Art vs Modern "Art" video
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2022
- When it comes to art, we all have our opinions. When it comes to modern art, we all have our arguments. In this video we discuss how art has changed, why, and why modern art is so controversial.
Join our Discord server: / discord
Join French Baguette Intelligence on social media:
Patreon:
/ frenchbaguetteintellig...
Twitter:
/ fauxcares
Reddit:
/ frenchbaguetteint
Facebook:
/ frenchbaguetteintellig...
Special thanks to my old friend Bebe for letting us use her artwork on the video. Should anyone like to see her gallery and support her work, here's the link to her page: siriartist
Enjoyed Spoon's fanart? She does commissions! Check out her page here:
spoonsartshop.carrd.co/
www.etsy.com/shop/SpoonsiesAr...
#art #modernart #postmodernism #FranciscodeGoya #LeonardoDaVinci #Objectionlol #AceAttorney #PhoenixWright #Fanart
Art is like one of FC's arguments... nobody gets it!
"Faux Cares is typing..." * Intensifies *
Do you think the length of his arguments is to compensate?
hey cleo can I get your art for $100 US dollars?
Art.
@@davidt.6873 You can get a stain for a hundred. This is a stain that apparently is also a man. You get a man for $100. So $200.
@@TigasMen Nobody notices fc and yet nobody stops talking about him and his height
To counter any variation of 'but can you do better?', I always use a line paraphrased from a comedian putting down a heckler
"I can't fly a helicopter, but if I saw one wrapped around a tree, I could still tell the pilot he fucked up"
I always loved that line, even if I don’t enjoy much of the comedian’s other stuff.
another one is "If a chef served me dog food, I shouldn't have to be an expert to say it was shit" or something
Can I have a receipt for that one liner please?
@@averytubestudios Steve Hofstetler.
Alternatively, you can spend years of your life dedicated to he craft so you WILL do better.
Ex: Fanchen
It’s amazing how this group’s Discord never runs out of argument topics. It’s only a matter of time until they begin arguing about which iCarly character is canonically the strongest.
Do not give them ideas.
@@deki9827 *do* give them ideas
Spencer, im sure of it
@@MrChaco-vh1vw Man has pyrokinesis, he’s gotta be the strongest.
@@akomeadyen1294 Yes sir.
"Amazing. You had a seizure and didn't even drop the brush!" That in itself was an amazing line, holy shit.
Massive Edgeworth energy.
The dialogue in these videos are amazing.
I expect this is FC's way of saying, "look, I've got the video up, if anything else goes wrong, it's not on me."
Are you on the Discord dude?
@@bernardosaborit1589 Yeah, AmalgamFate.
"How dare you insult the greatness of Van Bowl? This painting OBVIOUSLY represents MYSTERY!!!!! For even I, its creator, have no f*cking clue what it is!"
Not only the painting is deep but also it's meaning. Truly a masterpiece crafted by no one but the great Van Bowl!
van bowl truly is a gift to us all.
that one gift your creepy uncle gave you that's covered in white stuff but it still counts as a gift
talking about Bowl's painting...
the painting might have not required effort, but the attempt to give it an reason ... now that was oddly impressive
@@gaminghorse7925 Ayo
Also, regarding another of bowls comments: I think what’s often overlooked is the triviality of sadness. Yeah, joy might not be as interesting a representation. But have you ever had REAL joy? That shit is really good, and, I think it’s equally hard to recreate in art.
Yeah, but pain and sadness are universal. The source of your joy, whether it's your marriage, your dog, or something else, isn't something you can easily share as you can with things like loneliness, depression and poverty that are more universal.
@@thermophile1695 I partly agree.
I agree that it's harder to replicate because the feeling of happiness is fleeting, it is something you cannot control but you can always keep yourself truly miserable by putting yourself in a bad place or reminiscence on painful memories.
So that's why I personally find it easier to replicate sadness, anger and despair in painting than happiness cause you really can't force yourself to be "happy"
@@thermophile1695Marriage , dogs and many other things are universal as much as poverty , depression and loneliss. If you are talking about the source of joy being not universal , then its the same for sadness. The sources are different for different people .
@@onikostar Well you are forcing urself to be sad by doing that arent u ? Why cant it go the other way ?
15:06 thats actually a really nice painting. Also this is the most civilized and sophisticated discussion i have seen in a WHILE, even Bowl seemed to drop the act a little in favor of a more mature conversation
Yea this vid made me realize how annoying it would be to be friends with FC and Cleo IRL
@@johnpaulcross424 People tend to act very differently in person than they do online, though.
@@johnpaulcross424 why?
@@diavolosteddy7594 The power of being anonymous behind a screen for one. IRL your true self is exposed clearer than it would be online.
It's also kind of how kids act differently at school and then back home, if you want a more relatable comparison.
@@diavolosteddy7594 why do you think introvert can end up extremely sociable on the net, yet still remain introvert?
Theres distance between you and them, you dont know them irl unless you are already good friend with them, they dont know you aside from information you provide, and they can take all the time rhey want to think about what they are saying instead of awkwardly reacting to the rant of more sociable people irl while never having much opportunity to speak otherwise
I have to disagre with one point of the conclusion:
the amount of effort put into an art piece is irrelevant to it's quality.
even if I go and do some scuplting, the fact that the fact that I don't have any experience means that it is very unlikely I produce anything but a mess no matter the time and effort I put in it.
This is very important. reminds me of this wip fnf mod where someone tried to create a song based on some teasers and it was so bad rhe original dev came in and said it was shitty but almost got cancelled because "but they tried their best you can't bash on it"
When i say bad it wAS AWFUL it was rape to the ears. There's random ear piercing noises so loud they cap out the audio limit and mute themselves so they don't make someone's ear start bleeding.
Effort * Competence = Quality
@@Leig5H0T any links to that music? im kinda curious about it
@@noname420 Yes
@@noname420 ua-cam.com/video/x03wXZPMDa4/v-deo.html
Here yee here yee
Personal fun fact : I was really young when I read the Little Prince. I studied it in elementary school and immediately assumed the first drawing was a snake digesting some giant mammal. Then discussed it with my classmates and was surprised to discover they saw a hat. I was like "you're thinking like an adult :O".
I'm 20 and don't remember seeing the image at 20:15 before today, but as soon as I saw the little dot near the right end, I assumed it to be a drawing of a snake digesting a large animal. I think about Pokemon a lot, so maybe it depends mostly on whether one thinks more often about various creatures or about clothing. Also, the little dot breaks the symmetry that such a hat would otherwise have, whereas the average snake-digesting-an-animal has eyes on one end, never being symmetric from this angle.
@@anonymousrandomness1374 same for me. i didn't see a hat until cypher said it.
@@anonymousrandomness1374 If that is true, you have my utter respect.
@@mahpell7173 you can assume im bullshitting if you want but my brain went "taco with edges" to "snake ate something" because of the dots to "kinda looks like a hat"
got two of em right basically which aint bad
I had never seen it until this video and my first thought was that it was a lump of something under a blanket. I wonder what that makes me.
I’m surprised that Absent didn’t chime in and talk about hentai and manga. I have been recently been reading Berserk, and by god is it breathtaking and brimming with detail. The fact that miura was able to think and process an image that detailed while apply it to a story nearly 400 chapters long before he unfortunately passed away is what makes me admire him and his work.
Does Berserk qualify as a rapey hentai or a manga?
RIP Miura man, the entire world felt that loss
Put Schnoz in the Louvre
@@legateelizabeth manga it has lot of fight body horror and an huge overarching story
@@legateelizabeth manga 100%
Thank you for featuring my art! War outfits are fun to draw.
Breaking my radio silence on this channel’s comment section to say this: I think that if Cypher simply said that he acknowledged that something worthless can be given subjective value due to his own opinion, that half of this debate wouldn’t even exist. There is such thing as acknowledging that the objective worth is net 0 while having his own personal thoughts about a piece. Hell, I once saw a can on a street and I found it to be pretty even if it was just something that got kicked down by random people. Appreciation and respect doesn’t equal equitable truth and a pure definition.
Your art is awesome!!! Love it
Very true! It was clear in the conversation that Cyoher was too concerned with having the objectively right opinion about....subjectivity. Cute art! Its impressive how you were avle to breath life into people that have just been represented by AA sprites.
I think that´s the neat thing about art, you can find it around the world even if it isn´t there. Photography is considered art and it´s just the representation and framing of a piece by a skilled person.
One of my favorite let´s call it "movements" would be liminal spaces and its derivatives, and it´s literally accidental, most original liminal space pictures are just random pictures of lonely places that people just fell in love with, myself included
I apologize. When I first read "radio silence," I accidentaly read "d**do silence."
That definitely staved off sleep-deprivation exhaustion a bit. The mental snort was legendary.
you have amazing taste in content i shall subscribe and the art is amazing as well
Cypher has definitely been one of the best debaters so far that isn't part of the main group, but I have to agree that the death of the author theory is very flawed. The "Twitter bios are coded messages" video is a perfect example. Sure, you could say that FC's interpretation is valid, but clearly it's a bunch of bullshit, and there is no way that bio can be considered art.
It shows that people can make a bunch of bullshit out of anything, not necessarily the flaws of this theory. The theory is more or less alright, but it is pretty much stupid for Cypher to think that "Death of the Author" means that you can disregard everything but your personal appreciation and social perception. Moreover, applying it to something that was clearly stated to be made in seconds, with low effort and no thoughts or emotions put into whatsoever - even if this cute doodle by some chance ignites your imagination - is the same as applying it to the coherent text that a monkey randomly made using a typewriter. The Author can't be dead if there wasn't intent to create art in the first place.
Death of the author means that what the author says is not the one true authority on the subject at hand; that their opinion matters just as much and as little as anyone else's. It does not mean that we cannot reach a consensus interpretation at all!
@@IrvingIV Death of the Author in this case is being used by Cypher less as "artist is not the true authority of what a work means" and more "The author's intent totally doesn't matter and should be disregarded", which is ironic considering that the disregard of authorial intent is being used to bastardize the theory specifically about that exact thing.
One purpose of art is to evoke emotion, and that twitter bio certainly evoked some emotions from FC, at least enough that he made a video on it. And apparently that was interesting enough that people decided to watch a whole video about him deconstructing that “art.” By that measure, you could kinda call the twitter bio art.
Remember this if ever you want to diminish 'Death of the Author': According to Ray Bradbury, Farenheit 451 is about TV being bad, and that's it. It was about how TV makes people hate reading and would eventually destroy books because it was making people dumber. Every single interpretation anyone has ever had about that book and it's messages are all completely wrong and invalid despite basically anyone who glances at the book coming away with those.
Also like, JK Rowling making dumbledore gay I guess if you want something more contemporary. JK Rowling might be the author but what she wants for her works sure as shit doesn't matter to anyone anymore.
Geez, this might be my new favorite video, simply because Cypher did had some good points and was able to hold his own against literally everyone else. Moreover, it also felt like a real ace attorney case where Cypher seemed untouchable until he was whittled down and his arguments became desperate at the end and his composure gone.
Also, props to Bowl specifically cause I know he was joking about his shitty painting, but I still appreciate the asspull of an interpretation he had for it.
He was the more worthy Godot. Honestly out of all the one off people he was the best.
@@antekpatyk9425 I'm hoping he stays, cause he was really great because I can agree with his core argument but realize how flawed it is
I don't think he hold is how and more that he was being stubborn and as exaustive to talk to as possible, there's someone like this on the discord group im am part. He never prove his point or gained any ground just played defensive hoping people give up on the discussion.
@@MrRobot-0 That might be true and/or you're better in your judgment than me, he still is the smartest antagonistic force in these video that isn't part of the main group. Then again, the bar is very low. Regardless of Cyper's intentions, he is worthy to be Godot and any reason to see more Godot is good by me. I hope he is a regular because Cypher was entertaining. That and I see no reason other then giving up that he doesn't regularly hang out with FBI.
@@jackbandit5855 im not arogant enough to say i have a better judgment than anyone, its just experience.
True its entertaining to see it as an ace atourney thing but actualy debating with people like that is truly the worst do when people say he is a good debater i kinda had to object. What he did is the argument equivalent of camping than any display of debate skill.
I love the fact I live in a world where duct taping a banana to the wall qualifies as art
Wow, didn't know Lil'Kirbs was an artist
This but unironically
@@lautaroescarlon7501
I was being serious-
I just find it hilarious that something like that is considered art in this worl
We live in a society, Lautaro.
and eating said banana is considered an art performance
@@MoonOfCheese like ripping off the part of the wall to eat said banana
I absolutely adore that fact that the boa painting from *Le Petit Prince* was used to counter Cypher's argument. Absolutely genius.
I'm genuinely curious as to what conversation is about to occur. Interpretive art, abstract art, purposefully bad directing, surrealism, Death Grips. There's so many directions this could go that I'm genuinely scared about what's going to happen.
I believe it's gonna be about the rich guys buying poop smeared on a canvas and calling it art.
@@deki9827 Idk, Piss Christ is unironically a pretty good piece, Same with shit like that robot that's bleeding and apologizing while it fails to clean itself, or the gallery art of John Waters(Which includes a series of famous nature photos edited to have unphotogenic tourists in them) but on the other hand you do have stuff labeled as abstract art specifically just to launder money like that giant metal wall that ruined that public square. Then again, for every great movie that's released there's a bunch of garbage cash-grabs like The Tomorrow War or the marvel movies. I try to take the good in with the bad. Trash art only hurts people if it holds an inherently hurtful message.
This is a very old debate, though. Not to godwin this argument but Hitler ran an entire crusade against "degenerate art" and even made a museum meant to display the "worst offenders" with the prices they were bought for to "show how decadent and meaningless art was allowed to become".(Note: you are not a fascist for hating abstract art or loving the classics, it's just fascists believed abstract art was literally evil and the classics were a source of great virtue and enforced that on the populace.)
Tl;DR: This whole argument is very old and has shockingly high stakes for what is basically just humans making weird shit and explaining why they made it and getting a lot of money for it.
On Cleo's 40 seconds painting there's something worth adding. While time, alongside effort, can be what makes art have quality, paintings and such can still be art even with minimal time invested if the effort is still there. Impressionism, one of the first styles of modern art, is all about putting things on canvas quickly because you couldn't keep the frame still for several hours i.e. a farmer tending to his field or people sitting at a café. As such it's literally part of the style that it's painted as quickly as possible since you couldn't just tell a customer to hold the cup in mid-air for 4 hours or the farmer to postpone his work until you finish painting the ground.
Of course I get Cleo's notion that she didn't put any effort into her drawing but I just wanted to add that the lack of time is far from an indicator for its (lack of) quality.
The thumbnail alone gets me laughing thinking about how Bowl will annihilate this latest throwaway idiot of the month.
Wait... art...
_This is the sequel to the eagles debate_
I’m expecting Starla to get dunked on for starting shit.
@@astraldirectrix Literally my thought last time.
Update: This wasn't FBI: The Movie Part 2, but better. Starla's reckoning will have to wait.
I’m going to be a bit of a contrarian now, but I’d say both sides are half right. while the good art shown in the video is also well-made, I think that “well made” is only one definition of good with respect to art. You could also define good art by how well it expresses something, or by how one feels about the art. There are even well made things that might not be good art under those other definitions. Take the Georges Pompidou center in Paris. Skill and effort clearly went into designing the building, but it doesn’t match up with the other definitions of good. It doesn’t convey much meaning through its form, and a lot of people think it’s an ugly eyesore. It’s good under one definition, but not others, and each definition has merit.
Exactly, there are a lot of different factors that go into good art. Meaning, visual appearance, skill and detail. All of these combine to make art and brilliant art.
@@10thletter40 i believe there is good and bad art but i also believe art is art. If you made something and say it's art i guess it is, it's just absolute garbage art
@@10thletter40 Skill is irrelevant. If we discovered that the Mono Lisa was created by an alien machine without any skill, it would still be art.
@@crustallos3023 skill plays a big part. If it was made by aliens, the skill involved is incredible. In any case, the Mona Lisa was clearly created with skill and is physically appealing.
2 of 3 conditions are met.
I mean, the only other option is celebrity creations, and those aren't truly good art. If only one condition is met I can't really call it art, but that wouldn't necessarily make it bad.
Call it a guideline
@@10thletter40 Again, the aliens used no skill in making the Mona Lisa. It was as simple to them as clicking a button. It takes more effort and skill to make a four-square painting on MS Paint. To them, it had no meaning, it just coincidentally was created as a representation of human beauty. Is it still art?
I think art is just a way to communicate with other people. Humans did that for all the time they were alive, even as cavemen. Real art is something that relays SOMETHING to another person. Emotions, feelings, opinions, messages, places -- anything, really. That's why everything that human creates can become THE ART. For example: I can look at Phobes' picture and get the message about dissapearance of personality - long and painful. Of course, that's not what Phobes tried to tell me by creating the picture, BUT - she CREATED it. And *I* gave a meaning to the creation. Every human being can. If we go further, we can call everything "art" - even day-to-day communication.
Another thing I kinda think is true is... ANYTHING is not an ART unless atleast two people see it. Art is meant to be shared.
What about personal pieces, songs, paints, etc?
Some Paganini's caprices weren't meant to be shared, they were personal pieces that he liked and made for himself and we know them because he's dead and we have his work for the public
The same happens with some artists that want to make something for themselves, i know someone that does line art because it's relaxing for him, my sister usually paints because she likes to do that but it's never for showing it
I do basic origami when I'm bored and sometimes I do random things whit paper and then i either break them, disarm or i put the piece of paper in the trash
Art, is not always a form of communication
It *can* be
That doesn't mean it *is*
For me, whatever you want to call art may be art but objectively what matters is 4 things from most important to less:
1 Skill and technic
2 Context and/or legacy
3 Intended meaning and message
4 and finally, the least important thing to say if something is good or not: the public appreciation
That's why overrated and underrated things exist and why certain things aren't good art but just comercial trash or meaningless randomness
_Edited for grammar mistakes_
@@davidbarrientos2062 When you create art for yourself, you talk with yourself. You think about your life and you try to show your life in some form of art. It's like writing a personal diary - it's fun, relaxing, and you can read it later. You can write something for your future self.
You said that you do basic origami. That's cool! But when you destroy it - it becomes just a paper, you destroy art. When your sister paints just for fun - she creates art, good or bad, but still it's a form of art.
So basically anything that's related to creation and can be appreciated or hated - is art.
But, y'know, decide what art is for yourself, it's a topic that never should be brought up XD
You also have a flawed interpretation of Cloe's art. I.E. that disappearance of personality is long and painful. But what specifically is long -and painful- about it? The idea of disappearing into nothing but the void can be for some demographics, entirely romanticized or even comforting. After all, a person going through life in an unstable manner might find comfort in commonality with others, knowing we all, eventually within the span of eternity, eventually all enter nothingness together.
@@OneManCast Okay. That's a good interpretation. Though, I don't care.
Is a letter or a text message art then ?
One thing that slayed me in retrospect, the moment Bowl added the whole dissertation on the possible meanings of his smears it actually became 'art': parody at it's core and as joke at Cypher expence, a full encompassing journey through the meaning and role of art artist and spectator. Truly worth £1000000000000000
One reason why modern "art" is so expensive is because of tax reasons. Since art has no real live value, The owner can just say that it's worth millions of dollars, donate it, and deduct it off of taxes. I was kinda hoping you would mention this.
Edit: apparently They did mention it and i'm just blind
so it's just like nfts, creating weath out of nothing
They did, on the money laundering part.
@@jimskywaker4345 not really wealth but a currency. Giving something an arbitrary value that could be agreed upon. Thos expensive pieces are made so they can have assets that evade the tax
@@yunan9610 wait, They did? How didn't I notice that?
It's smart and I really appreciate people doing it.
What's wrong with evading taxes?
Taxation is theft anyways.
I actually agree with cypher on most points, also it's your fault for looking at the heap of trash, good art is still being made FC, it's just harder to find in our digital world where people buy clout and use fake art for tax evasion.
I subscribe to the Death of the Author theory too, so it was a bit hard to see Cypher go down like that, even though he screwed up and bit off more than he could chew.
If most of everything is lame and mediocre these days, that just makes the legitimately good shit harder to find, but more valuable once found, too.
i agreed with cypher too.
Let's make a "Cypher's club for subscribing the Deathof the Author Theory"! I laughed hard towards the end but I still think he's right.
Problem is, how do you tell the difference? If anything can be art, how do you determine which low-effort garbage was made with some kind of artistic intent and which low-effort garbage was made for tax evasion?
@@machinedramon3532 I mean just because something is art doesn't mean it is good
I have to admit that this video got me a little insecure about my drawings since I still have a lot to learn, but at the same time it got me more motivated to better myself and my skills.
The honesty and reflexivity of your discussions is always inspiring.
Oh, it’ll be interesting for me as the former art student! I quit making art for personal reasons, but it’s always fun seeing people art debates!
As an artist myself I personally hate that 'art' has to have intent. You can't ever tell the intent or even know what the artist is thinking, its just what you observe and what you think was intentional. It puts immense pressure on artists to always have to have some greater message/intention or else its not art/has no value. The idea that the greatest work comes from pain is also something I don't enjoy particularly, while its somewhat true it puts out more harm than good for active and current artists. I've literally had a presentation from some jaded artist that only true art can be achieved in either immense depression or manic episodes so.. yeah lol.
Also hate the idea that 'art' is dead just because its in a new era/form. Its bullshit--People said impressionism wasn't art when it first started and its gorgeous-- Just look at it. There is always a lash back to any new art era/form, its not new. Modern art isn't bullshit just because its not appealing, the entire point of it is to deconstruct what art is as a concept and exploring that :/ Even if it doesn't take visual/traditional artistic skill doesn't mean it isn't art. I value art that takes skill/effort to make but thats my opinion - theres different kinds of art. Some are merely a concept others are the creation of a concept/idea or observation.
Art is a concept, not concrete so it can be debated endlessly with no real answer. Personally for me it depends on if the creator thinks its art, but thats just my perspective, I think the joy of creation is what art is
The reason for the confusion is art can be judged by more than 1 catagory
1: the effort put into it
2: is there a meaning *intended* behind it
3: does the person manage to *see* the meaning clearly
4: personal taste
Every piece of art is made according to one or a few of these catagories (there is other catagories than those 4) , which might help someone to judge said work of art.
But i can show you 2 pieces of music by 2 great composers
Where one of them is written from (well the story isnt concrete but i hope it can get the point across) a nightmare that occured to the composer
ua-cam.com/video/sCtixpIWBto/v-deo.html
While one doesnt have a dramatic story as the former it is also musicaly complex in its own right
ua-cam.com/video/31nLua3FMMw/v-deo.html
While both of these have different ways of writing music both are masterpieces, while i could mash some random keys and yes it is technically a musical work
But it is a bad one
Agreed.
this is the best take here imo
in the end, the metric to judge art will remain arbitrary.
just as much as the definition of what is an art "school" is set in stone from a more nuanced transition. but because we love categories, it "must" be done.
so, as an artist, my point is doing what I want to do, either because it's fun, because it's appealing to me, or because I want to tell something.
that doesn't mean it would be art for anyone.
and certainly it won't fit official definitions.
better that than crumbing over pressure because some have degree that "excellence" is X and and not Y.
Coming from my experience with music, the penultimate goal of artists is to have art which is subjectively interpreted the way we intended it to be. The reason for this is that an artist has no control of what people gather from their work once it leaves their hands, so it must be true that the interpretation of the viewer is ultimately the 'real' result of whatever art is viewed. But for art to have it's (in my eyes) primary value, it must be communicative whether from a demonstration of ability or clever control of human responses to art which result in common meaning amongst viewers. For this reason, I actually think an example of good abstract art would be some of the most impressive examples - to accomplish communicating some common meaning from something intentionally confusing and obtuse is really impressive to me.
Underrated comment.
i much prefer your explanation, than the absolutely disrespectful idea of the death of the author theory
15:07 I like this drawing but a lot of modern art are closer to taping a banana to a wall or just drawing without a figure. You can see something in this artwork.
i believe the only definition of art is literally "whatever comes in and out FC's pc, in terms of messages and videos"
Okay, this video is just so good.
I really like how both FBI and Cypher make some compelling arguments (I especially like Cypher's reasoning for why buying art cannot be a scan if you're not stupid and FBI'S argument for what gives art its value and why the author's view is very important), and I love how videos like this show there's a spectrum of views one can hold whilst making sense. There's way to many videos of similar style that end with a clear winner or loser (not saying this doesn't happen sometimes, it definitely does).
As I see it, art can be treated both objectively or subjectively. You're on your right to like or dislike an art piece for whatever reasons, but you can't deny that some art works have more inherent value based on the sheer skill, work and soul put into it. Also, although individual pieces of art definitely have an array of possible meanings, the size of this imaginative array varies immensely. One cannot look at a representative artwork of a tree and say it's actually trying to say how much the environment is being destroyed because there aren't much artworks focused on trees, but more abstract art (or art that focus on inherently variable topics such as human experience and emotion) surely can fit into multiple interpretations that cannot be called right or wrong.
This video is a banger, no Harry tho so it goes from a 12/10 to a 11/10
As my teacher once explained to me, art is just visual philosophy. It is a reflection of the thinking of the times and the people.
Sooooo, art is subjective?
@@Sonchikas1 Art is as subjective as philosophy - If it's subjective or not, depends on your opinions on philosophy, but most of the time it really is just a reflection. So Art isn't subjective, in fact, it's quite the opposite, a lot of art Is objective (a reflection of the thinking of the times and the people). Whoever made it wanted to evoke a certain emotion or represent a thing. A lot of art is like that. So, basically, Art isn't subjective. Not even close. *Art's subjectivity is subjective* just like when you read a philosophy book and take a certain thing from it. Most of the time the authors had clear ideas and thoughts about the world unless their philosophy was exclusive of this.
@@lautaroescarlon7501 Art isn't objective in and of itself but there are objective ways to assess quality against certain manmade parameters. A person's own analysis of their work is as subjective as the analysis of external parties, in fact analysis itself is art (and sometimes more important than the work itself). Philosophy is more concerned directly with objective truth independent from subjective analysis, so I'd argue that it isn't subjective in the way art is.
@@crustallos3023 I was not talking about quality.
@@lautaroescarlon7501 I never said you were.
As condescending as he may sound, Cypher makes some great points. Art is way too subjective, maybe the most subjective thing because of its lack of objective physical use. It can't be determined if something is objectively art by neither the audience or the artist, and it should only be judged by someone asking themselves if they like the piece, and if they are willing to put the price to get it.
Incorrect.
@@lordvoldemort1561 would you mind explaining how so?
A painting or drawing becomes Art when enough effort and time is put into the quality.
If you blow your nose at an empty canvas, the snot that lands on it isn't Art.
That's simply too easy.
Art is something that can't be replicated easily and either has a meaning behind it or imitates something in "real life".
The viewers' opinion is irrelevant, unless the Artist says otherwise.
If it is unique, hard to replicate and has some form of decent complexity beyond just "i think this depicts ___", a complexity to how it was made, then you can call it Art.
I'd also like to think that a good Artist knows that they're making Art...
Otherwise, calling them an "Artist" is redundant to begin with.
@@lordvoldemort1561 why do you hold this stance (why do you believe this is art)
@@lordvoldemort1561 Yes, comrade, work gives something it's value! Exactly why we should increase minimum wage!
Workers of the world, unite!
It should be noted that I am being ironic.
I feel bad for Cypher. He really was making some great points, but was ultimately outnumbered. A shame.
I truly believe that art does not need a meaning or some objective "skill/effort" put into it in order to qualify as art. As long as someone is willing to pay some amount for something, it is worth that much. If you are willing to put it on your wall, or if you like staring at it, contemplating it, and finding what meaning it has TO YOU, then it is art. I do agree that "good art" is more objective, but only in the sense of how many people agree that it is worth staring at. Still independent from effort or skill. If enough people want it on their wall, then it is good art.
It's things like these that terrify me. I'm a dumbass that can't argue for myself, so trying to put myself into Cypher's shoes is truly horrifying, especially when it's against way more people who don't wholly agree with you and are able to properly explain their jumbled mess of thoughts.
Art is art, but not all art is good or well made
I feel art has a few metrics, skill, meaning, and visual appeal. If it fails in 2 of the 3, it truly isn't art. This isn't a perfectly set metric but it works for the majority
No offense, but does that mean that Art has two metrics to you?. Value (what it costs, how much it is worth?) and quality (how well made is it?)
@@thefunnynamehere266 There are more metrics, those are just examples
just because someone will buy it and want to look at it doesn't make it good.
Remember, anything can be art. But not everything is good art.
Exactly. People confuse both a lot. Even if you don't like something, or think it's unworthy of consideration, doesn't mean it isn't art
I hope this talks about the monstrosity that is modern “art”
bRo i dReW ZiGzags lIke a ToDDleR iM mOderN ArTist 👨🏻🎨 🧑🏼🎨 👩🏻🎨
modern art is just r34
It did just that lol
@@PentaCrab as it should
Hentai sites have better artists than most modern artists unfortunately(the ones that get showcased in exhibitions and etc.)
True abstract art should also require skill on the part of the artist to use the colors in an impressive way and make something truly meaningful
I agree entirely here. I remember being told that, "what separates a professional from everyone is their knowledge of the craft." It's kind of like saying something is beautiful, or interesting, etc. but you can't say why it's like that whereas a professional can. People could well give value to anything and just call it "art," similar to how one man's trash is another man's treasure but, at least for me, personal value doesn't constitute whatever skill or technique is used in their art.
Why should it?
@@crustallos3023 so that its actually worth something
@@hiruyabebaw807 Worth what?
@@crustallos3023 worthy of praise
This video unironically gives off a wholesome feeling, especially the ending.
"Art" is a word similar to "Dessert," you can't expect everyone to want a perfectly decorated wedding cake; sometimes we need something else, a pie, a cookie, a bowl of "breakfast" cereal.
I'm with Cypher on this one. Although his argument wasn't focused well, yall did him dirty. Effort and time spent in art can be appreciated qualities but Duke Nukem Forever isn't really seen as art despite the time and effort put into it.
Although plenty of art pieces can be rushed, accidental, and even greedy. You're interpretation of what is and isn't valuable as art can pigeonhole the form into the same thing without branching styles.
Generally, quality = effort * competence. People tend to forget that last part.
I mean, everyone vs Cypher is an art of debate. There is something of merit to saying that even though the end result was them "doing him dirty" one can claim to the contrary that the very effort of cooperation is a tribute to Cypher's argumentative skills.
@@OneManCast its more about cypher refusing to actually listen to anyone, the main theme of his argument is that art is subjective, and as such if anyone has a differing opinion he can just say its subjective and negate all discussion, or, as he did multiple times, resort to insults to avoid being redundant.
also to add, i just despise the theory of the death of the author, so im automatically biased against him.
@@m1c2bWfBCP2Fupgg Who decides the quality?
@@laky3348 How could the potential value of an art piece be objectively measured without considering the variable interpretations of others?
If you haven't considered the opinions of others, how could you know the exact value it brings? Is the value decided independently of those which you don't agree with? Are you deciding the value using the consensus of the population? The consensus of artists?
If you have no definition to base the value of something objectively, then you don't have an objective value. I figure you haven't decided on a definition to decide an art piece’s objective value because the most widely used definitions enable us to measure with the variability of our biases. You made up a definition that may already exist, but you shouldn't (and likely wouldn't) act as if that's the definition that everyone else uses.
art1
/ärt/
noun
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
i mean, that Bowl could come up with such a compelling argument for what is ultimately a bunch of random strokes is more evidence for the subjectivity of art, no? I think he was being pretty condescending in his arguments but i've gotta say i agree with Cypher (for the most part)
Everyone agrees that my rant in "Twitter Bios are Coded Messages" is absurd because it is obvious that is is bullshit, regardless of how much sense I made out of it. What Bowl did here is exactly the same. This isn't proof that art is subjective, unless you miss the point entirely. This is proof that there's a point where the excuse of subjectivity becomes absurd.
@@frenchbaguetteintelligence yeah, i get that. But, you made a whole video out of that absurd interpretation which was pretty entertaining by itself. Whether or not it was intended by the person who made it, because of the way you interpreted it, even if neither of you were taking it seriously, it became something with an amount of value, even if that value is as a commentary on how easy it is to bullshit some message out of something which has no meaning whatsoever.
I mean if anything it just makes his interpretation of the doodle the actual art, not the doodle itself.
@@TheTwinkelminkelson i mean yeah... that's kind of my point. Art that's ultimately meaningless stimulates creativity so it has value in that sense.
@@galarstar052 well, no, art is born FROM creativity. Sometimes art doesn't even inspire you to be creative, just conveys a mood or an idea. You can have artistic inspiration from watching two strangers talk to each other at a coffee shop and turn that into all manner of art pieces, that wouldn't make the fact that two people were talking art, after all.
For the beginning about the troupe of being successful and losing it all, there are times where it’s good, like in the simpsons where homer gives up his dream job of owning a bowling alley since he won’t be able to support 3 kids with the income generated for it, so he works at the power plant. But yeah it’s overplayed as fuck.
If I remember correctly from TV tropes, the art versus art contest or start a business dream trope is used as a subplot to develop the side character who's always successful or has a old goal of the thing they spend time on and to have them learn that they can't always be good at everything or that rushing into a type of business is a lot of responsibility. It's usually some character that's a super smart kid who's basically a genius, a teenager with big dreams or an adult that didn't have time to do their hobby when they were younger and is nostalgic about it: the series that succeeded at reversing the trope was Austin & Ally and the entire plot gimmick was of the music store that Ally and her parents own that was about to be closed because it was bought out, only for her friends to get enough money to buy it back and rebrand it under a new name.
I've been wondering for a while but is this debate related to the end of the eagles debate? So was the ending for eagle debate actually a marvel post credits scene foreshadowing the next debate?
No. Same topic, different day.
I've always wondered why we never had these videos premiered until now; at least for me, it's always like a huge gathering/tradition for me to tune in, to actually have a "discussion" with smart people while watching~ ❤️
I am hyped!
Me too!
Hi, Hyped. I am FBI, open up!
@@frenchbaguetteintelligence NOOOOOO
you can’t have my outdated tech company!
Slowly, the timer ticks down, for when I can gain happiness.
I went several years ago to Museo del Prado and saw Goya paintings. That one, Saturn devouring his son, it was pretty disturbing. It really was. They are pretty big paintings, and it was like he was looking at you from above while he was eating. It unsettled me. Didnt sat for long at that room haha
If French baguette intelligence was a game, Cypher would be the final boss, where all the characters unite in an uneasy alliance against everyone's enemy
My new favourite character
I agree with Cypher, it's a shame he ended up being the butt of the joke and left being insulted. I had a lot of fun all the way to the end though.
I feel Cypher make a good point in an odd way during the Hall of the Mountain King argument. People will determine the worth of something and they can ignore the quality in this case, something all of you were discussing before. This means that people can convince others that a work is worth a particular amount, which may not be indicative of the quality or effort put in. This is simply supply and demand. Cypher says the people dictate what your art is worth, which is true, but they cannot interpret the quality.
FC, pleasure to meet you. As you have become a very large UA-camr ( by ace attorney standards) I have always wondered. Why did you make this channel?
Money?
Fame?
A joke?
I am morbidly curious
A joke. It was all an inside joke.
@@frenchbaguetteintelligence And it was the greatest joke ever told...
"I dont know"
Thank you Cypher for existing and bringing this conversation an interesting and fun twist.
I too thank my sponsor of todays comment section, Nord Legends Buds, use the next code for a 200000% increase in the bill of the water after eating in the disgusting taco bell: Play-Skyrim-in-your-fridge.
as an artist myself, I feel that art you simply interpret with a subjective meaning, art that has an objective intended meaning from the artist, and art that simply shows off technical skill, are all equally valid
The art discussion and debate was very good but you really had me hooked with the whole tv tropes promoting mediocrity thing in the beginning. I think there’s certainly an interesting discussion that could come out of it if talked about more but I’m not sure it would last more than about 5-10 minutes. Maybe talking about tv/movie tropes that teach counterproductive messages as a whole could be a future topic on this channel.
Tbh Cypher had a point, but poor arguments. Plus FC made him fail hard with a super cheap trick (Is Cypher even real? How can someone not know that painting from Le Petit Prince? If anything he could've the one to post it to make a point)
Le Petit Prince actually supports Cypher’s point even better: that prince meant to make a snake swallowing an elephant but it looked enough like a hat to be called a hat. And while the point is a lack of imagination, it is also a case of Death of the Author in action. If everyone else says it’s a hat, then it might as well be a hat. I am surprised Cypher did not pick up that point.
@@iantaakalla8180 Yeah, that's why I said that he could've mentioned it in the first place instead of FC, it literally made a point for him, and the author well intended it to be like that in the first place (You know, about of how the imagination of kids lets them see things that adults cannot, literally goes along his point for Art interpretation).
Pd:excuse me if I made typos, my autocorrect is in spanish and I cannot look it up atm
"Hard Times make Great Art" frustrates me. Sure, the deep emotions evoked by pieces made in times of crisis are unique in their impact and tragedy. But to say that the only reason good art is made is because of that suffering? You realize had those conditions been consistent that no one would've been able to teach those art skills right? To be able to do art during times of crisis is a privilege afforded to very very few who were already dedicated to the craft prior. To say that this is the sole set of conditions which can create good art is entirely unsustainable and is frustratingly ignorant.
Imo the problem with the death of the author interpretation, as a communications major that had this stuff hammered into his head, is that not only is it reductive, as merely parsing art through your own sensibilities ignores the technical, historical and contextual aspects of the art, but by imposing your own interpretation on your art it promotes this idea that a collective understanding of something isn't needed, and while that may be fine for art, imagine if morals, or laws were not held collectively. Really such interpretation is no better than a Bible thumping homophobe reading deutronomy and ignoring what Jesus says about loving sinners and not casting first stones.
that's true to some extent, but i think some level of audience interpretation is always pretty good. I mean, the art exists in both the mind of the person who created it and everyone who observes it after all, it's a two way process.
@@galarstar052 Interpretation is a good base line, sure, but its not a holistic view. Spoliarum and Pollice Verso are both paintings of gladiators, yet one is a commentary on the Spanish influence on the colonial Philippines and one influenced the modern view of what a gladiator is. I just think that the experience of art can be given depth by analyzing why a piece of art is made, understanding the mind and values of the person who created the art, and contextualizing it within the greater art scene.
I'm having a tough time understanding what you mean about certain things being held collectively. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but don't both morals and laws vary worldwide? They wouldn't exactly be held collectively if that's the case, you know? (I know that sounds 'Checkmate!'-y but I really do mean well!!)
Could you explain further or reword it by chance?
@@galarstar052 Audiences need to be able to interpret, but the mere fact that you are *interpreting* means there's a *message* to interpret, and that message comes from the author. An interpretation that excludes the author is just projection.
@@Msoulwing yeah, i understand that. It's annoying when people just entirely ignore whatever an author intended, but i still think there's elements of interpretation that go beyond what the original author had intended. Something as simple as like, fan theories about a movie that probably weren't intended by the writer at all can enhance the experience or at least be a fun experience of their own. TV tropes has a whole trope for Alternative Character interpretations as well, and obviously only one of those interpretations can be intended by the author (unless of course, they were intentionally making it so they could be interpreted multiple ways) but they still all add something.
obviously i'm speaking more in terms of fictional media but i still think paintings can be interpreted in a similar way. It's all art after all.
Honestly, I live for that response to the "cAn YoU dO bEtTEr?" guy. People don't have to be experts at something to tell when someone isn't doing as well as they could be at it
Pineapple on pizza was already an episode about this exact thing.
The guy who actually did better when he critcised someone's cover is RUSH E is legendary though
True, but imo I don't wanna hear jack from someone who's "constructive criticism" is "do better". Like, if you can't give me anything to go off of to make it better, you shouldn't open your mouth. It just strikes me as wanting to say something for the sake of saying anything.
It's like telling someone playing a game to "just dodge more". It's just useless commentary that's needlessly insulting
I think minimalism is the message and such, I don’t think it should be popular or even common, it’s its own personality which is unique, I think unique intention and emotion with lots of skill is what makes the best art, you can express the same emotion with lots of different intentions and they’ll all be fantastic or you can use one idea and slightly tweak it to show many different emotions, as such minimalism is one way of showing the feeling of contentment but only if it’s done right
FC really said *"Street racers don't need* [to satisfy their] *girlfriends."*
Props to Cypher for putting together an argument that wasn’t completely misinformed(even if he was still wrong).
I don't know much about art, or do I care that much about it, but I agree with Cypher. Art is whatever people agree is art, because it's just a concept. Although, I already knew it was a boa that ate an elephant... and I really like that piece, it's fun, even though, uh, I never knew the context behind it before this video.
"I think pissing on a piece of paper is comparable to the Mona Lisa, but I'm still going to brag about how I know the twist regarding this specific piece of art"
29:52 I... can actually see the unicorn bowl is talking about. The weird squiggle on the top left is the horn, the two weird circle-like lines on the bottom left are the front legs
I love the fact a random squiggle turned into a man surrounded by his dark thoughts. The fact that the artist recognised it could be something *acted on it* made it, to me an act of improvisation. To see an opportunity and act on it requires skill, I would consider it art. But not be willing to pay for it.
Though I agree that if we follow the hypothesis that it was fully random it would be just a neat coincidence that it turned out that way.
In just 2 videos you have become by favorite channel on the platform. The debates are so melodic and well preformed, combined with the editing style and presentation to keep the viewer entertained. As someone with oppositional defiance disorder, I live for debates, so I can’t wait to see what comes next!
29:04 This exchange is genuinely enlightening.
The trouble is, in this debate, everyone was right; because the word "art" has lost all meaning.
I find it frustrating we have such a blanket term like "art".
It's so vague it basically means nothing. Not only can art come in any medium: a song, a sculpture, a painting, a building, a sketch, even a _movie._
But it isn't even clear when something is or isn't art. Is it only art when there's intent? Does quality matter? Time spent? Skill? General appeal? Does it need to have meaning? Technically speaking, none of these things matter.
When I open my ipad and doodle one of my cringy OCs, I am not making art. But if I do it on canvas and spend hours and hours on it, finely craft it into something on par with the Mona Lisa- is it now art? Why?
I propose we have a word for *"something made simply to be admired"* and *"something made to communicate a message".* The first would be something like those tacky painting of a pig with glasses people buy at Michael's just to hang on their wall, fan art, and still-life drawings. And the latter could be things like what Bowl presented, things made with emotion and intent, like the works of Zdzislaw Beksinski or Francisco Goya.
Technically speaking, you could argue that Michelangelo's David only exists to be pretty. And Hall of the Mountain King exists to communicate a message, even if the message is "I hate this song, how dare people like music". The point isn't that one is better or worse than the other, skill plays no factor, only intent. I don't want to gatekeep what is and isn't art, but I like when words mean things. I guess anything that didn't fit those two definition would not be considered "art", but we could always add a third definition, like *"something that became art on accident"* like a stain, or a Rorschach test, or Jesus' face in a piece of toast.
That way when I tell people their art is bad, they know I mean it's bad cause it's ugly, not cause I "don't get it"
best birthday present ever
Happy birthday.
I have come to a realization about modern art
The best art nowadays is not in museums but online
Bowl bringing up Goya's paintings reminded me of that one saying: "Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable."
I feel like in the world of music, metal is the equivalent of this. Behind the harsh surface is something somber and very personal. One example that immediately springs to mind is Metallica's St. Anger. Seen as weird and unmusical by most metalheads even, people who can appreciate false chord growls and blastbeats, its flaws and style convey the feeling of being trapped, like a cornered animal. Rage induced by fear and hopelessness, being consumed by your own destructive thoughts, something that I found very relatable at the worst point of my life. It comforted me because I no longer felt alone. Hearing other people SAYING they sympathized is nothing compared to FEELING someone else's similar emotional state through music.
Of course, the themes can vary greatly within the genre. I hate dudebro metal like 5FDP with a passion, and some extreme metal tracks written with nothing but edgy heaviness and shock value in mind. But I find that the more commercialised music fails to deliver a certain genuineness.
Anyway, I realize that I'm just rambling now. Hope this wall of text wasn't completely meaningless
@@georgiykireev9678 Nah I 100% agree with this. Metal is a great example of that saying. I think Linkin Park also applies to the saying as well
While at the topic of art, while not relating to the video AT ALL, I highly recommend the book Blue Period, a coming of age story of a guy who experiences a passion for art and has to overcome the harsh hardships that comes with wanting to become a professional
Its still on-going and updates are slow, but its a good read!
I kind of feel like Em is implying that the value of art is not only the effort and skill that you put into it but also the money. The cost of creating a piece of art is not equal to or even correlated to the quality or value of it.
Your videos are really entertaining and chaotic.Thank you for providing us these absolute delight of a videos.
There's a painting I love that is a bunch of paint, broken bear bottles and other crap. I think blood was in the painting too now I'm thinking on it. The story behind it was a husband/boyfriend was toxic to his significant other and often drank. He knew he was a bad person and decided to one one drunken stuper, go ham on a painting and ended up selling for a good fortune.
"I meant a Million Million Million Venezuelan Bolivars"
Sneaky bastard, but on that note the currency is almost extinct
Honestly, Bowl's argument of art of the mind and art of the heart is why I like certain albums better than others, I love when music artists just gush their emotions into an album without really organizing it, making it seem more authentic
I say anything honed enough can become an art, ever heard of “The art of war”? ever heard of “Martial arts”? By this logic i can say anything can be art, if you put enough dedication into it. By this definition, baiting in itself is a form of art. I look forward to a world where people can share their master-baiting techniques without shame.
Arts are different from Art. Arts are skilful practices. Art is an expression of creativity.
Art being good or not is pointless the only thing that matters is it if tells you
First time I’ve considered Cypher to be right and not FC.
IMO, art is used differently by the artist and the viewer.
The artist uses it to express something. A feeling, a tangible thing, themselves, etc.
But a viewer has nothing else but to perceive that art themselves, in which they’ll compare it to how it makes them feel, how to compares to other things they’ve seen, so no matter what they do, its value is determined by how they view it, which is why you may pay big money for an art piece, but someone else might think it’s pointless.
It’s why a mother would consider their daughters first drawing of her as priceless but someone else can look at it and think it’s a bunch of scribbles. Two different people will view it differently because they have different opinions and views as to how it should be valued.
Yeah it feels alienating to be against FC for once. I can't help but side with Cypher
It also doesn’t help that while effort and skill is an important part of art in that it makes quality art, he expresses it as an elitist sort of person. Abstract art can be bad and meaningless, but all art can.
Abstract art merely requires a different set of skills: how to draw brush strokes to suggest motion or emotion or the lack of either, the ability to use amorphous shapes to your advantage to suggest something or even nothingness, the usage of the correct colors to evoke emotions, the texture of stuff outside of brush strokes for the very same. Abstract art isn’t skillless, but abstract art is in a sense easier to get something meaningful.
As soon as I saw the boa hat drawing I smiled, that book is amazing
i remember this one post on tumblr showing this painting made by a dad. his baby was asleep, and he was so entranced by it that he painted her. it wasn't anything big or special, and it even had a very dull art palette, but i felt the complete, unadulterated emanating off of it as if it were my own baby i was lovingly watching over. not all the time, but sometimes, it's less about the art itself and more about the experience that comes with it, both from the painter and you
bowl getting on the judge's seat and doing a auction had me deceased
The author's intention does not matter to my subjective experience of the piece. If I see phoebe's painting appear in the clouds, I will still appreciate it. It will still evoke a weak feeling of solitude in me. The only difference is that emotion is exceedingly unlikely to appear in the clouds.
As an artist, you can't rely on random chance to evoke an emotion. You need both an understanding of human emotion and the skill to actually produce an image that raises that emotion in the viewer's mind. The more complex or the stronger the emotion, the more skill you need.
Don't get me wrong, the objective fact of what the author intended is still interesting to me, I just don't consider it part of the piece. Whether you want to call a piece "art", even when it has no intention, is up to you. Let's not debate over definitions.
when i joined the stream it was at the part about women painting with period blood
i freaked out so much
On the war and art thing I'd say the best art happens right after a war, the societal damged psyche from such a cruel event is a great place to pull inspiration from, just look at Japan in their massive music and animation market
Anime literally exists because some manga artist really liked Disney's cartoons.
@@Sonchikas1 Weird how we went from Disney-esque anime with literal GOATed father of manga Osamu Tezuka, to…moeshit?
@@astraldirectrix people were parodying earlier anime instead of drawing from life.
@@astraldirectrix there's always been great and bad stuff, it's just the good stuff is better at being remembered over a long period of time, for every amazing piece of art/media there will always be 100 copycats trying to parrot success.
We don't talk about J'pan...
We don't talk about Japan...
This video expanded a lot of my thinking in how to have more inspiration in combination with a friend's help that i had some days ago, i think that i can finally finish my schoolwork drawings that i started 2 weeks ago
Controversial Opinion;
I agree with Cypher
Love that Bowl brought up the Black Paintings. Genuinely art with an interesting history and conception. It was made for no other reason than for the artist, and it adds a layer of mystery, and depth that allows many to draw any number of emotions from the pieces, thoroughly unique to that person. Also, fun fact: a large number of the paintings in this series were painted over and repainted.
This was a pretty good video, the fan art at end was nice too.
Oh goodness here comes the Cleophoebs and FC’s Fan Art and FanFiction.
It's already a thing.
@@frenchbaguetteintelligence I want to shoot myself.
im a fan
@@cleophoebe6385 *softly* please no…
I approve of american notre dame
Let's rename it "our dame"
This is a really interesting one, so I'll comment. Honestly, I think there is truth to both sides of the argument. On one hand, effort is a huge part of art, and I agree that in almost all cases, a piece of art where no effort has been put into it is worthless garbage. I especially resonate with Em's point that is something can be mass-produced, it is not art. I have the same opinion on music, where the pop and rap scenes have become so clogged with all these people making the same shit over and over again because they know people like it and the music producers encourage them to. Those people aren't making music, they're making a product. So I do agree that art needs some amount of effort. On the other hand, I also feel like Cypher had some good points and some validity to his argument. Ultimately, art seeks to imitate life and what happens in it, as well as even improve on what is observed in the real world. It is why we feel a sense of fear when we look at The Scream, or a sense of uneasy calm when looking at the Mona Lisa. These paintings invoke strong emotions through their techniques and imagery. But even though Cleo's piece did not seek to that, it does it anyways. I think a case could even be made that because Cleo coincidentally saw the man in the stain and decided to go with that as a loose angle, it makes it a more valuable piece. Nature does not necessarily seek to make us feel emotions, it is just the result of chemical and electrical signals in our body. But I still feel sad when I see a male lion slaughtering the males and children as it takes over a pack, because I have empathy, and that is undeniable. I could make a piece accentuating the fierceness of the lion as it kills the young, and that could make a very nice piece of art (if I had any artistic talent, that is). But the actions that would've inspired me to make the painting were not emotional in origin, it is simply what happens when a male lion takes over as the dominant male of the group. In this way, I think Cleo's piece succeeds in reaching that origin. Even though she did not intend to invoke emotion, she still did. That emotion came from interpretation, and everyone unanimously agreed that it did invoke those emotions to a certain degree. Refusing to describe that as art is very limiting, I feel. I'm not saying that just anything can be like this, by the way. When looking at Bowl's piece, I did not feel some particular emotion. I felt like I wanted to throw up. Not only did it not invoke emotion to me, it also looked like garbage. I don't feel emotion when I look at Cleo's first piece, I don't feel emotion when I look at most modern or minimalist art, in fact. I think that if you have to reach for an emotion, or some sort of stimulation, it becomes invalid as art. Bowl had to reach to find meaning in his piece, and one would have to reach to find meaning in Cleo's first piece. Cleo's second piece, on the other hand, immediately invoked emotion in all members of the conversation because it had the imagery associated with loneliness and the inability to deal with one's own thoughts.
Dude the battle of Cypher in this episode was so fucking hype it was back and forth and back and forth with great takes from both sides and then Goblin came in all badass right at the peak of everything holy crap your discord server is literally an anime and I need this shit injected into my veins
another absolute banger, this shit is so well edited, funny, and genuinely engaging to watch. this straight up might be my favorite content on youtube right next to emplemon's video essays.
and i was somewhat right in my prediction! we got the art video right after the eagles one, tho i know from the other comments it was more of a coincidence, still happy we got it. can't wait to see what y'all cook up next.
_LLLLLLLLLLLET’S GET READY TO RUMBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE_
Art is hentai
"Art" is Guile's Theme Goes With Wierd Modern Art
When I saw the video title I couldn’t help but think of Thrawn saying art
For some reason I immediately recognized the snake thanks to its eye without knowing of the piece.
This is the first time that I've seen an FC video were I simultaneously respect and understand everyone's position and ability to be so well articulated to get their points acorss... but also hate every single one at the same time for being a bit snob and not willing to budge a bit on their stances. While I generally stand behind Cypher's arguments, I was quite shocked when FC pulled a legit Phoenix Wright move when he reminded me that the OG argument was made wether if Art was measured by it's craft and complexity and not the interpretation of someone on said art given that that's what has devaluated the worth of Art itself were no one knows anymore what's Art or not.
The general truth is in between everyone's comments and opinions but given they all started hating on each other, I doubt we'll ever see another complex re-review of this exciting topic again.
I came up with an argument with myself while watching this video, on the topic of art, craft and effort: If you spend a year making a song that you researched many different styles off to make "perfect, sad, melancholic, etc" than when released didn't have a single reproduction, whereas Pitbull released his and said "Mami, ya tu sabe" over 50 times in two minutes and received 500M views, what isthe more "Artistic" between the two? The one with a lot of views and effort and time put into it? Or the one that has 500M views that took 5 seconds to make and people generally enjoyed more? You have to have SOME artistic value to be adored by many, regardles of the quality of Pitbull's product and his reputation.
Another one was: If you paint a brown stain on purpose and said "this is art" but when people looked at it they said "Nope, that is awful", is it still "art" even if it was your intention but no one looks at it like that? On the contrary, if you made a stain on accident and said "well, that's awful" and people liked it so much that they are willing to pay for it, is it still not "art" because it evoked a feling on someone even though it took no effort and skill? This are my questions for the lady "artist" that disregarded Cypher because she "could tell" that is not art as it took no time and effort. Lady, if you drew that doodle and sold it for at least a thousand dollars, you would pat yourself on the back as it was sucessful financially and artistically because someone liked it, regardless of the skill. Isn't Art supposed to be an evoking of emotions, as Bowl said, or just a collective and silent appreciation of the skill that took to make it look as "Artistic" as whatever your definition is.
People love Van Gogh and I do too but his paintings and technique don't look like they took months to make, but they were recognized and succesful (post mortem, I know) to people because it evoked something beautiful for them. Gustave Doré is another favorite of mine and his work DEFINITELY took a lot of time to make and I appreciate that, but I cannot appreciate Picasso and his "Artistic movement" that look like 5 year old doodles (Guernica is vastly overrated in my opinion, but weeping woman, or whatever is called, is very cool due to the choice of colors). Guernica is supposed to represent pain, misery or whatever, but I honestly can't see past the awful drawings of people. If you can't make your Art clearly understandable from the first glance and you have to have subsequent views and explanations, if that's the intention you wanted to make WITH the painting itself, then you're not a good "artist" and should be ashamed for trying to be pretentious.
I seem ro have made a mistake here but I'm too lazy to edit the original so I'll fix it here if someone reads my comment, though I doubt it:
"What is the more "Artistic" between the two? The one with ***Zero*** views and effort and time put into it? Or the one that has 500M views that took 5 seconds to make and people generally enjoyed more?"
I dislike the question “Is art based on skill and creativity or the people’s interpretation of it”.
The answer is both, because we don't rely on objective definitions, we rely on our interpretations of the objective attributes of our world.
There are objectively most used ways we attempt to define skill, art, and creativity, but art is subjective because there are no objective *measurements.* This is because the only definitions we use enable us to measure with the variability of our biases.
Interpretations with lots of fixed variability won't be made into one interpretation, because the only definitions which everyone uses enable this variable interpretation that everyone has, and not one invariable interpretation. The definition of art we’re looking for is not the one that we use.
art1
/ärt/
noun
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
@@anibalrodriguez2626 Which is more artistic? Find out with this:
art1
/ärt/
noun
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
Before deciding whether something falls under the definition of something else, first, you must make sure you know what the definition is.
@@Joseh-le4yl So, under this definition, everyone is wrong and the OG vid pointless then
@@anibalrodriguez2626 I was honestly disappointed. I hoped that someone would look up the topic definitions in a definition argument and find that the definitions which define art, “skill” “creativity” and “imagination” and were made to be subjectively measured.
35:43 "Harry on a vegan diet" is a masterpiece and ought to be put in a museum. Great vid as always.
Well, regarding Bowl‘s comment regarding war fuelling art… „War and love have one fair child, and its name is art“.
I think this is one of the better videos this channel has to offer in terms of "entertainment". I like seeing FC arguments, but seeing other people with different perspective and different speech is a nice change!