Biggest Difference Between Bad Art and Great Art by UCLA Professor Richard Walter

I need to hangout around more real amazing professionals. The amateurs will always be amateurs you can see personality in art and too many people have bad personalities .

I ran into an awful artist long ago and you can usually see a persons personality through their art no matter how bad or good it is. For example there was a university making students feel like they were prodigious for literally nothing. It literally just looked like some dude making fun of art tbh. Like nude art is only art when it literally is beautiful. Drawing naked people in different poses is soulless and lustful only no different than graffiti wieners. The reason is you can’t love 20 naked women and you can see that in the art. You can see how they ignore the faces and emotion of the model and go straight to drawing the genitalia and other s*xual features. These types of people ruin art for me! How can some people even be called artists when the ruin it for other people…and they always do the minimum work too.

In 2014, I painted the Mona Lisa in acrylics. I found this a terrific way to get to know the original. It took me 5 months to complete the painting and it is exactly the dimensions of the original. I ordered a print of the original from the Louvre bookstore to use for reference. I then repeated the process with the Girl with the Pearl Earring. Now, i can see they are both of minimal quality but I love having both paintings on my living room walls. This heightened my appreciation for what Leonardo and Vermeer did.

🦄 Dolt by John Rickel 🦄

I feel sad for the students that have to listen to this guy's nonsense. All he says is bad art is boring. He never gives any support of what boring is. The example of "not boring" are shows about psychologically unhealthy, violent white men who abuse the women in their lives. His one example of "boring" is a narrative about a woman who leads and economic revolution for the working class and oppressed. Not surprising that and white male academic feels this way.

Art is subjective

I was drifting off during this video 🤣

The fact that he’s at UCLA, in California, a true Californian makes 90% of his opinion nothing more than bullshit.

Art like anything can only be given value, good or bad if there are first rules about what makes it so. If the rules of painting are: all paintings must be dark and moody and the painting is light and fluffy it will be a failure. This is why art is subjective because we all have different expectations about what will make it good or bad. There is however a general consensus about valuing things and oftentimes we are drawn into a general opinion of something without even knowing why. Sometimes you may find you love a piece of art or movie and everyone else you talk to does not. This is completely valid. Finally, art like everything else is only worth what someone will pay for it.

Art is something that makes life more interesting than art.

People of now does not have a personality. I think that's the problem for me with art and music in the 21st Century. It's all the same. There's never been more people with advanced tools and tech and techniques to do art and music but when artists are like sheeples, it looses that personal touch and becomes wallpaper.

I was quickly reminded of what art is when I discovered "The Caretaker - Everywhere at the end of time, Complete". Oh wow all 6.5 HOURS of it too. I had no idea what I was in for. Il admit I had to stop listening to it because it actually managed to get so far under my skin I was dreaming about it so I had to walk away. But what an impressive piece of art it is to manage to simulate such a complex issue such as Dementia. Its proper terrifying but worth studying I think.

I expected this to be erudite and obnoxious, but this was really down to earth. Thanks Professor

I have a different philosophy. I think different forms of art are a way of communicating thought that are much more detailed and intricate than speaking in language. They aren't entertainment, they're transferences of mind. Most of the world wont understand the best art, even if it gets hung in a museum and crowds gather around it rubbing their chins and miming depth. Bad art can be many thing, it can stays on the surface level where we speak english and communicate one dimensional ideas. Thats not the worst art though, because sometimes thats helpful. It can be an shallow imitation of the appearances of good art. Have we heard any noise musicians lately? Most of them dont have any sense of creativity and they just hope you cant tell the difference. Art can also be a tool for an activity that diminishes its artistic merit despite another situation having the potential to utilize it. For example, if you take a museum tour and see a picasso youre engaging in a pretensious and useless activity. If you buy a book of his art and stare at it at home to comfort yourself maybe that could be closer to experiencing the art within the images.

When he said much art is bad, i felt that.

I disagree because DURING the 90s, it felt like it was one amazing movie after another. DURING this current period it feels like all Hollywood can do is crap out corporate garbage.

all landscapes are dogshit made by retired housewives, change my mind

Art is bad, because it all comes from Tiktok. If I were to try and get the rich to vouch for my art, they'd tell me they only allow art from artists who have "established themselves"...But if I go to Tiktok with my art, I'll get way more support. And so to make that art, it has to be done faster than 3 minutes, which makes it come out generic. Why go to where I'm not wanted with good art only to be gaslighted, when I can make bad art where I'm wanted, and get more views and fans?

I don't watch much movies because there's a lot of stuff I find boring or annoying.
I don't want to waste my time watching a movie that doesn't give me something if I could spend it in the garden or working on projects (no matter if they turn out good or not).
I'd rather see a well-made documentary or the making-of of a movie (especially of it concentrates on prop- and set-design, story-boarding). Often after watching how the movie is made, I don't fee the need to see the finished product..

But if I don't feel the need I don't have that high demands either.
just something that surprises me a little, but treats the viewer with respect as a thinking being.
No love story (boring, unless very well done), no crisis story of some bloke (boring), rather no coming of age, no action, no dystopian movies because a lot of them look all the same...oh and detective story are mostly pretty boring.
I like movies that have good images...As in: you see that the story and the way it gets presented influence and strengthen each other, but not in a cheap way that makes me feel like the film maker thought I was too dumb to understand subtlety.

Nice to hear someone dare share his - and my - viewe on most modern art.. I usually say, that most of it is ruined art materials.. Mine is all fantastic though..

If I had to really choose one painting it would be difficult but The Death of Marat is very high on my list and another would be Dali's Crucifixion hypercubicus

I've often drifted off when watching a film just as an engaging scene would later emerge. I would revisit the film later when I was fully awake and see what was often a compelling story that I would have otherwise missed.

Nobody is responsible for you being bored.

The difficult but essential rigor for the responsible art critic or professor is to develop a system of aesthetic judgment that remains sufficiently porous, agile, and yet clear and independent in conception to allow meaningful commentary on works that span a broad variety of cultures, genres, national contexts, eras, languages mediums, ideologies, etc. To provide a meaningful evaluation of a work's communicative, semantic and sensorial content and whether or not that work achieves the various aims it seems to suggest it is attempting to achieve in various dimensions is a tall order, if one desires to do more than merely festoon her own arbitrarily preconditioned tastes and biases with a few verbal ribbons.

How long did it take to “paint’ blue poles ? 3 years. 500 million.
How long to paint Rembrandt’s de nachtwacht. 4 years 500 million, give me Rembrandt any day!

He should paint a great one and show us .
Just dont paint his face.😂😂😂😂

Funny enough, I didn't finish this video because I watched a minute of it and then became super bored.

We are exposed to tremendous amounts of "good" and even "great" work and as a result we can't appreciate it anymore. If the internet existed in the era of Da Vinci there is high chance that a lot more art like his would be produced and as a result many would miss-not pay attention to masterpieces.

The imitation game is overrated as fuck and people talk about hunger games more. This guys subjective ass take on art is objectively wrong.

Agreed most art is bad, don’t agreed that because you can’t immediately engage with it does it mean it is a waste. Definitely had to think a lot about some art to eventually understand and appreciate it. Again agreed that good art will rise to the top. But a lot of great art could be dismissed if you only relied on the initial gut reaction. I think you are basically saying don’t waste your time on bad art.

"There is nothing good or bad but thinking make it so." I find that oftentimes the reason you may not connect with a piece of work is because of the perspective you're viewing it from. Does something have to sit in a museum and be taught to people as 'good' for decades to be worthwhile? I don't believe so.

In the Heat of the Night starring Sidney Poitier. Hey that was a good movie. I loved it because it evokes an emotional response- it reminds you you're alive. Bad art is really more of a craft- like beads on a string. Method and technique minus emotional content.

the Met is boring. NYC is a graveyard of minds who think NYC is great. this guy is boring with his boring takes. yawn.

Art isn't lousy, ever.

I don’t remember the imitation game. It’s must feel so uncomfortable to speak on a subject when in a position of authority and be so lacking of substance and understanding.

As an artist, it is very easy to get mad at a statement like that, but in reality, the statement is quite true. Artists have to think that way. Otherwise, we won't push ourselves.

When people Flock in hordes to view and snap up “ Art “ only due to the Novelty & Marketing of the artists - when “ art “ is deemed new & Exciting only because a 3 year old splashed some paint on the canvas floor- when the Publicity Machine rumours the Artist of the Hour , vanished from their village for a week & went to heaven to talk to GOD- then you know the Story of Hans Christen Andersen The Emperors new clothes has become the manipulated view point by those who are behind “ Art “ Movements.
A black X on a pink canvas is now “ art “. Its BS is what that is.
Life has become banned. Thought had become contained. And individuality now has turned into the Trans Gendered Movement with 73 Sexes - according to them.
Do a Pro Hart: put it all into a Canon & light the Fuse!!

What a conceited, boring prick.

My take is a bit different. Things are fundamentally different in this century than in the last. No one looks back with that type of nostalgia anymore. There’s no difference or defining traits of an era anymore. It’s superhero movies and special effects in the mainstream.

What about the Hunger Games was boring? Especially the books. Breaking Bad on the other hand, which I thoroughly enjoyed, was full of cliches, inaccuracies, and stereotypical characters that the Hunger Games didn’t have.

The Sopranos was great art? Contemporary, salacious mafia soap opera.
The Godfather was great art.

Someone who talks about the first purpose of movies clearly is not to be boring, has never seen (or enjoyed) and Tarkovski, Jeanne Dielman or Hamaguchi, movies that are so immersive and emotional through the creation of a sense of tedium - in short, to be deliberately boring. What he's referring to is movies as entertainment, which is absolutely true and respectable. But I'm getting tired of the consideration that only entertaining movies really count, and the other ones are just for movie nerds and intellectual snobs.

Good art needs to look like it was made by an alien or a human computer, like the Japanese Art called Anime, the calculations and ecuatioms make it look realistic.

all the gurus tell us what a great script requires, but can't actually produce one. strange.

People say art directors are people who only focus on the visuals.... but I beg to differ. Any director be it creative or art, need to fcking know the tools that their teams use. Since that lets you understand the project's limitations. Unattractive directors are the ones that might have a bunch of ideas but never understand what's do-able or not. Gotta also have some decent time management and client maneuverability. So that the scope isn't out of proportion. Crappy ones just excuse better quality = over-time. Don't be that guy, it's hard being a good art/creative director.

This could be a subjective experience. While true, many amazing works are also forgotten. To some extent this is an old man mind set, where we become sort of jaded by our own experiences. He seems self conscious

Most modern art substitutes weird for quality, narrow isms for scope, and trendy for depth. It also refuses to change or even talk about progressive ideas in art like those that follow

Too many treat art as a marketing scheme. Modern art has become a trendy clique and the art now is mostly over promoted footnotes to greater art that was done 100 years ago. But art is too important to be reduced to a trendy clique.

Post-ism, is art for a new century, not a continuation of last century trends.

1 Mass Market Paintings like Prints. When any art form is mass marketed it enters a golden age. This has happened with books, records, and film. Let's add paintings. Most art is in storage in museum basements. Mass Marketing allows art to tour in copies and allows artists to make royalties on copies.
Why do you think the world gets so excited about a new great book, record, or film; but no one cares about a new great painting? All are mass produced except the painting.

2. End a Century of Isms. Dump the genres and formulas and let all kinds of art be a part of the art world.

3. Shift Emphasis From Trendy to Quality. Shift emphasis from the latest trendy art, to quality art in any style. Just because art is weird does not mean it is great art.

4. Free the Art From Museums and Galleries. Get the art out of the ivory elitist museum and gallery towers and back into the world. Have city art centers open to all artists. Make art that is relevant and communicates with people. Start with the first generation of artists online.

5. Postism is Part of a Bigger Revolution. Postism is part of the bigger art and media revolution out of Dallas, that includes art, music, lit, film, media, and a lot more.

6. Postism online: Online artists are the new wave of art. We had all the isms of last century. Now we have a free for all, of all kinds of artists, that are not sanctioned by any museum or gallery, displaying their work. Out of that comes the next wave and revolution of artists.

Last century the goal was to fit the ism. This century the goal is to do great art – no ism, no boundaries. Fractionalized art then, synchronized art now. Even calling something modern art is a type of ism that separates that art from the art of the past.

The 20th century was a century of experimentation in art. Now in the 21st we can choose from all those styles and / or start one of our own.

Then too if someone devises a way to charge and collect a penny per view on a webpage, that would allow any great artist to get money for their art and have a career without any middlemen.

Duchamp broke ground 100 years ago - but now his clones are just shoveling dirt. Weird art is easy, you put a strip of raw bacon across an expensive violin, but it's not good art.

Join the art revolution and pull the art world out of last century.

Musea since 1992.

This guy is himself quite boring. And a bore. And a cad.

The average amount of time a view looks at a museum painting is 2.5 seconds