Like, I've seen stupid stuff from PragerU before, but jesus does this take the cake. Whether or not you like "modern art" is irrelevant. Not liking something is perfectly fine. But this video pretty much ignores the entire cultural context in which modernism, postmodernism, postpostmodernism (what we have now) exists in. Like, instead of addressing that, the guy just straight up goes for the "it doesn't apply to older standards" argument. It's pretty much just preaching to the choir. Does he think this will solve anything? Like, at all? He seems to fully understand that modernists don't care about older standards, so why would he try and use them to convince people? And it's not like this response is anything new. People will always reject new art forms because they do not conform to the status quo. Remember the Beatles, them devil worshipping pagans? This line of argumentation does nothing to convince the fans of the art form. They have no obligation to care about your tastes, because that's all this video does, express the artistic tastes of the people who work at PragerU. Nothing deep, nothing thought provoking, just entry level bullshit to appeal to the people who already ****ing agree with them. So I ask, why is PragerU so bad?
Because it's run by morons, I expect. Funny you should bring it up just now since I just ran into them via Michael Shermer's response to their silly claim that murder isn't wrong if there is no God.
Because Dennis Prager is a moron that even other morons call a moron. From back when I was doing political blogging: http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/11/idiots-anonymous.html Why anyone pays him any attention is beyond me.
What you are complaining about truly puzzles me. I looked this professional up. Prager U should only offer a view you like? Tell me, do you classify yourself as liberal? Running the entire site down is not very liberal, is it? When I was in Berlin Germany, I admit I was extremely stunned at the beauty of the masters. Rembrandt was brilliant. The cross in a bottle of urine presented by some so called artist really was just gross.
What about TED talks. They too speak against the same thing as this well known artist did. Renowned artist Robert Florczak speaks of rubbish, presented as art. He gives the example of the ice skater falling down and alleging that is art. Below a woman takes this on as well.
No, but you can still argue against postmodernism without using the "it doesn't fit x criteria, so therefore it has no value" argument. It's just lazy really. Basically. I'd imagine the intent was to be gross. And even then, that's fine. Saying you don't like something because it doesn't fit a set of values is perfectly fine. It's what taste is based off of. But failing to see any value or cultural significance in a piece because it doesn't fit a set of values is stupid.
Well what can you say. After all the man saying that was a renouned artist. Must not have any idea what he is talking about. Do you see more value in the bottle of urine with the cross in it than say that crap they put up and call it modern? A truly awesome experience is to see art like one may never have seen nor may ever see. When I went to the Guggenheim the only time, I kept saying, what crap. It was the modern stuff. So it is not as if I had never seen world class art. I can recall Chinese art, the King Tut stuff and much more. Saw a lot of fine art at the Smithsonian. Some of these artists act like were they speaking, saying duh a hundred times amounts to fine literature.
Appeal to authority. I don't know if PragerU made him do this, or these are his genuine thoughts. Either way, PragerU, which is who this thread is about, obviously has the wrong mindset when it comes to this. You're not really giving me a good comparison here. Like, a bottle of urine compared to what? The Mona Lisa? It depends on how we're assigning value. Sure, and what's to say that modern art can't have that effect? Again, that depends on how we're comparing them.
