JUST GOT TO "aesthetic underground"! THANKS FOR SAVING ME MISTER SHITBIRD. THAT NEW ART IS SO WEIRD AND IT KEEPS LOOKING AT ME FUNNY. Keep making me laugh you masturbating idiot.
I too hate all new things, we should have stuck to the first good painting ever created, and we could keep painting copies of it. I agree that culture and society should be static so I don't hurt my brain. No statements from the artist either, vile beasts that they are! Your definition of beauty isn't too limited, just the oxygen in your brain.
Someone should write a book on the aesthetic underground. 'The Aesthetic Underground: the the alternative history of modern art' would be a good title for it. I don't think we should let the abstractionists and anti-aesthetes have the word 'modern' as it implies that all else is only for the past, and that's bogus. They hardly deserve the word 'art', either.
i think these videos pose some interesting questions but the fact is scott burdick is a blowhard and his own art (which he snuck a few pictures of in the slideshow) sucks Big Big dick.... moving on
Burdicks opinions DO mean something! If experienced painters do not offer opinions, then who will provide leadership?Most would agree that our culture is artistically in a bit of a nose dive.Scott's obligated to offer up what he's learned through experience.What frustrates a lot of artists is inexperienced people being allowed to take leadership roles and make decisions about the direction art will take.Art critics today do not have the experience to critique anything beyond a superficial level.
cont'd... The root of the problem IMO is that we're dealing with art in an economic and aestethic setting instead of acknowledging it as simply exististing, and therefore worthy of its existence. All art IMO, if it has to have a qualifier or description, should be from the creator of the work and limited to one sentence which reads " I made this because..." and leave it at that. thanks for the videos though
watched the first video and half of this before I started getting annoyed. I agree with a lot of your assessment but what it really comes down to is that your opinions mean nothing, nor does mine or anyone elses. you have no authority to say what is beautiful in an absolute sense, and you don't have the authority to say that all art must be "beautiful".
There is a very simple answer to it - the museums' collections represent often nothing but personal curators' tastes in art - be it in classic or impressionist, expressionist, deco, nouveau, suprematist, cubist, fauvist, utilitarian, bauhaus or any of the newer variety postmodern art.
I think that the great explosion in the number of artworks is nothing but a result of accessibility of tools and great quantity of free time, many people who shouldn't have ever touched a paintbrush or a pencil
While I am a big fan fo 19th century painting and also of contemp painters like burdick, schmid,lipking etc I do not understand why Scott doesnt see that lots of "the good work" he shows is just pure unadulterated kitsch. I admire the painting skills of these people, but the topics are just total repetition of what has already been done a billion times.
You might say that the topics are total repetition,.until you own one.Then it becomes that unique painting that you cannot do without, and actually changes the feeling or mood in any room in which it's displayed.Subject matter is secondary,..compostion is the key.They are all unique and original and have never been done before.The undertstanding of representational work that you display is typical of the general viewing public and is exactly the mindset that frustrated James Whistler to no end.
I would email you but other viewers may want to know. For anyone that wants to find out other pictures in these videos, use tineye.com and remember that Google is your friend :)
I paint and I thought about getting an MFA. I met w/ the program director at a major US university. He warned me that I would be pressured by most of the faculty to become more contemporary. I'm one of the last of the representational dinosaurs, too. I said, "that's fine, if you can also teach me what I want to be able to do. I want to draw like Ingres and paint like Bouguereau, Zorn, and Gerome." He looked at me like a stunned trout. He had no idea who I was talking about. I left.
@2manysecrets2 Yes, I really expected Burdick to have a more mature commentary seeing as how i considered him a "seasoned" artist. But No.....I am so disappointed......
They hv worked hard & are doing great work. Iknow better than most it isnt easy being overlooked by "the market" these days of immediate gratification, no rules in art & all the nonsense which also is sickening.
But elitism=ignorance
One cannot reject a thing unless they hv accepted it first. They havent earned the right to reject anything, and this is their tragedy.
Intelligent ppl do not hv to say they are intelligent.
Stop trying to be Zorn, be yourself. Isn't easy is it?
I've lived in appartments of the European utilitarian style. They are actually quite functional and in may cases ascetically pleasing, especially if they have properly designed balconies with enclosures. They only lack some intricacy in detail.
IMO, what's troubling is the low-quality, wood-frame constructed, America-style suburban housing with plastic veneer tacked onto the exterior. It invokes no sense of permanence -- a gust of wind would return the land back to the Indians :-)
@DeeAreDee I'm not sure which one you meant by the time, but it was either Bettina Steinke who did the Indian man facing left, or George Carlson, who is usually a sculptor, who did the pastel of the Tarahumara man facing right.
The second problem I have is that "beauty" really isn't all of art. There are more options to be explored than just the one that responds to beauty. Expressionism is among other things about more emotions, including distress. A traditionalist view of Munch's scream will call the colors dirty and unpleasant, a modernist eye sees and experiences the visceral emotion of distress carried to moving "beauty".
A sharp edged abstract sculture can carry a "cold" beauty and so forth.
I had very much the same thoughts when I went through a modern gallery recently. It's quite stunning how selective and uniform their collections are - despite the wealth of styles out there.
It made me wonder how many art movements do we miss of historic times, just because museum directors back then also chose to ignore them.
The very advanced visual culture that was achieved in middle age Europe (and Asia) had to be destroyed. The group who took over pictorial art as well as music in the early to mid-20th century, redefined those two arts for very clear political purposes. As a result, Art in the 21st century has no meaning whatsoever. It’s WHO promotes it, WHO sells it, WHO markets it, WHO appoints the "experts" that tells us what Beauty is. I expose that in my "Art" video.
@goodflo911 Did you not watch the first video? Okay, so you find a urinal beautiful. Fine. That is a philosophy, because it is not dependent on the piece itself. Modern art is a way of looking at things. Everything is art. So, if someone like you can appreciate a single red stroke on an otherwise blank canvas, then surely you can appreciate a single splatter of oil on the road. Or a crumbled paper bag. Or spilled cottage cheese. In this sense, it doesn't matter what you are looking at.
@Dooality Hm I think you misunderstood what I was referencing at.
Again I restate: claiming some of the older art carries universal beauty is a bit of an oxymoron. As universal means 'the same, for everyone, unmistakable' and beauty is always subjective. I was just pointing out some of the failed logic behind this vid. example: ''Art without skilled craftmanship, without a refined sense of esthetics is not something I personally like.' See? much better :)
@goodflo911 but it is said in the video that beauty, not BEAUTY PATTERN, is an universal value. you and I may find beauty in different things, but we do sure recognize that beauty has a value. And also, he says there's no beauty seeking in modern art - even if this beauty is different from what we consider as beautiful.
But the case with "traditional" art, each piece carries its own emotional and aesthetic weight. Each piece is NOT something you will find on the side of the road, or splattered on a kitchen floor.
And "traditional" art does not need an entire philosophy or a two-paragraph explanation in order to appreciate it. It is immediately, viscerally apparent.
@Dooality and "traditional" art is not simply recreating reality! This is a common misconception. If it is "simply" recreating reality(which is not simple by itself, it takes years of training to achieve that, especially before the time of camera), then photograph could be the same. But these "traditional" painting goes beyond that to evoke something within us, and thus we call it beautiful. I don't see that in modern art.
JUST GOT TO "aesthetic underground"! THANKS FOR SAVING ME MISTER SHITBIRD. THAT NEW ART IS SO WEIRD AND IT KEEPS LOOKING AT ME FUNNY. Keep making me laugh you masturbating idiot.
bathmat13 1 month ago
I too hate all new things, we should have stuck to the first good painting ever created, and we could keep painting copies of it. I agree that culture and society should be static so I don't hurt my brain. No statements from the artist either, vile beasts that they are! Your definition of beauty isn't too limited, just the oxygen in your brain.
bathmat13 1 month ago in playlist More videos from ScottBurdickArt
3:33 what artist ??
Erzkreutz 4 months ago
@Erzkreutz I think it's either Richard Schmid or Giovanni Boldini
McDicker96 2 months ago
Can someone tell me the name of the painting at 2:54?
TheProdigyShot 5 months ago
Someone should write a book on the aesthetic underground. 'The Aesthetic Underground: the the alternative history of modern art' would be a good title for it. I don't think we should let the abstractionists and anti-aesthetes have the word 'modern' as it implies that all else is only for the past, and that's bogus. They hardly deserve the word 'art', either.
rahotep101 5 months ago
i think these videos pose some interesting questions but the fact is scott burdick is a blowhard and his own art (which he snuck a few pictures of in the slideshow) sucks Big Big dick.... moving on
alienmode 5 months ago
Burdicks opinions DO mean something! If experienced painters do not offer opinions, then who will provide leadership?Most would agree that our culture is artistically in a bit of a nose dive.Scott's obligated to offer up what he's learned through experience.What frustrates a lot of artists is inexperienced people being allowed to take leadership roles and make decisions about the direction art will take.Art critics today do not have the experience to critique anything beyond a superficial level.
brushfour44 7 months ago
cont'd... The root of the problem IMO is that we're dealing with art in an economic and aestethic setting instead of acknowledging it as simply exististing, and therefore worthy of its existence. All art IMO, if it has to have a qualifier or description, should be from the creator of the work and limited to one sentence which reads " I made this because..." and leave it at that. thanks for the videos though
frankie1833 7 months ago
watched the first video and half of this before I started getting annoyed. I agree with a lot of your assessment but what it really comes down to is that your opinions mean nothing, nor does mine or anyone elses. you have no authority to say what is beautiful in an absolute sense, and you don't have the authority to say that all art must be "beautiful".
frankie1833 7 months ago
There is a very simple answer to it - the museums' collections represent often nothing but personal curators' tastes in art - be it in classic or impressionist, expressionist, deco, nouveau, suprematist, cubist, fauvist, utilitarian, bauhaus or any of the newer variety postmodern art.
I think that the great explosion in the number of artworks is nothing but a result of accessibility of tools and great quantity of free time, many people who shouldn't have ever touched a paintbrush or a pencil
vetromaster 9 months ago in playlist Banishment of Beauty
While I am a big fan fo 19th century painting and also of contemp painters like burdick, schmid,lipking etc I do not understand why Scott doesnt see that lots of "the good work" he shows is just pure unadulterated kitsch. I admire the painting skills of these people, but the topics are just total repetition of what has already been done a billion times.
re002 10 months ago
You might say that the topics are total repetition,.until you own one.Then it becomes that unique painting that you cannot do without, and actually changes the feeling or mood in any room in which it's displayed.Subject matter is secondary,..compostion is the key.They are all unique and original and have never been done before.The undertstanding of representational work that you display is typical of the general viewing public and is exactly the mindset that frustrated James Whistler to no end.
brushfour44 7 months ago
@re002
The same could be said of any piece of art -- everything has been done at this point; no subject matter is truly original.
Deadlyhaztard 4 months ago
Someone email my inbox and tell me who painted the art at 2:53 of the nude on the sofa. Thanks Greg
Greg763 11 months ago
@Greg763
Jeremy Lipking.
I would email you but other viewers may want to know. For anyone that wants to find out other pictures in these videos, use tineye.com and remember that Google is your friend :)
LeoDeGrand 10 months ago
I agree%2
Greg763 11 months ago
I paint and I thought about getting an MFA. I met w/ the program director at a major US university. He warned me that I would be pressured by most of the faculty to become more contemporary. I'm one of the last of the representational dinosaurs, too. I said, "that's fine, if you can also teach me what I want to be able to do. I want to draw like Ingres and paint like Bouguereau, Zorn, and Gerome." He looked at me like a stunned trout. He had no idea who I was talking about. I left.
londerosa 1 year ago
Well, i was with you for a while, but you are glaringly incorrect Mr.Burdick.
I don't believe you understand what beauty is either.
"Pretty girls, pretty girls with flowers, mountains".
Jesus..
This sentimental crap, and ignorance, is precisely why naturalistic art is considered irrelevant today.
NAturalistic art is a force, and for many of the strengths you state.
But your arguments unfortunately fail and play precisely into mainstream argument.
U should hv thought this out more friend
2manysecrets2 1 year ago
@2manysecrets2 Yes, I really expected Burdick to have a more mature commentary seeing as how i considered him a "seasoned" artist. But No.....I am so disappointed......
chavochavo22 1 year ago
@2manysecrets2 I agree. This slideshow seems to be fueled by ignorance.
yawningman 9 months ago
They hv worked hard & are doing great work. Iknow better than most it isnt easy being overlooked by "the market" these days of immediate gratification, no rules in art & all the nonsense which also is sickening.
But elitism=ignorance
One cannot reject a thing unless they hv accepted it first. They havent earned the right to reject anything, and this is their tragedy.
Intelligent ppl do not hv to say they are intelligent.
Stop trying to be Zorn, be yourself. Isn't easy is it?
2manysecrets2 9 months ago
Comment removed
2manysecrets2 1 year ago
I've lived in appartments of the European utilitarian style. They are actually quite functional and in may cases ascetically pleasing, especially if they have properly designed balconies with enclosures. They only lack some intricacy in detail.
IMO, what's troubling is the low-quality, wood-frame constructed, America-style suburban housing with plastic veneer tacked onto the exterior. It invokes no sense of permanence -- a gust of wind would return the land back to the Indians :-)
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
Cute girl in good light? Seriously?
Lucasjs 1 year ago
Can anyone tell me what artist created the piece shown at 9:38? I can't read the signature...
DeeAreDee 1 year ago
@DeeAreDee I'm not sure which one you meant by the time, but it was either Bettina Steinke who did the Indian man facing left, or George Carlson, who is usually a sculptor, who did the pastel of the Tarahumara man facing right.
londerosa 1 year ago
This video needs to be standard material for every high school, college and art school! Absolutely brilliant, informative and beautiful!
Joyfull1953 1 year ago 2
This video needs to be standard material for every high school, college and art school! Absolutely brilliant, informative and beautiful!
Joyfull1953 1 year ago
The second problem I have is that "beauty" really isn't all of art. There are more options to be explored than just the one that responds to beauty. Expressionism is among other things about more emotions, including distress. A traditionalist view of Munch's scream will call the colors dirty and unpleasant, a modernist eye sees and experiences the visceral emotion of distress carried to moving "beauty".
A sharp edged abstract sculture can carry a "cold" beauty and so forth.
socrates856 1 year ago
I had very much the same thoughts when I went through a modern gallery recently. It's quite stunning how selective and uniform their collections are - despite the wealth of styles out there.
It made me wonder how many art movements do we miss of historic times, just because museum directors back then also chose to ignore them.
tokotokotoko3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The very advanced visual culture that was achieved in middle age Europe (and Asia) had to be destroyed. The group who took over pictorial art as well as music in the early to mid-20th century, redefined those two arts for very clear political purposes. As a result, Art in the 21st century has no meaning whatsoever. It’s WHO promotes it, WHO sells it, WHO markets it, WHO appoints the "experts" that tells us what Beauty is. I expose that in my "Art" video.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
claiming your opinion on beauty is universal is a bit of a hyperbole, hm?
goodflo911 1 year ago
@goodflo911 Did you not watch the first video? Okay, so you find a urinal beautiful. Fine. That is a philosophy, because it is not dependent on the piece itself. Modern art is a way of looking at things. Everything is art. So, if someone like you can appreciate a single red stroke on an otherwise blank canvas, then surely you can appreciate a single splatter of oil on the road. Or a crumbled paper bag. Or spilled cottage cheese. In this sense, it doesn't matter what you are looking at.
Dooality 1 year ago
@Dooality Hm I think you misunderstood what I was referencing at.
Again I restate: claiming some of the older art carries universal beauty is a bit of an oxymoron. As universal means 'the same, for everyone, unmistakable' and beauty is always subjective. I was just pointing out some of the failed logic behind this vid. example: ''Art without skilled craftmanship, without a refined sense of esthetics is not something I personally like.' See? much better :)
goodflo911 1 year ago
@goodflo911 but it is said in the video that beauty, not BEAUTY PATTERN, is an universal value. you and I may find beauty in different things, but we do sure recognize that beauty has a value. And also, he says there's no beauty seeking in modern art - even if this beauty is different from what we consider as beautiful.
marilm0 1 year ago
@goodflo911 Physician, heal thyself
thespacialone 11 months ago
But the case with "traditional" art, each piece carries its own emotional and aesthetic weight. Each piece is NOT something you will find on the side of the road, or splattered on a kitchen floor.
Dooality 1 year ago 9
And "traditional" art does not need an entire philosophy or a two-paragraph explanation in order to appreciate it. It is immediately, viscerally apparent.
Dooality 1 year ago 25
@Dooality and "traditional" art is not simply recreating reality! This is a common misconception. If it is "simply" recreating reality(which is not simple by itself, it takes years of training to achieve that, especially before the time of camera), then photograph could be the same. But these "traditional" painting goes beyond that to evoke something within us, and thus we call it beautiful. I don't see that in modern art.
lysol5555 4 months ago in playlist More videos from ScottBurdickArt