being original is not all that difficult. Being creative is originality + usefulness, now THAT's difficult.
now should we judge something as good based on its difficulty? Yes to an extent. Penn earned the big busk because few people can do his shit! He's not only original, but he can do some difficult shit.
In conclusion, yes I do think that 99% of modern artists are full of bullshit.
I'm an aspiring artist myself, and I do agree some of modern art is total bullshit, it doesn't take skill to randomly spray paint all over canvas or draw a fucking rectangle in the middle of picture, and I hate ppl saying it actually has some depth, no it doesn't, artists do this for money coming up with bullshit of excuses, but there is still some good art out there like digital art, graphics, graphic design or street art, that's actually smart and pleasing for eyes.
dont worry penn i think this is a low for the art world myself its bulshit, any1 can do it thats why but da vinci is 1 of a kind thats genius (as an example)
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHICH ONE I THOUGHT WAS THE REAL ONE CHANGE YOUR TITLE OF YOUR VID BUT I LOVE THE MILFS TOO
We did a Jackson Pollock project with my son's kindergarten class many years ago - in so much that Pollock emphasized the process, it's the perfect art project for children because kids love the process of creating and painting, even more than the final piece.
I think artists like Pollock shouldn't be introduced to aspiring artists until they have developed their own style. If you try and copy someone's style exactly, you're never going to get anywhere. Artists should learn about the basics (composition, colour, tone, and technique) before diving into styles and periods, like Pollock's drip paintings. (Also, he doesn't exactly represent modern art.)
Not that kids doing drip paintings is wrong...just don't try and pass it off as a masterpiece.
otherwise art less news shows love to produce this fuck you to art over and over; by showing a modern art child prodigy. its as if to say that any 5 year old could do it. as a society we wouldnt accept that a kid playing jumping jack flash on his daddys gibson renders the stones meaningless, but we habitually do this with modern art, to our collective discredit. for shame.
and 'music': 'SYMMETRY,' in a certain way, and 'noise' - 'discord': 'ASSYMMETRY,' in another - complete opposite, way, it is in our DNA. There exists no images of things within our minds, so we can know: scientifically - factually, not only is a cubist picture not aesthetically pleasing, but it is impossible: biophysiologically, for them to be pleasing.They: cubist pictures, are defined 'assymmetry' - 'noise, and surely you don't deny this.You can not explain why a cubist picture has validity.
@MrMikeludo - lol obviously if I like Cubism and deem it to be physically/ aesthetically pleasing to the eye as a cubist/ abstract/ surreal artist myself and an admirer of the art id have to say that there IS a "harmony" to it and that it IS possible to view it as beautiful. The fact that millions of ppl enjoy it and the fact that there are more than one style of cubism and more than one famous cubist AND the fact that cubism is heavily isnpired by geometry and primitivism in both cave art and
@MrMikeludo - african tribal art. Calling picasso a buffoon makes you look like an idiot. Google Picassos "First Communion" why would a man who could paint so realistically just jump into an art form that has "no validity" ? It obviously DOES have validity and its own rules and thought to it. Some appreciate it, and some dont. When I look at classic paintings I can respect alot of it for technichal accuracy and historical importance alone, but beyond that I dont see much innovation or creativety
@MrMikeludo - I mean classical paintings are generally good because they are very accurate and because photography wasnt available at the time so certain painters captured certain events/times through visual. But regarding subject matter and styles and creativety you have to look VERY hard to find artists who are doing something interesting. I find myself only continuously admiring Bosch and Caravaggio, because while they still made realistic/ representational art and they fit the "classic mold"
@MrMikeludo -they still made interesting works of art that were very relevant to their times as well as aesthetically stylistic and personal. Take Bosch for example, a proto surrealist living in heavily religious times who takes that situation and turns it into demons and hellfire and all of this interesting subject matter displayed in his own stylistic rendition of classic art. THAT is an artist. Ill take that over a mediocre bowl of fruit or duck pond ANYDAY. Because you can learn how to
@MrMikeludo -mimic nature realistically and harmoniously, you cannot learn how to make works of art that are both beautiful and interesting and relevant. Thats what genious is. That is why I respect Michelangelo and Da Vinci, they made beautiful, meaningful and relevant art. But even the classics arent ALL photo-realistic painters. I mean Michelangelos paintings werent photo-realistic, realistic, yes, but not photo-realistic. There was some style/ abstraction involved and thats what draws me to
@MrMikeludo -his work. Regarding cubism, you have to realize that cubism hass many different faces and places in the art world. There is the jagged analytical cubism of Georges Braque that dissects the scene and reassembles it from all directions on a monochrome level. It isnt as easy as you think it is. Then you have a more synthetic and flat approach to cubism which Picasso was very fond of, arranging shapes and lines in a representational but fragmented way. and then there are the mixed style
Doesn't it give a strange sensation of clarity to debunk your own beliefs? It might sting a little that it turns out that you're wrong about something, but I always found that just leaves more room for truth.
But I feel you, Penn. I used the think the same way about Jackson Pollock until some Art classes... They hyped him up so much in that class even though we could make work that looked JUST LIKE IT. I believe it was that initial concept, but, really, it's just splashing paint, right?
viewpoint - from point A, point B, point C simultaneously. They lied. The fact is in 1480 Leonardo da Vinci defined this exact mistake in his notes: 'It is the supreme folly of some painters to paint a scene as if being viewed from point A, and Point B, and point C simultaneously. And this mistake is to be avoided at all costs, because it causes only confusion and no beginning in the work.' Picasso cubist pictures are simply a mistake that almost everyone had made at one point in time: FACT.
@RyanDemaree Just because Pollock was able to find some people who were even more gullible than him dosn't make him a genius, it makes him an opportunist. You are correct in defining Picasso as a beast, in that his pictures are beastly: very unpleasant, and completely devoid of any intelligence whatsoever.
@RyanDemaree Did you read the caption, it aks: what is genius. What I rail against is people misrepresenting genius, especially in art, because this is what I've learned. Yes I am an artist, but an artist who has learned the facts, which you deny exists. Here's one: The only reason anyone would believe Picasso was anything but a buffoon is because some people believe when picasso painted a cubist picture, he 'invented' - 'pioneered,' a 'new kind of art/way of seeing': the 'multi-dimensional'...
@MrMikeludo - Cubism is an aestherically pleasing art form that has grown throughout the years and takes knowledge/ skills to create.
I can go in-depth about why cubism holds validity.
Try explaining to me how Guernica isnt a masterpiece from a purely aesthetic and art element point of view.
Not everything that is representational has to be realistic in order to be aesthetically pleasing or creative, but lets see you try and weasel your way out of this one
@RyanDemaree Science proves there exists no images of things within our minds, but only the:"digital language of the brain - a linear code constructs a visible object." Science also confirms:"even bacteria have a little hierarchy of likes and dislikes - they go for sugar and away from salt." Leonardo explained:"If you were to paint several points of sight - it would look discordant and wrong." What this means, is the fact human beings possess a genetic predesposition to affected by 'harmony'...
@MrMikeludo -types from cubists such as Juan Gris and Fernand Leger etc. There are plenty of cubists that I could name and individual pieces etc.
h ttp ://w ww.philippesollers. net/radio-libre.h tml
^This piece by Picasso shows the beauty of cubism and while it is representational, it isnt necissarily totally realistic. It also has surreal qualities
@MrMikeludo -Cubism is a valid and beautiful style/ form of art!
When you judge a painting or a visual scene of any kind there are only "visual elements" involved. Meaning that shapes, colors, composition etc. are really the only things that matter if you want to get technichal. Im sure you have looked at something that wasnt representational and you thought "hmm, thats kinda cool" why does everything have to be realistic or even represntational to be aesthetically pleasing?
@MrMikeludo -I mean id see Pollocks work for the most part to be decorative as most of it isnt representational or realistic at all. I see him as a hit and miss artist. Some of his work is visually pleasing due to color, composition, lines etc. This painting being a prime example of that
h tt p://w ww.ibiblio.o rg/wm/paint/auth/pollock/fathom-five/
Pollock- Full fathom five
The painting is very harmonious in context to the colors, technique and lines etc.
@RyanDemaree I appreciate you articulating your thoughts instead of name calling, I now have respect for you. Now let me tell you some things I've learned, which I believe no one else knows. Here me out and see what you think: Prior to the invention of the printing press art served 1 of 2 functions. No books means the common man masses couldn't read. The church paid artists to paint murals to teach lessons to the masses, and decorate their buildings. Wealthy aristocrats paid artists to paint...
@MrMikeludo -Ok, well I respect your opinions and ideas and ability to articulate an argument as well. I mean I can definately see why some ppl would see a huge portion of the modern art world as soul-less, talentless, effortless and invalid etc.
I by no means endorse artists such as Jeff Koons, Tracey Emins, Andy Warhol, Mark Rothko, Damien Hirst etc.
But the modern art world is full of amazing artists such as Picasso, Dali, Giger, Braque, Munch, Van Gogh, Francis Bacon, Magritte etc.
@RyanDemaree their portraits, and decorate their houses. At this point in time: 1460ish, art was NOT a noble art- artists were artisians. In 1480 Leonardo da Vinci painted a picture which is a literal visual musical equivalent - it contains a musical syntax and is the equivalent of musical notation. Art now became 'Art.' A prerequisite to cognizing this syntax is a person's ability to cognize space. we can see this ability becoming eliminated from art, from 1480 to 1880, with the elimination of.
space from art. In 1880 photography and movies were invented. Now - in 1880, the common man masses could have access to something - art - pictures, which, previously, only the wealthy could afford. So, now in 1880, some people began to tell some other people: Gertrude Stein specifically, that if they bought some thing which was both in 'color' - any color, and exactly non-representational, they could simply prove that they were proving that they were better than the old-world aristocracy and...
the common man masses: IF they simply bought these things; all non-representational art. It; proving you are a genius, is not just that easy. I spent my life involved in an analytical world, and listining to music 18 hours a day. I had a side interest in art all along. At a certain age I finally was provided with an oppurtunity to begin making art, with the intention of producing a visual musical equivalent: Unbeknownst to me I had devoloped the unique ability to see music in my mind, and...
became devoted to replicating what I could see in my mind: the music, in art - in photography. But all along I had an affinity for ALL art, and I even own some pure abstrct art, and have made some. I spent 5 years devoted to developing the visual musical equivalents, and then, finally did it. These visual musical equivalents are a mathematically verifiable function, and they are a defined concordant polyphonically structured whole, of non-tangible form geometrical equations.I began to show them.
and I was assailed by the exact same people who claimed to be the single most knowledgeable in the world. remember, Leonardo also produced one: in The Annunciation, but it is a mathematical language. if you do not know the language, you can not know it exists. i approached these people: the 'art' world, and said: 'Of course, I appreciate all art. But I think you don't know about THIS particular art - this literal musical equivalent." They assailed me - they refused to listen, they proved their..
ignorance of this irrefutable fact; This is 'math,' this is 'science,' and it is an unknown fact. I love all art - I paid a friend to paint a custom paint scheme on every door in my house, I've sold - at 'shows,' pure abstract art,I love all music. But these people: the majority of the art world, have proven their ignorance, not me. I suppose I would even like your art. But don't deny me the right which I have earned, to show my visual musical equivalent to the world, and recieve my recognition.
This is the exact thing which I take offense with: their ignorance. their unwillingness to admit that there CAN EXIST SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES WHAT THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. I don't believe this applies to you, and, also, not all the people in the art community, just a majority.
@pennpoint im sure you most likely wont read this however was just wondering if you got the name "zoltan" from the game might and magic vi as its the name one of the characters is given or is this theory of mine in your words bullshit?
Do a show on communism. And I'm talking about a scientific approach to historical materialism and to the ways marx, engels, bourdieu etc see society and how it works.
I dare you to do it and try to win ANY arguments, presented by real communists (see Slavoj Žižek)
In order for there to exist even "sound," let alone "music," there must exist some type of medium through which the sound can be propagated, such as "air." In order for a person, any person, to paint - or draw or take, a picture of "music," they must first paint -or draw or take, a picture of "air": an identifiable humanistic environment of 3-dimensional space, in which there is contained 3-dimensional people, trees and buildings. Pollock's "paintings" are the pictorial equivalent of "noise."
In 1480 Leonardo da Vinci produced the world's first, and only, visual musical equivalent. This is what enabled art to acquire the title of "Art." This visual music contains a mathematical syntax. Experiencing of this syntax requires a developed cognitive capability. A prerequisite to this is a person's ability to cognize "space." We can actually "see" this ability degenerating from 1480 to 1880, with the introduction of Picasso, and the elimination of "intelligence" in and of "Art."
I think the biggest difference is that Jackson Pollack (Maybe?) is a real, trained, practiced artist who just said "fuck it - I want $12000 for my drop-cloth" I'm actually a fan of the style - just throw some colors - frame it, and don't do any thinking if you're going to look at it. Genius? depends on the milf - you know it does.
That's actually true. the CIA promoted Modern art to places that had Communism to show the freedom artists had in america. Art during WW2 in europe was government run. see the film, "Architecture of doom" video. Russian constructivism should be a term you should look up
@reneh Yeah, you aren't the only one to feel that way. He said in one episode he was going to try and stop doing it - a resolution which seemed to last all of that episode.
Yes Pen, modern visual art is bull. People are a lot more picky about audio. If an artist sat on a piano and started banging randomly on the keyboard and said he was trying to portray angry sounds, nobody would like his song. If a guy spills acid on a canvass, sets it on a table, and sets a bag of trash next to it and says he's trying to portray the longevity of art (this is an actual high art display....) people appreciate it for some reason....
So I'm in an art gallery and I see a pile of trash on the floor, I ask the curator about it and he tells me that it is a brilliant piece of modern art created by an up and coming artist. I exit the building and begin to wonder what this artist's brilliant work is doing strewn all throughout the street.
Correction, I guess people can tell the difference between modern abstract art and the doodles of a child:
(Penn, I hope you see this) Google "A child couldn't paint that - Can people tell abstract art from a child's or chimp's work", an article from Discovery Magazine; turns out people can (60-70% of the time) discern a professional painting from a children's scribbles. Not great, but better than the 50/50 I was expecting.
I've been saying it for a while (and more-so when this type of study on art was done some years back): art is definitely bullshit. Nothing as subjective as art can have "good art" and "bad art", it's all "stuff that makes person X happy" and "stuff that doesn't make person X happy"...
Penn, have you heard of Aelita Andre? She is 4 years old and her paintings sell for $9000 a pop. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing her at work.
Modern art was interesting in questioning how we define art. That's cool. But the point has been made, and I feel that "art" like putting fluorescent light bulbs on the floor of the MoMA is lazy and uninspired. Then again, at least it got me talking about it.
@KaineSpawnX But who else is talking about it? Almost no one. No one cares about modern art because so many modern artists clearly don't care either. Like musicians showing up for a gig and playing nails on a chalkboard, or one-two notes repeating for 3 hours, or animal sounds....and wondering why everyone hates it or stops giving a shit. Because you don't! Might be clever or raise some point if it's never been done, but has almost no replay value.
@PurpleGhost I actually just watched it and then signed on here to see this video at the top of my subscriptions updates. It does get you thinking more about art, the media, and child genius/celebrity, but I didn't find it to be an altogether well done documentary. Still, I'd recommend looking up the feature that was included on the DVD, Michael Kimmelman on Art (which can be found on YT), though.
Penn, I'm a HUGE professional sports fan...yet one Bullshit episode I know you guys would've had in you and would've been great would've been the Bullshit of pro and college sports...who else would've loved to see that?
Any one can make modern art.It is NOT a matter of saying "I COULD do that" it is WHO did it. After the impressionists, arts structure slowly began to fall from the illusionistic realism into what is today Modern Art. Modern art is still art, but you CANNOT compare a Dadaist that writes a name on a urinal and says that it is art, to some one from the Rococo period that created some ornate scene. They are both forms of art, but their periods of development are what make them different.
@TypeATangent Best art teacher I ever had feared that the general public would never make it past Post-Impressionism into Cubism. After pestering him, he showed me some of his own work (he came out of Abstract Expressionism.) I said, "I dunno what the hell you're doing." He said, "I didn't expect ya to -- but at least ya ain't pissed off about it. That's why I showed it to ya."
What a gift. What a teacher. For real. He could take ya from stick figures to an integrated drawing. If you'd listen.
My favorite painter is Velasquez 2nd fave is Caravaggio. Not exactly modern artists.
That said, the art of most 5-year-olds is vastly superior to the stilted efforts of most adults -- if most adults made art at all, which they don't.
Pollock was probably on to something. I don't really understand his paintings (although they do make some sort of sense to me,) but at least he was creating art. Most adults don't. They don't even try.
Pollocks painting was sold for the highest in painting history... at the time... it was 20 million... art is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it...
Ha, I really loved this video because it kinda talked about something that I always believed.
And that is: Art and the definition of art is in the eye of the beholder.
Which is also why art critics are a joke, in my humble opinion.
And I've seen cases of this in real life stories as well. There was this story in the Danish media where a monkey at the zoo had drawn some lines on a cloth sheet.
This was shown to art critics who didn't know a monkey made it and they proclaimed it to be art.
It's not about who had the first idea. How can you prove someone's the very first? It's all about MARKETING your idea(s). And if no one before you did it, then the masses recognizes you as "the first" to have done it. Now provided you know how to promote and sell a/your character around your "product", you become famous and earn money.
I think there is a lot of bullshit in modern art. Maybe the real art is getting some big gallery to fall for the bullshit and then continuing on by making the cover of Artforum. In 500 years they'll probably call this the Bullshit Period.
But what they hey....it gives us a good laugh....and even I fall for the bullshit from time to time.
All Music and Art is totally Subjective so one mans Artist is another mans Con Artist etc etc e.g. I totally get Geurnica ! but other Picassos ? I personally think he was taking the piss out of the Art Establishment ! as for Pollock , well you said it all, its no different fom a 5yr olds version , show me some skill man ,you mentioned one of the greatest , Vermeer and he used a PinHole Camera I
Yeah, "Bullshit!" ended because they quit. IIRC, Showtime offered them a really bad renewal contract, something like 3 years exclusivity to SHO but only 1 season of episodes guaranteed, meaning a possible 2 years of no television work. They said no.
By the way, I think there's enough bullshit in "Bullshit!" to fill two episodes. ;)
Another point that I would make is that a work of art doesn't need some "official" stamp by the art police stating it to be actual art. It is what it is and if you like it then that's all that matters. It's a form of free expression like music or even speech and you can groove on it or not. Trying to define it makes it worth less than the expression itself
that is a VERY good point -- but how much has this point earned you? freedom of expression is a very good thing -- it is not however, financially viable.
i know you have to make a living etc, but seriously.? not cool.bitches would have DONATED you that much if only to keep 'bullshit' going. your vegas show = not gonna do it. pennpoint is nice and good but by itself = good show but no money.
And you're not the only one! There's the well known case of the director of the modern art museum of Moritzburg, Germany. The lady identified a certain painting as the work of Ernst Nay when it was really from Banghi, a chimpanzee from the local zoo.
I say 80 percent of modern art is bullshit. Either ppl get so tied up in the "idea" of creating original art, they lose focus of the real purpose of art; or there are just a bunch of copy cats. I remember watching an art piece video of a woman beating a wooden box with a hammer for five minutes. nuff said.
Art world is confusing. One guy paint a nice scene, and they say it's lame. Another guy draws some bullshit where badly drawn woman is crying over African continent and it's high art.
Yes, I probably can. A kindergartener would splatter paint one color after another, and the colors would bleed together into a muddled incoherent mess. Jackson Pollock let one layer of splattering dry before splattering another layer. So Pollock is actually comparable to an exceptionally patient kindergartener.
There is definitely some fucking bullshit in the art world. I have been a part of it most of my life and I can tell you some of it is wonderful but quite a bit is smoke and mirrors, and emperors new cloths.
My high school art teacher had a big hippy hardon for Jackson Pollock. The guy had to be shrooming pretty hard to find it appealing.
You QUIT "Bullshit!"? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Go for the extra special season! Make the whole thing about the bullshit of bullshit! Or just one more episode! COME ON! No more "Bullshit"? THAT'S BULLSHIT!
What separates good from bad art isn't how difficult it is to make it. Would you say that about food? Music? Love? It never occurred to me that somebody would question whether a child could make stuff that looked like Pollack's. That much seems obvious. It is virtually skill-less, but not talent-less for coming up with the idea and putting a frame around it in the first place. It could be "marketing" genius also, convincing some that THIS IS IMPORTANT.
So I'm sure I'm like the hundredth person to mention this, but one way to determine Pollocks from fakes is whether or not the painting is a fractal, or something. I haven't read into it much but this is what I have heard, just Google "Pollock fractals" and you'll get plenty of results.
all art is kind of bullshitty when you defend it, in music for example, the beatles are considered revolutionary but they were just using very simple music theory, so its not genius at all, nothing is (i mean the end product). Penn is right, its the idea, like steve vai with his "talking" guitar, its just noise with harmonics, it aint genius but the idea of using it in a song thats the genius part i think. :D or the blue men group :D
The best artists are the ones who aren't pretentious with their work. By extension, you don't take them that seriously. That way, you can enjoy what they do and not rack your brain trying to defend the validity of it. If you like it, you like it... And you don't have to explain why. I like "Hee Haw" with the same fervor as I do the Simon Bizley fantasy paintings. If I tried to defend either as art, I'd be hard pressed to do it and just end up frustrated and confused. So fuck it... and like it!
If it stirs you on an emotional level or stimulates your imagination, it's art. Art doesn't have to meet any objective criteria; that's what's so great about it, and what separates it from science.
Actually, "Jack the Dripper" was a nickname of Jack Kevorkian (because of the IV drip in his suicide machine). Coincidentally, just passed away.
By the way, I was just thinking the other day, that it would be interesting to see an Bullshit episode on Atheism. I've known a few Atheists in my time, who were about as full of shit as the religious people.
Yes Penn, that hat was totally worth the millions of dollars you spent on it XD I also don't think "modern art" should be so revered. I think the reason why it gets so much hype is because people can't understand it, so they assume there must be some deep meaning behind it. But I could paint the same thing, and give you some BS explanation and it's just as valid as any other BS explanation. Whereas images like "The Death of Marat" can't be BS'd; there's obvious, real meaning in it.
"During an interview on the January 31, 2007 episode of "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe", Teller claimed that the final episode of the show would be about "the bullshit of Bullshit!" and would detail all the criticisms that they themselves had of the show."
Why are we complaining about this?! I just got the perfect idea for a baby-sitting service... It's completely free, the only hitch is that while they're waiting for their parents or school to pick them up, we just have them hurling paint at the wall.
Jackson pollock is pop. Theres no genious behind it whatsoever and millions of artists are actually more talented than him, He Just got popular. I mean shit. You don't think Da'Vinci was the only one who could paint like that in his time do you? Its the same as in the Modern music industry. For every famous artists there are thousands with more talent that just never get the recognition they deserve.
No. Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, Pablo Picasso, Paul Klee, Roy Lichtenstein…ect. are all bullshit! They're all the Britney Spears, Hairband, and Spice Girls of the painting univers. If the idea of the painting is what makes them so great then they shouldn't have been painting and they should've been writing poetry.
Pollack is 100% pure BULLSHIT. Art fraud. He should'nt be allowed to have a so called Artistic License. Just because his crap is on large canvases still makes it large crap.
I often wonder whether I could cash in by passing off some crap as modern art. The problem with the contemporary art world is that the proof is no longer in the pudding - the difference between a genius and a charlatan is marketing, plain and simple. Real talent should stand on its own merits, not the opinions of a privileged elite.
Comment removed
Szcz00r 6 days ago
Art or crap? You know the two are not mutually exclusive...
BadMovieRealm 3 weeks ago
jackson polloackshh, i wonder how big penns misses vagina is? hahaha
ThePhil909 4 weeks ago in playlist Season 2
being original is not all that difficult. Being creative is originality + usefulness, now THAT's difficult.
now should we judge something as good based on its difficulty? Yes to an extent. Penn earned the big busk because few people can do his shit! He's not only original, but he can do some difficult shit.
In conclusion, yes I do think that 99% of modern artists are full of bullshit.
solidysnake1 4 weeks ago
@solidysnake1
I'm an aspiring artist myself, and I do agree some of modern art is total bullshit, it doesn't take skill to randomly spray paint all over canvas or draw a fucking rectangle in the middle of picture, and I hate ppl saying it actually has some depth, no it doesn't, artists do this for money coming up with bullshit of excuses, but there is still some good art out there like digital art, graphics, graphic design or street art, that's actually smart and pleasing for eyes.
Szcz00r 6 days ago
DIPPING PAINT IN A CANVAS ITS NO THE ORIGINAL DEA OF JACKSON POLLOCK ACTUALLY ITS THE IDEA OF MEXICAN OPAINTER DAVID ALFARO SIQUEIROS.
ribaye1 1 month ago
think i may aswell kill meself
MCshlthead 1 month ago in playlist Season 2
dont worry penn i think this is a low for the art world myself its bulshit, any1 can do it thats why but da vinci is 1 of a kind thats genius (as an example)
ThePhil909 2 months ago
Is this bullshit?
Back Door (Original Piano)
watch?v=BJcqx5xTURU
Mishmash (Original Piano)
watch?v=9Qcq4oxKQlo
batfly 3 months ago
Why do u need 2 cameras?
AAAAPATRICKAAAA 3 months ago
i could have done that + but you didn't = modern art
t00117598 4 months ago 2
modern art... check out "NEAR RUIN - THE MASTERPEICE"
Ofbladesfire 4 months ago
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHICH ONE I THOUGHT WAS THE REAL ONE CHANGE YOUR TITLE OF YOUR VID BUT I LOVE THE MILFS TOO
Blazinmike25420 5 months ago
Comment removed
batfly 5 months ago
I use to think Jackson Pollock was nonsense... WOW! was I an idiot!
watch?v=BJcqx5xTURU
batfly 5 months ago
Does the video have anything to do with the title of the video?
fablan6 6 months ago
We did a Jackson Pollock project with my son's kindergarten class many years ago - in so much that Pollock emphasized the process, it's the perfect art project for children because kids love the process of creating and painting, even more than the final piece.
kabloozie 6 months ago
I think artists like Pollock shouldn't be introduced to aspiring artists until they have developed their own style. If you try and copy someone's style exactly, you're never going to get anywhere. Artists should learn about the basics (composition, colour, tone, and technique) before diving into styles and periods, like Pollock's drip paintings. (Also, he doesn't exactly represent modern art.)
Not that kids doing drip paintings is wrong...just don't try and pass it off as a masterpiece.
emattbax 6 months ago
brother just said everything i feel about modern art...bunch of bull crap
dirksilver 6 months ago
choose a camera
tonysballa 6 months ago
otherwise art less news shows love to produce this fuck you to art over and over; by showing a modern art child prodigy. its as if to say that any 5 year old could do it. as a society we wouldnt accept that a kid playing jumping jack flash on his daddys gibson renders the stones meaningless, but we habitually do this with modern art, to our collective discredit. for shame.
7kurisu 7 months ago
MC ESCHER did it 1st... he did it all 1st.
Sc0rPi0n42o 7 months ago
Pollock is art. It's just crappy art.
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 7 months ago
and 'music': 'SYMMETRY,' in a certain way, and 'noise' - 'discord': 'ASSYMMETRY,' in another - complete opposite, way, it is in our DNA. There exists no images of things within our minds, so we can know: scientifically - factually, not only is a cubist picture not aesthetically pleasing, but it is impossible: biophysiologically, for them to be pleasing.They: cubist pictures, are defined 'assymmetry' - 'noise, and surely you don't deny this.You can not explain why a cubist picture has validity.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo - lol obviously if I like Cubism and deem it to be physically/ aesthetically pleasing to the eye as a cubist/ abstract/ surreal artist myself and an admirer of the art id have to say that there IS a "harmony" to it and that it IS possible to view it as beautiful. The fact that millions of ppl enjoy it and the fact that there are more than one style of cubism and more than one famous cubist AND the fact that cubism is heavily isnpired by geometry and primitivism in both cave art and
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo - african tribal art. Calling picasso a buffoon makes you look like an idiot. Google Picassos "First Communion" why would a man who could paint so realistically just jump into an art form that has "no validity" ? It obviously DOES have validity and its own rules and thought to it. Some appreciate it, and some dont. When I look at classic paintings I can respect alot of it for technichal accuracy and historical importance alone, but beyond that I dont see much innovation or creativety
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo - I mean classical paintings are generally good because they are very accurate and because photography wasnt available at the time so certain painters captured certain events/times through visual. But regarding subject matter and styles and creativety you have to look VERY hard to find artists who are doing something interesting. I find myself only continuously admiring Bosch and Caravaggio, because while they still made realistic/ representational art and they fit the "classic mold"
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -they still made interesting works of art that were very relevant to their times as well as aesthetically stylistic and personal. Take Bosch for example, a proto surrealist living in heavily religious times who takes that situation and turns it into demons and hellfire and all of this interesting subject matter displayed in his own stylistic rendition of classic art. THAT is an artist. Ill take that over a mediocre bowl of fruit or duck pond ANYDAY. Because you can learn how to
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -mimic nature realistically and harmoniously, you cannot learn how to make works of art that are both beautiful and interesting and relevant. Thats what genious is. That is why I respect Michelangelo and Da Vinci, they made beautiful, meaningful and relevant art. But even the classics arent ALL photo-realistic painters. I mean Michelangelos paintings werent photo-realistic, realistic, yes, but not photo-realistic. There was some style/ abstraction involved and thats what draws me to
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -his work. Regarding cubism, you have to realize that cubism hass many different faces and places in the art world. There is the jagged analytical cubism of Georges Braque that dissects the scene and reassembles it from all directions on a monochrome level. It isnt as easy as you think it is. Then you have a more synthetic and flat approach to cubism which Picasso was very fond of, arranging shapes and lines in a representational but fragmented way. and then there are the mixed style
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
Doesn't it give a strange sensation of clarity to debunk your own beliefs? It might sting a little that it turns out that you're wrong about something, but I always found that just leaves more room for truth.
But I feel you, Penn. I used the think the same way about Jackson Pollock until some Art classes... They hyped him up so much in that class even though we could make work that looked JUST LIKE IT. I believe it was that initial concept, but, really, it's just splashing paint, right?
SolomonAros 7 months ago
viewpoint - from point A, point B, point C simultaneously. They lied. The fact is in 1480 Leonardo da Vinci defined this exact mistake in his notes: 'It is the supreme folly of some painters to paint a scene as if being viewed from point A, and Point B, and point C simultaneously. And this mistake is to be avoided at all costs, because it causes only confusion and no beginning in the work.' Picasso cubist pictures are simply a mistake that almost everyone had made at one point in time: FACT.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
Anyone know why they quit doing bullshit?
06stephend 7 months ago
@06stephend They just ended it. They're filming a new show, Penn & Teller: Tell a Lie.
imavoidingmyblock 7 months ago
@imavoidingmyblock I just looked it up and Bullshit seems much better :( I guess time will tell if tell a lie will turn out to be any good.
06stephend 7 months ago
Pollock is a hit and miss artist
stuff like "Lavender mist"
"Full fathom five"
"Guardians of the secret"
and "No. 5"
are straight up genius. But he has some that are too simplistic for my liking.
Picasso on the other hand....is a beast
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
Im an atheist and a modern artist.....
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@RyanDemaree Just because Pollock was able to find some people who were even more gullible than him dosn't make him a genius, it makes him an opportunist. You are correct in defining Picasso as a beast, in that his pictures are beastly: very unpleasant, and completely devoid of any intelligence whatsoever.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo - Yeah, I agree...everything HAS TObe a kitten portrait or duck pond landscape in order to be considered creative or talented
Youre a fucking dumbass
bet money youre just a talentless hack that critiques/ rails gainst modern art but you arent an artist yourself
Typical d-bag
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@RyanDemaree Did you read the caption, it aks: what is genius. What I rail against is people misrepresenting genius, especially in art, because this is what I've learned. Yes I am an artist, but an artist who has learned the facts, which you deny exists. Here's one: The only reason anyone would believe Picasso was anything but a buffoon is because some people believe when picasso painted a cubist picture, he 'invented' - 'pioneered,' a 'new kind of art/way of seeing': the 'multi-dimensional'...
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo - Cubism is an aestherically pleasing art form that has grown throughout the years and takes knowledge/ skills to create.
I can go in-depth about why cubism holds validity.
Try explaining to me how Guernica isnt a masterpiece from a purely aesthetic and art element point of view.
Not everything that is representational has to be realistic in order to be aesthetically pleasing or creative, but lets see you try and weasel your way out of this one
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@RyanDemaree Science proves there exists no images of things within our minds, but only the:"digital language of the brain - a linear code constructs a visible object." Science also confirms:"even bacteria have a little hierarchy of likes and dislikes - they go for sugar and away from salt." Leonardo explained:"If you were to paint several points of sight - it would look discordant and wrong." What this means, is the fact human beings possess a genetic predesposition to affected by 'harmony'...
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -types from cubists such as Juan Gris and Fernand Leger etc. There are plenty of cubists that I could name and individual pieces etc.
h ttp ://w ww.philippesollers. net/radio-libre.h tml
^This piece by Picasso shows the beauty of cubism and while it is representational, it isnt necissarily totally realistic. It also has surreal qualities
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -Cubism is a valid and beautiful style/ form of art!
When you judge a painting or a visual scene of any kind there are only "visual elements" involved. Meaning that shapes, colors, composition etc. are really the only things that matter if you want to get technichal. Im sure you have looked at something that wasnt representational and you thought "hmm, thats kinda cool" why does everything have to be realistic or even represntational to be aesthetically pleasing?
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -I mean id see Pollocks work for the most part to be decorative as most of it isnt representational or realistic at all. I see him as a hit and miss artist. Some of his work is visually pleasing due to color, composition, lines etc. This painting being a prime example of that
h tt p://w ww.ibiblio.o rg/wm/paint/auth/pollock/fathom-five/
Pollock- Full fathom five
The painting is very harmonious in context to the colors, technique and lines etc.
Pollock isnt one of my fav
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -artists of all time, but I respect a good portion of his work.
h tt p://w ww.artquotes.n et/masters/picasso/pablo_guernica1937.ht m
^That is a masterpiece
I have defended myself thoroughly and I have plenty more to say and use in my defense.
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@RyanDemaree I appreciate you articulating your thoughts instead of name calling, I now have respect for you. Now let me tell you some things I've learned, which I believe no one else knows. Here me out and see what you think: Prior to the invention of the printing press art served 1 of 2 functions. No books means the common man masses couldn't read. The church paid artists to paint murals to teach lessons to the masses, and decorate their buildings. Wealthy aristocrats paid artists to paint...
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -Ok, well I respect your opinions and ideas and ability to articulate an argument as well. I mean I can definately see why some ppl would see a huge portion of the modern art world as soul-less, talentless, effortless and invalid etc.
I by no means endorse artists such as Jeff Koons, Tracey Emins, Andy Warhol, Mark Rothko, Damien Hirst etc.
But the modern art world is full of amazing artists such as Picasso, Dali, Giger, Braque, Munch, Van Gogh, Francis Bacon, Magritte etc.
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
@MrMikeludo -I am interested in your theory of math/ music tho
If you feel like sharing your art/ theory etc. with me let me know
Here is a link to my gallery of work
h tt p ://rev-ryan.deviantart.c om/
RyanDemaree 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
@RyanDemaree their portraits, and decorate their houses. At this point in time: 1460ish, art was NOT a noble art- artists were artisians. In 1480 Leonardo da Vinci painted a picture which is a literal visual musical equivalent - it contains a musical syntax and is the equivalent of musical notation. Art now became 'Art.' A prerequisite to cognizing this syntax is a person's ability to cognize space. we can see this ability becoming eliminated from art, from 1480 to 1880, with the elimination of.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
space from art. In 1880 photography and movies were invented. Now - in 1880, the common man masses could have access to something - art - pictures, which, previously, only the wealthy could afford. So, now in 1880, some people began to tell some other people: Gertrude Stein specifically, that if they bought some thing which was both in 'color' - any color, and exactly non-representational, they could simply prove that they were proving that they were better than the old-world aristocracy and...
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
the common man masses: IF they simply bought these things; all non-representational art. It; proving you are a genius, is not just that easy. I spent my life involved in an analytical world, and listining to music 18 hours a day. I had a side interest in art all along. At a certain age I finally was provided with an oppurtunity to begin making art, with the intention of producing a visual musical equivalent: Unbeknownst to me I had devoloped the unique ability to see music in my mind, and...
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
became devoted to replicating what I could see in my mind: the music, in art - in photography. But all along I had an affinity for ALL art, and I even own some pure abstrct art, and have made some. I spent 5 years devoted to developing the visual musical equivalents, and then, finally did it. These visual musical equivalents are a mathematically verifiable function, and they are a defined concordant polyphonically structured whole, of non-tangible form geometrical equations.I began to show them.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
and I was assailed by the exact same people who claimed to be the single most knowledgeable in the world. remember, Leonardo also produced one: in The Annunciation, but it is a mathematical language. if you do not know the language, you can not know it exists. i approached these people: the 'art' world, and said: 'Of course, I appreciate all art. But I think you don't know about THIS particular art - this literal musical equivalent." They assailed me - they refused to listen, they proved their..
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
ignorance of this irrefutable fact; This is 'math,' this is 'science,' and it is an unknown fact. I love all art - I paid a friend to paint a custom paint scheme on every door in my house, I've sold - at 'shows,' pure abstract art,I love all music. But these people: the majority of the art world, have proven their ignorance, not me. I suppose I would even like your art. But don't deny me the right which I have earned, to show my visual musical equivalent to the world, and recieve my recognition.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
This is the exact thing which I take offense with: their ignorance. their unwillingness to admit that there CAN EXIST SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES WHAT THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. I don't believe this applies to you, and, also, not all the people in the art community, just a majority.
MrMikeludo 7 months ago
@pennpoint im sure you most likely wont read this however was just wondering if you got the name "zoltan" from the game might and magic vi as its the name one of the characters is given or is this theory of mine in your words bullshit?
11fail11 7 months ago in playlist Penn Point
Alban Berg wrote some of the most human and beautiful music ever
Huddiethegreat 7 months ago
how is modern music bullshit?
Myytmovies 8 months ago
Like my Dad used to say, "If I can do it, it isn't art."
Tarkus2040 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tarkus2040 are you his six year old?
nimfenzwanner 7 months ago
Do a show on communism. And I'm talking about a scientific approach to historical materialism and to the ways marx, engels, bourdieu etc see society and how it works.
I dare you to do it and try to win ANY arguments, presented by real communists (see Slavoj Žižek)
S0ulForgeD 8 months ago
In order for there to exist even "sound," let alone "music," there must exist some type of medium through which the sound can be propagated, such as "air." In order for a person, any person, to paint - or draw or take, a picture of "music," they must first paint -or draw or take, a picture of "air": an identifiable humanistic environment of 3-dimensional space, in which there is contained 3-dimensional people, trees and buildings. Pollock's "paintings" are the pictorial equivalent of "noise."
MrMikeludo 8 months ago
In 1480 Leonardo da Vinci produced the world's first, and only, visual musical equivalent. This is what enabled art to acquire the title of "Art." This visual music contains a mathematical syntax. Experiencing of this syntax requires a developed cognitive capability. A prerequisite to this is a person's ability to cognize "space." We can actually "see" this ability degenerating from 1480 to 1880, with the introduction of Picasso, and the elimination of "intelligence" in and of "Art."
MrMikeludo 8 months ago
I think the biggest difference is that Jackson Pollack (Maybe?) is a real, trained, practiced artist who just said "fuck it - I want $12000 for my drop-cloth" I'm actually a fan of the style - just throw some colors - frame it, and don't do any thinking if you're going to look at it. Genius? depends on the milf - you know it does.
ObiWanShinobi1 8 months ago
I think I'd lose less respect for you if you said you liked Justin Bieber than Berg and Schönberg.
FreeVonHelton 8 months ago
8 years of bullshit.. why dose that sound soo familiar?? oh yea.. bush ;[
bart666a 8 months ago
@bart666a Good 1
Myytmovies 8 months ago
Man, u coulda done1 on microsoft, or pop music
hioeo 8 months ago
wait wait wait, sorry im so uninformed, but there won't be more bullshit? (well there will always be bullshit, but the show)
frosenhaka 8 months ago
what kind of hat is penn wearing?
Myytmovies 8 months ago
That's actually true. the CIA promoted Modern art to places that had Communism to show the freedom artists had in america. Art during WW2 in europe was government run. see the film, "Architecture of doom" video. Russian constructivism should be a term you should look up
FullArius 8 months ago
haha, Sun Ra is dope.
kswindl 8 months ago
does he really need to go between two cameras? it's making me feel ill.
reneh 8 months ago
@reneh Yeah, you aren't the only one to feel that way. He said in one episode he was going to try and stop doing it - a resolution which seemed to last all of that episode.
xVancha 8 months ago
"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot. "
-Salvador Dali
mjr256 8 months ago 2
Modern art is hero worship.
fleury150 8 months ago
Modern Art IS BULLSHIT...and I stand behind that statement
anteracmacash 8 months ago
Modern art? One word....Banksy
NevermoreJones 8 months ago
@NevermoreJones
kill yourself
poopyscoopy5 8 months ago
@poopyscoopy5 Convince me.
NevermoreJones 8 months ago
@NevermoreJones
no need. you are a brainwashed, lemming fan boy.
poopyscoopy5 8 months ago
@poopyscoopy5 Oh, do tell me how you came to that conclusion. I'd love the insight. Maybe there's hope for me yet.
NevermoreJones 8 months ago
@NevermoreJones
No point your circle tactics bore me. Also more people are noticing your fanboy crush's name.
poopyscoopy5 8 months ago
@poopyscoopy5 Can't say I've ever been a fanboy of ANYTHING. I just don't got it in me to be a fanatic.
"Also more people are noticing your fanboy crush's name" I do have to say that last one kinda confuses me.
NevermoreJones 8 months ago
Yes Pen, modern visual art is bull. People are a lot more picky about audio. If an artist sat on a piano and started banging randomly on the keyboard and said he was trying to portray angry sounds, nobody would like his song. If a guy spills acid on a canvass, sets it on a table, and sets a bag of trash next to it and says he's trying to portray the longevity of art (this is an actual high art display....) people appreciate it for some reason....
dvholston 8 months ago 2
So I'm in an art gallery and I see a pile of trash on the floor, I ask the curator about it and he tells me that it is a brilliant piece of modern art created by an up and coming artist. I exit the building and begin to wonder what this artist's brilliant work is doing strewn all throughout the street.
NoTroubleMikeG 8 months ago
I can't tell what is art and what is crap either. It's "The Emperor's New Clothes" to me.
tenkins 8 months ago
Correction, I guess people can tell the difference between modern abstract art and the doodles of a child:
(Penn, I hope you see this) Google "A child couldn't paint that - Can people tell abstract art from a child's or chimp's work", an article from Discovery Magazine; turns out people can (60-70% of the time) discern a professional painting from a children's scribbles. Not great, but better than the 50/50 I was expecting.
Truthiness231 8 months ago
I've been saying it for a while (and more-so when this type of study on art was done some years back): art is definitely bullshit. Nothing as subjective as art can have "good art" and "bad art", it's all "stuff that makes person X happy" and "stuff that doesn't make person X happy"...
Truthiness231 8 months ago
Wait, 8 years of bullshit? Where are the 7th and 8th season?
johnmonk66 8 months ago
nice hat :)
imperiajor 8 months ago 2
If you refuse hype, you will have an advantage over 90% of America.
azrial4421 8 months ago
4yo's for the win...
Cailwyn 8 months ago
Google "Immaterial Pictorial Sensitivity Zones". Modern art = Money for nothing and the chicks for free.
kaminarigaston 8 months ago
Penn, have you heard of Aelita Andre? She is 4 years old and her paintings sell for $9000 a pop. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing her at work.
NicolSD 8 months ago
@NicolSD
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Guncriminal 8 months ago
AWESOME JOB ON COLLEGEHUMOR!
sammiton1 8 months ago
Modern art was interesting in questioning how we define art. That's cool. But the point has been made, and I feel that "art" like putting fluorescent light bulbs on the floor of the MoMA is lazy and uninspired. Then again, at least it got me talking about it.
KaineSpawnX 8 months ago
@KaineSpawnX But who else is talking about it? Almost no one. No one cares about modern art because so many modern artists clearly don't care either. Like musicians showing up for a gig and playing nails on a chalkboard, or one-two notes repeating for 3 hours, or animal sounds....and wondering why everyone hates it or stops giving a shit. Because you don't! Might be clever or raise some point if it's never been done, but has almost no replay value.
andid 8 months ago
I always thought Modern Art was bullshit with a bunch of undeserved hype.
Now I know why, it's THE AGENCY, MAAAAAN!
blackrainuponus 8 months ago
While it would be cool for there to be a 'bullshit' about modern art, I think the movie "My Kid could paint that" is a good enough substitute.
(P.S. everyone who enjoyed this video SHOULD watch that, it's an excellent documentary, and a generally enjoyable watch.)
PurpleGhost 8 months ago
@PurpleGhost I actually just watched it and then signed on here to see this video at the top of my subscriptions updates. It does get you thinking more about art, the media, and child genius/celebrity, but I didn't find it to be an altogether well done documentary. Still, I'd recommend looking up the feature that was included on the DVD, Michael Kimmelman on Art (which can be found on YT), though.
rottworks 8 months ago
Penn, I'm a HUGE professional sports fan...yet one Bullshit episode I know you guys would've had in you and would've been great would've been the Bullshit of pro and college sports...who else would've loved to see that?
professorintellect 8 months ago
I'd have loved to have seen Penn & Teller deconstruct the cult of libertarianism and the cult of Ayn Rand.
I think they'd have had the balls to have done it, for real.
I'd still love to see'em do it.
is3it7lonar 8 months ago
Any one can make modern art.It is NOT a matter of saying "I COULD do that" it is WHO did it. After the impressionists, arts structure slowly began to fall from the illusionistic realism into what is today Modern Art. Modern art is still art, but you CANNOT compare a Dadaist that writes a name on a urinal and says that it is art, to some one from the Rococo period that created some ornate scene. They are both forms of art, but their periods of development are what make them different.
TypeATangent 8 months ago
@TypeATangent Best art teacher I ever had feared that the general public would never make it past Post-Impressionism into Cubism. After pestering him, he showed me some of his own work (he came out of Abstract Expressionism.) I said, "I dunno what the hell you're doing." He said, "I didn't expect ya to -- but at least ya ain't pissed off about it. That's why I showed it to ya."
What a gift. What a teacher. For real. He could take ya from stick figures to an integrated drawing. If you'd listen.
is3it7lonar 8 months ago
My favorite painter is Velasquez 2nd fave is Caravaggio. Not exactly modern artists.
That said, the art of most 5-year-olds is vastly superior to the stilted efforts of most adults -- if most adults made art at all, which they don't.
Pollock was probably on to something. I don't really understand his paintings (although they do make some sort of sense to me,) but at least he was creating art. Most adults don't. They don't even try.
is3it7lonar 8 months ago
Pollocks painting was sold for the highest in painting history... at the time... it was 20 million... art is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it...
stienerrecliner 8 months ago
Ha, I really loved this video because it kinda talked about something that I always believed.
And that is: Art and the definition of art is in the eye of the beholder.
Which is also why art critics are a joke, in my humble opinion.
And I've seen cases of this in real life stories as well. There was this story in the Danish media where a monkey at the zoo had drawn some lines on a cloth sheet.
This was shown to art critics who didn't know a monkey made it and they proclaimed it to be art.
kassemir 8 months ago
I would've loved to have seen you guys do a Bullshit on libertarianism.
KDakota630 8 months ago
I wish Bullshit would come back :/ I really loved that show
clownkilleristaken 8 months ago
It's not about who had the first idea. How can you prove someone's the very first? It's all about MARKETING your idea(s). And if no one before you did it, then the masses recognizes you as "the first" to have done it. Now provided you know how to promote and sell a/your character around your "product", you become famous and earn money.
Stupid money driven society.
greob 8 months ago
I think there is a lot of bullshit in modern art. Maybe the real art is getting some big gallery to fall for the bullshit and then continuing on by making the cover of Artforum. In 500 years they'll probably call this the Bullshit Period.
But what they hey....it gives us a good laugh....and even I fall for the bullshit from time to time.
brentbraniff 8 months ago
All Music and Art is totally Subjective so one mans Artist is another mans Con Artist etc etc e.g. I totally get Geurnica ! but other Picassos ? I personally think he was taking the piss out of the Art Establishment ! as for Pollock , well you said it all, its no different fom a 5yr olds version , show me some skill man ,you mentioned one of the greatest , Vermeer and he used a PinHole Camera I
brogs60 8 months ago
We should have a Draw a Jackson Pollock Painting Day!
chadd990 8 months ago
Yeah, "Bullshit!" ended because they quit. IIRC, Showtime offered them a really bad renewal contract, something like 3 years exclusivity to SHO but only 1 season of episodes guaranteed, meaning a possible 2 years of no television work. They said no.
By the way, I think there's enough bullshit in "Bullshit!" to fill two episodes. ;)
spiritmuse90210 8 months ago
Another point that I would make is that a work of art doesn't need some "official" stamp by the art police stating it to be actual art. It is what it is and if you like it then that's all that matters. It's a form of free expression like music or even speech and you can groove on it or not. Trying to define it makes it worth less than the expression itself
SuperSoylent2 8 months ago
@SuperSoylent2
that is a VERY good point -- but how much has this point earned you? freedom of expression is a very good thing -- it is not however, financially viable.
trippyay 8 months ago
@trippyay Well; they don't call them "starving artists" for nothing.
SuperSoylent2 8 months ago
"censored web address"
i know you have to make a living etc, but seriously.? not cool.bitches would have DONATED you that much if only to keep 'bullshit' going. your vegas show = not gonna do it. pennpoint is nice and good but by itself = good show but no money.
trippyay 8 months ago
God art is ANY art that you happen to like.
If you dig the paintings of a 5 year old then it's good.
SuperSoylent2 8 months ago
I'm in Australia so I'm a little behind...is Bullshit finished???
robandre1 8 months ago
6.32 for crazy laugh!
Vanbul1 8 months ago
I would have loved you to see a Bullshit! episode on libertarianism.
OolTube02 8 months ago
It's a very nice hat Penn. Money well spent.
TheBoyFromNorfolk 8 months ago
And you're not the only one! There's the well known case of the director of the modern art museum of Moritzburg, Germany. The lady identified a certain painting as the work of Ernst Nay when it was really from Banghi, a chimpanzee from the local zoo.
lasbolascriollas 8 months ago
I say 80 percent of modern art is bullshit. Either ppl get so tied up in the "idea" of creating original art, they lose focus of the real purpose of art; or there are just a bunch of copy cats. I remember watching an art piece video of a woman beating a wooden box with a hammer for five minutes. nuff said.
saibjai 8 months ago
@saibjai sexually explicit material
Kurohadol 8 months ago
modern art=
"oh I could have done that"
"yeah well he beat you to it"
punkonater 8 months ago
Wasn't it Picasso who said,
"It's taken my entire life to learn how to draw like a child."
There might be something to that.
heckler73 8 months ago
Art world is confusing. One guy paint a nice scene, and they say it's lame. Another guy draws some bullshit where badly drawn woman is crying over African continent and it's high art.
ArtypNk 8 months ago
Yes, I probably can. A kindergartener would splatter paint one color after another, and the colors would bleed together into a muddled incoherent mess. Jackson Pollock let one layer of splattering dry before splattering another layer. So Pollock is actually comparable to an exceptionally patient kindergartener.
BeefotronX 8 months ago
There is definitely some fucking bullshit in the art world. I have been a part of it most of my life and I can tell you some of it is wonderful but quite a bit is smoke and mirrors, and emperors new cloths.
nsofast 8 months ago
Nice hat, bro.
aphtj 8 months ago
My high school art teacher had a big hippy hardon for Jackson Pollock. The guy had to be shrooming pretty hard to find it appealing.
You QUIT "Bullshit!"? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Go for the extra special season! Make the whole thing about the bullshit of bullshit! Or just one more episode! COME ON! No more "Bullshit"? THAT'S BULLSHIT!
MagnusIan 8 months ago
What separates good from bad art isn't how difficult it is to make it. Would you say that about food? Music? Love? It never occurred to me that somebody would question whether a child could make stuff that looked like Pollack's. That much seems obvious. It is virtually skill-less, but not talent-less for coming up with the idea and putting a frame around it in the first place. It could be "marketing" genius also, convincing some that THIS IS IMPORTANT.
zerobeat18 8 months ago
So I'm sure I'm like the hundredth person to mention this, but one way to determine Pollocks from fakes is whether or not the painting is a fractal, or something. I haven't read into it much but this is what I have heard, just Google "Pollock fractals" and you'll get plenty of results.
fauyd 8 months ago
Some modern art is based on talent. Some modern art is based on a neat or great idea to be visually spectacular without talent.
And those with talent get pigeonholed and flounder or thrive in their birdcage if they cannot figure out how to escape.
screwypuppy 8 months ago
all art is kind of bullshitty when you defend it, in music for example, the beatles are considered revolutionary but they were just using very simple music theory, so its not genius at all, nothing is (i mean the end product). Penn is right, its the idea, like steve vai with his "talking" guitar, its just noise with harmonics, it aint genius but the idea of using it in a song thats the genius part i think. :D or the blue men group :D
TheLydianPattern 8 months ago
happy b-day, Z! Dog on.
plarfusa 8 months ago
The best artists are the ones who aren't pretentious with their work. By extension, you don't take them that seriously. That way, you can enjoy what they do and not rack your brain trying to defend the validity of it. If you like it, you like it... And you don't have to explain why. I like "Hee Haw" with the same fervor as I do the Simon Bizley fantasy paintings. If I tried to defend either as art, I'd be hard pressed to do it and just end up frustrated and confused. So fuck it... and like it!
jboyko3 8 months ago
If it stirs you on an emotional level or stimulates your imagination, it's art. Art doesn't have to meet any objective criteria; that's what's so great about it, and what separates it from science.
RationalDischarge 8 months ago
Actually, "Jack the Dripper" was a nickname of Jack Kevorkian (because of the IV drip in his suicide machine). Coincidentally, just passed away.
By the way, I was just thinking the other day, that it would be interesting to see an Bullshit episode on Atheism. I've known a few Atheists in my time, who were about as full of shit as the religious people.
ShawnRavenfire 8 months ago
Yes Penn, that hat was totally worth the millions of dollars you spent on it XD I also don't think "modern art" should be so revered. I think the reason why it gets so much hype is because people can't understand it, so they assume there must be some deep meaning behind it. But I could paint the same thing, and give you some BS explanation and it's just as valid as any other BS explanation. Whereas images like "The Death of Marat" can't be BS'd; there's obvious, real meaning in it.
S0XF0X 8 months ago
Why won't there be anymore Bullshit?
SuperRobot7 8 months ago
A sober child can paint like a drunken adult. There's a message in that... I think.
bogam 8 months ago
"During an interview on the January 31, 2007 episode of "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe", Teller claimed that the final episode of the show would be about "the bullshit of Bullshit!" and would detail all the criticisms that they themselves had of the show."
I guess that won't be happening either.
Another intelligent show bites the dust.
xVancha 8 months ago 44
@xVancha The show hasnt been cancelled yet so thus why would they have it yet? Common sense? No
cwood4ever 8 months ago
@cwood4ever Did you watch the first 3 minutes of the video?
"We never got to it, because we quit Bullshit before we got to it - moved onto the disco channel, discovery, which'll be coming up".
Cancelled? Maybe not. Finished? It seems so.
xVancha 8 months ago
@xVancha
I'm actually really sad that it's over. Maybe they'll do a bullshit "Bullshit" episode retroactively as a Showtime special.
DanieleGiorgino 8 months ago
Why are we complaining about this?! I just got the perfect idea for a baby-sitting service... It's completely free, the only hitch is that while they're waiting for their parents or school to pick them up, we just have them hurling paint at the wall.
Cyrathil 8 months ago
I wish you had done atheism because it seems like almost all famous scientists want a world government.
FightMarxism 8 months ago
the movie "local color" did a nice job making fun of them
bigmikeh1965 8 months ago
I like MILFS.
ZombiedustXXX 8 months ago 29
@ZombiedustXXX Well I casually enjoy MILFs, too.
BarbaricGoose 8 months ago
For the love of God stop switching cameras
AvengerXP 8 months ago
Jackson pollock is pop. Theres no genious behind it whatsoever and millions of artists are actually more talented than him, He Just got popular. I mean shit. You don't think Da'Vinci was the only one who could paint like that in his time do you? Its the same as in the Modern music industry. For every famous artists there are thousands with more talent that just never get the recognition they deserve.
Davek1013 8 months ago
To say "giving 5 year olds a chance to paint like jackson Pollock" assumes that jackson pollock himself didn't already paint like 5 year olds.
qtzlctl2012 8 months ago
Contemporary Art is a sect of rich motherfuckers who live on public funds. I´ve worked in two Museums, and I know why i say that ;)
jlgilesrivera 8 months ago
No. Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, Pablo Picasso, Paul Klee, Roy Lichtenstein…ect. are all bullshit! They're all the Britney Spears, Hairband, and Spice Girls of the painting univers. If the idea of the painting is what makes them so great then they shouldn't have been painting and they should've been writing poetry.
SatanistSin 8 months ago
Did I just hear that right? The guy raised as a carnie and turned millionaire is raising his kid in a uniformed private school? WTF?
onlywhenprovoked 8 months ago
@onlywhenprovoked You can guarantee that his son won't be a carnie!
Jumpinsnakes 8 months ago
@Jumpinsnakes I dunno. Two words : Paris and Hitlon. lol
onlywhenprovoked 8 months ago
Pollack is 100% pure BULLSHIT. Art fraud. He should'nt be allowed to have a so called Artistic License. Just because his crap is on large canvases still makes it large crap.
Alxscode 8 months ago
I often wonder whether I could cash in by passing off some crap as modern art. The problem with the contemporary art world is that the proof is no longer in the pudding - the difference between a genius and a charlatan is marketing, plain and simple. Real talent should stand on its own merits, not the opinions of a privileged elite.
XionXi 8 months ago 4