In the past, the only way you could see a likeness of your dead family member was with an artistic portrait. The only way you could see summer colours in winter was via a painting. That scarcity created value. Currently we're drowning in images. Working artists who want to be loved, need to make work that captures of the feeling of their neighbourhoods and local culture. The tiny underrepresented niches.
I feel like people that make arguments like this have never actually been to more than a couple art musuems/exhibits. There are still plenty of representational artists today who's works are being seen and given credit. Its just not trendy, because new stuff, new ideas and movements, are always what's trendy. People aren't interested in representational art so much because its boring. Cool, you made a portrait that looks like a photograph, or you made a still life and crammed it with on the nose symbolism. That takes a lot of technical skill and that's worth appreciating. But it isn't exactly inspired, bold, interesting, or memorable.
Your Cynicism for the motivation to 'unmake' in the wake of WWII seems out of place. You have a very detailed picture of the way art progresses and at the same time lots of scorn for the involved individuals. I don't know where that is coming from if you are everywhere else seeking understanding Galleries that I go to and art students I talk to are not afraid of representation in the same way they don't cling to it. This freedom is hard fought and definetly improves the art they produce. I can not imagine what would make you bitter about that. Also your anti marxism was really out of place in this video about aesthetic philosophy
you and CJ the X released videos at the same time with similar ideas about the subjective/objective idea on art. They're also self taught in aesthetic philosophy (not acussing anyone of copying btw that would be impossible). it'd be nice for y'all to have a chat
I have been watching for 20 minutes and I disagree with him so much. He knows the history but just keeps drawing conrelations with how he sees art and history. Like yeah dude all that shit did happen at the time, that doesn’t mean that the opinion you drop in about art is right as well. He represents this massive dissatisfaction against art as the dominant belief in society. He builds his whole argument saying that throughout history people have started liking art less and less as art has become more abstract. He adds that “oh now art that is more realistic is seen as not high art.” Ok, what is your evidence to suggest that people liked high art in the past? What if people have always disliked high art because the people making the art have always had a “tilt towards narcissism” as he explains is happening with the avant garde movement today. Maybe people have always thought that rich assholes making art was narcissistic. But he doesn’t argue that. No he argues that it is arts fault that people have dissatisfaction with the elite today. I think it’s more that if there is a dissatisfaction against the elite, the art that people like, will not be art that is elitist. What is elitist has always changed and I don’t think it has to do with people not being capable of relating with abstract art. To answer the question I had before. I think that he likes historical art because that is the art of the period that has survived the test of time throughout the millions of pieces of art made, but also because the art harkens back to the classics. Something the elite have always done as a way to discredit the current art movements. Basically saying “wow art was so good back then and now it’s terrible, here’s an art history lesson, can’t you see how the art is getting worse and worse right??” He mentions how artists are attempting to plan the world and build impossible buildings (starting in the 50s and 60s but he likes to be more abstract so he can jump around more) and how some of the buildings aren’t as structurally sound. In the same video he uses the Eiffel Tower as something that inspired people to see the world in a new way, so are challenging architectural feats an inspiration or are they a sign of artists being disconnected? Or is it only old art that is good and inspirational since we already like it as a culture? People also failed at architecture in the past and we just remember the people that didn’t because their work was preserved, survived, and was notable enough to be remembered. He also hasn’t even mentioned photography!! Like an actual reason that art could become increasingly abstract can’t be related to how cameras can capture the world with incredible accuracy and that art can be changing; no, because he sees this shift as rotting of morals and values of a society rather than anything else. For him the best piece of art is gonna be a gothic cathedral with a thousand bible stories with as much detail as possible and a bunch of Greeks drinking wine. Lastly the moment I stopped watching he used the only example of someone disagreeing with his opinion of “abstract art is bad art” by showing a video of teenage girls saying they like art because it makes them think??? Bro’s gonna quote 5 philosophers for his argument and then use the opinion of high schoolers as a counter argument. Not to mention I think it’s pretty clear why he picked that group, a group of people his audience doesn’t respect. It’s a straw man argument that he uses to slyly put down women in the process. I’m done
Yeah. Half way through. Like, there’s some interesting topics here, but a heavy disdain for others that I’m not quite sure about. Especially the disdain for Marxism is kinda odd in this context. Like, there’s no reason for it really (the disdain).
the artist thus is to have freedom of expression in all areas, thus if one wishes the represetaional art or abstract art, as hitler hated abstract art, as so did advisors to Putin hated abstract art, all artistic or creative expression is always going to have a group attack it, but much more healthy is a art sociaty that is of vast differences in artist or creative persons, as a healthy academic group has complementary individuals that are different, when we become a snob sociaty we narrow such a area of art like Emily carr or group of 7 artist, thus we become "extremist". or as we know that art society treated VanGoue in disgust. A good credential for such advocacy in art and creativity, would be someone who has a portfolio from several art and design schools and thus has experimented with many areas of art and design, thus as a humanity, and not a cry wolf that your the only one being attacked.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] "บอสณวัฒน์" แฉ! แหล่งซุกเงินแก๊งบอส ขยันผิดที่ไม่กี่ปีก็เข้าคุก l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l17ต.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BL56qIfXYZM/mqdefault.jpg)
In the past, the only way you could see a likeness of your dead family member was with an artistic portrait. The only way you could see summer colours in winter was via a painting. That scarcity created value. Currently we're drowning in images. Working artists who want to be loved, need to make work that captures of the feeling of their neighbourhoods and local culture. The tiny underrepresented niches.
I feel like people that make arguments like this have never actually been to more than a couple art musuems/exhibits. There are still plenty of representational artists today who's works are being seen and given credit. Its just not trendy, because new stuff, new ideas and movements, are always what's trendy.
People aren't interested in representational art so much because its boring. Cool, you made a portrait that looks like a photograph, or you made a still life and crammed it with on the nose symbolism. That takes a lot of technical skill and that's worth appreciating.
But it isn't exactly inspired, bold, interesting, or memorable.
How did this lecture go down at the college? What was the reception like?
Your Cynicism for the motivation to 'unmake' in the wake of WWII seems out of place.
You have a very detailed picture of the way art progresses and at the same time lots of scorn for the involved individuals. I don't know where that is coming from if you are everywhere else seeking understanding
Galleries that I go to and art students I talk to are not afraid of representation in the same way they don't cling to it. This freedom is hard fought and definetly improves the art they produce.
I can not imagine what would make you bitter about that. Also your anti marxism was really out of place in this video about aesthetic philosophy
Oh wait I played one more minute and you're an anti SJW lmao
Conservatives shouldn't do art , because it is embarassing
Small tip: Try increasing your talking cadence and inflection in your voice: it makes it more engaging to listen to. Great video though!
you and CJ the X released videos at the same time with similar ideas about the subjective/objective idea on art. They're also self taught in aesthetic philosophy (not acussing anyone of copying btw that would be impossible). it'd be nice for y'all to have a chat
Thank you for sharing this presentation! Very well done and we need more of this type of content!
Brilliant stuff 🤘 Can you make a video about the amplifier and transducer? I would love to build it myself one day
The talking speed could be quicker - had to 1.5x the speed.
Despite that, great video!
Art shouldn't be a waste of resources.
Post modernism - “it’s my style!”, with a lot more words.
why do all of you anti modernists have such a smug upper class accent?
Tracey Emin’s Bed but it smells of Lynx
Olfactorism?
обосрался с первых 3 минут видео
I have been watching for 20 minutes and I disagree with him so much. He knows the history but just keeps drawing conrelations with how he sees art and history. Like yeah dude all that shit did happen at the time, that doesn’t mean that the opinion you drop in about art is right as well. He represents this massive dissatisfaction against art as the dominant belief in society. He builds his whole argument saying that throughout history people have started liking art less and less as art has become more abstract. He adds that “oh now art that is more realistic is seen as not high art.” Ok, what is your evidence to suggest that people liked high art in the past? What if people have always disliked high art because the people making the art have always had a “tilt towards narcissism” as he explains is happening with the avant garde movement today. Maybe people have always thought that rich assholes making art was narcissistic. But he doesn’t argue that. No he argues that it is arts fault that people have dissatisfaction with the elite today. I think it’s more that if there is a dissatisfaction against the elite, the art that people like, will not be art that is elitist. What is elitist has always changed and I don’t think it has to do with people not being capable of relating with abstract art. To answer the question I had before. I think that he likes historical art because that is the art of the period that has survived the test of time throughout the millions of pieces of art made, but also because the art harkens back to the classics. Something the elite have always done as a way to discredit the current art movements. Basically saying “wow art was so good back then and now it’s terrible, here’s an art history lesson, can’t you see how the art is getting worse and worse right??” He mentions how artists are attempting to plan the world and build impossible buildings (starting in the 50s and 60s but he likes to be more abstract so he can jump around more) and how some of the buildings aren’t as structurally sound. In the same video he uses the Eiffel Tower as something that inspired people to see the world in a new way, so are challenging architectural feats an inspiration or are they a sign of artists being disconnected? Or is it only old art that is good and inspirational since we already like it as a culture? People also failed at architecture in the past and we just remember the people that didn’t because their work was preserved, survived, and was notable enough to be remembered. He also hasn’t even mentioned photography!! Like an actual reason that art could become increasingly abstract can’t be related to how cameras can capture the world with incredible accuracy and that art can be changing; no, because he sees this shift as rotting of morals and values of a society rather than anything else. For him the best piece of art is gonna be a gothic cathedral with a thousand bible stories with as much detail as possible and a bunch of Greeks drinking wine. Lastly the moment I stopped watching he used the only example of someone disagreeing with his opinion of “abstract art is bad art” by showing a video of teenage girls saying they like art because it makes them think??? Bro’s gonna quote 5 philosophers for his argument and then use the opinion of high schoolers as a counter argument. Not to mention I think it’s pretty clear why he picked that group, a group of people his audience doesn’t respect. It’s a straw man argument that he uses to slyly put down women in the process. I’m done
Hooooooo boy, just read that only a minute in. Maybe I’ll listen and respond again
Yeah. Half way through. Like, there’s some interesting topics here, but a heavy disdain for others that I’m not quite sure about. Especially the disdain for Marxism is kinda odd in this context. Like, there’s no reason for it really (the disdain).
*slow clap*
the artist thus is to have freedom of expression in all areas, thus if one wishes the represetaional art or abstract art, as hitler hated abstract art, as so did advisors to Putin hated abstract art, all artistic or creative expression is always going to have a group attack it, but much more healthy is a art sociaty that is of vast differences in artist or creative persons, as a healthy academic group has complementary individuals that are different, when we become a snob sociaty we narrow such a area of art like Emily carr or group of 7 artist, thus we become "extremist". or as we know that art society treated VanGoue in disgust. A good credential for such advocacy in art and creativity, would be someone who has a portfolio from several art and design schools and thus has experimented with many areas of art and design, thus as a humanity, and not a cry wolf that your the only one being attacked.