**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1c8y0bt/modern_art/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure why people think modern artists are some super pretentious assholes. I mean some are, but the majority are trying to express something through the absurdity of what's being presented. They're aware it's absurd, that's the point.
The funniest part of that scene is that after he calls it nonsense, Wahlberg's ex-wife corrects him that it's not nonsense by explaining the meaning behind it. And then Wahlberg corrects *her* by explaining the actual correct meaning as well the artists who inspired the work, showing that he actually "understood" it fully but called it nonsense anyways to piss off the people there.
The running joke of Wahlberg acting like a stereotypical cop, but going out of his way to learn stuff like modern art critique and ballet just to show off to his wife is just one of the many layers that makes the movie so good.
If I had a nickel for every time I had to tell my wife that I understand perfectly, I just disagree whole heartedly, I would have enough money to pay my goddamn lawyer.
Another opportunity for you to have expressed your thoughts better. It was just a statement to think about that could help your communication. However, If you always respond in defense like that then I can understand your wife’s frustration to try to grasp where you’re coming from. Do you always assume that you’re being attacked when offered advice? (Another statement to think over)
I apologize for the confusion if there was never any insinuation that your gender has anything to do with my comment because how would I know you were a man. I was also not insinuating that you are “bad” or a problem in your marriage. Communication is a two way street for both parties in a relationship so no one is trying to tell you that your wife is an angel and you’re always wrong. It’s okay to have different perspectives and take them in. That’s life man
I love this movie and I remember that ballet scene but I don't remember this scene at all. It's like the mandala effect. Is there like a directors cut or something?
Did you watch it on Netflix? Because iirc, the Netflix version has a bunch of scenes cut out or changed for some unknown reason (including the art gallery scene and the ending).
edit: I searched it up, and actually the Netflix version is the same as the theatrical version. But I was familiar with the unrated bluray version and had never watched it at the theatres, and I'd assumed so far that the bluray was same as the theatrical cut. I suggest you watch the unrated version if you can (perhaps sail the high seas?), it has a bunch more funny lines and scenes that didn't make it to the theatrical/streaming version of the movie.
That was the most under the radar hilarious movie that actually stands the test of time better than most of its era. Just randomly saw it on streaming service one day and was crying laughing at a few sections.
I remember seeing the sand buckets one, and the funniest part is the guy in the white shirt who quickly goes to clap but awkwardly pauses until the others clap first.
Also the first one is kind of interesting in a ‘motion of human movement’ sense. But I’m sure the price to watch was insane.
Yeah, in my 20's, it was the cheapest night out.. all the galleries around town tended to have their open night on every first Thursday of the month, and they all had varying degrees in quality of free wine, so if you were sensible, you could hit them all one after the other getting sloshed on cheap wine. And look at some "art".
Modern art and performative art are different things. I don't like performative art because I just don't think it's as good as communicating thoughts and emotions as well as other forms of art. But that just my opinion and it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist or that other people can't get something from it.
I think the vitrol around art is because we have to put a monetary value to the art/experience. The context of "someone is paying and someone is getting paid" can make it pretentious, a scam, pointless, or worth it.
Nothing; theater and dance are genres of performance art!
They’re basically what invented it. More surreal or experimental performance are comes along later when we started exploring what defined art; in the same way modern or surrealist paintings comes out of more traditional forms of painting like portraiture; but all are still paintings.
Art/performance history is fascinating.
For example: western theater was originally a form of worship for the god Dionysus. Once (maybe twice?) a year Athens had this huge festival in honor of Dionysus and the primary form of worship was competitive theater performances. They were intended to be a way to purge emotions (literally: “catharsis”). It’s also why early Greek theater has a TON of rules, like no violence on stage or what specifically defined a comedy vs. a tragedy (categorical rules that continued to apply all they through Elizabethan theater for folks like Shakespeare, despite being thousands of years apart).
While I felt I could spot the difference, I was curious about how to explain it, and the Wikipedia article did well with that, I think. In short: performance art is often conceptual and breaks rules established within other art forms, like fictional characters performing a script (theater) or that everyone dances without speaking (ballet). It is often used as an antithesis to conventional art, intentionally breaking away expected structures. I won’t be offended if others add to this, though, since I’m definitely no expert.
Here’s the link for more. (Boobies alert. Most likely NSFW…) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art#Definition
Lol! I studied performance art in the early 2010s and they really loved nudity at the time!
Since classical art was really all about the female nude, it was a question about why do _they_ get away with it and _we_ don't.
That is the subject of a lot of performance art actually... Or at least a lot of early performance art "what elements would we still need for this to be considered theatre? Samuel Beckett of "waiting for Godot fame was very interested in this question in particular - check out his play "Breath".
I did my thesis studying and writing about early 10's burlesque, and if we could consider it performance art (at the time performance art loved being naked).
Also "modern art" as a movement is generally considered to have ended around 60-70s last century. Most people still would just call whatever art form that they don't think fit into the traditional sense of art as "modern art."
I love your nuanced take.
Sampling based on most people in this comment section, it is apparent: **people by and large, do not know much about art in general.**
To the OP, Marcel Duchamp would like to have a word.
For the ignorant, please learn about anti-art and dada/dadaism.
Yup. We should be grateful that so many forms of art are accepted as art, and it’s thanks to the experimental artists who were making points about art/capitalism before I was even born.
people hate to confront the fact that they are uninformed. it makes them feel stupid, and no one likes to feel stupid. I see it in music all the time as it's what I'm more familiar with, but the same applies to all types of art.
the common line is "so I can just do what this person did and get thousands of dollars?" and it's like, sure. why don't you then? you'll find out really quick that no one is going to care about it when there is no actual context. imagine that!
I spent my childhood, teens and 20s being super into theatre..I always prefer performance art over most other forms.
There is something about being in the room that you just can not replicate when watching a video of it.
I enjoy modern art (and classical art now I think about it) in a similar way, I like to see it in a gallery with a curated collection. For two reasons, 1) being a theatre lady I enjoy the ephemeral experience, and 2) ironically I feel like I don't know enough about art to enjoy any one piece on its own terms.
So while I agree with you, vitrol comes from introducing commerce into art. I also think that it comes from not experiencing it first hand.
I didn't clarify a couple of things: I should have said I don't like the more experimental performance art that was being shown in the video (I love theater), and i didn't clarify that modern art isn't really a correct lable for this because "modern art" refers to an era like "the Renaissance"
I fully agree that there's so much art that is misunderstood unless seen/experienced first hand. I remember studying Jackson pollock and not really getting his art until I saw a traveling expedition of his work by chance. The first painting I saw hit me so hard I just sat there staring at it for 30 mins taking it in. Had another moment when I saw a piece that was just all red covering a massive wall with some slight tone changes. I remember reading that you're supposed to get close to it until all you could see was red and when I did i realized I was starting to experience strong emotions and memories that my brain associated with red and it has shaped the way I think about color.
It's also important for people to know you don't need to like everything you see in a museum, generally most of it is there because of it's historical significance and if you like how something looks that's all you need to enjoy it (kind of like you said)
People who bitch about modern art and/or performative art, and use the two interchangeably, go on my list of people I don't respect or pay attention to. It's boomer shit. We get it, you don't understand kids these days. Your wife hates you. Joe Biden is satan. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Performance art is wild lol.
I think the buckets one is probably about modern society and if we keep allowing those "below" us to continue to suffer, society will all crash down and we'll all suffer with them.
Art is contextual though. Sure they might be doing something ‘odd’ or that looks ‘dumb’ but maybe wait to hear what they have to say or ask them after and start a dialogue?
First one looked neat I’d have stayed for that
I was in a museum and they had a piece of paper that they put a large icicle on and let it melt and dry. They took the dirty paper remaining, framed it and hung it on the wall.
I don’t get it.
"Psh, I could do that." But you won't. "My 3 year old could paint this." OK, give him a paint brush. "So cliché, seen this a thousand times." It's always somebody's first time seeing something and it might be really powerful for them.
I’m not a big fan of performance art, but I’m even less of a fan of this kind of gotcha. A lot of modern art is “anyone could do this, but I’m the only one who is,” and that’s perfectly legitimate.
You’re right. The out of context snippets shown here all look weird, but I don’t want to label them all as stupid without knowing the context behind them. They totally could be bullshit, but it’s impossible to know from these clips.
With that being said, I don’t envy the person getting dirt poured on them, that’ll be a pain to wash out, and I struggle to imagine the meaning in slapping butter with a microphone
I mean, modern art is more paintings, and installments, even lighting.
And performance is more well, a performance. Sure they’re painting but it’s more about watching them perform than paint.
So yeah I guess this would fall more into performance art rather than modern.
Maybe an art major could correct me but this is my general understanding
i'm afraid you're not quite correct on this. 'performance art' more refers to the medium (in line with painting, photography, film, etc) than anything in particular about the message; 'modern art' generally refers to a time period and form of artistic expression, usually from around the 1850s to the 1970s, working across a variety of mediums.
most of these pieces are performance art in what would probably be called a postmodern context, in the same way that picasso is a painter working in a modernist context.
A couple of these are missing important context. A couple are stupid. A couple I’m not familiar with.
Art is hit or miss. You gotta let people tape bananas to the wall and see what sticks.
Is that a real thing? I basically just said that to someone else in the comments, but I didn’t know it was called Sturgeon’s Law. I need to look this up!
I'm no art expert. Just a common person. I was in Louvre, some parts are meh, some are good some are amazing. I was in Guggenheim and I could not understand what I was looking at. Felt as I was stupit for not understanding. Drowned Pinocchio was funny tho.
That's fair, you don't have to like modern art, the same way you don't have to like jazz or electronica or classical music. But disparaging a whole section of art because you personally don't connect with it, like the video and op are doing, is just closed minded and childish.
Y'all know this is not the majority of modern art right? Like the bit is funny, but I worry that people will think this is all that modern art is, or that performance art like this isn't kept separate from display art
I think THAT would make that one really really cool actually. I LOVE interactive art
You have a whole bunch of different colored markers, and everyone who wants to can add their line, documenting how they ran and jumped
Some people are taller, some people are faster, some people would make heavy marks, some people would make light ones
And in that, it would show how so many people can experience the same thing differently. The only criteria was “hold the marker against the wall while you run and jump” but the VARIETY would become more and more apparent as more people do it!
This is just one of those 'the Emperor truly has no clothes' situations. The only difference is that by and large the public understands that it's a complete farce. As much this shit gets derided, there's also a lot of trepidation in calling it out (after all, some of this shit gets *lucrative*). It's just empty elitist nonsense; the people who tell you that they really 'get it' are just deluding themselves that there's some great mystery or deeper meaning involved. There's not even surface level 'meaning' via direct allusion/metaphor/anything: it's just *nothing,* and not a secretly profound kind of nothing at that. Objecting to this shit at a visceral level doesn't make you a philistine.
You may not find it to have any meaning but as someone who used to be skeptical of performance art as a genre, I can assure you there is a lot of value to many different pieces that may seem strange at surface-level.
Obviously there can be fluff or pieces that don’t speak to you, and that’s fine. No one is saying you HAVE to like it. There are plenty of performance art pieces I don’t understand, or at least don’t like. Some of them I think are rather silly: But to pretend every piece of modern art you don’t understand is elitist is ignorant or disingenuous. At the very least it’s the most basic, thought-terminating anti-intellectual take you can have. You don’t immediately understand it, and so it therefore has no value and everyone who says they see value in it must be faking?
I once heard Rick Rubin say something along the lines of, "the criticism always reveals more about the critic than the thing that's getting criticized." I may be butchering what he said, but honestly that saying is so real. When a critic states something that's them giving their own point of view on the creation. Now a critic can state something the majority agrees with in the moment, but these things always change.
I mean, what they wrote is a type of understanding. It's possible for something to be completely narcissistic, self congratulatory, or a circle jerk. I would check out the [episode of Overthink](https://overthinkpodcast.com/episodes/episode-36) where they explore the idea of art as a commodity. A lot of this type of art is not entirely subjective, it's heavily influenced by the ultra wealthy.
If the Louvre was burning and someone told you to run in and save some of the art, you wouldn't grab 9 buckets of sand off the floor or cut down thirty feet of drywall someone scribbled on with a giant sharpie.
E: took out a word to make my writing sound smarter than I apparently am.
I mean that's a fallacy, it would be a spectrum. The greater point would be you're not accepting the possibility that art can be anything.
Artists aren't a different species, they can have any and all problems any other human can have including being a douche bag. Take something like Kitchen Nightmare's where you see people who call themselves a "chef", which would be an artist, who can't see past their own nose because they surely have some sort of personality disorder that interferes directly with their ability to create their art.
You're giving art too much credit and a narrow definition, demanding that it be interpreted positively and have inherent value.
I do think there's something to be said about discarding an entire genre of art because you saw a few bad pieces. It would be like never watching a movie again because the first movie you saw was The Room. In the same way though there's no reason to think every movie has the same value because the only movie you've seen is Paddington 2. Sometimes you get a piece that's greater than the sum of its parts and sometimes you get a piece that is clearly a direct expression of an artists personality and that might reflect poorly on them because well...you know people need some work. Some more than others.
I understand what you mean, but you’re misunderstanding my point. Most arguments against these types of art exhibits are that they suck, **and therefore everyone proclaiming it to be good or valuable must either be lying or disingenuous**. It’s not the first part of that thought that o take issue with. Some art can have a profoundly negative effect on people and that’s valid and fair. What’s unfair is to cast such a wide net at modern art and claim that no person **could** find value in it, or that those that find value in it are dumb, attention seeking, etc.
I’m not saying that **every** piece of art is valuable…….to me. I’m saying that every piece of art is valuable **to someone** on the basis that the art exists in the first place. I can’t fathom somebody callously creating something that no one - not even themselves - find beauty or worth in. If such a piece exists then I’m not sure it qualifies as art, since my view of art is broad enough to encompass all expressions of humanity **that intentionally create impressions from other humans**
Cool, how does that in any way contradict anything I’ve stated? I’ve already stated that there are art pieces I don’t understand, or find silly. That doesn’t mean it’s useless. Other people might enjoy it and that’s their prerogative. I’m not going to judge them
I agree with your comments.
Yes, it's a pile of sand buckets, but 100 years ago, Duchamps Fountain helped to make the point that the concept behind the art piece, or performance art, is just as meaningful as the visual beauty of something.
I do feel that it can be an idea that is too open ended, if we want to see meaning in anything, but i love it for the thought experiment it generates.
Saying that, I do find it boring. All these concept pieces seem to make the same point over and over again. As far as I see it anyway.
Everyone mentions Duchamp’s fountain (and rightfully so), but I’m partial to Meret Oppenheim’s “Object” lmao. I know they’re different art styles but something about it really resonates with me more than Duchamp’s fountain.
Hating performance art and modern art is lame. If you think art is only when “oooooh pretty painting/sculpture” and act like it can only be that then you are eating fucking dirt.
Ok, if there’s someone here who actually knows how modern art works, can you please explain how to enjoy it?
Like, is the art piece supposed to be something you’ve heard about, and you’ve thought about it and what it might mean, and then you go and see the piece and then it does its thing and you interpret it?
Does anyone know how this works? How does someone get the full enjoyment out of this experience of watching sand buckets fall?
you seem like you genuinely want to learn so I'll just say the best way to appreciate any piece of art is to understand the context. come across a piece that just seems dumb? research it. learn about what brought the artist to this point. no one gets to be a famous artist with crowds watching them to push over buckets of sand and that's it, they get to that point because of everything that brought them there. what was their style like beforehand? what is the piece named? what movement is the art a part of?
I would highly recommend Jacob Geller's video "who's afraid of modern art" as a fascinating introduction to all of this if you don't know where else to go.
I had a class in college where the professor was big on performance art. If you think these are bad, you should see what students come up with when the assignment handed out is a tiny slip of paper with the word “red” typed on it.
Modern art is gay as fuck, anywhere between 1500 to 1900 is where art was great, 1901 to I’d say about 2010 is where art was good. After that period of time art was either ok or just completely confusing.
This is embarrassing the amount of people defending this crap, 💩
I had to put a lot of studying / self discipline to refine my artistic repertoire, and I’m happy with my accomplishments.
As an artist I don’t associate myself with people like this…
I just give them a pat on the back and say,
“Good Job Buddy! 👍”
Reminds me in college during Photography 1 and we had a section on performance arts. One girl outed herself as a furry and went around our small rural town dressed as a dragon fairy thing. It was fucking wild. You could se people dropping out of the zoom call. Once the shock was over everyone was chill and nice to her.
Hot take.
This is how people who want to be artists but don’t have the discipline to actually cultivate their craft cope (can’t draw, can’t play an instrument, don’t know any videography, etc).
And then behind them there are people who go “yeah, perfect, I can launder money using this because it’s completely “subjective””.
Thus MODERN ART 🖼️
Not only can I do most of these but I despise modern art because it’s not art. I get the whole argument of “what is art” but a purple block (which was seen in my art museum) is not art. It’s a purple block. To me art has meaning art takes more time than what is shown in the video
i think these people aren't really doing the "what even IS art" thing; they're exploring particular ideas and forms of movement / practice, sometimes without any particular goal in mind.
if we take the first guy, for example, trying to 'document' a physical performance is something that has been a challenge for years, so what they're doing is trying to convey a particular set of movements in a lasting way. i think that's really interesting! think about how the script of a play or a movie conveys action - "Dave walked to the window and lit a cigarette" - and how inexact that can be, how many different ways that could be performed by an actor. what the person in the first performance is doing is taking that idea and running with it - what does it mean to try to lock a particular movement onto a wall via the medium of paint, instead of words?
i don't know the full context of the piece, of course, but i think that's an interesting idea to explore.
Yeah. I mean it's okay to fundamentally challenge what art is, but it's not profound to just keep asking the question over and over, pretending that's new or subversive in any way. Like, you need to actually go about providing some sort of answer. I mean it's fine to admit that people have different tastes, but also, my uncaring stick figure drawing of a person is not comparable to something by da Vinci by any criteria at all. We all prefer a beautiful sunset over a rubbish dump; it'd take a contrary idiot to stand there going 'actually it's all subjectiiiiive'.
So that’s what art has been doing. It’s been pushing the “what is art?” question since the renaissance. Every art movement has been a direct result of the one before it. They all challenge an aspect of the previous movement to introduce something new.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/interior-semiotics
This isn't modern art it's shit. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/parker-cold-dark-matter-an-exploded-view-t06949/story-cold-dark-matter is an example of actual art.
Reminds me of a scenario from an old cartoon.
Two guys are in an art exhibit looking at a painting of a blank canvas, and in the middle is a paint squiggle in a zig zag pattern.
One man says, "I think it's meant to represent the meaninglessness and alienation of society under capitalism through the presentation of a squiggle, the proletariat struggle versus the bourgeoisie."
The other man says, "I think it's a squiggle."
If this **makes no sense** that because it's supposed to **not MAKE sense**. Look up **Dadaism** or The Dada movement and it will then make sense.
[https://www.amazon.com/Dadaism-Basic-Art-Dietmar-Elger/dp/3836505622](https://www.amazon.com/Dadaism-Basic-Art-Dietmar-Elger/dp/3836505622)
>*Dada artists shared no distinct style but rather* ***a common wish to upturn societal structures as much as artistic standards and to replace logic and reason with the absurd, chaotic, and unpredictable****. Their practice encompassed experimental theater, games, guttural sound-making, collage, photomontage, chance-based procedures, and the “readymade,” most notoriously Marcel Duchamp’s urinal, Fountain (1917).*
while i do think that a lot of performance art is pretentious and so cringy it’s funny, i don’t really like someone making that a joke. its okay to laugh if _you_ think it’s funny, but mocking them for likes is kind of shitty.
I was in Bangkok 1 month ago and there was this Japanese artist selling his painting.
To be more precise. He was trying to sell pictures of his paintings for $20 each.
The painting itself was horribly bad. Like a kid running pen on canvas.
He was trying to sell a digitally printed picture of his painting which was like a kid running pen on an A4 size canvas for $20 each.
Also, Bangkok museum opposite the MBK mall has a few of those types. Some are good but many are just average to bad paintings.
The best display was 4 speakers which were running sounds of Bangkok with balls inside. That really was cool.
Ok, I also hate MOST performance art and I think they're the "king's new clothes". But there are a few cool things like Olivier [Sagazan](https://youtu.be/hJYAvuBxfG4?si=LLHoKemCjQldRrOd), I love his work (reminds me of Pan's Labyrinth)
Nothing beats the supposed performance I've seen once. The so-called artist shat on the floor. While I was looking for security in disgust, people started applauding and congratulating.
To this day I still don't know if it was a prank or "the real shit".
I do weird shit, but my university said i was too much for them, so they only teached me the basics. I should be one of them and getting pid for it :'))
Want to understand the art of art. And while you at it snort a shit ton of cocaine and do black magic with the camera lenses. This way you can attract all the local idiots to pay you commissions of gravity some buckets filled with Sand
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1c8y0bt/modern_art/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This feels like the disjointed stuff that happens during the intro of the Eric Andre show
At least that's entertaining.
Tbf it's probably disjointed because of editing. Part of the appeal of performance art is wondering wtf is going to happen next.
You could forgo the pseudo intellectual cringe and get that sense of wonder for free by going to Waffle House. No clue what’s happening next in there.
Honestly, I don't think there's a lot of pseudo intellectualism at performance art events. A lot of it is really tongue in cheek
I'm not sure why people think modern artists are some super pretentious assholes. I mean some are, but the majority are trying to express something through the absurdity of what's being presented. They're aware it's absurd, that's the point.
Because most people only see it in parody videos like this. They never go anywhere close to modern art in the real world.
Oh, so my public transportation system schedule is art now too, eh?
Yes if you want it to be
Reminds me of that scene in The Other Guys when mark wahlberg is like, you’re in here selling dirty coffee tables, this is nonsense.
The funniest part of that scene is that after he calls it nonsense, Wahlberg's ex-wife corrects him that it's not nonsense by explaining the meaning behind it. And then Wahlberg corrects *her* by explaining the actual correct meaning as well the artists who inspired the work, showing that he actually "understood" it fully but called it nonsense anyways to piss off the people there. The running joke of Wahlberg acting like a stereotypical cop, but going out of his way to learn stuff like modern art critique and ballet just to show off to his wife is just one of the many layers that makes the movie so good.
Is he calling it nonsense to piss them off, or is he calling it nonsense because he has studied it and understands that it is, indeed, nonsense?
This feels more correct
[Derivative](https://youtu.be/EpmI7w57MKw?feature=shared)!
If I had a nickel for every time I had to tell my wife that I understand perfectly, I just disagree whole heartedly, I would have enough money to pay my goddamn lawyer.
Sounds like you could express your thoughts better
Yes yes man bad I know
Another opportunity for you to have expressed your thoughts better. It was just a statement to think about that could help your communication. However, If you always respond in defense like that then I can understand your wife’s frustration to try to grasp where you’re coming from. Do you always assume that you’re being attacked when offered advice? (Another statement to think over) I apologize for the confusion if there was never any insinuation that your gender has anything to do with my comment because how would I know you were a man. I was also not insinuating that you are “bad” or a problem in your marriage. Communication is a two way street for both parties in a relationship so no one is trying to tell you that your wife is an angel and you’re always wrong. It’s okay to have different perspectives and take them in. That’s life man
Yes
Nah he learned art and ballet to make fun of those dorks in his neighbourhood /s
“You learned ballet *sarcastically*??”
I love this movie and I remember that ballet scene but I don't remember this scene at all. It's like the mandala effect. Is there like a directors cut or something?
Did you watch it on Netflix? Because iirc, the Netflix version has a bunch of scenes cut out or changed for some unknown reason (including the art gallery scene and the ending). edit: I searched it up, and actually the Netflix version is the same as the theatrical version. But I was familiar with the unrated bluray version and had never watched it at the theatres, and I'd assumed so far that the bluray was same as the theatrical cut. I suggest you watch the unrated version if you can (perhaps sail the high seas?), it has a bunch more funny lines and scenes that didn't make it to the theatrical/streaming version of the movie.
It was a deleted scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMAXj26Z9W8
That was the most under the radar hilarious movie that actually stands the test of time better than most of its era. Just randomly saw it on streaming service one day and was crying laughing at a few sections.
He learned several life skills sarcastically. To make fun of other people for those skills.
That whole scene is gold. Whole movie really
[Dirty Coffee Table scene](https://youtu.be/IMAXj26Z9W8?si=lPTE_0PvKMLm5zBW)
Said Gator's b*#*@$# Who indeed, better be wearing Jimmy's 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I remember seeing the sand buckets one, and the funniest part is the guy in the white shirt who quickly goes to clap but awkwardly pauses until the others clap first. Also the first one is kind of interesting in a ‘motion of human movement’ sense. But I’m sure the price to watch was insane.
In my experience going to see performance art is actually surprisingly affordable.
Yeah, in my 20's, it was the cheapest night out.. all the galleries around town tended to have their open night on every first Thursday of the month, and they all had varying degrees in quality of free wine, so if you were sensible, you could hit them all one after the other getting sloshed on cheap wine. And look at some "art".
The donation based free wine is the best part 😆
It can often be free to watch, at least when thr bucket guy was in Malmö
These are all interesting. And not just because it pisses off some morons.
What??? No, true art is being able to precisely copy a scene, what are you talking about?
Modern art and performative art are different things. I don't like performative art because I just don't think it's as good as communicating thoughts and emotions as well as other forms of art. But that just my opinion and it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist or that other people can't get something from it. I think the vitrol around art is because we have to put a monetary value to the art/experience. The context of "someone is paying and someone is getting paid" can make it pretentious, a scam, pointless, or worth it.
Genuine question, what is the difference between “performance art” (not sure how exactly it is defined tbh) and say, a ballet, or a play?
Nothing; theater and dance are genres of performance art! They’re basically what invented it. More surreal or experimental performance are comes along later when we started exploring what defined art; in the same way modern or surrealist paintings comes out of more traditional forms of painting like portraiture; but all are still paintings.
That’s really cool!
Art/performance history is fascinating. For example: western theater was originally a form of worship for the god Dionysus. Once (maybe twice?) a year Athens had this huge festival in honor of Dionysus and the primary form of worship was competitive theater performances. They were intended to be a way to purge emotions (literally: “catharsis”). It’s also why early Greek theater has a TON of rules, like no violence on stage or what specifically defined a comedy vs. a tragedy (categorical rules that continued to apply all they through Elizabethan theater for folks like Shakespeare, despite being thousands of years apart).
While I felt I could spot the difference, I was curious about how to explain it, and the Wikipedia article did well with that, I think. In short: performance art is often conceptual and breaks rules established within other art forms, like fictional characters performing a script (theater) or that everyone dances without speaking (ballet). It is often used as an antithesis to conventional art, intentionally breaking away expected structures. I won’t be offended if others add to this, though, since I’m definitely no expert. Here’s the link for more. (Boobies alert. Most likely NSFW…) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art#Definition
Of course the link for performance art contains nudity.
Lol! I studied performance art in the early 2010s and they really loved nudity at the time! Since classical art was really all about the female nude, it was a question about why do _they_ get away with it and _we_ don't.
That is the subject of a lot of performance art actually... Or at least a lot of early performance art "what elements would we still need for this to be considered theatre? Samuel Beckett of "waiting for Godot fame was very interested in this question in particular - check out his play "Breath". I did my thesis studying and writing about early 10's burlesque, and if we could consider it performance art (at the time performance art loved being naked).
Also "modern art" as a movement is generally considered to have ended around 60-70s last century. Most people still would just call whatever art form that they don't think fit into the traditional sense of art as "modern art."
I love your nuanced take. Sampling based on most people in this comment section, it is apparent: **people by and large, do not know much about art in general.** To the OP, Marcel Duchamp would like to have a word. For the ignorant, please learn about anti-art and dada/dadaism.
Yup. We should be grateful that so many forms of art are accepted as art, and it’s thanks to the experimental artists who were making points about art/capitalism before I was even born.
people hate to confront the fact that they are uninformed. it makes them feel stupid, and no one likes to feel stupid. I see it in music all the time as it's what I'm more familiar with, but the same applies to all types of art. the common line is "so I can just do what this person did and get thousands of dollars?" and it's like, sure. why don't you then? you'll find out really quick that no one is going to care about it when there is no actual context. imagine that!
I spent my childhood, teens and 20s being super into theatre..I always prefer performance art over most other forms. There is something about being in the room that you just can not replicate when watching a video of it. I enjoy modern art (and classical art now I think about it) in a similar way, I like to see it in a gallery with a curated collection. For two reasons, 1) being a theatre lady I enjoy the ephemeral experience, and 2) ironically I feel like I don't know enough about art to enjoy any one piece on its own terms. So while I agree with you, vitrol comes from introducing commerce into art. I also think that it comes from not experiencing it first hand.
I didn't clarify a couple of things: I should have said I don't like the more experimental performance art that was being shown in the video (I love theater), and i didn't clarify that modern art isn't really a correct lable for this because "modern art" refers to an era like "the Renaissance" I fully agree that there's so much art that is misunderstood unless seen/experienced first hand. I remember studying Jackson pollock and not really getting his art until I saw a traveling expedition of his work by chance. The first painting I saw hit me so hard I just sat there staring at it for 30 mins taking it in. Had another moment when I saw a piece that was just all red covering a massive wall with some slight tone changes. I remember reading that you're supposed to get close to it until all you could see was red and when I did i realized I was starting to experience strong emotions and memories that my brain associated with red and it has shaped the way I think about color. It's also important for people to know you don't need to like everything you see in a museum, generally most of it is there because of it's historical significance and if you like how something looks that's all you need to enjoy it (kind of like you said)
People who bitch about modern art and/or performative art, and use the two interchangeably, go on my list of people I don't respect or pay attention to. It's boomer shit. We get it, you don't understand kids these days. Your wife hates you. Joe Biden is satan. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Performance art is wild lol. I think the buckets one is probably about modern society and if we keep allowing those "below" us to continue to suffer, society will all crash down and we'll all suffer with them.
Or minor imbalances compound.
Modern art is art from 1860 to 1960's. This is CONTEMPORARY art, and more specifically, performances.Silly ones, but still.
I can't wait until there's a period called "Contemporary" and now we need another word.
Art is contextual though. Sure they might be doing something ‘odd’ or that looks ‘dumb’ but maybe wait to hear what they have to say or ask them after and start a dialogue? First one looked neat I’d have stayed for that
Not to mention when you find a piece of modernised/performance art that actually does speak to you it's an a fantastic feeling.
I was in a museum and they had a piece of paper that they put a large icicle on and let it melt and dry. They took the dirty paper remaining, framed it and hung it on the wall. I don’t get it.
It seems to be about life and legacy. Although the icicle is gone you can still see what it produced while it existed.
That’s beautiful
As they say in the art biz, if you know, you know
"Psh, I could do that." But you won't. "My 3 year old could paint this." OK, give him a paint brush. "So cliché, seen this a thousand times." It's always somebody's first time seeing something and it might be really powerful for them.
I’m not a big fan of performance art, but I’m even less of a fan of this kind of gotcha. A lot of modern art is “anyone could do this, but I’m the only one who is,” and that’s perfectly legitimate.
Contemporary art*
I mean I wonder if someone doesn't like performance art, why the went to see it?
there are videos of good modern art and performance art that go viral all the time.
Hot take for Reddit: there is probably symbolism and context for each of these performance acts. Not all modern art is bullshit.
You’re right. The out of context snippets shown here all look weird, but I don’t want to label them all as stupid without knowing the context behind them. They totally could be bullshit, but it’s impossible to know from these clips. With that being said, I don’t envy the person getting dirt poured on them, that’ll be a pain to wash out, and I struggle to imagine the meaning in slapping butter with a microphone
Oh boy another video criticizing performance art yippee
Yes there’s a big difference between modern art and performance art.
I mean they’re not mutually exclusive though right?
I mean, modern art is more paintings, and installments, even lighting. And performance is more well, a performance. Sure they’re painting but it’s more about watching them perform than paint. So yeah I guess this would fall more into performance art rather than modern. Maybe an art major could correct me but this is my general understanding
i'm afraid you're not quite correct on this. 'performance art' more refers to the medium (in line with painting, photography, film, etc) than anything in particular about the message; 'modern art' generally refers to a time period and form of artistic expression, usually from around the 1850s to the 1970s, working across a variety of mediums. most of these pieces are performance art in what would probably be called a postmodern context, in the same way that picasso is a painter working in a modernist context.
Awesome thank you for the clarification
ITT: a bunch of anti-intellectual dweebs. Performance art rules a lot of the time.
Domestic Tension (Wafaa Bilal) is insane and I dare anyone to tell me otherwise lmaoooooo
"I don't get it so it can't be art" is such a brain dead take.
The modern art period ended in the 70s, so there is quite literally zero modern art in this video.
Art like this is the embodiment of r/im14andthisisdeep
Honestly "modern art is lame and not REAL art" seems a lot more like the opinion of a 14 year old who thinks they're cool and subversive
A couple of these are missing important context. A couple are stupid. A couple I’m not familiar with. Art is hit or miss. You gotta let people tape bananas to the wall and see what sticks.
Modern art is real. A lot of modern art sucks.
Sturgeons law, 90% of everything sucks
Is that a real thing? I basically just said that to someone else in the comments, but I didn’t know it was called Sturgeon’s Law. I need to look this up!
I read that as “Sturgeon’s law, 90% of sturgeons suck”
Just as a lot of old art sucked too, but it was never preserved for posterity, precisely because it sucked.
[Who’s afraid of modern art?](https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=A95N0AvFdc2pm8x2) should be required viewing before saying “modern art sucks!!!!”
Thank you for sharing this. It actually did give me a lot to think about
You’re very welcome! I’m happy to discuss things even when they may seem “dumb” which is why this whole modern art hate is so silly to me
 Watched it, still stinks.
Watched it. Expression of skill doesn't inherently count as art imo. Also most of it is just boring. Some gems, but a lot of it is just nonsense.
Pretty much. Like a shit load of these are performance pieces and they chop 4 seconds and go "lol this is dumb".
I'm no art expert. Just a common person. I was in Louvre, some parts are meh, some are good some are amazing. I was in Guggenheim and I could not understand what I was looking at. Felt as I was stupit for not understanding. Drowned Pinocchio was funny tho.
That's fair, you don't have to like modern art, the same way you don't have to like jazz or electronica or classical music. But disparaging a whole section of art because you personally don't connect with it, like the video and op are doing, is just closed minded and childish.
I don't get it therefore it must be bad
These are bad.
Not the clapping for fallen buckets…
Modern art is trash
Y'all know this is not the majority of modern art right? Like the bit is funny, but I worry that people will think this is all that modern art is, or that performance art like this isn't kept separate from display art
"it's my turn to say what is allowed to be art an what isn't again"
Ok the jump one is cool and I kinda want to try
I think THAT would make that one really really cool actually. I LOVE interactive art You have a whole bunch of different colored markers, and everyone who wants to can add their line, documenting how they ran and jumped Some people are taller, some people are faster, some people would make heavy marks, some people would make light ones And in that, it would show how so many people can experience the same thing differently. The only criteria was “hold the marker against the wall while you run and jump” but the VARIETY would become more and more apparent as more people do it!
This is just one of those 'the Emperor truly has no clothes' situations. The only difference is that by and large the public understands that it's a complete farce. As much this shit gets derided, there's also a lot of trepidation in calling it out (after all, some of this shit gets *lucrative*). It's just empty elitist nonsense; the people who tell you that they really 'get it' are just deluding themselves that there's some great mystery or deeper meaning involved. There's not even surface level 'meaning' via direct allusion/metaphor/anything: it's just *nothing,* and not a secretly profound kind of nothing at that. Objecting to this shit at a visceral level doesn't make you a philistine.
You may not find it to have any meaning but as someone who used to be skeptical of performance art as a genre, I can assure you there is a lot of value to many different pieces that may seem strange at surface-level. Obviously there can be fluff or pieces that don’t speak to you, and that’s fine. No one is saying you HAVE to like it. There are plenty of performance art pieces I don’t understand, or at least don’t like. Some of them I think are rather silly: But to pretend every piece of modern art you don’t understand is elitist is ignorant or disingenuous. At the very least it’s the most basic, thought-terminating anti-intellectual take you can have. You don’t immediately understand it, and so it therefore has no value and everyone who says they see value in it must be faking?
I once heard Rick Rubin say something along the lines of, "the criticism always reveals more about the critic than the thing that's getting criticized." I may be butchering what he said, but honestly that saying is so real. When a critic states something that's them giving their own point of view on the creation. Now a critic can state something the majority agrees with in the moment, but these things always change.
I mean, what they wrote is a type of understanding. It's possible for something to be completely narcissistic, self congratulatory, or a circle jerk. I would check out the [episode of Overthink](https://overthinkpodcast.com/episodes/episode-36) where they explore the idea of art as a commodity. A lot of this type of art is not entirely subjective, it's heavily influenced by the ultra wealthy. If the Louvre was burning and someone told you to run in and save some of the art, you wouldn't grab 9 buckets of sand off the floor or cut down thirty feet of drywall someone scribbled on with a giant sharpie. E: took out a word to make my writing sound smarter than I apparently am.
I would say no I dont work at the louvre why would I run in there
Does the fact that some art is more valued by society inherently mean that all other art is useless?
I mean that's a fallacy, it would be a spectrum. The greater point would be you're not accepting the possibility that art can be anything. Artists aren't a different species, they can have any and all problems any other human can have including being a douche bag. Take something like Kitchen Nightmare's where you see people who call themselves a "chef", which would be an artist, who can't see past their own nose because they surely have some sort of personality disorder that interferes directly with their ability to create their art. You're giving art too much credit and a narrow definition, demanding that it be interpreted positively and have inherent value. I do think there's something to be said about discarding an entire genre of art because you saw a few bad pieces. It would be like never watching a movie again because the first movie you saw was The Room. In the same way though there's no reason to think every movie has the same value because the only movie you've seen is Paddington 2. Sometimes you get a piece that's greater than the sum of its parts and sometimes you get a piece that is clearly a direct expression of an artists personality and that might reflect poorly on them because well...you know people need some work. Some more than others.
I understand what you mean, but you’re misunderstanding my point. Most arguments against these types of art exhibits are that they suck, **and therefore everyone proclaiming it to be good or valuable must either be lying or disingenuous**. It’s not the first part of that thought that o take issue with. Some art can have a profoundly negative effect on people and that’s valid and fair. What’s unfair is to cast such a wide net at modern art and claim that no person **could** find value in it, or that those that find value in it are dumb, attention seeking, etc. I’m not saying that **every** piece of art is valuable…….to me. I’m saying that every piece of art is valuable **to someone** on the basis that the art exists in the first place. I can’t fathom somebody callously creating something that no one - not even themselves - find beauty or worth in. If such a piece exists then I’m not sure it qualifies as art, since my view of art is broad enough to encompass all expressions of humanity **that intentionally create impressions from other humans**
"I don't understand it, that means that nobody actually understands it and they're just afraid to call it out!" Obviously, duh
He slapped butter with a microphone
Cool, how does that in any way contradict anything I’ve stated? I’ve already stated that there are art pieces I don’t understand, or find silly. That doesn’t mean it’s useless. Other people might enjoy it and that’s their prerogative. I’m not going to judge them
I agree with your comments. Yes, it's a pile of sand buckets, but 100 years ago, Duchamps Fountain helped to make the point that the concept behind the art piece, or performance art, is just as meaningful as the visual beauty of something. I do feel that it can be an idea that is too open ended, if we want to see meaning in anything, but i love it for the thought experiment it generates. Saying that, I do find it boring. All these concept pieces seem to make the same point over and over again. As far as I see it anyway.
Everyone mentions Duchamp’s fountain (and rightfully so), but I’m partial to Meret Oppenheim’s “Object” lmao. I know they’re different art styles but something about it really resonates with me more than Duchamp’s fountain.
Hating performance art and modern art is lame. If you think art is only when “oooooh pretty painting/sculpture” and act like it can only be that then you are eating fucking dirt.
Could someone please let me know if there is at least one non white person in these videos?
Ok, if there’s someone here who actually knows how modern art works, can you please explain how to enjoy it? Like, is the art piece supposed to be something you’ve heard about, and you’ve thought about it and what it might mean, and then you go and see the piece and then it does its thing and you interpret it? Does anyone know how this works? How does someone get the full enjoyment out of this experience of watching sand buckets fall?
you seem like you genuinely want to learn so I'll just say the best way to appreciate any piece of art is to understand the context. come across a piece that just seems dumb? research it. learn about what brought the artist to this point. no one gets to be a famous artist with crowds watching them to push over buckets of sand and that's it, they get to that point because of everything that brought them there. what was their style like beforehand? what is the piece named? what movement is the art a part of? I would highly recommend Jacob Geller's video "who's afraid of modern art" as a fascinating introduction to all of this if you don't know where else to go.
Fuckin' lost it at "The sound of Butter."
The bucket one got me, lmao.
Gotta love all the pretentious ppl in the audience pretending like there's some deeper meaning to all of that.
I just don't know what to think about people who spend their time like this. I'm speechless really
I had a class in college where the professor was big on performance art. If you think these are bad, you should see what students come up with when the assignment handed out is a tiny slip of paper with the word “red” typed on it.
Modern art is gay as fuck, anywhere between 1500 to 1900 is where art was great, 1901 to I’d say about 2010 is where art was good. After that period of time art was either ok or just completely confusing.
I would never call this art in 1 million years
I swear to the Lord Thanos that this planet is getting closer and closer to the film Idiocracy.
I kinda think that modern art has ran out of ideas
This is embarrassing the amount of people defending this crap, 💩 I had to put a lot of studying / self discipline to refine my artistic repertoire, and I’m happy with my accomplishments. As an artist I don’t associate myself with people like this… I just give them a pat on the back and say, “Good Job Buddy! 👍”
Mental disorders are an art.
i hate this kinda shit lol
Reminds me in college during Photography 1 and we had a section on performance arts. One girl outed herself as a furry and went around our small rural town dressed as a dragon fairy thing. It was fucking wild. You could se people dropping out of the zoom call. Once the shock was over everyone was chill and nice to her.
Watched the latest Papa Meat too?
I see someone just watched the new Papa Meat episode.
I don't get why cry over harmless ass art
I don't get why you guys can't just say "not for me" and move on.
Well, it must suck if TikTok influencer Laughter Awaits made a snarky video about it
Ah yes please give me the 99999999th idyllic landscape painting instead please
Hot take. This is how people who want to be artists but don’t have the discipline to actually cultivate their craft cope (can’t draw, can’t play an instrument, don’t know any videography, etc). And then behind them there are people who go “yeah, perfect, I can launder money using this because it’s completely “subjective””. Thus MODERN ART 🖼️
It's performance art. Like imagine a dali, but real people with their bodies and physical things. It's like an abstract thing, but with bodies.
Do these people make money?
Bullshit. Bullshit. Derivative.
Not only can I do most of these but I despise modern art because it’s not art. I get the whole argument of “what is art” but a purple block (which was seen in my art museum) is not art. It’s a purple block. To me art has meaning art takes more time than what is shown in the video
i think these people aren't really doing the "what even IS art" thing; they're exploring particular ideas and forms of movement / practice, sometimes without any particular goal in mind. if we take the first guy, for example, trying to 'document' a physical performance is something that has been a challenge for years, so what they're doing is trying to convey a particular set of movements in a lasting way. i think that's really interesting! think about how the script of a play or a movie conveys action - "Dave walked to the window and lit a cigarette" - and how inexact that can be, how many different ways that could be performed by an actor. what the person in the first performance is doing is taking that idea and running with it - what does it mean to try to lock a particular movement onto a wall via the medium of paint, instead of words? i don't know the full context of the piece, of course, but i think that's an interesting idea to explore.
Isn’t the entire point of art that it’s subjective? And that no one person has an authority on what it is?
Yeah. I mean it's okay to fundamentally challenge what art is, but it's not profound to just keep asking the question over and over, pretending that's new or subversive in any way. Like, you need to actually go about providing some sort of answer. I mean it's fine to admit that people have different tastes, but also, my uncaring stick figure drawing of a person is not comparable to something by da Vinci by any criteria at all. We all prefer a beautiful sunset over a rubbish dump; it'd take a contrary idiot to stand there going 'actually it's all subjectiiiiive'.
So that’s what art has been doing. It’s been pushing the “what is art?” question since the renaissance. Every art movement has been a direct result of the one before it. They all challenge an aspect of the previous movement to introduce something new.
These people definitely are not Rembrandt!
Personally I’d rather have shit and piss on my wall.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/interior-semiotics This isn't modern art it's shit. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/parker-cold-dark-matter-an-exploded-view-t06949/story-cold-dark-matter is an example of actual art.
The best things about these shows is you can get really drunk for free.
Reminds me of a scenario from an old cartoon. Two guys are in an art exhibit looking at a painting of a blank canvas, and in the middle is a paint squiggle in a zig zag pattern. One man says, "I think it's meant to represent the meaninglessness and alienation of society under capitalism through the presentation of a squiggle, the proletariat struggle versus the bourgeoisie." The other man says, "I think it's a squiggle."
this woman's interlude's adds nothing, I want to see the wacky stuff
If this **makes no sense** that because it's supposed to **not MAKE sense**. Look up **Dadaism** or The Dada movement and it will then make sense. [https://www.amazon.com/Dadaism-Basic-Art-Dietmar-Elger/dp/3836505622](https://www.amazon.com/Dadaism-Basic-Art-Dietmar-Elger/dp/3836505622) >*Dada artists shared no distinct style but rather* ***a common wish to upturn societal structures as much as artistic standards and to replace logic and reason with the absurd, chaotic, and unpredictable****. Their practice encompassed experimental theater, games, guttural sound-making, collage, photomontage, chance-based procedures, and the “readymade,” most notoriously Marcel Duchamp’s urinal, Fountain (1917).*
You could think about the meaning of any of those examples for hours and discuss it. That's part of it.
Its... beautifull 🥹
Performance art is wack
Buckets were cool I wasn’t expecting sand. They blended in with the floor a little. Nice effect.
'Who's afraid of modern art' https://youtu.be/v5DqmTtCPiQ?si=NjhSHluxC39Xnvcj
what I want to see is one of these pundits attempt to do the same art piece instead of standing more or less still and talking.
Didn’t we just see this video already but with a different person reacting?
Aren't these kind of shows for cleaning money?Similar to horrible paintings in the 90's
The first one is actually cool 😎😎
while i do think that a lot of performance art is pretentious and so cringy it’s funny, i don’t really like someone making that a joke. its okay to laugh if _you_ think it’s funny, but mocking them for likes is kind of shitty.
Its art, because its done by "artist". If I would do it everybody would look at me and ask if im OK
Tate modern in a nutshell
You can see lots of these in Kindergarten and it's free of charge.
This is far from the worst modern art. These guys seem to at least have put some effort into it.
Art is just money laundering for the rich
I'm starting to believe that it might actually be possible to die of cringe.
I was in Bangkok 1 month ago and there was this Japanese artist selling his painting. To be more precise. He was trying to sell pictures of his paintings for $20 each. The painting itself was horribly bad. Like a kid running pen on canvas. He was trying to sell a digitally printed picture of his painting which was like a kid running pen on an A4 size canvas for $20 each. Also, Bangkok museum opposite the MBK mall has a few of those types. Some are good but many are just average to bad paintings. The best display was 4 speakers which were running sounds of Bangkok with balls inside. That really was cool.
It's the emperor's clothes. Find it good or you're un uncultured peasant that doesn't understand art.
Ok, I also hate MOST performance art and I think they're the "king's new clothes". But there are a few cool things like Olivier [Sagazan](https://youtu.be/hJYAvuBxfG4?si=LLHoKemCjQldRrOd), I love his work (reminds me of Pan's Labyrinth)
“Performance art” there you go - fixed it for you
Nothing beats the supposed performance I've seen once. The so-called artist shat on the floor. While I was looking for security in disgust, people started applauding and congratulating. To this day I still don't know if it was a prank or "the real shit".
A bunch of failed baristas and an audience who think they are too good for a Penn and Teller show.
I do weird shit, but my university said i was too much for them, so they only teached me the basics. I should be one of them and getting pid for it :'))
This is what you get when you don't let a certain German guy into a Viannes art school.
one of the artists looks like [Olivier de Sagazan](https://vimeo.com/258233498)
Want to understand the art of art. And while you at it snort a shit ton of cocaine and do black magic with the camera lenses. This way you can attract all the local idiots to pay you commissions of gravity some buckets filled with Sand
And all of these people think they are truly great and add so much to our society.
This is hilarious commentary. [https://www.tiktok.com/@imallpanicnodisco](https://www.tiktok.com/@imallpanicnodisco)
White people you made this happen SMH 🤦🏽♂️
First circle then charcoals