The commonality between the Divinci, the Dechaump, the Warhol, and the Basquiat is they all went against the norms of the time and showed ppl something in a way they had never seen it before. they all had to know the rules to break them and show the art world the rules are no longer meaningful in that moment in time.
This has been a dominating thought I've had in the past like week or 2 and it's so crazy I got suggested this video when I did! This is so interesting, you seriously deserve more attention for this.
I got to the part where you asked what the commonality of Warhol, Duchamp, da Vinci, and Basquiat, and the answer to that is that they all had significant, personal experience and knowledge within their respective mediums. They worked within their parameters in order to evoke a response in a large swath of the establishments they were relevant to. In order to be within this class of art, social prestige of some sort is a requirement. For example with Duchamp, Fountain wouldn't have been considered high art at the time even if you were somehow able to entirely undress yourself of your biases and appreciate it for it's intention. The cultural impact of the piece that allowed for Dadaism, Rothko, Warhol, etc., is what let's us call it high art. Or if Mona Lisa didn't have the cultural impact it has had being the single most recognizable piece of art in human history, instead being a painting being known by some within the art community without the prestige it carries, then it likely wouldn't be considered the high it that it rightfully is. Say that Goya wasn't a famous painter for the royal family, just a normal hobbyist painter, and you acquired his house immediately after his death, meaning you discover his most famous collection painted on his walls. At that moment, Saturn Devouring His Son is not high art. There is no prestige to him or his work at this point, and may as well be comparable to the work of Henry Darger. That is the sole distinction between high and "low" art, and it lies within the constructs of sociology rather than something that can be described while lacking social impact. An artisan cabinet craftsman creating detailed and high quality cabinets for the bourgeoisie of France is not yet high art, nor is an architect living in Seattle designing "haute couture" homes for faux-fulfilled yuppies in the north west. Nor is a young amateur videographer who wears a beret, needlessly uses multiple camera angles of of his monologue, putting his own word in bold texts with quotes on screen as they are spoken, including a "vintage" vignette with another layer of vintage with a corny video filter. Yeah, that person I made up also isn't high art. I'd struggle to even call it compelling art. If that theoretical person exists that is, haha.
I’ve been watching ur TH-cam videos since the Chief Keef video was randomly in my recommended, but this is by far of my favorite from you. Thank you for making this video this have given me a lot to think about.
I was wondering why this felt like deja vu when i checked your video list after seeing this in my recommended! Perhaps you might want to make those un-reduxed versions of previous videos as Unlisted instead of Privated, so that it may be accessed in your "Art Video Essays" playlist, which currently shows "2 unavailable videos hidden" which I assume includes your "Is Nature Art?" video? Anyway, nice to have a version that's more refined to what you envisioned.
The commonality between the Divinci, the Dechaump, the Warhol, and the Basquiat is they all went against the norms of the time and showed ppl something in a way they had never seen it before. they all had to know the rules to break them and show the art world the rules are no longer meaningful in that moment in time.
This has been a dominating thought I've had in the past like week or 2 and it's so crazy I got suggested this video when I did! This is so interesting, you seriously deserve more attention for this.
I got to the part where you asked what the commonality of Warhol, Duchamp, da Vinci, and Basquiat, and the answer to that is that they all had significant, personal experience and knowledge within their respective mediums. They worked within their parameters in order to evoke a response in a large swath of the establishments they were relevant to. In order to be within this class of art, social prestige of some sort is a requirement. For example with Duchamp, Fountain wouldn't have been considered high art at the time even if you were somehow able to entirely undress yourself of your biases and appreciate it for it's intention. The cultural impact of the piece that allowed for Dadaism, Rothko, Warhol, etc., is what let's us call it high art. Or if Mona Lisa didn't have the cultural impact it has had being the single most recognizable piece of art in human history, instead being a painting being known by some within the art community without the prestige it carries, then it likely wouldn't be considered the high it that it rightfully is.
Say that Goya wasn't a famous painter for the royal family, just a normal hobbyist painter, and you acquired his house immediately after his death, meaning you discover his most famous collection painted on his walls. At that moment, Saturn Devouring His Son is not high art. There is no prestige to him or his work at this point, and may as well be comparable to the work of Henry Darger.
That is the sole distinction between high and "low" art, and it lies within the constructs of sociology rather than something that can be described while lacking social impact. An artisan cabinet craftsman creating detailed and high quality cabinets for the bourgeoisie of France is not yet high art, nor is an architect living in Seattle designing "haute couture" homes for faux-fulfilled yuppies in the north west. Nor is a young amateur videographer who wears a beret, needlessly uses multiple camera angles of of his monologue, putting his own word in bold texts with quotes on screen as they are spoken, including a "vintage" vignette with another layer of vintage with a corny video filter. Yeah, that person I made up also isn't high art. I'd struggle to even call it compelling art. If that theoretical person exists that is, haha.
You’ve genuinely made me look at the world differently. Serious artist
how on earth you don't get more views confuses me
Love ur style man wow the grain and aspect ratio love the crt tv look
how did I almost miss this? I was gonna say I've already watched this, then I read the description.
what is this underrated high quality
You earned my subscription
I’ve been watching ur TH-cam videos since the Chief Keef video was randomly in my recommended, but this is by far of my favorite from you. Thank you for making this video this have given me a lot to think about.
Amazing video!!
I was wondering why this felt like deja vu when i checked your video list after seeing this in my recommended! Perhaps you might want to make those un-reduxed versions of previous videos as Unlisted instead of Privated, so that it may be accessed in your "Art Video Essays" playlist, which currently shows "2 unavailable videos hidden" which I assume includes your "Is Nature Art?" video? Anyway, nice to have a version that's more refined to what you envisioned.
Araki is great, but Glenn Vilppu is the closest artist we have to an old master.
release titus alr