I’ve seen art being made by private artists online that is beautiful, they spend actual time on these pieces and are selling them for only 20$ sometimes. Then you see these “artists” that go to these publicly funded art schools that are making nothing more than paint on paper and they’re selling it for millions. What is even happening?
Yeah, but at least you have plumbing, electricity and the internet. I don't see why you couldn't have beautiful cities and the benefits of modern technology, but apparently people are not demanding it at the moment.
This is the result of telling people they can be anything they want, and forsaking standards reached by skill and effort in favor of boosting self-esteem, even when that means being dishonest.
The question is: why would another human being look at a piece of modern art trash and decide that it is fit to be put on display? To me, the person who decided to display the modern art is worse than the criminal who made the "art".
Im very much open to accept non traditional styles, maybe something that looks like a child made it, as long as I know that it required actual skill. You have to be pretty good to make something look „bad“ on purpose.
You are taking art way too seriously. I enjoy art in all it’s forms. Van Gogh did beautiful paintings but they have less effort than a work by DaVinci. That does not make it any less valuable. After centuries of making realistic paintings, it’s kinda boring seeing the same thing over and over again. You do not have to like the work, you do not have to “get it”. If you find something that speaks to you in a work of art, well that’s good, and if not, you can just move on because no one is forcing you to watch it. If you do not like a certain food, should everybody else be prohibited from eating it? It seems childish to get so upset about paint in a canvas. Art can be funny or grotesque. It can be thought provoking or it can exist just for the sake of it.
I'm a traditional artist, and I'm young (I know shock those still exist?!?) I just went to an art museum of "masterpieces" from professors, and there was a piece of cardboard on the ground and it was labeled "cardboard". I was very upset. There was no creativity or talent in there. Actually in my opinion, the "artist" plagiarized. One day a long time ago some person created the cardboard for making boxes, and an "artist" stole their creation to use is his own art because he thought it was beautiful.
@There will be Changes You can even get praise out of that, maybe even money if you just write some Italian or French name, creativity doesn't matter 🤦
@@TheWatchernator 🤣 I really don't understand their perspective. I do understand SOME (very few) paintings, you might be able to see things with your imagination. But most paintings are random splashes, no meaning really
I took a shit today in my toilet. I like to call it "morning shit" my wonderful masterpiece must be seen by all the world to see. And I demand it be placed in the highest of art museums, displayed right next to the Mona Lisa.
@@aroach7461 go ahead. You will probably just be ignored then. You have no art career, no personal narrative, your work would be just a single stupid statement without any backing to it.
@@ratzelkujo7880 YES, I've been seeking for this comment. I think that comics, animations and all the styles that come up with it are true modern art, no matter how you use them. I'm a fan artist myself. I've been practicing my skills since 2 years now and it's actually wholesome to see how much i improved. I look up to have quality and creativity in one piece at the same time, to inspire people. But anyone just keeps like, putting in the spotlight art an blogs that are from ppl who just started art, that aren't really that inspiring. And I'm not saying that they're art is bad, not at all. But I don't think that brighten them up like that would help, they need inspiration, they need TRUE inspiration, because just being nice with everybody isn't the way for that. People aren't assumed to give constructive criticism and i hate that too fr.
When you walk into a modern art museum, (or any art museum) and come away uninspired, then the museum, the curators, the and the artists all failed miserably.
Modern art obsesses over how it makes you feel making it purely subjective but actual art is a culmination of skill, precision, order, patience, and effort which are all objective measurements of excellence.
So it shouldn't matter how well a painting encapsulates certain emotions and drives them into you, but rather be about how hard a piece was to make? This kinda puts art to the same treatment as a circus play, you go there and you are amazed by what unbelievable things people can do... But that's about it Art is not that, or rather it shouldn't be, you wouldn't think of a music piece as excellent because of how hard it was to make or play... But because of how well it was able to resonate and move you
@@nikosorf4250 No, emotional connection is a essential part of art, by it's very nature it should invoke an emotional response, but an emotional response is not enough to categorize something as art, a pile of garbage can trigger an emotional response but will never be art. For example take a modern piece of art where the artist just throws a few pots of paint on a canvas, you ask 50 different people what it is and you'll get 50 different answers, none of which are likely to be what the artist was imagining, It is nothing more then a meaningless mess worth no more then when a one year old randomly throwing paint everywhere. And it's less a question of skill then of order, skill is just a extension of order. Music for example a pure expression of emotion but if you remove the order it is nothing but noise, all the arts share this one essential component.
@@Peregrin3 art for me is anything that can provoke emotions with "intent", that art could be visual, auditory or anything one can recieve information with. how good an art piece is, is therefore how well it communicates the intetions of the artist order and chaos are not something to be separated in art, as both can be good tools for the artist, if what you want to communicate is in nature chaotic using orderly means would only make your art incoherent. but of course behind that chaos lies intent which i think is the equivalant of what you considered to be order also, as for music, have you heard of noise music? it is most of the time ugly, harsh and feels seemingly random, yet those chaotic qualities give the pieces something that no classical music, no matter how masterful it is can give ( i recommend you "the gerogerigegege" if you wanna give that a try... their sound is as i said ugly and harsh, as that is what they wanted it to be, and you could say they produce those qualities masterfully :D )
@@nikosorf4250 As I said anything can provoke an emotional response, and how you feel about it is subjective because we don't control our feelings but we can control our reaction to those feelings, art can depict chaos like a painting of a stormy sea or a piece of music that depicts a chaotic event but without an order or intent with points of reference it cannot be classified as art, for example a painting of a storm is chaotic but you understand what it is without the artist telling you, if the artist just randomly splashes color on a canvas and says it represents a child, you can have intent and an emotional response but with no point of reference it is just chaos not art, it would be like throwing a bunch of clay on the ground and calling it pottery, the creator might call it pottery and have intent and emotions but without form it nothing. In music you can have chaotic scenes to contrast the rest of the music and to inspire a certain reaction but if you only have chaos then by very definition it isn't music because the fundamental nature of music is bringing order out of chaos, music is a story but without a cohesion and order to it it is nonsense, like if you wrote a book but jumbled all the words. Also emotions can be fickle, without points of reference one day it might inspire one emotion and the next another, true art does not lose its value based on arbitrary emotions, it is by it very nature art but if art is subjective then it has no real value other then what you are currently feeling, for example a waterfall with rainbows coming out of the mist will always be beautiful no matter what a persons personal emotional opinion is and even there were no one there to see it because it fits the definition of beauty and is by it's very nature beautiful, a garbage dump will never be beautiful regardless of whether a person believes it to be so, but a garbage dump can emphasize beauty because of it's hideous nature, for example the beauty of a flower growing in the middle of a garbage heap is magnified because of the contrast. For art to have real value it has to be objective, if anything can be art then it has no real value.
Archangelatis I used to think that and kinda still do. However, “the world” needs defining. Beauty will only save that part of the world which embraces it. I don’t remember the exact words but I remember reading that Augustine said: God created without you but He will not save you without you.
I am an Architect and also a traditional artist. I prefer Medieval architecture and traditional art. This makes my soul escape my body due to the bursts of happiness.
i'm a graphic designer and CGI artist and i hate old fashoined bollocks, all that ornament for what? yeah sure great craftsmanship, but what a waste of energy. tradintiona art makes me escape by falling asleep.
@@HarryNicNicholas I like ornamentation for I am a human being who lives for the enjoyment beauty. You must secretly love ornamentation but are only hiding it for your peers for you are, in fact, a human.
I studied at one of the top woodworking schools in the world. I will never forget the first time I produced a mirror finish on a bare piece of wood that would never be produced by sandpaper. In a short time I produced a surface finish that gave the wood the appearance of life and movement. Those who are highly skilled have developed ways to do things that far exceed what can be done easily. Ever since I have the satisfaction of doing work that pays well and the rewards are great. It also separates out those who want nice work.
Am an artist myself and have always thought the same. Now after being suppressed for so long, voices like yours are beginning to be heard at last. Excellence will always win out in the end.
A bunch of people who still think that "expressing something" is artistic or artful in and of itself. For decades now, anything can "be expressed." Which makes everything art. Which means nothing is art. There are a lot of mediocre plagiarists hanging on to this obsolete belief.
plagiarising what jennifer? can you be more specicfic of this modern artist plagiarist; who? your just pretending to pull a rabbit out of your hat while speaking about your own contempt for something you obviously have a tepid understanding of.
There are people that will do that just to do that... I get like 10 views on my videos and someone has to give it a thumbs down. Like really? It's not bad enough that I get no views you have to give me a thumbs down? It's the internet... I no longer expect anything else.
What do you mean by "modern art" in this context? I'm actually quite confused because you claimed that the Dictators supported it in Europe, but almost all evidence shows the opposite, "modern" artists were sometimes even put in the camps, and the Nazi's held a gallery "exposing" "degenerate art", which was modern.
He did address this in one of his comments. He talks about how nazism is fundamentally a modernist ideology and that Hitler's enthusiasm of modern architecture proved that. He linked a Wikipedia article about fascist architecture. He also said that he said there were some dictators that loved modern art. Edit: Forgot to write a few parts of the comment.
I agree with you entirely: what makes art "art" is the expertise. For example: the drawings of a 5 year old kid, though importat for his development, cannot be considered because he still lacks the mastery (he's just learning); this logic, I think, should be applied to every form of artistic expression.
Just found this. Yes! I am glad you explained the problem in this way. It helps me clarify what I've always known was missing but couldn't quite put my finger on. Thank you. It's the lack of wonder in modern creations.
@@marvalice3455 Not at all. Most modern art was considered "degenerate art". Look into the history of the famous 1937 Munich Degenerate Art exhibition. No, the naz*s approved of art that was mostly epic in tone, moralistic in meaning and classically inspired (meaning inspired in ancient roman and greek art) like Arno Brecker's sculptures or Albert Speer's architecture. The only exception to the classicism rule was in painting, where the regime often favored a more impressionist-inspired style with artists like Ludwig Dettmann. Maybe because that was also you-know-who's style at the painting academy. In music they banned any atonal and contemporary music like Arnold Schoenberg and Gustav Mahler.
@@marvalice3455 Well, what can I say, then you might have n*zi tastes? I always find it's a rather odd instinct to want to define preemptively what art ought and oughtn't be, what artists should and shouldn't be able to do. It sounds like a good method to ensure that art gets stuck, never to evolve any more.
@@marvalice3455 But let's try to follow that logic: you got the power to define what artist can and can't do. Now an artist keeps on wanting to do an art that he is not supposed to do. Now what do you do to him? Also, i find it super sad that you would think not liking Schoenberg or Mahler is "based".
Your perspective is a bit naive and misinformed. You are referring to contemporary art, modern art is an invaluable artistic achievement, without Picasso, Warhol, Dali, Matisse, Kahlo , Mondrian, De Kooning, Wyeth, Gauguin, Schiele, Chagall, Kandinsky, Klimt, Gaudí, Rodin, Brancusi, Giacometti, There would be no popular culture basically or Would you erase this era from human artistic expression? Now contemporary art is for the most part a ponzi scheme and few artists are actually geniuses say Ai weiwei, Antonio Lopez Garcia, Nerdrum, Schmid, Piano, Hadid. On the great scheme of things you are looking at less than half a dozen artists per centuries and modern art is a miracle compared to most art time periods.
No, I'm not merely talking about contemporary art. I'm talking about modernism itself (the philosophy that has informed the artistic persuasions of our civilization for over a century. I'm not saying all modern art pieces or artists are bad or without merit, but I believe they could have been much better if they weren't influenced by modernism.
Thank you! I am sick of the push for modern art in universities, it's even trickled down into animation, and it's ugliness and laziness being advertised as beauty. When we start to see ugly as beautiful does everything start to degrade.
@@twentysecondcenturywoman Arcane is wonderful and so beautiful. As an animator, Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse, Castlevania and Arcane were huge leaps for animation to be accepted by the mainstream.
it's always nice to find someone to agree with eh? trouble is he's only speaking for himself (and you of course) and he isn't necessarily right. it's an opinion, and although he loves old things, old opinions aren't going to get you anywhere in art.
Your histories a little wrong. fascist hated where modern art was going. The Nazi put on "Degenerate Art" shows to insult it, the Russians started rejecting any art that did not serve a function in society. Mussolini did like futurism, but thats not what comes to peoples mind when you say "Modern art", that's abstract expressionism, a post war 1950's era movement. If you don't like to see people experimenting with the elements of design, cool. But There's no point of rejecting it. It's not going to hurt your fantasy art.
dude, you're trolling over here too? lol. sometimes people think something is bad bc they don't understand it.. and sometimes they think it's bad because it sucks. yw. :)
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Brian don't understand science, proven by all his fallacious misrepresentation of physics and biology, and also to some degree of chemistry, archaeology, geology, etc, all scientific fields he touches upon. And he don't understand culture either. just as shown in this video.
@@freddan6fly "nuh uhhhh" isn't a rebuttal, sweetie. lol. modern art sucks, it's a money laundering/tax avoidance scheme for rich people, and it's a place to stick their kids in cushy jobs.
True Art: How can a being, that is made of same ingredients as me create something like this? Modern BS art: How can a human being do something as stupid as this?
"How can a human being do something as stupid as this?" For money, as thieves and insane people will buy it. If I was paid thousands to spend 40 seconds painting randomly, I'd gladly do it.
I have heard many explanations on what makes art great, but this is by far the best I have ever heard - and a work of art in itself. Thanks so much for sharing your insight.
Everyone can do modern art, it's just about expression throw paints at a canvas it can pass as modern art. But real art requires skill and hard work. You can't just draw a painting of Night's Watch when you buy a canvas and paints.
"What is fundamental to true and good art?" Sounds... i dont know, like an absolute statement. Which is the exact opposite of art, since by definition, art is subjective. This guy should stick to graphic design.
The average Jack in the Box commercial has more art to it than the totality of a modern art museum. Um, I don't know. Uh. Derp. You really nailed your inner voice.
How incredibly unsurprising to see someone who still harkens after the values espoused in a 2-3000 year old book being a narrow-minded traditionalist. The fact that you would even have the sheer audacity to try to pronounce upon what counts as "real art" is breathtaking to me, but the logic of your justification is incomprehensible. You sound like one of those "it's not a "proper" photo if it's digital" people. You're so confined in your own outdated mode of thinking, pigeonholing everything. I would think "as a graphic designer", you'd be more open to broader perspectives.
Yeah have fun looking at pictures that takes 5 seconds to make. That obviously bucket of paint once and say it art. So have fun sniffing your fart and keep lying to yourself. I bet you be that dumbass who bought the banana type to the wall. Also shit art take no effort, but good art actually takes actual talent and time to make
@@dkhopkinsgaming1348 Wow, you are shockingly clueless. There has ALWAYS been art that could be created in under an hour, but there is plenty of digital art that has taken people months, or even years to create, and years to learn the skills to create it. As if the amount of time it took to create was the primary determinant of its worth. Some fantastic poems and songs were written in minutes, and there is plenty of garbage that took months to paint or sculpt. It's clear that you are offended because I think your christian pal is a fool, and in posting, you have proven that you are an even greater fool.
@@Martial-Mat nah your still a fart huffer. But you obviously igoure my point. I'm saying thier too many lazy artists who make it 5 minutes and acting it a masterpiece when it look like a 5 year old made it. Plus with the arguement with some great songs and poem thay where made in little time do happen, but problem most people dont. One my favorite songs was made in a single phone call. I knew I was going reaction. But I did say my point I just hate most morden art not all. I give shit shit, and good stuff prised even I dont like it. But thank you for saying my argument back to me. Also your the one who obviously trigger, I do care but it more to see you actually would read my point or out right ignore it. But like I said earlier you obviously igoure my point. Also if I'm a fool then your a bigger fool for ignoring my point back to me. When I didn't ignore yours
@@dkhopkinsgaming1348 Are you on crystal meth? You are completely incoherent now. That was the most drug-addled ramble I've read in many years. You are clearly senile or too young to have a conversation with grown ups. Go back to Mario kid - I've wasted too much time on you already.
Some of the best art I have seen is the independent stuff outside of the mainstream art galleries. Stuff people post online. There are some talented people out there but sadly they don't get the recognition they deserve because Modern Art seems to value the message that the artist is conveying over the skill that he or she showcases. A lot of modern "art" presents pretentious, obtuse, pseudo-intellectualism to be intentionally hard to understand in order to create the illusion of "importance". It's totally elitist, people pretend to understand in order to feel above the masses in order to further a divide between them and the average person. Most people don't get it and that's kind of the point, it's just another way for rich, educated elitists to feel superior.
Hi everybody. You might like to look at the paintings by Roberto Ferri, Arantzazu Martinez, Graydon Parrish, Stephen Bauman and Scott Waddell to start with. Then go on to Colleen Barry, Jennifer Gennari, Jacob Collins ….
I agree with several of your points, but the idea that what defines art is technical skill is narrow minded & wrong. I see art as open ended in its potential for each individual to express themselves in an almost endless number of ways. The best part of that is no one has to like or praise any art or movement. If you like something, great, if you don't, then move on to something more pleasing! Why do so many get hung up on the art market & the ridiculous prices being paid at auctions, galleries & art fairs? That world is the playground of the rich; WHO CARES?! It make everyone so crazy. Is it jealousy? I don't know, but it is mentioned by almost everyone who dislikes/hates modern art. My suggestion is to merely enjoy what you like & support your favorite artists through the many platforms artists use to market their product.
@@jeffreyolson2139 I think the reason why people get hung up on the prices of modern art and the technical skill involved is because the effort involved in producing the artwork doesn't seem to justify the price. If an artwork is a minimalist blank canvas that the artist hung on the gallery wall slightly tilted and it sells for six figures while a talented artist who spends hours drawing realistic and imaginative monsters struggles to sell anything online it doesn't seem fair. Perhaps some of it is jealousy and some of it is that someone outside of the art world feels effort should be awarded. It's the same reason a fan of classical music who knows those who play spend thousands of hours perfecting their instruments might be resentful of the success of a mumble rap artist who makes millions without knowing how to play an instrument and barely has any talent whatsoever. As for me I understand the perception of that sort of unfairness so I see where people are coming from if modern art pisses them off but I'm not against it's existence. People are free to express themselves and people are free to spend their own money the way they see fit. And not all modern art is bad either, some of it is pretty good, it's all about personal opinion when it comes down to it. It's part of the whole freedom of expression thing so I'm not saying anything should be done about it.
It's not bad. It's trash. I went to my city's museum the other day and all I saw were these ugly installations with broken lightbulbs and twisted nails. If people think that is art then I really doubt the sanity of those critics.
Kien Nguyen I think people who are good at business and advertising have taken over art they've managed to make up for their lack of talent by changing the industry.
I think it's the height of arrogance to think one can decide what is and is not 'true art'. Some art that is technically very complex and detailed, like a photo-realistic painting of a still life might be well beyond my abilities but also still be boring and uninspiring. And some art that is technically very simple and basic, like my son's self portrait, I love to look at. Everyone has preferences and finds beauty in different places - it's the main reason the argument for god from beauty fails because our aesthetic preferences are clearly not objective.
if any of us was to live in the past with the lovely castles, etc. chances of being the 0.001% people that actually live in these castles is... Now imagine in what conditions the rest lived in. And my second point. I dont like "I can paint it myself" argument. Maybe you can, but you didn't. I do find great value in both Vermeer and Rothko. Last point, some of the artists that present "I can paint it too" art are actually technically perfect, they just grew beyond it.
As you pointed out, in a world where once difficult tasks have become easy, expression superseded technical skill. Anyone can drive 40 MPH, but very few people could run 20 MPH. People still enjoy seeing running, just like people still enjoy classical art. Clearly this is what the market and by extension the people wanted, given that modern art is the most profitable art.
Not to mention he’s got all the details wrong. Some people should be happy in their jobs. Not everyone needs to shout their opinions. He should have left this topic to people who know about it.
I agree! Excellent art not only inspires, but can also stand on its own; it's transcendent. If you were to remove one of the painting from the Sistine Chapel and place it outside on the sidewalk, people would begin to wonder what is this masterpiece doing outside? It would still be a masterpiece even though it has been placed outside. Lastly, it will forever remain a masterpiece--even two or three hundred years later.
That was an earnest take on pre modernism art and certainly the attributes are fitting. Human expression however....needs to continuously move forward....even as we we explore beauty in harmony and then eventually disharmony... If you look at movements beyond renaissance and classicism....towards impressionism...fauvism....cubism...modernism and neo-modernism...l am sure that Raphael or Botticelli would have been horrified at the expressions of not only Van Gogh...or Pissaro...but certainly of Dali...Rodin...and Picasso.... I am sure that producers of La Scala would have shivered at the production of Hamilton.. Rendering human form...is qualitatively different that rendering what that human form is inwardly feeling...as would be the case of Michaelangelo’s David...vs Rodin’s The Thinker... Bottom line is this....as beautiful as renaissance art is...we as a society cannot decide to...forever exist in a world described by high renaissance...we are compelled to move forward..or at least into the unknown....because the most beautiful things are born out of mistakes..and discovery...(remember..90% of discovery is generally hard..ugly work )... ...and remember...Michelangelo was not recalling the pinched gothic hieroglyphic renderings of 11th century madonna with its classic S curve...but rather he was recalling the glorious statues of ancient Greece..whenever he painted or sculpted... My prediction is that we will re-visit renaissance again...within a 21st century paradigm...once we have explored countless other forms of expression in getting there.....dont fret about it...its human nature to explore both that which both makes us comfortable and enchanted...in equal measure to satisfy the need to explore that which is discordant and uncomfortable...
Brian Holdsworth ...art moves in spasms..not in a linear fashion....religious constructs will hold it back ..at times practically seemingly forever...(consider the gothic era where any deviation from church mandates of pure pious depictions were effectively seen as heresy)...and it was the slow tenuous movement towards early renaissance that provided the impetus to yank free from these massive religious obstacles... conversely..social norms as seen in the sense and sensibility offered by Constable , Turner and Corot..practically abducted an entire century until one day challenged by Monet, Manet, Matisse...Cassat...and eventually Dali...Munch...Picasso...Hopper...the cubists...expressionists...Lawren Harris....Emily Carr... other flex points that have a massive impact on artistic movements include social change brought by The French Revolution..WWI...The Spanish Revolution...even The Russian Revolution.....the Gilded Age...engendering Art Nuveau...with Mucha and even architectural expressionism as seen through the work of Frank Lloyd Wright.... So yes..I agree that nothing comes to a complete standstill...as you suggest....but generally, there are continuous sudden..massive flex points that do indeed often make it seem that the era prior just to them was practically standing still....
Very well put my friend. I too feel as if we are wandering in the wilderness. We, the artists have to band together and insist our disenchantment with the phony masquerading as truth in the profession we love, and the viewers we respect and work to inspire. I have been a professional artist for over 50 years. -Rick&Morgan
Thank you Brian for saying what needs to be said. Luckily many young artists today are returning to classical methods of art. They understand that is where they will realize their full potential.
I came back to this video because 3:13 is absolutely perfect and has become a motto of mine. I have become fascinated with how people can reach such heights from such humble beginnings. Also what is that ending song?
Personally, I’m a fan of a lot of modern and abstract art. But I think this video was put together beautifully. I’ve seen so many videos about this topic that just yell about how one takes more dexterity than the other. However, you went much deeper with your points and you were able to strike many crucial connections about what people think when they look at either form of art. Great video!
I like the Allegri Miserere in the background towards the end. Music is the same btw. Classical music has mostly gotten difficult to listen to, where I think the pinnacle was 300 or 400 years ago.
I like realism and modern abstract art at the same time . Each style have its own beauty . I think abstract painting is good as interior painting for modern homes or corporate buildings . It really depends . I went to contemporary artschool and we tried to learn abstract method of painting. It is also difficult especially if they make it seems really in depth . Like a picture of a face and making it blurry or scrabble ... its the trend . But as an artist 👩🎨 you will always go back to the style That you love doing. But on the other hand classical art is I believe more difficult to master , many artists are painting a mixture of classical style with a mix of abstract strokes . It looks great too.
Grayson Perry was talking about modern artists. He said they always forget the public is all-too aware that Life is ugly and difficult, so making ugly and difficult art doesn't, in itself, help anyone. If it's not cathartic it just makes things worse.
Its not a must to like modern art, personally i dislike many famous modern art pieces but i understand that it isn't just self expression, skill is also key as some of these pieces have subtle nuances that aren't easily replicated. Art can strike more than inspiration and definitely go beyond traditional beauty/aesthetics standards. I really understood this with the works of roger ballen, zdzislaw beksinski & francis bacon
Some one said, “if I can do it, then is not art” (or something like that), most modern art looks (to me ) that it can easy be done by any one with out any talent or training. I like art but not most modern art .
So with years of training, dedication and passion, everybody can become an artist then. Because that is what it takes to become a good painter or sculptor etc. When it comes to imagination, you can still train it, but once you found your style, in modern/contemporary art it’s almost impossible to copy, when looked into the details. And the style is unique usually easier to distinguish between artists as they follow an unique idea/though process deeply attached to the artist. An extremely good painter can copy any other painting without any thought to it, it will look great and be very hard to do.. is that also art? What I’m saying you’re confusing craftsmanship with art. That’s when it’s about how hard it is to do something and you don’t need any creativity or uniqueness to be great.
I agree on his point of view. Oil paintings nowadays, specially abstract paintings looks crap, Looks trash and a waste of resources. Old masters would be ashamed of modern paintings nowadays.
That Miserere music at the end is so fitting for the discussion in the video, clearly defines that even an error in a true passionate and inspiring art can be so beautiful. Ironically modern art is like trying so hard to find mere spec of art in a canvas full of error.
You have completely missed the point of art, the point of art is not to inspire you. It is to change your point of view or to make you think about a concept in a different way. If it is well executed you will be confronted and shown the artists point of view in an incredibly impressive way. You are exactly the kind of person that artists are trying to rebel against, the people saying what is and isn't allowed. For example, Van Gogh was told many times that his art was terrible during his lifetime because it wasn't photorealistic or incredibly detailed meaning it was like nothing else being done at the time. However, he is now revered as one of the greatest artists ever, and rightly so. This is because he was able to convey his (incredibly lonely) human experience so well with just paint on a canvas. Very few people are able to do this and his paintings are astonishing to look at. Good art is not determined by how realistic the painting is or even how long the artist spent on it, it is about showing the artists point of view and feelings about something. I think the reason you have this opinion is because you are a graphic designer; you should try and look at more contemporary art and realise that although a lot of it is bad, there are a lot of people doing incredibly interesting things at the moment. I recommend Ai Wei Wei.
"You have completely missed the point of art, the point of art is not to inspire you. It is to change your point of view or to make you think about a concept in a different way." Those two things arent mutually exclusive, art can do both at once. However you are in the minority if you think lets say, a banana duct taped to a wall is art.
I completely reject the argument that modern artists are comparable to Van Gogh and the initially critical response to his artwork. By the first decade of the 20th century, Van Gogh was already a household name. Abstract/modernist artists have had over 60 years to reach comparable status, and they haven't come close. How about music? Beethoven's 9th was initially panned. Then within maybe 15 years it was accepted as the greatest symphony ever written. Well, it has been about 100 years since the emancipation of the dissonance, and the snobs are STILL telling standing there like Linus in the pumpkin patch telling us the Great Pumpkin is going to show up, that Webern and Schoenberg and Stockhausen are going to be remembered as the Beethovens of their time. Yet they are still routinely disregarded almost everywhere save for the stuffy halls of academia.
@@johns.8220 your argument doesn't make any sense, measuring how good an artist is by whether or not they have become a household name is not helpful. Are you saying that if someone doing something is the most famous person to do that thing, they are the best? Especially with art, art that appeals to the most people probably won't be that good because it will be easily digestible and popularist.
@@marcellegault9752 Yes, you are right, being inspiring and offering an alternate point of view are two things that are not mutually exclusive. But I mean when the artist creates art, it is very rare for their primary goal to be inspiration for other artists. And personally I don't think a banana duct taped to a wall is art. Art has to represent something to be called art otherwise it is just decoration, and the banana doesn't represent anything.
To me, there is no problem with modern art. What you see is what you see. You don't have to find the meaning because there isn't. We probably think we can do it, we can but we don't do it. I don't think there is problem with modern art because art never wrong. If you don't like it, nevermind. As long as you respect it.
The word 'Modern Art' has such a wide gamut - There is thing in the contemporary art world called 'de-skilling' it's perverse in a sense that you learn a skill, say fine art painting, and then find a way of manipulating the medium to the detriment of your ability which often results in a grotesque representation of an idea. A historical example is Picasso's Guernica 1937, some might view this representation of a hideous war crime as a child like painting....but it's directness has a powerful impact on the narrative. I am not sure if a traditional/representational style of painting or heading off to a fantasy world in film gives a full reflection on today's or historical reality. It is an ugly world out there, so many people in austerity when governments are spending billions+ on war....... so art reflects the ugliness and corruption of those who are against civilisation.
But that's why Picasso is regarded as a genius. However most art today is just plain ugly or plain, it doesn't evoke any emotion or reaction... except maybe a ""WTF when a white line on a blue background sells for 50 mil. Also it's funny how some people tricked museum goers (and perhaps critics) just by placing a random item on a corner. It speaks volumes on the quality of modern art. Also a similar criticism was moved by Piero Manzoni with his artist's shit, proving both to his father that he could sell his shit for millions and making a statement that modern art in a sense is shit ... or literally in his case.
"...so art reflects the ugliness and corruption of those who are against civilisation." Civilisation includes art. Art is one mark of civilisation as opposed to simple culture. So it seems that ugly and corrupt works are against civilisation.
The problem with your assertion if that a reaslistic or semi-realistic painting cannot have directness and emotional content of the Guernica, which you assert does have this. But the challenge here is if the Guernica truely has this impact inherently or if it's the result of starpower. The horrors of war are laid down with much more impact in the Iliad than the Guernica. So this social commentary isn't really new, nor successful unless it can blow your mind as much as the previous offering. That said, there is no proof in the assertion that one treatment does it well and another doesn't. That's an assertion a whole establishment with economic motivations would want you to believe, but it's far from proven on any level.
this guy doesnt' seem to stick his head up much, there is a TON of modern art, modern painters doing art just as skilled, just as technically excellent as anything he seems to like. the trouble with art is you get people like this trying to sound like experts when they have their heads up their arses.
old stuff is great. huh? graphic designer here. sculptor here. CGI artist here. the sad thing is people thinking, being taught, that they can't draw, and you aren't helping. i've done all kinds of art, abstract, photo real, CGI, sculpture, even music, and anyone can draw or paint. we just get taught that drawing realistically is the goal when it isn't the goal, the WHOLE POINT of art is to get what is INSIDE OUTSIDE art is a means of telling others how you feel, of throwing up literally the crap that builds up inside, whether it's joyful or sad. so, anyone can draw, anyone can paint, and if you are trying to imply one form of art is "superior" to another then sorry, but that's bollocks. elephants and chimps can paint, anyone can paint, and it's all good - and it's all bad. what you appear to be talking about is - is it commercial. that's not art that's finance.
Ditto for me in my journey in creating photographic art. His example of hand-written calligraphy versus computer printed calligraphy text is reminiscent of modern photographers relying on high resolution digital sensors and photoshop to compensate for the lack of compositional creativity and the use of natural light to imbue mood in an image. The best photographer I’ve ever personally known was a 70-year old woman who shot with a Canon AE-1 film camera coupled with a cheap 50mm lens. She created beautiful art that had depth and feeling...much unlike the artificial-esque, photoshopped, HDR crap that has overtaken flick today.
The first modern art was done by caveman thousands of years ago. It just took a long time for people to appreciate it and replicate some of the technique. Picasso is very similar to caveman art but with modern paint mediums and a more refined eye based on higher education.
“You’re witnessing human excellence, and when you do, it inspires you.” Several great points! Listen, young people, to this man! He will teach you more in 5 minutes than 4 years of college indoctrination.
he appears to be indoctrinating to me. he is voicing an opinion, which is okay, but making it sound like he making up rules is not. i suspect anyone who has any flicker of artist about them will see this for the bullshit it is.
You articulated your opinion flawlessly. A rare thing indeed, and great credit is due. I also agree with your analysis, every point that you raise resonates with my observations. SUBED !
SOME modern art is ok, even beautiful at times, but yeah... today art is all about being different and edgy, most of the times. I would also add that art done by hand is better because less "perfect" that what a computer can print. Computers all print the same stuff, while an artist can voluntarily or involuntarily introduce imperfections and differences.
As a watercolor artist of 30 years I appreciate all your comments regarding the creativity of the artistic process. good art inspires bad art does not. The problem I have with most modern art is it not only lacks inspiration it actually deminishes the creative process. What it lacks in talent and skill its made up with the endless fauning over it by art critics that perhaps have no art talent at all but will lecture for hours about the mystical qualities of a Picasso or a CHigal. I can sum this up with a quote from a book covering the 19 cen artist Jackson Pollack. He was known for his outspoken retoric and lifestyle. The quote from Pollack is this. When asked to comment on one of his recent paintings he said," Do you think if I could draw a decent hand I would waist my time on this shit". I think that says it all. I is well to note that within a month of this quote the artist died in a car accident not far from his studio. if art is said to reflect society them modern and post modern art has its place in the 20th century. The human condition has never been at a lower ebb then NOW. Loved your video Brian. Just tell it like it is. Great stuff. CB
Pollacks's work was not treated well by critics at first and it took much promotion by his wife and a gallery to get the uniqueness for its time to be appreciated for the fact that it was the first of its kind as far as we know. The first Superman comic is just a comic book, but it is treated with more praise and money by collectors. Art is part creativity and part marketing.
You're not talking about modernism but post modernism. Modernism gave us a lot of very impressive art Post modernism always hide behind some kind of asspull like "i'm exposing my poo in a museum to rebel against the system" or some kind of bs like that.
loved your idea. I totally agree. i kills me when say a white canvas hanging on a wall has some crazy intellectual babble as to how wonderful it is and it gets priced crazy expensive. Very non inspiring art ha ha.
The best part is that I just thought of a great art show-take all of your comments about these art pieces that sort of exist (blank white canvas-painting poured on a canvas) and make a show of them! Thank you guys for such a great idea.
The worst is when the "intellectual" snaps at you when you say "I could do it too". The literal only difference between a piece of trash and modern art, is that some rich/influential person decided that that piece of trash is art.
This was the shortest and best explanation i have heard on what makes art great or not , you explained what i have been trying to work out in just i short clip.
As a corollary of something you said in your video, regarding pre-made assets like text fonts, yes it does take a lot of creativity to make something really beautiful out of assets like that. But I think that is a good thing. I think being able to take the complex and beautiful things other people have made to make even more complex and beautiful things of your own is a good thing about modern technology. For instance, I play a number of games where part of the fun is being able to create little neighborhoods and little parks and just go to town with the small assets that the game comes with. Some of these games allow you to make really interesting stories which have, for the game, very intriguing special effects. I remember some of the campaigns I played in Age of Empires 2 as a kid: Ulio, The Past Samurai. I even saw a very well put-together Nativity made in that game! The summary of what I'm trying to say is that art is a skill of making something look good, be they flowers or 3D models or paint or snow or whatever. Carhenge is much more art than many of the twisted and painted 3D sculptures that I see in my city.
I think that my biggest issue with modern art is that none of it matters. It usually requires little effort, if any, and relies entirely on “interpretation” for it to have any meaning whatsoever. There has been such a reduction in what is considered art. If everything is art, then “art” becomes a meaningless term.
@RockbarCycling-qk1ju 0 seconds ago Andy Warhol, Bansky, and a lot I other artists have made art pieces with subjects that are not looked at as traditional art subjects. Those pieces are some of the most revered and hyped art in the world.
I don't understand why you said dictators of the 20th century pushed modernism. Almost all of the dictators were _against_ modernism, especially the most infamous, Hitler, who viewed it as Marxist trash spread by Jews. Mussolini was less extreme, but had a similar sentiment, and Stalin actually rejected the cultural aspects of communism (while keeping economic and social aspects), Hirohito certainly wasn't either. The only one I can think of is maybe Mao.
Expressionist art can amaze and inspire just as the maestros of the Renaissance can. Art is subjective, and this video only further demonstrates its subjectivity. My two favorite artists are Van Gogh and Agnes Martin, two very different styles from two very different time periods, but nevertheless masters of expression. The American Idol comment is off-base because those "rejects" had nothing of value in terms of lyrics, music, talent, expression, etc. A minimalist abstract work by Martin may look like nothing to many, but to me, it looks like the culmination of one's doubts, anxieties, and shortcomings. Just as we all fall short of the glory of God, I see Martin's journey from a crippling perfectionist to someone who no longer carries that shame of failure as a beautiful illustration of how I, as a Christian, can look to God for hope instead of relying on my own imperfection. True art brings some sort of value to the table. Whether its emotional value, technical value, contextual value, or something else is up to the artist and the viewer.
no, it cannot. because the renaissance masters inspire *everyone*. expressionism cannot reliably replicate that. the fact that one or two peices can get close is what we like to call, "damning with faint praise"
@@marvalice3455 i kind of agree, but lots of people find classical art boring. So i would say that while for me, most of the time, that is the case, i can find some renaissance art boring even though it is technically impressive
@@noah5291 I suspect they haven't investigated it thoroughly. like the people who say classical music is boring, but have only ever heard bits and peices. I'm a total metalhead, but would *never* call classical music boring. even if there are some peices which aren't to my specific taste.
It's hard to compare old world architecture with today's. The income disparity was such that labor was almost free to those that had all the money. These beautiful elaborate buildings took armies of people to create over very long periods of time. St Peters Basilica took 120 years to complete. Impossible to imagine in today's World.
Brilliant analysis. Really enjoyed it. Completely agree about postmodernism, but can think of many examples of modern art which do inspire the wonder you describe; e.g. Dance, Guernica and many more.
not against you!! and i'm not really into abstract expressionism neither. I can find desperate inspiraton on minimalistic and geometric approaches. i just want to comment that if you can't find the phenomenon of an artwork, and you say 'you could do that', you are maybe wrong. There are qualities that aren't easy to reach and to know how much gesture or form you give to the painting, and not least it's hard to find a way to oppose relevant questions in abstract art. It's easier to figuratively react to some actual politics for example, and that's a cheap trick too from my perspective. I think the main problem isn't that modern art is bad. just you have some old fashioned and more-less figurative taste, which is great. To make a realist masterpiece can be contemporary too, and to paint realistic is many times the easier way, considering that figurative paintings not necessary needs to understand the discourse of art. i like the contemporary figurative art scene by the way. The problem is in my opinion, that those people, who criticize modern art, just feel that they may lack informations. it's obviously more easy to perceive figurative art, in a way. But you should appreciate other existing cultural traditions. It's you who find catharsis in figuration, not the problem of contemporary art. A child can find it in just making gesture, i can find it in watching a geometric shape or a blank and meditative SPACE (and those artworks can slow me down a bit... huhh that's a great thing after all). It's natural. And lastly... if you talk about craftmenship, you should research contemporary painters, like Laura Owens or Christopher Wool. Their paintings involve a lot of technique like drawing, silk screening , computer graphics, even sewing. Those are much harder to make then just put paint to a canvas. I understand the human amazingness part, i learnt to paint in a quiete academic way, but since i make moreless geometric art, shaped canvases, etc. i feel much more like a craftsman and i like it a lot. Hope you will appreciate modern and contemporary art one day! i recommend you to reasearch contemporary abstract painters like felipe pantone. he makes abstract street art, and street art is of course about entertaining people. It's great to know that there are content free street art..
@@jackkanavos4714 everyone makes modern art everyday. When they wash the dishes, the soap bubbles become modern art. When they throw rubbish into their bin, the bin becomes modern art. The list goes on.
@@jackkanavos4714 a blank canvas is only modern art if a white rich man sold it. If some random dude tried to sell trash or a blank canvas as art on the street no one would buy it.
If you're interested, you should check out the book/youtube series "How Should We Then Live?" By Francis Schaeffer. He talks about how Christianity influenced the development of Western culture, from law and science, to music and art. He eventually covers why society turned away from these roots and embraced post-modernism in the 20th century, and the consequences of these choices, art and music being one of the subjects.
There is a need for beauty in our lives. The ability of masterful art to elevate the mind and spirit must never be underestimated or under appreciated. I think what you've said about "easy design" that relies on pre-made elements is well taken. At one time for example people relied on professional typographers to set their type. Now people think that using computer based fonts is automatically correct.
Unfortunately, lovers of fine art feel the need to distinguish themselves from the great unwashed masses. Anyone can appreciate a masterpiece of art, but what is left for the sophisticated critic? They need art that only they can appreciate, whether it's food without flavor, paintings without pictures, or music without melody: acquired taste for the sophisticated palate. You're either hip to where it's at, or you're square.
Yes-you are right. It's not about distinguish us from you-I don't care who likes what. Art is NOT FOR EVERYONE. It is what you have been lead to think but it is totally not true. Art is a career, a movement and MOST IMPORTANTLY a record of the times. And the current times are not gilded with flowers and musk-and they are not Christian. They are ironic, bold, complicated, wonderful and mad. As far as "whether it's food without flavor, paintings without pictures, or music without melody" You must have never had a truffle french fry, haven't seen 99% of contemporary painting and don't listen to much music at all. It isn't simply about liking something for what is IS NOT about. And to say "I like all contemporary art" is like saying "I love all food, people, and music". Just like what you like, if you don't like the art then don't fucking waste my time telling me you don't like it. You haven't taken two seconds to know anything about it.
Is it really that hard to believe that people have different taste to you? Perhaps you just don't like the avant guarde and that's fine and other people do. It's not all some conspiracy.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is just another statement for a talentless idiot to say his work is beautiful. You know an ugly object when you see one.
You have a very "pleasant", "satisfactory" vision of art. Art should not only amaze and inspire us, art can also terrify us, make us want to leave the room, question our perception and our values, art isn't only beauty and wonderland, art is supposed to make us feel, wether it's good or terrible feeling, it should provoke thought, emotion, and life. So no, art isn"t supposed to make us "amazed"
kerning is missing when preparing the letters. It's really the human touch, the individual touch which differentiates a piece of art. Another aspect about art is that in other times (non-modern), the object of art is beauty. Not so today...
Thank you for speaking out!!! (Let me guess: you are no longer is school and can now say this without suffering retribution from teachers.) Let's talk about the elephant in the room, and acknowledge that modern art is ugly, lacking in skill and visual meaning, and is just de-humanizing junk pushed onto students and the public by schools and museums bought off by modern art grants. But thanks to the freedom of the internet, a rising generation is making real fine art again--but it's still "underground" and never will see the light of day inside a major public museum!
what I think is actually being shown here (a well-spoken attempt anyway, with 1 painting supporting the argument), is the notion of craftsmanship and historic vs. contemporary tools. current graphic design would not be how it is without modernism having had it's place in time. as a slightly important side note, "modern", "modernism", and "contemporary" are not all the same thing to be used interchangeably.
"Form follows function" was a motto that Hitler approved of and promoted. It's a fundamentally modernist principle. Philosophically, Fascism is an offspring of modernism (as is communism). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function
Everything is subjective to the individual. It's impossible to understand why an individual might appreciate something in particular more than another person. It's fascinating.
You communicated very effectively. It was very pleasant to listen. I'm constantly looking for that element of mastery, ewe and inspiration in works of art. Same way I'd be impressed with how well a mechanic would put together an engine as much as he would put it apart,in his own method.That aspect of having taken the time to understand something, question and give a unique approach towards what's already there....
I been trying to figure out how to verbalize that for a longggggg time. Without offending or hurting feelings. This is a humble an truthful approach that i appreciated an share.
"in a decaying society, art, if truthful, shall also reflect decay."
Damn that's deep!
wow...
haku that’s more pretentious then the paintings you hate.
That is deep, but also sad, because art is one of the things that can help lead us away from decade. Architecture is after all also a kind of art.
U sound like a cultural Marxist socialist
I’ve seen art being made by private artists online that is beautiful, they spend actual time on these pieces and are selling them for only 20$ sometimes. Then you see these “artists” that go to these publicly funded art schools that are making nothing more than paint on paper and they’re selling it for millions. What is even happening?
If your eyes aren't opened, you won't see.
Scams and money laundering
@@karlabritfeld7104 meaning what
@@karlabritfeld7104 sometimes staying blind is better than looking at some hellish modern art.
@@guybrushwayne4388yep.
My whole city is a huge set of concrete boxes. If you go from one part to another you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I hate it.
I bet my art museum's paintings look exactly like what you saw in your country
I don't blame you. It is depressing. You cannot see the sky, and there is a sense of being trapped in those buildings.
Cities in general are like that
Yeah, but at least you have plumbing, electricity and the internet. I don't see why you couldn't have beautiful cities and the benefits of modern technology, but apparently people are not demanding it at the moment.
Okay, but who claimed that was art? And brutalism IS an artistic style. Done right, it can be inspiring.
This is the result of telling people they can be anything they want, and forsaking standards reached by skill and effort in favor of boosting self-esteem, even when that means being dishonest.
The question is: why would another human being look at a piece of modern art trash and decide that it is fit to be put on display? To me, the person who decided to display the modern art is worse than the criminal who made the "art".
Nowadays you can splash random colors and call it "your expression" and you'll get praise as if you worked hard
Im very much open to accept non traditional styles, maybe something that looks like a child made it, as long as I know that it required actual skill. You have to be pretty good to make something look „bad“ on purpose.
You can be anything just put some darn effort into it
You are taking art way too seriously. I enjoy art in all it’s forms. Van Gogh did beautiful paintings but they have less effort than a work by DaVinci. That does not make it any less valuable. After centuries of making realistic paintings, it’s kinda boring seeing the same thing over and over again. You do not have to like the work, you do not have to “get it”. If you find something that speaks to you in a work of art, well that’s good, and if not, you can just move on because no one is forcing you to watch it. If you do not like a certain food, should everybody else be prohibited from eating it? It seems childish to get so upset about paint in a canvas. Art can be funny or grotesque. It can be thought provoking or it can exist just for the sake of it.
I'm a traditional artist, and I'm young (I know shock those still exist?!?) I just went to an art museum of "masterpieces" from professors, and there was a piece of cardboard on the ground and it was labeled "cardboard". I was very upset. There was no creativity or talent in there. Actually in my opinion, the "artist" plagiarized. One day a long time ago some person created the cardboard for making boxes, and an "artist" stole their creation to use is his own art because he thought it was beautiful.
@There will be Changes You can even get praise out of that, maybe even money if you just write some Italian or French name, creativity doesn't matter 🤦
@@TheWatchernator 🤣 I really don't understand their perspective. I do understand SOME (very few) paintings, you might be able to see things with your imagination. But most paintings are random splashes, no meaning really
probably you are just jealous. artist have a trajectory, a concept, and they answer to their time.
I took a shit today in my toilet. I like to call it "morning shit" my wonderful masterpiece must be seen by all the world to see. And I demand it be placed in the highest of art museums, displayed right next to the Mona Lisa.
@@aroach7461 go ahead. You will probably just be ignored then. You have no art career, no personal narrative, your work would be just a single stupid statement without any backing to it.
I'm an illustrator. Totally agree. They expect me to also like modern art. Blech!
Ghostwalker2061 Modern Art is complete and utter trash
@@douglasdustin6550 just like modern music
@@ratzelkujo7880
YES, I've been seeking for this comment. I think that comics, animations and all the styles that come up with it are true modern art, no matter how you use them.
I'm a fan artist myself. I've been practicing my skills since 2 years now and it's actually wholesome to see how much i improved. I look up to have quality and creativity in one piece at the same time, to inspire people. But anyone just keeps like, putting in the spotlight art an blogs that are from ppl who just started art, that aren't really that inspiring. And I'm not saying that they're art is bad, not at all. But I don't think that brighten them up like that would help, they need inspiration, they need TRUE inspiration, because just being nice with everybody isn't the way for that. People aren't assumed to give constructive criticism and i hate that too fr.
Agreed, and I am not an illustrator.
graphic artist here, totall disagree.
now what?
When you walk into a modern art museum, (or any art museum) and come away uninspired, then the museum, the curators, the and the artists all failed miserably.
Its quite a common occurrance
I use the pop art section for a laugh and go check out the dutch masters for inspiration. BTW, I like the name, bro.
I went to one a few years ago. The only ones that inspired me were pieces from Medieval & ancient people
Or you just don’t get it
@@wankl6577 Go sniff fecal matter stuffed in a women's sanitary pad... see if you get it.
I agree, modern art is incompetence glorified.
It's a fair portrayal of London's overly tolerant society.
Yes, as evidenced by a visit to the Tate Midden.
Why dont you build a time machine and go back to 1880...
The original definition of "tolerant", in 17th century France, was that of the attitude you have when you cannot stop something from happening.
@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски i really like this and appreciate the sentiment. Will check and see if it holds up
Rome and Greece were pretty tolerant as well but even they had standards to call trash what it is
Modern art obsesses over how it makes you feel making it purely subjective but actual art is a culmination of skill, precision, order, patience, and effort which are all objective measurements of excellence.
So it shouldn't matter how well a painting encapsulates certain emotions and drives them into you, but rather be about how hard a piece was to make?
This kinda puts art to the same treatment as a circus play, you go there and you are amazed by what unbelievable things people can do... But that's about it
Art is not that, or rather it shouldn't be, you wouldn't think of a music piece as excellent because of how hard it was to make or play... But because of how well it was able to resonate and move you
@@nikosorf4250 No, emotional connection is a essential part of art, by it's very nature it should invoke an emotional response, but an emotional response is not enough to categorize something as art, a pile of garbage can trigger an emotional response but will never be art. For example take a modern piece of art where the artist just throws a few pots of paint on a canvas, you ask 50 different people what it is and you'll get 50 different answers, none of which are likely to be what the artist was imagining, It is nothing more then a meaningless mess worth no more then when a one year old randomly throwing paint everywhere. And it's less a question of skill then of order, skill is just a extension of order. Music for example a pure expression of emotion but if you remove the order it is nothing but noise, all the arts share this one essential component.
@@Peregrin3 art for me is anything that can provoke emotions with "intent", that art could be visual, auditory or anything one can recieve information with. how good an art piece is, is therefore how well it communicates the intetions of the artist
order and chaos are not something to be separated in art, as both can be good tools for the artist, if what you want to communicate is in nature chaotic using orderly means would only make your art incoherent. but of course behind that chaos lies intent which i think is the equivalant of what you considered to be order
also, as for music, have you heard of noise music? it is most of the time ugly, harsh and feels seemingly random, yet those chaotic qualities give the pieces something that no classical music, no matter how masterful it is can give
( i recommend you "the gerogerigegege" if you wanna give that a try... their sound is as i said ugly and harsh, as that is what they wanted it to be, and you could say they produce those qualities masterfully :D )
@@nikosorf4250 As I said anything can provoke an emotional response, and how you feel about it is subjective because we don't control our feelings but we can control our reaction to those feelings, art can depict chaos like a painting of a stormy sea or a piece of music that depicts a chaotic event but without an order or intent with points of reference it cannot be classified as art, for example a painting of a storm is chaotic but you understand what it is without the artist telling you, if the artist just randomly splashes color on a canvas and says it represents a child, you can have intent and an emotional response but with no point of reference it is just chaos not art, it would be like throwing a bunch of clay on the ground and calling it pottery, the creator might call it pottery and have intent and emotions but without form it nothing. In music you can have chaotic scenes to contrast the rest of the music and to inspire a certain reaction but if you only have chaos then by very definition it isn't music because the fundamental nature of music is bringing order out of chaos, music is a story but without a cohesion and order to it it is nonsense, like if you wrote a book but jumbled all the words. Also emotions can be fickle, without points of reference one day it might inspire one emotion and the next another, true art does not lose its value based on arbitrary emotions, it is by it very nature art but if art is subjective then it has no real value other then what you are currently feeling, for example a waterfall with rainbows coming out of the mist will always be beautiful no matter what a persons personal emotional opinion is and even there were no one there to see it because it fits the definition of beauty and is by it's very nature beautiful, a garbage dump will never be beautiful regardless of whether a person believes it to be so, but a garbage dump can emphasize beauty because of it's hideous nature, for example the beauty of a flower growing in the middle of a garbage heap is magnified because of the contrast.
For art to have real value it has to be objective, if anything can be art then it has no real value.
this comment is the most retarded thing I have read all week and two mass shooting just happened with plenty of stupid comments about them. well done!
An hour ago I responded to another art website making exactly your point about the contemporary art scene which is an investment scam.
Every art scene is an investment scam
Overpriced homes are a scam too.
“Beauty will save the world"― Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Is one of my favourite quotes, it sums up for me what you said. Well done Brian.
Archangelatis It's a great quote!
Great Quote
Thank you, so is yours my Brother in Christ 'In hoc signo vinces'.
Thank you Archangelatis
Archangelatis I used to think that and kinda still do. However, “the world” needs defining.
Beauty will only save that part of the world which embraces it. I don’t remember the exact words but I remember reading that Augustine said: God created without you but He will not save you without you.
"modern" "art" ❌
"money" "laundering" ✅
I am an Architect and also a traditional artist. I prefer Medieval architecture and traditional art. This makes my soul escape my body due to the bursts of happiness.
i'm a graphic designer and CGI artist and i hate old fashoined bollocks, all that ornament for what? yeah sure great craftsmanship, but what a waste of energy. tradintiona art makes me escape by falling asleep.
big yikes
@@HarryNicNicholas what do u like about modern art? A white canvas being sold for 50 million dollars?
@@nightprowler6336 I hope you find people to design traditional architecture for.
@@HarryNicNicholas I like ornamentation for I am a human being who lives for the enjoyment beauty. You must secretly love ornamentation but are only hiding it for your peers for you are, in fact, a human.
I studied at one of the top woodworking schools in the world. I will never forget the first time I produced a mirror finish on a bare piece of wood that would never be produced by sandpaper. In a short time I produced a surface finish that gave the wood the appearance of life and movement. Those who are highly skilled have developed ways to do things that far exceed what can be done easily. Ever since I have the satisfaction of doing work that pays well and the rewards are great. It also separates out those who want nice work.
what is the name of this school?
An elderly friend of mine summed it up nicely when he said, "The problem with modern art is that it's too primitive".
It’s funny how everything always circles back
based
20,000 year-old cave paintings are better than the garbage these fools produce.
Am an artist myself and have always thought the same. Now after being suppressed for so long, voices like yours are beginning to be heard at last. Excellence will always win out in the end.
If the art that became famous and valuable was based on talent, then it would be out of the control of the scammers who use art as a tax haven.
Thank goodness Art is a big tent. Inside there is something for everyone.
Who gave this a thumbs down? He's talking about the difference between gifted excellence and hard work, verses mediocre plagiarism.
A bunch of people who still think that "expressing something" is artistic or artful in and of itself. For decades now, anything can "be expressed." Which makes everything art. Which means nothing is art. There are a lot of mediocre plagiarists hanging on to this obsolete belief.
No he isn't..His graphic work plagarises the work of medieval / renaissance scribes.
plagiarising what jennifer? can you be more specicfic of this modern artist plagiarist; who? your just pretending to pull a rabbit out of your hat while speaking about your own contempt for something you obviously have a tepid understanding of.
Not really plagiarism, just incompetence
There are people that will do that just to do that... I get like 10 views on my videos and someone has to give it a thumbs down. Like really? It's not bad enough that I get no views you have to give me a thumbs down? It's the internet... I no longer expect anything else.
What do you mean by "modern art" in this context? I'm actually quite confused because you claimed that the Dictators supported it in Europe, but almost all evidence shows the opposite, "modern" artists were sometimes even put in the camps, and the Nazi's held a gallery "exposing" "degenerate art", which was modern.
you ever seen hitlers architecture?
He did address this in one of his comments. He talks about how nazism is fundamentally a modernist ideology and that Hitler's enthusiasm of modern architecture proved that. He linked a Wikipedia article about fascist architecture. He also said that he said there were some dictators that loved modern art.
Edit: Forgot to write a few parts of the comment.
@@JB-pm8vt Architecture built during the Nazi era was mostly just neoclassical kitsch and modernism of any sort was eschewed.
art deco is modern art. hugo bos too.
it is about the philosophy behind the thing, not whether or not people you don't like like it.
@@WildwoodClaire1 ah yes. the new classic kitsch like... hugo bos.
Many art objects just emanate the thought "I need money urgently." They are not sincere. People notice.
yep
I agree with you entirely: what makes art "art" is the expertise. For example: the drawings of a 5 year old kid, though importat for his development, cannot be considered because he still lacks the mastery (he's just learning); this logic, I think, should be applied to every form of artistic expression.
Just found this. Yes! I am glad you explained the problem
in this way. It helps me clarify what I've always known was missing but couldn't quite put my finger on. Thank you. It's the lack of wonder in modern creations.
Agreed 100%
It's funny that he tries to associate Nazism with modern art, and then you find out his shtick is hand-drawn gothic lettering.
I don't see the argument.
wete the nazos not ardent modernists?
@@marvalice3455 Not at all. Most modern art was considered "degenerate art". Look into the history of the famous 1937 Munich Degenerate Art exhibition.
No, the naz*s approved of art that was mostly epic in tone, moralistic in meaning and classically inspired (meaning inspired in ancient roman and greek art) like Arno Brecker's sculptures or Albert Speer's architecture.
The only exception to the classicism rule was in painting, where the regime often favored a more impressionist-inspired style with artists like Ludwig Dettmann. Maybe because that was also you-know-who's style at the painting academy.
In music they banned any atonal and contemporary music like Arnold Schoenberg and Gustav Mahler.
@@themroc8231 sounds pretty based to me. except the painting bit.
@@marvalice3455 Well, what can I say, then you might have n*zi tastes?
I always find it's a rather odd instinct to want to define preemptively what art ought and oughtn't be, what artists should and shouldn't be able to do. It sounds like a good method to ensure that art gets stuck, never to evolve any more.
@@marvalice3455 But let's try to follow that logic: you got the power to define what artist can and can't do. Now an artist keeps on wanting to do an art that he is not supposed to do. Now what do you do to him?
Also, i find it super sad that you would think not liking Schoenberg or Mahler is "based".
Your perspective is a bit naive and misinformed. You are referring to contemporary art, modern art is an invaluable artistic achievement, without Picasso, Warhol, Dali, Matisse, Kahlo , Mondrian, De Kooning, Wyeth, Gauguin, Schiele, Chagall, Kandinsky, Klimt, Gaudí, Rodin, Brancusi, Giacometti, There would be no popular culture basically or Would you erase this era from human artistic expression? Now contemporary art is for the most part a ponzi scheme and few artists are actually geniuses say Ai weiwei, Antonio Lopez Garcia, Nerdrum, Schmid, Piano, Hadid. On the great scheme of things you are looking at less than half a dozen artists per centuries and modern art is a miracle compared to most art time periods.
No, I'm not merely talking about contemporary art. I'm talking about modernism itself (the philosophy that has informed the artistic persuasions of our civilization for over a century. I'm not saying all modern art pieces or artists are bad or without merit, but I believe they could have been much better if they weren't influenced by modernism.
Thank you! I am sick of the push for modern art in universities, it's even trickled down into animation, and it's ugliness and laziness being advertised as beauty. When we start to see ugly as beautiful does everything start to degrade.
There’s a lot of terrible art being produced through media today. Except this show called “Arcane”. That show is a god send.
@@twentysecondcenturywoman Arcane is wonderful and so beautiful. As an animator, Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse, Castlevania and Arcane were huge leaps for animation to be accepted by the mainstream.
Bless you. You have given a voice to something that is probably in the heads of millions. You have given it articulation and focus.
yes
Modern art is shit
it's always nice to find someone to agree with eh?
trouble is he's only speaking for himself (and you of course) and he isn't necessarily right. it's an opinion, and although he loves old things, old opinions aren't going to get you anywhere in art.
@@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200 quite possibly. religion is shit in my opinion.
When abstract thought dies, society is doomed.
Your histories a little wrong. fascist hated where modern art was going. The Nazi put on "Degenerate Art" shows to insult it, the Russians started rejecting any art that did not serve a function in society. Mussolini did like futurism, but thats not what comes to peoples mind when you say "Modern art", that's abstract expressionism, a post war 1950's era movement. If you don't like to see people experimenting with the elements of design, cool. But There's no point of rejecting it. It's not going to hurt your fantasy art.
"Just as I don't understand science, I don't understand culture, therefore both are bad"
dude, you're trolling over here too? lol. sometimes people think something is bad bc they don't understand it.. and sometimes they think it's bad because it sucks. yw. :)
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Not in this case though.
@@freddan6fly *what* not in this case? lol
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Brian don't understand science, proven by all his fallacious misrepresentation of physics and biology, and also to some degree of chemistry, archaeology, geology, etc, all scientific fields he touches upon. And he don't understand culture either. just as shown in this video.
@@freddan6fly "nuh uhhhh" isn't a rebuttal, sweetie. lol. modern art sucks, it's a money laundering/tax avoidance scheme for rich people, and it's a place to stick their kids in cushy jobs.
True Art: How can a being, that is made of same ingredients as me create something like this?
Modern BS art: How can a human being do something as stupid as this?
"How can a human being do something as stupid as this?" For money, as thieves and insane people will buy it. If I was paid thousands to spend 40 seconds painting randomly, I'd gladly do it.
Either for money, or they aren't humans.
Modern art is amazing in itself, I can’t create such abomination intentionally
I have heard many explanations on what makes art great, but this is by far the best I have ever heard - and a work of art in itself. Thanks so much for sharing your insight.
Wow Charles. That's extremely flattering. I'm so glad you enjoyed my thoughts on this topic! Thanks for watching.
Everyone can do modern art, it's just about expression throw paints at a canvas it can pass as modern art. But real art requires skill and hard work. You can't just draw a painting of Night's Watch when you buy a canvas and paints.
so.. the only art we can call "real art" is performance art, since it takes up way more time and skill than any other art?
"What is fundamental to true and good art?"
Sounds... i dont know, like an absolute statement. Which is the exact opposite of art, since by definition, art is subjective. This guy should stick to graphic design.
The average Jack in the Box commercial has more art to it than the totality of a modern art museum. Um, I don't know. Uh. Derp. You really nailed your inner voice.
@@mightisright ...okay.
How incredibly unsurprising to see someone who still harkens after the values espoused in a 2-3000 year old book being a narrow-minded traditionalist. The fact that you would even have the sheer audacity to try to pronounce upon what counts as "real art" is breathtaking to me, but the logic of your justification is incomprehensible. You sound like one of those "it's not a "proper" photo if it's digital" people. You're so confined in your own outdated mode of thinking, pigeonholing everything. I would think "as a graphic designer", you'd be more open to broader perspectives.
Yeah have fun looking at pictures that takes 5 seconds to make. That obviously bucket of paint once and say it art. So have fun sniffing your fart and keep lying to yourself. I bet you be that dumbass who bought the banana type to the wall. Also shit art take no effort, but good art actually takes actual talent and time to make
@@dkhopkinsgaming1348 Wow, you are shockingly clueless. There has ALWAYS been art that could be created in under an hour, but there is plenty of digital art that has taken people months, or even years to create, and years to learn the skills to create it. As if the amount of time it took to create was the primary determinant of its worth. Some fantastic poems and songs were written in minutes, and there is plenty of garbage that took months to paint or sculpt. It's clear that you are offended because I think your christian pal is a fool, and in posting, you have proven that you are an even greater fool.
@@Martial-Mat nah your still a fart huffer. But you obviously igoure my point. I'm saying thier too many lazy artists who make it 5 minutes and acting it a masterpiece when it look like a 5 year old made it. Plus with the arguement with some great songs and poem thay where made in little time do happen, but problem most people dont. One my favorite songs was made in a single phone call. I knew I was going reaction. But I did say my point I just hate most morden art not all. I give shit shit, and good stuff prised even I dont like it. But thank you for saying my argument back to me. Also your the one who obviously trigger, I do care but it more to see you actually would read my point or out right ignore it. But like I said earlier you obviously igoure my point. Also if I'm a fool then your a bigger fool for ignoring my point back to me. When I didn't ignore yours
@@dkhopkinsgaming1348 Are you on crystal meth? You are completely incoherent now. That was the most drug-addled ramble I've read in many years. You are clearly senile or too young to have a conversation with grown ups. Go back to Mario kid - I've wasted too much time on you already.
@@Martial-Mat okay you obviously dont read, so I be here enjoying my meth with the boys while playing dark souls.
Some of the best art I have seen is the independent stuff outside of the mainstream art galleries. Stuff people post online. There are some talented people out there but sadly they don't get the recognition they deserve because Modern Art seems to value the message that the artist is conveying over the skill that he or she showcases. A lot of modern "art" presents pretentious, obtuse, pseudo-intellectualism to be intentionally hard to understand in order to create the illusion of "importance". It's totally elitist, people pretend to understand in order to feel above the masses in order to further a divide between them and the average person. Most people don't get it and that's kind of the point, it's just another way for rich, educated elitists to feel superior.
Hi everybody. You might like to look at the paintings by Roberto Ferri, Arantzazu Martinez, Graydon Parrish, Stephen Bauman and Scott Waddell to start with. Then go on to Colleen Barry, Jennifer Gennari, Jacob Collins ….
I agree with several of your points, but the idea that what defines art is technical skill is narrow minded & wrong. I see art as open ended in its potential for each individual to express themselves in an almost endless number of ways. The best part of that is no one has to like or praise any art or movement. If you like something, great, if you don't, then move on to something more pleasing!
Why do so many get hung up on the art market & the ridiculous prices being paid at auctions, galleries & art fairs? That world is the playground of the rich; WHO CARES?! It make everyone so crazy. Is it jealousy? I don't know, but it is mentioned by almost everyone who dislikes/hates modern art. My suggestion is to merely enjoy what you like & support your favorite artists through the many platforms artists use to market their product.
@@jeffreyolson2139 I think the reason why people get hung up on the prices of modern art and the technical skill involved is because the effort involved in producing the artwork doesn't seem to justify the price. If an artwork is a minimalist blank canvas that the artist hung on the gallery wall slightly tilted and it sells for six figures while a talented artist who spends hours drawing realistic and imaginative monsters struggles to sell anything online it doesn't seem fair.
Perhaps some of it is jealousy and some of it is that someone outside of the art world feels effort should be awarded. It's the same reason a fan of classical music who knows those who play spend thousands of hours perfecting their instruments might be resentful of the success of a mumble rap artist who makes millions without knowing how to play an instrument and barely has any talent whatsoever.
As for me I understand the perception of that sort of unfairness so I see where people are coming from if modern art pisses them off but I'm not against it's existence. People are free to express themselves and people are free to spend their own money the way they see fit. And not all modern art is bad either, some of it is pretty good, it's all about personal opinion when it comes down to it. It's part of the whole freedom of expression thing so I'm not saying anything should be done about it.
It's not bad. It's trash. I went to my city's museum the other day and all I saw were these ugly installations with broken lightbulbs and twisted nails. If people think that is art then I really doubt the sanity of those critics.
You are correct. Most modern art these days is pure garbage produced by non talented dreamers.
This is why I refer to the Tate Modern as the Tate Midden - it houses a pile of rubbish.
I doubt there's even one progressive artist today who would even come close to making a tolerable copy of the Mona Lisa.
Kien Nguyen I think people who are good at business and advertising have taken over art they've managed to make up for their lack of talent by changing the industry.
THEY KNOW ITS BULLSHIT - BUT IF YOU HAVE HAD A CARREER PRETENDIGNTHE EMPERER IS NOT NAKED.....
I think it's the height of arrogance to think one can decide what is and is not 'true art'. Some art that is technically very complex and detailed, like a photo-realistic painting of a still life might be well beyond my abilities but also still be boring and uninspiring. And some art that is technically very simple and basic, like my son's self portrait, I love to look at. Everyone has preferences and finds beauty in different places - it's the main reason the argument for god from beauty fails because our aesthetic preferences are clearly not objective.
if any of us was to live in the past with the lovely castles, etc. chances of being the 0.001% people that actually live in these castles is...
Now imagine in what conditions the rest lived in.
And my second point. I dont like "I can paint it myself" argument. Maybe you can, but you didn't.
I do find great value in both Vermeer and Rothko.
Last point, some of the artists that present "I can paint it too" art are actually technically perfect, they just grew beyond it.
As you pointed out, in a world where once difficult tasks have become easy, expression superseded technical skill.
Anyone can drive 40 MPH, but very few people could run 20 MPH.
People still enjoy seeing running, just like people still enjoy classical art.
Clearly this is what the market and by extension the people wanted, given that modern art is the most profitable art.
It's coming across videos like this that gives real artists hope.
there's no such thing as a real artist
and please tell me, who the fuck gets to judge who is a "real artist" and who isnt? you? some other fucker whose ego is too big?
The video: I am an artist, modern Art doesn't inspire me and a lot of people therefore it is not true Art.
Not to mention he’s got all the details wrong. Some people should be happy in their jobs. Not everyone needs to shout their opinions. He should have left this topic to people who know about it.
@@begshallots he's literally an artist you prick
True works of beauty require *real talent!* Art is supposed to convey incredible beauty and aesthetics.
No... Talent can be taught.
Not just talent. Skill and hardwork and talent can all bring out beauty
@@ziraprod6090 Talent can never be taught. Only skills though. Try at least find the difference between the two.
@@franzbi8465 Hooey...it is only a matter of desire and whether it 'clicks' with the individuals personality.
@1234 The universal.
I agree! Excellent art not only inspires, but can also stand on its own; it's transcendent. If you were to remove one of the painting from the Sistine Chapel and place it outside on the sidewalk, people would begin to wonder what is this masterpiece doing outside? It would still be a masterpiece even though it has been placed outside. Lastly, it will forever remain a masterpiece--even two or three hundred years later.
That was an earnest take on pre modernism art and certainly the attributes are fitting.
Human expression however....needs to continuously move forward....even as we we explore beauty in harmony and then eventually disharmony...
If you look at movements beyond renaissance and classicism....towards impressionism...fauvism....cubism...modernism and neo-modernism...l am sure that Raphael or Botticelli would have been horrified at the expressions of not only Van Gogh...or Pissaro...but certainly of Dali...Rodin...and Picasso....
I am sure that producers of La Scala would have shivered at the production of Hamilton..
Rendering human form...is qualitatively different that rendering what that human form is inwardly feeling...as would be the case of Michaelangelo’s David...vs Rodin’s The Thinker...
Bottom line is this....as beautiful as renaissance art is...we as a society cannot decide to...forever exist in a world described by high renaissance...we are compelled to move forward..or at least into the unknown....because the most beautiful things are born out of mistakes..and discovery...(remember..90% of discovery is generally hard..ugly work )...
...and remember...Michelangelo was not recalling the pinched gothic hieroglyphic renderings of 11th century madonna with its classic S curve...but rather he was recalling the glorious statues of ancient Greece..whenever he painted or sculpted...
My prediction is that we will re-visit renaissance again...within a 21st century paradigm...once we have explored countless other forms of expression in getting there.....dont fret about it...its human nature to explore both that which both makes us comfortable and enchanted...in equal measure to satisfy the need to explore that which is discordant and uncomfortable...
I agree with the crux of your comment, but the implication that art wasn't still moving forward when it collided with modernism is, I think, untrue.
Brian Holdsworth ...art moves in spasms..not in a linear fashion....religious constructs will hold it back ..at times practically seemingly forever...(consider the gothic era where any deviation from church mandates of pure pious depictions were effectively seen as heresy)...and it was the slow tenuous movement towards early renaissance that provided the impetus to yank free from these massive religious obstacles...
conversely..social norms as seen in the sense and sensibility offered by Constable , Turner and Corot..practically abducted an entire century until one day challenged by Monet, Manet, Matisse...Cassat...and eventually Dali...Munch...Picasso...Hopper...the cubists...expressionists...Lawren Harris....Emily Carr...
other flex points that have a massive impact on artistic movements include social change brought by The French Revolution..WWI...The Spanish Revolution...even The Russian Revolution.....the Gilded Age...engendering Art Nuveau...with Mucha and even architectural expressionism as seen through the work of Frank Lloyd Wright....
So yes..I agree that nothing comes to a complete standstill...as you suggest....but generally, there are continuous sudden..massive flex points that do indeed often make it seem that the era prior just to them was practically standing still....
best comment in this comment section
Very well put my friend. I too feel as if we are wandering in the wilderness. We, the artists have to band together and insist our disenchantment with the phony masquerading as truth in the profession we love, and the viewers we respect and work to inspire. I have been a professional artist for over 50 years. -Rick&Morgan
Thank you Brian for saying what needs to be said. Luckily many young artists today are returning to classical methods of art. They understand that is where they will realize their full potential.
A few generations of repression creates a generation of rebellion.
I came back to this video because 3:13 is absolutely perfect and has become a motto of mine. I have become fascinated with how people can reach such heights from such humble beginnings. Also what is that ending song?
Personally, I’m a fan of a lot of modern and abstract art. But I think this video was put together beautifully. I’ve seen so many videos about this topic that just yell about how one takes more dexterity than the other. However, you went much deeper with your points and you were able to strike many crucial connections about what people think when they look at either form of art. Great video!
You are lying. No one likes modern or abstract art.
PRECISELY. It's the decay, modernism and post-modernism
I like the Allegri Miserere in the background towards the end. Music is the same btw. Classical music has mostly gotten difficult to listen to, where I think the pinnacle was 300 or 400 years ago.
Calling it modern art is wrong, it is anti Art. It is a direct assault on art.
I like realism and modern abstract art at the same time .
Each style have its own beauty .
I think abstract painting is good as interior painting for modern homes or corporate buildings . It really depends . I went to contemporary artschool and we tried to learn abstract method of painting. It is also difficult especially if they make it seems really in depth . Like a picture of a face and making it blurry or scrabble ... its the trend . But as an artist 👩🎨 you will always go back to the style
That you love doing.
But on the other hand classical art is I believe more difficult to master , many artists are painting a mixture of classical style with a mix of abstract strokes . It looks great too.
Grayson Perry was talking about modern artists. He said they always forget the public is all-too aware that Life is ugly and difficult, so making ugly and difficult art doesn't, in itself, help anyone. If it's not cathartic it just makes things worse.
Thank you. You just verbalized my thoughts in the most articulate way.
yes
Its not a must to like modern art, personally i dislike many famous modern art pieces but i understand that it isn't just self expression, skill is also key as some of these pieces have subtle nuances that aren't easily replicated. Art can strike more than inspiration and definitely go beyond traditional beauty/aesthetics standards. I really understood this with the works of roger ballen, zdzislaw beksinski & francis bacon
I’d hate to have a sistine chapel looking ceiling in my house but I’d love to own a Jackson Pollock painting and hang it in my living room.
Some one said, “if I can do it, then is not art” (or something like that), most modern art looks (to me ) that it can easy be done by any one with out any talent or training. I like art but not most modern art .
So with years of training, dedication and passion, everybody can become an artist then. Because that is what it takes to become a good painter or sculptor etc. When it comes to imagination, you can still train it, but once you found your style, in modern/contemporary art it’s almost impossible to copy, when looked into the details. And the style is unique usually easier to distinguish between artists as they follow an unique idea/though process deeply attached to the artist. An extremely good painter can copy any other painting without any thought to it, it will look great and be very hard to do.. is that also art? What I’m saying you’re confusing craftsmanship with art. That’s when it’s about how hard it is to do something and you don’t need any creativity or uniqueness to be great.
I agree on his point of view.
Oil paintings nowadays, specially abstract paintings looks crap,
Looks trash and a waste of resources.
Old masters would be ashamed of modern paintings nowadays.
That Miserere music at the end is so fitting for the discussion in the video, clearly defines that even an error in a true passionate and inspiring art can be so beautiful. Ironically modern art is like trying so hard to find mere spec of art in a canvas full of error.
You have completely missed the point of art, the point of art is not to inspire you. It is to change your point of view or to make you think about a concept in a different way. If it is well executed you will be confronted and shown the artists point of view in an incredibly impressive way. You are exactly the kind of person that artists are trying to rebel against, the people saying what is and isn't allowed. For example, Van Gogh was told many times that his art was terrible during his lifetime because it wasn't photorealistic or incredibly detailed meaning it was like nothing else being done at the time. However, he is now revered as one of the greatest artists ever, and rightly so. This is because he was able to convey his (incredibly lonely) human experience so well with just paint on a canvas. Very few people are able to do this and his paintings are astonishing to look at. Good art is not determined by how realistic the painting is or even how long the artist spent on it, it is about showing the artists point of view and feelings about something. I think the reason you have this opinion is because you are a graphic designer; you should try and look at more contemporary art and realise that although a lot of it is bad, there are a lot of people doing incredibly interesting things at the moment. I recommend Ai Wei Wei.
"You have completely missed the point of art, the point of art is not to inspire you. It is to change your point of view or to make you think about a concept in a different way."
Those two things arent mutually exclusive, art can do both at once.
However you are in the minority if you think lets say, a banana duct taped to a wall is art.
@@marcellegault9752 Great response.
I completely reject the argument that modern artists are comparable to Van Gogh and the initially critical response to his artwork. By the first decade of the 20th century, Van Gogh was already a household name. Abstract/modernist artists have had over 60 years to reach comparable status, and they haven't come close. How about music? Beethoven's 9th was initially panned. Then within maybe 15 years it was accepted as the greatest symphony ever written. Well, it has been about 100 years since the emancipation of the dissonance, and the snobs are STILL telling standing there like Linus in the pumpkin patch telling us the Great Pumpkin is going to show up, that Webern and Schoenberg and Stockhausen are going to be remembered as the Beethovens of their time. Yet they are still routinely disregarded almost everywhere save for the stuffy halls of academia.
@@johns.8220 your argument doesn't make any sense, measuring how good an artist is by whether or not they have become a household name is not helpful. Are you saying that if someone doing something is the most famous person to do that thing, they are the best? Especially with art, art that appeals to the most people probably won't be that good because it will be easily digestible and popularist.
@@marcellegault9752 Yes, you are right, being inspiring and offering an alternate point of view are two things that are not mutually exclusive. But I mean when the artist creates art, it is very rare for their primary goal to be inspiration for other artists. And personally I don't think a banana duct taped to a wall is art. Art has to represent something to be called art otherwise it is just decoration, and the banana doesn't represent anything.
That is the most precise & accurate explanation of what genuinely represents art that I have heard. Perfect and well spoken. Thank you for sharing it.
Loving the Allegri at the end. A perfect compliment to a discussion on true art.
To me, there is no problem with modern art. What you see is what you see. You don't have to find the meaning because there isn't. We probably think we can do it, we can but we don't do it. I don't think there is problem with modern art because art never wrong. If you don't like it, nevermind. As long as you respect it.
The word 'Modern Art' has such a wide gamut - There is thing in the contemporary art world called 'de-skilling' it's perverse in a sense that you learn a skill, say fine art painting, and then find a way of manipulating the medium to the detriment of your ability which often results in a grotesque representation of an idea. A historical example is Picasso's Guernica 1937, some might view this representation of a hideous war crime as a child like painting....but it's directness has a powerful impact on the narrative. I am not sure if a traditional/representational style of painting or heading off to a fantasy world in film gives a full reflection on today's or historical reality. It is an ugly world out there, so many people in austerity when governments are spending billions+ on war....... so art reflects the ugliness and corruption of those who are against civilisation.
But that's why Picasso is regarded as a genius. However most art today is just plain ugly or plain, it doesn't evoke any emotion or reaction... except maybe a ""WTF when a white line on a blue background sells for 50 mil.
Also it's funny how some people tricked museum goers (and perhaps critics) just by placing a random item on a corner. It speaks volumes on the quality of modern art.
Also a similar criticism was moved by Piero Manzoni with his artist's shit, proving both to his father that he could sell his shit for millions and making a statement that modern art in a sense is shit ... or literally in his case.
"...so art reflects the ugliness and corruption of those who are against civilisation."
Civilisation includes art. Art is one mark of civilisation as opposed to simple culture. So it seems that ugly and corrupt works are against civilisation.
The problem with your assertion if that a reaslistic or semi-realistic painting cannot have directness and emotional content of the Guernica, which you assert does have this. But the challenge here is if the Guernica truely has this impact inherently or if it's the result of starpower. The horrors of war are laid down with much more impact in the Iliad than the Guernica. So this social commentary isn't really new, nor successful unless it can blow your mind as much as the previous offering. That said, there is no proof in the assertion that one treatment does it well and another doesn't. That's an assertion a whole establishment with economic motivations would want you to believe, but it's far from proven on any level.
Guernica sucked.
this guy doesnt' seem to stick his head up much, there is a TON of modern art, modern painters doing art just as skilled, just as technically excellent as anything he seems to like. the trouble with art is you get people like this trying to sound like experts when they have their heads up their arses.
old stuff is great. huh?
graphic designer here. sculptor here. CGI artist here. the sad thing is people thinking, being taught, that they can't draw, and you aren't helping. i've done all kinds of art, abstract, photo real, CGI, sculpture, even music, and anyone can draw or paint. we just get taught that drawing realistically is the goal when it isn't the goal, the WHOLE POINT of art is to get what is
INSIDE
OUTSIDE
art is a means of telling others how you feel, of throwing up literally the crap that builds up inside, whether it's joyful or sad.
so, anyone can draw, anyone can paint, and if you are trying to imply one form of art is "superior" to another then sorry, but that's bollocks. elephants and chimps can paint, anyone can paint, and it's all good - and it's all bad. what you appear to be talking about is - is it commercial. that's not art that's finance.
Coming from a slowly growing composer and musician, I feel the same way about modern music.
Ditto for me in my journey in creating photographic art. His example of hand-written calligraphy versus computer printed calligraphy text is reminiscent of modern photographers relying on high resolution digital sensors and photoshop to compensate for the lack of compositional creativity and the use of natural light to imbue mood in an image.
The best photographer I’ve ever personally known was a 70-year old woman who shot with a Canon AE-1 film camera coupled with a cheap 50mm lens. She created beautiful art that had depth and feeling...much unlike the artificial-esque, photoshopped, HDR crap that has overtaken flick today.
@@alexblaze8878 who’s an example in terms of a well-know successful contemporary artist?
@haram I see. very photoshopped and HDR. Low quality schlock.
Yes 🙂
I think a lot of modern music is fantastic idk what you’re on about. Why do you feel this way?
The first modern art was done by caveman thousands of years ago. It just took a long time for people to appreciate it and replicate some of the technique. Picasso is very similar to caveman art but with modern paint mediums and a more refined eye based on higher education.
So you say that art should not involve self expression. Is art even possible without this element ?
"Learn the rules like a pro, so that you can break them like an artist. "- Picasso
“You’re witnessing human excellence, and when you do, it inspires you.” Several great points! Listen, young people, to this man! He will teach you more in 5 minutes than 4 years of college indoctrination.
Exactly how is college indoctrinating? Does this by any chance heavily relate to science? Just curious.
he appears to be indoctrinating to me. he is voicing an opinion, which is okay, but making it sound like he making up rules is not. i suspect anyone who has any flicker of artist about them will see this for the bullshit it is.
You articulated your opinion flawlessly. A rare thing indeed, and great credit is due. I also agree with your analysis, every point that you raise resonates with my observations. SUBED !
SOME modern art is ok, even beautiful at times, but yeah... today art is all about being different and edgy, most of the times.
I would also add that art done by hand is better because less "perfect" that what a computer can print. Computers all print the same stuff, while an artist can voluntarily or involuntarily introduce imperfections and differences.
As a watercolor artist of 30 years I appreciate all your comments regarding the creativity of the artistic process. good art inspires bad art does not. The problem I have with most modern art is it not only lacks inspiration it actually deminishes the creative process. What it lacks in talent and skill its made up with the endless fauning over it by art critics that perhaps have no art talent at all but will lecture for hours about the mystical qualities of a Picasso or a CHigal. I can sum this up with a quote from a book covering the 19 cen artist Jackson Pollack. He was known for his outspoken retoric and lifestyle. The quote from Pollack is this. When asked to comment on one of his recent paintings he said," Do you think if I could draw a decent hand I would waist my time on this shit". I think that says it all. I is well to note that within a month of this quote the artist died in a car accident not far from his studio. if art is said to reflect society them modern and post modern art has its place in the 20th century. The human condition has never been at a lower ebb then NOW.
Loved your video Brian. Just tell it like it is. Great stuff.
CB
Pollacks's work was not treated well by critics at first and it took much promotion by his wife and a gallery to get the uniqueness for its time to be appreciated for the fact that it was the first of its kind as far as we know.
The first Superman comic is just a comic book, but it is treated with more praise and money by collectors. Art is part creativity and part marketing.
You're not talking about modernism but post modernism.
Modernism gave us a lot of very impressive art
Post modernism always hide behind some kind of asspull like "i'm exposing my poo in a museum to rebel against the system" or some kind of bs like that.
loved your idea. I totally agree. i kills me when say a white canvas hanging on a wall has some crazy intellectual babble as to how wonderful it is and it gets priced crazy expensive. Very non inspiring art ha ha.
The best part is that I just thought of a great art show-take all of your comments about these art pieces that sort of exist (blank white canvas-painting poured on a canvas) and make a show of them! Thank you guys for such a great idea.
The worst is when the "intellectual" snaps at you when you say "I could do it too".
The literal only difference between a piece of trash and modern art, is that some rich/influential person decided that that piece of trash is art.
Especially if you write a French or Italian name. That uncreative painting will get double priced $$ for no reason
This was the shortest and best explanation i have heard on what makes art great or not , you explained what i have been trying to work out in just i short clip.
Shanan Philip Thanks. I'm so glad you liked it.
Come from the PJW last video about art
As a corollary of something you said in your video, regarding pre-made assets like text fonts, yes it does take a lot of creativity to make something really beautiful out of assets like that. But I think that is a good thing. I think being able to take the complex and beautiful things other people have made to make even more complex and beautiful things of your own is a good thing about modern technology.
For instance, I play a number of games where part of the fun is being able to create little neighborhoods and little parks and just go to town with the small assets that the game comes with. Some of these games allow you to make really interesting stories which have, for the game, very intriguing special effects. I remember some of the campaigns I played in Age of Empires 2 as a kid: Ulio, The Past Samurai. I even saw a very well put-together Nativity made in that game!
The summary of what I'm trying to say is that art is a skill of making something look good, be they flowers or 3D models or paint or snow or whatever. Carhenge is much more art than many of the twisted and painted 3D sculptures that I see in my city.
I think that my biggest issue with modern art is that none of it matters. It usually requires little effort, if any, and relies entirely on “interpretation” for it to have any meaning whatsoever. There has been such a reduction in what is considered art. If everything is art, then “art” becomes a meaningless term.
@RockbarCycling-qk1ju
0 seconds ago
Andy Warhol, Bansky, and a lot I other artists have made art pieces with subjects that are not looked at as traditional art subjects. Those pieces are some of the most revered and hyped art in the world.
I don't understand why you said dictators of the 20th century pushed modernism. Almost all of the dictators were _against_ modernism, especially the most infamous, Hitler, who viewed it as Marxist trash spread by Jews. Mussolini was less extreme, but had a similar sentiment, and Stalin actually rejected the cultural aspects of communism (while keeping economic and social aspects), Hirohito certainly wasn't either. The only one I can think of is maybe Mao.
actually Stalin loved modern "art"
Expressionist art can amaze and inspire just as the maestros of the Renaissance can. Art is subjective, and this video only further demonstrates its subjectivity. My two favorite artists are Van Gogh and Agnes Martin, two very different styles from two very different time periods, but nevertheless masters of expression. The American Idol comment is off-base because those "rejects" had nothing of value in terms of lyrics, music, talent, expression, etc. A minimalist abstract work by Martin may look like nothing to many, but to me, it looks like the culmination of one's doubts, anxieties, and shortcomings. Just as we all fall short of the glory of God, I see Martin's journey from a crippling perfectionist to someone who no longer carries that shame of failure as a beautiful illustration of how I, as a Christian, can look to God for hope instead of relying on my own imperfection. True art brings some sort of value to the table. Whether its emotional value, technical value, contextual value, or something else is up to the artist and the viewer.
no, it cannot.
because the renaissance masters inspire *everyone*. expressionism cannot reliably replicate that.
the fact that one or two peices can get close is what we like to call, "damning with faint praise"
@@marvalice3455 i kind of agree, but lots of people find classical art boring. So i would say that while for me, most of the time, that is the case, i can find some renaissance art boring even though it is technically impressive
@@noah5291 I suspect they haven't investigated it thoroughly. like the people who say classical music is boring, but have only ever heard bits and peices.
I'm a total metalhead, but would *never* call classical music boring. even if there are some peices which aren't to my specific taste.
It's hard to compare old world architecture with today's. The income disparity was such that labor was almost free to those that had all the money. These beautiful elaborate buildings took armies of people to create over very long periods of time. St Peters Basilica took 120 years to complete. Impossible to imagine in today's World.
Brilliant analysis. Really enjoyed it. Completely agree about postmodernism, but can think of many examples of modern art which do inspire the wonder you describe; e.g. Dance, Guernica and many more.
Thank you for putting into words what has been stirring in my soul for years!
not against you!! and i'm not really into abstract expressionism neither. I can find desperate inspiraton on minimalistic and geometric approaches. i just want to comment that if you can't find the phenomenon of an artwork, and you say 'you could do that', you are maybe wrong. There are qualities that aren't easy to reach and to know how much gesture or form you give to the painting, and not least it's hard to find a way to oppose relevant questions in abstract art. It's easier to figuratively react to some actual politics for example, and that's a cheap trick too from my perspective. I think the main problem isn't that modern art is bad. just you have some old fashioned and more-less figurative taste, which is great. To make a realist masterpiece can be contemporary too, and to paint realistic is many times the easier way, considering that figurative paintings not necessary needs to understand the discourse of art. i like the contemporary figurative art scene by the way. The problem is in my opinion, that those people, who criticize modern art, just feel that they may lack informations. it's obviously more easy to perceive figurative art, in a way. But you should appreciate other existing cultural traditions. It's you who find catharsis in figuration, not the problem of contemporary art. A child can find it in just making gesture, i can find it in watching a geometric shape or a blank and meditative SPACE (and those artworks can slow me down a bit... huhh that's a great thing after all). It's natural. And lastly... if you talk about craftmenship, you should research contemporary painters, like Laura Owens or Christopher Wool. Their paintings involve a lot of technique like drawing, silk screening , computer graphics, even sewing. Those are much harder to make then just put paint to a canvas. I understand the human amazingness part, i learnt to paint in a quiete academic way, but since i make moreless geometric art, shaped canvases, etc. i feel much more like a craftsman and i like it a lot. Hope you will appreciate modern and contemporary art one day! i recommend you to reasearch contemporary abstract painters like felipe pantone. he makes abstract street art, and street art is of course about entertaining people. It's great to know that there are content free street art..
Yea well literally anyone can create a blank sheet of paper and call it art
@@bigsmall246why don't you do it then nostradamus
@@jackkanavos4714 everyone makes modern art everyday. When they wash the dishes, the soap bubbles become modern art. When they throw rubbish into their bin, the bin becomes modern art. The list goes on.
@@bigsmall246 why havent u sold it then. i would think that would be worth millions. you could be a millionaire because modern art is so fucking dumb.
@@jackkanavos4714 a blank canvas is only modern art if a white rich man sold it. If some random dude tried to sell trash or a blank canvas as art on the street no one would buy it.
If you're interested, you should check out the book/youtube series "How Should We Then Live?" By Francis Schaeffer. He talks about how Christianity influenced the development of Western culture, from law and science, to music and art. He eventually covers why society turned away from these roots and embraced post-modernism in the 20th century, and the consequences of these choices, art and music being one of the subjects.
Translation: Art is not stagnant therefore its bad.
Well said.
Also: "Anyone can do art now and ton of work doesn't automatically equal good art, so modern art baad."
There is a need for beauty in our lives. The ability of masterful art to elevate the mind and spirit must never be underestimated or under appreciated. I think what you've said about "easy design" that relies on pre-made elements is well taken. At one time for example people relied on professional typographers to set their type. Now people think that using computer based fonts is automatically correct.
Unfortunately, lovers of fine art feel the need to distinguish themselves from the great unwashed masses. Anyone can appreciate a masterpiece of art, but what is left for the sophisticated critic? They need art that only they can appreciate, whether it's food without flavor, paintings without pictures, or music without melody: acquired taste for the sophisticated palate. You're either hip to where it's at, or you're square.
Yes-you are right. It's not about distinguish us from you-I don't care who likes what. Art is NOT FOR EVERYONE. It is what you have been lead to think but it is totally not true. Art is a career, a movement and MOST IMPORTANTLY a record of the times. And the current times are not gilded with flowers and musk-and they are not Christian. They are ironic, bold, complicated, wonderful and mad.
As far as "whether it's food without flavor, paintings without pictures, or music without melody" You must have never had a truffle french fry, haven't seen 99% of contemporary painting and don't listen to much music at all. It isn't simply about liking something for what is IS NOT about. And to say "I like all contemporary art" is like saying "I love all food, people, and music". Just like what you like, if you don't like the art then don't fucking waste my time telling me you don't like it. You haven't taken two seconds to know anything about it.
BOLLOCKS !!!
Is it really that hard to believe that people have different taste to you? Perhaps you just don't like the avant guarde and that's fine and other people do. It's not all some conspiracy.
Fuck off
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is just another statement for a talentless idiot to say his work is beautiful. You know an ugly object when you see one.
You have a very "pleasant", "satisfactory" vision of art. Art should not only amaze and inspire us, art can also terrify us, make us want to leave the room, question our perception and our values, art isn't only beauty and wonderland, art is supposed to make us feel, wether it's good or terrible feeling, it should provoke thought, emotion, and life. So no, art isn"t supposed to make us "amazed"
I wouldn't expect you to be a big fan of modern art, it's already pretty obvious you are a pretty big fan of yourself.
kerning is missing when preparing the letters. It's really the human touch, the individual touch which differentiates a piece of art. Another aspect about art is that in other times (non-modern), the object of art is beauty. Not so today...
Thank you for speaking out!!! (Let me guess: you are no longer is school and can now say this without suffering retribution from teachers.) Let's talk about the elephant in the room, and acknowledge that modern art is ugly, lacking in skill and visual meaning, and is just de-humanizing junk pushed onto students and the public by schools and museums bought off by modern art grants.
But thanks to the freedom of the internet, a rising generation is making real fine art again--but it's still "underground" and never will see the light of day inside a major public museum!
what I think is actually being shown here (a well-spoken attempt anyway, with 1 painting supporting the argument), is the notion of craftsmanship and historic vs. contemporary tools. current graphic design would not be how it is without modernism having had it's place in time. as a slightly important side note, "modern", "modernism", and "contemporary" are not all the same thing to be used interchangeably.
The Nazis were definitely not advocates of modern art or architecture!
"Form follows function" was a motto that Hitler approved of and promoted. It's a fundamentally modernist principle. Philosophically, Fascism is an offspring of modernism (as is communism). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function
@@BrianHoldsworth nobody gives a shit
Everything is subjective to the individual. It's impossible to understand why an individual might appreciate something in particular more than another person. It's fascinating.
Paul Joseph Watson got me here. Great vid, Brian! Insightful indeed.
You communicated very effectively. It was very pleasant to listen. I'm constantly looking for that element of mastery, ewe and inspiration in works of art. Same way I'd be impressed with how well a mechanic would put together an engine as much as he would put it apart,in his own method.That aspect of having taken the time to understand something, question and give a unique approach towards what's already there....
I been trying to figure out how to verbalize that for a longggggg time. Without offending or hurting feelings. This is a humble an truthful approach that i appreciated an share.