Prager U On Modern Art | Fascism?

For other segments: / germinalanarchy
A viewer recommended that I watch a video by PragerU where they comment on modern art. Being known as a more right-leaning youtube channel, I decided I would react to their video. We will take a look at some known paintings, from The Raft of the Medusa painted by Géricault, to some of Bouguereau's Realist paintings. What does PragerU like? What do they think they want in art? Is their commentary valid? As always, I'm live on KZbin every sunday at 2pm EST/11am PST.
If you enjoy watching our videos, and would like to support us, check us out on Patreon: / thecanvas
Second Channel:
/ @germinalanarchy
Instagram:
/ thecanvasyoutube
#arthistory #art #modernart

[@Jm-ki4su]

Dennis prager: you have to fight him in the arby's bathroom to unlock your true artistic potential

[@stagvelvet]

I'm okay with that.

[@PotatoPatatoVonSpudsworth]

I read this as "autistic potential" and immediately accepted it.

[@Lunch_Meat]

I don't know what the worst part of this is; that I have to fight someone in a bathroom, that it HAS to be in an ARBY'S bathroom, or the fact that it's Dennis "the menace" Prager that I gotta fight.

[@ahobimo732]

Challenge accepted

[@hurdygurdyguy1]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂👍👍👍👍

[@galenteschendorf9429]

David is more than beauty. His expression and posture add potential meaning to be interpreted. Most David sculptures were him post battle. Michelangelo's choice of scene has meaning in itself.

[@Enirahtak8]

Completely agree here! I've also argued here that The Birth of Venus has *far* more value to it than just its beauty. I would, in fact, argue that beauty is by far the least interesting thing to discuss in terms of many Renaissance/older Western art pieces/sculpture!

[@galenteschendorf9429]

@Enirahtak8 I don't know what to say about the Birth of Venus. I don't find it beautiful or aesthetically pleasing, so I found it interesting that it was used as an example. I do agree that there is more meaning to Birth of Venus than pure aesthetic. Knowing the context of its creation would probably go a long way to helping me appreciate it.

[@Enirahtak8]

@@galenteschendorf9429 Fair, the painting is not for everyone. I'll copy and past the relevant bit of my comment for the interesting and relevant context of the Birth of Venus for clarify: "The Birth of Venus was not appreciated by a wider audience when it was made and it very much did not fit in with the standards at the time. While most Northern Italian artists were expected to stick to Christian topics, or else the portraits of their wealthy patrons, Sandro Botticelli was one of the first artists of his generation to incorporate so much from Pagan Greek and Roman mythology into his paintings. These paintings would have been considered pretty darn heretical by your average Tuscany Joe/Jo/Jojo/whatever, meaning that he was only able to make them for specific patrons. Specifically, the Birth of Venus, as is generally accepted by most art historians, was commissioned by the Medici family for their Villa de Castello, very much for private viewing. The Medici family were known at the time to encourage the 'modernisation' of art, by commissioning paintings of styles that were very much in vogue in certain artistic circles, rather than the more traditional Catholic/rich patron paintings which most people would have been more accustomed to. Sandro Botticelli in fact likely regretted painting The Birth of Venus later in life, due to the influence of a hyper-Catholic Girolama Savonarola, an extremist nutjob who encouraged the destruction, including burning, of secular art, or at least anything that was slightly 'Pagan'. Sandro Botticelli stuck entirely to Catholic/non-Pagan art later in life, it is likely that he bought into a lot of Savonarola's ideals, unfortunately."

[@sweetykitty4427]

@@Enirahtak8 thank you for this, the parts of the video where mr canvas talks about how the classics are very beautiful but don't invite deep discussion/ could not keep you talking all night are a really disagreeable part of the video

[@Enirahtak8]

@@sweetykitty4427 Couldn't agree more!

[@useless_name]

I very much agree with you on central points but I think you treated the classical works shown unfairly. The dying Gaul and the birth of Venus can still evoke a lot of stuff because of their richt historical backgrounds. They tell us a lot about the societies they were created in and are simply stunning to me. But the point is: They wouldn't be nearly as meaningful if created today because they wouldn't bring any new perspective to the table.

[@Enirahtak8]

Completely and utterly agree. There is *so much* to these pieces that most right-wing/nationalist/fascist people also overlook.

[@suezuccati304]

Let's just get to the crux of the argument: they want art that's completely uncontroversial. Anything that disrupts the status quo is bad.

[@logicboard7746]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHScfXRsa76spacfeature=shared

[@dkdcnone5771]

Modern art is the status quo though. Can you explain a little better by what you mean please?

[@Siegfried5846]

You are a fool if you think that modern art is controversial.

[@jboydayz]

🤓

[@jboydayz]

Modern art is just crap mate

[@glennlavertu3644]

I used to teach art history for a decade + and whenever I encountered this kind of mind-set/obstinance toward a particular movement or artist, I gave an assignment: "depict your feelings, not the outside world," and do it in the manner/technique of: Malevich geometry, Kandinsky's compositional space/color/shapes; Pollock drips etc etc. 9 Xs out of 10 it was convincing. Even if they still "didn't like" the art... they understood what was going on and could appreciate it. As for the opinions of this guy? Maybe he needs some brushes and some feelings.

[@theparagonal]

@@user-ke5md1ho8h Plenty of them are. Nazis weren't just evil zombies raised from hell. They were real people who had real opinions and real beliefs. Opinions can be wrong, and they can be fascist, or capitalist, or democratic, or whatever.

[@glennlavertu3644]

@@user-ke5md1ho8h no, but it can lead to fascistic beliefs.

[@DaviRenania]

Art is not only about feeling, it's about the aesthetic representation. Abstract Art usually needs a high level of abstraction, and hardly anyone have that, except highly creative people who tend to accept anything as cool; so what usually happens is bourgeois agreebleness pretending to like something. Also, another problem, Abstract Art, by definition leans toward Design and not Painting, as it is a representational art that needs to represent human condition by definition, which it lacks. Design, as it leans toward the useful it has to be abstract in most occasions. I don't have to mention dada is stupid, and wax spulptures are kitsch just like many 19th century academic painters.

[@DaviRenania]

​@@glennlavertu3644 btw, if calling modern art degenerate is fascistic, supporting labour laws is also fascistic. Lol. The fascists had a point in both.

[@glennlavertu3644]

@@DaviRenania the Nazis supported labor laws only in those instances where it effected their own kind, so I don't think your second statement holds true. The reason the Nazis called art "degenerate" was to easily denigrate an entire group of people as being the problem, that this "modernity" was the reason why common, "hard working" Germans were struggling and suffering in poverty. So these are false equivalents.

[@v_nix]

One thing was striking - and typical for pragerU. They talk about universal standards (around timestamp 28:00) - but actually mean 'western' (mostly European) standards. That's maybe worth a video on its own? I would appreciate your reaction to it. Thanks for this video. It shows clearly in what way they're trying to make Americans look at art. It made me sad, but at least I know it now.

[@beabeaxoxoxo]

Great point! I see it as willful ignorance that they only discuss "western" art and its supposed standards.

[@freckleheckler6311]

@@beabeaxoxoxobecause we live under whose civilization? This isn’t complicated so don’t make. Yes we should align ourselves with western standards and not disguising degeneration as “inclusive”. Also western art IS superior. Finding exceptions outside are just that..

[@NIHIL_EGO]

@@freckleheckler6311 idk I find myself much more receptive to East Asian art than West European art in general. To each their, racist fuck.

[@geovaughan8261]

Lemme get this straight… -Florczak presents a “non-art” object as art -People discuss the meaning of the work -Florczak reveals its non-art nature -A new understanding is achieved And he DOESN’T believe in the principles of modern art?

[@sharongillesp]

The David is 350 tons because originally it was carved to be on top of a high building. . . It needed to be large enough to be scene from a great distance.

[@markreierstad2418]

I am neither conservative nor liberal. I try to think for myself. There is a place for traditional and modern art. However, it's one thing to be Jackson Pollock, and another entirely to make "art" out of feces and urine. That's disgusting. It's a cynical, cash-grabbing, attention-getting attempt on the part of the "artist." Congratulations, "artist!" You have placed yourself in the same company as children who think bodily functions are cute, as well as the disturbed individuals who fetishize these things. So, what sort of discussions should people have all night about this literal filth? I don't even want to speculate. And there's nothing "creative" about it. It was creative when Duchamp presented his "Fountain," which, by the way, he purchased new from a sanitary supplier. And you could argue it was "creative" the first time some "trailblazer" made something out of feces or urine. Since then, though, it's not creative. It's yet another attempt by a talentless hack to get attention and money. What you said about Pollock's drip-painting applies here, too. If someone does it now, it's nothing. In this case, though, it's worse than nothing. It's disturbed. And it's even worse if this "art" just happens to be subsidized in some way with taxpayer dollars. Dadaists made statements with their art, such as how the "rational" thinking of society led us into WWI, and how art had become bourgeois, stilted, and subjective. The only "statements" made by trash like Serrano's "Immersion?" That he's a disturbed, sophomoric individual who thinks he's an artist, and he wants to get attention by defiling things that mean something to so many. Oh, and it can be yours for $100,000, or whatever some fool paid for it.

[@michailalein]

loved listening to this while correcting exams... I really like how knowledgeable you are and I learn so much from your videos.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

You're a teacher......jesus I feel bad for your students!

[@ai_dc]

I wonder how the PU guy feels about surrealism? Because their technique is on point but their content is not "moral." Also what about Klimt? Mix of realistic figures but abstract back ground.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

Which surrealist are not moral and how are they not?

[@ai_dc]

@@brendanbloomberg3283 You should research Dali's sketches. I'm not sure if they would fit with PU morality ideals.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

@@ai_dc I have. My boss owns one. You haven't answered the question though.

[@ai_dc]

@@brendanbloomberg3283 I looked it up and can't find them but in the Dali museum in Spain there are a lot of ink sketches of male genitalia doing certain thing etc.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

​@@ai_dc Seems like you have a fine imagination.

[@clintatk]

Fun talk! It needs to be remembered that every viewer will bring their experiences to their viewing and give it their context unless the artwork is pre- explained, ie, posterized. Therefore historical art, any art, can still retain value in this way. The difference would be in the work’s level of impact, today or at any point in time.

[@stephenmorton8017]

Face-ism is a little known offshoot of portraiture.

[@LeaSeiler_painter]

Hmmm, it is definetly an interesting discussion we are having. As someone who is studying fine art at a modern art school but prefers to paint in classical figurative realism I can understand both sides arguments. Personally, I like a good painting that works with a traditional sense of aesthetics. But a piece that captures me because of its social commentary is also highly appreciated. But I think the artworld today has some serious problems when it comes to for example the art market and the authenticity of artworks. I think we need to have a debate about how we define quality and how we can make every art direction more relevant to the time we currently live in.

[@One_Call_System]

While I do not agree with Prager U at all on the degenerate issue, I also do not agree with calling them fascists. That is a crazy stretch. There are infinite amounts of levels between a conservative and a facist. This is why I am basically perpetually stuck in the middle and at this point in my 48 years on this earth, a- political. I have people on both sides of the spectrum being absolute generalists that the other side is pure evil and I just find it sooooo damn F'ing stupid that people can't see the levels in between. Leftists and there absolutely hilarious temper tantrums about Trump and their everybody is a nazi tropes, to the conservatives and their you are all burning in hell tropes. It's a jokes.

[@lordknightalex]

a close-up of a stained apron CAN be art, it can show the color range of the artist, it can be a statement on how the "clean" beauty of a painting requires the "mess" of an apron full of paint. it COULD be a work of art saying something, but these guys wouldnt want to even try, it would require too much thought beyond the strict mold of unquestioned """"western ideals"""""

[@deepashtray5605]

As historical fact if conservatives had it their way, David would be wearing pants. Also, David was created at a specific point in time and place for a culture and power structure of that time and place. David wasn't naked to show the beauty and perfection of the male physique, it was naked to illustrate how a shepherd boy armed with only a sling and his faith slew a giant, a theme that would resonate with the Roman Catholic citizenry of any city-state of that era. It might very well be that conservatives reject modern art as decadent because the conservative mind is not very good at processing nuance and ambiguity; there's actually been studies done on that.

[@Adeodatus100]

If it doesn't inspire someone to call it immoral, I'm not interested.

[@abyssssbmusic1370]

Coming from music, the dichotomy of something being beautiful vs being ugly especially doesn't make sense to apply in the way prageru is doing, considering that depending on the individual, any music could be interpreted as beautiful. (like, if i can find harsh noise [not the genre] or the stuff by dufrene to be beautiful, then to have some kind of universal categorization of music into beautiful and nonbeautiful just doesnt make any sense to me) the two pieces of art on the right side at around 28:00 i wouldnt exactly personally consider beautiful, but i wouldnt be surprised if there's someone who can consider them that way. The top right one is pretty similar to stuff by hundertwasser (at least to me), whose works i would consider beautiful

[@abyssssbmusic1370]

Also, coming from a perspective in music influenced by cage, it just feels very incomplete to look at a piece of art/music, look only at the piece itself, and not consider what way a viewer is experiencing it when trying to make a judgement on whether its art or whether its "good art" I could have enjoyment listening to a composed piece of music, and i can also have enjoyment listening to sounds of the environment or from people, who do make the sounds with the intent of creating art; i could experience them in the same way (i could also experience them in different ways) and in that sense they can both function as an experience of art for me. In just the same way I could ignore the noises in the environment, I could also ignore the sound of music playing in the background, and it would not function as an artistic experience In the same way that someone can listen to classical music (period) and not get anything out of it, someone who doesnt like some form of contemporary music can listen and not get anything out of it. A significant difference though being that the person who listens to classical music can still recognize that there are other people who get something out of it and can recognize it as music, while often there are people who don't like specific kinds of contemporary music and will just say its not music edit: like another comment said about the apron, the lack of intent to create art can make a difference in how the apron is viewed in society, how it functions, stuff like that, but you can still experience it in the exact same way you experience something that was intended to be a piece of art, and whether you like it or not is just personal preference Edit: actually thats only true depending on context, if someone's experience of art is based on the intent of the artist, then not having the intent might could make a difference to their experience of it, but as far as like... the image(?) of it, it would be the same.

[@finnyjam8252]

When you think about it, classical beauty-oriented art is really oppressive and authoritarian. It basically just says "Don't think, don't ask questions, just consume". I guess that's why it's so appealing to fascists, as it helps keep their subjects docile and unwilling to question things or look for deeper meanings. Maybe I'm just overthinking, but I do notice this trend of right wing/conservative things (Such as gender roles, suburbia, exaggerated fear of criminals and immigrants etc.) being very much just ways to make a population police itself along the lines of the status quo.

[@shakey3306]

You’ve just committed a fallacy, you mean modern art is that, it’s the complete opposite

[@zeus7873]

What a stupid take time to move out of your lefty eco chamber

[@timffoster]

Im about 20 minutes into the video. Oddly enough, the dramatic but ultimately shallow nature of your critique only proves Robert's point. One has to be trained (aka, indoctrinated) in order to appreciate modern art. Take any random citizen of the world into a modern art museum, and the majority will wonder why the work of insane people is put on display. But take them into a museum featuring classic art, and they will be impressed and awed. Explain that.

[@bzxshor67mpts]

Listen to your eyes not your ears

[@looselytelling]

*don't think just look

[@arsphoenix1822]

"If no one buys it, no one makes it." Art is just widgets, beautiful widgets.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

What a moronic quote.

[@BreakerOvTheBlackWinds]

I dare say the point of the rock is to say, the difference between David and a rock is that David is a carved rock. But still....just a rock

[@maureenok]

Thank you for your hot take on the boringness of the impressionists!

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

The point is being speechless. All the talk talk talk of modern art is you justifying bullshit. Beauty quiets your mind.....everything else is the show "Friends"

[@hmnhntr]

The apron/Pollock thing really just shows how Prager U knows nothing about art. I happen to not like Pollock particularly much. But that's obviously not a Pollock. Not even close.

[@jinkschuvisko8772]

Don't be afraid to call fascists what they really are. "Far right" IS fascism, right wingers support fascism with their every breath. We can't let them patronize the discourse

[@Narokkurai]

@@user-ke5md1ho8h The far left runs the gamut from anarcho-syndicalism to pure stalinism, but none of those things are fascism. Fascism is a distinct ideology with goals and beliefs that are diametrically opposed to leftism. And frankly, I don't care what "damage" you think leftism has done to western society. You couldn't possibly convince me that life in the USA and Europe was better before the socialist movements of the early 20th century.

[@Sokrabiades]

Don't forget centrists, center-leftists, and "socialists". It's just reasonable fascism, but fascism nonetheless. And fascists all deserve the same fate. ✊

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@@jinkschuvisko8772 _""F ar rig ht" IS fasc ism, ri ght wingers support fas cism with their every breath. "_ Wrong. Fasc ism was a totalitarian f ar-lef t, soci alist ideology which opposed capi talism.. Fas cism was an outgrowth of Sorellian Syndicalism, which itself was an outgrowth from Ma rxist soc ialism. The idea was that society would be consolidated (i.e., incorporated) into syndicates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose wasn't the promotion of private interest, but the centralization and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mussolini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@@Narokkurai _"Fa scism is a distinct ideology with goals and beliefs that are diametrically opposed to lef tism."_ Wrong. Their goals and beliefs were opposed to m arxism, not le ftism in general. The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are liberal in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the government. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.

[@Narokkurai]

@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. No, that's authoritarianism vs libertarianism. The left-right divide is between egalitarianism and hierarchy. Left wing ideologies want power to be distributed as broadly as possible, whether that's as a loose association of labor unions under anarcho-syndicalism, or in a far-reaching bureaucracy like Chinese Communism. Right wing ideologies on the other hand support hierarchical power structures. They want power to flow from the top down, whether that's through the "big fish eat the little fish" ideology of anarcho-capitalism, or through divine-right monarchy all the way on the authoritarian end. In this case, fascism is like a divine-right monarchy, where god has been replaced by a national myth. Fascists love to emphasize the paternal relationship between the nation and its citizens, and they see the problems of society as a result of the "wrong" people having power. A fascist does not want to spread power out, they want to consolidate it to a core group of ethnically homogenous people who will pass laws explicitly to benefit themselves at the expense of immigrants and minorities. That's a hierarchical power structure, and it's why fascism cannot, by definition, be a left-wing ideology. The left wing wants to spread power out, the right wing wants to consolidate it.

[@hurdygurdyguy1]

For me a lot of "Fine Art" and "Modern Art" has always been summed up by R. Crumb in his Fine Artiste Blues: I quit my job I spent three months in bed Thought I’d take up fine art painting instead I got me a canvas and I got me some pain Five minutes work is gonna make me a saint Baby I’m a fine artiste And maybe I deserve to be kissed My paintings are famous and they’re worth lots of dough Pretty girls all hang around my gallery show I’m as good with my paintbrush as I am with my lips Stick around honey learn some aesthetic tips Baby I’m a fine artiste And maybe I deserve to be kissed Be bull-headed at what ever you do Let that old ego come a beamin’ on thru Tell him fine art is something he don’t know And he’ll be that chump who floats you that dough Baby I’m a fine artiste And maybe I deserve to be kissed First I was a cowboy and then a guru priest Any old thing just to keep my palms greased Wear a white leather suit and some bubble toed shoes Got a fifty thousand dollar a year case of the blues Baby I’m a fine artiste And maybe I deserve to be kissed 😂

[@georgesummers8535]

Now I actually want to see figure-skating which deliberately goes against whatever "standards" this guy says they should have.

[@ArthurCSchaperMR]

Define "fascist." Thanks

[@bzxshor67mpts]

If it's a Pollock it must be good that's what the salesman say.. Yes I get it

[@nickb863]

Sorry to comment bomb - but sometimes (sorry to be a little critical) - you commit the same sins as PraegerU - over-generalizing and making sweeping claims - for the purposes of identity. "We don't want a picture. We don't want something that is equivalent to a photograph. We want something that speaks to us emotionally: something the artist puts their whole life into, their emotions into." Does this privileging of emotion/expression not also imply a politics of exclusion - "this, not that" as the basis for an identity? I mean your criteria clearly excludes artists like Bernd and Hilla Becher, or Sol Lewitt? What about information aesthetics? Obviously this criteria you invoke is not as stringent as PragerU's privileging of conventional beauty but nonetheless you are looking for a baseline on which Modern Art can possess a stable identity. But I believe Modern Art is non-identitarian. It is an unstable category. I think in some ways you are subconsciously trying to domesticate Modern Art - as opposed to accepting its radical otherness, its radical dynamism - the fact that it is somewhat aleatory - the implications of which are sincerely radical and threatening to the very notion of tradition.

[@Lunch_Meat]

Modern art WAS threatening to the notion of tradition.. When it first became a thing. Now it's art history and a part of the tradition See: pop art and it's dismissal of abstract expressionism

[@furihreunsicherheit3624]

Ok... it is extremely difficult to get "art appreciation" courses going in public education. And fine art courses are some of the first to get cut in favor of STEM and more traditional reading, writing, arithmetic courses. Why? Because they're seen as unnecessary by..... mostly conservatives. If it doesn't further "saving of the West" then everything done outside of that is unnecessary, according to current conservative talking points from my experience. I worked at a 70%+ socioeconomic disadvantaged school district (mostly Baptists/Catholic, blue collar, conservative) and my teaching partner and I pioneered the AP Social Studies program at my high school. We met huge resistance from parents and administrators, and struggled at first with student buy in. But once the students were on board our courses were some of the most competitive student sign ups every year. Students who thought they could never do an AP course in their life because they were told they weren't Gifted & Talented enough growing up or never encouraged to try were our biggest demographic in the classroom. The educational and personal growth from these students could move the hearts of most educators, as they certainly moved mine. I had the fortune of teaching some of these students from freshmen to senior year and witnessing their progress first hand. It was astonishing and they craved more opportunities. I definitely wanted to deliver on that by pushing for more courses to be offered. The school district's AP scores were a joke, with most students never signing up to attempt the exam across the board with AP courses offered at our school (before the AP Social Studies campaign the school only offered AP Spanish, AP Biology, AP Calculus). After AP Social Studies was established our student population for exam attempts exploded and our passing rates rose steadily year over year despite parents and admin admonishing the rigor of our courses. (I once was trapped in my classroom by a mob of parents during open house shouting at me that my 6 week cartography and country geography boot camp of my AP Human Geography course was "ridiculous and unfair" that I made students color maps aaaannnnd learn names and locations of countries on a world map and tested them over it. I also had an administor dress me down in my off period on how I made my students write too much for notes and essays despite the district wide push for "WAC" or Writing Across the Curriculum to boost our essay scores for state testing. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.) Once we got the basics established (APUSH, WHAP, APGOV, APECO, APHG), I pushed for more based on student interest: AP PSYCH, AP ART HISTORY, APEuro, ect. I met the MOST resistance for wanting to establish an AP Art History course for our campus. Too much nudity, not enough relevance. Where is the value in art when STEM and vocation should be pushed? A new Dean of Instruction was hired who made it her mission to dismantle the AP program on our campus and made sure that our pilot AP Art History course was given to the most utilitarian teacher in our department who effectively killed the course before it ever got off the ground. He refused to show anything beyond Neoclassical and only went as far back as the Greeks and Romans for "ancient art" (students never got exposed to Hall of Bulls in his class unless they had taken me for AP World History). Our AP courses slowly got divied up to other staff members who had ZERO passion for learning, let alone teaching, that is required to execute a great course experience for the students. These staff members didn't want to teaching tested subjects period and mostly wanted to be coaches first anyways. Student enrollment declined, just as our Dean wanted, and that was used as evidence that the AP program wasn't wanted by the students, despite the fact that my teaching partner and I had over stuffed rosters. My dream of teaching a tandem WHAP and AP Art History course never actualized. My teaching partner left for a different district after she was told she never be department head and never get the opportunity to shape the campus culture concerning AP (for instance, we organized a celebration award ceremony for students who passed their AP exams so they got the recognition they deserved for their hard work where they got catered food, music, certificates, photo shoot, and paper/news school interviews. We also organized writing camps, test taking strategies seminars, weekend practice mock exams, and a breakfast party parade to their testing location complete with a snack goodie bag the kids could use during the exam. All these things we organized for the entire AP program on our camous, not just for social studies, were killed off). The new department head signed on to the agenda to get rid of our core AP courses. I left several years later after my AP courses were officially taken away from me. Everything that we had built: the variety in courses, the rigor, the Socratic engagement with the students, the college prep, rising AP scores (our department was the leader in student sign ups, retention, exam attempts, and passing rates than any other department and in turn had the highest state testing passing rates in the district) came crashing down in favor of the money kick backs from on-ramps/dual credit programs. It was devastating. (Honestly, still crushed with how things turned out and not over it, obviously...) I left the teaching profession. Thank you for this video. When PU dropped their video I was so irritated at their framing and their appeal to authority.

[@cecilialofgren1396]

Oh my! I just LOVE YOU! Your work is SO IMPORTANT!!

[@kayleegates2724]

Even though I've loved how informative and exploratory your channel has been I thought this was a sponsored video and almost skipped it because it appeared to be platforming PragerU and raising the question "are you a fascist if you don't like modern art?" 😂😂😂 So glad I gave it a chance!

[@hoshipan_]

I feel there's a lot of disdain nowadays for realistic art. I myself am not like, the biggest consumer of it in the slightest, I always have been both a creator and consumer of stylized art and to me the more stylized the better, but referring to realism as merely boring is not it... I feel that there must be something magical about observing every little detail and capturing it on the canvas. It's also really cool when artists can blend abstraction/certain concepts with realism! And the way each artist interprets things is different. Modern "art" that is merely a splash of effortless colours is to me harmful to artists who do spend actual effort. You can splatter any bs and say it means any bs... seems like just bs to me + a huge money laundering scheme when shit like that is sold off for thousands. You can have a bit of both worlds and its cool. Technique and concepts matter, and it shows regardless of your style.

[@MalvinaPrimerose]

Just to note: fascists wanted grandeur and for that reason they chose romanesc type of imagery. Second - they were out there for propaganda - the Roman empire 0.2 is comming/it's here allready. "We are building it for you". They wanted shock and aw. Thirdly - disconnect to the little people, being up there inaccessible, god like creatures. But most of all - complete lack of emotion except the narcisistic look of the person portrayed. And I still think there is more to that. It has to promote the story of the fascism in a gloryous way. It has to be smashing the viewer, make him feel small, but still whisper: you can be like that if you work hard on that. There is a difference between the elephant like mothers of Picasso and The great Torchbearer or the muscular huge females at the Olympics 1936. They have to be unequivocal. No doubt what they promote. You have to be able to get the message with a glymps of the corner of your eye. Pleasant idilic children playing on a green tubyland. Religiously suggestive of permanent peace and idilia. Just think of that and tell me where you do not see some of this? I also recall portraits of real people that are supposed to look fearsome for the adult crowd or sweet for children. Skillfull as well. Van Gogh will be a degenerate if he was bourn then. Not because he is not skillfull enough, but for his lack to beautify more then needed. Goya would be even complete outcast too. Now think of it and tell me in the face that Vera Muchina was a fascist. Because all those features are represented in her art, yet she thought that you can beat the monster with his own weapon. The Torchbearer is not a worker, scientist or a peasant. He is a grand athlete. All are athletes. Suggestive of naked knights. The workers in Ussr become swallen versions of those german neokouroses. Again for propaganda purpouses. So here come to play the political moment, the time they are created, made for the Paris 1937 worlds fair. As an answer. Again bold and unequivocal. Is it fascist? I give you the answer - no, and no, and no. Does it have tendencyes? Come on. A war of anyhilation comes next and we are theoretising here. "Let them kill eachother so we live in a peacefull tubyland again".

[@iNerdier]

13:37 Oh man I just blurted out 'What about Otto Dix' and you bring it up almost to the second.

[@moongirl786]

I wasn't the slightest bit interested in art and art history until I learned about German Expressionism and the Entartete Kunst, so I am definitely one of those who found "traditional" Western art pretty but boring. However, I have to say that since I have become interested, and as an anthropology graduate, there are definitely ways to intellectualize the "Old Masters", by which PragerU mean specifically European Renaissance art, through Baroque to Romantic. As you said, historical context matters. The fact that Renaissance art was a rebellion in its time, against Medieval Gothic art standards, goes completely unrecognized by many. Gothic art almost never included nudes (Christ on the cross being an exception), and was always about Christian religious imagery and/or glorifying powerful people (eg. the Wilton Diptych). Making the naked human body into something beautiful and not sinful was quite a scandalous concept in its day, as was returning to classical (i.e. Greco-Roman pagan) sources for inspiration. Venus is a pagan goddess, and yet PragerU don't consider Birth of Venus a pagan idol? Interesting...

[@Mason-hs9oz]

Drawfee did a really fun re imagining of Dante And Virgil In Hell that I highly recommend for a fun time

[@eliosanciolo2844]

The arguments against Modern Art in the Prager Video are infantile and poorly enunciated. But then again so are some of the points made here. It seems to me that discussions about which 'Art' is better or worse are superficial, in that, neither position actually deals with the 'elephant' in the room by defining what 'Art' actually is, neither does it deal with Art's ultimate social purpose in a materialist, secular world where notions such as a 'Transcendent Reality, Truth & Beauty)' and expressed by religion are treated as irrelevant. I don't think that this debate is about 'Traditional' vs 'Modern' as presented in this video. The discussion is actually about the dominance of Objective vs the Subjective in a cultural context. To some, the post 19th century tendency to value subjective expression over the Objective representation of the world disconnects the practice of 'Art' ( whatever that is) from a cultural continuum that ties the present to the past. This makes modern 'Subjective' Art utterly useless as a measure of the artistic expression of a Culture in its totality simply because it is the expression on a purely subjective experience with little to no reference to the past culture that led to it. To me , there is no such thing as ancient, Traditional Art or Modern Art, just like there is no such thing as 'Bad' or 'Good' Art. The term Art if it has any meaning at all, must be the epitome of a form of expression that has the ability to touch the viewer in a transformative way. Therefore there can be no Traditional, Modern, or Bad Art. Just Art. I realise that this would automatically disqualify 90 % of the works currently accepted as 'Art' and demote them to the level of social artifacts...but that's just the way it is, if one really looks at it rationally.

[@abstractacus1598]

The Futurists were associated with fascism but were also close to communistic dada and abstraction. Nazi art was almost identical with socialist realism. Duchamp had a point, at the time, more than a hundred years ago, with his 'anti art' but the joke has worn thin as his heirs repeat him as insiders faking an outsider aesthetic. Conceptualism is dull, boring and hypocritical, we are no longer shocked we are bored. What's needed is a reinvention or rediscovery of traditional art but with a modern perspective. The nihilist vacuum of contemporary art sucked itself down Duchamp's toilet a long time ago. It is not about degeneracy, it is not a fascist critique, it is about the destruction of aestheticism as its own aesthetic, a bad one liner become established orthodoxy. The art world simply coopted conceptualism; this was not the actual intention of its founders. We have not moved forwards in a hundred years, we've got stuck in hip communistic ugliness which is neither edgy or revolutionary, rather it's stale and outdated. When such deliberate destructiveness has worked its magic and the real revolutionaries roll into town they'll blow up all this nonsense and replace it with the same repetitive, happy, nonsense Stalin did. Fascism, National Socialism, is exactly the same thing as Socialist Communism, of which post modernism is but a facet. We deserve better! We deserve art which is at the same time expressive, intelligent and new whilst respecting the greats of the past.

[@Noctem_pasa]

Fascism is the same as communism which includes postmodernism… that’s certainly a take

[@sadielappin8862]

Don't make me tap the sign (Ad Reinhardt's 1946 cartoon panel, "What Do You Represent?")

[@iras.9508]

That artistic standards graph is probably my favorite prager u graph

[@dragon1011dk]

I didnt know this about Modern Art and Fascism. Thank you.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

It's a moronic take. But you don't have logic. To be expected from fans of the The Canvas.

[@tjenadonn6158]

Coming from a more musical background it's interesting to note how the music that is considered "degenerate" is so often closely associated with the music that also gets labelled as degenerate. Luigi Russolo, who is often considered the founder of noise music, was also a painter associated with the Italian Futurists. The Dadaist sculptor and artist Kurt Schwitters also composed "sound poetry:" poetry with no real semantic meaning consisting entirely of rhythmically arranged sounds akin to scatting without a melody that blurs the line between poetry and music: his Merzbau installations would, decades later, inspire the legendary Japanese harsh noise musician Masami Akita to work under the name Merzbow. Of course jazz age art movements like Art Deco and abstract expressionism are heavily associated with jazz music, always a target of those who see the "Decline of Western Civilization™" everywhere. Jean-Michel Basquiat, Kieth Haring, and other graffiti and graffiti-inspired artists came up around and were intertwined with the nascent hip hop scene. Just as digital art tools are accused of being cheating so to were electronic instruments going all the way back to things like the Fairlight CMI, the Synklavier, the LinnDrum, and even the original Moog and Buchla modular synthesizers.

[@gur262]

Hmmm. I don't like the word at all though i know that most use it very casually ( not Prager. He's Jewish allright. He's still evil and basically a neonazi as funny as that sounds. See what Prager u posts on Twitter on holocaust day etc)but. The Nazis meant kinda all jazz? As far as I get it. All black music American music. So. Not so tied.

[@morganhess6876]

You're just wherever the good shit is, huh? And a fellow esparantist, to boot! A salute, comrade.

[@SeanMakel-mh3lj]

With Basquiat, don't forget punk rock

[@dicrimple_dopdiddlyoinkus]

"coming from a musical backround it's interesting to note" *seinfeld music kicks in*

[@Siegfried5846]

You have an antiwhite terror group in your profile picture.

[@alf8151]

Reminds me of a Picasso quote “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”

[@jmiquelmb]

That was very presumptuous from Picasso though, I'm pretty sure he didn't paint like Raphael after four years of training. In fact, he probably couldn't emulate Raphael's craft at any point in life. Raphael was Raphael, and Picasso was Picasso

[@kozy15x]

UGH.. stop.

[@StephenS-2024]

" People will say I said shit I never said!" - a famous person quoted obtusely

[@GrimSqueaker]

I had this exact same thought during the figure skating bit. If a fucking MASTER figure skater came out and threw himself around on the ice it could possibly be a very profound statement. It may still score badly within the confins of a competition - but that is neither here nor there with regards to artistic value

[@GrimSqueaker]

​@@jmiquelmb eh... have you seen his childhood paintings? The one he made his sister for her confirmation is particularly mind blowing in my opinion

[@helwing01]

I used to not like modern art, but after studying a bit of its history and its intentions, as well as the philosophical basis I began to slowly respect it. You and other art channels have certainly made that happen. Thanks, man!

[@BlackTestament]

i grew a newfound respect for modern art after watching Jacob Geller’s video called “Who’s Afriad of Modern Art” genuinely fantastic video Link to the video cause i love Jacob: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGanoqCKqaiDn7M

[@Narokkurai]

Same! I think the real problem with modern/contemporary art is it's all part of a conversation that artists have largely been having in private for generations. From the outside it seems senseless, but you don't need too much context to "get it". There's still a lot of modern art that I don't like, but I don't think it's "not art", it's just not for my taste.

[@tjenadonn6158]

​@@Narokkurai In a way a similar thing happens in the world of music. A lot of music that falls under the label of "contemporary classical" gets a bad rap, but that's largely because it's dealing with ideas that haven't broken into the popular consciousness yet. Ideas like microtonality, drones, noise as music, and phasing occasionally enter pop culture in niche ways via genres like trance or dubstep or acts like King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard and Sonic Youth, but for the most part most people's awareness of what classical music "should" sound like stops at the middle-Romantic composers like Mahler, Tchaikovsky, and Verdi, with some room made for the French Impressionists like Ravel, Debussy, and Satie if theyre feeling adventurous. Save for a few breakouts like Philip Glass almost any orchestral score to any Hollywood movie is basically going to be a pastiche of Romanticism or Neo-Romanticism. If you just give it time however, learn the language so to speak, I honestly find they the newer stuff can be far more rewarding than the Romantic period: in particular the 20th century and later saw the rose of unaccompanied percussion as it's own musical idiom, with works like Edgard Varese's "Ionisation," Iannis Xenakis' "Pleiades," Steve Reich's "Drumming," and Frank Zappa's "The Black Page" finally giving virtuoso percussionists their time in the spotlight.

[@hurdygurdyguy1]

There's a lot of Modern Art I enjoy and appreciate, there's a lot I don't like, but even what I don't care for I respect...

[@cortanathelawless1848]

It tought me one important thing: I don't have to like something to still appreciate certain aspects or something and to respect good art even when it's absolutely not to my taste

[@vwabi]

For me the most disagreeable thing about PragerU's position, is the idea that the best artists don't need creativity, they just need to do what everyone else is doing, but slightly better. You can be the best ice skater by simply looking at what other ice skaters are doing, training for years, and doing it slightly better than them. Which for ice skating is valid since it's a sport, but for art is just ... boring.

[@NameName-gl9cw]

One thing that occurred to me in the first part of the video is that pragerU seems to evaluate art through a very capitalist lense(suprising i know). In doing so, this treats art like any other product on the market in that to "succeed at art"(bussiness) you just need to be making the exactly the same thing as the person before you(business competitor) but with slight "improvements" (added consumer value). It's this kind of horrid notion that artworks(and by extension artists) compete with each other rather than talk with or engage each other.

[@bastardacademic]

They want conformity to a single idea, and a single idea of beauty - they will accept no deviance. Monodominant culture enforced by people who could never meet the ideals the set and espouse on people who will be destroyed by it.

[@claesvanoldenphatt9972]

It’s just boring for ice skating too. Technique can only take you slightly beyond your antecedent. Creativity has little directly to do with technique, it requires new ways of thinking.

[@nairsheasterling9457]

In fact, this idea is the very thing that people are kinda complaining about major film, TV, streaming, music, and publishing industries for doing to some extent when calling something a "blatant cash grab" like the Disney remakes. And we all know Dennis doesn't love this music or movies and points to this as "signs of the decline of the West." Almost like fascism (and other forms of totalitarianism like Oligarchical Collectivism) requires doublethink and doublespeak to function and Dennis is a master of it. Also, this kinda framing helps explain why right-wingers tend to really suck at making art of any kind.

[@SeasideDetective2]

While I'd agree with Prager that a great deal of "modern" art is too formalistic to communicate meaning effectively, it still can be VERY enjoyable to look at. Something doesn't have to be meaningful to be beautiful.

[@ronoc9]

I saw a similar video that featured a PragerU tweet that was something along the lines "why can't we have Renaissance art again" and I just thought "aren't you guys completely against the idea of taxes paying for someone's education, nevermind the idea of someone spending the next thirty years of their life to art?"

[@Soundbrigade]

But Renaissance art is being banned in Florida because it is too …. “realistic”.😅

[@ambmamb8370]

i mean- maybe we had a chance at architecture again that isnt proven to increase suicide rates in its surroundings

[@brunoactis1104]

What do you mean by thirty years? Like a painting taking 30 years to make? Or dedicating 30 years of your life to art? Neither is true really, artists dedicate a lifetime to art, and not even reinassance paintings take 30 years to make. Either way, right leaning americans tent to be of the idea that you should do whatever the fuck you want as long as you harm no one. Dumbass european or latin american conservatives are more like you are implying, but dumbass american conservatives are libertarian.

[@Siegfried5846]

They are wrong about taxes, but right about art. The government should cut all funding to modern art and put it into traditional Western art. If you think that's bad, then ask yourself why doing the opposite was okay.

[@ikkikita9665]

Ah, a Fascist. Fancy seeing you hear! Seems there are more and more of you these days...

[@radicalpaddyo]

I saw "PragerU" and got the popcorn out....I was 100 percent sure he would be channeling the ghost of Adolf Hitler to inform his art critique and I was not disappointed!

[@grimtheghastly8878]

He's radiating Hitler particles

[@patdainel9037]

You know he’s Jewish right?

[@jimgross1464]

​@@patdainel9037 we're not talking about Hitler's antisemitism, but his opinions on art, which Prager is a perfect copy of.

[@miskatonic_alumni]

​@@patdainel9037 Look up Dan Burros.

[@Ibrahim-wq8cf]

@@patdainel9037 European jews in 2023 can agree with a Nazi from 1940 about the topic of non-Europeans. Think Palestanians

[@starsh1nachan252]

Let me take a wild guess before watching: PragerU will hate on impressionists and will forget about whole Eastern Europe painting school. Update: I should go to some predictor competition one day.

[@glennlavertu3644]

"If the product doesn't sell, it won't be made." Right. Because that's what artists do exclusively, as opposed to making art to SAY SOMETHING.

[@tjenadonn6158]

Also if we're judging what is good art by what art sells well I guess that means Thomas Kincaid is a better painter than Andrei Rublev, Michael Bay is a better director than Andrei Tarkovsky, E. L. James is a better author than Leo Tolstoy, and Katy Perry is a better composer than Igor Stravinsky. Pardon the Russian fixation, I got stuck in an Andrei rut for the first two.

[@patrickhaynes3090]

Hehe, NFTs *are* degenerate.

[@maestroicarodecarvalho3947]

​@@tjenadonn6158 the russians sure are great!

[@Pensnmusic]

If it doesn't sell, it doesn't please the wealthy. You're only allowed to do what the powerful want you to do. It's very simple.

[@avedic]

You have to bear in mind....PragerU and people like them....don't actually like art. They like money. Art that makes money? They like it....because they like money. That's literally it. And power. Money and power. But money buys power. So just money.

[@stagvelvet]

Go with me here: the impressionists...as punks. Degas in a battle jacket and full mohawk painting his ballerinas.

[@tjenadonn6158]

I mean a lot of the post-impressionists were full on anarchists in the legit Kropotkin and Bakunin sense, so they'd probably get on better with punks most people.

[@Helelsonofdawn]

@@tjenadonn6158 doubt, punks love big government

[@maestroicarodecarvalho3947]

​@@Helelsonofdawn you really really dont know any anarchists, do you? Punks are anarchists.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

@@Helelsonofdawn it depends on the "punk".

[@Helelsonofdawn]

@@brendanbloomberg3283 100% of punks i encountered hate when republicans end a regulation and 90% supported bernie sanders who loves police protection

[@ard4461]

These people who complain about 'modern art' arent involved in the art scene at all. If they saw the gorgeous and inventive work artists are producing every day they wouldn't be saying all this crap about how nobody creates anything beautiful anymore and art's been "ruined". All they do is pick one enigmatic/controversial piece, rob it of its context and claim that it represents all art now and that's why society's falling apart.

[@mibuch5464]

It’s like when people say jazz or rock music are dead, but they really haven’t looked for anything recent in those genres. There’s always great art of any medium and genre, people just gotta look a little harder to find it.

[@DragonOnCoke7299]

You're completely wrong on that front because I'm an artist myself who likes to draw dragons and I think "modern art" for the most part is not talented nor meaningful. In fact quite a few other artists I know share the same sentiment

[@dennisduncan7561]

These clods already have a preconceived notion of what they think aesthetically pleasing art is but don't extend that to newer art. You notice they don't mention Andy Warhol or Horace Pippin.

[@dennisduncan7561]

Totally agree. I think they see art as more an investment than something to meant to say something.

[@omgkthxbi]

@@DragonOnCoke7299 what is the point of drawing dragons though

[@claudemadrid4950]

Let's be clear about the fact that most modern artists loved the classical artists like Rembrandt or Vermeer even more than the nazis liked these classical painters 😀... For instance, Picasso was a big "fan" of Velasquez and Ingres... the difference between modern artists and the nazis is that the modern artists understood what the classical painters were doing 😀... and they also understood that after the invention of photography, painting had to look for something else than simply trying to copy the external appearance of reality. 😀

[@psyche1988]

Except that even a "realistic" painting is not just trying to copy reality, it's a representation and the artistic choices are still there. Isn't Magritte's The treachery of images about this very thing, that images are not reality but a representation of it ? This camera argument is like a dead horse and you people keep beating it over and over again...

[@claudemadrid4950]

@@psyche1988 Are you tellng me that Magritte is an example of "realism" ? 😀😀😀Oh, man, what a joke. 😀

[@claudemadrid4950]

@@psyche1988 Have you ever read a book called "Fra Angelico : Dissemblance et figuration" by the French art critic Georges Didi-Huberman ? 😀

[@jmiquelmb]

It's also interesting how many of the big name classics engaged in what later would become modern art. Velazquez made a proto impressionist painting that is incredible, Villa Medici. Goya was also forward thinking, his black paintings are clearly not what Prager would call "beauty". And Goya's Dog Drowning was so advanced to its time that it could have been painted in 1930 rather than 1820. I'm not the biggest fan of art that leans toward abstraction, but this dog is just an incredible piece of art history.

[@claudemadrid4950]

@@jmiquelmb Yes, Athena, Goya's "Saturn" was, for the nazis to like it , too much looking like what they were doing to the rest of humanity 😀... and you must not take my initial comment as a justification of "abstract art" because, like you, I'm not the biggest fan of what is called "abstraction" 😀... I was talking about the freedom of representation that doesn't have to be looking like a photographic reproduction 😀... like the howl on the picture of your YT profile can definitely be recognized as a howl... but definitely does not look like a photograph of any real howl on the planet.😀

[@zetectic7968]

If you find yourself taking Prager U seriously, consult your local mental healthcare profession. They have no shame & so can talk out of their butts about so many things.

[@snowforest6487]

If you take a guy who can't go 2 seconds without calling something fascists without even listening to their arguments seriously you need help

[@Joshua-dc4un]

​@@snowforest6487 irrespective of what this guy says, if you take Prager u seriously you need help 😂

[@snowforest6487]

@@Joshua-dc4un me not taking this guy seriously doesn't mean I take pragr u seriously, I take ARGUMENTS seriously or not seriously not people making them, learn to do that buddy

[@Bobogdan258]

@@snowforest6487 1:30 He literally said he doesn't want to call PragerU fascist. He even said "how fascist is PragerU", the answer could've been 0%, but we've watched the full video and we can come the correct answer ourselves. He only said PragerU has made some pretty far right videos, which means he has seen PragerU's other videos and arguments beforehand, because who else hasn't already seen PragerU video as ads already.

[@finalcut612]

@@snowforest6487 he's literally deconstructing the whole video line by line. how is that not an argument.

[@scarlett8960]

Really, for me, the discussion around classical art that is more interesting is the stories it tells. The David by Michelangelo isn't just a "pretty statue." It was commissioned to symbolize Florence and the political power it had at the time. It is interesting to compare that statue to the David by Donatello (which is also in a Florence museum), where the David is more like a child. Michelangelo's David is a strong man. It's the same with most classical works. How are they interpreting a story? (Either Greek/Roman mythology or the Catholic Church). It's said that some church leaders thought Botticelli's work on classical mythology was heretical, and he came under the influence of a preacher. There's a story he destroyed any non-Christian work. There can be other discussions. Medieval and Renaissance painters had to make all their own materials (no Michael's around the corner), and they had large studios of apprentices. But also, they weren't just making works of beauty. Their work was to please patrons who wanted art to convey messages. And their works at the time asked the question "what is art?" as much as modern art does. I like Modern Art a lot (although not everything). The questions it poses about art, our connections to materials today, our thoughts about what is right and proper are all interesting. If art disgusts or repulses you, it has done its job as much as a piece that makes you swoon with beauty.

[@Enirahtak8]

I'm so glad I'm not the only person who thought of this, or at least similar arguments! I do feel that this video lacks the nuances of these aspects of Renaissance/older Western art, unfortunately.

[@amby-mo3vk]

Beautifully written.

[@gregorehorror]

I'm a Queer Trans Horror artist, and I make my work "ugly" to show the pain trans people go through in this world and how that can translate into art. The idea of only perfection and beauty in art is a privileged perspective

[@Li_Tobler]

hahahhahahahahaha

[@IsomerSoma]

Cudos to your art, but this "The idea of only perfection and beauty in art is a privileged perspective" is deluded.

[@NinthSettler]

@@IsomerSoma if you don't explain why your comment is wortless

[@IsomerSoma]

@@NinthSettler Thus OPs perspective is worthless too according to the very same logic. I don't know, but i am 100% certain (i don't think you'll contest this), that there are a artist who happen to be trans that focus on the beauty in life - it would be ridiculous to assume such don't exist. In general OPs statement makes no sense, but in one way only and its not about trans, but about depression. Her/ his delusion is the misattribution of a depressive state of mind seeing no other way to express oneself but in dark ways (which is totally legit) to so called lack of "privilege". If this is referring to mental health problems okay but if it refers to societal status absolutely no.

[@Hypnos157]

Prager U There's no punchline, it's just funny the way it is

[@MysteryGeek2006]

It’s funnier to say it the second time😂

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

The Canvas Theres no punchline its just funny the way it is!

[@BugzNBeanz]

The fascist desire to pursue beauty aesthetic through art over evoking an emotion or conversation has deep roots in Christian households. I grew up southern Baptist and was encouraged to only create beautiful art as it is a reflection of God’s creation. My grandpa who is a painter saw me drawing a violent comics as a kid and basically discouraged me from creating such destructive things. All the art of my childhood that was encouraged was landscapes, nude figures, self portraits and when I look back I was never inspired when I made art, I knew it was boring but I was told all my life that my skill as an artist was a god given ability. Now as an adult who has left my Christian upbringing I know now I was merely a copier not an artist. I don’t do art at all as I don’t have any creativity. The damage has been done.

[@BobertoDerps-pe3bp]

No wonder some one such as yourself hates objective standards of beauty, perhaps there is something that you lack, to have an imagination beyond copying that retains originality.

[@overlordofthepies]

One thing I often see overlooked if that they tout technical skill and ludicrously fail to spot it in modern art. Pollock had a fantastic understanding of his materials, Rego had excellent imaginative drawing skills, Twombly had some seriously good dexterity. I do see people arsing around without technical skill... but they don't last long, unless their ideas are really rigourous. It is a tough job!

[@Narokkurai]

For real. Pollock understood his materials, he understood composition, he understood color theory extremely well. So many of the most accomplished abstract artists were first successful as traditional artists, and transitioned to abstract art later as a way to express their raw artistic intuition and experience.

[@tjenadonn6158]

You can even see this among outsider artists who had little or no formal artistic training. The works of James Hampton and Henry Darger show a mastery of the limited and far from professional materials that they had at hand, and while they never trained as draftsmen or sculptors what shows in their work is a dedication to getting each detail precisely as they mean it to be by whatever means they can.

[@irock58]

This was my assumption. There are techniques and consistencies that are understood by those who study modern art. It’s not random noise. I don’t know the PragerU dude but to think he’s studied art is highly sus.

[@mshearn3198]

Also many artists who do abstract art can draw in the traditional sense, it's not a refuge for the untalented, no matter how you think.

[@omgkthxbi]

Modernists and "degenerate" artists tend to be art nerds who love art and critique and deconstruct it within their own works. Fascists (morons) hate that, I guess.

[@NameName-gl9cw]

One thing that occurred to me in the first part of the video is that pragerU seems to evaluate art through a very capitalist lense(suprising i know). In doing so, this treats art like any other product on the market in that to "succeed at art"(bussiness) you just need to be making the exactly the same thing as the person before you(business competitor) but with slight "improvements" (added consumer value). It's this kind of horrid notion that artworks(and by extension artists) compete with each other rather than talk with or engage each other.

[@newyardleysinclair9960]

Why are you on a phone, laptoo using the internet if capitalism is a dirty word. Grow up

[@Slim-Richard]

I go to art exhibitions a lot. And I have feeling that people who say modern art sucks, are simply not interested in art enough. For everyone saying renessance art is best I suggest to go to Italy and visit 2 or one big museum with renessance art and then go to modern one. Then you will see how much variety and ideas are there. If you still think “I could do that myself” then go for it!

[@hmnhntr]

I was a big pusher of the "I could do that myself!" criticisms for a lot of my life. My opinion was changed when my father pointed out to me, "You could do it, but you didn't think to, did you?"

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

Modern art sucks.....and I'm an artist.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

Jackson Pollack was an alcholholic who had no message and some rich cunt wife thought his work was deep. I could do that myself but I dont know some rich dumb cunt.

[@raoulduke6464]

I love how you're visibly upset but still the calmest dude on earth

[@MrMild-sv7is]

They never bring up the impact that the camera had on the shift artists took away from realism, more to abstraction.

[@jan-tidobondzio3685]

Prager U try to be right about anything challenge (impossible)

[@claesvanoldenphatt9972]

If you are asking if Prager is fascist, the short answer is ‘yes’. Also he’s a grifter.

[@zeus7873]

Avg Western liberal intellect

[@claesvanoldenphatt9972]

@@zeus7873 sez the subaverage illiberal chud anti-intellectual. From Inja? Chyna? Russha? Hindukneesya?

[@MistaZULE]

50:37 god I love it. Using Capitalism to defeat art. Great idea Prager. Truly he is a titan of our time.

[@KarlSnarks]

Video: Fascists like naked butt dudes Me: Well at least I can agree with them on that one thing..

[@eddiejohnson429]

Hitler drank water. YOU drink water. Coincidence? I think not! That's basically your entire "argument". How sad.

[@Optical747]

I agree, they are using this immature logic to dismiss sensible arguments against junk art. In fact, it was a Jewish academic, Max Nordau, who first discussed this, it was simply co-opted by Hitler.

[@bobbyboljaar7513]

Great artists use their creativity, genius and expression to create a work so personal, it becomes universal again and (almost) everyone feels it speaks to them personally.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

But most people don't "feel" modern art.

[@freckleheckler6311]

@@brendanbloomberg3283that’s what these clueless “multiculturalists” who parrot “diversity” and “inclusion” don’t understand. That’s why they’re unable to understand whether something is degenerate or not (since they only use their Narcissistic relation to their art and are inconsiderate of the greater picture and narrative that someone else can relate to) but somehow understand why Art should be “inclusive” and based on foreign identity. They are a lost Marxist cause.

[@tasfa10]

Even if we're amazed by older works of art and recognize their quality, what is the point of keeping reproducing what's already been done to eternity? How many more photo-realistic mountain landscapes do we need before it becomes pointless? Are we to just keep reproducing ancient greek sculpture, baroque painting and music from the classical period, with the sole purpose of "keeping the standards"? Notice how more than trying to appreciate and reflect on works of art, even from a purely aesthetic point of view, he's actually super concern with how will we determine what's better. It's as if the point of looking at art was first and foremost to determine a hierarchy of the better and the worse art. What's the actual point of that? It's just to serve a conservative world view, but it contributes nothing to the experience of engaging with art. If anything it takes away from it, turning it into a contest and forcing you to always refer back to whatever work of art sets the "standard" in order to measure up against it. 50:30 of course his audience can't go and just buy works of art to change the standards of the art world... But I guess it falls in line with their free market ideology. You vote with your dollars and the market will be optimal at giving back the best. What other solution could he give...? Other than what the actual nazis did... To be fair tho, art that aims only at provoking engagement and discussion can sometimes turn into some sort of olympics of the absurd, if you know what I mean. If everyone's aiming at coming up with the most iconoclastic and provocative work of art it can easily turn into a nonsense contest that will cause people to roll their eyes more than actually engage.

[@robderiche]

You’re kind of doing a Prager U every time you casually dismiss pre-Modern art with the lazy and imprecise word “boring.” It’s the rhetorical equivalent of sticking out your tongue and saying, “I know you are, but what am I?” Prager is obviously reactionary trash but this video is also sort of reactionary in how it sets up art history as the same kind of cage match of old versus new instead of as a continuum full of nuance and complexity.

[@Suth1172]

I would like to might a slight correction on Prager U’s part at 26:40. The painting medium isn’t cow dung but Elephant dung, a world of difference if you ask me…

[@tjenadonn6158]

You'd think Prager of all people would know his urine and feces.

[@sophiaisabelle01]

We appreciate your analysis on this topic. Keep up the good work.

[@im_lennie]

I picked up on the different version of the Raft of the Medusa right away. Very nefarious editing choice by PragerU if you ask me.

[@benk4088]

I disagree at 39:20 when you say if this piece is being more talked about and engaged with more then it’s more valuable.. because art is not competition. Well in that case art does just becomes a competition on who can be the most provocative rather than actually having something substantial to say in a compelling way. Like as much as we view these professors as outdated and snobbish, much of the modern art world has the reputation of being out of touch and pretentious, and not undeservedly. I understand at the time to break these apparent rules of art was bold and influential in of itself. But I don’t think it’s really enough anymore. Anybody can be critical, it’s easier to write a negative review than a positive one, it’s easy to point holes rather than give solutions. It’s much harder to be truly original and create something novel. I think modern art relies too much on just being a critique, either of society or art itself. Like yeah you’ve proven art doesn’t have to conform to classical standards. Now give me something more, give me something beautiful something profound. I just think there’s a balance and most average people like myself enjoy modern art and dislike it’s extremes. Even if you want your piece to be primarily critical fine but I think simply making a statement is a really lazy form of art and not really that compelling. Anybody can make a statement, anybody can just be offensive and get people talking. You made a statement- why should I give a shit? Did you actually create anything?

[@matteuz7384]

The Canvas is so brain washed

[@seekingabsolution1907]

32:43 ill be honest I've never seen a Jackson pollock painting so my answer to that question would probably just be "I like the combinations of colours, they're pleasing to my eyes" which at the end of the day is all the value of aesthetics anyway. I suspect however the trick is this isn't a pollock painting? Is it like just a dirty canvas? Edit: oh it's an apron. But the point is that my answer wouldn't change, the aesthetics don't change just because it is an apron. If aesthetics are so easily produced what's the value in them? Also the submission of an apron as modern art is exactly the sort of commentary that modern art is based on so he's actually undermining his own point here.

[@brettb205]

Oh wow, wasn't expecting Bouguereau to pop up in the conversation. L'Aurore is in my hometown art museum. It's taller than you'd expect; with beautiful soft tones of blue and pink worked into every object, even the greenery of the lilies. Also, you know, the boobie degeneracy. It faces right out into the main hall from it's room, which I feel was done on purpose given it's one of the few non-religious nudes in an art museum in a liberal holdout in a very red state

[@australopithecus_lucis]

Throughout the video, the "accurate reproduction of reality" was mentioned, as what we see as a "realistic" painting. I think you could have a video on that topic, and look into Merleau Ponty, a french philosopher who claimed that Cezanne was the best artist to capture reality as it is.

[@tjenadonn6158]

"Accurate reproduction of reality" doesn't necessarily mean visually reproducing what the eye sees. I've heard it argued, and even made the argument myself, that David Lynch's "Eraserhead" is in all of its nightmarishness the most psychologically realistic film ever made about life in postwar urban poverty, a sort of kitchen sink surrealism as it were. H. G. Wells used Martian invaders to depict the reality of an overwhelmingly technologically advanced conquering force on relatively primitive natives in "The War of The Worlds" as a means of chastising Britain for its imperialist ventures. Many psychiatric health professionals have said that the most accurate depictions of depression and borderline personality disorder in popular culture are in "Bojack Horseman" and "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" respectively, the former being an animated dramedy about a talking horse and the latter being a musical sitcom. Realism is different from photorealism.

[@australopithecus_lucis]

@@tjenadonn6158 well said, that's why such a video would be interesting. Merleau Ponty dives into it in a fascinating manner, although more visually. He believes that photorealism is solely illusionary, we make ourselves think it's how reality looks, we idealize our perception on the world which has terrible repercussions on social issues. He insists that Cezanne captured reality as our senses perceive it: shapes blending together, a distorted perspective...

[@eversonalmeida9866]

Fantastic video, as always. The minor bad take, IMHO, is to question the power of the beauty, specifically when you see it in flesh. Yes, I agree, beauty is not the most important thing, but when you see Michelangelo's David up close... you get breathless, whatever you think of art as a medium. Same to Guernica and many others.

[@snowmonster42]

Thanks for saying this. I totally agreed with what he said about art that is just beauty, until he got to the Birth of Venus and then I got all sad. I love Botticelli.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

Guernica is a great painting for a 13 year old.

[@DevonExplorer]

That was really interesting and a great talk about both the attitudes of Prager U and art in general. As an artist I enjoy making both conceptual and design art and enjoy seeing both, along with the more traditional, from a wide variety of artists. However, one painting that has always been the 'Emperor's Clothes' to me has got to be the Mona Lisa. I think it's one of the ugliest paintings I've ever seen...despite its technical prowess, lol. By the way, I'm English and in my 70s, and have never heard the term jibber jabber in my life, except once from an American so perhaps it's from somewhere in the USA.

[@EqqusHearts]

As a naturalist I love Bierstadt’s work. However divorced from their historical context I can understand why people might find them boring but if you consider that those paintings were probably the only way some people ever got to see the Rockies in a time when photography was still in it’s infancy.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

The skill is part of the beauty still today....a crucifix in urine is lazy and for morons.

[@nettwench]

It also depicted places that were considered unspoiled wilderness when America was not settled from coast to coast. It was the idealization of this country as a kind of promised land. The Hudson River School. Thomas Cole was more overt in his mythologizing of the US as a spiritual concept, imbuing this wilderness as a sacred promise.

[@Siegfried5846]

Don't be fooled by this guy. There is a lot of meaning behind romantic landscapes like that. Just meaning that HE doesn't like. He is arguing against a strawman. I would recommend Roger Scruton. He was a much better art critic, but guys like this would never talk about his work. They prefer Prager U, since Prager U are dumb and can't make a case for anything.

[@techwizpc4484]

To be fair there really are modern artworks out there that aren't really impressive that anyone can do without so much of a thought. A banana taped to a wall isn't exactly life changing. Like yeah someone taped a banana to a canvas, big deal! Abstract painting? Same idea just random strokes. At this point my palette might as well be a work of art itself.

[@nairsheasterling9457]

Imagine using the term "degeneracy" unironically and then wondering why people call you a fascist, as if that isn't a dogwhistle proposing genocidal violence as a solution.

[@shakey3306]

The opposite is also fascism, if you think more u will realise you’re just a fascist too

[@IvanBaturaChannel]

@@shakey3306 The opposite of what? How is it fascist? I need to know that.

[@lilyschultz36]

I feel like a lot of this convervative way of thinking about art is rooted in religion, specifically Christianity. "people are glorifying evil/ vulgar or ugly things" is something that I heard a lot growing up conservative evangelical. plus, in Christianity everything has a right and wrong, no gray areas. I think that's why they hate subjectivity so much; it takes away from the good and bad dichotomy

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

There is no gray area.

[@almighty_milkman4883]

"Advocate the teaching of art appreciation..." and then someone stamped their feet when students had to see the gRaPhIC statue of David. Amazing. It's like they won't make up their minds on purpose so they can stay mad about non-issues.

[@Mano-z7t]

One thing u notice with this so called modern day artist is they will have a marketing guy who will publicize them. 😂

[@tendr247]

I’m conservative, I feel. I’m a Christian, Republican and I love painting and I paint in abstract.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

Then you're wasting your time.

[@noneofyourbusiness4616]

I tuned in to hear about Prager U's promotion of fascism, not to hear a random guy ramble about how he finds classic works of art "boring." Seems kind of arrogant to presume that works of art which have influenced people through history should be dismissed in this fashion. It's possible to like modern art without taking an unearned superior position to representational art.

[@artpiratecollage]

I'm a collage artist, this guy would HATE what I do 🤪

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

Which guy?

[@ashura7968]

In summary Praguer U perspective: art has to be something beautiful. Perspective of The Canvas: art is something beautiful, expressive, philosophical, existential, emotional, free and that carries an important message

[@Li_Tobler]

Praguer U perspective: art has to be something beautiful, meaningful, expressive, philosophical, existential, emotional Perspective of The Canvas: art doesn't have to be beautiful, MOST IMPORTANT is that it's not BoRiNg and sparks a 7 hours long "conversation"

[@ashura7968]

@@Li_Tobler If that were really Praguer U's perspective, they would try to look for some meaning or expression in conceptual, abstract, cubist, expressinist, existential and installation works, but Praguer U only cares about the look of the works and nothing else And let's face it, most Rococo art is boring, it's art without a message without expression, it's like candy without sugar

[@Li_Tobler]

@@ashura7968 if you don't see the message, doesn't mean that it's not there. It's literally the same argument that people dunking on "modern art" repeat all the time. For me as an artist myself, something done with such finesse and skill automatically is not boring; it has meaning AND is absolutely gorgeous and inspiring to look at, admiring every stroke and choice of color. For me personally, art has to be both meaningful and conventionally attractive, that's just how I roll

[@techwizpc4484]

Of course art has to be beautiful and meaningful. Would you listen to a singer who is out of tune? Or a drummer who has no rhythm? Or a dancer who has no cool moves to show? This is why mumble rap is a thing. Covid must have not only affected literal ability to taste but artistic taste too.

[@DustinDonald-cz9ot]

@@techwizpc4484 Or screamo the rock variation of mumble rap which are about as talented as Yuko Uno. My love is music and when I compare todays music with music from the 60's-90's you can go back and pick gold off the ground there is just so much good stuff there, now you got to dig and you sure as hell aren't finding much good music on the radio unless you are listening to a classics station. Many people like this older music as well including younger people I am a manager at a small store I play my music on the speakers and have seen literally dozens of people stop in their tracks and just listen to My Way by Sinatra, or people of all ages just jamming to The Beat Goes On by the whisperers, beauty seems to be a very universal thing.

[@ghhostboyy2465]

I googled the guy in the video, his name is Robert Florczak & honestly all I need to know about him as an artist is that he taught at Academy of Art University in San Francisco-I'm a student at another art college in the Bay Area & AAU is NOTORIOUS for being a scam & a terrible school. Like that is the only thing anybody/everybody knows about AAU. It also seems like he's primarily an illustrator, & was a professor of illustration, which is like, universally a notoriously brutal & product/aesthetic-driven field of study. I feel bad for this guy's students.

[@lindenkarras5303]

What's so bad about teaching illustration? No hate, I'm genuinely curious on your stance. To some, such as myself, that is as much art as that which is avant garde.

[@ghhostboyy2465]

@@lindenkarras5303there's nothing wrong with illustration itself as a field and practice of art, it's just often taught in a way that's extremely commercialized by "my way or the highway" type of professors. this guy seems to fit the bill lol

[@lindenkarras5303]

Well said. In the fact that this man seems to be a poor professor, we agree.

[@Sharp_Calidore]

I really dislike modern art. There is no creativity to be found in creativity😂😂

[@eltecnopata5627]

I couldn't catch it since I had to do things on Sunday, but I'm glad that you reuploaded it :D It's going to be one hell of a podcast

[@TheCuriousFinch]

This reminds me of when I went to a large art museum in Minnesota. My parents tagged along and spent the majority of the time vaguely criticizing the "childish" art. We walked past large seemingly empty canvases, but I was curious. They left into the historical section, but I couldn't look away. Something was so enchanting about this canvas. I paced back and forth in front of it, realizing that it glimmered like fish scales or pearls. And as I looked around the room, all the canvases glimmered in unison, like a school of silver fish. Like a flock of hummingbirds. The experience held infinitely more meaning to me than the intricate and glorious works of tumbling streams off mountains and large galley ships on tossing seas. I cannot even look at clamshells anymore without remembering that art piece. It changed me as a person, while my parents walked by untouched. I understand everyone views art differently, but if they had only given it a chance. A bit of patience and understanding to see what is hidden.

[@raulrubio9689]

The way he says... "White" background... Chills.

[@adavis5926]

Thanks for the video! This discussion is at the heart of a historical novel I have just finished writing and am in the middle of editing. Thematically, my book focuses on the Nazi treatment of expressionism and expressionist artists vs Nazi aesthetics.

[@sadie4479]

Lmao I was not expecting to see Prager “U” here! 😂