Could you please post the picture of your Bart Simpson artwork? I really love how it looks and I collect a lot of digital art. Thanks in advance. It doesn't have to be on ArtStation or anything but it's a pretty neat piece.
Doing Art History units in uni brought me here haha. Last year I did a week on Van Gogh and it made me think I liked Art History (I'm in Classical Studies but my first two years are interdisciplinary). Then this year we did much more on Art History that got into modern art and I realized I was mistaken. I thought this video was a great explanation, I couldn't put my finger on what felt "off" to me about it. Like it's always got to challenge and undermine things to an excessive degree. Like I'm all about questioning culture and society but it's like they're all patting each other on the back for it--it's also usually confined to questions that are trendy, so it's not even that edgy.
I thought a bit more while finishing my section on Art History this week and there were a couple of modern pieces/installations we were supposed to look at that coincidentally had activism elements to it (stuff related to race, wealth, refugees) and it got me thinking how they had these messages but it never left me feeling like . . . I wanted to do anything about these issues or I was moved in any way. One of the pieces was very abstract so to begin with they had to explain what it even represented because it was in no way clear. It would have had way more momentum and impact in an audience if it had been a photograph or painting of real people in those situations they were trying to bring awareness to. It might be shocking but it would connect people on an emotional, empathetic level. I didn't feel anything and didn't feel called to take action. I feel like it's like people calling things out on Twitter, they feel like they made a change when they haven't really done anything besides comment on an issue. I think that's another thing I hate about modern art, it's making a statement but in the least effective way.
It isn't possbile not to understand art :) A speaker asked once a crowd if they can paint 99% denied, then he went on the whiteboard an made a "moon face". He asked "can you do this" everybody laughed and agreed "so you can paint, but you said you can't?". If you would ask a young child it would never deny this question, all children can paint. We often hemper ourself especially in such we all are creative but one has to explore his creativity first and to be aware that you have one. To understand art and to judge art you don't need any propopsition, all you need is "i like it / i like it not". Sure one could look at the technical aspect and judge it by that but in the end it is still like/dislike even if you respect the effort. Do children care when they judge art? No they say bahhhh if they don't like it :) Be free say bahhhh if you dislike it and say "paint me one more daddy" if you like it.
The scrapbook drawing is actually really good. Those paintings are incredibly expensive... but I actually like them. Even the I AM conceptual art is fairly interesting and reminds me of liminal pictures and artworks. My Bed and The Singing Butler... The thing is, they both are criticized, so I don't know why you contrast both as if it makes your point. Contemporary... This means now so any paintings and art styles are contemporary at their time. There was also the botched up restoration of Ecce Homo as an "Abstract" example. ... Seriously... Why? Are you trolling? Art meant to shock... not new at all. Remember Portrait of Madame X or Olympia? Or even art movement like Impressionism. Yeah. "That is shocking and it's insulting" is the very same sentiment they garnered. An artwork's value has always been engineered. There are craft guilds in the Medieval period for example that does many of these same things. They control the value of art to keep them expensive. And yeah. Art is not made for you! A lot of old portraits, like Mona Lisa, are private properties for personal enjoyment and not meant to be seen by the whole world. Icon Paintings are tools of religious devotion and not meant to decorate your living room or to appeal to non Christians. Many artworks, some I pointed out, are meant to shock the viewers. I don't know why an artwork that is meant to shock is somehow a bad thing. Yeah, stories about artist failing to sell things and only become popular after they are dead... And what makes them popular now? You guess it, these same people who are marketing art. Without them, these artist (Van Gogh in your example) would have remained obscure... as is true with many many artist out there. They could build, but hey couldn't sell... yeah. That is true then, and it is true now. Creating art and selling them are two different things. Selling your art for millions is even more difficult. There also practical reasons why many art works aren't displayed. For one, it is just physically impractical to do so. Where could all these art be displayed in the first place without things getting very crowded? Displaying artwork is also has some problems associated with it. For example pigments, the colors of the paintings, fade faster when exposed to light. The more a painting is displayed, the quicker their color fades and this is actually already a problem with many works like Mona Lisa or Van Gogh's Sunflowers. The artworks would also be exposed to more bigger swing in temperatures which would soon cause the paints to crack and peel. These and among other things like dust, oxidation, distortion and many more are eliminated or minimized if the artworks are stored. And so, displaying them also can be expensive. Being exposed and open to elements makes the artwork require more maintenance and care. And one very important thing is that, storing them keep them safe. Displaying artworks make them more vulnerable to damage from accidents to vandalism to disasters. How many new have you heard of artworks damaged by someone tripping over or someone vandalizing them or just burned in a fire? Sincerity of intention? Most artworks of the past, are paid by and made for wealthy clientele. Many of these paintings, beautiful as they are, are not sincere in the slightest. For the wealthy clientele, these are for displaying their wealth and status... and that includes the religious ones like Creation of Adam you displayed here. Like, seriously, do you think regular people could see the Sistine Chapel Ceiling in those times? No. These are for the eyes the rich Popes which the chapel is for. Regular folks at those times would never see these paintings in their lives. These painting are also to enhance their reputation and standings. Getting a portrait from a well known portraitist is a huge reputation boost. Getting your portrait paint by Leonardo, makes you part of other Leonardo's clientele which includes the biggest like the popes, and thus you will be above those lesser people who have to settle for lesser artists. These painting aren't whatever things you say here (like spiritual enlightenment and stimulation). These artworks are are like mansions or luxury cars or Rolex watches or designer bags. They are beautiful and well crafted yes but these artworks are just as elitist as the "contemporary" arts are. I really just disagree with this video. Sure, criticize contemporary art scene if you want, but implying that the past is less guilty or above it or something is just hogwash. At least, now, regular folks like us could actually enjoy art. In the past, most artwork, especially the best ones, are only for the (very) wealthy; made for the wealthy to be enjoyed by the wealthy and in service of the wealthy.
You hit it beautifully with all your points! This video is just full of highbrow hogwash. My advice to folks is to never let anyone tell you what you are supposed to like!
Thank you!! I happen to love minimalist art. Many times the craft and detail you may not see or understand in a digital representation you can in person.
I know exactly where modern art went wrong. Real art is known as classical art. That´s it. That was and remains the original definition of art. Its classical. During the 20th century, art students started at the start of the century to emphasize art less and less. Instead, everything was about the destruction of culture. Art colleges replaced good art students with bad ones, and made their exams so that good art students would not graduate. The most important art style of the early 20th century, Art Deco was pushed underground so it would flourish there rather than in the spotlight. Real art is classical art, bad art was simply given the label ´modern art´. Thanks for your video!
we dont arrive at the contemporary. Contemporary is a relative term. We only use it to speak of art now in that context. But it won't be remembered as contemporary. All art is situated. The Mona Lisa is situated from when it was created to the capitalist netword of art now. The title of this video supposes there was a time when art was "right" but this is a fallacy. Art has always been outside of boundaries
Could you please post the picture of your Bart Simpson artwork? I really love how it looks and I collect a lot of digital art. Thanks in advance. It doesn't have to be on ArtStation or anything but it's a pretty neat piece.
Certainly wasn’t expecting that! That 7 year old kid would be delighted. Send a message to our IG and I’ll DM it :)
Could you please show other pages from your scrapbooks? They look really neat. Thanks in advance.
Art is alive and well, just not in fine art galleries. It's all around us in the media we consume.
not in all but you are somewhat right, sub-art
Doing Art History units in uni brought me here haha. Last year I did a week on Van Gogh and it made me think I liked Art History (I'm in Classical Studies but my first two years are interdisciplinary). Then this year we did much more on Art History that got into modern art and I realized I was mistaken. I thought this video was a great explanation, I couldn't put my finger on what felt "off" to me about it. Like it's always got to challenge and undermine things to an excessive degree. Like I'm all about questioning culture and society but it's like they're all patting each other on the back for it--it's also usually confined to questions that are trendy, so it's not even that edgy.
I thought a bit more while finishing my section on Art History this week and there were a couple of modern pieces/installations we were supposed to look at that coincidentally had activism elements to it (stuff related to race, wealth, refugees) and it got me thinking how they had these messages but it never left me feeling like . . . I wanted to do anything about these issues or I was moved in any way. One of the pieces was very abstract so to begin with they had to explain what it even represented because it was in no way clear. It would have had way more momentum and impact in an audience if it had been a photograph or painting of real people in those situations they were trying to bring awareness to. It might be shocking but it would connect people on an emotional, empathetic level. I didn't feel anything and didn't feel called to take action. I feel like it's like people calling things out on Twitter, they feel like they made a change when they haven't really done anything besides comment on an issue. I think that's another thing I hate about modern art, it's making a statement but in the least effective way.
Thank you for your ideas, melere. Classics and art history as such beautiful things to learn :)
I hope the rest of your degree is rich and meaningful.
I look at modern art to see a glimpse of the future
Modern Art is basically baseball cards for the rich.
This brings so much into focus. Thank you.
Nice video and topic🙂
While I will never understand art stuff , I'm still trying to appreciated it for what it in both old and modern arts .
It isn't possbile not to understand art :)
A speaker asked once a crowd if they can paint 99% denied, then he went on the whiteboard an made a "moon face". He asked "can you do this" everybody laughed and agreed "so you can paint, but you said you can't?". If you would ask a young child it would never deny this question, all children can paint. We often hemper ourself especially in such we all are creative but one has to explore his creativity first and to be aware that you have one.
To understand art and to judge art you don't need any propopsition, all you need is "i like it / i like it not". Sure one could look at the technical aspect and judge it by that but in the end it is still like/dislike even if you respect the effort.
Do children care when they judge art?
No they say bahhhh if they don't like it :)
Be free say bahhhh if you dislike it and say "paint me one more daddy" if you like it.
Sheesh…. This was perfection
I was a modern artist as a toddler. Shame that the world trampled on my dreams. I could have been a gazillionaire by now.
"In space no one can hear you scream. You scream, I scream, we all scream for ice scream."
---Albert Einstein
🍦🎯🛎🎈🔥
The scrapbook drawing is actually really good.
Those paintings are incredibly expensive... but I actually like them. Even the I AM conceptual art is fairly interesting and reminds me of liminal pictures and artworks.
My Bed and The Singing Butler... The thing is, they both are criticized, so I don't know why you contrast both as if it makes your point.
Contemporary... This means now so any paintings and art styles are contemporary at their time.
There was also the botched up restoration of Ecce Homo as an "Abstract" example. ... Seriously... Why? Are you trolling?
Art meant to shock... not new at all. Remember Portrait of Madame X or Olympia? Or even art movement like Impressionism. Yeah. "That is shocking and it's insulting" is the very same sentiment they garnered.
An artwork's value has always been engineered. There are craft guilds in the Medieval period for example that does many of these same things. They control the value of art to keep them expensive.
And yeah. Art is not made for you! A lot of old portraits, like Mona Lisa, are private properties for personal enjoyment and not meant to be seen by the whole world. Icon Paintings are tools of religious devotion and not meant to decorate your living room or to appeal to non Christians. Many artworks, some I pointed out, are meant to shock the viewers. I don't know why an artwork that is meant to shock is somehow a bad thing.
Yeah, stories about artist failing to sell things and only become popular after they are dead... And what makes them popular now? You guess it, these same people who are marketing art. Without them, these artist (Van Gogh in your example) would have remained obscure... as is true with many many artist out there.
They could build, but hey couldn't sell... yeah. That is true then, and it is true now. Creating art and selling them are two different things. Selling your art for millions is even more difficult.
There also practical reasons why many art works aren't displayed. For one, it is just physically impractical to do so. Where could all these art be displayed in the first place without things getting very crowded?
Displaying artwork is also has some problems associated with it. For example pigments, the colors of the paintings, fade faster when exposed to light. The more a painting is displayed, the quicker their color fades and this is actually already a problem with many works like Mona Lisa or Van Gogh's Sunflowers. The artworks would also be exposed to more bigger swing in temperatures which would soon cause the paints to crack and peel. These and among other things like dust, oxidation, distortion and many more are eliminated or minimized if the artworks are stored.
And so, displaying them also can be expensive. Being exposed and open to elements makes the artwork require more maintenance and care.
And one very important thing is that, storing them keep them safe. Displaying artworks make them more vulnerable to damage from accidents to vandalism to disasters. How many new have you heard of artworks damaged by someone tripping over or someone vandalizing them or just burned in a fire?
Sincerity of intention? Most artworks of the past, are paid by and made for wealthy clientele. Many of these paintings, beautiful as they are, are not sincere in the slightest. For the wealthy clientele, these are for displaying their wealth and status... and that includes the religious ones like Creation of Adam you displayed here. Like, seriously, do you think regular people could see the Sistine Chapel Ceiling in those times? No. These are for the eyes the rich Popes which the chapel is for. Regular folks at those times would never see these paintings in their lives.
These painting are also to enhance their reputation and standings. Getting a portrait from a well known portraitist is a huge reputation boost. Getting your portrait paint by Leonardo, makes you part of other Leonardo's clientele which includes the biggest like the popes, and thus you will be above those lesser people who have to settle for lesser artists.
These painting aren't whatever things you say here (like spiritual enlightenment and stimulation). These artworks are are like mansions or luxury cars or Rolex watches or designer bags. They are beautiful and well crafted yes but these artworks are just as elitist as the "contemporary" arts are.
I really just disagree with this video. Sure, criticize contemporary art scene if you want, but implying that the past is less guilty or above it or something is just hogwash.
At least, now, regular folks like us could actually enjoy art. In the past, most artwork, especially the best ones, are only for the (very) wealthy; made for the wealthy to be enjoyed by the wealthy and in service of the wealthy.
You hit it beautifully with all your points! This video is just full of highbrow hogwash. My advice to folks is to never let anyone tell you what you are supposed to like!
Thank you!! I happen to love minimalist art. Many times the craft and detail you may not see or understand in a digital representation you can in person.
Just watched all your videos. Truly great stuff!
I know exactly where modern art went wrong. Real art is known as classical art. That´s it. That was and remains the original definition of art. Its classical. During the 20th century, art students started at the start of the century to emphasize art less and less. Instead, everything was about the destruction of culture. Art colleges replaced good art students with bad ones, and made their exams so that good art students would not graduate. The most important art style of the early 20th century, Art Deco was pushed underground so it would flourish there rather than in the spotlight. Real art is classical art, bad art was simply given the label ´modern art´. Thanks for your video!
"With Nummy Muffin Coocol Butter as your muse and inspiration, what more could you possibly need to accomplish artsy-fartsiness?"
---Albert Einstein
"Once you go full Nummy Muffin Coocol Butter, you never go back."
---Albert Einstein
Oh, Botero, take be back to Munchkin Land.
amen!
Yes. Where Modern Art went wrong was when it started to pretend that it could DO no wrong.
we dont arrive at the contemporary. Contemporary is a relative term. We only use it to speak of art now in that context. But it won't be remembered as contemporary. All art is situated. The Mona Lisa is situated from when it was created to the capitalist netword of art now. The title of this video supposes there was a time when art was "right" but this is a fallacy. Art has always been outside of boundaries
Was it capitalism? It was capitalism.
Kahnweiler.