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)
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 :)
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
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
@@mistythemischievous2013 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.
“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
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.”
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.
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.
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
"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
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
@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
pretty cool. I will still never put a red rectangle into my deviantart favorites folder, but you helped me appreciate the positive parts of why modern art does this.
With this kind of art, it really is about seeing the piece in person. I mean, all art hits different in person, but Rothkos and others like it are of a genre where the only way to fully understand the piece is to stand before it, alone, in a silent room. So yeah I wouldn't consider these even "aesthetically" powerful in the traditional sense of aesthetics - it's just not the same thing. But if you ever have a chance to see them in exhibit, you won't regret it!
Hey man i just saw this video and i really used to think modern art was pretty shitty, and i still dont understand it but you really changed my mind, thanks for that
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
@@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.
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 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.
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! :)
My biggest problem with the current climate of me becoming an artist was the fact my work had to be subversive or disruptive in college. It wasn't good enough creating technically challenging paintings. It wasn't good enough where my work didn't create subversion or new dialogues. It had to be relevant to the contemporary scene or else it wasn't worth making the art. I believe subversion, artistic dialogues, disruptive narratives, juxtaposed images, etc. are great tools in art. But to only focus on a select set of features for work, this video talked about that quite well. And to me this has become the greatest irony to me, contemporary art becoming the thing it sought out to disrupt. It just seems like a never ending loop.
I found exactly the same thing when I was in university for my illustration degree. Anything that resembled traditional illustration, including comic art, was seen as wrong. I appreciate what is being produced at the moment, and some of my favourite artists are producing conceptual art (Elmgreen + Dragset, etc) but I create more 'traditional' art and one of my tutors had the audacity to say, after seeing some illustrations I did for a project, that maybe I should just use photography if I want to be figurative. Half of our projects revolved around making 3D items that were meant to tell stories...but if the story was too clear, or the items too figurative, we were told to be more 'modern'. I did my dissertation on male beauty in art from the Ancient Greeks/Romans to present. The art I made along side was all figurative, stuff I enjoyed. As a result my grades suffered. In the end I got a 2:2, one grade lower than I needed to pursue a masters and leaving me in a position where I can no longer carry on with the education I always wanted to. All because I wasn't 'Modern' enough. On top of that my tutors would directly reference 'Naïve art', a title given to art made by people with no training and seen as intensely primitive, when viewing my work. A comparison that deeply insulted me. And unfortunately paralysed me in art as it felt no matter how much training and lessons I took, I'd never shake a 'Naïve' look. A mentality I am still fighting with now. Three years after graduating.
@@SallyBerry9 God that sucks and while not to the same degree, I got the same impression from more traditional art students when I studied fine art. I would've thought illustration would be more embracing of human forms but I guess not. Which uni did you go to?
@@SallyBerry9 I'm sorry to hear that, I understand what you're saying though. I feel most of my work isn't as good as it could be because of how they taught the classes. I remember one of my classmates trying to make old rembrandt style paintings and the teachers wouldn't even teach her anything from him because he was "old white guy painter" and wasn't relevant to the current political climate. Trying to even do illustrations was hard too, I kinda had the same problem as you but mine couldn't just be realistic because "it had been already been done before a thousand times". Then changing that to a more stylized look made them "too cartoony" for having outlines. That's besides the entire story you had to push on to it or it was just considered a practice piece. After I graduated I didn't really want to draw or paint and It just destroyed any enjoyment i got out of art, still struggling with that.
@@Mich6961 I went to NUA. During their open day they showed work by the illustration students (Mostly the bits that had been entered into contests and had won). All were more traditional pieces. All very intricate and full of detail and life. But, turns out most of them did it in their spare time with little to no input from the university themselves. Also, it was made clear the only goal of the uni was to try and one-up Central St Martin's.... even at the detriment of their own courses and students. They saw it as a David and Goliath style rivalry. A battle where they would come out on top as the underdog. When really they were a sad, obsessive fan, cutting up their own image in an attempt to impress someone well-renowned who had little to no care for them.
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 used to have the feeling that modern art was kinda dumb until one day I was in a museum and I saw a piece that I don't remember what it was called but it was two pieces of sheet metal bolted together to make one big flat grey piece and I thought it was kinda pointless until I read the description that explained that the artist was a wheelchair user and that the world is often inaccessible to her without things like those sheets of metal. It was like "oh I get it now" and I've had more of an appreciation for art that I might not initially consider art since then.
My favorite part about the story of "who is afraid of red, yellow, and blue" is because its ironic in two ways. Firstly, the fact that people argue that ot and modern art as a whole has no meaning or purpose, its essentially dumbed down to nothing. However, this supposed work of nothingness invoked such negative emotion in someone to the point they felt the need to destroy it. Which in doing so, fulfilled exactly what they were looking for in the art. By destroying the piece, it gave it the story and meaning they were originally seeking. And I don't believe art necessarily needs that sort of meaning to be appreciated, but I just like how the story of that piece completes itself.
Destroying the work much like what the work supposedly is A Message. The vandalism wasn't against this painting it was against the glorification of it's kind and the pushed narrative that makes this painting a holy relic. The tarnishing of this piece is art by itself giving the facts that artists themselves call against many things people see as holy. I do not endorse or support the vandal but I see what he was trying to show
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!
I love how in fact by critiqueing modern art, people are contributing to the art. Modern art isn't just about what is on the canvas anymore and these people make that abundantly clear. If anything i think the murdered pieces of art can be art themselves, with the fun nuance of it not being possible to destroy it, as attempting to do so only enriches the essence of it
One could also say that's what makes it so absurd, or at least the art industry in general, not just the big modern industry. It doesn't matter if for example you take a giant shit on a canvas and you may or may not enjoy it and/or think it's art. Because "Giant Shit on a Canvas" could still have the purpose as an absurdist and SCAThing critique or mockery of said industry. It is absurd however when there's a demand and supply for it, when it's bought and sold, if it were to fit in some grand cultural narrative of a nation, like Jacob says.
@@callumbreton8930 It's red squares, it's so inoffensive that implies more about you than it does itself when you destroy it. with bait you are going out of your way to peck at someone, usually by being a racist for a reaction.
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.
@@Legomicroman you assume offensive memes aren't considered art. They take time and consideration to make, even if its quickly made it's based upon a large basis of references and topical issues in the world, and directly creates an emotional response within you, generally being that little nose exhale.
@@Legomicroman That's not a true comparison. The point is to make something so banal and basic (a red canvas with blue and yellow accents) and watch reactions to something as harmless as red, yellow, and blue. If I just outright insult you, you'd be rightly upset because I directly insulted you. That's what offensive memes do. Offensive things directly attack people. Red, yellow, and blue don't.
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
A game I ran across when I was younger, that made me cry was one that was simply titled "Home". I was trawling the early 2010's internet for free games, and happened to download it because it was mentioned on a site that covers "art games". You control an old man in a nursing home, who has various meters for things like food, hygeine, and restroom use, that constantly raise, and you have him slowly hobble between rooms to reduce them. Eventually, though, one of the meters will top out- they all raise too quickly to ever manage them for long- at which point a nurse at the home says that they'll take care of it for him, adding an IV for a food, a colostomy bag, etc, and each slowing him, showing him growing less and less able to care for himself. When finally you cannot keep any of the meters from topping out, as he simply moves too slowly to be able to reach any of the rooms, he dies. After which, a cutscene plays with each of his family members speaking at the funeral. And what do they do? Fight over his inheritance. Curse him for not leaving anything else. Say how glad they were to not have to take care of him. To this day, that game haunts me. Because I know, I KNOW that there are plenty of people like that out there, just waiting for loved ones to die, loved ones they never bothered to know, to see, to care for, to care *about*. Loved ones they want money from. That "game" will never leave me. What is the difference between it and Depression Quest?
The devs of Home probably didn't sleep with a journalist to get unearned positive reviews for their game and then tried to hide behind "muh misogginee" when called out for (what should have been) an obvious act of fraud.
@@NobodyInParticular45 considering the fact that none of that is true and those lies are what started one of the biggest hate groups on the internet is rather... sad
the funny thing about the people hating red yellow blue 3 with such a passion is that they give the painting more power and worthiness than anyone else can. you are afraid of red yellow and blue. you are the true subject of the piece. you are the laughing stock. you think everyone else is pointing and laughing at the painting, but no, they are pointing and laughing at you. as am I
I don't know man, I'm a simple person. If it makes me feel something, I consider it good art, even if I'm not necessarily liking the message. For me, at least, art is a form of communication
I don't consider period blood to be art. It's weird, and I don't want to see it. What's insightful or meaningful about that? At least things like DaDa highlighted the pretentiousness of society and the elites. At least Red, Yellow, and Blue were able to prove its message, but some things paraded as "art" just aren't that.
@ALSO-RAN ! How do you think modern art belongs to the "establishment and elite"? At what time period do you think art was best exhibited as people's personal expressions of freedom?
@ALSO-RAN ! "Art used to be a representation of freedom and expression." ...Have you considered that maybe modern art IS a representation of freedom and expression to someone, just _not you_ because maybe the world doesn't revolve around you?
@@TheFool1122 Just search for "64k demo". Those are pretty-much entirely procedural content. They have to be if you want to fit five minutes of trippy visuals and music into such a small file. The artists create rules to make content, then implement them in software and optimise the hell out of them. For a sense of scale, a page of text is about 4KB. Transgression 2 by MFX (1996): th-cam.com/video/QNrT2MSCkzQ/w-d-xo.html The Product by Farbrausch (2000): th-cam.com/video/Y3n3c_8Nn2Y/w-d-xo.html Heaven 7 by Exceed (2000): th-cam.com/video/rNqpD3Mg9hY/w-d-xo.html The Timeless by Mercury (2014): th-cam.com/video/ie4u2i_5OdE/w-d-xo.html These are just a handful I've watched recently. The videos are hundreds or thousands of times bigger than the actual executable (which you can download and run for yourself from links in the descriptions). Transgression 2 and Heaven 7 both do real-time ray-tracing decades before Nvidia started pushing their RTX nonsense.
One of my favorite styles of art or comedy is absurdism, and my only real gripe with modern art is when billionaires use it as a little piggy bank tax write off to store their wealth in
Don't worry, they do that with the old masters too! The paintings "worth the most" (have been sold the most on secondary markets) end up the vaults of Saudi Arabian princes where they're just a form of currency, and will never be shown. I belive the current holder of "worth most" is an obscure Da Vinci- and that sale had nothing to do with the the beauty or skill of the piece, it's just an analogue nft. Also, the "art as currency" trade tends not to involve the artist (there are some exceptions like Damien Hirst, and honestly, hes a scab), and a reinsurance piece is more "stable" as currency, so is actually preferable for trade then anything made in the last 100 years. Artists usually sell their work to collectors, who may keep the work, exhibit the work... or resell it when the Artist hits big and it's worth more. Then it goes to auction, and that tends to be where the shady stuff kicks in (and that's not inherently diffrent then it was 200 years ago). Anyway, the artist makes nothing from the secondary trade- it's not uncommon for artists to get badly exploited in this. (Theres some fun examples of artists retroactively claiming their work isnt art when someone tries to turn a profit from it- Bansky has an inverse copyright thing going on where if you resell it, its officially not provable as a Bansky. Epic and annoying Moderist troll Duchamp (urinal guy) gifted a friend a piece of highly conceptual art, with a letter saying "this is art". When his friend sold it, he made a new "piece" which was basically a letter saying "that piece was never art, the real art is me destroying the concept of my own art". Which is honestly hilarious. Anyway, that got way off topic, apologies! Also remember most artists are dirt broke idiots doing it bc they love it, not get rich quick scammers. Unfortunately for me.
As if modern art is requirement for that fraud, if they can do that with art they can do it with any art. In fact making people feel like it is modern art problem would be good way to cover up people who actually do this with everything else, since people are busy with "modern art"
@@eiliscantsleep So much all of this. It makes me a little crazy to see people bring this up like the exact same thing wouldn't happen if everybody just painted hyperrealistic portraits and landscapes. It just happens with whatever people consider to be high-value.
@@eiliscantsleep Well, that is pretty upsetting as well. Modern art being used as tools for tax evasion isn't made less upsetting by the fact non-modern art is used for the same means.
And as a expression it will be deemed many things that is agreeable and disagreeable. Example. Modern art is trash because it is made of trash or even has no bearing on expression besides what the person felt at the time and the psychological illusion of authority makes us compelled to be interested. And other times. Nobodys can make art but are jever acknowledged.
All art is commercial, even fine art, only difference is the context of where it is presented, which just makes it propaganda. Commercial is propaganda for capitalists, and gallery art is propaganda for whoever is presenting it. Any notion of "real art" is just grand delusion.
Oh, the irony of saying modern art is only about money unlike the good ol' classic art... Which was mostly all commissioned and would not exist had a rich guy not paid an artist. He thinks Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel because he felt like it? Nah, he touched the roof only because the Pope was paying him enough to make him do it. Modern artists are the ones actually bringing their own creativity to the table, and the market merely answers.
@//// no. Simply- no. I'm an artist myself, and whilst I shall never have an art piece in a museum- i make money off of it. Not much, but people pay me for the work I can create. I shall tell you this- Modern art is not damaging me in any way. I do not get offended by the amount of money they make. Instead I am happy for them, and move along. Sometimes, when visiting a museum, I marvel at the details of the properties of the paint- some th ing one can only see in person. Do you feel as if people should not be able to enjoy art that appears as splatters on a canvas? I implore you to pick up a paintbrush and attempt to create a mere solid-color canvas. Even this small task can be difficult, as paint likes to level white specks and the brush can leave ugly Mark's with pigment pooling in areas you do not wish it to. All art has it's place, stop trying to censor it just because "WeLl tHInK oF tHe oTHEr aRtIsTs!!!!!!"
@//// I implore you to watch a video by Dan Olson called "In search of a flat earth." It answers why people believe in conspiracies like flat earth or QAnon. It boils down to them being afraid of the complexity of the modern world. Something that you clearly have experience in.
In the end, someone was afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue. Unknowingly, by destroying what they were most fearful and hateful of, they ensured that its legacy would last not just a decade, or even a lifetime, but forever. In other words: "I once had strings, but now I'm free."
That is so, so, so, so dumb. If i shit on a canvas and title it "If You Think This Painting Isnt Deserving Of Recognition You're A Nazi" and it gets put on the wall at the MOMA for a decade, it doesnt matter what the meaning is its still actual shit that doesnt deserve recognition. Its a logical trap where if you think 3 colors just sucks and isnt creative, then you are "Afraid of the voices of historically opressed groups" and you have proven your fear by hating the shit painting
@@jackyoung4575 Respectable, however, I personally find that I enjoy art that requires more thought put into it, rather than something that is beautiful by societal standards. I can even pull up a story of my own. I was walking around a local sculpture park, and I came across a colossal piece of metal, folded and bent into a huge monolithic structure, without any level of symmetry. No matter what angle you looked at it from, it looked completely different from any side. The sculpture was called Crete by a man named Charles Ginnever, as part of his Hellenic series of sculptures. Just assuming that three colors on a canvas mean nothing is like assuming that this colossus piece means nothing as well, despite the fact that there is clearly something... different about it, and that, I believe, is why you assume that Red Yellow and Blue is "Shit" as you say. But ponder me this, if Red Yellow and Blue was simply "Shit" why were so many people so afraid of it?
I remember a few years ago when I was somewhat in the alt-right pipeline, I got vaguely frustrated at some of the modern art in this video. I tried multiple times to write out a comment about feeling like the art was worthless without sounding fascist-y, but repeatedly failing. And at a certain point, I stopped and really thought about where my opinions on art and value came from. This video really helped me question a lot of the beliefs I had inherited, and I can't be more appreciative of it. I've since started letting myself indulge in the sort of fuzzy feelings and thoughts that are brought through more abstract art. And as an aspiring game developer, with some wonky neurodivergency, the non traditional work this video defends has helped broaden my ideas and expression. Thank you, truly
@@ijon-y4549 its not about sounding like a member of a publicly disliked group, it's about not relating to the potentially dangerous philosophy of that said group.
@@get_that_money664 the philosphy of disliking things that are ugly and lack aestethic value? That is not a fascist trait, that is normal. Might as well call Geller a Nazi because he and Shitlet both drank water.
I once painted the night sky. I have no art talent or practice, so I kept the painting simple, just a dark background on a small canvas. Just... darkness. My mother looked at it and asked if I was going to add stars or trees, to which I said no, as there was no way I could paint them as I saw them in my head. But then my sister, an actual artist, looked at it and asked, "those streaks, that's the light from the city, right?" Art is hard to see sometimes, and even harder to understand. I can never do what my sister does, just as she feels that she could never match my writing, but sometimes you don't need skill or knowledge to make something beautiful, if only to you. Sometimes, all you need to do is look at the night sky, and see the light hiddened in it.
@@jrshaul I won't deny that. Still, not a bad attempt, considering I hadn't done much creative painting before and hadn't received more than rudimentary training in primary school. It's a minor miracle that my sister found any meaning at all :P
@@frankb2659 groomed? by who? and both of those are subjective mediums, you'll have people who laugh at what I think are great skits or jokes like who's on first or seven dirty words, and other people who laugh at monkey's smelling their own fart and falling off of a tree branch, we can try to use metrics like psychology and delve into the exact units of serotonin produced by a gag or the facial features they generate, but those are works with fall into a field that empirical evidence can't fully allow for us to comprehend, it's ultimately up to you to pick and choose what art mediums you enjoy, as long as their is no verifiable proof that said work hurts yourself, others or society, why bother making a fuss over it?
@@frankb2659 "Modern art bros try so hard not to be just saying "you just don't get it bro". But whenever they talk it's little substance and it all boils down to "you just don't get it man..."" You're clearly not willing to be educated on the subject. You have a pepe the frog pfp, not exactly high art buddy. If anything, that imagery is more idiotic and harmful than anything most modern art does, which challenges the foundations of society. "like if you're gonna make a bunch of innovative and cryptic paint mixes don't just paint fucking flat colors lol" Why? you provide no actual reason why that needs to be the case. Same thing with all your statements. You just strawman and then inject your own baseless opinion.
@ALSO-RAN ! "Its a shame to see how tribalistic we have become as a society." you shun the action of upholding ideological tribalism and yet by generalising both groups it only reinforces the tribalism of each.
Honestly, it would feel much more powerful to have left it vandalized, as a show of the people who just want the world to conform to their ideas, and to remind others to be open to different experiences.
@@richardcarson3596 except it wasn't leftists who felt compelled to destroy, send death threats to artists or put them in gas chambers. Censorship has always been the go-to political tool of the right.
As an author, I’m always going to be partial to literature as an art form- and I’ve always asserted that it’s the best, most true form of art. Videos like this really show me how dumb I was, and even though I’m not talented in visual art I’ve gained a tremendous amount of respect for it in the past few months. I never would’ve drawn these conclusions on my own, and the ideas of this man and whoever may be working with him on his videos have seriously changed my outlook on the world. It’s like… well, it’s like a good book.
I love literature but have always been taken by great visuals. I guess the best writing can summon profound images in the imaginative mind, but a profound image is already... profound
Fun fact: Remember that one Banana that was taped to a wall? A similar fate fell upon it when a bystander walked up to it and ate it! It was replaced with a new banana the next day. Edit: This has happened more than once.
Ya know.... I appreciate modern art now, never realized it untill I tried to replicate one of them, it's hard... I can't even tape this banana right...
@Is me ? Hell, I'd make a work of art to depict it and put some other meaning, right below the surface, so you can feel it, but it's still unreachable. Image the madness that would ensue. A painting that deeply unsettles, and gives you existential dread
@@dairoleon2682 memes are a lot better because it's made just to be appreciated (free) and there's not as much pretentiousness from the people who made them
I spent a night trying to paint a picture that depicted how those albums made me feel, with that as my background music, and it was so deeply unsettling that I get the chills every time I hear it. Never finished that painting.
As an artist, this video alone re-awoke my passion of the art I create and why I create it. I’m so proud to have re-worked my views of modern art and now I’m going to be the type of artist that fascists get angry over, new life goal
@//// I don't even like furries or feet, but if it pisses you off, I might just give it a shot. Art should evoke strong emotions, according to someone somewhere who I can't remember.
"It makes me physically sick, thus it should be destroyed and nobody else should be able to enjoy it." Ok, cool, we gonna tear down all roller coasters, close all breweries, chop down all nut trees, let all dairy cows run away and only bake gluten-free bread? Brilliant video, thank you for your work!
The Man Who Speaks You sound really upset and insecure about this, guess you were really afraid of some colors eh? Ironic, because this man's actions gave the art a true, clear purpose
I generally dislike Modern Art pieces with a fiery passion. I still think of them as Art. It equally infuriates me when people vandalize it. Beware: The comment section below is currently debating money laundering
@@everythingnothing2978 Are you at all involved with the sale or purchase of the art in this hypothetical scenario? If not, why on earth do you think that your opinion on the value of this art matters? Edit: To rephrase my question - why do you care what other people want to spend on art? Why do want others to spend something other than "thousands" on these art pieces?
The way you describe the experience of art is so fucking good. Keeps the subjectivity of showing the art itself so the viewer can experience it themselves and decide what it means but it's overlaid with static and ambience that give off a central vibe, helping communicate your meaning. Also, as a synesthete, it really resonated with me. And *god* I love this video. It hits all the points I always wish I had the words to say.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Doesn’t he make a point? I mean, fascists had the values described. And many of the people criticising modern art for not being art have similar values. Are these statements incorrect?
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 He clearly says that he is not not talking about people who dislike modern art. He said it is okay even if you don't like anything that came after 18th century.
@@poppag8281 Or, at the very last, it helped me come to the realization that someone with depression, like myself, can't 'cure' depression, but it can be managed. And that felt very nice.
The comments on this video are a goldmine. So many interesting takes and perspectives. I usually find myself reading a few comments on a video and then getting bored not long after, but I've been sitting here for a while just reading different takes and it's great. Just thought I'd share.
A lot of people here are sharing their thoughts on art, so I might as well jump onto the bandwagon. I don't like abstract art, it doesn't excite me or make me feel any special way like some other types of art do. But I have a lot of respect for all art, I believe that everyone should have the right to express themselves through art. The only "art" that I actually hate with passion is stolen art. There is a huge issue nowadays with companies or individual sellers stealing art from smaller creators and reselling it without paying the artists, not even crediting them.
There's a video that touches on abstract art, it can give you some insight into it if you don't "get it" (no one does). The video is th-cam.com/video/0F7XBwFwA-M/w-d-xo.html
@@estebanmorales3635 That video has a lot more meaning than pouring a bucket on paint a canvas. That AI takes all sorts of things with meaning and just shuffles them around until it looks like something that should be real but isn't. Abstract art is mostly just some guy spraying paint on a canvas. The piece doesn't mean anything, it doesn't look like it means anything yet he's trying to convince you that it means something more than a tax write off.
i LOVE how you used the caretakers music for this particular video. the caretaker is such an experimental artist that created so much fear, sorrow, and nostalgia for me. his work is similar to Whos Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue in that it’s initially upsetting or frustrating. the caretakers work is well,,, Work to listen to, but leyland’s work is an obsession for me. i see it EVERYWHERE, and its created the strongest amount of fear i’ve ever experienced from an art piece. in fact, its insane how recognizable leylands work is to me now because of that specific fear it now strikes in my gut after allowing myself to *feel* it great pick!
"It's just three colored bars, what meaning should i take from it?" You shouldn't. It's three colors. It's beyond meaning. I remember two paintings an aunt of mine had. One was giant, vertical, depicting a rose, rich with details. Thorns, petals, the grass by it's feet(?), bloody beautiful. The other one was a gradient of colors going from a dark brown/black into a light red/pink. The dark side was rough, as if it was made from the same concrete as the wall it was hanging on. The light side was so smooth it resembled glass or even a mirror. I still dream about those shades, those rough spikes of concrete-paint, the slight reflection it had. There never was meaning in that painting, just itself. That's why i never make fun of modern art, because i know someone saw those exact same shades as me, and i want this person to have that experience.
@Jesse Mathis L + ratio + confederate + Union Dixie GOATED + "Jesse Mathis" + the art lasted longer than the confederacy + 'Least racist anime viewer' award
I had a similar realisation a while back. Years ago, I visited the gallery of contemporary art in Ottawa, Canada. The gallery is quite interesting, it orders its paintings by age, with the oldest paintings in its collection at the start of the visit, and the most recent ones towards the end. Towards the beginning and middle, I remember genuinely loving the art I saw on the walls, but towards the end, well it was just modern art, which I found dumb. in one room towards the end, there was a wall on which there was one single painting. Two blue stripes with a red one in the middle. Its proportions were gigantic, it dominated that space. It was The Voice of Fire, by Barnett Newman. I found that painting hideous. I mean honestly, they paid 3 million bucks for that junk? I even read an article that valuated that painting at $40 million at the time of the article's release (2009 I think?). What a waste of money, it was all stupid. but then, a couple years ago, I had a realisation: of all the paintings I had seen in that gallery, The Voice of Fire was quite literally the only painting I could still picture in my head. The only one I had bothered to look up online later, the only one whose name I learned and whose creator I looked up. It was the only painting from that gallery I could still remember. That piece of junk made of 3 stripes was the only painting in the entire gallery that had any sort of long-lasting impact on me. If it really were just 3 stripes with nothing special about them, it should have been the first painting I'd have forgotten, not the only one I could still remember.
Genuinely one of the best videos i have ever watched. This video fits into the small section of media that changed me for the better and i must thank you for that.
Man, I mean, how could something that elicits such a strong emotional reaction from someone, even one of hatred, NOT be art? It made people feel so much that they destroyed it.
Someone responded to this earlier and then deleted their comment, but I ended up thinking about this all day so Hell if I’m going to waste the response I wrote up. I left my original comment vague because frankly I wasn’t expecting anyone to care or respond, but I will clarify: I think you and I both know that screaming an racial slur (a defined /thing/ with a meaning and a history of oppression) and a lot of red paint on a canvas that doesn’t seem to visually represent anything specific aren’t even remotely the same thing. (And even in that case, black artists have absolutely reclaimed that word in artistic contexts because the visceral emotion it evokes is so powerful) I’m no art critic, I’m not even particularly familiar with modern art, I can only speak from my own experience. But In my experience as an artist, art is nothing so high and mighty as people hold it. Yes, Art can be a deep expression of meaning or an inner truth. It can be a depiction of something beautiful. It can also be an arrangement of elements that while not inherently meaningful, are nevertheless nice to look at. It can be something with just the illusion of a deeper meaning, just to see what people come up with. In that sense, artists absolutely do con critics frequently, in that artists rarely put half as much thought and analysis into the nature of their own work than critics do. It’s not inhuman, or uncreative, or inherently diminishing the meaning of art. It just is what it is. Hell, for example, people argued about why the Mona Lisa had no eyebrows for decades, assuming it must have meant something, and then restoration work revealed she actually had eyebrows all along that were worn away by time. There’s something really funny about that. But the thing is, if this work is devoid of artistic merit, meaningless, a non-thing, why are people so angry about it? If it’s just a big block of color on a canvas that anyone’s third grader could do, why do people care? Sometimes art can be about /art/. I don’t even mean art for art’s sake, but art made specifically as commentary on What Art Is. A lot of what people think about as Modern Art falls into this category- its a deconstruction of the nature of art itself. I would argue that art criticism frequently is bullshit, pretentious and snobbish and full of itself, but the truth is that people who don’t frequently consume a large variety of art probably won’t appreciate meta-commentary on art itself anyway, because frankly they’re just here to look at the pretty pictures, and this isn’t really pretty or visually interesting. And there’s nothing wrong with that! It’s kind of weird to go into an art gallery and expect to enjoy or understand every single piece, given the vastness and variety of art that can be made. Hell, I’m not even that big a fan of most modern art, unless it’s really interesting conceptually or just very funny (haha piss Christ) But again, people aren’t just disinterested in this art. They’re angry about it. It challenges their ideas of what art is. And that’s what it’s supposed to do. I can’t speak for the artist, I’m not familiar with him or his body of work, but I can hazard a guess that this painting did exactly what it was supposed to do. It purposefully stretches the definition of what art is, and it anticipates the confusion and anger and fear that will arise from it. Who’s afraid of red, yellow and blue? Apparently a lot of people! If someone was so afraid of it as to obliterate it, to be sure that its mere existence - just a bunch of red paint on a piece of fabric with a little blue and yellow, not depicting anything in particular- was destroying art and should no longer exist, speaks volumes about how it was more than the sum of its parts. I’m not even particularly interested in this piece based on how it looks, but the fact that its sheer simplicity made someone so angry they ripped it apart? That’s remarkable
@@leewebster4420 That was me, and I don't know what the hell happened to my comment, because I still got your reply notification. Give me a minute and I'll edit this reply to be more substantive. To your point about screaming a racial slur not being the same thing as "offensive art," I don't intend it to be - though haters of "Piss Christ" might feel otherwise. I merely wanted to point out that I don't feel evoking a strong negative reaction from people is a good metric for defining something as having artistic value. In the past I've seen the argument that 'well, it made you mad, didn't it?' thrown around as the entire substance of defending a piece of contemporary art, and I've always thought very little of it. Deliberately offending or angering someone isn't too hard, after all. I'm not an art critic either, and ditto on speaking from my own experience. I don't mean to imply that criticisms of contemporary are are necessarily objectively true, only to speculate on WHY visceral reactions seem so common. And yes, you raise a good point that there's always going to be noise in the signal between artist and art receiver, vis-a-vis the eyebrows thing. There's a whole 'death of the author' discussion here that could be had but I'd rather not. >Sometimes art can be about /art/. I don’t even mean art for art’s sake, but art made specifically as commentary on What Art Is. A lot of what people think about as Modern Art falls into this category- its a deconstruction of the nature of art itself. I actually think this is a really good point you brought up when it comes to the discussion of what gets to be art. The only thing I'd add is that I think some of the anger directed towards contemporary art is rooted in a fear that it might destroy or supplant older art styles entirely, until we arrive at a point where the skills to do some have simply been lost. Is this a realistic fear? Not really. But does it seem to be a pretty persistent one? I'd say so.
A good example for why art shouldn't be judged by how hard it is to make is memes. They usually don't take much time to make but still can make you feel strong emotions anyway
its honestly insane to think of the route i was going down 5 or so years ago, and almost as insane to think that this is the video that started my push to turn myself around. hateful, racist, all those terrible things more than likely perpetuated by upbringing and guided down a pipeline by anti-sjw youtubers that had a hold on the platform in 2016 and then some. it was why i hated this video when i first found it, but it stuck with me, God am i glad it stuck with me. id dare to say this video saved me or that i owe Jacob Geller for making it in the first place. But that sounds para-social so instead i'll say i'm happy he made it, and i love this video because it helped me grow up and out of that terrible phase.
I'm so happy to see this. I hope you have the greatest of times out there, thank you for being a mutable person and accepting new knowledge in this ever-changing world.
Congratulations. You chose to reject reality and live in a left-wing fantasy, instead of accepting this fucked up world as it is because it hurt you too much.
It can take a lot of strength to have an open mind and completely change the way you see the world like this. Im proud of you and I hope more people are inspired to do the same :)
@@disastermidi1990 that would just be criticism or giving a perspective as to what they would like it to be, but not fascist. Fascist would be to ban it.
u a lmao I don’t have any idea what you think I said, I was just pointing out that in the video they had that “degenerate art museum” I am a mutualist anarchism-socialist leftist i am farthest away from fascism. The only issue here is your reading comprehension my friend
Every leftist cry "muh fascism" but the USSR did exactly the same thing. It's something to do with autoritarianism not a left/right issue, but please continue being useful idiots.
The annoying thing about modern art is that it takes a philosophical stance that paints itself as lazy. Modern art is a question more than a skillful piece.
Did you watch the video completely? Did you hear him say that the museum tried to fix the painting with the three colours and that they failed? Because it was in fact requiring skill to make, the skill of its creator wich was mostly unique to him. Anyone who tries to define art in terms of what he thinks is good or bad has failed. Art is whatever is perceived as art. Who perceives it does not matter. Art is nothing without one experiencing it. Art is not what someone thinks is good, skillful, complex, or anything at that matter. Art is not only what fits in your worldview. A blank white canvas is art if someone experiences it as such. Art is subkective.
@@GreenDeemonll i feel there was a bit of mixzup in the translation here. Was not going after modern art. Just saying how it's a very different approach to delivering it's message. Which is why it can be anniying to think about or look at. Like how certain pieces are so bland in design, but the context and meaning can make it more impactful. Sorry if you didn't catch my drift.
I guess I see it in four ways to do art: 1. The capitalistic way in which creativity is rewarded via money, power and fame. 2. The fascist way in which art is created solely for those in power as a means to advocate for their cause alone. Political art. (be wary, socialist art may find itself here as well) 3. Art for the individual. The starving artist at their best. They do it not for power, money, religious, and political motivations but because they are driven to by their own love for the genre. Even if only one person sees it, feels it, loves it, hates it, it is art. 4. Anarchist art. The art of the vandal. Vandalism as a form of expression. Done without society or governmental approval. For a variety of reasons. But done all the same.
@@VineFynn I would say that fascist art would be the art for the purpose of glorifying the state. Both justifiably and not. A statue of the Leader I wouldn't consider such, but something that's there to represent the abstraction of the state and its history would, something like the EUR.
“be wary, socialist art may find itself here as well” Well, fascism in Italy has roots from socialism and collectivism, hence the bundle of sticks. And those wacky Germans were the national *socialist* party so… yeah
@@Abdega Yeah. The Germans who put communists and anarchists in concentration camps and murdered every socialist-sympathizing leader on their party. Seriously. Unironically. The Fascist Party in Italy got elected on a policy of liberal reforms and govern deregulation of business btw. Look it up.
"Look I made a red line in the middle of the canvas, it's art!" "What? I can do that, anyone can do that, hell, even a toddler could do that" "but you didn't" *painting gets sold for 20 millions* I swear, that kind of modern artists are just the biggest trolls the world has ever know, they could take a shit in the middle of an art exhibit and people would find meaning in it
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.
''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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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 :)
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??
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
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).
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.
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
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.
@@mistythemischievous2013 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
“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.
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
"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
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.
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.
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
"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!!!
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
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
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.”
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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_
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.
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.
pretty cool. I will still never put a red rectangle into my deviantart favorites folder, but you helped me appreciate the positive parts of why modern art does this.
With this kind of art, it really is about seeing the piece in person. I mean, all art hits different in person, but Rothkos and others like it are of a genre where the only way to fully understand the piece is to stand before it, alone, in a silent room. So yeah I wouldn't consider these even "aesthetically" powerful in the traditional sense of aesthetics - it's just not the same thing. But if you ever have a chance to see them in exhibit, you won't regret it!
Yeah I bet this video didn't have enough diaper vore for you DeviantAut
@@retro704 real mature and original, man.
@@Marzlpan just another fascist demonizing someone he doesn't know to rationalize his lust for destruction.
That's because you're easily influenced. It's a common trait among simple-minded people who think they're clever.
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
Hey man i just saw this video and i really used to think modern art was pretty shitty, and i still dont understand it but you really changed my mind, thanks for that
Yeah I'm in the same boat
@@sinon7000 welcome bro
same
For a lot of modern art, to realize and accept the message it's trying to get across IS understanding it (to some extent).
I think its still shitty but i couldn't care less what art people make
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
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.
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 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
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 what Willem de Kooning said about his own work, "I dunno, I just paint and people come along and call it art".
My biggest problem with the current climate of me becoming an artist was the fact my work had to be subversive or disruptive in college.
It wasn't good enough creating technically challenging paintings.
It wasn't good enough where my work didn't create subversion or new dialogues.
It had to be relevant to the contemporary scene or else it wasn't worth making the art.
I believe subversion, artistic dialogues, disruptive narratives, juxtaposed images, etc. are great tools in art.
But to only focus on a select set of features for work, this video talked about that quite well.
And to me this has become the greatest irony to me, contemporary art becoming the thing it sought out to disrupt.
It just seems like a never ending loop.
one word: One-upmanship
I found exactly the same thing when I was in university for my illustration degree. Anything that resembled traditional illustration, including comic art, was seen as wrong.
I appreciate what is being produced at the moment, and some of my favourite artists are producing conceptual art (Elmgreen + Dragset, etc) but I create more 'traditional' art and one of my tutors had the audacity to say, after seeing some illustrations I did for a project, that maybe I should just use photography if I want to be figurative.
Half of our projects revolved around making 3D items that were meant to tell stories...but if the story was too clear, or the items too figurative, we were told to be more 'modern'. I did my dissertation on male beauty in art from the Ancient Greeks/Romans to present. The art I made along side was all figurative, stuff I enjoyed. As a result my grades suffered. In the end I got a 2:2, one grade lower than I needed to pursue a masters and leaving me in a position where I can no longer carry on with the education I always wanted to. All because I wasn't 'Modern' enough.
On top of that my tutors would directly reference 'Naïve art', a title given to art made by people with no training and seen as intensely primitive, when viewing my work. A comparison that deeply insulted me. And unfortunately paralysed me in art as it felt no matter how much training and lessons I took, I'd never shake a 'Naïve' look. A mentality I am still fighting with now. Three years after graduating.
@@SallyBerry9 God that sucks and while not to the same degree, I got the same impression from more traditional art students when I studied fine art. I would've thought illustration would be more embracing of human forms but I guess not. Which uni did you go to?
@@SallyBerry9 I'm sorry to hear that, I understand what you're saying though. I feel most of my work isn't as good as it could be because of how they taught the classes. I remember one of my classmates trying to make old rembrandt style paintings and the teachers wouldn't even teach her anything from him because he was "old white guy painter" and wasn't relevant to the current political climate.
Trying to even do illustrations was hard too, I kinda had the same problem as you but mine couldn't just be realistic because "it had been already been done before a thousand times". Then changing that to a more stylized look made them "too cartoony" for having outlines. That's besides the entire story you had to push on to it or it was just considered a practice piece.
After I graduated I didn't really want to draw or paint and It just destroyed any enjoyment i got out of art, still struggling with that.
@@Mich6961 I went to NUA. During their open day they showed work by the illustration students (Mostly the bits that had been entered into contests and had won). All were more traditional pieces. All very intricate and full of detail and life. But, turns out most of them did it in their spare time with little to no input from the university themselves. Also, it was made clear the only goal of the uni was to try and one-up Central St Martin's.... even at the detriment of their own courses and students.
They saw it as a David and Goliath style rivalry. A battle where they would come out on top as the underdog. When really they were a sad, obsessive fan, cutting up their own image in an attempt to impress someone well-renowned who had little to no care for them.
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 used to have the feeling that modern art was kinda dumb until one day I was in a museum and I saw a piece that I don't remember what it was called but it was two pieces of sheet metal bolted together to make one big flat grey piece and I thought it was kinda pointless until I read the description that explained that the artist was a wheelchair user and that the world is often inaccessible to her without things like those sheets of metal. It was like "oh I get it now" and I've had more of an appreciation for art that I might not initially consider art since then.
My favorite part about the story of "who is afraid of red, yellow, and blue" is because its ironic in two ways. Firstly, the fact that people argue that ot and modern art as a whole has no meaning or purpose, its essentially dumbed down to nothing. However, this supposed work of nothingness invoked such negative emotion in someone to the point they felt the need to destroy it. Which in doing so, fulfilled exactly what they were looking for in the art. By destroying the piece, it gave it the story and meaning they were originally seeking. And I don't believe art necessarily needs that sort of meaning to be appreciated, but I just like how the story of that piece completes itself.
Destroying the work much like what the work supposedly is A Message. The vandalism wasn't against this painting it was against the glorification of it's kind and the pushed narrative that makes this painting a holy relic. The tarnishing of this piece is art by itself giving the facts that artists themselves call against many things people see as holy.
I do not endorse or support the vandal but I see what he was trying to show
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!
I love how in fact by critiqueing modern art, people are contributing to the art.
Modern art isn't just about what is on the canvas anymore and these people make that abundantly clear.
If anything i think the murdered pieces of art can be art themselves, with the fun nuance of it not being possible to destroy it, as attempting to do so only enriches the essence of it
One could also say that's what makes it so absurd, or at least the art industry in general, not just the big modern industry.
It doesn't matter if for example you take a giant shit on a canvas and you may or may not enjoy it and/or think it's art. Because "Giant Shit on a Canvas" could still have the purpose as an absurdist and SCAThing critique or mockery of said industry.
It is absurd however when there's a demand and supply for it, when it's bought and sold, if it were to fit in some grand cultural narrative of a nation, like Jacob says.
So online bait is art by your definition
@@callumbreton8930 yes! Indeed, it might just be interaction baiting, but it is at the same time a beautiful critique on the state of the online world
@@callumbreton8930 It's red squares, it's so inoffensive that implies more about you than it does itself when you destroy it. with bait you are going out of your way to peck at someone, usually by being a racist for a reaction.
Idk on that.
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
the amount of emotions this simple "meaningless" painting has sparked amazes me
yea I guess that's part of the piece, and the reaction people have to abstract art is part of the appeal
then what's the point of making art? if you only do things for a strong, emotional reaction, then why don't you just do offensive memes?
@@Legomicroman who is stopping you?
@@Legomicroman you assume offensive memes aren't considered art. They take time and consideration to make, even if its quickly made it's based upon a large basis of references and topical issues in the world, and directly creates an emotional response within you, generally being that little nose exhale.
@@Legomicroman That's not a true comparison. The point is to make something so banal and basic (a red canvas with blue and yellow accents) and watch reactions to something as harmless as red, yellow, and blue.
If I just outright insult you, you'd be rightly upset because I directly insulted you. That's what offensive memes do. Offensive things directly attack people. Red, yellow, and blue don't.
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
A game I ran across when I was younger, that made me cry was one that was simply titled "Home". I was trawling the early 2010's internet for free games, and happened to download it because it was mentioned on a site that covers "art games". You control an old man in a nursing home, who has various meters for things like food, hygeine, and restroom use, that constantly raise, and you have him slowly hobble between rooms to reduce them. Eventually, though, one of the meters will top out- they all raise too quickly to ever manage them for long- at which point a nurse at the home says that they'll take care of it for him, adding an IV for a food, a colostomy bag, etc, and each slowing him, showing him growing less and less able to care for himself. When finally you cannot keep any of the meters from topping out, as he simply moves too slowly to be able to reach any of the rooms, he dies. After which, a cutscene plays with each of his family members speaking at the funeral.
And what do they do? Fight over his inheritance. Curse him for not leaving anything else. Say how glad they were to not have to take care of him.
To this day, that game haunts me. Because I know, I KNOW that there are plenty of people like that out there, just waiting for loved ones to die, loved ones they never bothered to know, to see, to care for, to care *about*. Loved ones they want money from. That "game" will never leave me.
What is the difference between it and Depression Quest?
The devs of Home probably didn't sleep with a journalist to get unearned positive reviews for their game and then tried to hide behind "muh misogginee" when called out for (what should have been) an obvious act of fraud.
@@NobodyInParticular45 whatever happened around depression quest has nothing to do with how good it is as a game you dingus
@@NobodyInParticular45 considering the fact that none of that is true and those lies are what started one of the biggest hate groups on the internet is rather... sad
the funny thing about the people hating red yellow blue 3 with such a passion is that they give the painting more power and worthiness than anyone else can. you are afraid of red yellow and blue. you are the true subject of the piece. you are the laughing stock. you think everyone else is pointing and laughing at the painting, but no, they are pointing and laughing at you. as am I
That's the whole reason modern art exists. Creating uproar.
@@Diepvries11 I mean if modern arts only reason to exist is to make white supremacists cry, then that's good with me
@@3a.m.284 I don't think you are familiar with modern art.
I don't think it has anything to do with fear
@@FranP25 fascists live afraid and think it's a good thing
I love how society loses it over a simple color palette and rectangles
I don't know man, I'm a simple person. If it makes me feel something, I consider it good art, even if I'm not necessarily liking the message. For me, at least, art is a form of communication
"Art is a form of communication"...I like that and agree.
I don't consider period blood to be art. It's weird, and I don't want to see it. What's insightful or meaningful about that? At least things like DaDa highlighted the pretentiousness of society and the elites. At least Red, Yellow, and Blue were able to prove its message, but some things paraded as "art" just aren't that.
@ALSO-RAN ! How do you think modern art belongs to the "establishment and elite"?
At what time period do you think art was best exhibited as people's personal expressions of freedom?
@ALSO-RAN ! "Art used to be a representation of freedom and expression."
...Have you considered that maybe modern art IS a representation of freedom and expression to someone, just _not you_ because maybe the world doesn't revolve around you?
@ALSO-RAN ! how so? it's really subjective, like, y'know... art
Claude Debussy - "Works of art make rules, but rules do not make works of art."
Refutation of the latter half: Procedural content is art made entirely by rules.
@@Roxor128 ?
@@Roxor128 Example?
@@TheFool1122 Just search for "64k demo". Those are pretty-much entirely procedural content. They have to be if you want to fit five minutes of trippy visuals and music into such a small file. The artists create rules to make content, then implement them in software and optimise the hell out of them. For a sense of scale, a page of text is about 4KB.
Transgression 2 by MFX (1996): th-cam.com/video/QNrT2MSCkzQ/w-d-xo.html
The Product by Farbrausch (2000): th-cam.com/video/Y3n3c_8Nn2Y/w-d-xo.html
Heaven 7 by Exceed (2000): th-cam.com/video/rNqpD3Mg9hY/w-d-xo.html
The Timeless by Mercury (2014): th-cam.com/video/ie4u2i_5OdE/w-d-xo.html
These are just a handful I've watched recently. The videos are hundreds or thousands of times bigger than the actual executable (which you can download and run for yourself from links in the descriptions). Transgression 2 and Heaven 7 both do real-time ray-tracing decades before Nvidia started pushing their RTX nonsense.
@@Roxor128 what rules is it following
i dont understand most of modern art. however, i still think it should exists, and should not be hindered.
Then you understand it more than you think. A big part of modern art is the assertion that one should be free to create it in the first place
One of my favorite styles of art or comedy is absurdism, and my only real gripe with modern art is when billionaires use it as a little piggy bank tax write off to store their wealth in
Don't worry, they do that with the old masters too! The paintings "worth the most" (have been sold the most on secondary markets) end up the vaults of Saudi Arabian princes where they're just a form of currency, and will never be shown. I belive the current holder of "worth most" is an obscure Da Vinci- and that sale had nothing to do with the the beauty or skill of the piece, it's just an analogue nft. Also, the "art as currency" trade tends not to involve the artist (there are some exceptions like Damien Hirst, and honestly, hes a scab), and a reinsurance piece is more "stable" as currency, so is actually preferable for trade then anything made in the last 100 years. Artists usually sell their work to collectors, who may keep the work, exhibit the work... or resell it when the Artist hits big and it's worth more. Then it goes to auction, and that tends to be where the shady stuff kicks in (and that's not inherently diffrent then it was 200 years ago). Anyway, the artist makes nothing from the secondary trade- it's not uncommon for artists to get badly exploited in this. (Theres some fun examples of artists retroactively claiming their work isnt art when someone tries to turn a profit from it- Bansky has an inverse copyright thing going on where if you resell it, its officially not provable as a Bansky. Epic and annoying Moderist troll Duchamp (urinal guy) gifted a friend a piece of highly conceptual art, with a letter saying "this is art". When his friend sold it, he made a new "piece" which was basically a letter saying "that piece was never art, the real art is me destroying the concept of my own art". Which is honestly hilarious.
Anyway, that got way off topic, apologies! Also remember most artists are dirt broke idiots doing it bc they love it, not get rich quick scammers. Unfortunately for me.
As if modern art is requirement for that fraud, if they can do that with art they can do it with any art.
In fact making people feel like it is modern art problem would be good way to cover up people who actually do this with everything else, since people are busy with "modern art"
@@eiliscantsleep So much all of this. It makes me a little crazy to see people bring this up like the exact same thing wouldn't happen if everybody just painted hyperrealistic portraits and landscapes. It just happens with whatever people consider to be high-value.
i am going to create a piece of modern art with superficial commentary, sell it off to the highest bidder, and then explode it in the bidder’s face
@@eiliscantsleep Well, that is pretty upsetting as well. Modern art being used as tools for tax evasion isn't made less upsetting by the fact non-modern art is used for the same means.
Art is an expression. Sure, you can use it for profit purposes, but commercial value doesn't determine whether something's an art.
And as a expression it will be deemed many things that is agreeable and disagreeable.
Example. Modern art is trash because it is made of trash or even has no bearing on expression besides what the person felt at the time and the psychological illusion of authority makes us compelled to be interested.
And other times.
Nobodys can make art but are jever acknowledged.
All art is commercial, even fine art, only difference is the context of where it is presented, which just makes it propaganda. Commercial is propaganda for capitalists, and gallery art is propaganda for whoever is presenting it. Any notion of "real art" is just grand delusion.
I'd love to see this comment chain discuss the concept of "the death of the author"
@Wenceslao Futanaki
Now it's about experiences.
@Wenceslao Futanaki
Talent is an advantage, not a requirement.
Oh, the irony of saying modern art is only about money unlike the good ol' classic art... Which was mostly all commissioned and would not exist had a rich guy not paid an artist. He thinks Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel because he felt like it? Nah, he touched the roof only because the Pope was paying him enough to make him do it. Modern artists are the ones actually bringing their own creativity to the table, and the market merely answers.
@//// no. Simply- no. I'm an artist myself, and whilst I shall never have an art piece in a museum- i make money off of it. Not much, but people pay me for the work I can create.
I shall tell you this- Modern art is not damaging me in any way. I do not get offended by the amount of money they make. Instead I am happy for them, and move along. Sometimes, when visiting a museum, I marvel at the details of the properties of the paint- some th ing one can only see in person.
Do you feel as if people should not be able to enjoy art that appears as splatters on a canvas? I implore you to pick up a paintbrush and attempt to create a mere solid-color canvas. Even this small task can be difficult, as paint likes to level white specks and the brush can leave ugly Mark's with pigment pooling in areas you do not wish it to.
All art has it's place, stop trying to censor it just because "WeLl tHInK oF tHe oTHEr aRtIsTs!!!!!!"
imagine comparing Michaelangelo's work with modern art lmao
One of the most iconic historical structures ever (the piramid of giza) was literally made by egyptian volunteers. But ok
@//// Bullshit.
@//// I implore you to watch a video by Dan Olson called "In search of a flat earth." It answers why people believe in conspiracies like flat earth or QAnon. It boils down to them being afraid of the complexity of the modern world. Something that you clearly have experience in.
In the end, someone was afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue.
Unknowingly, by destroying what they were most fearful and hateful of, they ensured that its legacy would last not just a decade, or even a lifetime, but forever.
In other words:
"I once had strings, but now I'm free."
That is so, so, so, so dumb. If i shit on a canvas and title it "If You Think This Painting Isnt Deserving Of Recognition You're A Nazi" and it gets put on the wall at the MOMA for a decade, it doesnt matter what the meaning is its still actual shit that doesnt deserve recognition. Its a logical trap where if you think 3 colors just sucks and isnt creative, then you are "Afraid of the voices of historically opressed groups" and you have proven your fear by hating the shit painting
@@jackyoung4575
Respectable, however, I personally find that I enjoy art that requires more thought put into it, rather than something that is beautiful by societal standards. I can even pull up a story of my own. I was walking around a local sculpture park, and I came across a colossal piece of metal, folded and bent into a huge monolithic structure, without any level of symmetry. No matter what angle you looked at it from, it looked completely different from any side. The sculpture was called Crete by a man named Charles Ginnever, as part of his Hellenic series of sculptures.
Just assuming that three colors on a canvas mean nothing is like assuming that this colossus piece means nothing as well, despite the fact that there is clearly something... different about it, and that, I believe, is why you assume that Red Yellow and Blue is "Shit" as you say.
But ponder me this, if Red Yellow and Blue was simply "Shit" why were so many people so afraid of it?
@@kaiserepsilon4011 if the n word is just 6 different random lines, then why are people so offended by it
@@bl1tz533 you can’t seriously be comparing art to a slur bruh 💀
@@siddharthsub just did
I remember a few years ago when I was somewhat in the alt-right pipeline, I got vaguely frustrated at some of the modern art in this video. I tried multiple times to write out a comment about feeling like the art was worthless without sounding fascist-y, but repeatedly failing. And at a certain point, I stopped and really thought about where my opinions on art and value came from.
This video really helped me question a lot of the beliefs I had inherited, and I can't be more appreciative of it. I've since started letting myself indulge in the sort of fuzzy feelings and thoughts that are brought through more abstract art. And as an aspiring game developer, with some wonky neurodivergency, the non traditional work this video defends has helped broaden my ideas and expression.
Thank you, truly
And he rejected truth out of fear of sounding "fascist-y" 😂
@@ijon-y4549 its not about sounding like a member of a publicly disliked group, it's about not relating to the potentially dangerous philosophy of that said group.
@@get_that_money664 the philosphy of disliking things that are ugly and lack aestethic value? That is not a fascist trait, that is normal. Might as well call Geller a Nazi because he and Shitlet both drank water.
While this video isn't one of the things that got me out, I got out of there too. Glad so many of us managed to escape that pipeline.
In Bioshock: Infinite’s Burial at Sea, Sander Cohen says that “It is the duty of man to ask. It is the duty of the artist to answer.”
Thats cool, but tbh I think it is also the duty of art to ask.
I once painted the night sky. I have no art talent or practice, so I kept the painting simple, just a dark background on a small canvas. Just... darkness. My mother looked at it and asked if I was going to add stars or trees, to which I said no, as there was no way I could paint them as I saw them in my head. But then my sister, an actual artist, looked at it and asked, "those streaks, that's the light from the city, right?"
Art is hard to see sometimes, and even harder to understand. I can never do what my sister does, just as she feels that she could never match my writing, but sometimes you don't need skill or knowledge to make something beautiful, if only to you. Sometimes, all you need to do is look at the night sky, and see the light hiddened in it.
It's a hell of a lot easier with the skill and knowledge.
@@jrshaul I won't deny that. Still, not a bad attempt, considering I hadn't done much creative painting before and hadn't received more than rudimentary training in primary school. It's a minor miracle that my sister found any meaning at all :P
ngl this is the video which made me appreciate modern art. it finally clicks.
I still have some reservations about it, but this video helped me look at it in another light, much like other video essays made by this guy.
Same
@M S Modern art doesn't need to be explained, its up to your own interpretation.
@@frankb2659 groomed? by who?
and both of those are subjective mediums, you'll have people who laugh at what I think are great skits or jokes like who's on first or seven dirty words, and other people who laugh at monkey's smelling their own fart and falling off of a tree branch, we can try to use metrics like psychology and delve into the exact units of serotonin produced by a gag or the facial features they generate, but those are works with fall into a field that empirical evidence can't fully allow for us to comprehend, it's ultimately up to you to pick and choose what art mediums you enjoy, as long as their is no verifiable proof that said work hurts yourself, others or society, why bother making a fuss over it?
@@frankb2659
"Modern art bros try so hard not to be just saying "you just don't get it bro". But whenever they talk it's little substance and it all boils down to "you just don't get it man...""
You're clearly not willing to be educated on the subject. You have a pepe the frog pfp, not exactly high art buddy. If anything, that imagery is more idiotic and harmful than anything most modern art does, which challenges the foundations of society.
"like if you're gonna make a bunch of innovative and cryptic paint mixes don't just paint fucking flat colors lol"
Why? you provide no actual reason why that needs to be the case. Same thing with all your statements. You just strawman and then inject your own baseless opinion.
"unlike you snowflakes I'm not easily offended" and then gets owned by a painting with two simple orange squares painted on it
@@Void_Wars wat
It's not a fear. Its disgust. Modern art hoax for money laundering zero efforts and zero creativity.
@ALSO-RAN ! Your comment just reiforced that which it set to reprimand...
@ALSO-RAN ! "Its a shame to see how tribalistic we have become as a society." you shun the action of upholding ideological tribalism and yet by generalising both groups it only reinforces the tribalism of each.
@ALSO-RAN ! I understand, nothing wrong in observing but your observation was marred by bias, surely you can see my point.
Honestly, it would feel much more powerful to have left it vandalized, as a show of the people who just want the world to conform to their ideas, and to remind others to be open to different experiences.
Not to mention the fact that it looked much better that way.
the left needs to censor, so that will never be allowed.
@@richardcarson3596 except it wasn't leftists who felt compelled to destroy, send death threats to artists or put them in gas chambers. Censorship has always been the go-to political tool of the right.
@@jessicam2840 the left is doing all of that right now. they are even doing it to truck drivers and children.
@@richardcarson3596 care to elaborate? like at all?
As an author, I’m always going to be partial to literature as an art form- and I’ve always asserted that it’s the best, most true form of art. Videos like this really show me how dumb I was, and even though I’m not talented in visual art I’ve gained a tremendous amount of respect for it in the past few months. I never would’ve drawn these conclusions on my own, and the ideas of this man and whoever may be working with him on his videos have seriously changed my outlook on the world. It’s like… well, it’s like a good book.
I love literature but have always been taken by great visuals. I guess the best writing can summon profound images in the imaginative mind, but a profound image is already... profound
Fun fact: Remember that one Banana that was taped to a wall? A similar fate fell upon it when a bystander walked up to it and ate it! It was replaced with a new banana the next day.
Edit: This has happened more than once.
Ya know.... I appreciate modern art now, never realized it untill I tried to replicate one of them, it's hard... I can't even tape this banana right...
Oh shit. Hanging a banana from the ceiling with tape would be a good idea.
Lol
Imagine appreciating contemporary art
@@baconboi4482 If you understand old art, you will appreciate modern art.
@@omegakek Janitors: «Idk what art is, but i recognize a piece of garbage when i see one»
ah yes,
enslaved moisture
Is a great example of modern art.
@Is me ? Hell, I'd make a work of art to depict it and put some other meaning, right below the surface, so you can feel it, but it's still unreachable. Image the madness that would ensue. A painting that deeply unsettles, and gives you existential dread
unironically tho a lot of memes nowadays have striking similarities to modern art
ah yes,
crucified used moisture
@@bryanchu5379 That's because memes are modern art. By the same qualities which define modern art as both "modern" and "art".
@@dairoleon2682 memes are a lot better because it's made just to be appreciated (free) and there's not as much pretentiousness from the people who made them
Who started hearing the 20s ballroom music and instantly got reminded of the caretakers work and thought " oh shit"
Randimised Wilson your the first person outside of the caretaker song videos that know about them, amazing, I did a little, lol
Randimised Wilson i thought i was really getting dementia at 24 years old for a second lol
I spent a night trying to paint a picture that depicted how those albums made me feel, with that as my background music, and it was so deeply unsettling that I get the chills every time I hear it. Never finished that painting.
That stuff scares me so much
Alex Foltz In a way, the absence of that painting is a very profound response to the music. The Caretaker is great.
"the monstrous offspring of insanity, impudence, ineptitude, and sheer degeneracy" sounds like the definition of art tbh
Madness make the best art
If modern art needed to run a PR campaign, this would be the perfect slogan.
Sounds like Deviant Art to me.
Sounds like a description of weeaboos and furries.
Imo Piss Christ actually looks pretty, the shading and composition of the photo looks lovely
the reds and yellows give it a hellish look, i love it
because its piss christ it is already perfect in every way
The colour pallette is fascinating and i like it
Have it on a shirt and I love it
It would make for the hardest album cover of all time
"Above all else, they're NOT TALKING ABOUT ART" yeah. your description of seeing a Rothko exhibit or even just one in person was pretty spot on for me
As an artist, this video alone re-awoke my passion of the art I create and why I create it. I’m so proud to have re-worked my views of modern art and now I’m going to be the type of artist that fascists get angry over, new life goal
@//// keep projecting ur insecurities unpon internet strangers
@//// I don't even like furries or feet, but if it pisses you off, I might just give it a shot. Art should evoke strong emotions, according to someone somewhere who I can't remember.
No ones gonna buy your shit lol
Don’t mean to toot my own horn but I get a lot of money on my art anyways lmao y’all salty over nothing, but pls, go off
@//// "talentless hand" reads as a pretty obvious projection of personal insecurity when u dont know shit about someones work
"It makes me physically sick, thus it should be destroyed and nobody else should be able to enjoy it." Ok, cool, we gonna tear down all roller coasters, close all breweries, chop down all nut trees, let all dairy cows run away and only bake gluten-free bread?
Brilliant video, thank you for your work!
Talk about murdered by words, hah
The Man Who Speaks You sound really upset and insecure about this, guess you were really afraid of some colors eh? Ironic, because this man's actions gave the art a true, clear purpose
we should ban steaks because babies might have a hard time chewing them tbh
@@mothslug4387 that's deep
@@mothslug4387 oh wait, they are already doing it, for an even more insane reason.
EAT THE BUGS!
Don’t date people who are afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue.
Don't fuck them either.
I generally dislike Modern Art pieces with a fiery passion. I still think of them as Art. It equally infuriates me when people vandalize it.
Beware: The comment section below is currently debating money laundering
Exactly. You don’t have to like art for it to still be art. I don’t like some of modern art pieces, but they’re still art and have a right to exist
This is what the concept of free speech is about - we need more people who hate what people are saying while defending their right to say it.
I just dont want it to be sold for thousands
@@everythingnothing2978 Are you at all involved with the sale or purchase of the art in this hypothetical scenario? If not, why on earth do you think that your opinion on the value of this art matters? Edit: To rephrase my question - why do you care what other people want to spend on art? Why do want others to spend something other than "thousands" on these art pieces?
@@erich1394 money laundering is bad
The way you describe the experience of art is so fucking good. Keeps the subjectivity of showing the art itself so the viewer can experience it themselves and decide what it means but it's overlaid with static and ambience that give off a central vibe, helping communicate your meaning. Also, as a synesthete, it really resonated with me. And *god* I love this video. It hits all the points I always wish I had the words to say.
I think it's interesting to see people's reactions to pieces of modern art, but I'm sure as hell not going to spend millions of dollars to buy one.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Doesn’t he make a point? I mean, fascists had the values described. And many of the people criticising modern art for not being art have similar values. Are these statements incorrect?
Yoooooooo
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 He clearly says that he is not not talking about people who dislike modern art. He said it is okay even if you don't like anything that came after 18th century.
I believe the fact that it not only got a reaction, but got the INTENDED reaction, makes these pieces art.
The depression game sounds amazing.
can you explain what you and others see in it (depression quest) because I don't get it
@@poppag8281 Bc it's a pretty accurate representation of how it feels to be depressed.
@@poppag8281 Or, at the very last, it helped me come to the realization that someone with depression, like myself, can't 'cure' depression, but it can be managed. And that felt very nice.
It really, really isn't.
Its trite and reductive.
The comments on this video are a goldmine. So many interesting takes and perspectives. I usually find myself reading a few comments on a video and then getting bored not long after, but I've been sitting here for a while just reading different takes and it's great. Just thought I'd share.
Hearing "everywhere at the end of time" filled me with dread when alongside those paintings
A lot of people here are sharing their thoughts on art, so I might as well jump onto the bandwagon. I don't like abstract art, it doesn't excite me or make me feel any special way like some other types of art do. But I have a lot of respect for all art, I believe that everyone should have the right to express themselves through art. The only "art" that I actually hate with passion is stolen art. There is a huge issue nowadays with companies or individual sellers stealing art from smaller creators and reselling it without paying the artists, not even crediting them.
There's a video that touches on abstract art, it can give you some insight into it if you don't "get it" (no one does). The video is th-cam.com/video/0F7XBwFwA-M/w-d-xo.html
There is a lot of talent to recreating art actually.
Abstract art is a fucking joke and a scam.
@@estebanmorales3635 That video has a lot more meaning than pouring a bucket on paint a canvas. That AI takes all sorts of things with meaning and just shuffles them around until it looks like something that should be real but isn't. Abstract art is mostly just some guy spraying paint on a canvas. The piece doesn't mean anything, it doesn't look like it means anything yet he's trying to convince you that it means something more than a tax write off.
i LOVE how you used the caretakers music for this particular video. the caretaker is such an experimental artist that created so much fear, sorrow, and nostalgia for me. his work is similar to Whos Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue in that it’s initially upsetting or frustrating. the caretakers work is well,,, Work to listen to, but leyland’s work is an obsession for me. i see it EVERYWHERE, and its created the strongest amount of fear i’ve ever experienced from an art piece. in fact, its insane how recognizable leylands work is to me now because of that specific fear it now strikes in my gut after allowing myself to *feel* it
great pick!
This video has single-handedly changed my outlook on art, and now I draw pineapples in a endless void so that’s cool B)
"It's just three colored bars, what meaning should i take from it?"
You shouldn't. It's three colors. It's beyond meaning.
I remember two paintings an aunt of mine had.
One was giant, vertical, depicting a rose, rich with details. Thorns, petals, the grass by it's feet(?), bloody beautiful.
The other one was a gradient of colors going from a dark brown/black into a light red/pink. The dark side was rough, as if it was made from the same concrete as the wall it was hanging on. The light side was so smooth it resembled glass or even a mirror.
I still dream about those shades, those rough spikes of concrete-paint, the slight reflection it had. There never was meaning in that painting, just itself. That's why i never make fun of modern art, because i know someone saw those exact same shades as me, and i want this person to have that experience.
@Jesse Mathis L + ratio + confederate + Union Dixie GOATED + "Jesse Mathis" + the art lasted longer than the confederacy + 'Least racist anime viewer' award
I had a similar realisation a while back. Years ago, I visited the gallery of contemporary art in Ottawa, Canada. The gallery is quite interesting, it orders its paintings by age, with the oldest paintings in its collection at the start of the visit, and the most recent ones towards the end. Towards the beginning and middle, I remember genuinely loving the art I saw on the walls, but towards the end, well it was just modern art, which I found dumb.
in one room towards the end, there was a wall on which there was one single painting. Two blue stripes with a red one in the middle. Its proportions were gigantic, it dominated that space. It was The Voice of Fire, by Barnett Newman. I found that painting hideous. I mean honestly, they paid 3 million bucks for that junk? I even read an article that valuated that painting at $40 million at the time of the article's release (2009 I think?). What a waste of money, it was all stupid.
but then, a couple years ago, I had a realisation: of all the paintings I had seen in that gallery, The Voice of Fire was quite literally the only painting I could still picture in my head. The only one I had bothered to look up online later, the only one whose name I learned and whose creator I looked up. It was the only painting from that gallery I could still remember.
That piece of junk made of 3 stripes was the only painting in the entire gallery that had any sort of long-lasting impact on me. If it really were just 3 stripes with nothing special about them, it should have been the first painting I'd have forgotten, not the only one I could still remember.
@@Christiaan-qj8fi AHHAHA at just using the dudes name as an L
Genuinely one of the best videos i have ever watched. This video fits into the small section of media that changed me for the better and i must thank you for that.
Man, I mean, how could something that elicits such a strong emotional reaction from someone, even one of hatred, NOT be art? It made people feel so much that they destroyed it.
Someone responded to this earlier and then deleted their comment, but I ended up thinking about this all day so Hell if I’m going to waste the response I wrote up.
I left my original comment vague because frankly I wasn’t expecting anyone to care or respond, but I will clarify:
I think you and I both know that screaming an racial slur (a defined /thing/ with a meaning and a history of oppression) and a lot of red paint on a canvas that doesn’t seem to visually represent anything specific aren’t even remotely the same thing. (And even in that case, black artists have absolutely reclaimed that word in artistic contexts because the visceral emotion it evokes is so powerful)
I’m no art critic, I’m not even particularly familiar with modern art, I can only speak from my own experience.
But In my experience as an artist, art is nothing so high and mighty as people hold it. Yes, Art can be a deep expression of meaning or an inner truth. It can be a depiction of something beautiful. It can also be an arrangement of elements that while not inherently meaningful, are nevertheless nice to look at. It can be something with just the illusion of a deeper meaning, just to see what people come up with. In that sense, artists absolutely do con critics frequently, in that artists rarely put half as much thought and analysis into the nature of their own work than critics do. It’s not inhuman, or uncreative, or inherently diminishing the meaning of art. It just is what it is. Hell, for example, people argued about why the Mona Lisa had no eyebrows for decades, assuming it must have meant something, and then restoration work revealed she actually had eyebrows all along that were worn away by time. There’s something really funny about that.
But the thing is, if this work is devoid of artistic merit, meaningless, a non-thing, why are people so angry about it? If it’s just a big block of color on a canvas that anyone’s third grader could do, why do people care?
Sometimes art can be about /art/. I don’t even mean art for art’s sake, but art made specifically as commentary on What Art Is. A lot of what people think about as Modern Art falls into this category- its a deconstruction of the nature of art itself. I would argue that art criticism frequently is bullshit, pretentious and snobbish and full of itself, but the truth is that people who don’t frequently consume a large variety of art probably won’t appreciate meta-commentary on art itself anyway, because frankly they’re just here to look at the pretty pictures, and this isn’t really pretty or visually interesting. And there’s nothing wrong with that! It’s kind of weird to go into an art gallery and expect to enjoy or understand every single piece, given the vastness and variety of art that can be made. Hell, I’m not even that big a fan of most modern art, unless it’s really interesting conceptually or just very funny (haha piss Christ)
But again, people aren’t just disinterested in this art. They’re angry about it. It challenges their ideas of what art is.
And that’s what it’s supposed to do. I can’t speak for the artist, I’m not familiar with him or his body of work, but I can hazard a guess that this painting did exactly what it was supposed to do. It purposefully stretches the definition of what art is, and it anticipates the confusion and anger and fear that will arise from it. Who’s afraid of red, yellow and blue? Apparently a lot of people! If someone was so afraid of it as to obliterate it, to be sure that its mere existence - just a bunch of red paint on a piece of fabric with a little blue and yellow, not depicting anything in particular- was destroying art and should no longer exist, speaks volumes about how it was more than the sum of its parts. I’m not even particularly interested in this piece based on how it looks, but the fact that its sheer simplicity made someone so angry they ripped it apart? That’s remarkable
@@leewebster4420 That was me, and I don't know what the hell happened to my comment, because I still got your reply notification. Give me a minute and I'll edit this reply to be more substantive.
To your point about screaming a racial slur not being the same thing as "offensive art," I don't intend it to be - though haters of "Piss Christ" might feel otherwise. I merely wanted to point out that I don't feel evoking a strong negative reaction from people is a good metric for defining something as having artistic value. In the past I've seen the argument that 'well, it made you mad, didn't it?' thrown around as the entire substance of defending a piece of contemporary art, and I've always thought very little of it. Deliberately offending or angering someone isn't too hard, after all.
I'm not an art critic either, and ditto on speaking from my own experience. I don't mean to imply that criticisms of contemporary are are necessarily objectively true, only to speculate on WHY visceral reactions seem so common. And yes, you raise a good point that there's always going to be noise in the signal between artist and art receiver, vis-a-vis the eyebrows thing. There's a whole 'death of the author' discussion here that could be had but I'd rather not.
>Sometimes art can be about /art/. I don’t even mean art for art’s sake, but art made specifically as commentary on What Art Is. A lot of what people think about as Modern Art falls into this category- its a deconstruction of the nature of art itself.
I actually think this is a really good point you brought up when it comes to the discussion of what gets to be art. The only thing I'd add is that I think some of the anger directed towards contemporary art is rooted in a fear that it might destroy or supplant older art styles entirely, until we arrive at a point where the skills to do some have simply been lost. Is this a realistic fear? Not really. But does it seem to be a pretty persistent one? I'd say so.
Kinda like a dictator, that got hated so much that they got killed.
I mean, based on that any graffiti of a penis has to be art, because they sure as hell upset a lot of people
A good example for why art shouldn't be judged by how hard it is to make is memes. They usually don't take much time to make but still can make you feel strong emotions anyway
I wish they would let the paintings in their new vandalized ways, it shows a way more interesting topic.
Yes it sure is more interesting
I’d say equally as interesting
its honestly insane to think of the route i was going down 5 or so years ago, and almost as insane to think that this is the video that started my push to turn myself around.
hateful, racist, all those terrible things more than likely perpetuated by upbringing and guided down a pipeline by anti-sjw youtubers that had a hold on the platform in 2016 and then some.
it was why i hated this video when i first found it, but it stuck with me, God am i glad it stuck with me.
id dare to say this video saved me or that i owe Jacob Geller for making it in the first place. But that sounds para-social so instead i'll say i'm happy he made it, and i love this video because it helped me grow up and out of that terrible phase.
I'm so happy to see this. I hope you have the greatest of times out there, thank you for being a mutable person and accepting new knowledge in this ever-changing world.
Congratulations. You chose to reject reality and live in a left-wing fantasy, instead of accepting this fucked up world as it is because it hurt you too much.
It can take a lot of strength to have an open mind and completely change the way you see the world like this. Im proud of you and I hope more people are inspired to do the same :)
Too dislike art, isnt fascist.
*Too try to ban it, is fascist.*
Not even ban it, but to try to force it to be measured objectively and tie it to morality
@@disastermidi1990 that would just be criticism or giving a perspective as to what they would like it to be, but not fascist. Fascist would be to ban it.
u a lmao I don’t have any idea what you think I said, I was just pointing out that in the video they had that “degenerate art museum” I am a mutualist anarchism-socialist leftist i am farthest away from fascism. The only issue here is your reading comprehension my friend
Every leftist cry "muh fascism" but the USSR did exactly the same thing. It's something to do with autoritarianism not a left/right issue, but please continue being useful idiots.
@@chavaspada aren't you cool
The annoying thing about modern art is that it takes a philosophical stance that paints itself as lazy. Modern art is a question more than a skillful piece.
Did you watch the video completely? Did you hear him say that the museum tried to fix the painting with the three colours and that they failed? Because it was in fact requiring skill to make, the skill of its creator wich was mostly unique to him.
Anyone who tries to define art in terms of what he thinks is good or bad has failed.
Art is whatever is perceived as art. Who perceives it does not matter. Art is nothing without one experiencing it.
Art is not what someone thinks is good, skillful, complex, or anything at that matter.
Art is not only what fits in your worldview.
A blank white canvas is art if someone experiences it as such.
Art is subkective.
@@GreenDeemonll i feel there was a bit of mixzup in the translation here. Was not going after modern art. Just saying how it's a very different approach to delivering it's message. Which is why it can be anniying to think about or look at. Like how certain pieces are so bland in design, but the context and meaning can make it more impactful. Sorry if you didn't catch my drift.
@@clothandleather2838 And I'm sorry for instantly reacting like this. Now reading your original comment again it makes more sense.
I guess I see it in four ways to do art:
1. The capitalistic way in which creativity is rewarded via money, power and fame.
2. The fascist way in which art is created solely for those in power as a means to advocate for their cause alone. Political art. (be wary, socialist art may find itself here as well)
3. Art for the individual. The starving artist at their best. They do it not for power, money, religious, and political motivations but because they are driven to by their own love for the genre. Even if only one person sees it, feels it, loves it, hates it, it is art.
4. Anarchist art. The art of the vandal. Vandalism as a form of expression. Done without society or governmental approval. For a variety of reasons. But done all the same.
2. Is probably "totalitarian" art, since the nature of such prescribed art is total control over society (definition of totalitarian)
@Wenceslao Futanakiok but what the fuck is with your first reply
@@VineFynn I would say that fascist art would be the art for the purpose of glorifying the state. Both justifiably and not. A statue of the Leader I wouldn't consider such, but something that's there to represent the abstraction of the state and its history would, something like the EUR.
“be wary, socialist art may find itself here as well”
Well, fascism in Italy has roots from socialism and collectivism, hence the bundle of sticks.
And those wacky Germans were the national *socialist* party so… yeah
@@Abdega Yeah. The Germans who put communists and anarchists in concentration camps and murdered every socialist-sympathizing leader on their party. Seriously. Unironically.
The Fascist Party in Italy got elected on a policy of liberal reforms and govern deregulation of business btw. Look it up.
My dad's response to "I could paint that" is always "maybe, but you didn't."
"maybe you did, but it won't be as popular."
@M S Apparently you can't read so
"Look I made a red line in the middle of the canvas, it's art!"
"What? I can do that, anyone can do that, hell, even a toddler could do that"
"but you didn't"
*painting gets sold for 20 millions*
I swear, that kind of modern artists are just the biggest trolls the world has ever know, they could take a shit in the middle of an art exhibit and people would find meaning in it
Just because i CAN throw shit at the wall but didnt, doesnt mean someone who did made art
@@Helperbot-2000 you sound like someone who has not thrown shit at a wall