Why Is Classical Art So Good? | 5-Minute Videos

What makes great art great? Is it simply a matter of personal taste, with little or no regard for skill or execution? Or are there standards by which an artistic work can be objectively judged? Renowned artist Robert Florczak confronts these challenging questions.
SUBSCRIBE 👉 www.prageru.com/join
#classicalart #art #prageru
Script:
How do we know that classical art - as opposed to modern art - is so good?
We know it because it was produced within the demanding standards and refined principles of aesthetics - the centuries-old branch of philosophy that measures artistic quality.
Painting, drawing, and sculpture employ a number of characteristics such as composition, form, color, line, texture and movement to create beauty.
To the experienced eye - and even to the casual viewer - each of these is present in any work of art worthy of being called “art.”
Composition, for instance, is the positioning of objects - elegant and controlled in the hands of a master, or awkward and haphazard in the hands of the inept. Color can be exquisitely balanced and harmonious, or garishly random and unsavory. Movement can be uplifting and dynamic, or static and perverse.
In my previous PragerU video, “Why is Modern Art So Bad?”, I chronicled how art began to decline, beginning from about the 1860s, when aesthetic standards were gradually abandoned.
Unfortunately for the arts, not everyone agrees. I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments:
“Art is simply a reflection of its time.”
“Art isn’t about technical proficiency; it’s about making you think.”
“Art is a matter of personal taste. There’s no such thing as great art or bad art.”
Where do these assumptions come from? For the most part, they are the result of art histories written and taught over the last century not by artists, but by those in the humanities and social sciences. Not having an artist’s point of view or experience, let alone artistic talent, these authors and teachers have therefore framed art in the only language they understand: “meaning and social significance.”
It is no surprise then that people have come away with the idea that art is “simply a reflection of its time.” It can be, but not necessarily. In fact, the great artists of the past didn’t care one whit about “reflecting their times,” they cared primarily about creating art that looked good.
Art, by definition, is a visual medium. Therefore, its “meaning” and ability to “make you think” are secondary to how it looks. After all, there can be meaning in other creative mediums like literature and music, but the visual is what uniquely distinguishes art. Therefore, the visual is what most matters. In fact, a great work can and should stand on its own without the viewer knowing anything about its “meaning.” When a visual medium becomes more about what it “means” and less about its pure visual experience, it might succeed as, say, journalism, or social commentary, but it has failed as art.
So, what do we look for to determine quality in art? It is found in the skillful execution of a visual medium. For example, in a great oil painting by the 17th century Dutch Master, Vermeer, the quality is there in the controlled balance of its composition, the harmony of its color, the masterful hand-eye coordination of its brushwork. When we look more closely at the soft edge between the woman’s arm and her sleeve, we can see that it was achieved by Vermeer’s delicate application of paint. This is the very essence of artistic quality.
And not, by the way, because it looks “realistic,” or photographic, if you will. Realism is simply a stylistic choice. In fact, great art need not even look realistic to be great. It’s no wonder that many people believe the myth that photography put an end to classical art, given that they assume that looking “photographic” was the purpose of a painting. But that was never the goal of the classical artist. Quality of execution was.
For the full script, visit: www.prageru.com/video/why-is-...

[@davidyoung6400]

when I was about twelve we went on a field trip to a modern art museum and most of us got kicked out for laughing at it. We actually thought it was a joke and we kept asking, when do we get to the real art? TWELVE YEAR OLDS!!!!

[@MrGrimjaw]

Wow who kicked you out? You need sue that art museum

[@davidyoung6400]

@@MrGrimjaw Security gaurd kicked us out for being "disrespectful to the art" I don't think you could sue someone over something like that, wouldn't want to anyway, just glad we got to leave lol

[@MrGrimjaw]

@@davidyoung6400 bad press is never good hurt the museum

[@davidyoung6400]

@@MrGrimjaw we probably deserved to be kicked out. This was over 20years ago

[@theworld6710]

Yes. And then everyone cheered, and music played as you were celebrated. 😂

[@7LeagueShoes]

Security guard is a good tip. Go to the person who has nothing to gain by praising or rejecting any piece of art in particular, and only knows what looks beautiful. And because of his station, he knows what moves the most people to honest and strong emotion. I'd rather get a tour of an art gallery from the janitor than from a gallery owner, museum curator, or artist.

[@josephgaviota]

There's a lot of truth in what @7league says.

[@lysanderxx1664]

Or the tour they'd give you would amount to, "Well...this one's my favorite." Or they'll just read the cards on the side of each piece aloud!

[@sooperd00p]

That is the most virtue signaling thing I've heard today.

[@Upadastra]

When visiting the 25 highlights of renaissance art in one of Washington's great musea, my son called me not to forget visiting the modern art section of that museum as well. However when I did so after the sheer artistry and mastery of the renaissance it felt like dropping steeply from a three dimensional beautiful world into an ugly two dimensional one: The modern art felt completely dead and flat. I had to return the next day just to that section of the collection to appreciate the 'feeling" aspect one gets on seeing the modern stuff.

[@jamesdellaneve9005]

I was a fine arts major in my first year of college. Skill of execution was my biggest criterion. I wrote a paper about it in English class and my professor was offended. It was about Robert Rauschenberg. I called his work Decoupage. I enjoy Picasso because he could paint with the greats but when he switched to cubism and such, it was intentional work.

[@phillipstroll7385]

Picasso can paint individual images with the best of them, BUT Picasso could not and never did understand composition and perspective. He along with Matisse and others, attended the atelier of William-Adolphe Bouguereau. They couldn't grasp perspective so Bouguereau would never allow them to move beyond pencil work. So they all quit, banned their money together, bribed an art seller and an art critic to rave & praise their garbage. They convinced the dealer that they could create 8 works each per day while Bouguereau and other classic academic painters could only produce 1 painting a week. Because of this the dealer would profit 8 fold over selling their garbage. Low and behold they were right in their belief that all that would be required to set their work a rave would be the mere exposure effect and a few wealthy prominent buyers.

[@asimian8500]

The high end art market is a money laundering and tax evasion scheme by the rich for the rich.

[@phillipstroll7385]

@@asimian8500 agreed

[@sooperd00p]

same here. i didnt like Dadaism. I felt the same way about the French existentialists. It was like if someone farted in class, everyone laughs, and Raushenberg angrily wont laugh. Also, he was an unbelievable alcoholic. Not like a rockstar party guy artist....he would kill a 5th daily, alone. Total loser imo.

[@phillipstroll7385]

@@sooperd00p agreed!! If that crap was art, the cia wouldn't have had to spend billions of tax payer money attempting to convince people it was. The cia forced modem art and jazz. Both have no place in civilization. No place at all.

[@robertjanicki5906]

Thank you for this wonderful presentation. It answered all the questions that I had thought about, but never really took the time to really delve into.

[@robertjanicki5906]

@@eramne I consider the input sources that went into the making of the video and have no problem with them, unlike you. It is your responsibility to present a contrary view and NOT my duty to respond to your open ended and obviously prejudiced point of view.

[@josephgaviota]

@@robertjanicki5906 Well Said, @robert

[@b.alexanderjohnstone9774]

I was feeling the exact same sentiment.

[@Condor512]

There's a painting hanging in the Art Institute of Chicago and it just fascinates me, it's the 'Dot Painting' : 'A Sunday on La Grande Jatte' - 1884, Artist: Georges Seurat. Reason is my Elem School in Chi. had Prints of Classic Paintings on the walls & if you somehow 'misbehaved' in class you had go out and stand against the wall, I got a good look at the 'Dot Painting' on the wall when I was in 4th Grade (😂). I soon realized the entire painting was made of DOTS!! I was determined to see the real thing when 'I grew up' Luckily to my surprise it was right in my hometown Art Museum, I've had many hours of pleasure in the years looking at that masterpiece. I also made sure a family trip was made so my wife & 2 daughters could see it too. (sorry for the long comment. sometimes I go into Tolstoy Mode. 😁)

[@ChuckNicholsonTRM]

Well, you might be surprised to learn that this painting is not classical art and depicts men at the river with prostitutes. It’s a fabulous work, but by the definitions in this video it’s bad art.

[@gmansard641]

19th century France had an artistic trend called "pointillisme," compositions consisting of "points," or "dots," as you call them. Strictly speaking, the screen I am typing this on right now is merely a series of dots arranged in particular colors and positions that create images.

[@cisium1184]

@@ChuckNicholsonTRM Well, he didn't actually say that. He said that "standards began to decline in the 1860s" but he never actually passed judgment either way on impressionism. Indeed it seems to me that he specifically avoided doing so.

[@ChuckNicholsonTRM]

@@cisium1184 that would certainly make it seem that he is implying that Impressionism is where the decline begins. Would you like to tell me of some other major art movement that began right around 1960?

[@cisium1184]

@@ChuckNicholsonTRM _"that would certainly make it seem that he is implying that Impressionism is where the decline begins."_ That's really more of an inference by us. There are plenty of other reasons to think he's _not_ talking about Impressionism. The painters we regard as Impressionists may have started painting around 1860, but they didn't set up their first exhibition until 1874. In the intervening 14 years they were submitting paintings to the Salon and getting them rejected, then selling them to a few (mostly poor) patrons or to each other or to Caillebotte - so few people were even seeing these pictures. Even after the 1874 exhibition, the works weren't immediately accepted in the Paris Salon, and the broader principles of Impressionism were still subjects of debate in the broader art world after that. In fact by the 1880s many of the Impressionists had moved on to other explorations and the Post-Impressionists had arisen to reject Impressionism. This guy is talking about the values of the elite of the art world, not a small group of outcasts in Paris. In that context, there really isn't a clear basis for pinning that year 1860 to Impressionism. _"Would you like to tell me of some other major art movement that began right around 1960?[sic]"_ He may not be referring to the start of a movement but to the end of one. Neoclassicism fell out of fashion around 1860, and the Renaissance revivalism of the Pre-Raphaelites ended around that time, too. The 1860 reference could be to either of those movements, which were deeply rooted in the traditions the video exhalts. So he may feel that traditional values in art started to die when those movements died, and when they returned in the Realism of the later 19th century they were not as strong. I guess my point is, it certainly could be Impressionism because he didn't show a single Impressionist picture in the video, but we need to remember that Impressionism wasn't the only form of artistic rebellion happening around that time. It was just the most successful one, largely because it was actually rooted in traditional art principles - it just weighted the principles of light and shade more heavily, relative to composition, than many other movements of the time. We also need to remember that Impressionism didn't so much push out other movements as fill a kind of "gap in vision" when nothing stylistically was really happening in art. It may be that this gap, between the end of Neoclassicism and the beginning of Impressionism, is what the 1860 date is really referring to.

[@childeharold3550]

Bach used to add a note at the end of each of his compositions: ‘made for the glory of God.’ Things are created more precisely and with more care when you know it’s being created for a higher purpose.

[@thenonartist4366]

Too bad he couldn't prove his God existed

[@LA_HA]

Childeharold: This is very true. There's a scene in Amadeus that explains that great art is meant to elevate the human race. This is done by tapping into our higher self and connecting to God in ways that can't be done through other means (for most people). There's a reason this connection is not as strong in the modern era. Especially when human beings worship themselves, yet don't understand why they never rise beyond the pettiness and foolishness that plagues our current lives

[@normanwells2755]

@@thenonartist4366 Why are you interested? Seems like you made your mind up already.

[@MH-il1lk]

@thenonartist4366 The proof of God is in the heart. Only Jesus revealed the truth of the heart, where wickedness comes from, and His death and resurrection were the only cure.

[@mosesCordovero-uw5vw]

actually JESUS has nothing to do with the One True G-d of the Torah

[@gigicat7043]

" You have no way of knowing if you're being taken for a sucker"- Robert Florczak Right there. I've been saying this for years. I also demonstrated it to my friends by scribbling on the piece of paper and called it art. The only difference between my scribble and the 10k+ "art" is that it's promoted by some art galleries or art critics I have never heard of. To me, it speaks more about YOU- the people who spends thousands to purchase trash, than a so-called "artists" who figure ways to make money.

[@jcarp6335]

The designation of anything as “Art “has always been subjective. It’s a perspective we choose to take. It has never been about anything intrinsic to any object.

[@TheSeppomania]

Very uneducated and close minded take. The experimental and ground breaking modern art styles is what keeps me still interested in art and music. Enjoying the principals of classical art is not bad, but it gets repetitive after some time and is very difficult to recognize for the uneducated viewer. And why is it specifically colour, composition and movement that makes art good for you? Shouldn't art not be pleasing to the eyes and evoking emotions as well? Aren't those the most important things? I want to feel something when I look at or listen to art. I don't want to just analyse it to decide if it is good or bad. By your definition all emotions are lost. You would probably love AI art lol

[@Stoite-tq8pu]

When I go to a classical art museum I can stay there for hours looking at each painting/artwork carefully and reading everything about it. Something I don’t do for modern art

[@TheSeppomania]

Why are you reading about the paintings? Isn't it unnecessary and bad to get context? That's at least what this dude in the video says....

[@littleGuy000]

You should honestly try to stay longer at modern art museums and read more about each piece! It can be enjoyable

[@smzig]

@@TheSeppomaniaIt's not that it's bad or unnecessary, it's that the art itself motivated one to want to learn more about it. It was the artwork that drove the desire to read the context. Modern art on the other hand many times requires examining the context to understand the art itself. The art isn't standing on it's own. It's standing on it's meaning and/or the fame of the artist.

[@danieldelewis2448]

While a lot of the modern art examples, such as at 3:02 are great representations of really bad modern “art” , the viewpoint expressed here lacks the context necessary to make a broad sweeping opinion of all modern art. For example, Pablo Picassos Guernica is a wonderful example of modern art being used to communicate the terror experienced by the people of Spain during the Spanish revolution. On the contrary to the opinion, art should communicate something , and of course art in the classical period did; most paintings of the classical period, at least 51% or greater referenced Biblical themes. While these may have been themes that everyone was well aware of and the stories behind them, the art gave an insight into someone else’s interpretation of what they were hearing from the Scriptures. This is important; it gave deeper meaning, and pause for reflection, and of course the beauty of the execution made it moving, bringing about an emotional response.

[@Kevin-kc2vu]

You were 100 percent right..I agree as an artist who has been painting for 30 years..

[@andreweden9405]

All the same things can objectively be said about classical music as well. You really should address that next, but it seems like so many people draw a line at music for some reason.

[@mylittledashie7419]

You people really need to learn the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Objectivity isn't when something just *seems* obviously true. Measurements of quality are nothing but subjective because they literally require a subject to have quality. If there are no subjects to observe something, it doesn't have beauty, for example. Beauty is a subjective concept that conferred onto objects by observers, it isn't an intrinsic part of the object.

[@Nonamearisto]

Not quite the same thing. Classical music and most modern genres have things in common which can be appreciated for different reasons and in different ways: melody, harmony, rhythm, and each occupies a different purpose. Classical music often serves as an accompaniment to action on movies and TV, or at religious services, while popular music works well for dancing, to name one. A better comparison would be comparing Beethoven's 9th symphony to a cat running across a keyboard.

[@Genrevideos]

😂 I’m sorry but the “moving and uplifting or static and perverse” part just slayed me! I don’t think I need to explain why. The modern art sculpture says it all. Just look at the time stamp 1:02 and you will see exactly what I mean.

[@adambendorf]

I liked that part too.

[@TheSeppomania]

That is pretty much the point of the statue. I don't like it myself, but it's funny that it is so obvious that you don't get it.

[@flashkraft]

You have to be perverse to get this one.

[@liljenborg2517]

Your first video is my favorite PragerU video. Now I need to add this to the list.😊

[@RallyTheTally]

This is a great video, so true! I am a artist myself and seeing stuff like this really makes me want to get better at my craft!

[@UnionizedCrackerbarrel]

I’m confused. This video mentions that technique and realism defines classic art and also states that it doesn’t matter. And ultimately ends with “You know it’s good because you know what good is.” So art is objectively subjective? Also I’ve been made a fool plenty of times but never by a painting so I think that might just be a self report.

[@jcarp6335]

It’s entirely subjective. Art is a perspective we take on something. No object is intrinsically art. It’s about agreement, and agreement is transitory. Anyone who is talking about art in a qualitative way isn’t telling you about an object, they are just telling you about themselves.

[@cisium1184]

You are confused about what "objective" means.

[@UnionizedCrackerbarrel]

@@cisium1184 oh I thought it was when you define something without your own personal bias or opinion. What am I missing?

[@tortletrainwrek9335]

Excellent video essay. I've felt this understanding before in my life, but I haven't ever been able to put it to words. Thank you for making this, guys.

[@eddyimpanis]

The same can be said of great music.

[@Frups12345678]

What is great music and what is not? Is Bach great and Beethoven bad? Is Mozart good and Bartok bad? Is Schoenberg good and Stockhausen bad? Is Beatles good and The Rolling Stones bad? What parameters do you apply?

[@kiirokinuo]

As someone who likes Pop and HipHop, I would disagree on that. Music is Music. No matter when it's beeing produced.

[@rawbacon]

"great work can and should stand on its own without the viewer knowing anything about its meaning".........Absolutely

[@eltopo71]

What's your favorite Robert Florczak painting?

[@richard84738]

Every time I click a video on this channel and see a "premieres in 38 hours" on it, I close it and never watch it. I can't be the only fan here who gets annoyed by this. If you post a video, post the video! Not an RSVP to the video, please!

[@CellaBella241]

This is already posted on the PragerU website and you can watch it there.

[@videodistro]

Same here. I skip ALL "premiering in x hours" videos. Either post, or don't. Please don't clog my feed with future stuff.

[@richard84738]

@@CellaBella241 Oh that is good info. So they post there first then delay the upload to KZbin, ok I get it now. Maybe I should start following there.

[@new_t9478]

Bruh it premiers like a show on cable television.

[@Amanda-yf7vj]

Great art takes years to master

[@cominatrix]

I did a design based major in a NYC average level college. The instructors and teachers of the classes which I had to take spent so much effort trying to convince us that there was so much value to be found in the modern destroyers while the few classes I had on form and the several I had about design related topics were far more obvious and sensible. NYC museums are a joke on the whole, I'm sure it's similar elsewhere. The MOMA was one of the most uncomfortable experiences I've ever had.

[@cisium1184]

I think it's important to remember that western classical artistic values have not gone anywhere, and that a lot of the conceptual art fetish has to do with the _business_ of art collection, which requires efficient production of new art upon which a monetary value can be placed. There are still plenty of artists working from western classical values, and producing art that would be right at home in earlier eras.

[@Dar-oi3tw]

That previous video was 8 years ago, man he aged heavily, no offense as both videos were really good and informative about why we are stuck in an era where even $@#t is seen as art for the sake of common expression within the left. And, how classical art is good not because of what it wants to tell but how good it looks like with the excellence of quality and skill.

[@mayharmon6948]

He just made a few changes to his hairstyle and maybe greyed a little bit. I don't see much "heavy aging" at all; he looks better now IMO.

[@Dar-oi3tw]

@@mayharmon6948 The sides of his hair is gone and his voice is more deeper, although that could be because of the difference in equipment. Technology has sure evolved these past eight years.

[@Kapojos]

I once worked at an artmuseum. A visitor asked me my opinion on the exhibition. I said I thought it was really shit bad work. She got very angry... (she had bought a ticket....)

[@greencello599]

My late grandfather was an amateur artist in a couple of mediums. Painting and woodworking. His woodworking skills were intermediate as he wasn't like Norm Abrams, but he knew what he could do. He painted mostly nature scenes. He did art as a hobby after he retired. His education in engineering actually helped him. One of his better woodworking art pieces was a whirlygig of a scene from Moby Dick. Turn the handle, and you see the boat with Ahab and the other whalers move while a white whale goes up and down as the gears move everything except the Pequod. That was an independent part of the device. It is a simple piece of art but beautiful on its own.

[@drimblewedge2789]

Never knew how art could knock the breath out of me until I visited Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum and saw Rembrandt's "The Night Watch."

[@BGTuyau]

"Great art will never make a fool of you." One of several essential guidelines concisely stated in this video. Thank You ...

[@jcarp6335]

There is almost nothing weirder than the rightwing hysteric who thinks he’s being in some way victimized by modern art.

[@TheSeppomania]

@@jcarp6335 it really is fascinating.

[@eltopo71]

What's your favorite Robert Florczak painting?

[@RBarn2000]

I thought he was going to say we're too stupid to create it anymore.

[@lks6248]

So true. I made the mistake last year of visiting the grad show of an established art school I graduated from myself exactly 40 years before. Not only did I find that actual paintings seemed to be thin on the ground (!) but there was almost no mastery of the materials used anywhere, just lots of weird shit that few would want to give house room to. The worst was that there wasn’t a beautiful line, form, brushstroke or colour juxtaposition anywhere!

[@MongooseReflexes]

I couldn't have said it better myself, bravo!

[@JohnSmith-dj5gf]

Thanks for articulating what I already knew but didn’t know how to say

[@charodey266]

Kandinsky was very modern. But he makes me feel good. His art does not seem random or meaningless. He refused the old but he also had the new to offer.

[@Brickticks]

Personally, I prefer the Lego Sculptures of Nathan Sawaya. Although made of Lego, I’d say they look good enough to fit in with more classical art, perhaps even being remotely inspired by great works such as The Thinker, depicting things such as a person in yellow ripping open their chest to reveal the Lego Brick contents pouting out. To me, they look great, they can have meaning if that’s how you choose to interpret them, or they can simply look colorful and fun. I rather enjoy them, and personally find them as enjoyable to the eye as statues such as Venus. To me, Lego is some of the last of classical art, it just, I dunno, looks kinda like what I think Da Vinci would’ve made if he had Lego to build with. Call me crazy, but I think The Art of the Brick is some of the best art I’ve seen in a while, and is certainly much better than this vulgar crummy ramp and pit plate stuff people are making today. I’m not saying modern art is bad, but there’s a fine line between art and trash, let Squidward teach you that lesson.

[@rachelrasmussen1101]

This is a perfect example of why this video's thesis is wrong. He's comparing successful art of the past with government funded (Ergo "unsuccessful" by definition) art of the present. Yet, when you look at modern mediums (like Lego etc) you see that there are LOADS of successful artists right now. My kids like to show me Minecraft builds on KZbin that would take your breath away with their classical beauty. And those channels are making money (without the government having to give them a penny). The second you subsidize art, it turns to garbage, but beautiful art will always be created.

[@Brickticks]

@@rachelrasmussen1101 I don't think he's wrong. I do feel that, even compared to Lego or Minecraft art, classical art is still superior. I just like Lego more than I like art.

[@SouLoveReal]

A friend of mine and I were discussing a painting by Salvador Dalí. It was a hideous, gory-looking picture. We were reading that it was in some European museum. My friend said, "I'd love to have a painting by Dalí." I asked, "Why?" He said, "Because they are worth a lot of money and gain in value daily. It would be a great investment." I asked him, "Would you even take THIS painting?" He said, "Yes." I asked him, "Would you hang it up in your living room?" He said, "Hell no, IT'S UGLY. I'd keep it safely wrapped in my attic or basement." ...I ask all of you reading and posting here: *_WHAT is ART? IS it , or is it NOT, all in the EYE of the BEHOLDER? Also, #1, if you do not like it, or #2, if you CANNOT SEE IT because it is hidden away, is it STILL ART?_*

[@alaric3056]

Cap

[@Call_Me_Mom]

When I take a photograph of a freezing bubble, I am not the artist who made that bubble. I am just trying to do it justice.

[@LindyLime]

Great video! Although, I don't know if I would give the "meaning" of a piece art less importance than it "looking nice." (This video is a very PragerU way of looking at the subject I just realized heh). Without meaning, art is merely decoration, like a beautiful vase or piece of furniture. Actually I don't really like using the word "meaning" either, since a forcefully injected meaning, moral, or message tends to degrade the piece of art. The true power of fine art is to show the transcendent reality of truth and beauty through the physical medium of a visual picture. To "render visible the divine" as it was put in a book I've been reading recently. They talk about this a lot over at Art Renewal Center.

[@alaric3056]

He spent a whole video explaining why meaning is less significant than being visually pleasing.

[@Nonamearisto]

Meaning is ultimately subjective. Good art needs to stand on its own.

[@TheCrazedGuitarist]

@@alaric3056 But that's stupid. The meaning behind the art gives the art another layer of quality Sure, classical art is aesthetically nice, but it tells you all you need to know. Being able to understand what was going on in the artists head, or, having art that is open to interpretation, makes the art deeper.

[@t.j.payeur5331]

My landlord's cat had three kittens..I named the more delicate one Miro, I named the crazy one Dali, and the big roughneck is called Mantegna..true story...

[@jcarp6335]

Miro is awesome. The Fundació Joan Miró in Barcelona is mind blowing.

[@aethefledladyofmercia9572]

Thank you for this! As a public-schooled millennial, I always feel completely lost when it comes to art appreciation. I talked about this with my mom recently, and she says there's a huge difference between how our generations were taught on this subject, mostly because my schools barely touched it. They'll teach you to draw, but they don't teach you how to judge a work and know what is great and what is not.

[@ianmcewan3326]

teach you what good art is? you can’t teach what good art is because art is subjective, good art is what you like

[@thenonartist4366]

Imagine thinking you can "teach" good art lmao. Conservatives are truly delusional

[@rmartin7558]

@@ianmcewan3326The point is you can teach what great art is if you have standards. Today there are no standards, so when you take a dump on the ground and give it to your art teacher you get a gold star for participation, even if it's just a pile of sh*t.

[@littleGuy000]

Art is still taught with standards. I'm an art student right now. It's just that if we keep doing art only by the standards it will never evolve so now it's more about learning how and when to bend the standards to improve your art. If we just follow the same standards that were set years ago then art will lose creativity.

[@noferblatz]

Absolutely correct. The degradation of art mirrored the degradation of our whole culture, and preceded it. This accelerated in the 1960s. I've lived through it. Art exists to communicate a message, but the quality of art is determined by the technical expertise apparent in its execution. It's possible to have art which has little or no actual message.

[@thenonartist4366]

Saying that art has to be technical to be quality is genuinely laughable. Plenty of guitar players can't shred like Eddie Van Halen but they can still make extremely compelling music. Just because you dislike experimental art doesn't mean it has no merit. Lmfao

[@RobbieChance]

hmm, yes, indubitably. *sips brandy from a sippy cup*. Oop! I daresay! It seems I have soiled my undergarments. Perchance I need a fresh Huggy.

[@rmartin7558]

This video is about art.

[@new_t9478]

@@RobbieChance The average conservative watching this video.

[@georgeedward1226]

Photography essentially made realistic painting obsolete. It's a lot faster and cheaper to have your portrait done by a photographer than a painter. In conservative terms, art was adapting to the new market forces brought forth by technological advancements.

[@ChristopherBonis]

“Art, by definition, is a visual medium.” Only visual?? 🤔

[@mazz4149]

Britannica Dictionary definition of ART: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings

[@Space_Debris]

Art is a reflection of what is available or not within the viewer's mind.

[@Nightingale1000]

Unrelated note: congrats on 3 million subscribers, PragerU!

[@lifeofenergia2090]

Yes I am very particular with looking at art these days. I do not appreciate junk which most things are.

[@billjohnson4626]

Thanks Robert!

[@Frups12345678]

I looked up some of Florczak's paintings and drawings and it is boring kitsch at best. There is an array of amazing classic art: - The way Schalken used light and shadows was phenomenal. - Zurbaran's still life and mystic and powerful paintings. - Duerer's altar pieces are extraordinary. The list goes on and on, but that does not mean that modern art is less valuable or good. It comes down to the question what the role is of art is. From my perspective, I would choose Beckmann, Dix, Hoerle, Ernst etc., over the kitsch that Florczak produces. I just saw a hideous Florzak painting called; "The Brigadier and the Lady" and I could not help to think how much emotion Banksy can create with basic artistic language.

[@bernalshawn39]

Went to Vienna to one art museum, the well known artists like Monet was put in the very back and to see you had to go through other displays that a five year old made in order to see Monet.

[@new_t9478]

It was in the back because the Monet was most like part of their permanent exposition you could buy a ticket to that same museum and it will be in the exact same place it was last time you went.

[@melaniesorensen5105]

This is excellent, thank you.

[@dacdac52]

The sad thing is most people when they look at fine art or craftsmanship, even though they may appreciate it, don't give much if any thought to what was involved in creating it. I include myself in that group.

[@maurolimaok]

Thanks for the video.

[@lywaa2300]

This is a great video!

[@nerysghemor5781]

I don’t think all Impressionism or abstract works are bad, but I agree it’s objectively bad when one sets out to glorify crassness, blasphemy, or evil. Mind you it can be necessary to depict evil in order to contrast it with the light. Dostoyevsky is a fantastic example of this. But glorifying darkness in itself is where I draw the line.

[@johnfitzgerald7618]

I didn't like the other video, but I really like this one. The ideas underlying the first video are more clearly anf forcefully expressed here. I still don't agree completely, but still think this is a very well-made case. And what I appreciate about both videos is that Mr. Florczak is making the type of argument that needs yo be made -- one from aesthetic principles rather than intellectual ones. One doesn't treat flower arranging as a form of mathematics, and social commentary, for example, is not art.

[@taylorwaterman7316]

Glad I'm not alone in considering classical art better than modern art. Tbh, I never 'got' picasso. It always looked haphazard to me. To each their own. But it just looked messy. I never got the 'emotion' behind it. I like both modern and classical art. But most modern art can't hold a candle to most classical pieces.

[@new_t9478]

So Renoir and Van Gogh are 'haphazard' like shawty you dont even understand what modern art is.

[@TheCrazedGuitarist]

Picasso's early and later art are very different. He had such severe mental issues near the end that he showcased it through art, which is why his art is interesting.

[@Portarius1984]

Art is something else.

[@ep4169]

Florczak delivers this video essay with the calm, confidence, and impeccable reasoning of someone who has thought deeply about a topic and emerged with answers.

[@littleGuy000]

Lol

[@jf2808]

Hi Robert

[@onlinecareertrainer8030]

Fabulous content! Sub & Like yourself! “The biggest adventure you can take is to live the life of your dreams.” - Michael Jordan

[@TickedOffPriest]

An eight year old could remake half of all modern art.

[@new_t9478]

And a toddler wrote the bible.

[@thanoscube8573]

Lol I'd wager a 2 year old can

[@l3a4c1m]

Let’s use what we’ve learned to analyze the PODESTA BROTHERS ART COLLECTION, what do we think?

[@ZimouTan]

Two thumbs up!

[@brunosampaio2399]

Great video.

[@danieltravassos8747]

Because it searches to transcend our world through beauty instead of the search for shocking or critique

[@papillon6122]

By the way, you talk about the “perversity” of contemporary art, are you familiar with Bosch’s work from the Northern Renaissance?

[@luisjaime2567]

I love art 🖼️

[@steveleeart]

The balloon dog sculpture by Jeff Koons is an example of Contemporary Art, not Modern Art.

[@alinebardakjian7950]

good points.. many people no longer have the basic logic to think critically about anything...

[@commandergree6131]

Did you and I watch the same video? I only ask because all this man said was "Art shouldn't have meaning, it should only look pretty" wouldn't call that logical or thinking critically at all, it just sounds like he wants art to be entertainment, which it isn't.

[@Moesmakendehakker658]

Finally a good vid about classical art! I 100% agree. THANK YOU!

[@Batosai11489]

You can see the exact same thing happen to classical music in the late 1880s or so as well. It went from an art form that could leave both students of music and regular laymen in awe to something that only intellectuals could understand and believe to be good. It went from being inherently beautiful to ugly unless you contort your perspective.

[@arnowisp6244]

Funny how no matter how high class it was, the fact the common peasant can Appreciate it shows how universal it was.

[@TheCrazedGuitarist]

Music and art are subjective. Different people like different things. The only reason people perceive classical music to be of any higher quality is because they were influenced to think that way.

[@adambendorf]

Fantastic, thank you Robert!

[@_matis_]

When I was 13-14 years old, I went to the Tate museum in London. I left with a headache and full of anger. The whole time I was asking myself, why are those people who created this "art" so famous. If they can be famous, everyone can. But not everyone is an artist...This is the part of my life where I really started to hate modern and apstract art (not all of it) and all those pretentious artists who think that every dump they make has a deep meaning

[@danielsong9041]

What is "Good" or "Great" art? Yes, it considers skill and execution, but only if the skill and execution is able to convey beauty and expression to some people. Yes, as art is a form of visual media it naturally conforms to the system of aesthetics. However, I disagree that the elements of art must be presented in a certain way. The comparison the video puts out of "Good" and "Bad" art merely shows two artworks that have used the elements of art in two different ways in order to demonstrate two different skills convey two different messages, and there is no superior one. For example, for composition, one could argue was trying to create the sense of domestic tranquility and the other of chaos. Is one inherently better than the other? Next, the video argues that the primary goal of art is to create art that looked "Good" rather than convey a meaning. But this was based on their belief that it looked good, not any objective standard - because there is no objectivity in art, since all of the principles of "Good" aesthetics stated earlier are only one branch of thought on how to make art look "good". If modern artists believed that their art looked "Good" and at least some viewers agreed, then it also looks good in some beliefs and therefore is equally valid in beauty as classical art. Next, the video argues that art requires the skillful execution of a visual medium through the painting of details. Skill is undoubtedly important for some art. However, it would be inaccurate to claim that art created without skill is "bad" art. If people find it beautiful, then it is good art to them. Furthermore, modern art also uses skill. It would be hard to argue that, say, great modernist architecture isn't art, but the construction of modern building such as the Burj Khalifa or WTC requires immense skill that the architects of old could have never dreamed of. Finally, the video attempts to distinguish between Quality and Taste as quality is based on long-standing principles. However, who made these principles? They are ultimately tastes that many people agreed upon. And if many other people agreed that other forms of art are beautiful, they have also created their own quality. Therefore, I disagree with this video.

[@claycon]

Got that right. 💯

[@charleswest2556]

Aesthetic quality is important because it separates the masters from the amateurs. But is meaning really secondary? It's true what Mr Florczak says that one can find meaning in literature and music, and that art separates itself from those things by being a visual medium. But is it possible for any of these things to be meaningless? And if a piece of art had no meaning at all, would you bother going to see it again? I'm asking these questions because I'm genuinely curious what others think. Are there any artists here who make art that is meaningless? Can art be good if it has no meaning?

[@LittleMew133]

Guy roasted the heck out of some people 😅

[@slowerfisher]

ahh yes, making art restrictive by reducing it to "just looking good"

[@kimlibera663]

I luv art.

[@sandermez3856]

this video was unncessary. ur older one said everything that needed to be said.

[@user-hp3rg6nw4p]

If everyone just paint or draw classic, how an artist can express him or herself. Absolutely by having a classic art knowledge you can paint a significant painting, but you just show one kind of your feelings. Modern art have lots of things to say that classical art cannot show it. I love both of them. People are different these days. The life style has change. You can see millions different opinions that you can show with art, but not just with classic art. And, I love Francisco Bacons arts , but you show his artworks as a bad art!!! He was amazing! He was a successful artist. Any art is admirable and we can not call it a bad art.

[@cartonesbozo9428]

I nocticed that In the video put Bacon as bad artist and Willem De Kooning too as "inept" while De Kooning was an academic classical artist at first then he changed his painting skills because he joined the abstract expressionists

[@enjoyer8700]

I enjoy both

[@videodistro]

So, you enjoy looking a feces?? You need to look into your heart.

[@dantesc2520]

The rippaverse comic book artwork is unique. Eric July knows how comic book is good when is a good written stories and good quality artwork. Not pushing identity politics.

[@justinlybbert3467]

He is spot on

[@jcarp6335]

He’s rebranding what Hitler said about “degenerate art” in an effort to assert the superiority of white European culture over the rest of humanity. It’s evil.

[@arnowisp6244]

@@jcarp6335 Dude. That's like saying Hitler who was against smoking made prohibiting Smoking evil. Or how Hitler wanted to create Nature reserves made Nature reserves evil by showing the Superiority of European Forest. It's correct. Garbage art would be reviled anywhere in the World. Great art is seen as transcendent because people from all sorts of cultures can Appreciate it.

[@jcarp6335]

@@arnowisp6244 Nonsense. Because Hitler didn’t use smoking or nature preserves to assert Aryan superiority. However he endlessly used his theories about art to advance that agenda. Hitler was an aspiring artist. He was embittered about not getting into art school. As with everything else, he blamed Jews. And as chancellor he aggressively denounced what he termed “degenerate art”, established “standards” for what was art, what made it acceptable or established “beauty”. He ordered displays of this “degenerate” art for the purpose of public mockery. He raided European art museums and homes and specifically stole works he considered to be representative of the superiority of white European classical culture. The parallels with what this video is asserting are undeniable. Look up the concept of “degenerate art”

[@jcarp6335]

@@arnowisp6244 “Degenerate art (German: Entartete Kunst) was a term adopted in the 1920s by the Nazi Party in Germany to describe modern art. During the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, German modernist art, including many works of internationally renowned artists, was removed from state-owned museums and banned in Nazi Germany on the grounds that such art was an "insult to German feeling", un-German, Freemasonic, Jewish, or Communist in nature. Those identified as degenerate artists were subjected to sanctions that included being dismissed from teaching positions, being forbidden to exhibit or to sell their art, and in some cases being forbidden to produce art. Degenerate Art also was the title of an exhibition, held by the Nazis in Munich in 1937, consisting of 650 modernist artworks chaotically hung and accompanied by text labels deriding the art. Designed to inflame public opinion against modernism, the exhibition subsequently traveled to several other cities in Germany and Austria.”

[@davisroyce]

dang i’m gonna have to make a sequel to my most recent video i guess

[@logicboard7746]

Excellent

[@lifevest1]

It took TIME and EFFORT! Oh, you painted a soup can? Cool!

[@new_t9478]

Van Gogh painted one of the most beloved paintings IN THE WORLD and he was by the definition a modernist. You are cookie cutting what modern art is by only saying it was Warhol and Picasso and Pollock and not some of the greatest artists of all time.

[@renegade1520]

As an art teacher, I really appreciate this video. Very well explained, and very on target!

[@hll4393]

This vidéo would be fun to counter if i had thé Time and energy for it. Most of this are just opinions put as facts that glances over thé fact that historically artistic skills shifted from being used for decor to personnal expression.

[@007kingifrit]

studies show beauty standards are not so subjective. humans have certain things they universally find attractive. from the human body to art this means these things are less opinion than you think

[@arnowisp6244]

@@007kingifrit It's why Beauty is called Universal and Transcendent. People from other cultures can appreciate it.

[@mdorn6592]

...as to also be applied to music and architecture...classical art can not be replicated today, if it could it would

[@hustrepxee9285]

Nice.

[@floridaboy.californiaman.649]

I find classic art cool and very excellent.

[@heygoober1653]

Forgive my lewd-ishness, seeing that this is PragerU and I love their content. Wha... Was that a giant green buttplug at 1:01 presented as modern art?

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

It's Jan. 4 2223, a small question. How many people will be praising (say) Jackson Pollock? In music, will people be listening to Ella Fitzgerald or Cardi B?

[@jcarp6335]

But this video is telling you that Wagner opera has to be superior to Ella Fitzgerald. Because it’s old and white European.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@jcarp6335 You miss the point. Yes, 200 years from today people will still be listening to Wagner AND Ellla Fitzgerald. Reason being They are both Very Very Good and Cardi B is, well Crap.

[@jcarp6335]

@@stevenwiederholt7000 if you don’t understand that there are loads of people who prefer Cardi B to Ella Fitzgerald or Wagner then I think it’s you who is missing the point. It’s entirely subjective none of us will be around to know what endures. Who cares? Pretending there are objective, qualitative standards for art is a fools game. It’s meaningless.

[@jcarp6335]

@@stevenwiederholt7000 Try this: more people have consumed Michael Jackson’s “thriller” record than have consumed all recordings of any music by Wagner combined. For real. Does that mean Michael Jackson’s music is objectively better?

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@jcarp6335 "Does that mean Michael Jackson’s music is objectively better?" No,

[@duckduckgoismuchbetter]

I rarely say this, and I do not say it lightly, but this video had no element of untruth in it...at all! There was nothing whatsoever in it that was merely personal opinion. It was, instead, an incisive cutting through of the modern art BS message, and a CONCISE laying out of the objective truth of the matter! Kudos to you, sir!

[@ivanelrino]

You seem really certain about this. Where did you study aesthetics?

[@duckduckgoismuchbetter]

@@ivanelrino You seem really passive-aggressive about this. Where did YOU NOT study aesthetics?

[@kirstieallerheiligen9603]

I love this content Robert!

[@scottthompson2022]

Same with music

[@DaysOfNoah17_15]

I'm looking for a documentary video about recycling, Will Witt's (spelling might be wrong)? There was something mentioned about it being used for ungodly purposes. Someone suggested it might be found in this channel, but I don't see it, and I'm not even totally sure what I'm looking for. Does this channel have a video about recycling? Thanks! God bless you and keep you always! 🙂 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23 ESV For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 ESV For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. John 3:17‭-‬18 ESV because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Romans 10:9‭-‬10 ESV Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:14 ESV No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. Romans 8:37 ESV For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13 ESV bible.com/bible/59/rom.10.13.ESV

[@sandrasnow3569]

I once went to an art exhibit that showcased a video of a bunch of books being washed in a washing machine. I was floored that anybody thought that was worthy of an exhibit. My toddlers have tossed so many random objects into the washing machine... maybe they were just creating "art," lol.

[@BWOOHAHAHAAA]

I don't like when someone claims they can tell me what art is good. Even making up rules that all art should obey.... And I don't care if that person runs a museum, or makes videos for PragerU. Van Gogh's paintings would have been destroyed long ago, if we let people like that dictate art. And though I agree that there is a lot of rubbish in museums today, there are also real gems out there.