วีดีโอ

I feel like people that make arguments like this have never actually been to more than a couple art musuems/exhibits. There are still plenty of representational artists today who's works are being seen and given credit. Its just not trendy, because new stuff, new ideas and movements, are always what's trendy. People aren't interested in representational art so much because its boring. Cool, you made a portrait that looks like a photograph, or you made a still life and crammed it with on the nose symbolism. That takes a lot of technical skill and that's worth appreciating. But it isn't exactly inspired, bold, interesting, or memorable.

I have been watching for 20 minutes and I disagree with him so much. He knows the history but just keeps drawing conrelations with how he sees art and history. Like yeah dude all that shit did happen at the time, that doesn’t mean that the opinion you drop in about art is right as well. He represents this massive dissatisfaction against art as the dominant belief in society. He builds his whole argument saying that throughout history people have started liking art less and less as art has become more abstract. He adds that “oh now art that is more realistic is seen as not high art.” Ok, what is your evidence to suggest that people liked high art in the past? What if people have always disliked high art because the people making the art have always had a “tilt towards narcissism” as he explains is happening with the avant garde movement today. Maybe people have always thought that rich assholes making art was narcissistic. But he doesn’t argue that. No he argues that it is arts fault that people have dissatisfaction with the elite today. I think it’s more that if there is a dissatisfaction against the elite, the art that people like, will not be art that is elitist. What is elitist has always changed and I don’t think it has to do with people not being capable of relating with abstract art. To answer the question I had before. I think that he likes historical art because that is the art of the period that has survived the test of time throughout the millions of pieces of art made, but also because the art harkens back to the classics. Something the elite have always done as a way to discredit the current art movements. Basically saying “wow art was so good back then and now it’s terrible, here’s an art history lesson, can’t you see how the art is getting worse and worse right??” He mentions how artists are attempting to plan the world and build impossible buildings (starting in the 50s and 60s but he likes to be more abstract so he can jump around more) and how some of the buildings aren’t as structurally sound. In the same video he uses the Eiffel Tower as something that inspired people to see the world in a new way, so are challenging architectural feats an inspiration or are they a sign of artists being disconnected? Or is it only old art that is good and inspirational since we already like it as a culture? People also failed at architecture in the past and we just remember the people that didn’t because their work was preserved, survived, and was notable enough to be remembered. He also hasn’t even mentioned photography!! Like an actual reason that art could become increasingly abstract can’t be related to how cameras can capture the world with incredible accuracy and that art can be changing; no, because he sees this shift as rotting of morals and values of a society rather than anything else. For him the best piece of art is gonna be a gothic cathedral with a thousand bible stories with as much detail as possible and a bunch of Greeks drinking wine. Lastly the moment I stopped watching he used the only example of someone disagreeing with his opinion of “abstract art is bad art” by showing a video of teenage girls saying they like art because it makes them think??? Bro’s gonna quote 5 philosophers for his argument and then use the opinion of high schoolers as a counter argument. Not to mention I think it’s pretty clear why he picked that group, a group of people his audience doesn’t respect. It’s a straw man argument that he uses to slyly put down women in the process. I’m done

why do all of you anti modernists have such a smug upper class accent?

you helped me to put the reason for my disliking of modern art into words. hard emphasis on author's death idea combined with highly abstract form creates an echo chamber into viewer's head. like, how you supposed to communicate something with this? it is a stupid mirror. mirrors don't liberate, dialogue do. for the whoever's sake, humanity have languages for reasons. advocating for the 'masses' being a 'masses' myself, this shit is alienating.

Small tip: Try increasing your talking cadence and inflection in your voice: it makes it more engaging to listen to. Great video though!

Art shouldn't be a waste of resources.

Your Cynicism for the motivation to 'unmake' in the wake of WWII seems out of place. You have a very detailed picture of the way art progresses and at the same time lots of scorn for the involved individuals. I don't know where that is coming from if you are everywhere else seeking understanding Galleries that I go to and art students I talk to are not afraid of representation in the same way they don't cling to it. This freedom is hard fought and definetly improves the art they produce. I can not imagine what would make you bitter about that. Also your anti marxism was really out of place in this video about aesthetic philosophy

In the past, the only way you could see a likeness of your dead family member was with an artistic portrait. The only way you could see summer colours in winter was via a painting. That scarcity created value. Currently we're drowning in images. Working artists who want to be loved, need to make work that captures of the feeling of their neighbourhoods and local culture. The tiny underrepresented niches.

обосрался с первых 3 минут видео

Brilliant stuff 🤘 Can you make a video about the amplifier and transducer? I would love to build it myself one day

Post modernism - “it’s my style!”, with a lot more words.

How did this lecture go down at the college? What was the reception like?

The talking speed could be quicker - had to 1.5x the speed. Despite that, great video!

Thank you for sharing this presentation! Very well done and we need more of this type of content!

Tracey Emin’s Bed but it smells of Lynx Olfactorism?

you and CJ the X released videos at the same time with similar ideas about the subjective/objective idea on art. They're also self taught in aesthetic philosophy (not acussing anyone of copying btw that would be impossible). it'd be nice for y'all to have a chat

*slow clap*

the artist thus is to have freedom of expression in all areas, thus if one wishes the represetaional art or abstract art, as hitler hated abstract art, as so did advisors to Putin hated abstract art, all artistic or creative expression is always going to have a group attack it, but much more healthy is a art sociaty that is of vast differences in artist or creative persons, as a healthy academic group has complementary individuals that are different, when we become a snob sociaty we narrow such a area of art like Emily carr or group of 7 artist, thus we become "extremist". or as we know that art society treated VanGoue in disgust. A good credential for such advocacy in art and creativity, would be someone who has a portfolio from several art and design schools and thus has experimented with many areas of art and design, thus as a humanity, and not a cry wolf that your the only one being attacked.

Amazing metamodern channel

Found your content by looking up Cluster B society. Really good work. Subbing!

Science fiction is actually a really great genre for this, and has been for a long time. They amage to throw women and non-white people into the mix without the representation being the point tons of times. Fantasy has a little of this too, though not quite as well.

Hello, I click on this video because you share the link in one JBP fan group. I would say that you should make your point on the video more clearly. I'm actually agree with you almost 100%, but it's really hard to follow your point. You should consider the knowledge range of your viewers. For example, I watched lot of videos from Jordan Peterson, MemeAnalysis, Zarathustra's Serpent so I could understand what you said, but I would recommend you to lay your point better and clearer. I would say that to understand what you said required a decent about of understanding about current Western culture and culture critic. You make many reasonable points, but I wouldn't mind you spending 1-2 minutes to layout the situation first. Don't assume that the viewer know what you are talking about, but instead, ask yourselves "What my viewer need to know to understand the situation and then to come to a conclusion similar to mine?". I truely feel that this video is too much knowledge and opinions (that I wholeheartedly agree with) cram together in one video. Like you should stick to a few examples and then expand on it. For example, I haven't watch any "Betwixt: The story of You" and so I feel confused and bothered because you show me a couple of her videos. I also know a thing or two about The Hero Myth and cultural criticism from the right (like from Amir Odom and Nerdrotic...) but my mythological and cultural understanding is rather lacking. Again, just laying the context and perspective more concretely and slowly. You could also add some words to the video so I can keep track with the points that you're making.

Art obviously isn't objective because there's no one metric you can measure all art by. There are however multiple objective metrics that you do use to measure the value of any given piece of art. Sometimes things that can be seen as deficiencies to one metric can actually work to bolster another. Realism whilst obviously highly skilled when you measure rendering and observation has pretty much no value for expression of themes or emotional states. You can decrease the realism of a subject to heighten aspects of shape language, gesture and colour to achieve more readability, essence of characterisation and communication of the emotional state of the character. Take animation, if you slaved for realism, what would be the benefit of animating it over say filming? Something like into the spiderverse uses it's unrealistic stylisation to effectively communicate all the things I mentioned above by intentionally not being realistic. Does this mean it's objectively better or worse than something like Summit of the Gods, which uses a much more traditional and less stylistic approach to dramatic animation? Your point about talent is also missing the mark. Talent exists, but so does hard work. One existing does not negate the other. Humans aren't all carbon copies, we each have individual assets and perspectives that determine how apt we are for different purposes. Talent without hard work will still get you no where, and hard work without talent can still get you to where you want to go. But to deny there are people who are just naturally better at some things than others is also just to protect your own ego. As you've clearly tied up your accomplishments as being solely the result of hard work. It isn't.

If I like it, I like it. I don't care too much if a genius virtuoso did it or if a naive novice did it (or even if a bird knocked a can of paint over). If I don't like it, that is okay; I respect a person's right to create art. Maybe they don't share my aesthetics, or maybe they are on their journey to greater skills and haven't met their higher potential yet. If so, I encourage them to keep doing it and enjoying it. Art should be for all; no one needs someone telling them they suck. It is cruel and counterproductive. If they are happy where they are, who am I to tell them to "work harder"? Sure, look at art and criticize it if it is being presented as a statement to be discussed or if the person seeks constructive criticism, but ultimately art can be appreciated beyond expertise and eventually, it does come down to subjectivity.

"Why Art is Objective" - My subjective opinion

Good video, my friend. People can no longer understand the difference between objective and subjective and the main thing affected is art. The destruction of objective concepts leads to the assumption of subjective - and consequently vague and interpretative - concepts. Interpretation IS NOT PART OF THE WORK OF ART. It is something that is extracted from it, but is never inherent. "But that slipper stuck in the wall is an allegory to blah blah blah". The interpretation is not part of the work. Art is objective, the interpretation is subjective.

Thanks Sampy for your well articulated thoughts and arguments. As an artist I agree with your point of view. I hope you plan to continue building this channel and I'm now subscribing to it.

new title "no one pays attention to me and i worked really hard :(((( "

Mediocre video it hase meny questionable statements that are not fleshed out well

Deep!

couldn't make it thru, bad vibes if you want perfect realism, cameras already do a pretty good job of it. would you show up to a live show if you knew the band would be miming along to a perfect studio track? idk man what's the point engage with whatever you like in the way you like. the author's dead. mom and dad are out of town. we're at the wheel baybee, high art is a money laundering scheme

I beg of you to take an art history class.

realism is too limited in my opinion. it can express atmosphere and emotions very well, but anything else is kind of held back by it. to be clear, i dont think its worse. capturing true beauty is a very artistic thing to do. but modern art is something entirely else. it wants to push the boundaries of art, make people think, and make people feel things they might not even want to feel. theres a great video by jacob geller on exactly this topic, where he talks about the reactions modern art has caused in people: th-cam.com/video/v5DqmTtCPiQ/w-d-xo.html

Calm down.

Why do you keep going "As we all think" and then saying the most idiotic statement no one actually believes in just so you can easily debunk it in the next sentence

I don't believe there is Conceptual Art as an art form, or movement. All art is actually conceptual. You always need a concept, a vision, or a statement to elaborate, so you can create an artwork that speaks to the viewer, even when it is just for the sake of experiencing beauty. Then you choose the way to represent it, to articulate it. There are so many ''conceptual art pieces", like performances, installations and video artworks that might work quite well, you cannot deny the immersive experience you get from Ciharu Shiota's installations for example. You need skill and creative and critical thinking in any of these mediums or crafts, making a good video is a skill too. Also, yes, saying realism is higher than conceptualism is not enough, it is hard to compare them like they are opposite elements, they are not. Every piece of art requires thought and skill. But there are artists out there whose mindset is being guided by somehow dogmatic ideas, which is a shame.

100 percent agree with this. The victim mentality and Social media are also major factors in its spread. Also, I believe that the word “ deserve” is overused and often toxic. Instead, we need to say “EARN” more often. People earn things by their accomplishments, actions, and character. It’s not, in many cases, their God given right. Another word that is way too over used, and often weaponized is EMPATH. Empathy is NOT selective. In many cases this word is used to create moral superiority or emotionally manipulate.

you always have such interesting thoughts.

good video. seeing the title w/ that thumbnail made me nervous this was going to be some incel stuff glad it wasn't.

there is no real hierarchy in art - only one that is incited by elitism.

There is nothing real about realism as it uses techniques to create an illusion of the real. A photograph of a tree is not a tree, you cannot walk around it, touch its trunk, smell its leaves. If left to that the work is banal and easily dismissed as a flyby. Caravaggio while working from living models reaches far beyond that. The paintings are ambitious, dramatic, political, sensual, violent, irreverent and sometimes autobiographical. Modernity began to democratize Art as something even the public believed they could create a Pollock ("even my five year old can do that" Is he rich now?, I queried.) Then Marcel Duchamp upended the entire direction of Art that even the most banal creators could climb on board. Please don't misunderstand me, upon seeing the Cy Twombly exhibition I was overwhelmed. "How the ef' does he create these?" I have big respect for the titans of art no matter the style throughout Art History. Realism, Modernism, in the right hands is equally masterful and skilled. The answer to Nihilism is creating despite and in spite of the outcome. P.S. Nietzsche and Peterson are also dead.

Baaaased take And high-key true, let's be real 😳🫣🫡

Thank you for telling me the point of the video. I didn’t have the patience to watch the rest :)

Damn you really don't understand art.

What I've personally learned is the criteria you use when judging art of any kind, is to see how far an artist or author reached their goals, not what you'd personally want out of the piece. There's a fundamental difference between judging art based on what the artist actually made, and judging based on what the person was wishing he had made.

So talent doesn't really exist it's just made up thing by people who don't want to come to terms with their own lack of action? So I'll take it this way for myself that I should work hard to achieve what I want and understand that people who look talented are just hard workers.

It's just another form of escapism

JFC! is this an ai generated defense of "objective" art? If not you need rethink your own skills as a writer. This sounds like gibberish.

Well...That's just your opinion, man

Look, post-modernism is truly, deeply, and completely over. Do you realize just how old it is now? The only reason we're still talking about it is that nobody knows what the hell comes after it. Post-post-modernism? Sounds like a cereal. Modernism was a stupid name for a movement in the first place. Might as well have called it "Now-ism". Calling the next thing post-modernism is even stupider, and now we're stuck. Whatever comes next, we're in it now. In fact, we are probably already on to the thing after THAT.