Why Is Classical Art So Good? | 5-Minute Videos

What makes great art great? Is it simply a matter of personal taste, with little or no regard for skill or execution? Or are there standards by which an artistic work can be objectively judged? Renowned artist Robert Florczak confronts these challenging questions.

#classicalart #art #prageru

Script:

How do we know that classical art — as opposed to modern art — is so good?

We know it because it was produced within the demanding standards and refined principles of aesthetics — the centuries-old branch of philosophy that measures artistic quality.

Painting, drawing, and sculpture employ a number of characteristics such as composition, form, color, line, texture and movement to create beauty.

To the experienced eye — and even to the casual viewer — each of these is present in any work of art worthy of being called “art.”

Composition, for instance, is the positioning of objects — elegant and controlled in the hands of a master, or awkward and haphazard in the hands of the inept. Color can be exquisitely balanced and harmonious, or garishly random and unsavory. Movement can be uplifting and dynamic, or static and perverse.

In my previous PragerU video, “Why is Modern Art So Bad?”, I chronicled how art began to decline, beginning from about the 1860s, when aesthetic standards were gradually abandoned.

Unfortunately for the arts, not everyone agrees. I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments:

“Art is simply a reflection of its time.”

“Art isn’t about technical proficiency; it’s about making you think.”

“Art is a matter of personal taste. There’s no such thing as great art or bad art.”

Where do these assumptions come from? For the most part, they are the result of art histories written and taught over the last century not by artists, but by those in the humanities and social sciences. Not having an artist’s point of view or experience, let alone artistic talent, these authors and teachers have therefore framed art in the only language they understand: “meaning and social significance.”

It is no surprise then that people have come away with the idea that art is “simply a reflection of its time.” It can be, but not necessarily. In fact, the great artists of the past didn’t care one whit about “reflecting their times,” they cared primarily about creating art that looked good.

Art, by definition, is a visual medium. Therefore, its “meaning” and ability to “make you think” are secondary to how it looks. After all, there can be meaning in other creative mediums like literature and music, but the visual is what uniquely distinguishes art. Therefore, the visual is what most matters. In fact, a great work can and should stand on its own without the viewer knowing anything about its “meaning.” When a visual medium becomes more about what it “means” and less about its pure visual experience, it might succeed as, say, journalism, or social commentary, but it has failed as art.

So, what do we look for to determine quality in art? It is found in the skillful execution of a visual medium. For example, in a great oil painting by the 17th century Dutch Master, Vermeer, the quality is there in the controlled balance of its composition, the harmony of its color, the masterful hand-eye coordination of its brushwork. When we look more closely at the soft edge between the woman’s arm and her sleeve, we can see that it was achieved by Vermeer’s delicate application of paint. This is the very essence of artistic quality.

And not, by the way, because it looks “realistic,” or photographic, if you will. Realism is simply a stylistic choice. In fact, great art need not even look realistic to be great. It’s no wonder that many people believe the myth that photography put an end to classical art, given that they assume that looking “photographic” was the purpose of a painting. But that was never the goal of the classical artist. Quality of execution was.

[davidyoung]

when I was about twelve we went on a field trip to a modern art museum and most of us got kicked out for laughing at it. We actually thought it was a joke and we kept asking, when do we get to the real art? TWELVE YEAR OLDS!!!!

[LeagueShoes]

Security guard is a good tip. Go to the person who has nothing to gain by praising or rejecting any piece of art in particular, and only knows what looks beautiful. And because of his station, he knows what moves the most people to honest and strong emotion. I'd rather get a tour of an art gallery from the janitor than from a gallery owner, museum curator, or artist.

[childeharold]

Bach used to add a note at the end of each of his compositions: ‘made for the glory of God.’ Things are created more precisely and with more care when you know it’s being created for a higher purpose.

[Upadastra]

When visiting the 25 highlights of renaissance art in one of Washington's great musea, my son called me not to forget visiting the modern art section of that museum as well. However when I did so after the sheer artistry and mastery of the renaissance it felt like dropping steeply from a three dimensional beautiful world into an ugly two dimensional one: The modern art felt completely dead and flat. I had to return the next day just to that section of the collection to appreciate the 'feeling" aspect one gets on seeing the modern stuff.

[gigicat]

" You have no way of knowing if you're being taken for a sucker"- Robert Florczak
Right there. I've been saying this for years. I also demonstrated it to my friends by scribbling on the piece of paper and called it art. The only difference between my scribble and the 10k+ "art" is that it's promoted by some art galleries or art critics I have never heard of. To me, it speaks more about YOU- the people who spends thousands to purchase trash, than a so-called "artists" who figure ways to make money.

[jamesdellaneve]

I was a fine arts major in my first year of college. Skill of execution was my biggest criterion. I wrote a paper about it in English class and my professor was offended. It was about Robert Rauschenberg. I called his work Decoupage. I enjoy Picasso because he could paint with the greats but when he switched to cubism and such, it was intentional work.

[rawbacon]

"great work can and should stand on its own without the viewer knowing anything about its

[Kevin-kcvu]

You were 100 percent right..I agree as an artist who has been painting for 30 years..

[robertjanicki]

Thank you for this wonderful presentation. It answered all the questions that I had thought about, but never really took the time to really delve into.

[UnionizedCrackerbarrel]

I’m confused. This video mentions that technique and realism defines classic art and also states that it doesn’t matter. And ultimately ends with “You know it’s good because you know what good is.”

So art is objectively subjective? Also I’ve been made a fool plenty of times but never by a painting so I think that might just be a self report.

[danieldelewis]

While a lot of the modern art examples, such as at 3:02 are great representations of really bad modern “art”, the viewpoint expressed here lacks the context necessary to make a broad sweeping opinion of all modern art. For example, Pablo Picassos Guernica is a wonderful example of modern art being used to communicate the terror experienced by the people of Spain during the Spanish revolution. On the contrary to the opinion, art should communicate something, and of course art in the classical period did; most paintings of the classical period, at least 51% or greater referenced Biblical themes. While these may have been themes that everyone was well aware of and the stories behind them, the art gave an insight into someone else’s interpretation of what they were hearing from the Scriptures. This is important; it gave deeper meaning, and pause for reflection, and of course the beauty of the execution made it moving, bringing about an emotional response.

[noferblatz]

Absolutely correct. The degradation of art mirrored the degradation of our whole culture, and preceded it. This accelerated in the 1960s. I've lived through it. Art exists to communicate a message, but the quality of art is determined by the technical expertise apparent in its execution. It's possible to have art which has little or no actual message.

[Condor]

There's a painting hanging in the Art Institute of Chicago and it just fascinates me, it's the 'Dot Painting' : 'A Sunday on La Grande Jatte' — 1884, Artist: Georges Seurat. Reason is my Elem School in Chi. had Prints of Classic Paintings on the walls & if you somehow 'misbehaved' in class you had go out and stand against the wall, I got a good look at the 'Dot Painting' on the wall when I was in 4th Grade (😂). I soon realized the entire painting was made of DOTS!! I was determined to see the real thing when 'I grew up' Luckily to my surprise it was right in my hometown Art Museum, I've had many hours of pleasure in the years looking at that masterpiece. I also made sure a family trip was made so my wife & 2 daughters could see it too. (sorry for the long comment. sometimes I go into Tolstoy Mode. 😁)

[aethefledladyofmercia]

Thank you for this! As a public-schooled millennial, I always feel completely lost when it comes to art appreciation. I talked about this with my mom recently, and she says there's a huge difference between how our generations were taught on this subject, mostly because my schools barely touched it. They'll teach you to draw, but they don't teach you how to judge a work and know what is great and what is not.

[Genrevideos]

😂 I’m sorry but the “moving and uplifting or static and perverse” part just slayed me! I don’t think I need to explain why. The modern art sculpture says it all. Just look at the time stamp 1:02 and you will see exactly what I mean.

[BGTuyau]

"Great art will never make a fool of you." One of several essential guidelines concisely stated in this video. Thank You ...

[Stoite-tqpu]

When I go to a classical art museum I can stay there for hours looking at each painting/artwork carefully and reading everything about it. Something I don’t do for modern art

[TheSeppomania]

Very uneducated and close minded take. The experimental and ground breaking modern art styles is what keeps me still interested in art and music.
Enjoying the principals of classical art is not bad, but it gets repetitive after some time and is very difficult to recognize for the uneducated viewer.
And why is it specifically colour, composition and movement that makes art good for you? Shouldn't art not be pleasing to the eyes and evoking emotions as well? Aren't those the most important things? I want to feel something when I look at or listen to art. I don't want to just analyse it to decide if it is good or bad.

By your definition all emotions are lost.

You would probably love AI art lol

[andreweden]

All the same things can objectively be said about classical music as well. You really should address that next, but it seems like so many people draw a line at music for some reason.

[richard]

Every time I click a video on this channel and see a "premieres in 38 hours" on it, I close it and never watch it. I can't be the only fan here who gets annoyed by this. If you post a video, post the video! Not an RSVP to the video, please!