Why I Hate Modern Art — Transcript

A critical view on modern abstract art, its history, and its commoditization by the wealthy elite.

Key Takeaways

Modern abstract art was originally a liberating, accessible form of artistic expression.
Many famous abstract pieces lack traditional meaning and technical complexity.
The art market has commoditized modern abstract art, making it exclusive to wealthy collectors.
This commoditization contradicts the original spirit of modernism as a democratizing movement.
The reputation of modern art suffers due to high prices and controversial works.

Summary

The video expresses a dislike for modern abstract art, particularly abstract expressionism.
It explains the origins of abstract expressionism in 1940s New York with examples like Jackson Pollock's Number 5.
The speaker critiques the perceived lack of meaning and technical skill in abstract art.
The high auction prices for simple abstract works, such as Pollock's $140 million sale, are highlighted as problematic.
Modern art's initial accessibility and freedom from traditional artistic rules are contrasted with its current commoditization.
The video traces art history from the Renaissance, emphasizing the rigorous training artists underwent.
Modernism introduced styles that anyone could create, democratizing art in theory.
Despite this, modern abstract art has become a luxury commodity for the super-rich, similar to classical art.
The legacy of modern art is seen as tarnished by its commercialization and reputation for laziness.
Contemporary controversial pieces further complicate the public perception of modern art.

Chapters

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

I don't like modern art. I don't like abstract art. Controversial opinion, I know. [Music] However, I'll explain through a bit of its history first of all and what exactly it is I have a problem with because it's probably not what you think.

Speaker A

To start, let's begin with some examples of abstract expressionism. It was an art movement developed in New York in the 1940s, and as a famous example of it, let's take a look at this art piece, Number 5 by Jackson

Speaker A

Pollock. It's an action painting made by laying out a large canvas on the floor and dripping cans of paint onto it. The piece is absolutely devoid of meaning. It obliterates all rules of composition, lighting, and even subject. This artwork is absolutely meaningless.

Speaker A

[Music] What the painting is, however, is supposedly a celebration of the activity of painting itself, about the paint and about the canvas. In Pollock's specific case, as a practitioner of action painting, his work is about the energy of the

Speaker A

splashing lines of paint themselves. Art for art's sake, essentially. And I will admit the work produces an aesthetically pleasing pattern to look at in all of its chaotic energy. However, randomly splashing paint around on a large canvas isn't a particularly difficult thing to

Speaker A

do, nor are random swatches of paint in solid chunks like in Mark Rothko's Number 16. So what's the problem? Why do I have such a problem with modern abstract art? The artwork isn't intrinsically abhorrent or ugly, nor do I particularly hate what they stand

Speaker A

for. No, what I dislike is that these artworks are being sold for absurdly high amounts of money. Mark Rothko's Number 16 sold for 1.8 million dollars. Not too bad yet, right? That matches the price of many other paintings,

Speaker A

though a few of which are as simplistic as this. Let's turn back to Jackson Pollock's Number 5 for a second. How much do you think this one is worth? 5 million? 10 million? In 2006, this piece was sold for an absurd 140 million dollars.

Speaker A

That's as much as an expensive yacht or two cheaper ones. [Music] Okay, so famous paintings are expensive. Big deal. There are Renaissance paintings that are sold for much, much more, and I hate modern art because it's become commoditized by the super rich,

Speaker A

like all these other famous art pieces, right? Well, not exactly. Why do I have a problem with this art form in particular and not paintings of other genres like classical Renaissance portraits or Impressionist pieces that similarly fetch high prices from people

Speaker A

with way too much money for their own good? My issue comes with the specific legacies of abstract expressionism and the history that brought it about, which makes the commoditization of it even more egregious. So to explain this, we're going to have

Speaker A

to go back. It's rewind time. Ooga caveman drop. Okay, okay, okay, not that far. We're going to go back to the Renaissance. The old masters like Leonardo da Vinci, Caravaggio, and Rembrandt defined what art was at the time. Becoming an artist was not

Speaker A

something anybody could do. In some years, you needed to become the apprentice of an already established, well-known artist. In others, you had to attend an academy, learning all the rules of art such as light, shadow, proportion, perspective, sculpturalism,

Speaker A

etc. Simply put, it was a difficult endeavor. However, modernism emerged in the 20th century. Unlike old Renaissance styles such as Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassicism, among others, with modernism came styles such as Cubism, Futurism, and Abstract Expressionism. And unlike the art of before,

Speaker A

many of these modernist styles were easy. So easy that anyone with some paint and a brush could do it. Heck, as Jackson Pollock proved with action painting, sometimes you didn't even need the brush because abstract art was free from the rules established by

Speaker A

institutions of the past. Anyone could do it, which was the beauty of the art form. Anyone was free to artistically express themselves through expressive views of lines, color, etc. It was a liberating art form that anyone could participate in,

Speaker A

not just the super-rich or hyper-talented. In the Renaissance, art was a thing only displayed in the homes of nobility or inside of churches at best. Ordinary people just owned some small Jesus thing. As we jump back into the

Speaker A

20th century, modernism, unlike the art of the past, wasn't mostly made for the benefit of the rich or the church. It was the shift of art from Paris to New York, and herein lies my problem with modernism because

Speaker A

it's been commoditized by the wealthy all the same. Like with the paintings of the past, it's a shame that despite the accessibility initially touted by the art form, modern art has become something only enjoyed by the rich once again. We see pieces such as

Speaker A

Pollock's Number 5, Rothko's Number 16, or Picasso's painting of a lover in a beret being traded around by private collectors for millions of dollars. Artwork has always been the victim of conspicuous consumption, the victim of wealthy people buying it

Speaker A

to show off how much money they have. Modern art had arrived to subvert the expectations of institutions and the reputation of art in the past, and yet it had ended up as commoditized as the rest. The legacy of modern art is, dare I say,

Speaker A

tarnished in recent years, replaced with the idea of it being the work of lazy artists randomly splattering paint on a canvas to earn a quick buck. And again, looking at these absurd prices being fetched, it's no wonder it earned this reputation.

Speaker A

With the ridiculous prices of such simplistic pieces that require no years or decades of practice and training, it's no wonder that nowadays the reputation of modern art is sinking further. And this isn't helped by the controversial contemporary pieces like

Speaker A

the banana taped to the wall, which are also being marketed as modern art. But that's not the point here today. It's transformed from an expressive, colorful medium free from the limiting rules of the past like color, subject, light, perspective,

Speaker A

shadow, free from the academies, the church, free from the snobbish legacies that pegged art as a commodity only enjoyed by the wealthy. And that is why I dislike modern abstract art.

Topics:modern artabstract artabstract expressionismJackson PollockMark Rothkoart commoditizationart historymodernismart marketart critique

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does the creator dislike modern abstract art?

The creator dislikes modern abstract art not because it is ugly or meaningless, but because it has been commoditized and sold for absurdly high prices, contradicting its original accessible and liberating intent.

What is abstract expressionism and who are some key artists mentioned?

Abstract expressionism is an art movement from 1940s New York focusing on spontaneous, energetic painting techniques. Key artists mentioned include Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko.

How does the video compare modern art to Renaissance art?

The video explains that Renaissance artists underwent rigorous training and followed strict rules, making art creation difficult, whereas modern abstract art broke these rules and was easier to create but has ironically become commoditized like Renaissance art.

Get More with the Söz AI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries, speaker detection, and unlimited transcriptions.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →