I had the same experience with that stupid ‘exercise.’ Like most loud ignoramuses, he seems weirdly proud of his ignorance.
2 Likes
Obviously, this guy is an uptight ultra-conservative with an authoritarian streak and his “analysis” is pretty much worthless.
I would agree though, as someone who is often subjected to the work of people calling themselves artists, that most of their art is deeply redundant and lazy shit. Not because it is aesthetically unappealing or an “inappropriate subject matter” as the muppet in this video wants to make us believe to exist, but because it is all regurgitated concepts that were old news twenty years ago.
OK - I just watch this. Jesus H. Christ this guy is so full of shit. He’s a huge elitist asshole. Why is a blog of wonderful things posting this?
The whole point of the Modern Art movement was the exploration of “what is art?” They came to the conclusion that basically ANYTHING could be art. (Note, not necessarily GOOD art, but art).
The idea that modern art suffers because it doesn’t adhere to some “Universal Standard of Beauty” is complete crap. That is like saying that people aren’t beautiful because they don’t adhere to some “Universal Standard of Beauty”.
Also, I knew in an instant that his apron wasn’t a Pollack. If you actually STUDY the art you would know that. All those paint drips actually required skill and a methodology, and isn’t easily replicated.
Also of note, many modern artists are FANTASTIC traditional artists. They are choosing other avenues to explore vs realism or more classical styles.
Also I think it is bullshit that he pulls the most “awful” of modern art as examples. Yes there are offensive works out there (and I agrees some of it is terrible shit), but he is cherry picking out of thousands of works out there - which run the gamut of “meh” to “brilliant”.
Seriously - Abe Simpson should have narrated this.
4 Likes
I didn’t know that. Duly logged.
That was years after the Salon des Refusés. Totally modern art.
1 Like
I think you’ve raised an excellent point. In my own layman’s opinion, it’s not art if it’s missing the inspiration, but I fail to see the art also where there’s no technical excellence. It’s a balance of the two, the bridge @Nylund posted is a good example of them both.
Thing’s like Tracey Emin’s unmade bed may well claim to be inspired, but it’s severely technically lacking.
1 Like
I also used to dislike Pollack’s “action art” until i had a 12-foot canvas on the floor to work with and try it out myself! Now I am sold. 
No. That’s not it.
Just LOOK at it!
1 Like
Wow! That is the only counter-argument needed to Mr. Florczak’s opinions.
I get the same kind of response from particular friends when listening to electronic music, such as Aphex Twin, Clark, Venetian Snares etc. The common refrain is “well, it’s not really music is it?”. I’ve heard that phrase so many times that I have a relatively well rehearsed set of questions which usually at least lead the the other party to re-think each statement they make.
I often compare to Pollock’s work, and the question of what is considered “beautiful” is often in the eye of the beholder - and that art does not need to be beautiful or easy to digest for it to be “pleasing” to immerse yourself in.
I think the only argument that put out that I can end up agreeing with is that the choice of playing that particular music in their presence was a bad choice - whether it’s in my car while giving them a lift, or at home when they’re visiting. At which point I usually tell them that I have to put up with their 80’s metal (insert chosen music genre) every time the tables are turned, so “meh”.
1 Like
Exactly!
Yeah, when he showed the “painting” I too immediately thought, “That’s not a Pollack.” The only lesson I took away from that ruse was that students will BS endlessly when given a BS question.
1 Like
…cough… Pollock …cough…
4 Likes
A lot of this discussion reminds me of when I was a teenager and my Brahms and Bach loving father couldn’t fathom how I could like the Ramones, or even why anyone could even consider it music. The same things are said about electronica, hip hop, etc. Heck, once upon a time, it was even said about Jazz.
And that white canvas? It’s the visual equivalent of 4′33″
1 Like
Wow. I am starting to see why some people in the news world decry the fall of
news to a blip of text, and a blithe comments section. I’ve seen too many posts on many sites simply present something for intake, without any real bias evident, and an inherent strong implied bias in the commentary from people, like “how DARE you disagree with the herd mind!”
I don’t think BB presented this either way- they just presented it, and asked for comments.
Some things yeah, it’s obvious it’s a progressive bias, but if you come here to simply refudiate
everything you read, you’re wasting time.
I don’t get the hatewagon here. I like a lot of classical art, and find sculptures of people urinating
to just be worthless. I also have seen a lot of boring classical art, and I happen to really enjoy Rothko. And the work of James Turrell- someone a lot of people love to hate. Both modern artists.
How I see it, my opinion- I don’t question what is and is not art. Art just is. Let’s be honest- a lot of people progressive and conservative find these scatological and other reactionary pieces a waste of effort. Everyone should have the right to express themselves. But don’t be surprised when people react by saying “that’s not art!” if it’s shitty work (pun intended)
I think when something like that happens, it’s like we’re trying to bring the existence of a fact into question- that’s what pisses people off. Semantics is the problem. Anyone can call something art- and then to them at least, it is art. Art just is. But even when anyone says,“that is not art”- it still is, whatever it is, if that is how they chose to view it.
What people really mean when they say that, is that they just don’t like it, and don’t think it should be revered by anyone. That doesn’t negate the fact that people do and will.
I don’t think we need standards to know what we like as art. But something, well crafted with skill, even if inflamatory, will always have value to someone. Be it a statue of shit, or a Rodin. I’d just rather have the Rodin. If you want something else, why should I say you can’t appreciate it? Leaves more Rodin for me. And more of what ever else for you.
We all get what we want out of the experience we seek out- isn’t that what should matter?
1 Like
I don’t hate Prager’s critique because he has a different opinion about art than I do, I hate it because the whole thing is a bad argument, made in bad faith, with several constructed straw men, and some immensely unfair comparisons.
There are critiques of modern art that I love, and return to. There are critics who take modern art seriously, but are not beholding to some sort of in-clique orthodoxy.
Ultimately, this video fails because Prager isn’t in a dialog with modern art, he’s simply dismissing it, tapping into populist knee-jerk “that ain’t art” reactionary BS.
Anyone who essentially lumps 100 years of art together, with no mind towards movements, styles, or schools of thought, isn’t serious about art. They are serious about returning “art” to some imaginary golden age, where stuff was drawn good, paintings upheld moral virtue, and artists knew their place.
8 Likes
Classical:
Modern:
QED
Modern is awesome!!!
7 Likes
Why exactly have you issued a blanket dismissal of all sculptures of people urinating? What exactly makes them all, categorically, “worthless” to you? And does this categorical dismissal extend to all of the classical depictions of micturition - like, say the ones adorning sculptural fountains the world over?
3 Likes
Money. That’s it. Oh there are movements and trends but what people pay for is what people teach and explain and justify. In New York in the 50s they knew what the money wanted. That’s what they made.
1 Like
