@hamidahrashid2421
Nice video and topicđŸ™‚ While I will never understand art stuff , I'm still trying to appreciated it for what it in both old and modern arts .
@ainslieberrafella
This brings so much into focus. Thank you.
@barttheraven
Could you please show other pages from your scrapbooks? They look really neat. Thanks in advance.
@zszyTW
Art is alive and well, just not in fine art galleries. It's all around us in the media we consume.
@melere92
Doing Art History units in uni brought me here haha. Last year I did a week on Van Gogh and it made me think I liked Art History (I'm in Classical Studies but my first two years are interdisciplinary). Then this year we did much more on Art History that got into modern art and I realized I was mistaken. I thought this video was a great explanation, I couldn't put my finger on what felt "off" to me about it. Like it's always got to challenge and undermine things to an excessive degree. Like I'm all about questioning culture and society but it's like they're all patting each other on the back for it--it's also usually confined to questions that are trendy, so it's not even that edgy.
@vidsantoro
Sheesh…. This was perfection
@Halkin85
Just watched all your videos. Truly great stuff!
@Emmett-Shearer9886
I was a modern artist as a toddler. Shame that the world trampled on my dreams. I could have been a gazillionaire by now.
@jongrover8763
I look at modern art to see a glimpse of the future
@Emmett-Shearer9886
Modern Art is basically baseball cards for the rich.
@satanofficial3902
"In space no one can hear you scream. You scream, I scream, we all scream for ice scream." ---Albert Einstein
@rosverlegaspo6752
The scrapbook drawing is actually really good. Those paintings are incredibly expensive... but I actually like them. Even the I AM conceptual art is fairly interesting and reminds me of liminal pictures and artworks. My Bed and The Singing Butler... The thing is, they both are criticized, so I don't know why you contrast both as if it makes your point. Contemporary... This means now so any paintings and art styles are contemporary at their time. There was also the botched up restoration of Ecce Homo as an "Abstract" example. ... Seriously... Why? Are you trolling? Art meant to shock... not new at all. Remember Portrait of Madame X or Olympia? Or even art movement like Impressionism. Yeah. "That is shocking and it's insulting" is the very same sentiment they garnered. An artwork's value has always been engineered. There are craft guilds in the Medieval period for example that does many of these same things. They control the value of art to keep them expensive. And yeah. Art is not made for you! A lot of old portraits, like Mona Lisa, are private properties for personal enjoyment and not meant to be seen by the whole world. Icon Paintings are tools of religious devotion and not meant to decorate your living room or to appeal to non Christians. Many artworks, some I pointed out, are meant to shock the viewers. I don't know why an artwork that is meant to shock is somehow a bad thing. Yeah, stories about artist failing to sell things and only become popular after they are dead... And what makes them popular now? You guess it, these same people who are marketing art. Without them, these artist (Van Gogh in your example) would have remained obscure... as is true with many many artist out there. They could build, but hey couldn't sell... yeah. That is true then, and it is true now. Creating art and selling them are two different things. Selling your art for millions is even more difficult. There also practical reasons why many art works aren't displayed. For one, it is just physically impractical to do so. Where could all these art be displayed in the first place without things getting very crowded? Displaying artwork is also has some problems associated with it. For example pigments, the colors of the paintings, fade faster when exposed to light. The more a painting is displayed, the quicker their color fades and this is actually already a problem with many works like Mona Lisa or Van Gogh's Sunflowers. The artworks would also be exposed to more bigger swing in temperatures which would soon cause the paints to crack and peel. These and among other things like dust, oxidation, distortion and many more are eliminated or minimized if the artworks are stored. And so, displaying them also can be expensive. Being exposed and open to elements makes the artwork require more maintenance and care. And one very important thing is that, storing them keep them safe. Displaying artworks make them more vulnerable to damage from accidents to vandalism to disasters. How many new have you heard of artworks damaged by someone tripping over or someone vandalizing them or just burned in a fire? Sincerity of intention? Most artworks of the past, are paid by and made for wealthy clientele. Many of these paintings, beautiful as they are, are not sincere in the slightest. For the wealthy clientele, these are for displaying their wealth and status... and that includes the religious ones like Creation of Adam you displayed here. Like, seriously, do you think regular people could see the Sistine Chapel Ceiling in those times? No. These are for the eyes the rich Popes which the chapel is for. Regular folks at those times would never see these paintings in their lives. These painting are also to enhance their reputation and standings. Getting a portrait from a well known portraitist is a huge reputation boost. Getting your portrait paint by Leonardo, makes you part of other Leonardo's clientele which includes the biggest like the popes, and thus you will be above those lesser people who have to settle for lesser artists. These painting aren't whatever things you say here (like spiritual enlightenment and stimulation). These artworks are are like mansions or luxury cars or Rolex watches or designer bags. They are beautiful and well crafted yes but these artworks are just as elitist as the "contemporary" arts are. I really just disagree with this video. Sure, criticize contemporary art scene if you want, but implying that the past is less guilty or above it or something is just hogwash. At least, now, regular folks like us could actually enjoy art. In the past, most artwork, especially the best ones, are only for the (very) wealthy; made for the wealthy to be enjoyed by the wealthy and in service of the wealthy.
@ciucinciu
amen!
@Yatukih_001
I know exactly where modern art went wrong. Real art is known as classical art. That´s it. That was and remains the original definition of art. Its classical. During the 20th century, art students started at the start of the century to emphasize art less and less. Instead, everything was about the destruction of culture. Art colleges replaced good art students with bad ones, and made their exams so that good art students would not graduate. The most important art style of the early 20th century, Art Deco was pushed underground so it would flourish there rather than in the spotlight. Real art is classical art, bad art was simply given the label ´modern art´. Thanks for your video!
@MM-fy8yx
we dont arrive at the contemporary. Contemporary is a relative term. We only use it to speak of art now in that context. But it won't be remembered as contemporary. All art is situated. The Mona Lisa is situated from when it was created to the capitalist netword of art now. The title of this video supposes there was a time when art was "right" but this is a fallacy. Art has always been outside of boundaries
@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole
Oh, Botero, take be back to Munchkin Land.
@danajadzia3390
Was it capitalism? It was capitalism.
@Johnconno
Kahnweiler.
@barttheraven