Modern Art: Truth, Goodness and Beauty - [Philosophy & Aesthetics]

Support the Channel:
www.subscribes...
www.buymeacoff...
All Social Links: bio.link/leath...
Ugly modern art is far more than just an eyesore, it is a moral hazard to societies which are subjected to it. This is because Aesthetics, thought of by some as just a philosophical fringe, is actually strongly and unavoidably wrapped up with MORALITY itself.
I develop in this video the beginnings of my idea of "natural morality" and "natural aesthetics". I have not gone far enough to proove definitively an "objective" morality as such, but given what we know about the nature of Goodness and Truth, I do attempt an argument for a concept of Goodness, Truth, and Beauty based upon an alignment with nature, what the Stoics might refer to as "living according to nature".
KZbin: tinyurl.com/ts...
Bitchute: tinyurl.com/4d...
Odysee: tinyurl.com/7e...
Twitter: / leatherapronguy

[@m.w.7676]

“Beauty is a value as important as truth and goodness” - Sir Roger Scruton

[@zoebaggins90]

Fun fact: moral good in Greek is the same word as beautiful. Kalos = beautiful and morally good.

[@kc8391]

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so how do we put together these two statements?

[@qvindicator]

@@kc8391 this video argues for an objective beauty, rejecting the premise that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You are stating that like it’s an axiom stated by God himself

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

@@qvindicator well there are to Kindstod of objective beauty one being empirical and the other being ontological. It is the case that beauty is ontologically subjektive but it might be empirically objective, as in conforming to our natural biases

[@kc8391]

@@qvindicator in the opinion of many people, the objective beauty this video is speaking of is not the only kind of beauty. A painting can be seen as beautiful, but not represent the real world, therefore be beautiful (if an objective beauty even exists) but not correspond to a real object. A representation of death would be true, because it represents an undeniable truth, yet is seen as ugly by most people. And how would you define goodness? What makes something beneficial for the soul? A painting might be beautiful to look at, might be "true" and makes you see something real, but if it doesn't do anything for your soul, if it doesn't affect you at all, then it suddenly stops being beautiful and true?

[@ajkrockomberger1436]

I think some artists are not in fact artists but mainly social commentators. The various "ugly" pieces that have been hung in galleries around the world , I believe, are done solely to create controversy to stir up whatever discussion they desperately feel the need to engage in. As their gimmick du jour gets worn out, so does the longevity of their work. This likely is bad for art as a whole since rather than inspire others to stay true to themselves, it inspires others to create whatever will be immediately attention grabbing. Sort of like a modern art arms race. On the flipside, as you said, there are plenty of beautiful works of art being created in the modern day and age. These will likely age far better than a statue of a police woman peeing.

[@LeatherApronClubChannel]

Even if the motivation to create ugly art is solely commercial, solely done for shock value, I don't think it affects the outcome. People are still exposed to these things which lack beauty, and which in turn alter their perceptions of what is good and true, what we ought to strive for and live our lives for. In a way, it would be less of a blackpill if the ugly art was being created to purposefully demoralize society. At least then we'd be losing to a self aware enemy and not just our own greed and stupidity.

[@user-ep9zv4se3s]

Bro why did you need to start making videos on race you could have played the algorithm so much better with this

[@joshuabacker2363]

@@user-ep9zv4se3s If you won't discuss the issues that matter, why bother?

[@dallassegno]

artist here. so i have to apply for opportunities to create art and many require you to write political essays about untrue things in order to get the job. the city here had to reword their anti white application form after i pointed it out. i am not white. i didn't just write about it, i made art depicting the problem. furthermore, any time i lied about myself (which was gut wrenching) in order to appear like i supported their lies, i would fail. i believe i was sabotaging myself. i certainly didn't get the gig. that said, i don't know exactly what beauty is but i can tell you what it isn't. i don't like to lump abstraction in with the ugly. the reason is that the chaotic feminine has value. HOWEVER, my region has high output of abstraction and landscape paintings, and many many abstractions are absolute garbage. not everything can be described with structures so why should that be different with art. unfortunately with that comes too much too soon. i was looking at the painting of birth of Venus. it is not intended to be abstract but i can tell you, it is hot garbage when you look at it closely. modern art also inclydes impressionism and a buddy of mine paints impressionist landscapes that look like globby paintings. they're beautiful. but when you look at one next to the photo you think, how did he make it look exactly like the thing while also not at all at the same time. van gogh. anyway my point is, beauty is not subjective. the "art" abstraction in front of the hockey arena is so fucking bad i haven't met a single person who likes it. and these people are paid thousands. artists like basquiat and warhol and doodle assholes are more in that realm of human waste bubbling to the surface. i also include pop and fan art in the trash category and anyone who promotes it. this is the ruin of comics by not letting characters die. the gays took xmen and most of marvel and dc and look what they've done. xmen live on krakoa, are gay and immortal, which means no threat which means no story. the rest of marvel have no plot, since none of the writers have ever experienced actual struggle. batman and every other tom king character has been severely cucked. tom king is cia spook. but it also goes right down to architecture. but in canada, people don't appreciate beauty whatsoever. we have these immaculate public squares that people don't use because "they are too bougie" for people. god's greatest creation is beneath its own creation? hahaha . don't get me started on AI

[@peachesandcream8753]

@@dallassegno I went to university to study Animation and the same thing is happening there; they value abstraction more than beauty, with an emphasis on "pushing the boat out" creatively instead of practicing and mastering the basics. The directive for most assignments is to think about a "problem or issue that you want to address", nothing about creating cohesive stories, or great character arcs, or worlds that draw you in. The art world is doomed mostly thanks to this idea that one must be "original", but if you look at the art of the last 50 years you see a very disturbing pattern; very little originality to be seen. Interestingly, the animation that gets the most audience praise, and the most money made, are the conventionally beautiful animations (take Spider-man: Into the Spiderverse for being both beautiful and technical) while the ugly, "creative", animations get the prestigious arts awards but no one knows about them, no one cares about them, and they make no money; they are irrelevant the moment they are aired and they fall into obscurity.

[@lumarious]

While working an art installation job, I was unwrapping paintings that gave me a visceral sense of disgust. The paintings were real pieces of art, that had been painted over with horribly straight lines to cover the beauty that contained in the originals. It angered me that someone could cover up legitimate art, doing nothing but detracting from the beauty that the original artist created, and somehow call it better. This video sums up perfectly the dangers of such reckless destruction. It is a crime against humanity.

[@TrangDB9]

Did they run out of canvas?

[@sirbluelagoon7091]

It comes from their arrogance and smugness. Your experience reminds me of "artists" on Twitter "fixing" the art of others without being asked to. Turning a beautiful piece of illustration into an abomination. This being said I hope the painting you came across can be. restored.

[@eldermillennial8330]

Was it a direct desecration or an alternation of a print? That last would be better.

[@ashlynnshoolroy28]

As an art student, this idea of covering beautiful art and purposefully uglifying it is rooted in a much bigger problem. In general, many art students are taught to reject western tradition founded on Judeo/Christian principles because it is archaic or problematic, and renaissance style art is symbolic of that tradition and should be replaced with a more "open-minded" and "inclusive" standard which they say is destandardized art (I know it sounds ironic). In the process, art has been led down a socialistic and even communistic route since the 1970s. As a result, art has become more critical because of its message rather than embodying intrinsic values like honesty, respect, and courage. Most current artists only believe in principles taught by liberal-led institutions. I even brought up ethics and morals to my professor, who said I could only use them in an argument if I defined them. In other words, these artists are so disconnected from ethics and intrinsic values that they often need to be told by someone else what their values should be instead of discovering them with deep consideration of how they relate to the world. I agree 100% with this video, but I can't help but imagine that a professor will readily smear it, claiming it isn't intellectual enough because the video's author doesn't see the value in contemporary art. So they are blinded by their use of gaudy summaries of art and its supposed cultural "significance" that they don't understand why someone else will say it is ugly and explain how uglified art is a symbol of the uglification of culture and why it's destroying our culture.

[@jimjimson6208]

@@ashlynnshoolroy28 I'm pretty sure you completely missed the reason why your professor asked you to define ethics and morals. Does a math teacher ask you for the answer to an equation because they want to know the answer? Explaining your argument is one of the absolute fundamentals of academic discourse. Also, I would disagree on your point about art becoming communistic, as like you say in your comment, the fine arts have been gatekept by exclusive institutions for years. Institutions which are, at least in my country, for-profit structures that monetarily benefit from this system. Likewise, the kind of art showcased in this video is not made to appeal to the masses, it is made specifically to be purchased within small and very rich circles of elites. Regardless of what the people in it will tell you, the field of fine arts is at its core all about the money and prestige.

[@leepretorius4869]

“There’s nothing more genuinely artistic than to love people,” said Vincent van Gogh. From ‘Rembrandt is in the wind’.

[@judahunderwood8433]

I’ll have to check that book out! Thanks for the recommendation

[@truthterrain3484]

My girlfriend and I were in Leon (Spain) visiting a Christian art historical exhibition. We were tired but uplifted by the beauty and spirituality of it all. As soon as we reached the 20th and 21st century rooms we felt like the life had been sucked out of our entrails. It was pretty amazing to experience.

[@JoshuaRed-v4f]

You were gutless to begin with

[@theedwardian]

I'm glad more people are waking up to the importance of beauty for society's direction and health. Always be careful of those who spite that which is beautiful.

[@HaroldoPinheiro-OK]

I agree with that part. On the other hand, equating beauty with truth and arguing towards the existence of an universal truth is quite a huge stretch...

[@pacoimeroxvida4404]

Gay

[@konyvnyelv.]

You define what is beautiful so it's dumb

[@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272]

@@konyvnyelv. you definitely do not get to decide what beauty is, just as you cannot convict someone of murder based off of your own feelings, God made the universe absolute and everything in it, if you cannot discern what is black from what is white that does not mean the world is grey, it means you are blind.

[@InformedZoomer]

@@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272 Provide compelling evidence for the existence of god and I will agree with you.

[@bunberrier]

A minor factor in this, likely, has nothing to do with beauty but with the demand for "art". Its a physical token for transferring money. Perhaps the demand for an exchangeable supply exceeds supply, so what you might call token art is made, and the pretense that it is valuable is established by bribing "critics" to provide cover. In this scenario, the lack of beauty is an asset because it is a signal that the "art" is for laundering money. The most extreme example of this, a form of trolling, perhaps, was the sale of an "invisible" artwork that fetched a massive price. Very clever.

[@CrescentUmbreon]

Capitalism and profit-attention-driven models will do that

[@koredejames9259]

This is the most packed 16 minutes video about beauty ,good and truth in relation to modern art that I have seen on KZbin. Glad I found your channel!

[@viorp5267]

Modern art comes from the idea of 'giving up on beauty'. The highest standards of sculpting and painting have been reached with old masters from the Renaissance. Modern art was looking for beauty beyond depiction of reality with stuff like what Dali or Van Gogh portrayed. Post-modern art on the other hand completely rejected the idea of beauty. It relies solely on 'message', 'provocation' and 'outrage'. Often in modern art it matters more who the artist is and their life story than the piece itself. The art piece is like a youtube thumbnail or bait-post on 4chan. It's purpose is not to display beauty, exemplify a value or portray anything. It's purpose is for you to 'click' to pay attention to it and once you do it will preach to you not on it's own merits but via a wall of text next to it or via some poor idiot working at the museum. Modern art inherently does not stand on it's own merits and it would have died out it like back in the day we were allowed to respond to bad art by throwing potatoes at the performer/artist. Modern art only exists in the context of a reality where you don't actually have any recourse against bad art. It's purpose is the destruction of the spirit, money laundering for the rich and torjan horsing it political prophaganda into them minds of the higher class and those who wish they were higher class.

[@clipdump]

I studied fine art at university and largely came to the same conclusion. My favourite disaster was this one student who had feminist slogans scribbled on canvas in cheap acrylic paint. There was another feminist who made paintings of herself and her boyfriend having sex and hung them up in the schools main hallway. Of course this was sanctioned by tutors and was up for some weeks. Painting was viewed by some of the old masters as a form of prayer. Some of the greatest works of our civilization were and still are acts of worship. Modernism quickly saw the ego broaden it's grasp on art. Art was not always solely about beauty, it concerned a great deal of things, but at a certain point it became heavily focussed on pushing social boundaries and taboos. Those works you showed of the more forgiving examples of modernism seemed to be earlier works, or at least we're inspired by earlier works. Artists like Van Gogh were humble and truly cared about ideas of beauty. The modern era spans from the late 19th century to the 70s, and much of the horrible stuff you see nowadays is what we would call contemporary art because it's made after this period, but much of those ideas did originate from the early 20th century. After all, modernism begat postmodernism. One of the most frustrating things is watching artists be so in love with their own worst ideas, and others follow along because they recognise that it amuses them in some way, and they mistake this amusement with a sense of profundity.

[@H3H3.podcast]

It should be stated that during the excavation of Pompeii archaeologists found African statuettes. There are many more examples of abstraction being held at the same level as realism by great artists. For example when Van Gogh left his Paris studio to move to the south of France he decorated his room with Japanese prints. Also Dutch masters loved Japanese prints, Rembrandt was known to own hundreds. The demonization of abstractionists art only really took hold during nazi Germany. Sorry to ramble this is just a passionate subject for me.

[@gatocles99]

@@H3H3.podcast Japanese prints adhere to Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.

[@H3H3.podcast]

@@gatocles99 yes I agree but they also follow a form of abstractionism. It should be stated that by the definition of the narrator Japanese art would have to come from a distorted mind. I would also recommend searching on google Picasso’s early works, my boy has gotten a lot of mischaracterizations not only from this video but 90% of videos videos from people who think like this guy. Picasso was able to achieve the highest levels of realism on par with Rembrandt by age 11 but decided to abandon it as there was no where left to go with realism by the 1890s, so he abandoned it for iberianism, futurism, cubism, then primitivism.

[@gatocles99]

@@H3H3.podcast I can put paint on my butt and twerk on a canvas. That is High Art. Even Higher Art, if I light up a spleef.

[@H3H3.podcast]

@@gatocles99 😂

[@16Mystery61]

Love it. I’m a big believer that one of the best ways to counteract the culture of relativism is through beauty since it so easily speaks to the soul and the immaterial.

[@DinoCon]

"Beauty is the splendor of the truth." - E. Michael Jones

[@__-bz7wh]

EMJ is a schizo freak in denial who can't back up his assertions for shit

[@elcidleon6500]

Indeed

[@CrescentUmbreon]

"Words words words words." - Hamlet

[@JustPeachyMind]

What is truth?

[@lhasa7]

Jonathan Bowden’s lecture “Against the Turner Prize” is a further elaboration of similar perceptions and is well worth investigating.

[@realityisfake]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hojUhoRjpZeEqc0

[@patrickbateman3146]

Bowden RIP. If his speeches hadn't been filmed on potatoes with terrible audio quality then Britain surely would be in a far better state than it currently is in now.

[@Ian-jg6pj]

I agree that there is a universal standard of beauty, and that most modern art is made to be ugly and intentionally incite controversy. I also think that there are modern pieces that aren’t ugly. Color, texture, negative space, value, etc can be explored in interesting ways and still be aesthetically appealing, even if they’re not truly beautiful. I remember taking a trip to the Portland Museum of Modern Art and while most of it was retarded there were some very interesting pieces that were essentially just gradients of color, that elicited an emotional response out of me. Specifically, there was a painting of a circle, with varying hues of red on a white canvas, in a white room with tall ceilings. It wasn’t a beautiful painting in the way that classical art is beautiful, but the instillation made me feel an emotional response that I wouldn’t have had looking at the piece on a screen. That kind of art does not take a master’s hand to create, but someone had to sit down and think of the composition and the emotions that they wanted a viewer to feel. It still takes some form of skill, even if that skill is not technical. Art that’s crass to be crass serves no purpose, and art that is ugly is just ugly, but I don’t think that’s representative of all modern art.

[@ghost_of_jah5210]

Completely agree. While ugly art is bad, almost all art can be beautiful

[@CrescentUmbreon]

So then, I'm curious whether you believe that circle to be beautiful. I personally don't see why it couldn't be. Is not math and geometry and color beautiful? By this video creator's assertion, the circle must then be true and good. Very silly, in my opinion. The circle may just be beautiful, and neither true or good but simply IS.

[@dkpianist]

@@CrescentUmbreon A circle is a universal shape, seen in nature a zillion times over. I'd argue that plentiful repetion in nature makes something _true_ in a way. By the same token, a circle would be a good symbol for a religion - rather than a horrible depiction of a human nailed to a cross or even just the cross with the implication (accidentally, shapes like the cross don't appear in nature). But that's a completely different discussion.

[@CrescentUmbreon]

@@dkpianist It may be pedantic, but I'd argue we actually see spheres, or spheroids, in nature. This is mostly because of gravity or cells and structures building themselves radially from a center. Circles are cool though! But are they good? No, I think they're just circles. They may be useful, but they have no moral weight. We just assign them meaning like any other symbol.

[@dkpianist]

@@CrescentUmbreon You are largely right about spheroids though there are some circles as well. A circle may however be seen as a 2D representation, an abstraction so to say. And I guess a certain degree of abstraction is central to most art. Is a spheroid or a circle "good"? One could probably take such questions to a point where any possible answer would be rather pointless. I don't really have such an intellectual approach to art. I go by what I like lookig at, and I don't dislike circles :)

[@CIA871]

This is the consequence of humanities free will. Simpler animals lack the ability to subvert natural, true beauty.

[@timeenoughforart]

I apprenticed with a muralist who did many labor union murals. He talked about being intimidated by beauty. How any sunset he could paint paled in comparison to the real thing. I will always remember him telling me its is easy to paint sweaty men swinging hammers, but try painting joy. Try it without doing a hallmark card. Art is based in the visual, modern art can be, but when the visual impact takes a back seat we get second hand toilets.

[@theplet4414]

This video really connects with me as an aspiring artist Everytime I see an advertisement, info-graphic anything of the sort I always think "this could've been done by a competent artist"

[@JoshuaRed-v4f]

Not everything is art. Some thing are functional.

[@theplet4414]

@@JoshuaRed-v4f and that logic is why we can't have nice things.

[@JoshuaRed-v4f]

@@theplet4414 It's a basic observation. Go tell me artistic pewter forks were a good idea for their asthetics

[@theplet4414]

@@JoshuaRed-v4f What?

[@feliciadogbe1313]

The thing that makes beauty and goodness and truth a trinity is that they are each defined and explained as wholeness, completeness, resolution, harmony and at the same time, they are essential to each other and can't be defined or explained without the other - they are perfect circles by themselves and yet combine to make a perfect circle. Also, truth expresses itself in goodness and beauty and beauty and goodness are the torches on the path to the truth. Thanks for this video.

[@justinfitzpatrick013]

When I hear “modern art”, I am never sure if they are talking about art from the modernist period, post-modern art, or contemporary art. Gives me conniptions

[@nova2293]

Art at its core is meant to be honest, genuine self expression, regardless of the technical ability of the artist or how they express it. The problem with many of these new, "ugly" art pieces, as others have pointed out, is that they are created as such simply to grab attention and be provocative, which undermines the only criteria that real art must follow, which is the aforementioned honest, genuine expression. "Petra", for example, was said to, "show(s) very well the difference between the public sphere and the private sphere." Like... what??? how? Because people urinate in private and the police are public servants? That's some real genius level analysis right there. The police took it as an insult, but I'm not even sure where to begin interpreting it, because undoubtedly it was a stunt, with no real intention behind it other than to create exact outrage and sycophantic praise it generated. Edit: I must point out that your examination sort of muddles the distinction between art and aesthetics, especially where architecture and commercial illustrations are concerned. Your child's macaroni sculpture of you may be aesthetically horrific, but it is such a heartfelt attempt at expressing their feelings that you'd sooner hang it on the fridge than any technically impressive drawing. It's also a bit of a stretch to say that by defending a piece of art as self-expression, you must also deny that it might have wider implications, but I'm rather tired writing this, so I apologize if that was the whole point and I'm being slow lol. overall, I agree that their is inherent beauty, and that most modern art is shit. I think its shit because it violates the idea of genuine expression, as it's all based on doomerism, (subscribed to or internalized) and is often created for the sake of being vulgar and provocative, rather than for the sake of itself, or even the simple beauty we both agree has been forsaken.

[@potatortheomnipotentspud]

So then which modern artists do you enjoy, and why? I myself like abstract art, but it needs to be portraying *something* at all. Jackson Pollock's drip paintings, while I enjoy a few, only make me think of the patterns of jawbreakers. Mark Rothko's field paintings only make me think of Neapolitan ice creams similarly. Also, I think it needs to be pointed out that the idea of modern art being degenerate came from Adolf Hitler, a guy who malded so hard at being shut out of art school (Man can landscape, I'll give him that) he then proceeded to commit genocide and start a world war.

[@nova2293]

@@potatortheomnipotentspud I love a good art attack by Filthy Luker, they’re just so crazy and fun. Some of pollock’s paintings do make nice wallpapers, but he’s definitely overrated. As for pollock himself? He some dude that started splashing paint on a canvas because he felt like it, which I can appreciate. I don’t think abstract art has to have any specific meaning, because it’s often expressing the very intangible feelings the artist was feeling when they made it. If during the course of making a drip painting, pollock felt, “how can I possibly convey my feelings towards my Late mother”, and “god that burger was good” and then in the next moment, “there should be more green”, all of those feelings are somewhere in those random stripes and splats. Sure, it’s meaningless and sometimes ugly to us, but ideally, pollock wasn’t doing it for us. Pollock himself said, “My painting does not come from the easel. I prefer to tack the unstretched canvas to the hard wall or the floor. I need the resistance of a hard surface. On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting. I continue to get further away from the usual painter's tools such as easel, palette, brushes, etc. I prefer sticks, trowels, knives and dripping fluid paint or a heavy impasto with sand, broken glass or other foreign matter added. When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of "get acquainted" period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well.” To me, that sounds like a fancy way of saying “idk lol” which I can appreciate 😂

[@nova2293]

@@potatortheomnipotentspud also “hitler malded so hard” 😭

[@shteen998]

I love your way of expressing ideas and the subtle humoristic formulations, also I agree with you the most out of the other commenters, but I sort of have the feeling that we are missing something, along the lines of "if there is objective beauty, is there beaity at all", and the implications of the existence of the objective trinity that would tip the scales of balance HEAVILY into order, implying authoritharianism etc. No time to think about it now!

[@quibquiberton4184]

"Modern art" was not an artistic movement, but a philosophical exercise. The goal was not to create art, but to answer the question "What is art?" They removed as many elements associated with art as they could - form, structure, beauty, etc. - to see if what remained could still be considered art.

[@softearth8738]

Wonderful video! Not many people add the downfall of art because of christianity in their essays or videos related to the topic. Thank you for your work!

[@drugsmadilla]

That Christianity caused the downfall of art?

[@Mike-pv3hg]

This is the dumbest comment I've seen in a while.

[@SBrown-ti8xe]

@@drugsmadilla Yeah that sounds incredibly stupid Christian Art and Architecture is quite beautiful.

[@MO-gu2vh]

@@drugsmadilla no, he means that the lack of Christianity in todays society leads to it.

[@Ian-yf7uf]

@@SBrown-ti8xe you could say Christianity correlated to a falling in artistic beauty and only when classical renaissance concepts reemerged we began to see incredible art again.

[@ThatsMrPencilneck2U]

Once I heard of that sculpture of a urinal, I accepted the fact the rarefied culture surrounding modern art in our society is nothing short of depraved.

[@bebopbountyhead]

The problem with the correspondence theory of knowledge is that it is an assertion without a justification. It doesn't contain within it that similitude between the mind and the world that it asserts must exist for knowledge to exist. As such, skeptics can simply ask the question "what is similar between your thoughts and the world?" I tend to think that the theory has some merit, but also that it doesn't stand alone: it needs an explanation for how knowledge can come to be, rather than simply asserting that it exists.

[@josedorsaith5261]

It's interesting that public figures like Jordan Peterson have started to categorise the disgust reaction as pathogenic. In one of his lectures, Peterson psychoanalyses Adolf H. as 'prone to disgust and obsessed with orderliness '. He concluded that this disgust reaction is what led to the big H. When something as pivotal to human survival as our disgust reaction is being pathologised by the mainstream, we are heading down a very dark path

[@joriankell1983]

good observation

[@YSLRD]

I haven't heard Peterson's comment, but my guess is that you are mischaracterizing it.

[@josedorsaith5261]

@Sygg Kvisling "Witchfinder" Nielsen Especially his fear of Typhus. Trenches were rife with it and it led to the deaths of many during both wars

[@josedorsaith5261]

@@YSLRD You admit ignorance and still have the gall to claim that? I'm impressed

[@joriankell1983]

@@YSLRD he's not. And Peterson isn't above criticism

[@jimjimson6208]

To preface this comment, I am generally indifferent to/moderately dislike modern art. However. I think that whether the concept of an 'objective beauty' exists ultimately doesn't matter, as whether it exists in concept or not, people's appreciation of beauty is, at least to me, obviously subjective. I have often discussed or argued about whether a piece of art is beautiful with friends, often reaching different conclusions due to our valuing of different aspects of the piece. To further illustrate my point, even when beholding two conventionally attractive people, groups fail to arrive at a unanimous consensus as to which is more attractive. What people value as beautiful, I would argue, is a result of aspects of their experience, environment, and things entirely interior to themselves. This is why people say that beauty is the eye of the beholder; not because they necessarily deny the existence of a theoretical universal beauty, but because the identification of such a thing, should it even exist, is a futile endeavor. To call back to your peacock example, I wonder if given the choice, would all peahens choose the same peacock? Whether a perfect, objective beauty exists, and it is our flawed ability to perceive it that obscures it, or beauty itself is subjective, I would argue that it is impossible to discern the difference. Either way, I believe that using a theoretical universal beauty which we cannot even perceive as a benchmark is foolish.

[@flabbajabba9527]

Apparently, there is a scientific way to discerns 'objective' beauty, but that's mostly for faces. Not sure about art. I do somewhat agree with you, that at the end of the day, it's subjective. I also feel like people like you like to muddy the waters with wishy-washy language. Anyway, there is some art that is purposely made to be ugly or there is art that doesn't have as much skill put into it. In those cases I would call it bad art.

[@flytrapYTP]

​@@flabbajabba9527 once again conflating beauty with attractiveness.

[@tabbofii]

This is actually a great definition of wokeness

[@andreyandreiko8553]

I started apreciating beauty maybe a year ago or so, thanks to the works of Bruckner and Beethoven. If it wasn't for my fascination with music maybe i would die of old age without paying attention to beauty. I remember when i was a kid we did a school trip to a museum in my city which is a building shaped like an eye, it is called the Niemeyer museum, full of modernist paintings by Tarsila do Amaral, that are extremely ugly. We as childs were told that that was beautifull, venerable works of art, a demoralizing experience for sure, since it was all actual trash. The other trip we did was to the botanical garden, which is beautifull, but there was also an exposition of Frans Krajcberg's work which is just a bunch of burned tree trunks painted, absolutely retarded. Looking back it makes me wonder what kind of citizens the state is trying to create by exposing children to this sort of rubbish. Now that i think of, half of these artist seem to have something in common, but i can't quite figure it out.... maybe something about their names, i don't know.....

[@viktorvaldemar]

oy vey

[@dustgun3861]

Early life

[@dondeestaCarter]

something about their nose and their relatives who monopolize art galleries too.

[@chepesantacruz777]

Nah guys dont be racist now, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, its just because of their hateful, evil, supremacist religion. If they all converted to our Lord and Saviour Yesh-i mean Jesus (who was definitely not a member of Judaism himself), they would all be decent, honest, God fearing people who bring nothing but beauty and good to the world!

[@pzsoldat2516]

Well said.

[@EpicCoolGuy21]

I would almost not have a problem with ugly art if it had some sort of subtle messaging. The issue is all of these works of art are an eyesore and treat their audience like middle-schoolers. There is no message conveyed by any of these artists’ works that couldn’t be accurately extrapolated by a 13 year old.

[@trinitarian100]

I am sympathetic with the the general argument here. But beauty, esp. in relation to human artefacts, is terribly difficult to define, and hence ugliness too. To your point about universal agreement, the simple answer is that it is not valid. Plenty of people find Picasso beautiful. Nor are your arguments about animal aesthetic sense persuasive. The female peacock's attraction to the male is sexual, not aesthetic. The guy down the pub who finds the blond bombshell behind the bar attractive is not making a considered aesthetic judgement. Much art now is base and some of it degenerate. Agreed. But most old art is simply mediocre (why we don't see it any more). Well, as someone said, words about music (or art) is like dancing about architecture.

[@ma1kawa11]

Ugliness is subjective and a lot of times based on the society one comes from. I did not find any of the modern art in this video ugly. Therefore the video did not resonate with me because you were portraying that art's ugliness as some kind of obvious fact when it is really not. All of the images you have esteemed of being beautiful originated in Western Civilization. However western civilization is not the objective measure of what is beautiful or not. It is just one society out of many which has a specific idea of what is considered beautiful in its culture. Western Civilization has no more right to say what is objectively ugly or beautiful than non-western civilizations. And the same goes for morality itself. Morality is shaped by society, there is no true objective moral standard because people are not objective creatures. Calling something ugly just because you dislike it is stupid. Calling something immoral just because you think it is ugly is an atrocity. You may have had an argument if you concentrated on the commercialization of art taking away from art's purpose as a form of human expression or something like that, but as it stands this video really is just upholding the façade of a 'objectively superior western society'.

[@dickchaser9725]

Thank you finally! Goodness someone has this opinion. This did have a good breakdown I am not gonna lie. But to me, what abput stuff like metal music? One of my favorite movies as well, Eraserhead, is probably one of the "ugliest" movies to most people's tastes but it's so beautiful to me. Music, and movies are just as art as a sculpture and a painting. I mean some of the pieces did look ugly and even to a degree I do think some of them show degeneracy to a degree. Imagine if all you saw was sculptures of people peeing, that'd be so weird and gross. So I do see the need for views like this, but it's just weird to call something provactive ugly.

[@birdcar7808]

I agree wholeheartedly. I hope whoever made this video doesn’t believe what he finds to be aesthetically unattractive to be innately immoral, because that is an unfortunate implication of his argument here.

[@tehjamerz]

As a "failed" artist, this is one of my favourite videos on youtube--and I've seen a few in my time.

[@HaroldoPinheiro-OK]

It's thought-provoking, but heavily fallacious...

[@dallassegno]

you only failed because you quit. thank you.

[@emeraldeyesinthesand8355]

Did you draw your own pfp, looks cool😮

[@tehjamerz]

@@emeraldeyesinthesand8355 MC Escher - Metamorphosis II

[@secretname2670]

@@HaroldoPinheiro-OK "these fallacies are as follows: It isn't what I want to hear It offends me I don't like the voice of narrator"

[@josephbateman7742]

I remember watching a video about Neolithic teardrop shaped hand axes, and how the people at the time, made hundreds, or even thousands more than could ever have been used, and one explanation was that they found the symmetry and craftsmanship of them beautiful on its own. And that in some deep sense, beauty is the appreciation of something done well, the nests, the sand patterns, classical proportions and gothic architecture are all done well. The universe is made perfect, and with certain proportions and ratios found in nature, anything that deviates too much, or ignores it entirely is found ugly, or not done well. Too much decoration can spoil an object, and too little, leaves it lifeless. Medieval artists constantly show god with tools, crafting the world to set proportions, and they set out to copy it. I think the only thing that saved Picasso aside from the world at the time was that for the most part, his painting were done well enough.

[@wiwaxiasilver827]

The universe is not perfect; if it were we wouldn’t be talking about it. What even is “perfection”? If anything the constraints of Medieval art would not even make it so beautiful in the standard sense. Also, beauty may be a biological instinct or human perception. A pufferfish does not have to care about whether the home looks beautiful to us. Butterflies see colors in flowers we can’t even. At best whatever we see as “beautiful” is constrained by our senses.

[@ModernHellene]

great take

[@2NZday]

Let me problematize your argument, but first, credit is due: this is well-thought out argument, and I generally agree with many of your points. I like the idea of the virtue matrix (as I’ve decided to call it) and will probably draw upon it for future ponderings. If the point of this production was to get inside my head, well done. I work as a support staff for individuals with disabilities, disorders, and addictions for a living. To begin with, it’s important to have a good head on your shoulders for this kind of work. You MUST believe in an objective threshold for what is healthy, sane and productive, otherwise you’d risk losing yourself in the delusions of others. It’s not an easy job. That said, a very important reckoning that many rookies in this field are likely to miss (and will be their ultimate downfall) is failing to see truth, goodness or beauty in what is almost universally rejected as uncanny, problematic and repulsive. An inability to acknowledge and respect the individual personhood in the population we support leads to being overly judgemental, to the point that it can cause psychological harm to our clientele. Therefore, a balance is necessary: to understand objective thresholds, but also to, in the postmodern sense, question our own authority to decide what is good and what is not. Could art not reflect this arguably all-important dynamic of the human experience? As I’ve seen it, the grotesque and the sublime share galleries. In the rather conservative province where I live, it is the “objectively” beautiful art (well-crafted landscapes, hockey heroes, picturesque prairie-punctuating grain elevators) that predominates in most art museums. You may not call it “modern”, but this is the modern era of art, and that art exists in plenitude, so 😊 In our province, there is also a lack of people who want to do my job. The job is too ugly for most, too depressing, too challenging. Nor does our province fund it terribly well. I can only imagine why we garner such a low social priority. Maybe it has something to do with our art.

[@CrescentUmbreon]

Thank you for your perspective, and well said. I really cannot abide the over-exaggeration of this video. It seems to suggest that old art is laughed at instead of taught as fundamental in every liberal arts college and held aloft as classics. Meanwhile, us humans are creating every single known kind of art, en mass, every single day. And it gets displayed! This video reads as if from someone looking to impugne "modern" art via easy internet searches rather than someone who actually visits art galleries and museums.

[@2NZday]

@@CrescentUmbreon yes, it’s possible the speaker has not delved too far into a formal study of the topic. A basic art history course outlines the conceptual unfolding of artistic movements and urges students to contemplate the intent behind various shifts in aesthetic. That part was sadly lacking in this argument. There have been great video essays released publicly on KZbin and elsewhere that examine commercial interests in modern art, and how it’s ruining the progression of the discipline. This is not one of them. Hokey as he may be, Adam Conover does a little exposé on the art industry in his signature style that surveys some present problems in art. I’d recommend it to this essayist, if just to see a well-cited takedown of some modern conventions in aesthetic representation.

[@flabbajabba9527]

@@CrescentUmbreon Then you likely didn't understand the point of the video. He means that old art is being degraded and shoved out while ugly 'modern art' (in terms of the more political stuff) is being shoehorned in. Smarmy moron.

[@flabbajabba9527]

@@2NZday No need to be so smug. People who enjoy certain forms of modern art are already smug enough.

[@2NZday]

@@flabbajabba9527 bro if you wanna just toss insults, there are better places for it. Try American politics.

[@Odood19]

Your commentary on novel covers being better than most contemporary 'high art' is the first I've considered this. I would add to that that video game and movie art is also better than high art nowadays because those artists can actually reference reality for their models. Now, they are adding 10 foot tall blue alien or dragon overlays to those references, but the motion itself is based in reality and the textures are quite beautiful. I think James Cameron's Avatar 1 and 2 flips contemporary art on its head. The political commentary is not the focus of the films, but rather the untamed beauty of Pandora, a far away land with living, breathing beasts and jungles. Protecting this kind of beauty might be the real message, if any. Pandora could represent a garden of eden of sorts, where the animals live in harmonious service to man, who also respects them back.

[@werewally3156]

If an artist manages to offend and repulse me then i suppose they did a good job. If what "artist" makes bores me and makes me feel my nine year old nephew could have accomplished that art, thats another story.

[@ghostmantagshome-er6pb]

People like modern art because it give us the feeling we can participate too. Talent be damned.

[@teresagoncalves531]

Art is a means of expression. It's subjective and many times "ugly", "disgusting", whatever else you want to call it. It will get a reaction from you, even if it's neutral or "I don't like it", "I don't agree with it". To some it's not art, to others it's recognition, a conversation. The artist tried to say something with their work, they took part of their core and created. It's another way to talk, not everything you say is good or bad either. Virtue? Degradation of art? Who are we to define these things? Meaning? You make it yourself. Good? True? Silly. If you want more "beautiful" art, make it to your standard. Beauty is, again, subjective so extending a fixed concept of it to others is like giving people donkey eye covers. Think for yourselves, create whatever you want, exercise your critical thinking skills, realise a concept can be just as important as the piece itself, the path to the final object, the performance. If you don't want to give it a meaning, people will make their own. Question everything.

[@grapeswithcapes8314]

This

[@cristianmocanu1571]

Thank you for making this video mostly about aesthetics and not about how much are paintings sold or money laundering

[@patrickbateman3146]

Which is another issue that is related. For they are false, not true. And therefore bad.

[@thosebloodybadgers8499]

Why, I certainly tried getting through this suppressing my initial assumptions, but the ending certainly has proven me right in all the worst ways. The supposition that there is an objective triumvirate of "beauty" "goodness" and "truth" I cannot help but discredit entirely, because it falls into the same trappings as the worldview of Platonism, positing that there exist these abstract, objective and unchanging essences which exist beside material reality and consciousness, and work as the "true" representations of what each concept / object "yearns" to be. Similarly, here, beauty is something... ephemeral and undefined, yet entirely objective and, most vicious in its assertion and argumentation, that it is inseparable from "truth" and "goodness". This creates a state where the one would, practically, only need to posit an object as beautiful to also prove it truthful and good. And how can this not be a fallacy, considering how, yet again, beauty in here is lacking any definition and relies solely on, you guessed it! The individual experiences of the subject. That's what these philosophies always end up running into - asserting objectivity from subjective experience. The argument for the objective state of beauty also I find rather lacking. Just because some things people can on a general, average median scale find beautiful means that it is that which is closest to "objective" beauty? Or perhaps it is merely one experience that is shared by a large quantity of subjects? The difference here is that the former makes beauty a monolith, a rigid, static structure which can only be defined and experienced in a single way. The latter merely asserts that certain experiences are more universal than others and beauty as a concept is still held in a state of being a subjective experience. And why would it not be so? Has anyone never argued with someone over musical tastes? Over which movie they have found better? Would they then call somebody who disagrees with them objectively wrong and what falls under their definition of beauty false? Is this not proof of the subjectivity of experience? If not, then what is the proof, the basis to posit that any one's person experience is any more "objective" than another? Of course, this is all wasted space since from the very start the argumentation came from a set conclusion. The arrival from the existence of beauty, truth and goodness, to its inherent objectivity, to the existence of God. It is a train of thought that can be traced to certain schools of thought, yet, in this video there are no "in-betweens", it is merely stated off-handedly as a possible conclusion to this reasoning. How convenient! Bloody hell, this space ain't for me, that I know already, so even writing this I see no particular point. The people who frequent these videos and I have vastly different subjective experiences and in showing mine I change nothing, in particular because of the above mentioned reasoning preventing them from seeing my experience as anything but false, due to not aligning with this concept of "objective reality". Medieval theology / philosophy is fascinating and all, but that's about the most it can ultimately amount to.

[@katzea.a7880]

Unfortunately I sense there's a certain political direction which is trying to be generated here, a disparity between the good and the bad as if things could be this much set in stone

[@thosebloodybadgers8499]

@@katzea.a7880 well, looking at some of the other content on this channel, that could not be clearer. The danger, I feel, is more so in the way that some of these discussions both lead into, yet deny, politicism. That, and the general political stance of this channel, but this can be fought with some familiarity with the subject and an established political identity. The former, though, targets those without such "defenses". And that's how the rabbit hole goes.

[@sixtineh7139]

Thank you, I was so bothered by the video and I couldn’t quite comprehend why. You put it in word for me. I was desperate and going frenetically through the comments in hope of finding more debate, discussion. And this vision of beauty felt so wrong to me

[@CrescentUmbreon]

You're not alone; I penned my thoughts as well, though not as articulately. This video is an unfortunate act of logical fallacy, and many of commentors tragic victims of the same.

[@rotemlv]

The way you put my thoughts to words better than I could is really beautiful. This concept (especially the oneness of beauty and truth) is very hard to properly articulate, so thanks.

[@neilbarker3873]

There was some very dark stuff in the societies of Ancient Rome or Greece that produced some supposedly beautiful art.

[@skylanh4319]

But that “beautiful art” was typically depicting nature and natural things. Less of their culture or sin.

[@Snoozelightable]

Art used to be understood as an extension of nature. Think like this: nature makes trees, but can’t write a book. I can make a film, but I cannot move the ocean.

[@mattbastubee5255]

Seems like post WW2, art became a series of words that can be applied to just about anything.

[@mystrallsnowlight]

Its to prevent WW3, despite im more believe WW3 will happen just because some leader make tweet and triggered other leader

[@iZehta]

If anyone isn't sure what to think of Modern Art, visit the Museum of Modern Art in NYC if you ever get the chance.

[@botbeamer]

I'll vomit instead

[@iZehta]

@@botbeamer that works too. And if you can, make sure to do it on a canvas; they’d probably find a place for it there

[@folksurvival]

@Sygg Kvisling "Witchfinder" Nielsen Talking about his own kind.

[@elcidleon6500]

It needs a lot of gas.

[@chubby5188]

Very insightful video analysis. The societal and psychological impacts art has on people collectively is not something to be disregarded or taken lightly.

[@Deri_Seh]

I think the purpose of the modern artists is to question what can be considered art and expose the ugliness of the world. Does art has to be beautiful in order to be it? If we only strive to create beautiful art aren't we restricting ourselves in our expression? Isn't art ultimately about self-expression? With ugly art we can express ugly concepts and feelings. Especially we abandoned our religions we realize how much meaning we lost in life and the wars just show how ugly people can be. That's why freedom of expression is important here because it can even guide us in some sense. We also need ugly art to show ugliness of life which it can and we need it to compare it with the beautiful art. Beautiful art looks more beautiful when it has something to compare with. After the beauty will stay always stays as it is and the ugly art will stay ugly.

[@rafaelgabrielgarlinidal-bo9496]

As much as I appreciate your effort to explain your point of view, art is much more than mere nature-inspired aesthetic value and nicely goody messaging. You will get frustrated and lack comprehension of modern, contemporary art. Which is why you did.

[@doxscund8821]

I don't understand why the only argument I ever see defending modern/postmodern art is never about defending its aesthetics but instead ad homming about the critic being too low status to understand.

[@brunocardosodeoliveira3799]

Okay. I'll be the one to say it then. Beauty does not imply or define goodness. Goodness does not imply or define Truth. SOME of truth is beautiful. SOME of beauty is good. There exists bad things. There exists aesthetic evils. Art is only concerned to aesthetics. It is OKAY for art to be evil. Because despite our best efforts as a society, only SOME of evil is truth.

[@felipej.oribeiro6700]

Exactly. This love for a false simplicity will be our doom

[@somemadsci1923]

Good point but I disagree. Evil beauty is not beautiful, even if the aesthetic of it was beautiful, it's meaning, it's intent, it's seperation of goodness makes it ugly, which is where the connection between goodness and beauty comes from. I think something in our soul revolts against the grouping of beauty and evil in the same object, which sometimes gives the 'uncanny valley' vibes. Now, I admit I am not completely sure about the connection between beauty and truth (unless the truth refers to a 'higher' truth since I could see a connection there) so I will leave its discussion to someone smarter :)

[@sittingbull7445]

I think you miss the point. It’s that beauty itself is good. It’s that Truth itself is good and beautiful. Truth and beauty are good in their objective senses, but not necessarily in their worldly instantiations.

[@somemadsci1923]

@@sittingbull7445 damn, you explain in few words what took me couple lines XD Nicely said.

[@grantstratton2239]

I'd say your appreciation of beauty is tied to what you love. If you love truth, it's beautiful to you. But I think it takes a mixture of hubris and idealism to say that any human is in possession of all Truth, and to fully and deeply love all Truth implies a perfect or near-perfect human, of which we have few examples. So your average human will think some untrue and some evil things beautiful, reflecting their imperfect understanding and personal flaws.

[@yin9647]

This put into words what I’ve been thinking about for a long time as an aspiring art student. I’ve become to embrace that I love art for its beauty and aesthetics. It doesn’t need to he social commentary. It’s not shallow either necessarily because feeling, emotion, beauty, things like that are what fascinates me. Not that there’s not social issues I care about either, I just don’t think my art is the right outlet for that.

[@onionboy1352]

i really watched 16 minutes of an overcomplicated watchmakers fallacy

[@paintlady]

word

[@sirbluelagoon7091]

From my personal perspective and opinion a lot of the issues with modern art not only is it "ugly" most of the time with a few exceptions. The main issue comes from the artist being political and social activists. It bleeds into their art as a message and behind it is a sense of arrogance and smugness. Almost all the art instructors and professors I took in college would mock students for using the "old ways" and being "politically incorrect." Then again this is not a generalization of all modern artists, just a personal reflection of perspective.

[@Raindropsontheglass]

Exactly, many of my professors basically taught that fine art is low brow and conceptual art is the highest form of art. If there's not a heated debate happening during a critique is it even art? Might as well find it in a gift shop /s.

[@CrescentUmbreon]

If a person's social commentary is actuall good, though, doesn't that also make it Beautiful and True? Or if it's True, then again all the other things apply. In that case, this video creator must believe those activists are some good artists!

[@benkai343434]

on artists not consciously making bad art and just doing it as a means of expression; I remember talking with an art teacher for one of my anatomy classes about the nature of modern art, and he told me that one of the people he knew was completely conscious of what he was doing and did the entire thing as a joke; in the renaissance, a lot of people were painting still life paintings of half-eaten food, and they would often be painted below the eye level of the viewer, which had the consequence of tricking people into bowing at the paintings, so this guy deliberately put his paintings on the floor and placed the focal point as low as he could so that he could get people to bow to his work simply because he thought it would be funny. The trickster in me sees the humor here, but at the same time this sort of thing completely lacks any form of morality, so I can't in good conscience defend it.

[@serious_philosopheegeez2294]

Well done. This is a reality I live with alone. Any attempt I foolishly make to explain this is met with an eagerness to change the subject.

[@alexcheremisin3596]

Same, makes you wanna punch a wall sometimes

[@yeah8598]

I like modern art because instead of just it being a pretty picture, it makes you think, and for me that is much richer than just admiring something because it is beautifull or because it took effort. Very grosso modo speaking. I am deleting this opinion later, dear commenter.

[@Jose-up2wg]

You’ve just put into words something that I’ve been trying to communicate my whole life

[@voon1032]

One last comment from me: As someone who has existed around art for the last 24 years of his life, moreso than most others can claim, I want to state my opinion on the matter: Art is whatever you make of it. Art is not beautiful, ugly, good, evil, etc. without the key input of an observer. The observer dictates the meaning of the art, and not all observers will interpret the same art in the same ways. Say you witness a piece of art that you find strikingly beautiful, but another might find it bland, ugly even. Is your immediate reaction to claim this person is disingenuous? Or some agent of a cosmological evil? No! It's just a person expressing their opinion on a work of art. Art is art. The world of man need not be so direly linked to it.

[@secretname2670]

Well, I'm down a rabbit hole of Ted Kaczyński's manifesto dissecting, reading medieval manuscripts about being a knight and how to train with a sword and now I've apparently reached another peak by watching video on what I could paraphrase as "Aesthetics and It's implications for society". I must say, you've got quite the timing sir.

[@sayhitosteve2785]

Twisted art emerges from twisted minds. Twisted minds hold twisted ideals. Twisted ideals have no place in a moral society.

[@Endymion766]

What an amazing video. I'm not sure I can pull god out of the asceticism hat, as much as I would like to, but I agree with the concept of universal beauty. I think that ugly art is a kind of resentment against self-awareness of our own ugliness. We look in the mirror and mostly don't like what we see, but also don't want to hate ourselves, so the modern artist sort of pedestalizes ugliness as a misplaced endeavor in "love thyself" while pillorying beauty. It's a sort of not always veiled statement, "If I can't be beautiful then nothing should be beautiful." If I can state it differently, using biblical allegory, Adam and Eve didn't know they were beautiful until they realized they were naked. Before then they simply just existed in a non-ascetic state that's hard for us to imagine. They probably thought the garden of Eden was beautiful, and might have seen god as beautiful, but not themselves. Not until eating the fruit offered by the devil did they finally see themselves and could make that judgement. Now imagine not only being embarrassed by nakedness but also being really ugly, naked or otherwise. It's an unhealthy self-obsession, imo, as much as a narcissist can't pull themselves away from a mirror (or Instagram), and that self-obsession is what modern art seem to show in nearly ever piece. It's why it sort of repulses me with some exceptions because it's as if it's saying "there there, its ok to be ugly, lets pretend you're beautiful until we believe it." It feels like a kind of perpetual denial of a hard truth, sending wave after wave of stunning and brave paper soldiers to endlessly crash and bash against the hard wall of truth over and over, like a forever train wreck that never stops because the train is infinitely long. If they can't get through it, then they'll bury it in their own corpses.

[@80krauser]

They didn’t ‘realize ‘ they were naked, because they weren’t. Up until that point they were ‘clothed’ in glory and righteousness. When they fell they lost that and in their panic tried (and failed) to imitate what had been lost. I know you were merely using a metaphor but very few people seem to realize it. Hence the tons of naked paintings.

[@averagedemocrat9546]

Feels good to be good looking. Whenever I'm sad, I just look in the mirror and feel alright again. Imagine not following the golden ratio.

[@felipej.oribeiro6700]

Not all art is created to be beautiful, they are created to make us fell stuff, often bad stuff, I mean, horror literature is a thing. Also Aesthetic beauty isn't objective. You know why? Because it's an opinion. You have your's and I have mine. And that's why propaganda guidelines changes so drastically from culture to culture. Even the meaning of colors and effects of composition change radically and evoke different emotions. Be carefull not to perceive your opinion as objective truth, that's a true danger to society.

[@hydraslair4723]

Okay yeah no, I disagree with pretty much everything. It may be the case that we share some ideas of what is beautiful with animals. It does make sense. But let's not forget that we are beings made of matter. Art causes a stimulus in our brains. Simply put, we feel the beauty just like animals feel the beauty. If what you say about the trinity is true, then something that is "more true" should give us a bigger stimulus in this sense. There is nothing more beautiful than truth, right? Enter "supernormal stimuli". Essentially, they are objects or features that cause a response that is beyond what we would get on average. I don't remember where, but in order to keep the rabbit population under control, in a certain area of the world they decided to employ fake rabbit plushies that had some exaggerated features. This generated a supernormal stimulus in the rabbits, which tried to mate with the fake bunnies until they died. The population plummeted as a result. That pretty much flies in the face everything that is being said here. Fake bunnies that are more beautiful to the bunnies than real ones, despite looking weird to actual humans who find bunnies cute. Since we're conflating sexual attraction with beauty (and we shouldn't, but that's s different story), pornography creates a supernormal stimulus of attraction in humans as well; yet everything about pornography is far from good or true or beautiful. I think this speaks to the other side, at least, it speaks to who doesn't believe that there's any sort of objective Beauty, or that at least Beauty and Truth and Goodness aren't intrinsically tangle; I'm willing to side with the classical theorists here and say that they're linked and they achieve their best when together, but you really can have one without the others. Math is one of the most perfect expressions of Truth out there (mostly because it's made of tautologies, but that's a different story), and yet you'll find people who can't enjoy math as much as others because their brains are not geared that way. And even if there was something, one thing that everybody on Earth can agree is beautiful, you're still not going to prove that this is an universal standard because you don't know what kind of life is out there, in the far recesses of the universe, and if it's going to find that something revolting. The universe is a big place and humanity isn't the deciding factor in anything. I won't speak about how this all relates to God. The argument from beauty for the existence of God has been made and debunked a million times in history and I won't repeat the same deed here.

[@borysronkowski1698]

Things can have an influence on our brain with being beautiful, True or good. This video wasn't trying to prove otherwise. If these (for all we know, made up) bunnies weren't made up, their more a testament to humans exploiting the bunnies less complex neurology. Creating something the bunnies want to procreate with, regardless what their esthetic ideal is, after all, the consideration of aesthetics while choosing a mateing partner at least in animals, is more an exception, than a universal rule.

[@skirmishj258]

I am an artist that specifically makes art to be beautiful. So I value beauty, and I also do think being surrounded by intentionally ugly art and architecture reduces morale in society. But I disagree with pretty much everything you argue here. I don't think I can accept this statement "Even tribes in remote indonesian islands consider Classical art to be very beautiful" (paraphrase). That might be true, specifically, idk where you're getting that, though. But we could come up with TONS of examples where cultural ideas of beauty do not translate. I'm so sorry, but your personal ideal of art is not universal. There's some elements like symmetry, pure colors, smoothness, that seem attractive across cultures, maybe start there. Still not objective, though. Second, the Beauty, Goodness, Truth triangle. There are things which are true, that are not beautiful. There are things that are beautiful that are not true. And there are certainly things that are beautiful that are not good! Maybe all true things are good, though, I'll have to think on that. Keats famously said "beauty is truth, and truth, beauty". A phrase so simple and appealing it couldn't possibly be false. And yet I think it is itself an example of something beautiful but not true, because we can find many examples if we want. Those fantasy art pieces you found, they look nice, but of course they are not like nature in many respects. There are elements in them that are truthful to nature, which makes them convincing, but there are also elements that are not, obviously the dragons, but even the colors and so on. Every great work of art edits nature, and beautifies it, because of course there are truths about it that aren't beautiful. Even if it's a still life, painted naturalistically, there's still a choice in which items to place in the picture, and how to arrange them, and editing out of the picture possibly distracting things. Art tells a good lie. It's not just me that has used this rebuttal. John Ruskin, a famous moralist art critic, was opposed to the idea of Truth and Beauty being synonymous. Third, who says we judge beauty the same as animals? I thought the second mandala on screen was prettier than the first. So I guess the female puffer fish chose that one, too? Who knows? they're fish, and it's my opinion. You're just making tons assumptions. Animals also don't seem to appreciate Greek statues all that much, from what I can tell, so not sure how that plays in as the objective standard of beauty across species. I don't believe in God. I shouldn't have to. I go for beauty because I like it, but I don't need to tear down modern art and claim it's ruining society to do my own thing.Don't take it so seriously. In time, people's tastes will shift as they always have. There are paintings from the past that used to be considered the most beautiful, that are not favorites today. Maybe it means there is still beauty there to be discovered, or maybe it means they were never so beautiful. But the danger in claiming the trinity of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness, is that you might stand behind something that is none of the above without realizing it. This comment is long enough, but there's works of modern and postmodern art that I actually think are nice. I enjoy Rothko's paintings, I saw a couple in the video. I don't worship them, but they're pretty nice. Other people don't, and that's okay. Just goes to show taste in art is relative, not objective. It's not clear why some things appeal to you, and it gets annoying having people tell you what's 'objectively good'.

[@CrescentUmbreon]

Agreed. I've been around the comments and left some of my own because I just can't see the proof or the justification for Apron's rationale. They clearly did a silly Google search for something to pearl-clutch about and reinforce their existing beliefs. Just another moral panic over a nonexistent problem.

[@asgjdafghesyusgf]

@@CrescentUmbreon 100%. it's the same old reactionary garbage we've been drowning in for twenty years

[@EkonRekon]

Thanks Jews

[@drytung9526]

Eh, yeh, but honestly they are just a group who exploits this human manifestation. It’s good to be aware of such tactics from any group but not to a point of ignoring our own investment in this shoddy deal. It’s a fine line between being based and just being cucked. But, yeh man, I hear ya.

[@flindou730]

They are behind everything bad

[@mattthedirector4670]

This comment lmfaooooo

[@Blanksmithy123]

You look exactly how I thought you’d look lmao

[@EkonRekon]

@@Blanksmithy123 you are exactly as insignificant as every other sock puppet account.. socky Lmao

[@FEZASA727]

I can confirm that Cockatoo has a great music taste, truly one of the most moral and truth seeking ones evers.

[@zakiyasarkar2029]

As a Muslim,to me The most beautiful entity is Allah and his will,which is reflected in the Holy Qur'an.And that's the reason why calligraphy is one of the most important part of Islamic art and Architecture

[@scream2672]

😂

[@flamestoyershadowkill6400]

in general religious people find the divine most beautiful

[@gertrudevalencia2135]

This is artistic puritanism. Nothing more. I don't think modern art is good, far from it in many cases. But to say that to be considered "art" you have to be beautiful, truthful, and good. So tragedy is just not allowed to exist? Horror? Cynicism? Much of art is born from people often coming to their own conclusions and reading between the lines. Often times people value the art they see way higher, and give it meaning that probably never existed in the first place. The "problem" with modern art now, and how it's ugly, can be summed up with 2 problems: 1. Rich layabouts with no talent pay someone to do the thinking and appreciating for the artist's potential viewers, creating a long winded spiel about how the colour blue symbolizes the 15th cycle of the moon or some other nonsense. Art's value is in the person viewing it and appreciating it, modern art has found a way to cut that process out entirely and to make the conclusions for the viewers on behalf of the artist (and that artists lovely trust fund money). 2. Raw human emotion is gross and often unimaginative. It's why we stammer when someone insults us first and then get a good comeback hours later. A lot of the really perturbing pieces of art we have now are usually just someone being driven solely by their emotions as opposed to adding some sort of abstract meaning to their art. You might think landscapes have no meaning, but a landscape's meaning is often times it's very high aesthetic value. Let's take that police woman pissing in a corner. What's the message? From an aesthetic perspective, it's hideous, crass, and very clearly done by someone with little to no competence. But let's say they're trying to get our attention, okay, what's the message then? Police officers are human? Is there no other way to represent that fact? Is there no other aspect to being a human being other than we piss and we shit? Well there is, but when you let your emotions and ego do all the work, that's all you can think of. You revert to being a caveman, you sleep because you can't hunt at night, you eat because you don't want to starve, you do your business because you can't ignore nature's call and you look for mates. That's a distilled version of humanity, down to the biology. I don't need art to represent something I already know, am full aware of and can represent with far less tools. Art gives us the tools to go somewhere that we can't in the real world (often times, can't go *yet*). Modern art uses those tools to show us the mundane but the modern artists make no effort to at least layer that mundane with a message. It's unoriginal and boring. Your video on the other hand, is the opposite side of the spectrum. Instead of making emotional but vapid garbage art, let's strive for ONLY masterpieces and ONLY the ones that make us feel good inside. Anything else that talks about the human struggle, cringe. I don't consider myself very knowledgeable with biology and it seems you aren't either. Stick to things you understand and maybe judge the things you hate from a more neutral perspective. Your video is an example of modern art.

[@birdcar7808]

The “Art of antiquity only expressed beauty, truth and goodness” types should read Aristotle’s Poetics

[@flamestoyershadowkill6400]

tragedy reflects the consequences of failure to reach the true, the good, and the beautiful. Horror is simply a more visceral piece that relies on the showing of evil, hopefully to show the depraved depths in order to emphasize the height of the triad.

[@comradecat3678]

if Rembrandt painted a wizard fighting a dragon it would be worth a half trillion dollars. people would have fought wars over it

[@ajelicits3435]

i was reading plato i think and they talked about people being born either more good or bad then others, and this is basically evidence that there is a certain way to act and be in order to be happy.

[@ChocolatesAfterDark]

I love how you're like "oh this bird builds elaborate nests for no reason" then go on to describe how it adds moss for comfort and builds it to attract a mate and then double down on calling it "for no reason"

[@sususmongus2514]

there’s no benefit to the birds survival other than attracting a mate. other birds build far more simple nests and do just fine

[@flytrapYTP]

​@@sususmongus2514 that doesn't actually prove anything about beauty.

[@sususmongus2514]

@@flytrapYTP ok?? i’m explaining the antics of a bird 💀

[@alcyon7536]

11:24 the problem with this assumption is the fact that majority of the aesthetic judgements that these animals make are based on genetic strength, the peacocks with the largest feathers that made it to adulthood are much stronger than a peacock without the largest tail feathers because it survived long enough with a huge ‘handicap’ of sorts, the birds that have the most hunting success also have the most time to build their elaborate nests while less successful ones do not, the females know this and chose the ones with the most complicated nests. The Japanese pufferfish is a ‘slow’ moving species of fish just because of how it is build, they normally do not make themselves as vulnerable unless it is during mating season, using their fins to make the Mandela like patterns and surviving to tell the tale is all the female needs to know before choosing a partner, the more complex and larger the Mandela the better the mate.

[@derrickcrowe3888]

Not sure I'd call this a "fact" so much as a reasonable theory. There is very little understanding of what a female peacock sees and evaluates when gazing upon a male's tail feathers.

[@johnathanstephenson8107]

It's simple. It's NOT ART. It's political.

[@jamesmohab]

all art is political, the art of the renaissance and antiquity was political

[@cristianpereyra6912]

johnathan here just decided what is and isn't art, we don't have to wonder anymore

[@heckinbasedandinkpilledoct7459]

@@jamesmohabso still life paintings are political??

[@tavislea9104]

None of these things are objective. They are all value judgements which by their very nature are the opposite of being objective. There are no artists if art is objective; novelty cannot be formulated.

[@venezolane1]

this is a very facist view on art.

[@enoshade]

for real, the german Nazi party literally created a 'degenerate art exhibition' which contained confiscated art seen as ugly and immoral by them. Including artworks by several of the artists prominently featured in this video. I sometimes watch things that seem intentionally inflammatory to have my worldview questioned, but this video does not even show a basic understanding of the multitude of modernist movements, philosophies and relationships between art. The only thing I agree with is that fantasy illustration is underappreciated

[@regllle]

Oh wow, they did? Who would have thought....I'm sorry for your disappointment and frankly I can relate...alot. You might want to check out my comment above by the /newest/ section, if you have the energy or time ^-^. I kinda highlighted how it clashes with my approach to art, which not only is art my most needed (even if it's more than what is necessary) activity to do in life, where I can't begin or count on my fingers how many times I've cried over art, either how beautiful it is or how horrible the industry of capitalism have made blockbusters more available than arthouse cinema, basically how little validation of art there is in the modern, industrial world, art, something which is the fundamental to life itself. Yes, I say life mimicks art, always will. Most of my comment is basically just a rehash of my conceptual approach of art, with a few exceptions with some questions I posed which I hadn't done before much if memory serves. My approach or style is vehemently anti-fascist and rather post-structualistic, realistic, immanent, sometimes transcedental (or theological for that matter) or materialistic as in the classical philosophical terms of these, often rooted in sincerity and complexity. More fantasy instances would be lovely for sure haha! Hopefully more people will see my comment, I hate facsism ughhh. Including the micropolitical fascism and not the macropolitical one (see Felix Guattari on micropolitics for that one, if you're unaware ofc) The desire, material and social inclination of facsism strikes an jolt of disgust and direct hate in me, seriously. Anyway, God bless you two users, I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt an wave of controlling animosity in the video, even if the user had good intentions which I believe he had, although his ignorance got to him sadly, which I still forgive....

[@brandonlabbe3577]

It's pretty clear to me that the art world, like modern comedy or internet culture, got so bored with itself after modern technology made everything easily available that everything suddenly needed to be meta or a deconstruction to stay interesting in their eyes.

[@CampingforCool41]

Have you considered…different people find different things to be beautiful (some example you showed as supposedly ugly modern art I found to be beautiful) and also NOT ALL ART IS SUPPOSED TO BE AESTHETICALLY BEAUTIFUL

[@brianbergmusic5288]

I think you are missing the point. Some art, even "high art" is contextual (even tragic or downright horrifying). However, I would not place "Prometheus Bound" as a sculpture in the middle of a central park. That's because the context of that master work is not designed to fulfill a universal search for timeless beauty in a public space. However, anything with a 'modern' label seems to get a free pass, no matter how much is fails the meritocracy of human achievement from the pool of artisans that exist in the populace. Why the free pass in a place that should elevate human achievement towards a higher goal (a goal that transcends mere taste)?

[@astrocat345]

@@brianbergmusic5288 You missed the video's fucking point that art isn't about being deep and scary but rather more expressive, "for no reason" as he stated with the birds, and even silly so to say. I don't think there is a universal beauty (pretty nonsensical concept to me). Context of art does add a level to it but I think that art is only good if it can stand alone as a piece. After all we have created it so we could describe things with mere visuals, what's the use of that concept if we just add words? I find that many old artworks are proclaimed beautiful only because of the stories behind them when they really look ugly, that upsets me.

[@brianbergmusic5288]

@@astrocat345 How? The OP's post drew an argument from both personal taste and different contextual needs of an artistic endeavor. I described a judgement call which bars a non-modern painting from a specific mode of display. Therefore, even a work with superior attention to detail and technique is not immune to these judgement calls because context AND the search for opulence is part of the equation. Then I asked the reader to explain why modern art seems to be given a free pass/exclusive pandering from these same decisions. These judgment calls do not mean that art cannot display ugliness, or tragedy or any other dark negative emotion. I myself am a metal-head, but I think it would be tasteless and inappropriate for Nevermore to be blasting in supermarket speakers (but slut-pop gets a free pass, I guess). This is precisely because there is a *reason* to make such rulings. If you had read my post accurately, I was NOT advocating for 'deep and scary' as a necessary trait for architectural splendor. Neither do I advocate the piles of junk, that (tax-payers or money laundering fund) tacked onto the sides of bridges, nor the bloated hair-follicle next to a theater that I'm close enough to kick after a moderate stroll. Common sense is oddly refreshing, especially when it is predictive and repeatable. That *reason* to judge art with sincerity is what the video is describing within its thesis. That reason can be described as a quest; a quest that artists should be striving to achieve. It is not measured with the same rules as a businessman, nor a mathematician, but it is fascinating when we see repeatable patterns that can be seen like a prism of universal frequencies that intersect with the visual or aural. We've seen patterns like this since the school of Pythagoras. You can change the rules of an artistic medium, perhaps since the old ways are a lifetime discipline. But if you change the rules, then there still has to be a measuring stick for what fulfills "good, better, and best" (and for what occasion). Jazz changed the rules, but even the best and more critically acclaimed John Coltrane composition would be inappropriate for a royal coronation. Are you beginning to see the nuance? Being human, the quest for "good, better and best" is about as futile as calling down Plato's world of the forms down to the particulars, but it is a quest worthwhile -- even if it is mere self improvement. Art improves when these standards are upheld (instead of de-evolve like my hair-follicle friend). You say you do not believe in a 'universal beauty'. Do you believe that there are any standards of human achievement in the arts?

[@greggregson5984]

I would add: not Goodness but Rightness. Goodness contains the concept of good and bad (or evil), which tends to represent the moral zeitgeist of a society and is therefore not necessary a timeless value. Rightness and Wrongness is based more on positive and negative energy, in a non-judgmental way and is contained within truth.

[@mr.horrorchild4094]

Some art that is technically competent can be what we call "model homes" beautifully arranged with all the right furniture and colors but no one lives there

[@marikothecheetah9342]

As a person that learns how to draw I can tell you one thing. Many of modern artworks are not the effect of a hard earned skills but the "feelings' and "performance' put on, that required little work but were intended to either shock, disgust or evoke any emotions for that matter. It's not about art anymore - it's about the "artist". Even if you look at how arts is taught in Europe or Asia to how it is taught in the U.S. the differences show how the U.S. evolves now around installations, expressive pieces of... whatever they want to show and it's not about the lack of skills, because many artists do have those, but as said before - it's more about the artist nowadays than the artwork itself. Who will shock more, who will draw attention more etc. Modern art has nothing to do with valuing or devaluing beauty, because in order to do that modern artists would have to be knowledgeable about that. Only a few of them actually are.

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

Bro it's the money duh

[@Raindropsontheglass]

Ugly doesn't mean bad. Ugliness in my opinion is just as subjective as beauty. Ask a random person on the street if they find cockroaches creepy, ugly and offputting. Then ask an entomologist the same question. I'm sure there will be different answers. Some find beauty in the strange and alien, that doesn't mean they are brainwashed to think this way. But is the "ugly" art lazy and pandering? Is it just meant to spread political messages with no other reason otherthan shock value? That is something I am sick of seeing. Please, no more bananas nailed to walls or proverbs written in period blood. It's campy at best.

[@beefcakepantiehoes]

I can’t help but point out this type of disgust reflex to art is solely a type of fascist critique I’m sorry to say. It’s just true. The art from the Palaeolithic can be considered “ugly” compared to art from Ancient Rome. Art changes, tastes change too. It’s just what humanity does, always changing.

[@Keralite29]

Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Justice, Freedom, and Purity are to me the 6 "divine essences". These 6 words are different aspects of a singular reality. I believe that these words, which have no empirical referent and therefore have never been encountered empirically yet resonate with us more deeply than empirical objects do, correspond to properties belonging to the depths of our consciousness. I use the term consciousness in place of "soul", as I cannot find a "soul" within my experience but rather consider "experience" itself to be the core of my identity. We yearn for the above divine essences because they represent our innermost nature, and the nature we must unify ourselves to in order to become whole once more, away from the world of multiplicity that we have entered and back to the singularity that reality originally consisted of. In my observation of Beauty, I observed that every object which evoked the aesthetic property of "Beauty" possessed qualities that related back to my theory above. For example, we find "light" beautiful. Just find any instance of light around you, such as a segment of shine highlighting the surface of an object, or a giant orb of light enveloping your vision, and you will likely find it to be beautiful. Additionally, unifying two previously-separate items evokes a feeling of beauty: take any combination-word, for example: "rosemilk", "flowerbird" and many other examples are beautiful in my opinion because our minds observe the underlying principle of unity, and unity is the underlying divine reality that our human identities emerged from. Furthermore, any instance of "equality" is perceived as beautiful, hence why repeating a pattern in accordance with an equal spatial distribution is beautiful, as seen in the string of H's below: HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH By repeating an identical item in a spatially-uniform manner, our minds perceive the underlying principle of "uniformity", which is found to be beautiful in my opinion because that's what the higher, divine planes of existence contain. I've never taken DMT before, but I've read reports and seen images made by people who have, and a common theme they contain is the idea that a "fractal pattern of light" exists around us in a form that is invisible to the sober human eye. Look up images of these fractals, and you will see that they are simply identical items being repeated indefinitely. In my opinion, divine reality begins as pure Oneness, pure Equality, pure Singularity, pure Undifferentiatedness, and then somehow creates multiplicity from itself, and that multiplicity is visible around us today. However, through our experience of Beauty, we can observe the transcendental connection we feel in the sight of objects which bear visual resemblance to the higher, divine reality that we originally came from. Hence why observing a lack of differentiation, as seen with repeating an identical item a multitude of times, is found to be beautiful by us - because it bears resemblance to the undifferentiated rays of higher-order light that DMT users claim to have seen during their psychedelic trips. This was a ramble and probably didn't make sense. I'm posting it anyway because why not. I love this subject and have spent time thinking about it, even if my theories are weak.

[@academiacadejo3266]

You just stummbled in to the kabbalistic concept of "Tipheret", the "beauty of God", one of the fundamental aspects of the supreme in ancient jewish mystism. A very interesting concept that was present in politheistic religions with a male and a female version of a "beauty" god/goddess. Beauty has always been in history (until very recently) part of the divine.

[@Dr.Cassio_Esteves]

I would need to write a book to explain how this video has impacted my life. Thank you. My english is a work in progress, sorry any mistakes

[@topplingtitangames2306]

I find myself liking a lot of things others find ugly. I'm a metal fan. The darker and more hateful the better. I don't listen to it because I, myself, am angry or hateful. Instead I find in my everyday life that I am too attached to the world and I worry so much about making sure that things move smoothly that it hurts me. Its nice to have a reminder that maybe the things I'm attached to don't matter so much. That way when things go wrong I can let it go. I find myself having the same feeling when I see terrible paintings, watch terrible movies or read awful books and because of this feeling I find myself attracted to these works to the point where I find it hard to like what others consider beautiful. I don't see my outlook as invalid. I find it hurts me to do the opposite. How does the concept of objective beauty work if my aesthetic(or anyone else's) can be so different from the majority? Is the concept of objective beauty just a means of invalidating minority aesthetics? If so doesn't that make it ugly?

[@katzea.a7880]

Kind of in the same boat here even though I really like reinassance, medieval stuff and a very ample catalogue of music, this whole thing about an objective beauty doesn't sit right with me

[@Raindropsontheglass]

I'm the same way. Love the punk genre, where the singers sound like rabid dogs who bark out their angry thoughts. I love dark, moody, almost cryptic artwork. I find beauty in the alien. I love looking at macro images of spider's faces and mysterious photos of deep sea creatures. I don't like these things to be ironic or counter-culture. They feed my soul and make me feel excited to live in this strange, strange world. Beauty IS subjective.

[@brianbergmusic5288]

I am also a fan of metal, but not the way you are describing. Maybe it's because I find all music appealing in its own merit. To me, metal isn't necessarily about describing ugliness and stroking anger against daily struggles. To me, metal that I like makes me jolly. I get the same thrill when I chug on a guitar that I did when I was younger kickboxer, gloves and protector armed, and about to step into the ring against a good sparring partner or actual competitor. Metal is not defined by ugliness... it is power, might, danger, chaotic beauty, and macho-ego. It is an action-film distilled into music. In short, if metal did NOT exist, there already existed classical composers that already described these emotions and heroic storytelling with orchestral instruments only (which is probably why I like symphonic and power metal, even though it usually does not succeed in the way I hope it would, but sometimes it does). Minor keys, or darker tunes with no resolution simply describe contextual moments of this "storytelling" spirit. I still strive for beauty. I can only point a finger at the hair-raising guitar solos by my favorite metal artists that in turn inspire me to scream and shout along with the music. Then I realize the the more "brutal" sounding the riff is, the more a guitar solo comes out of the storm and saves the day. I love a good brutal metal riff like I do my villains: potent and contrasting the protagonist. Contrast is important in storytelling, and that's what a good metal artist is to me. I'm willing to wager that most metalheads (no matter their subjective analysis of themselves) also do not appreciate the BS of modern art. I for one, would rather see it forgotten for real art. Still, no matter how contextual or intricate metal can be, I would not describe it as a 'high art. Metal isn't as concerned with seeking beauty as it is concerned with the machismo'. Playing guitar is practically a sport with the metronome being the rule of micro-muscle athleticism. You CAN play Beethoven in a heavy metal way (see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGemhaqVlpV8Z5Y ). BUT it's not the same thing. This is primarily due to one important element in historical/classical music: *dynamics* (the metalhead thinks that stepping on the distortion pedal from the clean tone to high gain is a proper dynamic).

[@rembeadgc]

We have to be careful about codifying beauty. Beauty is deeper than visual (or aural, in the case of music) aesthetics. The human being (you) is vitally complex and in his present state cannot tolerate pure beauty except on a spiritual level and then only if in a restored relationship to God. In this life we will always experience a kinship to darkness. For those no longer in bondage to it... we can't alleviate it but we should learn from its presence. An amount of ugliness is in us all but God doesn't turn His back on us just as a truly loving parent doesn't abandon or shun their less than perfect child. It's erroneous to try and boil living here on Earth down to "black and white", because nothing can be completely rid of the ""black". This has nothing to do with "race", of course.

[@CrescentUmbreon]

@@Raindropsontheglass Well, according to this guy, if the metal singers are barking out their real feelings, these things are True, and, therefore, also Good and Beautiful! *starts listening to "No living being can quench my bloodthirst!" *

[@Dudu-ox2rd]

"Beauty is Truth, Truth is Beauty", John Keats

[@John5025]

I find your opinion close-minded and frankly condescending. Maybe you believe that it's just so obvious that post-modern art is ugly and evil and that anyone who doesn't agree is also ugly and evil. I guess I am just not your target audience because I do not feel the same way about post-modern art. I'm curious about whether you find homosexuality beautiful or disgusting and whether you believe that your reaction to homosexuality is the objectively correct one.

[@SzymonCelticSlav]

The irony of upholding classical Hellenic art as the highest in beauty when paralleling it’s decline with the rise of Christianity. The Pagan only resurfaced with the renaissance, when amazing works of naturalism were created.

[@Peregrin3]

I find that a lot of people today confuse beauty with taste. Contrary to beauty, taste can be perverted and corrupted, but by its very nature beauty cannot. For example the natural beauty of a waterfall cannot change unless you fundamentally change the waterfall like by adding garbage, on the other hand you could rate one waterfall as more beautiful than another which is a normal difference in taste but if someone said they found a natural waterfall hideous that it is obvious that their sense of taste has become distorted somehow like, in the case of someone who hates joy and loves pain, you just naturally know there is something wrong.

[@MrMirville]

I have nothing against abstract art as long as the artist also masters figurative art and well as makes a choice between both when he decides for abstraction.

[@mikechristian-vn1le]

the Seven Years War, which in America we call the French and Indian War, was the true first world war, fought in Europe, North America and India, between the British and their colonies and allies and the French and their allies and colonies.

[@dallineggperson]

So cringe. I love a clickbait youtuber of all people telling me what I should and shouldn’t enjoy

[@Yipper64]

My view is that art is communication. Most modern art fails to communicate much of anything, but the art talked about in this video does have an element of communication. These ugly art pieces seem to communicate they think the world is ugly, and almost revel in it.

[@richardkennedy8481]

We are living in a dying culture, that's not good or beautiful.

[@pepealasquid6005]

J.R.R. Tolkien was right, Evil only corrupts

[@rayspencer5025]

Something can most certainly be "beautiful" but not true. Likewise something "true" can be quite ugly. And further more, the value (goodness) of a piece of art is relative to the other two values independently, but not exclusively.

[@therealquade]

The absolute truth is that small children get cancer. Find the beauty in that.

[@dzxn3728]

Art is anything that evokes emotion intentionally from the artist.

[@zoebaggins90]

I have to disagree with this. Maybe it's because I'm Greek, but I think that art should only inspire noble emotions and thoughts, nothing negative.

[@felipej.oribeiro6700]

@@zoebaggins90 then horror cinema and literature isn't art in your opinion?

[@zoebaggins90]

@@felipej.oribeiro6700 correct.

[@felipej.oribeiro6700]

@@zoebaggins90 Not only fear is negative but sadness as well. So drama isn't art? So what's art? Only comedy?

[@zoebaggins90]

@@felipej.oribeiro6700 the Pietà is a good example of art inspiring sadness. I didn't mean this kind of negative emotions.

[@rayspencer5025]

It is actually well documented that some higher animals have evolved aesthetics similar to our own before we did. The god thing is silly.

[@ponypuppyful]

How are fantasy illustrations of dragons an embodiment of truth?!

[@flamestoyershadowkill6400]

they reflect ancient human mythology and therefore are reflection of a reflection of the truth

[@CrescentUmbreon]

@@flamestoyershadowkill6400 Lmao

[@soulfuzz368]

Archetypes are true in the first definition that the narrator gave. Symbols and metaphors are true in the way they represent phenomena that is universal to the human experience. The story of a dragon often represents overcoming fear and taking on something seemingly bigger than oneself for a noble end. People often confuse the word truth for something representing material reality but that isn’t the most precise definition of the word.

[@CrescentUmbreon]

@@soulfuzz368 We are literally just rationalizing whether a (lovely) artwork of a dragon is true or beautiful or good because some guy decided those concepts are always found together. This is silly and backwards. These three words have varying definitions, as do many words because languages are different and complex. Even "Dragon" means so many things from serpents to chimeric creatures, Gods to beasts, to the point where it really just means "powerful creature, usually reptillian, may or may not symbolize something good or bad". What we should be asking is: What is art, and why do we make it? Have fun with that. It's an important question, but we will always argue about it because its answer is often circular, much like music.

[@Im-BAD-at-satire]

You can present concepts through artistic interpretations, like how you can represent a politician as cats and dogs.

[@developerdeveloper67]

In art study Modern Art is defined by the artistic trends of the 1870s or so to about 1950 or so. It starts with the impressionists, (van gogh, etc) the idea initially was to break ties with the traditional ways of doing art. The invention of the camera had a very profound impact in art, the question of "why would I depict an imagine in a painting as naturalistic as possible if the camera can do a better job" is a very old question that puzzled and tormented artists and in a way made them move towards less technical and more subjective, "expressive" works. Later, in the early 1900's, modern art was associated with modernity, rationality, the "industrial" new reality of the world. Ironically you share a belief with the modern artists of this period: that is the idea that the art that is good for some people has to be good for everyone. In the 1930 to 1960 there was this idea that the aesthetics of art should be something that is perceive to be good by anyone in any culture. So art should be without any regional, or local, symbology and should be able to be understood by anyone of any culture. Then you get things like the minimalist art movement and this would also bleed in the modern architecture movement and the idea of the "international style".