well /his/? he's not wrong, is he?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
Urinalfags on suicide watch
>>610721
Prager University is honestly biased and they don't make any bones about it, but I usually can't fault their arguments.
>>610721
He's not wrong, he's just baseless. It's almost as good as wrong, because with no foundation you can really argue anything.
>>610721
>The amount of dislikes on the video
Okay i'm out. Time to order a can of helium.
>>610721
Now I want to know what kind of art Prager students actually make. Are they as classical and technical as this guy promotes?
>>610721
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEVD1qliHzI
Here is the real answer.
Society always follows philosophy.
>picks a few examples of bad modern art
>''all modern art is bad''
>>610721
>a balding Patrick Bateman changes his identity and becomes a judgmental art professor at Prague University
I seriously hope people don't copy these videos and think they're being profound
>>610721
See my post in this other thread >>610982. Degeneracy (or rather degeneration) in art is not simply tied to modernism, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. It is merely an increase in artistic entropy in accepted works (works the mainstream art community is willing to accept as high art), which typically comes along with the amount of skill or effort required to make an accepted work of art being far lower, making the barriers to entry for being a high artist much lower. Thus you have many whose works would be accepted as high art who don't even know the foundational rules of painting, when before even the most abstract of artists were well-versed in classical techniques before they began their own experimentation. There are many works of modern art (defining modern as everything from the modern era onward), however, that still have relatively low levels of artistic entropy and clearly took a high degree of skill to make, while having a singular impact from their controlled disorder that simple photorealism could never achieve.
Stopped watching when it got the LACMA Rock.
Not a urinalfag even, but the rock isn't just a rock. It's a whole area, and the trench, the setting, all that play a part in it. It isn't supposed to be a contrast to any statue, so trying to meme off that is hack shit.
Heizer is a self-absorbed faggot, as are all rich artists. And art critics are worthless subhumans.
That doens't mean Mass is a terrible piece of art. It is interesting to look at and to experience.
The fact that this faggot used it as a swipe at Los Angeles makes him seem just as bad as any retarded art clown. He and people like him think they are above Gehry but they're just different style of douche.
>>611041
>if you actually want good art to take skill and talent then you're just as bad as the people who think a rock is art!
If you saw the part where he brought up a literal graph of "artistic standards over time" and thought you could take it seriously I don't know what to say.
He's trotting out the same tired arguments that middle schoolers bring up when confronted with non-traditional artistic expression, and so the same counterpoints apply. Any attempt to build "objective" standards around what constitutes art is either too vague to be meaningful or too restrictive so that it excludes things that are obviously art. Supposed requirements like beauty or skill are also impossible to quantify, so it all boils down to "this is my opinion based purely on my personal feelings," which is a fine thing to have, but a stupid thing to propose as a universal or meaningful standard.
>>611051
>just because I don't like it, it means it's not art
>>611051
define skill and talent, then explain why that definition is important to art.
>>611051
Not him but he's right, he just completely ignored the context of the piece so he could pretend he was right about something. It compromises his entire point.
![ELVIS[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SXc5lEj.jpg "ELVIS[1].jpg")
>>610915
hideous trash, mostly.
http://www.robertflorczak.com/art/
>>610915
Prager isn't a real university. It's just a conservative talking points website.
>>611068
wait people actually believe this? ok i'm out
>>611111
Senpai, this has been argued for, and against, before in the history of this argument over art. People believe this because it's steeped in argument instead of sentimentalism.
>>611111
yes faggot people argued about it for generations and it looks like the relativists won. Prager University and you aren't going to be able to dissemble that
>>611041
Mass is not a piece art, it's just a fucking rock. Rocks considered to be art are called sculptures.
Art critics are stupid cunts, yes, because they praise shit like rocks and canned shit.
Art is not about being edgy, innovative and trying to spread a message, it's about beauty, to capture the beauty of the nature, the human body, it's colors, the lighting, it has and can be used as a "courier", but it's not it's main objective. That's why modern art is shit, i like drawing, want to get into painting, but i'm always looking to improve my abilities, learning anatomy, clothing, lighting, doing studies while these pretentious faggots puts a price tag of a million dollars on a paintedcanvas some autistic fag, retarded, opportunist or baby made.
>>611111
nice quints
>>611095
well that one's shit, but i dunno m8, i'm browsing his stuff right now and a lot of it is pretty nice.
i mean at least he isn't lying about wanting to go back to traditional painting.
>>611129
what is beauty, and why must art seek it out? why does art need to be "about" or "not abut anything"- you seem to suppose that art needs to have a unified message or operate as a unified movement. why? why can't art explore other topics or aesthetic ideas or forms?
>>611143
b-bcuz.. m-muh booty
>>611095
>>611138
it's not bad, I'm just not getting much from these paintings at all, they seem more like illustrations from a book to me. I honestly don't know what sort of ethos or mood these paintings are meant to convey.
Yeah he's a good painter but that's it, the lack of technique is dissapointing.
>>611156
>they seem more like illustrations from a book
actually that's exactly what that one is.
then again, his non-book art is in a similar vain. i get no sense of drama, just pretty backgrounds with attractive figures.
DID SOMEONE SAY AESTHETICS?
>>611168
I think I'd rather have photographs of someone's semen than more kitsch like this
>>611168
Basically, he doesn't really utilise colour, lighting, shapes etc the way he should.
He probably just made this video out of buttmad that other people didn't think he was the new Da Vinci or something
>>611172
what unoriginal piece of shit, bring on the urinal cakes
>>611143
There is nothing wrong with exploring other forms and ideas, there is simplistic, minimalist art, that still seeks beauty, respects composition and the basics art stands for, but the effortless edgy shit we see nowadays doesn't respect what art stands for, therefore it's not art.
>>611149
not me, fag
>>611183
>being mean to F. E. Church
hey man cmon
>>611185
I think you missed the point of his questions, and still insist that beauty is some holy grail of what art 'stands for' or should strive for.
>>611129
>while these pretentious faggots puts a price tag of a million dollars on a paintedcanvas some autistic fag, retarded, opportunist or baby made.
Hey anon, it's not like during the belle epoque there weren't shit artists that had no soul on their works and had zero technical habilities. And it's not like all artists are shit today, most artists hailed for their innovative visions, like Chuck Close for example, are really technically gifted. Artists with no technical habilities are quickly humilliated as hacks (I can think of that shit gallery that was just random shit in NY, don't remember the name of the guy, but he claimed to be satan or something, it was horrible and only 23dgy4me idiots liked it).
I can even give you an actual example, look for example at this gallery and tell me the people here are not artistically gifted:
http://thinkspacegallery.com/shows/2016/
>>611185
you're dodging the main point which is: what is beauty, and why must art "stand for" it? You're making a lot of declarations but not clarifying what they even mean.
>>611194
>>611143
>>611205
Beauty can be subjective, realistic art find in depicting the common reality, romantic idolizes a person, an ideal. I don't know exatly why art seek beauty, but that's how i see it, that's how it has been for many centuries.
>>611200
I agree that there are good artists out there nowadays (great gallery btw), but richfags are monetizing and ruining everything, it's not about, technical ability and beauty, and truly representing your feelings and views anymore.
There has always been shit artists, but fooling idiots and making them buy it has been dominating the modern view on art, making people think that art is this edgy shit we see.
>prager university
watch this fag talk about how great the dark ages were by confusing them with the medieval ages and the early renaissance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqzq01i2O3U
>>611227
The problem with that is that you're supposing that there are central qualities required for art, and yet you've failed to define them in any way really. You're saying "yes, we an define what is and isn't art, and what art needs to do, but I don't know what that means exactly." It's a pointless declaration.
>>611069
>>just because I don't like it, it means it's not art
The video didn't even try to hide that this is its main argument. It's just slightly more eloquent versions of what teenagers say, which is actually pretty funny. Like that graph showing the decline of art skill over time, like it actually means anything or is in any way objective. Or the statement that "art just became about personal expression" like it was some kind of terrible thing people decided because they didn't have talent, instead of the development of philosophy that it actually was. But my favorite part was his talk about the impressionists, which was basically "it all started to wrong with the impressionists, they were terrible. I mean, the early ones made good stuff, but come on, it got so bad after that," without any discussion of postimpressionism (even van Gogh).
In short, the guy's arguments are juvenile, and he doesn't do a good job explaining why they have any merit outside of his own personal opinion. It's basically just "le wrong generation" applied to paintings.
>>611227
>richfags are monetizing and ruining everything, it's not about, technical ability and beauty, and truly representing your feelings and views anymore.
Until the Romantic era, art was mostly the product of richfags commissioning it. It was always monetized. People weren't painting to express anything, they were doing what they were hired for. According to the video in OP, art started going wrong when people wanted to express themselves.
>>611262
People don't realize that painting Madonnas and Ecce Homos was as commercial as it got back in the day.
>>611232
>Talks about how the middle ages weren't so bad
>constantly puts images of Bruegel
>Puts the University as an example
>Universities are a result of the 12 century renaissance and the expansion of ideas thanks to european scholars travelling to al-andalus and the bizantine empire to get ancient texts, and are an exception in time of turmoil in Europe.
>Then goes on to talk about the church and the spread on knowledge, even though the catholic church was the last remanent of the roman institutions around.
>Then talks about medieval biology
>The people that thought spontaneous generation was a thing because the greeks told them so.
>Then talking about gothic architecture
>implying gothic architecture had anything to do with the dark ages
>Talking as if local self government in the middle ages was a good thing and didn't lead to brutal infighting between feudal lords, like in Italy for example.
This idiot is so bad that it's making me sound like John Green.
I really don't get the hate on "postmodernism", is it some kind of identity thing? Like I imagine the same people who think this is a great video go all
>lol sokal affair pomo btfo
all the time. It just reeks of not having ever seriously invested any time into the issue.
>>611287
he actually motivated me since if he can become a professor despite knowing jack shit, I probably can too
>>611330
Just don't act like an authority outside your field like this douchebag and you'll be fine.
Art used to be enjoyed by the layman, nowadays you need an interpreter to tell you how to enjoy something
these people then called everything else not abstract "illustrations" well now everything is art
this post is art
>>611382
>Art used to be enjoyed by the layman,
When was that ever the case? Art has always been primarily accessed by the upper classes, and those same people were also the judges of what was considered art.
>>611382
'Modern Art' was specifically a revolt against the stuffy academic standards and an attempt to feature subject matter that people could relate to. Rather than sterile, pretty images of women in forests or whatever.
>>611418
I think you forget that the entire point of stain glassed windows in cathedrals was specifically for the layman to understand the bible (they normally didn't speak latin)
>>611183
>art must be original to be good
>>611427
>the average layman people can relate to the Big N than a pretty woman in the forest
What I like to do is to say what I'm about the post out loud before I submit to catch myself before I post something silly
>>611435
More refuting your statement that art used to be for the layman. It never was, what the layman appreciated was considered low culture.
Works like Guernica that are deliberately unsettling and brutal would have never been accepted. Despite its universal relevance.
>Watch this guy shit on LA right out the gate
>Look up Prager University because lolwtf
>It's fucking Dennis Prager, a 3rd rate morning talk show host in LA
This dude is so eternally asspained because no one knows or cares who he is and hates the Southland so much but won't ever leave. He is so butt ravaged he even pays some goofs to shit on LA for him on Youtube.
Spoiler alert: he just hates brown people and doesn't want to pay taxes for public transit.
Quality kek material, but does /his/ take this seriously?
>>611382
>nowadays you need an interpreter to tell you how to enjoy something
This is retarded for a variety of reasons. Firstly, you don't need anyone to tell you how to enjoy something- you can see art and usually pretty immediately tell if you like it or not, if just on a base level. further contemplation and learning some in depth meaning can certainly elevate the work of art for you, and your opinion can change, but there is no barrier to entry to looking at and appreciating art, even if its just from a purely aesthetic perspective. Secondly, it seems to be a common mistake among people to put way too much weight on symbolism and "deeper meaning" when they look at art. It's the classic snide joke that a simple black circle must be some deep statement about the human condition or the futility of existence or what have you. While artists do certainly imbue their works with intent and symbolism, you're absolutely free to interpret them your own way and have your own personal reactions to the work. Furthermore, sometimes there is no exceptionally deep meaning or special symbol, or at least one that can be put into words, it's simply an abstract emotional or visual exercise. not "getting" something that isn't there is on you, not the artist, but it seems to be the source of a lot of derision. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Art has always been full of symbolism, often obscure and particular. Art history is an academic field because of this, there is a lot to decipher and interpret in all artwork from all ages. Pic related is not simply a meat stall.
>>611568
>walk into museum
>"Hi! And welcome, let me tour you around and tell you about this art"
You don't walk by yourself in a museum, you have headsets to put on to tell you about the art and what to do at the artpiece
>>611575
I've only ever walked around by myself in museums, I have no idea where these headset-mandating museums you go to are. There's usually plaques that explain some background of the piece and the artist, but I've never had a guided tour. Regardless, you're still free to have your own reaction.
>>610721
He is correct, modern art has largely become a way for wealthy individuals to launder money. Art has no objective monetary value which makes it a perfect good to "buy" at insanely high costs in exchange for black market goods and services
>>611664
1. That has nothing to do with the Video
2. That's not true for the vast majority of art being produced
3. That has no bearing on the artistic merit of the work.
>>611068
You mean the graph that was just there to be something visually stimulating to go along with the statement being made?
The guy in the video didn't make reference to some kind of quantitative research about standards utilizing a real graph.
>>611709
it doesn't matter, the visual is so fucking absurd that the actual presence of data is irrelevant. someone put the effort into marking out a line over years and presented it as a visual to support an argument, and it's beyond stupid.
![1385008273417[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/dGuHceX.png "1385008273417[1].png")
>>611755
So what you're saying is that there is a difference in quality of visual media based on rules and structure?
>>612027
E.P.I.C., to put it simply sir!
The purpose of the video is to forward a compelling argument and attempt to convince people that it's point of view is correct or at defensible. certain elements of the presentation may help or hinder it, which determine it's effectiveness at achieving its goal. that has no bearing on its artistic merit, but nice try. you can judge the functional aspect of something independently from its artistic merits if it indeed has both. an aesthetically gorgeous chair can still be uncomfortable as shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9iJCZ5Il8
>>610746
It's almost like being biased doesn't preclude you from being right.
>>610721
>universal standard of quality in art
as much as some of the modern art is shit this idea is just pointless
>>613098
>that vid about capitalism
Subscribed.
![homepage-miner[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/z1hSjK5.jpg "homepage-miner[1].jpg")
>>610721
>who else would spend 10 million on a rock
>>610721
It's a tourist attraction. It's art.
>>610721
>you can fix le degeneracy by not patronising galleries you never went to anyway, or by not buying art that you never bought anyway;
>or by donating to some merry band of fellow autists with a hideous website that they are oblivious to the irony of
>>613098
>...pretentious twats trying to make themselves look sophisticated....
This is from youtuber delivering a rant to camera, a photograph of the thinker the banner of his channel. it was good for a laugh, I couldn't watch much more, the shouty, autistically stilted delivery crossed from amusing to annoying. I couldn't be bothered with that larper man's video, I've seen a few before so it won't be fresh.
I see that they both conflate contemporary and modern art, though I suppose if clowns on the ersatz art board /ic/ can't get that right (and somehow conclude that there's no representational artists around), then it's probably too much to expect that youtubers will have a cursory look at wikipedia before they have a hatewank for cash.
>>613137
based lindy
>>613177
Didn't the greeks have standards for practicing artists?
>>613249
Ruins are tourist attractions, that doesn't make them art by design, or good as art.
https://vimeo.com/112655231
>>610768
in what way is he baseless?
>>611081
Because if everything is art, why should we waste time with it? boring as fuck...
Why even have a name for it?
>>613098
Very well said.
>>611068
You must be some failed artist with no skill.
>>613782
u must be a hyperautist that rejects all art that isn't strictly realist and without a clear and obvious narrative ;;;;DDDDD
>>611575
>You don't walk by yourself in a museum
Have you never been 18 and getting laid before?
>>613833
No, I'm not. I just think the artist has to have some skill.
By the way a framed picture of a 4chan post was sold for 90 000$ if memory serves correct.
>>610721
Essentially he is saying he considers art to be redundant precursor to photography. A bit like the Aristotle's physics, only of value for the historical significance.
Are contemporary art apologists really reduced to arguing "people pay for it therefore it's good?"
>>614462
where the hell has that come up in the course of the discussion? All I'm really seeing is arguments that "objective standards" don't really exist, and the continuous failure of anti-modern posters to define beauty or the importance of skill in any meaningful way.
>>611102
On rare, rare occasions they put out a video that isn't just conservative talking points, like this one that BTFOs lost causers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
For the most part you're right, though.
>>611143
>why does art need to be "about" or "not abut anything"
this is the fundamental difference between faggots and rationalists.
A 'thing' without a function is by definition pointless. It has no point. It is worthless, it has not worth, as the 'worth' of a thing is in that things ability to successfully carry out the function it was designed for.
If 'art', or anything, does not have a function - a function that was conceived before the art was created - it is worthless.
Anything without function is worthless.
Art without function is not art, it is worthless, it is shit.
And don't say 'the function of art is always changing, or the function blah blah blah' I mean that when an 'artist' makes a 'specific' piece of 'art' with no function in mind - he is making bullshit, and this is what 'modern art' broached and 'post-modern' art jerks off too.
>>616118
Why the hell does art need "value" or "worth?" don't be so utilitarian in your view of things, it's pretty pathetic. Secondly, the idea of art not "being about something" doesn't mean it lacks any function (the function of art, if it indeed has one, is probably best though of as representing some aesthetic idea), it simply means it doesn't have a core principle guiding it, eg. beauty. It can still achieve artistic aims without a singular focus or adherence to specific standards.
>>616118
More like the difference between autists and normies, but anyway; how do you define function with regards to art?
>>616118
>function
>about something
Not the same thing.
>If 'art', or anything, does not have a function - a function that was conceived before the art was created - it is worthless.
Is this some really shitty attempt at LTV?
>>614462
>Are contemporary art apologists really reduced to arguing "people pay for it therefore it's good?"
People pay for it therefore it has value to someone. It's the people that equate valuable with good that are upset they can't appreciate valuable modern art.
>>610721
>some mysterious thing happened in the 19th century where artists suddenly stopped painting hyper realistic shit
Yes, if you weren't a complete idiot, you'd know it was the invention photography. Renaissance masters used a device called a camera obscura, and painted the projected images by hand instead of it being done automatically by light sensitive chemical films.
Most modern art is bad but not all.
>>616194
>Why the hell does art need "value" or "worth?"
Very philosophic question. For me to answer that I need to know just what you think 'art' - in it's most abstract terms, is.
don't be so utilitarian in your view of things, it's pretty pathetic.
Thank you for that grown up reply.
>bla bla bla art doesn't need this or that.
I refer you back to my previous question. Answer me what you mean when you say 'art' - what it is in the most abstract sense, and I can continue. I think you think of 'art' as something profoundly different than I do.
>Is this some really shitty attempt at LTV?
whats LTV?
>>616269
Labor theory of value.
>>616263
And here is a painting of a camera obscura. It becomes immediately obvious why and how many of these painters achieved the levels of realism in their paintings, and why this form of painting was so quickly replaced by the camera.
>>616269
>Thanks for that grown up reply
Says the guy who deemed those disagreeing with his as "faggots." Truly the pinnacle of maturity and civility.
Part of the entire point of this discussion is that Art is fairly indefinable. It is practically impossible to provide a set of attributes that encompasses all of art and is not so vague as to be meaningless. I'd say the closest we could get is "anything created by humans that expresses something."
>>616303
>Part of the entire point of this discussion is that Art is fairly indefinable.
but it's not indefinable at all. It is definable. I gave a definition. Many other people have. If my personal definition is too crass let's use Merriam Websters - that is surely a third party impartial source.
The point of contention is that certain people don't like the definition so they say it is 'undefinable' to avoid being judged on their work.
In a much broader sense, anything that is 'fairly indefinable' should be viewed very dubiously at best by a rational skeptic.
>>616320
perhaps "indefinable" was a poor choice of words. What I mean to say is that it is incredibly difficult to propose a set of "standards" for art that holds up to any reasonable scrutiny and that does not rely purely on opinion, usually in an attempt to exclude stuff someone doesn't like.
>In a much broader sense, anything that is 'fairly indefinable' should be viewed very dubiously at best by a rational skeptic
If you're trying to apply this to art I think you should literally and immediately kill yourself
>>616350
>If you're trying to apply this to art I think you should literally and immediately kill yourself
level of discourse please, or you may get banned. :^)
>>616363
you're killing it in that department, partner. Please continue to not answer any questions about your terrible opinions. [spoiler];-))[/spoiler]
>>616438
>What I mean to say is that it is incredibly difficult to propose a set of "standards" for art that holds up to any reasonable scrutiny and that does not rely purely on opinion, usually in an attempt to exclude stuff someone doesn't like.
That is why function is so important - if a thing has a function it can be judged by how well that thing has accomplished the function. If a thing has not function - is it worthless and there is no judgement necessary or practical to the thing.
Now, I would happily leave the argument there. If a man shits on a piece of paper in his room and says to himself 'I am pleased with this' so be it, but when people push into the public sphere things that are worthless it is the duty of the public to judge them as worthless. Artists throw fits because the general population 'doesn't get' their art, but that isn't the case. The general population 'gets' that their art is worthless. Then the artists hide behind the
>art is impossible to impose standards on
argument because they want to shit on a piece of paper, show it to a crowd of people, and be praised. Then, on top of all this, they complain when they are not praised and say the crowd of people needs to be educated, at their own time and expense, in art, to understand the great thing the artist has just done for them.
>>616482
>projecting
No, the reason you're really mad is you don't understand why some rich guy payed them $10,000 for their shit, even though you deem it worthless.
>>610721
holy shit this guy is so fucking mad
this is exactly the value of the shittiest of modern art
>>616482
you're repeating the same shit over and over again without refining or explaining it. Things need to be "judged" and have a "function" to have "value," but why? You seem to imply it's so that society can weed out things without a value, but that's a fairly circular argument.
Furthermore, you pointing out "shit on paper" as somehow indicative of the wider conception of modern art, as well as your view of the seeming entitlement of artists, leads me to believe that you have no clue what you are talking about in terms of art and are basing your opinions off of cartoonishly simple stand up routines.
The main reason was the invention of the photograph. And yeah in some respects he is wrong.
>>616506
>No, the reason you're really mad is you don't understand why some rich guy payed them $10,000 for their shit, even though you deem it worthless.
No, I am annoyed that the rich guy and the artist hang the shit in the middle of town.
>>616535
you're repeating the same shit over and over again without refining or explaining it. Things need to be "judged" and have a "function" to have "value," but why? You seem to imply it's so that society can weed out things without a value, but that's a fairly circular argument.
I never said that art needs to be judged - just that it is. I did say my opinion on judgments of art though and what art is. What I mean by 'judge' is that people will assign value to it. Why do people assign value to things? They are compelled. Why are they compelled? Because humans desire to become better and happier at all times, and to do that they need to quantify things enough to have a rough idea in which way they are headed. Why do they do this? I believe it is irrational, a product of our nature - of the same type as our urge to reproduce.
>Furthermore, you pointing out "shit on paper" as somehow indicative of the wider conception of modern art, as well as your view of the seeming entitlement of artists, leads me to believe that you have no clue what you are talking about in terms of art and are basing your opinions off of cartoonishly simple stand up routines.
Insert whatever you want instead of 'shit on paper' if it offends you. Art is subjective everyone knows everything they need to know about art the second they see art. That is the relativist argument in a nutshell working against your statement. Cartoons are art. Stand up routines are art. Furthermore, simplicity does not affect the beauty of art in one way or the other, simplicity is simply another tool of the artist.
>>616583
I can't even parse what you're trying to say any more, it looks like you're having a stroke. except for the bottom part, where you mistake artistic merit for rhetorical ability in a case illustrated earlier in the thread that was equally embarrassing.
>>616583
>the rich guy and the artist hang the shit in the middle of town just object to public art which you are forced to observe or something?
>>616679
oops, must have knocked the mouse
>No, I am annoyed that the rich guy and the artist hang the shit in the middle of town.
Do you just object to public art that you are forced to observe or something?
>>616595
>I can't even parse what you're trying to say any more
your inability to follow logical constructions is not something I know how to fix.
>>616736
you inability to properly construct an argument so that human beings can understand what the fuck point you're trying to make is something an education could probably fix though.
>>610994
I'd watch it.
>>610746
They are but I like their video about Coolidge and Great Depression.
>>610994
I read this halfway through the video and I had to stop watching
>>610721
He sort of is. Yes the complete lack of standard in modern "art" is real and bad. but his complete dismissal of pretty much anything not classical is wrong.
There is some good modern art. What makes some art good and some bad is how they use the principles of art. Things like colour and shape and composition.
A period and type of modern art I am quite fond of, geometric abstraction, demonstrates this. When it is done right it is the distillation of of art into colours and shapes arranged in a way that for one reason or other elicits an emotional reaction.
Now I know, anything can do this. The sculpture of a police officer pissing in that video is an example. The difference is that didn't take any particular skill or imagination to make or come up with. Nor is the response a product of the elements of the sculpture, but simply the content. Good art is about making the various elements work together in a way that brings out the response the artist wanted.
>>616583
Please show me the piece of paper with shit on it in the middle of town. I think you may have mistaken the result of a hobo wiping his ass for art, a common mistake.
>>610721
This is a very euro-centric view of art....nothing but White european artists developing standards for what is beautiful art and what is "rubbish." You made some good points, though. I would say that graffiti is one of the most beautiful art forms because it is so politically fueled. Regardless, people should create whatever is they want to - no matter what it looks like. Capitalism ruined art in my opinion because it's now become about who can make the most beautiful painting or who can be the most innovative. Just create!
>>611168
That artwork honestly fills me with a sense of disgust. It's so ridiculously trashy and cliche.
>beautiful blonde maiden with flowers in her hair
>still reflective lake
>waterfalls everywhere
>mountain backdrop
>wild lilies
It's like he made a checklist of the most cliche things considered classically beautiful. All he needed to do was throw a few monarch butterflies and this piece of shit would be complete.
It's too perfect. It's tacky. It's shallow. I genuinely feel disgust looking at it, and I'm not just seeing that to sound like a pretentious faggot.
Pic related is truly beautiful. It makes even the ugly realities of our world, like dirt, weeds and death, and turns them into something breathtakingly beautiful. It doesn't ignore the ugly stuff, it raises them to a level of beauty equal to that of waterfalls and mountains. It's stunning.
But that cliche maiden painting is like a delusional fantasy of an imbecile. It's disgusting. It's a blatant lie.
I'm sorry for rambling, but that shitty painting is honestly making me angry.
>>616000
>the continuous failure of anti-modern posters to define beauty
I contend that the underlying idea of beauty is shared by traditional artists and modern so-called artists alike.
What the modern so-called artists do is: to look at what the other guys call beauty, and produce works designed to attack what the other guys call beauty.
In fact this beauty thing is perfectly understood by modern so-called artists. They don't redefine anything. They don't misunderstand anything. They don't innovate anything.
What they do is to claim that it is shit, and proceed to illustrate their allegedly revolutionary worldview by smearing the canvas with feces and other bodily fluids.
Some of the videos linked in this thread noted how modern art exhibitions' attendances is progressively decreasing.
What used to be an attack on the establishment has become the new establishment itself, eventually it will be attacked itself, then - when the following revolution occurs, be it a lightning war or a war of attrition.
The definition of beauty, however elusive and mysterious and vague it may be, did not, however, change, during this whole process of attack and restauration; and I really don't think it will in the next.
It's here to stay, kind of like that other idea, the one called God.
>>611168
LOOK AT THIS, AND FEEL THE SUBLIME AESTHETICS OVERPOWER YOU
I bet all of you postmodern bozos are pretty upset right now, huh? You mad at muh 'sthetics, bruv?
>>617369
You just had to throw god in their, didn't you?
Though I agree with you to a certain extent. Even if people struggle to put a definitive definition of beauty into words, they can still recognize it subconsciously.
>>617403
Here's another one for all you liberal hopey changey people. I just heard that this guy is giving his magical support to the Trump/Palin ticket to get more funding for Prager U. I bet all you wine dunkin Bernie supportin green tea suckin dumbdumbs are mirin us right now, huh?
I don't understand why is this even a discussion. There has never been a better time for "real" art than it is now. You can find plenty of really skilled artists working and creating today. The movie/video game/comic industries are full of them. Pic related is some piece of concept art I found somewhere on the web. It's by no means an outstanding piece of art, but it's pretty fucking neat.
Why are you people comparing old, commercial works like Mona Lisa to modern works made for expression? What's the purpose? They are two entirely different categories of art. Modern commercial art is so fucking good that it has become mundane at this point. You don't even notice it half the time.
Who cares what some fags in art galleries jerk off to? You can look up any random image from the front page of this website: https://www.artstation.com/ and have a decent chance of finding a piece that is of a high technical standard.
Art is doing fine. People who complain about 'the awful modern art' are just assholes who like to make themselves feel like they "see through the bullshit".
>>617439
>Who cares what some fags in art galleries jerk off to?
Well, I care, because I don't want 10 million $ of taxpayer money spent on a goddamned rock.
That shit belongs in dystopian science fiction novels, not THE CURRENT YEAR.
Another thing I do not get is what exactly is the problem wih photography.
Okay, I get it, photography has democratized the production of photorealistic 2D pictures. In fact anyone can produce AND REproduce any of such pictures these days. Sometimes these pictures can even move! Things are so democratic that even dogs and cats have cameras.
And democracy is bad for an élite, let alone a cultural one! Poor little art establishment! To quote one of last century's greatest thinkers: "What do we doooooo!!??"
SURVIVAL STRATEGY: we produce "art" so shitty, only some sort of Institutional Definition of Art could possibly describe it as such. It's art because it has my signature on! Because I say so!
It's not even a social construct, because if society could recognize it as art, then the exhibition's staff wouldn't accidentally throw it away with the rest of the garbage, sometimes!
By the way, is the production of 3D imagery this democratized yet? Nope. Better to listen to Sun Tzu's wise words with preparation, and whine in advance. Release the urinals! Forward!
Now I regard photography as just another art form, and artists' input on the subject as perhaps worth listening to for the purpose of producing of "better" photographs.
The reverse could also be true, with photography "improving", instead of superseding, drawing! Cross-pollination! Photo manipulators blurring the lines between photos and paintings! Vitality!
Alas! Having a personal opinion is so frowned upon in this postmodern world centered on the individual, The Age of Entitlement!
So is the art establishment's temper tantrum against the supposed evils of photography yet? Can we grow up yet? Please?
>>617554
>Alas! Having a personal opinion is so frowned upon in this postmodern world centered on the individual, The Age of Entitlement!
Aren't you contradicting yourself with this sentence, or am I just misunderstanding?
>>617585
No, the world is contradicting itself, carry on my fellow empowered citizen.
>>610721
he is wrong
things are way more complicated than what hes making it out to be
contemporary art isnt 'bad' theres people today that do all sorts of work of true quality, its just become highly diversified in styles, techniques, media, conception etc...
all the shit he talked about is technicaly true in certain examples, if you learn history of art all these things get analised and explained tho, its all about trends and overcoming dead ends, and shit like anti-academism and shock value
the real problem is that no one can realy say what art 'is' any more, it used to be basicaly a craft, you cant realy say that today, then again you could in some examples, you cant realy set 'standards of quality' since that would all be dependent on things like context, material, meaning or lack of it or function of the work etc etc
obviously there is always a circle of individuals and established institutions that define what art is this autum and which trends will be hot in spring, but that bullshit is unavoidable any way, its just a market that runs itself, setting its own walues so money can be turned ower and ower
but realy anyone with some experience or education will easily discern quality, quality of concept, work, material, use of media, use of this or that means, the overall thing, regardless if its abstract or figurative or whatever that means
any way he is oversimplifying it to absurdity
>comment too long cont...
>>617635
all that being said, he does have a point, as it is that he says these things from the position of a art proffesor as far as i understand
in the aspect he is right, in that students must recieve the basik set of knowledge and skills that technicaly enable them to perform the craft
they must learn the trade, and this means basic traditional academic stuff, both technicaly and theoreticaly, as students they are there to learn it just as if it were any other craft
later on they can spit chewed up horseshit on plexiglass and call it expression, thats their own problem, but while studying the academy/university itself has a duty to teach them the trade, concretely, as is, othervise they are just morons with a piece of paper saying they can now has into art
>>617554
If this isn't pasta I'm impressed by the cutting-edge autism.
>>617643
Art degrees are literally worthless, unless you are doing art history or planning on teaching art. No one hires an artist (possibly a graphic designer or such) based on a degree. You can go to art school, you can learn useful skills, but the degree itself is not worth much at all.
>>617454
>Well, I care, because I don't want 10 million $ of taxpayer money spent on a goddamned rock
Do you understand how flow of money works, or are you just trying to fit into the '99% Mentality' whose tax money must always be going towards the upper elite?
>>619873
Went to art school. It's worth it for the people you meet. (If you're from the middle of nowhere and get to go to school in New York, where like-minded people interested in pursuing art as a rigorous craft rather than fucking around with the presets on their photo editor.)
But otherwise, not worth it. Most of what you learn is either from your friends or from working in the industry.
Art and Science are the two principal human enterprises, but sadly Art Education these days is treated with an obnoxious emphasis on personal expression rather than the objective quality and truth conveyed in good art.
The equivalent would be if you were in a Biology Department and turned in a dissertation titled "Muskrats are Basically Beavers"
You would fail.
Sadly in the arts, both in practice and criticism, bullshit is tolerated and even encouraged. Then culture starts to suck and everyone wonders why.
