I agree with ShootInShark (weird sentence of the day) the loud, overpowering music seemed... correct. I personally felt, small, powerless, an emotion that I find apt when talking about the current rise in fascism, particularly in America, something that I - a 20 something student - feel beyond my personal agency and struggle with. It worked.
This is a nicely done video man, overall very clean and the narration, if not perfect, near perfect. I just wanted to say that control over art is a given in any totalitarian nationalist regime, not an exclusive thing from the right. North Korea comes to my mind as an example of a left regime and Soviet Russia did the same thing. I think it's another way to say "our is good, other is bad"; a basic thing if the rulling class wants to maintain control over its population. Came here from the Shadow of the Colossus video (made me feel nostalgic, even though I've never played it xD)
But let's be honest here, what is it that people are afraid of? Is it the physical object of painted canvas, or the price? If people are angry just because of the price (assigned to it by the market) instead of the painting itself then the art isn't doing its job, it becomes pretty much worthless.
I feel like Whose Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue shouldn't have been restored. I don't hate the piece, but i believe that the point it tries to get across is even stronger when it is in tatters. In its pristine state is merely asks the question "who is afraid of red yellow and blue" but in a damaged state it tells us exactly who, and instead asks "why are they afraid of red yellow and blue, and what do we do about it"
In other words, the piece was finally finished by its destruction. Honestly, these paintings are closer to games than most interactive art pieces that aren't games.
It’s similar to the Rodin statue outside of the Cleveland Museum of Art. The Weather Underground bombed it, and the museum opted not to restore it as a sort of monument in defiance.
I feel like ‘Who’s afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue?’ Isn’t just a piece of art. It’s a question that was answered in exactly the way the artist expected it to be answered.
Honestly if I were the artist I would not have wanted it restored. With a title like that, it really seems like some crazy nazi destroying it was actually just the finishing touch that the piece was waiting for
"A perversion of the German flag" says a lot, considering I, a Latin American, first thought of the Colombian flag turned 90° and never of anything German. It's as if our own backgrounds and thoughts informed our interpretation of the art more than the art itself. Also I'm a hobbyist artist and getting such a uniform color across such a huge canvas is super hard.
I can do even colors with acrylic paint the trick is painting over but your hand hurts a lot and it takes hours even your back hurts..... Like 8 feet holy smokes....... As a Latina I only saw the Colombian glag as well
I'm german and this looks nothing like a german flag, any german flag even. Idk what this man sees because neither the arrangement nor the colours are similar.
If it was up to me, I'd let the painting on the museum. With the deep cut and everything. It's a solid remark that: Yes. People were afraid of Red, yellow and blue.
Lol It sure has a bit more of an impact in my opinion too. It just has this sheer registration of irrational anger. Just like it fascinates me when someone can love something simple, cheap or dull for no reason, be it a toy, a painting or a cartoon. Seeing someone get so full of anger over a square with 3 colors to a point they'd commit a crime...that's just magnificent. Melancholic. But magnificent. The dude didn't gain nothing from this. He could've been arrested over this. He could've been charged millions over this. But he was so angry that he did it regardless. And a lot of people shared that hatred of his and defended him. People thought of it as bravery. There is a dark anthropological beauty to such tragedy.
@@Tmanowns While I will say it certainly has a new context after the vandalism, the original does say a lot as well. It kind of has to. Something that is "meaningless", that "doesn't say anything" does not create this level of response. It may be hard, if not impossible to put it into words, but it did say one hell of a lot.
the irony of someone physically attacking a painting called "Who's Afraid of Red Yellow and Blue" though. Like, I wouldn't wanna be the guy to jump up and say "ME! I am so afraid of primary colours I brought a KNIFE!"
One of my favorite paintings, Ivan the terrible and his son Ivan, was recently vandalized (2018). It had been vandalized before, in 1913. The funny thing is that Repin (the painter) thought that the first attack had been perpetrated by modernists because of him being a realist (painting in a classic manner). The second attack happened when a drunk guy thought that the painting was historically inaccurate. It's interesting how art can inspire such different reactions.
there’s something poetic, in a regrettable way, about the destruction of ‘who’s afraid of red yellow and blue’ demonstrating *exactly* who was afraid of red yellow and blue
You get arrested for wearing yellow and blue in russia... even spring green and purple now since they aren't so far apart. And red only if it's with black.
I don't see anyone getting arrested for wearing yellow and light blue (and I wear them everyday), but yeah russian government seems to be afraid of them and repainting stadium seats, fences and so on
Excellent video, man. I walked into this video with a general disapproval of the idea of “overly simplistic modern art.” I saw most of it as nonsensical, assuming that the people behind it didn’t have any real creative intent. That changed the second I heard the name “who’s afraid of red yellow and blue?” And i knew exactly what it meant. I gritted my teeth at the mention of fascism since I see people everywhere use it as a distraction in an argument. As soon as you yell out “fascism!” People tend to just stop thinking rationally altogether and pick your side. But the way you explained that you know what fascism is in the first place, the way it works and then how it compare to the ideals of these “politicians” blew me away. I feel changed after this. It’s awesome
Whenever i see someone actually have an open mind and change their opinion it warms my heart. I was dismissive of some modern art before this video. Its the same thing as the banana people joke about not "being art" the whole point is to be provocative. The initial dismissal of "thats not art" should be followed by the realization of "ooooh thats the point." What isnt art is ai art or stuff cranked out by corpoeations, but even then to an extent it can be.
@@iharpo9292 Oh right, let me put a blank white canvas in a Chicago museum titled “Why white is right.” Very hard to be indirectly provocative. Also my art sells for $5mil, so I bet aspiring artists would be motivated by that. Also if 90% of the public complains about my tax-funded art, then they’re all just unknowingly promoting fascism. Forget that others leftists have also admitted to this art being utter garbage which will be “naturally sorted out over time.” They are fascists too.
@@iharpo9292one of the only AI 'art' pieces i actually consider art was a piece that was a stereotypical pixar style image generated by ai, and then sent to a chinese company that just posterizes images and turns them into one of those 'color by numbers' things, and then was painted in by the artist (a human).
Honestly, same. Though I disagree on your conclusion of the use of "fascism". Sure, it's been somewhat banalized but it's extremely important to recognise that there's elements from fascism in a lot of areas and it's still the best way to engage with the problem for a lot of people. Like, as a biologist, there's no other reason for shit like eugenics still being assumed truthful in any way, shape or form (see any discussion of the movie The Idiocracy), even though is one of those ideologies that never worked in practice in the history of humanity (like anarchocapitalism, which "coincidentally" has a lot of ideological overlap with eugenics).
if i take a shit on a red sheet of paper and the museum exhibits it as art, wouldnt you wonder for at least a minute who in their right mind would exhibit a literal piece of shit? would it invoke emotions of anger, confusion, awe? i could easily give it several meanings if you want. congratulations mister connoisseur, you just enjoyed a piece of modern art.
@@jefftonsman They're right though. The difference between "modern art" and "doing nonsensical shit and putting it on display" is simply an in-group out-group dynamic of art critics and galleries/museums.
My dad was banned for life from the Detroit Institute of Arts cause he wanted to touch the surface of a Van Gogh to "feel" the painting. Art inspires weirdness.
The irony is I kinda resent a lot of conceptual art (At least, the kind that makes way too much money for little creativity/effort) because there are people on spaces like Deviantart that're way more interesting and yet struggling to scrape by.
“A man who could also be titled Piss Christ is Paul Joseph Watson” absolutely kills me every time. Some pieces of writing are flawless and this line belongs to that hallowed pantheon
I saw an art that sold for a decent sum that simply had “You could have made this but you didn’t. I did.” scrawled childishly in multicolor on white background. I was like “well played, art person.”
Honestly enjoyable type of art that jabs at anyone who buys it. At first glance it mocks the haters but closer inspection gives the message that you could make anything, even 1 dot on a painting, and the people will buy it
a cool thing about depression quest is how it plays with the statuses at the bottom. you inherently want to change them, to get medicated, to go to therapy. but since you’ve been robbed of your agency, your best bet at doing so is to lash out in a desperate attempt to get somebody, anybody, to notice that you aren’t okay and need serious help. and when they express concern, your only choice is to dismiss them, because you don’t want to be a burden. brilliant.
As someone who has been struggling with depression for about 15 years now, it's incredibly realistic. I don't want to hurt anyone by ending it, but I don't have the energy to stay alive. So I simply trudge through the days. The interactions in Depression Quest are interactions I have genuinely had irl. I change the topic, I lie about my current mental health situation, but most of all, I get angry and lash out at my loved ones in a desperate attempt to get help. They've noticed and tried to help me. It has so far not helped. I at least have something to look forward to. They try their best.
Tbh i haven't played the game but I'm going to give my opinion regardless I think something like an invisible energy meter which might deplete or be refilled via certain actions which aren't always intuitive As someone w depression, it can be tempting to say im too tired to go out and take a nap during the middle of the day, but I know its far better to be social and get vitamin d (which is why Seasonal Affective Disorder is a thing) I feel that something like that would make the game feel more thoughtful and less shallow or self indulgent
@@frankfelerski1043 eh, to each their own. i feel like having more strategic and player-empowering game mechanics could take away from the overall ideas and message portrayed by the game as a work of art. also like... i could just force myself to go out and do something like a social commitment despite not feeling up to it, but for me it's up to random chance whether that goes well and how i feel about it and in general both during and after. and i don't think it's fair to imply that staying home and taking a nap is exactly self-indulgent. personally, every time i flake out on someone and abandon plans last-minute i feel an overwhelming sense of guilt and disappointment towards myself. depression is incredibly complex, and practically every person suffering from depression has their own unique experience that isn't exactly the same as anyone else's.
@@frankfelerski1043 hey! i know this is from a year ago, but i would really encourage you to play the game. there ARE options to go out anyways even if you don't feel like it, and there is a path to having better mental health in the game. i played it through three times, once picking the things i knew wouldn't help, once picking the things that i would realistically choose, and once trying to get the best possible result. as someone who has struggled greatly with depression which is now fairly well managed (through medication and regular therapy) i think the game is extremely accurate and well done :)
the 'degenerate' art wasn't just taken from galleries or 'purchased' as the propaganda states, it was also seized by the police during targeted raids on artists studios, with thousands of pieces being destroyed. you often hear about 'lost art' from world war 2 as if there is a burred bunker somewhere, but the reality is that what wasn't absorbed into private collections of nazi sympathizers, was likely burned. a lot of the artists were also later imprisoned, and even in the face of all that, historians have still recovered dozens of examples of 'illegal' art (aka art not authorized by the nazi's) being made IN the camps, some of which are now on display in the holocaust museum.
seeing art that was made in the camps is so powerful. it's a reminder that the human spirit is powerful and no matter how much is destroyed and taken away from us, our thoughts and feelings can never be stolen.
If an artist titles their painting "Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue" and some fearful person can't help but attack it... that piece of art kind of found its fulfillment. It's like a circle has closed. Why, oh why would anyone want to "restore" that image. Leave it the way it is, damn it.
@@peterpop-off Maybe so, but as would taking the piece down. Given how the restoration was unsuccessful, I think keeping the piece up in its vandalized state only serves to hammer home the message of the piece. What other way is better to show "Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue," than to immortalize the vandal's answer of "me, and people like me"?
Or even better, leave it there, it's like that robot that tried to mop up it's own blood, it starts out efficient and constant, sometimes doing varied movements that gave it personality but as it was kept there it started to rust and stuck to itself, most of the blood started to fog the glass around the exhibit as well as the robot itself
I feel as though leaving the scar on the painting could be taken as validation by the white supremacists who lauded the act of vandalism, as if society accepted their violence. It could be seen by them less as a public shaming, and more as an act of public celebration. So restoring it really is for the best, even if it means leaving the art unfulfilled.
When I was starting off in college, and saw a really ugly painting that was something like a Pollock mixed with a Matisse that was incredibly unflattering: I just wondered "why did you even put this on a canvas?" I even said out loud when a professor walked up to me and asked "what do you think?" and I said " I don't get why, I mean, its awful" He then replied "For something so bad, you sure seem to have been staring at it for a while" and I look at the clock on the wall to see that I had been staring at it for a solid 20 minutes. I had a sort of epiphany at that point about what the purpose or it was, and that it had succeeded as art, be it for whatever reason, and I looked at all art in a new light.
@@fcomolineiro7596 it wasn't intended to be good or beautiful, but it shocked the viewer made him reflect on "why?" He questioned art as a whole and the intent behind the painting, he engaged with it and came out wiser, not all art is meant to be pleasing. "Good art should comfort the disturbed, and disturb the comfortable"
"Who's afraid of red yellow and blue?" is one of my favorite art pieces because it was murdered and it's like YEAH! We found out who was afraid of red yellow and blue and it turns out it was a lot of people!
I saw a tiktok about this painting/painter recently. The video was captioned something like, "me and my friends standing in front of art at the museum that we think we could do." One of the paintings was by Newman. And thankfully someone else reacted to that video to tell the story of 'Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue'. This kind of attitude makes me so sad. People look at a piece of art and say "I could do that," and rather than trying, they just denigrate the art/artist and end it there.
I saw that tiktok! I'm not really a fan of modern art either but you'll get nowhere without trying to understand things that may irrationally irritate you.
i think i commented "google who Kandinsky is and try to tell me you would be able to do the same" on a similar video talking about how abstract art is primitive once... they never replied that they could. wonder why's that?
Agreed. I can never understand these people. Why does being able to recreate a piece of art make that art meaningless to you? These people are non-artists, but do they not think about how that art applies to artists? If I were to learn to draw realism, would I start hating on the Mona Lisa? No, I wouldn't. Just because you're on the same skill level as a painting doesn't mean that painting is void to you. I could draw my profile picture, but I still like ENA!
@@robertarnold6192 not really. art is a lot of things: drawings, music, movies, dance, any form of human expression really. You can like certain art, and you can dislike certain art. That's fine. But you don't get to say something doesn't qualify as "art" just bc you don't personally connect with it.
there's just something so insanely hillarious about someone seeing a painting, concluding that it is meaningless and useless and then going on a rampage to destroy said meaningless piece. like, the piece is called "who's afraid of red yellow and blue?", but i think we know exactly who's afraid of red yellow and blue lmao.
honestly it makes me lose my ass how appropriate it is. i heard the title and i immediately knew, at some point in this video someone is going to be pissed off at that painting, and its just so fuckin funny. dramatic irony is my favorite
@@janesullivan692 So, I've had arguments about modern art with family. I don't know much about it, and I don't even have enough exposure to say if I "get" it. However, I really like people expressing themselves in weird ways, and I basically define art as "a thing that makes you feel something." That is not something my family agrees with, and it's come back to this exact point. Modern art makes them feel angry, and I think that the artist has made a statement by producing something that evokes a response. Refusing to "make a statement" with your art is a statement in and of itself, and they refuse to accept that. It's not just apathy, it's active disdain.
@@TexRex6352 Have you tried not being such a dickish art snob? It works wonders. And if you don't like a piece of art, you can choose not to look at it. Adults are generally expected to have enough self control that they don't commit crimes. Show where this art actually hurt someone. How does modern art cause harm in a way that justifies your vitriol?
I'll be honest, I still don't "get" modern art, but then again other people don't get Expressionism and Impressionism, which are my preferred styles. Welcome to art. It's a reflection of the psyche of feeling and the styles are as numerous as the way we interpret those feelings.
I feel like modern art takes up way too much space in museums though, while stuff made because it looks cool with no other meaning is basically nonexistent in museums. It should be an equal mix of everything instead of the museums simping over modern art so hard. That's why I don't like modern art, it takes up so much space that could've been used to make museums more fun to walk through instead of the modern art hellscape it is today
@@batfurs3001 Honestly there's only so much of the older art they can use. If people produce, for example, impressionist art that's what will be in museums. If they produce modern art that's what will be there too. Just how it works. Plus old touring art collections are hard and expensive to get for an exhibit. Only way to get more non-Modern art is for more people to produce it. In the art museums I've been too it's usually been a pretty healthy mix.
@@MistyMjolnir I'm not talking about modern art as the time period, I'm talking about it as a style and a mindset behind the art. There are so many extremely skilled artists that will never get a spot in a museum because their art isn't artsy enough (ie: digital, made just to be pretty, no meaning other than "it looks cool", etc) and instead it's all just art from people who are in the fine arts sphere, which is mostly modern (style) artists. It seems that the only realistic art in museums is the old stuff, all the new stuff has to be really weird and out there instead of just being really good. It's very rare to find a landscape painting that doesn't have loads of surreal imagery from recent times in museums, and if you do find it it's usually a past work of someone who now dies modern art. Museums make it seem like that's the ONLY type of art being produced right now, when that's just not true. Museums are missing out on the entire online art community, just because getting your piece eligible for a spot in one is impossible without connections.
I see it as just people fucking around. But in like, a good way. Like how Adventure Time was mostly the writers fucking around, but it all comes together in one of the most loved American animated shows of all time. Or like if you're an engineer who just tinkers with gears and stuff, and one day you figure out a really cool way to line up gears. It doesn't really serve an objective function, but it was still interesting to make, and fun to watch move.
If you don't make your every single youtube video about race and gender you are not woke enough and if you don't criticise white men, you are literally hitler.
If you're not even a little annoyed by non-paintings like that getting so much funding and attention and space in galleries, you're the kind of gullible pleb that the bourgeois art world makes fun of while smelling each others farts.
@@_wheeler8601 It is the border between Red and Blue and does not exist in the natural light spectrum. The three basic bodily colors (Cyan, Yellow, Magenta) all exist on the midpoints between the primary spectral colors (Blue, Green, Red) so they all have a spectral wavelength... except for Magenta. Humans can see light on wavelengths between ca. 400 and 700 nanometers. Blue Light = 400-500nm Green Light = 500-600nm Red Light = 600-700nm Cyan sits between Blue and Green (ca. 500nm) Yellow sits between Green and Red (ca. 600nm) Magenta *would* sit between Red and Blue (ca >400 and
@@tickytickytango5634 The opposition to quality control is why people will look back at this time as a dark age for art. Scientists cure cancer and artists are putting three stripes on a canvas and interpreting the criticism as the art working.
@krana's first statement is correct: Art is a visual philosophy. When modern art is glorified in a market where anything speaks against it is deliberately shunned by the ideologically-minded curators, then it is rational and understandable that the only way that point-of view can be heard is through the act of destruction (which can be art itself). The fascism is pretending that there always was a fair-and-open market.
@@pr0digy76 - It's this obsession with categorisation that makes it an issue. Like... let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone shitting on a pedestal and screaming at it is officially declared Art. It is now in the same "category" as the Mona Lisa - they are both exactly one (1) Art now. What actually changes? Specifically, what changes about the Mona Lisa? There really isn't anything, is there? It's still the same painting(s). It hasn't become lesser by association with the pedestal turd, not least because no one's making that association. To imply that it *could* become lesser by association with the pedestal turd would, if anything, kinda be insulting to the craftsmanship involved in the Mona Lisa. It's kinda like if someone farts really loudly in the middle of The Rite Of Spring. It might be slightly annoying for, like, a second, but no one's thinking "Well, The Rite Of Spring sucks now". That was true in 1919, and it's equally true 100+ years later, when someone has almost certainly farted into a microphone and called it music by now. We can take this even further, and compare the artworks that the Nazis paraded as "degenerate" bad art to the artworks that the Nazis exhibited as good art. Are the good artworks tainted by association? I would say, no. One of the best things about (most) art is that, once it's out there, it becomes a moment, an indivisible thing, which can be viewed in countless different ways. We can experience the art completely independently of how someone else experiences it. That, to me, is why art vandalism is a problem, even if it's against bad art. It robs others of the opportunity to have their own experience of the art. That desire to leave a mark is the desire to make oneself a part of that experience, potentially forever. And... the vandal hasn't earned that. He could just make better art, or art that's more to his liking. But he doesn't.
Also Yume Nikki! At least when it comes to having a sort of nonsensical, dreamy, potentially creepy feeling and the concept of exploring vastly different abstract areas.
"Art has become a business." *laughs as a fine art student who studied art history because art, at least as we think of it today, has for the most of part of it's existence always been a business*
@@jx8148 Well art has always been a business when you think about it. Even in antiquity statues adorning temples or rich households were commissioned from artists. Same goes later on in medieval times and all through history from there on. The idea of the "artist making art for art's sake" is VERY recent. Art was always either made for the Church or was a luxury, from illuminated manuscript to official portraits of high ranking individual. To say that art as a business is a modern invention, or is caused by modern art is viewing the history of art through a very skewed and narrow point of view that sees past artworks as purely works of passions. They weren't, most of the art in museums that the average person would consider "classical" art what either done as a commission or with the intent to be sold at a fair price to those who could afford it. That's why the idea of the starving artist is so damaging today. And like, of course artists were passionate about what they were doing. But passion isn't going to get food on the table or help you pay for supplies and this still rings true today (( aka the whole "working for exposure" mentality )). But we have to understand that art being so readily available and affordable to us is a recent thing, and even then it is still considered a "luxury". Art for art sake, or for the passion of it came when art was made to be an affordable hobby. Being passionate about art doesn't mean you need to be successful at it to get food on the table nowadays unless you make art you career. It's also very dismissive of modern art to call it purely business oriented. If you study the history of art, you can see it came from a shift from experimenting with the figurative vs realism. It was about pushing art to the next level, seeing what else beside realism could be done. So now characters in an artwork were painting to try a give an impression of the person vs a 1:1 reproduction of them to put it simply. And from there more experimentation was done, playing with colors, simplifying shapes, playing with symbols and so on. So while I can understand why some people don't "get" or enjoy modern art, to call it easy and too commercial is grossly misrepresenting the history behind it and the art movements that led to it, and ignoring the fact that art had almost always a transactional aspect to it. I hope that helped to clarify what I meant!
Any craft is always backed by a business, especially if money is involved. Thats why most top artists were entrepreneurs or business savvy. The renaissance artists just got lucky because the church and the medici family were literally accepting anyone (at least that wasnt involved in an outrageous style movement) for comissions
I love how much easier it is to explain emotion with a sound (like wind, the ladder rung pings, ect.) than with real words. I could babble for hours and still not be able to tell someone what emotion I'm experiencing, but a clip of the right audio, and suddenly they get it.
I feel as if "who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue" wasn't complete, until it was vandalized. Now, it says a story. It says that someone was afraid of red, yellow, and blue or atleast what it stands for. I feel as if the vandalized painting should've been redrawn or still be shown, the color fits so well for what had been done to it
@@slappy8941 And for what reason is that? What did he do other than express himself - what crime did he commit? You seem to think that this person isn't an artist, that what they have made, crafted, brought into this world through their own creativity and effort isn't "art" - how so? What is it which makes a simple painting of a landscape "art", which invalidates this piece? What is *"art",* if you really think about it, other than the meaning or the thoughts behind it? If you just draw something - would that be art? Or would it just be a drawing? What is "art"? The cambridge definition of art is "the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings" - what about "who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue" doesn't make it art - and then what about its painter, it's creator, doesn't make them an artist? Art is art even if you don't like it. But what do *you* think art is?
The funny thing about Piss Christ is, if you didn't see the title, you'd have no clue how it was made. You'd just be marveling at how this piece of art almost glowed with gold and orange and red, like the afternoon sun. It's only because of its title that you realize it's scatological, and thus, disgusting, deviant, controversial. It's... comical, and kinda poignant, how much these labels change people's perception of the thing that label has been applied to.
I’m Catholic and I thought it would be funny if religious reliquaries had names like that. So instead of the Severed Head of St. Catherine of Siena, it was called ‘Creepy Head in San Domenico.’
Funny you mention that, there’s a surrealist artist that I love to death who passed away a decade and a half ago, Zdzlaw Beksinski. He did not add titles to any of his pieces because he did not want it to pervert or distort the viewer’s interpretation of the piece. He just wanted it to be seen as is. If you look at some of his work, it’s exceedingly dark, Eldritch, cosmically horrific, and foreboding, but there’s a beauty to each of the pieces in my opinion. They all have different messages, but I think they are all smaller parts of a larger message. Although, if he were alive, he would probably laugh at that interpretation because he said he thought his art was “humorous.”
Sometimes i wonder what art will be in the future? Will people be so scared of art that they will ban it? Will they be able to? In a optmistical sense what would our next artistic movement be like?
The irony of Hitler being rejected from art school because people didn't think his art was good enough, only for his regime to call art degenerate for not fitting specific ideals...
@Tony Benn (Real) You definitely haven't looked at his artwork if you're saying that. He didn't get into the art school because "something was off" in his art, he didn't get in because he wasn't making the type of bullcrap abstract art that this video is defending. He was rejected for being too proper, too precise, and too traditional. I suggest you look up what artworks qualified for an artist to get into that school, and then look at the work of AH. They told him that he should do architectural drawings, not paintings.
I've visited the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. two times, once with my middle school and once again just with my family. At the end of what is traditionally a museum, after you've walked through six floors detailing the most horrific crimes of humankind, how they started, and how they ended, after you've brushed past countless faces of the dead to whom you feel you owe it to to read every word in the building, you step out into this completely white, sunlight room. You go down a crooked, spiral staircase and there are a few benches so you can sit and look at the art, which is these white, geometric sculptures. They're done by Ellsworth Kelly, who made a lot of art similar to Newman. Apparently, the structure is done to play with sunlight and shadows across the white room. The first time I saw it, as a mass of 12 and 13-year-olds being mournfully shoved along by teachers, I gave it a passing glance of mostly confusion. Why'd they put it there? After everything we'd just seen- most of our eyes red- why modern art? The second time I saw it, just three years later, I somehow caught the room alone. My parents were a few paces behind me, and I stepped out of the dark hallway into the all-white room and down the crooked staircase and sat on one of the white benches. It was completely silent, though somehow not eerily like it had been in the earlier rooms- the ones with the shoes, with the hair. I stared at the sculpture and felt the overwhelming urge to burst into tears all over again. I still don't get modern art. Most of it that I see in museums, even when I'm trying, hit's me with nothing. But my god, when it does, it works. And in the context of anti-fascism you presented, the modern art at the holocaust museum hits me in post all over again. Great video. I've attempted to binge your stuff but everything overwhelms me a little emotionally so I have to take it slow. But you do great work.
@@MrCmon113 Do you really feel that that is an appropriate response to her comment? Honestly, think before you comment things - that is widely insensitive.
It specifically makes me sad when people say "this isn't art because I could do this." We've locked ourselves out of something so fundamentally human. We've been doing art since we lived in caves. But today the powers that be have convinced us that we have to have talent to be creative. It's so incredibly sad.
What makes me...frustrated, angry, sad, disappointed is when people say something to the effect of "it's not art because I wouldn't hang it in my living room." As if all communication should be aesthetic, and specifically left in the background until someone else wants to notice it. As if the only reason someone would create something is for other people to like the way it looks.
I feel like it has more meaning when destroyed. It anwsers the question it poses: Who's Afraid Of Red, Yellow And Blue? Apparently, the guy who cut this painting
So “Who is Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue?” a group of painting with literally nothing to it but a certain simple composition and a simple question it wanted to ask made a certain group of people so afraid and so angry to the point they torn a lot of them up? Thus giving the painting a crap ton more meaning to it. Art is truly an amazing field.
@@megatennepster3833 More? It's literally the only remotely interesting thing about it. A painting has to be particularly lame to be improved by being torn.
@@Kyran1996 strange how this society seems to force a lot of clearly non scientific bullshit upon people like how we deny human genetical groups and differences. migration and crime statistics getting you imprisoned and, you know what no why even try and talk with you people anymore
I would like to add something to this video. Art should not have to provide anything to justify its own existence, because it exists by the will of its author. And because every human being doesn't need justification to exist, neither should art. The moment you value art outside of its own existence is when you put a price over someone's existence, when you can put a price of a fellow man's soul. To destroy art is to kill a fragment of a man's soul.
I'm on the fence because I do agree but at the same time there's a limit to how much of my taxes I'd be okay with going to art. Of course, that level of tolerance expands the more trust is in the organisation. If more people did what Jacob does for example, I'd pay to keep them afloat
Sorry but I disagree with you on statement about humans not needing justification to exist because maybe in paleolithic time people needn't excuse to live but now, we humans like it or not serve as main component of ruling systems and if we don't contribute to those systems we'll be ostracized and our main justification is just contribution to those systems (sorry for bad/grammatically incorrect English, it's not my main language)
I can't help but feel like "who's afraid of red yellow and blue?" was made whit the intention for it to get vandalized. The name is just way too fitting.
When I first saw the title of the painting I thought it was silly because who would be afraid of something so innocent and simple? And then it turned out there was a huge group of people genuinely afraid of it, so I guess you win again art.
Even if I don't find something appealing in an art piece, I just shrug and move on. To rail against it, to hate it, to pour all that energy into something just seems to show how small these people are, and how small their worlds are. All that time and thought wasted on something that made them upset.
One of my favorite paintings of all time is an Ad Reinhardt piece I saw at the NGA when I was a kid. At first glance, it looks like an entirely black canvas, but the more you look at it, you start to realize that there's actually a few squares scattered inside it that are a slightly different shade. Look a little longer, and you realize that those squares contain squares, all nearly the same color, but not quite. I sat there staring at it for the better part of an hour, and even when it was time to go, there were still new colors and shapes emerging from it. The belief that modern art doesn't take skill or can't evoke awe is total bunk. I can't imagine how much time, skill, and effort it took to get the shades exactly right, and it was so impactful that I still remember how it made me feel over a decade later.
But to some people, maybe they saw something in the splatters you didn't, just like many people wouldn't notice the differently shaded black squares. And even if it "is just a splatter", to many people (including me) art is so many different things. If we just faithfully replicated technically perfect old masters, what would the point be? And sure, you can put that technical proficiency to different uses, but doesn't that in itself indicate there is more to art than just technical ability alone? Whether that is emotion, context, posing challenging questions like "what is art, and who gets to decide", "what is good art, or tasteful art, or meaningful art and who gets to decide" etc. And there is no objective scale to measure "technical proficiency" on, let alone correlate it with "good art" and sometimes really simplistic images can be incredibly powerful even if they are "less technically demanding" in one sense. Look at graphic novels, very different to still life paintings of fruit, but to many, far more awe-inspiring and impactful.
I don't think most people admiring modern art are deluding themselves about what it actually is, they just see art as wider and more rich and interesting than "who can make the most technically difficult painting". For me, I look for art that makes me feel things, amongst other traits. Others like it to challenge them or challenge widely held views or do something new and original or just provoke thought. Others primarily like the asethetics. And some value technical ability or imagination or, I don't know, use of colour or symbolism or whatever. Art has also often been used as a critique of power/the elites, as well as in service to them. Many modern art pieces were actually created to critique elitist attitudes, which is pretty cool. Who are you to say which group is right and wrong? I bet most of us are a mixture, and unless you truly believe art is objective, it's pretty hard to definitively say any of those groups are objectively wrong.
@@r-pupz7032 i mean yeah, i didnt mean it isnt meaningful or it isnt art. but as far as im aware it takes no effort and therefoer the meaning comes solely from interpretation. idk how it's fair to profit off of some meaning that random people though of
This comment, while brilliant, has 69 likes. I'm afraid that I cannot willingly like your comment, as this feat is a rare one. And so, I write you this message. Leaving you at 69 likes whilst showing my apppreciation of this comment.
@@uwnbaw except I actually watched the video. With you there’s only two options: either you didn’t watch the video, or you did but didn’t pay attention in the slightest. If you don’t want assumptions to be made, then tell me which one it is.
I‘m still amazed at the fact that the Nazi were so disgusted with the Bauhaus that they closed it yet it still became the (probably) most influential artschool of the last 100 years
As an autistic person I don't think I've ever felt anything when looking at "modern art" paintings the way people think of them, and I don't spend much time looking at them either. Sculptures seem to have more meaning to me, maybe it's the movement. But all the same, I don't believe art should be destroyed unless that's the point...which is to say, Who's Afraid of Red Yellow and Blue became horrifying performance art of the highest caliber. People were afraid. Very afraid. Also I don't know why some sort of fancy portrait or a landscape you can find at a thrift store contributes to society more than modern art. The fact that white supremacists are terrified of paintings that birth thoughts or feelings is unsurprising, they hate when people think.
also autisitc. I don’t feel much looking at “normal” paintings, but modern art? man that shit makes me fuckin think. One of the main pillars of that kind of art is defining limits. What is and isn’t art? who has the right to decide? SHOULD we decide?
It's interesting in itself looking at people's different reactions to a given kind of art because you can tell something is really art when it defies notions of objective meaning. Everyone would rightly be afraid of a snake in their bed or grossed out by worms in their food, but a subtly vague and highly abstracted construct with no necessary meaning can evoke almost any response depending on the person.
but that's the thing, that painting didn't actually "birth thoughts or feelings" inside them. they just destroyed the painting coz its creator was jewish and they're racist, that's all. nothing to do with the painting
im autistic too but i love modern art so much. i am semi-verbal (i can speak but i often have episodes of being non-verbal, and i dont like speaking very much) and the way that a lot of modern/abstract art attempts to communicate with the viewer, to me feels like a much more natural way of communication than spoken or written word. its something thats hard to explain, but abstraction just makes so much more sense to me as an autistic person compared to older or more "traditional" art. like an old portrait is just an old portrait, but a modern abstract artwork captures an extremely personal feeling that words cannot describe
Somewhat same here. I don't really enjoy physical art for its own sake, but art as part of something functional is pretty damn nice. A tiled table, engraved sword, or quilt is an absolutely great thing.
For artwork that is "bland and mediocre" as another commenter put it sure inspired some intense feelings in that one dude. I ask you: is that what "bland" and "mediocre" is capable of?
I'm fine with art in general let it exist my grip Is with how much some of it costs like I don't get why a blob of blue ink is worth 1.3 million? Objectively tho it's a nice piece of art and it'd be something cool to have in your home I just don't get why it costs so much?
Portable Memes they’re an artist that’s most known for a series of 6 albums that are an interpretation of the stages of dementia. It’s some heavy shit. The series is called “everywhere at the end of time”.
Recently, I had an essay to write for a college class. Our prompts were to discuss either representation or censorship in a piece of media, and I decided to look more into Robert Mapplethorpe and Jesse Helms’s response to his photography. In doing research, I quickly learned that Helms consistently brought up Mapplethorpe even after he died in 1989. At one point, he even said “This Mapplethorpe fellow was an acknowledged homosexual. He's dead now, but the homosexual theme goes throughout his work.” Later on, I was reading about some of the other legislation Helms wrote and tried to pass, and there were a lot of bills and amendments he wrote that limited and even outright banned different federal institutions from producing educational materials about HIV/AIDS. At one point, him and another senator from California passed a comic made made by the Gay Men’s Health Crisis of New York (which is a private organization) around the senate before a bill about HIV/AIDS education was to be voted on. One of the groups he often fought with was made of mothers whose children had died from AIDS, and he responded to one of their letters about his attitude towards AIDS patients by saying he wished her son “had not played Russian roulette in his sexual activity.” Mapplethorpe himself died of AIDS complications. This hasn’t been about what makes “good art” for a *LONG* time. This video has me inspired to make stuff specifically to make folks like Helms uncomfortable, and honestly, that’s about as magical as it gets
I myself find paintings like red, yellow and blue to be boring, I’m neutral on them. I however find the reactions other people get out of it to be intriguing, whether it be outrage or validation. I don’t know, but to me, it may be that the piece as a stand-alone is meh to me, but the whole story about people getting mad over a couple of colours on a canvas kind of completes it for me. To note: paintings that have a discernible figure or background/foreground don’t have the same requirement as abstract art. I can look at a painting with a figure or background and get a reaction from it without needing to hear from other people’s perspectives in order to make it feel complete. With a figure or background I can imagine a story behind/in the piece but with abstract art I find it difficult to do so due to the simplistic nature, so instead I need to hear the story behind the reaction the piece brings to other people and greater society to make it feel complete. Despite my opinions on abstract modern art, I do believe that all art, no matter my opinion has the right to exist.
I've heard a decent practical definition of modern art as "Something that invokes emotion the same way 'normal' art does, yet without a readily apparent reason" That said there's literally nothing wrong with just finding it boring, honestly I'm not exactly into it myself but it is interesting to see what surrounds it, the reasons for it, reactions to it, etc.
I like to think of abstract art in the same way I think of music without words. In a song without words, the artist can still express emotions and meaning, intensity and tranquility. The artist isn’t directly telling you with words (or representative images) what their work is about, but you can still get a feeling for what it’s going for if you engage with it. Also, as for the art you described not being a fan of, consider that it might be different to see it in person. Looking at something on a screen is all well and good, but seeing something like that on a MASSIVE canvas in an art gallery is something else entirely. There’s a lot to love when it comes to abstract art. It can be really fascinating.
I remember when I first "got" abstract visual art. It was in a class on the philosophy of modernism and the art it influenced. One class, the professor turned off all the lights, projected a Rothko on the wall in front of us, and said nothing for a while. I was in the second row. It was horrifying. I felt like I was about to be consumed by this monolith of red and gray, this Lovecraftian entity that was towering before me. If he had left it up for a bit longer, I might've had a full on panic attack. Art doesn't have a purpose, but I think we can all agree that it should make us feel something. The effect that painting produced in me is not something I've really experienced outside of that room. Maybe it was the college induced sleep deprivation getting to me, but nothing that can do that can be worthless.
Maybe that's the problem with abstract visual art, you have to take a class on the philosophy of modernism and the art it influenced in order to get it.
If you were that effected by it, you probably just have mental issues that can be brought out by any encounter with something inexplicable. Rothco and other such frauds are so boring as to not even rise to the level of pretense; if you can be frightened by that, then you can be frightened by an empty box or a dark room.
If you found yourself in a self described "alt-right pipeline" and got out because of this shit video, then I'd say you're simply a gullible person who's easily persuaded by half baked pseudo intellectual nonsense on the internet.
@@swamp1138 Someone's offended that they couldn't ever do this much research on anything in their lives."urr durr video bad I don't like so it's definetly the worst thing in life". Get a grip of your life, kid. If you want to look intellectual, at least propose some discussion on what's your view. Although, I don't think you'd like to discuss anything, that might just upset you a little too much.
@@personmens Sounds like you're the offended one here. You were so upset, you had to post two separate comments complaining about my response and crafted a conspiracy because someone liked my comment. Pretty pathetic, also kind of hypocritical because your whining consisted of everything you accused mine of having. Next time, do try and construct a comment that displays it was written by someone who has an IQ number bigger than their shoe size. I've got faith in you 😘
Artist: For this piece, I will demonstrate how something as simple as three colors can make people afraid. Vandal: That's such a stupid idea! I hate it so much, I will destroy it in a fit of rage! Today I learned that fascists don't know what irony is.
For this piece I will shit in on a pedestal, but you can't dislike it. Because if you do you have fallen into my trap. And statistically if one of you hates it, you have fallen into a trap to prove something.
I'm kind of obsessed with the philosophical implications of the vandilization of the painting. no one would do something so childish, so barbaric, so embarrassing, if the painting was purposeless. you cannot feel angry at a painting and then insist that it has no value. it doesn't matter how you feel about what it represents, what matters is that it represents something. there's inherent value in that, that a painting says something substantial that invokes such a strong emotion. and whats the point in destroying the painting? I'm sure the people who were commending the criminal would be furious if you accused them of being afraid of the painting, but they are. they thought of the painting posing a threat, it's existence as some sort of signifier for a worse culture, and, it means it holds some sort of power. it's a symbol to be feared and fought against. they are afraid. they are adhering exactly to the intent of the painting, and are too blinded by ego and elitism to comprehend something so humbling. the vandalized version of the painting works perfectly, probably my favorite piece of modern art.
That's why we lobby for canceling all russian "culture", anyone claiming that art is apolitical is a clown. A book supporting colonization of Caucasus is a piece of propaganda. Lenin statues were created to scare people into submission. People who make those banned all other expression to only leave THEIR impact on us. No piece of russian so-called culture should be allowed to exist.
Only art people can turn a stupid rectangle of colors into some great philosophical waffling, its stupid, and being stupid to evoke anger isn't art, a child could have made that, a chimpanzee could have, a chimp rolling in dirt and leaving impressions is no more art than sticking a color block on a wall is, same vein as that banana. Just another talentless hack that wants to be special for making nothing.
know this is an older video but i always come back to it. on people saying abstract painting isnt painting because "it doesnt take skill", i dont have talent. I dont have skill, i have been trying to do traditional and digital art from a young age, and never catch on. I started abstract when my art teacher had us paint, surprise, abstract. i found that more than trying to draw and image out of my head, and find shapes within real objects, abstract let me express myself. I struggle with medical problems and barely paint because of fatigue. but im still working on a few pieces that i had promised as gifts. I hope i can paint more
Hey, same! I also have medical problems and fatigue and I WISH I could paint abstracts, (no place to store paints n canvasses rn in my tiny place) because it DOES seem more possible for me, just like you said! I feel like I might be able to make stuff I actually LIKE if i could paint abstract - trying to do realism makes my inner critic extra-loud, seeing the differences to real life. But in abstract, there IS nothing to compare it to IRL, so I can be more accepting of the result, and of myself. I hope you can keep doing paintings, and know that at least one other disabled art-loving person is cheering you on! :)
It's interesting watching this a couple of years later, when so many of the same figures who were then frothing about the importance of "objective" quality in art, the importance of talent, and the terribleness of art for profit... are now shilling insipid NFTs to their gullible followers.
Hmm not to defend NFTs or anything like that (I neither own nor intend to own any), but I kinda see the opposite there. Where before people had problems with the objective quality of modern art, now people have problems with the objective quality of the NFT of GIFs or other digital art or whatever. It seems like, in much the same way as with modern art, people are now saying things like "oh a procedurally generated NFT of a monkey gif can't be considered art"... It's kinda funny, really. It feels like the eternal "the music of my youth was better" that every generation says. Again, I'm not defending NFTs here, and the topic is obviously more complex, just pointing out something I am noticing.
@@edumazieri - I would say that the crucial difference is that NFTs are almost purposefully meaningful. The images are randomly generated pap, and what's bought and sold is entirely the concept of ownership. If they were invented to explicitly satirise the use of the art market for money laundering/tax dodging purposes, I'd be impressed. But they weren't.
@@FTZPLTC For sure there are differences but maybe not as many as we might think. You mentioned those people who trying to convince others to buy NFTs... but thats basically the same as what art dealers and critics do, with classical and modern art, isnt it? They go and say "this is gonna be worth a lot" and people buy it, and then, well, it now is sort of "worth a lot"... its not very different at all, at least not in that way. I think if we just look at the situation right now, where we have all these crypto bros and weird overvalued monkeys and whatever it looks like a big bag of crap. But maybe getting past that, NFTs could be something interesting, right? I mean, it would allow digital artists to sell their work like physical artists can, and not only that but the buyers could own it while ALSO allowing other people to appreciate it, which means the art piece is not locked away in some basement, it can be owned AND shared. Its a different kind of ownership, more open, that if used well, could be a very interesting thing for artists and art patrons. Just well, dont take this as me trying to get you to buy overvalued procedurally generated images, you really shouldn't. Definitely stay away from it. Lets just not let our annoyance at the crypto bros and all the bullshit blind us to the possibilities of new technologies, be it this one, or others that may come from it.
Nah, it's the opposite. people who cares about the objective quality of an object are the ones who call out NFT because they are 'objectively' useless.
If art needs to be explained it is not good art. Good art should make humans complete by conveying the higher virtues that are within us instead of appealing to merely our lower instincts.
"This art is just a single colour on a canvas! It's disgusting and makes me feel sick!" Bruh don't go home, your walls are all painted single colours too
Here's a little thing my aunt said to me when I was 7 and destroyed another kid's art because she was drawing anime, an artstyle I didn't like(translated because it was said in Tagalog): "Yeah, It's pretty ugly and the hair's not very good, but is it harming you? You did not make it. You did not provide the materials for it, and even if you did, it was an art class where everyone was allowed to draw whatever they want. You stated it yourself that art is art, and everyone has a different art styles when someone called yours ugly!" It stuck with with me. My aunt may not be always correct, but she was very right during that instance. I didn't state that I wanted for the other kid to get away from me because her art was bothering me, I simply destroyed it. I try to live by this ideology of "don't knock it until it's hurting you you or will harm you". Try as in try because, I'm a very flawed human who's can't help but be a hypocrite during situations.
I never realized why I felt so uncomfortable when I read ig or fb comments on performative art saying people are becoming art degenerates, now it all makes sense.
My elementary school has a wall that is tiled with tiny canvases 10 by 10 centimeters. It’s been there forever. Not even the teachers know why it was hung up, or when. It’s pictures of birds. It’s all birds. Most of them are pretty bad renditions. “wings” is painted in spots where there are no canvases. One day I came to school and the paintings were slit. Someone cut a straight line through each of the canvases that were reachable from the ground, always through the bird. It’s still there and it’s referred to as broken wings. And no one knows how it came to be.
Im aware this video is 2 years old at this point, but i want to say i saw this when i was about 16 when it came out, and it fundamentally changed me as a person. I am a different person than i was pre-this video. My views of art are so much because _this video._ i can't imagine that was something jacob saw happening, but i appreciate it so much for what it did. I used to have very quiet 'modern art is so dumb' ideas in my head, because on a surface level it can seem _vapid._ but at this point I've reached a conclusion - everything is art. Humanity is art. Late night phone calls are art, a burnt cake you made when you were sad is art, cleaning your room is art. Everything is art. Humanity is art. This has made me love art so, so much more than i did before. I would not be the artist i am right now without this video. Thanks, man.
@@mutably Very true. Art is almost more of a contextualisation more than a specific category. We contextualise road signs, pylons, and receipts as purely functional, and murals, sculptures and poems as artistic expressions. When in many cases the difference is a nebulous quality of skill, purpose, and prestige. Art is a very fuzzy thing, because it is sort of a purely phycological quale and wouldn't exist without minds thinking about it.
Nietzsche was convinced that art was the primary driving force for human civilization before the scientific method more or less took its place. I thought a lot about that in the last few years. We take art for granted, which might turn out as a big mistake.
The use of Everywhere at the End of Time is so genius. That music is ENTIRELY context, just like the Red, Yellow, and Blue paintings. To write down what the notes of the melodies to those songs and then play them on an instrument would strip it of its entire meaning. The notes, the melody, the music isn’t special, only the music in its context is special in the way that that piece is.
It's actually from An Empty Bliss Beyond This World; they're both by the same person and have similar meanings, though, so it would be easy to get tracks from the two albums confused.
@@weirdofromhalo Good example, SadSvit - Касети. Cassettes, is a melancholy underground lo-fi rock song about daydreaming and wishing to sleep forever under the sound of cassette tapes... it used in a video edited and posted by a hero who survived the siege of Azovstal Steelworks. Author said that he never intended for the song to be about war (it was written before the full scale invasion), but it absolutely fit the mood and got a new meaning. See, "cassetes" is what we call cluster bombs. The combined amount of explosives dropped by russians on Mariupol was higher than Hiroshima. The city ended up more destroyed. Music absolutely can change based on context. Remember the film Apocalypse Now? They used Richard Wagner, known for his Nazi views and being Hitler's favorite composer, during a helicopter raid... most people didn't get the link and instead, reinterpreted "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" as something cool and badass. So careful with symbolism. Might get people missing the metaphor of stars in milky way looking like a great river with the Blue Danube during Space Odyssey. Might end up glorifying absolute scum like Wagner.
By being murdered, Who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue has fulfilled its purpose: showing who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue. It then hold more value dead than alive, since the murderer was part of the artistic performance
This gave me a big reality check. I grew up loving art and doing creative works a ton, but I went to engineering school and time and pressure meant everything else fell to the side to survive. I tried to connect the craft of engineering with other creative efforts. I got laid off over a year ago and couldn't get back into a new job, and even though it shook me I don't remember the last time I felt so liberated. I wound up smothering a core part of my being, and it was killing me. I might be a full time house spouse now, but I have the infinite opportunity to rekindle what I had let break down over the last decade.Thank you.
Yeah as a career scientist who let my art interests/skills atrophy over the past decade or so, I’m working on rekindling that part of me so as to not lose that part of myself. It’s hard fitting in time for both, but trying to figure out a balance
@@Amalingnot if you marry them together theres an increasing number of modern scientists returning to the old days of merging art and science into their work
I think it's easy to get mad at art that seems "low effort" because it pokes at most people's frustration with their own creative dreams. I still vividly remember the crushing of my soul when my 9th grade art teacher told me I wasn't good
most people calling it low effort only saw them through google images. They have zero actual experience with the 3D nature of the paint on canvas, or being in a high specific created space
@@NoConsequenc3 Because I like making beautiful art with some realism, and I’m not greedy and lustful. I will earn enough money from my future job and hobbies.
2:22 am is depression if depression were a game: random numbness and an implied lack of meaning--while still being meaningful in the sense of numbness/suffering
Strange way to start a topic, but hear me out. I'm autistic. That means, next to a lot of other complicated matters about my psyche, one of the afflictions I deal with is sensual translation. I don't "feel" art. A big red canvas is to me simply a big red canvas. Visuals taken in it's most direct form. No deviation. The painting is just taken as it is. As you can problably gather, I have trouble understanding modern art. That might be worded badly, I do understand it, I get the point it tries to get across as a form of art, but I don't "feel" them. The big subtly complicated dark canvases have no effect on me. I just see the collors and the forms. Yes, I'm one of those people who, as described in this video, "can't enjoy art beyond a certain century." To me, "art is subjective" makes no sense, despite knowing about my fallback when it comes to the topic. Sure, modern art doesn't seem impressive, but it makes people "feel" something. That is their intent. And so, when that piece makes people "feel," there is something in the art that can be measured. Something within it that can't be denied. Therefor, objective. Wether that be a shining in the abstract collor, like our favorite, fully red, blue and yellow painting, or a subtle change in texture. That change is an objective thing. And if people "feel" something about it, than the detail that brought them to that feeling, is there. Objectively. I mean, that sound so simple, right? That's like the basics of perception. So when you have some kind of agenda to push to discredit that art, but people disagree with that notion simply by recognizing it, what do you do? Well, you have to discretid the people too. Everyone who "felt" that art, are wrong. They didn't "feel" it. The painting has nothing do with that feeling. Because if it did, then it would actually do it's purpose it's meant to do. By being art. So they claim that the feeling doesn't exist. ...That obviously makes no sense. The fact that we DEBATE that modern art is art or not, means there's a side of people who feel something from modern art. So that form of art does its purpose. Therefor, saying that modern art isn't art is objectively wrong. People feel something in the first place. That already proves it. You can only claim that it isn't an artform by swearing that no one has ever "felt" anything from said piece of art because of what's on said piece of art. And I can gather that much without ever "feeling" anything.
I'd personally disagree on the objectivity of it still. I do agree that does make it objectively art, the reaction the art incites in people is a feeling. Feelings are subjective. Since the reaction to said art is subjective, then wouldn't that make art also subjective? Different people will react to art differently, feel different things. The reaction itself is not objective, it's subjective otherwise, outstanding comment! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it!
this is one of the most life changing ive seen, ive been watching it over and over for the past 4 years. no other video essay ive seen has had such a big impact on me as an artist. as a queer Jewish artist, this has inspired me to go forward and make the art i want, i dont care what fascist loser doesnt like it, i will make what makes me feel. thank you for making this, and thank you for all of the wonderful videos youve made
@@mexa_t6534 Yeah I honestly think that was the point and the real mistake was trying to restore it. It got the point across by having the question answered.
@@99sins If you want to get really meta, you change title and go through the restoration. I could just be totally making this up but maybe artist foresaw this series of events, including the inadequate restoration. It's already transcended a painting and become a performance piece. Who's to say he didn't write an epilogue about how the people that are afraid of red, yellow, and blue can attack art as much as they like but they'll never be able to truly destroy what it is that they're so terrified of. Mar it all they like, but that's just part of the show. I'm gonna believe that interpretation because I find it far more entertaining. As for the truth, no one will ever know.
Also, one thing that seems Paul Joseph Watson to see, is that the "art contributing to the culture" is a stupidity. When Rembrandt or Rubens were painting, the art was only directed to the high class, only for them to see it AND pay it. It was an status symbol, not a cultural symbol.
This...kind of reminds me of those crazies you run into sometimes when you're a sci-fi/fantasy fan or creator for some reason. They're largely just pretentious snobs who deny that something you work on or love could be good just because of its genre, while praising books like Lord of the Rings and Fahrenheit 451 WHICH ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THOSE GENRES, then denying it when you call them out on it by either saying that they "transcend the genre" or that they're not part of the genre because they're actually good.
As someone said before: "90% of everything is shit and the 10% remaining is good. A respectable genre will be judged by their good 10%, a dismissed one by their crappy 90%"
Being a fantasy author who sometimes gets personal messages telling me that I'm "doing fantasy wrong" is a personally hilarious thing to me, and a constant ray of idiotic sunshine in whatever day it appears in.
You know what is upsetting? I enrolled in Art Appreciation as an elective in college for curiosities sake, and I found it much more simplistic than some of the ideas this video talks on. It was far more basic on an intellectual level even though I paid for it as it took dozens of hours out of my life. To me that shows the complexity of this subject, and how difficult it can be to find good information. Not always in class, but in a very niche and tiny corner of TH-cam. Kudos, Jacob!
I'm not involved in the arts at Uni in any way. I find maths engaging and I'm currently majoring in maths and minoring in Chemistry in my bachelor of science. But honestly, I find it frankly ridiculous how much people that don't have a degree in humanities or art just can't get it. It doesn't take a genius (which I'm definitely not, in case you got the impression that I consider myself one), or a certified critic, or an art major, just to look critically at art, whether it's modern art, film, books, comics, even architecture. it just takes the right mindset, to look past the most shallow, surface-level critiques possible of a work of art, and just think about it conceptually even a little bit. It makes me particularly sad that the only people I know who can agree with my opinion that The Last Jedi is a really good movie are people that took humanities and arts courses and therefore know a lot more about criticism and art than I do (makes me feel a little left out).
@@tubeguy4066 Feeling that 'modern art' is degenerate or devient or feeling that it degrades the culture is a massive red flag for fascism. Not liking 'modern art' doesn't equal fascist, it depends on why you don't like it. Fascists usually believe that art should serve the state, the culture, and the race and if art doesn't really do that then it isn't art to them, they perceive it as malicious or as an attempt to make a quick buck without contributing to society.
i actually went and checked out depression quest because of this video, and as someone who went with undiagnosed depression for a long time at a young age let me tell you, it's pretty accurate. not perfect, nothing is going to be perfect or a universal experience, esp when it comes to mental illness, but i felt like the inability to choose the best option is a very good way of representing how much of a struggle it is. i genuinely wonder how many of the people who left negative reviews had never dealt with depression, or never had depression go undiagnosed with no medication for a long time. the comment that the game would have been better if you had the option to kill yourself is honestly very sickening, especially since suicide is a real problem. people kill themselves. it's not a joke. it isn't a punchline. it's not a particularly fun game and that's the point, because depression is not fun. it says that on the first page, it doesn't try to deceive you. it's not fun but for me personally it was cathartic, because i know what it's like to not want to go to therapy or get medication and helping this person i'd been put in the shoes of get to the point where they were okay with those scary things was a sigh of relief. games don't have to be fun, sometimes they're allowed to just make you feel things. i don't know why some people can't comprehend this. this was a bit of a long comment about such a small part of the video but if you're thinking about checking out depression quest, it's a little under an hour of playtime and it's free. i really do recommend it for the experience alone; as someone with diagnosed depression i'd say it's worth it.
Is depression a good excuse to chat on your boyfriend with five guys (burger and fries)? You see dude, when you see things from a relative point of view, everything becomes justified. But when you get detached and objective, the distinction between right and wrong is clear as day. From a subjective pov, depression is a mountain crushing you. From an objective pov, it's an excuse not to take responsibility over your own life. It doesn't physically exist! And the chemical imbalance theory is... some people would call it an oversimplification, but really it's a fairy tale. The fact is, that it is your life and if you're going to waste it, it's your loss. Nobody else cares about you, except your mom I guess. I could die tomorrow with no regrets; doesn't make a huge difference to me, so why should I care about some disfunctional stranger's life?
@@pdorism Humans are subjected to their own umwelt, even the “objective and detached” perspective that you mentioned is biased on your personal experience. Someone doing burger and fries with your boyfriend might seems wrong in your perspective, but when you peel all the layers it’s just atoms abiding the natural laws. Malicious & benevolent intent loses their identity when you start seeing humans as dissipative structures. Same thing with the guy that slashed the painting, murderers that accomplish homicide, or even dictators that commit genocide. Right or wrong only exist in the imagined reality of humans, everything in the universe is just energy doing whatever it could to reach maximum entropy. Of course im not insinuating that you need to try to understand the minds of the “dysfunctional stranger”, nor that you need to forgive them, that is your choice alone (there’s not even a guarantee that you will read this comment). Im here just to relay information, take all of this with a grain of salt since im still as fallible as others. Hope you have a great day ^-^
I need to play it. My best friend has depression, and if I can understand even a little bit of what she goes through, I hope I can use that to be a better friend.
@@anonymouswhite7957 so now you are taking refuge in reductionism. That's a pretty tenuous argument since it can be used justify anything and everything. I am arguing from a moral perspective: assuming a priori that right and wrong exist, it's pretty hard to find a system of mores that would justify such a behavior.
I know this video has been up for years before the one I'm gonna mention, but the start of this beginning with "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue" being destroyed reminded me of Rhystic Studies's recent video on Carly Mazur's art and what I think is one of the greatest responses to the people who hate on modern art with the response "I could do that": "'I could do that' is reactionary muck; an elementary view of the world. 'I could do that' is the rallying cry of the dense and insecure."
What I've realised at school is that the ones most passionate about judging what is real art, are the same who look down on people who choose to study the arts. While those who studied art, whether theatre, visual arts, or music, all were pretty nonchalant and fickle about the definition of real art.
I'd say more than fickle. Theres an entire movement in modern art dedicated to the idea of "ya know what? FUCK 'art'!" Dadaist performance art is a head trip
@@gregpaul882 or once you are presented with the questions that the modernist movement came up with, you start realizing that art has no strict definition. Cuz that's really all the modernist movement does, it's a bunch of people going "well what IS art anyways?" And then exploring it
@@fangsabre Wow no strict definition. Mind blowing. It's like I was never 13 or something. Here's a poem, "modern art sucks balls, I know because I write poetry." Now that is a great peace of art, and you can't say otherwise. Maybe I'll get it framed and placed alongside one of Bernini's works.
@@gregpaul882 I mean, its art sure but "great" is still subjective bud. That's the thing about art, it's entirely subjective cuz trying to put objectivity on creative expression is pointless
I think for a lot of big abstract pieces like those by Newmann and Rothko, a lot of the impact is lost by just seeing it on a screen or in a book. The impact is so much different when you're there in person and you have these pieces towering over you, forcing you to confront them. My favorite personal experience with this was taking a Japanese art history class in college, and being shown a picture of the painting White Line on Black by Jiro Yoshihara. I looked at the little picture on my printout of a slash of white paint, a little of it dripping down the side of the black canvas, and was like "what's the big deal?" And then I saw it in person. It's bigger than me, and what looks like a careless slash of white paint is in fact an optical illusion. The paint isn't dripping, that's the white canvas peeking through a black outline.
Was looking through the comments to see if anyone had said this, I fully agree with you. It might sound like a cop out but Rothkos DO look very different in person. They are huge and the texture distinct irl. Can't speak for all of his art but the collection in the Tate Modern is displayed in its own room, all along side each other. Rothko sold them on the condition that they would only be displayed together iirc.
@@chartreusecircle1546 It's a bit sad that you don't seem able to enjoy modern art like other people do but that's no reason to act like a prick about it.
How is the uninformed viewer of Red Yellow and Blue 3 supposed to know that it's a criticism of capitalism and authoritarianism without being told that's the meaning? In what sense is that conveyed to me -- the completely ignorant viewer -- by 3 large rectangles?
@Lucio Pcamp Letting yourself believe that all modern art does this because elites sometimes use it to further their asshole agendas also makes it a little hard to look smart. You can't let every asshole that's a part of something so heavily influence your view. Modern art is not my forte but people who genuinely enjoy the creation and consumption of modern art don't have a say over every single person who gets to participate. There are lots of militant and over the top followers of doctor who but they're honestly not my fucking problem because I just want to watch a stupid TV show.
Deplorabology nah if people gave valid criticism in a calm manor but didn’t really make a big fuss the conversation about modern art would die down and as such it’s demand would die down to. When I said violent, get this, I meant violent
People claiming we need objective standards to art, that art itself should be objective, that certain art must be destroyed for being harmful to art in general, and that art must exist within an objective meritocracy are dangerous to art as a whole. Art is about ultra subjective human experiences, and itself should be whatever it wants. I don’t like modern art, but I respect people who do and respect the artists. I also see the art as incredibly valuable, being a blank canvas in its simplicity for others to project their own emotions onto. Plus, the fact I don’t like it doesn’t mean it somehow lessens the value of the art I do like, and it definitely doesn’t mean it should be destroyed. To define what art is and isn’t is to actively harm it. There is no wrong way to art. More art is always better, as long as it’s not stealing people’s jobs and is absolutely soulless (looking at you AI art)
And it's not just dangerous to art, but to people just trying to live authentically. Because when I fascist says, "Objective Reality" they mean "Kill everyone who disagrees with me about religion and nature."
Holy fuck, that was too edgy! How did you get to be so edgy? Does your mom know how edgy you are? You should go up and tell how hour why you are so she can take her edgy boy to McDonald's and get you a McEdgy meal.
I love how when he begins to describe how art makes him feel, it fades to noise. There is no definitive way to describe art. It’s all up to what it means to the interpreter.
In my local art museum, there is a rather "regular" size blank white canvas. I looked at it, and I said to myself: "why? this thing is so boring! It doesn't make me feel anything. It isn't striking, or original, or impressive." Of course, I was there not to pour for hours over the "potential" meaning of artwork, because I thought that artwork had no meaning. Indeed, a small plaque next to it warned people "do not touch" because it had a unique texture, and that seemed to be about it. Of course, I was just wandering around, looking for something exquisitely, obviously complex and realistic that I could ooh and aah at. And everyone I've talked to feels similarly. Nobody's wanted to attack it, we're just silently waiting for it to go away and get replaced for something we can examine, in person, for more than 15 seconds. I guess there's a big difference between "not caring" about modern art and "caring to get rid of" modern art.
You say you don't care about the piece, and yet it immediately evoked an emotional response (confusion) that has stuck with you enough to not only talk about it here, but with everyone you know. You say you and everyone else you talked to wanted a piece you could think about for more than 15 seconds to replace it... But it's right there. It was there from the moment you saw it. I think that's the beauty in modern art. It's surface level simplicity evokes disproportionately complex and difficult emotions within observers- emotions that keep these pieces in the mind of the viewing public in ways "traditional" art could only dream of, or even lead to being immortalized in their destruction, as Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue 3 was.
unless it happened 15 seconds ago, it seems you already found something to examine. how many other pieces caused such a reaction on you that made you go on online rants later?
I know the music levels get a little dicey at points, sorry about that y'all.
I really enjoyed it. You could say it was a work of... art
I agree with ShootInShark (weird sentence of the day) the loud, overpowering music seemed... correct. I personally felt, small, powerless, an emotion that I find apt when talking about the current rise in fascism, particularly in America, something that I - a 20 something student - feel beyond my personal agency and struggle with. It worked.
This is a nicely done video man, overall very clean and the narration, if not perfect, near perfect. I just wanted to say that control over art is a given in any totalitarian nationalist regime, not an exclusive thing from the right. North Korea comes to my mind as an example of a left regime and Soviet Russia did the same thing. I think it's another way to say "our is good, other is bad"; a basic thing if the rulling class wants to maintain control over its population.
Came here from the Shadow of the Colossus video (made me feel nostalgic, even though I've never played it xD)
9:05 I love the caretaker
@@wp6007 you must be tired... Maybe taking a moment to think about what you love is in your best interest.
It feels almost ironic that people were, in fact, afraid of red, yellow, and blue.
But let's be honest here, what is it that people are afraid of? Is it the physical object of painted canvas, or the price?
If people are angry just because of the price (assigned to it by the market) instead of the painting itself then the art isn't doing its job, it becomes pretty much worthless.
I honestly feel like some of the story was intentionally left out. Like, why did people hate it? Just because? I doubt it.
Kriffing_schutta My name Jeff no?
It is the fear of the unknown.
@@Fickji What a psycho
I feel like Whose Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue shouldn't have been restored. I don't hate the piece, but i believe that the point it tries to get across is even stronger when it is in tatters. In its pristine state is merely asks the question "who is afraid of red yellow and blue" but in a damaged state it tells us exactly who, and instead asks "why are they afraid of red yellow and blue, and what do we do about it"
In other words, the piece was finally finished by its destruction. Honestly, these paintings are closer to games than most interactive art pieces that aren't games.
Art gains additional meaning when it's viewed as and allowed to be dynamic. To some extent i find "vandalism" to be a loaded term
This is a good point. I hadn't considered that.
Couldn't have said it better myself
It’s similar to the Rodin statue outside of the Cleveland Museum of Art. The Weather Underground bombed it, and the museum opted not to restore it as a sort of monument in defiance.
the artist was probably like: " You fell into my trap, vandal. You have made my art, *finally complete.* "
And you're next line will be: I destroyed your painting
@@daviddinhof2305 N-NANI?!
Neonatzi groups are vunerable to psychic damage, and he just cast vicious mockery
@@defensivekobra3873 Maybe that explains why Hitler was interested in the supernatural.
@@corrinflakes9659 this was an dnd joke but _that makes to much sense_
''He is toxifying whatever water source he's buried closest to'' is so raw
For a throwaway line, it really goes so hard.
so real. i was just letting the video play as white noise while i was playing games but when the line came up i was stunned
It sounds like it comes from an autistic kid
@@whiteline4157good God. Pay attention to things
@@ScoopsdepoopWho are you? Their mom? Weirdo.
I feel like ‘Who’s afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue?’ Isn’t just a piece of art. It’s a question that was answered in exactly the way the artist expected it to be answered.
its really ironic too
Honestly if I were the artist I would not have wanted it restored. With a title like that, it really seems like some crazy nazi destroying it was actually just the finishing touch that the piece was waiting for
"art"
@@FREEDOM80085 Yes, art? How can you watch this video and still comment shit like this.
@@julesnar1175 There's your answer, they didn't.
"A perversion of the German flag" says a lot, considering I, a Latin American, first thought of the Colombian flag turned 90° and never of anything German. It's as if our own backgrounds and thoughts informed our interpretation of the art more than the art itself.
Also I'm a hobbyist artist and getting such a uniform color across such a huge canvas is super hard.
First thing I thought of was basically "wow, that color is even all along the canvas"
@@anselmadelia9747 That part is pretty incredible. If I tried it it'd have all the marks from the brush.
I can do even colors with acrylic paint the trick is painting over but your hand hurts a lot and it takes hours even your back hurts..... Like 8 feet holy smokes....... As a Latina I only saw the Colombian glag as well
I mean, is the UK flag not a perversion of the english, scottish and irish flags?
I'm german and this looks nothing like a german flag, any german flag even. Idk what this man sees because neither the arrangement nor the colours are similar.
If it was up to me, I'd let the painting on the museum. With the deep cut and everything. It's a solid remark that: Yes. People were afraid of Red, yellow and blue.
To be fair, it's a more interesting piece that actually says something than it originally did.
Lol
It sure has a bit more of an impact in my opinion too.
It just has this sheer registration of irrational anger.
Just like it fascinates me when someone can love something simple, cheap or dull for no reason, be it a toy, a painting or a cartoon.
Seeing someone get so full of anger over a square with 3 colors to a point they'd commit a crime...that's just magnificent.
Melancholic. But magnificent.
The dude didn't gain nothing from this. He could've been arrested over this. He could've been charged millions over this. But he was so angry that he did it regardless. And a lot of people shared that hatred of his and defended him. People thought of it as bravery.
There is a dark anthropological beauty to such tragedy.
@@Tmanowns While I will say it certainly has a new context after the vandalism, the original does say a lot as well. It kind of has to. Something that is "meaningless", that "doesn't say anything" does not create this level of response. It may be hard, if not impossible to put it into words, but it did say one hell of a lot.
Not afraid, disgusted that true talent is ignored in favor of toddler grade “art”.
Painting looks a lot better honestly. The cut has far more passion than the original and an equal, if not greater amount of artistic talent.
the irony of someone physically attacking a painting called "Who's Afraid of Red Yellow and Blue" though. Like, I wouldn't wanna be the guy to jump up and say "ME! I am so afraid of primary colours I brought a KNIFE!"
One of my favorite paintings, Ivan the terrible and his son Ivan, was recently vandalized (2018). It had been vandalized before, in 1913. The funny thing is that Repin (the painter) thought that the first attack had been perpetrated by modernists because of him being a realist (painting in a classic manner). The second attack happened when a drunk guy thought that the painting was historically inaccurate. It's interesting how art can inspire such different reactions.
Michelangelo pieta was vandalized too.
One of my favorite paintings, actually. I'm sad it was attacked.
just went to look tht painting up. wow.
yeah, a real shame about that
The only appropriate way to vandalise that painting is to attack it with a sceptre.
there’s something poetic, in a regrettable way, about the destruction of ‘who’s afraid of red yellow and blue’ demonstrating *exactly* who was afraid of red yellow and blue
Fascists with pathological need to control others
You get arrested for wearing yellow and blue in russia... even spring green and purple now since they aren't so far apart. And red only if it's with black.
I don't see anyone getting arrested for wearing yellow and light blue (and I wear them everyday), but yeah russian government seems to be afraid of them and repainting stadium seats, fences and so on
lemme guess, you think trans women are women?
@@angel_of_rust What are you on about??
"toxifying whatever water source he's buried close to" is the most savage roast I've ever heard in my life.
And also a fair criticism of modern funeral practices ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jessica Brauman unless It’s Ghana says goodbye
vintagelovegal He’s just continuing his life’s work!
He was a hero.
I literally read this comment exactly as it was said in the video and i started losing it
Excellent video, man. I walked into this video with a general disapproval of the idea of “overly simplistic modern art.” I saw most of it as nonsensical, assuming that the people behind it didn’t have any real creative intent. That changed the second I heard the name “who’s afraid of red yellow and blue?” And i knew exactly what it meant.
I gritted my teeth at the mention of fascism since I see people everywhere use it as a distraction in an argument. As soon as you yell out “fascism!” People tend to just stop thinking rationally altogether and pick your side. But the way you explained that you know what fascism is in the first place, the way it works and then how it compare to the ideals of these “politicians” blew me away.
I feel changed after this. It’s awesome
Whenever i see someone actually have an open mind and change their opinion it warms my heart. I was dismissive of some modern art before this video. Its the same thing as the banana people joke about not "being art" the whole point is to be provocative. The initial dismissal of "thats not art" should be followed by the realization of "ooooh thats the point." What isnt art is ai art or stuff cranked out by corpoeations, but even then to an extent it can be.
@@iharpo9292 Oh right, let me put a blank white canvas in a Chicago museum titled “Why white is right.” Very hard to be indirectly provocative.
Also my art sells for $5mil, so I bet aspiring artists would be motivated by that.
Also if 90% of the public complains about my tax-funded art, then they’re all just unknowingly promoting fascism.
Forget that others leftists have also admitted to this art being utter garbage which will be “naturally sorted out over time.” They are fascists too.
@@iharpo9292one of the only AI 'art' pieces i actually consider art was a piece that was a stereotypical pixar style image generated by ai, and then sent to a chinese company that just posterizes images and turns them into one of those 'color by numbers' things, and then was painted in by the artist (a human).
Only fascists get mad when others point out their fascism. You still have a lot of growing to do, dude.
Honestly, same.
Though I disagree on your conclusion of the use of "fascism". Sure, it's been somewhat banalized but it's extremely important to recognise that there's elements from fascism in a lot of areas and it's still the best way to engage with the problem for a lot of people. Like, as a biologist, there's no other reason for shit like eugenics still being assumed truthful in any way, shape or form (see any discussion of the movie The Idiocracy), even though is one of those ideologies that never worked in practice in the history of humanity (like anarchocapitalism, which "coincidentally" has a lot of ideological overlap with eugenics).
I mean
if art is meant to awake some deep feelings in humans, and some dude is loosing his shit over red rectangle, I'd call it succesful
Red rectangle: e̷̫̗̔x̷͙̱̔ì̷̬͉s̵͓̾t̶̥͠ş̴̥̓
Angry monkey brain neurons: *Activates*
if i take a shit on a red sheet of paper and the museum exhibits it as art, wouldnt you wonder for at least a minute who in their right mind would exhibit a literal piece of shit? would it invoke emotions of anger, confusion, awe? i could easily give it several meanings if you want. congratulations mister connoisseur, you just enjoyed a piece of modern art.
@@pugstomper4131 I love seeing how petty modern art haters are lmao
depends on the creator's intentions. if the dude behind the red rectangle actually wanted ppl to get angry and destroy his work, then he's a genius
@@jefftonsman They're right though. The difference between "modern art" and "doing nonsensical shit and putting it on display" is simply an in-group out-group dynamic of art critics and galleries/museums.
My dad was banned for life from the Detroit Institute of Arts cause he wanted to touch the surface of a Van Gogh to "feel" the painting.
Art inspires weirdness.
... it sounds like he asked first which I honestly respect...
out of all the paintings I can think of, Van Gogh's work is definitely something I'd want to touch
I would love to feel a Van Gogh. All those ridges and textures
Well, it's detroit.
Can't have shit in detroit
I can see where he's coming from. Perhaps by touching it you could really feel the strokes and lines and perhaps make something out of it
Helms would not survive ten seconds on Deviantart.
Legend says that he finally died as a result of getting linked to e621
@@thrownstair yo just so you know, I googled that and went down a rabbit hole of sites that I never wanted to be on. >:,(
@@Emma-zm1qn Welcome to the internet my friend
The irony is I kinda resent a lot of conceptual art (At least, the kind that makes way too much money for little creativity/effort) because there are people on spaces like Deviantart that're way more interesting and yet struggling to scrape by.
The truest of statements
“A man who could also be titled Piss Christ is Paul Joseph Watson” absolutely kills me every time. Some pieces of writing are flawless and this line belongs to that hallowed pantheon
Why are leftists so incredibly retarded?
I question why name of a Christ used to describe such person even if there's "piss" added to it.
@Imperial_Lizardgirl 2 millennia old grudge
shoulda left it up and renamed it "I was afraid of red, yellow, and blue."
Put the guys name and then was afraid
@@communisttrash8590 That would've been perfect
I think that keeping it up with the gashes would’ve made it 1000x more impactful as an art piece
See, that would have been next level
Brilliant
I saw an art that sold for a decent sum that simply had “You could have made this but you didn’t. I did.” scrawled childishly in multicolor on white background. I was like “well played, art person.”
Honestly enjoyable type of art that jabs at anyone who buys it.
At first glance it mocks the haters but closer inspection gives the message that you could make anything, even 1 dot on a painting, and the people will buy it
That’s fucking genius. Godspeed you magnificent bastard
@@Sculpted_stache I said something similar out loud when I saw it…I think it went for like $1300 AND…I kinda wanted it 😂
I think that was CB Hoyo's _Yes You Could Have Also Made This But You Didn't_ (2021)
@Reddy to play which is incorrect, because people are a bunch of picky critics and you have more than enough competition. 😂
a cool thing about depression quest is how it plays with the statuses at the bottom. you inherently want to change them, to get medicated, to go to therapy. but since you’ve been robbed of your agency, your best bet at doing so is to lash out in a desperate attempt to get somebody, anybody, to notice that you aren’t okay and need serious help. and when they express concern, your only choice is to dismiss them, because you don’t want to be a burden. brilliant.
As someone who has been struggling with depression for about 15 years now, it's incredibly realistic. I don't want to hurt anyone by ending it, but I don't have the energy to stay alive. So I simply trudge through the days. The interactions in Depression Quest are interactions I have genuinely had irl. I change the topic, I lie about my current mental health situation, but most of all, I get angry and lash out at my loved ones in a desperate attempt to get help. They've noticed and tried to help me. It has so far not helped. I at least have something to look forward to. They try their best.
Tbh i haven't played the game but I'm going to give my opinion regardless
I think something like an invisible energy meter which might deplete or be refilled via certain actions which aren't always intuitive
As someone w depression, it can be tempting to say im too tired to go out and take a nap during the middle of the day, but I know its far better to be social and get vitamin d (which is why Seasonal Affective Disorder is a thing)
I feel that something like that would make the game feel more thoughtful and less shallow or self indulgent
@@frankfelerski1043 eh, to each their own. i feel like having more strategic and player-empowering game mechanics could take away from the overall ideas and message portrayed by the game as a work of art.
also like... i could just force myself to go out and do something like a social commitment despite not feeling up to it, but for me it's up to random chance whether that goes well and how i feel about it and in general both during and after.
and i don't think it's fair to imply that staying home and taking a nap is exactly self-indulgent. personally, every time i flake out on someone and abandon plans last-minute i feel an overwhelming sense of guilt and disappointment towards myself.
depression is incredibly complex, and practically every person suffering from depression has their own unique experience that isn't exactly the same as anyone else's.
@@frankfelerski1043 hey! i know this is from a year ago, but i would really encourage you to play the game. there ARE options to go out anyways even if you don't feel like it, and there is a path to having better mental health in the game. i played it through three times, once picking the things i knew wouldn't help, once picking the things that i would realistically choose, and once trying to get the best possible result. as someone who has struggled greatly with depression which is now fairly well managed (through medication and regular therapy) i think the game is extremely accurate and well done :)
Um... is that based on my life somehow?
the 'degenerate' art wasn't just taken from galleries or 'purchased' as the propaganda states, it was also seized by the police during targeted raids on artists studios, with thousands of pieces being destroyed. you often hear about 'lost art' from world war 2 as if there is a burred bunker somewhere, but the reality is that what wasn't absorbed into private collections of nazi sympathizers, was likely burned. a lot of the artists were also later imprisoned, and even in the face of all that, historians have still recovered dozens of examples of 'illegal' art (aka art not authorized by the nazi's) being made IN the camps, some of which are now on display in the holocaust museum.
This Video Really made me realize why artists are so smug..
they conciously know that they have power over you..
Wether you know it or not..😅
seeing art that was made in the camps is so powerful. it's a reminder that the human spirit is powerful and no matter how much is destroyed and taken away from us, our thoughts and feelings can never be stolen.
If an artist titles their painting "Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue" and some fearful person can't help but attack it... that piece of art kind of found its fulfillment. It's like a circle has closed. Why, oh why would anyone want to "restore" that image. Leave it the way it is, damn it.
sounds like an invitation for vandalism haha
yeah the art wasnt in the painting itself but the whole kinda thing surrounding it made it art, and it was very informative indeed
@@peterpop-off Maybe so, but as would taking the piece down. Given how the restoration was unsuccessful, I think keeping the piece up in its vandalized state only serves to hammer home the message of the piece. What other way is better to show "Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue," than to immortalize the vandal's answer of "me, and people like me"?
Or even better, leave it there, it's like that robot that tried to mop up it's own blood, it starts out efficient and constant, sometimes doing varied movements that gave it personality but as it was kept there it started to rust and stuck to itself, most of the blood started to fog the glass around the exhibit as well as the robot itself
I feel as though leaving the scar on the painting could be taken as validation by the white supremacists who lauded the act of vandalism, as if society accepted their violence. It could be seen by them less as a public shaming, and more as an act of public celebration. So restoring it really is for the best, even if it means leaving the art unfulfilled.
When I was starting off in college, and saw a really ugly painting that was something like a Pollock mixed with a Matisse that was incredibly unflattering: I just wondered "why did you even put this on a canvas?"
I even said out loud when a professor walked up to me and asked "what do you think?" and I said " I don't get why, I mean, its awful"
He then replied "For something so bad, you sure seem to have been staring at it for a while" and I look at the clock on the wall to see that I had been staring at it for a solid 20 minutes.
I had a sort of epiphany at that point about what the purpose or it was, and that it had succeeded as art, be it for whatever reason, and I looked at all art in a new light.
I mean you can see tragedies for a long time, doesn't mean that it's good
@@fcomolineiro7596 it wasn't intended to be good or beautiful, but it shocked the viewer made him reflect on "why?" He questioned art as a whole and the intent behind the painting, he engaged with it and came out wiser, not all art is meant to be pleasing. "Good art should comfort the disturbed, and disturb the comfortable"
@@luizgdc4096 sorry I mean good in the legal sense, like you shouldn't make art of illegal stuff
@@fcomolineiro7596 Says who?
Is a painting.
I could draw a picture of me stealing your car right now, would that warrant getting me arrested?
@@Homodemon art is an extremely variated medium, but if you want an example of what I meant (since you seems to be unable to think of one) photography
"Who's afraid of red yellow and blue?" is one of my favorite art pieces because it was murdered and it's like YEAH! We found out who was afraid of red yellow and blue and it turns out it was a lot of people!
anger does not equal fear
ishit realbad
Fear is not equal to anger, yes. But fear _leads_ to anger.
@@ishitrealbad3039 all anger is the natural progression of fear.
@@skydroid3141 but does it need to come from fear?
@@ariezon you don't destroy with hatred that which you have no reason to fear
I saw a tiktok about this painting/painter recently. The video was captioned something like, "me and my friends standing in front of art at the museum that we think we could do." One of the paintings was by Newman. And thankfully someone else reacted to that video to tell the story of 'Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue'.
This kind of attitude makes me so sad. People look at a piece of art and say "I could do that," and rather than trying, they just denigrate the art/artist and end it there.
I saw that tiktok! I'm not really a fan of modern art either but you'll get nowhere without trying to understand things that may irrationally irritate you.
i think i commented "google who Kandinsky is and try to tell me you would be able to do the same" on a similar video talking about how abstract art is primitive once... they never replied that they could. wonder why's that?
Agreed. I can never understand these people. Why does being able to recreate a piece of art make that art meaningless to you? These people are non-artists, but do they not think about how that art applies to artists?
If I were to learn to draw realism, would I start hating on the Mona Lisa? No, I wouldn't. Just because you're on the same skill level as a painting doesn't mean that painting is void to you.
I could draw my profile picture, but I still like ENA!
“Art” is a strong word
@@robertarnold6192 not really. art is a lot of things: drawings, music, movies, dance, any form of human expression really.
You can like certain art, and you can dislike certain art. That's fine. But you don't get to say something doesn't qualify as "art" just bc you don't personally connect with it.
there's just something so insanely hillarious about someone seeing a painting, concluding that it is meaningless and useless and then going on a rampage to destroy said meaningless piece. like, the piece is called "who's afraid of red yellow and blue?", but i think we know exactly who's afraid of red yellow and blue lmao.
Yeah. I mean, if he really thought it was just dumb and tasteless surely he wouldn't care enough to go to the effort of destroying it.
honestly it makes me lose my ass how appropriate it is. i heard the title and i immediately knew, at some point in this video someone is going to be pissed off at that painting, and its just so fuckin funny. dramatic irony is my favorite
The need to see a meaning in things is probably the most dangerous and tragic thing about humans
@@janesullivan692 So, I've had arguments about modern art with family. I don't know much about it, and I don't even have enough exposure to say if I "get" it. However, I really like people expressing themselves in weird ways, and I basically define art as "a thing that makes you feel something."
That is not something my family agrees with, and it's come back to this exact point. Modern art makes them feel angry, and I think that the artist has made a statement by producing something that evokes a response. Refusing to "make a statement" with your art is a statement in and of itself, and they refuse to accept that. It's not just apathy, it's active disdain.
@@TexRex6352 Have you tried not being such a dickish art snob? It works wonders.
And if you don't like a piece of art, you can choose not to look at it. Adults are generally expected to have enough self control that they don't commit crimes.
Show where this art actually hurt someone. How does modern art cause harm in a way that justifies your vitriol?
I'll be honest, I still don't "get" modern art, but then again other people don't get Expressionism and Impressionism, which are my preferred styles. Welcome to art. It's a reflection of the psyche of feeling and the styles are as numerous as the way we interpret those feelings.
I feel like modern art takes up way too much space in museums though, while stuff made because it looks cool with no other meaning is basically nonexistent in museums. It should be an equal mix of everything instead of the museums simping over modern art so hard.
That's why I don't like modern art, it takes up so much space that could've been used to make museums more fun to walk through instead of the modern art hellscape it is today
@@batfurs3001 Honestly there's only so much of the older art they can use. If people produce, for example, impressionist art that's what will be in museums. If they produce modern art that's what will be there too. Just how it works. Plus old touring art collections are hard and expensive to get for an exhibit. Only way to get more non-Modern art is for more people to produce it. In the art museums I've been too it's usually been a pretty healthy mix.
@@MistyMjolnir I'm not talking about modern art as the time period, I'm talking about it as a style and a mindset behind the art. There are so many extremely skilled artists that will never get a spot in a museum because their art isn't artsy enough (ie: digital, made just to be pretty, no meaning other than "it looks cool", etc) and instead it's all just art from people who are in the fine arts sphere, which is mostly modern (style) artists.
It seems that the only realistic art in museums is the old stuff, all the new stuff has to be really weird and out there instead of just being really good. It's very rare to find a landscape painting that doesn't have loads of surreal imagery from recent times in museums, and if you do find it it's usually a past work of someone who now dies modern art.
Museums make it seem like that's the ONLY type of art being produced right now, when that's just not true. Museums are missing out on the entire online art community, just because getting your piece eligible for a spot in one is impossible without connections.
I see it as just people fucking around. But in like, a good way. Like how Adventure Time was mostly the writers fucking around, but it all comes together in one of the most loved American animated shows of all time. Or like if you're an engineer who just tinkers with gears and stuff, and one day you figure out a really cool way to line up gears. It doesn't really serve an objective function, but it was still interesting to make, and fun to watch move.
Modern art more like
Money Laundering
The term is obviously about ethnicity, but I still find "white supremacists angry at primary colors" conceptually hilarious.
They don't want any colour other than white, duh.
If you don't make your every single youtube video about race and gender you are not woke enough and if you don't criticise white men, you are literally hitler.
If you're not even a little annoyed by non-paintings like that getting so much funding and attention and space in galleries, you're the kind of gullible pleb that the bourgeois art world makes fun of while smelling each others farts.
As a white man I get irrationally angry at the color magenta. is it pink? is it red? How can I sleep at night without such answers?
@@_wheeler8601 It is the border between Red and Blue and does not exist in the natural light spectrum.
The three basic bodily colors (Cyan, Yellow, Magenta) all exist on the midpoints between the primary spectral colors (Blue, Green, Red) so they all have a spectral wavelength... except for Magenta.
Humans can see light on wavelengths between ca. 400 and 700 nanometers.
Blue Light = 400-500nm
Green Light = 500-600nm
Red Light = 600-700nm
Cyan sits between Blue and Green (ca. 500nm)
Yellow sits between Green and Red (ca. 600nm)
Magenta *would* sit between Red and Blue (ca >400 and
Art is, at the most fundamental level, expression. If you control what is and isn't art, you control what ideas can and can't be expressed.
@@tickytickytango5634 The opposition to quality control is why people will look back at this time as a dark age for art. Scientists cure cancer and artists are putting three stripes on a canvas and interpreting the criticism as the art working.
;]@@JoeyHumble
@@JoeyHumblethe people who didn't watch the video always tell on themselves
@@of5606 I watched all of it. Entertaining but foolish.
No, I can express myself regardless of what you call the expression.
People aren’t fascist for not liking modern art, people are fascist for saying other people can’t.
@krana's first statement is correct: Art is a visual philosophy. When modern art is glorified in a market where anything speaks against it is deliberately shunned by the ideologically-minded curators, then it is rational and understandable that the only way that point-of view can be heard is through the act of destruction (which can be art itself).
The fascism is pretending that there always was a fair-and-open market.
@@pr0digy76 let me guess, PragerU video?
@@pr0digy76 - It's this obsession with categorisation that makes it an issue.
Like... let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone shitting on a pedestal and screaming at it is officially declared Art. It is now in the same "category" as the Mona Lisa - they are both exactly one (1) Art now.
What actually changes? Specifically, what changes about the Mona Lisa?
There really isn't anything, is there? It's still the same painting(s). It hasn't become lesser by association with the pedestal turd, not least because no one's making that association. To imply that it *could* become lesser by association with the pedestal turd would, if anything, kinda be insulting to the craftsmanship involved in the Mona Lisa.
It's kinda like if someone farts really loudly in the middle of The Rite Of Spring. It might be slightly annoying for, like, a second, but no one's thinking "Well, The Rite Of Spring sucks now". That was true in 1919, and it's equally true 100+ years later, when someone has almost certainly farted into a microphone and called it music by now.
We can take this even further, and compare the artworks that the Nazis paraded as "degenerate" bad art to the artworks that the Nazis exhibited as good art. Are the good artworks tainted by association? I would say, no. One of the best things about (most) art is that, once it's out there, it becomes a moment, an indivisible thing, which can be viewed in countless different ways. We can experience the art completely independently of how someone else experiences it.
That, to me, is why art vandalism is a problem, even if it's against bad art. It robs others of the opportunity to have their own experience of the art. That desire to leave a mark is the desire to make oneself a part of that experience, potentially forever. And... the vandal hasn't earned that. He could just make better art, or art that's more to his liking. But he doesn't.
Cope harder, fascist.
@@galvatk2194 “Anybody who disagrees with me watches PragerU unironically.”
2:22 A.M. seems like it was inspired by LSD Dream Simulator, which in my opinion was way ahead of its time.
THAT WAS THE NAME OF THAT GAME!! LSD DREAM SIMULATOR!!! THANK YOU!!!
@@miku4977 :)
Holy shit! I'm the 222nd like.
*Emulator
Also Yume Nikki! At least when it comes to having a sort of nonsensical, dreamy, potentially creepy feeling and the concept of exploring vastly different abstract areas.
"Art has become a business."
*laughs as a fine art student who studied art history because art, at least as we think of it today, has for the most of part of it's existence always been a business*
Explain
@@jx8148 Well art has always been a business when you think about it. Even in antiquity statues adorning temples or rich households were commissioned from artists. Same goes later on in medieval times and all through history from there on.
The idea of the "artist making art for art's sake" is VERY recent. Art was always either made for the Church or was a luxury, from illuminated manuscript to official portraits of high ranking individual.
To say that art as a business is a modern invention, or is caused by modern art is viewing the history of art through a very skewed and narrow point of view that sees past artworks as purely works of passions. They weren't, most of the art in museums that the average person would consider "classical" art what either done as a commission or with the intent to be sold at a fair price to those who could afford it. That's why the idea of the starving artist is so damaging today.
And like, of course artists were passionate about what they were doing. But passion isn't going to get food on the table or help you pay for supplies and this still rings true today (( aka the whole "working for exposure" mentality )).
But we have to understand that art being so readily available and affordable to us is a recent thing, and even then it is still considered a "luxury".
Art for art sake, or for the passion of it came when art was made to be an affordable hobby. Being passionate about art doesn't mean you need to be successful at it to get food on the table nowadays unless you make art you career.
It's also very dismissive of modern art to call it purely business oriented. If you study the history of art, you can see it came from a shift from experimenting with the figurative vs realism. It was about pushing art to the next level, seeing what else beside realism could be done. So now characters in an artwork were painting to try a give an impression of the person vs a 1:1 reproduction of them to put it simply.
And from there more experimentation was done, playing with colors, simplifying shapes, playing with symbols and so on.
So while I can understand why some people don't "get" or enjoy modern art, to call it easy and too commercial is grossly misrepresenting the history behind it and the art movements that led to it, and ignoring the fact that art had almost always a transactional aspect to it.
I hope that helped to clarify what I meant!
@@CherriWhitewing yes, I love you
Any craft is always backed by a business, especially if money is involved. Thats why most top artists were entrepreneurs or business savvy. The renaissance artists just got lucky because the church and the medici family were literally accepting anyone (at least that wasnt involved in an outrageous style movement) for comissions
@@megasocky This this this!!!
I love how much easier it is to explain emotion with a sound (like wind, the ladder rung pings, ect.) than with real words. I could babble for hours and still not be able to tell someone what emotion I'm experiencing, but a clip of the right audio, and suddenly they get it.
how do you know?
Ngl I thought it was an editing error but now I see what you mean
A bit off topic but I have synesthesia and I love that ladder noise so much it feels so right
I feel as if "who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue" wasn't complete, until it was vandalized. Now, it says a story. It says that someone was afraid of red, yellow, and blue or atleast what it stands for. I feel as if the vandalized painting should've been redrawn or still be shown, the color fits so well for what had been done to it
@@slappy8941 And for what reason is that? What did he do other than express himself - what crime did he commit?
You seem to think that this person isn't an artist, that what they have made, crafted, brought into this world through their own creativity and effort isn't "art" - how so? What is it which makes a simple painting of a landscape "art", which invalidates this piece? What is *"art",* if you really think about it, other than the meaning or the thoughts behind it? If you just draw something - would that be art? Or would it just be a drawing?
What is "art"? The cambridge definition of art is "the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings" - what about "who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue" doesn't make it art - and then what about its painter, it's creator, doesn't make them an artist? Art is art even if you don't like it. But what do *you* think art is?
@@slappy8941 Don't cut yourself on the edge hun
@@slappy8941 You're literally triggered over a shitpost. Get over yourself and stop being a baby.
@Ori Windsor so @Slappy is the art? He's part of the exhibition. He is what the artist intended to happen?
Slappy we found the guy Who's Afraid Of Red Yellow And Blue
The funny thing about Piss Christ is, if you didn't see the title, you'd have no clue how it was made. You'd just be marveling at how this piece of art almost glowed with gold and orange and red, like the afternoon sun. It's only because of its title that you realize it's scatological, and thus, disgusting, deviant, controversial. It's... comical, and kinda poignant, how much these labels change people's perception of the thing that label has been applied to.
I’m Catholic and I thought it would be funny if religious reliquaries had names like that. So instead of the Severed Head of St. Catherine of Siena, it was called ‘Creepy Head in San Domenico.’
@@urthofthenewsun8465 Oh my god that would almost make me convert to catholicism
@Are You Going To Do The 'Ora Ora' Thing? lol fair. still though, it's cool to think about
Funny you mention that, there’s a surrealist artist that I love to death who passed away a decade and a half ago, Zdzlaw Beksinski. He did not add titles to any of his pieces because he did not want it to pervert or distort the viewer’s interpretation of the piece. He just wanted it to be seen as is. If you look at some of his work, it’s exceedingly dark, Eldritch, cosmically horrific, and foreboding, but there’s a beauty to each of the pieces in my opinion. They all have different messages, but I think they are all smaller parts of a larger message. Although, if he were alive, he would probably laugh at that interpretation because he said he thought his art was “humorous.”
@@yeln4tsmusic wow! interesting
The idea that art needs to "contribute to" society is something that would hinder a lot of artists.
What is art?
Everything is art.
Nothing is art.
Art is Art.
@@Axius27 thank you for this
Sometimes i wonder what art will be in the future? Will people be so scared of art that they will ban it? Will they be able to? In a optmistical sense what would our next artistic movement be like?
@@altobonifacio8936 I imagine that it will simultaneously be groundbreaking and so obvious that people wonder why no one thought of it earlier.
Like why would anyone be an artist if you had to be received well by society anyway, a more objective view, when art is subjective
the phrase “THEY’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ART” should be a protest slogan, 100%
The irony of Hitler being rejected from art school because people didn't think his art was good enough, only for his regime to call art degenerate for not fitting specific ideals...
Omg, I forgot he was an artist
Imagine an alternate reality where we learned about Hitler in art class instead of History.
The difference is AH was actually a good artist.
@Tony Benn (Real) You definitely haven't looked at his artwork if you're saying that. He didn't get into the art school because "something was off" in his art, he didn't get in because he wasn't making the type of bullcrap abstract art that this video is defending. He was rejected for being too proper, too precise, and too traditional. I suggest you look up what artworks qualified for an artist to get into that school, and then look at the work of AH. They told him that he should do architectural drawings, not paintings.
@@SweetArmadillo361
Guy was unable to paint humans. The criticism was certainly valid.
I've visited the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. two times, once with my middle school and once again just with my family. At the end of what is traditionally a museum, after you've walked through six floors detailing the most horrific crimes of humankind, how they started, and how they ended, after you've brushed past countless faces of the dead to whom you feel you owe it to to read every word in the building, you step out into this completely white, sunlight room. You go down a crooked, spiral staircase and there are a few benches so you can sit and look at the art, which is these white, geometric sculptures. They're done by Ellsworth Kelly, who made a lot of art similar to Newman. Apparently, the structure is done to play with sunlight and shadows across the white room.
The first time I saw it, as a mass of 12 and 13-year-olds being mournfully shoved along by teachers, I gave it a passing glance of mostly confusion. Why'd they put it there? After everything we'd just seen- most of our eyes red- why modern art?
The second time I saw it, just three years later, I somehow caught the room alone. My parents were a few paces behind me, and I stepped out of the dark hallway into the all-white room and down the crooked staircase and sat on one of the white benches. It was completely silent, though somehow not eerily like it had been in the earlier rooms- the ones with the shoes, with the hair. I stared at the sculpture and felt the overwhelming urge to burst into tears all over again.
I still don't get modern art. Most of it that I see in museums, even when I'm trying, hit's me with nothing. But my god, when it does, it works. And in the context of anti-fascism you presented, the modern art at the holocaust museum hits me in post all over again.
Great video. I've attempted to binge your stuff but everything overwhelms me a little emotionally so I have to take it slow. But you do great work.
Nazi art was pretty bland as well, but not as bad as conceptual art.
@@MrCmon113 Do you really feel that that is an appropriate response to her comment? Honestly, think before you comment things - that is widely insensitive.
@@blueowl718 i don't get how it was insensitive. please explain to me i like learning sometimes
nazis fucking hated modern art or any art that has multiple interpretations and makes you feel anything. they loved only bland normal sceneries
An anti masker at are school ducked the holocaust museum trip be cause he didn’t want to deal with the museums Tyranical mask mandate
It specifically makes me sad when people say "this isn't art because I could do this." We've locked ourselves out of something so fundamentally human. We've been doing art since we lived in caves. But today the powers that be have convinced us that we have to have talent to be creative. It's so incredibly sad.
"Yes, you could have *made* this, but thought to bother to?"
What makes me...frustrated, angry, sad, disappointed is when people say something to the effect of "it's not art because I wouldn't hang it in my living room." As if all communication should be aesthetic, and specifically left in the background until someone else wants to notice it. As if the only reason someone would create something is for other people to like the way it looks.
@@youtubeuniversity3638 no, and maybe it shouldn't exist because of that - a completely valid opinion
Creativity is a human trait, a human advantage. It's not exclusive to only a random few.
@@heartnsoulintodeglocc9975 Agreed. I find "You didn't think of it" an inherently dumb argument. It doesn't make a banana taped to a wall art to me.
What kills me is that the same people hating on Piss Christ for being offensive will probably also defend racist comedy on free speech grounds.
One is funny. The other is just cringey edgy fat feminist on the internet stuff 🤡
Hi we don't, you weasel.
@@E_Proxy totally agree. piss christ is terrible 🤡
@@E_Proxy"one is cringey, the other one is cringey"
@@noyes8882 nope
The ruined art piece is shockingly effective in looking.. gory. The overpowering red being destroyed feels jarring.
I kind of wish it was kept as-is instead of restoring it… poorly.
@@SirSoliloquy i agree. should've just left the destroyed painting up, as is
I feel like it has more meaning when destroyed. It anwsers the question it poses: Who's Afraid Of Red, Yellow And Blue? Apparently, the guy who cut this painting
@@nataliaborys1554 Or he just thought it was a dumb painting taking up space where actual art could go.
Weirdly, it adds to the art, as a question that has been answered
So “Who is Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue?” a group of painting with literally nothing to it but a certain simple composition and a simple question it wanted to ask made a certain group of people so afraid and so angry to the point they torn a lot of them up? Thus giving the painting a crap ton more meaning to it.
Art is truly an amazing field.
I also ADORE the gash given to the art. Somehow it feels like it makes the painting more visceral and striking.
Why afraid? When my cat tears apart a mouse, is it afraid of the mouse?
@@megatennepster3833
More? It's literally the only remotely interesting thing about it. A painting has to be particularly lame to be improved by being torn.
@@MrCmon113 don’t care
@@MrCmon113 Interesting comparison, I think I learned everything I may want of you.
The Nazi "Degenerate Art museum" definitely seems like something that inspired the 2 minutes hate from 1984
Owen Mellors-Bourne holy moly I never realized that
Sometimes showing what you want people to fear and telling them they should works better than just banning it outright
@@zawarudo3582 yea its called just being sincere in your opinion, calling it what you think it is. degenerate in this case
@@dutch1641 - There's a difference between sharing your opinion and forcing it upon others as objective fact.
@@Kyran1996 strange how this society seems to force a lot of clearly non scientific bullshit upon people like how we deny human genetical groups and differences.
migration and crime statistics getting you imprisoned and, you know what no why even try and talk with you people anymore
I would like to add something to this video. Art should not have to provide anything to justify its own existence, because it exists by the will of its author. And because every human being doesn't need justification to exist, neither should art. The moment you value art outside of its own existence is when you put a price over someone's existence, when you can put a price of a fellow man's soul. To destroy art is to kill a fragment of a man's soul.
I'm on the fence because I do agree but at the same time there's a limit to how much of my taxes I'd be okay with going to art. Of course, that level of tolerance expands the more trust is in the organisation. If more people did what Jacob does for example, I'd pay to keep them afloat
What a nothing take
@@NastyArchive-qk7wr what you got for a brain, mate?
Sorry but I disagree with you on statement about humans not needing justification to exist because maybe in paleolithic time people needn't excuse to live but now, we humans like it or not serve as main component of ruling systems and if we don't contribute to those systems we'll be ostracized and our main justification is just contribution to those systems (sorry for bad/grammatically incorrect English, it's not my main language)
@@Dradruinthis is just eugenics you’re spouting. I guess disabled people including the old should die right? That’s what you advocate for?
I can't help but feel like "who's afraid of red yellow and blue?" was made whit the intention for it to get vandalized. The name is just way too fitting.
Yeah, visual art isn’t just about the piece itself, it’s about people reaction to that piece.
Tbh the cuts add to the pieces, it's an evolution.
🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴
Would not be surprised if the author hired a guy to vandalize it. Classic victimism from self-indulgent pricks.
@@fernandofaria2872 think you missed the point of the video my friend
When I first saw the title of the painting I thought it was silly because who would be afraid of something so innocent and simple?
And then it turned out there was a huge group of people genuinely afraid of it, so I guess you win again art.
"I guess you win again art" is something I want on a shirt.
@@Argusthecat "I guess you win again art" is what im saying every time I fail to finish some art I want to make
Even if I don't find something appealing in an art piece, I just shrug and move on. To rail against it, to hate it, to pour all that energy into something just seems to show how small these people are, and how small their worlds are. All that time and thought wasted on something that made them upset.
"Calm down, son. It's just a drawing"
@@kushanblackrazor6614 "Surreal Art is mediocre and only the classic geniuses deserve to be there"
"currently he's toxifying whatever water source he's buried closest to" earned you an instant subscription
Anti embalming person. Very rare to see. He gets my subscription too.
@@TryinaD embalming is not only a waste of time, space, and is bad for the earth but also like just feels morally off to me...
@@eliasbachner1898 I know! Your body’s supposed to be for the worms. Give back to the earth
@@TryinaD When I'm dying, I want to throw myself into a ditch and become one with the grass and mulch beneath my rotting, ripened carcass
Elias Bachner. Embalming isn’t a waste of time, leaving youtube comments IS. Lol. Do you think that funerals are a waste of time?
It's weird, every year I "get" modern art more and more.
because you're growing every year
@@iamcuttlefish god just fucking kill me so i dont have to hear your useless drivel any longer.
@@dangdudedan8756that came out of nowhere. You followed this person
your brain is degrading ;-;
Fr
One of my favorite paintings of all time is an Ad Reinhardt piece I saw at the NGA when I was a kid. At first glance, it looks like an entirely black canvas, but the more you look at it, you start to realize that there's actually a few squares scattered inside it that are a slightly different shade. Look a little longer, and you realize that those squares contain squares, all nearly the same color, but not quite. I sat there staring at it for the better part of an hour, and even when it was time to go, there were still new colors and shapes emerging from it.
The belief that modern art doesn't take skill or can't evoke awe is total bunk. I can't imagine how much time, skill, and effort it took to get the shades exactly right, and it was so impactful that I still remember how it made me feel over a decade later.
some of it is like that, but other pieces are genuinely just splatters on white or similar.
But to some people, maybe they saw something in the splatters you didn't, just like many people wouldn't notice the differently shaded black squares.
And even if it "is just a splatter", to many people (including me) art is so many different things. If we just faithfully replicated technically perfect old masters, what would the point be?
And sure, you can put that technical proficiency to different uses, but doesn't that in itself indicate there is more to art than just technical ability alone?
Whether that is emotion, context, posing challenging questions like "what is art, and who gets to decide", "what is good art, or tasteful art, or meaningful art and who gets to decide" etc.
And there is no objective scale to measure "technical proficiency" on, let alone correlate it with "good art" and sometimes really simplistic images can be incredibly powerful even if they are "less technically demanding" in one sense.
Look at graphic novels, very different to still life paintings of fruit, but to many, far more awe-inspiring and impactful.
I don't think most people admiring modern art are deluding themselves about what it actually is, they just see art as wider and more rich and interesting than "who can make the most technically difficult painting".
For me, I look for art that makes me feel things, amongst other traits. Others like it to challenge them or challenge widely held views or do something new and original or just provoke thought. Others primarily like the asethetics. And some value technical ability or imagination or, I don't know, use of colour or symbolism or whatever.
Art has also often been used as a critique of power/the elites, as well as in service to them. Many modern art pieces were actually created to critique elitist attitudes, which is pretty cool.
Who are you to say which group is right and wrong? I bet most of us are a mixture, and unless you truly believe art is objective, it's pretty hard to definitively say any of those groups are objectively wrong.
I apologise, I'll edit this down later, I'm just very passionate about it despite not being an art historian or anything :)
@@r-pupz7032 i mean yeah, i didnt mean it isnt meaningful or it isnt art. but as far as im aware it takes no effort and therefoer the meaning comes solely from interpretation. idk how it's fair to profit off of some meaning that random people though of
i imagine, as jacob explains art to people in person, he makes sound effects to go along with it.
"oh, this piece? it makes me feel like FWOOSH"
it makes me feel like 3:41
"This sculpture be like; ~pchoo~, y'know?"
This comment, while brilliant, has 69 likes. I'm afraid that I cannot willingly like your comment, as this feat is a rare one. And so, I write you this message. Leaving you at 69 likes whilst showing my apppreciation of this comment.
@@Wickerspark come back, you can do it now
"a man who could also be titled "piss christ" is paul joseph watson" remains one of my favourite lines to this day
I lost my shit when he said that
In theory, everyone is piss christ, we all turn water in to piss.
oh so geller is a liberal? no wonder he defends modern art
@@uwnbaw “I didn’t watch the video” self report
@@uwnbaw except I actually watched the video. With you there’s only two options: either you didn’t watch the video, or you did but didn’t pay attention in the slightest. If you don’t want assumptions to be made, then tell me which one it is.
I‘m still amazed at the fact that the Nazi were so disgusted with the Bauhaus that they closed it yet it still became the (probably) most influential artschool of the last 100 years
this is based as fucked
As an autistic person I don't think I've ever felt anything when looking at "modern art" paintings the way people think of them, and I don't spend much time looking at them either. Sculptures seem to have more meaning to me, maybe it's the movement. But all the same, I don't believe art should be destroyed unless that's the point...which is to say, Who's Afraid of Red Yellow and Blue became horrifying performance art of the highest caliber. People were afraid. Very afraid.
Also I don't know why some sort of fancy portrait or a landscape you can find at a thrift store contributes to society more than modern art. The fact that white supremacists are terrified of paintings that birth thoughts or feelings is unsurprising, they hate when people think.
also autisitc. I don’t feel much looking at “normal” paintings, but modern art? man that shit makes me fuckin think. One of the main pillars of that kind of art is defining limits. What is and isn’t art? who has the right to decide? SHOULD we decide?
It's interesting in itself looking at people's different reactions to a given kind of art because you can tell something is really art when it defies notions of objective meaning. Everyone would rightly be afraid of a snake in their bed or grossed out by worms in their food, but a subtly vague and highly abstracted construct with no necessary meaning can evoke almost any response depending on the person.
but that's the thing, that painting didn't actually "birth thoughts or feelings" inside them. they just destroyed the painting coz its creator was jewish and they're racist, that's all. nothing to do with the painting
im autistic too but i love modern art so much. i am semi-verbal (i can speak but i often have episodes of being non-verbal, and i dont like speaking very much) and the way that a lot of modern/abstract art attempts to communicate with the viewer, to me feels like a much more natural way of communication than spoken or written word. its something thats hard to explain, but abstraction just makes so much more sense to me as an autistic person compared to older or more "traditional" art. like an old portrait is just an old portrait, but a modern abstract artwork captures an extremely personal feeling that words cannot describe
Somewhat same here. I don't really enjoy physical art for its own sake, but art as part of something functional is pretty damn nice. A tiled table, engraved sword, or quilt is an absolutely great thing.
Art is pretty cool, you might feel like oh this is just colors but then someone looses it and cuts it to shreds
For artwork that is "bland and mediocre" as another commenter put it sure inspired some intense feelings in that one dude. I ask you: is that what "bland" and "mediocre" is capable of?
I'm fine with art in general let it exist my grip Is with how much some of it costs like I don't get why a blob of blue ink is worth 1.3 million? Objectively tho it's a nice piece of art and it'd be something cool to have in your home I just don't get why it costs so much?
modern art is that bad
@@hoopschoop3339 Is that a statement or a question?
@@GigaWh4tt statement
playing a ''The Caretaker'' song into the middle of the video really activated my flight or fight response
I know right! Shit startled me so bad I almost fell over.
What’s The Caretaker? Is it like a movie or something
Portable Memes they’re an artist that’s most known for a series of 6 albums that are an interpretation of the stages of dementia. It’s some heavy shit. The series is called “everywhere at the end of time”.
Do you know which song it is? I don't think it's from EATEOT.
@@beelzebubonice9182 i don't know which song it is :/ but it does have the caretaker's vibe
Recently, I had an essay to write for a college class. Our prompts were to discuss either representation or censorship in a piece of media, and I decided to look more into Robert Mapplethorpe and Jesse Helms’s response to his photography. In doing research, I quickly learned that Helms consistently brought up Mapplethorpe even after he died in 1989. At one point, he even said “This Mapplethorpe fellow was an acknowledged homosexual. He's dead now, but the homosexual theme goes throughout his work.”
Later on, I was reading about some of the other legislation Helms wrote and tried to pass, and there were a lot of bills and amendments he wrote that limited and even outright banned different federal institutions from producing educational materials about HIV/AIDS. At one point, him and another senator from California passed a comic made made by the Gay Men’s Health Crisis of New York (which is a private organization) around the senate before a bill about HIV/AIDS education was to be voted on. One of the groups he often fought with was made of mothers whose children had died from AIDS, and he responded to one of their letters about his attitude towards AIDS patients by saying he wished her son “had not played Russian roulette in his sexual activity.”
Mapplethorpe himself died of AIDS complications. This hasn’t been about what makes “good art” for a *LONG* time. This video has me inspired to make stuff specifically to make folks like Helms uncomfortable, and honestly, that’s about as magical as it gets
I myself find paintings like red, yellow and blue to be boring, I’m neutral on them. I however find the reactions other people get out of it to be intriguing, whether it be outrage or validation.
I don’t know, but to me, it may be that the piece as a stand-alone is meh to me, but the whole story about people getting mad over a couple of colours on a canvas kind of completes it for me.
To note: paintings that have a discernible figure or background/foreground don’t have the same requirement as abstract art. I can look at a painting with a figure or background and get a reaction from it without needing to hear from other people’s perspectives in order to make it feel complete.
With a figure or background I can imagine a story behind/in the piece but with abstract art I find it difficult to do so due to the simplistic nature, so instead I need to hear the story behind the reaction the piece brings to other people and greater society to make it feel complete.
Despite my opinions on abstract modern art, I do believe that all art, no matter my opinion has the right to exist.
I've heard a decent practical definition of modern art as "Something that invokes emotion the same way 'normal' art does, yet without a readily apparent reason" That said there's literally nothing wrong with just finding it boring, honestly I'm not exactly into it myself but it is interesting to see what surrounds it, the reasons for it, reactions to it, etc.
I think they are more conceptual art. The idea is the art, but there isn't much to the painting itself.
Maybe part of the modern art is the reactions of others to it?
Spangle based
I like to think of abstract art in the same way I think of music without words. In a song without words, the artist can still express emotions and meaning, intensity and tranquility. The artist isn’t directly telling you with words (or representative images) what their work is about, but you can still get a feeling for what it’s going for if you engage with it.
Also, as for the art you described not being a fan of, consider that it might be different to see it in person. Looking at something on a screen is all well and good, but seeing something like that on a MASSIVE canvas in an art gallery is something else entirely.
There’s a lot to love when it comes to abstract art. It can be really fascinating.
I remember when I first "got" abstract visual art. It was in a class on the philosophy of modernism and the art it influenced. One class, the professor turned off all the lights, projected a Rothko on the wall in front of us, and said nothing for a while. I was in the second row. It was horrifying. I felt like I was about to be consumed by this monolith of red and gray, this Lovecraftian entity that was towering before me. If he had left it up for a bit longer, I might've had a full on panic attack.
Art doesn't have a purpose, but I think we can all agree that it should make us feel something. The effect that painting produced in me is not something I've really experienced outside of that room. Maybe it was the college induced sleep deprivation getting to me, but nothing that can do that can be worthless.
i like r/cursedimages for this reason...
Maybe that's the problem with abstract visual art, you have to take a class on the philosophy of modernism and the art it influenced in order to get it.
@@jefferyhammond1421 why is that bad tho? is math bad because you have to take classes to get it?
If you were that effected by it, you probably just have mental issues that can be brought out by any encounter with something inexplicable. Rothco and other such frauds are so boring as to not even rise to the level of pretense; if you can be frightened by that, then you can be frightened by an empty box or a dark room.
@Improvement Impala his avatar is the Mona Lisa, he's probably a 13 year old libertarian trying to act classy
Creators:
Make art people love.
But also consider making art people hate.
forums.coronalabs.com/topic/76464-job-offer-game-tbs-br-mmorpg-tcg-c-s-get-rich-easy-job/
I will remember that for the future.
It’s very enjoyable to get a reaction out of people no matter how deep you bury that feeling
The Man Who Speaks In a way yeah could be lol
GOTTA_ SLEEP_FAST bruh
Coming here after 2 years and I can say it. This video changed my life. Single-handedly got me out of the alt-right pipeline. Thank you Jacob
If you found yourself in a self described "alt-right pipeline" and got out because of this shit video, then I'd say you're simply a gullible person who's easily persuaded by half baked pseudo intellectual nonsense on the internet.
@@swamp1138 Someone's offended that they couldn't ever do this much research on anything in their lives."urr durr video bad I don't like so it's definetly the worst thing in life". Get a grip of your life, kid. If you want to look intellectual, at least propose some discussion on what's your view. Although, I don't think you'd like to discuss anything, that might just upset you a little too much.
@@swamp1138 and, of course, one like on your comment right after you commented it. Strange, isn't it?
@@personmens Sounds like you're the offended one here. You were so upset, you had to post two separate comments complaining about my response and crafted a conspiracy because someone liked my comment. Pretty pathetic, also kind of hypocritical because your whining consisted of everything you accused mine of having. Next time, do try and construct a comment that displays it was written by someone who has an IQ number bigger than their shoe size. I've got faith in you 😘
@@swamp1138 lol you got ratioed. lol u just mad a guy escaped supporting fascists
Artist: For this piece, I will demonstrate how something as simple as three colors can make people afraid.
Vandal: That's such a stupid idea! I hate it so much, I will destroy it in a fit of rage!
Today I learned that fascists don't know what irony is.
You just learned that today?
@@xww6849 better late then never 😁
Concept: that guy’s mugshot, framed and hung on a wall, titled “this cunt’s afraid of red, yellow, and blue”
Fascist?
For this piece I will shit in on a pedestal, but you can't dislike it. Because if you do you have fallen into my trap. And statistically if one of you hates it, you have fallen into a trap to prove something.
I'm kind of obsessed with the philosophical implications of the vandilization of the painting. no one would do something so childish, so barbaric, so embarrassing, if the painting was purposeless. you cannot feel angry at a painting and then insist that it has no value. it doesn't matter how you feel about what it represents, what matters is that it represents something. there's inherent value in that, that a painting says something substantial that invokes such a strong emotion. and whats the point in destroying the painting? I'm sure the people who were commending the criminal would be furious if you accused them of being afraid of the painting, but they are. they thought of the painting posing a threat, it's existence as some sort of signifier for a worse culture, and, it means it holds some sort of power. it's a symbol to be feared and fought against. they are afraid. they are adhering exactly to the intent of the painting, and are too blinded by ego and elitism to comprehend something so humbling. the vandalized version of the painting works perfectly, probably my favorite piece of modern art.
That's why we lobby for canceling all russian "culture", anyone claiming that art is apolitical is a clown. A book supporting colonization of Caucasus is a piece of propaganda. Lenin statues were created to scare people into submission. People who make those banned all other expression to only leave THEIR impact on us. No piece of russian so-called culture should be allowed to exist.
The were racists who didn't like that the painting represented racial plurality...
Only art people can turn a stupid rectangle of colors into some great philosophical waffling, its stupid, and being stupid to evoke anger isn't art, a child could have made that, a chimpanzee could have, a chimp rolling in dirt and leaving impressions is no more art than sticking a color block on a wall is, same vein as that banana. Just another talentless hack that wants to be special for making nothing.
Says 4 replies, but only shows mine and one other. Why is that?
It applies to every form of vandalism by the way. People can find all the justification to do it but in result we have destroyed pieces of art.
The choice of using muffled static to convey a feeling that doesn't have a word was truly artful editing
[Starts slashing screen with a razor]
know this is an older video but i always come back to it. on people saying abstract painting isnt painting because "it doesnt take skill", i dont have talent. I dont have skill, i have been trying to do traditional and digital art from a young age, and never catch on. I started abstract when my art teacher had us paint, surprise, abstract. i found that more than trying to draw and image out of my head, and find shapes within real objects, abstract let me express myself. I struggle with medical problems and barely paint because of fatigue. but im still working on a few pieces that i had promised as gifts. I hope i can paint more
Hey, same! I also have medical problems and fatigue and I WISH I could paint abstracts, (no place to store paints n canvasses rn in my tiny place) because it DOES seem more possible for me, just like you said! I feel like I might be able to make stuff I actually LIKE if i could paint abstract - trying to do realism makes my inner critic extra-loud, seeing the differences to real life. But in abstract, there IS nothing to compare it to IRL, so I can be more accepting of the result, and of myself.
I hope you can keep doing paintings, and know that at least one other disabled art-loving person is cheering you on! :)
It's interesting watching this a couple of years later, when so many of the same figures who were then frothing about the importance of "objective" quality in art, the importance of talent, and the terribleness of art for profit... are now shilling insipid NFTs to their gullible followers.
Hmm not to defend NFTs or anything like that (I neither own nor intend to own any), but I kinda see the opposite there. Where before people had problems with the objective quality of modern art, now people have problems with the objective quality of the NFT of GIFs or other digital art or whatever. It seems like, in much the same way as with modern art, people are now saying things like "oh a procedurally generated NFT of a monkey gif can't be considered art"...
It's kinda funny, really. It feels like the eternal "the music of my youth was better" that every generation says.
Again, I'm not defending NFTs here, and the topic is obviously more complex, just pointing out something I am noticing.
@@edumazieri - I would say that the crucial difference is that NFTs are almost purposefully meaningful. The images are randomly generated pap, and what's bought and sold is entirely the concept of ownership. If they were invented to explicitly satirise the use of the art market for money laundering/tax dodging purposes, I'd be impressed. But they weren't.
@@FTZPLTC For sure there are differences but maybe not as many as we might think.
You mentioned those people who trying to convince others to buy NFTs... but thats basically the same as what art dealers and critics do, with classical and modern art, isnt it? They go and say "this is gonna be worth a lot" and people buy it, and then, well, it now is sort of "worth a lot"... its not very different at all, at least not in that way.
I think if we just look at the situation right now, where we have all these crypto bros and weird overvalued monkeys and whatever it looks like a big bag of crap.
But maybe getting past that, NFTs could be something interesting, right?
I mean, it would allow digital artists to sell their work like physical artists can, and not only that but the buyers could own it while ALSO allowing other people to appreciate it, which means the art piece is not locked away in some basement, it can be owned AND shared. Its a different kind of ownership, more open, that if used well, could be a very interesting thing for artists and art patrons.
Just well, dont take this as me trying to get you to buy overvalued procedurally generated images, you really shouldn't. Definitely stay away from it. Lets just not let our annoyance at the crypto bros and all the bullshit blind us to the possibilities of new technologies, be it this one, or others that may come from it.
@@edumazieri i find nfts arent art for they arent meant to,they are more of a piramid scheme
Nah, it's the opposite. people who cares about the objective quality of an object are the ones who call out NFT because they are 'objectively' useless.
"People Fear what they can't understand, and Hate what they can't conquer"
Sunquad who said this
@@TheF0xskibidbopmmdada Andrew Smith
Sunquad ok
If art needs to be explained it is not good art. Good art should make humans complete by conveying the higher virtues that are within us instead of appealing to merely our lower instincts.
@@thorsten8790 Yeah, I agree. Though I still understand Jacobs points, and respect them.
"This art is just a single colour on a canvas! It's disgusting and makes me feel sick!"
Bruh don't go home, your walls are all painted single colours too
Yeah, but you don't call it art, nobody calls you an artist and your friends don't have to pay to look at it.
It's not art.
@@samuelskogqvist5565 How can something not be art. What is art defined as in your book?
Recommended viewing: th-cam.com/video/XmxIK9p0SNM/w-d-xo.html
@@GamingOS Stop trying to sound smart because "me think long time"
@@samuelskogqvist5565 Ok. I'll dumb it down for you next time.
Here's a little thing my aunt said to me when I was 7 and destroyed another kid's art because she was drawing anime, an artstyle I didn't like(translated because it was said in Tagalog):
"Yeah, It's pretty ugly and the hair's not very good, but is it harming you? You did not make it. You did not provide the materials for it, and even if you did, it was an art class where everyone was allowed to draw whatever they want. You stated it yourself that art is art, and everyone has a different art styles when someone called yours ugly!"
It stuck with with me. My aunt may not be always correct, but she was very right during that instance. I didn't state that I wanted for the other kid to get away from me because her art was bothering me, I simply destroyed it. I try to live by this ideology of "don't knock it until it's hurting you you or will harm you". Try as in try because, I'm a very flawed human who's can't help but be a hypocrite during situations.
It's what Willem de Kooning said about his own work, "I dunno, I just paint and people come along and call it art".
I feel like creating art which is the "Monstrous offspring of Insanity, Impudence, Ineptitude and sheer degeneracy" is now my civic duty as a person.
@Nate Higgers lol
Hieronomus Bosch, is that you?
Not much of a career in creating pepe memes anymore
It's so motivating
Your comment had 665 likes. I could not let that stand.
"Who's afraid of red, yellow and blue?" Well the guy that slashed it, obviously.
That "guy" was a bull. He wasn't afreid of red, yellow, and blue. Hd hates red.
@@GuyUWishUWere Bulls are colorbling tho
Or he does like it. Fear and hatred are different
Doesn't mean that he was wrong.
@@michaflak1370 he literally broke the law
I never realized why I felt so uncomfortable when I read ig or fb comments on performative art saying people are becoming art degenerates, now it all makes sense.
Fascism is based.
@@orvos1459 bait used to be believable
@@PapasGatitoIt's probably not bait.
@@budgetcommander4849in mobile you can see his comments, obviously trying to get attention
My elementary school has a wall that is tiled with tiny canvases 10 by 10 centimeters. It’s been there forever. Not even the teachers know why it was hung up, or when. It’s pictures of birds. It’s all birds. Most of them are pretty bad renditions. “wings” is painted in spots where there are no canvases. One day I came to school and the paintings were slit. Someone cut a straight line through each of the canvases that were reachable from the ground, always through the bird. It’s still there and it’s referred to as broken wings. And no one knows how it came to be.
where is this? i cant find anything online
@@pr0sk8r69 tiny elementary school in a small German village. „Carl Orff Schule Andechs“ I translated the things so it was understandable to everyone.
@@julzbehr6696 I can't find the piece anywhere online, do you have a link or something to it?
This is absolutely fascinating
@@stagpie6449 a painting of a bird torn by a knife, interesting stuff indeed.
Im aware this video is 2 years old at this point, but i want to say i saw this when i was about 16 when it came out, and it fundamentally changed me as a person. I am a different person than i was pre-this video. My views of art are so much because _this video._ i can't imagine that was something jacob saw happening, but i appreciate it so much for what it did. I used to have very quiet 'modern art is so dumb' ideas in my head, because on a surface level it can seem _vapid._ but at this point I've reached a conclusion - everything is art. Humanity is art. Late night phone calls are art, a burnt cake you made when you were sad is art, cleaning your room is art. Everything is art. Humanity is art. This has made me love art so, so much more than i did before. I would not be the artist i am right now without this video. Thanks, man.
This comment is art
I'm not sure if everything is art but everything could be art.
@@mutably Very true. Art is almost more of a contextualisation more than a specific category. We contextualise road signs, pylons, and receipts as purely functional, and murals, sculptures and poems as artistic expressions. When in many cases the difference is a nebulous quality of skill, purpose, and prestige. Art is a very fuzzy thing, because it is sort of a purely phycological quale and wouldn't exist without minds thinking about it.
Nietzsche was convinced that art was the primary driving force for human civilization before the scientific method more or less took its place.
I thought a lot about that in the last few years. We take art for granted, which might turn out as a big mistake.
That was beautiful to read
I fell asleep watching a video about people dying on a mountain pass.
I wake up watching a video on who hates art.
Ngl not dissapointed.
Let me guess a Dylatov Pass video. maybe the one by Lemmino?
@@sully1492 Yeah that one
@@PAGuy-jf4vi so the peaple watching this know quality. This guy is probably good then.
@@PAGuy-jf4vi I liked that video :(
Actually I see it once in a while
Bro you just accidentally stumbled on a great channel
“Helms isn’t currently a senator, he’s currently toxifying whatever water source he’s buried closest to” fuckin *MWAH* I love it
The use of Everywhere at the End of Time is so genius. That music is ENTIRELY context, just like the Red, Yellow, and Blue paintings. To write down what the notes of the melodies to those songs and then play them on an instrument would strip it of its entire meaning. The notes, the melody, the music isn’t special, only the music in its context is special in the way that that piece is.
It's actually from An Empty Bliss Beyond This World; they're both by the same person and have similar meanings, though, so it would be easy to get tracks from the two albums confused.
@@derpi94 i just looked up the album after i saw this comment and holy shit that was an Experience, thank you so much internet stranger
Heavily disagree. Music played in a different context will take on a different meaning and can be just as special as the original.
@@weirdofromhalo Good example, SadSvit - Касети. Cassettes, is a melancholy underground lo-fi rock song about daydreaming and wishing to sleep forever under the sound of cassette tapes... it used in a video edited and posted by a hero who survived the siege of Azovstal Steelworks.
Author said that he never intended for the song to be about war (it was written before the full scale invasion), but it absolutely fit the mood and got a new meaning.
See, "cassetes" is what we call cluster bombs. The combined amount of explosives dropped by russians on Mariupol was higher than Hiroshima. The city ended up more destroyed.
Music absolutely can change based on context. Remember the film Apocalypse Now? They used Richard Wagner, known for his Nazi views and being Hitler's favorite composer, during a helicopter raid... most people didn't get the link and instead, reinterpreted "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" as something cool and badass.
So careful with symbolism. Might get people missing the metaphor of stars in milky way looking like a great river with the Blue Danube during Space Odyssey. Might end up glorifying absolute scum like Wagner.
By being murdered, Who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue has fulfilled its purpose: showing who's afraid of red, yellow, and blue. It then hold more value dead than alive, since the murderer was part of the artistic performance
This gave me a big reality check. I grew up loving art and doing creative works a ton, but I went to engineering school and time and pressure meant everything else fell to the side to survive. I tried to connect the craft of engineering with other creative efforts. I got laid off over a year ago and couldn't get back into a new job, and even though it shook me I don't remember the last time I felt so liberated. I wound up smothering a core part of my being, and it was killing me. I might be a full time house spouse now, but I have the infinite opportunity to rekindle what I had let break down over the last decade.Thank you.
Whether you end up sharing your art with anyone or not, thank you for the art you will create :)
Yeah as a career scientist who let my art interests/skills atrophy over the past decade or so, I’m working on rekindling that part of me so as to not lose that part of myself. It’s hard fitting in time for both, but trying to figure out a balance
@@Amalingnot if you marry them together
theres an increasing number of modern scientists returning to the old days of merging art and science into their work
I love how society loses it over a simple color palette and rectangles
I think it's easy to get mad at art that seems "low effort" because it pokes at most people's frustration with their own creative dreams. I still vividly remember the crushing of my soul when my 9th grade art teacher told me I wasn't good
most people calling it low effort only saw them through google images. They have zero actual experience with the 3D nature of the paint on canvas, or being in a high specific created space
And that's why you gave up and decided low effort sh.t is good art.
@@GreenLeafUponTheSky if you can get rich doing it why don't you? Are you too stupid?
I think its also the outlandish prices that some art is bought for when it looks well simple.
@@NoConsequenc3 Because I like making beautiful art with some realism, and I’m not greedy and lustful. I will earn enough money from my future job and hobbies.
2:22 am is depression if depression were a game: random numbness and an implied lack of meaning--while still being meaningful in the sense of numbness/suffering
It has meaning by existing. In the way that being devoid has no intrisic meaning.
@@thismans1405 This is an interesting way to explain meaning. Thank you
OCD, executive functions failure, no reason not to!
Strange way to start a topic, but hear me out.
I'm autistic. That means, next to a lot of other complicated matters about my psyche, one of the afflictions I deal with is sensual translation.
I don't "feel" art. A big red canvas is to me simply a big red canvas. Visuals taken in it's most direct form. No deviation. The painting is just taken as it is.
As you can problably gather, I have trouble understanding modern art. That might be worded badly, I do understand it, I get the point it tries to get across as a form of art, but I don't "feel" them. The big subtly complicated dark canvases have no effect on me. I just see the collors and the forms.
Yes, I'm one of those people who, as described in this video, "can't enjoy art beyond a certain century."
To me, "art is subjective" makes no sense, despite knowing about my fallback when it comes to the topic. Sure, modern art doesn't seem impressive, but it makes people "feel" something. That is their intent. And so, when that piece makes people "feel," there is something in the art that can be measured. Something within it that can't be denied. Therefor, objective. Wether that be a shining in the abstract collor, like our favorite, fully red, blue and yellow painting, or a subtle change in texture. That change is an objective thing. And if people "feel" something about it, than the detail that brought them to that feeling, is there. Objectively.
I mean, that sound so simple, right? That's like the basics of perception.
So when you have some kind of agenda to push to discredit that art, but people disagree with that notion simply by recognizing it, what do you do?
Well, you have to discretid the people too. Everyone who "felt" that art, are wrong. They didn't "feel" it.
The painting has nothing do with that feeling. Because if it did, then it would actually do it's purpose it's meant to do. By being art. So they claim that the feeling doesn't exist.
...That obviously makes no sense.
The fact that we DEBATE that modern art is art or not, means there's a side of people who feel something from modern art. So that form of art does its purpose. Therefor, saying that modern art isn't art is objectively wrong. People feel something in the first place. That already proves it.
You can only claim that it isn't an artform by swearing that no one has ever "felt" anything from said piece of art because of what's on said piece of art.
And I can gather that much without ever "feeling" anything.
Top ten TH-cam comments ever, this could be a video on its own
I’ve had this exact thought running through my mind while watching this video!
Janitors: What if the feeling is a compulsion to clean the room of that garbag... Wait, that was art?
Very well said
I'd personally disagree on the objectivity of it still. I do agree that does make it objectively art, the reaction the art incites in people is a feeling. Feelings are subjective. Since the reaction to said art is subjective, then wouldn't that make art also subjective? Different people will react to art differently, feel different things. The reaction itself is not objective, it's subjective
otherwise, outstanding comment! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it!
this is one of the most life changing ive seen, ive been watching it over and over for the past 4 years. no other video essay ive seen has had such a big impact on me as an artist. as a queer Jewish artist, this has inspired me to go forward and make the art i want, i dont care what fascist loser doesnt like it, i will make what makes me feel. thank you for making this, and thank you for all of the wonderful videos youve made
Do you post your art anywhere
I wish they kept the painting slashed. but changed the name to "they were afraid of red, yellow, and blue"
That would have been brilliant
@@mexa_t6534 Yeah I honestly think that was the point and the real mistake was trying to restore it. It got the point across by having the question answered.
@@99sins If you want to get really meta, you change title and go through the restoration. I could just be totally making this up but maybe artist foresaw this series of events, including the inadequate restoration. It's already transcended a painting and become a performance piece. Who's to say he didn't write an epilogue about how the people that are afraid of red, yellow, and blue can attack art as much as they like but they'll never be able to truly destroy what it is that they're so terrified of. Mar it all they like, but that's just part of the show. I'm gonna believe that interpretation because I find it far more entertaining. As for the truth, no one will ever know.
Also, one thing that seems Paul Joseph Watson to see, is that the "art contributing to the culture" is a stupidity. When Rembrandt or Rubens were painting, the art was only directed to the high class, only for them to see it AND pay it. It was an status symbol, not a cultural symbol.
Your first mistake was in assuming that PJW knows the first thing about any of the art he is pretending to praise.
Your second mistake was assuming that PJW sees a distinction between status symbols for the upper class and culture.
Don't mean it shouldn't be held as a cultural symbol.
This...kind of reminds me of those crazies you run into sometimes when you're a sci-fi/fantasy fan or creator for some reason. They're largely just pretentious snobs who deny that something you work on or love could be good just because of its genre, while praising books like Lord of the Rings and Fahrenheit 451 WHICH ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THOSE GENRES, then denying it when you call them out on it by either saying that they "transcend the genre" or that they're not part of the genre because they're actually good.
As someone said before: "90% of everything is shit and the 10% remaining is good. A respectable genre will be judged by their good 10%, a dismissed one by their crappy 90%"
I'm in a similar boat, but with 2D animation.
That.... is not the same thing
Reminds me of the whole Elevated Horror and thrillers debate about horror movies
Being a fantasy author who sometimes gets personal messages telling me that I'm "doing fantasy wrong" is a personally hilarious thing to me, and a constant ray of idiotic sunshine in whatever day it appears in.
When "who is afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue" was slashed, the art piece was completed. It should have never been "restored" in my humble opinion
In trying to destroy it the vandal only made it stronger.
You know what is upsetting? I enrolled in Art Appreciation as an elective in college for curiosities sake, and I found it much more simplistic than some of the ideas this video talks on. It was far more basic on an intellectual level even though I paid for it as it took dozens of hours out of my life. To me that shows the complexity of this subject, and how difficult it can be to find good information. Not always in class, but in a very niche and tiny corner of TH-cam. Kudos, Jacob!
I was a straight-up art major, and I learned quite a bit here too. (Was a student before TH-cam though, so the bar has been raised!)
I'm not involved in the arts at Uni in any way. I find maths engaging and I'm currently majoring in maths and minoring in Chemistry in my bachelor of science. But honestly, I find it frankly ridiculous how much people that don't have a degree in humanities or art just can't get it. It doesn't take a genius (which I'm definitely not, in case you got the impression that I consider myself one), or a certified critic, or an art major, just to look critically at art, whether it's modern art, film, books, comics, even architecture. it just takes the right mindset, to look past the most shallow, surface-level critiques possible of a work of art, and just think about it conceptually even a little bit. It makes me particularly sad that the only people I know who can agree with my opinion that The Last Jedi is a really good movie are people that took humanities and arts courses and therefore know a lot more about criticism and art than I do (makes me feel a little left out).
@@april5054 so you positively think that the last jedi is a good movie?
@@TheDevestatorX Nobody asked for your opinion
@@april5054 its a question
“Surprise it’s fucking fascism” is my new favorite phrase
Everyone should screen record the clip so that it comes complete with Dies Irae just BLASTING
Everything I don't like = fascism
@@tubeguy4066 Feeling that 'modern art' is degenerate or devient or feeling that it degrades the culture is a massive red flag for fascism. Not liking 'modern art' doesn't equal fascist, it depends on why you don't like it. Fascists usually believe that art should serve the state, the culture, and the race and if art doesn't really do that then it isn't art to them, they perceive it as malicious or as an attempt to make a quick buck without contributing to society.
@@tubeguy4066 if the shoe fits
@@praisethesun7255 Then you're facist because you fit in the category.
i actually went and checked out depression quest because of this video, and as someone who went with undiagnosed depression for a long time at a young age let me tell you, it's pretty accurate. not perfect, nothing is going to be perfect or a universal experience, esp when it comes to mental illness, but i felt like the inability to choose the best option is a very good way of representing how much of a struggle it is.
i genuinely wonder how many of the people who left negative reviews had never dealt with depression, or never had depression go undiagnosed with no medication for a long time. the comment that the game would have been better if you had the option to kill yourself is honestly very sickening, especially since suicide is a real problem. people kill themselves. it's not a joke. it isn't a punchline.
it's not a particularly fun game and that's the point, because depression is not fun. it says that on the first page, it doesn't try to deceive you. it's not fun but for me personally it was cathartic, because i know what it's like to not want to go to therapy or get medication and helping this person i'd been put in the shoes of get to the point where they were okay with those scary things was a sigh of relief. games don't have to be fun, sometimes they're allowed to just make you feel things. i don't know why some people can't comprehend this.
this was a bit of a long comment about such a small part of the video but if you're thinking about checking out depression quest, it's a little under an hour of playtime and it's free. i really do recommend it for the experience alone; as someone with diagnosed depression i'd say it's worth it.
Is depression a good excuse to chat on your boyfriend with five guys (burger and fries)?
You see dude, when you see things from a relative point of view, everything becomes justified. But when you get detached and objective, the distinction between right and wrong is clear as day. From a subjective pov, depression is a mountain crushing you. From an objective pov, it's an excuse not to take responsibility over your own life. It doesn't physically exist! And the chemical imbalance theory is... some people would call it an oversimplification, but really it's a fairy tale. The fact is, that it is your life and if you're going to waste it, it's your loss. Nobody else cares about you, except your mom I guess. I could die tomorrow with no regrets; doesn't make a huge difference to me, so why should I care about some disfunctional stranger's life?
@@pdorism Humans are subjected to their own umwelt, even the “objective and detached” perspective that you mentioned is biased on your personal experience. Someone doing burger and fries with your boyfriend might seems wrong in your perspective, but when you peel all the layers it’s just atoms abiding the natural laws. Malicious & benevolent intent loses their identity when you start seeing humans as dissipative structures. Same thing with the guy that slashed the painting, murderers that accomplish homicide, or even dictators that commit genocide. Right or wrong only exist in the imagined reality of humans, everything in the universe is just energy doing whatever it could to reach maximum entropy.
Of course im not insinuating that you need to try to understand the minds of the “dysfunctional stranger”, nor that you need to forgive them, that is your choice alone (there’s not even a guarantee that you will read this comment). Im here just to relay information, take all of this with a grain of salt since im still as fallible as others. Hope you have a great day ^-^
I need to play it. My best friend has depression, and if I can understand even a little bit of what she goes through, I hope I can use that to be a better friend.
This is an interesting one. Might play and see if I suffer...
@@anonymouswhite7957 so now you are taking refuge in reductionism. That's a pretty tenuous argument since it can be used justify anything and everything. I am arguing from a moral perspective: assuming a priori that right and wrong exist, it's pretty hard to find a system of mores that would justify such a behavior.
I know this video has been up for years before the one I'm gonna mention, but the start of this beginning with "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue" being destroyed reminded me of Rhystic Studies's recent video on Carly Mazur's art and what I think is one of the greatest responses to the people who hate on modern art with the response "I could do that":
"'I could do that' is reactionary muck; an elementary view of the world. 'I could do that' is the rallying cry of the dense and insecure."
The response to I could do that is “you didn’t” or “you couldn’t get away with it”
What I've realised at school is that the ones most passionate about judging what is real art, are the same who look down on people who choose to study the arts. While those who studied art, whether theatre, visual arts, or music, all were pretty nonchalant and fickle about the definition of real art.
I'd say more than fickle. Theres an entire movement in modern art dedicated to the idea of "ya know what? FUCK 'art'!" Dadaist performance art is a head trip
Almost like they were all indoctrinated with the same relativist propaganda.
@@gregpaul882 or once you are presented with the questions that the modernist movement came up with, you start realizing that art has no strict definition. Cuz that's really all the modernist movement does, it's a bunch of people going "well what IS art anyways?" And then exploring it
@@fangsabre Wow no strict definition. Mind blowing. It's like I was never 13 or something. Here's a poem, "modern art sucks balls, I know because I write poetry." Now that is a great peace of art, and you can't say otherwise. Maybe I'll get it framed and placed alongside one of Bernini's works.
@@gregpaul882 I mean, its art sure but "great" is still subjective bud. That's the thing about art, it's entirely subjective cuz trying to put objectivity on creative expression is pointless
I think for a lot of big abstract pieces like those by Newmann and Rothko, a lot of the impact is lost by just seeing it on a screen or in a book. The impact is so much different when you're there in person and you have these pieces towering over you, forcing you to confront them.
My favorite personal experience with this was taking a Japanese art history class in college, and being shown a picture of the painting White Line on Black by Jiro Yoshihara. I looked at the little picture on my printout of a slash of white paint, a little of it dripping down the side of the black canvas, and was like "what's the big deal?" And then I saw it in person. It's bigger than me, and what looks like a careless slash of white paint is in fact an optical illusion. The paint isn't dripping, that's the white canvas peeking through a black outline.
Was looking through the comments to see if anyone had said this, I fully agree with you. It might sound like a cop out but Rothkos DO look very different in person. They are huge and the texture distinct irl. Can't speak for all of his art but the collection in the Tate Modern is displayed in its own room, all along side each other. Rothko sold them on the condition that they would only be displayed together iirc.
I wonder if VR could be used to give a more accurate impression of a piece without seeing it in person...
Keep huffing those farts, Luca.
@@chartreusecircle1546 It's a bit sad that you don't seem able to enjoy modern art like other people do but that's no reason to act like a prick about it.
How is the uninformed viewer of Red Yellow and Blue 3 supposed to know that it's a criticism of capitalism and authoritarianism without being told that's the meaning? In what sense is that conveyed to me -- the completely ignorant viewer -- by 3 large rectangles?
The violent opposition to modern art is what gives it like 90% of its meaning
Lol,posers
@Helios Sphere Its like you didn't even watch the video
Have you watched the video? I agree that art is used to launder money, but it does not detract from its value as art.
@Lucio Pcamp Letting yourself believe that all modern art does this because elites sometimes use it to further their asshole agendas also makes it a little hard to look smart. You can't let every asshole that's a part of something so heavily influence your view. Modern art is not my forte but people who genuinely enjoy the creation and consumption of modern art don't have a say over every single person who gets to participate. There are lots of militant and over the top followers of doctor who but they're honestly not my fucking problem because I just want to watch a stupid TV show.
Deplorabology nah if people gave valid criticism in a calm manor but didn’t really make a big fuss the conversation about modern art would die down and as such it’s demand would die down to. When I said violent, get this, I meant violent
People claiming we need objective standards to art, that art itself should be objective, that certain art must be destroyed for being harmful to art in general, and that art must exist within an objective meritocracy are dangerous to art as a whole. Art is about ultra subjective human experiences, and itself should be whatever it wants. I don’t like modern art, but I respect people who do and respect the artists. I also see the art as incredibly valuable, being a blank canvas in its simplicity for others to project their own emotions onto. Plus, the fact I don’t like it doesn’t mean it somehow lessens the value of the art I do like, and it definitely doesn’t mean it should be destroyed. To define what art is and isn’t is to actively harm it. There is no wrong way to art. More art is always better, as long as it’s not stealing people’s jobs and is absolutely soulless (looking at you AI art)
And it's not just dangerous to art, but to people just trying to live authentically. Because when I fascist says, "Objective Reality" they mean "Kill everyone who disagrees with me about religion and nature."
Me: “paints a picture of Shrek with a massive orange penis and wearing a necklace made of onions”
Jesse Helms: *aRe YoU cHaLlEnGiNg Me*
Link pls
I DEMAND TOUR PAGE
Holy fuck, that was too edgy! How did you get to be so edgy? Does your mom know how edgy you are? You should go up and tell how hour why you are so she can take her edgy boy to McDonald's and get you a McEdgy meal.
@@slappy8941 Much like simp and boomer, edgy has lost its meaning with people like you. I bet you play video games too.
Slappy Calm down it’s just a joke
I love how when he begins to describe how art makes him feel, it fades to noise. There is no definitive way to describe art. It’s all up to what it means to the interpreter.
and modern art means crap to 100% off people
Found someone afraid of red yellow and blue
@@NotBamOrBing noone is afraid of its people are afraid of the fact that such crap can be sold for so much money and is praised so much by retards
found someone who's afraid that culture doesn't work the way they want it to and as a result gets angry over literal red yellow and blue
@@NotBamOrBing you are a moron, noone is afraid of red yellow and blue, we are afraid if the state our culture is in
In my local art museum, there is a rather "regular" size blank white canvas. I looked at it, and I said to myself: "why? this thing is so boring! It doesn't make me feel anything. It isn't striking, or original, or impressive." Of course, I was there not to pour for hours over the "potential" meaning of artwork, because I thought that artwork had no meaning. Indeed, a small plaque next to it warned people "do not touch" because it had a unique texture, and that seemed to be about it. Of course, I was just wandering around, looking for something exquisitely, obviously complex and realistic that I could ooh and aah at. And everyone I've talked to feels similarly. Nobody's wanted to attack it, we're just silently waiting for it to go away and get replaced for something we can examine, in person, for more than 15 seconds.
I guess there's a big difference between "not caring" about modern art and "caring to get rid of" modern art.
I think the artist intended it to be touched assholes robbed it of its interest
You say you don't care about the piece, and yet it immediately evoked an emotional response (confusion) that has stuck with you enough to not only talk about it here, but with everyone you know.
You say you and everyone else you talked to wanted a piece you could think about for more than 15 seconds to replace it... But it's right there. It was there from the moment you saw it.
I think that's the beauty in modern art. It's surface level simplicity evokes disproportionately complex and difficult emotions within observers- emotions that keep these pieces in the mind of the viewing public in ways "traditional" art could only dream of, or even lead to being immortalized in their destruction, as Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue 3 was.
Everyone should find art that resonates with them, and not everyone likes a white canvas, yes
unless it happened 15 seconds ago, it seems you already found something to examine.
how many other pieces caused such a reaction on you that made you go on online rants later?
Nice rant. Didn't read.