Why I Hate Modern Art 

**Edit:** Hey all, I made a new video on the topic of AI Art. You can check it out here! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--fD9UNah7TU.html I don't know or when how this video suddenly blew up, but first, I'd like to thank everyone for your constructive comments! You've all raised some really important points that I failed to consider or address in my video--Especially about many major inaccuracies on historical details--which, well, was pretty hastily put-together for a class I had to pass. Either way, thanks for taking the time to check out the video and for leaving your comments!

I do feel like nowadays, artists speak much more for their paintings and not the other way around anymore.

i don't think this is a problem within modern art itself, its a wider problem that deals with the monetization and capitalization of art in general. attach a piece to a famous name and you suddenly got yourself a masterpiece

If you considered its history and went back you'd find that abstract art had its purpose. Same with all movements of art that challenged the traditional standards of art during the turn of the century. It's just sad that the dictates of the art market took advantage of modern art making it loose its meaning and instead became an avenue for pretention.

i think it looks interesting mostly because that pattern (if you can call it that) will never happen exactly again. not saying it’s worth millions to me. but it is pretty sometimes. but ALSO rich people buy art to save on taxes and park their money.

I lost faith in modern art when i went to an art museum and the "sculptures" were a pile of bricks, a stick, a boat, a coat and literally a box full of bull crap

So what I got from this video is that you don't actually hate the art itself, you hate the art market... which many of the artists you mention themselves hated and wanted to mock with their artwork lol Edit: damn I pissed more people off with my pfp than with my comment itself LMAO

In modern art the artist seems to be more important than the art itself If a three year old splashes random colors on a canvas, no one cares When a known artist does it, the "art" is sold for millions

I went to a gallery recently, and was frustrated by the amount of effortless, hollow, cash-grab type paintings that dominated the gallery. White canvases, lines and scribbles. It hurts me I could spend hours painting something with as much detail and skill and possible and achieve nothing, and these people could sell nothing for millions. Edit: I don't mind modern art in how it looks, only how much it sells for. I don't mind some nice scribbles, they aren't eye-bleeding or anything, but the prices certainly are. Also, I'm not a good artist, but I try my best at it, I put time and I put effort into it, which is something that can't be said for some painting I see going for millions.

From someone who is currently in art school, there are many, many talented artists that ive had the pleasure of working with. There are also those snobby rich kids who attended art school, not because of their talent, but because of the money their parents had. They all resort to Abstract Expressionism due to their lack of talent. This isn't exactly related to this video, but I thought it was worth sharing.

I love how the community is giving constructive criticism to the video’s thesis. I honestly don’t know where to start but you all dissected the video well! Hopefully this counts as my discussion post lol

This is purely constructive criticism, and I hope you take it that way. Your perspective strikes me as someone who isn't a painter, there are some holes in your art/artist/audience model of meaning, and there are questionable things about your emphasis on 'easy' and 'hard'. Several of my freshmen and sophomore peers in college (they weren't Painting majors) brought presentations like this to Art History classes - the problem is that they thought they knew more than they actually did about the subject. It seems a bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect. You perhaps don't realize how much you don't know. Rothko's work isn't easy to make, especially when he was developing it. He had to develop a methodology to make his paint be extremely flat, mostly conceal brushstrokes, and for his color fields to blend into one another with extremely thin paint without pouring/dripping/crazing/dragging. Do you know how complicated paint can be to handle, and know how to manipulate it to exact expectations? He developed a personal approach and compositional arrangements that are blatantly obvious when anyone has tried to appropriate them since. That's a rare artistic feat historically, and it applies to Pollock too. 'Easy' doesn't matter at all in the context of their work, and there's limited amounts of it in existence so...immense value. Cubism isn't easy to paint, *especially* during the time when it was being invented. It's hard to imagine today, but there was a time when it was absolutely alien to everyone who saw it. It took remarkable, inventive compositional and subject-altering leaps. The perspective on painting fundamentally changed. There's a reason why it exploded, and why it's now an inseparable part of Western history. It's easy to take for granted what you've casually seen, however, it's borderline impossible to imagine an art approach you haven't seen because it hasn't been invented yet. That phenomenon happened frequently from around the 1850s to about the 1980s-90s. There are artists in the representational vein who were highly controversial (Caravaggio, Manet) due to their work, but now many people naively see their work as run of the mill for their eras because of bad habits like superficial skimming through image searches on Wiki/Google or being shown a poorly contextualized presentation. It's easy to underestimate the value of context. The irony of painting approaches that appear to have a high talent floor (classical-leaning representational painting) is that they're actually relatively easy to teach because they're almost entirely technical in nature. They can be learned like driving (albeit more difficult). Making master copies of famous artwork is a direct example. Creativity can entirely take a backseat to learning the skills needed to make representational paintings from many eras. The academy was literally this as a machine, and was rejected by many artists because art is more than a trade. Talent doesn't quite matter as much as you think regarding the work you seem to admire. You're conflating skill and talent. On Pollock's work being meaningless: that is only possible if the artist has absolute control over the meaning of the work, which is a problem that was delved into via text like "Death of an Author" by Roland Barthes, back in 1967. Artists often don't even have full clarity of what their work means to themselves. Meaning is far more complicated than I think you realize, especially in a field like art.

I make abstract art myself. However not for the sake of making something, it's almost always while I'm on the verge of a breakdown. Whether it's a PTSD, borderline personality, panic attack, or anxiety disorder meltdown just depends. My art is a form of release and sometimes it ends up looking really nice. Each of my paintings has a psychedelic quality, and sometimes no direct focus, just what looks like a dream. My most recent painting is full of vibrant colors, something not quite solid from watercolor oozing acrylic in harsh blended brightness, painted while struggling with drug cravings and hallucinations. Expensive modern art irritates me for the same reason. It's just sort of pointless. Abstract itself can be really fun and really pretty, but GOD

I think good art evokes some kind of feeling or emotion upon looking at something where the more you look at it the more interesting it becomes, I don't think there needs to be any meaning, I think a lot of older abstract art shocked people because no one had done it before, abstract art today is worse because it's overdone everyone is trying to do it, the shock value is gone and it's just boring to look at after you've seen a few you've seen them all.

It's a mistake to put Picasso in with the abstract expressionists. His work spanned the entire modern era.

A major art museum went to a woman's studio and gathered all the paintings for display. Critics praised each one as a masterpiece, each one showing off the artist's skill and style wonderfully. The artist later had to admit that some of those paintings were done by her 8 year old daughter. The "experts" couldn't tell the difference.

I've always hated modern art because of how it's viewed as superior to portraits or nature's landscape painting. I'm a first year art student and one of my first paintings for my portfolio was 3 large hibiscus flowers and as I showed it to the lecturers I was told it wasn't chaotic enough so when I went home I splashed diluted paint all over the painting that took me a few minutes and a bit of anger from being dismissed, the next time the lecturer saw the painting he said it looked better which troubled me a lot. Because of that I have made it a point in my artworks to not splash paint on any of my canvas' even if it's abstract in a way.

I absolutely agree that there is an extremely modern/simplistic problem in the art world led by greedy people. all ways of expressio should be valued, there are abstract artists who make absolutely stunning art, and everyone has their own taste, yet I can’t help but get frustrated with paintings like the black dot on the canvas that sold for millions or other just ridiculously simple things like that.

“The painting speaks! Do you not hear what it says?” “Yeah, it says ‘don’t drink while you’re painting.’” -from _Top Cat,_ aptly summarizing modern art all the way back in 1962

The modern and abstract art I admire the most is done by artists who have been thoroughly trained in the traditional arts. Picasso is a good example of this. He could paint very realistic portraits for example Le Moulin de la Galette”, 1900. Having this artistic background makes his abstract painting extremely meaningful. Pollack's earlier work also exemplified an understanding of figurative art and thus his dripping style paintings also reflect that.

You dont hate contemporary art, you hate the contemporary art market. Those are two different things my friend.

Modern abstract art is type of art that makes talentless people like me feel like artists

You’ve combined art history and art market (completely different things) together to make a poorly articulated point that’s based on the lack of understanding of said movements. It’s basically “my child can draw this too” argument but using fancier words. Even Clement Greenberg, the ultimate anti-post-modern thinker, was the biggest defender of abstract expressionism.

i am a big fan of modern art and i really agree with you, modern art becomes super expensive for no reason that it just feels like its money laundering, a lot of modern art and other abstract pieces are looking for money and the painting is just lazy but they say it "has a lot of meaning" and is "abstract", and there are people like jean michel basquiat and piet mondrian making actual masterpieces through the means of modern and contemporary or just abstract art.

i personally like abstract art, and modern sculptures. but only when you can genuinely see the meaning (ex- “i can’t help myself” i think it’s called?)

Modern art be like: -Banana with a duct tape -Costs around $500,000+

Just the fact that splattered paint can achieve such great value, makes me feel much better about my art.

I remember in 2008 I was in this modern art show and I said I didn't like any of the paintings. So this artist starts telling me why they're so amazing. To this day, I think modern art is made by someone who lacks talent, but still wants to call themselves artists.

Once Andy Warhol made a name for himself he changed his art into a personal joke. He was saying "People see me as an artist therefore I can make anything, no matter how bad, and call it art". Then people copied this message, took it to extremes and eventually evolved into people with no talent calling themselves artists and criminals trading this art as a way of laundering money.

I feel like at least some of these paintings must have been made as a dare or an experiment, basically the artists asking themselves how stupidly simple can we make these paintings without the art critics finally saying "Ok, now you're just taking the piss".

In the beginning he said I hate abstract expressionism but not for the reason you think. And then he said the exact thing I thought he would say.

Art then- 🖼🎨🗿 Art now-🍌💩

I was at a hotel and there were two paintings that were just reddish orange. Super meaningful, changed my life

I don’t agree. You’re complaining about elitism, then saying arts only worth something if it took years of practice. I respect your opinion but that sounds pretty elitist to me 😂

what I personally think about modern abstract arts is that they are more like expensive collectibles rather than masterpieces

I used to feel this way until a roommate of mine decided to go to a party as a Jackson Pollack. He got a white suit coat used and splattered it with paint. He did the front one day and the back the next. They looked similar but gave me different feelings. The front seemed to be exuberant, the back a little pissed off. Then he told me that he had gotten into a kerfuffle with his girlfriend after the front but before the back. I had to acknowledge there was something to this stuff.

This has to be the coldest take on modern art you could’ve had

Your title "Why I hate Modern Art", is false, you hate how much people want to pay for it. What you hate are people that value specific art you don't find meaning in that they are willing to pay 7 figures for that you can't. If you spent time to research why they pay this amount, how they can afford to do so and what the specific art means in the context of art history, the influence it had in moving art forward and how that impacts culture specifically in design, science, philosophy, religion, psychology, identity etc and also art as a store of value against the ever inflating dollar - losing buying power, then you might have a different perspective. It's fine to have an opinion, but it falls apart and becomes meaningless when it's born from ignorance.

Modern Art definitely is filled with extreme talent and masterpieces, unfortunately you just have to sift through a huge pile of **** to find it. I don't think you dislike modern art, i think you dislike modern art that makes the news for being sold for an obnoxious price to obnoxious people. But unfortunately this has existed throughout the history of almost anything creative. WAP by Cardi B has sold over 2 million records, went straight to no.1 in the charts, won numerous awards, you think Beethoven is writing a youtube video about how he hates Pop Music?

I hate how art teachers alqays felt like rhey were trying to make you feel bad if you dont like abstract art.

When a person puts Picasso into the category of "guys who can't paint so they did easy stuff" I hear them saying "I don't really grasp my subject matter."

Very interesting title. Especially considering that Pollock, Rothko, Picasso are NOT modern artists. Most famous and innovative art made after the 1920's is considered post-modern. Modernism was the art of Paris, but when the art world shifted to New York in the 1900s it became post-modern. The art of today is considered contemporary or new digital art. Greetings from someone who studied art history at university for four years.

When I was a teenager we went to an art gallery and the one piece that sticks in my mind was a huge canvas painted black with a smaller red square in the middle. That's it. Anyone could have painted it. And it was called 'breakfast'. We just had a good laugh at it.

Someone will duct tape a paper to a wall and it will sell for $500000000000000000

You are meant to understand the meaning and general context of the painting just by looking at it. With abstract expressionism this usually isn't the case. You have to inform people of what your random splashes on the canvas represents.

I love abstract art, because of the way it shows expression. No i don’t like looking at random blobs on a canvas, but I like learning about the way things are expressed and learning from them. It doesn’t really have to be easy or hard, but just…. Expression.. basically, I’m a big nerd :)

:/ I feel like you guys really fundamentally don’t understand modern art. I mean the “history” section was ridiculously brief and didn’t go into how we shifted to an abstract culture or how art became priced as high as it is. And the assumption that artists like pollock and Picasso don’t have decades or practice across multiple mediums and and incredible understanding of representational form and abstract composition. It’s insulting and it’s inaccurate. Not to mention the whole video equates modernism with abstract art and they aren’t the same at all. From like the 70s onward hyper realism has come into vogue. I mean this video is just really poorly researched and shows a complete lack of understanding of the art world. I mean I agree certain artists from the early modernist movements worked on a cult of personality (especially Picasso and pollock) or how certain mentalities from the modernist movement have corroded art education. But you’re clearly not educated enough on those topics to hold a conversation about it. I just sort of question why you made this video. You clearly don’t know what your talking about to anyone who’s researched the topic.

modern laundering

i think the main problem with art is nowadays it isnt the art itself, but who made it if their famous the art will sell for more than if you were unknown in short it isn't the art it's the creator of art

You're fighting the elitism of modern art by defending the elitism of old art. The only thing why "old" art seems to be of higher quality is, that there wasn't much option to create bad artworks. Most people lived in poverty and worked 18 hours a day, nobody had the time or access to paint in their free time like now, so art was created just by a small group of people who studied it and were professionals, nowadays art is created by anyone and so the amount of bad artworks is higher. And of course, most people react better to realistic paintings as they are the easiest to understand. Art is not about how realistically is something painted - this is a skill/technique, the art is something more. Modernism is amazing and it finally gave people freedom. It is way more exciting than tedious realistic paintings of people, landscape,s or fruit in a bowl. Abstract and modern art is great and I don't get why anyone should be studying art for years before he could be considered a good artist. Same as for a great song you don't have to be a virtuoso for a good painting you don't have to be Leonardo DaVinci. The result is important. I like old masters but I much more like modernism with its originality and playfulness. I really don't wanna have Mona Lisa at home but Picasso or Pollock? Fits any kind of place and does not look off. It is timeless. While old masters really fit mostly museums or historical places.

I don't like abstract art either, I never really understood it, but I wouldn't fault others for liking or finding it appealing. But I wouldn't make any arguements to defend myself other than just, 'not my cup of tea' and therefore you won't be able to convince me to like it. I like your point of an art form that was made so anyone could enjoy being once again monopolized by the rich, but perhaps you put a little too much time into saying 'anyone could do this' than many disagreed with you.

I know some people say that it just looks cool and you have to 'use your imagination" but I agree. You could say that a 5-year-old painted that, anyone could just get a bucket of paint and drizzle it across a canvas on the floor. If that's what art is then, Is everyone a genius painter? No. I can understand that back in the 40's and 50's, that type of design was not very common in that time period, like stripes of different colors. Maybe that's why people think it's so cool, because it was a very new thing back then, it's almost like Pollock created that pattern. Either way, it's odd to think that people today think that it's "genius" and that it's "perfect", I don't know if people say that because of the great new trend of colors mixed like that was very important to today's society. I don't care, it's not genius to put a bunch of colors on a canvas with no picture, it's "meaningless" like you said.

To be fair, when you look at a ditigal photo of Pollocks work, it is so much more flat than in person, especially 1:22 it looks pretty 2 dimensional almost like a decorative pattern. But in person, its like your vision is completely surrounded by these shapes. I used to be neutral about abstract paintings but when I saw Pollocks work in person it was like watching little kites or fire flies flying around you and leaving traces in the air. I dont know how to describe it but something about the way the lines moved was so mesmorizing and thought provoking to me. Im not trying to sound pretentious but as a visual person I really enjoyed the experience and Im sure it has inspired a lot of non-abstract art as well.

100 years later and people are gonna hate the art we have today.

3:40 me: hmm yes, more impressive than the previous pieces shown

Yeah I'm an artist myself and I've never understood modern art it always seemed a bit pointless like people are getting paid millions for something that took little to no effort to make and has no real point. It's stuff a child could do. Like other people put years of effort,time and money into learning proper shading and lineart and such artistry and it all goes un-noticed in favor of some scribbles that took practically no effort to make.

there was this one painting that i learned about in school. you wanna know what the painting was? a dot. it could be any colour, just a dot. and my teacher asked me what i felt about it and what i thought it expressed. i felt that it was a lazy and meaningless piece of art - nobody is able to actually understand what it is supposedly about because it was just a plain circle on a large canvas.

Hey man, I’m an artist and fine arts major who used to hate modern art until I took modern art history classes. The whole point of the modern art movement (except for Dada) was to find new meaning in art (other than god, king, and country). I fell in love with this style after I was educated on the subject and I’m sure you can too. There are a ton of inaccuracies in this video.

Went to Amsterdam recently. Went to a Modern Art Museum - it was embarrassingly bad, there was a whole room and inside was just some Ikea lights draping from the ceiling and a bunch of people hmming and haaing around it. Then I left and went to the Rjiksmuseum. Gorgeous art. Beautiful history.

Besides art being for the rich,my main problem with art is the lack meaning nowadays in these pieces. A giant rock with a weird title or circles painted with a mop only tells me you wanted money

They had to make sure everyone got into art school.

My art teacher is making us do an assignment where we need to put down 2 artists and 2 readings that inspire us and do 10+ sentences about why we chose it and how it inspires us. Now that wouldn’t be an issue if she didn’t limit who and what we’re allowed to be inspired by. She literally gave us 4 sources that we MUST use to choose our readings and artists. Almost all the artists we were allowed to choose from only did modern art Edit: I’m dropping out : )

Mfw a 150$ furry commision looks better than abstract modern art

I can only say after studying art history i know it's not the popular opinion but I absolutely agree with you, it's like they aren't even trying anymore but charging millions for scribble scrabble

I don’t admire abstract and modern paintings because I see that most them lack fine details, story, and an interesting view to look at as other art/painting genres do. However, I have to say modern and abstract sculptures can be very impressive.

I am really tired of this close mined viewpoint on modern art. Read a book.

Omg I just finished my Art course in college and let me tell you, seeing artists like Jackson Pollock, Helen Frankethaler, Arshille Gorky, Mark Rothko during history class really changed my perspective in the stuff that I paint. Actually helped me be more expressive and 'loose'/gestural with my ideas. I have a really hard time at making abstract compositions (my mind cannot think of subject matter with no boundaries if that makes sense) and I take a lot of inspiration from Antony Gormley sometimes whenever I paint something for fun.

calls the painting meaningless, immediately goes on to explain the meaning of the painting

You are upset at the price tag but you channel your rage towards the artist and the artwork. That is pretty stupid, when you think about it.

2:02 It's not the painting you buy. It's the contract of being able to show people around and say "By the way, this is the [famous painting] by the great [famous painter]" and then seeing the admiration of the people, that feels good. Attaching ones name to something that society deems desirable. Lots of Girard in this...

For me, it's not about how much it's being sold for, or how "simple" it is. There's just no connection to me. When I look at a Pollock or Rothko, I feel nothing.

It’s frustrating to hear a person pretending to have any kind of authority over these opinions when they clearly didn’t take art theory in school. These pantings aren’t being bought for millions of dollars by some wacky rick guy who plans on keeping it in their guest bathroom. They are being bought by large foundations that are funded by many people to preserve them in galleries and museums. As for these paintings being meaningless, how can you say that when you just explained its meaning? Art is of its time. At the time, pollock was breaking free from conventional art, freeing the rest of the world from the idea that art needed to be this perfected tedious endeavor. Artists like him freed artistic expressions from the strict and constraining expectations people had of it in the past. It’s like saying Rosa parks didn’t do anything meaningful, she just sat at the front of the bus. If she were to do that today, maybe it would be meaningless, but at the time it was huge statement, and a protest. I think you’re confusing modern art with postmodern and contemporary. At the time that modern art came out, breaking away from traditional expectations was a big deal, it may not seem like it now, for those who lack perspective I suppose. Making these historical pieces worth millions of dollars actually keeps them from ending up in the guest bathroom of some wacky rich guy, not the other way around

I think the point of some expressionism is to challenge the viewer's idea of what art is, and artists like Rothko and Pollock made incredibly complex pieces that would spark outrage in their critics. And also, actually look into some of the techniques Rothko and Newman would use to alter the paint itself.

1:54 sus

I got a few things from this. 1. You don't hate modern art, or any genre in particular, per se. You hate the commoditization of art and the ultra rich, not uncommon. 2. Placing the meaning of art in the work that precedes its existence is, in a sense, commodizing art, viewing it as a product rather than expression, that leads to: 3. The way someone is personally affected by a piece. You might not like Rothko's pieces, seeing it as streaks of paint, and that is ok, but i personally feel oddly subjugated by the sheer size of these bigger absurdist pieces, it all boils down to what it makes YOU feel. Not liking it because you get anything out of it is ok.

If you titled this video as why you hate the art market, everyone would agree with you. I don’t understand why you hate abstract expressionism specifically other than it’s easy and therefore more looked down upon by everyday people. None of these are proper critiques of the art itself.

Abstract art is just a precursor to NFTs

Guys this empty canvas is a work of art! It’s a master piece! This empty canvas signifies the artists depression so it’s gotta be art!

I very much agree. An artwork from back then that someone spend years training to be able to make can be sold for just as much or even less than someone’s artwork that probably took 15 minutes by just throwing paint on a canvas, or even easier: painting a few colored lines. This also applies to nowadays commissions. An artist can spend hours making a drawing for someone, only to be paid about 20 dollars. I think art value should become more fair and if people are going to have to pay $180M for a painting LITERALLY ANYONE can make, then they should be able to pay higher for an artwork that took hours, or even years.

I don't think that you not liking modern "art" is that controversial. This is not art this is meaningless crap

there are two points to distinguish art from scam 1. if you were given all the required items, colors, materials; could you do roughly the same yourself? 2. if you were given a chainsaw, a baseball bat, a knife or just a dart; would it be possible to essentially worse the art piece or would it roughly look the same?

Now that you've had time to experiment with drugs in art school, do you still feel the same way about Pollock and Rothko?

“Ooga booga caveman draw!” I almost spit out my gum.

Modern Art is an much discussed topic since lots of people don‘t seem to like it, which I absolutely understand. The problem with modern Art nowadays is that those old paintings, which are being sold for atrocious prices, didn‘t have the chance to sell in the time they were painted. Modern Art did alot for the Art community, since people finally stopped to just draw realism or important people. Impressionism, Expressionism or Dadaism, all these art movements and those artist didn‘t really want to sell their paintings. It was just an art movement, against acadamism or the art rules that were normal back then. Abstract Art usually doesn‘t have meaning because those Artist drew what they felt, and it was different, something completely new, which can‘t be replicated. Thats why it‘s sold with such high prices. I understand if just an black canvas is sold for 100 mio dollars, but it was revolutionary back then and it can‘t be replicated. If someone did that nowadays no one would bat an eye, but considering that abstract art was so outrageous. I kinda get it. It‘s not most peoples cup of tea but if you know the history, it‘s kinda understandable.

The artist has nothing to do with the selling price. Pollock did not try to sell his art for millions, but it worth millions because it is extremely important for the evolution of art. Art evolves not to achieve perfection, because it doesn’t exist, but to achieve freedom. Picasso said it best: “Took me 4 years to learn how to paint like Raphael and a life time to paint like a child.” Only children are true artists, because they can create freely. To copy an objective imagine is not freedom, it is the opposite. Be water my friend!

I think abstract art began as an interesting concept, the idea being to expand the definition of art beyond what was commonly accepted. I would even go so far as to say that the artist's ability to convince critics that his work (streaks of paint scattered haphazardly across his canvas) was a form of art would have been far more important than the work itself. After a while, I guess people noticed the high prices that such paintings often command as well as the (comparatively) low level of talent required for this form of art, and saw the potential in making money creating paintings that could easily pass for the scribblings I made at the age of three. I know some people might take issue with this analogy, but it sort of reminds me of what rap music has turned into. Originally, it was a genre that took a certain degree of skill to be successful in, but now you see thousands of talentless hacks who call themselves "rappers" because they can rhyme random words together. They see that they can get famous by putting in the minimum amount of effort, and some actually do.

I agree with your opinion on art’s modern monetary reputation, but as for the rest, I disagree. I’ve begun to realize in recent years that the most captivating art isn’t a measure of what a person can do, but of what a person can think. This doesn’t mean that I enjoy the work of Jackson Pollock and others like him, I actually find his work pretty boring, but I think art should always be as accessible as a medium as music (anyone can use their voice to create a melody, and anyone can use their hands to tap out a rhythm). I think when we open the gates to all skill levels in an art form, we will inevitably get a lot of boring work, but also some gems from people with a truly unique way of thinking that we may not have seen otherwise because their skill isn’t as developed as others.

If u don't mind me n my opinion here.. for me, modern and contemporary art, includes abstract impresionism art style is indeed easy and seems like a nonsense. But what i study as a pupil in art school, actually only few artist that can accomplished all naturalism, realism, romanticism, surrealism, or other kind of 'copying nature or real life object' to a canvases can then get 'qualified' to make an abstract or conseptual work of art. They must master all of it first. And then, many artist will then feel to do something more, they want to make something so new; since we already have photography that can actually copy the image eyes can see, theres not so much need to make a realistic pictures: except if they want it and they passionate on it. So, a better way is to test some contemporary artists or abstract artists about their actuall skill on drawing a realism painting. But, once again since we live in the post-truth era, and the value of art and aesthetic is no longer hold straight, anything can be right; anything can be art, as long as there are people who agree :v

“I don’t like it” is perfectly valid. But not the reasons you go on to give. All the further discussion is just you, trying (and failing) to justify your taste. Do you like it? Fine. Do you not? Equally fine. The universe, nor the artist, cares a whit.

1. "Modern Art" is a term that refers to work created in the late 1800's starting with the Impressionists and ending in the 1960's with the advent of " Contemporary Art"...the period we seem to be in at the moment. 2. Something radical has happened to the art scene in the past 60 years. Cubism slid into non-representational art....what is often called Abstract. Abstract or non-representational art is a legitimate and often profound genre. But, to many people, it appeared as if this new style had no structure, principles or standards of evaluation. 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. ''Anyone can be an artist.'' Anyone can mount a show. And who is to say if it has value or not ? A tacit agreement has formed 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. (This is analogous to the cult of celebrity in pop culture where you are famous for being famous. Think Paris Hilton, the Kardashians etc.) And when these art works 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. And many are reluctant to declare that the Emperor is, in fact, naked lest they appear boorish unsophisticated Philistines ! This is what dominates the art market today. The love of money is the root of all evil. It has corrupted politics. It has corrupted sport. It has corrupted healthcare. It has corrupted religion. And now it has corrupted art. Nothing has intrinsic value. If no one liked or wanted to have, own, or see the Mona Lisa, it would have no monetary value. The buyers of the art we see here do not love the work for itself but for how it might appreciate in value in the future. It is an investment no less than shares of stock.

I'm pretty sure the entire art industry is a massive sketchy scam since "good art" is only good depending on the name behind it, not the art itself

It's not easy to be the artist you can't call yourself artist just by throwing thw paints, to become the real artist you have to practice and do hardwork on your art and show something representable and meaningful.

I used to prefer older paintings too, until I saw Pollock in Stockholms gallery. I could look at it for hours and not get bored of it. Dont know why, but the feeling is totally gone when you see his paintings on photos or displays. He is one of my favourite painters since then.

A very complex situation for me. Klimt is also considered modern art but I feel very different for his style than some of the other paintings I had to study about modern art. Tbh I like the thought process going behind some artists of the time and how they tried everything to break out of rigid art rules so that every style we use today can be viewed as art without needing to be too much accurate to how human looks. But I also value the time and effort put behind every piece of art and while some of these paintings have interesting concepts they do not require much effort to be made. My my, this is a difficult spot...

I feel like you could find and make art like this anywhere, but just as we as a society do, we buy for name brand. $3 Ray ban glasses we buy for hundreds just for the name, and sadly this now relates to art, which is ridiculous, I’ve seen many talented people in my time who could probably never sell their piece over 20 even though they are amazing bc they have no name

1:16 he spilling bs out his mouth to get his splatters famous😭 oh my gosh i agree with the whole video modern art just lacks like, EVERYTHING it takes ti make an artwork. Meaning, is bullocks 😭😭

The problem with modern art is the gatekeepers. Those who determine that one artist is of a pedigree worthy of valuing such art in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and even hundreds of millions of dollars, whilst similar art is worth nothing. When art is not about the ability to beautifully represent reality, but rather to splash paint on canvas, it becomes a classist endeavor in determining which splashes of paint are genius, and which splashes of paint are child's play shit. This is where social dynamics and favoritism become the determining factors, and utterly nullify any valid evaluation of any given piece. It's all about social proof and predetermination that any given artist is a genius, and less about the product itself. It's the artist, and not the art, that is celebrated. This is a social game, and not a talent game.

"becoming an artist was not something anybody could do" THANK YOU!

This is such a bizarre video. I wrote and deleted my comment a couple of times now because I can't argue my point, because there doesn't seem to be a point to argue against. Is this video a critique of whether art should require difficulty in order to be practised? Is it a question of elitism in the art world? Or is it an interrogation of the value of art? It's kind of all of them, and then some, but also seems to join them all together as one single argument, which makes zero sense.

I think it's abysmal that you can wholeheartedly describe someone as well educated and talented as Mark Rothko as "simplistic", or his pieces as devoid of experience. Mark Rothko started as a "regular" expressionist, and after extreme depression following WWII, Rothko felt that figurative, personable paintings didn't do justice to the overwhelming pain he felt. Over the years he grew into his known style (as opposed to him finding it by instance or making it out of the need for money) and only came said style due to his pain. Rothko's paintings aren't "just acrylic", he uses many mediums to create intense textures and intricate colours, ones only discovered through experience and trial. Mark Rothko didn't take his own life for you to dismiss his paintings as simplistic and meaningless. In an attempt to seek help, annotate his pain, and find god, Rothko devolved into the art style we know him by. Only after experiencing the Seagram Building paintings irl did I truly understand the nature of Rothko's art, I too looked at Modernism in the same way described in this video- now I may not be able to justify or defend Jason Pollock's morals or incentives, but I do know for a fact that Mark Rothko was merely a distraught, damaged soul. I believe that some of what makes modern, or rather "abstract" art so desirable is not the fact that anyone can make it, but rather the fact that anyone can interpret it, and I know for certain that when looking upon "Black on Maroon", I didn't feel anything close to what Mark did when making it (or half the pain that resulted in his need to make art this way) though I can say that he gave light to my pain.