This channel presents videos that are of interest to art educators. It provides a series of videos that address various aspects of art history as it applies to the teaching of high school, middle school, and elementary school art.
I like the more original style of outsider art. If you go to prim and proper galleries you will see a bunch of stuff that is wholesale roofs. Soulless.
Miroslav tichy's work seems kind of unethical to me. I know it tends to be considered "passe" or whatever to criticize art on moral grounds, but come on those are real women and girls he photogrpahed without their consent in an extremely creepy manner. He literally is just an old creep and the fact that he made his own camera would only really be impressive to me if he used it for something besides exploiting women and girls. I think it says a lot about the art world that some guy can just go around doing that kind of thing, and instead of saying "hey dude, don't take creepshots of random women and children that's super gross" we decide it's super deep and meaningful and put it up in galleries and museums, further exploiting the women/girls who had no say in their images being taken and used this way in the first place and legitimizing the idea that real breathing people are fair game to take advantage of as long as it's "art". If someone can explain this to me, I would appreciate it because I genuinely don't understand what seperates tichy from any other creep with a camera who shouldn't be within 100 feet of a school or playground.
What is realism? The point to the question is simple; the word realism is not telling us much. What is obvious is that photos and movies show a sort of reality mere words can’t do. Hence aside from political slogans, realism is made by forms of communication. The fact is unrealism and or anti-realism appear along side realism in profusion and the question what realism is not at all about ‘social’, or ‘socialist’ realism. Realism has a root in every day activity, which depiction is assumed real if it looks real. But the question already failed in that sense by the 19th century. Realism has to ask what’s outside the picture frame. Movies showed something of that ‘reality’ and a movie is a sort of gold standard that is questionable too.
YES....YES ANYONE CAN DO THAT....ANYONE WITH MINOR SKILLS AT LEAST....NOTHING WRONG WITH ABTRACT/NON OBJECTIVE ART AS A CATEGORY BUT MOST OF THESE ARE TRASH
There is no outsider art.I am labeled an outsider artist,but am winning awards and selling a lot, does that mean I am not an outsider artist?Some of the best art I have seen has been done by children.Stoo with the labels and just enjoy it.
The video and information presented is great. The music is distracting and not appropriate. Students just giggle as they listen to the voice moaning over and over again.
Pretty much all art is copying or appropriation of some kind. There is very little truly "new" under the sun. In art classes, they often have you try to "copy" or "imitate" the style of artists who have come before (ostensibly to "learn the craft"). "Try painting something like Van Gogh's Starry Night," "Try drawing something like a sketch artist," etc. There are bar-workshops that cater to exactly this tendency in art, where people go to have a glass of wine, and try their hand at learning/copying the art / style of others. Very few artists have "never seen another artist's work," nor copied, nor been inspired by another artist's work, and created something similar (if only to practice or hone their skills), or who have simply been self-taught with zero references, having never seen or been influenced by any other artist, art style, etc. I suspect that such people/artists are very rare indeed. In one sense "imitation is the sincerest for of flattery." We see something we like, an art style or aesthetic, and so we try to do something similar. It has always been like this, in nearly every artistic endeavour, whether art, literature, poetry, TV, movies, cooking, etc. We borrow from each other all the time... Even Pablo Picasso is quoted as saying "Good artists copy; great artists steal." Whether or not he actually said it, or was the first person to say it, it's still rather a bit of a thing. And, it's likely not going away any time soon. That said, I don't think that anyone should make an EXACT DUPLICATE of someone else's work. (style content, specific subject matter, or object, such that the new work cannot reasonably be told apart from the original.) But I am reasonably fine with imitative STYLE (varying the content), or using similar CONTENT but **changing** the "style," etc. And, in some sense, nobody has a, per se, 'monopoly' over "style." If one person creates something in the Art Deco style, does that mean that nobody else in the history of the world can ever create something in the Art Deco style, ever again, or risk being forever labeled as a "plagiarist" / "thief"? I don't think so, people have always and likely will always borrow stylistic elements, or entire styles, or deal in similar content / subject matter. If I draw a bowl of fruit is nobody ever allowed to draw another bowl of fruit? Of course they can. Nobody has a monopoly on bowls of fruit either. Neither bowls of fruit drawn in an Art Deco style, or whatever other combination of content and style. It would be a rather boring world if nobody could ever borrow style or deal in the same subject matter. There would only be like a thousand artists in the entire world. (Yes, that's hyperbole, but you get my point. If ONLY ONE PERSON can ever draw in the Art Deco style, or make wood prints, or paint in watercolor, or draw bowls of fruit, there would be no variety, no innovation, no remixing or combining of styles, etc. And things would get very stale very fast.) But, in a sense, art is democratic. Anyone can "do art," in whatever style they choose, from whatever inspiration they choose, remixing things, applying old styles to new content, or new styles to old content, or old styles to old content, or new styles to new content. And, frankly, whenever someone does something new or interesting, there will likely *always* be "imitators," who choose to adopt the style, form, or content, and bring their own sensibility to it. Why should we stifle human innovation or creativity by limiting who can do what, or drawing arbitrary lines in the sand (this is okay [copying Renaissance masters' styles], but not that [copying Banksy's style], even though it's conceptually the same thing [borrowing/imitating of some prototypical exemplar])? It is seemingly a fairly modern conceit that artists don't / shouldn't "borrow from," or "build upon," or "imitate" one another... In human history, it has always been the case that perhaps one innovates and another copies, or becomes a willing or unwilling disciple of the prior artist(s) [and the willingness/unwillingness flows both ways; an artist may become the 'exemplar' that everyone else copies, whether they assent to it, or not]... There will always be people that say, "wow, that's amazing, I want to do that, too... " and then they **do.** Sometimes with permission or instruction, other times with neither, but on their own initiative and accord, according to their own internal artistic/moral compass, or lack thereof. And so it goes...
Great stuff, Brian! Love your videos. What platform/apps do you use to create them? By the way, I was happy to see a big Elizabeth Murray at SF-MOMA this summer. Amazing.
I liked seeing the works of the artists presented, but the academic approach to describing the artists is in direct contradiction to what the art is about. Really mixed feelings about this video.
Lock me up in a mental institution where my every basic need is already supplied and some art materials and I can produce vast numbers of expressionistic,visionary,or disturbing artwork as well.
