I think it is important to know the difference between the execution of art versus the subject matter of art. To me, art is more about the execution of a piece rather than the subject matter. For others, it's all about subject matter. My personal definition of art is: "Any creative outcome that first requires years of practice and mastery to achieve a level of excellence not found in the average person." Doesn't matter if its animation, cartoons, comics, classical, music, woodworking, architecture, and the list goes on and on. Other folk's definition of art might be: "Art can be anything. It's personal expression. It's all inclusive with no boundaries and does not require any skill." Painting a canvas white is not real art by my definition, even when painted by an artist who has taken years to master his/her craft, because the average person can paint a canvas white. The average person can poop in a jar. The average person can splatter paint randomly. The average person can (arguably) paint basic geometric shapes. The average person can pick a boulder and call it art. If it is something the average person can do, it shouldn't be considered art because true art takes skill and imagination to achieve.
That definition makes a lot of sense to me. The problem I see with it is when you start looking at art is passionate and heartfelt, but lacks some craft. I'm thinking Daniel Johnston, The Ramones or a lot of stuff that I've done. That type of art is really important to me. There's also art that lacks mastery, but is super innovative. I feel like we need more ways to parse different types of art that are valuable for different reasons, but we don't really have the language for it.
Personally, for me I think good technical skills mixed in with an interesting personal view of the world/subject makes for the best art because it's a symphony of hundreds to thousands of hours put into refining visual language to give it eloquence. Most modern art seems to avoid the hard work of getting those tools the classical artists spend time getting, and that's probably what irks most of the more traditional artists. Basically what I'm getting at where is the skill? All this being said maybe ignoring categories, and judging things on a case by case basis would probably be better as you will occasionally find a diamond in very unlikely places, but I think I'll let someone else do the sifting. -Sincerely Someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
"Personally, for me I think good technical skills mixed in with an interesting personal view of the world/subject makes for the best art because it's a symphony of hundreds to thousands of hours put into refining visual language to give it eloquence. " I would agree with this, and I think you're asking some very good questions. The surprising thing for me is that this holds true for the best contemporary art, it's just that the skills involved are different. If you just look at the cliches, it might not be obvious, but even checking out a single contemporary art show can pretty quickly get you past the cliches. It's worth sifting through :)
I don't think there's a problem with modern art in terms of subject matter. People should be free to make art out of whatever they want using whatever tools they want. I think the problem is with the fine art world as a business and how sometimes it can be arbitrary as to what sells for thousands and what doesn't. As with most big businesses there's a lot of sketchy practices in the fine art world. A lot of people compare commercial art to fine art. But I don't think illustration, comics, animation, and graphic design should be judged as worse or better than modern fine art because the goals aren't the same. We create the latter to communicate or entertain often for commercial purposes. Fine art is about self-expression and interpretation. Of course there is overlap, but in general you don't want the panel order of a graphic novel to be open to interpretation. The metrics of measuring the success of a fine art piece would be different. Both have audiences that appreciate and support the work. That's what art is about; an artist connecting with her/his patrons.
I agree that the business side of it is pretty sketchy. I kind of feel like my favorite art is the stuff that can find that tension between the market and the greater good. I don't like what happens when you go too far either way.
yeah I agree there's no reason why all facets of the art community shouldn't be all inclusive! it's a ridiculous notion to impose standards on art anyways. Good talk!
It's considered new and easily given profit to to those who are challenged most (by experience). So they become jealous, afraid or angry subconsciously because people are competitive, especially those with a huge connection to something they love doing or owning.
I agree with you! Thank you for clearing that up :) I wouldn't pay much attention to those PragerU videos. Most of these are staunch conservatives and very closed-minded people. Some of them don't even seem to know what they are talking about. I'm also a big fan of classical art and illustration (and I'm an aspiring concept artist), but studying graphic design I learned that modern/contemporary art is a great blessing for creativity and questions visual norms and ideas. Ideas about how to use space, light, tools etc in different ways. I recently bought "Designing Design" by Kenya Hara and a book about Japanese ink work. It's fascinating for me how they use white space and how sensitive and light their drawings and artwork look. Being open-minded to new ways really benefits our creativity and individual style.
When considering Modern and Contemporary art, I am afraid that there is something to be said for the absurdity., When a Stenciled Bold "FOOL" in blue paint on a white canvas by artist Christopher Wool sells for $5Mil, including higher grossing "art" by Rothko or as I heard of a commission for $10k paid to a modern minimalist artist, who apparently left it to the last day and painted a black boarder & signed it on a untouched canvas and sent that off to be framed. There is something to be said for skill, but also for the con and apathy of the artist.
I agree. One approach I think I missed with my initial response is that often times we are talking about two things when we talk about art: mastery and innovation (I actually made a video about this! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DwxF_zQjSWw.html). You can't compare art that is preserving a tradition of mastery with art that is trying to innovate (including absurdity). They are doing entirely different things.
We're pretty much fighting against what we have created as we are unable to cope with our achievements. We're actually going back in time: academies, countries pulled apart, huge differences, racism, sexism, terrorism, diseases, .... pollution... selfishness always remained the same and always existed equally now compared to a thousand years ago. We haven't improved our ways, at all. We all think we can befriends with everything to think it will allow us power, but it only pulls us apart and forces us into a corner of individual dictatorship and self-harm. We are people that are never happy and unable to keep what we created. We always destroy it somewhat because this planet renews, yet it doesn't, you feel me? The universe moves and we're here, fighting it, ruining it, manipulating it and we were given that chance just to end up in the trenches one day.
Just found your channel and I absolutely love every piece that I've seen so far! I just want to ask if you have a Q&A? What's the name of that brush pen that you use in your videos? It looks very nice!
I'm very greatful for modern and conteporary art because it allowed artists to go beyond "comum standards"... It gave space for the most horrible figures and forms to come to life! We shouldn't be slaves of beauty... I'm a designer and I have to follow those "comum standard" all day every day and I'm tired of it... I'm numb to it, it doens't appeal to me at all! I wanna have those feelings of "How did that come to it?", "how did this person process this on her/his mind?" Comercial art is good, but not enough for EVERYONE. Can't we all just live along side by side without feeling OFFENDED by someone getting a paycheck for something you THINK your 10 year old would do? Shouldn't we just celebrate, criticize and live what surrounds us without such hate and despise? No one NEEDS to follow anything in art anymore and that's the beauty of it.
I was a little surprised to see you side with contemporary art on this one, although I can agree with the dangers of any sort of universal standard. I think the issue most people have with contemporary art is the suppression of skill over the value of the “conversation” which contemporary art is supposed to provoke. I’m all for expression, but I think even you can agree that “uninformed” expression, expression without skill is relatively worthless. I draw comparison to music in this sense. Any idiot can pluck a bunch of chords or bang a few keys directed by nothing more than his expressive spirit but no one in their right mind would call it music. Personally I tend to think of contemporary art along the lines of intellectual masterbation, but if that’s what you’re into then go for it. I think the thing that really infuriates me about contemporary art is the egotism of the work. More often than not, it seems like the message of the art is secondary to the ego of the artist, who seems more interesting in demonstrating their “cleverness” or merely to get noticed though shock value than trying to make a statement about something. And on the topic of shock value, I think this is actually the natural evolution of “art” thanks primarily to the road the impressionist led us down. Art movements tend towards reactionary trends, each trying to distance themselves from what came before. The impressionists, which I actually quite like, changed the game from reactionary to revolutionary. The problem with that is that at a certain point you run out of ways to revolt until you end with something that is just plain revolting. The question that started with the impressionists “what is art?” has reacted a point now where the answer (everything, at least as it stands in the contemporary art sphere) is only relevant to the contemporary artists and the elitist “art community” of owners, collectors and critics that maintain its value. It is this “art community” that marginalizes and pushes illustrators/animators/comic artists and the rest to the fringes with terms like low art and “commercial art” as if creating art with intent of getting paid is less artistic, creative or noble. You talk about an inclusive environment of art that doesn’t exist, or at least not one that includes contemporary and commercial artists together. What we have now is actually almost a complete division of us and them. Most commercial artist as far as I have seen have very little if anything to do with “Art”, and most of us have accepted we are always going to be seen as the poorer cousins of art, at least as long as the “art community” remains the way it is. …and, ah, sorry about the long comment. I am very passionate about this subject and it just sort of got away from me.
Nothing to apologize for. I think you bring up some legitimate concerns. True some contemporary art is about "conversation" and honestly, that's not my favorite stuff, but there is lots of stuff out there that is purely about aesthetics and lots of stuff that tries to do both. I'm sure the ego out there exists, but most of my one-on-one interactions have been with humble, sincere intelligent people. That doesn't mean that humble people can't unintentionally create crap - and sometimes they do. But yeah, there's still lots of schism and snobbery.
Modern art is a cesspool of "creators" who do the bare minimum, and get paid thousands of dollars. A single line on a canvas is worth ten thousand dollars? This isnt to say all artist in modern/contemporary art are like this, but the majority of the works are derivative and trite.
"Art" like that is what'll be in historical texts when talking about the culture of our time. No standards, no effort, and ultimately nothing of value.
My biggest problem with a lot of modern art is the obvious lack of skill. Sometimes I look at a piece, and wonder if the artist knows perspective, or even studied human anatomy. I know in art you are free to break the rules, but I think there should be a reason, and the execution needs to look beautiful.
Totally agree. Feel free to dislike any contemporary art that you see for any reason you want. Just keep in mind that there is lots of different kinds of contemporary art out there and possibly something you could really connect with.
any generalization may be wrong, there's always nuance in every situation. But we have seen a lot of examples of pure bs exposed as art pieces. We should be able to put a limit to that insanity, don't tell me that an old pair of glasses in the floor is art, just to name an example. It isn't, and I think all real talented people like you should oppose that, at least those ridiculous examples.
I agree that there is BS out there. The extremes are really easy to identify, but there is a grey area where it's much harder to make a definite judgement. In those cases, I'd rather err on the side of being too liberal with my definition of art. That means some BS will get by, but I'd rather have that happen than shut down something legit that I just don't understand.
I've never been inspired by traditional art. I still make the argument that abstract art is garbage. What's inspired me over the years is the modern art: Avant Garde, Graphic/Animation, Comics. You inspire me. Modern art can be nice to look at I guess... but it's not the style I'm attracted to.
I wonder if this is an issue of popular meanings vs technical. When the average lay person hears modern art, they don't necessarily think of what someone trained in art thinks of. They think of a bag of trash in a museum or a guy lying on the ground screaming for four hours. Lay definitions vs esoteric definitions cause a crap ton of conflict in political discussions. Might be the same issue here?
I think so. I was actually pretty clueless myself until I made friends with some contemporary artists and saw the skill and effort that went into what they do.
I love love love your thoughts on this. That Prager U video drives me up the wall. It's been shared by so many of my artist friends and instead of arguing with them on their walls, I'll just send them to this video next time :D
Let me begin by telling you that when my brother was just starting school, he rebelled at the rules of spelling. Why did words have to be spelled in a particular way? Why couldn't he spell them as he wanted to spell them? He resented the rules and he resisted the authority of those who made them ! Keep this in mind. I think that Conceptual art comes from people who could not and would not do the difficult work required to become a 'traditional' artist. Can't master the necessary skills ? Can't understand how to use color to create mood? Can't master composition? Can't draw or understand human anatomy? Can't figure out how to express your feelings with image? Well then, belittle the importance of those skills and debase the notion that they are a prerequisite to creating art. Instead, create an art genre that you CAN do. A new genre...conceptual art. Conceptual artists claim that IDEAS and CONCEPTS are the main feature of their art. They can slap anything together and call it ''conceptual art'' confident that viewers will find SOMETHING to think about it no matter how banal or trivial the artist's concept! There is no way conceptual art pieces can be judged. The promoters of this art have attacked the motives and credibility of authorities and critics who might disparage the work. They have rejected museums and galleries as defining authorities. They reject the idea that art can be judged or criticized . All of this results in a decline in standards. And when you jettison standards, quality suffers. There really IS such a thing as BAD art ! We know this only because we have standards and criteria by which such things can be evaluated. It seems that conceptual art comes down to a basic idea: No one has the right or authority to make any judgements about art ! Art is anything you can get away with ! A whole new language has been created to give the work an air of legitimacy and gravitas. Conceptual art is 'sold' to the unwary public with ....."ArtSpeak". ArtSpeak is a unique assemblage of English words and phrases that the International Art world uses but which are devoid of meaning! Have you ever found yourself confronted by an art gallery’s description of an exhibition which seems completely indecipherable? Or an artist’s statement about their work which left you more confused than enlightened? You’re not alone. Here are examples of ArtSpeak: ''..she manipulates architectural structures in order to deconstruct socially defined spaces and their uses and test novel and playful possibilities." Or ' 'Works that probe the dialectic between innovations that seem to have been forgotten, the ruinous present state of projects once created amid great euphoria, and the present as an era of transitions and new beginnings.'' This language is meant to convince me that there is real substance to this drivel which is being passed off as 'art'. But I don't buy it. Plenty of other people DO buy it. Not because they love the work. They are laying out enormous sums in the belief that their investment will bring them high returns in the future. A Jeff Koons conceptual piece, three basketballs suspended in a fish tank, sold for $350,000.00 . Here is Koons' own ArtSpeak explanation of his floating basketball 'concept' verbatim: “ This is an ultimate state of being. I wanted to play with people’s desires. They desire this equilibrium. They desire pre-birth. I was giving a definition of life and death. This is the eternal. This is what life is like, also, after death. Aspects of the eternal” Rather lofty goals for 3 basketballs suspended in a fish tank!! _________________________________________ Something radical has happened to the art “scene “ in the past 50 years. Cubism slid into non-representational art....what is called Abstract. To many people, it appeared as if this new style had no structure or principles. It’s markings seemed random and arbitrary. Something that anyone could do. Any composition of blotches or scribbles was “Abstract Art”. This was the slippery slope that led to the abandonment of standards in art. Art is what I say it is....and lots of people jumped on the art bandwagon. A tacit agreement forms among critics, galleries, publications and auction houses to promote and celebrate certain artists and styles. Objects with no artistic merit are touted and praised . Their value increases with every magazine article, every exhibition in a prestigious gallery. And when they come up for auction, sometimes the auction houses will lend vast sums to a bidder so that it appears as if the work of the particular artist is increasing in value. The upward spiral begins and fortunes are made. This now dominates the art market. The love of money is the root of all evil. I t has corrupted politics. It has corrupted sport. It has corrupted healthcare. It has corrupted religion. And now it has corrupted art. But, there is reason to hope. As much of the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans was kept alive through the Middle Ages in small pockets of learning and culture, ateliers have sprung up around the world that are devoted to preserving and handing down the traditional visual arts: drawing, painting and sculpting to each new generation. And when this craze for conceptual art has burned itself out and when schools that have dissolved their art programs want to reestablish them again, and when visual art is no long looked on as mere decoration, the world will find these skills preserved through the atelier movement
It's weird that illustrators would agree with Florczak's premise, they should be WAY more aware of what's being produced art wise. To reduce all modern art to "piss christ" is silly. Conservative (in the literal sense not political) art reactionaries gaining traction is crazy to me. be Maybe sign of the times?
I get why Florczak's arguments resonate with illustrators. In many ways they are looking for appreciation for their work and it can sometimes seem like modern art is overshadowing their traditional skills. I think Modern art is becoming a scape goat in this case. There are bigger forces at play when it comes to art and economics. But yeah, once you examine the argument more closely you start to see the problems with it. Honestly, I think you will always have traditionalists in tension with innovators. It's part of what makes society work.
Innovation is great, but flopping on the ground and screaming, or putting a white canvas on the wall, or flinging paint (or worse things) at a canvas are not "innovative", they are stupid. An innovateive plumber might find a better way to make a drain, or reduce the time it takes to warm up the shower. Hooking up the water spigot to the sewer. on the other hand would not be "innovative", it would just be stupid and insulting. Artists (and I would include illustrators in that category by the way) shouldn't be pulling stupid stunts to appear "novel", they should be on the lookout to innovate in ways that actually make their art better, not as an alternative to producing art at all.
You know what it is? He's merely afraid to lose his craft. He's afraid to lose his jobs to digital art or the art that seems 'simple' with a block and a stick on and it's seen as art. It's art because people see it like that, because that could be one of the first silly ideas, made through history during a war where it was forbidden to ever attempt such provoking ideas. You see, people are always arguing, no matter what because we individually never truly understand much of anything at all. 10% we are aware of of you know, so that 10%? we claim ourselves to know everything so well when we truly don't. Art on its own remains subjective, just like our thoughts will be. All that's objective is what happens in front of our eyes and is stated as 'seen' officially to be able to write down in a book and keep it sealed for years until it fades. So, if we always think that way, it's no wonder that we are either afraid to commit, accept or to allow new ideas. And it flows with the time, as the old masters weren’t appreciated either making the first abstract art, in times when christian god paintings were it. And now, digital art or installation art gets critiqued the same way. And in about 50 years, hyper realistic 3D holographic VR art might be seen bad according to the digital world... it never ends, never...
People are afraid of what's new, and what's unrecognisable. Something unfamiliar, we always pry our eyes on no matter what. And after we adjusted subconsciously (as mankind is made to adjust to their environment just like animals), we will get used to that idea and cry about the next a week later. It's because it's what we do: complaining to find ourselves a way to fly and fight for or away from.
Robert Florczak's video is right on the money. Yes, modern (or "contemporary") are is absurd, silly, and ugly. Of course that's a generalization, but it's a true one. If it's so diverse have you not noticed that there's just one thing that is excluded: actually beautiful, meaningful, serious, skillful art. THat's what I want and as you defined "contemporary art"will have none of it. As for your repeated assertion that contemporary art is series, skillful, etc. that's utter rubbish requiring zero skill or seriousness. IT is a scam and I want nothing to do with it. |Regarding your claim that an appeal for standards means government control, I think that's absurd. I think that there are universal standards of good art but I want the government to have zero involvement in any kind of art. In the modern era of contemporary art, the government is the primary patron of contemporary art now and it enforces its standards against meaning, beauty, quality, etc. As a prominent opponent of modernist garbage, I'm a HUGE fan of illustration, animation, etc. I have never even met anybody from my general way of thinking has anything bad to say about illustration, animation, cartooning, etc.In fact, I would say that. over the past century illustrators have been among the few people upholding good artistic standards and I am very much thankful to them for it. Your comments at the end seem to imply that the reason someone might not like the contemporary art world is because of a lack of exposure to it. That's ridiculous. I have been flooded with this stuff since I was in elementary school, and early on,I had the impression that art was always and necessarily ugly, absurd, shallow, pointless, stupid, and insulting, It was only when I started taking control over what I saw that I came to understand what art really was and that the stuff I had been shown was not art at all, it was a series of publicity stunts. It was no more art than Evil Kenevil jumping over the Grand Canyon was "traffic". Just from your demonstration in the video you appear to have some real skills and an interest in beauty and meaning. That makes your interest in the ugly, shallow, artless, and absurd more puzzling.
One of the biggest challenges for an aspiring artist is figuring out how to be inventive, innovative and creative. In my own experience and after working directly with some of the best living talent, one factor seems to be a constant in predicting creativity: the openness of the artist to new ideas and experiences. My main intent of this video is not to convince people that contemporary art is good, but rather that approaching it with an open, non-judgmental mind set will make you more creative. There is A LOT of contemporary art out there. Somewhere out there buried under tons and tons of crap is one amazing piece of contemporary art that will change your life -- maybe. :)
What is wrong with using judgement? Every serious and important thing deserves to be judged. That includes to be judged either good, bad, or otherwise.
I see the creative process as happening in two phases: 1. The exploration phase 2. the editing phase. Too often I see a breakdown in the creative process when editing (judgement) comes in too early in the process. Creativity needs time to explore ideas before judgment comes in. Even when the time comes to reign things in, overly restrictive judgement can cause a breakdown in the editing process. Too often we get caught up with ideas about how things "should" be rather than looking at them for what they are and contemplating what their value might be. Let me just share the work of a contemporary artist friend of mine (see the link below). His work is quite diverse. Some of it relies on traditional concepts of aesthetics and design. Some of it is whimsical and silly. Some of it seems like a fun idea that didn't take much effort. But what I love about his approach is the playfulness he brings to it. There are no boundaries for him. That leads to some work that I don't see much value in, but it also opens him up to doing some really clever, intriguing and visually stunning stuff. I could easily look at his portfolio and pick any number of his pieces and use them as jumping off points for a story idea or sketch. He is not very good at being Rembrandt or Rodin, but that's not what I'm looking for when I look at his work. There is value there, skill and certainly a lot of hard work, it's just been directed in way that's different than any of us might think of when we think of what art is. Looking at his work breaks me out of my default mode of thinking and challenges my assumptions -- something that I find critical for my own creativity. www.jaredsteffensen.com/work1.html
i think the inclusiveness of the word "art" contribute largely to a flood of bad and non-meaningful pieces. so artists today must redefine this word to again so dealers can't scam, at the same time misleading the masses. i defined it as a creation with thoughts that offers a different perspective than the presented object. Clear example of this is the body of works by Duchamp, not impressive as a craftsman, but the conundrum designed within his pieces are refreshing. however, just a drawing of a generic characters are not art. i'm a live action board artist, i draw generic faces all the time, and i do not consider my boards arts, but the art value lies within the communication part of the process, not the piece itself.
