Criteria for arts I come up with- all art should pass these criteria, like all scientific research should adhere to scientific method. Please feel free to help me improve this.
1) Hard to replicate
2) Creative- original thing that has value, purpose, and demonstrates idea
I totally agree with you. Right there with you. modern art is a purposeful assault on culture. It's one of the attempts to dumb down society and degrade the masses into uncultured pigs.
Dear Madam, I fully agree. Modern Art is bollocks!! We in the UK have the Turner prize once a year, and each time some meaningless trendy twit seems to win it with the most inane piece of crap ever conceived. The REAL William Turner would be horrified to see what his good name is now associated with. That along with Tracey Emin being chosen as the RA Professor of Drawing just makes me cringe and if I hear another thing about Damien Hirts I will scream AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!
I made a piece of "modern art" as a joke. It was a paper with "Please scroll down slowly to the bottom of the page" on the top and "Please scroll up slowly to the top of the page" on the bottom. Hence, it was infinite. And hopefully a good way to make fun of modern art.
Modern art is variously: creepy, suggestive, ugly, stale, and/or boring. It is shit, and I think your plan consisting of the decapitated dog penis and a President in effagy is a wonderful idea.
continued- it's not the artists fault, some people are attracted to the vanity or financial profit from endorsing and making this kind of art. As more people got into abstract art, they had no choice but to defend it. Because it's subjectivity, it manages to defend itself or atleast fool people into believing it. It's too subjective, it simply can not be taught. Modern is unteachable. It's a dictatorship of idea by the instructor, it's pointless.
all this abstract art nonsense comes down to is political and intellectual self-delusion. It's a political practice to demonstrate "freedom of speech" for solely freedom's sake. I don't mind people doing it, but I do mind using taxpayer's money to support nonsense art education in public universities, it seems the higher you get in education, the more nonsense in art people receive.
@JooJooBnutz Isn't that a good thing that anyone could make it? Doesn't that mean art is less elitist? And therefore more relatable to a broader audience instead of less. I think you need to rethink how you approach its context, if anyone can do it, then its perfect cause everyone has the ability to express themselves through the art context. Thats a good thing, everyone should create, so that maybe we will have less overt destruction in the world, no?
@ScrapedfromSealings just because something few people can do does not mean it is elitist. Few people can play in NBA yet millions around the world enjoy it. Who can compose a song like mozart? yet millions of people love listening to it.
@ScrapedfromSealings Naive bunkum!! Comments like that provide cover for the Crap 'Art' Establishment to keep producing such bollocks, while people with REAL skills get sidelined as old-fashioned or traditionalists.
@ScrapedfromSealings Why cant we have 'conceptual literature' where books are just filled with jumbled letters that have no meaning or sense at all. Or perhaps a book with only one letter in it, or just filled with the same letter 1,000s of times? Would YOU read or even buy one? Would you defend it as good literature? Is that not 'challenging preconceptions' about language and the meaning of words?
LMAO the stuff at the National Gallery of Art is utter shit. I guess I shouldn't be laughing since all this shit is costing innocent civilians millions of dollars a year in upkeep, but seriously, that anyone would ever consider almost any of this art is laughable.
But my jaw dropped when I saw the Library of Congress. It looked like something straight out of heaven.
Cretans! Who are you to define art? Have any of you ever created a god damned thing? Modern art is just that MODERN. If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. It's easy to put down things you don't understand.
@Oddonan If someone can derive an aesthetic experience from a can of shit, then it IS art. Art is created when someone feels an aesthetic experience from seeing, or hearing, or perceiving an object. It is not the object that creates the art. It is the experience between the object and the perceiver that art comes into being. The artist is just like a needle on a record. It doesn't make the music, it channels it. The artist channels his muse. Do you understand this?
then tell me how is it was so easy to replace the original work called "The fountain", done by Marcel Duchamp, with a replica ever since the original has been lost?
That's because its a junk.
True work can NEVER! be replace while Junks can easily be replaced.
@Oddonan WRONG! Copies of Michelangelo's David can be bought in any curio shop. Works of art can be scanned 2-D or 3-D and be replicated at the drop of a hat. I would say real junk would be hard to replicate because to me, junk makes me think of anarchy, madness, and randomness. Things tossed hither and thither without rhyme or reason. Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory, or are you a Creationist? Just curious. Maybe there's a connection. I'll tell you next time you insult me.
Yeah? I know Copies of David can found in any Curio shop and NOT! in a freaking Museum. Also, without any doubt, the copies will never be bought in freaking millions of dollars and do you want to know why? Because its fake and fake object won't be treated the same as the original.
While Marcel Duchamp's replica can found in a museum and can be sold at very high price as if like its the original.
@Oddonan Ha! The connection is that pre-modern man looked for art to show man as an image of God. After the modern period, beginning in the 19th Century art lost that anchor; that is, it ceased to be seen as vehicle for attaining the divine. Instead it seeks to be sublime. Sorry to throw all these big words at you. I recommend that you read The Meaning of Modern Art by Karsten Harries. The last time I looked, he was in the Philosophy Dept at Yale. It's a thin book. A quick read. Check it out.
@Oddonan P.S. I guess typing BULL CRAP! as a salutation is considered polite where you come from? I was raised differently. Creationists get thrown into the same pot as Hari Krishnas, by the way. To think that some humanoid dude sat down and wave his hands around and CREATED the Sun and the moon and the stars above. Well, that's insane 19th Century (pre-modern) thinking.
@Oddonan I should know better than to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed. Read the book, or any book on the philosophy or history of art, then we will talk. You didn't comprehend a word I typed. You're still hung up on the can of shit. What that says about you, I shudder to speculate. People who attack modern art, for the most part, are morons who don't know what they are talking about. Have you ever created a work of art? When was your last trip to the museum? Feh!
Modern art is insanity. I blame Picasso. Picasso couldn't draw and cubism was a cop-out that made him rich. Untalented modern artist have been trying to repeat that fiasco ever since. Yes, i've seen Picasso's early work. Yes, those are just as bad if not worse. Picasso's career is the equivalent of someone tripping into a vat of money and so the fine art scene is saturated wtih no-talent hustlers trying to sell the next cubism fad to get an easy buck. Time will cure this nonsense.
@Fuwuttevas Lmao :P You have to spit a bunch of grade-school bullshit at me to assuage your own faggotry and insecurity. You people who are shitting on the great works being made today are the same type of people who kicked Munch out the Salon, who laughed at the Impressionists who exhibited, who loudly declared that every innovation is "NOT ART"
If you're not an artist and you don't understand its intentions and the concepts that situate a piece of work, don't open your mouth and speak about it
@isolateslowfaults Faggotry? Is that even a word you pretentious idiot? You have no idea what is art. Don't you dare compare idiots like Picasso to the work of impressionists. You have no idea what your talking about. Save your bullshit for beatnick poetry readings.
@Fuwuttevas :P You called me pretentious, and yet you're the one loudly declaring that all the art made in the last century or so is nonsense. There were people just like you in every era of art, who demonized the present and lionized the past. If you'd care to listen and not be obtuse, you'd be able to learn that:
A representative image is never the thing represented. Thus the famous "This is not a Pipe." Why represent something when every image is its own reality and nothing more?
@Fuwuttevas Same thing with Picasso, about whom I'd tend to agree with you, in that I don't really care for his work. But the thrust of Cubism is extremely important. You see, human consciousness is an exclusionary process. We exclude the background in order to see the foreground. Or, similarly, we only ever see a thing from a single angle. Picasso was trying to demonstrate this in his work. All contemporary art is commentary on the nature of perspective and image, the nature of color and plane
@Fuwuttevas Now, you are right, in that the modernists loudly announced the Death of Art for so long that they ended up killing art. There is something very sadly lacking in much of the work being exhibited today; it doesn't have the depth of a Rauschenberg or the punch of a Warhol. But blame the Professors for this. Blame the people who worship the past, who look to Clement Greenberg and the Abstract Expressionists for their artistic theory
@Fuwuttevas The same thing is happening in Poetry, with these Language School poets dominating every fuckin university post. They arose as a response to the wane in Confessionalism in the generation after Lowell, Plath, and Hughes. And now we need someone to rise in response to them.
Innovation never goes backward. The wilful misinterpretation of the masters drives every generation of art. We should be pushing art forward to the next epoch of creativity, not lamely lamenting its death
@isolateslowfaults I like most of what you are saying even though Warhol was also overrated. Innovation for the sake of innovation becomes the very thing it's trying to avoid. It's stagnant. Here is an idea. Stop focusing on the artist and focus on the art. If you looked at Warhol's monroe tribute without knowing who warhol or monroe was, would you care? Of course not. REAL ART takes REAL WORK. It is NOT easily replicated. Great artist have devoted their lives to it.
@isolateslowfaults I don't mean devoting their lives in a lame kurt cobain way like Van fucking Gogh either. REAL ART is not easily replicated. I don't have to give you a list of the great masterpieces because you know them. These will be our legacy to the end of days. Modern Art is not necessary for creativity or innovation..it cheapens it. Time will cure it. Real art is immortal.
Thanks for this video, I completely agree with your critique. They just opened a new Museum of art in Tampa (my hometown) and its the same god-awful architecture. HUGE amounts of space wasted to accommodate one of those ridiculous mobiles in the main lobby. The size of the building itself is enough for a proper art museum with 4 or more floors, instead it amounts to one floor of space. The "Asch experiment" explains the underlying human psychology that makes ridiculous bullshit possible.
Anyone who calls a Calder mobile "pointless" should not make any comments about art, because for obvious reasons they are ignorant. It's like walking into an Advanced Calculus class and when you don't understand something you say it isn't Math. How much more dumb could you sound?
Oh, are you saying one must go through years of education to properly understand Calder, as if he was like understanding differential calculus? Wow, what an elitist twit you are. I'll bet you don't know the first thing about Calder, who once said, "My fan mail is enormous; everyone is under six."
Calder has nothing to do with Differential Calculus. Although you could say he was a great engineering mind to balance such large heavy metal forms so well. He is about simple beauty and the whimsy of form and movement. Hence why he liked being admired by children. Children are open-minded in the sense that they don't come with any pre-concieved notions about what art "has to be." A huge hurdle that artists have had to get over because of the bitter, like you.
@chandru1103 It's funny that you call people ignorant that you don't even know. Guess what...people don't have to be taught "beauty". They have to be taught to accept pretentious crap that is easily manufactured, though. I know a thing or two about art, try calling me ignorant. Here's a fun fact - the name "mobile" was affixed to these objects by Marcel Duchamp - most famous for the toilet he bought, sent to an exhibition, and called art.
@Rationalific Is art purely about beauty? I had no idea that art was hard-pressed by those parameters. And maybe the ease of manufacturing is , in its own right, a part of the intent of the work and something that is worth looking into as a part of how the work should be read....
@ScrapedfromSealings Art is not purely about beauty, or even skill. In fact, anything could be called art. If I bought a pair of shoes, took a dump in them, and took a blurry black-and-white photo of said shoes, could you NOT call that art? (If so, using what criteria would you disallow that from being called art?) In my own, way, that would be, because it was "unadulterated expression" on my part, and I might have even been able to "challenge your preconceptions".
@Rationalific art is anything done well. If anybody can do it, it's not done well. Being original(like circle and line painting) is not the same as being creative.
@lysol5555 I agree. GOOD art is done well. What you see right at the beginning of this video are a bunch of circles and lines...which anyone can do. Take a look at old art from 100+ years ago, as well as things like video games such as Battlefield 3, and you'll find some amazing stuff that's done extremely well by experts who practiced for years - copying methods from others, I might add - and expanding on them to get that far. Everything in this museum is utter nonsense.
@Rationalific exactly, when will people realize it?(or maybe they do, but they are unprincipled liars). The unfortunate thing is that these artists are proud of their technical incompetency. When every I talk about modern art, I get angry because I think these "artists" are nothing but con-man and scammers
@chandru1103 you are comparing this shit fucking art to advanced Calculus?? Just because you say something is hard doesn't make it so. Tell me, What the fuck is a circle and a line? Why does it deserve to be in the National Gallery. I don't give a shit if people do it in their own time, but to put it in the national gallery is a SHAME!
@lysol5555 Hello, I'm sorry I couldn't respond. But the Fascist who owns this account blocked me from sharing my opinion, which only proves their ignorance of art discourse.Yes. The work made today is the most complex work ever made by humanity. In intent and in process. Those "lines and circles" are works of minimalism, a movement about refinement of formalistic principles into a universal language of simple form and color. The work was groundbreaking for its age, hence why its in the Nat Gall.
@ScrapedfromSealings Don't compare art to Science, science is objective and academic, art is subjective and abstract art is definitely not academic. If you want to be brained wash and feel smart by liking abstract art, go ahead. Just know that it's a bunch of bullshit, and 90% of people agree.
jspen, not sure what you're talking about. The Greeks had many world views and cosmologies that range from Plato's Forms to Aristotle's experimentalism to the sophists rhetoric to Hericlitus's relativism.
You are an absolute idiot. Do you understand how a television works or an Ipod? No, but other people do. Just because you have never studied the last 100 years of art history I do not think you have the right to embarrass yourself. Robert motherwell and alexander calder are highly important and in my opinion excellent artists. You would probably say neolithic or tribal art is first grade or that a toddler could do it.
Thank God there is someone out there who can see through all the nonsense. Modern Art is "acceptable", but today it is fetishized and given its own monumental, cavernous museums with, as you've shown, mostly empty walls, while more traditional stuff is often nonexistent in some cities (SLC, San Jose, etc.) George, MFA grad 1993, painter.
Nice degree, that's about all you have. Doesn't it suck knowing you will never make anything of yourself because you are unable to step outside of your limited views of art and culture and have an original thought process?
Obviously, you've already been brainwashed by the Modern Art establishment to think that anything "original" is something that has to look patently hip and modern. Witness your ridiculous clip about Brice Marden discussing other modern artists--a dialog I am sure will have a great impact on society!
I am not a Marden fan, however I am a Newman fan and a Rothko fan, hence why it is on my page. It is nice that you are looking at my favorites I hope that you find something good in there. Maybe you will learn something. I could care less "what you've accomplished." All I see is an "artist" insulting the works of other artists in an uneducated way, (I think they cover how to critique in the first basic classes in college) MR. MFA?!? Wow, did you waste your money or what?
Chandru, if you look at my original "criticism" I only stated a fact--that modern art has BECOME the establishment standard, and that representational art is actually the kind that is having a hard time of it. I gave 2 cities where I've visited as examples. "Uneducated way"? Read what I wrote before you accuse me of knocking art I don't like as if I'm just some rube. By the way, putting "artist" in quotes for me, after I've produced hundreds of paintings over 25 years--you sound elitist.
OKAY I am really bored of you already. I insulted your intelligence as a painter and that caused you to lash out in long-winded messages. For the record I like figurative artists as well. Not all of me is of an abstract mind. Some figurative works have abstract compositions that are really great. I am blissfully ignorant of the artists you have used as an exertion of your knowledge and I would like to keep it that way. Somehow I don't see anyone you like being within my taste.
I just see myself in you 18 years ago, chandru...a 25 yr old hothead who thinks he knows everything, and thinks it's cool to be "blissfully ignorant" and yet rail against others who don't agree with him. Good luck in life. One day you'll learn.
Oh, and by the way, Thank You for the insult, chandru. Way to start a dialog! You don't even know who I am or what I've accomplished. But since you have your own You-tube page, I guess you're the more important one of us.
@furlip It's a bad time to be a "painter" using oil, tempra, whatever on canvass, or wood, or whatever. It's considered "facile" and a throwback. The world has gone digital and right now it is reveling in it. Eventually things will swing the other way and "realism" will come back. My point, if you look above, is that anything, a giant paperclip, can be a work of art (to quote Anne Sexton). Anything that makes you have an aesthetic experience is a work of art. The toilet with the bowling pin- art
Modern art is garbage. Of course they will tell you that you are ignorant, you are pointing out the obvious lack of talent and effort put into modern crap.
It is like religious people telling yme to study theology, as if I have time to study unproven assumptions.
There are no "proven" assumptions. We are small, insignificant specks with power trips. Take one look at the scientific method and you will know very rarely is anything "proven." You don't have to like the works by these artists, (that does not make you ignorant) but at least respect it as human expression albeit outside of your preference of aesthetic.
well obviously they are not proven because they are assumptions, perhaps I was being redundant and should have used the word "claims" or "assertions" instead of assumptions. Maybe I should have used "unprovable" rather than "unproven" to make myself more clear. You are right, the scientific method is about eliminating what can be proved wrong rather than proving something right.
Either way, modern art is nonsense with some supposed meaning ascribed to it by the artist. Mostly nonsense
I loved viewing the modern art shown in your video. Having visited the gallery twice, and would love to revisit. I regret that I found the mocking tone of your commentary rather immature. It has taken me many years to arrive at a more sympathetic understanding of the demanding perspectives of 20th century art. Sneering at what you do not understand will only make the task more difficult for you. Neoclassicism is a good place to start, but is ultimately sterile in its certainties. Thanks anyway.
@PGHughes "It has taken me many years to arrive at a more sympathetic understanding of the demanding perspectives of 20th century art." and "[Neoclassicism] is ultimately sterile in its certainties"
Can anyone find in this 2-year old comment the brainwashing that this user was subjected to? It's easily discernible to me. Each person has a style of speech and writing. Like some brainwashed people using Biblical phraseology to sound morally superior, this (many year) brainwashing is apparent.
weldone ur video really displays the extent of ur own ignorance! an its a shame this gallery seems to hold some fantastic experiences an here you are missin out on every single one of them,wel not everyone needs a few centuries of aproval to appreciate compellin works as you and your herd mentality obviously doif u looked with ur eyes and an openmind rather than through a camera with an insistance on inflictin upon these works ur droll and unthoughtful comentry mayb youd of gained a thing or 2
D fact that there're several different opinions doesn't mean that there's not something we can call Common Truth. in fact CT is well established globally in the universal agreement of human rights. so regardless the fact our behaviour does not always relates to this C T.............
Do we (in this information age) need a return to an objective perspective, a return to an ideology rooted in the observable universe... rooted in the truth shown us in Nature? Nature through our observation and contemplation of cosmological forces and events reveals a truth we can all agree on. A truth... every culture can discern.
I went on a school trip to an art gallery like this in grade 8. It was all white walls with some really lame "art". It pissed me right off. It made me want to pain ball the place just to relive the monotony. I actually complained... loudly. They said that we had to draw a picture of our favorite peace of art. In order to get a mark for the day, In protest, I drew the people in the room.
NOT at all classical, the ancient Greek intellect's distinguishing characteristic was that THEY supposed that the Universe worked, on a large scale, by the natural processes which they saw at work, on a small scale, around them, and which they they then used in their craft. nine 9s needs to look into a petri dish or peer through a telescope more often.
Nine9s -- You call this stuff "nonsense" and "pointless." I think you're exactly right. But is it even art? It seems like designs to me. Sometimes it's interesting and pleasant to look at -- briefly. But I really don't think that stuff inside the National Gallery is art.
Restating my opinion from seven months ago, because I watched this again to see if my opion had changed; it hadn't; I have this to say:
Classical or Modern. Liberal or Conservative. Right or Left. It's all opinion. And in the end, a select few like the art of the period, and a select few may not.
Math, in it's most complex could very well be artistic. Take random numbers and use basic algebraic equations, squish it together, and it could be aesthetically pleasing.
There are those artists, from time to time, who look to Nature in its Entirety and Infinite Wonder as a resource. Is man or nature the measure of all things nine9s?
That reminds me of an Q/A article I read on the Atlas Society's website about art. They described such things as this as "decoration," because it was meaningless beyond the fact that it looks nice (Which is actually something I cannot ascribe to what was shown in the video). Art, by contrast, not only looks nice, but conveys a message, a value, to the observer.
Yes, things can be simply aesthetic. But that is a more general use of the term "art." It does not qualify as fine art unless it has more than just a pretty aesthetic.
Because art (At least in the 'fine art' sense) is a representation of one's values, as I said above. It is a form of expressing a relatively abstract emotion or idea in such a way that it fuels the soul (Or downright depresses you, as in some works).
Simple decorations are just that: decoration. They are meant to please the eye, but nothing more. You cannot come home from a shitty day, look at your drapes, and think "this gives me the power to keep moving forward!"
That whole bit about the teacher submitting that 8 year old's work as a joke was so hilarious! Because it was BELIEVABLE! Yah..it's almost without exception, shit.
It's too bad you didn't enjoy the East building and its treasures. I was there last fall and had a very different experience, I particularly liked Andy Goldsworthy's piles of rocks inside/outside the building, the Noguchi at the East end of the building and the big steel Serra at the bottom of the stairs near the tunnel. By the way, the interior and exterior of the building are not concrete, they are Tennessee Pink marble.
to me (at this moment in time) art is communication, it's our most universal language. Modern art is also communication and sometimes the ideas come across well but the question i have is why is the artist playing chinese whispers with his/her art? It's like recording yourself saying a hundred different things and playing them all at once so that if your hearing is really good you can pick out a meaning. It just feels like the artist is appealing only to his/her elite art friends.
so imo modern art is art snobbery and if this is the evolution of art ultimately we will not even have a process or result, art will just become an idea.
there was that recent thing with the diamond encrusted skull, i bet you didn't know that the artist didn't even make it, he got some servants or ghost sculptors to make it for him.
So why dont you write something to paper and translate it to different languages? Thats just nonsense.
Iam training classical realist artist by my self. And believe me... 99% modern artist dont eaven know what they are doing. The explalations after the painting is more important than the artwork itself.
The "you are living on the past ceunturies" "you dont just understand it" stuff is coming from people who doesnt have the skill to make art and the real understanding of art.
"modern art" or the non reprensetational art is nonsense. If you bang your head million times that there is some meaning behind these color blops etc. crap. You propapbly see those meanings.
Check out Jacob Collins, Nelson Shanks, Pietro Annigoni, Daniel Graves, Grand Central Academy of Art, Florence Academy of art, Kate Lehman, William Whittaker, Anthony Ryder, Richard Schmid to see the real 20th ceuntury art, and forget the modern art (better called fashion)
Modernist theater parallels Modernist art in that it is not coherent from the standpoints we have erroneously adopted to view reality therein. Modern art is more psychological now than it has ever been, comparing the two with the idea that one is better than another is a travesty to all art.Wrap your mind around the fact that not everything adheres to your designs.
Wrap your mind around the fact that art has an identity, and that not everything that appears on the stage or gets splotched on a canvas is worthy of the name "art."
If an artwork isn't "coherent," it is incomplete. As for modern art being "psychological," all art through all time has been psychological; the only difference today is that artists seem to think that anything they emote onto a canvas is worthy of hanging in a museum. That is indeed psychological; it just isn't art.
@nine9s I have to say that this is an inherently incorrect statement. Contemporary art is absolutely not psychological. In modern art, that may have been the case. Nowadays, the representation of anything, especially the artist's interior mental state, is considered very droll and held in contempt. Rather than representing an experience, contemporary art is about creating an experience in and of itself.
You shouldn't call something nonsense because you missed the joke.
@isolateslowfaults Do you actually say things like this in public? Contemporary art is about creating an experience in and of itself. Do people think you are clever when you say this? Here's an experience for you. Go vomit blood into a old can of baked beans and shove it up your ass singing ave maria in in louvre....the joke is you.
The Library of Congress is beautiful. I'm not too far from DC, so I will have to check it out sometime. I won't check out the modern "art" /puke. Looks like it was made by mentally handicap people or children
You obviously don't know a single thing about art (period). I doubt you would be able to decode meaning from a Botticelli or a Titian, much less a modern artist who doesn't rely on simple signifiers to create meaning. There is as much complexity behind a Pollock as there is behind a Michelangelo (though be it different complexities). Perhaps, if you would bother to stretch the limits of your imagination and rational just a little this is something you would be able to grasp.
I find it incredible that you can just simply dismiss almost an entire century of art, especially one as complex and varied as the modern period with clearly very little thought. Hey, if you don't like it that's find, but don't ridicule it simply because you don't understand.
Well to start off Im a very passionate artist. Granted I myself find some modern art rediculos, not all of it is bad. I noticed you only filmed select pieces to bash. Where is Anselm Kiefer's work which has been in the lower level for over 2 years.. at least!
Didnt have courage to pick on the undeniable amazing pieces? The Library of Congress has only realism, the same picture over and over and over. Well realism was important before we had cameras to outdate the need to paint people. Give a Ethiopian kid 10 bucks and theill give you realsim lol.
People always give me this excuse about the advent of photography making representation obsolete. How often was pre-photography painting an act of journalism? Just about never.
you see all the portraits in the Lib. of congress? Actually a lot of painting acted as journalism. One example, Bruegel's work became big because it showed in a fresh original way the view that common people have.
But that same kid that can draw a paint a person perfectly cant paint something that has meaning or emotion beyond a high school level behind it or for that matter be able to clearly articulate any meaning he may come up for it. So there, thats what the artist praising realism is today. Generally every artist that becomes successful in modern art proves there capable of realism and the work shown in the Library of congress early in their careerer.
I don't care what they're "capable" of; I care about what they *do*. There's no reason why you can't have both realism and meaning--that's just another cop-out.
Everything in the Lib. of Congress was done 200 years ago or longer. Why do you think you dont see a painting there from the 2000's? or late 1900's? Many people are capable of it, but even the Lib. of Congress recognizes that realism is not crucial in current times. Also you complain about open space. I think its a beautiful piece of architecture, far more complicated then the design for the Lib. of Congress, which would be a big box.
Actually, everything in the Library of Congress was done in the 1890's, but that's beside the point. The Library was made to be a complete coherent work of art--it doesn't have *any* paintings. And you have it exactly backwards about the "big box": the art museum looked like a big box, while the Library looked like a temple.
a temple still takes the geometric shape of a square. look at the modern art museum and you clearly see the stairs form a triangular pattern. If you walk up the stair case that also took a lot of time to plan and design.
So if an ugly concrete building has stairways made of triangles rather than squares, that transforms it from a box into a superior building? Who cares about triangles vs. squares?
Wait... how can everything have been from the 1890's? So they only picked pieces from a certain year? Or did they recruit people to paint things for it? either way what your saying would mean theres nothing behind any of the pieces.
The Jefferson Building itself (main building) was made in the 1890's, and it's not a museum with paintings hanging on the wall; everything was made as part of the building. The building doesn't *house* art; it *is* the art.
You also Praise the architecture and sculptures of the Lib. of congress, and if you knew anything about even the classical art world you wold know it was all copied off of European architecture. If you did any research or were anything more then trailer trash trying to sound smart you would also know that Lib. of Congress architecture is also shit compared to Europe's. This was the most disgusting video ive watched in a while.
You obviously know nothing about the Library of Congress, for all your accusations toward me about my artistic ignorance. No one who ever saw it could call it "shit."
Of course the Library comes from European architectural traditions. Better to borrow from tradition than to have an original grey concrete box to hold your "art."
Excellent juxtaposition. While revolted, I had to laugh at the huge empty expanses of concrete...a perfect statement of the sense of life of the brain dead.
*nine9s*...et vous voilà! et bien - presque. Thanks for the tour of the 'State of the Art'
Lots of space and lots of work to look fORwARd to...a/f - 'crap, nonsense' I'll try to do better this time; at least I'm stARting with an Objective StandARd $!D
Criteria for arts I come up with- all art should pass these criteria, like all scientific research should adhere to scientific method. Please feel free to help me improve this.
1) Hard to replicate
2) Creative- original thing that has value, purpose, and demonstrates idea
3) Time investment in technique and knowledge
lysol5555 1 month ago
I totally agree with you. Right there with you. modern art is a purposeful assault on culture. It's one of the attempts to dumb down society and degrade the masses into uncultured pigs.
MsMaggieOC 2 months ago
Dear Madam, I fully agree. Modern Art is bollocks!! We in the UK have the Turner prize once a year, and each time some meaningless trendy twit seems to win it with the most inane piece of crap ever conceived. The REAL William Turner would be horrified to see what his good name is now associated with. That along with Tracey Emin being chosen as the RA Professor of Drawing just makes me cringe and if I hear another thing about Damien Hirts I will scream AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!
rossini55 2 months ago
I made a piece of "modern art" as a joke. It was a paper with "Please scroll down slowly to the bottom of the page" on the top and "Please scroll up slowly to the top of the page" on the bottom. Hence, it was infinite. And hopefully a good way to make fun of modern art.
Modern art is variously: creepy, suggestive, ugly, stale, and/or boring. It is shit, and I think your plan consisting of the decapitated dog penis and a President in effagy is a wonderful idea.
KhagarBalugrak 4 months ago
continued- it's not the artists fault, some people are attracted to the vanity or financial profit from endorsing and making this kind of art. As more people got into abstract art, they had no choice but to defend it. Because it's subjectivity, it manages to defend itself or atleast fool people into believing it. It's too subjective, it simply can not be taught. Modern is unteachable. It's a dictatorship of idea by the instructor, it's pointless.
lysol5555 7 months ago
all this abstract art nonsense comes down to is political and intellectual self-delusion. It's a political practice to demonstrate "freedom of speech" for solely freedom's sake. I don't mind people doing it, but I do mind using taxpayer's money to support nonsense art education in public universities, it seems the higher you get in education, the more nonsense in art people receive.
lysol5555 7 months ago
@JooJooBnutz Isn't that a good thing that anyone could make it? Doesn't that mean art is less elitist? And therefore more relatable to a broader audience instead of less. I think you need to rethink how you approach its context, if anyone can do it, then its perfect cause everyone has the ability to express themselves through the art context. Thats a good thing, everyone should create, so that maybe we will have less overt destruction in the world, no?
ScrapedfromSealings 8 months ago
@ScrapedfromSealings just because something few people can do does not mean it is elitist. Few people can play in NBA yet millions around the world enjoy it. Who can compose a song like mozart? yet millions of people love listening to it.
lysol5555 8 months ago
@lysol5555 Yeah but those NBA players actually have REAL SKILL. Ever heard of a 'conceptual' NBA player?
rossini55 2 months ago
@ScrapedfromSealings Naive bunkum!! Comments like that provide cover for the Crap 'Art' Establishment to keep producing such bollocks, while people with REAL skills get sidelined as old-fashioned or traditionalists.
rossini55 2 months ago
@ScrapedfromSealings Why cant we have 'conceptual literature' where books are just filled with jumbled letters that have no meaning or sense at all. Or perhaps a book with only one letter in it, or just filled with the same letter 1,000s of times? Would YOU read or even buy one? Would you defend it as good literature? Is that not 'challenging preconceptions' about language and the meaning of words?
rossini55 2 months ago
LMAO the stuff at the National Gallery of Art is utter shit. I guess I shouldn't be laughing since all this shit is costing innocent civilians millions of dollars a year in upkeep, but seriously, that anyone would ever consider almost any of this art is laughable.
But my jaw dropped when I saw the Library of Congress. It looked like something straight out of heaven.
KhagarBalugrak 9 months ago
Search - "NEAR RUIN - THE MASTERPEICE" Its a song about modern art.
Ofbladesfire 11 months ago
Cretans! Who are you to define art? Have any of you ever created a god damned thing? Modern art is just that MODERN. If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. It's easy to put down things you don't understand.
russkie69 1 year ago
@russkie69
yeah
label it the word "modern" and you can make shit in can into art.
Oddonan 11 months ago
@Oddonan If someone can derive an aesthetic experience from a can of shit, then it IS art. Art is created when someone feels an aesthetic experience from seeing, or hearing, or perceiving an object. It is not the object that creates the art. It is the experience between the object and the perceiver that art comes into being. The artist is just like a needle on a record. It doesn't make the music, it channels it. The artist channels his muse. Do you understand this?
russkie69 11 months ago
@russkie69
BULL CRAP!
then tell me how is it was so easy to replace the original work called "The fountain", done by Marcel Duchamp, with a replica ever since the original has been lost?
That's because its a junk.
True work can NEVER! be replace while Junks can easily be replaced.
Oddonan 11 months ago
@Oddonan WRONG! Copies of Michelangelo's David can be bought in any curio shop. Works of art can be scanned 2-D or 3-D and be replicated at the drop of a hat. I would say real junk would be hard to replicate because to me, junk makes me think of anarchy, madness, and randomness. Things tossed hither and thither without rhyme or reason. Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory, or are you a Creationist? Just curious. Maybe there's a connection. I'll tell you next time you insult me.
russkie69 11 months ago
@russkie69
Yeah? I know Copies of David can found in any Curio shop and NOT! in a freaking Museum. Also, without any doubt, the copies will never be bought in freaking millions of dollars and do you want to know why? Because its fake and fake object won't be treated the same as the original.
While Marcel Duchamp's replica can found in a museum and can be sold at very high price as if like its the original.
I believe in Big Bang? and I never insulted you.
Oddonan 11 months ago
@Oddonan Ha! The connection is that pre-modern man looked for art to show man as an image of God. After the modern period, beginning in the 19th Century art lost that anchor; that is, it ceased to be seen as vehicle for attaining the divine. Instead it seeks to be sublime. Sorry to throw all these big words at you. I recommend that you read The Meaning of Modern Art by Karsten Harries. The last time I looked, he was in the Philosophy Dept at Yale. It's a thin book. A quick read. Check it out.
russkie69 11 months ago
@Oddonan P.S. I guess typing BULL CRAP! as a salutation is considered polite where you come from? I was raised differently. Creationists get thrown into the same pot as Hari Krishnas, by the way. To think that some humanoid dude sat down and wave his hands around and CREATED the Sun and the moon and the stars above. Well, that's insane 19th Century (pre-modern) thinking.
russkie69 11 months ago
@russkie69
Hehe.
Your funny.
You got offended from the word "Bull crap" and the same time you have no problem someone derive an aesthetic experience from a can of shit?
Again, I am not creationist and what does creationist vs big bang has anything to do with modern art?
Oddonan 11 months ago
@Oddonan I should know better than to get into a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed. Read the book, or any book on the philosophy or history of art, then we will talk. You didn't comprehend a word I typed. You're still hung up on the can of shit. What that says about you, I shudder to speculate. People who attack modern art, for the most part, are morons who don't know what they are talking about. Have you ever created a work of art? When was your last trip to the museum? Feh!
russkie69 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@russkie69
May I ask you a simple question?
What is not an Art?(from your own point of view)
Oddonan 11 months ago
Modern art is insanity. I blame Picasso. Picasso couldn't draw and cubism was a cop-out that made him rich. Untalented modern artist have been trying to repeat that fiasco ever since. Yes, i've seen Picasso's early work. Yes, those are just as bad if not worse. Picasso's career is the equivalent of someone tripping into a vat of money and so the fine art scene is saturated wtih no-talent hustlers trying to sell the next cubism fad to get an easy buck. Time will cure this nonsense.
Fuwuttevas 1 year ago
@Fuwuttevas Lmao :P You have to spit a bunch of grade-school bullshit at me to assuage your own faggotry and insecurity. You people who are shitting on the great works being made today are the same type of people who kicked Munch out the Salon, who laughed at the Impressionists who exhibited, who loudly declared that every innovation is "NOT ART"
If you're not an artist and you don't understand its intentions and the concepts that situate a piece of work, don't open your mouth and speak about it
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
@isolateslowfaults Faggotry? Is that even a word you pretentious idiot? You have no idea what is art. Don't you dare compare idiots like Picasso to the work of impressionists. You have no idea what your talking about. Save your bullshit for beatnick poetry readings.
Fuwuttevas 1 year ago
@Fuwuttevas :P You called me pretentious, and yet you're the one loudly declaring that all the art made in the last century or so is nonsense. There were people just like you in every era of art, who demonized the present and lionized the past. If you'd care to listen and not be obtuse, you'd be able to learn that:
A representative image is never the thing represented. Thus the famous "This is not a Pipe." Why represent something when every image is its own reality and nothing more?
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
@Fuwuttevas Same thing with Picasso, about whom I'd tend to agree with you, in that I don't really care for his work. But the thrust of Cubism is extremely important. You see, human consciousness is an exclusionary process. We exclude the background in order to see the foreground. Or, similarly, we only ever see a thing from a single angle. Picasso was trying to demonstrate this in his work. All contemporary art is commentary on the nature of perspective and image, the nature of color and plane
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
@Fuwuttevas Now, you are right, in that the modernists loudly announced the Death of Art for so long that they ended up killing art. There is something very sadly lacking in much of the work being exhibited today; it doesn't have the depth of a Rauschenberg or the punch of a Warhol. But blame the Professors for this. Blame the people who worship the past, who look to Clement Greenberg and the Abstract Expressionists for their artistic theory
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
@Fuwuttevas The same thing is happening in Poetry, with these Language School poets dominating every fuckin university post. They arose as a response to the wane in Confessionalism in the generation after Lowell, Plath, and Hughes. And now we need someone to rise in response to them.
Innovation never goes backward. The wilful misinterpretation of the masters drives every generation of art. We should be pushing art forward to the next epoch of creativity, not lamely lamenting its death
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
@isolateslowfaults I like most of what you are saying even though Warhol was also overrated. Innovation for the sake of innovation becomes the very thing it's trying to avoid. It's stagnant. Here is an idea. Stop focusing on the artist and focus on the art. If you looked at Warhol's monroe tribute without knowing who warhol or monroe was, would you care? Of course not. REAL ART takes REAL WORK. It is NOT easily replicated. Great artist have devoted their lives to it.
Fuwuttevas 1 year ago 5
@isolateslowfaults I don't mean devoting their lives in a lame kurt cobain way like Van fucking Gogh either. REAL ART is not easily replicated. I don't have to give you a list of the great masterpieces because you know them. These will be our legacy to the end of days. Modern Art is not necessary for creativity or innovation..it cheapens it. Time will cure it. Real art is immortal.
Fuwuttevas 1 year ago
mmm what is better the incredible art of the modern genius or the copying of the europian 19thcentury architecture?
diffficult chice
scalemodellingtips 1 year ago
Comment removed
adeadlyn3rotoxin11 1 year ago
Thanks for this video, I completely agree with your critique. They just opened a new Museum of art in Tampa (my hometown) and its the same god-awful architecture. HUGE amounts of space wasted to accommodate one of those ridiculous mobiles in the main lobby. The size of the building itself is enough for a proper art museum with 4 or more floors, instead it amounts to one floor of space. The "Asch experiment" explains the underlying human psychology that makes ridiculous bullshit possible.
Undech01 1 year ago
I like this kind of modern art. I enjoy looking at it.
persontruthbeauty 1 year ago
Anyone who calls a Calder mobile "pointless" should not make any comments about art, because for obvious reasons they are ignorant. It's like walking into an Advanced Calculus class and when you don't understand something you say it isn't Math. How much more dumb could you sound?
chandru1103 2 years ago
Oh, are you saying one must go through years of education to properly understand Calder, as if he was like understanding differential calculus? Wow, what an elitist twit you are. I'll bet you don't know the first thing about Calder, who once said, "My fan mail is enormous; everyone is under six."
Advanced Calculus indeed.
furlip 2 years ago
Calder has nothing to do with Differential Calculus. Although you could say he was a great engineering mind to balance such large heavy metal forms so well. He is about simple beauty and the whimsy of form and movement. Hence why he liked being admired by children. Children are open-minded in the sense that they don't come with any pre-concieved notions about what art "has to be." A huge hurdle that artists have had to get over because of the bitter, like you.
chandru1103 2 years ago
@chandru1103 It's funny that you call people ignorant that you don't even know. Guess what...people don't have to be taught "beauty". They have to be taught to accept pretentious crap that is easily manufactured, though. I know a thing or two about art, try calling me ignorant. Here's a fun fact - the name "mobile" was affixed to these objects by Marcel Duchamp - most famous for the toilet he bought, sent to an exhibition, and called art.
The mobile, though, was the best thing in there.
Rationalific 9 months ago
@Rationalific Is art purely about beauty? I had no idea that art was hard-pressed by those parameters. And maybe the ease of manufacturing is , in its own right, a part of the intent of the work and something that is worth looking into as a part of how the work should be read....
ScrapedfromSealings 8 months ago
@ScrapedfromSealings Art is not purely about beauty, or even skill. In fact, anything could be called art. If I bought a pair of shoes, took a dump in them, and took a blurry black-and-white photo of said shoes, could you NOT call that art? (If so, using what criteria would you disallow that from being called art?) In my own, way, that would be, because it was "unadulterated expression" on my part, and I might have even been able to "challenge your preconceptions".
Is that good art? No.
Rationalific 8 months ago
@Rationalific art is anything done well. If anybody can do it, it's not done well. Being original(like circle and line painting) is not the same as being creative.
lysol5555 4 months ago
@lysol5555 I agree. GOOD art is done well. What you see right at the beginning of this video are a bunch of circles and lines...which anyone can do. Take a look at old art from 100+ years ago, as well as things like video games such as Battlefield 3, and you'll find some amazing stuff that's done extremely well by experts who practiced for years - copying methods from others, I might add - and expanding on them to get that far. Everything in this museum is utter nonsense.
Rationalific 4 months ago
@Rationalific exactly, when will people realize it?(or maybe they do, but they are unprincipled liars). The unfortunate thing is that these artists are proud of their technical incompetency. When every I talk about modern art, I get angry because I think these "artists" are nothing but con-man and scammers
lysol5555 4 months ago
@lysol5555 We're completely on the same page.
Rationalific 4 months ago
@chandru1103 you are comparing this shit fucking art to advanced Calculus?? Just because you say something is hard doesn't make it so. Tell me, What the fuck is a circle and a line? Why does it deserve to be in the National Gallery. I don't give a shit if people do it in their own time, but to put it in the national gallery is a SHAME!
lysol5555 8 months ago
@lysol5555 Hello, I'm sorry I couldn't respond. But the Fascist who owns this account blocked me from sharing my opinion, which only proves their ignorance of art discourse.Yes. The work made today is the most complex work ever made by humanity. In intent and in process. Those "lines and circles" are works of minimalism, a movement about refinement of formalistic principles into a universal language of simple form and color. The work was groundbreaking for its age, hence why its in the Nat Gall.
ScrapedfromSealings 8 months ago
@ScrapedfromSealings Don't compare art to Science, science is objective and academic, art is subjective and abstract art is definitely not academic. If you want to be brained wash and feel smart by liking abstract art, go ahead. Just know that it's a bunch of bullshit, and 90% of people agree.
lysol5555 8 months ago
jspen, not sure what you're talking about. The Greeks had many world views and cosmologies that range from Plato's Forms to Aristotle's experimentalism to the sophists rhetoric to Hericlitus's relativism.
courtabeth 2 years ago
You are an absolute idiot. Do you understand how a television works or an Ipod? No, but other people do. Just because you have never studied the last 100 years of art history I do not think you have the right to embarrass yourself. Robert motherwell and alexander calder are highly important and in my opinion excellent artists. You would probably say neolithic or tribal art is first grade or that a toddler could do it.
murrchops 2 years ago
If you have no words to explains what you like 5:06 ... for sure your crap comments about art have nothing to say
tallerdefreddy 2 years ago
Thank God there is someone out there who can see through all the nonsense. Modern Art is "acceptable", but today it is fetishized and given its own monumental, cavernous museums with, as you've shown, mostly empty walls, while more traditional stuff is often nonexistent in some cities (SLC, San Jose, etc.) George, MFA grad 1993, painter.
furlip 2 years ago
Nice degree, that's about all you have. Doesn't it suck knowing you will never make anything of yourself because you are unable to step outside of your limited views of art and culture and have an original thought process?
chandru1103 2 years ago 2
Obviously, you've already been brainwashed by the Modern Art establishment to think that anything "original" is something that has to look patently hip and modern. Witness your ridiculous clip about Brice Marden discussing other modern artists--a dialog I am sure will have a great impact on society!
furlip 2 years ago
I am not a Marden fan, however I am a Newman fan and a Rothko fan, hence why it is on my page. It is nice that you are looking at my favorites I hope that you find something good in there. Maybe you will learn something. I could care less "what you've accomplished." All I see is an "artist" insulting the works of other artists in an uneducated way, (I think they cover how to critique in the first basic classes in college) MR. MFA?!? Wow, did you waste your money or what?
chandru1103 2 years ago
Chandru, if you look at my original "criticism" I only stated a fact--that modern art has BECOME the establishment standard, and that representational art is actually the kind that is having a hard time of it. I gave 2 cities where I've visited as examples. "Uneducated way"? Read what I wrote before you accuse me of knocking art I don't like as if I'm just some rube. By the way, putting "artist" in quotes for me, after I've produced hundreds of paintings over 25 years--you sound elitist.
furlip 2 years ago
OKAY I am really bored of you already. I insulted your intelligence as a painter and that caused you to lash out in long-winded messages. For the record I like figurative artists as well. Not all of me is of an abstract mind. Some figurative works have abstract compositions that are really great. I am blissfully ignorant of the artists you have used as an exertion of your knowledge and I would like to keep it that way. Somehow I don't see anyone you like being within my taste.
chandru1103 2 years ago
I just see myself in you 18 years ago, chandru...a 25 yr old hothead who thinks he knows everything, and thinks it's cool to be "blissfully ignorant" and yet rail against others who don't agree with him. Good luck in life. One day you'll learn.
furlip 2 years ago
Oh, and by the way, Thank You for the insult, chandru. Way to start a dialog! You don't even know who I am or what I've accomplished. But since you have your own You-tube page, I guess you're the more important one of us.
furlip 2 years ago
@furlip It's a bad time to be a "painter" using oil, tempra, whatever on canvass, or wood, or whatever. It's considered "facile" and a throwback. The world has gone digital and right now it is reveling in it. Eventually things will swing the other way and "realism" will come back. My point, if you look above, is that anything, a giant paperclip, can be a work of art (to quote Anne Sexton). Anything that makes you have an aesthetic experience is a work of art. The toilet with the bowling pin- art
russkie69 11 months ago
Modern art is garbage. Of course they will tell you that you are ignorant, you are pointing out the obvious lack of talent and effort put into modern crap.
It is like religious people telling yme to study theology, as if I have time to study unproven assumptions.
Elasaltaculos 3 years ago
There are no "proven" assumptions. We are small, insignificant specks with power trips. Take one look at the scientific method and you will know very rarely is anything "proven." You don't have to like the works by these artists, (that does not make you ignorant) but at least respect it as human expression albeit outside of your preference of aesthetic.
chandru1103 2 years ago
well obviously they are not proven because they are assumptions, perhaps I was being redundant and should have used the word "claims" or "assertions" instead of assumptions. Maybe I should have used "unprovable" rather than "unproven" to make myself more clear. You are right, the scientific method is about eliminating what can be proved wrong rather than proving something right.
Either way, modern art is nonsense with some supposed meaning ascribed to it by the artist. Mostly nonsense
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
I loved viewing the modern art shown in your video. Having visited the gallery twice, and would love to revisit. I regret that I found the mocking tone of your commentary rather immature. It has taken me many years to arrive at a more sympathetic understanding of the demanding perspectives of 20th century art. Sneering at what you do not understand will only make the task more difficult for you. Neoclassicism is a good place to start, but is ultimately sterile in its certainties. Thanks anyway.
PGHughes 3 years ago 2
@PGHughes "It has taken me many years to arrive at a more sympathetic understanding of the demanding perspectives of 20th century art." and "[Neoclassicism] is ultimately sterile in its certainties"
Can anyone find in this 2-year old comment the brainwashing that this user was subjected to? It's easily discernible to me. Each person has a style of speech and writing. Like some brainwashed people using Biblical phraseology to sound morally superior, this (many year) brainwashing is apparent.
Rationalific 9 months ago
didnt anyone tell you straight lines are inhuman
AFreeThinker999 3 years ago 2
weldone ur video really displays the extent of ur own ignorance! an its a shame this gallery seems to hold some fantastic experiences an here you are missin out on every single one of them,wel not everyone needs a few centuries of aproval to appreciate compellin works as you and your herd mentality obviously doif u looked with ur eyes and an openmind rather than through a camera with an insistance on inflictin upon these works ur droll and unthoughtful comentry mayb youd of gained a thing or 2
rock82171 3 years ago 2
all the pieces are shit
andreex89 3 years ago
D fact that there're several different opinions doesn't mean that there's not something we can call Common Truth. in fact CT is well established globally in the universal agreement of human rights. so regardless the fact our behaviour does not always relates to this C T.............
martinsamuelian 3 years ago
"A truth we can all agree on, a truth every culture can discern" -- for example, that taste is subjective?
bscottb8 3 years ago
Do we (in this information age) need a return to an objective perspective, a return to an ideology rooted in the observable universe... rooted in the truth shown us in Nature? Nature through our observation and contemplation of cosmological forces and events reveals a truth we can all agree on. A truth... every culture can discern.
jspen2 3 years ago
well you sound like a professional. ha! You should go buy so paints, i agree, then put up your work and we'll critique it. //j
slaytonj5 3 years ago
I went on a school trip to an art gallery like this in grade 8. It was all white walls with some really lame "art". It pissed me right off. It made me want to pain ball the place just to relive the monotony. I actually complained... loudly. They said that we had to draw a picture of our favorite peace of art. In order to get a mark for the day, In protest, I drew the people in the room.
FactVsReligion 3 years ago
So you have a classical temperament,so what?
courtabeth 3 years ago
NOT at all classical, the ancient Greek intellect's distinguishing characteristic was that THEY supposed that the Universe worked, on a large scale, by the natural processes which they saw at work, on a small scale, around them, and which they they then used in their craft. nine 9s needs to look into a petri dish or peer through a telescope more often.
jspen2 3 years ago
Nine9s -- You call this stuff "nonsense" and "pointless." I think you're exactly right. But is it even art? It seems like designs to me. Sometimes it's interesting and pleasant to look at -- briefly. But I really don't think that stuff inside the National Gallery is art.
Good video!
PureLiberalChallenge 3 years ago
Comment removed
standards09 3 years ago
"it seems to be challanging her, so therefore it seems to be art"
It's precisely the lack of anything that could be remotely challenging that pisses me off about what passes as "art" here.
BTW, "challenging" is not the definition of art. I've done some pretty challenging math problems, but math is not art.
nine9s 3 years ago
Restating my opinion from seven months ago, because I watched this again to see if my opion had changed; it hadn't; I have this to say:
Classical or Modern. Liberal or Conservative. Right or Left. It's all opinion. And in the end, a select few like the art of the period, and a select few may not.
Math, in it's most complex could very well be artistic. Take random numbers and use basic algebraic equations, squish it together, and it could be aesthetically pleasing.
Or not.
Personality.
MitsuyoshiJubei 3 years ago
There are those artists, from time to time, who look to Nature in its Entirety and Infinite Wonder as a resource. Is man or nature the measure of all things nine9s?
jspen2 3 years ago
That reminds me of an Q/A article I read on the Atlas Society's website about art. They described such things as this as "decoration," because it was meaningless beyond the fact that it looks nice (Which is actually something I cannot ascribe to what was shown in the video). Art, by contrast, not only looks nice, but conveys a message, a value, to the observer.
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
The above is meant as a reply to PureLiberalChallenge's comment. Youtube's comment system seems to dislike me.
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
"Art, by contrast, not only looks nice, but conveys a message, a value, to the observer."
not necessarily, art can simply be the attainment of an aesthetic. Van Gogh Sunflowers?
AFreeThinker999 3 years ago
Yes, things can be simply aesthetic. But that is a more general use of the term "art." It does not qualify as fine art unless it has more than just a pretty aesthetic.
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
why?
AFreeThinker999 3 years ago
Because art (At least in the 'fine art' sense) is a representation of one's values, as I said above. It is a form of expressing a relatively abstract emotion or idea in such a way that it fuels the soul (Or downright depresses you, as in some works).
Simple decorations are just that: decoration. They are meant to please the eye, but nothing more. You cannot come home from a shitty day, look at your drapes, and think "this gives me the power to keep moving forward!"
Sarrisan98 3 years ago 2
intriguing
AFreeThinker999 3 years ago
That whole bit about the teacher submitting that 8 year old's work as a joke was so hilarious! Because it was BELIEVABLE! Yah..it's almost without exception, shit.
nosavage25 3 years ago
It's too bad you didn't enjoy the East building and its treasures. I was there last fall and had a very different experience, I particularly liked Andy Goldsworthy's piles of rocks inside/outside the building, the Noguchi at the East end of the building and the big steel Serra at the bottom of the stairs near the tunnel. By the way, the interior and exterior of the building are not concrete, they are Tennessee Pink marble.
jwca 3 years ago
to me (at this moment in time) art is communication, it's our most universal language. Modern art is also communication and sometimes the ideas come across well but the question i have is why is the artist playing chinese whispers with his/her art? It's like recording yourself saying a hundred different things and playing them all at once so that if your hearing is really good you can pick out a meaning. It just feels like the artist is appealing only to his/her elite art friends.
User89620 4 years ago 2
so imo modern art is art snobbery and if this is the evolution of art ultimately we will not even have a process or result, art will just become an idea.
there was that recent thing with the diamond encrusted skull, i bet you didn't know that the artist didn't even make it, he got some servants or ghost sculptors to make it for him.
User89620 4 years ago
So why dont you write something to paper and translate it to different languages? Thats just nonsense.
Iam training classical realist artist by my self. And believe me... 99% modern artist dont eaven know what they are doing. The explalations after the painting is more important than the artwork itself.
The "you are living on the past ceunturies" "you dont just understand it" stuff is coming from people who doesnt have the skill to make art and the real understanding of art.
baretul 4 years ago 2
"modern art" or the non reprensetational art is nonsense. If you bang your head million times that there is some meaning behind these color blops etc. crap. You propapbly see those meanings.
Check out Jacob Collins, Nelson Shanks, Pietro Annigoni, Daniel Graves, Grand Central Academy of Art, Florence Academy of art, Kate Lehman, William Whittaker, Anthony Ryder, Richard Schmid to see the real 20th ceuntury art, and forget the modern art (better called fashion)
baretul 4 years ago
So there they are: the objective, objectivist, true truths about contemporary art and neoclassical architecture. Or maybe just your tastes.
matowana 4 years ago
If you understood various other forms of art (perhaps the artistries that involve no mediums ie Theater)you would understand Modern art.
MitsuyoshiJubei 4 years ago
Modernist theater parallels Modernist art in that it is not coherent from the standpoints we have erroneously adopted to view reality therein. Modern art is more psychological now than it has ever been, comparing the two with the idea that one is better than another is a travesty to all art.Wrap your mind around the fact that not everything adheres to your designs.
MitsuyoshiJubei 4 years ago
Wrap your mind around the fact that art has an identity, and that not everything that appears on the stage or gets splotched on a canvas is worthy of the name "art."
If an artwork isn't "coherent," it is incomplete. As for modern art being "psychological," all art through all time has been psychological; the only difference today is that artists seem to think that anything they emote onto a canvas is worthy of hanging in a museum. That is indeed psychological; it just isn't art.
nine9s 4 years ago
@nine9s I have to say that this is an inherently incorrect statement. Contemporary art is absolutely not psychological. In modern art, that may have been the case. Nowadays, the representation of anything, especially the artist's interior mental state, is considered very droll and held in contempt. Rather than representing an experience, contemporary art is about creating an experience in and of itself.
You shouldn't call something nonsense because you missed the joke.
isolateslowfaults 1 year ago
@isolateslowfaults Do you actually say things like this in public? Contemporary art is about creating an experience in and of itself. Do people think you are clever when you say this? Here's an experience for you. Go vomit blood into a old can of baked beans and shove it up your ass singing ave maria in in louvre....the joke is you.
Fuwuttevas 1 year ago
The Library of Congress is beautiful. I'm not too far from DC, so I will have to check it out sometime. I won't check out the modern "art" /puke. Looks like it was made by mentally handicap people or children
PursuitOfReality 4 years ago
You obviously don't know a single thing about art (period). I doubt you would be able to decode meaning from a Botticelli or a Titian, much less a modern artist who doesn't rely on simple signifiers to create meaning. There is as much complexity behind a Pollock as there is behind a Michelangelo (though be it different complexities). Perhaps, if you would bother to stretch the limits of your imagination and rational just a little this is something you would be able to grasp.
Zensidd 4 years ago
I find it incredible that you can just simply dismiss almost an entire century of art, especially one as complex and varied as the modern period with clearly very little thought. Hey, if you don't like it that's find, but don't ridicule it simply because you don't understand.
Zensidd 4 years ago
Well to start off Im a very passionate artist. Granted I myself find some modern art rediculos, not all of it is bad. I noticed you only filmed select pieces to bash. Where is Anselm Kiefer's work which has been in the lower level for over 2 years.. at least!
enigmaticunraveled 4 years ago
"I noticed you only filmed select pieces to bash."
I hope you're not expecting me to film the whole museum. I don't have the necessary time, interest, or tendencies towards masochism.
nine9s 4 years ago
Didnt have courage to pick on the undeniable amazing pieces? The Library of Congress has only realism, the same picture over and over and over. Well realism was important before we had cameras to outdate the need to paint people. Give a Ethiopian kid 10 bucks and theill give you realsim lol.
enigmaticunraveled 4 years ago
People always give me this excuse about the advent of photography making representation obsolete. How often was pre-photography painting an act of journalism? Just about never.
nine9s 4 years ago
you see all the portraits in the Lib. of congress? Actually a lot of painting acted as journalism. One example, Bruegel's work became big because it showed in a fresh original way the view that common people have.
enigmaticunraveled 4 years ago
You either don't know what a portrait is or you're pretending to know what is and is not inside the Library.
nine9s 4 years ago
But that same kid that can draw a paint a person perfectly cant paint something that has meaning or emotion beyond a high school level behind it or for that matter be able to clearly articulate any meaning he may come up for it. So there, thats what the artist praising realism is today. Generally every artist that becomes successful in modern art proves there capable of realism and the work shown in the Library of congress early in their careerer.
enigmaticunraveled 4 years ago
I don't care what they're "capable" of; I care about what they *do*. There's no reason why you can't have both realism and meaning--that's just another cop-out.
nine9s 4 years ago
Everything in the Lib. of Congress was done 200 years ago or longer. Why do you think you dont see a painting there from the 2000's? or late 1900's? Many people are capable of it, but even the Lib. of Congress recognizes that realism is not crucial in current times. Also you complain about open space. I think its a beautiful piece of architecture, far more complicated then the design for the Lib. of Congress, which would be a big box.
enigmaticunraveled 4 years ago
Actually, everything in the Library of Congress was done in the 1890's, but that's beside the point. The Library was made to be a complete coherent work of art--it doesn't have *any* paintings. And you have it exactly backwards about the "big box": the art museum looked like a big box, while the Library looked like a temple.
nine9s 4 years ago
a temple still takes the geometric shape of a square. look at the modern art museum and you clearly see the stairs form a triangular pattern. If you walk up the stair case that also took a lot of time to plan and design.
enigmaticunraveled 4 years ago
So if an ugly concrete building has stairways made of triangles rather than squares, that transforms it from a box into a superior building? Who cares about triangles vs. squares?
nine9s 4 years ago
Wait... how can everything have been from the 1890's? So they only picked pieces from a certain year? Or did they recruit people to paint things for it? either way what your saying would mean theres nothing behind any of the pieces.
enigmaticunraveled 4 years ago
The Jefferson Building itself (main building) was made in the 1890's, and it's not a museum with paintings hanging on the wall; everything was made as part of the building. The building doesn't *house* art; it *is* the art.
nine9s 4 years ago
You also Praise the architecture and sculptures of the Lib. of congress, and if you knew anything about even the classical art world you wold know it was all copied off of European architecture. If you did any research or were anything more then trailer trash trying to sound smart you would also know that Lib. of Congress architecture is also shit compared to Europe's. This was the most disgusting video ive watched in a while.
enigmaticunraveled 4 years ago
You obviously know nothing about the Library of Congress, for all your accusations toward me about my artistic ignorance. No one who ever saw it could call it "shit."
Of course the Library comes from European architectural traditions. Better to borrow from tradition than to have an original grey concrete box to hold your "art."
nine9s 4 years ago
I'm an artist and noone liked that shit in my art classes.
PursuitOfReality 4 years ago
The Library of Congress seems to have PWNED the Modern Art Nonsense.
savagemike90 4 years ago
That place would make a great shopping Mall
WarVideo 4 years ago 2
P.S.: I added your video to the Objectivists group on youtube.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Woo-hoo! I'm part of the club!
nine9s 4 years ago
Excellent juxtaposition. While revolted, I had to laugh at the huge empty expanses of concrete...a perfect statement of the sense of life of the brain dead.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago 2
*nine9s*...et vous voilà! et bien - presque. Thanks for the tour of the 'State of the Art'
Lots of space and lots of work to look fORwARd to...a/f - 'crap, nonsense' I'll try to do better this time; at least I'm stARting with an Objective StandARd $!D
politEgoEgonomics 4 years ago