How to Sound Smart About Modern Art

preview_player
Показать описание
Want to sound smart about Modern Art? Let us show you the way.

Everybody wants to sound smart, but when you’re talking about something as esoteric as modern art, that’s easier said than done. Let us break it down for you in this genius-inspiring video How to Sound Smart about Modern Art.

=== Watch More Episodes! ===

Written by Amanda Scherker and Amelia Buzzell
Hosted by Anna Garcia
Produced by Amanda Scherker and Michael Luxemburg

Animation Production Company – GoPoint Studios
Director – Douglas Rowell
Producer – Douglas Rowell
Line Producer – Andrea García
Storyboards – Mauricio Ceballos
Art Direction – Luis Medrano
Artist – Arantxa Ahedo
Technical Artist – Rogelio Cordero
Supporting Motion Graphics – Rogelio Cordero

Additional Editing by Olivia Redden
Additional Production Assistance by Evan Yee and Matias Rubio

Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound

#ModernArt #howtosoundsmart #wisecrack

© 2022 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Who's your favorite modern artist?

WisecrackEDU
Автор

I think the wonderful thing about this particular episode is that you manage to actually make people smarter under the guise of showing them how to fake it

Bro.Michael_E._Moore-Degree
Автор

Equating pre-modern art with realism is obviously absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the most famous pieces of pre-modern art are fantastical depictions of myth, they also depict colour and shape in a manner distinct from that seen in photographs. Look at a Rembrandt and you can clearly see that it's not a literal depiction of real life. Note, also, that you can clearly distinguish a Rembrandt from a Caravaggio; yet they are both pre-modern painters of the baroque era. Differences become even more apparent when comparing art from different eras like comparing a renaissance work with a rococo work. There are evidently distinct styles, despite an approach of anatomical and spatial accuracy. It's also not like modern art has a monopoly in meaning in art apart from depiction of real life. It would be ridiculous to suggest that works of pre-modern art lack meaningful context that enhance their artistic value. Historical context alone adds meaning to such art, let alone religious/philosophical significance. There are many famous allegorical works of pre-modern art such as Melencolia by Durer. So what, exactly, is unique about modern art that sets it apart from preceding eras viewed collectively?

Edit: Why is it that 'anyone could do that' is a poor argument against the quality of modern art (we really mean painting here)? We don't often hold other forms of artistic expression to such standards. For example, we expect musicians to be talented with their instruments, we expect actors to be convincing, we expect photographers to capture perfect angles, we expect authors to be clever, we expect athletes to be agile, we expect singers to have good voices, etc. We (most of society) expect a level of virtuosity in these forms of artistic expression, such that no, you (average person) couldn't have done that.
The only time that argument comes up in contexts outside of modern painting is amongst experts of a practice/field. As in: great scientist makes a discovery, another scientist in the field quips "I could've done that".

desudesudesu
Автор

Step 1: don't call it modern art, call it contemporary art, unless you're referring to the artistic period known as modern art movement

studentoftheearth
Автор

The Fountain attributed to Duchamp (who made the presentation of the object) is actually an submission by Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven (a letter from Duchamp himself confirms it).

Biscuitsdefortune
Автор

Love how the first 25% of this video is nothing but filler and ads :/ really gives me time to digest that other unskippable 30 seconds of ads before the video

chrisrichards
Автор

I dont think I've ever heard someone mention that photography is why modern art pivoted away from realism. Its so obvious and it makes so much sense...

MaximumAxiom
Автор

Next: How To Sound Smart while explaining NFTs

kaneaquino
Автор

"We all know that art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand" - Pablo Picasso

pglima
Автор

There's a lot of modern art that does a good job of evoking complex emotions and ideas in people, but if it gets too simplistic and anti-art (ie urinals, lower-effort paint blotches, or chairs covered in chewing gum), a lot of those emotions get overridden with disdain and/or disgust. If that's the emotional/thematic range you want, great, but when that becomes an entire genre, then the entire genre has an extremely narrow emotional/thematic range, and I at least don't tend to get much out of it. They end up having the same level of substance and range as those stuffy aristocrat paintings, but at least with those I can admire the craft. No chance of that with a urinal on a plinth. So the aesthetic of someone like Dali or Van Gogh appeals more to me since they're still going for something abstract and potentially profound while still showing off the meticulousness and skill of their craft.

Not all modern art is bad and up its butt, but without substance nor craft, a lot of individual pieces might not be worth most people's time.

JaimeNyx
Автор

There are lots of things i think should be developped here (but it won't make you sound smart to art lovers)... So, sorry if this comment is too long..

1- The example of Duchamps. He went to a gallery when he was allready famous but WITHOUT telling his name to expose his urinal. It was refused. He went in the same gallery with the same urinal telling he was Duchamps. It was accepted.

This can be consider as art because it have a political charge against institutions: it have SOMETHING to tell about life and society. It have something to say, something share with people.

Let's compare with Boltanski. He made an exposition at the grand palais in France. A big pile of clothes. Period. So, a journalist asked him "what do you want to express with that? what do you mean ?". Angry by this question, he answered: "I AM an artist I don't HAVE TO mean ANYTHING!". Now the art REVENDICATE the fact that it have NOTHING to say, NOTHING to share.

Today, this is the viewer that make ALL the artistic work. You have to INJECT artistic interpretations in something that is... basically empty (and this is so EASY to FAKE a bullshit discourse about anything to LOOK smart with the good keywords).

And if this is empty, is it still art? So what happened?...

2- After second world war almost all artists were communist. And USA didn't liked that. In the country there was massive propaganda and mac carthism but elsewhere it was necessary to be more... subtle.

CIA created a fundation to fund art. They funded artists that where for the freedom of speach (to attack USSR on this subject) but more moderated politicaly, almost apolitical. USA where so serious with it that for example, after 2nd world war, USSR needed weed after bad recolts. They accepted to help in exchange of an exposition of their contemporary artists in Moscow.

Source (sorry, this is a documentary from the franco-german TV arte. And this is in french) :

Little by little, artists where completely embeded in capitalists institutions and what they have to share just faded away.

And you can't attack this because if you do you are against "freedom of speach" and you are a horrible person!

3- Contemporary art is more about capitalisme and speculation than art itself. Not talking about that is a problem.

Art today is just the capitalism at his finest: a way to make profit without work. Work is a bad thing for a capitalist: it is associated with things like material needs and these material needs cost money! With art, you align spoon in a shelf: boom 50000$ (to begin).

It can stock value. It's liquid. There is no tax on it. You can speculate as much as you want. You even don't have to have it with you, you can just keep it in a free port (like in tenet). This is not a coincidence if one of the most known artists (Kuntz) is an ex trader that actually "make" nothing: his employees physically make the artwork.

Even better: billionairs that buy arts, just set it's value. Bernard Arnault Posses Moody's for example. When Bernard buy something from an unkown artists, it immediately becomes valuable just because he bougth it.

And the best: you are seen by the peasants as a philanthropist of humankind and you got lots of prestige associated with that.

This explains why in today's art galleries, art became so... empty. There is no soul.

Sources:

4- If "the dribble of wine he spilled on his white blazer is art", then everything is art.
If everything is art then nothing is art.
Because everything is of the same value.
Everything is equal, equally meaningless.
Contemporary art is negation of art. It is Nihilism.

Aaaannnd.... it have just ruined everything that was cool about art.

Of course, this kind of art can exist. Rich people can by litteral shit for tens thousands of dollars if they want to feel smart and superior. But thoses values FROM the bourgeoisie doesn't have to be imposed and don't have to be the pinnacle of what art is. And If i like something more meaningfull, if i prefer street art and rap. If i prefer popular culture. I shouldn't be looked as inferior by assholes sniffing their own fart excited to be in front of a poop machine.

5- the title: "How to Sound Smart About Modern Art"

Yes you will SOUND smart FOR THE BOURGEOISIE. But, do you REALLY want that?

Pr.Shadocko
Автор

Overall I love the video, but I think you confused two of Otto Dix's work when looking at Skat Players @ 8:05. The painting displayed shows German soldiers living civilian life after suffering horrible and grotesque mutilation. This painting is a commentary on the generation of soldiers scarred by WWI and not on the German military elite per se. I believe Dix has a painting that does this, however I cannot find it when searching for it.

ethandevine
Автор

Well, I guess I'm just dead inside. I don't see the existential dread that chews at all our souls. I see a red square with brown and yellow streaks across the bottom and feel NOTHING!

Raziel
Автор

I bring up Duchamp’s Fountain every time I have to argue modern art’s validity. It rarely goes over well, but it’s still my favorite moment in art history

fullmetalx
Автор

I like to think art as food.
Yes a high class chef or loving grandma making a nice complicated meal very nice and worth the price. But sometimes a lazy grilled cheese or Maccas big Mac just is enough because you feel good about it

danielmartinez
Автор

Okay sure, i'll buy that the emphasis is on the concepts behind the piece but coloured rectangles do not convey any of that to me (most of the time)

AR-vmtk
Автор

It is worth noting that while yes, there was pressure to depict moral art works, a lot of the art produced during the renaissance was heavily influenced by the patrons who either directly commissioned it or who had you on retainer.

MrLex
Автор

all jokes aside once you realize that modern art is just trying to one up photography by not competing with how realistic it can be, modern art does start to make more sense especially if you realize most art is trying to make you feel something even if it is just confusion since that does count as a feeling

TheCreepypro
Автор

"Shotgunning a craft beer" tell me you're a d-bag without telling me you're a d-bag😂

c.christopher
Автор

it's pretty cool to broaden the subject topic on this channel

hamgelato