You can maybe measure the amount of personal style an artist has by the recognizability of his works, if you see a Picasso or an imitation of his style you associate it with him. I think art isn't there to serve an audience. Its a way of self expression, it isn't entertainment necessarily. I don't go to an art gallery to feel pleasant, I go there to admire skill, wonder about the work, relate and get all kinds of kicks, negative or positive if I am lucky. If I can't relate, too bad, not my art.
This is the last comment I will leave. For all 40 minutes I sat utterly bewildered by what you were trying to do here. Are we talking about energy transferrance of the food chain, or art? The fact that you teach artistic mediums to people is a little bit distressing. You expect the artist to do everything FOR you, with little to no thought on your part. Then you complain about not "getting it." I don't think that production artists are whores, and the term "avant-garde" is over used!Ignorance!
Mathematics cannot be applied to the artistic principles, because the principles of art have been around ever since man externalized his views onto cave walls and Math is something that we have slowly learned. You are comparing something which is engrained in human nature with something that is a product of an environment. And when referring to any Abstract Expressionist you never talk about "visible source." It is non-objective, human emotion organically created on canvas.
"Mathematics cannot be applied to artistic principles."
I disagree. Just because we (as humans) didn't know the formulas doesn't mean that they weren't true before. Men simply discovered them as truth. The golden ratio wasn't always known, but it was always in everything, which is why it was discovered, not founded.
Also, it seems to me that you're treating "art" as something divine, as if you're doing "art" for the sake of being an "artist."
What I meant is that you cannot "quantify" Modern art principles and ideas. They are not concrete objects that can be measured and weighed. It's a gut feeling and that is all it is. I would never claim that Art is any higher in its thought processes than Math or Science is, but this guy has made it sound as if artistic thought processes are LESS than mathematical ones, an unwise belief. Just because it doesn't fit into the patterned networks of math doesn't mean its not as legitimate.
I created a youtube account just to comment on this tremendous video!
What an amazingly enjoyable video. It's as if I've spent a good afternoon talking with you. Watched the entire video; thoroughly agree with your very sensible, correct and logically sound arguments; and I thoroughly enjoyed watching this.
I'm more confident that your take on this whole debate is a passionate one, and not an emotionally irrational one as others may somewhat subtly suggest.
You seem to have a bit of dirt on your web cam. You can see it when you move on your left shirt collar.
I surprised my self by watching the whole thing.
I love these videos that reek of sobriety and are very lacking in bullshit.
I've been trying to figure out that to do that would keep me awake while listening to a book in bed. Flicking through pictures is too distracting. Your excesses are perfect.
I have a fellow student in AP art, and he's kind of the big modern arts fan with brushes and acrylics slapping everywhere. I like to study study study. Last week, we had a mixed media project. He asked me what I'm doing and I said that I'm planning out my composition, and he told me, "You gotta believe that everything happens for a reason." I don't get it.
a good drawer never copies reality, thats beauty about a good drawer. The personal touch something you see in real drawings / paintings and not in a photograph. Modern art is about hmm i feel kinda mad lets trow some pain rly rly hard.. ' did u see how mad i was? ' blaargh it sucks. And then they call it inspiration. Art is 10% inspiration 90% transperation..
Modern art has very much been a response from the artistic community to the advent of photography. While I have to disagree that modern art is necessarily bad, many people have developed a misinterpretation of it that you illustrated very well here. Modern art, at it's core, is an exploration of concept and design elements as well as, to a lesser extent, the culture surrounding it.
"[Modern Art] is usually associated with art in which the traditions of the past have been thrown aside in a spirit of experimentation"
Gombrich 1958, p. 419.
Experimentation is good when you want to find new ways to do something, but without a solid grounding in "doing things the boring way", practitioners have no basis for their experiments. There's no specific discovery sought after during the experiments - and that's what's going on most of the time.
Modern Art used to be a term that reflected a movement of artists who wanted expand upon the possibilities of what could and couldn't be done with their current processes/techniques(as you explained), but now it is used almost entirely when referring to "avante-garde" art.
How people understand a term can change its meaning - for example a "quantum leap" is used to denote: "A sudden large increase or advance"
In actuality it was a scientific term used to describe the change of an electron from one quantum state to another within an atom. It's not a large change - it's probably one of the tiniest changes ever considered, although the INTRODUCTION of the theory WAS a huge advance.
So the meaning of the word was hijacked by our perception of its meaning.
That is why almost every "Famous" modern artist has been educated at an institution, with the exception of a few outsider artists, and some self-taught geniuses. Picasso was classically trained (to borrow your example) and was a master of realism before he invented cubist imagery. He discovered a style of painting never before seen.But just because the "discovery" may be illusive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Art is the gray area and you are trying to see it in High contrast Black and White.
Also, Ive always been of the opinion. That every "style" that is not realism. Is born out of the fact that the person inventing it couldnt do realism.
If that "style" is good or not have nothing to do with it.
I won't go and say that every bit of art that is produced has to be 100% photorealistic -- but things like perspective and composition should be heeded -- people should know the rules before they bend them or break them -- and always for a good reason besides "because I felt like it" or "because it's my style".
Well, there's SURREALISM, something that requires a couple of things -- enough skill to render things realistically (even though the situation itself purposely bends reality), and it also requires a planned juxtaposition of things that don't normally belong together.
What I AM against are things that are completely random or done that way completely for the purpose of forced originality.
... that it can be quite exclusionary, in that I think it can be hard to distinguish the good from the bad. Especially in the whole thing about how a piece is made (around the 10 minute mark). I would say beginning with no justification of something, then pretending it means something, is always going to produce bad art. I do think it's a mistake to put Picasso here though. He said, 'There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality...
Picasso DID have the skills to draw realistically before his descent into abstraction. Who knows? A lot of the paints that artists used back then were quite toxic - cadmium, lead, cobalt...
But then we've got these Johnny-come-lately abstract artists who think they can become the next Pablo Picasso and I think they're really doin' it for the money (and with as little effort as possible) while saying the complete opposite all the while.
Like I said: Those who buy art get what they pay for!
Tell us more! HOW is he good? I want insight from someone who sees something I don't -- not just someone who's going along with all the hype! What makes his work special?
A lot of artists and their admirers profess that you gotta be intelligent in order to understand art with deep meaning.
Well, it takes a genius to understand AND make oneself understandable to an inarticulate person.
If the Emperor of the Art World is stands in front of everyone wearing nothing and His Tailor says he's wearing a new light breathable fabric and everyone agrees -- he's still stark naked.
what i get out of picasso's work seems to be just him. hes very comfortable with his skills in forms and perspective so he can create drawings paintings and sculptings to his likings and what stimulates his eye and this may include some kind of distorted perception. picasso probably didnt care to much about what other people thought of his work. it seems your argument is based more on motive than actual procuct. i believe one should conquer the excercises first and than use them to your liking.
I'm only 11 minutes through the video so far, I will come back to finish it, I'd just rather carry on working through your excellent tutorials right now.
It makes for some interesting debate points, for sure. I'm an art student and I would say I come down on the other side of much of what you're saying. It seems that the distaste for modern art is coming from some misconceptions, and actually mistaking modern art for bad modern art. And it is one of the disadvantages of modern art, ...
You can maybe measure the amount of personal style an artist has by the recognizability of his works, if you see a Picasso or an imitation of his style you associate it with him. I think art isn't there to serve an audience. Its a way of self expression, it isn't entertainment necessarily. I don't go to an art gallery to feel pleasant, I go there to admire skill, wonder about the work, relate and get all kinds of kicks, negative or positive if I am lucky. If I can't relate, too bad, not my art.
Illuusion 9 months ago
we dont know how the sun works. thermonuclear fusion inside its core is one unverifiable theory that might or might not be wrong
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
This is the last comment I will leave. For all 40 minutes I sat utterly bewildered by what you were trying to do here. Are we talking about energy transferrance of the food chain, or art? The fact that you teach artistic mediums to people is a little bit distressing. You expect the artist to do everything FOR you, with little to no thought on your part. Then you complain about not "getting it." I don't think that production artists are whores, and the term "avant-garde" is over used!Ignorance!
chandru1103 2 years ago
Mathematics cannot be applied to the artistic principles, because the principles of art have been around ever since man externalized his views onto cave walls and Math is something that we have slowly learned. You are comparing something which is engrained in human nature with something that is a product of an environment. And when referring to any Abstract Expressionist you never talk about "visible source." It is non-objective, human emotion organically created on canvas.
chandru1103 2 years ago
"Mathematics cannot be applied to artistic principles."
I disagree. Just because we (as humans) didn't know the formulas doesn't mean that they weren't true before. Men simply discovered them as truth. The golden ratio wasn't always known, but it was always in everything, which is why it was discovered, not founded.
Also, it seems to me that you're treating "art" as something divine, as if you're doing "art" for the sake of being an "artist."
lostdenizen 2 years ago
What I meant is that you cannot "quantify" Modern art principles and ideas. They are not concrete objects that can be measured and weighed. It's a gut feeling and that is all it is. I would never claim that Art is any higher in its thought processes than Math or Science is, but this guy has made it sound as if artistic thought processes are LESS than mathematical ones, an unwise belief. Just because it doesn't fit into the patterned networks of math doesn't mean its not as legitimate.
chandru1103 2 years ago
i just wanna draw a fuckin dragon
boothesquirrel 2 years ago 3
Consummate v's.
Consummate.
moatddtutorials 2 years ago
I created a youtube account just to comment on this tremendous video!
What an amazingly enjoyable video. It's as if I've spent a good afternoon talking with you. Watched the entire video; thoroughly agree with your very sensible, correct and logically sound arguments; and I thoroughly enjoyed watching this.
I'm more confident that your take on this whole debate is a passionate one, and not an emotionally irrational one as others may somewhat subtly suggest.
Chabz88 2 years ago
Keep it up. I'm inspired, and I'm actually going to practice 'drafting', and doing the exercises you've suggested.
Had I not seen this video, I would have probably continued to be the ignoranus telling himself 'I don't want to practice, I just want to draw!' lol.
Again, great video, and I will share it with others!
God bless!
Chabz88 2 years ago
You seem to have a bit of dirt on your web cam. You can see it when you move on your left shirt collar.
I surprised my self by watching the whole thing.
I love these videos that reek of sobriety and are very lacking in bullshit.
I've been trying to figure out that to do that would keep me awake while listening to a book in bed. Flicking through pictures is too distracting. Your excesses are perfect.
I was sad to see it end so suddenly.
karkof 2 years ago
I have a fellow student in AP art, and he's kind of the big modern arts fan with brushes and acrylics slapping everywhere. I like to study study study. Last week, we had a mixed media project. He asked me what I'm doing and I said that I'm planning out my composition, and he told me, "You gotta believe that everything happens for a reason." I don't get it.
lostdenizen 3 years ago
Let Go! Be spontaneous and Let go!
chandru1103 2 years ago
Comment removed
athiria 3 years ago
a good drawer never copies reality, thats beauty about a good drawer. The personal touch something you see in real drawings / paintings and not in a photograph. Modern art is about hmm i feel kinda mad lets trow some pain rly rly hard.. ' did u see how mad i was? ' blaargh it sucks. And then they call it inspiration. Art is 10% inspiration 90% transperation..
rogierbeek 3 years ago
Comment removed
athiria 3 years ago
Comment removed
athiria 3 years ago
Comment removed
athiria 3 years ago
Thanks for all your videos. They're are helpful and motivating.
Jdemers17 3 years ago
Thank you so much for making these videos. They are infinitely helpful and I always learn something new!
coolsmek 3 years ago
Modern art has very much been a response from the artistic community to the advent of photography. While I have to disagree that modern art is necessarily bad, many people have developed a misinterpretation of it that you illustrated very well here. Modern art, at it's core, is an exploration of concept and design elements as well as, to a lesser extent, the culture surrounding it.
SnowPuma 3 years ago
"[Modern Art] is usually associated with art in which the traditions of the past have been thrown aside in a spirit of experimentation"
Gombrich 1958, p. 419.
Experimentation is good when you want to find new ways to do something, but without a solid grounding in "doing things the boring way", practitioners have no basis for their experiments. There's no specific discovery sought after during the experiments - and that's what's going on most of the time.
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
Modern Art used to be a term that reflected a movement of artists who wanted expand upon the possibilities of what could and couldn't be done with their current processes/techniques(as you explained), but now it is used almost entirely when referring to "avante-garde" art.
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
How people understand a term can change its meaning - for example a "quantum leap" is used to denote: "A sudden large increase or advance"
In actuality it was a scientific term used to describe the change of an electron from one quantum state to another within an atom. It's not a large change - it's probably one of the tiniest changes ever considered, although the INTRODUCTION of the theory WAS a huge advance.
So the meaning of the word was hijacked by our perception of its meaning.
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
That is why almost every "Famous" modern artist has been educated at an institution, with the exception of a few outsider artists, and some self-taught geniuses. Picasso was classically trained (to borrow your example) and was a master of realism before he invented cubist imagery. He discovered a style of painting never before seen.But just because the "discovery" may be illusive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Art is the gray area and you are trying to see it in High contrast Black and White.
chandru1103 2 years ago
Also, Ive always been of the opinion. That every "style" that is not realism. Is born out of the fact that the person inventing it couldnt do realism.
If that "style" is good or not have nothing to do with it.
ZombieToaster 3 years ago
I won't go and say that every bit of art that is produced has to be 100% photorealistic -- but things like perspective and composition should be heeded -- people should know the rules before they bend them or break them -- and always for a good reason besides "because I felt like it" or "because it's my style".
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
Hmm seems my other comment didnt post so here it is again.
I considder myself an artist that does a lot of modern art. But I still agree with everything you said to some degree.
I think we must have different definitions of the term modern art.
Im guessing youre talking about 100% abstract art. Something wich I dont make, or like either for that matter most of the time.
Even when I do like something so abstract, it would have to be as a background or texture for something else.
ZombieToaster 3 years ago
Well, there's SURREALISM, something that requires a couple of things -- enough skill to render things realistically (even though the situation itself purposely bends reality), and it also requires a planned juxtaposition of things that don't normally belong together.
What I AM against are things that are completely random or done that way completely for the purpose of forced originality.
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
...Anyway, it's an interesting debate for sure, and I look forward to watching the rest of the video.
evildrsimon 3 years ago
Can't wait to hear what you have to say after that.
I'll just wait 'till then.
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
... that it can be quite exclusionary, in that I think it can be hard to distinguish the good from the bad. Especially in the whole thing about how a piece is made (around the 10 minute mark). I would say beginning with no justification of something, then pretending it means something, is always going to produce bad art. I do think it's a mistake to put Picasso here though. He said, 'There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality...
evildrsimon 3 years ago
I agree. I do not like Picassos art but he was far from being a hack like the people being described.
ZombieToaster 3 years ago
Picasso DID have the skills to draw realistically before his descent into abstraction. Who knows? A lot of the paints that artists used back then were quite toxic - cadmium, lead, cobalt...
But then we've got these Johnny-come-lately abstract artists who think they can become the next Pablo Picasso and I think they're really doin' it for the money (and with as little effort as possible) while saying the complete opposite all the while.
Like I said: Those who buy art get what they pay for!
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
Ah, man can't agree with you on that one, Picasso's the sh*t!
evildrsimon 3 years ago
Tell us more! HOW is he good? I want insight from someone who sees something I don't -- not just someone who's going along with all the hype! What makes his work special?
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
Aw, look at you...you are such a bleeding heart.
slackerbrain 3 years ago
A lot of artists and their admirers profess that you gotta be intelligent in order to understand art with deep meaning.
Well, it takes a genius to understand AND make oneself understandable to an inarticulate person.
If the Emperor of the Art World is stands in front of everyone wearing nothing and His Tailor says he's wearing a new light breathable fabric and everyone agrees -- he's still stark naked.
moatddtutorials 3 years ago
what i get out of picasso's work seems to be just him. hes very comfortable with his skills in forms and perspective so he can create drawings paintings and sculptings to his likings and what stimulates his eye and this may include some kind of distorted perception. picasso probably didnt care to much about what other people thought of his work. it seems your argument is based more on motive than actual procuct. i believe one should conquer the excercises first and than use them to your liking.
christristano 2 years ago
I'm only 11 minutes through the video so far, I will come back to finish it, I'd just rather carry on working through your excellent tutorials right now.
It makes for some interesting debate points, for sure. I'm an art student and I would say I come down on the other side of much of what you're saying. It seems that the distaste for modern art is coming from some misconceptions, and actually mistaking modern art for bad modern art. And it is one of the disadvantages of modern art, ...
evildrsimon 3 years ago 2