37 thoughts on “Blue. History of Art in Three Colours HD

  1. @11:31: This guy might be misinterpreting it, and seeing a false dichotomy
    between the sky and “heaven”, as if they were different things:
    I suspect it *was* the “sky”, since the word for sky in Italian- just like
    in French- is the same as that for heaven!

  2. Anti-Catholic poppycock! Find an objective historian to make this
    documentary. Frankly people need to hear all sides including the Church’s.

  3. Projectionism.Style of Art in Painting develop by Esteban Simich.New colors
    made with pigments from the mind,that projects to create an art beyond
    abstraction and Malevich Black Square.A new dawn in the way we see color. 

  4. Contemporary art is based on the Godless, Christ less erroneous postmodern
    worldview that leads one into the never world of death and decay or satans
    kingdom. Great artists like Rembrandt leads you closer to God and His Word,
    The perfect King James Bible! Contemporary art leads you away from God into
    meaninglessness or vanity or even worse, dark spiritual deception inflated
    by billions of dollars to make it seem significant when its really satanic.

  5. One last comment.For those of you who think rich people who buy this stuff
    are dumb you might want to look at how much money they make reselling the
    art.Art many times works faster than business,gambling,real estate..but
    because you dont have the money to play you think its dumb.What about
    lamborghinis?Everyone thinks that buying a ferrari is a great thing to do
    but you lose money on cars because they can be mass produced.new rich
    people always go straight for the car and the big house but nobility knows
    better.People dont like this but like I said before its a game you either
    understand it or you dont and whining isnt going to stop people from doing

  6. “Poop comes from your butt. My poop comes from Tuscan food tonight. We all
    have butts, but not everyone can poop without help. So eat some food and
    try those tighter fitting pants on, because you might just realize you lost
    some weight when you didn’t pay attention, or you might just have to throw
    those pants away, and/or try to poop more next week.” Thank you.

  7. I’m not familiar with Deeth’s work (found this video as a related video to
    a Corey Arcangel video), but I think her idea that we should look at art
    work the same way as a troublesome child is actually pretty interesting. I
    think it is good for it’s intended audience, some which are probably
    parents of younger children who maybe want them to experience “high
    culture” or whatever but don’t really have experience with it. Eventhough
    the theory will probably put off many artists who don’t want to be treated
    like or equated with children slamming the door to their rooms, I think it
    points to the idea that we should look at the pathology of different
    artworks, how did they get there? What in their life made this interesting
    to them? And how do you get paid to do that, assuming it is what you love,
    vs making lattes for a living. I think there is a problem with the
    opaqueness of “artspeak” and the “white cube” as space to experience art,
    as opposed to say a theater (another cultural construction). I think if she
    had more time, I would be interested in why formalism/represtation is the
    first thing she says (around 7:11) is a good example of art “doing it’s
    job” when the rest of her discussion is about contemporary “weird” art. I
    would also be interested in her fleshing out her conceit. I think that
    people intervening into works like she mentioned with the “lights turning
    on and off” piece is an attempt to “form a relationship” with the
    “troublesome child”, ie the denouement of a serious issue in a family
    sitcom, rather than simply passively “listening”, I think it is important
    to acknowledge that it is still a thing that happens, and that these are
    natural reactions to something as absurd as Creed’s piece…If you got
    something you don’t consider to be in the spectrum of what a hamburger is
    at a restaurant, you would complain…but at an art museum or gallery you
    are supposed to feign detachment or erudition which I think is a huge
    problem in our culture at large not just in the “art world”

  8. The issue here is that the inquiring gaze proposed is merely gazing on an
    already consumed truth. We are treated like children going to see the
    strange goings on in a church “why is that man hanging off a piece of
    wood?” “Why is that man in a dress?” “Why is there so much gold behind
    him?” The fact that someone else has already decided that there will be a
    hanging man, a man in a dress, and a lot of gold on show. Really, the
    questions of the child are immaterial, and the role this woman plays is
    just like a Sunday school teacher “But isn’t the church nice? If we listen
    very carefully, we can hear the hanging man talk to us in our heads…”,
    and all the other indoctrination. I’m sure that she thinks that she’s
    doing something marvelous, but in fact, she is eating someone else’s food,
    shitting someone else’s shit. 

  9. HER is whats wrong with art, all those parasites talking and talking about
    art and NOT doing art! all the establishment about art is fucked up! and
    “artists” dont contribute either with their crap!


  10. When you have a room of people on minimum wage, creating pictures,
    installations, and someone else coming along and signing it, claiming the
    work their own, where’s the ‘Art’ in that?
    When prestigious awards are only given to people from selected
    institutions, or for people who live in London, where’s the ‘Art’ in that?
    When people are willing to manipulate price for their own gain, where’s the
    ‘Art’ in that?

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.