+Friso Talks I agree! :D

Yes, It can be a quite a challenge to decide how to display art, especially as there are more installation/ site specific pieces. Can you recreate it after the artist passes away? What if they didn't leave specify instructions? Is using photographs as reference good enough? Do you display the photographs or videos that documented the work? Tough questions for sure!

If the art requires explanation, that's not an art.

soupbonep hello, are you here my friend?:) Greetings from Russia and welcome to the world of the Alphonse Alles and Paul Bilhaud. These friends came up with an ironic ideas of doing full black/red/white paintings and a full silent "Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man" in the 19th century. The black painting was called "Negroes fighting in a tunnel" and that letters are wrote under Malevich's Black Square. That letters were found after the release of that ecaxt video that we are watching, so imagine if there wouldn't be any letters. I bet you a billion dollars that they would call you a stupid idiot and that Malevich was the original founder of The Square and never heard anything about the "Negroes". So basically Malevich stole somebody's ironic idea and just by his own words built a great hoax around it. And the critiques were too scary to ask him anything and considered that piece of crap as an original and great work. Bilhaud's painting have a great meaning and i like it. Malevich only have his long tongue and fuckton of people scared of the society.

Malevich was interested in Music and wrote about composing music without any sound. He foreshadowed John Cage and your good self (aka 'Malevich Squared' on insta)

@@paulrouhan7288 So Malevich was just... a denier. That's why he fit so well with Soviet Russia. Communist and denier, what would else you expect from that kind of person in any form of creativity? Right. Just deny everything and blame it as "old-fashined" and "outdated".

@@Rai2M That was one idea of many. Malevich was super creative. He refigured what art was. Pure painting based on colour and shape. Or just repeat the world around you and remain with the object in some way. The most profound artists followed him since, in their own way. Also, in 1915 when he created the BLACK Square and 38 other Suprematist paintings, that old world needed denying and remaking. It was worth a try. Humanity paid the price in the terrible 30s and 40s.

@@Rai2M "That's why he fit so well with Soviet Russia." 😂 He didn't, you're an idiot.

One of a kind, my ass. I could knock out a hundred of them today, alone. There is nothing special or collectable about this. Malevich was a good BULL SHIT SCAM "Artist" with a half ass story to feed all the gullibles. YOU happen to be one those, standing in line with your plate out, waiting to be served up a heaping pile.

I get what you are saying but I would put it this way...”Although he was not the first to ever cover a canvas in a dark monotone, he was the first to say, ‘Finished’.” I may try this. I don’t know if anyone has done what i am going to say but just in case no one has, remember you heard it here first....take a blank canvas and sign it. Title: The Point & Sum of Abstract Art. Well...what we are calling “abstract” today anyway.

@@kelymknowles1 Why does this work inspire so much anger in you? Malevich had a real talent as an artist, yet chose to go down this abstract line. Is it not of some interest to you. It is to me.

Username checks out - deaf to reasonable explanation

Right. Everything she said just went above your head.

Well it depends on how you determine value, if you judge it simply in financial terms based on the amount of physical labour endured to paint it than you could argue that it isn't worth much. In the context of the art it is worth millions for a verity of reasons, 1.the guy who produced it 2. the concept he applied to its creation 3. the thought and debate it provokes to this day and so on. Good art challenges the viewer to question, to break out of conformative thinking patterns and to hopefully propel the viewer to a progressive plane of thought based on their observations. even if it is only a black square it should and dose provoke a whole wide range of thought, what does it mean, what else could it be, is it a black square on a white surface or is it a white square frame on a black surface. The point is that it isn't simply just a black square and at the same time it is, what dose it provoke? annoyance? calm? some other third thing ? and why?

Every single painting is the same thing, some chemicals over a piece of wood or cloth. Everything else is vallue we attach to them. Even when people say that a painting take skills, this itself is the virtuoso discourse over the painting.

Thanks so much for your kind comments; I'm so happy to hear this has helped! Makes my time working on these worthwhile :)

Thanks Bethany! I'm glad you like them. I have a minimalism video coming up :)

Tom Tobias Thanks so much for your feedback, Tom. It's really helpful to hear what you think. Hope your class discussion went well :)

It's so interesting that you say there is no symbolism in this painting, because that is exactly one of the area's in which something interesting happens in this work. Malevitsj tried to create a picture that was not a reference to anything. When people look at it, they're supposed to see nothing but what is truly there. this is actualy quite difficult, because even something like two dots and a line :) make us think of a face without even trying. So Malevitsj got very close, and people just see a black square when they see the painting. Nothing more, nothing less. But he moved on to turn the work into a symbol itself. The work became the symbol for the search for art that is absolutely independent. The search for creating something that isn't linked to anything else that already exists. You say you like art that makes you feel things, and that's why this doesn't feel like art. I agree. To me this particular painting is art because it makes me feel emotions and sensations. To me, the thought of looking at an art piece that isn't depicting anything and can't be interpreted any other way is an overwhelmingly interesting sensation, as no other artpiece made before this one could do that. It feels like explporing what is truly the essence of painting as an artform. A picture, created with paint.. and a person observing the shapes they see and trying to find out what they depict. While with most paintings you could instantly recognise things from the real world represented in the shapes, kind of like watching clouds, In this work you can't do that. You're stuck in that instant of time before recognising what the picture is depicting. The fact that this painting is a symbol for that movement makes me feel the excitement of their rebellion and their extreme out-of-the-box way of thinking. also oops, I just now saw your comment is over 4 years old.

I see it like this- It's all about context and time period. Back then there were a lot "standards" and "rules" to art that needed to be challenged, as well as questions about art never asked or explored. Back then, this was bold and new. It got people thinking and asking more questions. It has its place as a historical piece. However, today such a work would be lame and uninspired. The point of it would be lost because there are no rules anymore. This area has been explored to death. I too dislike much of the contemporary art of today because the only point seems to be challenging a status quo which simply isn't there anymore. Like Don Quixote chasing windmills.

@@joshualevan hahah super funny... five years later in I'm half way through a fine art degree and now a full-on conceptual artist in the making. I'll have a read on my comment and re-watch the video. I'm interested on what my 15-year-old self had to say about my current views.

Well, art isn't about skill or aesthetics. Its about the idea that the art represents.

Seano299 Yay! :D

Oleg Teplyakov Thanks so much for your kind complement! I try my best to make it easy to understand so I'm relieved to hear your thoughts :)

Good point. It creates a paradox.

The painting throws itself back at you. You ask, not 'what should I feel about this?' but what do I feel about this? It may not get you through the rigours of life, but it is interesting.

Ramona Contreras Yes, he influenced a number of similar artists :)

I agree, this is a very good explanation. Thank you for sharing!

Joe Blow Graceful e Thanks for watching! :)

makwana usha That's a great suggestion! I will try to brainstorm some ways to explain it

and yeah, good video :D

Sage Llivokin That's a really great question. Museum exhibitions are usually organized by curators (and their team) who are experts in that area and they do a lot of research to put the shows together. Legitimizing art can be really complicated - there's a lot of aspects that can go into consideration, and it really depends who you're asking (who determines if it is legitimate?) I'll probably talk more about it in a video one day, but yes, super difficult! Thanks so much Sage :)

Little Art Talks I'm open to both refrigerator art and the perspectives I gain by relating to a complicated intent, but what I don't like is being duped. Even organizations that should be viewed as important because of their intrinsic value to society depend on marketing and politics to stay relevant to the masses. The science establishment is an example of what I mean: using figures like Dr. Tyson to make science entertaining and naming telescopes after famous people to kind of force funding for the equipment. I'm wondering if the art establishment does the same to stay funded and relevant which is not a bad thing, but I think art in a macro sense loses a natural progression for a more manufactured progression. Plus, I would like to know if the art I'm consuming at a gallery is actually the most impactful to our era or if history is being forged by unnatural causes. I'm also curious as to what kind of research the teams do when preparing for an exhibition. I know that's a bit to mull over. These are the kind of weird comments you're going to get while your channel grows though haha Take care.

+10000yrs Supreme is mostly based on Barbara Kruger's type/style

I don't think anyone living through Russia in the first part of the twentieth century was thinking of money. Survival was much more important.

And yet its original placement was very significant. Hence the painting's eternal resonance.

Nice insight!

Thanks for your comment! Perhaps the most common example for this thought was the Jean Dubuffet and art brut. Even Picasso has a famous quote "All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up."

Artist is an child forever. Scientist too. So yes, i agree with things you saying. But this painting isn't about technics.

Of course it wasn't just him saying. People, artists around agreed. And it makes this picture something that influenced masses. Which makes this picture an art.

Counter Strike SEM You are too kind! Thanks for watching :)

I agree about Van Gogh, but most of us can only see his work in a book, sadly.

Thanks for the feedback! Definitely something that I can work on :)

Shaun Kennedy I get the “why” and “when” but certainly not the first to ever have made one...the first to put it out as a professional finished piece yes. Same for Pollocks. Not the first to ever have created a piece of canvas with paint drips...those are called tarps, with perhaps a million or two who created them before him.

@@richiejourney1840 Nobody drips like Pollock.

Uhhh mate. A LOT of horseshit spewing forth from your mouth.. "look at the Picassos, Rothkos, Pollocks, etc, etc. Any kid would have made those" -- if you are talking about technical skill then yes, perhaps a kid could have made those, but you said WOULD, not COULD, and this is a point which is just completely fucking untrue. a "kid" would instinctively paint representationally, he might paint a house or some flowers or his mother or whatever but he would not just paint a black square or a field of colour (just dig out the drawings you did at art class in school). people who similarly condemn Twonbly's work as childish are, like you, missing the point. very broadly speaking, modern art's focus is not simply on technical ability or representational likeness but on ideological upheaval and a rejection of past art historical tradition which in turn manifested itself in the form of painting. the video has simplified malevich's black square and suprematism for the purpose of your enlightenment and yet you seem completely clueless so let me fill you in before you go about saying stupid shit like "i have to respect kazimir" because damn right you do he was probably the first to formally abandon all forms of representation and put and end as it were to the entire tradition of painting as a medium of replicating reality. also, the fanboys you speak of generally have PhDs in art history, and you probably work at McDonalds, they know what they're talking about, and you don't, so know your place you dog. these critics certainly did not try to "fool anyone", you little rat of a conspiracy theorist, you. on a similar note, what is this "depth" you speak of?? i am assuming it refers to a broader sense of cultural appreciation. once again, you seem to be accusing collectors, patrons and even artists of feigning erudition, a statement which is not only wholly untrue but completely unsupported and hints at systemic disillusionment and possible psychosis. I wouldn't like to speculate but it seems to me that based on your overwhelmingly emetic personality of opinionated ignorance coupled with your feelings of suspicion that you must generally be an inadequate outsider without much of education and even less oojah. stop talking about fucking rothkos and pollocks like you fucking wrote a PhD thesis on them. you don't know a lot about art or the art market or art history or the european tradition of artistic patronage so the least you could do despite not managing to understand this simple video is stfu. cheers

what if people with PhDs think they undestand something that doesn't even have a meaning, 90% of abstract artists are so deep that their art is only for fanboys who think they are part of something cool just because most people cannot understand a thing about those paintings. I only respect a few abstract artists because they were direct about what they were doing, Rothko says his paintings connect you to raw human feelings, I don't feel shit by looking at his paintings, I think they are just lazy as fuck, maybe innovative but innovative could be a turd on canvas too. the NY artists were the biggest cons I've seen, all of them have pretty horrible and meaningless works.

Even Dali was amazed by his technics. Sure, he did some simple ass paintings. But most off them are little. And he prolly did them for fun. It's look simple, but if you look closer, there's milions of lines, and colours. What's most GOOD in Picasso's works, it's that, that he make all this technics and colours into harmony. Rothko is an decorate artist. His works are about simplicity, simply emotions. He wanted to make rooms full, he wanted to make his paintings not provocative, but deep (pleasant to eye). He's one of frist decorate artists like that. His works were simple to make, but we still don't know, how he do his works. And. Rothko was doing thousands of artworks..

Molly explain a Jackson Pollock....

Molly I agree with the title of “Decorate Art” over “Abstract Art”.

Aidurrr Rothko is part of a movement of Color Field painters, which is considered an early part of the Abstract Expressionist.

Hi aescnt! I have one in the works :) Thanks for your suggestion!

I do! Now excused me as I go watch all the other videos/recordings :P

Abstract art basics: 1) come up with a stupid philosophical reason that no one wrap their heads arounds. 2) just draw two black squares on a white paper 3) make sure that anyone who doesn't get it feels like they are stupid.

praneeth nalla haha in a nutshell ya

That's all most modern art is...who's serving up the biggest glass of bullshit, lol.

I'm so glad you liked it! :) Yes, you can have something that looks similar, but it won't hold the same importance due to a number of these reasons.

It's not so much the skill required, it's more about the thought behind the painting.

+grandevive1 As she mentioned in the vid - Malevich did not make it as an art - it was a stage backdrop (as a huge screen it would have looked pretty imposing and relevant). When he actually got the idea later on, he knew very well that no skill would be required here - what mattered was the content and presentation.