Collecting Abstraction: The Multiple Narratives of Modernism 

I'm not saying all art transactions involve money laundering but I am saying the majority of them do like more than half

Narcissists = crooks & scammers. A big disgusting joke

This weird cult of people have nearly ruined art. I'm so sick of ugly art and their cult. As an artist I'm disgusted by the way most of them speak about art.

I dont think this is so much art growing into the hands of the privileged, but that society has pushed art so far into the corner, most people dont even give it a second thought. I grew up around art, my dad is an artist, and ive worked on art as long as my memory can serve. But I remember taking my exgirlfriend to see work i was excited for, and she didnt even know of museum edicate! Art has surrounded us more than we can fathom in TV, Billboards, on the packaging of everything that we buy, thats not a bad thing at all, but we easily forget its so much more than ‘what looks good, or ‘what it can sell’. As i grow older i realize just how far weve gone from even ATTEMPTING to understand modern art, and lets be honest, over-justification is the main culprit. So is it the fault of art snobs who critique the work to a pulp, or is it the fault of society in general, and its obsession to sort and gather, and toss aside anything we cant take on past face value

I am deeply, profoundly, passionately GRATEFUL that there is a place where I can go to SEE Art. That there is a love and respect for it and people who will love and protect it. HOWEVER, the rubbish that people spout when trying to talk about Art is painful to have to listen to.

Yes!!!

Yes!! People talk absolute RUBBISH about Art. It is REALLY strange!

@@drawbot70 We should revolt ... by telling the truth, as you have just done!!

Can anyone say "vague comment ".

즉..우리는 물건을 소비 보관 곁에두지만 그 물건을 썼던 함께했던 어떤 장면이나 인물 추억이 깃들어서 꾸미고 노는것일까..유리잔 유희..유리잔이..수많은 유리파편들이 급속도로 날아오다..메트릭스 힘으로 인하여..또다른..금이 간 유리잔..금이간 안경오브제 트랜스포머..처럼 흡수되어..한 유리잔이 유리잔인척 억지로 연기라도 하고 존재하게 하는 힘의 일부분이 되었을수도..상처받은 노동자들이..나에게로 와..그림인척..하는. 유리알 유희를..하는것같다. 나도 작품이얏..이런 느낌적인 느낌. 불의잔..까꿍. 불의잔..은 불의잔이 되고싶어서 된것이 아니라서 극도로..또..막 너무..막 너무..쫌 그래..

Lol all art is contrived

So do I. So do I. 50 years ago as a young man I took a day trip to Buffalo, NY to go see the Albright Knox(sp?) Museum. It changed my life in a very real and enduring way. I saw a retrospective at the Guggenheim once of Mark Rothko. Hard to tell others what your eyes now see that they didn't before.

@@russellsnodgrass9374 Rothko ất the Guggenheim. Must have been magnificent. With contemporary art, pluralism reigns but it's a double-edged sword. Everyone has a voice but most voices say little.

@davidhunternyc It really was. And I say that knowing how extremely limited my experience and exposure to art and museums is. But walking up the circular ramp that runs up around that cylindrical building and starting by standing a couple feet away from these paintings; but then halfway round you could turn around and there across the space were the paintings you'd just been in front of, only now floating and vibrating on the wall across found you. It was stunning, and there was no question that you were seeing in them why they'd been created and what the artist was trying to create for the viewer. Higher up still, and one could look back and see three tiers down. Whole show was kind of an experience of accretion seeing as how it was possible to look back and see the painting you'd started with. Smaller now, but still humming. Like the colors where in dialog together, but all in murmurs and at a frequency below usual human consciousness. If that makes any sense at all. Thanks for the shout-out. rb

@@russellsnodgrass9374 Like clouds, like fire, like rustling leaves, it all makes perfect sense.

You should fact check your premise . Women are moving up in the art world. Being a male artist today is guaranteed failure. Unless, of course, you're a gay male or trans male.

It's all been done before. Nothing is new. Although, can anyone say Inclusive or Diversity? Art in America is not about American art. Art News is more focused on (skin) color than they are on Art. Its acceptable for a certain race of artists to bash other races but not vice-versa. Don't play stupid.

They rotate the art work. They display the works at different times so you might see a certain painting one month, go back and it has been shifted to storage and another is in its place.

Oh.

sing that again marty

It's not beautiful and doesn't have any emotion.

@@theoryofpersonality1420 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder my friend.

@@theoryofpersonality1420 Your definition has several terms that would need defining themselves. For example, the definition/criteria/perception of beauty alone has been written about for millennia. Skill and creativity also need a deep dive together and separate. Using a word like "primarily" opens the door for bias and taste to make things murky - "often" works better there, though mentioning tendency at all in a definition doesn't make sense because tendency refers to *use* of a definition rather than the definition itself. "It's not beautiful and doesn't have any emotion" is an opinion stated as fact. Your taste and perspective is fundamentally subjective with bits of objectivity.

I really like baroque paintings, you can really see the virtuosity of the artists in their technique. The way they recreate light and human gestures and mannerism. that sort of art transcends time. one thousand years from now people will still be left in awe the first time they see work by Rubens, Caravaggio or Vermeer. I doubt the same effect would take place with some of the work shown here. Two rectangles of paint one light grey and one darker grey? Color blocking? a canvas full of scribble? really? i think the minute you have to explain what your art is about that's when it probably is a fraud. Did Rubens and Vermeer have to explain their paintings? i guess depending of your level of education and art appreciation one looks at the sistine chapel and can deduce certain things depending on what you know about art. but it doesn't take a phd in art history to come to the conclusion that its beautiful, no matter your background.

@@gabrielenriquez6156 excellently expressed. Thank you . . .

@@gabrielenriquez6156 they didn’t have to explain it because it was “simple” - complex and difficult in technique and in its realization, but fairly straightforward in its subject matter (though some, indeed most, art from the renaissance and earlier periods is full of symbolism and complex in their meaning, though this is “simplified” through understanding of the context and conventions) - meanwhile, abstract and contemporary is going beyond reality and actually exploring imagination, that is why it is more intellectual. Now, don’t get me wrong: I am highly skeptical of contemporary art and not really a fan, and I do prefer earlier periods. I am just pointing out the theoretical and conceptual ideas behind the art and why it is not really a fair comparison. Again, whether an artwork actually manages to convey abstract ideas is something else altogether, I am talking in general. I can appreciate that, but I find that many artists of today may simply be hiding behind the abstract, using it as an excuse to pass their mediocrity as something it is not. To point out that even Michelangelo ventured in more abstract work at the end of his life...

@@kencur9690 mostly agree but “abstract art is going beyond reality and actually exploring imagination “ I don’t know. Did you actually see the art in this video. Does two rectangles explore imagination? And I’m confused why you think a Rubens or a Vermeer is straightforward in it subject matter. Apart from being visually stunning and full of the artist’s virtuosity some of them were full of symbolism and portray from the most mundane to the most sublime of subject matters. They have both, virtuosity and substance. They’re not just simple pretty drawings

@@gabrielenriquez6156 oh I meant it in general, as in the trajectory of art. Art moves towards that end: both in terms of art history (modern and contemporary) and in terms of artists (early years - later years: lots of great artists of the past explored the abstract at the end of their lives). I wasn’t referring to any particular painting, or the ones in this video. I agree that great art of the past is more than a pretty painting, but it is undoubtedly more straightforward than, say, a surrealist painting. Like I said, lots of complexities in terms of symbolism and meaning, but these can be unlocked through careful observation and study, and knowledge of context and convention. Not so for recent art, which is more elusive. That is what I meant. The art itself is very rich, both in execution and choice of subject matter. I mean, View of Delft is pretty straightforward, and so is Girl with a Pearl Earring. There are undoubtedly some hidden elements (in some of Vermeer’s work, too, in Leonardo’s, etc), and puzzling choices but the general subject is usually plain to see and interpret. Compare this to works by Dali, for instance, and the difference is night and day. I’m not saying one is better than the other, mind you, just that one is far more esoteric and rife with hidden meaning and possibilities of interpretation, and intentionally so. Of course, I fear that many use these intentionally not to explore philosophical questions of reality, but as an excuse - I’m just as skeptical as you are, in the end.

Roberto Sebastián Antonio Matta Echaurren, Matta, Matta

I'm sick of all the talking these 'experts' do. They always want to tell us how to think about art.

@@song4night I don't perceive them telling anyone how to think, but inviting us to think, first of all, and offering various perspectives on which to reflect.

What?

Is this bait? People talk about architecture, literature, and dance the exact same way...

@@gnomschild (I don't understand in what capacity you are using the word 'bait' ... can you please elucidate? I'm sincere!). It's the artificiality that is so annoying. I have not experienced quite this level of ridiculousness with other mediums (dance, lit, architecture), although, perhaps you have? It's the projection onto the piece that feels, not only invasive, but predatory. If someone looked at my work and began projecting their sht onto the piece (the story of what's behind it), I'd be furious. Each person will have a different take on what they see, but THAT is personal. For people to sit around and tell you 'what's what,' unless they have spoken to the Artist and this comes from the horse's mouth, then it's pretentious. It's also damaging because it makes people who DON'T do this think that they don't 'understand Art' and it makes them afraid of it.