Why Liberals Suck at Art

[@tomforsythe7024]

Too many artists confuse novelty with creativity. Bach's music wasn't novel, but it was the best exponent of Baroque music.

[@quack2thesequel]

Yeah, people think that by being different they can just make whatever crap comes to their mind and it's valid.

[@hagoryopi2101]

Which is an extension of "originality" being valued above merit, as a result of concepts like intellectual property. Even if you don't legally qualify as a "ripoff" of another IP, if you copy anything but the most universal tropes, you might as well be in the eyes of the public, and they'll criticize you on that front. (I know people love remakes, but remakes fall within the acceptable boundary of respecting IP, where what I'm describing would not.) You can "copy" plenty from others (which was likely never "original" when they did it, either), and still insert enough of yourself and your ideas to make it stand on its own merits. It's just hard to sell that to people who value novelty first.

[@Disparagingcheers]

If novelty isn’t a subset of creativity, how do you define creativity? Genuinely curious, not disagreeing or agreeing.

[@tomforsythe7024]

@@Disparagingcheers Novelty is only interesting because it is different, not because it makes a positive contribution.

[@quack2thesequel]

@@Disparagingcheers novelty is a subset, not everything and not even important at all, you can go through period sof history of brilliant exponents of a style without changung it, looking for novelty all the time is just askung for disappointment

[@QualityCandor]

Something also of note: what conservatives don't get about the modernist/postmodernist distinction is that modernists were often trained in classical techniques, or were actively exposed to them, and then chose to do something aesthetically different to what was in vogue. They took their knowledge of what came before, and worked to contrast that. Postmodernism simply threw up their hands and said "what rules, there are none!" It's the difference between Picasso knowing how to paint in a classical manner and choosing to explore cubism, versus meaninglessness of Dadaism and Duchamp's infamous toilet.

[@marvalice3455]

Well, there is more. Postmodernism only exists within the context of modernism. Otherwise they would have come up with a new name. Modernism is a shadow postmodernists are so incapable of escaping that they cannot even imagine an identity they may have that doesn't reference modernism

[@graveyardshift6691]

Hmm... that's a REALLY good explanation between the two. Knowing the rules and then creatively weaving around them or applying them in different ways. Against destroying everything and trying to convince people that it's 'art'.

[@QualityCandor]

@@graveyardshift6691 It's why I love sculptors like Fen de Villiers. His design ethos is modernist in nature, and because he understands form and aesthetic coherence, he produces these very robust and striking works. And the best postmodernists, I'd argue, are those who, when allowed that complete creative freedom, elected to approach it with discipline and produced something both challenging, but coherent. I get why the right wants to snap back to purely classical aesthetics, but the genie on the artist as individual has been out of the bottle since the Romantic era; it was Victor Hugo who once said "there are no rules, there are no models." So I think what's important to recognize is that there is no monopoly on the expression of beauty or truth, that it can be found in many forms, and that different forms will resonate with different people.

[@arcturus4067]

@@QualityCandor rather... There are rules but there are also no rules, there are models but there are also no models. Great artists can do both. The problem with modernism/post modernism movement is that only the latter is embraced. It leads to chaotic, grotesque garbage, not art. It leads to so-called artists with bad skills and lacking imagination to pose their wares as fantastic, paradigm shifting "art".... stuff that any 5 year old can do can sell for millions of dollars. I am bad at art but maybe one day I will try and see if my ugly, grotesque drawings can pose for "modern art". Need to find all those abstract explanations for those drawings. Who knows, I might make a fortune.... Modernism/post-modernism is a symptom of the general decline in "Western" civilization in the artistic /aesthetic sphere. I can understand why conservatives want to hark back to the past. Like all civilizations in the past , the collective West is going through the cycle of reaching the zenith followed by ultimate decline.

[@arcturus4067]

Picasso might have known how to paint in the classical manner and made reasonably good or even great paintings in the classical sense but he would not be able to surpass past masters of classical painting. Perhaps he came up with "cubism" because he couldn't make a name for himself just copying and reproducing works of "classical art". Start a new vogue and be a "master" of it. Conservatives lack innovation and fresh creativity thus they hanker for the past. Liberals and progressives also lack innovation and fresh creativity, coming up with no rules, no models monstrosities as heirs to superior aesthetics of the past.

[@supremegodemperorpalpatine4872]

You have to understand the rules before you can break the rules...

[@613harbinger316]

And most of the time, you have to experience the rules yourself, instead of being told about them by someone else (usually some kind of charlatan easily identified by their insistence that those who disagree should be ignored or silenced), in order to understand the rules.

[@marvalice3455]

Also you typically shouldn't break the rules, because if doing so were often good it wouldn't be a rule

[@XSquidbeatsX]

They just break them for a modern audience, in other words make poop for two people.

[@ulaznar]

​@@marvalice3455 I think that the book of the five rings says something like: "when you really grasp these principles, you will simultaneously break free from them" So, mastery of the craft is what allows someone to break the rules and get away with it.

[@spacegene]

The best are also the worst. But the worst are never the best.

[@mouseketeery]

In an interview shortly before he died 2 or 3 years ago, the artist Jonathan Myles-Lea told an anecdote about being in Rome with a friend and this friend's friend, a Feminist academic. She was not enjoying herself - she didn't like the Roman ruins and statues because Patriarchy, she didn't like the classical artworks in museums because they were often of Biblical stories (she was a Conviction Atheist) or mythological ones (Traditionalism = bad, apparently). Myles-Lea suggested that despite not liking/approving of what the statues and paintings represented, perhaps she could still appreciate the skill and talent shown in the execution of the work, and their beauty. Completely serious, she just said, "No, beauty is Fascist".

[@marvalice3455]

Beautiful is painful for a broken soul

[@bigtechisbigbrother8690]

Maybe we fought on the wrong side in that big war in the 40's.

[@marvalice3455]

@@bigtechisbigbrother8690 the Germans were also modernists. Franco did nothing wrong though

[@Zeriel00]

Liberals are possessed by ideologies based on hate. They focus on everything they hate because they cant see past their ideologies, they're hateful people. They will never appreciate anything that has nothing to do with them or their ideology. Liberalism, feminism, neo Marxism, are all hateful ideologies made by evil people and evil can never create anything new only corrupt the work that good people created.

[@yrooxrksvi7142]

What a pathetic, miserable Karen...

[@SoundEngraver]

A strong liberal sentiment for the arts is that an idea on its own makes it art. Climbing on a pile of tires so that attendees can be a part of the art is good enough. Whereas the classic artist believes the work must stand on its own, with or without an idea behind it.

[@vaderchief]

The phrase "all art is subjective" has done unquantifiable damage to the perception of art. The value one derives from a piece may be subjective, but that doesn't mean there aren't standards for what qualifies as _art_

[@hagoryopi2101]

The concept of subjectivity as distinct from objectivity has done a lot of damage to our understanding of philosophy in general. There is nothing to be subject to, if there is nothing to act as an object upon you, first. Objective influences like standards and culture and familiarity, to influence subjective emotions and perceptions and questions.

[@JustAnArrogantAlien]

What the "all art is subjective" crowd never accept is that a viewer's subjective experience of art is not separate from its objective quality, but built from it. We base our impression on the piece's qualities, so when they are lacking then obviously our subjective experience will suffer as well. The subjective crowd seem determined to never understand this.

[@LordBaktor]

Another big factor is that modern art, in lieu of actual artistic merit, values novelty. If it's a first it's great art, even if it's obviously crap. So up and coming artists scramble to come up with any idea, no matter how stupid it is, that hasn't been tried previously and sees no value in learning from those that came before. That and artists "Dunning-Krugering" themselves into thinking they have nothing to learn from past masters, but that one you addressed in the video, so mainly the first thing I said.

[@oORiseAboveOo]

I once heard that the reason art critics praise tr@sh post-modern art and ignore truly skilled work, is because they h@te the idea that they went to school to study art, and you, the average Joe, can look at those beautiful paintings and know that it is great art. They want you to think they are seeing something deep and meaningful in the tr@sh art because they have an expensive degree.

[@symptomofsouls]

I think it's more that they can't stand that Joe the mechanic might be more creative than them

[@terracannon876]

It's not just that they hate their culture and tradition. This is an issue that stems from the modern artist's own lack of respect for these things that are from an older generation. They don't understand why some standards (eg, beauty) exist, and so they tear it down willy-nilly without thought or awareness of the consequences. Another example of something they reject is the traditional moral system. What is good? What is a hero? There is a problem with the artists, and so they are unable to create good art.

[@kevintanza6968]

Their concept of "grey morality" is letting people do the most awful things because they had a tough childhood.

[@terracannon876]

@@kevintanza6968 One of the concepts most abused, because gray morality still means there's a white and a black end to that spectrum. Instead, the people who engage in it most in writing don't even now what good is and use "gray" to justify their own questionable morality. On that note, it's why I came around to appreciating more black/white stories more, especially for kids. Gray morality isn't for children who are still trying to develop a moral foundation.

[@arcturus4067]

Agree with you. Modern artists today are living the life of "Rebel without a cause " when their chaotic, rebellious "values" are currently the norm and successfully replaced past traditional values and aesthetics in "Western" civilization. Modern art is a symptom of civilizational decline.

[@puckthewildjoker]

I'd put it this way: what the customer wants is what they expect in a way they don't expect. Pareto, 80% old 20% new becomes 20% and 80% of what they remember about your product, respectively. Liberals tend to focus on new things, change, now now now. But typically these aren't things that haven't been done, they're things that aren't being done for good reasons. Honestly, I appreciate the bad products since they finally prove diversity has an acceptance limit and implementation cost, something we have been reluctant to test and verify, mostly because it literally destroys everything you've built up until that point, both financial and reputational, and no one is irrational enough to do that... not until they get so far removed from survival scarcity that they no longer fear death... unbounded from reality and humanity, hubris.

[@AGreenStranger-mt7jt]

I know i'm late to the party, but a few months back i was with some friends and i decided to show them my drawings. I'm still new, but i do a lot of studies mainly in nature drawings and most important, the fundamentals for character design. A criticism that stuck with me from a very staunch communist/feminist friend was that she didn't liked my drawings because they were "Too perfect and too pretty" and because of that i was perpetuating unrealistic and harmful beauty standards. I kept doing my thing. Maybe that is a signal that i'm doing things the right way

[@JetSki101]

First, which means I win the chronically online award

[@tomforsythe7024]

I'm second, but I'm Canadian, and for us second is better than first.

[@blackreaper0976]

I really appreciate this video. I'm trying to improve my writing skills to make good fiction. I want to take inspiration from my favorite media but I don't want to inject my own politics into it. I hope to do more research on "The hero's journey" so I can better avoid lefty mistakes.

[@MrDexter337]

Agree, the reason woke art is so terrible is because the people selected to do it were done so because they were woke, instead of actual skills.

[@613harbinger316]

'Beauty begets beauty' is a...beautiful aphorism. It's almost confusing why liberals today don't seem to get that, given how they take that aphoristic pattern and apply it everywhere else: hate begets hate, racism begets racism, fascism begets fascism...etc. Almost. Until I give it a little thought and realize that too many of them actively practice those negative versions while believing the positive ones to be false and that they are heroes for doing so. This is a twisted time and we all need time to come to our senses and untwist ourselves.

[@mistersharpe4375]

This is why they love playing word salad and changing definitions. Most of educated western society considers racism to be abhorrent by default. Then they slide and change the definition, so that those "in power" (also an ever changing standard) cannot be targets of racism. They are textbook bigots, driven purely by a hateful need to destroy. Without even the excuse of a misguided desire to protect their own loved ones, since they have none. Notice that whenever they rail against bigotry, they will never denounce the concept of collective guilt.

[@stillbuyvhs]

@9:05 Even earlier: there was a Dadaist who declared an off the shelf urinal a sculpture, "The Fountain," if memory serves.

[@phonepunk7888]

Yes, Marcel Duchamp in 1917. Over 100 years ago someone put a toilet in a gallery and called it art.

[@InfamyOrDeath-__-]

Modern art is absolutely horrendous, a big canvas with 3 lines on it, bags of trash in the corner of a room, a bunch of boxes fired into a heap beside an actual good painting, a toilet, and endless other stupid things that they call “art” and actually charge large amounts of money for.

[@marvalice3455]

The peice i detest the most is "who's afraid of red yellow and blue ii" Not because it's worse than anything else, bemut because it is so purposefully insulting. It exists for no reason other than to insult the concept if traditional art and those who appreciate it

[@InfamyOrDeath-__-]

@@marvalice3455How is that even art? A big sheet of red, that’s not art, that’s just a colour. Anything that I myself, someone who can’t draw, can perfectly replicate in a few minutes is not art. There should be talent involved in order for it to be deemed as art.

[@marvalice3455]

@@InfamyOrDeath-__- I'm glad you are also appalled. I remember a few years ago one of the peices in this series was vandalized, and i was supposed to be really upset about it, but all i could think was "finally!"

[@phonepunk7888]

It's fascinating how the modern desire for novelty ruins every medium. I remember taking music history in college and eventually we got to 12 tone music, music where you have to use all 12 tones before you can repeat a single one. It was utterable unlistenable.

[@oORiseAboveOo]

Drawing Art Academy’s channel has a video showing the incredible skill Russian children who attend art school are taught. Then it compares it to what adult college students learn in art school, that throwing paint on a canvas is art- That they don’t have to work hard and learn the techniques and methods, but all that matters is how they feel. I think these tr@sh post-modern works are by people who love the idea of being a famous artist, but are too lazy and unwilling to do the incredibly hard work of learning to be great. So they want to drag you and society down so that you will believe their tr@sh is art.

[@TheMinskyTerrorist]

On top of the patronage thing there's also the possibility that lazy low effort art is getting used for money laundering.

[@DVSPress]

There's also a way that rich people will use art as tax write-offs through complex appraisal systems. When you look deep into auctions you'll find out that the prices are likely very artificial. People will buy their own auctions in order to inflate the price of their collection and then sell it off later or donate it for a tax write-off.

[@symptomofsouls]

@@DVSPress Also notice how it's almost always an "anonymous buyer"

[@ThePsh07]

Hunter Biden’s *ahem, “Art” comes to mind. 👀

[@antiquecardboard]

People were dealing with bad art in the late 1800's. Leo Tolstoy wrote about it in his brilliant "What is Art?" Bad art is a symptom of a rotten culture. And we saw where rottan culture leads to in the early 1900's: World War 1 and 2 and billions dead. I truly pray we can get off our current path of repeating history.

[@AliRadicali]

While I agree with the points raised, I think the main component is that "wokeness" is inherently totalitarian. It sees art and culture as nothing more than conduits of power which must be subordinated to the cause. A dog has no purpose for a fire hydrant, but as an object to piss on to mark their turf. In a sense, I would argue that the ugliness is a feature, not a bug, as it makes the work of "art" a litmus test for political orthodoxy: if the work has no redeeming qualities but its message, it can only be enjoyed by true believers, and it is area denied to everyone else. If nothing else, and especially as it relates to existing works/IP that are subverted by the wokists, it ultimately doesn't matter it the thing is completely ruined: so long as it is defaced with the icons and slogans of the new religion, the iconoclasts have made their point.

[@bishopofeternity48]

Because art expresses humanity and the purity spiral demands you sacrifice all of it for the cause.

[@themule8625]

how can one man be so right.

[@elcidredleg]

I really like the videos you do on topics like these.

[@misterkefir]

I second that.

[@jd_cowan]

Art connects everything together. This implies a sense of humility about the artist's relation to patrons, God, and the world, in how they bring it all together in their work. When the process of creation becomes purely ego-driven and insular, everything else falls away and the artist is only left with his own reflection staring back at himself in the mirror. Naturally that sort of egoism is going to lead to not just selfishness, but a bitterness at everyone else--especially those who cannot relate to their vanity projects. It's no wonder the modern approach has seemingly run out of steam. There isn't anywhere else to go with it.

[@karlgustav9960]

About Duchamp’s “fountain” installation that was mentioned in some of the comments, it was not so much about the object itself being radical or something, it was to stir the debate about the power of institutions to define what art is and to declare themselves virtuous but then to double down on these virtues if results don’t meet their narrative. Funny, most people remember the toilet more than the actual context… as an art historian who happened to work in computer games and now works in UX Design, I whole heartily agree that it is not possible to move hearts without love for your audience and therefor even humanity on a larger scale. However I think that effective art does not have to be “beautiful” to create an emotional impact. I like Umberto Eco’s theory of the “semiotic metaphor”: A work of art is effective if it helps you to reflect the nature of your personal perspective and has depth when it does not tell you, but “shows” you, or even better offers a variety of (emotional) interpretations. If some artifact enables and encourages a genuine discussion about the nature or our perception of reality (and that includes our individual beauty standards), I’d say it is highly effective or has impact. „Good“ and „Bad“ are mere labels that I avoid out of humility and respect, I prefer effective and ineffective, though you could of course argue that this itself is just an expression of high neuroticism 😂

[@QualityCandor]

No, I think you're on the right track. The dichotomy should be "effective" and "ineffective." The two words that often get thrown about in right-leaning circles is the notion that art must reflect "truth" and "beauty." And I think the key thing to remember is that the truth is not always beautiful. I think about the jagged chaos of Picasso's "Guernica." It's an uncompromising depiction of the bombing of the Basque town in question, it take his cubist style to a grotesque extremity, but it's truthful. For a lot of the vitality people find in beautiful depictions of the warriors of antiquity, it is sobering to remember that war is not an innately beautiful thing. I find "Guernica" to be an effective and truthful work in that regard.

[@davidyoung5640]

If you have to write a essay himming and hawing justifying it, it's shitty art.

[@ulaznar]

The point about hating your audience is spot on. Perhaps too "esoteric", but I feel that love, hatred and apathy of the artists can be felt through their art

[@robertlewis6915]

It is partially a skill issue: like how the 'strong female character' isn't just a male stereotype, it's a badly written male stereotype, and how stories have a habit of failing to see the story from any viewpoint except 'author insert'. I'd also argue that liberal academics also live in a reality separated from the reality-perception of much of their audience.

[@kevintanza6968]

The modern strong female character is a caricature made by people who think strength is never losing.

[@robertlewis6915]

@@kevintanza6968 That's definitely part of it.

[@phonepunk7888]

Great discussion! IMO the peak of rebellious art was when Duchamp signed a urinal and installed it in a gallery in 1917. You can't get more punk rock than a literal toilet. And that was over 100 years ago now. A banana looks boring and mundane by comparison. Truly, the rebellion is old hat. Whenever I see a piece that relies on rebellion, it just screams EGO. The (misplaced, out of date) pride of the individual artist is the only thing communicated.

[@DVSPress]

I say 1953 is the peak because that's when John Cage had a musical piece that was literally just silence. Nowhere to go from there!

[@gregsmith6935]

My favourite point is how the ridiculous minimalist things have been happening for 7 decades.

[@moocherdingo]

It ultimately all stems from a rejection of God. Whatever caused someone to reject God in the first place becomes a reason to reject everything good, one after the other, until there's nothing good left.

[@turkeyman631]

Agree 100%. Simply put, creativity has been swapped out with hatred and division. As a guy in his young 30's, I wasnt SUPER left wing growing up, but I definitely veered more toward that direction. But that was at a time when people on the left actually liked and wanted to better our country and culture. Now it's about tearing that down and always telling you why your culture is 'wrong.' Nobody wants to sit there and be preached to when you are trying to enjoy art...

[@pianoandguitarlover2773]

The modern Democratic party and Leftist movements are death cults.

[@jameshinds2510]

After listening to both sides of your opinion, I have some...issues. First, the simple one: the problem with conservative art. The primary reason is that conservative artist networks are not designed to market effectively because they usually aren't connected to businesspeople. Conservative art exists, but it tends to not escape its own immediate niches. This is especially true these days because--let's be real--most of the Silicon Valley internet is run by leftists who write social media to favor specific things. This has a secondary effect of making conservative art relatively low competition (you have a tiny, but captive audience), which of course reduces quality. As a final reason, "conservatism" is much more an amalgam of interest groups than the modern left, so the markets for conservative art are actually smaller than you would expect. There is a major difference between a religious conservative and a social conservative and an economic conservative. The three typically vote together, but they only occasionally agree in art tastes. Liberals...oh, boy. The major reason liberal art sucks is that the political discussion displaces fundamental creative writing discussion. I have at numerous times seen panelists at conventions invoke politics to blow a smoke screen to cover for raw ignorance. It is easier to understand DEI politics than it is to apply complex creative writing tropes, so they go for the easy way out. And the fact is that the majority of their peers let them get away with this. This reduces the net competency and the signal to noise ratio a catastrophic amount. You say that this is a product of ignorance? I think that's a quarter of the truth. The second quarter of the truth is that learning creative writing is harder than learning DEI politics and many of these people chose the easy path of DEI over learning creative writing. The third quarter is that because this affects the signal to noise ratio, learning creative writing skills through the conventional manner--going to university and taking a class--is basically impossible. You have to read E. M. Forster and browse TV Tropes or whatever and put it together yourself. The final quarter is that these people value the opinions of their peers too much because the moral structure of modern liberalism has weakened their internal sense for purpose and direction. No modern liberal will buck the trend and read E.M. Forster because that's not what their friends are doing. I suspect it is basically impossible for a modern liberal to learn creative writing at all in 2024; only classic liberals (moderates) and conservatives can become enough of a social renegade to teach themselves creative writing. And even then, that's kind of doubtful. This is certainly way harder than it was when I learned.

[@arcturus4067]

Modernism/post-modernism is a symptom of civilizational decline. Agree with your points. Really good video.

[@stillbuyvhs]

In previous generations, conservatives were good at art too; Cecil B Demille & Frank Capra were both respected directors, & both were conservative. What happened? Why can't anyone seem to make art anymore?

[@marvalice3455]

Because of people like that. In previous generations, everyone participated in art to a degree. People passed time telling stories, made their owm stuff, etc. But, in recent generations we have allowed a very few people to create all our art. Thus the process has been lost by most people

[@tomforsythe7024]

Yes. Elia Kazan made some of the best movies, ever, and cooperated with HUAC to expose Hollywood Stalinists.

[@oORiseAboveOo]

I think much of modern society is demoralized, depressed, and struggling to get by, to be able to explore or express creativity.

[@MCCrleone354]

I think it’s because conservatives in the 60s gave up on Hollywood. They exist, they’re just about 25% of the industry. Which is still a minority. Some people think there is a conservative “black list,” conservative actors, and writers and directors say that they’re talent agents often told them that if they were conservative, they needed to stay quiet to continue to get work.

[@MCCrleone354]

@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 I have a bigger problem with the nepotism as it often has more of an effect on scriptwriting. Though, I share the frustration that the left side of the aisle only gets their political voices heard. Whereas conservative, libertarian or even objectivist voices are marginalized.

[@JustAnotherDave75]

You make a great point. Another KZbinr I follow Paul Chato who used to work in network tv, said Hollywood has always been communist and leftist, but the old school artists and entertainers knew their craft and put it first.

[@Avarn388]

Great video. For me, I realize with my own story I am working on I honestly like studying classical stories and myths of heroes and hero’s journeys and want to do some thing with them. I have some friends who are liberal, telling me I need to be postmodernist or be subversive and while I don’t frown on the latter; there is something to be said about telling a story we’ve seen before well. Especially if you can make it a bit fresh. It’s why I want to write a chosen one story because I simply like the concept and want to explore that element while hopefully writing a good character. The liberals out there are so determined to be individuals and special that they think they deserve addition for crappy work. That’s not how it works. Certain stories stick with people because they are well crafted. It’s like looking at a mosaic. You can appreciate it at a distance and casually. But up close you see all those small pieces add up to one cohesive whole. And that’s were craft matters. And while it isn’t easy; it’s worth pursuing especially if you want to have something to say with your work and have folks listen to it.

[@kaizarcantu8240]

I have the suspicion (and hope) that much of the academic and elitist art praised by the critics will be mostly forgotten, while the pieces that are consumed by the masses will live on. An iconic album cover will survive most paintings, sculptures, novels and movies showered in high praise.

[@symptomofsouls]

"Academic" art will survive, but in infamy. People will be making jokes about "Banana duck-taped to wall" for generations

[@jl8858]

Great stuff as always

[@innocentsmith6091]

One of the things that makes generative AI suck is that once it produces a large quantity of media, it starts to get that media in its training set. All of the weirdness, quirkiness, and fakeness created by the AI gets baked into its model, and it's starts to spiral into garbage. I see post-post-modern art in a similar way. When make a deconstruction of a commentary of a deconstruction of a commentary, it's not even propaganda anymore, it's just gibberish.

[@kevintanza6968]

Worst part is that deconstruction is misunderstood. Deconstruction is explaining what drives a character. Most writers think deconstruction is just turning a character into an asshole.

[@lucymiau5700]

Perfect summarized. Most of modern Art was/is reactionary. "We modern artists against the old lahme artists" was the talking point no 1. However, a lot of the modern art has now become classics, too. What to react about? Consequently, post modern reactionary art just is "no art" at all. And then comes the leftist but sometimes also rightwhing mindset to see all art and entertainment only as a tool box for their propaganda. And there is a lot of lazyness in education and self education of many artists, mostly writers, and a huge lack of life experience which is essential for good story telling.

[@jpwright87]

It's hard to be transcendent when you've outlawed metanarratives from your thinking. In fact, you can't even live normally or make truth claims without a metanarrative of some kind, but that doesn't stop them from trying. "Despite all their rage they're still just a rat in a cage" etc. They want to have it both ways, but it doesn't work, and I think that's why everything they make is terrible. Messaging without a message, or art without a reference to reality, is untenable, and that's probably the same as what you were saying about the difference between a cultural product versus influencing culture.

[@indieWellie]

i'd argue that each major shift in art begins, at least in the case of the late 19th C onwards, with a generation of artists who experimented with or became dependent on a new drug. probably not an air-tight argument, but one that explains why there was a massive drop off some time around the mid-late 20th C.

[@ROMaster2]

I think a big reason why (post) modern art is so terrible is because of how art was taught in early school. The idea that art is so complex and sophisticated with its infinite possible interpretations and you'll never be as good as the old masters can completely take people out of the idea of being artists in any art field. This may have lead some bad artists to making some garbage works and many people attempting to appreciate something they never were taught how to appreciate, so they'll just do it carte blanche.

[@Carlos101010101]

Art has suffered as it has become more about the 'artist' than the work.

[@DVSPress]

Personally I think the pop culture sphere could do with a lot more focus on the artist. That way you wouldn't have constant corporate skin suit jobs making crappy sequels. People would necessarily understand that a certain artistic product is the result of a certain artist. This is not so much the story of the artist the way you see in modern galleries but just understanding that artists have a certain ownership over their work.

[@Carlos101010101]

@@DVSPress Hmm... I concede your point for the indies countering the corporate/gallery crap being offered as art.

[@yipperdeyip]

11:06 Neil Druckmann should hear this

[@Zarumee]

I've always said for a while now that I just believe that modern day artists, especially when it comes to movies and TV-shows, simply don't have the capacity or ability to create something good. A friend of mine consistently watches the terrible Marvel movies and TV-shows, Netflix's The Witcher, the new Halo show, etc., etc. and each time I ask why, the answer is often somewhere along the lines of "well, how will I know if it's bad unless I watch it?" or "What if it's good?". But that's missing the point, I think, the point is that they *can't* make anything good. They are fundamentally *incapable* of making a good movie or TV-show. Netflix's The Witcher was *never* gonna be good because it *can't* be good. The Halo show was never gonna be good because it *can't* be good. Same thing with Rings of Power, Wheel of Time, True Detective season 4, the countless Marvel movies, Marvel comics, the absolute tripe Warner Bros produce for TV, and so on and so on. Same thing with every modern remake and re-imagining as well. *Quality is not the main concern.*

[@DVSPress]

Even if quality was their main concern I don't think they have the skills to do it. They need to be better read and better practiced, or all the writers need to be fired and new ones hired based on quality rather than tribal affiliations.

[@Jared_Wignall]

Way back when, both political ideologies could make things that everyone liked. Now so many people are too interested in shoving their ideologies down peoples throats that it’s unappealing to them. This is more apparent by those on the left since we get to see what they make more than anyone right of the political aisle, save for some exceptions like Clint Eastwood or Mel Gibson with film and even Eastwood and Gibson do their best to make their stuff entertaining and/or engaging as possible first and foremost. Sad how times have changed.

[@cinefixia]

nowdays what software you use to write your books?

[@DVSPress]

Microsoft word

[@londonarbuckle8601]

I think they suck at art because they don’t understand human nature, let alone basic morality.

[@grinningtiki220]

5:38 Lava lamp liftoff!

[@youareivan]

you can't break the rules if you don't know the rules.

[@MobbJacket88]

Another thing I would've mentioned is the left's ignorance and mockery of the concept of heroism. It's why we're getting superhero movies where the protagonist can get away with doing genuinely terrible things and still be called a hero. Just look at Captain Marvel.

[@DVSPress]

Part of rejecting the classics in my opinion. It might even be one of the reasons they reject the classics.

[@bigtechisbigbrother8690]

They hate heroism because there is nothing heroic in their own character. They are totally lacking in heroic qualities like courage, honor, nobility, and self-sacrifice. Depictions of heroes in art and literature remind them of their lack of virtues and admirable human qualities, so they mock such things. People always ridicule and mock things they envy but can't have, or people they want to be like, but can't because they're just not good enough. It's a psychological defense mechanism they use to cope with their failings and feel better about themselves.

[@robertcraigashby9836]

Its " Thing" meets "Other Thing"

[@tb8865]

In defense of Modern Art, there was a distinctly pre-modern aspect to it in that the process/act of making art became a part of the art itself. Similar to how Medieval monks drawing in the margins of Scripture, or icon makers, were actually "praying" in the process of making images. Modern Art began that way, as a means to combine the process and the product into a single artistic piece. That kind of modern art, however, only made sense in the elitist/esoteric context of the early 20th Century and eventually became ruined by repetition and over-exposure in mass media. I know you were mostly talking about Postmodern art of the later 20th century but I just wanted to throw that out there.

[@mapowey]

people say the whole, “hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times” but i think this is stupid. there’s some truth there sure, but it misses the essence of humanity. true art is what strengthens a society, it unifies despite being a completely subjective force. the decline of art is 100% contributing to these “hard times” many say we are in. there is no unification in creating movies/tv shows solely to push a political narrative. on the contrary if you go to the sistine chapel, nobody will be talking about politics, everybody (together) will be looking up in awe.

[@stillbuyvhs]

@1:36 Does this mean Monopoly & Pachisi & Checkers are actually good games?

[@DVSPress]

The ancient Egyptians played similar games - there is probably something to them!

[@misterkefir]

Bullseye. Agree with literally everything you've said in this video and have nothing to add. Stay frosty out there. Cheers & God Bless.

[@ulaznar]

Technically, art being ridiculous (and shitty) is even older. The famous "Fountain" by Duchamp is from 1917

[@ulaznar]

About beauty perception, I'd say that 80% of people agree on what is "at least 80% beautiful"

[@XSquidbeatsX]

There is a new Star Wars trailer, that released today. It sums up post-modernism.

[@JohnBaptist702]

This is why as a Christian, I am convinced that if we in the west return to God, the scriptures, and the artists who were aiming to bring the scriptures to a more visual understanding, we will properly understand why art has the power it does. Art is meant to glorify God and explore the beauty of His creation in a meaningful and holy way, NOT destroy it.

[@TheMinskyTerrorist]

Sometimes something comes along like The Last Jedi, which does have some technical proficiency in some areas, some nice cinematography at times, which causes liberals to think that it's an example of something great they can produce. But the heart of the matter is that it's spiritually vulgar, it's full of hatred for the audience and for its source material, and that's the real reason people like or dislike it. That makes them hysterical and do things like accuse people of being Russian bots or agents when they review it poorly.

[@gage2268]

I think that this hatred of culture or audience comes less from political leanings and more from the lack of freedom given to creatives and the increasing difficulty to achieve funding for original media. Marvel has proven to studios how profitable highly connected franchises can be, and executives no longer want to produce original content. If I was an artist, I would be tempted to do what Johnson did and destroy a franchise that should have ended with Lucas’ exit. It feels as though Hollywood is moving away from the “auteur film” and returning to the way movies we’re made in the 40’s. Personally, I can relate to the desire for rebellion among these artists; cinematic universes are grotesque and anathema to art.

[@stillbuyvhs]

Maybe we should develop beauty units... ;)

[@satori2890]

Classics are Timeless. So that becomes Our Human Heritage, yes it should be taught in a more multicultural way but Timelesness is the definition. Everything else are Period Pieces.

[@artbyty]

Great points! I feel like meta-modernism, may be a term we can use for this new way of looking at the world.

[@InfamyOrDeath-__-]

What’s that big map in the background David?

[@DVSPress]

It's from Needle Ash

[@RachelNichols-writer]

Just twenty years ago it was the Left that made great art. There's a reason even Christians often avoided Kirk Cameron films. It wasn't because they were too wholesome for us, or we disagreed with the message. (Or dislike Kirk either.)

[@GerryBlue]

Left from the 50's and 60's is NOT the current left for sure. I used to think I was center leaning left, in these times I'm more like a naz* to most people 🤪

[@JustAnArrogantAlien]

10:06 _"It's just noise, and whatever your reaction happens to be, that's valid. That's part of the postmodern ethos when it comes to art."_ Unless your reaction is "this sucks." Then suddenly there IS an invalid reaction, and you just committed it. A lot of the people who claim "all art is subjective" don't mean it; it's just another excuse they use to try and shut down their critics, because their critics have a point and they know it.

[@tuppybrill4915]

I had seen Tracy Emin's 'art' and didn't 'get it' and then read Joyce's Ulysses and realised that what Emin was trying to do was a version of stream of consciousness - but Joyce already did that, decades ago ... and you can only do that once, from then on whatever is done in that mode is just a shadow of Joyce. Then i picked up a book of her early drawings in a gallery bookshop and realised in addition that she can't draw either, she has no talent.

[@sameash3153]

Based

[@ParanondoPedro]

Another reason why they struggle at art is because from one I think it's fascist and to be fair some of the greatest artists of the 20th century were fascists like Ezra pound Windham Lewis TS Eliot or at least socially conservative like like Tolkien was a conservative I believe he was socially so he believed in monarchy and anarchical capitalism and CS Lewis was a slightly conservative guy and there's also the magic mountain written by a guy who wasn't not to collaborator who lived in Germany and in horror Lovecraft was definitely we don't even have to talk about him God just go Google some s*** about him if you want to know he's not a leftist and one of the greatest Norway riders who wrote poor folk who was a fascist in his private writings and another nihilistic artist a writer I believe wrote journey into the night he was a fascist as well

[@TheMinskyTerrorist]

Stephanie Meyer is Latter-day Saint, so are Orson Scott Card and Brandon Sanderson. I'm also a member of the church but I don't really care for any of their stuff and I hate Ender's Game.

[@DVSPress]

The point is they aren't atheist lefties. Card has been canceled over his pretty basic religious beliefs.

[@TheMinskyTerrorist]

@@DVSPress Right, I agree

[@dominusdevacore517]

These people, once they fully fail, will blame God. My response ~ God is not jealous, you just suck. We need artists that respect God and wish to emulate him. I do like these failed rebels attempts at deconstruction. We need not to deconstruct but understand the rules more closely so to fly closer to the sun (without burning up). The good are too afraid of sin to a point of allowing true evil to flourish.

[@dominusdevacore517]

@@hermonymusofsparta I changed too quickly. My today refutes my yesterday. I often jump over the steps when I climb and for doing that none of the steps pardon me.

[@marbellaotaiza801]

"Why the left can't meme" by David V. Stewart.

[@georgebarrett2132]

got..me..seriously..thinking:.."(beauty)..evident..and..easy..to..see..in..the..visual..realm,..it's..harder..to..see..in..the..literary..realm"..and..if..missing..an..undertanding.."ethos"..regarding..it's..foundation..(it's..past/history),..then..how..may..they..reach..a..solid,..conclusive..audience?....()...and..then,.finally,..with..it..being.."the..(the..oops).artist..that..see's..something..beyond,..something..that's..transcendental,.something..thait's..pointing..to..God,..to..something..that's..mOre..than..just..what's..in..front..of..us."......i..am..now..understanding..this..(transcendental)..to..mean..being..the..creator's..unifying..ingredient,..David?../,..To..be..that..final..factor..for..approaching..universality..in..acceptance..of..our..intent?..and..by..all..the..more,.or..enough..other..people..,....And..also..For..accomplishing..our.primary..intent's...end..goal..of.."reaching".................(sorry...about..the..keypad..leftovers..again>>>(.past/history.."andin..))............Oh..boy,.if..they're..wishing..to..completely..crap..on..all..tried..and..true..standards..of..beauty..on..the..visual..sphere,.then,..they..stand..not..a..snowball's..chance..in..the..literary..domain......................(addit:..your..the..best..teacher..David)

[@andrewmarkmusic]

Haha....It’s hard to believe this isn’t a shot at MILES MATHIS....What say you PEERAGE Stuarts.

[@MechShark]

Aight. Going hard here and thinking out loud... I believe a bit of philosophy shows additional color in this conversation. At least, for a particular segment that makes up much of the left. The short of it is: leftists have supplanted any moral or ethical system with their Marxist, atheistic world view and a lack of orderly values: primarily due to a culture of single motherhood that their peers and they, themselves, experience. A culture of the bygone era would drive moral values through religious texts and prohibition; however, leftists have abandoned prohibition. If religion is scant, or generally less relevant, values would most likely then be expressed and passed down through generations (i.e. mother and father, grandmother and grandfather). However, leftists of today come from a state of single mother households, thus these values do not manifest in any traditional way; and we've already covered that they have abandoned religious prohibition and moral values. In fact, there's additional analysis due with the cliché spoiled child of single moms. The child's personality has no reflection or drive from a household of order and sympathy (father and mother), thus they manifest a natural tendency towards tyranny and control by reflecting the irrational behavior of the available parent (women, on average, suffer from outbursts of rage when they lose control; thusly, the child imprints on this behavior and learns it as a means of deriving control). To wrap up parenthood, with no men in the picture, the mother's role of sympathy and care is overruled by the need for order, but it is implemented in the realm of the irrational feminine. It could possibly be simplified as a system in which Freudian shadows have run amuck. This is made worse when we consider divorce separates children from a functional relationship with any previously-stout iteration of a bonded family (grandparents): thus, the cycle is self-fulfilling, without any signal to reorient. I believe this complex system results in children who have become manifestations of resentment over the state of their lives. It drives their ideology because they understand the feeling, but not the cause, of their lack of success; thusly, they find outlets for it, and are incredibly susceptible to any channel that lets them subconsciously air out their frustration and unhappiness (e.g., the intent to ruin art and beauty; perhaps because they mistake the goals at play by supplanting value with power). Aight, I dug too greedily and too deep, my small brain ends there 😂

[@DVSPress]

The left is been anti-family primarily because as you said it's the main means by which values are passed down. No accident that the government takes children away from their parents for 8 hours a day. If you believe in the unconstrained vision of man then traditions are an obstacle to the reimagining of man. They must be mitigated for the "new man" to be made.

[@pberci93]

More like political """art""" sucks in general. It's as if the people blinded by the message or ideology they want to push fail to express it in a manner that feels natural. Their normalcy is their political activism, and they fail to comprehend the normalcy of the average person less interested in their agenda (and they also spectacularly fail at depicting opposing viewpoints). Shocker... Jokes aside, these people (left and right) are generalizing their incredibly walled-off echo chambers over the entire world. They come from environments without negative feedback that would force them to improve, so they don't. They don't experiment, they don't explore, and they never ever challenge the core ideology of their environment, even in the form of a powerful antagonist.

[@XSquidbeatsX]

It takes you out of the immersion, because you are thinking about the incompetent creators.

[@Lexie810-b5r]

💯 facts 😊

[@georgecisneros5281]

💯

[@reviewman]

It because there making bad propaganda. Not Entertainment!

[@XSquidbeatsX]

They aren’t even talented enough to make propaganda due to lack of merit in their cult.

[@raddziedzic8671]

For the algo % str8 trash Have paypal? 2 years delayed

[@wesyung5906]

This is antisemitic.