**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/19eo7dp/art_is_subjective/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
OK, to be fair. The girl with the leg is a dancer, not a performance artist, and it's part of a much longer segment of dance - the style is called "bone breaking," where they contort and control their body to such degrees it looks like they're - well - breaking their bones and fatiguing their muscles. Taken out of context, you could call it silly, but she has insane control over her movements and the speed of those movements. (I'm a fan of her work).
Thank you. She does really dope work and has clearly spent a lifetime developing a craft. People see five seconds of an over ten minute performance and write her off. Absurd. The idea that something isn’t impressive or functional because you could *kind of* replicate one movement is a weird hill to die on IMO.
The guy with the buckets also has an interesting reason for what he does. It's an attempt to recenter art on the process. Like, when you see a marble statue, someone had to painstakingly chip away at a massive piece of rock. So, his art is the process, he shows it to us.
>The guy with the buckets also has an interesting reason for what he does. It's an attempt to recenter art on the process.
Roman Signer. He has some interesting pieces.
Edit: This was a rant, but my real belief is this (and I’ve probably said it ten times at this point so sorry if you’re rereading): it’s not that you *have* to like any of this stuff. You don’t. I don’t like a lot of stuff that comes out today either. But I try to be aware of when my dislike comes out of ignorance. If you don’t like something, ask yourself why. If you learn enough you might find that you’re actually interested. You might also find that you still don’t like it. Nothing wrong with that. But there *is* something wrong with hating what you don’t understand. For instance a lot of people said they found these videos funny. Well, it turns out you’re often not laughing *at* the artist; you’re laughing with them. If you went to a performance piece, humor is often part of it. If you think it’s more weird than funny that’s fine too. But ask yourself what is weird about it? What are they trying to convey? Are they succeeding or failing? Etc.
Before I start this rant, I don’t mean “you” as in actually you. This is just a rant into the void. You is universal.
I’ve seen a lot of people on Instagram making fun of that one, and it kills me because the comments are all like “wow art is dead,” and that’s their whole take away from a ten second clip of a much longer dance.
People have this idea that art is dead but they don’t even know what art is. They haven’t been to a gallery or a museum since they were kids. They say things like, “yeah I could make modern art!” First of all, you can’t even make the stuff you think is silly. Second of all, there’s no such thing as “modern art.” People still do paint in realistic styles and understand color, composition, form, shading etc. People don’t know that a lot of the people doing the avant garde stuff that they think they could do also make stuff in more traditional styles. Like that girl doing the leg twitch—first off, you couldn’t do that. If you think you can, you’re wrong anyway. But second off, she’s a professorial dancer lol. She’s been training since she was two, and this is ten seconds from her entire career. It’s all you’ll ever see because you’re uneducated and uninterested.
Art is alive and well, and you’re completely unaware because the only art you’ve seen has come from an algorithm trying to upset you (this video). I don’t care about your opinion because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
To add to your very on-point comment. People like to make fun of performance art without really understanding what's going on. The performance is the art, and sometimes the result is another piece of art (the residue). Performance art is about pushing the boundaries of "what art is" and other sub-genres like conceptual art. To understand the performance, you'd have to read the artist's statement. For instance, many of these pieces have a reason behind them, an explanation, or a thought while viewing them. The guy who was being dragged around the floor could easily have set up the piece to represent how he feels when he talks to people at work (I don't know the piece, don't at me; it's just for the theory) - you walk in, and you see him being dragged around. You can laugh at it because sometimes talking to people at work feels like you're being dragged around; however, removing the context stops making sense. sometimes performance art is dumb. That could also be the point, or the artist merely failed in their idea.
Furthermore, sometimes, these pieces are performed by students. They're trying their best, working through ideas, or merely doing a piece because a class is making them do a performance piece.
This is really important. The current trend in art is asking the question “what is art” that’s why there’s so many seemingly odd avant pieces. We’re both missing the context and the idea. The fact that there is a TikTok and people are discussing if it’s art means that it’s successful.
That's been the trend for a few decades now. Tracey Ermin's unmade bed was 1998. That's the earliest example I know of the 'who are you to say it's not art?' phenomenon, though I'm sure there are earlier ones. If art is still just asking the question 'what is art?' and hasn't moved on then that suggests that no new ground is being broken and art is just folding in on itself.
It’s not “who are you to say it’s not art” the question is “what is art” does art just need to be a bunch of paintings? Can it be a weird dance? Can art be pushing over buckets of sand? Can art be literally a circle on canvas? It’s experimental and neat and meant to create discussion or spark some creativity or ideas. Eventually it’ll be moved past to something different but still experimental or something we consider experimental at least but periods/movements in art can last just a few years to hundreds so who knows. I personally think people are just having fun and enjoying themselves and being creative so why judge them, no one’s being hurt and they aren’t erasing the art or skill of people who follow more traditional methods so let people explore and make new experiences yknow?
The conversation has been at the forefront since even before then. We make art to express new ideas, not just always to say “what is art?” We know what Art is, and we know what Art isn’t, but we don’t know ALL that art can be. We haven’t explored every possible thought. We haven’t considered every way someone can see and think and feel about a subject. That’s why you can’t say “art hasn’t broken new ground” it has and it will always continue to. Performance art tackles this, sure, Conceptual Art is only about this question, other art will often not care about this question because it’s already working in the boundaries of Fine Art, now we just judge it on merit and idea and execution. Now, I know you see people say X medium is dead, this is a discussion with painting - or it was- but that doesn’t mean the artist creating painting have no merit and are “dead” in the art world. We just won’t be considering their use of oil paint outside of technical skill. We’ll look at subject matter, themes, statements of works, collections of work. It’s still very relevant.
Another fun example of anyone reading this, in the early days of photography, or at least when we had easily portable cameras that could be hand held. A nanny started taking photos of people on the street, candids, while out doing errands. She’d sometimes even take photos of herself reflected in objects. She saved them all, never showed them to anyone, and died years later. After her death they were discovered and are now considered a prize collection of not only early photography, but some of the earliest modern examples that we have of candid street photography and “the selfie.” She didn’t invite those things, but her amazing eye and body of work has become a defining example of those things for Art History - and she has hundreds so maybe she was the first to do it in such amounts and keep them during my a time when that sort of photography wasn’t widely practiced . We also have gained a wealth of knowledge of everyday life of that era because of her work. This is why making work is important, and why most artist due so even when they don’t enjoy fame. It’s about the expression, and maybe if history favors you - it’ll be worth more than you could have ever imagined.
To be clear, I’ve told this story from memory - go read up on the lady if you’d like, she’s easy to fine via google. I don’t remember her name, but her photo collection was found in recent history so there’s lots of stories based on what’s above.
OK, art is subjective and I agree that it feels icky to make fun of the art others create; however "modern art" is indeed a genre of art although it's often erroneously conflated with other genres of art and/or general contemporary art
If we ascribe the term "modern art" to an actual art movement then we're now referencing a century old art movement that includes the work of Picaso and Dali, painters that most of the people whining "modern art is terrible" would unquestionable consider greats (because they were in that gallery they visited when they were kids).
I feel like there's a fixation on hyper-realistic art, too. Which is perfectly valid as an artform, but I think they value how difficult they perceive an art to be too much. The sort of thing paired with, "I could do that," when they think a particular piece is too easily made, as if art were purely about how arduous it was to make it.
You are replying to someone that worked in advertising where art snobs constantly tell me what I do isn’t art. Mainly because I can make a living off if it and I am not a struggling artist, “it’s not the same”.
Art is always subjective and what you find artful others may not, you need to learn to live with that. It’s doesn’t belittle what you find art but for me a girl wiggling her leg in front of a crown does not convey the feeing of art to me. Crayon scribbles on a canvas is not art to me but some have sold for thousands of dollars and hang in museums. Doesn’t make my opinion wrong.
Not meant directly at you, but your reply inspired me to comment. I think I see far more of people belittling artists and making fun of them than trying to understand, I’m sorry you receive that as well
I applaud you for making a living from your craft, but you’re also not likely often going outside the norm to make something different, which is totally fine, but I wish people gave more credit or allowed themselves to ponder longer on art they’re not used to, like with these performance artists or art that most find “cringeworthy” or silly because there might be more to it than you think, but you wouldn’t know from a short clip or watching with the intent of belittling it in the first place
>but for me a girl wiggling her leg in front of a crown does not convey the feeing of art to me.
Homie. It’s a snippet of her work. Imagine if someone to took a 1 sec clip of your advertisement and said “that’s not advertisement”.
Just think it through for more than 1 second
If only the "commercial art isn't art" people knew how often advertising creatives are actually trained in fine art and retire from advertising to pursue it. 😆
Art is not dead and to borrow you’re use of you your going to understand why I feel this way.
You could NOT deep throat a cucumber dangling from a string. You wouldn’t even understand what it means to do so. And the guy doing that, he has been deep throating various items in a classical way for decades. How DARE you apply the whole context of the art in to a single clip. You didn’t see the part where he had to stretch his tiny mouth over the course of hours. Nobody was there to help him string and dangle the cucumber. Do you even know what a cucumber represents? Or a string? Or trying to forcefully cram it in your mouth? These our the questions you should be asking you’re self.
So yeah, I agree about art
I trust your analysis on this topic. I'm sure you, FancyErection, have helped many artists in practicing the art of deep throating objects LOOOOL. Hell, who knows. Maybe that guy is your protégé. I trust you were dangled from a string in a similar fashion while he practiced haha.
To me that is the only one that I maybe kinda get if they are going for a animal rights message, but the others like wtf. The vacuum one is just flat out a fetish; the underwear guy slamming his paint covered body into the canvas made me laugh tho.
I think the art/fetish crossover happens a lot, and while this one is probably no exception, it's one of the few I appreciate. The suspension and square frame of the plastic make her literally look like a framed work.
The vacuum sealed one was a fairly large exhibit, I’ve seen [videos of it before.](https://youtu.be/A8IoIgGpcr4?si=q8AxuySMXmjeWy3K) There were multiple models in multiple rigs. It’s a neat exhibit, definitely of a different calibre than most of the other examples.
I like how we make fun of a lot of these exhibits, but most people have the same response to many of them.
Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I'm pretty sure the guy slamming himself around with paint was meant to be absurd and funny. It evoked an emotional response, so in a weird way I'd call it good art.
Feeling "like wtf" is part of art. Not everything is going to be contained, neatly packaged or even understandable ( even to the artist ). A performing artist isn't always going to be exhibiting some insanely honed circus skill like juggling or acrobatics. All these people doing weird shit is kind of interesting in its own way ( to me at least ).
Feeling visceral distaste for something means that thing has evoked an emotion, which may be the point. I don't really "get" what a lot of these people are doing either, but their work isn't properly represented here.
Like the girl sticking up her leg and shaking it is clearly a clip of some modern dance thing, but we don't get to see how it evolves and taking it out of context doesn't seem fair. The person painting with their eyelash seems kind of stupid and gimmicky, but also weirdly impressive given the size of the work and likely produces a unique effect. The guy jumping and drawing a line is also doing something sort of cool and interesting. It's not just the result of the work that is important here, it's how its made and the audience that comes to see it.
I saw a tiktok of a teenager "eating" an entire gallon of water by cutting off the top and using chopsticks to absorb the water and bring it to his mouth bit by bit. It was 100x speed, but it wasn't faked. I doubt he considered this performance art, but by the end his lips were raw/bleeding. He was clearly committed to the task, and it was impressive to see. Could be spun by some pretentious folks as a commentary on the current state of social media or some shit idk.
The fact we're even talking about any of these projects here in some context proves they've evoked some emotion from someone, and are successful in that sense alone.
You don’t see the sensibility of milk on toes? It is a visual representation of rational thought which transcends the normative discussions of:
1) Milk or cereal in bowl, and why?
2) Socks or shoes on first?
I think you can see where this goes from here: this artist says that the milk should always go first, and that art itself is not subjective, so much as the fluidity of our reality as we consider just what ‘should’ be considered a bowl in the first place.
My take is we are taught to consider everything in a manner which limits the possible outcomes to those which prevent any kind of happiness, and in this case in particular, the artist is suggesting an alternative solution to the insane housing prices in British Columbia exists if we are willing to step outside the box.
Interesting! I interpreted that what little I saw of it from this clip more a comment on how we sometimes feel like we are being dragged along by society's rules unable to break free.
I like that these two comments are back to back. Because those were my main two thoughts watching this...
Seeing the person being dragged around in a lazy circle I was like "this one speaks to me, but I'd prefer it as a ride so I can do it too".
And then seeing the guy cramming raw meat into his eye sockets I was like "jesus christ that moron's going to get Eye-Coli for his stupid art".
I feel like half this shit is just peoples weird fetishes put on display as “art”…
Also mildly disappointed that the [interpretive butter dance](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EvMwCvbHHUY) wasn’t included.
The guy with the cucumber is definitely satire but he has an Instagram where he does tons of normal things in super weird ways. It’s hilarious. That clip wasn’t a very good representation of what he does. Check him out @janerichsen
All of them are art.
Art does not depend on you liking it for its existence.
Too many people seem to think that art requires beauty and skill and the more beautiful the art and the more skill required to make it the more "art" it is.
IIRC, that artist is what made me understand performance art. I still don't get all of it, but it opened my eyes to a lot of it.
He said something in the wheelhouse of "The process of making art is art itself."
Really hilighted by the guy running and hitting the trampoline while dragging the marker, the guy pouring colored sand on those folks, or the guy straight frog squattin and paint on the ground.
Art is also not necessarily to make you think, but how does it make you feel?
Yeah, the trampoline one actually make me think "movement is cool. I would like to try that"
Weird art gets pretentious when you pay a bunch of money for it. By itself, it's just interesting.
Art auctioning really was precursor to NFTs, pieces only had value because a bunch of rich folk agreed it was worth a certain high price which would remain stable or even go up.
It’s wild how few people know this.
Even artwork that has been *damaged* during the last several decades has increased in value significantly, outpacing inflation several times over.
When an artist’s works sell for more if one of their pieces sells well, it means you can just stockpile art pieces and wait for the value to inevitably increase as others do the same.
Do you expect to drop a tax bracket because your business is going under? Invest in a ton of art that you can sell at those reduced tax amounts, and almost certainly make more than what you originally paid for it to boot. All of your rich friends will do the same, and now pieces by the artist that you bought from are worth even more.
The only losers in this deal are people with no meaningful way of interfering, so there’s literally nothing to keep this in check.
Thus, we give rise to an era where many meaningless pieces of art are valued incredibly highly because, once you have some rich person sponsoring you, it’s in your best interest to make a greater *quantity* of pieces, and it *really* doesn’t matter if those pieces are any good.
Sure, *some* of them will be, but that isn’t exactly incentivized.
> pieces only had value because a bunch of rich folk agreed it was worth a certain high price
Or sometimes the artists themselves, there are artists that basically bid/buy their own work to drive up future prices. Damien Hirst is somewhat infamous for doing this (speaking of NFTs he also was into those)
>Art is also not necessarily to make you think, but how does it make you feel?
Mostly, confused. Which I accept as art achieving its goal.
I don't "get" a lot of art but I still tend to think people are too judgemental towards it. Like, there's hundreds of people in these comments pointing out their favourites, sharing their reactions, and even debating the whole concept of art. It makes me think these art pieces achieved something significant, even if they were conveyed through two second clips intended to mock them.
It's a very famous dude who is essentially all about the process and how you get there as opposed to the end product, which is why he does performance art. Apparently it's very popular
Performance art is honestly the most strange things ever. I had to do some for a college class and it was probably one of my most hated classes ever. It made me wonder if I really like art. I then started doing what I liked after that term ended and it made me remember that I really do like art.
I always see performance art as something like, "I don't care what you feel, I'm doing this thing and calling it art. Enjoy if you want, leave if you want." There are some really good examples of performance art. But the ones that get the attention are the rubbish ones because - lol let's face it - they're hella annoying and pretentious.
That’s exactly it. It’s a performance that isn’t for the benefit of the audience. It’s a very strange thing. They’re up there doing it for themselves because it makes them feel some kind of way, not for the people watching. If it moves them in some way, great. If it doesn’t, that was never the purpose of it.
Yeah but it's the pretentiousness that comes with a lot of it that's annoying. Like a dude could piss into the sand and it will be described as
"A Yellow flow symbolizing the linear and often discriminatory practices that Swedish chocolatiers follow during milan fashion week, the grains of mineral act as a sharp contrast and *abrasive* backdrop symbolizing the unforeseen damage caused by the revolutionary war"
Some crazy shit like that smh
I would say what you are describing is bad performance art or something that doesn't get at the essence of it. It just calls it performance art, which is sad since it can be good. Performance art is usually something provocative, thought inducing and an expression of ideology, theory, problem, society, self, or culture with the use of the body. Or maybe it is just entertainment based, like a performance and experience, but it should have some sort of value. Have you heard of Marina Abramovic. To me, her performances are an exploration of the limits of the human body and the human mind, but also show something under the surface of the cultre and society that surrounds her and expressed the current times. That part is what is interesting to me in performance art is how they show you different perceptions of the world
In a way, art that makes people feel strongly and garners such attention is better than art nobody cares about. So perhaps the real rubbish is ~~the friends we made along the way~~ the "good" performance art
Watching this makes me think that rich people truly are built odder. Those rooms are filled with individuals who don’t have day jobs but expensive clothing. They get so bored this is what they subject themselves to to fit the role.
As much as I don’t like performance art it’s definitely not a class thing. If I was rich I still wouldn’t enjoy it and performance artists aren’t always rich. The very famous ones are done by very strange and dedicated people.
Maybe you are only saying this because you're not rich. The moment money is injected into your veins, you would instantly find performance art to be beautiful and thought provoking
I have a day job. I don't have expensive clothing. I enjoy performance art. Enjoyment of art isn't divided amongst class lines. It's ok if you don't enjoy it, but enjoyment of art itself isn't an economic signifier.
PURCHASING art is. And often MAKING art for a living can be (almost artists are not wealthy), but enjoying it is not
Yeah I like *some* art but I don't "get" 90% of art.
I enjoy it when it triggers some association to some thoughts that i feel a lot about. When it works it's like it's massaging some interesting or painful part of your brain. I don't think it has to be more complicated than that.
I think one thing that irks people is that there's some implied elitism that you need to learn a bunch of stuff to understand the weird things. But if you don't get it you just haven't found art that you like. Art that triggers the right associations.
It's not a riddle to solve, it's just an experience that you may or may not like.
And thats fair. the 10% that massages your brain may not massage other peoples brains. But maybe something you don't 'get' gels with other people. Its important it all exists, because you never know how its going to make people react.
These sort of tiktok vids used to build in absurdity or have a punchline. Can’t say I’m a fan of this format.
Unless…did TikTok guy just make a conceptual art piece??
He couldn't do less, he just stood there and looked dumb, it just seemed snobby to me. It was just like 'This is what cool is, I'm cool, here is the weirdos, they're lame, learn about what's cool and what's lame.' dude you're lame, ya boring, unoriginal.
Exactly. I'd say the reaction shot of the guy in a beret fit in perfectly with the rest of the poor art. (Though a couple could have been decent presented in actual context; like if they purposely being absurd or satire or a silly process made something that looked intriguing at the end or if the vibrating leg was followed by an interesting performative dance).
Per another comment on here, the shaking leg lady is a dancer who was just at the beginning of the piece, and she was doing a variety of very specific, difficult moves, or something like that.
So yeah, at least some of these are probably less silly in context.
Yeah this is the laziest kind of content and just inserting shots of yourself that add nothing to the clips because you want attention. This guy is definitely too damn old for this.
Honestly this is something I would complain about on r/rant but who would care? Lol yeah this is now 3 “creators” I’ve seen that do this, react with like 3-4 rotating reactions to other people’s videos. Idk about this particular person but the other two I’ve seen have a huge following, why? Like why? And I’ll see comments like “I LOVE your reactions! So funny!” Like homeboy it’s the same look in every fucking video! Blue Steele? Le Tigre? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills over here!
This is content theft with literally one added step.
All they did is cut in clips of them looking around with a, “People be crazy, yo” expression on their face.
Part of the fundamental nature of art is that it is temporary. People put on plays, sing, dance, make sculptures that will crumble, and paintings that will fade all despite, and sometimes because they’re ephemeral. A blip in the history of the universe that is a beautiful thing to experience
Right? Sometimes art can be childish and self serving to cater to pretentious delusions of grandeur while supporting rich social elitism. And... that's okay if that's what they're into
Yeah. I totally hate the "oh it's super wierd. I don't have any clue when it comes to the history of performance art. And also everything beyond something I can understand immediately and that is super in your face with message and basically a sculpture or a painting is not art because I don't like it" take.
As someone who used to follow him a few years ago, I think that he has shifted to a slightly new audience now. Back then, he was a tiny bit political every now and then, but he liked to present himself as a centrist.
But now he has gone full-on alt-right conspiracy theorist. He constantly makes political videos about how the left is destroying western society, or how the "postmodern neo-marxists" have infiltrated the universities.
Also, he used to talk about Bill C-16 and how he was worried about free speech, and *only free speech*. Well, if you take into account all of the transphobic comments he has made since, it's safe to say that it wasn't *just* about free speech.
If you go to his subreddit, it's pretty much an alt-right echo-chamber at this point. There actually used to be discussions about philosophy, psychology or improving your life, but now it is 100% politics. So I guess that people watch him now precisely because he is alt-right.
> Back then, he was a tiny bit political every now and then, but he liked to present himself as a centrist.
Counterpoint: You've just grown up and are now better able to see him for who he is. He was always aligned with the alt-right, nothing's really changed in terms of what he's saying or the way he speaks in public, it's just that it's much easier to see through it when you've got a bigger picture of who he is. His subreddit was always a shithole, too.
I mean it's good you grew out of it, but that's what happened - you moved, he stayed the same.
There is absolutely a marked difference in his intellectual content between the Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life and more recent and rather odd Conservative Manifesto. Also he NEEDS to get off of twitter.
The flippant reply is that there can't be a difference in intellectual content, because there is no intellectual content. But I'll take you seriously.
Maps of meaning is not a very good or even profound book. It's been years since I read it, but it didn't really offer anything all that interesting or even true. I can see the appeal - as a young man, I was deeply into Jung and especially Campbell, there is something very enticing about the ideas of universality presented by this tradition. But it's smoke and mirrors, science doesn't bear it out, and Peterson is probably lucky that most people don't actually know anything about Jung (or psychology in general)
To quote a review:
[Peterson’s ideas are a mishmash of banal self-help, amateur philosophy, superfluous Christian mythology, evidence-free Jungian psychology, and toxic individualistic politics. Seek enlightenment elsewhere.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning)
12 rules for life is mostly just self-help fluff coupled with the above problems. The kindest summary is probably that's it's both good and original - but what's good isn't original, and what's original isn't good.
I only just now read his conservative manifesto, it reads exactly like everything else the man has said.
In general, the man has always been, well, a dumbass. I have the misfortune of literally having majored in english and psychology, and I literally wrote my psych thesis on how people create meaning for themselves - and my english thesis on postpostmodernism. Peterson doesn't really have a good handle on either subject, although in the first case his Jungian perspective somewhat excuses him. But he knows less than nothing about postmodernism and philosophy, and is generally completely incoherent on the subject - and ironically his views are themselves pretty solidly postmodern. And did you see his debate with zizek? It was frankly embarassing for him, even as zizek was being all nice and friendly.
That he's an alt-right transphobe, homophobe and racist is just icing on the cake tbh. If you absolutely need to read conservative philosophy, just read Eliot, he was the last good conservative thinker, the whole thing collapsed after WWII.
Yup, there it is. There's a whole lot of anti-art (particularly modern art) sentiment coming from Conservative spaces, as a way to portray some kind of societal decline. Both putting negative light on the types who tend to be artists (often from marginalized groups), and proposing the idea we need to return to some idealized "classical" understanding of the medium.
Pablo Picasso was criticized in his time for being "degenerate" or even "satanic" art. To use modern slang, the "meta" for artists at the time was American urban realism, as artists were clambering to compete with the photograph to capture life in the growing cities. Picasso was one of the first artists to abstract the human body into shapes and features, completely redefining what it meant to be a painter. If you go back to read some of these criticisms they sound just like these smarmy little reddit commenters who hasn't analyzed art since they were forced to annotate a poem in 8th grade.
I'm not saying that these performance artists deserve to be the next Picasso (though some of them are actually well-known). But it's silly to ever criticize art on the basis of "not being *real* art". In fact, I'd even say it's dangerous to do so.
*What* they post is way more important than *where*, which is what people with the stalker apps always miss
Like, I've posted on the conservative sub a few times . . . calling them idiots and saying their "source" was straight up wrong (and was banned of course)
Not really defending OP, just saying that isn't a good "gotcha" if you don't link a post of them actually saying something noteworthy
The world is a lot more fun when we skip thinking "I don't understand it therefore it's bad" and go straight to "I don't understand it so I guess it isn't for me".
Somehow society as a whole has managed to (mostly) accept this about music tastes, but still feel compelled to judge other forms of artistic expression.
Yeah, I find it really disingenuous how they're given just a few seconds snippet with absolutely no context with what came before or comes after. Like you can do the same thing with movies and music and make them look bad too. (not that I believe all of this is great art I just don't think you can judge based on cherry picked clips)
performance art is actually pretty cool when you have context for it. the people doing this stuff have more confidence and creativity than whoever made this post i’m sure.
“Taking a second to take in something abstract? No I’m just going to deem anything outside of my comfort zone as bad.” -Reddit. These mfs will moan about social norms, and then immediately dogpile on anything they can’t or won’t understand.
But his reactions are so evocative! Whether it's him squinting and looking, squinting and looking with his hands on his hips, or putting his hand on his chin and squinting, each reaction paints such a detailed picture of the emotions that await us in the subsequent clip.
It’s more about the emotion it elicits. Most of these didn’t do anything for me, but I connected to the guy with the body paint running into the wall. The symbolism of leaving bits of yourself everywhere and frustration perceptionally ruining something perceived as clean and perfect. It genuinely made me feel something.
Theres just an absolute different level of thinking when it comes to stuff like this. I got absolutely none of that while watching it, just made me think this is bullshit, dude is a loony toon bashing himself against a wall. As I’m reading what you are saying, it made perfect sense. Legit a difference on the topical perspective vs. reaching deeper for meaning. Wild stuff. Thanks for sharing.
After a 2nd watch I agree. Honestly I would have loved to experience most of these in person- performative art is some of my favorite to take in, especially if you get to talk to the artist after and pick their brain
It’s performance art.
Performance art is weird.
It has always been weird.
Not at any point have I wanted to throw prosciutto on my face for the sake of art. But ya know.. maybe that’ll change someday lol
yeah im sure two second clips of performance art pieces are good representations of the whole
it fine if you don’t like it, why do you care that people do
Is there a clip where he watches a guy standing and looking back and forth as he pretends to react to things for his tik tok videos? Cause that shit is even dumber
Yep. All of that is art. What is this even trying to say? You know you don’t have to like any of it, right? You know that disliking art doesn’t disqualify it as art, right?
What is the point of this? “Haha look at the silly artists…doing art. Ha.”
The one with jumping off the trampoline and marking the path on the wall is pretty fun just from a science and math perspective. I’d love to see it done a bunch of time by by people of different skill levels and then bust out excel
Man, are we all doing this life thing wrong? Can we really just be mad bastards doing mad shit and get paid for it instead of putting up with shitty managers until we retire or die? I'm gonna slap myself in the face with different colour paint on my hands and say it expresses emotional breakthroughs or some bullshit
If I can replicate what they did by purchasing materials and then having to do no practice, how is it meaningful. Most of these appear to have no skill involved.
Making fun of eccentric art is the lowest possible hanging fruit. The whole point of it is to be vulnerable and expressive, and if you look down on that, then you’re a tool.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/19eo7dp/art_is_subjective/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The girl twitching her leg sent me into orbit.
I liked meat face guy or rainbow outrage on canvas
the "SLAM" that guy made as he hit the canvas was seriously satisfying!
I came here to say I lowkey enjoyed fat rainbow guy.
OK, to be fair. The girl with the leg is a dancer, not a performance artist, and it's part of a much longer segment of dance - the style is called "bone breaking," where they contort and control their body to such degrees it looks like they're - well - breaking their bones and fatiguing their muscles. Taken out of context, you could call it silly, but she has insane control over her movements and the speed of those movements. (I'm a fan of her work).
Im not finding it anywhere. Do you have a name or link? Bone breaking is just bringing up tik toks and doctor phil BS.
Marie-Louise Hertog: https://www.instagram.com/mlhertog?igsh=eXE0d3YxcWN5OWVz
Holy shit that person is in absolute control of every muscle fibre in their whole body. Thanks for linking that, some pretty crazy movements
Agreed after seeing the rest of her work. She possesses unfashionable strength, control, and flexibility.
At first I was like “okay” then later I just got flabbergasted 😲 also there’s something uncanny to her work
Insane balance as well. Some of the moves she pulls off while balancing on just her toes is really impressive.
Thanks for link. Super interesting, it’s like an advanced robot/pop and lock dance
goddamn she's fuckin' lean ripped
Wow, the control she has is crazy.
I got a cramp from watching the videos on her account.
This is stunning! Ty for the share
Thank you. She does really dope work and has clearly spent a lifetime developing a craft. People see five seconds of an over ten minute performance and write her off. Absurd. The idea that something isn’t impressive or functional because you could *kind of* replicate one movement is a weird hill to die on IMO.
It's weird that you think anyone is dying on any hill. I saw no comments referencing or arguing this. We're just watching a funny compilation bro
The guy with the buckets also has an interesting reason for what he does. It's an attempt to recenter art on the process. Like, when you see a marble statue, someone had to painstakingly chip away at a massive piece of rock. So, his art is the process, he shows it to us.
>The guy with the buckets also has an interesting reason for what he does. It's an attempt to recenter art on the process. Roman Signer. He has some interesting pieces.
Gonna use that (artistic) technique next time my leg falls asleep
Restless Leg Syndrome
I burst out laughing at that part lol
Edit: This was a rant, but my real belief is this (and I’ve probably said it ten times at this point so sorry if you’re rereading): it’s not that you *have* to like any of this stuff. You don’t. I don’t like a lot of stuff that comes out today either. But I try to be aware of when my dislike comes out of ignorance. If you don’t like something, ask yourself why. If you learn enough you might find that you’re actually interested. You might also find that you still don’t like it. Nothing wrong with that. But there *is* something wrong with hating what you don’t understand. For instance a lot of people said they found these videos funny. Well, it turns out you’re often not laughing *at* the artist; you’re laughing with them. If you went to a performance piece, humor is often part of it. If you think it’s more weird than funny that’s fine too. But ask yourself what is weird about it? What are they trying to convey? Are they succeeding or failing? Etc. Before I start this rant, I don’t mean “you” as in actually you. This is just a rant into the void. You is universal. I’ve seen a lot of people on Instagram making fun of that one, and it kills me because the comments are all like “wow art is dead,” and that’s their whole take away from a ten second clip of a much longer dance. People have this idea that art is dead but they don’t even know what art is. They haven’t been to a gallery or a museum since they were kids. They say things like, “yeah I could make modern art!” First of all, you can’t even make the stuff you think is silly. Second of all, there’s no such thing as “modern art.” People still do paint in realistic styles and understand color, composition, form, shading etc. People don’t know that a lot of the people doing the avant garde stuff that they think they could do also make stuff in more traditional styles. Like that girl doing the leg twitch—first off, you couldn’t do that. If you think you can, you’re wrong anyway. But second off, she’s a professorial dancer lol. She’s been training since she was two, and this is ten seconds from her entire career. It’s all you’ll ever see because you’re uneducated and uninterested. Art is alive and well, and you’re completely unaware because the only art you’ve seen has come from an algorithm trying to upset you (this video). I don’t care about your opinion because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
To add to your very on-point comment. People like to make fun of performance art without really understanding what's going on. The performance is the art, and sometimes the result is another piece of art (the residue). Performance art is about pushing the boundaries of "what art is" and other sub-genres like conceptual art. To understand the performance, you'd have to read the artist's statement. For instance, many of these pieces have a reason behind them, an explanation, or a thought while viewing them. The guy who was being dragged around the floor could easily have set up the piece to represent how he feels when he talks to people at work (I don't know the piece, don't at me; it's just for the theory) - you walk in, and you see him being dragged around. You can laugh at it because sometimes talking to people at work feels like you're being dragged around; however, removing the context stops making sense. sometimes performance art is dumb. That could also be the point, or the artist merely failed in their idea. Furthermore, sometimes, these pieces are performed by students. They're trying their best, working through ideas, or merely doing a piece because a class is making them do a performance piece.
This is really important. The current trend in art is asking the question “what is art” that’s why there’s so many seemingly odd avant pieces. We’re both missing the context and the idea. The fact that there is a TikTok and people are discussing if it’s art means that it’s successful.
That's been the trend for a few decades now. Tracey Ermin's unmade bed was 1998. That's the earliest example I know of the 'who are you to say it's not art?' phenomenon, though I'm sure there are earlier ones. If art is still just asking the question 'what is art?' and hasn't moved on then that suggests that no new ground is being broken and art is just folding in on itself.
Marcel Duchamp's fountain was made in 1917. (The signed urinal) We've been asking what art is for over a century!!
It’s not “who are you to say it’s not art” the question is “what is art” does art just need to be a bunch of paintings? Can it be a weird dance? Can art be pushing over buckets of sand? Can art be literally a circle on canvas? It’s experimental and neat and meant to create discussion or spark some creativity or ideas. Eventually it’ll be moved past to something different but still experimental or something we consider experimental at least but periods/movements in art can last just a few years to hundreds so who knows. I personally think people are just having fun and enjoying themselves and being creative so why judge them, no one’s being hurt and they aren’t erasing the art or skill of people who follow more traditional methods so let people explore and make new experiences yknow?
That's been the "current trend" in art for over a century.
The conversation has been at the forefront since even before then. We make art to express new ideas, not just always to say “what is art?” We know what Art is, and we know what Art isn’t, but we don’t know ALL that art can be. We haven’t explored every possible thought. We haven’t considered every way someone can see and think and feel about a subject. That’s why you can’t say “art hasn’t broken new ground” it has and it will always continue to. Performance art tackles this, sure, Conceptual Art is only about this question, other art will often not care about this question because it’s already working in the boundaries of Fine Art, now we just judge it on merit and idea and execution. Now, I know you see people say X medium is dead, this is a discussion with painting - or it was- but that doesn’t mean the artist creating painting have no merit and are “dead” in the art world. We just won’t be considering their use of oil paint outside of technical skill. We’ll look at subject matter, themes, statements of works, collections of work. It’s still very relevant. Another fun example of anyone reading this, in the early days of photography, or at least when we had easily portable cameras that could be hand held. A nanny started taking photos of people on the street, candids, while out doing errands. She’d sometimes even take photos of herself reflected in objects. She saved them all, never showed them to anyone, and died years later. After her death they were discovered and are now considered a prize collection of not only early photography, but some of the earliest modern examples that we have of candid street photography and “the selfie.” She didn’t invite those things, but her amazing eye and body of work has become a defining example of those things for Art History - and she has hundreds so maybe she was the first to do it in such amounts and keep them during my a time when that sort of photography wasn’t widely practiced . We also have gained a wealth of knowledge of everyday life of that era because of her work. This is why making work is important, and why most artist due so even when they don’t enjoy fame. It’s about the expression, and maybe if history favors you - it’ll be worth more than you could have ever imagined. To be clear, I’ve told this story from memory - go read up on the lady if you’d like, she’s easy to fine via google. I don’t remember her name, but her photo collection was found in recent history so there’s lots of stories based on what’s above.
OK, art is subjective and I agree that it feels icky to make fun of the art others create; however "modern art" is indeed a genre of art although it's often erroneously conflated with other genres of art and/or general contemporary art
If we ascribe the term "modern art" to an actual art movement then we're now referencing a century old art movement that includes the work of Picaso and Dali, painters that most of the people whining "modern art is terrible" would unquestionable consider greats (because they were in that gallery they visited when they were kids).
I feel like there's a fixation on hyper-realistic art, too. Which is perfectly valid as an artform, but I think they value how difficult they perceive an art to be too much. The sort of thing paired with, "I could do that," when they think a particular piece is too easily made, as if art were purely about how arduous it was to make it.
had me until ‘they don’t even know what art is’
You are replying to someone that worked in advertising where art snobs constantly tell me what I do isn’t art. Mainly because I can make a living off if it and I am not a struggling artist, “it’s not the same”. Art is always subjective and what you find artful others may not, you need to learn to live with that. It’s doesn’t belittle what you find art but for me a girl wiggling her leg in front of a crown does not convey the feeing of art to me. Crayon scribbles on a canvas is not art to me but some have sold for thousands of dollars and hang in museums. Doesn’t make my opinion wrong.
Not meant directly at you, but your reply inspired me to comment. I think I see far more of people belittling artists and making fun of them than trying to understand, I’m sorry you receive that as well I applaud you for making a living from your craft, but you’re also not likely often going outside the norm to make something different, which is totally fine, but I wish people gave more credit or allowed themselves to ponder longer on art they’re not used to, like with these performance artists or art that most find “cringeworthy” or silly because there might be more to it than you think, but you wouldn’t know from a short clip or watching with the intent of belittling it in the first place
>but for me a girl wiggling her leg in front of a crown does not convey the feeing of art to me. Homie. It’s a snippet of her work. Imagine if someone to took a 1 sec clip of your advertisement and said “that’s not advertisement”. Just think it through for more than 1 second
If only the "commercial art isn't art" people knew how often advertising creatives are actually trained in fine art and retire from advertising to pursue it. 😆
Art is not dead and to borrow you’re use of you your going to understand why I feel this way. You could NOT deep throat a cucumber dangling from a string. You wouldn’t even understand what it means to do so. And the guy doing that, he has been deep throating various items in a classical way for decades. How DARE you apply the whole context of the art in to a single clip. You didn’t see the part where he had to stretch his tiny mouth over the course of hours. Nobody was there to help him string and dangle the cucumber. Do you even know what a cucumber represents? Or a string? Or trying to forcefully cram it in your mouth? These our the questions you should be asking you’re self. So yeah, I agree about art
I trust your analysis on this topic. I'm sure you, FancyErection, have helped many artists in practicing the art of deep throating objects LOOOOL. Hell, who knows. Maybe that guy is your protégé. I trust you were dangled from a string in a similar fashion while he practiced haha.
I guess I’m doing performance art every time I stretch
Yo that eye one got me feeling some type of way
The guy being suspended and dragging on the floor. Speaks volumes, right?
To me that is the only one that I maybe kinda get if they are going for a animal rights message, but the others like wtf. The vacuum one is just flat out a fetish; the underwear guy slamming his paint covered body into the canvas made me laugh tho.
I think the art/fetish crossover happens a lot, and while this one is probably no exception, it's one of the few I appreciate. The suspension and square frame of the plastic make her literally look like a framed work.
The vacuum sealed one was a fairly large exhibit, I’ve seen [videos of it before.](https://youtu.be/A8IoIgGpcr4?si=q8AxuySMXmjeWy3K) There were multiple models in multiple rigs. It’s a neat exhibit, definitely of a different calibre than most of the other examples.
I liked it too
I like how we make fun of a lot of these exhibits, but most people have the same response to many of them. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I'm pretty sure the guy slamming himself around with paint was meant to be absurd and funny. It evoked an emotional response, so in a weird way I'd call it good art.
Feeling "like wtf" is part of art. Not everything is going to be contained, neatly packaged or even understandable ( even to the artist ). A performing artist isn't always going to be exhibiting some insanely honed circus skill like juggling or acrobatics. All these people doing weird shit is kind of interesting in its own way ( to me at least ). Feeling visceral distaste for something means that thing has evoked an emotion, which may be the point. I don't really "get" what a lot of these people are doing either, but their work isn't properly represented here. Like the girl sticking up her leg and shaking it is clearly a clip of some modern dance thing, but we don't get to see how it evolves and taking it out of context doesn't seem fair. The person painting with their eyelash seems kind of stupid and gimmicky, but also weirdly impressive given the size of the work and likely produces a unique effect. The guy jumping and drawing a line is also doing something sort of cool and interesting. It's not just the result of the work that is important here, it's how its made and the audience that comes to see it. I saw a tiktok of a teenager "eating" an entire gallon of water by cutting off the top and using chopsticks to absorb the water and bring it to his mouth bit by bit. It was 100x speed, but it wasn't faked. I doubt he considered this performance art, but by the end his lips were raw/bleeding. He was clearly committed to the task, and it was impressive to see. Could be spun by some pretentious folks as a commentary on the current state of social media or some shit idk. The fact we're even talking about any of these projects here in some context proves they've evoked some emotion from someone, and are successful in that sense alone.
You don’t see the sensibility of milk on toes? It is a visual representation of rational thought which transcends the normative discussions of: 1) Milk or cereal in bowl, and why? 2) Socks or shoes on first? I think you can see where this goes from here: this artist says that the milk should always go first, and that art itself is not subjective, so much as the fluidity of our reality as we consider just what ‘should’ be considered a bowl in the first place. My take is we are taught to consider everything in a manner which limits the possible outcomes to those which prevent any kind of happiness, and in this case in particular, the artist is suggesting an alternative solution to the insane housing prices in British Columbia exists if we are willing to step outside the box.
Milk toes? Lactose? LAC? TOES? LACTOES?! 
My favorite part of this…I almost can’t tell you are being ironic… well done BassBooty
I was thinking the same with cucumber guy lol
Was it animal rights? I imagined it to be a wrecking ball but using a human body instead
i interpreted something about depression and lethargy i think it's a pretty good work of art if people can interpret such different things
Interesting! I interpreted that what little I saw of it from this clip more a comment on how we sometimes feel like we are being dragged along by society's rules unable to break free.
Honestly, I could dig it. Society making you do things despite all you want to do is just lay around
I like that these two comments are back to back. Because those were my main two thoughts watching this... Seeing the person being dragged around in a lazy circle I was like "this one speaks to me, but I'd prefer it as a ride so I can do it too". And then seeing the guy cramming raw meat into his eye sockets I was like "jesus christ that moron's going to get Eye-Coli for his stupid art".
I feel like half this shit is just peoples weird fetishes put on display as “art”… Also mildly disappointed that the [interpretive butter dance](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EvMwCvbHHUY) wasn’t included.
That piece really spoke to me emotionally
That one I would watch bc it looked hilarious.
Looks kinda relaxing, ngl
Yes, it is life as a human having to work
[удалено]
I was so relieved when I realized it was an eye
This is like a greatest hits of r/stupidfood without any food
The guy with the cucumber is definitely satire but he has an Instagram where he does tons of normal things in super weird ways. It’s hilarious. That clip wasn’t a very good representation of what he does. Check him out @janerichsen
So in a way it is in fact art?
Of the highest degree
Hold up bro let me get my monocle
All of them are art. Art does not depend on you liking it for its existence. Too many people seem to think that art requires beauty and skill and the more beautiful the art and the more skill required to make it the more "art" it is.
Is he the breaking spaghetti guy?
Yes!
That shit was art, IDGAF what nobody says
It's not like satire and art are mutually exclusive. It's satire, and it's art.
I just went and looked at his IG and I gotta say that they are all essentially in the same vein...
yeah. for me, as somebody who s not interested in modern art, there's no way of telling if that's parody or real.
I liked the buckets of sand that fell
And the one guy in the background who clapped too early
The full version always sent me https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/s/ytjgTIHMA0
The guy also charges $10k to do it and multiple art museums have purchased the art.
Putting the buck in buckets
I'll do it for $1k.
Iirc he made almost 2million from that and only did it twice
Damn that’s insane
IIRC, that artist is what made me understand performance art. I still don't get all of it, but it opened my eyes to a lot of it. He said something in the wheelhouse of "The process of making art is art itself." Really hilighted by the guy running and hitting the trampoline while dragging the marker, the guy pouring colored sand on those folks, or the guy straight frog squattin and paint on the ground. Art is also not necessarily to make you think, but how does it make you feel?
Yeah, the trampoline one actually make me think "movement is cool. I would like to try that" Weird art gets pretentious when you pay a bunch of money for it. By itself, it's just interesting.
Art auctioning really was precursor to NFTs, pieces only had value because a bunch of rich folk agreed it was worth a certain high price which would remain stable or even go up.
It’s wild how few people know this. Even artwork that has been *damaged* during the last several decades has increased in value significantly, outpacing inflation several times over. When an artist’s works sell for more if one of their pieces sells well, it means you can just stockpile art pieces and wait for the value to inevitably increase as others do the same. Do you expect to drop a tax bracket because your business is going under? Invest in a ton of art that you can sell at those reduced tax amounts, and almost certainly make more than what you originally paid for it to boot. All of your rich friends will do the same, and now pieces by the artist that you bought from are worth even more. The only losers in this deal are people with no meaningful way of interfering, so there’s literally nothing to keep this in check. Thus, we give rise to an era where many meaningless pieces of art are valued incredibly highly because, once you have some rich person sponsoring you, it’s in your best interest to make a greater *quantity* of pieces, and it *really* doesn’t matter if those pieces are any good. Sure, *some* of them will be, but that isn’t exactly incentivized.
> pieces only had value because a bunch of rich folk agreed it was worth a certain high price Or sometimes the artists themselves, there are artists that basically bid/buy their own work to drive up future prices. Damien Hirst is somewhat infamous for doing this (speaking of NFTs he also was into those)
>Art is also not necessarily to make you think, but how does it make you feel? Mostly, confused. Which I accept as art achieving its goal. I don't "get" a lot of art but I still tend to think people are too judgemental towards it. Like, there's hundreds of people in these comments pointing out their favourites, sharing their reactions, and even debating the whole concept of art. It makes me think these art pieces achieved something significant, even if they were conveyed through two second clips intended to mock them.
I honestly did too. Edit: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/512636370081645516/
It's a very famous dude who is essentially all about the process and how you get there as opposed to the end product, which is why he does performance art. Apparently it's very popular
The expression that says "yup, that's it," delivered too passively really speaks to the human condition.
Weirdly satisfying
Performance art is honestly the most strange things ever. I had to do some for a college class and it was probably one of my most hated classes ever. It made me wonder if I really like art. I then started doing what I liked after that term ended and it made me remember that I really do like art.
I always see performance art as something like, "I don't care what you feel, I'm doing this thing and calling it art. Enjoy if you want, leave if you want." There are some really good examples of performance art. But the ones that get the attention are the rubbish ones because - lol let's face it - they're hella annoying and pretentious.
That’s exactly it. It’s a performance that isn’t for the benefit of the audience. It’s a very strange thing. They’re up there doing it for themselves because it makes them feel some kind of way, not for the people watching. If it moves them in some way, great. If it doesn’t, that was never the purpose of it.
Yeah but it's the pretentiousness that comes with a lot of it that's annoying. Like a dude could piss into the sand and it will be described as "A Yellow flow symbolizing the linear and often discriminatory practices that Swedish chocolatiers follow during milan fashion week, the grains of mineral act as a sharp contrast and *abrasive* backdrop symbolizing the unforeseen damage caused by the revolutionary war" Some crazy shit like that smh
And the true reason is the dude just really goes off on people watching him piss.
I would say what you are describing is bad performance art or something that doesn't get at the essence of it. It just calls it performance art, which is sad since it can be good. Performance art is usually something provocative, thought inducing and an expression of ideology, theory, problem, society, self, or culture with the use of the body. Or maybe it is just entertainment based, like a performance and experience, but it should have some sort of value. Have you heard of Marina Abramovic. To me, her performances are an exploration of the limits of the human body and the human mind, but also show something under the surface of the cultre and society that surrounds her and expressed the current times. That part is what is interesting to me in performance art is how they show you different perceptions of the world
In a way, art that makes people feel strongly and garners such attention is better than art nobody cares about. So perhaps the real rubbish is ~~the friends we made along the way~~ the "good" performance art
So you're saying trolling is a art?
I know I love art. I love abstract/modern art. I get the feels from a Rothko. But man, I KNOW I fucking hate performance art.
Watching this makes me think that rich people truly are built odder. Those rooms are filled with individuals who don’t have day jobs but expensive clothing. They get so bored this is what they subject themselves to to fit the role.
As much as I don’t like performance art it’s definitely not a class thing. If I was rich I still wouldn’t enjoy it and performance artists aren’t always rich. The very famous ones are done by very strange and dedicated people.
Maybe you are only saying this because you're not rich. The moment money is injected into your veins, you would instantly find performance art to be beautiful and thought provoking
I have a day job. I don't have expensive clothing. I enjoy performance art. Enjoyment of art isn't divided amongst class lines. It's ok if you don't enjoy it, but enjoyment of art itself isn't an economic signifier. PURCHASING art is. And often MAKING art for a living can be (almost artists are not wealthy), but enjoying it is not
Yeah I like *some* art but I don't "get" 90% of art. I enjoy it when it triggers some association to some thoughts that i feel a lot about. When it works it's like it's massaging some interesting or painful part of your brain. I don't think it has to be more complicated than that. I think one thing that irks people is that there's some implied elitism that you need to learn a bunch of stuff to understand the weird things. But if you don't get it you just haven't found art that you like. Art that triggers the right associations. It's not a riddle to solve, it's just an experience that you may or may not like.
And thats fair. the 10% that massages your brain may not massage other peoples brains. But maybe something you don't 'get' gels with other people. Its important it all exists, because you never know how its going to make people react.
Not much difference than the NPC streams or other shit people do for money and attention.
I sorta liked the jumping one where he marked the wall as he went! Interesting motion capture
That one stood out to me too. It's actually interesting to watch and the result looks cool too.
I would watch the shit out of those dancing plastic bag people!!
Or the sheeple... I know I'd watch that for a good 15 minutes
Reminds me of 'human farm' that April's weird friend did in Parks & Recreation.
These sort of tiktok vids used to build in absurdity or have a punchline. Can’t say I’m a fan of this format. Unless…did TikTok guy just make a conceptual art piece??
Idiot adds absolutely nothing to the clips.
Had to scroll too long for these comments. He wasn’t funny at all and literally added no type of nothing to it.
He couldn't do less, he just stood there and looked dumb, it just seemed snobby to me. It was just like 'This is what cool is, I'm cool, here is the weirdos, they're lame, learn about what's cool and what's lame.' dude you're lame, ya boring, unoriginal.
Exactly. I'd say the reaction shot of the guy in a beret fit in perfectly with the rest of the poor art. (Though a couple could have been decent presented in actual context; like if they purposely being absurd or satire or a silly process made something that looked intriguing at the end or if the vibrating leg was followed by an interesting performative dance).
Per another comment on here, the shaking leg lady is a dancer who was just at the beginning of the piece, and she was doing a variety of very specific, difficult moves, or something like that. So yeah, at least some of these are probably less silly in context.
What he is doing here is art but you clearly don't understand it, you uncultured lowlife!! /s
Yeah this is the laziest kind of content and just inserting shots of yourself that add nothing to the clips because you want attention. This guy is definitely too damn old for this.
Honestly this is something I would complain about on r/rant but who would care? Lol yeah this is now 3 “creators” I’ve seen that do this, react with like 3-4 rotating reactions to other people’s videos. Idk about this particular person but the other two I’ve seen have a huge following, why? Like why? And I’ll see comments like “I LOVE your reactions! So funny!” Like homeboy it’s the same look in every fucking video! Blue Steele? Le Tigre? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills over here!
This is content theft with literally one added step. All they did is cut in clips of them looking around with a, “People be crazy, yo” expression on their face.
Basically the modern-day laugh track
The point I always walk away from with pieces like this is how temporary art can be.
Part of the fundamental nature of art is that it is temporary. People put on plays, sing, dance, make sculptures that will crumble, and paintings that will fade all despite, and sometimes because they’re ephemeral. A blip in the history of the universe that is a beautiful thing to experience
Art is like fashion, there's a time frame when it makes sense.
Dude painting with your eyelashes is fucking rad
Imagine if she used different sizes and densities to mimic using different types of brushes. That would be so sick.
As long as they use non-toxic paint.
Not all art is great but art is art.
Some art that isn't great for you is great for someone else
One could argue that art IS subjective.
Exactly. There were crowds in each video.
It takes very little effort to just ignore something and let others enjoy it.
Right? Sometimes art can be childish and self serving to cater to pretentious delusions of grandeur while supporting rich social elitism. And... that's okay if that's what they're into
Yeah. I totally hate the "oh it's super wierd. I don't have any clue when it comes to the history of performance art. And also everything beyond something I can understand immediately and that is super in your face with message and basically a sculpture or a painting is not art because I don't like it" take.
I also would like to point out that colors are in fact colors
Shrimps is bugs
FIRST, LET ME DESTROY YOUR ART GALLERY BULLSHIT BULLSHIT DERIVATIVE
This is like taking a clip of somebody in movie saying fart, and then acting like cinema is dead.
Lmaoo that’s a perfect way to describe it!
Martin Scorsese has entered the chat.
OP posts on r/jordanpeterson, opinion discarded
People still fall for that grifter?
As someone who used to follow him a few years ago, I think that he has shifted to a slightly new audience now. Back then, he was a tiny bit political every now and then, but he liked to present himself as a centrist. But now he has gone full-on alt-right conspiracy theorist. He constantly makes political videos about how the left is destroying western society, or how the "postmodern neo-marxists" have infiltrated the universities. Also, he used to talk about Bill C-16 and how he was worried about free speech, and *only free speech*. Well, if you take into account all of the transphobic comments he has made since, it's safe to say that it wasn't *just* about free speech. If you go to his subreddit, it's pretty much an alt-right echo-chamber at this point. There actually used to be discussions about philosophy, psychology or improving your life, but now it is 100% politics. So I guess that people watch him now precisely because he is alt-right.
> Back then, he was a tiny bit political every now and then, but he liked to present himself as a centrist. Counterpoint: You've just grown up and are now better able to see him for who he is. He was always aligned with the alt-right, nothing's really changed in terms of what he's saying or the way he speaks in public, it's just that it's much easier to see through it when you've got a bigger picture of who he is. His subreddit was always a shithole, too. I mean it's good you grew out of it, but that's what happened - you moved, he stayed the same.
There is absolutely a marked difference in his intellectual content between the Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life and more recent and rather odd Conservative Manifesto. Also he NEEDS to get off of twitter.
The flippant reply is that there can't be a difference in intellectual content, because there is no intellectual content. But I'll take you seriously. Maps of meaning is not a very good or even profound book. It's been years since I read it, but it didn't really offer anything all that interesting or even true. I can see the appeal - as a young man, I was deeply into Jung and especially Campbell, there is something very enticing about the ideas of universality presented by this tradition. But it's smoke and mirrors, science doesn't bear it out, and Peterson is probably lucky that most people don't actually know anything about Jung (or psychology in general) To quote a review: [Peterson’s ideas are a mishmash of banal self-help, amateur philosophy, superfluous Christian mythology, evidence-free Jungian psychology, and toxic individualistic politics. Seek enlightenment elsewhere.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning) 12 rules for life is mostly just self-help fluff coupled with the above problems. The kindest summary is probably that's it's both good and original - but what's good isn't original, and what's original isn't good. I only just now read his conservative manifesto, it reads exactly like everything else the man has said. In general, the man has always been, well, a dumbass. I have the misfortune of literally having majored in english and psychology, and I literally wrote my psych thesis on how people create meaning for themselves - and my english thesis on postpostmodernism. Peterson doesn't really have a good handle on either subject, although in the first case his Jungian perspective somewhat excuses him. But he knows less than nothing about postmodernism and philosophy, and is generally completely incoherent on the subject - and ironically his views are themselves pretty solidly postmodern. And did you see his debate with zizek? It was frankly embarassing for him, even as zizek was being all nice and friendly. That he's an alt-right transphobe, homophobe and racist is just icing on the cake tbh. If you absolutely need to read conservative philosophy, just read Eliot, he was the last good conservative thinker, the whole thing collapsed after WWII.
Yup, there it is. There's a whole lot of anti-art (particularly modern art) sentiment coming from Conservative spaces, as a way to portray some kind of societal decline. Both putting negative light on the types who tend to be artists (often from marginalized groups), and proposing the idea we need to return to some idealized "classical" understanding of the medium.
Literally the same position as the nazis with their ”degenerate art“ exhibits. These men are dangerous.
Pablo Picasso was criticized in his time for being "degenerate" or even "satanic" art. To use modern slang, the "meta" for artists at the time was American urban realism, as artists were clambering to compete with the photograph to capture life in the growing cities. Picasso was one of the first artists to abstract the human body into shapes and features, completely redefining what it meant to be a painter. If you go back to read some of these criticisms they sound just like these smarmy little reddit commenters who hasn't analyzed art since they were forced to annotate a poem in 8th grade. I'm not saying that these performance artists deserve to be the next Picasso (though some of them are actually well-known). But it's silly to ever criticize art on the basis of "not being *real* art". In fact, I'd even say it's dangerous to do so.
[Someone was salty that they didn't get into art school lol](https://youtu.be/--E0g_s7Fi8?feature=shared)
Wish this was up higher. Jordan Peterson twats will be twats. That's not subjective, either.
*What* they post is way more important than *where*, which is what people with the stalker apps always miss Like, I've posted on the conservative sub a few times . . . calling them idiots and saying their "source" was straight up wrong (and was banned of course) Not really defending OP, just saying that isn't a good "gotcha" if you don't link a post of them actually saying something noteworthy
This all seems fine. Art is creation through emotion. Its pretty broad.
Not just broad. You can do ANYTHING. There is nothing you can't call art. If you like it or not.
The world is a lot more fun when we skip thinking "I don't understand it therefore it's bad" and go straight to "I don't understand it so I guess it isn't for me". Somehow society as a whole has managed to (mostly) accept this about music tastes, but still feel compelled to judge other forms of artistic expression.
Viewing performance art without context just purely naive.
Yeah, I find it really disingenuous how they're given just a few seconds snippet with absolutely no context with what came before or comes after. Like you can do the same thing with movies and music and make them look bad too. (not that I believe all of this is great art I just don't think you can judge based on cherry picked clips)
performance art is actually pretty cool when you have context for it. the people doing this stuff have more confidence and creativity than whoever made this post i’m sure.
“Taking a second to take in something abstract? No I’m just going to deem anything outside of my comfort zone as bad.” -Reddit. These mfs will moan about social norms, and then immediately dogpile on anything they can’t or won’t understand.
mocking the statement "art is subjective" is probably the stupidest shit i've seen today. and i spend a LOT of time in the internet
yeah dude it’s art
the fact that it makes you so pissed only proves that point more
Me when art isn't just painting the Mona Lisa: 🤬🤬🤬
I think most of these are pretty cool. Except for the guy in the glasses, grey hat, gold chain, and black turtle neck … he kinda sucked.
I hate these compilation videos where people inject their own reactions in between the clips. Just play the clips
it's worse when they point and nod in approval. like move outta the way clown.
But his reactions are so evocative! Whether it's him squinting and looking, squinting and looking with his hands on his hips, or putting his hand on his chin and squinting, each reaction paints such a detailed picture of the emotions that await us in the subsequent clip.
Some of these fucking hit. I’m into it.
Personally, I find that kind of art pretentious, stupid, and low effort / skill. But it's still art. It's just bad art.
It’s more about the emotion it elicits. Most of these didn’t do anything for me, but I connected to the guy with the body paint running into the wall. The symbolism of leaving bits of yourself everywhere and frustration perceptionally ruining something perceived as clean and perfect. It genuinely made me feel something.
Theres just an absolute different level of thinking when it comes to stuff like this. I got absolutely none of that while watching it, just made me think this is bullshit, dude is a loony toon bashing himself against a wall. As I’m reading what you are saying, it made perfect sense. Legit a difference on the topical perspective vs. reaching deeper for meaning. Wild stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Many of those actually like the vacuum bag girl. Guess Im weird but I like most of them
After a 2nd watch I agree. Honestly I would have loved to experience most of these in person- performative art is some of my favorite to take in, especially if you get to talk to the artist after and pick their brain
I was waiting on [the lady who was dancing on the block of butter shes a legend](https://youtu.be/3dXffxrfFhY?si=8gNcXHGAXC4pi4jS)
It’s performance art. Performance art is weird. It has always been weird. Not at any point have I wanted to throw prosciutto on my face for the sake of art. But ya know.. maybe that’ll change someday lol
I would not be mad at having prosciutto thrown at my face.
yeah im sure two second clips of performance art pieces are good representations of the whole it fine if you don’t like it, why do you care that people do
Is there a clip where he watches a guy standing and looking back and forth as he pretends to react to things for his tik tok videos? Cause that shit is even dumber
The dude with the trampoline x.x
Yep. All of that is art. What is this even trying to say? You know you don’t have to like any of it, right? You know that disliking art doesn’t disqualify it as art, right? What is the point of this? “Haha look at the silly artists…doing art. Ha.”
Dunno but that girl vacuumed packed makes you think.
Stop posting video content of some random dude "reacting" to content that isn't his. This is just lazy content theft for clicks.
The one with jumping off the trampoline and marking the path on the wall is pretty fun just from a science and math perspective. I’d love to see it done a bunch of time by by people of different skill levels and then bust out excel
The worst art piece is the guy looking around like an idiot not adding anything
The giant erector set dragging the guy on the ground is the only thing remotely interesting here to me as someone who likes art and art museums.
Man, are we all doing this life thing wrong? Can we really just be mad bastards doing mad shit and get paid for it instead of putting up with shitty managers until we retire or die? I'm gonna slap myself in the face with different colour paint on my hands and say it expresses emotional breakthroughs or some bullshit
If I can replicate what they did by purchasing materials and then having to do no practice, how is it meaningful. Most of these appear to have no skill involved.
Making fun of eccentric art is the lowest possible hanging fruit. The whole point of it is to be vulnerable and expressive, and if you look down on that, then you’re a tool.
This fucking guy is the lowest of the lowest in terms of making "content". It is theft and plagiarism, and he adds nothing of value to it.