NFTs were great on the Tezos network. Few cents each, and you can fill your library with pretty little things by experimental artists. Collecting was fun. Artists in 3rd world countries benefited greatly. Then the PFP and corporate NFT era started and the whole scene was clogged with derivative slop.
@@ethangrant8736 Yeah, I have a friend who sold poetry and people would buy it anyway because it was cheap. But she struggled with her life and put that in her poetry. I can't say it was very good, but it supported her family for a while. And then the bottom fell out.
I think art schools must bear some of the responsibility here. At least in my personal experience, students were constantly pushed to ‘look at other artists’ (meaning the famous ones within modern art) and produce work that echoed the same old themes and motivations i.e taking a mundane object/idea and ‘elevating’ it to artistic status. No room or scope for real creative thought or exploring the limits of those ideas. I was looking at people like Raymond Pettibon and my tutors didn’t even know who he was and tried to steer me towards Warhol and Duchamp.
Art schools are horrible. Most of the instructors are more interested in spreading their seed than helping you achieve your own goals. I saw so many kids come in first year with a passion for a certain type of painting, have their wills broken by the institution, and then end up making utterly souless, boring bullsh*t in their final year, i.e. "art made for the market"
I think this is in part why outsider art is so fascinating. It’s as far as you could ever get from the idea of art convention and so it naturally breaks barriers that artists with more exposure to the world of art may not even think of breaking.
You kinda have to listen to them and ignore like half of the advice, maybe I'm just lucky because we get to do whatever tf we want, my friend based her whole project on the sisters of mercy and making visuals for some of their songs and she passed with flying colours. I made this weird abstract expressionist painting that was massive hanging in the gallery with a projection of a video I made overlayed on top, my theme was the time of day and the video would go from day to night while changing the colour of the painting i.e making it darker, lighter, and sometimes making one colour more bold from the others. I passed with flying colours as well, sounds easy but I was crunching time at the end to the point that I had to halve the video and turn down the number of effects because the computers couldn't handle how dense it was.
@@ceh9789 I blame administrators more than teachers. The goal of the institution is to bleed money out of students and this is justified by having graduates whose careers can be pointed to as examples of what he institution can produce. The result is a handful of talented students being singled out and given vast resources and connections to elevate them above their peers. They are groomed for commercial success and launched, often still half baked, into the heart of the art world. The rest of the students are either left to their own devices or taught formulaically as the administrators don't actually know how art education works and will pick ridged processes that they can understand over the controlled chaos of professors giving advice tailored to individual students that can be much harder to explain.
I somewhat disagree with the idea that Van Gogh couldn't be a plumber. Lots of us have to create, can think of no life without creating, but we have a have a stupid job to pay the bills. (I'm only nit picking, I love your videos)
@@christopherwestpresents Oh no, I didn't think that at all, I just meant that a lot of us call ourselves artists and do the work, but still have to be plumbers - or in my case teachers - regardless!
During the day I format/proofread documents for lawyers, and at night I make stop motion animations with my art, so my whole life is just one big "spot the difference" game 😂 It's funny how similar they are, but one feeds my soul and the other drains it 😔
It's catchy but every bit as easy and empty as the work it was "critiquing" by arguing that it was beyond critique. In truth, this is the postmodernism debate all over again. Christopher West demonstrates surprising amnesia with these same discussions about originality and "progress" that took place in 1962, around Warhol's work, and 1978, with the Pictures Generation and Neo-Expressionism. Those earlier moments may not have had flipping, but they were connected to the start of the art market everyone loves to hate.
I worked at a large funky art supply store in a basement in Seattle during this time and I think my favorite customer was Judith. she s a working artist with an entire business model of making large abstract paintings that matched the decor of places like a lobby or a hallway or a hotel room, she was extremely nice and bought a lot of art supplies so I always liked working with her and I envied her career. so now when I go around town I keep an eye out for "a Judith" because she did sign at least some of them on the front, but I'd say her business model was like a bespoke version of this "zombie formalism" and I think it's not really anything new. people have been making "decorator friendly abstracts" for a long time.
What Judith does is infinitely better, because at least her paintings derive value from their role in designing an interior. Zombie formalist works only derive value from the expectation that others will pay more money for them.
@@metachirality true, there's no expectation that A Judith would persist outside of it's original placement, they're basically site-specific paintings, so re-selling them just wouldn't work.
@@pencilears its less that and more that people only value zombie formalist works because they think others do. with a monet, someone might value it because its expensive but at least its only expensive because of its importance to art history. zombie formalist works don't really bottom out to anything, its just an ouroboros of "it is valuable because it is valuable."
Amazing video! The phrase "Kind of pretty, kind of whatever" is something I tried to define for the last couple years now and I haven't found words for yet. Will definetly stay in my vocabulary from now on. Sometimes you just see stuff and feel like, well, nothing.
Crapstraction is my favourite name for this brief efflorescence of derivative painting that sadly has never really gone away… stubborn things, these zombies.
I went to art school during this time, (2010-2013,) and got my BFA in painting. I saw all of this 'Zombie Formalism' going on around me, and the young white men becoming the hot commodities in the institution. I tried to call these paintings what they were, "Design Objects." The professors and teachers all gaslighted me to make me feel like my critique made no sense. It was crazy making! I left art school feeling hopeless and alien, and resentful of art institutions. Maybe its time I reconnected to painting again.
I'm not entirely convinced this trend ever stopped. I mean, isn't that how high-end art works? Some rich folks buy paintings, and that's what gives them their value? Regardless of whether it's good or not. Some of the highest selling modern art from this past decade leaves me scratching my head sometimes.
My city often organizes nice art walks and tours which I like to do. This ranges from hobbyists, to serious artists and galleries. In the last decade a lot of aft has indeed converged into a sort of "dentist waiting room" art.
No, COINs buy art to fit in. To be flashy and ostentatious. Hench the large bold artworks. Think of Hotel Lobby art/ Coif art. Collectors buy for the enjoyment of ownership. If you go to an art gallery and talk to collectors each has their own reason and aesthetic taste for enjoying their art. Modern and post-modern art are meant to challenge what art is and what it can do. Think of it as deepfrying a meme so much that it goes for something like a rage comic to the classic "E" . Only a person who has spent time in the art circle can really understand or get why Modern and Post Modern art is the way it is. Which is why normies laugh at it
@Megaawesomeguy Did you honestly just call people "normies"? Lol. There is a difference between not understanding modern art and not liking it. Some people still value art for its fine craftsmanship, its ability to leave one in awe, and wondering, "How did they do that?" Where the answer is usually years of dedicated practice and honing those skills. Not to mention art with a very clear statement that does not need to be explained by someone in the high-end art circle. Art that, as you put it, 'normies' can understand and enjoy as well.
The vast majority of artists do nothing to push art forward, and there's a good reason for that: it's extremely difficult to be an innovator, even to a marginal degree, even if you try as hard as you can. Most art, even that of high quality, is inevitably derivative.
@@gavinreid2741 What jojojo3521 said has always been the case. Stop with this conservative rhetoric that only art now is derivative. The fact is that there are very few artists in the entire history of art that are considered even worthwhile.
@@petchinv2870 at one time, especially since the 1860s , there has been an Avant-garde pushing ways and means of creativity. Since the 1970s minimalism and conceptualism artists have relied upon earlier art movements. modernism is the new conformity.
My 2 cents: "They wanted to short sell", maybe not the best expression to qualify a market for quick returns. Short selling is betting against a overvalued stock and takes a lot of patience and a practiced eye to achieve. Maybe "day trading" would be a better fit for what you are trying to describe.
I’m not sure how this story is different from that of any other art movement. Of all the people who painted cubist works, how many of their names are unknown to you? Zombie Cubism.
why aren't the collectors and critics labelled zombies? it would be more fitting. this video doesn't ring true at all, the art is being unfairly lumped into a category that is then being used as a scapegoat for the collective laziness, greed, and vanity of investors, critics, artists, and audience alike.
this video sucks, he never explains what actually makes these works bad compared to the works they are derivative of besides being too samey. this whole industry is just people huffing farts and this video just made that blatantly apparent
I was barely sentient when this became popular but I've seen a return of this concept in more recent years with NFTs and even to an extent AI art. I can't imagine what they'll hype up next 🤷
Love it that TH-cam is recommending me these smaller channels where a creator who really knows his shit (and can prove he knows his shit!) makes really great videos on topics that interest me but which I rarely see on TH-cam. Subscribed before I even got a third of the way in, this is great, I'm gonna go dive through your archive.
I would argue that some of this stuff is still more interesting than the 'choppily-painted orange row boat in cool blue water' paintings that I swear I see in every gallery and museum.
Mid 1970's to the late 1990's, you had the 'collectors craze' ( speculator bubble ), where folks would dump money into anything 'collectable' expecting the prices to raise. Sports cards, comic books, toys, beany brats, CCGs ( example: Pokemon ), antiques ... you name it, it was being bought at stupidly high prices. Bottom fell out in the late 1990's / early 2000's as folks tried to sell their 'collectables'. No one was buying, everyone was selling. In 1996, Marvel went bankrupt due to lack of sales thanks to the bubble popping.
Tbf, while you won't get rich off it, any TCG with a competitive scene you can still sometimes get lucky and get a card worth 20$. Which is a lot of money for a piece of cardboard. I got a card from the 3rd Gen Pokemon TCG worth more than 100$ in ideal condition. Again, not something thats a good investment, but an insane offer for whats basically printed cardboard.
great video! I’ve found that learning about the rise and fall of Zombie Formalism, has been really helpful to understand the figuration craze of the last few years, which thankfully seems to be subsiding. A period of artistic stasis that was driven by market forces.
I would argue that Zombie Art is alive and well. I do not see in the galleries, museums, or internet art that isn’t in throes of an eclectic fit…a bit of figuration, a touch of abstraction, a pinch of cartooning, etc. Most of this work looks contrived to connote importance and value because it is made of the iconography of greatness. Art dealers and collectors seem to love showing what everyone else is showing or buying, which causes a glut of this soulless crap we are now being exposed to. Zombie Art is alive and well. Perhaps it is a movement that will not die.
Good stuff Mr. West, and as you can tell from the other comments, you are not alone in noticing that the king has no clothes. Keep up the great work, I will be sure to check out your other videos! All the best, dan
OMG! MFA abstraction is so correct! I did not know this term but now I'll remember it forever! A few months ago I went to University of Haifa MFA graduate art exhibition and half of it had this vibe. Abstract and big. I tried taking it in but could not get the "why" except that they had to show somerhing but had nothing to say in the first place
I wouldn't say this is necessarily an "art movement" , this is just the mechanics of the art world and way the system operates. A big percentage of that 1% wealthy collectors buy as in investment and maybe then flip it. It's a gamble. Now we see over the last couple of years there has been a renewed interest in figurative art and these artists and new emerging artists are being affected by this too, as you know with those artists that made headlines about a month ago. It's just all part of the game, it's being done by the galleries inflating the prices and the collectors buying into the hype and then the hype dies and now is to get rid of this artwork, rinse and repeat. With those abstract paintings it's pretty much minimalist abstract expressionism, that would be the Art Movement, which is nothing new it's been done and redone to death.
I'm kinda split between feeling a bit exasperated with how much the work I did in school, contemporary as it was with that particular chapter of art history, looked like this, and how relieved I feel that I didn't have to deal with higher level art instructors, and by extension, critics, trying to push me into doing more under-motivated work to try and break into the market. I do miss the work, tho.
Maybe the real survivors are the ones who took the money and decided to quietly make art for arts sake, and the ones that are lost are the people chasing personal sales records and whoring themselves out to a slightly more educated class of speculator.
Im sure the same guys who tried to sell off zombie art were really into NFT's lol. Also, would artists like Takashi Murakami and kaws count as zombie formalists or is that a whole other category? Their art is purely aesthetic but their money is made from mass production and luxury iconography so idk if the method plays a role.
In Canada, we are having an epidemic of people painting big colorful animals. There is still a strong landscape painting movement (including plein air) and of course First Nations and traditional artists are well represented too. There is very little innovation in our local scenes and its a god damn nightmare. Decorative art seems to be the best way to make money and call yourself an 'artist'. Sorry for ranting.
Naturalistic oversized hyper-detailed animal portraits are what happens when you maximize skill to compensate for having no ideas. But, at least they have technical skill.
A list of successful artists that you are not talking about, represented by blue chip galleries and continuing to show and sell work while staring at that Warhol mug is actually a trip.
after watching this video I can't say I understand what you mean by "zombie formalism." Personally, I think it is the buyers who are zombie collectors.
Why is making things for art history supposedly superior to making things for art market? Making things for art history has lead to some very elitist BS.
The Sistine Chapel was a commission. De Goya worked on commission. Da Vinci worked on commission. You can't discount the hand of capitalism in any piece of art sold on the market. Unless you're painting on your living room walls and expect no one to see it ever, it's all for the market.
Hi Christopher, I wanted to ask you about the name of an art style. There are many artists in my country that create art very similar to the one in this video but in a smaller format and even worse quality, they spend about 20 minutes on each peice. Is there a separate name for this kind of abstraction art style?
Well, van Gogh only started painting when he was already in his mid 20s. He did have 'normal' jobs (art dealer and missionary, if I recall correctly) before he ever considered being a painter.
I like the video, but it always bugs me when tauba is considered a zombie formalist when her methodologies were novel and sincere in attempting to investigate topography, frequency, imaginary geometry, etc. Like the term zombie was used to say that the art in question utilized the past theory( greenberg, krauss yada yada) without pushing the ideas further and tauba did push various aesthetics forward in how they could be utilized in examining complex concepts. I know she is included in schneider's list so i get why you included her, but like it feels ( in art publications as a whole, not this video) kinda fucked up and like people just refuse to engage with her work on its own terms and so people bought her work because they thought it was pretty (which it is) an so now she gets wrapped up in what the market around her cared about. It just makes feels like either the whole terminology for zombie formalism is bs and is putting far more at stake for the artists credibilities and allowing the investment bros that caused the whole ordeal to not have to take responsibility for how they act or that people are being incredibly misogynistic towards her and refuse to believe she could actually have something to say. Like I understand not liking an artists work and I am by no means saying any one has to like taubas work, but like she doesnt fit the criteria and it feels disingenuous to say otherwise. Any way mini-rant over.
It’s irresponsible to assume that all these artists didn’t think they were a part of art history; that they didn’t try hard and love what they were doing, and not just trying to sell to the wealthy. It seems to be a case where, once again, the art critic at the very least creates a “movement “ and puts these artists into a little box, and at the very worst labels all the work terrible and ruins careers. Most of the time, Jerry Salz doesn’t know what he’s talking about .
@hr2186identity politics has DEFINITELY completely taken over the art market. As a person who wouldn’t benefit from that, I just gave up on the art world and sell my art for cheap on Etsy. Basically selling my rooster paintings on the corner. And being content with that. The conceit of wanting to become famous or rich in the official art world is kinda gross anyway. Why should art be this elevated thing that only the elite can understand and enjoy after the academics tell us what we should like? I’m trying to learn to be ok with my snobby academic elite relatives snickering behind my back as I sell seascapes for cheap to individuals who enjoy them. This is what art should be anyway, things that people want to see.
@christopherwestpresents but it does take away the whole point of ur video: a group of art makers with no artistic integrity that make art specifically for a new group of collectors.
8:36 "bUt thAT's jUSt 3 aRtIStS" okay give me more than a handful of artists who were active during the 1920s that are still known of today, or your entire point here is invalid.
it is not sincere to say this was a phenomena for a small specific time frame in art history. This was always the case, and still remains to be. It was just outsiders who did it this time thus could be marked as an outlier by "high art" community. This is no different than basquiat, pollock or lichtenstein, same deal same shit just different people who are licensed who are doing it and with longer time frames.
Thought it was called Abjectivism and you can easily assume if the market is paying attention to it its been happening for about 10/20 years before. It is a very gen x movement. Josh Smith has been working since like the late 90s. Also Seth Price is an artist who wrote the essay Dispersion. Recent history is difficult to deal with but I wouldn't say these works are completely useless or ugly.
This active financial cynicism is a wonderful thing for the art world, and for art criticism as well. This movement wiped the self satisfied smirk off the face of the art world, and took away the shine, and the false meaning. It must be simply what it is, either it is art or it is not. That is a subjective thing, but it shouldn’t be lied about. Ever.
So if I look up these artists who survived now I should see art that is moving the artform forward? Am I right in concluding this? For someone who's instinct says that this description applies to all contemporary art, where should they start looking to learn about how things are moving "forward" today. (This is my first video from the channel so I'll be watching more)
Did Disney actually NOT go after the "artist" Lucien Smith for the absolute direct reprint of a frame from the Disney animated film on Winnie the Pooh? - I haven't searched any legal news, but it seems very out of character for them to not pursue blatant copyright infringement by theft. If the artists claims skills for his image framing, as perhaps some mitigating factor of its use, its ridiculous. THAT is true Zombie Art or I suppose Cannibalism.
I noticed that too! That was crazy to me... perhaps nobody noticed that's what it was? I don't really know anything about the piece and how it was marketed...
Most conteporary ¨art¨ is pure speculative bubble. The emperor is wearing no clothes. If a piece of art can't be considered as such in a no capitalist system then it's not art
I'd love to see a part two to this or something, I feel like there's a lot of ground to cover. Overall, the Zombie Formalism feels like an acclerated version of the general art market. This "kinda cool, kinda whatever" art is the natural end point of an art community that gets its styles and conversations constantly checked by the traditional market. The stories we're allowed to see come down to the art collectors are willing to buy. I think while it's great that level of commodification went down, I don't think the art world we were left with after was much of an improvement. I think our natural end point will be the same until we radically examine what it means to be an artist and to make art.
and mary ann what's her name bowlregard walks every major city's art district showing gallery after gallery of gigantic ab-ex. i can't wait till it's gone.
Honestly I can't tell the difference between 5:41 and a Pollock. If anything some of the artwork presentrd looks more appealing than other abstract "high art"
I wouldńt label Oscar Murillo or Lucian Smith as white males 😂, on other hand nowadays I keep on seeing hundreds if not thousdands of artists of all colors and genders continuing doing that style of “art”
Total tangent, but when you were talking about imagining certain artists with "proper" jobs, I started thinking of the many great artists who'd served in the armed forces last century. But then it occurred to me that probably your point still stands, and the military was just kinda horrible at preparing people for life on the outside...
Bubble popping leaves us with flat champagne. It is hard to appreciate contemporary art when so much just seems flat. Kinda wonder, did zombie formalism really go away? I'm looking at the price of housing and it sure looks like 2008. At least flat champagne will still get one drunk.
I think we can all agree that the art market is bent. Of course speculative buying and art as a commodity was going to happen. It's a ruse. Fame and perceived value is dictated by gallery owners and critics. They're also the gatekeepers to a market where the only way a newcomer who isn't inordinately wealthy has a chance at the table is speculative purchasing and the artist is only as famous as the galleries and art dealers make him or her. But it's really messed up when you think about how the only experts qualified to determine value and set prices are the ones who sell the art.
Do you think you’ll ever make it over to the U.K. any time soon? Right now is the best time to be in London for art 😊 Bacon’s exhibition has just opened, there’s a fantastic Monet exhibition, Van Gogh has one too! Plus Michael Craig Martin at the royal academy and Tracey Emin at white cube just to name a few 😅
That was quick! I was all ears for this subject. The video was too short. There is no art for the people anymore. When work, the size of billboards dominates the market, only museums and the super rich can play the game. They're gamblers now, not art collectors.
it's much more about the market than the artists. They were making this kind of art because it is real to our time when people consume art through screens, there are a lot of great artists that deal with this kind of language, which is a consequence of our space and time, not the profit of those who pretend to know
Any artist making art with the plan of ascent and honing their style so that it will accommodate ascent is a zombie regardless of the style. We have to admit that 99% of art, regardless of art or position of artist is bad, like pop music. It's "badness" is what got it there.
OK, so what is this on about? Art has been about marketability for centuries and has been about investment for decades at least. I'm not defending "Zombie Formalism" but the idea that it tainted the art market is ludicrous. T
@@christopherwestpresents I'm sorry, that is elitist rubbish. No one owns art, certainly not art critics. Need I remind you that the art critics initially rejected Impressionism? Not that I am denigrating the study of art, but the gatekeeping does
In a kind of ironic way, I think Zombie Formalism *did* move the conversation on art, specifically on the way art is commodified and its relationship with capitalism. Is art worth less if the motivation is profit? It seems the answer is yes
A person becomes famous, they start doing something that resembles art, usually the stuff you see in Walmart and other stores mass produced in some God-forsaken place, by 10 /15 people working an assembly line of pieces, So these famous people now put up their , say painting for sale. For some reason, they get good money for bad art. Hitler's work sells for a lot of money to a special group. So I guess the exact same rendition done by different people will pull good money only because of a name. I guess Marjory Taylor Green could get even richer after leaving office by passing some colored crap on a panel, sign it, and put it up for sale. One of my Mentors back in the 70s once said to me, when I showed him a picture of what I thought was a great piece, due to the way lines and colors were used, he said "It looks fascinating, but never confuse clever for art."(D, Cabarga)
That was good advice! And people will always buy bad art - I actually don’t see anything wrong with that. But it doesn’t mean it will make it to the museum or art history books.
@@christopherwestpresents I never became rich I struggled for years but those who have my works won't give them up. Now that I'm a;most 80 people are now wanting me to produce and money isn't a problem. Everything I have ever done was for clients, not Galleries. Now that I;m retired I'm doing what I want to do, if they buy it OK, if not that is OK. Actually this video that you made has given me more pess and vinegar to keep going .Thanks
Ooooooooh calling it Zombie is actually so cool, I was wondering why. Art rising from the dead that’s all gross and decayed being felt with by people who have to improvise and play by ear
Murillo would be nowhere if it was not for the big collectors the Rubells propping him up when he was young. I have always found his work empty of everything, completely dead.
NFTs before NFTs were a thing. And nobody talks about them anymore either.
I was thinking the same thing - cryptoart/nft uses same model
NFTs were great on the Tezos network. Few cents each, and you can fill your library with pretty little things by experimental artists. Collecting was fun. Artists in 3rd world countries benefited greatly. Then the PFP and corporate NFT era started and the whole scene was clogged with derivative slop.
@@HandleToBeDeterminedbasically no artists made money due to gas fees
@@ethangrant8736 Yeah, I have a friend who sold poetry and people would buy it anyway because it was cheap. But she struggled with her life and put that in her poetry. I can't say it was very good, but it supported her family for a while. And then the bottom fell out.
NFTs are just a more stupid version of art for money laundering.
Perhaps the tag “art just made for the market” could be applied to far more than just those recognized as Zombie Formalism?
This is definitely true.
Potboilers.
it's a vulgar cancer that has taken over the art world
Yes see them at your local art fair.
@@robertspies4695 very true.
I think art schools must bear some of the responsibility here. At least in my personal experience, students were constantly pushed to ‘look at other artists’ (meaning the famous ones within modern art) and produce work that echoed the same old themes and motivations i.e taking a mundane object/idea and ‘elevating’ it to artistic status. No room or scope for real creative thought or exploring the limits of those ideas. I was looking at people like Raymond Pettibon and my tutors didn’t even know who he was and tried to steer me towards Warhol and Duchamp.
Art schools are horrible. Most of the instructors are more interested in spreading their seed than helping you achieve your own goals. I saw so many kids come in first year with a passion for a certain type of painting, have their wills broken by the institution, and then end up making utterly souless, boring bullsh*t in their final year, i.e. "art made for the market"
I think this is in part why outsider art is so fascinating.
It’s as far as you could ever get from the idea of art convention and so it naturally breaks barriers that artists with more exposure to the world of art may not even think of breaking.
You kinda have to listen to them and ignore like half of the advice, maybe I'm just lucky because we get to do whatever tf we want, my friend based her whole project on the sisters of mercy and making visuals for some of their songs and she passed with flying colours. I made this weird abstract expressionist painting that was massive hanging in the gallery with a projection of a video I made overlayed on top, my theme was the time of day and the video would go from day to night while changing the colour of the painting i.e making it darker, lighter, and sometimes making one colour more bold from the others. I passed with flying colours as well, sounds easy but I was crunching time at the end to the point that I had to halve the video and turn down the number of effects because the computers couldn't handle how dense it was.
@@ceh9789That's absolutely tragic if it's true, I hope those people can recover to express themselves through art again :(
@@ceh9789 I blame administrators more than teachers. The goal of the institution is to bleed money out of students and this is justified by having graduates whose careers can be pointed to as examples of what he institution can produce. The result is a handful of talented students being singled out and given vast resources and connections to elevate them above their peers. They are groomed for commercial success and launched, often still half baked, into the heart of the art world. The rest of the students are either left to their own devices or taught formulaically as the administrators don't actually know how art education works and will pick ridged processes that they can understand over the controlled chaos of professors giving advice tailored to individual students that can be much harder to explain.
I somewhat disagree with the idea that Van Gogh couldn't be a plumber. Lots of us have to create, can think of no life without creating, but we have a have a stupid job to pay the bills. (I'm only nit picking, I love your videos)
Thanks! And i didn’t mean he was incapable of being a plumber, just that he was meant to be an artist!
@@christopherwestpresents Oh no, I didn't think that at all, I just meant that a lot of us call ourselves artists and do the work, but still have to be plumbers - or in my case teachers - regardless!
Kandinsky was a lawyer before becoming a painter in his 40’s
During the day I format/proofread documents for lawyers, and at night I make stop motion animations with my art, so my whole life is just one big "spot the difference" game 😂 It's funny how similar they are, but one feeds my soul and the other drains it 😔
@@drebugsita Kavinsky was a painter before becoming an artist in his 30's 🤓
Zombie Formalism is a great band name ☠️
Right??? I wish I could play guitar. 🎸
It's catchy but every bit as easy and empty as the work it was "critiquing" by arguing that it was beyond critique. In truth, this is the postmodernism debate all over again. Christopher West demonstrates surprising amnesia with these same discussions about originality and "progress" that took place in 1962, around Warhol's work, and 1978, with the Pictures Generation and Neo-Expressionism. Those earlier moments may not have had flipping, but they were connected to the start of the art market everyone loves to hate.
So are you saying that the movement had value?@@SuperRobertoClemente
It’s that uncomfortable feeling you get when you know something is happening, but you just don’t have the word for it.
I know that feeling all too well.
This was also true with Impressionism, Cubism, Suprematism, Pop Art, Minimalism...
Hermeneutical injustice
I swear that picture of the base of a tree at 7:37 is literally just an illustration of piglet's house from Winnie the Pooh on the Blustery Day.
I was thinking it looked like a Calvin and Hobbs panel lol
I thought the same thing, figured it was a Richard Prince style crop-and-recontextualize thing
I worked at a large funky art supply store in a basement in Seattle during this time and I think my favorite customer was Judith. she s a working artist with an entire business model of making large abstract paintings that matched the decor of places like a lobby or a hallway or a hotel room, she was extremely nice and bought a lot of art supplies so I always liked working with her and I envied her career.
so now when I go around town I keep an eye out for "a Judith" because she did sign at least some of them on the front, but I'd say her business model was like a bespoke version of this "zombie formalism" and I think it's not really anything new. people have been making "decorator friendly abstracts" for a long time.
This is the truth.
What Judith does is infinitely better, because at least her paintings derive value from their role in designing an interior. Zombie formalist works only derive value from the expectation that others will pay more money for them.
@@metachirality true, there's no expectation that A Judith would persist outside of it's original placement, they're basically site-specific paintings, so re-selling them just wouldn't work.
@@pencilears its less that and more that people only value zombie formalist works because they think others do. with a monet, someone might value it because its expensive but at least its only expensive because of its importance to art history. zombie formalist works don't really bottom out to anything, its just an ouroboros of "it is valuable because it is valuable."
Artist and Craftsman?
Amazing video! The phrase "Kind of pretty, kind of whatever" is something I tried to define for the last couple years now and I haven't found words for yet. Will definetly stay in my vocabulary from now on. Sometimes you just see stuff and feel like, well, nothing.
I’m keeping that phrase in my back pocket too!
Crapstraction is my favourite name for this brief efflorescence of derivative painting that sadly has never really gone away… stubborn things, these zombies.
Indeed!
Interior designers will feed those zombies forever!
I went to art school during this time, (2010-2013,) and got my BFA in painting. I saw all of this 'Zombie Formalism' going on around me, and the young white men becoming the hot commodities in the institution. I tried to call these paintings what they were, "Design Objects." The professors and teachers all gaslighted me to make me feel like my critique made no sense. It was crazy making!
I left art school feeling hopeless and alien, and resentful of art institutions. Maybe its time I reconnected to painting again.
Do it! You were right!
I make art because if I don't my brain will literally fking implode
I'm not entirely convinced this trend ever stopped. I mean, isn't that how high-end art works? Some rich folks buy paintings, and that's what gives them their value? Regardless of whether it's good or not. Some of the highest selling modern art from this past decade leaves me scratching my head sometimes.
that's where critical thinking comes into play...
Zombie Formalism should not be conflated with one's understanding or taste in art.
My city often organizes nice art walks and tours which I like to do. This ranges from hobbyists, to serious artists and galleries. In the last decade a lot of aft has indeed converged into a sort of "dentist waiting room" art.
No, COINs buy art to fit in. To be flashy and ostentatious. Hench the large bold artworks. Think of Hotel Lobby art/ Coif art.
Collectors buy for the enjoyment of ownership. If you go to an art gallery and talk to collectors each has their own reason and aesthetic taste for enjoying their art.
Modern and post-modern art are meant to challenge what art is and what it can do. Think of it as deepfrying a meme so much that it goes for something like a rage comic to the classic "E" . Only a person who has spent time in the art circle can really understand or get why Modern and Post Modern art is the way it is.
Which is why normies laugh at it
@Megaawesomeguy Did you honestly just call people "normies"? Lol. There is a difference between not understanding modern art and not liking it. Some people still value art for its fine craftsmanship, its ability to leave one in awe, and wondering, "How did they do that?" Where the answer is usually years of dedicated practice and honing those skills. Not to mention art with a very clear statement that does not need to be explained by someone in the high-end art circle. Art that, as you put it, 'normies' can understand and enjoy as well.
The vast majority of artists do nothing to push art forward, and there's a good reason for that: it's extremely difficult to be an innovator, even to a marginal degree, even if you try as hard as you can. Most art, even that of high quality, is inevitably derivative.
That's why it is now called Post Modern. Since 1970s artists have recycled previous art.
@@gavinreid2741 What jojojo3521 said has always been the case. Stop with this conservative rhetoric that only art now is derivative. The fact is that there are very few artists in the entire history of art that are considered even worthwhile.
@@petchinv2870 at one time, especially since the 1860s , there has been an Avant-garde pushing ways and means of creativity. Since the 1970s minimalism and conceptualism artists have relied upon earlier art movements. modernism is the new conformity.
@@petchinv2870 you seem to be mistaking my comment for Jojos.
My 2 cents: "They wanted to short sell", maybe not the best expression to qualify a market for quick returns. Short selling is betting against a overvalued stock and takes a lot of patience and a practiced eye to achieve. Maybe "day trading" would be a better fit for what you are trying to describe.
I’m not sure how this story is different from that of any other art movement. Of all the people who painted cubist works, how many of their names are unknown to you? Zombie Cubism.
the word "Crapstraction" is more interesting than most of the art shown as zombie formalism
For sure.
why aren't the collectors and critics labelled zombies? it would be more fitting. this video doesn't ring true at all, the art is being unfairly lumped into a category that is then being used as a scapegoat for the collective laziness, greed, and vanity of investors, critics, artists, and audience alike.
So why shouldn't the name givers be allowed their fair share of laziness?
The paintings are referred to as "zombie formalism" themselves, since they were only created for financial gian. Meaning theres no "soul" or "meaning"
this video sucks, he never explains what actually makes these works bad compared to the works they are derivative of besides being too samey. this whole industry is just people huffing farts and this video just made that blatantly apparent
I was barely sentient when this became popular but I've seen a return of this concept in more recent years with NFTs and even to an extent AI art. I can't imagine what they'll hype up next 🤷
Love it that TH-cam is recommending me these smaller channels where a creator who really knows his shit (and can prove he knows his shit!) makes really great videos on topics that interest me but which I rarely see on TH-cam. Subscribed before I even got a third of the way in, this is great, I'm gonna go dive through your archive.
This is so nice to hear. Thank you so much!
0:10 That's neoplasticism
At the end, when talking about how only a few of these artists are still popular, I don’t get the difference between this art movement and any other.
Good point - but I think the difference is how rapidly it happened. Normally art history can take decades/centuries to work itself out.
I would argue that some of this stuff is still more interesting than the 'choppily-painted orange row boat in cool blue water' paintings that I swear I see in every gallery and museum.
Your perspective on the art world continues to fascinate me!
I really appreciate it Ricky. Thanks so much for watching.
As soon as you hear the word “derivative” you know your not listening to someone serious about art history or criticism lol
How so?
@it’s totally banal. Everything’s derivative. And that’s not really ever a problem in principle. So it’s a very lazy critique.
Mid 1970's to the late 1990's, you had the 'collectors craze' ( speculator bubble ), where folks would dump money into anything 'collectable' expecting the prices to raise. Sports cards, comic books, toys, beany brats, CCGs ( example: Pokemon ), antiques ... you name it, it was being bought at stupidly high prices.
Bottom fell out in the late 1990's / early 2000's as folks tried to sell their 'collectables'. No one was buying, everyone was selling.
In 1996, Marvel went bankrupt due to lack of sales thanks to the bubble popping.
Tbf, while you won't get rich off it, any TCG with a competitive scene you can still sometimes get lucky and get a card worth 20$. Which is a lot of money for a piece of cardboard.
I got a card from the 3rd Gen Pokemon TCG worth more than 100$ in ideal condition. Again, not something thats a good investment, but an insane offer for whats basically printed cardboard.
great video! I’ve found that learning about the rise and fall of Zombie Formalism, has been really helpful to understand the figuration craze of the last few years, which thankfully seems to be subsiding. A period of artistic stasis that was driven by market forces.
Thanks! And yes with contemporary, so many things seem to ebb and flow.
I would argue that Zombie Art is alive and well. I do not see in the galleries, museums, or internet art that isn’t in throes of an eclectic fit…a bit of figuration, a touch of abstraction, a pinch of cartooning, etc. Most of this work looks contrived to connote importance and value because it is made of the iconography of greatness. Art dealers and collectors seem to love showing what everyone else is showing or buying, which causes a glut of this soulless crap we are now being exposed to. Zombie Art is alive and well. Perhaps it is a movement that will not die.
Good stuff Mr. West, and as you can tell from the other comments, you are not alone in noticing that the king has no clothes. Keep up the great work, I will be sure to check out your other videos! All the best, dan
OMG! MFA abstraction is so correct! I did not know this term but now I'll remember it forever!
A few months ago I went to University of Haifa MFA graduate art exhibition and half of it had this vibe. Abstract and big. I tried taking it in but could not get the "why" except that they had to show somerhing but had nothing to say in the first place
“Kind of pretty, and kind of whatever…”. Another favorite quote of mine.
I wouldn't say this is necessarily an "art movement" , this is just the mechanics of the art world and way the system operates. A big percentage of that 1% wealthy collectors buy as in investment and maybe then flip it. It's a gamble.
Now we see over the last couple of years there has been a renewed interest in figurative art and these artists and new emerging artists are being affected by this too, as you know with those artists that made headlines about a month ago. It's just all part of the game, it's being done by the galleries inflating the prices and the collectors buying into the hype and then the hype dies and now is to get rid of this artwork, rinse and repeat.
With those abstract paintings it's pretty much minimalist abstract expressionism, that would be the Art Movement, which is nothing new it's been done and redone to death.
‘Hype’ is the right term here.
I'm kinda split between feeling a bit exasperated with how much the work I did in school, contemporary as it was with that particular chapter of art history, looked like this, and how relieved I feel that I didn't have to deal with higher level art instructors, and by extension, critics, trying to push me into doing more under-motivated work to try and break into the market. I do miss the work, tho.
love your videos!
I really appreciate this!
Maybe the real survivors are the ones who took the money and decided to quietly make art for arts sake, and the ones that are lost are the people chasing personal sales records and whoring themselves out to a slightly more educated class of speculator.
Im sure the same guys who tried to sell off zombie art were really into NFT's lol.
Also, would artists like Takashi Murakami and kaws count as zombie formalists or is that a whole other category? Their art is purely aesthetic but their money is made from mass production and luxury iconography so idk if the method plays a role.
In Canada, we are having an epidemic of people painting big colorful animals. There is still a strong landscape painting movement (including plein air) and of course First Nations and traditional artists are well represented too. There is very little innovation in our local scenes and its a god damn nightmare. Decorative art seems to be the best way to make money and call yourself an 'artist'. Sorry for ranting.
Naturalistic oversized hyper-detailed animal portraits are what happens when you maximize skill to compensate for having no ideas.
But, at least they have technical skill.
I do like me some big colorful animals though. Preferably not realistic.
A list of successful artists that you are not talking about, represented by blue chip galleries and continuing to show and sell work while staring at that Warhol mug is actually a trip.
Incredible video by the way. Instantly subscribed
And thank you so much. It truly means a lot 🙏
@@christopherwestpresents I binged a bunch of your videos after I watched this. So entertaining!
after watching this video I can't say I understand what you mean by "zombie formalism." Personally, I think it is the buyers who are zombie collectors.
It’s art with no brain/meaning. Hence it’s zombie-like.
“Crapstraction” Golden! Lol 😆
I liked that too :)
I love these presentations on aspects of art about which I knew nothing!
Thank you! I hope I can keep it interesting :)
Why is making things for art history supposedly superior to making things for art market? Making things for art history has lead to some very elitist BS.
This comment is art
Exactly and I would go a lot further than that.
And the art produced for the market is not elitist?
@@nelsonth Trying to make a genuine honest living is generally viewed as the opposite of elitism, yes.
The Sistine Chapel was a commission. De Goya worked on commission. Da Vinci worked on commission. You can't discount the hand of capitalism in any piece of art sold on the market. Unless you're painting on your living room walls and expect no one to see it ever, it's all for the market.
Hi Christopher, I wanted to ask you about the name of an art style.
There are many artists in my country that create art very similar to the one in this video but in a smaller format and even worse quality, they spend about 20 minutes on each peice.
Is there a separate name for this kind of abstraction art style?
Phillip Glass and Richard Serra were both Plumbers.... So there!
Fair enough. Thanks!
My same feeling, we do what we gotta do. No trust fund, no brother sending cash.
Well, van Gogh only started painting when he was already in his mid 20s. He did have 'normal' jobs (art dealer and missionary, if I recall correctly) before he ever considered being a painter.
I like the video, but it always bugs me when tauba is considered a zombie formalist when her methodologies were novel and sincere in attempting to investigate topography, frequency, imaginary geometry, etc. Like the term zombie was used to say that the art in question utilized the past theory( greenberg, krauss yada yada) without pushing the ideas further and tauba did push various aesthetics forward in how they could be utilized in examining complex concepts. I know she is included in schneider's list so i get why you included her, but like it feels ( in art publications as a whole, not this video) kinda fucked up and like people just refuse to engage with her work on its own terms and so people bought her work because they thought it was pretty (which it is) an so now she gets wrapped up in what the market around her cared about. It just makes feels like either the whole terminology for zombie formalism is bs and is putting far more at stake for the artists credibilities and allowing the investment bros that caused the whole ordeal to not have to take responsibility for how they act or that people are being incredibly misogynistic towards her and refuse to believe she could actually have something to say. Like I understand not liking an artists work and I am by no means saying any one has to like taubas work, but like she doesnt fit the criteria and it feels disingenuous to say otherwise. Any way mini-rant over.
My friends and I in CHICAGO called Zombie Formalism the Apathetic Aesthetic.
Hilarious. Love it. And I love the Chicago art scene.
It’s irresponsible to assume that all these artists didn’t think they were a part of art history; that they didn’t try hard and love what they were doing, and not just trying to sell to the wealthy. It seems to be a case where, once again, the art critic at the very least creates a “movement “ and puts these artists into a little box, and at the very worst labels all the work terrible and ruins careers. Most of the time, Jerry Salz doesn’t know what he’s talking about .
I’m not mad at the artists. And I don’t blame them. But that doesn’t make the work great.
It’s great to love what you’re doing, as you say, but when nobody calls you on your bullshit you can end up being an inflated monster.
@hr2186 that’s because the small guy selling art on the corner anyway prove you’re not a Russian bot?
@hr2186identity politics has DEFINITELY completely taken over the art market. As a person who wouldn’t benefit from that, I just gave up on the art world and sell my art for cheap on Etsy. Basically selling my rooster paintings on the corner. And being content with that. The conceit of wanting to become famous or rich in the official art world is kinda gross anyway. Why should art be this elevated thing that only the elite can understand and enjoy after the academics tell us what we should like? I’m trying to learn to be ok with my snobby academic elite relatives snickering behind my back as I sell seascapes for cheap to individuals who enjoy them. This is what art should be anyway, things that people want to see.
@christopherwestpresents but it does take away the whole point of ur video: a group of art makers with no artistic integrity that make art specifically for a new group of collectors.
8:36 "bUt thAT's jUSt 3 aRtIStS" okay give me more than a handful of artists who were active during the 1920s that are still known of today, or your entire point here is invalid.
it is not sincere to say this was a phenomena for a small specific time frame in art history. This was always the case, and still remains to be. It was just outsiders who did it this time thus could be marked as an outlier by "high art" community. This is no different than basquiat, pollock or lichtenstein, same deal same shit just different people who are licensed who are doing it and with longer time frames.
Thought it was called Abjectivism and you can easily assume if the market is paying attention to it its been happening for about 10/20 years before. It is a very gen x movement. Josh Smith has been working since like the late 90s. Also Seth Price is an artist who wrote the essay Dispersion. Recent history is difficult to deal with but I wouldn't say these works are completely useless or ugly.
This active financial cynicism is a wonderful thing for the art world, and for art criticism as well. This movement wiped the self satisfied smirk off the face of the art world, and took away the shine, and the false meaning. It must be simply what it is, either it is art or it is not. That is a subjective thing, but it shouldn’t be lied about. Ever.
What about the invisible dynamics in the art world? Like buyers (not collectors as you pointed out) who devalue a living artists work?
There’s always going to be people just out to make a buck.
hot take: Oscar Murillo and his works are actually really great. what greedy art world flippers did with it is another thing altogether
Consensus seems to be he was better than most.
So if I look up these artists who survived now I should see art that is moving the artform forward? Am I right in concluding this? For someone who's instinct says that this description applies to all contemporary art, where should they start looking to learn about how things are moving "forward" today. (This is my first video from the channel so I'll be watching more)
Did Disney actually NOT go after the "artist" Lucien Smith for the absolute direct reprint of a frame from the Disney animated film on Winnie the Pooh? - I haven't searched any legal news, but it seems very out of character for them to not pursue blatant copyright infringement by theft. If the artists claims skills for his image framing, as perhaps some mitigating factor of its use, its ridiculous. THAT is true Zombie Art or I suppose Cannibalism.
I noticed that too! That was crazy to me... perhaps nobody noticed that's what it was? I don't really know anything about the piece and how it was marketed...
Came here looking for this comment. I was waiting for the ‘big reveal’ that it was actually Winnie The Pooh, but to my surprise, nope!
I'd assume it never got noticed by Disney
All modern art is art for the market; since the impressionists all art is view as an ''asset''
Since art left the caves, it has been expensive.
Yep, literally all art, no exceptions. And everyone knows that art was never sold before the impressionists, not once.
Most conteporary ¨art¨ is pure speculative bubble. The emperor is wearing no clothes. If a piece of art can't be considered as such in a no capitalist system then it's not art
at 4:32 I can see one of my old professors paintings, David Huffman. pretty cool dude
I unfortunately was in an MFA program during its height. As a painter it was very depressing and disconcerting
Omg, I’m so glad this video is here because I’ve been so annoyed with how the last decades art is so goddamn boring.
probably not looking for art in the right places. There are way too many good living artists.
A lot of that buying and flipping of art was done to launder money.
Robert Hughes complained about the negative influence of the art market on the discipline of art for basically his whole career
Yet the art market has basically existed since the art moved off the cave walls.
I'd love to see a part two to this or something, I feel like there's a lot of ground to cover. Overall, the Zombie Formalism feels like an acclerated version of the general art market. This "kinda cool, kinda whatever" art is the natural end point of an art community that gets its styles and conversations constantly checked by the traditional market. The stories we're allowed to see come down to the art collectors are willing to buy. I think while it's great that level of commodification went down, I don't think the art world we were left with after was much of an improvement. I think our natural end point will be the same until we radically examine what it means to be an artist and to make art.
Phillip Glass (an artist if not a painter) worked as a plumber.
I’d not heard of this description before, but I can spot the subject..
Now, zombie figuration will come to an end too!
It’s already happening.
and mary ann what's her name bowlregard walks every major city's art district showing gallery after gallery of gigantic ab-ex. i can't wait till it's gone.
I think she’s pleasant and I like seeing what people are showing - even if I don’t love it.
Billboards warehoused in museums.
Thanks for this..very informative 🙂
So nice to hear. And thanks so much for the comment!
good content ❤
Thanks so much!
Thank you.
Thank you!
Interesting video.
I really appreciate it!
Honestly I can't tell the difference between 5:41 and a Pollock. If anything some of the artwork presentrd looks more appealing than other abstract "high art"
I wouldńt label Oscar Murillo or Lucian Smith as white males 😂, on other hand nowadays I keep on seeing hundreds if not thousdands of artists of all colors and genders continuing doing that style of “art”
Well, thank goodness art and money aren’t intermingled anymore.
We dodged a bullet.
Sounds like NFTs with extra steps.
Total tangent, but when you were talking about imagining certain artists with "proper" jobs, I started thinking of the many great artists who'd served in the armed forces last century. But then it occurred to me that probably your point still stands, and the military was just kinda horrible at preparing people for life on the outside...
Interesting point!
Morley Safer’s zombie corpse must be spinning in his grave.
Bubble popping leaves us with flat champagne. It is hard to appreciate contemporary art when so much just seems flat. Kinda wonder, did zombie formalism really go away? I'm looking at the price of housing and it sure looks like 2008. At least flat champagne will still get one drunk.
There’s probably been ‘flat’ contemporary art since there has ever been art. History has a sense of figuring things out.
Is this guy a finance guy or a gallery :D. Smart.
thank you
Welcome!
Do you know anything about "plastic symbolism"?
That’s a new one to me. I’ll look into it!
I think we can all agree that the art market is bent. Of course speculative buying and art as a commodity was going to happen. It's a ruse. Fame and perceived value is dictated by gallery owners and critics. They're also the gatekeepers to a market where the only way a newcomer who isn't inordinately wealthy has a chance at the table is speculative purchasing and the artist is only as famous as the galleries and art dealers make him or her. But it's really messed up when you think about how the only experts qualified to determine value and set prices are the ones who sell the art.
"And some names you may know!"
*Bunch of names I've never heard before.*
Fair enough.
Do you think you’ll ever make it over to the U.K. any time soon? Right now is the best time to be in London for art 😊 Bacon’s exhibition has just opened, there’s a fantastic Monet exhibition, Van Gogh has one too! Plus Michael Craig Martin at the royal academy and Tracey Emin at white cube just to name a few 😅
I’ve got nothing on the books but would love to make it back to the UK soon. It’s been too long!
That was quick! I was all ears for this subject. The video was too short.
There is no art for the people anymore. When work, the size of billboards dominates the market, only museums and the super rich can play the game. They're gamblers now, not art collectors.
Nothing better in my opinion than a small, intimate drawing.
This feels like something a frustrated art student makes when he is told to copy Pollock one too many times.
it's much more about the market than the artists. They were making this kind of art because it is real to our time when people consume art through screens, there are a lot of great artists that deal with this kind of language, which is a consequence of our space and time, not the profit of those who pretend to know
and you think the Spam painting on the wall behind you is any better? Looks totally derivative, unless it is by AW.
It’s by Ed Ruscha.
Have you ever seen that piece? It’s a great piece. Stop in to LACMA sometime.
finly somone talking about the 2010's like it's the past
Good content - Collectors are fickle
Any artist making art with the plan of ascent and honing their style so that it will accommodate ascent is a zombie regardless of the style. We have to admit that 99% of art, regardless of art or position of artist is bad, like pop music. It's "badness" is what got it there.
OK, so what is this on about? Art has been about marketability for centuries and has been about investment for decades at least. I'm not defending "Zombie Formalism" but the idea that it tainted the art market is ludicrous. T
It didn’t taint the art market. It tainted art!
@@christopherwestpresents I'm sorry, that is elitist rubbish. No one owns art, certainly not art critics. Need I remind you that the art critics initially rejected Impressionism?
Not that I am denigrating the study of art, but the gatekeeping does
That mubrabi painting is horrifying 😂
I remember the Oscar Murillo craze. I was aghast. WTF?
In a kind of ironic way, I think Zombie Formalism *did* move the conversation on art, specifically on the way art is commodified and its relationship with capitalism. Is art worth less if the motivation is profit? It seems the answer is yes
A person becomes famous, they start doing something that resembles art, usually the stuff you see in Walmart and other stores mass produced in some God-forsaken place, by 10 /15 people working an assembly line of pieces, So these famous people now put up their , say painting for sale. For some reason, they get good money for bad art. Hitler's work sells for a lot of money to a special group. So I guess the exact same rendition done by different people will pull good money only because of a name. I guess Marjory Taylor Green could get even richer after leaving office by passing some colored crap on a panel, sign it, and put it up for sale. One of my Mentors back in the 70s once said to me, when I showed him a picture of what I thought was a great piece, due to the way lines and colors were used, he said "It looks fascinating, but never confuse clever for art."(D, Cabarga)
That was good advice! And people will always buy bad art - I actually don’t see anything wrong with that. But it doesn’t mean it will make it to the museum or art history books.
@@christopherwestpresents I never became rich I struggled for years but those who have my works won't give them up. Now that I'm a;most 80 people are now wanting me to produce and money isn't a problem. Everything I have ever done was for clients, not Galleries. Now that I;m retired I'm doing what I want to do, if they buy it OK, if not that is OK. Actually this video that you made has given me more pess and vinegar to keep going .Thanks
Ooooooooh calling it Zombie is actually so cool, I was wondering why. Art rising from the dead that’s all gross and decayed being felt with by people who have to improvise and play by ear
"Mostly white, and mostly male" was necessary to accentuate on💀
Murillo would be nowhere if it was not for the big collectors the Rubells propping him up when he was young. I have always found his work empty of everything, completely dead.
He did have a ton of support from the highest levels.