There is art, that blew me away, changed my view, changed my life... and it doesn't even hang in museums, or galleries... getting a platform and exposure there, doesn't mean anything at all. It has to shake you, and can even come from the drawing of a child... that's the only reference, and it's the most subjective, undeniable experience you can have..
And not all great, or even good, art is discovered contemporaneously. I, ever the dabbler, don't really know how to define great art. I became jaded about art when Koons came on the scene in '85 with those suspended basketballs.
Not really, a child drawing can ofcourse move us deeply, but it can never be so strong and profoundly powerful and multi layered as a great artwork, as for example, the works of who we call the great masters from the past. Its a totally different thing….
Good art emotionally moves the artist and then it stirs the emotions of the viewer. Most art isn’t good, even though much is technically executed well, because most people run from what stirs them. Find what moves you, the shadow things and the brief deeply happy times and translate that into your subject. Give little glimpses into your soul and others will gravitate to your work, even if it isn’t technically perfect.
I have a doctorate in linguistics and my professional career focused on teaching and research. I am also a mandala artist and as a retiree am drawing and painting a few mandalas a week. Something beyond my ability to explain it compels me to do this, and it's a wonderful thing. After watching just 2.5 minutes of this scholar's take on good and bad art, I am profoundly grateful that I decided not to study art as an academic subject. To do so would have disrupted and likely canceled altogether the pleasure I derive from making and sharing my art at this time in my life. I believe that the value of art is determined by the effect that creating it has on the artist's nervous system, and secondarily, by the effect the finished piece has on others.
All entertainers are stupid in that they think/assume everyone else thinks only in terms of stupid symbolic gestures rather than in terms of choices among quantifiable physical actions. Everybody else - i.e. non-entertainers - do NOT think in terms of stupid unnecessary useless entertainment (songs, theater) or symbolic gestures.
Dear Paula, I cannot agree more with you. I got my PhD in engineering and previously had degrees in science and art (BFA). I am glad I continued my passion for art outside of academia.
Ive always believed art is first for the artist ; that , like the quote about writing says , " Write about what you know ( or experience ). The artist creates because something ' stirs ' them to express , the ' stir ' being what is called inspiration. Now , after the idea , comes skill- composition , perspective , shading , etc. But being able to translate a feeling , idea , experience into something others can themselves experience , involves trust - trust of the common humanity ; that what stirs one may stir another. I think that is why people of all ages can be or are artists. Great art , to me makes people think , or feel intensely and that experience is unique to each observer.
In 2014, I painted the Mona Lisa in acrylics. I found this a terrific way to get to know the original. It took me 5 months to complete the painting and it is exactly the dimensions of the original. I ordered a print of the original from the Louvre bookstore to use for reference. I then repeated the process with the Girl with the Pearl Earring. Now, i can see they are both of minimal quality but I love having both paintings on my living room walls. This heightened my appreciation for what Leonardo and Vermeer did.
This is something I hope to do as well…right now I’m dabbling a bit, just starting actually, and am only painting because I want to and hope to get good enough to share, to give, paintings that will be meaningful to a couple of family members, but have heard it a good exercise to paint a master work, in order to practice light and shadow, composition, the eyes, dimensionality, etc, right now I’m working in watercolour which is quite different from oil but even so using this exercise in a different medium will be a valuable exercise 🙂
Since I struggled with pianolessons for eight years when young my deepest respect and admiration for all incredible composers and gifted musicians grew from knowing my own limitations. I still play, though, and it´s fun!
Long ago, my high school Art teacher said "There is no such thing as Good Art or Bad Art. There is only Art that you personally like or dislike. You cannot speak for the tastes of other people. Don't even try."
@Kishore Anand how can you define perfection? And regarding cooking, how can you define what is perfect? Someone would feel less salt in your "perfect food" then would your food be perfect anymore? Beauty lies in the eyes of person viewing, taste is subjective, anything which involves personal taste can never be perfect. Same goes with art
@@ChristopherGray00 the effort in a work of art is not about the time spent creating it, but how much genuine you are interms of personal expression and giving the amount of time the painting demands. Every work of art has its own demand there's a reason for abstract art and I don't think you have the right to call it effortless if you are not aware of what qualifies as art. your incapability of understanding something is not the failure of that object. Even the spectator has to be aware of certain notions of art. In case of abstract art it's completely dehumanized , the whole point of it is to get rid of representation. Also artistic beauty is not the same as what most of the general public perceive.
@@ChristopherGray00 I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your analogy about abstraction. But I'll respect it as your opinion. Again just because you don't know what an abstract art is or how art is changing don't make such blatant comments. Effort is not art, art is not meant to please the audience that is the Job of craft. Art merely brings in aesthetic feeling in you. If you really want to know about abstract art read about significant form by clive bell and also equip yourself with art history and why it changed. We artists are not responsible for your satisfaction. Its all about self expression. I can understand your frustration of not understanding abstract art and calling it "effortless" thats because you're bound with physical reality and never tried to see what's beyond it.
@@ChristopherGray00 how is it lying, I am an actual artist who knows stuff about art, we don't do labour work, there's things going on inside our heads that you guys don't see or rather don't try to. Y'all are too lazy to spend some time infront of the artwork and understand it for what it is, instead you want it to be beautiful and represtational. Here the failure lies in the spectator rather than the artist. Tell me honestly how much do you actually know about art?
Ahh, I love it when people define "good" and "bad" art as if it was an objective truth. No one needs to convince anyone of anything, just enjoy art or don't. - I agree with your art teacher.
I have to admit I have been underwhelmed by many pieces of so called great art that hang in the world's museums and I have often wondered how much great art has been missed because the gatekeepers don't go looking for art, they go looking for profits and someone else's limelight to dance in. If an artist doesn't have business ability nor has someone who has the ability to open doors into the art world, whether they paint rubbish or paint graeat paintings, it won't make much difference.
But you can play that glass-half-full game forever: “What if my stuff got stolen, what if I was never born” etc. etc. You can’t control fate, so it doesn’t matter. Don’t pay attention to the intangibles, just try your hardest and hope for the best
Great art is impossible to ignore. Sure there is a lot of good art out there not getting the appreciation it deserves but if it is truly legendary someone will notice it and it will spread. So if you are an artist, dont settle for good.
Correction, the majority of art is MEDIOCRE, not flat out bad. Truly awful art is such a rarity that it eventually gets as equally known as the quality ones. Do you think The Room would be such uniquely beloved pieces of crap if all films were bad?
I can see your point, but he wasn't just referring to the mainstream arts industries when he said most art is bad. Sure, The Room became a cult classic in part because the audience expectations shaped by other films; but when you say films, you mean Hollywood films. I've seen a lot of student films that are arguably worse than The Room, and those amateur works of art count just as much as the products of the arts industries.
TheReccher art is just like music, you get great songs which are rare as you can get great art which is also rare. The greatest artist stand out always. The rest just can get anyone bored.
"they're going to remember...what's that movie again? oh yeah, the immitation game! the one about...what's it about again?" compelling argument there, sir.
......Keep in mind this boomer is a tenure professor at UCLA and gets paid handsomely for his "opinions" and shapes the minds and attitudes of his students! Good luck parents!!!
The screaming Pope by Francis Bacon was life changing for me. I'd fought all my life with my christian family and friends about the content of my paintings, how they didn't have to always be "nice" (flowers, kittens). It was literally a spiritual experience for me and helped give me the courage to paint and not be influenced by or worried about, public opinion.
I'm a christian that focuses on horror. It's my main genre. more specificaly Lovecraftian horror. I recently released a graphic novel based on Lovecraftian horror. Before that I did an adult colouring book based on US politics and Lovecraft. I believe the horror mirrors beauty in a way that you are able to grasp it better. I'm actually telling a christian story, I'm letting you know what you've possibly avoided.
As an art teacher and artist myself I am sure he has reasons for what he is saying. But I would be careful if I was him when generalizing other art than the great masterpieces. The fact that he thinks that "every" art piece in Tate are masterpieces prevents drastic new impulses from the art world to take place. You dont have to like Vivaldi if you like classical music...He is definitely not conveying his message in a convincing way and his opinions are rooted in the context of art history "he likes what he knows about". That is his place and he feels safe in it. It has been a long time since anyone dared to take a huge step into what we today see as the unknown. There seems to be repetition of themes in artwork that people high art community seems to be comfortable with. It is just a question of time when we see changes in the right direction. In my art class 50% of the girls made feminist art, guys was inspired by conceptual art and almost identical to art pieces made in the sixties and seventies. No misunderstandings but art is self evident. Trends remove you from the root of the issue. He is boring to listen too.
It has been a long time indeed, Martin. Thank you for this comment! I’ve been asking myself that question for years, what’s next? And when? These thoughts mesmerize me and make my heart race.
I think you completely missed the point. He was saying that the average person doesn't think contemporary art is good because they are comparing it to the most notable things of the past, a fragment of the past curated by the sands of time wearing away the softer stones, leaving only the pillars, the masterpiece behind for us to gawk at in wonder. if we lived back then we would just see any other normal patch of dirt as the everyday art would drown out the masterpiece.
In my one and small minded opinion, I think art should be looked at in two levels. 1. Face value, if you like the painting for how it looks, makes you feel, or any other reason, you like it. Doesn’t matter about what anyone else thinks, the popularity of the artist, nor where the painting is. You like it if you like it for whatever reason, no matter how simple a likeness to it is. 2. What the artist wanted to convey or say through the painting. I think this should be recognized and interpreted however wished, and for nothing cloud the reasons. Art is art, people’s opinions step over other opinions way too much, because when feelings are involved, people tend to express them in an emotional way, especially in art, where feelings are the backbone of art.
Much agreed. We have to face the fact that art is subjective just like music. Mozart may be boring to someone who likes Bruno Mars, but they may be both good music in their own retrospect. I think the primary source to differentiate good art from bad art is the content, not what stimulates someone neurologically. For example, Jackson Pollocks pieces to me are very interesting and full of life. I can look at each one for a long period of time and it never seems to dull. However the truth is he just poured paint on top of a canvas in a interesting way yet he was considered a great. Now take someone less exciting like Monet who has in depth knowledge of painting (I do not personally understand the reason for Monet's greatness but to each their own) yet Monet did something many thought was masterful...thus subjective. Monet and Pollock are both good artists, not great IMO. If you want to look at someone who was great, then you can talk artists like DiVinci or Dali who not only created interesting art, but incorporated historical values in them that still have mystery and meaning to them hundreds of years later.
Great art is a relationship - one where the observer is rewarded as they engage more and more with the art. Nothing makes art worse than an incompetent and/or unwilling observer.
You're suggesting that we give art the benefit of the doubt? You can't quantify "great art" in words or with a black, 'stand back' line on a museum floor. You either like a piece of art or you don't.
As an artist, my work is an expression of what resonates with me deeply. While it's uncertain whether others will share that connection, I believe that the impact of art can evolve over time. The essence of creating art lies in staying true to one's unique vision and not merely following fleeting trends. My online audience is small, and the feedback I receive is limited, but I cherish the authenticity of those who appreciate my work. Contemporary art often elicits a range of emotions and reactions, some of which may be seen as destructive, yet these can be remarkably powerful due to their ability to surprise. Although I might not personally create such pieces, I respect the diversity of artistic expression. Art is subjective, and there are pieces that I may find perplexing or uninspiring. However, I choose to focus on what genuinely interests me. I create for myself first and foremost, regardless of whether others share my perspective. In the end, what truly matters is not the number of pieces sold, but the enduring connection between the artist and their work. Let history be the ultimate judge of our creative legacy.
It has been my experience that great art is art that impels emotion from the observer; be it positive or negative. Great art will always bring out exacting emotion.
Had a film theory class with Prof. Walter @ UCLA years ago. This was the same message I took away from his course. I don't remember much else, but I do recall this specific point: don't be boring.
The greatest art comes out of moments of intense stress or heightened emotion. Music or sculpture or digital animation or painting (or whatever) can be done "well enough" by a great many people, but when an album or videogame etc. transcends it's medium to become a true piece of "art," you know one of the artists (if there were multiple involved) was straight up channeling some inner despair or rage or bliss (i.e. extreme happiness, not ignorance lol) that inspired their creation of that particular piece of art - even if indirectly.
Mostly agree. This is why the current culture of "you need to master your craft to be able to efficiently create X pieces per day/week" concerns me so much. I think it is important to develop skills such that the technical aspects become one's nature, but that is only the means to the end of being a great artist, else one's really only becoming a great craftsman. The only point of dissent is there are certain melodies, or like that phil collins drum fill which is a masterpiece in most's opinion, where the perfection is recognized only after accidentally producing it (or the timing of technology/medium or maybe the Spirit of an external force). Granted, the engineers may have played a role in why those recordings are so good due to their internal pulls, or the musicians may have been subconsciously influenced by inner emotion, but i think at least some masterpieces came about entirely irrespective of the artists' visions, emotions or channellings. :shrug: either way, Great comment/perspective!
This has been said many times before about artists that are now recognized as extraordinary and that in their lifetime were heavily and mercilessly criticized by art "experts".
Fernando Boavida, In the realm of paintings: Name one Renaissance artist to which your comment applies. You won't be able to, because your comment applies to none of them. That is the whole point. Most contemporary artists are unoriginal and bland, and this is very much reflected in their art works. The ones that are remotely interesting are the mixed media artists, but even those rely way too much on the magic of AI for art production.
@@thenightking7167 El Greco was almost completely unappreciated in Italy which is why he went to Spain. Likewise Michaelangelo was unappreciated by El Greco. There have been artists from every period that throughout history have been unappreciated and criticized that were later rediscovered and appreciated.
@@gesudinazaret9259, subject matter is utterly irrelevant. As a life-long atheist, for example, I find Mozart's Requiem to be one of the most masterful pieces of music composition in human history. I don't care that its very core is purely Christian. That is simply irrelevant.
These are my favorite type of professors that actually cares about the student and usually they teach really good life lessons. That's what school is supposed to be lol. You can't complain to the school if you don't learn anything from an easy A/free credit class lol.
@@carlsmith8850 an author is something VERY different from a literary critic, just as an art critic is not a sculptor and a food critic is not a chef. You can be an excellent analyst of literature and well-versed in a ton of literary theory without being an author. In fact many amazing authors would flail as an analyst or critic. The tool kit of the creative person is almost completely different from that of the analytical person. There are those who overlap (think Tarantino, as both film critic and filmmaker or Neil Gaiman as both author and English professor) but in fact it's far rarer to find an analyst/critic who is also a skilled artist (and vice versa).
@Will140f I would ask an artist before an art critic for a critique of my art. I would ask a businessman for an analysis of my business, not an economist. The difference in skillset is not creativity vs analysis. Its creating art vs creating compelling arguments. Just because an artist isnt good at writing a fancy high brow professorial sounding critique doesn't mean they arent good at providing actually good critique. Professional critics are usually not good at actually deep analysis nor creativity. If someone doesnt know how to apply a theory of a subject to succeed at that subject, then they dont really understand it
The fact that he says everyone's going to forget The Hunger Games but they'll remember The Imitation Game tells you everything you need to know about this guy's eye (or lack of eye) for what's great in art. He also says that there's not a single painting in the MET that isn't "timeless and eternal".....dude, there's plenty of garbage at the MET. Just because a painting has a big name attached to it doesn't mean it's one of that artist's best, or even good, works. But because of the name, it's considered museum-worthy.
I have had my first exposure to surrealism from a book of modern art that I found in my art class in High school. I didn't know who the surrealists were until looking through the pages I discovered artists such as Jon Miro, Salvador Dali, Rene Magritte, Giorgio Di Chirico, and Max Ernst. I was so enamored with it right then and it has stuck with me ever since along with my interest in progressive rock.
If you look into art history you will realize that the great masters really studied their ideas, did many drawings, painting regearsal, and then painted, they'd go to the very scene, sit outdoor, feel it etc.... Now people just go straight to the painting process without emotion at all and that shows in the art
I think you meant to say, " If they wanted to do it themselves, they would have." But then again, I think we're referring to two different aspects of art here.
no, you have to be pleasant as well, otherwise there is no communication and you remain a pathetic idiot talking alone . It has do meet the rethoric requirements.
I don't remember the last time I saw any art out there that I liked. After 40 years of painting , and I'm 62 now, I make the paintings I want to see and really love painting and the paintings I make. I don't even care if anyone else likes them or not.
“A critic is someone who enters the battlefield after the war is over and shoots the wounded.” [Murray Kempton]. Thanks for introducing me to this quote. So true. So visual.
critique is incredibly important to maximizing one's abilities and becoming a master at something. As someone who does create art, it is imperative that one value all critics and critique, unless they don't wish to improve. One does not need to make art in order to know what they find good or bad on a subjective level, critics simply are paid to tell this to the world but that doesn't make their opinion any less valid.
I imagine for many of his students, the joy of Art is most often just a brief moment of escape into a painting of a beautific landscape, on the wall outside a neighbouring professor's office.
NoComment NoName Did you hear the end? Great art in his opinion changes your life, like Breaking Bad and Sopranos , but he only gave The Mona Lisa a minute of his time... LMAO... he’s paid to be a pretentious opinionated person... oh ya, a Uni Professor
As a wannabe artist myself, I have zero pretensions. First, I’m just getting started, so the pieces aren’t terribly well executed yet, much as I try. Second, it’s for me because I love the process and my subjects. Three, it’s decorative art and I am getting better with time and practice, so I intend to try to sell at some point. I expect I’ll evolve and maybe one day, it will be more involved, but I’m ok with learning the ropes this way for now. Wish I had more time, though
People in these comments who say there is no such thing as "bad art": I challenge you to only listen to your least favorite genre of music from now until eternity. You're welcome. Edit: I have read too much critical theory between when I wrote this comment and now. I wrote an essay about my revised opinion on the subject. Here it is for anyone interested: drive.google.com/file/d/1uNLqPe3s-e1RGfbPq-cfVnBsdJnhwkvD/view?usp=sharing
What if your least favorite genre is music from the romantic era? If it is your least favorite... does that make it bad? Bad and least favorite are not equal.
@@reaganmaginn851 exactly... "bad art" does exist... on a subjective level. Where this subjectivity is shared, the "badness" is compounded in relation to the societal view. To say that bad art doesn't exist... is to ignore that.
Being an artist for many years I have come to the conclusion that the better is supposed to be the worse it actually is.Some of the best art you will find is usually hanging in someone’s home studio not in a art gallery.
My opinion is that as a civilization becomes more advanced and populated, the bulk of human ingenuity, problem solving, and creativity are focused toward technological innovations, and away from storytelling and self expression through the fine arts. As a world that continues to trend toward rationality and knowledge, we lose the feelings and emotions to create good arts, as self expressing becomes a lost art. And perhaps that overall need for self expression will become greatly diminished in the future. For ex., how many great poets do we have in the world today as compared to a century ago or two ago.
This is crap, the art that you see in museums is still all about marketing. I'm sure there are plenty of moving and amazing paintings in the world that you don't get to see in museums because the artist didn't know the right people . Then there are all the artists that know people and know how to market their work, and they get the exposure and attention weather or not their work is really good. It is all marketing and business especially in modern art.
Guenevere Schwien Good point! I'm a designer by profession. If my hard work wasn't relevant, it wouldn't sell, and I would be earning a living doing something else. Up in Canada we've have/had collaborations of professional visual artist that flood the market and push for ever higher profits and market share. My mother tried for over a decade to make a living off of oil on canvas. She ended up successfully teaching instead.
@ Mannis... "I don't understand this nonsense"... I can't stop laughing... well yes I can... but how dense are you ? I guess you can't see the forest because of all the trees... Dadaism was pointing out the nonsense of humans. Seems they were also the first to ask the question... what IS art, what makes something a work of art. Dadaists were responding to the insanity of "The Great War" and the nonsense of what people held dear... they even went as far as poking fun of themselves... the nonsense that artists belonged on pedestals or that anything belonged on a pedestal. I suggest that you watch... "Europe after the Rain" Dadaism and Surrealism for a better understanding of what Dadaism was about rather then looking at the pictures in one book. The video is on you-tube and worth watching.
He isn't talking about any odd gallery. He is talking about that SPECIFIC world class museum of art. I don't think simply knowing the right people and just marketing will get you there.
Spoken like a true idiot. If you actually look at the paintings and works we have, a VAST majority of the exceptional ones aren't relevant at all. Look at The Revenant. How "relevant" and attuned to marketing was that film? Nearly not at all, aside from featuring Leonardo in it. " I'm sure there are plenty of moving and amazing paintings in the world that you don't get to see in museums because the artist didn't know the right people" No one's saying there aren't, but no one's saying that it's possible to high light and put-on-display every single drawing, painting, sculpting ever made. "Then there are all the artists that know people and know how to market their work" A lot of artists are just doing it as a job, and have died starving or in poverty only to then have their works discovered. Your point doesn't stand. You also have no idea what artist knows how to market or not, or whether their works were sold first, and then marketed later by people trying to profit off of it, which is exactly what happened with Frank Frazetta, he painted what he liked/wanted, sold it to people, magazines, whoever would buy it, until he made a name for himself and started earning a decent living. Had nothing to do with "marketing", had to do with him having the talent, people wanting that talent, and people hiring and marketing that talent themselves. Try learning a bit more about the world.
"And then you get an artist says he doesn't want to paint at all He takes an empty canvas and sticks it on the wall" - Mark Knopfler th-cam.com/video/4-v6JeolLzw/w-d-xo.html
Everyone is different and is going to be inspired and changed by different pieces of art. So great art is not the same for everyone. I can only imagine that every art pieces will not change most of people, but I think that if changes only one, it is worth it. I love Abaporu by Tarsila do Amaral because it represents a revolution in the way of considering what a good painting is supposed to look like and what it's supposed to do for society (Brasilian modernism).
Back in college we had a art gallery on campus that featured the best selected art each month. Most of it was very bad and I bet my friend if I put anything in there it would remain on display. One day I noticed there was a blank pedestal. I went out that afternoon and collected a old newspaper, a coke can and some yarn and acorns. I then typed up a small card which read "Selections of Emerald Music #5" and placed it beneath my work. A few days later there was to be a judging of such art work so my friend and his girlfriend came along to watch. We stood within ear shoot of our masterpiece and listened to two women who seemed excited and animated by this work and took picture from various angles. I didn't win the judging but two weeks later my work was still on display.
Jason Ng When he's the one doing the judging, it absolutely is. Someone, somewhere likes the shitiest of movies. That doesn't make them good. That's why there must be a standard. Anything can be good without one.
just know that this man has seen thousands of movies, if he notices that even when tired a good movie keeps him awake then he CAN use this to measure other movies.
The one especially great thing about art is that we all have different viewpoints about what it is and what it means, and that is what makes it such a lovely road to travel on the way to creation. There are so many possibilities.
As an artist, it is very easy to get mad at a statement like that, but in reality, the statement is quite true. Artists have to think that way. Otherwise, we won't push ourselves.
My experience is artists who push a work are techs only. Being creative is enjoying the discoveries in the process of producing a work that makes its own statement. @@pedramtajeddini5100
What is irritating is that the world of art critics and museum curators is subject to the pressures of commercial art market. They buy into mindless trends and fads too. This is not much different from how expensive fragrance brands and fashion labels industries work. Greed rules the world of commercial high art, big egos of the rich ruin that part of human experience too. There are very good examples in art and music of people with no interest in art setting out to prove how easy it is to play the art game and win. Some of them after being successful cross to the other side because the job of pretending to be an artist is easier than a real, honest job. By definition, most of commercially successful art that becomes a commodity is mediocre. It's always been that way. The art of the Dark Ages and the Renaissance served the propaganda purposes of those who used Middle Eastern religious myths to gain wealth, power, and influence. Even tracing the story of da Vinci's Madonna is very telling of how a decent but nothing special painting becomes a hit. We will never know how many Beethovens or Rembrandts we will never know about. As to the subject of the video, sure, everyone cannot be brilliant or beautiful. Imagine how dull and boring an average person is and now imagine that half of them are worse than that. Even a good artist produces maybe 10 good pieces of work during their lifetime.
Impressionism has become so loved because it gives the vieuwer a good feeling , dispite the fact that the paint was aplied " haphazzard " in sted of the perfect way the 17th century painters and classical painters did . You only buy what makes you feel good .
Smart man and it's good to hear this from someone with credentials. What he speaks of is a truth that hurts, so most people don't want to say it, and most artists don't want to hear it.
I don't think is that. It's just the fact that this dude can't produce anything that will be interesting to even himself! Again, you can be a critic, but be sure you can do something better than the thing you're critiquing! If you can't then STFU or at the very least be ready to receive backlash!
Of course truth is hurtful,, because people did sugarcoating the truth, that everyone should deserve a medal. Now art become completely subjective. Lack of craftsmanship= it's my style, don't critique me. If they really put effort to learning so their idea get articulate more clearly ... Nobody like hardwork
My art doesn't owe you anything, if you fail to see meaning in it maybe it's because there is none to see , whether I put any meaning in my painting is irrelevant ,if I did it's my meaning not yours . Mostly I paint because I like to paint , if people like my work I'm pleased but don't expect a painting that'll change your world ,it might change an empty wall space though.
Art in a museum- timeless and eternal. Well said. I take art classes at our local community college. It brings me joy and peace, plus love the culture of artists. In the end, it is left unseen in a closet. Might be cut up and used in a paper collage. The process of art makes me happy and content. The creation of art allows me to better understand the world and my small.world in it.
great art moves you, it changes the way you see things, it speaks to you, it sparks conversation, inspiration, and transformation. it too is a cycle. go out there and create art that is meaningful to you and watch it resonate with the world around you :)
True. Loves to hear himself talk. He sounds like every doctor I have ever met. "Hey, look at me. I'm special because of my prefix". lol. meanwhile calls me for IT help "Have you tried turning it off and on again"?
It's funny the people commenting look like they are trying to defend themselves by "I make bad art intentionally, it's my own way to express myself" its as if they don't want to agree with someone else only because it's hurting their position as a bad artist, so ythey go "bla bla bla bla" just like they do most of the time when old people are trying to teach them important thing, life is all about ignoring the advice of others, making mistakes and then giving advice back to people who don't want to hear it.
Lucak Arts I can agree with you to an extent... he has a point that some fall away and some stay. But who is to say some that fell were not extraordinary? The French composer Gabriel Faure. We are lucky many works of his were saved but many of his works were destroyed by his ignorant wife. Who is to say a great artists’ works would have been destroyed or not by evil (WWII even?..) many people here are not claiming to even be artists. But they think that art can be more than a label. And is he really right?? Many people teach. Not many are right. Or some wouldn’t be teachers.. they would be doers. One example where I believe he is incorrect. Movies. If he falls asleep, the movie failed to be good. Many people fell asleep during Driving Miss Daisy, Interstellar, and even Lord of the Rings. Would you call those bad movies??
People who refuse to learn fundamentals of drawing and painting make a black blob on the canvas and add a bullshit meaning to it to excuse the fact it’s ‘art’ but in reality they’re not creative enough or have the skills to make detailed artwork so instead of illustration they fall into the category of modern art because their work is shit
this video was really insightful, and I appreciate the depth Professor Walter brings to the topic. but honestly, I feel like there's a fine line between what he considers "great" art and what might just be popular or trendy. sometimes, what appeals to the masses doesn't necessarily mean it's great, right? art can be so subjective, and I'm curious if anyone else thinks the same!
I can respect UCLA Professor Richard Walter viewpoint of the art that hangs or sits at those renowned galleries created by Famous artist but the illusion the elitists have created that the dollar value placed on a art work and the gallery its in deems it worthy and the higher the value the more worthy it becomes. We are overly influenced by the $$$$$ and elitists prestige of ART world ! there are plenty of artist that deserve to be in big galleries and that have great merit but lack exposure or representation Etc......
A parent doing something normal and right with a child always makes me happy and then affirmed in a very profound way. The action feels unappreciated and the art makes me feel very honored. It gives me a second wind.
Doesn't really work though - some great teachers: Bartók, Mozart, Bach, Boulanger (she could really compose but didn't promote her work), Paul Klee, Kandinsky, Messiaen, David Foster Wallace, Maya Angelou, etc etc
Making bad art is the only way to make good art. In 2008 Suzanne Collins released "The Hunger Games". In 2012 the movie was made. They created something, I created nothing. If you want to be an artist, be an artist. Remove the ego and create.
As a lifelong illustrator and graphic designer, people would tell me, "You're a talented artist!". I'd have to politely disagree, I'm an illustrator. It got me to thinking, what's the difference? I boiled it down to this: Art is emotional expression, through a medium. Successful art evokes emotion in the consumer of the art. Commercially successful art is such that people are willing to pay money for the experience.
A great work of art will first capture one's attention, secondly take hold the attention, and third will keep the attention of its viewer beyond the time of standing in front of it and viewing it in person. The viewer will remember the artwork and no doubt will be moved enough to tell others whether or not they take interest in art.
Im a new painter/artist. I am just at the point, after a year and a half of trying, where i am beginning to like a few things I've made. My quest is to make something that I think is beautiful. It's extremely difficult, and i have a new respect for visual artists.
Keep going because another practical fact of painting is that you are so involved in little parts, so intense that you do kinda develop a degree of 'blindness' to the full picture. It's very hard for any artist to see their work the way a casual observer looks at it. The Artist often sees and remembers too much about the creation and that spoils the view. So don't be too tough even on the earlier work, it's for outside observers now to pass judgement, you've done your bit. Trust yourself. Some of the painting you might like least could turn out to be the work that casual observers like most.
He brings his personal opinion, he hopes that many will follow him and so everyone agrees that this painting or that film is a masterpiece. HYPE that's what it comes down to.
I've often drifted off when watching a film just as an engaging scene would later emerge. I would revisit the film later when I was fully awake and see what was often a compelling story that I would have otherwise missed.
The difficult but essential rigor for the responsible art critic or professor is to develop a system of aesthetic judgment that remains sufficiently porous, agile, and yet clear and independent in conception to allow meaningful commentary on works that span a broad variety of cultures, genres, national contexts, eras, languages mediums, ideologies, etc. To provide a meaningful evaluation of a work's communicative, semantic and sensorial content and whether or not that work achieves the various aims it seems to suggest it is attempting to achieve in various dimensions is a tall order, if one desires to do more than merely festoon her own arbitrarily preconditioned tastes and biases with a few verbal ribbons.
As a highly obedient child, acquiescence was a regular experience for me, but early on I made a quiet promise to myself not have my sense of taste in storytelling, music and art dictated to me. That's MY decision. No-one would tell me otherwise. If totalitarianism is the state's dictated regulation of every area of your life, in my experience, a sense of taste can be the most potent of rebels.
Nice to hear someone dare share his - and my - viewe on most modern art.. I usually say, that most of it is ruined art materials.. Mine is all fantastic though..
My mother and I went to the Whitney a month ago and she couldn’t keep quiet about how much (in her own words) “junk” they put up in there. I usually ask her about my art and how it’s progressing and she told me not to ask her anymore since what she saw in such a prominent museum was the standard. She talks to anyone and everyone about that experience. Now to someone else, that art was amazing. Art is one of those things that is entirely dependent on the consumer/trend and has no real criteria.
That is my exact sentiment with art... 90-95% of them will not be remembered in 20 to 50 to 100 years from now... Only the good ones will be remembered.
The art that has changed my life forever is my labor of love, music. Alan Moore asked does an artist have an obligation to create quality in whatever he/she puts out there but considering the level of civilization connection who’s to decide what different people think or feel about the ever widening variety of art. Whether it’s professional or amateur or something in between, we try to evolve and express something that is comparable to what he hinted at, that the game changers of films, music, carpentry, architecture, science, paintings, poetry, etc. all depends on whomever is experiencing the possibility of anything created with finesse and intelligent intent. I could philosophically discus this topic lengthily because I’ve tried painting and producing a variety of different flavors of audio yet do I have the technology and know how? Not to mention the ego that comes with posting something that goes viral? No, but one must dare to share their essence.
I agree with you Professor Walter a moving Art will make a person sit down and spend time with it as if like a conversation between the two people it will be engaging. I had met a painting like that in the Dallas Museum of Arts and wrote a 2 page paper about it. "A Mountain Landscape with an Approaching Storm" from Claude-Joseph Vernet was like that for me. What struck me the most was the size and the depth of the artwork I felt sucked in it and it made me keep looking at it. I don't think Mona Lisa gives the same effect because it's too recognized even though it is timeless.
To be fair, that's about all the time one can get to look at the Mona Lisa, as there's always a huge crowd surrounding it. I couldn't even get within ten feet of the painting.
I think the Mona Lisa is really interesting. Blurred edges, fantastical mountain background, earthy colors, sheer fabric, delicate embroidery, and well rendered drapery.
That's the issue with society letting fringe groups deciding what's art. I had an art professor in college say frescoes in Sistine Chapel were not real art, they were illustrations. In one sentence she took a dump on commissioned art, frescoes, Michelangelo, and illustrators.
For me good art has to activate my imagination and make me want to create something. That doesn't necessarily have to come from technical masterpieces like Raphael or Durer's art, it can come from how some random artist on twitter uses line art. Sure, i love classical art, but depending on the type of art there'll be various things to admire. The Mona Lisa for instance doesn't really interest me that much. The mystery and story is interesting but is wouldn't necessarily engage me more than that. Good or bad art is really just in a persons personality and life experiences, like with everything else. The value in an art piece isn't necessarily in how long it lasts through the decades, to me it's more about the people it inspires. Creation is vastly important to me. As long as you strive to improve in whatever medium you want to do, that's good enough. Wether it's painting, drawing, animation, 3D, blah blah blah, you just gotta keep striving to studying and really honing your skill
Good Art needs to be pleasing/interesting to the eye, regardless of complexity, the technical skill has to show if only for academic purposes. Most of all Art HAS to hold a message that will endure.
To make great art, you have to be honest and refuse to settle for less. To quote a song lyric that resonates, "You must risk something that matters." Many "artists" seem more interested in being an artist than in creating great or even mildly interesting work. It is a social pose, a strategy for enhancing status, looking hip, and maybe even making money. This game can work for some people, but it has nothing to do with anything that really matters beyond the satisfaction of their own needs and desires. I struggle to contain my negative feelings towards that faux-artist crowd. But my gratitude for the work of the best artists makes life worth living. I'm not even sure I would be alive without all that I have gotten from Art.
I'm always cautious of people who suggest Artists who want an income are somehow lesser artists and indeed human beings than the artists who suffer through poverty all their lives 'for their Art!' and allow others that follow to make the big bucks from their 'posthumously discovered' work instead.
"Many "artists" seem more interested in being an artist than in creating great or even mildly interesting work. It is a social pose, a strategy for enhancing status, looking hip, and maybe even making money." My comment alluded to what I read. But it is an opinion Often hinted at, the impurity of an Artist who wants to get paid. Being paid - and well - allows very serious artists to go on painting. Being paid is a serious part of serious art. Purists always try to evade that. That is to say, if more people who love genuine/from the soul art actually paid for more of it, rather than just visiting high end art galleries, more serious artists would last longer, paint more. Everybody needs money to survive.
I don't care what anyone says: I have ALWAYS loved wild abstract avant garde art! That includes music, too! Nevertheless, I discipline myself to put a tight limit on ALL forms of my entertainment consumption. My life is devoted to MY creativity, MY labor of love: proving math theorems.
I completely agree. i am a semi profesional sculptor, potter, painter. The so-called artists are so bad I can't believe it when I check out exhibitions I will be a shame. Seriously!It looks like someone one day decided to be an artist with no skill and started to produce crap. The sad part is the jury that selects pieces of art are the same-poor skill, poor taste, poor judgment. This is really true in the USA (Cheesy taste). In the rest of the world, it is so much better. Art school level went down the drain since good kids don't need to go to school, they get hired directly from the industry especially 3modeling ...contemporary art is a joke, mostly garbage. Most abstract painter do abstract because they cant paint or draw. it is pathetic.
Guto Medeiros I totally agree. I thought the movie was great, but it was no where near life changing. Aesthetically it brought nothing new to the table. Just a decent story with decent actors, not something future generations will cherish.
i agree with him on "don't be boring"- thats my most basic rule. As for art changing my life, thats asking too much of an artist! Hows about "make you think of something in a different way?"
Art is subjective. No one has the right to dictate to others what they should, or should not think, despite the current way of the world, no one! This is a totally pompous, and some might say, elitist attitude. If presented with, what he believed, was the work of an amateur … he would no doubt destroy the creation for what in his mind was just that, amateur. But then, if he was then told that the work was that of one of world’s greatest artists, I would enjoy watching the squirming and backtracking that followed that revelation. This attitude is one that smacks of an individual, who believes himself to be one of the “few” people with the talent to be a professional art critic. The truth is, he is simply, like the rest of us, giving his own thoughts on his artistic likes and dislikes …
Boring is subjective...I've seen people like and respond to a certain sculpture, taking their time over it, exploring it, feeling it and certain other individuals- few as they are, say immediately (about the same sculpture) "its boring" ! they don't tend to hang around.
If you want to understand Art and the Art market, going to an Art Professor ( a well paid Govt employee) is not the place to get objective information.
I loved The Hunger Games, it was an exciting story line. I also went to the Louvre and stood in front of the Mona Lisa but didn't even get to see it because a hundred other people were also standing in front of it and wouldn't get out of the way so others could see it.
i was at the philadelphia mus. of art strolling thru the galleries and came upon the Color Field gallery. huge empty gallery. me and the guard were the only ones in the gallery. we were having a conversation about the lack of visitors in this particular period gallery. a few doors down was the Marcel Duchamp and dada galleries. not full but people were looking and even reading. very few got the "Given the Illuminated Gas and the Walerfall" gallery so i subtly showed them how to see the piece.
There is art, that blew me away, changed my view, changed my life... and it doesn't even hang in museums, or galleries... getting a platform and exposure there, doesn't mean anything at all. It has to shake you, and can even come from the drawing of a child... that's the only reference, and it's the most subjective, undeniable experience you can have..
UGH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And not all great, or even good, art is discovered contemporaneously. I, ever the dabbler, don't really know how to define great art. I became jaded about art when Koons came on the scene in '85 with those suspended basketballs.
Fantastic way of putting it. Exactly right!
Not really, a child drawing can ofcourse move us deeply, but it can never be so strong and profoundly powerful and multi layered as a great artwork, as for example, the works of who we call the great masters from the past. Its a totally different thing….
@@BakkerSamuelbullshit
Good art emotionally moves the artist and then it stirs the emotions of the viewer. Most art isn’t good, even though much is technically executed well, because most people run from what stirs them. Find what moves you, the shadow things and the brief deeply happy times and translate that into your subject. Give little glimpses into your soul and others will gravitate to your work, even if it isn’t technically perfect.
Wow an intelligent, thoughtful comment, very rare
I know this comment is three quarters of a year old now, but I got a lot out of it, thank you.
@@Sheila.F Yes, you have my permission to use my comment. :)
@@StargardenCottage Thank you.
i love this, thank you.
I have a doctorate in linguistics and my professional career focused on teaching and research. I am also a mandala artist and as a retiree am drawing and painting a few mandalas a week. Something beyond my ability to explain it compels me to do this, and it's a wonderful thing. After watching just 2.5 minutes of this scholar's take on good and bad art, I am profoundly grateful that I decided not to study art as an academic subject. To do so would have disrupted and likely canceled altogether the pleasure I derive from making and sharing my art at this time in my life. I believe that the value of art is determined by the effect that creating it has on the artist's nervous system, and secondarily, by the effect the finished piece has on others.
Perfectly said ❤
Well said. I took art in college and quit drawing for years because academia is so terrible with art. Now ppl love my work.
All entertainers are stupid in that they think/assume everyone else thinks only in terms of stupid symbolic gestures rather than in terms of choices among quantifiable physical actions. Everybody else - i.e. non-entertainers - do NOT think in terms of stupid unnecessary useless entertainment (songs, theater) or symbolic gestures.
Dear Paula, I cannot agree more with you. I got my PhD in engineering and previously had degrees in science and art (BFA). I am glad I continued my passion for art outside of academia.
Thats a cool take.
Ive always believed art is first for the artist ; that , like the quote about writing says , " Write about what you know ( or experience ). The artist creates because something ' stirs ' them to express , the ' stir ' being what is called inspiration. Now , after the idea , comes skill- composition , perspective , shading , etc. But being able to translate a feeling , idea , experience into something others can themselves experience , involves trust - trust of the common humanity ; that what stirs one may stir another. I think that is why people of all ages can be or are artists. Great art , to me makes people think , or feel intensely and that experience is unique to each observer.
Your Comment found me just a
at the right time. Thank you for sharing 🥀🙏✍️
In 2014, I painted the Mona Lisa in acrylics. I found this a terrific way to get to know the original. It took me 5 months to complete the painting and it is exactly the dimensions of the original. I ordered a print of the original from the Louvre bookstore to use for reference. I then repeated the process with the Girl with the Pearl Earring. Now, i can see they are both of minimal quality but I love having both paintings on my living room walls. This heightened my appreciation for what Leonardo and Vermeer did.
This is something I hope to do as well…right now I’m dabbling a bit, just starting actually, and am only painting because I want to and hope to get good enough to share, to give, paintings that will be meaningful to a couple of family members, but have heard it a good exercise to paint a master work, in order to practice light and shadow, composition, the eyes, dimensionality, etc, right now I’m working in watercolour which is quite different from oil but even so using this exercise in a different medium will be a valuable exercise 🙂
Since I struggled with pianolessons for eight years when young my deepest respect and admiration for all incredible composers and gifted musicians grew from knowing my own limitations. I still play, though, and it´s fun!
So cool you did that! Bravo!
Long ago, my high school Art teacher said "There is no such thing as Good Art or Bad Art. There is only Art that you personally like or dislike. You cannot speak for the tastes of other people. Don't even try."
@Kishore Anand how can you define perfection?
And regarding cooking, how can you define what is perfect? Someone would feel less salt in your "perfect food" then would your food be perfect anymore? Beauty lies in the eyes of person viewing, taste is subjective, anything which involves personal taste can never be perfect. Same goes with art
@@ChristopherGray00 the effort in a work of art is not about the time spent creating it, but how much genuine you are interms of personal expression and giving the amount of time the painting demands. Every work of art has its own demand there's a reason for abstract art and I don't think you have the right to call it effortless if you are not aware of what qualifies as art. your incapability of understanding something is not the failure of that object. Even the spectator has to be aware of certain notions of art. In case of abstract art it's completely dehumanized , the whole point of it is to get rid of representation. Also artistic beauty is not the same as what most of the general public perceive.
@@ChristopherGray00 I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your analogy about abstraction. But I'll respect it as your opinion. Again just because you don't know what an abstract art is or how art is changing don't make such blatant comments. Effort is not art, art is not meant to please the audience that is the Job of craft. Art merely brings in aesthetic feeling in you. If you really want to know about abstract art read about significant form by clive bell and also equip yourself with art history and why it changed. We artists are not responsible for your satisfaction. Its all about self expression. I can understand your frustration of not understanding abstract art and calling it "effortless" thats because you're bound with physical reality and never tried to see what's beyond it.
@@ChristopherGray00 how is it lying, I am an actual artist who knows stuff about art, we don't do labour work, there's things going on inside our heads that you guys don't see or rather don't try to. Y'all are too lazy to spend some time infront of the artwork and understand it for what it is, instead you want it to be beautiful and represtational. Here the failure lies in the spectator rather than the artist. Tell me honestly how much do you actually know about art?
Ahh, I love it when people define "good" and "bad" art as if it was an objective truth. No one needs to convince anyone of anything, just enjoy art or don't. - I agree with your art teacher.
I have to admit I have been underwhelmed by many pieces of so called great art that hang in the world's museums and I have often wondered how much great art has been missed because the gatekeepers don't go looking for art, they go looking for profits and someone else's limelight to dance in. If an artist doesn't have business ability nor has someone who has the ability to open doors into the art world, whether they paint rubbish or paint graeat paintings, it won't make much difference.
But you can play that glass-half-full game forever: “What if my stuff got stolen, what if I was never born” etc. etc.
You can’t control fate, so it doesn’t matter. Don’t pay attention to the intangibles, just try your hardest and hope for the best
Artists only become relevant when they become independent, just look at goya
Great art is impossible to ignore. Sure there is a lot of good art out there not getting the appreciation it deserves but if it is truly legendary someone will notice it and it will spread. So if you are an artist, dont settle for good.
Yes. Jackson Pollock. Utter garbage.
maybe try contemplating them more instead of judging them?
Correction, the majority of art is MEDIOCRE, not flat out bad. Truly awful art is such a rarity that it eventually gets as equally known as the quality ones. Do you think The Room would be such uniquely beloved pieces of crap if all films were bad?
I can see your point, but he wasn't just referring to the mainstream arts industries when he said most art is bad. Sure, The Room became a cult classic in part because the audience expectations shaped by other films; but when you say films, you mean Hollywood films. I've seen a lot of student films that are arguably worse than The Room, and those amateur works of art count just as much as the products of the arts industries.
TheReccher art is just like music, you get great songs which are rare as you can get great art which is also rare. The greatest artist stand out always. The rest just can get anyone bored.
Wrong: There is a lot of bad art out there - most of it.
NS R music is art and in this generation many small recording artists have fulfilling careers
A rose by any name is still a rose. You can find a lot of flat out bad art on Facebook. It's not rare, at all.
Okay. **rubs hands together 🙏** I am properly demoralized... time to go back to make _bad art._
Go for it. 😂
"they're going to remember...what's that movie again? oh yeah, the immitation game! the one about...what's it about again?" compelling argument there, sir.
funny too bc it also sucked
But that is a hollywood production... And we know its not a very artistic industry
Lool 🤣
lol, i thought that
......Keep in mind this boomer is a tenure professor at UCLA and gets paid handsomely for his "opinions" and shapes the minds and attitudes of his students! Good luck parents!!!
I think there is something compelling about great art. You don't walk away and forget it, you keep thinking about it.
The screaming Pope by Francis Bacon was life changing for me. I'd fought all my life with my christian family and friends about the content of my paintings, how they didn't have to always be "nice" (flowers, kittens). It was literally a spiritual experience for me and helped give me the courage to paint and not be influenced by or worried about, public opinion.
True art doesn’t have to be nice to be beautiful.
I'm a christian that focuses on horror. It's my main genre. more specificaly Lovecraftian horror. I recently released a graphic novel based on Lovecraftian horror. Before that I did an adult colouring book based on US politics and Lovecraft. I believe the horror mirrors beauty in a way that you are able to grasp it better. I'm actually telling a christian story, I'm letting you know what you've possibly avoided.
My art is for me to enjoy. I think it’s great if someone else likes it but it doesn’t concern me if they don’t. It’s not for you it’s my art for me.
As an art teacher and artist myself I am sure he has reasons for what he is saying. But I would be careful if I was him when generalizing other art than the great masterpieces. The fact that he thinks that "every" art piece in Tate are masterpieces prevents drastic new impulses from the art world to take place. You dont have to like Vivaldi if you like classical music...He is definitely not conveying his message in a convincing way and his opinions are rooted in the context of art history "he likes what he knows about". That is his place and he feels safe in it. It has been a long time since anyone dared to take a huge step into what we today see as the unknown. There seems to be repetition of themes in artwork that people high art community seems to be comfortable with. It is just a question of time when we see changes in the right direction. In my art class 50% of the girls made feminist art, guys was inspired by conceptual art and almost identical to art pieces made in the sixties and seventies. No misunderstandings but art is self evident. Trends remove you from the root of the issue. He is boring to listen too.
It has been a long time indeed, Martin. Thank you for this comment! I’ve been asking myself that question for years, what’s next? And when? These thoughts mesmerize me and make my heart race.
I think you completely missed the point. He was saying that the average person doesn't think contemporary art is good because they are comparing it to the most notable things of the past, a fragment of the past curated by the sands of time wearing away the softer stones, leaving only the pillars, the masterpiece behind for us to gawk at in wonder.
if we lived back then we would just see any other normal patch of dirt as the everyday art would drown out the masterpiece.
In my one and small minded opinion, I think art should be looked at in two levels.
1. Face value, if you like the painting for how it looks, makes you feel, or any other reason, you like it. Doesn’t matter about what anyone else thinks, the popularity of the artist, nor where the painting is. You like it if you like it for whatever reason, no matter how simple a likeness to it is.
2. What the artist wanted to convey or say through the painting. I think this should be recognized and interpreted however wished, and for nothing cloud the reasons. Art is art, people’s opinions step over other opinions way too much, because when feelings are involved, people tend to express them in an emotional way, especially in art, where feelings are the backbone of art.
Ha ha. My art is inspired by the old abstract expressionists.
Much agreed. We have to face the fact that art is subjective just like music. Mozart may be boring to someone who likes Bruno Mars, but they may be both good music in their own retrospect. I think the primary source to differentiate good art from bad art is the content, not what stimulates someone neurologically. For example, Jackson Pollocks pieces to me are very interesting and full of life. I can look at each one for a long period of time and it never seems to dull. However the truth is he just poured paint on top of a canvas in a interesting way yet he was considered a great. Now take someone less exciting like Monet who has in depth knowledge of painting (I do not personally understand the reason for Monet's greatness but to each their own) yet Monet did something many thought was masterful...thus subjective. Monet and Pollock are both good artists, not great IMO. If you want to look at someone who was great, then you can talk artists like DiVinci or Dali who not only created interesting art, but incorporated historical values in them that still have mystery and meaning to them hundreds of years later.
Great art is a relationship - one where the observer is rewarded as they engage more and more with the art. Nothing makes art worse than an incompetent and/or unwilling observer.
You're suggesting that we give art the benefit of the doubt? You can't quantify "great art" in words or with a black, 'stand back' line on a museum floor. You either like a piece of art or you don't.
I agree that more engagement leads to greater rewards, but that it's an optional venture. Same with reading great books or watching great movies.
correct
this is very forgotten
@@Gravitys-NOT-a-force Amen
That sounded a bit like victim-blaming lol
Some work is just amateurish, sadly
As an artist, my work is an expression of what resonates with me deeply. While it's uncertain whether others will share that connection, I believe that the impact of art can evolve over time. The essence of creating art lies in staying true to one's unique vision and not merely following fleeting trends.
My online audience is small, and the feedback I receive is limited, but I cherish the authenticity of those who appreciate my work. Contemporary art often elicits a range of emotions and reactions, some of which may be seen as destructive, yet these can be remarkably powerful due to their ability to surprise. Although I might not personally create such pieces, I respect the diversity of artistic expression.
Art is subjective, and there are pieces that I may find perplexing or uninspiring. However, I choose to focus on what genuinely interests me. I create for myself first and foremost, regardless of whether others share my perspective. In the end, what truly matters is not the number of pieces sold, but the enduring connection between the artist and their work. Let history be the ultimate judge of our creative legacy.
Id love to know where I could find your work
"The essence of creating art lies in staying true to one's unique vision and not merely following fleeting trends." Bears repeating.
It has been my experience that great art is art that impels emotion from the observer; be it positive or negative. Great art will always bring out exacting emotion.
I am of similar belief. Great art to me is about sacrifice to captivate.
Agreed. But also great art may be that which brings feelings of ambivalence. I feel that the key is that art will impact us -- in some way or another.
Had a film theory class with Prof. Walter @ UCLA years ago. This was the same message I took away from his course. I don't remember much else, but I do recall this specific point: don't be boring.
When the artist is being honest, authentic & truly original, chances are they're not boring. Due respect, but mastering the craft is important
The greatest art comes out of moments of intense stress or heightened emotion. Music or sculpture or digital animation or painting (or whatever) can be done "well enough" by a great many people, but when an album or videogame etc. transcends it's medium to become a true piece of "art," you know one of the artists (if there were multiple involved) was straight up channeling some inner despair or rage or bliss (i.e. extreme happiness, not ignorance lol) that inspired their creation of that particular piece of art - even if indirectly.
Mostly agree. This is why the current culture of "you need to master your craft to be able to efficiently create X pieces per day/week" concerns me so much. I think it is important to develop skills such that the technical aspects become one's nature, but that is only the means to the end of being a great artist, else one's really only becoming a great craftsman.
The only point of dissent is there are certain melodies, or like that phil collins drum fill which is a masterpiece in most's opinion, where the perfection is recognized only after accidentally producing it (or the timing of technology/medium or maybe the Spirit of an external force). Granted, the engineers may have played a role in why those recordings are so good due to their internal pulls, or the musicians may have been subconsciously influenced by inner emotion, but i think at least some masterpieces came about entirely irrespective of the artists' visions, emotions or channellings. :shrug: either way, Great comment/perspective!
This has been said many times before about artists that are now recognized as extraordinary and that in their lifetime were heavily and mercilessly criticized by art "experts".
Exactly
Fernando Boavida, In the realm of paintings: Name one Renaissance artist to which your comment applies. You won't be able to, because your comment applies to none of them. That is the whole point. Most contemporary artists are unoriginal and bland, and this is very much reflected in their art works. The ones that are remotely interesting are the mixed media artists, but even those rely way too much on the magic of AI for art production.
@@thenightking7167 El Greco was almost completely unappreciated in Italy which is why he went to Spain. Likewise Michaelangelo was unappreciated by El Greco. There have been artists from every period that throughout history have been unappreciated and criticized that were later rediscovered and appreciated.
@@thenightking7167renaissance art is not art,is Christian propaganda
@@gesudinazaret9259, subject matter is utterly irrelevant. As a life-long atheist, for example, I find Mozart's Requiem to be one of the most masterful pieces of music composition in human history. I don't care that its very core is purely Christian. That is simply irrelevant.
This is another one of those "I hardly ever give out an A" professors.
@@guavagal depends if u have an A or not LOL
Reminds me of literature professors who have never had anything published that spend their careers breaking their students balls on subject matter.
These are my favorite type of professors that actually cares about the student and usually they teach really good life lessons.
That's what school is supposed to be lol. You can't complain to the school if you don't learn anything from an easy A/free credit class lol.
@@carlsmith8850 an author is something VERY different from a literary critic, just as an art critic is not a sculptor and a food critic is not a chef. You can be an excellent analyst of literature and well-versed in a ton of literary theory without being an author. In fact many amazing authors would flail as an analyst or critic. The tool kit of the creative person is almost completely different from that of the analytical person. There are those who overlap (think Tarantino, as both film critic and filmmaker or Neil Gaiman as both author and English professor) but in fact it's far rarer to find an analyst/critic who is also a skilled artist (and vice versa).
@Will140f
I would ask an artist before an art critic for a critique of my art.
I would ask a businessman for an analysis of my business, not an economist.
The difference in skillset is not creativity vs analysis. Its creating art vs creating compelling arguments.
Just because an artist isnt good at writing a fancy high brow professorial sounding critique doesn't mean they arent good at providing actually good critique.
Professional critics are usually not good at actually deep analysis nor creativity.
If someone doesnt know how to apply a theory of a subject to succeed at that subject, then they dont really understand it
The fact that he says everyone's going to forget The Hunger Games but they'll remember The Imitation Game tells you everything you need to know about this guy's eye (or lack of eye) for what's great in art. He also says that there's not a single painting in the MET that isn't "timeless and eternal".....dude, there's plenty of garbage at the MET. Just because a painting has a big name attached to it doesn't mean it's one of that artist's best, or even good, works. But because of the name, it's considered museum-worthy.
I have had my first exposure to surrealism from a book of modern art that I found in my art class in High school. I didn't know who the surrealists were until looking through the pages I discovered artists such as Jon Miro, Salvador Dali, Rene Magritte, Giorgio Di Chirico, and Max Ernst. I was so enamored with it right then and it has stuck with me ever since along with my interest in progressive rock.
If you look into art history you will realize that the great masters really studied their ideas, did many drawings, painting regearsal, and then painted, they'd go to the very scene, sit outdoor, feel it etc.... Now people just go straight to the painting process without emotion at all and that shows in the art
Discipline. Mastering the craft. Then allowing the spirit to move through you
It's not the artists job to give the audience what they want it's to give them what they need. If they knew what they wanted they would be the artist.
I think you meant to say, " If they wanted to do it themselves, they would have."
But then again, I think we're referring to two different aspects of art here.
gIVe tHem wHAt tHEy nEED
Please stop being you.
@@shelbyherring92 No. LOL!!!! Read it again.
no, you have to be pleasant as well, otherwise there is no communication and you remain a pathetic idiot talking alone . It has do meet the rethoric requirements.
One of the best art pieces I've ever seen was drawn in chalk on a public sidewalk.
He's right most art is bad art!
People once thought Van Gogh was bad, but they had to catch up
@Ferdi's Law ! You are an NPC lmao
@Ferdi's Law ! bro chill. It’s not that serious.
Bingo!
@Ferdi's Law ! "left winged fascistic" boy your brain isn't doing so good
I don't remember the last time I saw any art out there that I liked. After 40 years of painting , and I'm 62 now, I make the paintings I want to see and really love painting and the paintings I make. I don't even care if anyone else likes them or not.
A critic is someone who goes on the battlefield after the battle and shoots the wounded. The best way to critique art, is to do art.
“A critic is someone who enters the battlefield after the war is over and shoots the wounded.” [Murray Kempton]. Thanks for introducing me to this quote. So true. So visual.
critique is incredibly important to maximizing one's abilities and becoming a master at something. As someone who does create art, it is imperative that one value all critics and critique, unless they don't wish to improve.
One does not need to make art in order to know what they find good or bad on a subjective level, critics simply are paid to tell this to the world but that doesn't make their opinion any less valid.
You Americans are all about shooting, aren't you, hahaha! Even your quotes on beaux arts indulge in it
Well said!
One does not need to be a chef to tell if the food is good or bad
I imagine for many of his students, the joy of Art is most often just a brief moment of escape into a painting of a beautific landscape, on the wall outside a neighbouring professor's office.
I still dont know what the "difference" is.
NoComment NoName Did you hear the end? Great art in his opinion changes your life, like Breaking Bad and Sopranos , but he only gave The Mona Lisa a minute of his time... LMAO... he’s paid to be a pretentious opinionated person... oh ya, a Uni Professor
Me neither!
There is no difference.
Exactly!
this is one of those rare times the TH-cam comments are wiser than the “wisdom” in the video
Becoming less rare given the content of late
@SayItAintTso .... only because they've watched the video and it's made them think, so they expound further.
As a wannabe artist myself, I have zero pretensions. First, I’m just getting started, so the pieces aren’t terribly well executed yet, much as I try. Second, it’s for me because I love the process and my subjects. Three, it’s decorative art and I am getting better with time and practice, so I intend to try to sell at some point. I expect I’ll evolve and maybe one day, it will be more involved, but I’m ok with learning the ropes this way for now. Wish I had more time, though
People in these comments who say there is no such thing as "bad art": I challenge you to only listen to your least favorite genre of music from now until eternity. You're welcome.
Edit: I have read too much critical theory between when I wrote this comment and now. I wrote an essay about my revised opinion on the subject. Here it is for anyone interested:
drive.google.com/file/d/1uNLqPe3s-e1RGfbPq-cfVnBsdJnhwkvD/view?usp=sharing
What if your least favorite genre is music from the romantic era? If it is your least favorite... does that make it bad? Bad and least favorite are not equal.
@@reaganmaginn851 exactly... "bad art" does exist... on a subjective level. Where this subjectivity is shared, the "badness" is compounded in relation to the societal view. To say that bad art doesn't exist... is to ignore that.
Personal taste is not a good measure of quality my guy
I don't know about you guys but I fucking hate sonichu art but then that's my opinion
Ruth S likin this point lmao
Being an artist for many years I have come to the conclusion that the better is supposed to be the worse it actually is.Some of the best art you will find is usually hanging in someone’s home studio not in a art gallery.
My opinion is that as a civilization becomes more advanced and populated, the bulk of human ingenuity, problem solving, and creativity are focused toward technological innovations, and away from storytelling and self expression through the fine arts. As a world that continues to trend toward rationality and knowledge, we lose the feelings and emotions to create good arts, as self expressing becomes a lost art. And perhaps that overall need for self expression will become greatly diminished in the future. For ex., how many great poets do we have in the world today as compared to a century ago or two ago.
This is crap, the art that you see in museums is still all about marketing. I'm sure there are plenty of moving and amazing paintings in the world that you don't get to see in museums because the artist didn't know the right people . Then there are all the artists that know people and know how to market their work, and they get the exposure and attention weather or not their work is really good. It is all marketing and business especially in modern art.
Guenevere Schwien Good point! I'm a designer by profession. If my hard work wasn't relevant, it wouldn't sell, and I would be earning a living doing something else. Up in Canada we've have/had collaborations of professional visual artist that flood the market and push for ever higher profits and market share. My mother tried for over a decade to make a living off of oil on canvas. She ended up successfully teaching instead.
@ Mannis... "I don't understand this nonsense"... I can't stop laughing... well yes I can... but how dense are you ? I guess you can't see the forest because of all the trees...
Dadaism was pointing out the nonsense of humans.
Seems they were also the first to ask the question... what IS art, what makes something a work of art.
Dadaists were responding to the insanity of "The Great War" and the nonsense of what people held dear... they even went as far as poking fun of themselves... the nonsense that artists belonged on pedestals or that anything belonged on a pedestal.
I suggest that you watch... "Europe after the Rain" Dadaism and Surrealism for a better understanding of what Dadaism was about rather then looking at the pictures in one book. The video is on you-tube and worth watching.
He isn't talking about any odd gallery. He is talking about that SPECIFIC world class museum of art. I don't think simply knowing the right people and just marketing will get you there.
Spoken like a true idiot. If you actually look at the paintings and works we have, a VAST majority of the exceptional ones aren't relevant at all. Look at The Revenant. How "relevant" and attuned to marketing was that film? Nearly not at all, aside from featuring Leonardo in it.
" I'm sure there are plenty of moving and amazing paintings in the world that you don't get to see in museums because the artist didn't know the right people"
No one's saying there aren't, but no one's saying that it's possible to high light and put-on-display every single drawing, painting, sculpting ever made.
"Then there are all the artists that know people and know how to market their work"
A lot of artists are just doing it as a job, and have died starving or in poverty only to then have their works discovered. Your point doesn't stand. You also have no idea what artist knows how to market or not, or whether their works were sold first, and then marketed later by people trying to profit off of it, which is exactly what happened with Frank Frazetta, he painted what he liked/wanted, sold it to people, magazines, whoever would buy it, until he made a name for himself and started earning a decent living. Had nothing to do with "marketing", had to do with him having the talent, people wanting that talent, and people hiring and marketing that talent themselves.
Try learning a bit more about the world.
"And then you get an artist says he doesn't want to paint at all
He takes an empty canvas and sticks it on the wall" - Mark Knopfler
th-cam.com/video/4-v6JeolLzw/w-d-xo.html
Everyone is different and is going to be inspired and changed by different pieces of art. So great art is not the same for everyone. I can only imagine that every art pieces will not change most of people, but I think that if changes only one, it is worth it. I love Abaporu by Tarsila do Amaral because it represents a revolution in the way of considering what a good painting is supposed to look like and what it's supposed to do for society (Brasilian modernism).
I agree with you each art piece affects each person differently. "Idilio" by Tarsila is of my favorite because of the right colors and calm setting.
"Art does not exist to serve the intellect, but to develop the creative potential and inner strenght of man" - quote Joseph Beuys
Maybe. Maybe not.
Back in college we had a art gallery on campus that featured the best selected art each month.
Most of it was very bad and I bet my friend if I put anything in there it would remain on display.
One day I noticed there was a blank pedestal. I went out that afternoon and collected a old newspaper, a coke can
and some yarn and acorns. I then typed up a small card which read "Selections of Emerald Music #5" and placed
it beneath my work. A few days later there was to be a judging of such art work so my friend and his girlfriend
came along to watch. We stood within ear shoot of our masterpiece and listened to two women
who seemed excited and animated by this work and took picture from various angles. I didn't win
the judging but two weeks later my work was still on display.
*"If I start to nod-out during a movie... It's up to the **_movie_** to keep me awake."*
Classic!
a little arrogant. As if his experience is the only valid one.
Bobo Sade witch Tarr films have you seen?
Jason Ng When he's the one doing the judging, it absolutely is. Someone, somewhere likes the shitiest of movies. That doesn't make them good. That's why there must be a standard. Anything can be good without one.
just know that this man has seen thousands of movies, if he notices that even when tired a good movie keeps him awake then he CAN use this to measure other movies.
He sounds like a c***.
The one especially great thing about art is that we all have different viewpoints about what it is and what it means, and that is what makes it such a lovely road to travel on the way to creation. There are so many possibilities.
As an artist, it is very easy to get mad at a statement like that, but in reality, the statement is quite true. Artists have to think that way. Otherwise, we won't push ourselves.
How about enjoying creating art instead of "pushing"? Seriously like are you in labor?
My experience is artists who push a work are techs only. Being creative is enjoying the discoveries in the process of producing a work that makes its own statement. @@pedramtajeddini5100
What is irritating is that the world of art critics and museum curators is subject to the pressures of commercial art market. They buy into mindless trends and fads too. This is not much different from how expensive fragrance brands and fashion labels industries work. Greed rules the world of commercial high art, big egos of the rich ruin that part of human experience too.
There are very good examples in art and music of people with no interest in art setting out to prove how easy it is to play the art game and win. Some of them after being successful cross to the other side because the job of pretending to be an artist is easier than a real, honest job. By definition, most of commercially successful art that becomes a commodity is mediocre. It's always been that way. The art of the Dark Ages and the Renaissance served the propaganda purposes of those who used Middle Eastern religious myths to gain wealth, power, and influence. Even tracing the story of da Vinci's Madonna is very telling of how a decent but nothing special painting becomes a hit. We will never know how many Beethovens or Rembrandts we will never know about.
As to the subject of the video, sure, everyone cannot be brilliant or beautiful. Imagine how dull and boring an average person is and now imagine that half of them are worse than that. Even a good artist produces maybe 10 good pieces of work during their lifetime.
Impressionism has become so loved because it gives the vieuwer a good feeling , dispite the fact that the paint was aplied " haphazzard " in sted of the perfect way the 17th century painters and classical painters did .
You only buy what makes you feel good .
Smart man and it's good to hear this from someone with credentials. What he speaks of is a truth that hurts, so most people don't want to say it, and most artists don't want to hear it.
I don't think is that. It's just the fact that this dude can't produce anything that will be interesting to even himself! Again, you can be a critic, but be sure you can do something better than the thing you're critiquing! If you can't then STFU or at the very least be ready to receive backlash!
@@LazarusSlade you seem to be really upset about this. Quite a few comments, all saying the same thing, and yet nothing at all.
Of course truth is hurtful,, because people did sugarcoating the truth, that everyone should deserve a medal. Now art become completely subjective. Lack of craftsmanship= it's my style, don't critique me. If they really put effort to learning so their idea get articulate more clearly ... Nobody like hardwork
@@LazarusSlade You don't need to be a cow to know that milk is bad.
Saying most art is bad is kinda like saying most people are ugly just because they aren't models. Its hyperbolic
My art doesn't owe you anything, if you fail to see meaning in it maybe it's because there is none to see , whether I put any meaning in my painting is irrelevant ,if I did it's my meaning not yours . Mostly I paint because I like to paint , if people like my work I'm pleased but don't expect a painting that'll change your world ,it might change an empty wall space though.
Not the mindset of one of the greats, its an excuse
@DoctorVemina What kind of an artist doesn't strive for greatness in their work?
how you define boring and interesting can be very subjective but in general i think its true we want tot be entertained in certain kinds of ways
I could not have said it better myself. Thank you.
Art in a museum- timeless and eternal. Well said. I take art classes at our local community college. It brings me joy and peace, plus love the culture of artists. In the end, it is left unseen in a closet. Might be cut up and used in a paper collage. The process of art makes me happy and content. The creation of art allows me to better understand the world and my small.world in it.
great art moves you, it changes the way you see things, it speaks to you, it sparks conversation, inspiration, and transformation. it too is a cycle. go out there and create art that is meaningful to you and watch it resonate with the world around you :)
3:32 Le Louvre..... The great and never-again Hirohiko Araki got some of his arts to be shown there. It's so esthetically pleasing and colourful.
He reminds me of every typical professor I met.
godstomper pretentious, exhaustive, and like gasoline: polluting the atmosphere with empty, verbose language
True. Loves to hear himself talk. He sounds like every doctor I have ever met. "Hey, look at me. I'm special because of my prefix". lol. meanwhile calls me for IT help "Have you tried turning it off and on again"?
@Michael Lloyd wtf
@@techsandwich4483 Congrats you sounded equally as pretentious.
@@gothelvis3541 yes he does
Art is a fashion. How many critics disliked something only years later to change their opinion to a more favourable one.
It's funny the people commenting look like they are trying to defend themselves by "I make bad art intentionally, it's my own way to express myself" its as if they don't want to agree with someone else only because it's hurting their position as a bad artist, so ythey go "bla bla bla bla" just like they do most of the time when old people are trying to teach them important thing, life is all about ignoring the advice of others, making mistakes and then giving advice back to people who don't want to hear it.
Lucak Arts I can agree with you to an extent... he has a point that some fall away and some stay. But who is to say some that fell were not extraordinary? The French composer Gabriel Faure. We are lucky many works of his were saved but many of his works were destroyed by his ignorant wife. Who is to say a great artists’ works would have been destroyed or not by evil (WWII even?..) many people here are not claiming to even be artists. But they think that art can be more than a label.
And is he really right?? Many people teach. Not many are right. Or some wouldn’t be teachers.. they would be doers.
One example where I believe he is incorrect. Movies. If he falls asleep, the movie failed to be good. Many people fell asleep during Driving Miss Daisy, Interstellar, and even Lord of the Rings. Would you call those bad movies??
People who refuse to learn fundamentals of drawing and painting make a black blob on the canvas and add a bullshit meaning to it to excuse the fact it’s ‘art’ but in reality they’re not creative enough or have the skills to make detailed artwork so instead of illustration they fall into the category of modern art because their work is shit
this video was really insightful, and I appreciate the depth Professor Walter brings to the topic. but honestly, I feel like there's a fine line between what he considers "great" art and what might just be popular or trendy. sometimes, what appeals to the masses doesn't necessarily mean it's great, right? art can be so subjective, and I'm curious if anyone else thinks the same!
I can respect UCLA Professor Richard Walter viewpoint of the art that hangs or sits at those renowned galleries created by Famous artist but the illusion the elitists have created that the dollar value placed on a art work and the gallery its in deems it worthy and the higher the value the more worthy it becomes. We are overly influenced by the $$$$$ and elitists prestige of ART world ! there are plenty of artist that deserve to be in big galleries and that have great merit but lack exposure or representation Etc......
Lack of exposure has always been a problem.
A parent doing something normal and right with a child always makes me happy and then affirmed in a very profound way. The action feels unappreciated and the art makes me feel very honored. It gives me a second wind.
"Those that can't do, teach".
Doesn't really work though - some great teachers: Bartók, Mozart, Bach, Boulanger (she could really compose but didn't promote her work), Paul Klee, Kandinsky, Messiaen, David Foster Wallace, Maya Angelou, etc etc
Many great artists in particular also taught.
Making bad art is the only way to make good art. In 2008 Suzanne Collins released "The Hunger Games". In 2012 the movie was made. They created something, I created nothing. If you want to be an artist, be an artist. Remove the ego and create.
As a lifelong illustrator and graphic designer, people would tell me, "You're a talented artist!". I'd have to politely disagree, I'm an illustrator. It got me to thinking, what's the difference? I boiled it down to this: Art is emotional expression, through a medium. Successful art evokes emotion in the consumer of the art. Commercially successful art is such that people are willing to pay money for the experience.
To me, good "art" -regardless of format - is like wine - it is what I enjoy ! & I remember what is was..
The Imitation Game?? Really??
Dude lost all
Credibility after that choice
So glad I found this. ‘Don’t be boring.’
Actually, it takes lots of experience and skill to create something that's not boring.
@@thomervin7450 True!
A great work of art will first capture one's attention, secondly take hold the attention, and third will keep the attention of its viewer beyond the time of standing in front of it and viewing it in person. The viewer will remember the artwork and no doubt will be moved enough to tell others whether or not they take interest in art.
Im a new painter/artist. I am just at the point, after a year and a half of trying, where i am beginning to like a few things I've made. My quest is to make something that I think is beautiful. It's extremely difficult, and i have a new respect for visual artists.
Keep going because another practical fact of painting is that you are so involved in little parts, so intense that you do kinda develop a degree of 'blindness' to the full picture. It's very hard for any artist to see their work the way a casual observer looks at it. The Artist often sees and remembers too much about the creation and that spoils the view. So don't be too tough even on the earlier work, it's for outside observers now to pass judgement, you've done your bit. Trust yourself. Some of the painting you might like least could turn out to be the work that casual observers like most.
He brings his personal opinion, he hopes that many will follow him and so everyone agrees that this painting or that film is a masterpiece. HYPE that's what it comes down to.
hype only applies to the short term. the long term in decades, centuries is what decides if it was great art or not
I've often drifted off when watching a film just as an engaging scene would later emerge. I would revisit the film later when I was fully awake and see what was often a compelling story that I would have otherwise missed.
Art can have value for any person but what distinguishes great art is that it has a deep meaning and breaks artistic standards
The difficult but essential rigor for the responsible art critic or professor is to develop a system of aesthetic judgment that remains sufficiently porous, agile, and yet clear and independent in conception to allow meaningful commentary on works that span a broad variety of cultures, genres, national contexts, eras, languages mediums, ideologies, etc. To provide a meaningful evaluation of a work's communicative, semantic and sensorial content and whether or not that work achieves the various aims it seems to suggest it is attempting to achieve in various dimensions is a tall order, if one desires to do more than merely festoon her own arbitrarily preconditioned tastes and biases with a few verbal ribbons.
As a highly obedient child, acquiescence was a regular experience for me, but early on I made a quiet promise to myself not have my sense of taste in storytelling, music and art dictated to me. That's MY decision. No-one would tell me otherwise. If totalitarianism is the state's dictated regulation of every area of your life, in my experience, a sense of taste can be the most potent of rebels.
Taste isn't a sense. But how does taste equate with rebellious?
Nice to hear someone dare share his - and my - viewe on most modern art.. I usually say, that most of it is ruined art materials.. Mine is all fantastic though..
In a 1000 years, all people are going to remember from this period is the new Sonic movie. It will be incredible...
2021: Already forgotten.
My mother and I went to the Whitney a month ago and she couldn’t keep quiet about how much (in her own words) “junk” they put up in there. I usually ask her about my art and how it’s progressing and she told me not to ask her anymore since what she saw in such a prominent museum was the standard. She talks to anyone and everyone about that experience.
Now to someone else, that art was amazing. Art is one of those things that is entirely dependent on the consumer/trend and has no real criteria.
That is my exact sentiment with art... 90-95% of them will not be remembered in 20 to 50 to 100 years from now... Only the good ones will be remembered.
BY WHO? 💥
I can guarantee that NONE of them will be remembered in 1000 years.
Eventually it ALL finds its way into a landfill.
So, Enjoy the ride.
The art that has changed my life forever is my labor of love, music. Alan Moore asked does an artist have an obligation to create quality in whatever he/she puts out there but considering the level of civilization connection who’s to decide what different people think or feel about the ever widening variety of art. Whether it’s professional or amateur or something in between, we try to evolve and express something that is comparable to what he hinted at, that the game changers of films, music, carpentry, architecture, science, paintings, poetry, etc. all depends on whomever is experiencing the possibility of anything created with finesse and intelligent intent. I could philosophically discus this topic lengthily because I’ve tried painting and producing a variety of different flavors of audio yet do I have the technology and know how? Not to mention the ego that comes with posting something that goes viral? No, but one must dare to share their essence.
I agree with you Professor Walter a moving Art will make a person sit down and spend time with it as if like a conversation between the two people it will be engaging. I had met a painting like that in the Dallas Museum of Arts and wrote a 2 page paper about it. "A Mountain Landscape with an Approaching Storm" from Claude-Joseph Vernet was like that for me. What struck me the most was the size and the depth of the artwork I felt sucked in it and it made me keep looking at it. I don't think Mona Lisa gives the same effect because it's too recognized even though it is timeless.
Nice, I like how Vivid and on point your description is. Makes me wanna check it out. 🍷👍
Reading comments and opinions of others is far more exciting than listening to the video itself.
Now who is better artist here?
What professor spends a minute looking at the Mona Lisa? But has his life changed by Breaking Bad.
Luca Boni rofl
To be fair, that's about all the time one can get to look at the Mona Lisa, as there's always a huge crowd surrounding it. I couldn't even get within ten feet of the painting.
I think the Mona Lisa is really interesting. Blurred edges, fantastical mountain background, earthy colors, sheer fabric, delicate embroidery, and well rendered drapery.
As soon as you see a 'professor' offering advice about art you know you should move to the next video.
As soon as you see a professor offering advice about anything related to real life*
That's the issue with society letting fringe groups deciding what's art. I had an art professor in college say frescoes in Sistine Chapel were not real art, they were illustrations. In one sentence she took a dump on commissioned art, frescoes, Michelangelo, and illustrators.
For me good art has to activate my imagination and make me want to create something. That doesn't necessarily have to come from technical masterpieces like Raphael or Durer's art, it can come from how some random artist on twitter uses line art. Sure, i love classical art, but depending on the type of art there'll be various things to admire. The Mona Lisa for instance doesn't really interest me that much. The mystery and story is interesting but is wouldn't necessarily engage me more than that. Good or bad art is really just in a persons personality and life experiences, like with everything else. The value in an art piece isn't necessarily in how long it lasts through the decades, to me it's more about the people it inspires. Creation is vastly important to me. As long as you strive to improve in whatever medium you want to do, that's good enough. Wether it's painting, drawing, animation, 3D, blah blah blah, you just gotta keep striving to studying and really honing your skill
i agree :)
Wow! A critic with whom I can agree! Excellent comments. So true. We'll let him off easy the day we gather up all the critics for retribution.
The biggest difference between bad art and great art is ..... Paying a good PR company.
Life is too short for bad art.
Good Art needs to be pleasing/interesting to the eye, regardless of complexity, the technical skill has to show if only for academic purposes.
Most of all Art HAS to hold a message that will endure.
I watched this four years ago and I had to come back.
Welcome back!
I spent 20 minutes looking at a Monet. I had to leave as it was closing time.
I am with you, you can't top a Monet. I bet you can be a whole day looking at the one at MOMA.
To make great art, you have to be honest and refuse to settle for less. To quote a song lyric that resonates, "You must risk something that matters." Many "artists" seem more interested in being an artist than in creating great or even mildly interesting work. It is a social pose, a strategy for enhancing status, looking hip, and maybe even making money. This game can work for some people, but it has nothing to do with anything that really matters beyond the satisfaction of their own needs and desires. I struggle to contain my negative feelings towards that faux-artist crowd. But my gratitude for the work of the best artists makes life worth living. I'm not even sure I would be alive without all that I have gotten from Art.
I'm always cautious of people who suggest Artists who want an income are somehow lesser artists and indeed human beings than the artists who suffer through poverty all their lives 'for their Art!' and allow others that follow to make the big bucks from their 'posthumously discovered' work instead.
@@wewhofly Strangely, your reply has almost no relationship to my original post.
"Many "artists" seem more interested in being an artist than in creating great or even mildly interesting work. It is a social pose, a strategy for enhancing status, looking hip, and maybe even making money."
My comment alluded to what I read.
But it is an opinion Often hinted at, the impurity of an Artist who wants to get paid. Being paid - and well - allows very serious artists to go on painting. Being paid is a serious part of serious art. Purists always try to evade that. That is to say, if more people who love genuine/from the soul art actually paid for more of it, rather than just visiting high end art galleries, more serious artists would last longer, paint more. Everybody needs money to survive.
Strange, I nodded off listening to this.
Don’t be boring, I like that
I don't care what anyone says: I have ALWAYS loved wild abstract avant garde art!
That includes music, too!
Nevertheless, I discipline myself to put a tight limit on ALL forms of my entertainment consumption.
My life is devoted to MY creativity, MY labor of love: proving math theorems.
The Ultimate Reductionist Your mom
Different strokes for different folks.
I completely agree. i am a semi profesional sculptor, potter, painter. The so-called artists are so bad I can't believe it when I check out exhibitions I will be a shame. Seriously!It looks like someone one day decided to be an artist with no skill and started to produce crap. The sad part is the jury that selects pieces of art are the same-poor skill, poor taste, poor judgment. This is really true in the USA (Cheesy taste). In the rest of the world, it is so much better. Art school level went down the drain since good kids don't need to go to school, they get hired directly from the industry especially 3modeling ...contemporary art is a joke, mostly garbage. Most abstract painter do abstract because they cant paint or draw. it is pathetic.
The Immitation Game quoted as a movie we'll all remember because its a work of art? Ah please, give me a break.
Guto Medeiros I totally agree. I thought the movie was great, but it was no where near life changing. Aesthetically it brought nothing new to the table. Just a decent story with decent actors, not something future generations will cherish.
That movie was forgotten as soon as the credits rolled for the 2014 oscars. It was a well made movie, but admittedly Oscar bait.
@@robbieclark7828 I didn't even think it was a well made movie.
i agree with him on "don't be boring"- thats my most basic rule. As for art changing my life, thats asking too much of an artist! Hows about "make you think of something in a different way?"
he probably just means impactful.
Art is subjective. No one has the right to dictate to others what they should, or should not think, despite the current way of the world, no one!
This is a totally pompous, and some might say, elitist attitude. If presented with, what he believed, was the work of an amateur … he would no doubt destroy the creation for what in his mind was just that, amateur. But then, if he was then told that the work was that of one of world’s greatest artists, I would enjoy watching the squirming and backtracking that followed that revelation.
This attitude is one that smacks of an individual, who believes himself to be one of the “few” people with the talent to be a professional art critic. The truth is, he is simply, like the rest of us, giving his own thoughts on his artistic likes and dislikes …
Boring is subjective...I've seen people like and respond to a certain sculpture, taking their time over it, exploring it, feeling it and certain other individuals- few as they are, say immediately (about the same sculpture) "its boring" ! they don't tend to hang around.
If you want to understand Art and the Art market, going to an Art Professor ( a well paid Govt employee) is not the place to get objective information.
I loved The Hunger Games, it was an exciting story line. I also went to the Louvre and stood in front of the Mona Lisa but didn't even get to see it because a hundred other people were also standing in front of it and wouldn't get out of the way so others could see it.
Hunger Games is NOT art
@@Fortuna_716 what is art to you?
i was at the philadelphia mus. of art strolling thru the galleries and came upon the Color Field gallery. huge empty gallery. me and the guard were the only ones in the gallery. we were having a conversation about the lack of visitors in this particular period gallery. a few doors down was the Marcel Duchamp and dada galleries. not full but people were looking and even reading. very few got the "Given the Illuminated Gas and the Walerfall" gallery so i subtly showed them how to see the piece.
"There are no rules in film. Only sins. And the cardinal sin is dullness." - Frank Capra