This Is Modern Art / 4 of 6 / Nothing Matters / 1999
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 เม.ย. 2011
- This Is Modern Art was a six-part TV series written and presented by the English art critic Matthew Collings. It was broadcast in 1999 on Channel 4.
Ep. 4 Focuses on minimalist art. - บันเทิง
Oddly
Minimalism can quite quickly become way too much
I am so enjoying this series .. thanks for posting
BRILLIANT CON.... ONE IS BORN EVERY MINUTE
I think minimalism has something to do with how people perceive Art nowadays. People walk by a painting and glance at it, they do not inspect it;unless they are an Artist. So minimalism is basically saying "if you're going to just look at this piece for 2 seconds this is all you get". Art is not appreciated anymore, like the "Void Room", no one is going to stand in the room and contemplate the meaning, they walk in and they walk out. Where an Artist might stick around and contemplate.
NOTHING THIER TO APPRECIATE.. STOP BEING SO POMPUS AND TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK YOU KNOW SOMETHING YOU DONT.. THE EMPOROR IS NAKED AND YOU CANT STOP THE FACT THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE BULLSHIT WHEN ITS PRESENTED TO THEM...
@@shaunclark425 spoken like someone who doesn't understand art whatsoever. It's not about what you think. It's still art.
I loved Plastikman's music in the documentary. He was an exponent of the minimalism movement in music.
First track "Kriket".
hellomigue thank you so much for this comment, i was looking for the soundtrack and couldnt find anything on my own!
"he wont be there, because hes dead" LOL
I get the sense that Collings doesn't like Rothko much. It's a shame. If you strip away all the pretentious, high minded analysis, Rothko's work still has a lot of power.
Peter Lustig you spelt idiot wrong... who's the idiot now?
lol
I sympathize with your contempt for abstract art.
Back when the impressionists started to show their work, people were accustomed to looking at a certain type of painting style. Take a look at the work of Bouguereau or David or Gericault.
Idealized images, smooth meticulously painted surfaces.Faultless anatomical correctness.
Paintings by Manet and Renoir were ridiculed. They looked all wrong!
But we don't feel that way now about the Impressionists.We look at their paintings with new eyes that see the beauty in their art.
I don't want to sound condescending.
And I know that not all art eventually comes to be appreciated.
But there really is something to like about Rothko, Kandinsky, Robert Delaunay and others.
And you don't have to like everything.
Some abstract art will seem better than others.
And maybe you will never find anything at all to appreciate.
But it doesn't threaten you in any way, so just let it go.
I don't know the other guys, and I don't disagree that there's SOMETHING to like about Rothko. If I got a new apartment and was walking around Target, I might buy a Rothko for $14.99. But for Rothko to be a 60 million dollar artist is a disgrace and shows what a scam SOME modern art is. Some of it is just a money making scheme. Some of it is just extraoridinary luck in a goofball industry. Some of it is good.
BAD SPELLING DOESNT MAKE AN IDIOT ...AND SO THAT MAKES YOU THE IDIOT CAMMY... FAILED AGAIN
I'm not a fan of minimalist art but this one was the best of the first 4. "Slab Boy" hahaha!
Jason Martin's work is brilliant.
Its something that's created by the artist that doesn't exist without him making it.
And its beautiful, to me that's what art gets my attention.
Not buying a florescent light fixture or bricks and putting them in an art gallery. Though those things can be called art because, art only has to evoke a response. My response to that kind of art is anger. To me it's not real art because it's only making a statement. Real art doesn't have to say anything at all it evokes a feeling that cant be captured with reason or logic , like rothkos work its spiritual. --- ☆
44:66 That paint looks delicious.
They appreciate the concept.
min 26:37. Moment of enlightenment for me. My intellectual cherry has bursted and today, thanks in part to Collings comments, my way of thinking has really evolved into something new. The chronological development of minimalism has officially made an impact on paradigm. Oh how I wish more things in this glorified hamster wheel of a society i live in were as meaningful. Thanks for sharing.
SO YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED TO BELIEVE THE FICTION THEY SHOWER YOU WITH.. WHAT A WEAK MIND YOU HAVE ...
RIP Robert Ryman
"I always had the oposite reaction to Rothko. I actually felt elation, because whether it was true or false, the rumor at the time was Mark Rothko had executed these paintings shortly before his suicide." ...ehhh what? How does that bring you elation?
"Naffin attaw izzin eere"
I grok that there is real theoretical value in these void-exploring artists ideas,
but I can't see the _empty art product itself_ as anything other than a confidence trick played on the monied artsy chatterati
(can't say I feel too bad about it, lol)
44:57 "get up that ladder.......slab boy......."
I always remembered that line from this show!
Rad that they got Norm Macdonald to play Ryman.
This guy looks like elton john
What do Korean Statues of "Kimi" mean to you?
Kind Regards,
Joe Blow's Family Poortrait
I doubt that Basquait had an MFA. But he got lucky and met Warhol. Peyton most certainly must have an MFA. Of course nowadays if you have an MFA that is the first thing known about you. It is a status symbol. But B didn't have one. Neither did Picasso. I have known of galleries that would not look at an artist without one. I've also known artist with them who had very little talent. I'm not against education, but there is also a great big world outside of academia. Play fair. And don't be a snob.
What about the wild eightees
'NOTHING'- apparently acquires value when nothing is labeled, marketed or advertised as 'nothing' !!!!????
Thanks of course for posting this. I just have to say that I think all of the minimalism on this one is crap. Elitists giving this value as a place to store wealth is somewhat ridiculous. Those art dealers sure are clever.
A form of money laundering ???????
I've seen some Bollocks in my time but.......
Void. Absence. Death. Hopeful Liberation?
Is this video Age restricted ?
Why should it be?
22:22 lol.
There are subtle differences between art critics Matthew Collings and Waldemar Januszczak. One is a down-to-earth friendly enthusiastic man who is passionate about art; the other a failed, smug, haughty pompous ass in the true upper-class twitty style. And maybe we should rename this episode "trumpART." If someone says it is art, then it must surely be art then, correct?
The guy at 43 minutes wants to "choose" to get a real job.
It really is nothing
So, if you can afford to have whole factories build metal boxes and buy up half a town you can be called an artist?
But an architect can do that?
In this case, yes.
Why, when you can simply shit in a can?
Top grade shit 😄😄
I call BS on Rothko and drip painting as well ,worth millions only because the people that own them have millions and promote them as the best thing ever so their value goes even higher and they get even richer . Has nothing to do about blocks and drips of paint being great art its about the money and celebrity of the people who own them .
Rothko and Pollack are masters compared to Koons and Hurst and all the other nonsense out there. "Bathroom." A commentary on the modern bathroom in a world with a bad economy. .... SMH. Oh fuck off.
The guy who did the screwed up piece of paper's opening, closing door is a direct ripoff of Duchamp. Turrell's oculuses also create a 3-d effect which make the opening look physical. Very strange indeed.
Speak for yourself. One Rothko chapel is one too many for me.
would you buy a car from this bloke?
This is boring me to sleep.
I think that's a crap excuse for art going straight downhill. Who cares how many people appreciate it a specific piece? Modern Art is the garbage created during the "gimme gimme gimme" era where reinforcing short attention spans and instant gratification are all the rage.
It's really not, modern art (and I speak as an artist) is effectively about being different/ original (at least marginally) - if you look at each movement it's effectively a reaction against the previous one. That is the primary reason that art has taken a path that a large percentage of the public do not appreciate.
Things are a little different now - the ground rules have effectively been set (few inovations left), and so artists simply take ideas and techniques and mash them together. You can even see this within this video - Jason Martin rerunning ideas from the 60s for example.
AS AN ARTIST I CAN SAY YOU SPEAKING THE PARTY LINE BOLLOCKS.. IF ART DOESNT MOVE YOU WITH NO EXPLANATION ADDED THEN IT DOSNT WORK... TO TRY TO PUT THE LIKES OF DALI WITH LIGHTS TURNING ON AND OFF AND ACTDION PAINTING SHOWS A LACK OF ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL IN YOUR SOUL OR MIND.... THE PUBLIC SEES THE EMPOROR IS NAKED WHEN THE ART ESTABLISHMENT TO MAKE THEMSELVES SEEM EDUCATED AND IMPORTANT FAIL TO FACE THAT FACT..
@@shaunclark425 Being an artist doesn't give you any right to speak as an authority about art. Judging on your words you're probably just a lame, traditional painter, stuck in the past, not understanding what's going on today. Of course art doesn't have to hit anyone instantly or without explenation. It's a false assumption that art can work without additional information. Paintings of old masters from previous ages also don't do that. You can say that they are pretty, but without proper knowledge you'll never get their meaning or bigger picture. Art always needed an explenation, but for you it is enough to see that it's pretty. Guess what - today's art is not about beauty - it's more complicated than just illustration for The Bible, more sophisticated, ergo it's for intelligent people, not for herds of believers. Now, go back to your sad canvas, painting your meaningless picturess no one cares about : )))))))
And you are a pure hater
what a joke
it's not art it's fart