Lecture02 Precursors to Modernism 

This was one of the best art lectures I’ve ever seen.

Thank you for this, these are absolutely amazing and I feel like it should be illegal being able go watch these for free!

I love this lecture series!! thank you so much!

I love all of your lectures!! They are my primary source to learning about history of art :) thank you so much!

I don't understand how you think the beautiful classical paintings you showed are vapid and empty, the subjects are still of great interest and relevance but have later just been more developed in film and photography that can go into even more detail. Wouldn't vapid and empty be more appropriate to describe something like Abstract Expressionism? Perhaps this is why so many of its creators became alcoholics and eventually killed themselves? But admittedly it's nice there is now such variety in the Art world.

Love all your videos! I’m learning so much. Thanks!

Another amazing lecture 👌

Really enjoyed this. Thank you.

Usually there is a reaction against what is happening at the time and the artist rebels in his way against it. He may be influenced by certain artists, but stands alone against the prevailing popular tastes of that era. Since Van Gogh, the artist is more original and personal. He becomes a rebel in society. But someone in authority has to say pleasing things about the art.

Your teaching style is so enjoyable!

Great lecture! Thank you so much.

Excellent lesson. Bravo! More please 😊

In 1897 a Parisian newspaper Le Figaro asked the leading French art dealers, critics, and curators: Which French artists of the 19th century would still be important one hundred years hence in the year 1997? The results were, number one, Adolphe William Bouguereau; second, Jean-Louis Ernest Meissonier; and, third, Léon Gérôme.

Trav, do a steam of you painting plz

Ho im sorry i droped my paint tin .

There is a difference between what Leonardo davinci does and what someone who is not gifted nor is as dedicated to art. Whether or not its Kitsch subject matter isnt't as important as the mind of the artist. People that are brilliant artists will create brilliant art and whether you like that art or not if you understand how art works on the mind then you can tell whether or not that person is working on a high level or not. Clement was partially right. The reason why he is so doubted or not followed up today is due to political ideas seeping into art. Art existed before politics. POlitics is some game people play. The democtratization of the art world is firmly against greenberg. This is ridiculous considering the international art world panders to the the richest of collectors. Its like a way to exonerate the art world from it's deal with capitalism. Think about it like white guilt in a way, not the specifics but the mechanics of how it works on the mind. Look anyone can make art just like anyone can play basketball. But there are people like Michael Jordan that were born to take part in sports and not only were they gifted in that sport they had a huge drive to elevate themselves. Its insulting to the greatests artists to have ever lived (some i really don't like, like frida kahlo but i can tell she is sincere and knows her shit and i can respect it as high level art) to believe that anyone can make a piece of art that has just as much value to culture as say Jackson Pollock. On a personal level this can happen. A child gives a painting to a mom. That will be a painting that she holds in high regard and loves. But let's remove that personal connection. Is that painting a 10 year did as accomplished as something picasso did during what people consider his peak years. No it is not. And it is ridiculopus to think this way. This way of thinking is like displaying false modesty. Its a fake. I can do some minor things based on my knowledge of the phsyics of light, but am i developing new forms of light or ways to think about light....hell no I'm not and it would be stupid to consider what i do as relevant as what someone at the front of their field does. Most peop[le's definition of art is really just a compliment. Even people that pretend to understand what art is and may even offer a different definition. Art is like anything else. And there are levels to these things. If art is to be taken as serious as the medical field which means does it have value to our culture as a whole then it should be thought of in a similar fashion. There are shitty dr.s that should be fired and there are great dr.s that should be cloned and preserved for all time hahaha jk but you get the point

YOur assessment of Beaugereau's work is limited. You conclude that his lack of realism is what defines him That everything has too good of a look. HOw is this painting sweeter than a monet. Or more luscious than a van gogh or pollock. Because the syle that he paints in has been discredited he has been discredited. What if the avante garde mindset of art changed and we went back to more academic styles (which you could consider has already happened, the avante garde became the academic style) would that diminish the power of picasso. Youre critique is based on popular beliefs which are fueld by political ideas seeping into art. This man's handling of paint and choice of subject matter was no less sincere than any of the modern greats. His aims may have been different. But it should not diminish his accomplishment. This really feels like the conculsion of what started in the rennaisance. I hear some point to pollock and that school of artists as a conclusion of this vein of western painting. Pollock is not a conclusion he is bridge.

Cy twombly's greatest artworks were almost like expressive illustrations of stories that seemingly no longer hold relevance to contemporary life, and yet you discredit Jean Leon Gerome. I dont feel like typing it out but this way of thinking comes from postmodernist ideas. And its juvenile and myopic. This is not your sincere critique this is a learned critique. YOu make the same mistakes those that talked about art in Jean's time make. This man has a birlliant mind. Just becuase his taste in painting seems too picture perfect to you or too rendered, let's think about your ideas on Kitsch, is this not Kitsch subject matter...a romaticized view of roman gladiators. YOur views on kitsch versus your views on Jean Leon Gerome are conflicting and dismissive. The against the man type of postmodern idealism is childish. This man's mind is brilliatn...he paints a romanticized view of an already romanticized subject that was in it stime romaticized but....there is a small detail that you seem to overlook because you can't see past your schooling. Look at the viewpoint or our camera angle. We are in the pit. As he is in the pit. Also the subtle three pronged trident is a very specific weapon to use which has very specific ideas associated with it. Look at how oppressive and unkind the world is to its "champions", look at how unkind it is to the very thing it romanticizes, this gladiator that could annhilate anyone in the crowd, that displays more courage than anyone cheering or jeering safely in the stands has been dressed up in armor that looks gaudy and not really for protection is forced to look at the crowd as God which will decide the fate of his enemies and him. Hmm kind of seems like the exact position arists are in. Just because you were taught this artwork is vapid does not mean it is. That's like all of sudden hollywood cinema falls out of fashion and Christopher Nolan is now considered subpar...ridiculous. Is Jean Gerome picasso or Pollock...no he isnt but he should not be discredited in the way he has been.

HOw can you just discredit photorealism like that. Typical pretensious attitude towards it. Also what do you mean people don't look at the painting. ONe of the first things someone says about photorealism or in the academic style is how the hell did someone paint that. They do look at the school. YOure making wild generalized assumptions to basically say your opinions are correct in the same way greenberg did. Robert Bechtle photorealist paintgs have a lot to say and if you have looked at one up close you definitely look at how they were painted ro question how they were painted. Have you ever looked at an abstract work and thought man how did they make that, well people that aren't savvy to how paintings are made say the same thing about photorealism and i guarantee you you can't paint true phtorealism, guaranteed, maybe yeah the youtube level but you are not robert bechtle sir. Stop discrediting artists based on your myopic taste.