You're Wrong About Modern Art
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2023
- Go to buyraycon.com/ethan for 15% off your raycon purchase!
peace and love okay i jusjt like art a lot
SOCIALS
patreon for extra secrets: / ethanisonline
super exclusive second channel: / @peethan
not as exclusive twitter: / peethanonline
publicly owned twitch streams: / peethanonline
instagam: / peethanonline - Розваги
Make sure to go to buyraycon.com/ethan for 15% off your raycon purchase!
It's like how the right says "we can always tell" as a statement of intent, not fact, because they need it to be easier to oppress who they want dead or what they don't like. They need to attach a concrete definition to someone or something when, in reality, they can't fit complex and amorphous topics into one pre-fabricated mold.
Pretentious
You guys are brainwashed
@@moleedaboitrue !!!
Hey ethan what is going on with you lately? You seems sassy + offended + you offend others in this video for no reason + if someone did that to you, you would be offended oh and also you are pretensious and you completely missed the point. You put everything to one basket as "modern art bad" and its just wrong. I used to like your videos, but this one sucks so bad man you need help bro. Get some help, delete your channel and do it all over again because this? This is unacceptable. Good nightmares to you. Defending rich "artists" who are only appreciated because of status and name, yet at the same time hating on all literally the same people like elon (yeah f him) its hypocrisy. Again something wrong with you and this video, fix it
Charlie seems like the kind of person who’d go into an art museum and not read a single plaque
@@zenzuto What you mean ? He hates Indie game ?
Im trying to imagine Charlie listen to Graham Kartna or Plaid... god, he would hate Plaid. He would hate any music that is ambient and doesnt have lyrics.
He would be anticipating the lyrucs for the whole length ot the song that he could not take the suspense any longer and collapse. "There's no meaning to the song, this is like those calming music for dogs. Do i look like a dog?" Something worse idk i dont watch him anymore
he would hate Prefuse73, it has vocals but theyre chopped up qnd used for an instruments.
i WANNA MAKE HIM LISTEN TO AQUARIUS BY BOARDS OF CANADA!!!! HE WOULD LOSE I5 TO THAT
@@zenzuto Sorry I miss read a bit too. I never follow Charlie, so I have no idea about his taste in video game.
Well yeah 💀💀
I watch charlies content from time to time (his content is hit or miss for me) but this is too true lmao, he thinks he knows everything and then gets mad of other people for being pretentious lmao
Whatever that man says, past art wasn't about looking photographic, because cameras didn't exist in the way we know today (It is theorised that the camera obscura was used by artists to help their work).
It can be said that the invention of the camera forever altered the role art plays in society. Art no longer had to depict reality as close as possible as you had the camera for that.
Artists were free to experiment. No wonder it lead to a boom of different art styles.
What I'm trying to say: art of the past has to be viewed in context of the past (especially if we think about that the term artist wasn't always about visual arts) and the art of the present, contemporary art should be viewed in context of the present.
It never exists in a vacuum.
camera obscura? you mean the viewport thingie they would use to draw? i don't know how to describe it. they put their head under a hood and looked at some mirrored windowed thingie that they pointed at what they were drawing
@@mightymeatymechno, the camera obscura is also called a pinhole camera. basically just put a piece of paper in a can and poke a hole in the can, and the light will go through the hole and make an upside-down photograph on the paper.
@@mightymeatymechyou answered your own question... Although a camera obscura can take many forms; as small as a box or large as a room even.
@@PGT860 I only asked because they said it was theorised???
Gotta say, it's a nice breath of fresh air to see someone expressing a genuine (and as far as I know) valid opinion rather than just calling Ethan the r slur and whining about how modern art doesn't make sense to them and is therefore bad.
“the great artists of the past didn’t care one wit about reflecting their times” that’s literally just a lie
What a great rebuttal🤡
What a great rebuttal🤡
Yeah one my fav artists Francisco Goya. He just thought his art looked pretty 💀💀 def not political and his depression of the political world it was trapped in. No.. just pretty
@@layladavis02idk abt that, seeing his art and reading about the history taking place in his time period, there were definitely many symbolic interpretations in pieces.
@@jbstarkiller4626 Yeah, it unironically is. If someone tells you a bald-faced lie and refuses to back up their claims, telling them they're full of shit IS a proper response.
Could not walk under the video, 0/10
a better world is possible, where we can walk under the video
I just held up my laptop and walked under it
I'm typing this from my phone... I dropped my laptop
Can't walk under the Mona Lisa either.
“I don’t think [Charlie] knows any gay people” just articulated why I have always had trouble enjoying his content in one sentence. Whether or not it’s true, it’s absolutely on point
I’ve tried watching his content before and while I never could put my finger on it, I was just always put off by his anger and arrogance when expressing his opinion, like his word is law, despite the fact that he’s just some dude making videos about random stuff. He reminds me of my ex who told me he “didn’t have a problem with trans people” but he privately thought they were all mentally ill.
I always felt Charlie thinks of himself as a leader and his followers are his disciples. Then the video came out of him trying to invalidate the apology video made by Idubbbz and that was all the evidence I needed to justify my dislike. I don’t think he’s a *bad* person, like Ethan says he just is an average guy with average guy brain, but he’ll only grow to be more ignorant if he refuses to branch out and consider different perspectives until he eventually does actually become (intentionally or not) a full blown conservative or right wing mouthpiece.
Isn't Huggbees (one of Charlie's friends and fellow podcast hosts) bi?
@@HarveMoone I feel the same way. I don't think I could have said it any better.
Your assuming he dusent know eny gay people and even if that's the case what dus him knowing or not knowing a gay person half to do with being a entertainer???
@@zeggyzagdid you just com in from stooped town?
It would just be particularly nice if more people could have their art appreciated without being trust fund babies
To be fair, it's none of your or anyone else's business how an artist supports themselves.
@INFILTR8US I just think it would be nicer if more artists could support themselves while still making their art. The privilege to devote immense amounts of time to creating art and honing those skills is the biggest factor in that situation, I think. This was an absent-minded jab at capitalism, not any artists
@@INFILTR8US that is very fair though
And if more art would be appreciated truly instead of as a front for money laundering and tax fraud... :/
But none of that is the art or artist's fault (I'm pretty sure comment OP understands this, I just want to clarify my position on that)
Tbf I've been to a couple galleries and seen artists calling for working class art but, the problem is that you're going to have to make sacrifices and become a starving artist with very little chance of someone from that kind of background making it. There's a reason why the greatest artists ever born was when the economy was booming or in the renaissance where art thrived. I'm saying this as a working class artist
Charlie is wrong about his opinion on modern art because art is subjective?
Objectivity and subjectivity are simple tools of fascism.
@qc6057 I can't tell if you're joking 😂
@@AnonymousAccount-li1cn me neither 🤣
@@qc6057 💀 bro is onto nothing
@@qc6057touch grass
Not liking modern art = right wing. What a clown .
I don't think you exactly understand the origins of your beliefs. Hatred of modern art began with the right, and has permeated into a common belief due to subtle propaganda. It very much is right wing.
@@MISO0928 Nothing wrong with right wing.
@@MISO0928Wtf no, lefties SHOULD hate modern art because it's made for the 1%
@@MISO0928 telll me the origin of my beliefs.
@@MISO0928 yeah and a white sheet of paper has the deepest meaning on the planet 😂
There’s an unspoken rule in the art community that you should never compare one’s art style to another, ie cartoon vs realism, expressionism vs sculpture, etc
Exactly!! They’re all very different things that are trying to achieve different goals, often not even using the same mediums. It doesn’t make any sense to compare them
there's a spoken rule in the art community that sensitive assholes are ngmi
@@fuckakakaka sometimes you shouldn't speak
THERE IS GATEKEEPING IN MY ART?
I'm happy that people still buy artwork it makes me want to get serious about selling my own art
My grandmother was an artist. She struggled with the human form, so she relegated her work to landscapes and floral pictures. She quickly found that she was allergic to oil based paint and so had to switch to watercolor and because of this found the medium through which she could express herself. She was a woman who found true beauty in the natural world around her and wanted nothing more that to express that in her work. When she started suffering from the dementia that eventually claimed her life, the part about her condition that truly pained her the most was that she was unable to properly hold or control her paintbrush. She could no longer express herself through art. Her pieces are up in the state gallery and she made no money off of it. To her, it was her ability to share the beauty that she saw in the world that gave her life meaning. These critics feel that the ability to be pleasing to the eye or how much you can sell an art piece are all that art is good for. The pieces of my grandmother’s art that I have in my possession, I will never sell. I look at it, and I see her. I see her love of life and the world around her and the beauty that she saw in everything through it. She comes to life again through the art she left behind. It is her gift to her and I treasure the ability that art gives me for that. Fuck anyone who sees art as nothing more than a business to be made. That is the true spit on a canvas.
this is so beautiful, thank you for sharing this. I needed to hear this as a visual artist bc I'm surrounded by so many ppl saying I need to sell my art for money when I didn't even start making art for that. I want to express my surreal & beautiful (imo) thoughts with everyone. rest in power to your grandmother, sheb sounds like she was a beautiful soul to be around. 💙
@@kaeg.7800 If you need to sell your art to live a comfortable life, there is no shame in that, but never lose sight of the joy of creation and expression take the time and effort to create for yourself! Don’t let it become more a chore for you than it is something that gives you life and helps you to leave a legacy that can help you live on long after you are gone.
FACT
Well said
this story reminded me of maud lewis, who was a disabled folk painter who lived most of her life in poverty but painted literally everything around her. her tiny little home was restored and transported from rural nova scotia into the art gallery of NS and i love it. i'm also realizing charlie would probably hate her bc at first glance it looks like she had no technical skill when that's not the point of what makes her art so iconic and beloved
"Hes artistically limited because he only draws white people outside" is definitely one of the sentences of all time.
Of course soft looking leftoids have to mention white people at least once in a video essay that nobody sane will actually spend time watching
What's funny is, that people think that's a valid statement. I bet half of your likes came from people not understanding your quote.
This video only shows white people inside. So obviously the guy who made this is a rightwing extremist, who wants your granny dead, because he's not wearing a mask, or something, I guess.
Hopefully you're being sarcastic; as if you can argue against the great masters and art that came from Europe no matter what the subject was.
@@phillmoore1561 I think there is no argument here. This video is very pretencious and the points made in it are not valid in any way. Dumb videos tend to result in good comments full of sarcasm. :)
I can do realism, but it's not the kind of art i love. I love chaos and colors and making fun patterns. I love cartoony character design and unique color schemes and strange outfits. I love subtly pouring my emotions into something no one will see. That's the art that brings me joy. I don't care if it's not "objectively" good. I love it and it's my art.
Based
THIS!!! you’re a true artiste 💅
fuck. yes.
Picasso was talented at all types of art, but most people never know that. He chose to do what he loved, and that's why he's immortalized as an artist. If he painted in the style of those who came before him, he'd just be another forgotten name in art history.
The only way your art will move people is if you're loving making it. Otherwise it would be like a comedian only acting in dramas because they thought it was more respectable. It's obvious when someone's heart isn't in it.
@@LunarElevenik you expected this but i just have to anytime i see his name:
fuck that guy 🩷
As an artist who has made both representational and abstract art, I can confidently say designing a piece that appears chaotic without being ugly is *hard*.
Exactly my thoughts. It’s fairly easy to design an eye-catching pieces with characters with dynamic poses, interesting looks, dramatic lighting and accessories and what not but designing an equally eye-catching and dynamic piece when all you have to work with are nondescript shapes and colours. The fact that it’s not a hyper realistic charcoal portrait doesn’t mean it’s easy. Maybe your physical skills don’t necessarily need to be as sharp but you have to posses one hell of an imagination to make good abstract art.
Also sometimes the art piece isn’t about skills or looking pretty but it’s rather the balls that it takes to tape a banana to a wall, calling it art and then watching people getting bamboozled out of their minds by it.
For real. I used to draw all the time and was great at drawing 'something', while my girlfriend was more of a creative artist, and she would make an abstract piece by doing a single line doodle over a whole page and then expanding from there. It amazed me every single time I saw her do it.
Abstract art is so much more difficult and impressive than anything referential will ever be.
@@-user_redacted- So much this. I do a lot of portrait art, and I would LOVE to be able to make abstract art. I've tried. It does not come out good. Because it's a skill and it's one that I do not have.
People like Charlie seem to have this mindset of "if I don't understand it, it's worthless". Which is just, like... the least creative mindset a person could possibly have.
Yeah! And I hate everything that that old guy had to say. Art IS subjective. Even the simplest of pieces can have so much meaning behind it, so seeing him just go “hUrDuR tHiS iS jUSt A ____” drives me NUUUTSSSS! I guarantee a lot of these old artist that hes using to say “modern art bad” wouldn’t appreciate having their work being used as a way to invalidate another artists piece. Cause I think, and hope, that they would understand modern art if it was explained to them. Abstract art is hard. Its not just random thing with random meaning
This might be the most hypocritical video ive ever seen. What a disappointment it is to have you in the online space.
I think you need to look up what hypocrisy means hahahaha
@@ethanisonline I think you need to do that, actually. Also, stop acting like a tough guy in DMs when IRL you would lose in any fight within 10 seconds
I need so many people to take an art history class. Saying older artiats only cared about technical skill and did not care about symbolism or impart meaning into their work is just RIDICULOUS. A lot of artists worked on commissions and especially things like wedding portraits will have an immense amount of symbolism in them- a dog at a woman's feet is not just there bc there was a dog there, its placed there because dogs mean loyalty and theyre hoping for a loyal marriage. There was a trend at one point where rich folks would commission artiats to include hidden symbols in their work (like some image that would only show up if you look at jt from a certain angle) because it was trendy and it showed off their wealth and theyd make a point of havung all their wealthy friends stand around and stare at the painting to try to find all the symbols and meaning. That was the INTENT. Even all the art people try to group together bc theyre all Realistic and Old can be super different and some of it was controversial in its own time. Like, look at baroque- the WORD baroque was pretty much an insult meaning "anything irregular, bizarre, or otherwise departing from rules and proportions established during the Renaissance". Baroque art. Google baroque and think about a bunch of folks enraged at how "bizarre" and "unconventional" that art is. ART IS ALWAYS CHANGING. You can dislike styles of art but whenever you try to argue that some art is objectively good and some is objectively bad, degenerate, "dog shit", or shouldnt be displayed or considered worthy by others, you're engaging in dangerous territory. If you prefer thungs only for their visual beauty and dont care about the meaning behind the art, awesome. Enjoy that art. Stop looking for things to be mad at.
(to expand on the baroque thing bc I think I misremembered some parts of it: Baroque was an art style promoted by the Catholic Church but hated by Protestants bc of being too excessive, eventually evolving into Rococo, and Rococo eventually came to an end when it was criticized for its superficiality and degeneracy, being seen as too frilly and not containing noble themes. It was actually a reaction against the stiffer styles at the time. Again, a lot of art people lump together as "classical" is VERY distinct from others. Baroque's dramatic lighting and flowing forms was a departure from other styles like Renaissance art which focused on more even lighting and balanced, symmetrical composition. Badly summarized art history corner for ya.)
This is such a wonderful way to explain why most people like old art over modern art beauty can still be there in a meaningful peace of work
blah blah blah, I actually study art, stop the bs mdoern art is shit😂
@@jboydayz yeah I don't believe you. Why would you study art if you're not open to discussing the intent, meaning, and context behind *all* art, whether you like it or not?
@@finpin2622 I study art, I am open to expressing the meaning behind it, but if the art looks, quite frankly, shit, then it’s a bad work of art.
Jacob Geller's video "Who's Afraid of Modern Art" fucked me up in simultaneously the best and worst ways. I've always been a fan of ALL types of art, including non-visual forms, but that one, alongside every other video of his, just helps me to appreciate just how important genuine creativity really is.
I'm always happy to see other people who can also appreciate art. Even if it's "just colored squares" because maybe the squares are mostly black because the artist felt depressed/su*c*d@l all those days...
Oh my god I love that video!!! it changed the way I view modern art and just daily life
I wanna eat Jacob geller’s entire UA-cam channel,, the videos are so coollll
@@hopefullywholesome1955 i never thought i would find a way to describe his channel. and then i read this comment lol. ig kinda like modern art in a way
finding people who know Jacob Gellers channel gives me the best feeling.
that video legit deradicalized me. it was an eyeopening moment
I saw a video about a minimilist making some art to go with her kitchen setting. It was 2 circles on a large canvas, it was the first thing shes ever painted and she was proud. While i didnt like it i was cute to see how giddy she was. When i went to the comments everyone was complaining about modern art and how much it would sell for despite the fact that she was never going to sell it. It wasnt meant to be a thought provoking piece, it wasnt even meant to be "modern art", it was just decoration for her to enjoy. It pissed me off that everyone was complaining about a problem that wasnt meant to be had in the first place.
I saw that video and the comments, I was so disappointed in everyone. I really hope the mass hate around modern and abstract art changes soon because it drives me nuts
@@khali-seaweed2 I don't think that will ever happen. There's charm in modern art and it can be genuinely funny and pretty, especially when it comes to something as mild and understandable as minimalistic design, but humans will always feel like it's unfair that these things can be priced so high and get so much attention yet other works that require years upon years of blood, sweat and tears are priced the same or less than that.
Most of the hate I've seen comes down to money vs effort, not the finished work itself, and that's an eternal fighting ring right there. I'd actually go a step further and bet most people like some random abstract paintings in various rooms, as a ton of such things exist both where I live and in pretty much every documentary or tour of some place I've ever seen. The issue really doesn't lie in the art itself no matter how much some people try to make it so (and this is how you result in subjective arguments with no foundation trying to be passed off as fact, like "it looks dumb").
Cheers dits no one asked though
@AverageAlien I don’t see anyone asking you either? Crazy how that works. It’s only a problem if they’re being a douche, and they aren’t (and you are).
I guess if you only have 2 neurons, two circles on an empty canvas are "thought provoking" enough.
If it’s about the backstory why not just put the fucking plaque on the wall and leave the art
imo art is a visual thing made with creativity and a purpose.
for some art, the purpose is to look pretty. for other art, its to convey an emotion.
some people prefer certain art and certain meanings of art and others like art thats completely different.
i personally like art that is pretty and art that shows characters stories (like an individual artists ocs), and i dont really care much for modern art very often
(also impressive art =/= good art, it just means its impressive, which is a respectable feat from the artist and a valid reason to like it btw)
Does art have to be visual? I guess maybe if the purpose is to be pretty, that would be a requirement. But then again, I would say that we could describe sounds as being pretty, so maybe not.
@@aflameninja No. Music is art.
Found the Nazi
i'm not even a pollock fan but clearly people have not seen it in person because his work IS visually impressive even without any other understanding of it
Same pfp!
YEP exactly. Even if you don't like these art pieces, seeing them in person is still impressive. I've never seen a museum piece that looked unimpressive unless it was literally trying to be.
I forgot that a lot of people can't understand that scale, perspective, lighting and 3-dimensional texture can radically alter how an artwork looks.
Ah okay. So you just have to slap your painted dick ALOT across a large canvas to get the same effect. And you geniuses will stare in awe because BIG.
most of his work looks EXACTLY like the floor of the paintshop at my work. just because its large doesnt make it more impressive.
The art made by people mourning the deaths of those during the AIDS crisis is so beautiful and heartbreaking, I love Untitled, Portrait of Ross in LA so much, I'm hoping I can see it in a gallery sometime.
I was able to see it in Chicago and it was the most profound and memorable part of the museum. I took a piece of the candy but felt compelled to leave the wrapper on the pile. I only just learned the story and artist because of your comment. I hope you get to see it someday!
god, Untitled, Portrait of Ross in LA makes me ugly cry just to think about. Definitely my favorite piece of all time tbh
I’m glad I didn’t see that fan first off in a gallery, I would have wailed
Wow I just read about it and I love the concept of eating a candy and leaving the wrapper to represent the weight loss his partner went through, its sad but beautiful
Thank you for talking about this piece, i just cried for about 10 minutes straight looking at a pile of candy, art is amazing.
2 word money laundering
*two words
you think classical art isn't used for money laundering?
@@asheronthehoise4813 classical art takes time and effort. The banana taped to the wall did not.
@@nitromenace1424blue canvas with a line
Did you, per chance, not watch the video?
Bro has a degree in yapology
graded at yapvard
Bro is giving us NOTHING 🔥🔥🔥
both ethan and robert do lol
@@notfunnydidntlaugh8621 robert who ?
I'm telling ya. I hang around here cause I don't wanna be in my "Nazi echochamber" (really I'm just relatively center-right, by 2024 standards). And I get told that the real honest progressives I should listen to are the progressive radicals cause if progressives seem to extreme to me now, maybe I'm just not empathetic enough to the working class. Or maybe I'm an asshole bigot who should better myself. Whatever, maybe I am bigoted. So I listen to these people with a open mind. And I'm always dumbfounded. These folks are a right-winger's parody of what a leftist is. I'm rarely ever impressed.
You should check out the modern art known as a treadmill
You seem like you'll go really far in life with that attitude. I really hope one day you find yourself out of a cycle of hate because i was in the exact same position as you. It's never too late to re-evaluate the decisions you make
@@jakejana196 okay buddy
one of my favourite art pieces is keith harings "unfinished painting". he died in 1990, and that was one of his last paintings. he knew he wouldnt have time to complete it, so left it unfinished of his own free will, leaving us with something so damn moving i feel a lump in my throat looking at it. for me it symbolises the things left unsaid, things never done, choices never made, lives never lived. it is genuinely amazing, and i encourage anyone and everyone to look it up, to look him up. hes truly great.
I’ve literally cried while looking at that painting, it’s so heartbreaking and bittersweetly beautiful, it’s also a take on the aids crisis and the fact that the “painting” could’ve been finished but people didn’t care enough for it to be
I kinda feel the same way about one of Lovecrafts stories. Obviously a bad person, thats pretty easy to see from even a cursory glance at him and his work, but that aside, theres a particular one of his stories that I find rather intriguing and moving because it was never completed. The story "Azathoth" was incomplete, and only released after his death as it was found in its incomplete version in its notes. Part of why I find it to be compelling is the fact that its an unfinished work by someone who passed before finishing it, and thus the story ends early, with the main character being whisked away by forces unknown, to a strange and beautiful alien world.
Idk, just the fact that one of someones final, unfinished works happens to be about a depressed loner being whisked away from the world is just interesting to me.
Commenting so I can remember that peices work
Lmfao some dude got futt bucked too much, and half-assed his last painting. I think I just cringed into the 10th dimension.
@@REEEE-eq6mx alright. i liked the painting though :)
Action paintings are hella difficult, my grandma had a pollock wall calendar that I saw and thought I could easily do that. Then I did an action painting in school and whilst I like the result, it has a large splotch in the middle bc dosing the liquid paint is tricky.
I’ll be honest, Birth of Venus is actually one of my favorite pieces. I know it has technical flaws, but those imperfections don’t make it any less beautiful imo. It’s also a piece that meant a lot to me in high school when I was deep in body issues. Here was a portrayal of the goddess of beauty herself, and she had a visible stomach and soft face. She looked like *me,* and I remember being so excited. Then, of course, a bunch of other kids in class raised their hands to talk about how she looked “pregnant” or like she’d “skipped too many days at the gym,” and that self confidence plummeted real quick 🫠 When we had to pick our favorite piece we’d learned about later that semester, I lied and said something else.
Sometimes, the meaning of art can't be translated through pictures. You have to stand in front of it and experience it. I think that's a lot of what made Charlie scoff at pieces that are otherwise considered to be masterpieces.
Sometimes, what makes art "good," or even simply enjoyable, is the process rather than the finished product. As a viewer, it's seeing the way the artist manipulated the medium, planned ahead for the way pigment would mix and layer and dry. It's about understanding the context in which the artist was creating.
Sometimes, what makes art "good" is the viewer's experience in learning about it and understanding it.
Sometimes, art is good because it's not the same experience for every person, or even for the same person upon multiple viewings.
I like whne people try to to make art way deep then it sounds by adding words like " feeling the process", like bro bro you look at a bunch of shapes, colors etc and if you like it or not depends on subjective preferences, random color splashes thsy so much modern art is composed of isn't deep idk why even I as a left lesninf person can find the idiocy in your claims, no layman looks at an art piece and starts thinking about what the artists waa doing at thst time
@@exiledkenkaneki701 i love how everything you said is just wrong lol. also who cares if a layman doesn't think too much about a piece, most people going to art galleries aren't going to be laymen like that but people who actually enjoy art
@@exiledkenkaneki701 people wonder how and why things are made quite often actually. sure if they do not have an interest in art galleries maybe not unprompted- not everyone needs to enjoy everything- but the people going to see this art care, like someone cares to see behind-the-scenes footage with directory commentary of their favorite movies, or literally anyone who enjoys learning about history at all.
no one mad about this stuff are just average laymen anyway, it is completely reactionary, driven by more than not understanding/caring.
@@exiledkenkaneki701you're under the age of 16. you probably have only been to an arts museum once on a field trip and got shit in your socks.
@@exiledkenkaneki701all youre saying here is how incurious you are as a person, not about the quality of any modern art
I used to think modern art was trash as a young person, and then one night, I was 19, reading about Rothko and dismissively scrolling past some of his color field paintings, and then one of them just snagged at me. It was the 1952 Untitled piece. I stopped scrolling and I stared of it, for a long time. I felt something. Something inside of me 'got' it, and I can't explain what exactly I got. It just clicked for me; I started looking at art a lot differently from then on. The soul doesn't care about how pretty or realistic or significant a work is; If something speaks to it, it speaks back.
Yah you didn't feel anything, a random artist in Twitter can outclass what you saw idk y you make it sound deep lol
@@exiledkenkaneki701 They literally said they felt something. Wtf do you mean “no you didn’t.”
I was going to mention Rothko as well, I learned about him for a project and was so immediately hooked that seeing his work in person is on my bucket list.
@@exiledkenkaneki701 How can you be so entitled to think that every other human being experiences things the exact way you do? It's baffling. "You felt something when I didn't? No, that can't be true, because I'm the only person that matters and I didn't feel anything, so you have to be wrong."
@@exiledkenkaneki701i think you probably just have a really simple brain its okay buddy
I wonder how it feels to be so confident in yourself while being so wrong at the same time. I bet his opinion on what makes art changes if asked about AI generated media; I bet his position becomes a lot more nuanced then.
His position is already nuanced 🤦♀️ You're actually an idiot.
@@funnylittlecreaturewithin 3 minutes Ethan is already wrong
@@favre4ever39 How so?
@@funnylittlecreature by stating All art is inherently political. It is not, while some art is such as Goya's "The third of May" a good amount of art is not such as Van Gogh's work, he offered his world view and that gave a view into his psyche but not his political feelings. So his assertion is false.
@@favre4ever39 I disagree. All art exists within a political context, and is therefore political. Not necessarily that all art is made with political intent, but that it is influenced by politics in small, if fundamental, ways.
He is the kind of person who asks "What's your favorite book?" Only to imply " I bRaiN 2".
I'm only like 4 minutes into this, but as an art historian who studies modern art and focuses largely on abstract expressionism (so the people like Pollock), it makes me so happy to see people make things like this. modern art is so so important and without the historical context behind how it came to form, you really do miss so much. its all genuinely so incredible.
"explain why this Pollock is good" oh baby thats not even remotely close to how art ed/history classes work at all gsfdkjhdgskjhf 😭
What's funny is I think that part made me really appreciate Pollock for the first time. I looked at the apron splatters and just thought, "yeah Pollock is a bit much for me. Kinda ugly." Then he revealed it was random splatters and I realized every Pollock I've seen looks better than that even though I never really liked them. Then looking at some online I could clearly see the intention behind them compared to the random splatters, they have a balance and flow to them. It's kind of cool he can make something that looks like pure chaos but still is compositionally interesting. You could probably teach anyone to pick out a Pollock from a painting of random splatters and that might be a path towards really appreciating them as a general audience.
@@tackysapphic "oh baby thats not even remotely close to how art ed/history classes work at all"
It should be, and I'm glad Robert at least does this with his class. It's a great exercise to drive home the point that, with the right flowery language and enough pretense and pomposity, you can sell literally anything as a work of art nowadays. It helps students to not be fooled by all the word salads that try to manipulate them into praising something, and use their own senses instead.
That's kind of the problem with modern art. People like it because authority figures tell them it's good, and because it's socially fashionable to like modern art, it's not because of any intrinsic quality of the art itself. Even Ethan here admitted he didn't think modern art was good until he read on the plaques in an exhibition that it was good.
Seems like gender studies or bible studies.
@@frankvandorp2059 No Ethan said he didn't think it was good until he read the plaques and began to understand the works. You talk about good art as if there is some sort of checklist or metric you can measure that by. In art school, you rarely if ever talk about good vs bad art because that creates a dichotomy enforced by the teacher's own opinions, like it's not helpful to talk about art in those terms. Although I have had one seminar where we were all told to bring examples of "good" and "bad" mostly to examine what ideas we had about those terms in relation to art. A bunch of comments here talk about how we're all being manipulated into accepting ideas from schools, teachers, critics, art institutions, but those same comments usually try to define hard lines, put things in boxes and now even you praising someone for telling their students how to think.
You seem to have this idea that there is no quality to modern art and therefore no one can truly enjoy it. Projecting much.
First of all, you kind of have to see the art in person. No photos, videos or other representation of the work will actually give you the same experience as seeing it in person.
Second, I can tell you that I thoroughly enjoy a lot of modern art, not all of it. Not because someone told me to, not that anyone ever did, bc it doesn't work like that.
For example, one of my favourites i Chiharu Shiota and her installations where she creates these enormous tangles of bright red yarn. I can't really tell you exactly what makes me like them so much, but when you walk into one of these rooms it's something with the colour, the layers and patterns of the yarn. Idk it just gives me a feeling of pleasure inside.
If twitter was a person:
What does this even mean 🤡🤡
@@Yourhandleneedstobeatleast Exactly what it's suppose to mean u retard 🤡🤡
@@Yourhandleneedstobeatleast it means he is a clown.
Ikr it’s just disgusting, hope bro moves out of cali soon 👍🏽
And not just any twitter either! He's Jack Dorsey Twitter, not even Elon Musk Twitter.
Back when my anxiety was really bad, I went to a modern art museum, and saw this chaotic painting. There were incoherent words and burning colors. I remember seeing this and thinking “this is my brain. That’s what I look like inside.”
„Modern art is for the mentally unwell“ lmao, true
@@sweetnerevar7030A lack of basic empathy could also be filed into that definition. Welcome to the club, guess you must love modern art now!
wonder who is restarted
@@fairsaa7975 making him right is not the own you think it is.
@@sweetnerevar7030lacking empathy is also a sign of mental unwellness
Big rock can go under hooooooo🦍🦍🦍🦍
Me when I ignore the point.
No seriously, the art in it is architecture. That's a lot of weight to hold up with so little, and when you walk under it you ask yourself "is this safe?". Then you read the plague and how the whole thing is rated to last for centuries, how they picked every material to last. It's art because it's a show of technical skill in arquitecture
@@julianbello8376 it is just big rock dude hooooooo🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍
@@julianbello8376 Mate have you seen a bridge?
@@manamark4754 I've helped build one, those over roadways. They're beautiful things set deep into the ground. They are made to weigh a skittle as possible and be as well supported as they could be. This random part of a mountain is held up by two metal plates. Maybe it's just the laborer in me but that's genuinely impressive.
@@julianbello8376 Then what is so impressive about this rock, it's just a lamer version of a bridge, that is practically useless. No seriously what is in this rock that is impressive, it is not beautiful, it is not practical, it is not even something unusual, are you sexually attracted to it?
In painting, as in music and prose and dance and any other sort of human expression and imagination, the reactionary position is always that the only legitimate purpose of art is to repeat the same reactionary doctrines about hierarchy and righteousness over and over again for eternity. The only acceptable way to art, for these asshats, is to turn every form of creative endeavor into another shout in the chorus of "these power structures are holy and all that is real and are the only possible structure, without us you would be lost" and contribute to the crusade to drown out anyone who disagrees.
Many of the artists they appeal to were fabulous and interesting and were important parts of the centuries-long conversations that make up art. Reactionary art commentators, though, demand that art be turned into the existential horror of a static and unquestionable totalitarian lack of thought.
Beautifully said.
THIS
Damn homie really wrote a beautifully written essay of a youtube comment
Well said. Thank you
Pretentious bogus. A white canvas is not as evocative or meaningful as advanced paintings,which does not necessarily mean more realistic paintings. Remove the broom for your arse,if you would please.
I am howling 🤣 " they didn't care about reflecting their times, they created art because it looks good " my man, old masters literally have TONS AND TONS of things in their paintings that are a symbolic reflections of their time and personal opinion, lots of them we as more modern humans completely miss because while they may have been obvious to the people of the time, go completely over out heads. In the times of the great masters untill fairly recent there were incredibly set in stone standards for paintings, which made lots of art kind of static, with no room for experimentation, with absolutely bonkers rules to our modern eyes. Lots of paintings or artists these people would consider good, were laughed out of the gallery because their painting of a woman was showing a shoulder or looking you directly in the eye.
But kudos to you, very well thought out analysis. Really takes me back to my art history lessons and the great discussions we had about art
While knowing the context of a piece of art can help you see it in a new light, I don't think it makes it good, I remember hearing that an artist make a painting of just some warm and kinda bright colors after the birth of their child, that definitely makes the context of how you see it kinda sweet, but that doesn't make me think the painting is great. Also, I don't think it's fair to assume that just because somebody has the same opinion as a right winger on art, that means they're a useful idiot, a monster and an angel could both like cake
I don't think it's necessary to call a piece of art "good" or "bad". We should be asking whether or not it is effective. Does it stir up strong emotions in people?
For example, someone can say that the Fountain by Duchamp isn't "good", but it definitely created a lot of discourse.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz everything can cause emotions so that metric is not even good.
@@spinosaurusstrikerI would honestly like to know this. OPs answer id like too:
How do we objectively measure art?
Who decides?
Because I have different standards than you for art. It will affect me differently.
If you like realism art it doesn't make you a right winger. Insisting modern art is bad, and that you can objectively measure art does.
@@theflamedragon2508 Not really, i don't think most people are right wingers and the thinking that modern art is trash is a very popular mindset right now.
What if i made a jackson pollack like painting. Maybe i had a moment in my life that i felt like painting to show my emotions like anger, sadness, or happiness. Would i make it into an art museum?..
No.
Its not about the art, but the nametag they can put on it. Thats what determines the price tag right next to it.
Big Joel was such a huge influence to accepting and appreciating modern art for me. Little joel helped too
Jacob geller has a great video on modern art to 😩
Mainly little Joel and that video about the forest in a room with the chopping sound!
joe biden ?!?!
Idk who Little Joel is but Big Joel is pretty cool.
11:09 Robert tricking his students is extra insidious because if it's the first time students are learning about modern art, of course they won't be able to identify a Pollock painting.
Claiming that people who teach art history aren't artists too is WILD. Why does he think people study art history and never make art?!
Youll never know what got this comment to 700 likes
this pretty much sums up the mentality of homophobic/transphobic ppl as well
Conservatives
Pretty much the Dunning-Krueger effect
Everyone understands it. It is just so foul that it deserves to be put in a pyre and burnt.
@@Siegfried5846wait wait - do you mean modern art..? In general?
I think Pollack's work, having survived his cigarette smoking and alcoholism, deserves to now be burned above all other paintings.
The first homosexual cave man
No, cavemen have muscles
Fr@@favre4ever39
I know, what if i make fun of a content creators appearance, that'll make me seem really likeable
Tell me that you got brainwashed without telling me you got brainwashed
I appreciate the statue "Petra", or "the pissing woman statue" as you said. The artist claims it was a work of sheer curiosity. Like, he literally just saw some male German riot officers relieving themselves and wondered how that would have to work for the female officers who have to wear that same gear. So he made an extremely realistic statue, like, way more realistic than "David" or something, to the point that the urine flow can be simulated, and he did this purely out of functional curiosity and genuine empathy about how different people deal with biological functions in different situations. This whole work of art just casually dismantles conservative "ideals" by adhering to all of them but being incidentally offensive because "oh no pee pee gross" or whatever. It's great, and (just completely ASSuming here) I'm guessing if you don't like it it's probably because some people have misinterpreted as misogynistic, but I really don't see that at all. It's as tasteful as a statue of a person peeing can possibly be, it is more tasteful than "Manneken Pis" even, and in order for any argument from the left or right to be made about it people have always had to assign some hidden agenda to the artist which seems kind of excessive to me. That being said, I will say that it does kind of worry me that a private collector bought the original, I'm not completely oblivious to how well-intended art can be misused after all.
But art can't be misused. If the viewer can interpret anything they want in a piece of art, then there's no wrong interpretations and anyone can get any meaning out of any piece. You can't deem their reaction wrong if that's the feelings that the art inspired in them. It's pretty restrictive to say that only you can decide if someone is appreciating the piece the right way,.
@@lokiswager Yeah, I'm just sharing information about the artist's intentions and my own interpretation of the art. For instance, when I say "Hitler misused the swastika", I am not declaring myself as the only person who can decide anything for anyone regarding art, symbols, etc. I'm not claiming any authority there, I'm just sharing how I feel about how he took a certain symbol that represented one thing and made it into something that represented something else. I apologize if you misinterpreted my comment. ;3
Jacob Geller has a really nice essay on modern Art, really helped me come around to liking modern art. Its called "Who’s Afraid of Modern Art: Vandalism, Video Games, and Fascism"
Jacob Geller based.
was gonna recommend this as well, that video and the museum theft video are some of my favorites from him
“has anyone done that, like, just a can of paint” my brother in christ you’re describing readymades
So you just buy YOUR art already made and you add little to it of your own. "ready-mades" are such a lame concept for what is considered "art".
@@richard.n9000 okay so you didn't even bother googling the word you're calling stupid
BOOM one stroke of red paint on my canvas I did a lot of work today. Im looking for a buyer, the minimum I’m going for my amazing art piece is 27 million dollars. The red represents my feelings, Red.
No like seriously though who wants to buy it
Have you tried watching the video instead of watching some reactionary on youtube tell you what happend?
The last piece shown, the AC unit, made me cry. I've never known a victim of AIDS and the prejudice associated with that, but I do know loss. My father died of lung cancer in 2020, after leaving our family in 2016. Every physical reminder of him was cleaned away by my paternal family. My sister and I cling to what little evidence of his existence is left behind. Thanks for sharing Ethan :) and I hope the moist mob doesn't affect your channel too much.
seriously it makes me tear up whenever I think about it, it's probably my favorite piece of art ever
@@dootie8285wow making fun of people on the internet, you're so cool and edgy. if this is the only evidence of your existence in the future, who do you think will be seen as the joke
@@dootie8285 Did you...even watch the part at the end? Can you explain what the AC unit meant, and then explain why you thought it was a good idea to make mock a commenter for being unintelligible in the comment section...where they refer to the video that explains their comment?
Why the hell are you "confused"? Watch the end of the video.
Moist fans when they hear a story about people dying and losing their lives thrown away by society so much the only thing left by them is a trashy fan (bro couldn't even get the appliance it was correct) @@dootie8285
@@dootie8285 Have you never walked past a place and gotten struck by a smell that reminds you of your childhood? Do you have no understanding for people who have phobias? “Why are you smiling it’s just the smell of PlayDoh?”, “Why are you scared it’s just an elevator?”. Everything can be reduced and put in a sentence that makes it seem stupid. Ever laughed at a movie? “Why are you laughing at this 2 dimensional array of pixels that changes 24 times in a second?
Things cause associations, trigger memories and so on. Simple as that.
i think it comes from a place of fear. Many artworks are made to challenge ideas. Looking at art with nuance compassion and context all require a certain thoughtfulness that I think a lot of queer people develop; a place of care that does not come from righteousness or understanding. We can see that what society has deemed good is a reflection of the time and place we are in, and that you don't need to understand every technicality in order to appreciate beauty and have respect. There's something about queer joy and art that a lot of these people will unfortunately never understand.
Thanks you for this articulation, very nice❤🐸
You explained this way better than me ❤ spot on.
I agree a lot with your point but I think there is another big reason that many people tend to dislike modern art (as well as poetry and theatre from my experience) and that is the fact that they take more effort and time to understand and appreciate, something that the average working class person/uni student/precariat can't easily spare. That's why, I think, those types of art are seen as pretentious, elitist and untalented. This coupled with the fact that (at least in the theatre scene) there is a lot of snobism from a small but very loud minority of people towards newcomers (possibly due to fear that they will ruin the scene) deters a lot of people from starting to get involved.
(Sorry if something doesn't make sense, English is not my native language)
There's this video by jacob geller i think, its called like whats to fear about modern art or something- i remember thinking it was a really good deepdive when it came out on YT
@@clouddd8053 I love Jacob's videos but I haven't seen that. I will check it out
Fuck the purpose i can walk on bubble wrap to and i can also tap a banana to a wall
yeah. do that and give a meaning to it. if it moves people and you put emotion into making it, it's art.
Are you implying anything you can do isn't art? That's really sad
@@asheronthehoise4813 Meaning? Emotions?? Wtf does a banana taped on a wall mean. Emotions into making what? That's a fucking banana taped on a freaking wall.
@@blackleg3964 it made you upset, didn't it?
@@asheronthehoise4813makes starving people upset ig
I hate modern art because it is a scam insustry.
by that standard so is all auctioned art including classical masterworks that are valued 1000x your average modern piece, and are used for money laundering even more frequently and to a greater degree
@@ethanisonlineshut up peethan
@@dgguy6 why?
As in price? Yeah capitalism ruins art and everything
I loved when charlie said "oh i could make this" "oh i could make that" and you actually called him out on it. It pains me to see how many people think they have equal abilities to those of natural artists: what they don't understand is that most "pieces" are just acts of expression in the best ways artists know how
my guy, its just splashing paint on random shit and making it a million dollars
@@GlopPlopJop then do that and see what happens. anyone who knows what they're buying is going to see through it
@@think_of_a_storyboard3635Ok, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. There are plenty of people (rich people) who use art pieces as a way to cheat their taxes. I think it’s Ike, if you donate an art piece to a museum, you can write that off on your taxes. So you commission a piece from s well known artist, then donate it, and write off like a million dollars. It can be simple or complex, but yeah. Uh, but yeah, there’s some level of modern art that’s game-ified like that. So to some extent, merit is attributed to a piece based on the artist (a lesser-known artist may not get as much credit for a painting with no brushstrokes than a more well-known artist), but there’s also an inherent value in a thing that makes you feel and think things produced by a human by doing, thinking, and feeling things.
@@TheNwr1tbh unless one is an artist or understands composition, color theory, and other intermediate to advanced concepts, I don't think anyone has the right to say what is and isn't art. Non-artists with no art appreciation skills might look at a Pollock piece and feel nothing. But artists, even ones who draw completely different styles, like anime or realism, can understand the feeling behind the art
@@GlopPlopJopJust say you’re too small brained to see the deeper meaning in art and move on. It’s not anyone else’s problem that you have no depth to your personality. 😂
The fact that modern art has created this conversation proves it is quality art.
Also, my take as a digital artist, fuck pretty art. Art made just to look pretty is awesome but it doesn't say nearly as much as symbolic art. I've been working on NOT making pretty art as much because it doesn't speak thebwayi want it to.
@@PzedP1818 it's not like that at all. essays for a class aren't any kind of art really. art can be meant to spark a conversation, and modern art has succeeded at that.
Rg Collingwood: magic and amusement art
Green flag: makes conservatives angry
@@solus8685fr
There seems to be an unspoken assumption from PragerU that all 'modern' or 'contemporary' art is both ugly and technically deficient - that the artists couldn't paint or draw, and that's why it's 'ugly'. But there is plenty of modern and contemporary art that is both very technically proficient and grotesque at the same time. Otto Dix, Hans Rudi Gieger, Zdzisław Beksiński - all of these artists had great technical skill but chose deliberately grotesque subject matter. Even in the past, Hieronymus Bosch seems to fit the bill. I think that the pragerU guy deliberately avoided dealing with art like this because then he couldn't be like 'see, these modern artists are all frauds who either couldn't make art or who just slapped paint on canvas.'
awww leaving the fan sound running during the credits really got me
Pollock is one of my favorite artists. I used to teach art, and I had this one action painting that I had made after learning about Pollock. I remember my first wife hated it, always complained that it didn't fit the decor of the house, that it didn't go with anything. It was an egg painting, I was a trans egg, painting the frustration and confusion inside of my own head. She had a degree in art history, and just complained that it didn't look good in the house. She convinced me to take it down, I tried putting it in the attic but it didn't fit inside the doorway to the attic because it was so big. I remember taking it out to the curb because it was trash day, and putting my foot through it and breaking the frame into pieces. Not because I hated my work, but because I realized in that moment that my own partner never took the time or energy to truly understand who I was as a human, and from that moment until I hatched as trans something inside me was dead. All I have of it is a low resolution jpg and the memories.
What’s ironic is that pollock’s work and some of the context surrounding it is giving him a visceral reaction, which is what good art is supposed to do
If you have a rock for a brain.😂
I say we make a new artwork that will give you a visceral reaction: we take Pollocks paintings, alongside all other antiwhite artists who have tried to destroy the Western tradition, and we burn it all.
Your arguments summerized:
"Art is completely subjective" is contradicted by you constantly bringing traditional art down, while raising modern art up. Calling traditional art "uninspired" means that you clearly believe that modern art is inspired, which means that you must believe there is some sort of objective argument that could be made there...
"Art is better if it can last longer" I really don't know how you got here tbh. Where is longevity as an art critique coming from? Is this linked to some psychological insecurity about your own mortality? Do you associate longer lasting with better for any deep seated reason? You can't objectively argue it.
"There are no rules for art" right, but you can objectively tell good brush work from bad brush work. You can tell someone's grasp on colour theory based on their work. Shape and form can be mathematically deduced. You can almost construct a perfect objective critique when you account for the style involved.
"Right wingers want to make you think a certain way about art" which is completely different to what your doing here? "trad art < modern art" is just the opposite position. You are still making the same argument with the subjects switched. You keep saying that "this piece doesn't look like much, but when you hear the back story..." that is just an attempt to swing people's opinion of the piece, which is exactly why you didn't like the traditional arts.
"Art made for money is uninspired" excuse me? How is art losing its value just because someone paid for it? Your real problem with this is the idea of a meritocracy, not the fact that people could make a living off of it. You can't bear the fact that modern art is only possible when it is propped up by others. If you have an independant modern artist, they will ALWAYS make less money than a traditional styled artist. The modern art pieces that sell for stupid amounts of money are always suspiciously bought by friends and associates. You are literally falling for money laundering...
The last argument is especially weird as modern art is infamous in its use for tax dodging by the extremely wealthy.
@@bramble6367 Yeah, but trust the socialists to come in and defend it any way. If they think they can use something as a tool for subversion, they will over look the fact that it solely benefits the rich...
He hates meritocracy until it serves in his favor
You forgot that Pollock works are great because the picture is really big
@@randomusername3873 You're right, I totally forgot that one. Canvas size is directly proportionate to how good the art is. Literal child brained take, IMO.
We can safely say that you can't comment on style or taste.
if you're like me and you don't really understand modern art a lot of the time: keep looking and it *will* surprise you. i saw this painting that was just a completely blue canvas at the SFMoMA once (Yves Klein's IKB74). i walked into the room wildly overstimulated and not really understanding the point of all the monochrome art i was seeing, but then i saw this piece and it just had this gravity to it. it was a shade of blue i had literally never seen before in my life. it had this texture and depth to it, in the brushstrokes and the color. it was incredible. before that i never understood the point of solid-color modern art - and honestly, i'm a dumbass, i still don't really get it most of the time. but i don't think you really need to understand it to appreciate it, and you don't even need to enjoy every single piece of modern art, because there is something out there that is going to grab your attention and you're going to be confused about why you enjoy it so much and why it's so compelling. and maybe you will never understand what it is that draws you to it and i think that's kinda what it's all about.
those big fuckin canvases are crazy to look at in person.
Sounds like you have a smooth brain.
beautifully put
I think its ironic that by engaging with pollock, even in a negative way, Charlie is being affected by modern art and the artist. His reaction is itself commentary on art and peoples reactions to it.
Also he literally makes money making songs about shit and balls and then is like “wow can’t believe someone would be so stupid to pay for a pollock”
@@ripple329he makes the most basic and dog shit videos
@@ripple329this is a really good point honestly. It’s all about the sphere people are in and their inability to see outside of it
personally i feel exactly the same way about charlie's content as he does about modern art. you didn't put in any effort or skill you just reacted to a video why do you think that's worth 6 figures
@@janthran that’s a common critique of Charlie’s content and similar content which does make his take pretty hypocritical imo
“Conservatives tell you how to feel about art. Now meet me spend the next hour telling you how to feel about art.” Then in the next thirty seconds, “Art isn’t about how good it looks. This art is bad because it looks bad.” Then again in the next twenty seconds, “You can’t tell how good a piece is without knowing its context! *proceeds to judge a work without looking into its context.*” Sweet Jesus this is why I hate the everything is political crowd. I’m gonna force you to explain the politics of a rock on a wall I’ll sell for a thousand dollars.
You talk too much
@pointedempire their's and your "likes ratio" speaks otherwise
@@Skxnk_Hunt42 huh?
@pointedempire clearly you are the only one who thinks they talk too much
@@Skxnk_Hunt42 ok buddy 👍
"art is subjective"
"This piece of modern art is shit"
"NOOOOOOO!!! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
his whole point is that removing the merit from art/artists and claiming it's not actual art is wrong, not that you can't dislike modern art lmao
@@asheronthehoise4813 no the OP comment is closer to reality, because ethan started to just call old art trash and your uneducated if you think its good
like waves dont even look at that right,
robert and ethan takes on art is so similar its laughable
Can confirm, PINEAPPLE UPSIDE DOWN is bumpin through Raycons. One could argue that is art 🤔
watching this with mine :) also it really is
I am bumping it through anything other than raycons because they are way too expensive for how bad they sound but I agree pineapple upside down is a banger
Don't get raycons they're worse then $10 wired earbuds😭
@zenzuto it's definitely not cap lol have you tried raycons? They're the biggest joke in consumer audio
@zenzuto it probably depends on the gas station earbuds, I'm sure some are worse. But raycons are notoriously awful in both sound and quality of materials. DankPods made a great review of em a while back, he's very funny too so definitely worth watching. For the cost of a set of Raycons you can get like 3 pairs of quality budget wired in ears like KZs, or one pair of those in ears plus a Bluetooth adapter that could be used for nicer ear buds down the line when you're ready to upgrade.
As an queer art student at a religious school one of my favorite things is super conservative art fanatics finding out that their favorite artist was queer and then just renouncing them or just claiming the facts aren’t true, also so many people at my school wear Keith Haring designs not even knowing about him at all.
Are you in a religious school against your will or what?
@@timrosswood4259 i mean, most people who go to school are minors, so it’s probably safe to assume that, yeah, against their will, because their parents wanted
@@Mike_Oxlong07 what they dont exist? i live with 3. is that your only point? ah your doing what the OP said claiming the facts are not true. hilarious
@@timrosswood4259 fun fact queer people can be religious
F slur
i dont understand how people can look at art, any art, and not *feel* something
4:36 yes, we don’t like the new art because people don’t spend any time on their art. You can just put a black rectangle on a red canvas and say that that’s art. As an artist who is working hard to perfect my craft, I don’t like that.
Effort does not equal Art - they are not the same thing. You can't brute force your way into making art, either. You can't just put time and effort into it, because you have to have some reason for making it. Which means you need a rich inner life, life experiences, something to share with the world, and then a drive to communicate that through artistic media. It has nothing to do with how hard it was to make.
@@jurneymetatron6871okay, I understand what you mean by art does not equal effort. However, anyone can make up some philosophical meaning, for a piece of garbage, it is in my belief that artists who want to make something have meaning, should strive to do that in creative ways nobody else can. That is where the effort comes in. And that is what I think makes art good
I feel like the reason why modern art is mostly abstract rather than photorealistic is just that photography exists.
You can make something photorealistic with a camera but you can’t make something in Pollock’s style with one.
What about cartoons anime, fantastical realism and cubism, all better than a dot In the middle of a painting or a banana taped to a wall😂
Or can you?”
@@anthapersephone7311 vsauce theme starts playing
you’re right, they teach exactly this in art history classes actually.
@@ellanimation816did you watch the video with your eyes closed and the volume turned off or something?
What people don't realize is thar art is suppose to challenge itself and everyone. It's fun to push the limits of what art is and it's amazing what people can do
This is one of the most condescending videos I’ve ever seen. The sheer pomposity it radiated cracked my screen. Somehow I have less of a understanding of your perspective after watching this
"The caucasity of this bitch..."
Maybe you deserve to be "Condescended" to. also it really isn't you just can't handle people who has a difference of oppinion about something you don't like.
@@nergregga“Maybe you deserve to be “condescended“ to“ is a beautifully ironic (because proving this guys point) and moronic sentence at the same time :) thanks, really made me laugh
@@nergreggaYou are obviously the one who cant handle someones different opinion, the projection and irony of your comment is insane
The last piece hits so hard, so many people erased, lost to time, nobody to hear their stories
It is absolutely beautiful
Its just a shit piece of shit art. No one cares.
The box fan genuinely touches my soul that's something so painful and important, but I can see how if someone just looked and didn't read the context it would be completely and totally lost on them. So much of the importance of art is in the context of it's creation, like the morbidity of the paintings you see from the time of the Bubonic plague, and not at all how much it sells for, or even how it looks, but the thoughts and feelings and experiences of the person who made it
I'm an art historian, and loads of what we now consider masterpieces were critiqued as "not art" at the time it was made
One thing that's particularly interesting is that there was a time when anything that was too realistic wasn't considered "art" - the purpose of art was to *surpass* nature, not imitate it.
Having said that, the modern art world is bullshit and mostly exists for money laundering
I think it's particularly funny how artists and art historians define modern art vs the general population. I've seen modern art haters start using Van Gogh as an example of good art, but like ?? Van Gogh is modern art. This country desperately needs art education
Thats where art intertwines with capitalism and materialism. As humans evolve they see more and more areas to exploite (unfortunately)
Not sure why you said the modern art world part as if all art isnt used for money laundering
Modern Art predates NFTs but function exactly the same way.
@@brayermoth Van Gogh isn't modern art
in my first high school art class we learned art history before any actual art. I immediately loved jackson pollock. his paintings felt so comfortable to look at and i loved letting my eyes dart around studying all the little bits. this was before i knew about the way he did it and why he did it. seriously my favorite painter.
I think its so cool that someone can take something so mundane and boring for almost everyone, like your last example of the box fan, and make you feel something for a moment or make you think about its meaning for a little bit. Very few people can do that. That's part of the value I can see with art like this. A new perspective of something that has only just had one to most people.
thats what i love about it! i love the transformative power of art! like uhhh whats the title... piss jesus or soemthing? it's a photo of well, a crucifix of jesus in a container of urine. the sacred desecrated right? but the way its lit up, and photographed, it looks so golden and utterly beautiful; the repellent is made holy again. it really evokes what is sacred and what is profane and how those two things can circle around.
another modernist favorite is "my lonesome cowboy", by the Superflat artist Takashi Murakami. it's this larger than life super stylized anime man using his own ejaculate as a lasso. the technical skill is amazing, portraying that fluid in motion, capturing that 2d anime style in 3d... yet it's so absurd! its hilarious! to me its elevating a "cheap" and "sleazy" topic and style and forcing one to look at and appreciate it. erotica is so often denigrated, but the playfulness of the piece reminds me so much of similar silliness i see in online kink art too. its just... idk something about making something usually seen as dirty and shameful and embarassing into something fun and silly and lighthearted.
so yknow! i love conceptual art a lot ahaha
The artist who made piss christ was a devout catholic, and it's a piece of relatively straightforward Christian art. He said it was supposed to be somewhat ambiguous, but not at all blasphemous or disrespectful, it was about the commercialization of religious imagery, and also about the body. Christians believe jesus was both fully god and fully human, and as a fully human man, had urine, semen, shit and saliva, and that rejecting that reality was missing some of the point of the Christian faith.
I'm not a Christian but piss christ is hardly confusing or weird. It's provocative, memorable, visually arresting and rich in meaning. To me, that makes it good art. If someone else next door dropped their crucifix into their pee bottle and produced a superficially similar object, it wouldn't even be art.
@@asafoetidajones8181 thank you for the background! although i took something different from the piece, im pleased that i did pick up on the joining of the human/earthly and the divine. i think his faith definitely shone in the beauty i observe in the photo.
the commercialization is an interesting part of the piece too. it sort of reminds me of duchamps Fountain, and how the art world tried to vaunt that specific urinal as "special", when really the point was that it could be any urinal. smash ti and replace it and its still the same piece.
@@gwennorthcutt421 yeah, it didn't strike me as blatantly about commercialization in a way that stuff I'm used to like punk collage art would show that, like, slap some pictures of a dollar bill on there and call it good. I just read about it. But thinking about that, there's two things: one, piss christ was part of a series of small objects immersed in liquid, so it might not make as much sense alone, out of context. And two, catholicism, more than any other branch of Christianity, deals with iconography, imagery, pageantry even. So maybe there's some stuff I'm missing in his approach there.
You can do that with literally anything it doesn't require almost any effort at all lol
My dad has been into the arts for my whole life, and his work is heavily influenced primarily by the impressionists - Degas is his favorite artist. My work is far less photorealistic, and I still remember at around age 14, I told him that I really wished my work was as good as his. He had me hand him the sketchbook I was working in at the time, and he flipped through it. He told me, "especially for your age, your technical skills have already surpassed mine. A drawing looking like a photograph isn't what makes it good. Never take art advice from someone who doesn't do art." Now, as an adult, I have shown my work in galleries, done many local events, and sold commissions. And dad was right, I absolutely don't trust these people as soon as they try to gatekeep what art is
W dad
I really, really hope Charlie gets to see this. I genuinely think he'd be able to understand if he took even a moment to think through any of this
I kind of get the feeling that Charlie is too stubborn to listen to opposing views on art though really, but good to be optimistic 😅
@@SamuIisee’s becoming kind a of a tool between the Idubbz stuff, this and saying the twisted metal show looks bad because he’s only played Twisted metal black wnd the remake
The most things about modern art he critiques is actually still trash even if 0.9% of yall like it my guy, there is barely any skill In so many of these, he's not thsy blind, I play music myself I can appreciate art especially modern music. Plus art isn't always political.
he wouldn't, he's not as smart as most people think he is. hes just your average floridian
@@exiledkenkaneki701 you could never ever replicate any of the pieces mentioned in this video. dont act like they have no skill lol
Uh oh ethan, watching efaps coverage of this and they looked up the context for the boxes art piece which you criticized charlie for saying is it a critique on amazon
This is part of what the explanation of the piece is
"Of course, an Amazon warehouse comes to mind when navigating the narrow passages between Carpenter’s brown boxes,"
Looks like he did engage with it, oopsie
How would Ethan have felt if he didn't eat breakfast yesterday?
Honestly I feel like them getting so mad at modern art alone validates why it is art, with really abstract stuff the whole idea is to find the meaning you can and how you feel about it, which I’d say includes getting mad and huffing about it like a child. Makes me think of that one time a guy literally attacked Barnett Newman’s Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue III cause he was so mad it even existed and was being called art at all, to get that much emotion out of someone is pretty much the main goal of art I’d say (it’s also why that’s my favorite modern art peice it’s such an interesting story)
Honestly I feel like people getting so mad about criticisms of modern art, validates the criticism. Which in turn validates the “modern-ness” of the art.
You are all a part of the machine.
I especially love that story, since it's obvious that the guy who destroyed it was the one Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue. 🤣😭
@@nwaattaf4819yeah call and response it’s called a conversation we’re talking about modern art and it’s cool. Not sure what machines are though.
You're almost as much of an illogical contrarian as the creator of this video. Thank God most of the world can see through pretentious drivel.
As a high school art teacher THANK YOU for making this video!! Well done! More than half of my students walk in feeling more like Charlie, ready to mock the art, but as the year goes on I feel like some of their hearts soften and they at least leave with an understanding of the heart that goes into most art and why as an empathetic and curious viewer, you can appreciate it.
As a former high schooler that had to take an art class, I ended up really appreciating art in all its forms. We learned the 5 steps of criticisms which helped me gained a deeper understanding of it! It’s made me enjoy it more honestly. Besides math, that was the best class I’ve been in. That also had to do with having a pretty neat and open minded art teacher! Keep doing what yall do ❤
Edit: typo
Nobody mocks the art!!!! People mock literally only pretensious "artists" who are only successful because they are already rich and with status and name. As a teacher you should do better with understanding people, because people like you ruin generations. Ethan really screwed this video, he put everything into one category and no wonder you didn't notice it, if you are doing exactly the same thing. You are the worst kind of teacher please change your job. Instead of blaming your students, try to understand their point. Maybe one day you will learn something from them. Yhh had so many idiot teachers like you it makes me sick
Thank you for teaching that art can be different. Feel like I never got to develop my fine art skills(I write and make music but not paint or draw) because I suffered from an inferiority complex and never had anyone get through to me that beauty in art comes from a million different places but chiefly from the artist and their unique perspective.
@@portland9880 I feel the same way. I never got to develop my art or writing skills but seeing videos like these and reading comments like yours is motivating me to start those two hobbies up again 😳
Edit: the inferiority complex is right on the money. That and ADHD lol. There were so many things I was interested in that I didn’t look fully into. It felt like there was some type of firewall in my mind that stopped me from fully developing my interests and hobbies.
@@portland9880 That is too bad! Art is special to each person, and there is no wrong way. Sometimes we wish we had better technical ability, but art is so much more than that. It is the heart ❤
the audacity to say that meaning is secondary in art jesus christ
If the art is completely hideous, then I guess it needs meaning first. Lord knows modern art has nothing else to offer…
@@hismajesty6272 Yeah but like, the meaning is the point? The visuals of the art will stick with you for like at most a month, but the meaning of a piece can completely change the way you see the world sometimes.
Abstract art, to me, is about seeing something I've never seen before. Realism is nice, and I can appreciate it's aesthetic beauty and storytelling, but I've seen countryside views before. I've seen crashing seas and intimate street views. And, while gorgeous and lifting, these pieces do not invoke deeper thought. The first time I saw abstract art, I was at a gallery with my family. Most of the gallery was historic motifs of sailing ships and village life scenes, but there was a captivating section of seemingly blank canvases. My family scoffed and walked away, and I almost did too. But as I turned, it caught my eye; this glossy, mother of pearl reflection that had revealed itself to be only visible from an angle. I spent more time in that room than the other gallery sections I came for.
Sometimes abstract art does seem silly to me at first, but then I realize that someone CREATED that. Someone MADE that because they were COMPELLED to by some inner force. And why? That gets me thinking.
Art isn't just to look pretty. Art is supposed to inspire, invoke conversation, stir up emotions and memories, and sometimes, yes, even make you feel angry, sad, or disturbed.
Anyways, thanks for reading through my tangent. I love the conversations that this topic sparks
My perspective of modern art/abstract art changed when I looked at a very (on the surface) simple painting and didnt see a point in it.
Before a few weeks later I stumbled across the history behind that painting, it was an abstract painting of his dead son.
Of someone who he never got to see again, he tried to draw portrait after portrait but couldn't get his son quite.. right
as if there was something about his life that couldn't be captured with an attempt to replicate.. so he turned to something more abstract, something which showed he essence of his sons very life instead of just his face.
I cried for like 30 minutes after looking at the painting again.
It's indescribable how a seemingly "simple" painting could give me more emotion then countless classical exhibits combined.
there was something so raw, so honest about the work.
This wasn't about replicating the dead, this was about showing who he was to the world. Almost like he wanted others to meet his son, even though he was gone.
Everyone likes and sees art differently from our own perspectives, im not big on classical stuff but others love it. I prefer style and purpose over realism any day.
But to say a type of art is bad or lazy or soulless is just not true.
to have this blanket term for this whole chunk of artistic expression and then saying anyone who likes it is just pretending to be smart is wild to me.
"oh next you're gonna tell me I just "dont get it"" yeah! cause ya dont!
you dont have to like a painting even after you get it, you dont have to enjoy a film after realising the subtext
but to see the surface and judge it only off that, yeah, you're missing a big point.
Do you remember the name of this art piece?
So Charlie didn't like the art snobs that hated Bob Ross, while being an art snob hating on modern art? 🤦🏾♀️
Edit: I love that a month later, people are acting like my issue is with Bob Ross. I actually grew up watching him (new episodes) on TV and he is a nostalgic icon. I'm not going to go back and forth on why Charlie comes across as a hypocrite, because I don't go back and forth with Stans. If you don't think Charlie was being a hypocrite, cool. If you do, also cool.
If you don't care, I love you 🤣
Facts
He's not an art snob. He's just someone with an opinion.
@@moleedaboiHe is a snob.
If want to have an opinion on something, at least be educated enough to not be condescending or an ass about it, especially when you claim you want to understand it (or that you just dont understand it, meaning that you kinda want to? Otherwise why make a fuss about it if not for quick views)
@@moleedaboi you have a huey pfp meaning yours is invalid
@@the1truejoe178 you really tried
After reading some comments I can tell yall are coping over Charlie’s opinion
🤓
I like Charlie's internet story videos and a couple of his streams, I have no reason to believe he isn't a chill guy off screen, but he seems like he's an "enlightened centrist" and the kind of person who doesn't venture out of his own little corner of the internet very much and because he doesn't do that he doesn't learn anything and doesn't have his views, thoughts, and preconceived notions challenged, isn't exposed to other viewpoints, experiences, or context regarding whatever it is he's talking about, be it modern art of why other people, namely people of color and queer identities, would say it's a good thing that Idubz apologized for his content over the years and acknowledged how it did hurt people.
I’ve always been of the belief he just isn’t into debates or politics and he doesn’t want to be like that. He definitely has bad takes from time to time (Idubbz video is a great example) but most of the time to me at least he has pretty reasonable takes. He just seems like a chill dude
@@Yeetusdeletus897 yes, a chill dude who thinks modern art is the most outrageous thing. very chill take.
i watched his thing on sneako where he spoke to the guy. This is way off. He's clearly fine with disagreeing with people and not taking it to heart. A thing a lot of people in these comments struggle with imo.
@@AnnaWillo so you think he's not chill just because he dislikes modern art? He had a few debates and interviews you can watch. It's pretty clear to me that he doesn't behave the same as he does when reacting to videos. As the other comment says, go check out his debate with sneako. His response videos are filled with him just mocking him instead of addressing Sneako's points, but when he had a 1 on 1 conversation he was actively engaging with his arguments. He's more open minded and "chill" than you assume.
You're projecting a prepackaged political narrative onto him rather than making any attempt to understand his viewpoint. "Enlightened centrist" is just one tribalistic group identity you can force onto him in order to give yourself moral/intellectual superiority over him with zero effort.
"He seems like [political nonsense]" is simply a lie, rather you imagine him to be that way and then pretend your imagination is your perception.
I don't agree with everything youve said, but you've made some really good points. And I'm so sick of gatekeeping with art. We had a conversation about what makes art art all the way back in high school and i stand by what i said back then, art is art as long as it's meaningful or art to one person
Also, saying that art is a visual medium is so stupid and even abeist. What about music? What about sculpture? You don't need to see those to appreciate them. You can hear them, physically touch them
At the beginning of the year Clarke Reynolds, a blind artist who makes braille art, had his first solo show. In a void his art would look like colorful dots
yet again a 30 rock quote fits so well here: “we know what art is!!! it’s paintings of horses!!!”
Level 99 mid wit
I've been working as an intern in a studio that makes modern art and DAMN those people are talented. They actually made me question the direction my own art is going in. They're called Atelier Goldstein. Look them up. They're cool!
i love abstract random looking art because to me it feels like emotion and because i have a hard time putting emotions to words there’s something so meaningful in those paintings to me they put everything i’m feeling not into words but onto a canvas
idk if this comment means anything really i just wanted to air it out because people who are so anti modern art are in a way anti emotions like they don’t want to see people emotions
Thats ok.
Same! It’s kinda like watching clouds to me like you can see things your brain interprets
yeah yeah but dont people missed seeing emotions on "Human Faces"? like they did centuries ago? its as if art is evolving backwards and yet they cost millions? sounds a lot like money laundering to me..
@@imjonathan6745 Oh yeah let me just make the perfect facial expression for the fear of my soul being torn into a thousand bits, some of which will inevitably survive beyond me while most will be twisted into hideous perversions of half-memories from those who never truly wanted to know me
What face would that be, a frown?
“He used so much paint!” - a smart person
No
I know right
You’re opinion counts as intelligence now apparently
"Look how big the canvas was!"
AND IT’S REALLY BIG. Just like Ethan’s weight
Cave drawings are political
Are you voting for stick figure with spear or rectangular woolly mammoth in the next election?
@@largemonkey didn't know the guy i was voting for was so unpopular, was going for "Guy humping dead circle mammoth"
33:25 "This isn't Charlie's fault at all" I think you're giving him too much leeway. It IS his fault to intentionally ignore meaning behind something. It's an absolute reactionary trait, and a dangerous one, to just write off things you don't understand and it's something Charlie is endorsing by participating in it
I think he was talking about the comments section. Like Charlie didn’t tell these people to go comment on that video. His takes are still bad, and so’s his audiences’, but he’s just one guy, he can’t control everyone in his audience who doesn’t have a life and hunted down the video he was watching.
@VagabondRetro that's not what the comment is saying. It's saying that Charlie is dismissing art simply on the basis that he doesn't understand it, and doesn't care to learn. And the mentality that if you don't understand something, then it must be bad is ABSOLUTELY a dangerous mentality to have.
lol this comments section is why leftists have such a hard time being taken seriously and it’s incredibly frustrating.
there are so many things that need attention, there are so many people with platforms and malicious intentions that could use attention.
Say what you will about Charlie, he doesn’t strike me as a person with bad intentions.
Sentiments like these are the kind that allow people on the right to (correctly) say that “the “libs” (referring to anyone left of center) will get triggered by anything” and lump it in with all the serious issues those on the left are trying to call attention to.
On an idealogical level, you’re right that rejecting something because it’s not understood is a bad thing. That doesn’t mean that Charlie is causing harm by not liking modern art.
@@abikuneebus not everything has to be about optics, but I agree that this original comment specifically is a little, misguided
@@VagabondRetro charlie wasn't called dangerous, just that a reactionary mode of thinking leads people to less critical analysis of what they're engaging with. and that sort of uncritical thinking is kinda dangerous
The story behind the fan at the end legit got me teared up. That for me is art in one of itd purest forms.
same...
Cool story. Not art in It's purest form though.
@@moleedaboi Me when I'm really dismissal of someone else's emotions and thoughts on a piece of art
Seeing you I feel the disappointment of your father...goddammit life is not fair
So calling stupid art for stupid people is valid when you agree, but when people think that art you like is called trash its an insult to art
It’s so ironic when this doughboy calls other people “stupid”