Art 101: Why you can’t be an Abstract Expressionist

[@ComanderCool909]

TLDR; These "I have degrees and institutional backing" art types are the antithesis of Abstract expressionism and therefore have absolutely no authority to tell artists of this style (Or any other for that matter) what they can and can't do, no one can tell an Abstract expressionist how to create their art or define it for them THAT'S THE POINT. The definition of Expressionism is: "a style of painting, music, or drama in which the artist or writer seeks to express the inner world of emotion rather than external reality." Institutionalism isn't conducive with creativity. This video epitomises the toxic, traditionalist and elitist art culture. A person with institutional degrees telling abstract expressionist artists (Irony, anybody?) that they can't create the art they want because of a half-baked idea that art styles only last so long? So, Professor, I say you're wrong. I and every other artist will continue making exactly the art we want in the style we want. And just as they have before, the institutions, including yours will have to just suck it up and deal with it. Label it if you want, turn up your nose, tell us we're too late, and critique our works until you satisfy your need to complain but we're still here, still creating our art and your degrees and opinions won't stop us. Even the best known and most well-respected artists had their works frowned upon by people such as yourself and the institutions you represent. You know what Picasso did when critics and institutions didn't like his cubism, he didn't care, he embraced their discomfort, kept moving forward in his development and gave a middle finger to the "educated" critics; It's now respected and referred to as a style in its own right. Do you know what Jackson Pollock worries about when people say his art is just a splatter of paint? Spoiler: He doesn't worry at all, he doesn't care, because it is what it is to him, and it is what it is to you, nothing more. So this isn't all negative, and with a huge dose of 'benefit-of-the-doubt', I think what you're trying to say is there was a "Cubist Period" where cubism was created and became "accepted" by critics and institutions as Art; Just as there was an "Abstract Expressionism period", and a "Pop art period". Yes, these styles were conceptualised and became accepted during these times and I agree there are big-name artists who deserve recognition for introducing the world to a new form of expression. The idea that these styles have an expiration date though is absurd, and as I said at the beginning, the epitome of a toxic, elitist and traditionalist culture. Please reassess your perspective.

[@johnnydep3867]

this is exactly what I needed today... some random chick telling me what I can't do or be

[@theunspeakable24]

This is art -101. You are telling us what is not but not what is.

[@MrReaperofDead]

*Don't tell people what they can't achieve.*

[@roseofversailles1731]

Punk was a movement yet people can still perform it today not purely for the movement itself

[@keithlarsen7557]

Well my uncle's work is abstract and he's expressing himself.

[@dees9502]

Bingo!

[@coloradojoe6274]

This video makes little sense. If someone only creates abstract expressionistic work, then he/she IS an abstract expressionist. What else would they be called? It's not just a movement. Whatever kind of art you create, then that is what kind of artist you are.

[@shabnamnikkhoo2169]

And who does that is basically copying a movement and does not belong to that movement. it is making a kind of art which is not alive today, at the moment of making. It is a copy even if visual elements of today are used.

[@shabnamnikkhoo2169]

We can explore those movements and create works inspired by those movements to help ourselves understand the process those artists went through at that time, which was a response to their own time and world. For example MOMA has a series of videos on the New York School called In the Studio which is doing this.

[@bylthe727]

Abstract Expressionists were artists in the 1950s that painted PURELY abstracted forms as a response to WWII. They were called a lot of things (especially the 'others' who were not white men) such as experimentational surrealists, modern cubists, or a bunch of other nondescript things. But just because you paint abstractly today doesn't make you Jackson Pollock. hopefully that makes sense?

[@ricardocantoral7672]

I thought it made perfect sense. Each artistic movement is a response to another movement of a particular era.

[@BielichDai]

@@shabnamnikkhoo2169 Am I allowed to be a typographer? I wasn't born in the time of Gutenberg

[@nickdelloso8987]

What she I believe she is saying or means is that whilst somebody may paint painting in the style of the Abstract Expressionist they can't actually be an Abstract Expressionists as Abstract Expressionists were from a historical period. When they did that type of art it was very new and they weren't copying a style or look from somebody else but were in giving birth, so to speak, to a new style complete with new ideas and attitudes on art, how it looks, what is reacting against and what is it trying to establish for itself in the art world or the world in general. It was new and of that particular moment. If you now paint in this style, or any other historical style (Cubism, Impressionism etc), then you are painting the SURFACE look of that style only. Society and culture has moved on and the concerns, reactions and norms of the society that people like Jackson Pollock or Picasso or Monet lived and breathe and worked in doesn't exist anymore or has radical changed. You can paint in that style (or copy it's surface look) but it doesn't make you part of that movement has it's historical and doesn't exit anymore. One may dress in a toga and speak Latin (or try to) but it doesn't mean you're a Ancient Roman, you're just dressing up and pretending to be a Ancient Roman but in the 21st century! This is what I think the core concept of the video is. I believe she's not actually a Professor (of anything) and all those degrees, PhD's etc are just a lighthearted joke. Something to smile at. One would need to live a dozen lifetimes, have an IQ of 500 at least and be far richer than Bill Gates is or ever was!

[@z50king29]

I feel so empty inside. I think filling that void with minimalism will help

[@0ctoLover]

Ok, I love this, but.. what do we call cubism and minimalist art that’s made today if they don’t fall under those specific categories due to them being movements in a particular place and time?

[@louisducsharm6127]

Could you maybe call it contemporary or 2000s cubism or minimalist? I have been considering this too. I also feel that the labels dont help accurately timeline a movement, considering that what is called modern is no longer modern. Could we use the general decade to refer to art movements, like we do fashion? I'd be v down to call something 2010s Surrealist Cubism, and basically mean that decade of referring back to a particular style, if not to the specific people or reasoning.

[@peachhen9129]

Contemporary art inspired by Cubism or Surrealism for example can be called Neo-Cubism, or Pop-Surrealism.

[@trassel1104]

Or you can just create your own art movement instead of copying other people

[@remycohen6313]

@@trassel1104 Everyone copies everyone, lmao. No artist or art movement is unique, and all artists are copying or inspired by other artists, artworks, or objects in their lives. To want to work on cubist-like work or minimalist-like work isn't """copying""" other people, not more than painting a picture of a bird is """copying""" that bird. All humans are frauds. All humans copy. That's how the nature of inspiration and ideas work.

[@ruthinmanart4063]

i think we need a new name... or a sub-category like Nouveau-cubism, or some such

[@specter2205]

I understand that those movements are exactly that, movements, which are time-period specific. But, from a non-scholarly point of view, this leaves people and artists with a glaring lack of definitive terms with which to use when describing paintings that appear to fit within a certain movement (style), hence the association of particular movements. I paint abstract and surreal pictures, and have often struggled with how to describe my style succinctly to the general population. Using movements as a descriptor is the easiest way to convey that as most people can understand the general shape-color construction of those movements. Unfortunately, like most professors this video fails to complete itself, leaving the viewer as confused as ever about what style a current painting is without waiting another 50-100 years for a 'movement' to define it.

[@cosmicfxx]

There's a difference in meaning between a "movement" and a "style". You can't be part of the movement (as it's history, already happened and ended), but your style CAN be Surrealism or Cubism. Problem is "interllectuals" and art snobs are always trying to define what art is and what you as an artist are or are not.

[@ThingOfSome]

Is there some kind of inside joke to saying the number of degrees she has?

[@gambiland3948]

Ahaha I was thinking the same thing lol

[@lisehosein1289]

@@gambiland3948 Me too :)

[@alexyaniro9046]

Is she a highlander?

[@ruthinmanart4063]

so what ARE we painting?

[@d.harrison1570]

Maybe you can't be an Abstract Expressionist, but you could be an abstract expressionist

[@TimothyStringer]

Correct in the sense of period, otherwise pretentious bull. I suppose following her restrictive logic, one might identify as "in the style of abstract expressionist".

[@WorldBeans]

So what are the hip new movements that I CAN be right now?

[@LostTimeLady]

This was a poor way of saying that art movements represent a period fixed in space and time and so cannot be retrospectively joined as they are descriptors of past works. It also failed to say what the "uncle's" art did fall under. Nouveau-expressionism? Abstract expressionist style? Simply "modern art"? It would still be art, surely, if made with artistic purpose and passion?

[@awm6598]

Hold up, I think I'm the uncle

[@dees9502]

Phooey. One can paint in any style they like. Styles or genres does not cease to exist. The argument presented is akin to saying one cannot cook classical French cuisine because Ecoffier and Julia Childs are taking dirt naps, or arguing one isn’t eating fast food because fast food was coined mid-century as the result of housewives breaking away from slaving in their kitchen in Levittown. More art world arrogance.

[@lauraknightart]

I dont care how many PHDs you have. I can be whatever I want, somebodys mom said so.

[@experi-mentalproductions5358]

Well, I can, because, I am... so...

[@izzy350]

this better be a joke.

[@sharongillesp]

So you’re saying an idea from another time and location becomes irrelevant today? In which case a Christian from the advent of Christianity are the only Christians. Or baking crossaints aren’t really crossaints because they were made at a much earlier time therefore I’m not really a baker. That makes no sense at all. People can be surrealists of the 21st century as they could be surrealists in the 20th. Perhaps another 24 college degrees might do it.

[@michelleronaly3997]

shes kidding about the degrees yea? :/

[@ruthinmanart4063]

im sure they were bought and paid for...

[@jfisher46]

Humm... I got a very negative vibe from the host. Her opinion felt very personal and judgemental, awfully critical and snobbish....claiming superiority due to her "educational" background and with her jokes and attitude coming off more as a frustrated artist attempting to discourage any type of art exploration rather than informing and encouraging art exploration. Movements come back, just because you were not born when Picasso and his friends painted does not mean you can't do cubism. I'm sorry...but that's a well earned dislike right there. Thank you for the content and hope the host either rotates or adjust her attitude...

[@corrijackson]

I can glue together a can and a boot and call it a can boot . It doesn't matter if you agree, it is what it is . Something tells me this is like some reverses psychology ish. Lol ...

[@kg2937]

Ok art expert! 😂

[@GenericInternetter]

“Hi, I have 89 BAs, 42 Masters, and 12 PHDs.” Credentialism is the language of idiots. Stating your qualifications implies that your points are weak, but we should agree nonetheless based on your extensive credentials. Downvoting and leaving. Bye.

[@organischeswesen]

How can she has 89 BAs, 12 Masters and 13,5 PhDs? I dont understand it, maybe because im from germany?

[@alessazoe]

Das ganze Format nimmt sich nicht so ernst. Schau noch ein paar mehr Episoden...

[@trassel1104]

Because YOU GOT PRANKED BRUHHHHH

[@PrincePaulUK]

My thoughts exactly?

[@ruthinmanart4063]

internet degrees?

[@ShmeengusDingus]

All those degrees and still spewing nonsense. Art is art if it speaks to someone and grabs their interests. Just because an art piece is new doesn’t mean it isn’t of value

[@JSMatteson]

Realism vs. realistic Expressionism vs. expressionistic

[@Seekingbeez]

What's the girl equivalent to a "douche' bro" ?

[@kaseyp2988]

I believe "moron" can be used as a unisex term...

[@ccsitaround]

That's why no one liked my drip painting.

[@SteveJohnson1]

"Our job is to fill your feed with the disruptors and innovators" ... this is neither of those things, merely hot take garbage

[@bearisok]

BOOOOO

[@popuchick]

wow this is what i call nit picking. gtfo with your labels.

[@dustyrustymusty3577]

Such bullshit.

[@zhidong5780]

Niceeeeeee

[@joannanorma]

That was excellent!

[@lisehosein1289]

Thanks Joanna!

[@ruthinmanart4063]

@@lisehosein1289 you might try giving New information instead of just taking it all away.... what ARE some names we can use of today's paintings?