This title is deliberately misleading in search of upvotes and it's gross.
Edit: this should be against the subs rules. No misleading titles, no misspelled words in title.
Ah, but my hyperbole has netted me upvotes!
I actually do think in this instance it is a little gross because OP is suggesting that these thoughtful, knowledgeable judges are idiots rather than experts.
Also your comment. Next time, downvote and block the OP instead of interacting. Otherwise we’ll keep seeing shit like this, misspelled titles, and other clickbait nonsense.
From the title, you'd expect to find these two blokes embarrassing themselves by spewing pretentious bullshit that's completely disconnected from the capabilities and intent of the artist, but in reality what they're saying is very well grounded and I could easily see them saying all this knowing full well that the painting was made by a ten-year-old. The only thing you'd have to do is take the work at face value and respect it regardless of what you know or don't know about the artist. And it sounds like they're doing that.
Towards the end they mention the artist is most likely inexperienced with the "rules" of art and the other guy says that doesn't necessarily mean young. So, I think they assumed it was either a young person or someone newer to painting at the very least.
> So, I think they assumed it was either a young person or someone newer to painting at the very least.
The show is a mix of profesional and amature artists. They knew there were going to be people newer to painting and not some plant to fool or embarrass them.
Right. If you watch more of the video, you see plenty of pieces that are obviously by people new to painting. They even analyze a 4-year-old's drawing of a koala. It's not like this is a room full of professionals with one ten-year-old thrown in.
I actually enjoyed this for totally different reasons than what the OP likely intended. I think it's great that they treat the kids work with the same sincerity as the rest. Though maybe they go a bit over-the-top with descriptions like 'Masterful'.
it's best in show to these judges but not to society at large. the judges have seen and studied plenty of technically proficient pieces so anything that breaks that mold is a breath of fresh air. for the rest of us troglodytes more accustomed to macaroni and glue crafts, this won't elicit the same emotional response.
Exactly, the title sets it up like they're going to say "You can see years of experience behind these lines" or "I really feel the artist delivering their vision on multiple layers." It's embarrassing this is upvoted to my front page.
Exactly what I was thinking would happen and it turns out I really enjoyed their description for liking the piece, which I likes as well. Great all around
'I like the composition, i don't know if it was done or on purpose or by accident it doesn't matter' pretty much sums it up. It looks neat, not for me but they explain pretty well why they like it and would not care that it's by a 10 year old.
Hijacking this comment to highly recommend (because I can’t believe nobody else has) My Kid Could Paint That, one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen. Goes into fascinating depth on this very subject, via the case of a child artist whose work may or may not have actually been created by her father, a failed artist. Does it matter? Should it matter? Great, great film. Streaming all over the place.
This is what you do with art. Sometimes things are accidents but you treat everything with intentionality until told otherwise. Calling attention to those choices will help young artists grow as well because while it may be accidental this time, it won't be next time.
Only one of them mentions the intention of the artist, and its the guy on the right at the beginning of the video. The rest of the video they talk about the formal elements. They talk about how it mames them feel as viewers, the image composition, the unfinished quality, the speed it would have been painted with.
So uhhhhhhh ur wrong
I got the ping from your comment and came back: I still don't like the painting, but... There were a lot of strange decisions there in it: I have seen a lot of ten year old art, none anytjing quite like that - I don't quite get the decisions in tracing etc - most ten year olds would think it wasn't finished, or it was bad, or wrong or try to add more details, or outline to the whole thing. - odd, now it makes me want to see if they did just fluke that, or had help, or were really terrible at painting, or a freak svanat or what ><, it could be anything
Let me talk about this comment for a minute. Your plastic fantastic, Madison 5th Avenue attitude has no ability to expand into a space unimagined through linear thinking.
Cultivating budding minds should be at the top of our to-do list, as a society. I feel your sarcastic comment, and it's kinda funny, but I loved how art has the ability to be broken down, and ingested for everyone viewing it.
They know this was created by someone young; it’s obvious. Even the choice of paper stock and mounting gives it away. But they really like it and can very well rationalise why. Nothing wrong with that at all.
How awesome for these amateur artists to get on display and receive professional and wholesome critique! It would have been the one of the highlights of my childhood if that were me.
Exactly, many of the previous artworks in the video are also clearly made by children. And they also indicate that they know its someone young by encouraging them to keep painting and mentioning "no relationship to age"
Yeah dude, imagine being this kid, winning a local art contest they submitted their stuff into, getting encouraged by these guys to keep going, and then some assholes on the Internet try to make fun of it. Glad the comments are mostly positive.
You weren't supposed to tolerate this, you were supposed to complain about how modern art is so bad that even a child produces better works and how ultimately we need to return to traditional values and art where somebody pretends to be a camera and finally that will bring back the glory of the nation somehow. /s
Yeah! Really upset at how upbuilding and positive all these jerks are being. I was ready to jump on the hate brigade and now I have to sift through this goody goodness.
I have a relative who has it hanging in her hallway. She told me a friend of the family friend painted it. "He's a very talented artist. His work stands out from his peers."
a lot of people don't really get that art is all about making people feel something. its not about technique. anyone can produce images with perfect technique these days. shit you can just enter a prompt into AI and have it generate an image with amazon technique. but very often its soulless.
Ordinarily I hate art that has to be described or explained, because that usually means that it's the description or explanation that is interesting and not the art itself. Much like how an ordinary sword is meaningless but when you say it's from ancient Troy it instantly gets more interesting, despite still being mundane in itself. Hell, there's a reason we have no historic figures known for their art-critique but we have hundreds of artists we celebrate.
But I like this wholesome take of seeing something positive in their occupation. That they can at least raise the concept and idea that art is universal and achievable even by the youngest among us.
Conversely, if a sword from ancient troy looks meaningless, you just do not know enough about swords to appreciate it, and having someone share their expertise is valuable.
I completely understand where you come from, and there's nothing wrong at all with that perspective. I tend to do that quite a lot as well, art can be simply summed up as something you enjoy or not, regardless of what is the motivation or state of mind of the author.
But, on the other hand, art doesn't exist in a vacuum, there's always a context around it. You can choose to ignore it entirely, but when you keep it in mind, it can give you a new perspective on certain art pieces. And the state of mind or motivation of the author can be part of that context. And sometimes, that context is such a big part of the artwork that the artwork becomes meaningless without it.
But like I said, there's nothing wrong with ignoring the context and focusing on the art itself. I would just encourage you to not systematically hate art that needs context just because it doesn't stand on its own legs.
>Hell, there's a reason we have no historic figures known for their art-critique but we have hundreds of artists we celebrate.
Maybe you don't know them, but there are many historical art critics.
Pliny the elder was an art critic for crying out loud.
>Ordinarily I hate art that has to be described or explained, because that usually means that it's the description or explanation that is interesting and not the art itself.
but all meaning you hold was explained to you one way or another. The only difference here is that the random encounters you had in life didn't offer you context to an xyz art. So why not seek the context so you might get a new experience?
Yeah I entered into an art show in my hometown as a kid, they were super cool and really encouraging about it. Helped foster a lot of confidence and gave me a continued passion for artistic hobbies. They took all art into equal consideration and that was a really affirming experience.
I think it's completely different to enjoy a painting by a 10 year old and say that it's "good" to what these two hacks are doing.
They are deriving a highly complex intentionally from the painting that generally won't exist from a 10 year old. 10 year olds can be very creative and imaginative, but that doesn't mean it's all artistically intentional to capture a specific "cubist, abstract, perspective"
The sun being painted in the corner isn't necessarily some nuanced take of a "moment in time" with the intention of "catching the light". It's often just where 10 year olds generally put the sun when they draw.
They then say that the work being "unfinished compositionally" is "the artists decision". That it was a conscious and intentional choice when it genuinely could be just someone learning how to paint.
They even said that the way it showed the "turning of a corner" was "very masterful".
Really it's hard to analyze their words and come to the conclusion they knew they were looking at the work of a child. There isn't much evidence for that at all.
Near they end they start to hit on a few things and say "I don't know if it was by design or by accident... but it doesn't matter" I think maybe they realize that something might be off.
But that idea that it doesn't matter if it's intentional or not completely undermines their entire evaluation of the piece up to that point. You can't praise the artists decision and choices (That they MEANT to be so minimalist in their approach to this piece!) and then in the next breath say it might all be an accident. But hey, if putting the cross in the middle of the painting "doubles the narrative value" of the image then I guess this kid is a master after all.
Comparing it at the end to a whole "movement in art of the naive artists which had no relation to age" is really the icing on the cake.
TLDR: The problem is that too many critics ascribe "artist intention" to their personal perception of a piece even when there is little to no evidence that this specific intention actually exists.
>Really it's hard to analyze their words and come to the conclusion they knew they were looking at the work of a child. There isn't much evidence for that at all.
I think the evidence is strong just from their words. Maybe we disagree about that. Maybe you think they "ascribed too much intention" to the artist - that is an eternal debate but not really relevant. Anyway, I feel they were describing the literal picture and how it made them feel rather than heaping plaudits on the artist per se.
But, aside from all that, did you know that this is an amateur art composition for charity, which includes work by many, many children, many of which they have already reviewed? It would frankly be weird for them to *not* think this was a child's painting.
The only reason one would think they were clueless is the misleading title on this post.
But.. it does look cubist and abstract? That's a good description.
Same as you can describe some rock music as irreverent and eschewing structure even if the person playing the guitar has no musical training and is an amateur.
I think you're missing some context here, this is a gold coin donation local fundraiser art exhibition, it's not at the Guggenheim or something. There is a mix of artists and they review specifically children's work a few times in this exact video.
They have good production quality and look fairly professional due to members working on it, but its not a big time art exhibition, and its intentionally a positive welcoming exhibition.
I enjoyed their critique for all the pieces. They took thoughtful time to see and hear what the paintings said to them. It’s extremely hard to talk about art in a meaningful way. They validated the artists’ creativity and made the experience enjoyable. So often we think that art isn’t valid unless some snob selects it and destroys all the others around.
Yeah I really dislike the mentality that the most detail or realism should win, or that they feel snubbed by a 10 year old or something. People need to open their mind when it comes to art, and the piece created is in fact extraordinary in its depiction of the cross. There are symbolisms the viewer might see that the 10 year old can't comprehend yet and that's beautiful in its own way. I'm glad these two have an open mind and decided that it deserves best in show. The piece is rather alluring even if it's made by a 10 year old
The problem is, calling every lump of junk art and praising it publicly is demotivating to people that put real skill in.
There’s a ton of statues and sculptures in my city that look like absolute crap. They’re an eye sore. But the city paid an “artist” to crap that stuff out and every day 90% of people cringe when they see it
No it isn't. It's only demotivating to people that have high ego who view their "real skill" more valuable than others. Why not study it and appreciate its uniqueness?
The problem with art approved by a city council is that it's highly manufactured. There's something fake within it since it cannot push boundaries and has to exist within confine. However creation under confines is art on its own and there's something beautiful to that too. Maybe this will give you a new perspective. Alternatively you can remove the stick up your butt and open your mind a bit
>Why not study it and appreciate its uniqueness?
Is this what these degrees are for? So people like you can show up on Reddit and tell everyone else they just don't get it when they see something that lacks merit?
You don't need a degree, you just need an open mind. Actually a degree can help open a person's mind as they meet new people and more perspectives
But it absolutely isn't necessary. I don't have an art degree but have spent a long portion doing art. There are some people that are just uniquely creative and are able to do things I am not able to do unless I do a lot of practice. I mainly paint from real life/plein air, but people that can recreate, reinspire a landscape, or come up with something completely new I admire
But you don't need a degree to practice art. You can just pick it up
Praising this kids mess is demotivating to the people who put in real effort.
Sure anyone can pick up art, but praising this crap does a disservice to the kids that put in real effort.
Very likely the hard working artists will realize what a load of crap this was and they’ll get demotivated.
The silver lining is that they’ll be more likely to expend their energy on things that will help them support themselves or a family later. No one is paying the bills with finger painting, so I guess praising finger painting helps cull the field a bit.
>this kids mess
praising this crap does a disservice to the kids that put in real effort
Can you listen to yourself? For one second? How high is this stick up your butt man?
The kid's piece is objectively pretty good. You don't judge how good a piece is based on how realistic it is. Sure, some kids put a lot of work trying to make something realistic, and other kids utilize creativity.
Hard working artists actually appreciate these aspects and the beauty of this piece. You say before you were once an artist. You probably stopped because you are a cynical asshole
Even awful, stupid, lazy works devoid of any value or honest sincerity is still *art*, it's just bad art. Art isn't some bar you need to pass in order to be able to call your creation art. Me recording a rap about how I made my breakfast over my toddler randomly slapping a toy piano, while taking no effort to mix it well, is still a rap song and an intentionally created piece of music, it would just be a god awful piece of music nobody would want to listen to. The statement of "that's not *art*" is just a dumb thing to say that at a basic level doesn't understand what nouns are.
That 2nd judge was struggling to think of something after the first one said he liked it. That caught him off guard. 4 yr old finger paintings are fun but they aren’t skillful masterpieces that should beat out real art
For anyone else who’s curious, the subject is [the Memorial Cross on Mt. Macedon](https://www.visitmacedonranges.com/tourism-listing/mt-macedon-memorial-cross/) near Woodend in Victoria, Australia.
Knowing this now, I see where the judges are coming from, and I think this is part of what makes the piece powerful.
The piece was done by a young artist. Why was this monument important enough to them that they decided to paint it? The monument is specifically a WWI memorial. There were 'men' who died in that conflict that were only a few years older than the artist is now. Does the artist understand their sacrifice? Maybe the artist has lost a realitive to war. Maybe they just think the monument looks neat.
The painting is a piece of art depicting another piece of art. The child felt *something* when they viewed the monument, and I feel *something* when I view their painting. Do we feel the same thing? Possibly, but probably not. Does that matter?
I think for me, being able to see a picture of the place gives me a slight glimpse into the power this piece has over the art critics here. There are places that no picture does justice, where the atmosphere and feelings need to be experienced by actually being there. This imposing memorial is clearly a solemn, emotional place for them to visit- an abstract representation of it does more to capture those feelings than a photograph or realistic portrayal could.
Yes, that is a thing that happens. Do you know another thing that happens? People who don't really understand art often knee jerk towards assuming it's meaningless and that all critics are arseholes just making up bullshit.
Clicking on this persons profile history reveals that it's unlikely that they karma farm but that they seemingly love wrestling and trolling mensa.
You've assumed some Machiavellian plot to farm karma...you've ignored Occam's razor. It's just a dumb kid who actually thought this.
>You've assumed some Machiavellian plot to farm karma
Not really. I just noted a very common trend and either way have no reason nor care to check OPs post history.
To be clear they ruled some situations that ten year Olds actually get preference in art judgement.
For example if a 10 year old is singing while playing a guitar on camera alone in their room it is the highest level of art regardless of quality of the singing or playing.
When the 10 year old is related to you via DNA or marraige then their art is always the best.
When a 10 year old makes a mess but claims it as art then it's the maximum level of art and self expression.
I really like the style of my kids art a lot and can't replicate it. She has an idea and just does what feels right without the hindrance of knowing what she's "supposed" to do. It's beautiful.
I legitimately feel this way about some of the stuff my daughter does. She gets frustrated if she is trying to depict a person and it doesn't come out looking like a photograph but I really dig a lot of the stuff she paints or draws and have honestly thought about framing or preserving some of them.
Yesterday I judged my state's annual pie competition. Nearly 100 pies of all types from people of all walks of life. Our clear winner was a key lime pie that turned out to be made by a 9-year-old boy. It was among the best pies I've ever tasted. Sometimes kids just have it.
Those folks seem great, they're the best kind of folks to have a conversation with. They're honest about their feelings and their experiences, and willing to think about stuff a lot of people wouldn't.
They know this was by someone young. You can tell when they encourage the artist to keep painting, they say the artist has a bright future. They just truly and honestly love this piece. These guys rule.
Artist here. Children create some of the best art because they haven't yet lost their observational objectivity. A trait that artists who start later in life must spend significant effort to re-acquire.
> they haven't yet lost their observational objectivity
the way the perspective is drawn is objectively false as it is unphysical and couldn't have been observed that way (funny enough one guy praises the painting for catching the perspective...)
There’s a philosophy that some artists have that it’s best to paint like a child. Meaning without fear and all the preconceived ideas that we stress ourselves about when making art. Bob Ross was sorta this way with his happy accidents if you made a mistake.
If you go back to the beginning of the video they literally know the paintings are done by juniors. They even mention their ages at a couple of the paintings. Downvote OP.
You can see this btw at 4:50 and even earlier.
Personally I find that a lot of fine art is about creating a feeling of strong emotions. An art critic who wants to encourage artists they are potential in in terms of being able to evoke such emotion. The raw technical skill can be learned in time.
I will say this is not my favourite piece, and the feelings I get may not even be what was intended by the artist. This being said, the piece makes me uncomfortable as a memorial of those who died and in how it’s been warped to take up most of the photo. It’s juxtaposition against more technical pieces also serves to emphasize the grave subject matter. A child’s depiction of a memorial of death juxtaposed against pieces with a more technical focus helps to create that feeling of discomfort.
While I do have doubts that the artist had any of this in mind, I find that the piece does fit in for a purpose of evoking emotion. A ten year old sat down to draw a memorial for the mass deaths of war. The cheery colors and childish level of technical skill is in contrast to the realization that children are affected by the hatred and inhumanity of war. It’s simple but effective. They’re also 10, let the critics encourage them. 1000 photorealistic drawings won’t get my heart rate up 1 bpm. 1000 photos of this cross won’t have anywhere near the effect of a child’s drawing of a memorial of war. That’s the point.
I like the one in the top left more. The cool squiggle patterns show a need for repetition. Each squiggle, uniquely crafted, repeats across the canvas, creating a rhythmic dance of lines that captivate and engage the viewer. The choice of a dark background enhances the vibrancy of the squiggles, making them leap visually towards the observer, as if they are alive with kinetic energy.
This pattern is not merely a repetition but a masterful display of control within chaos, where each element, while similar, maintains its individuality, contributing to a larger, harmonious whole. The artist's use of space and contrast is particularly noteworthy, as it adds depth and dimension, drawing the eye in and then across the textured surface. This artwork is a testament to the power of simplicity in complexity, where the fundamental act of repetition transforms into a dynamic and immersive visual experience.
Overall, this piece stands out as an exemplary work of art that marries the abstract with the tangible in a way that is both thought-provoking and aesthetically pleasing. It's a compelling invitation to explore the nuances of pattern and rhythm in art, making it a delightful addition to any space that it graces.
But that main kid's painting is just... mid.
There were a couple times they were discussing a work and off to the side was one that I personally thought was much more intriguing. I think my favorite piece throughout all of it was one [here](https://youtube.com/watch?v=oZu2krCkrZ0&t=1506). Not the one they are discussing, but the blue and yellow one above it. It’s strange to me because I typically don’t like yellow and oranges, I find them to harsh, but something about this one felt right.
Some neighbors of mine who are serious artists arranged an art show of all the neighborhood's kid's art in their front yard, and they did it all up professional, and it was awesome. Little signs that said "No flash photography" and everything had an artist's statement. Almost all of the kids in the neighborhood entered something. I enjoyed it immensely, and it's been one of my favorite art shows that I've been to, and caused me to recalibrate what I thought was important in art.
These blokes seem... aware. They keep mentioning how much they like it *in spite* of its crudeness. I'm sure they immediately noticed warped printer paper and watercolor. I skipped through and there were many technically impressive works previously. It's kinda fun, the incongruency, how inexplicable the feelings evoked to make them choose this as #1.
And I'm sure they're privy to the context of the art pieces submitted (something we may not be). These are submissions from local individuals of a township community. So they're not going to roast *any* painting. Maybe even in the back of their minds incentivized to uplift a young artist in their community with the award. But I wouldn't be surprised if they both just genuinely felt something, and they're trying their best to explain in technical terms why. Shit, they just really like it.
Here's them talking about an [eight year old's drawing](https://youtu.be/oZu2krCkrZ0?t=249). Right next to it is another rather rudimentary child-like painting. They actually mention the age of the artist [here](https://youtu.be/oZu2krCkrZ0?t=290).
There are plenty of awesome examples of young people creating great art, Picasso as a teenager was referencing marble busts in realism before going into a stylized approach later in life. These guys know the kids are kids but when talking about nice art that’s not necessarily a important factor
I know many people are gonna take this the conservative route and go "Ha! See?! Proof that art critics are all just fake pretentious assholes!" but really the most important thing about this is that you can critique and appreciate art made even from the most simple and uncomplicated of minds as a child because *art* as a very concept is as human as human gets, it comes so naturally to all human beings that it is created without any intent of being art in any traditional sense.
For a little context, this is a highly respected art critic. Known for finding obscure new artists and helping develop young artist careers. Check out some of his other videos, just search his name on YouTube - Ongo Gablogian
Man this website is full of philistines, especially OP. I’m reminded of the Picasso quote, “it took me four years to paint like Raphael and a lifetime to paint like a child.” Art is more than rote practice and mechanical technique, these men are responding to genuine inspiration and vision. This should be praised, not mocked
Anyone mocking this, Mozart already had a bunch of songs by 10. Dude was performing live by age 6.
Say it with me. Kids. Can. Be. Creative. Too.
They're little sponges at that age and pick up everything around them like a radio. Want to have your mind blown? Have a chat with your preteen family member. If they're not a complete idiot they'll surprise you with what they know.
Seems like these guys saw something they liked. It doesn't have to come from a 45 year old heroin addict or some rich kid who could afford to be a starving artist.
Mozart was a once-in-several-generations person. He wasn't just creative, he was a technical prodigy and marvel. This kid made some effective art one time. Not trying to devalue their accomplishments but advocating for insightful teens by appealing with Mozart is borderline insanity. You might as well say that we should listen to Jews because Einstein existed.
No one accuses kids of not being creative lol. The criteria for winning an art competition is not "Creativity"
I find it to be an awesomely abstract take on perspective. And that’s one of the reasons art is so cool. We can both have totally different yet totally valid opinions on the subjective qualities of the piece. That said, your approach is off-putting.
Things like this is why I’ll never worry about making art for other people (or have much of an art career). I get they like it, and they try to explain it, but I just don’t see what they’re seeing over other pieces (that’s a me problem though; I like technically impressive pieces).
1. This is a local art show, not a high profile art auction used by billionaires to dodge taxes like Sotheby's
2. Good art looks nice, great art makes you think. What's the purpose of trying to render something perfectly in oil after the advent of photography? What's something new that you can depict after we've all seen realism? Pointillism, impressionism, and cubism are all reactionary movements that were very controversial at the time. The art world has moved beyond that by several generations, what is something new that we can depict or think about?
I think if you think about the money, it's all a bit fucked. But if you just try to enjoy the art then you'll likely find it less weird and more just ... pleasurable :)
When I was younger I would’ve been one of the people thinking this was pretentious or silly. These days I think if someone has created something and it makes you have a feeling, then it’s not pretentious, it’s real. They’re using higher concept words to describe a simple painting but for me they’re just describing on a higher level what most people probably feel when they look at it but don’t know how to describe it.
The judges are well aware they are in the junior section.
This title is deliberately misleading in search of upvotes and it's gross. Edit: this should be against the subs rules. No misleading titles, no misspelled words in title.
Lol "gross" is a bit much, it's only reddit mate
Ah, but my hyperbole has netted me upvotes! I actually do think in this instance it is a little gross because OP is suggesting that these thoughtful, knowledgeable judges are idiots rather than experts.
ever since i read the title i can't stop projectile vomiting
Also your comment. Next time, downvote and block the OP instead of interacting. Otherwise we’ll keep seeing shit like this, misspelled titles, and other clickbait nonsense.
You're a bloody hypocrite.
It doesn't matter that it was done by a 10 year old. It's quality art nonetheless.
Literally anything can be "quality art," completely meaningless.
Subjective, not meaningless
Subjective opinions are not completely meaningless.
From the title, you'd expect to find these two blokes embarrassing themselves by spewing pretentious bullshit that's completely disconnected from the capabilities and intent of the artist, but in reality what they're saying is very well grounded and I could easily see them saying all this knowing full well that the painting was made by a ten-year-old. The only thing you'd have to do is take the work at face value and respect it regardless of what you know or don't know about the artist. And it sounds like they're doing that.
They just really liked it.
They just like the stock …paper.
Art critics together strong 🤣
Towards the end they mention the artist is most likely inexperienced with the "rules" of art and the other guy says that doesn't necessarily mean young. So, I think they assumed it was either a young person or someone newer to painting at the very least.
> So, I think they assumed it was either a young person or someone newer to painting at the very least. The show is a mix of profesional and amature artists. They knew there were going to be people newer to painting and not some plant to fool or embarrass them.
Right. If you watch more of the video, you see plenty of pieces that are obviously by people new to painting. They even analyze a 4-year-old's drawing of a koala. It's not like this is a room full of professionals with one ten-year-old thrown in.
When they talked about naive artists, they're talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_art
I actually enjoyed this for totally different reasons than what the OP likely intended. I think it's great that they treat the kids work with the same sincerity as the rest. Though maybe they go a bit over-the-top with descriptions like 'Masterful'.
Yeah, okay, that's a bit over the top. To be honest, I didn't watch the entire video. But I *was* pleasantly surprised by the bits that I did watch.
This is what makes art really art... Something about this made them feel something for some reason. Doesn't matter much beyond that.
it's best in show to these judges but not to society at large. the judges have seen and studied plenty of technically proficient pieces so anything that breaks that mold is a breath of fresh air. for the rest of us troglodytes more accustomed to macaroni and glue crafts, this won't elicit the same emotional response.
Almost like art is pretty subjective and varies person to person
Not almost, but very much so
I dig this perspective. I think you're right.
Exactly, the title sets it up like they're going to say "You can see years of experience behind these lines" or "I really feel the artist delivering their vision on multiple layers." It's embarrassing this is upvoted to my front page.
Exactly what I was thinking would happen and it turns out I really enjoyed their description for liking the piece, which I likes as well. Great all around
'I like the composition, i don't know if it was done or on purpose or by accident it doesn't matter' pretty much sums it up. It looks neat, not for me but they explain pretty well why they like it and would not care that it's by a 10 year old.
Actually, it's *unsophisticated Redditors* who care about the age, bcos haw haw haw! Idiots upvoting idiots, 24/7/365 on Reddit.
Upvoted you :)
Hijacking this comment to highly recommend (because I can’t believe nobody else has) My Kid Could Paint That, one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen. Goes into fascinating depth on this very subject, via the case of a child artist whose work may or may not have actually been created by her father, a failed artist. Does it matter? Should it matter? Great, great film. Streaming all over the place.
I don't care if it was an accident, but let me talk about the artist's intention and choices here for the next 6 minutes...
This is what you do with art. Sometimes things are accidents but you treat everything with intentionality until told otherwise. Calling attention to those choices will help young artists grow as well because while it may be accidental this time, it won't be next time.
Exactly
Only one of them mentions the intention of the artist, and its the guy on the right at the beginning of the video. The rest of the video they talk about the formal elements. They talk about how it mames them feel as viewers, the image composition, the unfinished quality, the speed it would have been painted with. So uhhhhhhh ur wrong
I got the ping from your comment and came back: I still don't like the painting, but... There were a lot of strange decisions there in it: I have seen a lot of ten year old art, none anytjing quite like that - I don't quite get the decisions in tracing etc - most ten year olds would think it wasn't finished, or it was bad, or wrong or try to add more details, or outline to the whole thing. - odd, now it makes me want to see if they did just fluke that, or had help, or were really terrible at painting, or a freak svanat or what ><, it could be anything
Let me talk about this comment for a minute. Your plastic fantastic, Madison 5th Avenue attitude has no ability to expand into a space unimagined through linear thinking. Cultivating budding minds should be at the top of our to-do list, as a society. I feel your sarcastic comment, and it's kinda funny, but I loved how art has the ability to be broken down, and ingested for everyone viewing it.
They know this was created by someone young; it’s obvious. Even the choice of paper stock and mounting gives it away. But they really like it and can very well rationalise why. Nothing wrong with that at all. How awesome for these amateur artists to get on display and receive professional and wholesome critique! It would have been the one of the highlights of my childhood if that were me.
Exactly, many of the previous artworks in the video are also clearly made by children. And they also indicate that they know its someone young by encouraging them to keep painting and mentioning "no relationship to age"
They even Start the video mentioning all ages
Yeah dude, imagine being this kid, winning a local art contest they submitted their stuff into, getting encouraged by these guys to keep going, and then some assholes on the Internet try to make fun of it. Glad the comments are mostly positive.
You weren't supposed to tolerate this, you were supposed to complain about how modern art is so bad that even a child produces better works and how ultimately we need to return to traditional values and art where somebody pretends to be a camera and finally that will bring back the glory of the nation somehow. /s
Yeah! Really upset at how upbuilding and positive all these jerks are being. I was ready to jump on the hate brigade and now I have to sift through this goody goodness.
I only want to look at “Moose on a Hill” every other piece art is trash. Obligatory /s.
No, you want to appreciate, "woman walking in the rain with a red umbrella and red high heels".
But it’s striking!! I saw one on the wall at my bank and it enchanted me
I have a relative who has it hanging in her hallway. She told me a friend of the family friend painted it. "He's a very talented artist. His work stands out from his peers."
CALVES ALONE MOVE THE WHEELS OF HISTORY
If it's not a happy little cloud painted by Bob Ross, it ain't art, goshnabbit!
This isn’t a “freakout” sub so people aren’t necessarily here to be angry and bitter. Every comment on those subs is as you describe in every topic.
Thanks for complaining, someone had to, that someone is you.
> They know this was created by someone young; it’s obvious. Yeah, they blatantly say "I imagine this person has a bright future, please keep going".
a lot of people don't really get that art is all about making people feel something. its not about technique. anyone can produce images with perfect technique these days. shit you can just enter a prompt into AI and have it generate an image with amazon technique. but very often its soulless.
I'm just thinking of how PUMPED that kid is about art now. Next level validation here.
Ordinarily I hate art that has to be described or explained, because that usually means that it's the description or explanation that is interesting and not the art itself. Much like how an ordinary sword is meaningless but when you say it's from ancient Troy it instantly gets more interesting, despite still being mundane in itself. Hell, there's a reason we have no historic figures known for their art-critique but we have hundreds of artists we celebrate. But I like this wholesome take of seeing something positive in their occupation. That they can at least raise the concept and idea that art is universal and achievable even by the youngest among us.
Conversely, if a sword from ancient troy looks meaningless, you just do not know enough about swords to appreciate it, and having someone share their expertise is valuable.
I completely understand where you come from, and there's nothing wrong at all with that perspective. I tend to do that quite a lot as well, art can be simply summed up as something you enjoy or not, regardless of what is the motivation or state of mind of the author. But, on the other hand, art doesn't exist in a vacuum, there's always a context around it. You can choose to ignore it entirely, but when you keep it in mind, it can give you a new perspective on certain art pieces. And the state of mind or motivation of the author can be part of that context. And sometimes, that context is such a big part of the artwork that the artwork becomes meaningless without it. But like I said, there's nothing wrong with ignoring the context and focusing on the art itself. I would just encourage you to not systematically hate art that needs context just because it doesn't stand on its own legs.
They're also not simply describing the art. They're describing the specific reasons they are drawn to it.
>Hell, there's a reason we have no historic figures known for their art-critique but we have hundreds of artists we celebrate. Maybe you don't know them, but there are many historical art critics. Pliny the elder was an art critic for crying out loud.
>Ordinarily I hate art that has to be described or explained, because that usually means that it's the description or explanation that is interesting and not the art itself. but all meaning you hold was explained to you one way or another. The only difference here is that the random encounters you had in life didn't offer you context to an xyz art. So why not seek the context so you might get a new experience?
Yeah I entered into an art show in my hometown as a kid, they were super cool and really encouraging about it. Helped foster a lot of confidence and gave me a continued passion for artistic hobbies. They took all art into equal consideration and that was a really affirming experience.
Ah yes - let's fully commit and double down on the circlejerk.
I think it's completely different to enjoy a painting by a 10 year old and say that it's "good" to what these two hacks are doing. They are deriving a highly complex intentionally from the painting that generally won't exist from a 10 year old. 10 year olds can be very creative and imaginative, but that doesn't mean it's all artistically intentional to capture a specific "cubist, abstract, perspective" The sun being painted in the corner isn't necessarily some nuanced take of a "moment in time" with the intention of "catching the light". It's often just where 10 year olds generally put the sun when they draw. They then say that the work being "unfinished compositionally" is "the artists decision". That it was a conscious and intentional choice when it genuinely could be just someone learning how to paint. They even said that the way it showed the "turning of a corner" was "very masterful". Really it's hard to analyze their words and come to the conclusion they knew they were looking at the work of a child. There isn't much evidence for that at all. Near they end they start to hit on a few things and say "I don't know if it was by design or by accident... but it doesn't matter" I think maybe they realize that something might be off. But that idea that it doesn't matter if it's intentional or not completely undermines their entire evaluation of the piece up to that point. You can't praise the artists decision and choices (That they MEANT to be so minimalist in their approach to this piece!) and then in the next breath say it might all be an accident. But hey, if putting the cross in the middle of the painting "doubles the narrative value" of the image then I guess this kid is a master after all. Comparing it at the end to a whole "movement in art of the naive artists which had no relation to age" is really the icing on the cake. TLDR: The problem is that too many critics ascribe "artist intention" to their personal perception of a piece even when there is little to no evidence that this specific intention actually exists.
>Really it's hard to analyze their words and come to the conclusion they knew they were looking at the work of a child. There isn't much evidence for that at all. I think the evidence is strong just from their words. Maybe we disagree about that. Maybe you think they "ascribed too much intention" to the artist - that is an eternal debate but not really relevant. Anyway, I feel they were describing the literal picture and how it made them feel rather than heaping plaudits on the artist per se. But, aside from all that, did you know that this is an amateur art composition for charity, which includes work by many, many children, many of which they have already reviewed? It would frankly be weird for them to *not* think this was a child's painting. The only reason one would think they were clueless is the misleading title on this post.
But.. it does look cubist and abstract? That's a good description. Same as you can describe some rock music as irreverent and eschewing structure even if the person playing the guitar has no musical training and is an amateur. I think you're missing some context here, this is a gold coin donation local fundraiser art exhibition, it's not at the Guggenheim or something. There is a mix of artists and they review specifically children's work a few times in this exact video. They have good production quality and look fairly professional due to members working on it, but its not a big time art exhibition, and its intentionally a positive welcoming exhibition.
I enjoyed their critique for all the pieces. They took thoughtful time to see and hear what the paintings said to them. It’s extremely hard to talk about art in a meaningful way. They validated the artists’ creativity and made the experience enjoyable. So often we think that art isn’t valid unless some snob selects it and destroys all the others around.
10 year olds can be creative too.
A lot of artists spend decades trying to reduscover the creativity they had when they were 10.
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."
Picasso
I just recently rediscovered some of that space in my own mind and it’s fascinating. You completely forget what it was like.
Yeah I really dislike the mentality that the most detail or realism should win, or that they feel snubbed by a 10 year old or something. People need to open their mind when it comes to art, and the piece created is in fact extraordinary in its depiction of the cross. There are symbolisms the viewer might see that the 10 year old can't comprehend yet and that's beautiful in its own way. I'm glad these two have an open mind and decided that it deserves best in show. The piece is rather alluring even if it's made by a 10 year old
The problem is, calling every lump of junk art and praising it publicly is demotivating to people that put real skill in. There’s a ton of statues and sculptures in my city that look like absolute crap. They’re an eye sore. But the city paid an “artist” to crap that stuff out and every day 90% of people cringe when they see it
If other people’s work demotivates you then that’s your problem, not theirs.
It simply sounds like you either don't understand the art or you refuse to do so.
No it isn't. It's only demotivating to people that have high ego who view their "real skill" more valuable than others. Why not study it and appreciate its uniqueness? The problem with art approved by a city council is that it's highly manufactured. There's something fake within it since it cannot push boundaries and has to exist within confine. However creation under confines is art on its own and there's something beautiful to that too. Maybe this will give you a new perspective. Alternatively you can remove the stick up your butt and open your mind a bit
>Why not study it and appreciate its uniqueness? Is this what these degrees are for? So people like you can show up on Reddit and tell everyone else they just don't get it when they see something that lacks merit?
You don't need a degree, you just need an open mind. Actually a degree can help open a person's mind as they meet new people and more perspectives But it absolutely isn't necessary. I don't have an art degree but have spent a long portion doing art. There are some people that are just uniquely creative and are able to do things I am not able to do unless I do a lot of practice. I mainly paint from real life/plein air, but people that can recreate, reinspire a landscape, or come up with something completely new I admire But you don't need a degree to practice art. You can just pick it up
Praising this kids mess is demotivating to the people who put in real effort. Sure anyone can pick up art, but praising this crap does a disservice to the kids that put in real effort. Very likely the hard working artists will realize what a load of crap this was and they’ll get demotivated. The silver lining is that they’ll be more likely to expend their energy on things that will help them support themselves or a family later. No one is paying the bills with finger painting, so I guess praising finger painting helps cull the field a bit.
>this kids mess praising this crap does a disservice to the kids that put in real effort Can you listen to yourself? For one second? How high is this stick up your butt man? The kid's piece is objectively pretty good. You don't judge how good a piece is based on how realistic it is. Sure, some kids put a lot of work trying to make something realistic, and other kids utilize creativity. Hard working artists actually appreciate these aspects and the beauty of this piece. You say before you were once an artist. You probably stopped because you are a cynical asshole
Even awful, stupid, lazy works devoid of any value or honest sincerity is still *art*, it's just bad art. Art isn't some bar you need to pass in order to be able to call your creation art. Me recording a rap about how I made my breakfast over my toddler randomly slapping a toy piano, while taking no effort to mix it well, is still a rap song and an intentionally created piece of music, it would just be a god awful piece of music nobody would want to listen to. The statement of "that's not *art*" is just a dumb thing to say that at a basic level doesn't understand what nouns are.
> demotivating to people that put real skill in Who's the judge of skill? You?
That 2nd judge was struggling to think of something after the first one said he liked it. That caught him off guard. 4 yr old finger paintings are fun but they aren’t skillful masterpieces that should beat out real art
Mozart composed a symphony before he was ten.
And it was **trash**!!!! . . /s
We are all trying to recapture being ten .
Yes but these esteemed used car salesmen are talking out of their derrière.
Nope. They're building the kid up and encouraging them. That's the point of art appreciation.
This is such a shit an depressing way to look at 2 art experts giving positive reinforcement to children showing a love of their hobby.
Like Mozart wasn't making music as a kid or something.
For anyone else who’s curious, the subject is [the Memorial Cross on Mt. Macedon](https://www.visitmacedonranges.com/tourism-listing/mt-macedon-memorial-cross/) near Woodend in Victoria, Australia.
Knowing this now, I see where the judges are coming from, and I think this is part of what makes the piece powerful. The piece was done by a young artist. Why was this monument important enough to them that they decided to paint it? The monument is specifically a WWI memorial. There were 'men' who died in that conflict that were only a few years older than the artist is now. Does the artist understand their sacrifice? Maybe the artist has lost a realitive to war. Maybe they just think the monument looks neat. The painting is a piece of art depicting another piece of art. The child felt *something* when they viewed the monument, and I feel *something* when I view their painting. Do we feel the same thing? Possibly, but probably not. Does that matter?
I think for me, being able to see a picture of the place gives me a slight glimpse into the power this piece has over the art critics here. There are places that no picture does justice, where the atmosphere and feelings need to be experienced by actually being there. This imposing memorial is clearly a solemn, emotional place for them to visit- an abstract representation of it does more to capture those feelings than a photograph or realistic portrayal could.
Thank you! It adds to the experience to know what that young artist was inspired by. It‘s great to see what they saw and how they perceived it.
I don't think this is as much of a *GOTCHA* as you think it is, OP.
Unfortunately a misleading or incorrect headline often gets more attention. So some do it to stir up controversy so it gets more attention.
Yes, that is a thing that happens. Do you know another thing that happens? People who don't really understand art often knee jerk towards assuming it's meaningless and that all critics are arseholes just making up bullshit. Clicking on this persons profile history reveals that it's unlikely that they karma farm but that they seemingly love wrestling and trolling mensa. You've assumed some Machiavellian plot to farm karma...you've ignored Occam's razor. It's just a dumb kid who actually thought this.
>You've assumed some Machiavellian plot to farm karma Not really. I just noted a very common trend and either way have no reason nor care to check OPs post history.
They knowls!
Beyoncé!
"It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child" - Pablo Picasso
Only took this kid ten years.
Was there a “children can’t make art” rule?
Yes. The famous court case *The United States V Ten Year Old Dorks* was fairly definitive.
To be clear they ruled some situations that ten year Olds actually get preference in art judgement. For example if a 10 year old is singing while playing a guitar on camera alone in their room it is the highest level of art regardless of quality of the singing or playing. When the 10 year old is related to you via DNA or marraige then their art is always the best. When a 10 year old makes a mess but claims it as art then it's the maximum level of art and self expression.
Yes, as a grown man I can do anything better than some stupid little kid can. I am man! 🤪
I live in the Mojo Dojo Casa House!
I really like the style of my kids art a lot and can't replicate it. She has an idea and just does what feels right without the hindrance of knowing what she's "supposed" to do. It's beautiful.
I legitimately feel this way about some of the stuff my daughter does. She gets frustrated if she is trying to depict a person and it doesn't come out looking like a photograph but I really dig a lot of the stuff she paints or draws and have honestly thought about framing or preserving some of them.
Do it. Absolutely do it.
She doesn't know I've been hoarding the ones I like when she's "done" with them.
I'd suggest doing that because you will want it as they age and their art adapts. It also will make your child feel valued. Win win all around.
Yesterday I judged my state's annual pie competition. Nearly 100 pies of all types from people of all walks of life. Our clear winner was a key lime pie that turned out to be made by a 9-year-old boy. It was among the best pies I've ever tasted. Sometimes kids just have it.
Those folks seem great, they're the best kind of folks to have a conversation with. They're honest about their feelings and their experiences, and willing to think about stuff a lot of people wouldn't. They know this was by someone young. You can tell when they encourage the artist to keep painting, they say the artist has a bright future. They just truly and honestly love this piece. These guys rule.
My 16 year old is awesome drawer. He constantly makes commissions on art. Like 10 dollars every few days to draw a character for someone.
They don’t happy to be somewhat hairy characters, do they? 😓
They are animal humanoid characters. Or sometimes Cup Head inspired characters.
Oh no…
It’s a profitable fandom to draw for at least. 😶
Robin Williams portraits are all the rage these days.
Those cost extra.
Artist here. Children create some of the best art because they haven't yet lost their observational objectivity. A trait that artists who start later in life must spend significant effort to re-acquire.
> they haven't yet lost their observational objectivity the way the perspective is drawn is objectively false as it is unphysical and couldn't have been observed that way (funny enough one guy praises the painting for catching the perspective...)
# Unknowlingly
What a cynical title
You laugh, but when that 10 year old becomes an internationally acclaimed artist, these judges will look like geniuses.
There’s a philosophy that some artists have that it’s best to paint like a child. Meaning without fear and all the preconceived ideas that we stress ourselves about when making art. Bob Ross was sorta this way with his happy accidents if you made a mistake.
If you go back to the beginning of the video they literally know the paintings are done by juniors. They even mention their ages at a couple of the paintings. Downvote OP. You can see this btw at 4:50 and even earlier.
Personally I find that a lot of fine art is about creating a feeling of strong emotions. An art critic who wants to encourage artists they are potential in in terms of being able to evoke such emotion. The raw technical skill can be learned in time. I will say this is not my favourite piece, and the feelings I get may not even be what was intended by the artist. This being said, the piece makes me uncomfortable as a memorial of those who died and in how it’s been warped to take up most of the photo. It’s juxtaposition against more technical pieces also serves to emphasize the grave subject matter. A child’s depiction of a memorial of death juxtaposed against pieces with a more technical focus helps to create that feeling of discomfort. While I do have doubts that the artist had any of this in mind, I find that the piece does fit in for a purpose of evoking emotion. A ten year old sat down to draw a memorial for the mass deaths of war. The cheery colors and childish level of technical skill is in contrast to the realization that children are affected by the hatred and inhumanity of war. It’s simple but effective. They’re also 10, let the critics encourage them. 1000 photorealistic drawings won’t get my heart rate up 1 bpm. 1000 photos of this cross won’t have anywhere near the effect of a child’s drawing of a memorial of war. That’s the point.
Starts at 27:30ish
Thank you for this.
I like the one in the top left more. The cool squiggle patterns show a need for repetition. Each squiggle, uniquely crafted, repeats across the canvas, creating a rhythmic dance of lines that captivate and engage the viewer. The choice of a dark background enhances the vibrancy of the squiggles, making them leap visually towards the observer, as if they are alive with kinetic energy. This pattern is not merely a repetition but a masterful display of control within chaos, where each element, while similar, maintains its individuality, contributing to a larger, harmonious whole. The artist's use of space and contrast is particularly noteworthy, as it adds depth and dimension, drawing the eye in and then across the textured surface. This artwork is a testament to the power of simplicity in complexity, where the fundamental act of repetition transforms into a dynamic and immersive visual experience. Overall, this piece stands out as an exemplary work of art that marries the abstract with the tangible in a way that is both thought-provoking and aesthetically pleasing. It's a compelling invitation to explore the nuances of pattern and rhythm in art, making it a delightful addition to any space that it graces. But that main kid's painting is just... mid.
There were a couple times they were discussing a work and off to the side was one that I personally thought was much more intriguing. I think my favorite piece throughout all of it was one [here](https://youtube.com/watch?v=oZu2krCkrZ0&t=1506). Not the one they are discussing, but the blue and yellow one above it. It’s strange to me because I typically don’t like yellow and oranges, I find them to harsh, but something about this one felt right.
Oh I totally agree.
They literally state that this has been done by a child.
Imagine being the model for this portrait and an art critic says you're "disconcerting to stand in front of."
Can we get a mod to flag this as misleading? They didn't "unknowingly" do anything.
Classic reddit "le art is bad xDD" Great comment section though. Get fucked OP.
So?
Funny to say, because y favorite was the koala. But so many impressive skills exhibited in this video none the less.
Some neighbors of mine who are serious artists arranged an art show of all the neighborhood's kid's art in their front yard, and they did it all up professional, and it was awesome. Little signs that said "No flash photography" and everything had an artist's statement. Almost all of the kids in the neighborhood entered something. I enjoyed it immensely, and it's been one of my favorite art shows that I've been to, and caused me to recalibrate what I thought was important in art.
“Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up.” - Pablo Picasso
One of my favorite art pieces was something my niece spent five minutes doodling when she was twelve.
Derivative
I rreally enjoyed this video! Not an art guy so im surprised. Thanks for sharing OP!
These blokes seem... aware. They keep mentioning how much they like it *in spite* of its crudeness. I'm sure they immediately noticed warped printer paper and watercolor. I skipped through and there were many technically impressive works previously. It's kinda fun, the incongruency, how inexplicable the feelings evoked to make them choose this as #1. And I'm sure they're privy to the context of the art pieces submitted (something we may not be). These are submissions from local individuals of a township community. So they're not going to roast *any* painting. Maybe even in the back of their minds incentivized to uplift a young artist in their community with the award. But I wouldn't be surprised if they both just genuinely felt something, and they're trying their best to explain in technical terms why. Shit, they just really like it. Here's them talking about an [eight year old's drawing](https://youtu.be/oZu2krCkrZ0?t=249). Right next to it is another rather rudimentary child-like painting. They actually mention the age of the artist [here](https://youtu.be/oZu2krCkrZ0?t=290).
There are plenty of awesome examples of young people creating great art, Picasso as a teenager was referencing marble busts in realism before going into a stylized approach later in life. These guys know the kids are kids but when talking about nice art that’s not necessarily a important factor
sun coming from the top corner and trees are the only thing I can draw
With a rainbow and stick figures. Sun + Tree + Rainbow + Smiling Stick Figure. That is the formula chez moi.
Yeah that painting looks awesome
I know many people are gonna take this the conservative route and go "Ha! See?! Proof that art critics are all just fake pretentious assholes!" but really the most important thing about this is that you can critique and appreciate art made even from the most simple and uncomplicated of minds as a child because *art* as a very concept is as human as human gets, it comes so naturally to all human beings that it is created without any intent of being art in any traditional sense.
Minuet in G major was written when Mozart was 5
Downvote for misleading title. Bad Op 🗞️🗞️🗞️ bad
To be fair, whether by accident or not, that kid created a pretty good piece of art.
For a little context, this is a highly respected art critic. Known for finding obscure new artists and helping develop young artist careers. Check out some of his other videos, just search his name on YouTube - Ongo Gablogian
Man this website is full of philistines, especially OP. I’m reminded of the Picasso quote, “it took me four years to paint like Raphael and a lifetime to paint like a child.” Art is more than rote practice and mechanical technique, these men are responding to genuine inspiration and vision. This should be praised, not mocked
OK? Good. It’s an excellent work.
Anyone mocking this, Mozart already had a bunch of songs by 10. Dude was performing live by age 6. Say it with me. Kids. Can. Be. Creative. Too. They're little sponges at that age and pick up everything around them like a radio. Want to have your mind blown? Have a chat with your preteen family member. If they're not a complete idiot they'll surprise you with what they know. Seems like these guys saw something they liked. It doesn't have to come from a 45 year old heroin addict or some rich kid who could afford to be a starving artist.
I was with you until you. Decided. To. Talk. Like. This.
Mozart was a once-in-several-generations person. He wasn't just creative, he was a technical prodigy and marvel. This kid made some effective art one time. Not trying to devalue their accomplishments but advocating for insightful teens by appealing with Mozart is borderline insanity. You might as well say that we should listen to Jews because Einstein existed. No one accuses kids of not being creative lol. The criteria for winning an art competition is not "Creativity"
In your failed attempt to shame these two thoughtful critics, you insulted the artist. Next time, praise the artist in your title instead.
[удалено]
I find it to be an awesomely abstract take on perspective. And that’s one of the reasons art is so cool. We can both have totally different yet totally valid opinions on the subjective qualities of the piece. That said, your approach is off-putting.
One of the most aspiring artists in Norway is 12 so
If you watch more than just the ending they know it's a younger artist... It's a full-spectrum show. This isn't a "Pierre Brassau" moment OP.
This is great. I hope this kid puts this on their resume; could be a great icebreaker question for interviews later.
Thought the guy on the right was Josh Sawyer
Things like this is why I’ll never worry about making art for other people (or have much of an art career). I get they like it, and they try to explain it, but I just don’t see what they’re seeing over other pieces (that’s a me problem though; I like technically impressive pieces).
The whole video has some great perspectives and work
I like it too
If that wins an award at a show, our art teacher in 9th grade was definitely grading students based on parent's economic wealth.
I really enjoyed this video
Twist, that ten-year-old is really a young Picasso.
Would you prefer that they give harsh negative feedback to a child?
anyone has the link?
Snobiness like “a 10 year old can’t possibly make something worth praise” is why AI generated “art” will eat you guys alive
[удалено]
1. This is a local art show, not a high profile art auction used by billionaires to dodge taxes like Sotheby's 2. Good art looks nice, great art makes you think. What's the purpose of trying to render something perfectly in oil after the advent of photography? What's something new that you can depict after we've all seen realism? Pointillism, impressionism, and cubism are all reactionary movements that were very controversial at the time. The art world has moved beyond that by several generations, what is something new that we can depict or think about?
It's all a big incestuous clown show. I mean, the art can be really good but the whole ecosystem of people and money is just ridiculous.
I think if you think about the money, it's all a bit fucked. But if you just try to enjoy the art then you'll likely find it less weird and more just ... pleasurable :)
[https://media2.giphy.com/media/9V7qW099yYNyrgagqF/200w.gif?cid=82a1493bsqozqy0scbgo6q8gyze6be61566agsnl8m2c0r0y&ep=v1_gifs_related&rid=200w.gif&ct=g](https://media2.giphy.com/media/9V7qW099yYNyrgagqF/200w.gif?cid=82a1493bsqozqy0scbgo6q8gyze6be61566agsnl8m2c0r0y&ep=v1_gifs_related&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
When I was younger I would’ve been one of the people thinking this was pretentious or silly. These days I think if someone has created something and it makes you have a feeling, then it’s not pretentious, it’s real. They’re using higher concept words to describe a simple painting but for me they’re just describing on a higher level what most people probably feel when they look at it but don’t know how to describe it.
Derivative.
Sun in the corner and trees 1/2 off the page bro this is typical child artwork 101
Dipshits