Відео

Honestly this is why I never wanna know history. The stuff people of power did back then is unbelievable

sometimes i wonder why Jacque Fresco never really came across anarchism.... there are so many similarities between anarchist communism and the resource based economy... also i really appreciate errico malatestas eloquent formulations so much - he was so spot on with so many core issues. Also thank you for demystifiying anarchism in an understandalbe but clear manner - i think anarchism like truth needs to be fought for as long as humanity exists.

Until now, I never understood how derivate art had value. I always thought it was parasitic and exploitative. But I've been on this journey to learn how to understand art at all. I've always appreciated the difficulties of film and the amount of artistic expression required to produce a good film. This has taught me that art can only give different value to those to who view, and even listening to someone else explain it. Thank you

I hoped that for one time there will be a video without words, not cheving up the obvious and unimportant, for me just to glaze into a story through the art. But welp. As it is the custom. Pour some shit into my ears

Every bar has a clown or two or three.

I’m no art critic but I think just understand the jesters role makes the meaning of this painting entirely self evident. While royals and officials party the jester is concerned over politics. He understands the weight of the situation or political climate but can’t make the partiers care, or simply doesn’t want to. I think this really speaks to how the younger generation feels in terms of politics; while we are all hyper aware of the political climate and what must be done the actual politicians are in the other room goofing off. It’s crazy to me how art can do that. How it can speak to a generation unimaginable to people of its time so profoundly, I love it.

What if, there were AI that solely learn by using image from Google Map, if it can generate picture based on confirmation of non-artists regarding "pretty". Will artists forego, insulting, respecting and devalue argument? Note: I do fully support arguments regarding intellectual property in non-fair used cases.

You definitely are not the only one!

Obscure? It frequently played in my house.

What if non-anarchists get together and attack us?

AMAZING ANALYSIS

Love this one. It's regularly on my playlist. Very moving.

"The funniest man I ever saw, and the saddest man I ever knew." W. C. Fields about black comedian Bert Williams.

This kid whispering into the microphone almost nearly has a clue

Caravaggio's Bacchus I think relates really well to the fascist ideal of "beauty" in art. It's a portrait of a god, yet the model is painted with all of their imperfections. They have tan lines and dirt under their fingernails, implying that they're a low-class laborer. Many at the time saw this as the divine and historic being "tainted." The style is classical, yet it has a clever twist. Also relating Realism to fascism is a misunderstanding, but photorealism in relation to fascism is a genuine connection. Realism strives to depict the world as it is, including the mundane and the "ugly." Edit: Never mind, the end of the video highlights Courbet and Realism, nice!

The eyes. The imagination runs wild thinking about how the scene came to be.

He had syphilis

Il quadro di Repin " I Battelieri del Volga " fu ispirato da un'opera analoga del pittore macchialiolo Telemaco Signorini vista da Repin nel suo soggiorno toscano . L'opera di Signorini si intitola " L 'ALZAIA " e rappresenta degli uomini che trascinano controcorrente sull'Arno una barca . Questo quadro del pittore toscano era stato disperso ed è stato ritrovato recentemente . È stato subito acquistato da un antiquario per una somma considerevole

Right now i am trying to imagine Russians trying to process the war in Ukraine by creating a painting and i can't. Drone warfare brings its very own horrors. It's the sudden, unavoidable character of a heavy artillery barrage combined with the 1-on-1 character of close quarter combat. The soldiers on the receiving end know they are being watched and they usually have no way of breaking l.o.s. and escaping. Quite a number react by committing suicide by grenade. And we've got it all on video.

You know I think the better question to be asked is, why _didn't_ Edward Hopper paint this image. Edward Hopper though known best for his solitary works, is also known for something not many people stop to recognize. Diversity. Many of his works feature not only different subjects engaged in different settings and activities, but he also depicts different people from different walks of life. We know this by the clothes his subjects wear; a hat, scarfs, maybe even a red dress. He paints people at a gas station, and women sitting alone at a table seemingly all dressed up for no known reason, or may even paint people in a group. This particular work speaks volumes for how Hopper sees the world; as a stage. He paints as such, depicting different actors from different backgrounds. No doubt if it wasn't for racial tensions he would easily have painted different ethnicities as well. This is what was always important to Edward's work, most see him as the disgruntled bored artist who depicts the boredom of American living, when in reality he could be just as content as anybody else, and is moreso interested in taking the pictures of the people he sees from a distance through his art. He's a very representational artist, interested in presenting us with what is present in time. His work of Soir Bleu highly encompasses his love for unique individuals; he paints a clown, a possible prostitute---none of it matters, he just wants to paint figures in a light that stands out from the rest, in the phrase 'the world's a stage'. Even a smoking middleclass man in his work has his moment to shine. I find that to be the most fascinating about Edward Hopper as an artist.

NGL, I thought this video was gonna be about “(Why?) The King of Love Is Dead.”

This is an outstanding, creative, thought-provoking episode of your channel.

I think animal farm is more showing how both communism and authoritarianism and capitalism suck.

The story is fake and after retellings it’s like broken telephone. The translations are wrong too. Historian opinion. He didn’t kill his son it’s the way that people speak as history goes on. It’s a figure of speech. His power is what killed his son. His stuff is a symbol of power in the world end totem of the infection. I can understand how people are misunderstanding the painting it causes a lot of misinformation

Человеческая глупость, вот что воистину удивляет.

As Terry Pratcher wrote in his novel _Small Gods_ in 1992: And it all meant this: that there are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal, kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.

Thanks for sharing. I feel the topic here enters into the zone of, 'how the Brain perceives reality and information?' Different people have different methods of their own, like doing calculations, holding a pen, drawing, writing etc. It's completely wrong to get fixated on one perspective. Universe is vast, while the human perspective is very limited.

Saying war never changes is like telling Sunzu to shut up, war is like water always changing never taking shape and always destroying everything in its path. Ww1 brought the tank changing war forever, 2 brought the atom bomb changing war forever, 3 brought the destruction of man changing war forever

the composition feels weirdly disjointed with the way your eye is drawn to the different peoples faces who are looking at the clown with this kind of unresolved tension and he’s sitting there with this corny melodramatic aloofness like he’s walter white or something. the colors of the lanterns, the woman’s face are jarring, the fact that the woman on the right looks like she’s wearing a bath towel and the guy on the left stupidly looking into the camera like ‘heh!’, the guy with the beret is annoyingly cut in half by the post. I don’t like this painting and I can see why Hopper considered it a failure, especially in comparison to Nighthawks which has a meditative soundness and silence, in contrast to the splashy, loud, immature narrative of this painting. This painting is trying WAY too hard to beat you over the head with the ‘im an alienated badass and no one can understand why i’m here’ thing, compared to Nighthawks where it just quietly shimmers in the air between molecules, and furthermore the composition of Nighthawks is immaculate and your eye isn’t catching on stupid junk for no reason like some bad jangly pop song. Nighthawks is as cool and still as water and you can just sink into it and study every detail instead of get annoyed by how every detail is poorly executed and distracts from the sophomoric narrative. I get that the pissed off clown is badass and cool like walter white but this is not one of Hopper’s great works imo

Still too slow.

As an artist living in a country at war, I can say that I understand him like no one else. At the beginning of the war you have the enthusiasm to act, but when it drags on for years you begin to see all the ugliness of war. Every day more and more, and nothing motivates you anymore

Its just cool art and there is more awareness tht it exists cuz of the internets.

being a child of the 1960s, I am struck by the parallels with Gaza/Palestine, the civil rights movement and criminal wars. the distinction that was made then, in the "hey hey *LBJ* how many kids did you kill today?" chant, needs to be made now too. it is not *Israelis* who are at the root of the ethnic cleansing that is going on, although, just like the conscripted US soldiers did in Viet-Nam, there are a large number of them who are doing the dirty work, *it is netanyahoo's régime*

I just listened to this for the first time! It really spurred me

sometimes I just get lost not because ur not making sense its because I get lost in how much of a cutie patootie u are

A wonderful insight you have there.

great video but you should be crediting the artist whose music you're using

I wonder what she'd think at the state everythings at now. 😂

Three authors will discuss the points made in this video: Walter Benjamin, Adorno & Horkheimer. Benjamim will state that art that can be reproduced loses its "aura", its uniqueness in the world, for it can be replicated ad infinitum. The original negatives of a film can be replicated as many times we want, just like a photograph for a cigarette ad and original pages to be reproduced in an industrial print for cheap comics that would mostly be discarded by its targeted audience. Adorno & Horkheimer will bring forth the idea that the difference between art and any ordinary object is that the object has a reason of being, a utility, and it is bound by its use. A pen is a pen, until it has no ink, than it becomes plastic to be discarted. Art, however, has no utility, so is not bound by its usage, it lives on its very own existence and any meaning it can have is subjective. So, the urinol is a urinol because it is made for that use, to piss on. When Duchamp takes away its utility and put it in a different context, it becomes art. The same with Lichtenstein can be said. His context is of a pop artist, an artist that works in the vein of taking what seemingly has no author beyond the companies that reproduce it ad infinitum, be it a can of soup, a magazine photo or a comic panel. Context is key here. Comic book creators were seen like any other industrial worker. Like an architect, a designer, even people at advertisement. Their works bound by their utility. Shouldn't the people who designed the soup can also be worthy of the same anger? My point is that the discussion around Lichtenstein is very anachronistic. Nowadays, comics are more well regarded as an art form, even having galleries dedicated to its grand masters, but not those days. The can of soup and comic books were comparable. Maybe someday we will know the hardship and tragedies of designers for food companies and start regarding the as great artists, but again, it will be anachronistic. In the end, the real problem is that Lichtenstein, the person, made millions with his paintings, while artists like Jack Kirby were trying to make ends meet everyday. But notice: Kirby was seen as a simple cog in the industry by the very people he worked to. The problem is not Lichtenstein, but the perception of pop culture and pop art as lesser. I don't think Lichtenstein improved or turned comics into better art, to me is a different media, a different beast, and at the end his art will go beyond himself, serving as thesis of a time where comic book artists were treated like cattle, put out for us to engage with it, discuss it and be the antithesis to create a new meaning, maybe one that makes life for sploitted artists like Kirby better.

I watched this baked and goodamit

More of talent in making puzzle than talent in painting.

I'm mostly with you on this, but what about ai art with more in depth concepts. I think under your definition some ai creations could be considered art by, for example putting two object with opposing political association in the same image. Such an image would most likely spark debate and does not exist purely for beauty.

Cool

I'm so glad you spoke of the parallels to the introduction of photography. I keep telling people that AI will push artists into new ideologies and methods in their works. It's a wonderful comparison and this is an incredible video.

bravo!

Some modern art is brilliant just like how some pre-modern art is. The opinion that modern art is superior to pre-modern art however, is very quickly becoming out of date. We live in 2024, capitalism and art unfortunately now go hand in hand quite often. It is much easier now to “paint like a child” more than ever, and it requires less skill and is also less time consuming if you want to make cash quickly. Like architecture, art has become less about its craft. We live in grey concrete jungles where time is not taken anymore to even check if the materials used are suitable for construction. Time and effort like those employed by artisans of the past when creating, buildings, pillars, even park benches, are similarly not implemented in the making of the art that sells in galleries these days. It’s now a joke made by many that these galleries are just ways to money launder now. Both modern and pre-modern art have their own benefits and drawbacks. If you go too far off in the direction of pre-modern sensibilities, you lose the essence of freedom, creativity and experimentation, if you go too far into the direction of modern art, you lose craftsmanship, skill, dedication. Especially in the age of AI where a robot can now generate an image of anything and is challenging the idea of “art”, now more than ever we need to value both sides of the coin instead of pitting one over the other. What is the difference now between an ai generated image that a person fed instructions to, and a person bringing in a blank canvas, a urinal or sticking a banana onto a wall? We need to stop acting like pictures of lines and squares in our current society isn’t pretentious. These pieces may have posed some questions which were necessary and needed pondering 50 - 100 years ago, (and for that we value them in terms of art history and so we must not forget) but we live in a very different world now. Todays paintings of arbitrary lines, the solitary stripe, the empty canvas, that are unfortunately being made and sold for thousands in opulent spaces to wealthy buyers are no longer revolutionary. The pendulum is always swinging, what is necessary in order to define, change, shift and revolutionise art is always moving.

Tryon NC put up a statue in her honor after not allowing her parents to sit anywhere but in the back of the Tryon theater. Never fixed her home until they could make money off of it. Hypocrite kkkristians.

i really need the hannah höch video! <3

❤

Artist: A clown could look interesting here. Everyone: But what could it MEAN?