I agree.

To who? At the end of the day its up to you as the beholder , its fun, there isnt like anything threatening about it beyond just thinking @@topherthe11th23

@@topherthe11th23who give this kid a phone 🌚

@@topherthe11th23 Nono,he got a point

@@kaunghlamyatikr

@@Kiwiofthetropics nice

⬛ This says alot about our society

True

It was great tho, a little bit bloated but still great

donda

Donda was great. You probably listen to fnaf music if you think donda is bad 💀

​@@cx3622thats shallow

DONDA

It's not that deep, man. Just like not all sounds are music, all paintings aren't art.

Define Music Define art

Do you think it has some sort of connection to all the weird shapes and psuedocolors we see when we close our eyes in the dark; like our brain is a complex, artistic symphony not even it can understand?

​@@sen7826no you are actually assuming stuff. I am not saying to like them. But they present a beautiful nature of philosophy behind what is music and art.

@@HerMi.T I didn't reply to anything you said, did I? I don't even know what "you are saying" because this is your first reply here. So, no, I'm not assuming anything you are saying.

Underrated comment

That is true.

And in the end, that's what all art is. A conversation had between whomever comes into contact with it.

Except your daughter wasn't trying to make a painting, at least not that we can tell she was trying to

@@audhd_incarnate8001 In that case literally everything any human being has come across is art. You've made the definition of art so broad that it's meaningless and conveys nothing.

@@Joshua-dc4un Why does the intent matter? By your logic, me sneezing into a tissue could be art as long as it was done by me intentionally. If you can't look at a piece of art without being able to discern whether it was done intentionally or was simply a freak accident, then maybe it's not really art at all.

@@thelemurofmadagascar9183 If that's your interpretation sure. But some of us find meaning in the mundane

Would u pay to see it ?

Well said

@@Watch-0w1 Yes

@@Joshua-dc4un ⬜ ⬛

Just need some special explanation for why it exists.

both

I'm inclined on a BS-er wannabe genius

Both can be true 🤷🏽‍♂️

How can that art survive the test of time if it need someone to explain it

Same, She is honestly the best teacher ive ever had.

🥰

I really think this the case here. I'll spend months on my paintings, which also have been painted upon used painting canvases. They too have begun to crack over time. And my paintstrokes are also visible, my hair, my fingerprints, my sweat, even my blood when i painted so long my hands blistered. What makes art, art, is that a special effort and intention was put into it. But no special effort or intention went into this, because this happens to all paintings.

Or maybe you're just being pretentious.

Child isnt the the right word.. more like.. a person who can actually tell the difference between art that actually means something and doesn't need a video to explain to the viewer why they should enjoy said art and art that does.

If you have to be educated to appreciate art, then it has failed. Art should speak to your feelings. There should be no need for education.

@@murph_mustela Maybe Dwayne Johnson movies are more your speed.

Agreed, he had to spend years explaining his art and in the end it never caught on. What's the point of his art if there isn't anything for you to even start thinking about?

If you are spending time considering what it might mean, then perhaps he achieved his goal?

​@@nickway_Not necessarily. The purpose of the art style is convey feeling without objective realism. Most people have the capacity to feel, and even the most basic of things like a color can provoke a feeling, but when presented a piece of art, their childlike wonder typically is set aside for logical analysis. The cruel irony of artwork like this is that it relies on one to only look, with no criticism of art itself. No technique, no interpretation of meaning, only to look and reflect on yourself. But people typically would only do that if they weren't critically analyzing art in an art gallery.

@@ghostderazgriz You can explain it however way you want, but you cannot say it is even remotely worth 20-140 million dollars. It's no different than the abstract parts of psychology, something reserved for people who have too much time on their hands, but with art it's money.

@@theaslam9758 u reply to the wrong guy and I do agree with you

On that logic, if time is infinite then everything can and will eventually be art, it's not an "if" question.

During WW1 they change the name to Petrograd to sound more Russian . because Petersburg is a German word.

The fact that the video pointed out how it was not, in fact, a perfect square, has triggered my OCD tendencies when it comes to drawing panels for comics X3

Al least we can be sure the painting wasn't AI generated.

People don't linger because they already have a conception of what art is or should be. And are not really looking to change their minds

Hi Sarah, I chanced a look at the comment section and happened upon your thoughtful comment. I’m a PhD researcher on the History of Art and you definitely touched on very important points about how discussions on Art can be approached today. I will recall your metaphor and carry it with me ! I would also encourage you to rethink some statements about the nature of Art “before photography” you seem to take as fact in your comment. The pictorial arts never had the responsibility of recording visual human experience. I suppose, in a very primal way, you could say visual expression is about connection but that has no direct correlation with what we would eventually name “Art”, and specially not when the first daguerreotypes were being experimented with by photographers in the XIXth century. This recurrent idea that photography somehow “displaced” the pictorial arts from you call their “burden” seems to be very strong among public perceptions on Art. It has, however, been entirely disregarded by historians as valid for a few decades now. Close analyses of developments in painting as well as actual discourse on painting and photography at the time just simply does not support such a narrative. Painting and photography did influence each-other in irreversible ways but at least a few influential art-historians suggest that apart from the niche market for pocket portraiture ( such as one someone would have on their nightstand, or inside their watch), painting was, in fact, not replaced by photography in any meaningful way. I also don’t think we are any close to something like a definition for “what is art”. Several reputable art historians think it can be done, or even that it must be done. Others seem to have accepted Art as an “open concept” and try to work around the potential constraints that a finite set of meanings could imply. Simply put, doesn’t it matter if it’s called art or not? It is clear that much of contemporary experiences on Art seem to want to remain on the edges of institutional consumption, wether they can or not is another issue entirely. But it does require the concept of Art to stretch itself in ways that challenge the very XVIIIth century notion of art as having anything to do with taste or personal judgment. Regardless, I loved hearing your thoughts and I encourage you to keep dwelling on them! Best wishes,

@@JMRCUSP I'm glad you enjoyed my comment. Thank you for enlightening me about art history and photography. I'm a lawyer and casual art consumer and not anyone super knowledgeable about art. BTW, if I was arguing for the most expansive definition possible of the word "Cat" that I thought I might get away with, I would have argued that any animal with a nose and whiskers should be considered a cat. "Hello Kitty" is unambiguous considered a cat based on its nose, whiskers, face shape, and ears. The ears and the face shape should be disregarded in my definition. Hello Kitty's ears are just undefined nubs, and cats' faces aren't actually round. Thus, the whiskers and the nose make the cat. The expansiveness of the definition comes into play because most mammals (including all non-human primates) have whiskers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers. All mammals I am aware of have noses.

"Sole responsability for recording the visual experience"? Oh, no. That's a complete misunderstanding of art and art history, or of human history and even just common sense. That was not the only intended or unintended function of art. And other forms of expression have always been able to represent visual imagery for posterity. Just think about it. Even if a person says "I once saw a cow. It was big and blue with Hugo square eyes", and somebody hears that and tells it to their children, who by themselves tell it to their own children. There you go, visual registry of a cow for posterity.

Huge*

What until you see ⚫, even more deep and profound

not just any square tho, not even a square :O

It sure is 🗿

Yup. I wouldn't value this painting above others. I personally find leaving *this much *meaning up to the interpreter to be lazy and misguided

I prefer a child's skribbles than an adult's because at least I know the kid and it's kinda cute and stuff, with adults creating these scribbles and selling them for billions they're just scamming people

I agree.

WorthEstimated is over $20 million 🫠

"if you don't like it you just don't understand it and thats why its amazing" Not how it works champ. He had to spend years explaining what it means and thats now how you do art. You can leave it up for the person to interpret it themselves but to go on and say "this is what I mean by it" ruins what art is

@@HIFLY01 all I can say is, I‘m sorry that u can’t understand it

@@TungLe-if5pq sorry you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill No one understood it its why he had to explain for years which ruins art. It shouldn't be explained by the artist

@@HIFLY01 if that’s everything you took from this video, then you only prove my point

@@TungLe-if5pq and your point is you dont understand art. An artist can say he used red because he was angry all he wants but if people say he used red because they painted an apple and apples are usually red, all the artist did was show they know what color an apple is. Take any sort of art class and you'll see only the snob artists and art critics tell you how you should feel when you look at art. If you see it as something beautiful then congrats it looks beautiful in your eyes and thats what the artist accomplished. But if the artist was trying to show you ugliness and you saw only beauty, its not good art

If we're getting philosophical, the jump of conclusion you made from "no objects" to "no meaning" is so huge it makes no sense

​@@davidtitanium22I got from the part where it says about the desert and style explanation "nothing is real" real = meaning? Then the style "non-representational" not referencing anything = no meaning. I don't think my conclusion is that much of nonsense. I see u understood everything clearly from this video, why don't u tell then ur interpretation

You sound like someone who gets impressed by people on TikTok who draw photorealistic pencil portraits. Art is not about skill. Art is conceptual. Skill and experience can help you express that concept. Mastering the brush does not mean you have something interesting to say.

@@TheRealFallingFist if I was to choose one "skill" or "concept/expression" I would always choose skill, that's just what I like and I think expressing a simple concept with some master level skill is way more impressive to me, then expressing some abscure idea or a even a single tought with average skill. It is more valuable to me because high level skill is what makes a high level of expression, the act of expressing becomes way more complex because of the skill. While u can have brilliant ideas and thoughts but if u loose people in the logistics part of it, when the act of delivering this idea becomes more difficult then the idea itself, that's where u loose me