Hey guys just saw this video
I haven't been able to completely tell how I feel about his points but the video does rub me the wrong way.
Can I get some civilized discussion of your thoughts on this vid?
>What is modernist art for 400
Would you agree if he had said standards instead of quality?
I could try producing "classical" art but it ultimately wouldn't be as good as someone who believed with their entire being that the ultimate art is an image of a goddess surrounded by muscular men. there's no incentive for me to create believable scenes when virtual reality, movies and video games are more immersive and real than any painting or drawing.
there's no incentive for me to produce respectable wall-decorations when europe is burning
if you want comforting narratives with complementary attractive faces just indulge in hollywood movies.
Classical art is not the only art that has to be of good quality. Even abstract art can be done poorly. You can choose to create whatever you'd like but that doesn't mean people can't criticise it for its vulgarity, for its shallowness, poor execution, etc... You can choose to create whatever you like but you can't expect for it to be remembered for generations to come. Because you see the art that I am talking about is the heritage of future generations. It's Saturn Devouring His Son, its the Mona Lisa. So I ask you: what are future generations going to think of the art of OUR time when pseudo intellectual circle jerk rings has brought up to them 3 empty white pieces of fucking canvas! When that's what's been preserved for them.
Imagine a book with poor grammar, is vulgar and dirty without any deeper meaning; just a poorly written book about fucking. The average person doesn't like it but they see a mass of pretentious hipster faggots praise it so they think, "they seem more cultured and intelligent, they must know better" and the average person (shallow and stupid as they are) is persuaded and conforms. What happens when society has been cured of such people? What are they going to think?
Though again, do whatever the fuck you like.
the video is shit, made by a shit guy associated with a fake school. it's posted here all the time so I'm not going to waste my time trying to refute it. anyone retarded enough to confused a pollock with a paint rag has no business preaching to others about aesthetics.
it's retarded propaganda. /thread.
You are apparently too retarded to understand human speech, so what are you doing passing judgment on a video?
The guy says his students confuse it for a Pollock painting, not that he does it
Excuse me but standards set by who exactly?By what standard do works throughout the entire history of the Western Oil Tradition 'improve upon the work of previous masters'? Like, I'm getting the strong implication here that this retard believes it possible to somehow objectively sum the quality of a painting to a number and then compare that quality to all other works of art irrespective of context, which would seem to be the only explanation for the chart; like, how else do you explain the fact that it's not a smooth curve. I shiver at the thought that has gone into this philistinic nonsense.
As as the OP, you are looking at people who perception of world history is wrapped in a ultra conservative 19th century shell. These people do not live in the real world. They live in a protracted lala land. There is no discussing modernism to these people because they put politics before any sort of discussion about art, aesthetics, modernism, or even fucking basic history.
If you wish to press on, I recommend we do this privately.
In the past with works such as the Mona Lisa, it was not da Vinci saying "I am better than these "pretentious faggots" and I will do something beyond their league to be remembered through history" because he was making what was already a popular and distinct style, the only difference was that his work was a masterwork of said style which he took to new levels by using techniques that others did not know how to implement in such a beautiful and special way. I certainly do not believe following trends creates meaningful work but I also believe there are periods in time when people have common conditions with society, technology, philosophy and so on, exclusively during that period. I am not trying to make an argument so excuse the poor grammar (ironic I know) these were just some of my thoughts hopefully they can advance discussion. Interested to hear from you guys.
>If you wish to press on, I recommend we do this privately.
May I ask why?
I disagree with what he says and your point is very valid bringing up where the standards come from and how they're defined but couldn't they say the same to you about being wrapped in the opposite of an ultra conservative 19th shell? I think halting discussion due to disagreement and difficulty to see eye to eye leads to no progression, that's why I bring this to /ic/, where posts are anonymous and there is no rating system. I do not intent to come off as an asshole contrarian so my apologies if I do.
>his students are retarded
By that metric, almost everyone is "retarded" except art school students with a pre-existing familiarity with what is and isn't something made by a master or an amaeteur.
You're not coming as and asshole. As for the reason why I ask we do this privately, its because discussion by itself leads to nothing when its between laymen. You cannot expect people who do not have beyond rudimentary level education to achieve 'progression' in most discussions, because most discussions are not axiom based logomachy. Things have to be known first. How do you think one can talk about art beyond the 19th century (essentially what the video is talking about) without understanding what (post)modernism and whats its impact was, how can you expect results without knowing about (art) history, philosophy, aesthetic and critical art theory (and how all of these can relate to laymen).
This is why /ic/ is not the proper forum to talk about it. How can you expect a place with gitwizards (>>2334063 >>2332627) shitposting things without sources, enlargements or even cohesive information, expecting everybody to go 'le jewish scam amirite?' ; Or when they do i'tll be some garbage they haven't put 2 seconds to write out (>>2334068) followed by shitty anecdotal click bait articles that they haven't read beyond the title as they just only posted it because it confirms their own views.
The discussion would be basically one or two people that have a hint of clue of what they are talking about, and countless walking Dunning Krugers disrupting with memes, barely thought out arguments and shitposting.
/ic/ mostly concerns it self with certain types of aesthetic art, and as such it attracts a lot of concept art kiddies and the like. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not the place where you will find an unbiased/objective discussion on modern and contemporary art (or even pre-modern art it seems. I swear these people do not even understand the basics the Italian renaissance, they just only care Ninja Turtle painters or some shit"
(pic is best artist Ad Reinhardt)
fucking hell that is the most pretentious and elitist block of text i've skimmed through in a while
Yeah I see what you are saying but me myself, I don't have really high knowledge beyond basic shit myself but I still want to observe what people do say, even if there's only a 5% chance that someone actually knows what they're talking about. I can only hope that through reading enough responses I am able to use my best judgement to distinguish the real posting from useless discourse and meaningless pejoratives that provide nothing such as >>2334488.
Even children's art shows intention above the level of a paint rag. And that study proves that people can distinguish between child art and abex, despite the completely inaccurate url that claims "abstract is only 4 better." It's like they have no idea how to analyze or interpret data.
Haha, man that chart is bullshit.
I remember seeing this video awhile ago. It was ok. But just a few days ago I saw this small series on the same topic. Its much better, more information with better presentation. Plus it has some nice humor so it doesn't come off with a snobbish tone.
I ended up skimming through some other videos from the channel and found them to be a little disagreeable and, in some cases, downright rage inducing. Although some videos have one or two valid points, they're all skewed and presented by snobbish people flaunting their professor status (which means nothing - there are plenty of shit professors who get things wrong) in uncomfortable ways that end up feeling extremist.
no it s not.
You pass from a medicine world having toilet at an art based on observations to and world based on shitting behind curtains and death sentencing anyone who would do anatomy researches.
The dark ages was a downgrade from the Latin roman and greek world.
The jewish religions now called christianity had this old testament ideas that everything looking like a real Human or animal was idolatry. Only monks could now have access to education.
None of that is true though. That's a bunch of romanticizing about the Greco-Roman world, and a poor understanding of what really went on in the Middle Ages. There's a reason it's a popular and not an academic term.
People claim that it was a time when religion was stagnant or backwards, but it gave us profound thinkers like Meister Eckhart, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and many other great contemplatives and theologians.
Those without a clear understanding of history also claim it was a time of scientific backwardsness: most people believed the world was flat, the church forbade autopsies and dissections, and suppressed the growth of natural philosophy. none of this is true though.
Your claim that only monks had acccess to education is just false. It's true that monasteries were the center of learning at one point, but by the 12th and 13th centuries universities had developed (in Italy, England, France, Spain, Portugal...) The Middle Ages also produced literary giants like Dante, Petrarch, and Chaucer, and developed plate armor, gothic architecture, and blast furnaces.
It's ridiculous to apply a single term/judgement for the whole of Europe, for entire centuries. Geography is not irrelevant, conditions were different in different regions. The Arab world was undergoing its Golden Age. Byzantium was still a center of learning for quite some time until its collapse. There were a series of renaissances within Europe (the Carolingian, the Ottonian, and the Renaissance of the 12th century).
If the Middle Ages were so barren, how do you think the Renaissance came about? Did it spring out of nothing?
>Science historian Edward Grant writes, "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed [in the 18th century], they were only made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities".
It wasn't as bad as that guy is saying, but it also wasn't a revolutionary as Roman/Greek times. Even the Byzantines while they had some greatness like the Hagia Sophia didn't really advance Philosophy, or science much. You can namedrop all you want but none of these people had as much impact as the thinkers before or after them.
It's not fair to mostly include 12th and 13th century stuff when the guy was probably referring to 500-1100 history. There were just too many conflicts, kingdoms rising and falling quick, Arabs always being a constant threat. By the 12th Century, yes, things were very different, but don't pretend there weren't chaotic times before it.
You said it yourself:
>/ic/ mostly concerns it self with certain types of aesthetic art
That's right, we have threads about sculptures and paintings that have an aesthetic value. Yes, an artwork can tell a story, have some context, a hidden meaning... but those things are worthless to us when the piece is not executed well, or technically inept, or lacking in any other fundamental aspect which contributes to the value of the art piece. And I'm not talking about the inflated 'modern art' $3 million-per-painting kind of value, but of the perceived aesthetic quality of the piece: the mastery of its execution, the intricacy of the technique and the continued cultural heritage of our forefathers, which can be passed on to our posterity. An abstract composition of shapes has no inherent value to it, even if it's supposed to represent the 'struggle of women's emancipation' or whatever the fuck.
Let's say you find a Sargent painting in a dumpster - you would immediately recognize the inherent value of the piece, and save it from its unfortunate fate. Now imagine if you saw a Pollock painting in a dumpster - shit fucking belongs in there.
>those things are worthless to us when the piece is not executed well, or technically inept, or lacking in any other fundamental aspect
Most high level fine art post 1970 doesn't really do it for me, though I'm not afraid of abstract art, but my main complaint isn't so much a 'lack of technical skill' (that's a rather shallow complaint, let's be honest) but 'lack of clear communication.' Any art that needs an accompanying paragraph to be understood or appreciated is a failure.
I respect those two posters because they are guys who actually know some stuff and aren't biased. Btw, soap was first invented in medieval ages and art actually was booming back then with invention of tempera, oil paints and in late period fresco. Also landscapes.
It's just that when /ic/ spends hundreds of hours on learning perspective and anatomy it thinks that symbolic art where those weren't the focus is shit and that medieval artists should read loomis.
Lack of technical skill is not a shallow complaint, but a realistic criticism. If you suggest that technical skill does not matter in art, then to me that is simply offensive.
This is not the old days where all artists received a useful fundamental education, after which they went on to do whatever. I believe it to be a very real fact that there are many poor folks out there in today's art schools, who are simply not getting the basic skills necessary for the creation of great, and significant, works