Who’s Afraid of Modern Art: Vandalism, Video Games, and Fascism

Who’s Afraid of Modern Art: Vandalism, Video Games, and Fascism

Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue was
a painting by abstract painter Barnett Newman. It’s eight feet tall, and eighteen feet
wide. It doesn’t really exist anymore. There are actually 4 paintings named “Who’s
Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue.” This is number 3. Each one is distinctive, but they
share some key similarities. Namely, The title is a reference to Edward Albee’s
play, [Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf]. In Albee’s play, 4 characters turn their
lives inside out over the course of 3 hours and 68,000 words. Newman’s painting are…well they’re three
colors. Really, they’re one color with some accents. But despite the simplicity, “Who’s Afraid
of Red, Yellow, and Blue 3” hung in the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam for several
years. Then, one day, it was murdered. One day in 1986, a dude walked into the Stedelijk,
right up to the painting, and just went to goddamn town. He gashed about 50 feet out
of the fabric with a box cutter. Fifty feet. That’s like if he had just carved out the
entire perimeter of the painting. And for such an attack, he was…well he was
put in jail for a while. But also he was roundly congratulated by more than a few people. Because
Red Yellow and Blue had been the subject of a huge amount of criticism since it first
arrived. Before it was slashed, it was the reason for dozens of angry letters and phone
calls to the museum. People said it made them physically sick. So someone finally having the balls to do
something about it? To some, it made him a local hero “This so-called vandal should be made the
director of modern museums.” “He did what hundreds of thousands of us
would have liked to do.” Red Yellow and Blue 3, the painting, is dead. But I mean…who cares? It’s red, blue,
and yellow. I can make those colors in microsoft paint. This is clearly just another example
of the pretentious art world deluding itself into thinking that childish blobs of paint
on a canvas are art. Right? This is a game called 2:22 AM. It’s free
on itch.io, made by Alice (@alonkulous on twitter). In a lot of ways, it’s incredibly
simple. Almost barebones. But there’s something there. The game is very loosely a take on
late-night television. You flip through different “scenes,” intercut with grainy footage
of showers, or empty intersections, or dandelions, or…
It makes me feel likef !!!!!!!!! 2:22AM remind me of Red Yellow and Blue. Because,
like, what is it? It sometimes feels like a horror game, but
not in a conscious way. It’s horror in the way a nightmare can be horror, where nothing
bad happens and everything seems normal but you know something’s off. It’s funny,
too. It’s a lot of things, but I’d be hard pressed to tell you a theme. 2:22AM isn’t married to a specific story,
or even a specific sequence of events. Different playthroughs will give you different scenes
with different timings. Often, there’s no way to interact with a
scene. Sometimes clicking performs an action, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it gives
full freedom of movement. Occasionally, you’ll need to accomplish a task. You might need
to open a refrigerator. Or dig a grave. And it’s a game that’s stuck with me.
It kinda lurks in the corners of my brain, in those sorts of memories that could be from
early childhood, or a book, or a waking dream you had during a fever. 2:22AM made me uncomfortable.
It made me think about all the other games I play, how predictable they are, how I understand
the rules. It made me wonder what lies beyond the polished edges of AAA game development. There aren’t a lot of places for games like
2:22AM to exist. Itch.io is a kind of haven for these experimental titles, and because
of that, itch.io is a kind of punchline for a lot of people dismissive of non-traditional
gaming experiences. Newer platforms, like the Epic store, have promised that the titles
they sell will be more strictly moderated. They’ll only sell “high quality experiences.”
This excludes the worst of the worst, like the rapist-glorifying “rape day.” But who decides what lives inside or outside
the realm of “high quality experiences?” Where do games like 2:22AM fit in? “We have ten or twelve pictures of art…
But we don’t have any penises stretched out on the table” Thus speaks former North Carolina senator
Jesse Helms, a remarkable line that I believe should stand amongst the most famous in our
nation’s history. Ask not what your country can do for you,
four score and seven years ago, “We have ten or twelve pictures of art…
But we don’t have any penises stretched out on the table” Mr. Helms is not currently a North Carolina
senator. Currently, he’s toxifying whatever water source he’s buried closest to. But in his time as a politician, Helms was
enamored with preserving the distinction between true art and…deviance. In that beautiful
quote, he was referring specifically towards Robert Mapplethorpe. Mapplethorpe was a photographer
who took intimate pictures of human subjects. Embracing men, various acts of homosexuality
and sadomasochism, nudes of all shapes and sizes. And, in fact, a penis stretched out
on a table. Mapplethorpe was a constant source of distress
for senator Helms. Ol’ Jesse talked about Mapplethorpe, and his photographs, constantly.
(and I mean who wouldn’t, have you seen this thi-) Helms saw the photography as deviant,
and actively damaging to society, but he was also pretty politically canny about his opposition.
He didn’t try and get the art censored directly- just by proxy. Helm’s stated target was the National Endowment
for the Arts, a government program that provided money to artists and museums around the country.
He argued that, while Mapplethorpe’s art may be abominable, what’s even worse was
that the american people were paying for it. If it even needs to be said, the amount americans
contribute towards that endowment is almost incalculably small.But Helms was a man of
principal! He may have supported foreign death squads, but he was going to save americans
from spending that fraction of a cent on something queer, goddamnit. It’s Norman Rockwell and
paintings of landscapes or bust. Helms was pretty talented at whipping people
into a frenzy about this. When he talked about Mapplethorpe’s deviancy, people showed up
in protest at Mapplethorpe’s exhibits. In fact,
his attacks were so extreme and effective that a museum in Washington withdrew their
future Mapplethorpe showing. Almost immediately, the museum then received
an angry call- from Jesse Helms’ office. He demanded to know why they had withdrawn. Helms wanted more than to curtail funding.
He wanted those photos to be shown off. If you truly thought the art was causing damage
to society, wouldn’t you try to hide it from everyone? But he didn’t want it to
be hidden. He wanted public anger to encourage displays of outrage, hugely visible protests. Wanting it to be shown is a statement of intent.
Helms didn’t care about art. What he did want was to raise big crowds of “everyday
americans,” each of them representing the country’s anger at “non-traditional lifestyles.” “I have to conclude they really wanted that
exhibition in Washington,” said the museum’s director, Christina Orr-Cahal. “So it would
fuel their fire.” I remember the first time I saw them. I walked
into a dimly lit room in the Tate Modern, looked up, and saw this…colossus. And next
to it was another one. The room was full of them, actually, I was drowning between them. It felt like *?*?*?*?*? Mark Rothko’s work doesn’t fit very well
with the typical adjectives we use to describe art. Is this beautiful? Sure, but it’s not
beautiful. Is this complex? It is actually, but it’s not how we think of complex. What
is it? It’s red and brown in chunky stripes on an absolutely enormous canvas. And yet, hooooo boy it makes me feel. I’m
not unique for getting this sense from Rothko, his works hang in one of the most prestigious
art museums on earth. There’s this gravity that I, and others, feel when looking at them.
There’s a presence. But Rothko’s work, despite its acclaim,
is still subversive, still challenging the ideas of what “art” is, and what standards
it should be held to. And because of that, there are people who hate it too. In 2012, a man painted his own name and a
slogan in the corner of one of Rothko’s massive works, “Black and Maroon.” He
tagged it. And, according to that man, he had fairly grand motivations. He said: “Contemporary artists simply produce things
which aren’t creative in their essence or spirit…Art has become a business, which
appears to serve only the needs of the art market.” A contemporary artist frequently used as an
example of the medium’s creative bankruptcy is photographer Andres Serrano. My favorite
of his works, and probably his most famous, is of a plastic crucifix submerged in his
own urine. It’s titled “Piss Christ.” Piss Christ was another one of Jesse Helms’
primary targets. Of Serrano, helms said: “he is not an artist. He is a jerk. And he is
taunting the American people, just as others are, in terms of Christianity” For what it’s worth, Serrano says he’s
a lifelong catholic, that he follows Christ. Not that it mattered to the catholic fundamentalists
who attacked the photo with a hammer. A man who could also be titled “Piss Christ”
is Paul Joseph Watson, a contributor to InfoWars. Paul has political stances on many things
[eating books]. He speaks in front of a large map, to show his worldliness and breadth of
thought. One thing he’s made abundantly clear is
he has no time for modern art. “It doesn’t enrich our culture. It degrades
and cheapens society by exalting the vulgar, the crass, and the scatalogical. The people
promoting it are preventing us from enjoying modern art made by people with actual talent” Paul argues that modern art is a war on objectivism. What he keeps coming back to is there is “good
art”. We should know it when we see it. It’s this guy, who makes very detailed sculptures.
It’s not piss christ. It’s not Barnett Newman. And by claiming that these non-traditional
works are good art, what Paul says we’re really doing upsetting the “natural meritocracy”
that art should naturally fall into. And this isn’t just out of ignorance. Everyone that
praises this art is doing so because of their SJW-CUCK ideology, or because they’ve been
fooled into doubting themselves by these SJW-CUCKS. It’s all a scam, he says. By convincing the public that these pieces
are good, the artistic elite are elevating the wrong parts of art and riding their deception
all the way to the bank. Pause Paul’s claims that we can objectively judge
art often go right along with his assertions that people creating the bad art are talentless. (“The people promoting it are preventing
us from enjoying modern art made by people with actual talent”) Talking about “skill” in reference to
modern art isn’t unique to Paul, and it’s an understandable reservation to have. When
looking at a monocolored canvas, it’s probably occured to all of us that “I could paint
that.” The easy response is that, almost all art takes significantly more skill than
it may appear to. For instance, Rothko, king of colored rectangles,
is still kind of a mystery to much of the art world. He worked behind closed doors,
carefully altering the chemistry of his paints with egg, glue, resin, formaldehyde. His variations
between gloss and matte are incredibly subtle, and incredibly hard to replicate. Newmann, similarly, textured his big ol canvases
in ways that created a depth of color not easily reproduced. In fact, we know how hard
it is because after Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue 3 was carved up, the “restoration”
efforts spectacularly failed- it seems like it’d be easy to repaint the red part of
the piece, but when the man they hired did exactly that, observers could instantly tell
that something was off. The “shimmering” quality of the hue wasn’t there, there was
no sense of depth anymore. The restoration tried, and failed, to recreate the delicate
techniques of the original. Was it Red, Yellow, and Blue? Sure. But it wasn’t Newman. But this whole debate, does it require skill
or not, is kinda missing the point. While I’m thrilled that Paul thinks that labor
is what gives something its value and should be compensated as such, (COMMIE), reducing
art to a linear connection between “skill” and value fundamentally just turns art into
a commodity. Paul talks about how powerful the sculptures of Ron Mueck are- and I agree!
I’ve seen this big face, it kicks ass. Mueck’s sculptures make me consider humans through
a different lens than I usually do, making me consider my place in the species and building
a strange sense of solidarity with these aggressively real-looking figures. But if someone told me that Mueck was able
to make these sculptures in minutes, that actually they didn’t take much effort at
all… I would still have those experiences! It is
absolutely impressive when an artist spends huge amounts of time perfecting an intricate
style, but that’s not why I experience them how I do. Feeling art, getting the !!!! or
*?*?*, that’s something that happens almost involuntarily. Now we get into the second part of his argument.
Art has to contribute to society. And whether Paul knows it or not, he’s not the first
person to think of this qualification. In fact, it’s very closely in alignment with
a particular political ideology SURPRISE IT’S FUCKING FASCISM Okay, a quick disclaimer before we get into
this. Art is the most damn subjective thing there is. If you don’t like any of the art
I’ve talked about in this video, 100% fine. If you don’t like anything that’s been
made after the year 1800, also fine. I am not about to tell you that not liking modern
art makes you fascist. However. Fascism does make strong efforts to bring
art under a rigidly bordered, “culturally appropriate” definition. There’s this
pursuit, in fascism, to make everything of “an aesthetic.” That aesthetic is simultaneously
mythologized, made into the history of a culture. Once that culture is appropriately mythologized,
the art that feeds back into it is seen as “contributing” to the created society.
When, for instance, every artist that the dominant ideology values for the last thousand
years has been a white guy (or portrayed as such) and creates things that glorify white/colonialist
ideals, there’s something that starts to feel “natural” about that. It creates
a fundamental hierarchy. Any art that pushes back, or simply pursues
a different aesthetic, isn’t contributing anything to that mythology anymore. And in
fact, when the artists pushing the different aesthetic are members of groups that have
been historically oppressed by the dominant culture, the art they’re making may feel
like an attack on that mythology. Or at least, that’s how it could be framed, if one had
certain political motivations. One place you can see those political motivations
is, uhh, Nazis. Pause On one hand, you might look at Nazis and see
a surprising amount of respect for artists. Joseph Goebbels called artists “’gottbegnadeten
Sinngeber,” or “a divinely gifted purveyor of meaning.” High praise indeed. But as
Barbara Fischer notes, as well as this being characteristic of the “banal and overwrought
late romanticism” of the Nazis (sick burn), “purveying meaning” was only acceptable
when the meaning being purveyed fed back into the national mythology. There is little subtlety when looking at the
most valued art of the third reich. More interesting is the fact that, as well as the galleries
full of naked boys with swords, the nazis also showed off the stuff they hated, in a
gallery called “Degenerate Art” We now stand in an exhibition that contains
only a fraction of what was bought with the hard-earned savings of the German
people and exhibited as art by a large number of museums all over Germany. All around
us you see the monstrous offspring of insanity, impudence, ineptitude and sheer
degeneracy. What this exhibition offers inspires horror and disgust in us all.
– Adolf Ziegler, president of the Reich Chamber of visual arts This gallery, full of art removed from other
German museums, held such deviants as Henri Matisse, André Derain, and Oskar Kokoschka.
Gaze! If you will! Upon deviance! If you truly thought the art was causing damage
to society, wouldn’t you try to hide it from everyone? But they didn’t want it to
be hidden. [He wanted public anger to encourage displays of outrage, hugely visible protests.]] Sorry, uhh, This kind of art, the Nazis said, would only
be made by insane and degenerate artists. Specifically, they must be mentally ill to
create these kind of abstractions. Alongside each piece in this exhibit was the
“extravagant” prices they were bought for, inviting mockery and anger. The gallery
made familiar claims- no one, in their right mind, would enjoy this art. Instead, the fact
that these pieces were held in high regard was indicative of the insidious plots of the
left. The art held critiques of the sexual norms and family values that were so important
to Nazi notions of respectability. Modern art, they said, was also made for the “eradication
of the last vestiges of racial consciousness.” New and transgressive styles by black and
Jewish artists were indicative of their “degenerate intellectualism.” Eugenics, of course. Through the systematic
devaluation of art. A fun fact about Barnett Newman is he’s
a Jew! A less fun fact is that, for every attack on his work because people didn’t
like Red, many more have been specifically done by white supremacists. Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue IV
was spit on by a man who said it was a “perversion of the German flag.” Another Newman, a sculpture called “Broken
Obelisk,” was spray-painted with Swastikas in 1979 Last year that same sculpture had white paint
poured into its reflecting pool. Scattered around the vandalism were brochures with the
4Chan-pioneered supremacist campaign, “it’s okay to be white.” Whether they know it or not, the fact that
white supremacists hate Newman’s art fits right in with the message he always said he
wanted to convey. In 1990, he said of his art: “One of its implications is its assertion
of freedom…if [it were read] properly it would mean the end of all state capitalism
and totalitarianism. (1990) Challenging our preconceived notions of art
means challenging our preconceived notions of institutions, of society. This kind of
art doesn’t fit into the cultural narrative, and because of that, it becomes a target.
And ultimately, the crime that these artists commit is the right’s biggest fear. They
are upsetting the hierarchy. They are taking themes, experiences, and emotions that don’t
fit into our nation’s narrative, and they are expressing them in a way that is impossible
to ignore. And thus, the rejection of non-traditional
forms of art so often boils down to a rejection of oppressed people within those mediums.
Nazis didn’t call Kokoschka a degenerate because of his artistic stylings, they did
it because of his public anti-fascist activism. White supremacists didn’t vandalize Newman’s
work because of the apparent simplicity of his art, they did it because would be deliberately
obtuse, and saying that a half-decade of rape, bomb, and death threats were because gamers
were angry about journalism and a series of video essays would be- “This is what happens when lefty sjws and
cultural marxists seize control of something and ruin it for everyone else. No wonder gamers
are so terrified of them subverting the video game industry.” Depression Quest isn’t a new sort of game.
Text-based adventures have been around for decades, and descend from tabletop games before
anyone was even playing pong. But Depression Quest is an interesting title, because it
uses those implicitly understood rules of the genre to subvert our expectations. As you play through the life of a fairly innocuous
main character struggling with depression, options present themself at the bottom of
the screen. Your significant other has invited you to a party- what do you do? But time and again, the most desirable option,
the choice that would help “win” the game, is X-ed out. It’s clear that the best option
would simply be to go to the party and enjoy yourself, but you can’t do that. Every decision
is managing compromises, doing things that you know aren’t ideal but is all that’s
available to you at the time. And at the bottom of the screen, where you’d have your character
stats, there are just three lines. You are Depressed You are not currently seeking a therapist You are not currently taking medication for
depression. It’s a brilliant little experiment, a game
that plays with the established power-fantasies of most roleplaying to put you in a situation
where you’re undercut by mental health at almost every turn. It’s a challenging game,
though not in the traditional sense. There aren’t game overs, per se. But in many of
the situations, every option feels like a losing one. We’re hard-wired to want to
succeed in games like this, and Depression Quest makes it feel like that’s just impossible
sometimes. It makes me feel like -_-_-_-! As nice as it would be for Depression Quest’s
legacy to be an innovative title that played with the tools of the medium, it wo- “You can’t play what isn’t a game in the
first place. Also I don’t need some hipster dangerhair
with histrionics to teach me about depression “Not sure if that bitch ever really had
depression as much as she had batshit insanity 24/7.
Not sure if wild as fuck mood swings over every single thing counts as “having depression” “Depression question? More like narcissism
quest.” “I think the worst thing about the game
as that there was no option to just go ahead, commit suicide, and end it.” It’s BEEN OVERSHADOWED by targeted harassment
campaigns at its creator ever since it released. They say there is no way that this game got
coverage and praise on its own merit. It’s a textbook example of the war on objectivism.
Anyone who says otherwise, says they had a direct connection with this game, says that
it helped them view their- or others- depression in a new light, is participating in an effort
to force untalented people and destructive ideas into gaming. “This is what happens when lefty sjws and
cultural marxists seize control of something and ruin it for everyone else” Pause Patrick Buchanan, living fossil (wait, no
that says “Paleoconservative”), proclaimed that much of modern art was “Barbarism!
The Precise word!” Buchanan was speaking alongside Jesse Helms,
and was also attacking the National Endowment for the Arts. But he cut right to what he
felt was the meat if the issue. Art like this, this barbarism, this dreck,
was a direct result of the “amorality and cowardice of art critics.” This is the heart of it, right here. This
is the most naked form of attempting to control art. And when Buchanan yelled “it’s about
ethics in video game journalism!” (wait shit sorry, that’s not right) When Helms took the stand to say “Journos
only gave Gone Home good scores because they didn’t want to be called homophobic” (wait
that’s not it either) When people prescribe art to a specific set
of qualities, and attack everything that lays beyond those lines, we have to understand
what they’re doing. Those qualities, they just so happen to perfectly
align with the dominant cultural ideology, don’t they? They’re not showing respect for the craft, they’re not trying to “uphold
meaning.” They’re enforcing a hierarchy. They’re
attempting to define a cultural narrative. And above all else, they’re not. Talking.
About. Art.


  • Jacob Geller says:

    I know the music levels get a little dicey at points, sorry about that y'all.

  • easypistachios says:

    I love about 95% of this video. However I think you're reaching with connection to fascism/nazis. Yes, those ideologies condemn artistic rebellion, but they do it intentionally as a method of thought control. This does not mean all other condemnations of artistic rebellion also are motivated toward thought control.

    Also… not seeing a connection between classical art and white supremacy. So your idea is "they're not talking about the art, they're talking about the ideology the art is challenging" – I get it. But that means white guy -> art = supremacist? Does this also mean black guy -> art = in response to racism? Seems foolish to characterize art in a racial way like that. Very restrictive… plus, just talking definitions of art feeding into ideologies, that definition certainly does into intersectional politics.

    Also, I feel that your aim is too broad. Aim at PJW, all good, the guy's a doofus, and I'm not sure he even believes most of what he says. But I'm at least certain that most, or all, of those opposing modern, subversive art have not gone through the thought process that you have elaborated on in this video. I guess what I'm really most in disagreement about is what sounded like an accusation on your part against anyone who has a problem with modern art – that they are against is for exclusively political reasons, only seeking to maintain a hierarchy. It took you 29 minutes on top of I'm sure several drafts of the script for this video to articulate that idea; do you think most of the everyday people who don't have a taste for modern art have really thought about it that much?

    This is coming from someone who has a Rothko (print, obviously) hanging 10 feet away from where I'm typing this.

  • Da_maul says:

    Was almost good until you just started recycling the typical leftist talking points.

  • Devin Usleton says:

    Honestly on one hand while it's obvious art cant be made in a vacuum and therefore is intrinsically tied to capitalism, the very fact that pieces of art are made with the inevitably of being bought and sold in mind- that it must be priced and sold to put food on your table, that a person cannot just express themselves artistically on this level without tying their hands with profit- kind of sours a lot of the more avant garde art pieces for me. It just upsets me.

  • Henry Fleischer says:

    This makes me think of furry art. People call it barbaric or disgusting, yet it never hurt anybody.

    Modern art is also something you really need to see in person. The complex texture and color does not capture well.

  • TheZexal says:

    This might just be my new favourite channel I have discovered recently. From your video on Shadow of the Colossus, to Bloodborne, to Mario Galaxy, to the universe, adn even to this one, they have all made me feel strongly in some way or another. It's hard to express, but I'm incredibly impressed.

  • John Smith says:

    Bread bread bread bread bread bread bread bread bread bread bread!

  • TheOminousbeanbag says:

    As someone who was unfortunately involved in the beginning of the gamergate thing. It truly did start as an ethics in game journalism thing and her game unfortunately was a magnet for dipshits. There still is absolutely a problem with game journalism but it's got nothing to do with indie devs' sexual relationships.

  • Schrokitty Schrokatzerl says:

    Man…i was walking with your video playing in my pocket. You have a gifted ear for emotive sounds. Have you ever tried your hands at making atmospheric jazz or another atmospheric form of music? If so i will leap to listen to it. If not, i still enjoyed the video quite a lot. We have extreme differences in politic you and i. Ive noticed this over the course of listening to many videos, but i also agree on a lot. This video is a great example of that. Disagreements with it i have, sure, but not a single sentance said without good reason. This is what i like to hear in someone with opposing views. Something to learn a different way to see. Thanks.

  • DesertAvenger says:

    Funny. I see many people on the left calling forms of art in modern times "degenerate", creating outrage and calling for it to be banned. Makes ya think.

  • Just a Popoto says:

    "Art has become a business."

    laughs as a fine art student who studied art history because art, at least as we think of it today, has for the most of part of it's existence always been a business

  • UndercoverAkatsuki says:

    This video was absolutely excellent as I'm sure (or I hope!) you've already been told over and over, I especially liked the feeling of static noises and your use of music and audio, especially in the context of modern art/games as art. I hadn't heard of 2:22AM before but the surreal feeling that permeated your features of it were excellent so I guess I'll have to check it out. I really hope you'll create more videos about art in the future, perhaps in a context where it can be a bit more freed from those who want to destroy it, this was amazing!

  • chemtrailblazer says:

    But didn't fascists promote futurist/modern art?

  • Matthew McNeany says:

    ''All human endeavour is art.''

    Fight me.

  • Paul Rodgers says:

    The weirdest thing about the argument you make here is…well, that's its not an argument. You seem to be saying that people are using modern art as a scapegoat to reinforce their own political ideologies, their fascism. Yet you only do this in context of the political 'right', you don't mention the movement to restrict freedom in art by the political 'left'. So you only present a partial understanding of the problem…and then have the temerity to end your essay with 'They are not talking about art', well, neither are you.

    The weird thing is you don't need any of this to make the argument that artists should be free to make art as they see fit, and you can like it or hate it, and that's okay. Instead you decide to make a whole video which ends up saying more about your political ideology than it does about art, which is sad.

    I know you don't care…you will never read this, but you are as big a problem as the guy on the TV (i can't remember his name) that you kept calling a jerk.

  • Kainlarsen says:

    I studied art and design, along with music tech and theory, and film and video… but I am EXTREMELY wary of 'modern' art and artists, as I honestly believe they put their own egos above the art, or are trying to con people. There is too much obsession with injecting politics and social agendas into art, and it taints whatever is made with the ugliness of social constructs. They cease to be art and simply become props. That said, I would never destroy something because I didn't like or agree with it. Even if it annoys or upsets me.
    There's far too much to take in on this video, and I get this vibe from you that you're already judging people like myself for not taking a side. I hope I'm wrong on this, but it's been my experience that that left is no more trustworthy than the right, and to follow either uncompromisingly is stupid.
    Art is art, and while everyone who creates art has an intention, it should be subtle and symbiotic with the piece, not dominating it. I like to be able to tell where the artist has gone, what's in the brush strokes, the light and colour… stuff like Rothko just leaves me cold. What good is all that work if you can't even see the journey properly? On the other side of it, if something evokes emotion in you, but the creator did next to nothing, why do you not feel cheated?

  • Black Lanner says:

    14:38 I laughed a lot harder than I should have.

  • Daniel Connor says:

    This is a masterpiece. Never stop doing what you do. Seriously this is your best piece.

  • Albino Cyclopse says:

    He's worded this in a very leading way. The vocabulary is such that to disagree with him is to admit defeat, to lump yourself with the like of the Nazis and fascist beliefs.
    I don't like modern art personally. I think of art in its various forms as being similar to singing. Yes, everyone can sing, but not everyone can sing well. Not everyone can hold a note or project or reach the proper pitch, etc. When we hear "Bad" singing we know it and we know what it should sound like. It's the same with paintings, sculptures and photographs. Random paint on a canvas isn't a real painting anymore than random sounds are a song. Anyone with the proper tools can make anything, but there's a nuance to making something good.

  • Kurt Vinlander says:

    This is some fucking High Quality Content

  • John Doe says:

    Art, no matter the ideology, the effort, the piece, is still art and should be treated with respect.

  • Kurt Vinlander says:

    You´re going places, this is some fucking high quality content.

  • Nagazongas says:

    are compound words one word or two words?

  • Stuart Kimbrell says:

    How fun

  • m3an says:

    Holy shit. I can't get over how good this video is. Well done!

  • JollyJuice says:

    "He wasn't trying to censor the art directly, but by proxy"

    Hey! Sounds like a certain tech monopoly i've heard of…

  • Chloe Rozo says:

    Freaking amazing video. Best yet, honestly.

  • Maximus says:

    Didn't stalin also do something like this, although much more uh, upfront? Something about how if stalin didn't understand it, or didn't like it, he deemed it "not in line with the common people's thinking" and was therefore discouraged. Seems like a broader issue, part of when one group or person takes over a culture. I guess the main difference is that it wasn't displayed, to my knowledge? stalin just said "no" and that was it.

  • Rum0r says:

    From what I've seen, all the "Modern art is bad! Only good art is art that I say is good!" People ranting on YouTube are also the same people that say that art museums are some big scam run by billionaires and they think that they're just selling eachother art so we get "brainwashed" and think it's good because it costs a lot. I've even seen some more extreme examples of people saying that modern art is "just a big billionare Jewish conspiracy" which I mean, is their scapegoat from everything to gays getting married to a woman having a job, apparently everything they don't like is directly connected and controlled by the Jews somehow, which I guess make sense considering your explanation on how those people view modern art as some "libtard sjw art peice" even Prager u (that godforsaken channel, which is ACTUALLY funded by oil billionares) tried to say that art is some "liberal sjw baby babble" and that the only real art is naked people sculptures.

  • Miller's Garbage says:

    Hey man, I rarely comment on Youtube videos, but I guess that I finally have things to say.
    I would like to thank you for making this video, you've made good points that made me rethink about things and with the same breath I'd like to tell you to go screw yourself. Which I feel like should be a compliment? I'm not blindly agreeing with you and see some merit in this essay, but at the same time have disagreed on some points. I don't know whenever to like or dislike this video, I'll do neither, but you have certainly made me rethink on how I perceive (modern) art in the future.

  • OMX STRIKE says:

    I was following along, but you lost me at 16:18…. It's not an aspect of facism. It's an aspect of authoritarianism. Look at North Korea or Russia. "Modern art" is a threat to a dictator, such as is uncontrolled music and creativity.

    You brought up Zoe, but she's the type of person that wants to restrict art that falls outside her moral bounds. She is the type of person you say you stand against. Adding her in and that whole thing about trolls and "it's okay to be white" muddled the argument.

    I see what you're trying to get to but I think the basis of the video just rears off into the wrong direction and the main point (which is already vague) gets lost in your personal biases. To make and "intellectual" video just be concise and cut off the fat or things that either contradict or muddle the main points.

  • JoãoVítor Reginatto da Silva says:

    I agree with you 100%, since I became involved with the deeper aspects of modern art I've been trying to make people understand that the furry-futa-vore hentai pics I masturbate to in a daily basis are works of art with deep, meaningful philosophical implications, comparable to "great" works like Michelangelo's fresco on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling. But people always make fun of me when I say this, I guess most of them just aren't sensitive enough to see things the way I do. Damn fossils can't comprehend the profound social commentary of an anthro fox being swallowed whole by a giantess futa's urethra and being digested in her balls, becoming thick white cum, wich she than ejaculates in a rain of pure ecstasy. It's so beautiful and deep, I'm tearing up right now.

  • TheVoice says:

    Thanks for giving me a new appreciation for art.

  • Gustavo Duffman says:

    Man i dont know how you did it but you made me interest in modern art i was there waiting for you too say what you fell Almost screeming internali but then you show the gameplay and i could understand

  • Kilravok says:

    Stalinists, Leninist and Maoists were just as guilty of defaming art they didn't like as the Nazi were.

  • Sogburd Dingus says:

    I dislike a lot of the art like the works of pollock that is defended by people who say "you don't get it" or saying someone is "objectively oppressive" for disliking it
    Nowadays it feels more like that subjectivity is gone because an abstract painting can be worth millions of dollars
    I hope that people can understand that you can appreciate art or dislike it subjectively without having a political motive or personal bias
    Personally, I think squares on a canvas is stupid but to each his own
    I guess that makes me a Nazi

  • Aboruchan says:

    Can I call modern art shit without being called a boomer😞

  • Amiri the Grey says:

    I don't get how people can just say something isn't art.
    Like I understand not liking it

    but you can't discredit it just because you don't see it's value, that's so close minded.

  • Leopold von Jägershausen says:

    SURPRISE IT'S FUCKING FASCISM is now one of my favorite quotes asides from KNOCK KNOCK IT'S THE UNITED STATES

  • Yomaster74 says:

    was starting to think we gonna get gamer gated at the end but nah
    so we good

  • Dom Pers says:

    I think it's a bit short sighted to assign white nationalism to the phrase "Its okay to be white." I understand that it may sound off-putting, the community that created it has vile members within, and even a bit degrading to some, however, the phrase was intended to rile people up. Is that not what some modern/contemporary art is for? I by no means condone vandalism, especially in regards to art, but surely the act of placing those signs throughout college campuses is an inerrant form of art. At the end of the day, the phrase "its okay to be white" only has any power or meaning if you apply such to it, and if you do give it power, what does that mean? Is it not okay to be white? Why? Weren't whites born under the same conditions as everyone else, in that not being able to chose that they be brought into this world? Under the same logic, why would you be afraid of Red, Yellow, and Blue? The values of fear assigned are, essentially, your own values.

    What I'd Like to know is, can art not exist in all aspects? If art is cherry picked to promote an ideology, in the way that the Nazi's and other fascists have, Could it not similarly be cherry picked the other way, to say that all art that promotes a conservative ideology is inherently evil and degenerate?

    Pls tell me i'm wrong, I'm honestly quite drunk as I write this, but I'm very interested in hearing other peoples words on the matter. Also, for context, I like much of the art shown, especially Andres Serrano's Piss Christ, specifically because it makes me ask the question "If a religious symbol is mas manufactured by people who don't believe or practice that religion, what value does it have? Would it not be equal to piss?"
    /tirade /rant

  • Cactus Smitho says:


  • Hydration Man says:


  • Wadwizard ZOL says:

    Why did you play an audio clip of willem dafoe at the end?

  • Yeah Probably says:

    I see this as inherently counter-intuitive because the people who are criticizing the art establishment are becoming the "art establishment". Instead of seeing them pushed at their limits to something that can attest to mankind they're just "sticking it" to the conservatives as if they were children. I'm not against deconstruction or pointing out subjectivity but what's the difference between me and that guy up there who made those shit lines. I guarantee almost every single person who watched this video can accomplish that. I don't go to see art to see basic abstraction. I go to see complex beauty.

    To ignore these post-modern pieces aren't just a circle jerk catering to the art market ignores the fact these pieces get sold for millions. This is why it's inherently counter-intuitive we're holding up nothing. You're not even defending the art when you attacked PJW you're defending the idea of people having their own subjective opinion which speaks volumes.

  • Parado says:

    bruh are you an english teacher

  • ArLeS9091 says:

    Afaik Mussolini was fond of whichever art made as long as it contributed to Italy's prestige, therefore allowing "degenerate" art. Italian Fascism was not against "degenerate art", while German's was. Also Soviet union wasn't nice with artists. Fascism is not what the video intends to be (this is not a defense of fascism)

  • ACADIA says:

    well… this is inspiring. i gotta be careful with what i'm saying but, i see art as all subjective feeling but sometimes we just happen to have same reactions and views on art and therefor calling it "objective art". i almost want to call "objective art" as a "product art" because it completely removes the individuality of people and trying to define art and sounding like "you are feeling this because you like this art", almost like 1984 the George Orwell book.

  • ll says:

    why are you so against hierarchies?

  • Stefan Tabit says:

    Please understand that this video held my attention the entire way through. I often flee from videos longer than 12 minutes because nothing could possibly hold my attention that long… But your stories about these pieces of modern art captivated me. The writing, narration, and editing are all commendable. The way it expresses the pieces makes it feel at times like the video itself is modern art… Though I suppose it is.

  • Daniel Huelsman says:

    I don't exactly agree with Paul Joseph Watson, but I think I understand what's confusing him.
    It does seem like a scam when you look at an almost indistinct canvas with a hidden complexity to it that other people call it genius, but can't explain it to the layman effectively. For real, if you don't know anything about art history, you don't understand modern art. Because art started as "let's copy reality as best we can" then the artist got bored of that and added something unreal, until he got bored of that. Repeat the process until you can't recognize anything and the layman will be utterly confused the same way just catching the tail end of a conversation might be.
    It also doesn't help that there's reasonable suspicion of art's value, because often very rich criminals buy the art with illegal money, so they can sell it for legal money, regardless of the quality of the artwork.

  • Dorian sapiens says:

    But I'm kind of mad at youtube for only showing this to me now.

  • P3dotme says:

    Ok… yes… but modern art, more accurately some contemporary art has become a game of value forecasting. Knowing the right people, the right connections, and yes, the right ideology becomes an infinite game, not a medium of expression. These works are not challenging or transgressive, not really, they are the system. I'm not saying all modern and contemporary works are doing this, or that those that do are value-less but I do think some are really harming the "art scene."

    Also lumping all of the concerns of gg with death threats is kinda disingenuous. There were real points made. I mean not all anarchists are gonna throw bombs, and obviously, all anarchist thought shouldn't be thrown out the window.

    Also also, maybe I'm just different, but I who suffer from pretty severe depression and Depression Quest really alienated me. I don't at all feel like a game with missing options, I really take umbrage with the crossed-out "optimal" choices, and it gave me a bizarre sense of abdicating responsibility that honestly made me feel kinda ill… Fundamentally I worry about the impressions Depression Quest creates about mental health… I know it's not really relevant to the video, but I felt compelled to mention it.

  • KoyKoy says:

    I guess the person who destroyed it was afraid of red, yellow, and blue

  • Surfing On Squarewaves says:

    So PJW thinks art should "grow up and get a job" lol

  • Winston Smith says:

    How do we know piss christ was not actually just an attack on roman catholicism that used modern art as a guise?

  • Grabnok The Destroyer says:

    I thought the mostly blue one was cut.

  • Grabnok The Destroyer says:

    We just discussed modern art in my last Art Appreciation. We discussed the absurd modern art, including the Urinal someone sent in back in like 1917.
    Regardless of how you feel, it’s still art. Someone made something, and they deserve to make it. It’s their right. Arts weird. But it comes in huge amounts of variety. Regardless of your opinion, someone values it.

  • Dweeb says:

    Art is what you make of it. Its what you think of it. Art is what you feel, its the expirience of the emotion pounding in your head, and the deafening silence. Its a stray line off the norm, but also a box within that line. Its everywhere.

  • Diglet Miner says:

    As a neutral liberterian, I see all art that does not physically or mental hurt people as valuable, and honestly I think schools in the us should focus some curiculum on history of art, like these events. Also, to bring up another topic, there is contoversy about removing confederate memorials down south. I believe we should keep them up, as they are a reminder of when America was torn apart because of a horrible situation and greed, and that we should build new memorials and monuments of more modern American heros.

  • Wojszach says:

    hmmm… let me grab paint and become richest man on earth

  • WastedWizard says:

    While I personally feel absolutely nothing looking at any any sort of painted art, apart from maybe respect and awe at the skill or raw determination required to have made them – their craftsmanship – I feel like I can more understand what's in it for people to whom it does mean something more than just what the artist did

  • GuyUWishUWere says:

    I'm bored.

  • Tito Bigotes says:

    Huh, I learned something today.

  • Sam Grainger says:

    I'd like to play that game

    gotta say though I think alot of what people think when they think modern art e.g. who's afraid of… is often just a bit shit and boring to me.

    I do enjoy a stereotypicaly beautiful landscape or pleasent vase of flowers on canvas

  • Iug says:

    If it was up to me, I'd let the painting on the museum. With the deep cut and everything. It's a solid remark that: Yes. People were afraid of Red, yellow and blue.

  • Dax Jackson says:

    great video!

  • DrFreeman9999 says:

    Hmm. An interesting video that made me think for sure. I am one who does not have a high personal stake in standard art such as paintings and sculpure (Nothing against it but rarely does one move me to emotion). I also am of the opinion that certain bits of modern art do seem to be overvalued, not due to any particular idealogy but more in the simplicity, or seeming simplicity. I was, however, entirely unaware of the effort that went into creating the art you spoke of here, the texture and depth of colors. IT has inpired me to look a little closer towards some of these seemingly simple art installations and perhaps rethink my initial thoughts on them.

    However, as much as I agree overall with the message that you are, or seem to be, spreading; that is that art is a highly subjective topic and there are no objective merits by which all art can be judged, I will say that there are some things that I do find to be a bit more complex than is implied in this video.

    More specifically with videogames and similar media. I hold nothing against any particular group, sexuality, race, or otherwise (excepting those who spread only hate. Fuck those guys) But I also do not appreciate the seeming insincerety that is used when including minorities within media. Most specifically, I refer to the addition of a minority character for no other reason than to be "the minority" in the group. The low-effort additions made to appease the squeaky wheel. If you're gonna add a person who is black, fine. But make them a character, not a caraciture.

    Once again to specify I'm talking adding them to the forefront. Background characters and seen-once characters are often two dimensional regardless of their particular identifying traits. But if you're gonna add someone that you want the audience or player to care about, give them more than "Hi, my name is X. I'm a woman. I do woman things."

    Of course, with everything there are general exceptions to the rule. There are situations where it is fine or it doesn't matter. I'm not one to say that somethign made as art is intrinsicly a bad example of art. But I will say if something is not as good in my opinion, and if I find the words to express myself propelry, why I find it to be that way.

    When it comes to consumable media, which I will say to mean literature, cinema, and video games, I want there to be an enriching experience for the mind. By that I mean to say something that provokes thought. Something that either can create a compelling narrative or stands as a statement within the consumer's mind. Something that has meaning behind it. I most abhor that which seems to be made with the only thought to be profit or pushing a specific agenda at the expense of the narrative. Mostly this refers to much of the current AAA industry, but that's an entirely different topic.

    Also Specfically with the idea of "gamergate" and the depression game. I find that there was a lot of idiocy on all sides of that arguement. Those hating the game missed the point of it. Those sending death threats were in the wrong period, it's a game don't like it don't play it.

    But I also find fault with the resulting counter-attacks, both political and not. It's one thing to defend yourself and also support internet security that's fine. It's another thing to bring down, figurative, hellfire on the entirety of a group based on a small portion of it. I know this too well, as I am a part of many classifications of people who have hateful portions. I'm both male and white, but I abhor the idealogies of white and male supremecy. People are people. My personal idealogy is to hold everyone to their own merit. If someone's an ass then I treat them like an ass period.

    To bring kind of a full example of what I mean, The movie Blazing Saddles is, in my opinion, one of the better comedy movies made, because it shows the comedy of truth in a way. Rather than trying to shy away from racism, or to downplay it, or to even censor itself, it instead shows the ridiculousness of the whole concept and how asenine it is by showing a fairly accurate picture of what it was like at the time. It also shows that it is far more complex than just black vs white. What it doesn't do is say that certain groups weren't oppressed, and it doesn't go out of it's way to make a statement on who had it the worst. Rather it shows, relative, accuracy as to what it was like. It has characters of minorities who are far more than just "the black lead." There is motivation there. Emotion there. Complexity.

    tl;dr Fuck the hate groups, but also fuck the idea of laziness in writing to appease masses. Nuance and complexity is the best form of art, in my own opinion, though art itself is subjective.

  • Rinoa Super-Genius says:

    my problem with "modern" art is that its just boring.

  • Shawman Null says:

    Left vs right

  • Hashida Tackey says:

    Still like pjw

  • awesomepsume says:

    ok, but what if they have a point?

    like what if they just looked at piss christ and became violently upset that some people out there actually liked that.

    As far as I can tell the actions taken by those against these pieces were justified, since the purpose of art is to merit a response, and if that response was violent then perhaps the correct response was had.

    I'd like to raise some scenarios to this: 1. what if the art really is objectively bad, like if humanity had a goal to survive, populate, and wholesomely enjoy life, these pieces actively tell us to turn away from that, and therefore opposing that goal should be disregarded. And 2, what if art of this variety is like, nature, in that like a forest full of dead trees, or a food chain too heavy on one side, is suppose to have part of it eradicated for the health of the whole. And 3, if any stable system is self correcting, then by that token great movement in society are suppose to have push back, to prevent improper integration.

    You have to understand, that just because you can create a narrative that makes sense at every point, that doesn't mean you are, actually correct, but rather you've been able to find one of many way things can make sense.

  • Wapplesax says:

    Jacob geller kinda gives me a vsauce vibe

  • seeping. says:

    To be clear I like and agree with the majority of this video, artists should be able to create whatever they want regardless of what society dictates, however i take issue with some parts towards the end gamergate was about hypocrisy in media and both extremes involved in that event were at fault, Zoe Quinn has continuously abused her position to further her own personal goals, wheather that be taking kickstarter funds and not delivering on what was promised, underpaying her employees or lying and playing victim for sympathy. Creative freedom extends to ANYONE regardless of political ideology, race or gender.

  • Bailey Sagardia says:


  • Spruce bruce says:

    I thought that this video started off pretty good but, towards the end it kinda starts to go a bit off the rails

  • Gooey Llewy says:

    I'm incredibly happy you chose the music of the caretaker for parts of this video

  • Arthur Benjamins says:

    It's what Willem de Kooning said about his own work, "I dunno, I just paint and people come along and call it art".

  • Shuckle Wuckle says:

    As a fascist, I disagree. However, I now understand the lefts stance more clearly.

  • Snarky McSne says:

    I guess I see it in four ways to do art:

    1. The capitalistic way in which creativity is rewarded via money, power and fame.

    2. The fascist way in which art is created solely for those in power as a means to advocate for their cause alone. Political art. (be wary, socialist art may find itself here as well)

    3. Art for the individual. The starving artist at their best. They do it not for power, money, religious, and political motivations but because they are driven to by their own love for the genre. Even if only one person sees it, feels it, loves it, hates it, it is art.

    4. Anarchist art. The art of the vandal. Vandalism as a form of expression. Done without society or governmental approval. For a variety of reasons. But done all the same.

  • Robin says:

    i find it kind of interesting that i dont like modern abstract art in paintings but i do like it in videogames. 2:22 am is the thing that strikes me and leaves me with this sense of melancholy yet creepiness that i really like. i played depression quest when it came out and i was fortunate enough never to encounter gamergate or negativity about it until years later. i liked it and liked how it played with mechanics to give a player a similar frustration to having depression. i think what makes games appealing is how theres interaction even if its limited. even film doesnt really do the same stuff games do for me because i cant interact.

    that said, even if i dont particularly like other forms of modern art i understand their appeal and ill engage with them on their own terms. theres a lot that can be said about modern art. how do we determine art? what technical skill was used to make this? what sort of emotions does this evoke? why those emotions? thats interesting to engage with and talk about even if its not always aesthetically appealing in the way classical art is. theres value there and people just want to pretend it doesnt exist or that the value is negative because they personally dont like it or it isnt classical.

  • Neocuriosity says:

    I felt pleasure seeing that painting cut to shredds

  • Wenceslao Futanaki says:

    Well the guy who wrote into the rothko was right, dont agree with what he did but what he said! Funny shit is that he actually made contemporary art in doing the vandalizing. some hurt catholics, some hurt modern artist works!

  • TOAOM123 says:

    Started well
    Derailed at the end

  • Wenceslao Futanaki says:

    I mean the people who clean the museum can restore that thing (just put them to make a new one). I won´t ever ever, agree about vandalizing anything, even if it´s of no value to me. Most postmodern art is the most nazi fascist thing I can think of, is almost like a religion. As you said, disliking the stuff "artists" do nowadays is not being a fascist or a nazi, but certainly that accusation is being used against those who do. I do think most conceptual/postmodern art is a conspiration to make a quick buck, art just died. I like a LOT of "degenerate" from the 1900s as well. But that cannot be compared with the shit made nowadays.

  • Austin Flores says:

    I was alright until he called ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ a 4-Chan supremacist campaign. It’s not. It’s a call out of the norm. I completely detest the vandalism of art of any kind, but it’s funny how you can say “it’s okay to be black” but never “it’s okay to be white” although they are the same in context

  • David Nickels says:

    Personally I believe Banksy is the personification of modern art as his culturally subversive messages through literal vandalism gained him fame as his work went from a literal crime to protected landmarks and as he began pushing back against his popularity it only made him more popular leading to the destruction of his core anti-establishment message

  • OoidGooid says:

    IT IS 2019

  • Craig Stephenson says:

    Art is not painting on a canvas or sculpting a statue or playing a piece of music, nor is it writing a book. Art is the emotional response someone gets from the creation of another. I am afraid of red, yellow and blue, and that makes it art.

  • Jhon Smithers says:

    Yee can paint whatever you want with whatever silly political message you like,but at least make it look bloody pretty! I don’t care if it’s hard to replicate colors and shininess, do more than a silly square. Painting actual things with the fancy colors would be really neat. The red blue and yellow thing is not. And I don’t care about the deep symbolism nonsense. Least make it pretty if you want to say a message.

  • IHaveToTalkAboutHeavyMetalOrI'llThrowAHissyFit says:

    Even though I agree with most of your points on modern art, I also agree with PJW on how it's destroying the culture of art as we know it, but the thing is, is that the so called culture that is being destroyed is, as you said, "A bunch of naked dudes holding a sword." And if this is a good thing or not is up to you.

    Personally I see it as music theory, their is no right or wrong way to make music. But their are optional rules that you can take to make your piece sound more appealing. Personally, I don't believe that rules limit your creativity, but rather give you the tools to create a piece to it's fullest potential. And if you don't want to use music theory, no one is stopping you.

  • BlinkLazy says:

    small, small thing here, but i absolutely ADORE how you broach the concept of how art makes you feel, not using words but instead trying to convey the feeling using sound and visuals.

    It legitimately caught me off guard, and hit a weird spot for me.

  • C. N. says:

    Omg, all of the who's afraid of red and yellow stuff reminded me of the 99% invisible episode but I couldn't think of the name of the podcast, thanks for naming it at the end and sparing me 2 plus hours of thinking about it before I forgot

  • Space Boy says:

    I appreciated the video you made. It did shift my perspective on some of these artists. It seemed as though many of these modern artists wanted to do the opposite of artists in the past. I thought that they always wanted the painting to convey something in the viewer, rather than the artist conveying something through the painting. I'm not saying such a thing is bad, though I can't bring myself to appreciate the ways in which it is done. The one gripe I had is that you seemed awfully quick to try to correlate it to fascism and racial supremacy. In a way, think of objective art standards as a wheel, and the car as fascism. The wheel is part of the car, but it is not, in and of itself, a car. The same applies to art standards and fascism. It seems to imply that all axioms that are a part of, and can be somewhat traced to, a destructive ideology are intrinsically destructive, solely because they are a part of, or remotely related to, said ideology. I don't think such a thing is correct. This isn't a defense of fascism or putting objective standards on art. Rather this is my opinion on how (I think) you critiqued the idea of objective standards.

  • Jhon Smithers says:

    Aboot the taxpayer dollars and such, really the government should not throw people’s money towards something they don’t want. Doesn’t matter how small, it’s the concept of the government deciding for you that you should pay for this thing when you don’t want too. It encourages a slippery slope towards a wise man government. Then they throw your money towards garbage like the CBC, and fancy trips for our politicians. To wrap it, don’t go “ohh but it’s a small amount” when ever the government spends money on garbage because they’ll take it upon themselves to waste it elsewhere.

  • Butcha Pete says:

    To criticize art is to reduce it and miss some of the point; some just miss the point more than others.

  • Butcha Pete says:

    A comment unrelated to the point of the video, directed at the "Gators:" the movement was amorphous and had no leadership to speak of. When you don't define yourself, even as a group, you are defined by others. Don't take it personally that Jacob here casts the movement as he does– he isn't talking about you, personally. Just sit back and try to absorb the point he's trying to make.

  • Bearly Cool says:

    This is awesome! Art is media in which people portray themselves. Dicks on tables, Red yellow and blue, and video games with no rhyme or reason.

  • joey obyrne says:

    Ok, I agree with everything you said in the video. I found a lot of it really interesting and thoughtful. Except for the part where you said that the "It's Okay to Be White" campaign was 'white supremacist'. The goal of that campaign was to prove that saying that sort of thing would be met with outrage. It was a statement on how the regeneration with pride towards identities previously regarded negatively (such as sexual or racial minorities) in turn resulted in a hatred for the groups that were the majority which, ironically, is a prejudice against that group, or the very definition of racism and the hatred that these groups were crushed under. It was not white supremacy. It was a display of what happens when treating people as equals becomes seen as white supremacy.

    Other than that, loved the video. Thank you for making it!

  • Kellen Ruppee says:

    This video was awesome, and loved every second of it, but I'm about to go WAY off topic here, and I really hope someone can help me with this. As a centrist, I'm forced to ask; Is it not okay to be white? Is it not okay to ask? Like yea, white supremacists use the slogan, and that's pretty uncool. But.. if you aren't a white supremacist, is it actually racist to say that it's okay to be white? I never really understood, or felt like looking into that whole ordeal some months ago, so I just kind of ignored it.

    But the whole goal of the statement seems to want to point out a double standard in our society. Where white people must accept their privilege, fully embrace white guilt, and not speak their minds about any topics involving racism. As opposed to any and every minority group being allowed to celebrate not being Straight/White/cis. It just really confuses me that it's supposed to be the argument of white supremacists. Mainly because it's.. very incredibly valid, and accurately portrays the pathetic, victimizing, and down right fascist nature of identity politics.

Leave a Reply

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