Jackson pollocks art isn’t even his own idea. It comes from his wife who was abused by him. And he stole her art style which caused her to go to the opposite end of the art spectrum
Janet Sobel wasn't his wife but she did invent the drip style of painting. It can be argued that painting styles can't "really" be stolen though, otherwise we'd all be guilty. Pollock was a terrible human being but he was still an artist.
Did he "steal" it? What I've read is that she was a huge influence on him, but that this was because she chose to help him figure out what he wanted to do.
Nothing against modern art, but I love the “kitsch” style. Not everything has to be deep. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying something just because it makes you feel good and looks nice. But I agree Kinkade was an unlikeable person. I think ALL artists & critics need to stop taking themselves so seriously and getting angry when people don’t like or understand their preferred style. The beauty of art is how subjective it is.
I agree as an artist and an artist who does more abstract and expressionism work with heavy meanings and sometimes the simple nature of his work is an art in its self! I’ve sat down with a couple puzzles of his paintings and the beauty is just refreshing to see his pretty worlds sometimes
@@TheSuperiorMonty if people want to support an artist that paints things that have to do with religion, and he makes paintings that have to do with religion, that is not manipulation, that is called getting what you paid for.
so basically the point of the video was that both sides of the art community have the exact same stick up their ass about “real art” so you missed the entire point
The worst part of art is how people think that there's a 'right way' to do it. Art is a thing that was made beyond a purpose of pure function. If you make a hammer and you put an inscription on it, it's art now. Crown molding is art too. Most things have artistic elements and are by extension art.
There's a difference between abstract, like Picasso, and just someone literally having diarrhea on a piece of canvas and dropping another water balloon of red paint on top of it.
@@puddycat2325 The original poster never said anything to the contrary, did you just post this comment to be obnoxious or were you actually trying to make a point?
I actually like weird and experimental modern art, mainly sculptures. But the thing is that the creators of it take it WAY too seriously. You don't need some 'deep philosophical' reason why you made something really weird.
I think the reason why they get into deep philosophical reasons (aside from ego) is because a lot of abstract art comes from the principle of "how can I express emotion and meaning through the most unusual way possible?" And well, this question by itself already starts to get pretty philosophical, so you can see where the rest goes hopefully.
I always believed ugly art is a waste. It’s like, if you have something to say, then just say it, because typically the people who agree with the artist are the only ones who will understand and it’s no use preaching to the choir, so to speak.
@@majorproblem8796 the problem with that is how little reach the average person has with just speaking. That’s why they go through the whole route of creating that art has holds a message because that way a message that means a lot to them is immortalized into art.
i enjoy the deeper meaning because that's how i get the enjoyment out of a lot of it. at my art museum there's a piece of art that's just two light bulbs on a wire together and i thought "ok this is stupid" until i read the plaque next to it about how it related to the artist and their partner who got aids and it moved me a lot and now i appreciate it
I went to art school with someone who asked herself "how far can you dissect a painting until it's no longer a painting?", and what she would do was dismantle the canvas and the frame, and pour various colors of leftover paints from hardware stores onto plastic until they dried, and make all these crazy sculptural set ups with them. they never got SUPER big, since she was a student and had to balance other classes, plus she was an athlete so she had that responsibility too, but what she did create was really interesting and I think if she had a little more time, she could have created all sorts of crazy environments and installations for people to walk through. she definitely changed how I define paintings. and on top of that, she was one of the brightest, kindest souls I'd ever met. a true pleasure to be around. and bc of that, because of that humility and kindness and gift with people, she got everyone else in the class excited about her work and her perspective. we got to see a whole new angle of a concept we all thought we already understood, and that would have NEVER been possible had she been elitist and stuck up and gatekeepy, the way so many others are. artists who act like their work is some pinnacle of philosophy do such a disservice to themselves, their work, the art world, and the people they could reach with their talent. art is a dialogue, and the more people you leave out of the conversation, the smaller and grayer the world becomes.
Modern Artists: "You made your art based on Positive emotions, and influenced by religion? That's horrible. You're no real artist." Renaissance artists:
Well that shit is incredibly boring. Going to an art museum and just looking at classical paintings is just mind numbing. There’s zero interpretation with many of them.
@@BIGBoy-pp4db personally loved seeing classical paintings at some of the museums i visited in paris, especially the sheer size of some of these, they were so intensly detailed and like the size of a movie theater screen. there was a lot of variety, sometimes i just want to see pretty pictures, i go watch art to clear my mind for a bit and get some creative inspiration, not to overthink on the meaning of what i'm looking at
@@BIGBoy-pp4db the point isn't your interpretation, it's the artists message. The artists of the Renaissance valued their individuality and put it on display for others to see, rather than making art that gives an observer the opportunity to ruminate on their own thoughts and stroke their own ego.
this reminds me of the one time I went to an art museum and they had like an abstract modern art exhibit, and some of it was honestly very cool, and then there was. The grass table. It was a table with like fake turf grass on top of it and there was like. A thing it was attached to that made it shake. And I just. What? Huh? (I also remember the exhibit had a thing with these bead where you'd put like colored beads in these little bins next to the art and like each bead corresponded to like an emotion that the piece made you feel or whatever, almost every bin was 70-90% full of the beads for "confused" and thats so funny to me)
No the reason why realistic art is not in many museums is because it’s nothing special anymore we’ve known how to do it for over a thousand years. To the point we are at today with contemporary art was a slow evolution of getting more abstract and looking at the world differently. These artist know the renaissance was defined by that style of art and that’s what defined the era there just so different you can’t compare them.
@@steamyspiceisnice9665 We've also known how to put snot on a canvas for thousands of years too, and yet you would have trouble finding art that can crack even that low level of quality, skill or effort in a modern art gallery today. At least back when cavemen were making handprints and animals on the walls of their caves, that _was_ the absolute height of painting that was physically possible, and they left behind some damn good hunting scenes. "getting more abstract" in modern art is basically just code for "we can't compare our work favorably to our ancestors without putting in actual effort, so let's cope by saying that ackshyually the ideas of quality, skill and effort are bad and backwards." It's all one giant case of sour grapes, nothing more.
i mean personally, realism is easier for me just because im not as creative, id rather go based of something i can see and work from there. not saying my art is good anyways, but i couldnt figure out how to make abstract art myself lol
The thing about abstract art is, it gains meaning as you talk about it. I managed to make my professors believe a canvas which I painted red 30 mins before the class was an abstract representation of my favorite song(That was the assignment). I got 90 over 100 for that assignment and I remember this one girl, she was working on a clay sculpture for the same assignment for a week and she got 65. My god I remember her face. It is the very first thing that comes to my mind whenever someone talks about abstract or modern art. It is not hard or anything. You just have to pretend like it is the most important thing in life. That's all
@@stormevans6897 considering most famous artists hate their paintings so much that the hate transfered over to themselves and they maimed/killed themselves in anger. Kinda shows you won't like your works when you make them and you need an outside opinion to judge your work properly.
All art is abstract to some degree. The way you choose to present your realistic work still requires some degree of subjective judgement and creativity on your part. Even the laziest and most utilitarian industrial photographer has to make some creative choices when deciding on what angles he needs, what type of lens or film stock he should use, and how he should go about lighting his subjects. Even the most realistic art cannot literally capture every aspect of a moment perfectly; it can only capture a limited impression-and it's the job of the artist to decide what parts that impression needs to emphasise, or what the scope of that captured impression should be.
There’s an odd error in the hosted video at 3:18 where he narrates “Thomas kinkaid was born in 1985” and I was like no fucking way lol I googled it, it’s 1958, which fits way better. Just a funny error I thought I’d point out. (Not Charlie’s error, whoever’s video this is he’s watching)
Fun fact: Last October, Damien Hirst started selling his works as NFTs, and burning the physical versions… 🤦♂️ Which makes sense, considering they were basically NFTs before NFTs
Art student here, and my studio Art Professors tend to favor weird and wacky art that has a ‘deep meaning’ behind it. Me and a few students make up stuff sometimes to give it more meaning than ‘this is a nice color' or ‘I like the composition’ a lot.
I think there was one more artist who might be a little more hated. Failed to get in art school in Vienna. Was a mustache model. Had minor anger issues.
@@Naesil89well, he did fail art school. At a minimum his teachers hated him as an artist. Probably as a leader too, I imagine he didnt treat them very well.
I actually love the art styles of artists like Thomas Kinkade and Terry Redlin. Makes me think of times when I was younger despite only being 20 years old.
I’m fairly certain my grandma had one of these paintings in her living room back in the day lol (everyone knows the best painter is Ringo Starr anyway)
Its really baffling to me that people cant distinguish the difference between the art and the artists. You can hate the artists but at the same time you can also like the art
I think it's funny that these artists are complaining about the art meaning nothing. Like bruh, not everything has to have a meaning, some things are genuinely just meant to be surface level.
The meaning can also be… comfort. Home. Peace. They’re choosing to ignore other meanings because they can’t apply a pseudo intellectual argument to it being a critique of society, and thus being “valuable”.
@@petulantpeterturbo most modern artists dont put their shit in exhibitions. their stuffs on packaging, billboards, films, phone cases, tshirts, bottles etc. the ones that make nft's just do something simple to make a quick buck. Behance is a good representation of modern art and its just an app.
The difference is that people don't hate "the artist Hitler" but "the megalomaniac Hitler". They might be the same person but the reason for the hate is very different
For some reason this is controversial take because people will always be debatelord andy to anyone that says it istg but- Imo, as an artist, Hitler's art wasn't good and I mean that from both a philosophical and technical level. I'm not a fan of Kinkade's work but Kinkade at least had technical skill and a sense of scale to his works. I completely understand why Hitler was rejected from art college especially in comparison to the artist who got his place, Egon Schiele, who not only made art works that were more interesting and unique/experimentalthan him but also showed in his portfolio a great level of understanding realism, perspective, light, scale, composition etc. But people get really bizarrely defensive about Hitler's work lol But in the end like another commenter said, people don't really hate Hitler as an artist but they hate him for being a fascist, genocidal, megalomaniac, dictator.
I feel like modern scribble art is kitsche (or whatever) by the very root of the definition. Attempts to make you feel like it has a porpuse and it is deep in meaning but at the end it means nothing
That is pretty much the opposite of what abstract art tries to achieve. Abstract art is in a way just like normal art, it tries to provoke thoughts or emotions. However the idea behind abstract art is in HOW the artist will achieve that through the most "different" or inovative way possible. Like "how would I make this piece sad without building explicitly sad scenarios"
It is exactly that, real abstract art is the complete opposite to that as Gabi here just said, to convey an emotion through the formlessness and the subtleness, most "abstract art" today (or let's be real here they're money laundering schemes) need like an entire freaking essay to explain why it exist and why it is emotionally challenging, which is the exact opposite of what it is surposed to do. Trust me you'll know great abstract art when you see it
@@gabiferreira6864 right like that's interesting. I don't think any art is really "trash" because art is something that can never be perfectly replicated. you can never get the exact same brush strokes as another other painter, or even your own. Even if you made something digitally. also art can just be fun, even if there is some random deep meaning behind it that's cool if the artist is happy with it. I personally just like drawing pretty women, doesn't mean my art is bad either since it lacks a lot of deep meaning.
When it comes to figuring out if an artist is genuinely good at visual art, I follow the "French Dispatch" philosophy of asking them to draw something perfectly to test if they can actually make great art if they felt like it.
I love when that same philosophy is applied to modern composers of 20th-century and contemporary classical music. I think it's amazing when I discover that composers who write some of the most abstract and avant-garde music ever do a complete 180 and are also able to write some of the most beautiful and emotionally-rich tonal music as well. Those are the greats of present times and the last 100 years. They prove that they have all the skills and talent that we see in tonal composers like Beethoven or Bach, and they use their skills to go further and also write great avant-garde music as well. Such composers include Alfred Schnittke, John Cage, Arnold Schoenberg, Krzysztof Penderecki, and so many more.
what makes art great though? it's really just self expression, you don't need to be professionally trained to express an idea. And having the theory doesn't make you a better artist than anyone else either.
I love art, it's been a part of me since I was little, and there is just an uncanny valley around his art that they are pretentiously attempting to put a finger on
It's the insincerity-the "fake emotions", as the video put it. It's not that those emotions don't exist, but that they aren't a genuine expression on the part of Kincaid himself. The emotion of the scene isn't supplied by the painting, or by the painter, but by the viewer-like the meaningless ink blots of a Rorschach test, except those don't try to pretend to be deep and complex, or anything other than the utilitarian scientific tools they were created to serve as. The reason you don't have the same reaction with Bob Ross is because the works he showcased were never really meant as art for their own sake-they were meant to teach other people how to use techniques in their own work-they were practical educational tools that never masqueraded as anything else. Bob Ross didn't try to*trick* his viewers and swindle them the way Thomas Kincaid did.
I like impressionism, realism, surrealism, and most European art from the 1500s-1800s. They look nice and are also thought provoking. Abstract art, modern art, and action painting don't really do it for me though. I do have to admit that some modern art pieces would look nice on a wall in a contemporary style house though.
I’ve always loved Kinkade paintings. My mom loves them and it will always make me feel nostalgic and happy because I had a good childhood 🤗 These haters sound unwell.
Charlie insulting Keith Haring’s work was pretty painful ngl… I’m sure he didn’t know who he was or what his art was developed for but still. He was incredibly talented and influential
Charlie doesn’t seem to know much about art. Not knocking him for it, but it’s kinda hard to watch in this video. Yeah, people’s reactions to Kinkaid were ridiculous, but the point itself is not entirely pretentious.
For anyone who's curious. Modern art is NOT modern. You can hate Modern art but it is not literally modern. The modern art period spans the 1860s through the 1870s, we are currently in the CONTEMPORARY art period. Which strives to do the opposite of what the modern art period tried to do. Contemporary art is cool af, modern art is from a by-gone era and is no longer necessary in progressing art. Don't hate modern contemporary art, you're swinging at the wrong people. ANYHOW I love art and art history. The digital age has absolutely skyrocketed the contemporary art movement and I love it with my whole heart LMAO
Lmaoooo people really hate T.K but then pretend they feel something from starring at a random paint drippings that was made in like 5 minutes and sold for 5 million.
A lot of modern art is artists trying to make some sort of ironic commentary on something but failing and just being like “we I guess I can use this for money laundering” 😰 It’s like they heard about the concept of anti-art in a class once, didn’t understand that they were being made fun of, then tried to make some themselves, but they were way too serious about it so it just doesn’t work 🙃
When the painting by Banksy destroyed itself after being sold for over a million, I understood the absolute insanity. The people that can afford to buy a painting by an elephant for thousands of dollars when it is absolute garbage make the industry intolerable for talented artists.
I can’t blame him For his insanity and drinking himself to death, imagine being slandered despite producing such heartwarming works with an arguably good message behind them
I learned drawing and painting by myself, but Bob Ross was a light in the dark realm of getting better and maybe faster... my absolute favourite is Joseph Mallord Turner, he's the painter of light of the 19th century! Kitsch is Biedermeier art!
I went to the tate modern one year for a college outing and one of, and the most memorable, 'art pieces' was a recept from tesco put on the wall. I wish I was joking. I took a picture of it but I've since lost that.
So i looked up Damien Hirst's art work since I hadn't heard of him before and as an artist it hurts to see that something I could've made in elementary school would go for 2k. Its like why even bother improving and scraping in small commission after small commission when some pretentious asshole can just take a bingo dobber to a canvas and make 2k. like art is something that's very important to me and the influx of "abstract painters" in recent years upsets me. Absract art isn't something like a circle on a paper that someone made bullshit up about. IMO, if its to qualify as abstract ART, it needs to be able to make the viewer feel, understand or relate in some way without any hint of explanation, or it is simply not good. I'm sorry! nobody asked for this! i just needed it off my chest. GOD I hate pretentious assholes.
I remember hearing somewhere that in the Soviet Union, some scientists wanted to test how smart the peasantry were, so they went out to the countryside and would show them things like basic shapes, like triangles and squares, and ask them what they were. The peasants would usually respond, "that's a roof" (if it was a triangle), and gave similar answers for everything else. Basically, the rural country-folk could think very abstractly but were very utilitarian with their interpretations, everything had to have a purpose, had to mean something beyond just the thing itself. However, the Soviet Scientists just took it as proof that the peasants were dumb and needed to be "liquidated."
I'm going to need a source because this sounds like absolute red scare propaganda bullshit especially considering the soviet unions disdain for things like IQ tests (rightfully so, its mostly thinky veiled eugenics). There's literally so many things you can legitimately criticise the soviet Union for (trust me, I have a long ass list) but I have never come across this rumour nor have I been able to find anything when searching for anything backing this after reading your comment. Source please.
Abstract art is important, because usually it's the people who think outside of the box that come up with innovative ideas. Look at A Day On The Life by The Beatles, both the interlude and ending use something more abstract/experimental and it benefits the song as a whole. Without abstract/experimental artists, art would be dull because no one would have the balls to do anything too different. Just the same 4-chords, just the same wooden house next to a river.
@@jordanhewson8287 the problem is, that line is subjective. in my humble opinion, Jackson Pollocks art was seriously misunderstood even today. Damien Hurst, however, is another story
@@jordanhewson8287 stupidity, as in how "stupid" an artwork is, is entirely based on your knowledge about the piece and your personal opinion on it. Saying "there's abstract and there's stupid" is completely meaningless because it entirely relays on your personal opinion of what is stupid and what isn't
There are legit abstract artists but a lot of weak artists hide behind """abstract""" art that is really just normal art done shitty. Instead of actually gaining any skills and working on bettering themselves they would just try to say that their fucked up anatomy and poor color theory was just "abstract art" when it really was just them being lazy.
@@gabiferreira6864 nah there's definitely abstract """"artists"""" that just want the title of an artist but are lazy and stupid. There are genuinely good abstract pieces of art but some people put in 0 effort and should be called out.
You guys didnt see the whole drawing on the side charlie is covering is a face staring into that light :) it's not just scribbles i think its some guy staring into a tv type thingy projecting on what hes watching :D or thats how i see it
Kinkade is a skilled artist, no doubt. My main issue is the title "painter of light" he uses light but not in an interesting way. I don't think people really hate him. But within the art world just doing what sells is always looked down on for some stupid reason.
I work in framing… my boss has lost count of how many of these she’s framed I’ve framed possibly 10 to 18 in the year I’ve worked there Also about 75% of my mom’s puzzles are painted by him, I love them
Some people are overly pretentious about art my god I’m an artist and I just draw furries. It doesn’t have “meaning” I just think it’s fun and people like my art that’s about it 😭
For artists people hate I'll probably catch flak for it but I despise Warhol. His art just seems so ridiculously lazy and from what I've read about the guy he seemed incredibly pretentious for a guy who made giant brillo boxes and soup cans.
There's two points about Warhol that most people miss. The first is that the banality of his works focusing on commercially mass-produced household items was entirely intended-a sort-of metatextual commentary on the banality of everyday life in mid-twentieth-century America, and how sharply that life contrasts (what were at the time) the norms of the art world. Like it or not, there's a point to it-something is being said on a conceptual level. It's essentially the same kind of satire featured prominently in the films of Paul Verhoeven, or the comedy of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. The second point (and one that's a lot more important when discussing Warhol specifically) is that he did so much other stuff in other media besides just the graphic prints that everybody is familiar with, and in fact, he considered his other works more important and interesting. He was a prolific sculptor, filmmaker, and live performer-and very few people outside the modernist art scene have actually seen or are even aware of any of the work he did in those other fields. To judge him as an artist solely based on one project he did in one medium that wasn't even his main focus as a creator is either misguided or disingenuous. I'm not a fan of Warhol or his "Factory" entourage, but he wasn't the complete and total hack people who only know like two of his works make him out to be either.
@@DistractedGlobeGuy I understand the point he was trying to get across in his art. He was trying to make fun of the classical sensibilities of the time. I have also seen some of his sculptures and such as well and I don't doubt that they weren't well made or made without skill. I just don't have a preference for his work or even Warhol himself. In my opinion and this is probably gonna be more flak worthy but I am not a fan of the artist himself as a person and the person matters just as much as the art itself. Now perhaps that is from ignorance but from everything I read about Warhol he really didn't seem like anything other than a narcissist. I can sympathize with the want to be recognized and praised for ones work but with Warhol it just rubs me the wrong way. Don't get me wrong I love a good troll or getting that south Park style reaction but most of Warhol's well known works don't evoke that feeling or much of anything really. Thats a fail imo since art is meant to provoke something and I just don't think Warhol does that with the vast majority of his work. I could go on and on about why I'm not a Warhol fan.
screenshot 52 soup cans and put them in the same picture :^) honestly idc if it was comerciality capitalism bla bla bla the art is just boring and bland he should have draw a cool dragon or something
they say Pollock isn't actually doing random paint splats but arranging them in a fractal pattern I mean, I'm a skills appreciation guy and I think that's awesome if true
these are entertaining and good work to find the clips but i would greatly appreciate and i think the quality of the video would raise if you cut out the parts where he goes to the bathroom or has to leave for some reason itd make it a lot less of a hassle
I think art is about being creative with whatever medium you choose, or are provided with. So I was nodding along to all the sarcastic comments thinking "there you go. Now you're getting it" 😂😂
I find it funny that it's the same people who critize this man for his "poor art", that are responsible for a random piece of trash being stuck to a canvas counting as a multimillion dollar artwork. Art critics are specialists nobody really needs, because good art will always find its way and its for everyone to decide on their own whether they like a picture or not. When it comes to video games or other "usable art" ofc reviews can be helpful whether to decide if it's worth to purchase such a special kind of art. I personally find these pictures a bit generic indeed, but also very well worked out and I think it's absolutely classical motives, which evokes a sense of nostalgia. It sounds a lot as if these people are just angry over Kinkade's sucess and that he used his talent for something they deem "uncool" in their hipster mindsets.
I'm not sure I understand modern art a whole lot less than I understand non-modern art. In both cases, the works were produced in a cultural context I'm unlikely to really be familiar with. A painting of a guy sitting in a chair may actually be a biblical reference, except there'll be a plant somewhere in the background that signified trustworthiness in the artistic symbolism of the era, and the plant is wilted, and that means that the painting is actually an allegory for the political instability experienced by Dutch people in the 1650s, but specifically the western part of the country as signified by the sun's position, etc.
Same, I've been watching since 2014, and I used to feel like I got left behind when he started streaming because I could never catch him Now there's several high-quality channels dedicated to making sure I can watch whenever
Alright specifically modern sculpture art is the coolest $h!t. One I saw a couple of years ago was several home items like chairs, shoes, books, bowls, wooden spoons, etc. They were set up on a spinning floor and the smaller items were on spinning wooden stands. It was like a planetarium of home items and they were ordered by importance the closer to the center they got.
honestly i really did like that damien hurst thing with all the pills in it. but more just because it’s interesting to look at all the pills not because it’s particularly creative or involved. it’s definitely be a cool piece to have in the waiting room at your doctors office but it’s not art.
In my country Kic (kitsch) means something with alot of vibrant colors, alot of ornaments, excessive details, alot of subject doing alot of things. There may be even alot of different composition within compositions, telling alot of storys... To bring that overwhelming feeling just add, add, add. And in general i like when its made correctly, but its hard because of so much elements you need to balance. Unfortunately most of the people who like it and do it are not good artists or artists at all. So alot of people who like kic decorate their homes like Bosch's Hell paintings. In terms of this guy. Hes just making colors alot more vibrant to make that "toy" like look. And painting do lack depth, one would make this for practice, If it was photography, it would be made by a instagram model taking photos of a Christmas fayre. Stock photos of paintings. Pinterest before it existed.
Thanks for watching! Please Like an Subscribe 👍
*and*
Working on a painting, listening to Charlie in the background
Charlie: "Artists Suck"
Arist: you can't tell us what art is! It'd subjective and emotional
Also artist: THIS ISNT ART
I mean, it's also artists who shit on nfts (as they should)
@@HauntedHallwayz Until they make an nft of their own art, and then suddenly it's the future of art.
Repressive tolerance, it’s a leftist specialty 👌
@@xal7034 fr
@@HauntedHallwayz agreed
Jackson pollocks art isn’t even his own idea. It comes from his wife who was abused by him. And he stole her art style which caused her to go to the opposite end of the art spectrum
That I did not know
@Shaggy13 714 abstract
Janet Sobel wasn't his wife but she did invent the drip style of painting. It can be argued that painting styles can't "really" be stolen though, otherwise we'd all be guilty. Pollock was a terrible human being but he was still an artist.
That dude is a d!€k
Did he "steal" it? What I've read is that she was a huge influence on him, but that this was because she chose to help him figure out what he wanted to do.
Nothing against modern art, but I love the “kitsch” style. Not everything has to be deep. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying something just because it makes you feel good and looks nice. But I agree Kinkade was an unlikeable person. I think ALL artists & critics need to stop taking themselves so seriously and getting angry when people don’t like or understand their preferred style. The beauty of art is how subjective it is.
I agree as an artist and an artist who does more abstract and expressionism work with heavy meanings and sometimes the simple nature of his work is an art in its self! I’ve sat down with a couple puzzles of his paintings and the beauty is just refreshing to see his pretty worlds sometimes
“simple” as in lack of deep meanings
I thought Kitsch was more like trying pretend your paintings have a deeper meaning when it’s actually hollow
@@ashgoat4792 it's a fuckin picture, pretending there is some deep meaning behind it is just pretentious
@@Luminaria999 fr sometimes when i paint for my art class I have to come up with meanings after i paint. not everything needs to have meaning
So basically the only people who really hated him were fine art snobs who were upset at how accessible and widespread fine art became
Or people that had an art degree yet never painted a single piece of art, and got mad that he was successful.
or the people who he manipulated into funding his art by appealing to their religious beliefs
@@TheSuperiorMonty if people want to support an artist that paints things that have to do with religion, and he makes paintings that have to do with religion, that is not manipulation, that is called getting what you paid for.
@@gabrielschneider7087
Even so you don't need an excuse to fund someone.
It can be as simple as "I just like them".
so basically the point of the video was that both sides of the art community have the exact same stick up their ass about “real art” so you missed the entire point
The worst part of art is how people think that there's a 'right way' to do it. Art is a thing that was made beyond a purpose of pure function.
If you make a hammer and you put an inscription on it, it's art now. Crown molding is art too. Most things have artistic elements and are by extension art.
Honestly I enjoy the abstract and the concrete style of art. And you can call someone’s style garish without being utterly insufferable
i really respect ugly art
Something can be abstract without being utterly lazy and uninspiring.
There's a difference between abstract, like Picasso, and just someone literally having diarrhea on a piece of canvas and dropping another water balloon of red paint on top of it.
@@puddycat2325 The original poster never said anything to the contrary, did you just post this comment to be obnoxious or were you actually trying to make a point?
@@cogahan To you, I'm sure there is. That's why there's many different styles of art, enough for all kinds of people to enjoy what they like.
I personally really like these paintings. Even if they're a bit cheesy, the warm fuzzy feelings they give me are good enough for me.
There is absolutely nothing cheesy about sentimental cottages. A lot of people in art communities are cynical degenerates.
I actually like weird and experimental modern art, mainly sculptures. But the thing is that the creators of it take it WAY too seriously. You don't need some 'deep philosophical' reason why you made something really weird.
I think the reason why they get into deep philosophical reasons (aside from ego) is because a lot of abstract art comes from the principle of "how can I express emotion and meaning through the most unusual way possible?" And well, this question by itself already starts to get pretty philosophical, so you can see where the rest goes hopefully.
I always believed ugly art is a waste. It’s like, if you have something to say, then just say it, because typically the people who agree with the artist are the only ones who will understand and it’s no use preaching to the choir, so to speak.
@@majorproblem8796 the problem with that is how little reach the average person has with just speaking. That’s why they go through the whole route of creating that art has holds a message because that way a message that means a lot to them is immortalized into art.
i enjoy the deeper meaning because that's how i get the enjoyment out of a lot of it. at my art museum there's a piece of art that's just two light bulbs on a wire together and i thought "ok this is stupid" until i read the plaque next to it about how it related to the artist and their partner who got aids and it moved me a lot and now i appreciate it
I went to art school with someone who asked herself "how far can you dissect a painting until it's no longer a painting?", and what she would do was dismantle the canvas and the frame, and pour various colors of leftover paints from hardware stores onto plastic until they dried, and make all these crazy sculptural set ups with them. they never got SUPER big, since she was a student and had to balance other classes, plus she was an athlete so she had that responsibility too, but what she did create was really interesting and I think if she had a little more time, she could have created all sorts of crazy environments and installations for people to walk through.
she definitely changed how I define paintings. and on top of that, she was one of the brightest, kindest souls I'd ever met. a true pleasure to be around. and bc of that, because of that humility and kindness and gift with people, she got everyone else in the class excited about her work and her perspective. we got to see a whole new angle of a concept we all thought we already understood, and that would have NEVER been possible had she been elitist and stuck up and gatekeepy, the way so many others are.
artists who act like their work is some pinnacle of philosophy do such a disservice to themselves, their work, the art world, and the people they could reach with their talent. art is a dialogue, and the more people you leave out of the conversation, the smaller and grayer the world becomes.
Modern Artists: "You made your art based on Positive emotions, and influenced by religion? That's horrible. You're no real artist."
Renaissance artists:
Well that shit is incredibly boring. Going to an art museum and just looking at classical paintings is just mind numbing. There’s zero interpretation with many of them.
@@BIGBoy-pp4db not every painting needs to be interpreted in various ways
@@BIGBoy-pp4db personally loved seeing classical paintings at some of the museums i visited in paris, especially the sheer size of some of these, they were so intensly detailed and like the size of a movie theater screen. there was a lot of variety, sometimes i just want to see pretty pictures, i go watch art to clear my mind for a bit and get some creative inspiration, not to overthink on the meaning of what i'm looking at
@@BIGBoy-pp4db yeah cause a couple of squares and a plant leaves a lot to interpretation.
@@BIGBoy-pp4db the point isn't your interpretation, it's the artists message. The artists of the Renaissance valued their individuality and put it on display for others to see, rather than making art that gives an observer the opportunity to ruminate on their own thoughts and stroke their own ego.
“It will haunt me for at least half an hour”
We need more critics like this.
this reminds me of the one time I went to an art museum and they had like an abstract modern art exhibit, and some of it was honestly very cool, and then there was. The grass table. It was a table with like fake turf grass on top of it and there was like. A thing it was attached to that made it shake. And I just. What? Huh? (I also remember the exhibit had a thing with these bead where you'd put like colored beads in these little bins next to the art and like each bead corresponded to like an emotion that the piece made you feel or whatever, almost every bin was 70-90% full of the beads for "confused" and thats so funny to me)
What were the other beads?
That's how I feel after reading this
@@quinn799 up the artist's ass, of course!
Ok thats pretty funny
I imagine modern “artists” must pretentiously walk around Florence and Rome unimpressed by the majestic renaissance art
No the reason why realistic art is not in many museums is because it’s nothing special anymore we’ve known how to do it for over a thousand years. To the point we are at today with contemporary art was a slow evolution of getting more abstract and looking at the world differently. These artist know the renaissance was defined by that style of art and that’s what defined the era there just so different you can’t compare them.
@@steamyspiceisnice9665 We've also known how to put snot on a canvas for thousands of years too, and yet you would have trouble finding art that can crack even that low level of quality, skill or effort in a modern art gallery today. At least back when cavemen were making handprints and animals on the walls of their caves, that _was_ the absolute height of painting that was physically possible, and they left behind some damn good hunting scenes.
"getting more abstract" in modern art is basically just code for "we can't compare our work favorably to our ancestors without putting in actual effort, so let's cope by saying that ackshyually the ideas of quality, skill and effort are bad and backwards."
It's all one giant case of sour grapes, nothing more.
i mean personally, realism is easier for me just because im not as creative, id rather go based of something i can see and work from there. not saying my art is good anyways, but i couldnt figure out how to make abstract art myself lol
Art is art. If it looks good, then that's enough. If carries a meaning, even better.
The thing about abstract art is, it gains meaning as you talk about it. I managed to make my professors believe a canvas which I painted red 30 mins before the class was an abstract representation of my favorite song(That was the assignment). I got 90 over 100 for that assignment and I remember this one girl, she was working on a clay sculpture for the same assignment for a week and she got 65. My god I remember her face. It is the very first thing that comes to my mind whenever someone talks about abstract or modern art. It is not hard or anything. You just have to pretend like it is the most important thing in life. That's all
Yeah for some reason it's harder than you'd think to create something pleasing to one's self.
@@stormevans6897 considering most famous artists hate their paintings so much that the hate transfered over to themselves and they maimed/killed themselves in anger.
Kinda shows you won't like your works when you make them and you need an outside opinion to judge your work properly.
All art is abstract to some degree. The way you choose to present your realistic work still requires some degree of subjective judgement and creativity on your part.
Even the laziest and most utilitarian industrial photographer has to make some creative choices when deciding on what angles he needs, what type of lens or film stock he should use, and how he should go about lighting his subjects.
Even the most realistic art cannot literally capture every aspect of a moment perfectly; it can only capture a limited impression-and it's the job of the artist to decide what parts that impression needs to emphasise, or what the scope of that captured impression should be.
Being an artist myself and how I struggle to get my stuff seen it baffles me what gets displayed out there lol
You probably just put in effort. It seems like everything that gets put in galleries takes 5 minutes to make.
for real, spend like two weeks on certain pieces yet someone can tape a banana to a wall n it's art smh
Video resumes at 6:32 Sorry about that.
No no ur fine u gave us authenticity by having a mini live stream 🤣
When ya gotta go , ya gotta go lol
Iss oke
There’s an odd error in the hosted video at 3:18 where he narrates “Thomas kinkaid was born in 1985” and I was like no fucking way lol I googled it, it’s 1958, which fits way better. Just a funny error I thought I’d point out. (Not Charlie’s error, whoever’s video this is he’s watching)
Nobody realizes this isn't Charlie?
Best wishes on not having this taken down. I know vods often have that issue.
Art world: *looks at Kincaid painting* “How are we supposed to launder money with this?”
Fun fact:
Last October, Damien Hirst started selling his works as NFTs, and burning the physical versions… 🤦♂️
Which makes sense,
considering they were basically NFTs before NFTs
Art student here, and my studio Art Professors tend to favor weird and wacky art that has a ‘deep meaning’ behind it. Me and a few students make up stuff sometimes to give it more meaning than ‘this is a nice color' or ‘I like the composition’ a lot.
I think there was one more artist who might be a little more hated. Failed to get in art school in Vienna. Was a mustache model. Had minor anger issues.
But I dont think people hated him as an artist.. as a genocidal maniac sure :D
@@Naesil89 nah, it was clearly his artwork people were mad about.
And is 6 million people really a genocide? That's more like a crazy night.
@@Naesil89well, he did fail art school. At a minimum his teachers hated him as an artist. Probably as a leader too, I imagine he didnt treat them very well.
I actually love the art styles of artists like Thomas Kinkade and Terry Redlin. Makes me think of times when I was younger despite only being 20 years old.
I’m fairly certain my grandma had one of these paintings in her living room back in the day lol
(everyone knows the best painter is Ringo Starr anyway)
The art community can be so fucking snooty. It’s just a nice, cozy painting that someone made to appeal to a lot more people than an abstract would.
Its really baffling to me that people cant distinguish the difference between the art and the artists. You can hate the artists but at the same time you can also like the art
I think it's funny that these artists are complaining about the art meaning nothing.
Like bruh, not everything has to have a meaning, some things are genuinely just meant to be surface level.
exactly sometimes it's nice to just see something beautiful or sad without anything else tacked on
@@pleasedonotvisitmychannel well to be fair if I was a mom Kincaid coulda stole me long as he painted me like one of his french girls
The meaning can also be… comfort. Home. Peace. They’re choosing to ignore other meanings because they can’t apply a pseudo intellectual argument to it being a critique of society, and thus being “valuable”.
Critical should watch more solar sands ngl
Definitely, tho some of his vids might be a bit too long or not the type of thing that is easy to commentate on. Still would be fun to see.
My mom had loads of Thomas Kinkaid things when I was growing up… So maybe it’s nostalgia, but I can’t hate the art.
I don't hate it but I definitely don't like his type of "comfort."
I wanna see a modern artist absolutely tear apart nfts 😊
Modern artists are making NFTs, its the same stuff.
@@petulantpeterturbo not always. A lot of modern artists don't make nfts :)
@@petulantpeterturbo most modern artists dont put their shit in exhibitions. their stuffs on packaging, billboards, films, phone cases, tshirts, bottles etc. the ones that make nft's just do something simple to make a quick buck. Behance is a good representation of modern art and its just an app.
nfts and most modern artists make the same garbage
Both modern artists and nfts are pretentious garbage
Idk just off the top of my head I can think of an artist hated much more than this guy
Hitler
I had the same thought when I saw the title of this video
I rarely see people hating on his art tho when his art is mentioned or shown
The difference is that people don't hate "the artist Hitler" but "the megalomaniac Hitler". They might be the same person but the reason for the hate is very different
For some reason this is controversial take because people will always be debatelord andy to anyone that says it istg but-
Imo, as an artist, Hitler's art wasn't good and I mean that from both a philosophical and technical level. I'm not a fan of Kinkade's work but Kinkade at least had technical skill and a sense of scale to his works. I completely understand why Hitler was rejected from art college especially in comparison to the artist who got his place, Egon Schiele, who not only made art works that were more interesting and unique/experimentalthan him but also showed in his portfolio a great level of understanding realism, perspective, light, scale, composition etc. But people get really bizarrely defensive about Hitler's work lol
But in the end like another commenter said, people don't really hate Hitler as an artist but they hate him for being a fascist, genocidal, megalomaniac, dictator.
art snobs be like, "stop liking what i dont like!"
These are the type of people who pay thousands of dollars to see 1 red dot on a canvas, but hate people that have more talent than them
I feel like modern scribble art is kitsche (or whatever) by the very root of the definition. Attempts to make you feel like it has a porpuse and it is deep in meaning but at the end it means nothing
That is pretty much the opposite of what abstract art tries to achieve. Abstract art is in a way just like normal art, it tries to provoke thoughts or emotions. However the idea behind abstract art is in HOW the artist will achieve that through the most "different" or inovative way possible. Like "how would I make this piece sad without building explicitly sad scenarios"
It is exactly that, real abstract art is the complete opposite to that as Gabi here just said, to convey an emotion through the formlessness and the subtleness, most "abstract art" today (or let's be real here they're money laundering schemes) need like an entire freaking essay to explain why it exist and why it is emotionally challenging, which is the exact opposite of what it is surposed to do. Trust me you'll know great abstract art when you see it
@@tenderandmoist5011 what about who's afraid of red yellow and blue? especially 3
@@gabiferreira6864 right like that's interesting. I don't think any art is really "trash" because art is something that can never be perfectly replicated. you can never get the exact same brush strokes as another other painter, or even your own. Even if you made something digitally. also art can just be fun, even if there is some random deep meaning behind it that's cool if the artist is happy with it. I personally just like drawing pretty women, doesn't mean my art is bad either since it lacks a lot of deep meaning.
Artist: oh my god this is a masterpiece such deep and complex concepts
Average person: It's a banana taped to a wall
When it comes to figuring out if an artist is genuinely good at visual art, I follow the "French Dispatch" philosophy of asking them to draw something perfectly to test if they can actually make great art if they felt like it.
I love when that same philosophy is applied to modern composers of 20th-century and contemporary classical music. I think it's amazing when I discover that composers who write some of the most abstract and avant-garde music ever do a complete 180 and are also able to write some of the most beautiful and emotionally-rich tonal music as well. Those are the greats of present times and the last 100 years. They prove that they have all the skills and talent that we see in tonal composers like Beethoven or Bach, and they use their skills to go further and also write great avant-garde music as well. Such composers include Alfred Schnittke, John Cage, Arnold Schoenberg, Krzysztof Penderecki, and so many more.
@@fabiangutierrez339 You could have just said you admired Bartók and we all would have understood.
what makes art great though? it's really just self expression, you don't need to be professionally trained to express an idea. And having the theory doesn't make you a better artist than anyone else either.
Every time I see a Kinkaid it makes me feel happy. They're over-saturated both literally and figuratively, but that's okay. So is Pepsi.
I love art, it's been a part of me since I was little, and there is just an uncanny valley around his art that they are pretentiously attempting to put a finger on
It's the insincerity-the "fake emotions", as the video put it. It's not that those emotions don't exist, but that they aren't a genuine expression on the part of Kincaid himself. The emotion of the scene isn't supplied by the painting, or by the painter, but by the viewer-like the meaningless ink blots of a Rorschach test, except those don't try to pretend to be deep and complex, or anything other than the utilitarian scientific tools they were created to serve as.
The reason you don't have the same reaction with Bob Ross is because the works he showcased were never really meant as art for their own sake-they were meant to teach other people how to use techniques in their own work-they were practical educational tools that never masqueraded as anything else. Bob Ross didn't try to*trick* his viewers and swindle them the way Thomas Kincaid did.
I like impressionism, realism, surrealism, and most European art from the 1500s-1800s. They look nice and are also thought provoking. Abstract art, modern art, and action painting don't really do it for me though. I do have to admit that some modern art pieces would look nice on a wall in a contemporary style house though.
It was this video that made me realize that for my entire life, I’ve had one of these painting in my house
Just some haters mad at my dawg Thomas stacking his bread. “Get your money up, not your funny up” -Thomas Kinkade
Never let insecured people get you down below rock bottom and keep on doing what you do.
I’ve always loved Kinkade paintings. My mom loves them and it will always make me feel nostalgic and happy because I had a good childhood 🤗 These haters sound unwell.
Charlie insulting Keith Haring’s work was pretty painful ngl… I’m sure he didn’t know who he was or what his art was developed for but still. He was incredibly talented and influential
Yeah I wish someone told him lol
Charlie doesn’t seem to know much about art. Not knocking him for it, but it’s kinda hard to watch in this video. Yeah, people’s reactions to Kinkaid were ridiculous, but the point itself is not entirely pretentious.
@@blueorpheus5693 yeah love the guy but his commentary here was kind of embarrassing…
Just because something is influential doesn't mean it's any good and Keith Harings work is some of the worst junk I've ever seen.
@@blueorpheus5693 art isn't important ofc he doesn't know much who does
For anyone who's curious. Modern art is NOT modern. You can hate Modern art but it is not literally modern. The modern art period spans the 1860s through the 1870s, we are currently in the CONTEMPORARY art period. Which strives to do the opposite of what the modern art period tried to do. Contemporary art is cool af, modern art is from a by-gone era and is no longer necessary in progressing art. Don't hate modern contemporary art, you're swinging at the wrong people. ANYHOW I love art and art history. The digital age has absolutely skyrocketed the contemporary art movement and I love it with my whole heart LMAO
I'd argue that thanks to furries and the internet, art is now primarily representational again.
Lmao
Just like how pop music isn’t pop anymore
"The modern art period spans the 1860s through the 1870s"
No, just objectively no.
you mistook 1970 for 1870 and you got contemporary mixed up with post modern.
Lmaoooo people really hate T.K but then pretend they feel something from starring at a random paint drippings that was made in like 5 minutes and sold for 5 million.
A lot of modern art is artists trying to make some sort of ironic commentary on something but failing and just being like “we I guess I can use this for money laundering” 😰
It’s like they heard about the concept of anti-art in a class once, didn’t understand that they were being made fun of, then tried to make some themselves, but they were way too serious about it so it just doesn’t work 🙃
My favorite artist is Zidslaw Beksinski. His art is breathtaking.
Oh yes!
One of my favorites. Ashame that he wasn't born sooner
oh yeah HIS work is magnificent
Yeah he definitely did lsd or something his art is weird.
@@deadboltzz5199 He did go through a war.
I want to become a billionaire art collector and only collect original Kinkade's. Imagine the cope.
I'd also collect Terry Redlin since his artwork is similar.
Abstract art is not bullshit. The prices for it, however, are an entirety different discussion. . .
When the painting by Banksy destroyed itself after being sold for over a million, I understood the absolute insanity. The people that can afford to buy a painting by an elephant for thousands of dollars when it is absolute garbage make the industry intolerable for talented artists.
So you're telling me I can go into the backroom of Walmart, take a picture, and its modern art?
charlie should make a whole vid of him looking at modern art
This is the most pretentious TH-cam comment section I’ve ever read
5:20 get to stare at this man’s face whilst listening to demonic gurgling noises. Absolutely lovely.
Ok thought it was just me and my headphones but now we know he got a ghost Or demon. Maybe he will do a vid on it!
I can’t blame him
For his insanity and drinking himself to death, imagine being slandered despite producing such heartwarming works with an arguably good message behind them
Everybody ignoring how Charlie had the exact idea that the nft guys had👀👀
I learned drawing and painting by myself, but Bob Ross was a light in the dark realm of getting better and maybe faster... my absolute favourite is Joseph Mallord Turner, he's the painter of light of the 19th century! Kitsch is Biedermeier art!
I went to the tate modern one year for a college outing and one of, and the most memorable, 'art pieces' was a recept from tesco put on the wall. I wish I was joking. I took a picture of it but I've since lost that.
my CVS receipts are masterpieces
People writing articles criticizing Kincaid for creating art for religious reasons probably wouldn't want to meet Leonardo Davinci or Michelangelo
I like his art.
I also believe anyone who spends a single penny on an NFT is the dumbest form of existence on earth.
So i looked up Damien Hirst's art work since I hadn't heard of him before and as an artist it hurts to see that something I could've made in elementary school would go for 2k. Its like why even bother improving and scraping in small commission after small commission when some pretentious asshole can just take a bingo dobber to a canvas and make 2k.
like art is something that's very important to me and the influx of "abstract painters" in recent years upsets me. Absract art isn't something like a circle on a paper that someone made bullshit up about. IMO, if its to qualify as abstract ART, it needs to be able to make the viewer feel, understand or relate in some way without any hint of explanation, or it is simply not good.
I'm sorry! nobody asked for this! i just needed it off my chest. GOD I hate pretentious assholes.
Even if abstract art doesn't directly invoke an emotion, I think the best kind is the kind where you can tell it took genuine effort.
You came to the right place to rant though, most everyone here seems to agree with you.
@@mellow_mallow yeah exactly
@@azakranos8100 yeahh, but who doesn't hate pretentious assholes, am I right? hah
@@mellow_mallow like who's afraid of red yellow and blue
when charlie goes through a different tab but all we can see is his frozen tab reminds me in school when the teacher would freeze the smart board
If I could put the crazy detailed, weird, nsfw art that I like from Instagram and Twitter in an art museum, I WOULD !
This is a true reupload. Left in the pee break and all.
I remember hearing somewhere that in the Soviet Union, some scientists wanted to test how smart the peasantry were, so they went out to the countryside and would show them things like basic shapes, like triangles and squares, and ask them what they were. The peasants would usually respond, "that's a roof" (if it was a triangle), and gave similar answers for everything else.
Basically, the rural country-folk could think very abstractly but were very utilitarian with their interpretations, everything had to have a purpose, had to mean something beyond just the thing itself.
However, the Soviet Scientists just took it as proof that the peasants were dumb and needed to be "liquidated."
I'm going to need a source because this sounds like absolute red scare propaganda bullshit especially considering the soviet unions disdain for things like IQ tests (rightfully so, its mostly thinky veiled eugenics).
There's literally so many things you can legitimately criticise the soviet Union for (trust me, I have a long ass list) but I have never come across this rumour nor have I been able to find anything when searching for anything backing this after reading your comment. Source please.
Abstract art is important, because usually it's the people who think outside of the box that come up with innovative ideas. Look at A Day On The Life by The Beatles, both the interlude and ending use something more abstract/experimental and it benefits the song as a whole. Without abstract/experimental artists, art would be dull because no one would have the balls to do anything too different. Just the same 4-chords, just the same wooden house next to a river.
There's a difference between abstract and stupid.
@@jordanhewson8287 the problem is, that line is subjective. in my humble opinion, Jackson Pollocks art was seriously misunderstood even today. Damien Hurst, however, is another story
@@jordanhewson8287 stupidity, as in how "stupid" an artwork is, is entirely based on your knowledge about the piece and your personal opinion on it. Saying "there's abstract and there's stupid" is completely meaningless because it entirely relays on your personal opinion of what is stupid and what isn't
There are legit abstract artists but a lot of weak artists hide behind """abstract""" art that is really just normal art done shitty. Instead of actually gaining any skills and working on bettering themselves they would just try to say that their fucked up anatomy and poor color theory was just "abstract art" when it really was just them being lazy.
@@gabiferreira6864 nah there's definitely abstract """"artists"""" that just want the title of an artist but are lazy and stupid. There are genuinely good abstract pieces of art but some people put in 0 effort and should be called out.
I love that he has Speedrun times for Granny 3 pulled up lol
wtf i love art like this
5:05 Damn boi, you frying chicken in there?
29:00
Cmon, that one looks awesome
You were being petty there
it looks like something i would have drawn on the blacktop at school in kindergarten
@@lxmesoda oh sorry mr van gogh
woah how did they get my art from when I was 4 years old?
You guys didnt see the whole drawing on the side charlie is covering is a face staring into that light :) it's not just scribbles i think its some guy staring into a tv type thingy projecting on what hes watching :D or thats how i see it
It’s just cool colors man. Colors are cool, make monkey brain go “ooo”
The minutes of dead air when he goes to piss is left in the TH-cam edit 👌
Allow me to smear my fecal matter on a piece of paper!
Now give me 2 million dollars.
Kinkade is a skilled artist, no doubt. My main issue is the title "painter of light" he uses light but not in an interesting way. I don't think people really hate him. But within the art world just doing what sells is always looked down on for some stupid reason.
28:50 or so is gold the whole art review, I was dead at "it's just boxes" 😂
Edit: loss my second life at 32:32 w the S tier use of "wtf"
we shouldn't make any artist mad, last time we did he started a world war.
I work in framing… my boss has lost count of how many of these she’s framed
I’ve framed possibly 10 to 18 in the year I’ve worked there
Also about 75% of my mom’s puzzles are painted by him, I love them
For people who claim to have the mastery of art, they sure love to paint everyone and everything in a single color
I’m 99% sure my grandma has one of those paintings in her dining room😂
Yeah my mom and grandma both have one of those painting🤦🏼♀️
Some people are overly pretentious about art my god
I’m an artist and I just draw furries. It doesn’t have “meaning” I just think it’s fun and people like my art that’s about it 😭
For artists people hate I'll probably catch flak for it but I despise Warhol. His art just seems so ridiculously lazy and from what I've read about the guy he seemed incredibly pretentious for a guy who made giant brillo boxes and soup cans.
There's two points about Warhol that most people miss.
The first is that the banality of his works focusing on commercially mass-produced household items was entirely intended-a sort-of metatextual commentary on the banality of everyday life in mid-twentieth-century America, and how sharply that life contrasts (what were at the time) the norms of the art world. Like it or not, there's a point to it-something is being said on a conceptual level. It's essentially the same kind of satire featured prominently in the films of Paul Verhoeven, or the comedy of Matt Stone and Trey Parker.
The second point (and one that's a lot more important when discussing Warhol specifically) is that he did so much other stuff in other media besides just the graphic prints that everybody is familiar with, and in fact, he considered his other works more important and interesting. He was a prolific sculptor, filmmaker, and live performer-and very few people outside the modernist art scene have actually seen or are even aware of any of the work he did in those other fields. To judge him as an artist solely based on one project he did in one medium that wasn't even his main focus as a creator is either misguided or disingenuous.
I'm not a fan of Warhol or his "Factory" entourage, but he wasn't the complete and total hack people who only know like two of his works make him out to be either.
@@DistractedGlobeGuy I understand the point he was trying to get across in his art. He was trying to make fun of the classical sensibilities of the time. I have also seen some of his sculptures and such as well and I don't doubt that they weren't well made or made without skill. I just don't have a preference for his work or even Warhol himself. In my opinion and this is probably gonna be more flak worthy but I am not a fan of the artist himself as a person and the person matters just as much as the art itself. Now perhaps that is from ignorance but from everything I read about Warhol he really didn't seem like anything other than a narcissist. I can sympathize with the want to be recognized and praised for ones work but with Warhol it just rubs me the wrong way. Don't get me wrong I love a good troll or getting that south Park style reaction but most of Warhol's well known works don't evoke that feeling or much of anything really. Thats a fail imo since art is meant to provoke something and I just don't think Warhol does that with the vast majority of his work. I could go on and on about why I'm not a Warhol fan.
@@booleah6357 that's exactly how I feel about it.
I'm fine with a.i taking jobs away from guys like this lol
screenshot 52 soup cans and put them in the same picture :^)
honestly idc if it was comerciality capitalism bla bla bla the art is just boring and bland he should have draw a cool dragon or something
When can we learn to just let people be with what they like, whether it be art or food, or whatever
never
I'm an artist and i've studied it for a few years. His art is cool no debate, I love cottages and I'll never understand art snobs :,)
he actually painted fairly well ngl
yoooooo i have one of his originals on my dining room wall
@@MoistMoments 👉👈
they say Pollock isn't actually doing random paint splats but arranging them in a fractal pattern
I mean, I'm a skills appreciation guy and I think that's awesome if true
as much as “modern art” like the banana taped to a wall shits on good art, don’t do keith haring like that lmao
If anything, we leaned Charlie hates Jackson Pollock 😂
these are entertaining and good work to find the clips but i would greatly appreciate and i think the quality of the video would raise if you cut out the parts where he goes to the bathroom or has to leave for some reason itd make it a lot less of a hassle
only in america will people find a way to complain about a fantastic piece of ART.
Completely false lol
It’s not fantastic though it’s not that it’s bad it’s just nothing special and is very much irrelevant to the art movement as a whole
I think art is about being creative with whatever medium you choose, or are provided with. So I was nodding along to all the sarcastic comments thinking "there you go. Now you're getting it" 😂😂
Honestly that one with trump on the motorcycle is the most American thing I’ve seen in a while and I find it funny
I find it funny that it's the same people who critize this man for his "poor art", that are responsible for a random piece of trash being stuck to a canvas counting as a multimillion dollar artwork. Art critics are specialists nobody really needs, because good art will always find its way and its for everyone to decide on their own whether they like a picture or not. When it comes to video games or other "usable art" ofc reviews can be helpful whether to decide if it's worth to purchase such a special kind of art. I personally find these pictures a bit generic indeed, but also very well worked out and I think it's absolutely classical motives, which evokes a sense of nostalgia. It sounds a lot as if these people are just angry over Kinkade's sucess and that he used his talent for something they deem "uncool" in their hipster mindsets.
I'm not sure I understand modern art a whole lot less than I understand non-modern art. In both cases, the works were produced in a cultural context I'm unlikely to really be familiar with. A painting of a guy sitting in a chair may actually be a biblical reference, except there'll be a plant somewhere in the background that signified trustworthiness in the artistic symbolism of the era, and the plant is wilted, and that means that the painting is actually an allegory for the political instability experienced by Dutch people in the 1650s, but specifically the western part of the country as signified by the sun's position, etc.
Thanks, I basically only watch these vods.
You're welcome, thank you
Same, I've been watching since 2014, and I used to feel like I got left behind when he started streaming because I could never catch him
Now there's several high-quality channels dedicated to making sure I can watch whenever
Alright specifically modern sculpture art is the coolest $h!t.
One I saw a couple of years ago was several home items like chairs, shoes, books, bowls, wooden spoons, etc.
They were set up on a spinning floor and the smaller items were on spinning wooden stands.
It was like a planetarium of home items and they were ordered by importance the closer to the center they got.
I think that’s the strength of art galleries, 3d art sculptures you can’t just view online.
Hnm..... Interesting, imagine that in a painting I'd buy n like that more rather than irl
I love Charlie but that disregard for Keith harring was dirty
honestly i really did like that damien hurst thing with all the pills in it. but more just because it’s interesting to look at all the pills not because it’s particularly creative or involved. it’s definitely be a cool piece to have in the waiting room at your doctors office but it’s not art.
Ah, yes. Pretentious, gatekeeping-inspired hatred. Classic art world.
In my country Kic (kitsch) means something with alot of vibrant colors, alot of ornaments, excessive details, alot of subject doing alot of things. There may be even alot of different composition within compositions, telling alot of storys... To bring that overwhelming feeling just add, add, add. And in general i like when its made correctly, but its hard because of so much elements you need to balance. Unfortunately most of the people who like it and do it are not good artists or artists at all. So alot of people who like kic decorate their homes like Bosch's Hell paintings. In terms of this guy. Hes just making colors alot more vibrant to make that "toy" like look. And painting do lack depth, one would make this for practice, If it was photography, it would be made by a instagram model taking photos of a Christmas fayre. Stock photos of paintings. Pinterest before it existed.