography and quickly film changed all that. By the end of the Civil War almost anyone could take a photo and by the turn of the century almost anyone could film things. So art transformed and became about expression and become more being thought provoking than true skill. Their are still plenty of classical artists. But what a lot of people see today is modern art. Btw as a cartoonist and illustrator I love the classics.
lol, you're just inventing your own history of art.
You missed the WHOLE point of the video. And your views are absurdly incorrect.
Thanks Robert!
Because it actually took talent to make classic art.
Today I could dip my phallic member in a can of paint and slap it on a canvas and get $200K if my name was Hunter...
I doubt it. Because if you could, you would. Or you're stupid. Which one?
Art is something else.
He is spot on
He’s rebranding what Hitler said about “degenerate art” in an effort to assert the superiority of white European culture over the rest of humanity.
It’s evil.
@@jcarp6335 Dude. That's like saying Hitler who was against smoking made prohibiting Smoking evil. Or how Hitler wanted to create Nature reserves made Nature reserves evil by showing the Superiority of European Forest.
It's correct. Garbage art would be reviled anywhere in the World. Great art is seen as transcendent because people from all sorts of cultures can Appreciate it.
@@arnowisp6244 Nonsense. Because Hitler didn’t use smoking or nature preserves to assert Aryan superiority.
However he endlessly used his theories about art to advance that agenda.
Hitler was an aspiring artist. He was embittered about not getting into art school. As with everything else, he blamed Jews.
And as chancellor he aggressively denounced what he termed “degenerate art”, established “standards” for what was art, what made it acceptable or established “beauty”. He ordered displays of this “degenerate” art for the purpose of public mockery. He raided European art museums and homes and specifically stole works he considered to be representative of the superiority of white European classical culture.
The parallels with what this video is asserting are undeniable.
Look up the concept of “degenerate art”
@@arnowisp6244 “Degenerate art (German: Entartete Kunst) was a term adopted in the 1920s by the Nazi Party in Germany to describe modern art. During the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, German modernist art, including many works of internationally renowned artists, was removed from state-owned museums and banned in Nazi Germany on the grounds that such art was an "insult to German feeling", un-German, Freemasonic, Jewish, or Communist in nature. Those identified as degenerate artists were subjected to sanctions that included being dismissed from teaching positions, being forbidden to exhibit or to sell their art, and in some cases being forbidden to produce art.
Degenerate Art also was the title of an exhibition, held by the Nazis in Munich in 1937, consisting of 650 modernist artworks chaotically hung and accompanied by text labels deriding the art. Designed to inflame public opinion against modernism, the exhibition subsequently traveled to several other cities in Germany and Austria.”
It’s not… sure it’s much more realistic… but realistic doesn’t always tell the story the best. Sometimes different styles bring more emotion and expression.
Glad I'm not alone in considering classical art better than modern art. Tbh, I never 'got' picasso. It always looked haphazard to me. To each their own. But it just looked messy. I never got the 'emotion' behind it. I like both modern and classical art. But most modern art can't hold a candle to most classical pieces.
So Renoir and Van Gogh are 'haphazard' like shawty you dont even understand what modern art is.
Picasso's early and later art are very different. He had such severe mental issues near the end that he showcased it through art, which is why his art is interesting.
you didnt mention the way the material was used. Many artists dont push the limits of the material. Plus two of your “ bad” examples The Bacon and the De Kooning meet all of your requirements for “ good art”
good points.. many people no longer have the basic logic to think critically about anything...
Did you and I watch the same video? I only ask because all this man said was "Art shouldn't have meaning, it should only look pretty" wouldn't call that logical or thinking critically at all, it just sounds like he wants art to be entertainment, which it isn't.
I looked up some of Florczak's paintings and drawings and it is boring kitsch at best. There is an array of amazing classic art:
- The way Schalken used light and shadows was phenomenal.
- Zurbaran's still life and mystic and powerful paintings.
- Duerer's altar pieces are extraordinary.
The list goes on and on, but that does not mean that modern art is less valuable or good. It comes down to the question what the role is of art is. From my perspective, I would choose Beckmann, Dix, Hoerle, Ernst etc., over the kitsch that Florczak produces. I just saw a hideous Florzak painting called; "The Brigadier and the Lady" and I could not help to think how much emotion Banksy can create with basic artistic language.
This is excellent, thank you.
this video is particularly special for me. 6 years ago, I watched this guy's video on why Modern Art is so bad. I could have never imagined where I would end up. After that video, I started watching PragerU; so much that I ended up watching every video and subscribing. During the following year, I began becoming conservative so that by the time of Trump's election, I had become one. Now I am super hardcore conservative and have a channel explaining my views. Thanks so much for this video, it means a lot to me!
I, too, like to only watch videos that reflect my views and avoid encountering opposing viewpoints in the comment section. In this regard, the youtube algorithm is great.
@@ktefccre are you being sarcastic?
File with “Rap is Crap” and “The Degenerate Art Exhibition”
The sad thing is most people when they look at fine art or craftsmanship, even though they may appreciate it, don't give much if any thought to what was involved in creating it. I include myself in that group.
I once went to an art exhibit that showcased a video of a bunch of books being washed in a washing machine. I was floored that anybody thought that was worthy of an exhibit. My toddlers have tossed so many random objects into the washing machine... maybe they were just creating "art," lol.
Aesthetic quality is important because it separates the masters from the amateurs. But is meaning really secondary? It's true what Mr Florczak says that one can find meaning in literature and music, and that art separates itself from those things by being a visual medium. But is it possible for any of these things to be meaningless? And if a piece of art had no meaning at all, would you bother going to see it again? I'm asking these questions because I'm genuinely curious what others think. Are there any artists here who make art that is meaningless? Can art be good if it has no meaning?
I love art 🖼️
Florczak delivers this video essay with the calm, confidence, and impeccable reasoning of someone who has thought deeply about a topic and emerged with answers.
Lol
Hi Robert
An eight year old could remake half of all modern art.
And a toddler wrote the bible.
Lol I'd wager a 2 year old can
Thanks for the video.
Classical Art presents an unwelcome contrast to the insecure.
If you think *modern art = lack of talent,* I challenge you to to replicate the "Balloon Dog" shown in the beginning of the video.
Got that right. 💯
Informative. Love the video. Ghazala Ismail noorani. From Pakistan
This is a great video!
Imagine if Adolf Hitler was born in the Reinassance era instead in the year 1889, then his work of art would be a masterpiece and World War 2 would never happened.
Sorry but little hot take here umm HITLER AS EVIL HE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY FORM OF PRAISE WHATSOEVER. 🤡🤡
What the hell does he mean classical artist's art didn't reflect their time period???? Has this guy just never studied art history??
And it's not like artists just make the decision to reflect the time period they live in, art is literally what we use to define the history of culture so it is impossible for it to not reflect how culture worked. Medieval artists mainly depicted religious imagery, Renaissance artists depicted philosophers and ancient societies, Rococo artists painted royalty and beautiful gardens, Romantic artists painted dramatic scenes of nature, etc. etc.
The rippaverse comic book artwork is unique. Eric July knows how comic book is good when is a good written stories and good quality artwork. Not pushing identity politics.
I luv art.
Fantastic, thank you Robert!
If it makes for easy replication, its not that way folks...remember the part about fooling people? Guess who also like to fool people, deceit...lie, yeap money launderers.
If it makes for a printable nft for "quicky making a bucky" then is not art, might be an image but not art.
Let’s use what we’ve learned to analyze the PODESTA BROTHERS ART COLLECTION, what do we think?
If art is only to "make you think", then why don't we consider propaganda images to be good art? They made people think the desired thoughts.
I can see how expressing an idea or principle might be an aspect of a great work, but lots of other things need to be in place as well.
Propaganda pictures are good art too, there are famous propaganda pictures. They just function and exist differently in culture because they're distributed differently
Great video.
0:50 The one on the right isn't objectively bad. It's just a different style.
0:55 The issue with the one on the right is less garrish collor, and more that it's oversimplifyed.
1:01 So, still lifes aren't art then? Althogh, yeah the one on the right is kind of bland.
*aren't" not arn't
I find classic art cool and very excellent.
Yeah , modern art really makes me think so much. Like how humanity has become so stupid
Are you an artist yourself? Do you only like art because of how it looks? I'm just asking because art in and of itself is subjective and art always has been trying to convey meaning.
Art IS a product of its time
And you said it yourself “art is primary based on how good it looks”.
What qualifies as “looking good”
Changes with the time
Therefore, it is a reflection of its time because what looks good to them changes with the time
And I things they choose to paint
Also changes with the time
In all this video is a poorly misguided attempt to at base value promote conservatism
And denounce anything new as
“Not art” or “not a sport”
Not to mention it makes opinion
Somehow on equal footing with truth which is ironic because this channel constantly frames itself
As the truth and “woke”
(Which is really just a strawman for anyone who disagrees, proves them wrong, or calls them out for lying, not providing sources,or being propaganda
It cut off
Anyways woke as wrong and trying to destroy everything