Why is Modern Art so Bad?
Why is Modern Art so Bad?

“The Mona Lisa”… “The Pieta”… “The Girl
with a Pearl Earring.” For a score of centuries, artists enriched Western society with their works of astonishing beauty. “The Night Watch”… “The Thinker”… “The Rocky Mountains.” Master after master, from Leonardo, to Rembrandt, to Bierstadt, produced works that inspired,
uplifted, and deepened us. And they did this by demanding of themselves the highest standards of excellence, improving upon the work of each previous generation of masters, and continuing
to aspire to the highest quality attainable. But something happened on the way to the 20th
Century. The profound, the inspiring and the beautiful were replaced by the new, the different,
and the ugly. Today the silly, the pointless, and the purely offensive are held up as the best of modern art. Michelangelo carved his “David” out of a rock.
The Los Angeles County Museum of Art just offers us a rock, — a rock — all 340 tons
of it. That’s how far standards have fallen. How did this happen? How did the thousand-year
ascent towards artistic perfection and excellence die out? It didn’t. It was pushed out. Beginning in the late 19th century, a group dubbed The Impressionists rebelled against the French
Academie des Beaux Arts and its demand for classical standards. Whatever their intentions,
the new modernists sowed the seeds of aesthetic relativism — the “beauty is in the eye of
the beholder” mentality. Today everybody loves the Impressionists. And, as with most revolutions, the first generation or so produced work of genuine merit. Monet, Renoir, and Degas still maintained elements of disciplined design and execution, but with each new generation standards declined until there were no standards. All that was left
was personal expression. The great art historian Jacob Rosenberg wrote
that quality in art “is not merely a matter of personal opinion but to a high degree . . . objectively
traceable.” But the idea of a universal standard of quality in art is now usually met with strong resistance if not open ridicule. “How can art be objectively measured?” I’m
challenged. In responding, I simply point to the artistic results produced by universal
standards compared to what is produced by relativism. The former gave the world “The
Birth of Venus” and “The Dying Gaul,” while the latter has given us “The Holy Virgin Mary,”
fashioned with cow dung and pornographic images, and “Petra,” the prize-winning sculpture of
a policewoman squatting and urinating — complete with a puddle of synthetic urine. Without aesthetic standards we have no way
to determine quality or inferiority. Here’s a test I give my graduate students, all talented
and well educated. Please analyze this Jackson Pollock painting and explain why it is good. It is only after they give very eloquent answers that I inform them that the painting is actually
a close up of my studio apron. I don’t blame them; I would probably have done the same since it’s nearly impossible to differentiate between the two. “And who will determine quality?” is another
challenge I’m given. If we are to be intellectually honest, we all know of situations where professional
expertise is acknowledged and depended upon. Take figure skating in the Olympics, where
artistic excellence is judged by experts in the field. Surely we would flinch at the contestant
who indiscriminately threw himself across the ice and demanded that his routine be accepted
as being as worthy of value as that of the most disciplined skater. Not only has the quality of art diminished,
but also the subject matter has gone from the transcendent to the trashy. Where once
artists applied their talents to scenes of substance and integrity from history, literature,
religion, mythology, etc., many of today’s artists merely use their art to make statements, often for nothing more than shock value. Artists of the past also made statements at times, but never at the expense of the visual excellence of their work. It’s not only artists who are
at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners,
and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It
is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call
it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else
would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art. But why do we have to be victims of all this
bad taste? We don’t. By the art we patronize at museums or purchase
at galleries, we can make our opinions not only known but felt. An art gallery, after
all, is a business like any other. If the product doesn’t sell, it won’t be made. We
can also support organizations like The Art Renewal Center that work to restore objective
standards to the art world. And we can advocate the teaching of classical art appreciation
in our schools. Let’s celebrate what we know is good and ignore
what we know is not. By the way, the white background you see behind
me is not simply a white graphic backdrop. It is a pure white painting by noted artist
Robert Rauschenberg at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. I’m Robert Florczak for Prager University.

100 thoughts on “Why is Modern Art so Bad?”

  1. Castelo says:

    I agree with everything, except with what was said about the impressionists. Their capture of light is no easy feat, and Monet is brilliant! There's room for abstract. There's room for surreal. If not, how can we like Coldplay instead of Bach? But modern shitty stuff is about to ruin even that. Even the not so exact and virtuous, but still amazing Jackson Pollock… That is what hurts me the most.

  2. Microphonix Virtual Studio says:

    The thinker is pornographic.

  3. mr mann says:

    4:41 so then why aren't you an art critic yet?

  4. ____________ says:

    art can be objectively measured by NOT saying Picasso invented Cubism which is what kids from k-3 start off doing , and trying to further excuse the standard quality of art , in actuality this generation has destroyed it -1 main reason being bc of Hitlers war against it – Which is why that can also be JUSTIFIED – Theres no excuse for a music prodigy/artist to get rejected from a school like Juilliard and a girl who is an expert at making dolphin noises to get excepted bc her mommy scammed her way in , it is an abomination all together again what is happening around the world to art, music, science of sound – Why is Jackson pollocks paintings good to some people? Maybe he had too much Time and money to invest in making one of the MOST degenerate pieces of shit I have just ever seen –

  5. Nutsilica: Renaissance moving comix says:

    Modern art is a scam, sure… but the apron wasn't as good as Jackson Pollack's abstracts. The speaker doesn't quite understand why art has gone bad and very simply blames the pursuit of personal expression.

  6. Szymon Bujak says:

    Few words
    London tate gallery.

  7. Onochie Afigbo says:


  8. Richard Torz says:

    Funny scenario…..a modern artist paints a canvas all blue and then adds a white stripe on it, it hangs in a prestigous high end art studio. I wear a three piece suit and go into that art gallery and act like i am paying attention to that painting. I speak in voice that is loud enough for others as well as the artist can hear and say " This would look great in the reception area of my motel". You know how fast i would be thrown out of that art gallery on my butt for offending the artist and telling the truth that all that red painting with just white stripe through it was, just motel art. lol

  9. Marz Q says:

    Wow, an honest and intellectual description of today's art, most of these channels usually defend modernism and self expression to no limit and try to tell me I hate it because I am uncultured and that kind of stuff

  10. Chad Wygal says:

    Well said!

  11. some guy on the internet says:

    They didn't have Netflix back in the day

  12. Mobius says:

    If art is defined by evoking a response, then a bee sting and a stubbed toe are Art. Complete BS.

  13. Victoria Semenenko Real Life Victory says:

    Thank you Mr Florczak!

  14. Kyle Lacey says:

    PragerU champions what it means to be arrogant. They really come off to me as the paragon of conservatives that react in the direct inverse of insane leftists that we all love to hate. It's more or less the same type of behavior or attitude, but from the other side; whining is universal after-all. They are to the pompous aristocrat complaining about the uncultured rabble moving into their town, or the old man yelling at the kids to get off their lawn; as the leftists are to the angry drunkard who demands that people feed his addiction, or people who spend more time getting offended on behalf of someone else than actually working to help them.

    Now, I can't 100% disagree with the assertion that modern art has declined, but the old saying of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldn't be more true. Art is perhaps the most subjective topic we have, where two people can look at the same piece and come to wildly different determinations about it. Then, they will most certainly argue over who has more authority to truly deem this piece in objectivity, despite that being impossible and running against the entire purpose of art to begin with.

    I think saying that art has devolved into being "just personal expression" misunderstands the media. It was always about personal expression. You can argue that there were more nuances to it than simply that, of which I will grant, but personal expression was the founding reason for art in the first place, and it's through that expression that so many enjoy it. It has such wide range to affect people differently. The anger in this video is proof of the passion for the medium, I feel though it only serves to the detriment of the community. As, I don't feel elitism has a place in art. With so much variety, it's easy enough to simply ignore that which you dislike instead of rallying against its existence. Those that find pornography degenerate or immoral are not obligated to consume it, however they should also see the error in fighting it tooth and nail. If the tables were turned, and porn artists thought classical pieces were degenerate and immoral, and they wanted the world rid of it, would that too be justified? Of course not, especially in the eyes of those that support those pieces of work. It's easy to see through the lens of our own perspectives without much thought of anything else, but it's hardly a good way to be. Flip an issue around and it suddenly changes to those it is pertinent to, despite being the same exact issue going in the opposite direction.

    Some things in art can be objective. Things like motive, vision or raw talent cannot be specifically measured per-se, but will likely remain the same through the eyes of different people inclined to open-mindedness. You can dislike something while still seeing what went into making it and how it deserves respect. A degenerate porn artist can make something that cannot be disputed as well crafted even if not everyone enjoys the material itself. In the same vein, someone can draw stick figures doing the horizontal tango and it still be pornographic in essence, but significantly lacking the same quality. Some will vouch for the thing existing, which I would too, but would not dispute it's lack of skill to create.

    So, I don't personally think art has "declined" in a sense that it all sucks now, but rather it's changed much to the chagrin of some older enthusiasts. It's much in the same vein as people who claim music sucks nowadays compared to when they were younger, or that video games and movies have gotten worse in the same way; it's actually not the case many times. I'm sure you are aware of the phenomenon known as nostalgia? Well, it's not just the appreciation for things from your past that you remember fondly, it's the psychological bias towards those things that then warp your perception of things in your life in the present. Often times, the nostalgia you feel is betraying you, as while the feeling is genuine, the basis isn't. With the right circumstances, even what we would call objectively bad things can be viewed in the light of nostalgia. Games that were awful while we played them, can be turned to viewed in a positive light if the circumstances surrounding the memory is good, like playing said game with a group of friends.

    With this in mind, is it actually the case that art is now shit compared to yesteryear, or is it that we have bias in regards to the familiar? When kids growing up now to music we find horrid come to hold it dear to them in 20 years and curse the music that will be available at that time, will it not be the same exact cycle repeating? Are they just wrong? No, because nobody is right.

    If you stop trying to classify things in such black and white terms, in such a tribal way, you could find that you enjoy things more. Many more things in the process. Life is grey; it's always been grey, and it always will be grey. Putting things into categories of good or bad will not change the actual reality, but it is human to do so, certainly. Just understand that your perspective on reality isn't necessarily the only one, or the right one.

  15. Lucca Parolo says:

    Don't worry people, Bob Ross will save us

  16. Lucca Parolo says:

    Throws paint randomly at wall
    Everyone: GEEEENIUS!!!!

  17. Justin Rivera says:

    I love how you talk about objectivity while giving your subjective opinion

  18. Alan Parson says:

    From a cinematic standpoint, I think great art is fueled by the execution and sophistication of bold and new ideas. Movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, There Will Be Blood, and Akira are not only beautiful aesthetically, but fashion that expectation to take audiences into new territories of cognition.

    Art is not a one-note joke or a simplistic shock experience. It is something that, within it's creation, is a plethora of ideas that grows in value as you grow, changes as you change.

    I truly love cinematic art. I have since I was young and even tried my hand in the film industry. But I was just tired of art becoming simple, pointlessly provocative, and political. Hollywood is to blame.

    But this is why I support platforms like YouTube (if they don't censor, of course). More people creating beautiful content with a high degree of specificity, passion, and intellect.

    Support independent filmmakers versus Hollywood idiots! There's no need to watch the next Disney SJW remake. Instead, check out Criterion and World cinema. Check out filmmakers making personal and thought-provoking films from places like Cannes and Sundance film festivals!

  19. Couch Flannery says:

    I draw the line at when an experimental artist thinks they don’t need technique.

    The best experimental artists have very strong classical technique.

    Whether it’s an abstract visual artist, a modern dancer or a jazz musician…

    Technical skill plus natural born creativity is the best combination!!

  20. jaysen2200 says:

    Here is the scale if a five year old could do it it's not art

  21. Tomm C says:

    Modern art is just really really lazy people trying to make money off of really really stupid people.

  22. Millennials Empowerment says:

    1:58 could be said about dating, work ethic, education,. Every standard is declining.

  23. elena mykon says:

    I disliked because they clearly cannot understand that this modern art that is being promoted on a daily hasis is just a way to satisfy the need of the mass for entertainment that obviously cannot be of a high quality. Admirable modern art does exist. There are many poets , innovative paintings and fine-defined literature nowadays produced and published that this video seems to ignore. Yes art is not all about paintings

  24. Sillius Soddus says:

    Art is subjective, so you can’t call it ugly and bad just because you don’t like it.

  25. leo morland says:

    this might be the worst video ever created

  26. Jaden E says:

    I mean, I get why some people don't like modern art, but going after the Rock? I love that rock. It's beautiful. It brings back nostalgic memories from high school. It reminds me of that time my friend and I went to the Rock, and pretended like we were holding it up. And you want to ruin my memories? Pathetic.

  27. wenjun He says:

    I got to say that when I started to learn things about conservative view, a lot of my questions are answered perfectly! And this video is perfect example. Thanks!

  28. Ryan Hall says:

    I agree with some of this, but I can’t condone the ridiculous strawmanning here. For example; Universal Standards vs. Artistic Relativism:
    For universal standards he cites the best of the best, and for artistic relativism he cited the worst of the worst! Just because an artist didn’t tickle a paintbrush to the canvas for four years to make an extremely precise and socially acceptable painting doesnt mean their art sucks (Giacometti, Soutine, Rothko, de Kooning, Picasso, Matisse, Gorky, etc.). Even nowadays contemporary artists make beautiful art that is not simply ‘self-expression,’ but collective-expression, work that channels what it means to be human.
    If you’re going to create your own opinion about modern art vs the classical western tradition, don’t listen to biases like this. Don’t let your opinions on something be formed from watching some fool fight his own strawman. Do your own research, and you might find modern artists that speak to you.

  29. Alexis Borgia says:

    It is, modern art is rubbish. I always hated its ugliness.

  30. Greg Wall says:

    Mommy! Mommy! , Johnny is making art in his diaper….

  31. Thomas Stecyk says:

    No talent hacks need jobs too.

  32. Huru Duru says:

    This is just an attempt to destroy Western Culture.

  33. DAWN BREAKER says:

    What's the point with art when we have 3d printer's.

  34. Alventura De la Cruz says:

    I do not agree completely with everything

    but you do make some good points about modern “art“, most of it

  35. Eumin Kong says:

    Some graffiti is good

  36. Leo Fisher says:


  37. Tornio D'Uva says:

    The only thing i truly know is that, of all of the tours we had as a class in high school in museums, the only that really did stick with me and my friends was One of modern art. I remember it was fun, a never before sentiment felt in such a place; every corner had something knew, that we didn't study at school prior to the visit; we could walk THROUGH art, could you imagine? And, more importantly, nobody told us how to feel and how to look at those, they were ours.
    After the fun came the reasoning of why some of those strange things were the way they were, so we tried to inform ourselves, to read, to comprehend.
    I don't want to say what's best, just that modern and the new contemporary types of artistic expressions are art and deserves dignity as much as the old ones.
    Everything that has enough meaning to be worth of public exposure is art, and that does not in any way mean that classical arts ate now obsolete; they'll never be.
    Don't listen to these ignorants, they do what they do to maintain a status quo that do not belong in our time.
    Art is not knowing how to draw anatomically correct poses or colorful landscapes.
    Guess who we remember, people like Caravaggio, who shattered common the conventional way of structuring a painting and used a dead prostitute as the Virgin Mary or the dozens others who just learned how to do "good art" and stayed safe and sound in their courts?
    Go see a museum yourself of modern or contemporary art, please, these guys know nothing.

  38. Dante Fajardo says:

    Modern art is bad for one simple reason. The dumbassness of the new artists who think that being an artist in itself makes them automatically special and unique tends them to forget – they aren’t.

  39. Bailey Gregg says:

    A white painting like the intesity of the fires inside of the riots of Portland streets.

  40. Abba A says:

    The presenter is trying to have it both ways: he wants experts in the art field to judge art, but he dislikes the judgments that current experts pronounce. He should have just said that much contemporary art is crude (both offensive and poorly made), and overly conceptualized.

  41. Andrew Batts says:

    I've always liked surrealism

  42. Lawlietftw30 says:

    The irony of supply and demand is that there are plenty of talented and even masterful artists working hard just to get by, meanwhile a few crazies get famous and rich for making something terrible enough for an art critic to like it.

  43. Омаргаджи Магомедов says:

    You are absolutely right🤔 💩 and ⬜ this is NOT ART!

  44. sjobang says:

    Hmm?! The change started with Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who said that beauty can not be defined, and modern art is all based on that idea.

  45. MadMan Machinations says:

    I believe that a rock can be beautiful or inspiring – beauty can be found in anything – but that doesn't make it worth $10 million. It's still just a rock. Matter of fact, that doesn't make it 'art' either, because art is at the very least something created by a person from their imagination. Not a chunk of earth.

  46. AlexL says:

    Where is no mastery, there is no art! Simple.

  47. Dalton Garrett says:

    Art is about the evocation of emotion, it’s not about popularity. Popularity, is not, and never has been a valid measure of artistic quality. Genuine art is about creating something that can truly resonate with at least one person. Subjecting art to objective standards only causes stagnation in the medium, and is something that has traditionally been done by fascist regimes, most notably nazi Germany, which labeled artists who’s styles were abstracted in almost any way as insane or disturbed, and did not simply destroy their art, but created dedicated showings of it in order to mock and demonize them.

    Edit: if anyone is interested in learning more about the subject, I would suggest Jacob geller’s video: who’s afraid of modern art

    His video essay conveys the opposing opinion much more thoroughly and articulately

  48. infinite monkeys says:

    That painting in the background needs some happy trees, then it'll be quality art.

  49. The Roasted Chestnut says:

    Hilarious truth!

  50. Owen Westphal says:

    Why yes I always do like to have my pre existing notions reaffirmed in an entirely uncritical way not leading to any character growth or learning

  51. Jani Beg says:

    Some modern art is a lot of fun – The Centre Pompidou always has a great selection of Modern art on display. The Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris is also great although it is currently closed for renovation.

  52. TheBeybladeSport says:

    Look at the dislikes by racist bigots. We Indians are better

  53. uri black says:

    This is the same for Music. Please make a video. Too bad i didnt find this channel sooner

  54. cindy mananzala martinez says:

    That's not a painting, that's just a white backdrop.
    LEFTIST/MODERNIST: It's a masterpiece.
    ME: More like masterpiece of shit

  55. Super Conservative says:

    I never understood modern art Is it a crapped canvas? or is it just somebody puked on a canvas?
    Some things in life we shall never know

  56. Tony Bickley says:

    It is because modern art school push ‘creativity’ rather than technical abilities. Most ‘Modern Artists’ can not hold a candle to the old Masters

  57. T Walker says:

    Today's junk art is a way to funnel money between two parties involved in illegal activity. There's no interest.

  58. Mats thesweboy says:

    This have I said in decades!!!
    Well, A decade at least, only in my 30th.
    It's fu*ked up when I can take a huge paint brush, and draw a wide line, say it's "men's demand for the size of todays woman" and sell it to a retard that "likes it" for 30 millions…

  59. The Cat Ate My Shoe says:

    Heck, if they think rocks are art and will spend millions for them, I have a whole field of them.

  60. Jay Da Mew says:

    It’s pretty obvious that wasn’t a Jackson Pollock painting. Pollock had a pattern to his strokes, a sort of method to his madness. His work has intentionality.

  61. corbett coburn says:

    Pure snobbery is one of the reasons we have such rubbish that is being called "art." Anyone can like the David or the Mona Lisa. And because even members of the hoi polloi can like these works of art, the snobbish must find a way to differentiate themselves from the masses. They do this by exhibiting bad taste. No one could like a Pollack or a Picasso. These "paintings" are of no artistic merits whatsoever. And that is precisely why they are popular with the artistic elites. Liking absolute garbage shows that they are "special" and unlike the "uneducated" masses who like good art.

  62. Wenceslao Futanaki says:

    I consider myself in the middle, I don´t champion the stuff contemporary artist do at all (shit on a can, a glass of water, shark on a formaldehyde cube, etc) But love the early modern art (impressionism, fauvism, cubism, surrealism and so on). These guys from PragerU are a bit extreme, but they certainly have a point.

  63. aeo719 says:

    why I disagree…. art reflects what is going on in the world….people patronize the art that suits them…. I bet the art work produced in sodom just before it’s destruction was equally unappealing…Armageddon soon

  64. Sanjana Chauhan says:

    Agreed….may be that's the reason why I have stopped making paintings …ppl like trash now a days in the name of modern art…..

  65. serenabell1971 says:

    I am just seeing this video for the first time and I am in much appreciation for it. Thank you. Yes, there is a universal standard. It's just that right now we live in a world of naked emperors who dwell in a fog of political correctness and the inability to grow up and tell the truth.

  66. Jim Setinbocci says:

    Because it requires too mush work

  67. Jay B says:

    Finally someone who says that the emperor is naked.

  68. FLOATER cosmos says:

    I saw a homeless man smearing his fecies on the floor of a public bathroom. Is that art? I sure hope so…it was beautiful!

  69. Stalinist Katyusha says:

    Did you know? CIA created 'modern art'. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

  70. themroc says:

    So the free market is unfair and sucks. Got it, PragerU!

  71. Dan Z says:

    I've always hated how some people can create increadable artwork on computers and it's not worth anything while other people put garbage on the floor and they are called "artists" and their work is bought for millions. Anyone can buy whatever they want but if you cannot see how the digital artist created a world and the other created a mess, you are lying to yourself.

  72. BenX74 says:

    There is no art, only artists.


    Honestly rocks are beautiful in there own way. But the rest is rubbish.

  74. Papyrus Trousle says:

    Aaah the classic art debate, is there a better example of a word that completely lost its meaning? This is what happens to vague concepts used in dishonest ways, they turn vacuous and useless. If the word "chair" is useful, it is because we can all understand what we are talking about. The nature of art has become a pointless debate for pseudo intelectuals that think of themselves as clever and groundbreaking, when they are just like the rock in the video: brute and uninteresting. How ironic!

  75. Anil G says:

    You don't like pictures of piles of poo? You are so shallow.

  76. Anil G says:

    Excellent expose

  77. Henry Robinson says:

    Megan Rapinoe is a personification of modern art.


    You guys have no emagination

  79. Albert D says:

    The real reason is that this is how rich people loophole their taxes and how drug dealers exchange money.

  80. AK 4o says:

    Come on Prager. You're better than this. Art is art

  81. Turbo Charged says:

    22 thousand people have no individuality. Truth hurts huh dumbfucks

  82. ruki the gazette says:

    Do you know that at their time they reacted exactly like us, but with masterpieces for us?

  83. Seijin 442 says:

    Hah! These so-called "modern artists" are nothing but a bunch of talentless hacks!

  84. nbvw3 says:

    I would kindly contend that a graduate student should recognise that this is not a Jackson Pollock.

  85. Andras Libal says:

    3:ö7 looks like a cleaning rug in a paint shop. 
    I guess the rug is good because it has a purpose.

    Nailed it.

  86. Lenny Robinson says:

    Now a days it is drip and splash then worth millions That only a few look at it through rose tinted glasses and go wow When that money could be spent better else were

  87. Gavigg75 says:

    We can also start by not calling art anymore and call it what it is trash, garbage, dumpster dive treasure

  88. Gavigg75 says:

    This is what happens when all the no talents hacks are to lazy to acquire the discipline to be an artist through many of years of training and study they all get together because they can't compete and turn the art community upside down

  89. Don B says:

    Maybe because of the lazy, pointless idea that little to no effort is good enough. The talentless so called artists that now fill the 'studios' are of so little use, that when they die, who cares?

  90. jpalberthoward9 says:

    "JESUS H. CHRIST! You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!"…..Lee Ermey as gunnery Sgt. Hartman, Full Metal Jacket.

  91. Blah Blah says:

    We now know why. The CIA started the modern art movement to communicate openly & covertly. It also allows charities & organizations to "white-wash" large sums of money at little cost to them.

  92. Døgž Łövęr says:

    You think this is bad?

    just go browse deviant art for a quick minute

  93. Dane Moreau says:

    So much in our world today is devoid of beauty and meaning.

  94. Gabriel PLAN says:

    The quality of art only reflects the quality of the culture that produces it. And ideologies destroy culture,. This is why, in the west, we can corolate the progression of leftist ideas with the lowering of artistic standards. The same happened in middle east countries, with the progression of islam.

  95. Dead Locke says:

    As an artist, I hate the term "art is relative." In every piece of art, you can objectivly determine the approximate effort in the creation as well as the extent of artistic knowledge the creator understands. I once found a widely renowned artist on Instagram that solely painted two dimensional, fat, nude women with small heads. It ain't good, she just skipped figure drawing classes and banked on her ignorance.

  96. Stephen Bergman says:

    I'm so confused

  97. sakamoto satoshi says:

    the issue of underground like visionary art needs this video. https://mixi.jp/view_community.pl?id=3970390

  98. Jimi02468 says:

    If someone dropped their glasses in an art gallery, people would wonder if that's supposed to be a piece of art or glasses that some visitor accidentally dropped.

  99. EthanTheeGuy says:

    “I don’t like this new art because it deviates from 5-7 centuries of the same exact style. I hate experimentation and trying new styles. Salvador Dalí and Pablo Picasso were idiots and their art carries no merit.”

  100. 刘颢云 says:

    The hentai artists can draw better art than the Minimalistic Artists

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *