No, Left Wing Art is NOT Mentally Ill | A Response to Remnant777

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]What is good art? Expressive, perhaps, emotionally resonant, something powerful that sticks with you. But is good art merely the style, the technique you incorporate? Or is it something deeper, something that enriches the soul? And can you look at something and go, "Yeah, that art kind of sucks. That art looks unfinished, but they can do this to improve." Is there such a thing as objectively good art? Well, if YouTube's to be believed, then hell yeah, there is. And if you don't follow the guidelines, your art is mentally ill.

[00:00:35]Something I'm sure is just a eupheism for wanting to say the certain gamer word that's become popular online. The subject of today's discussion is YouTube video essaist Remnant777 and his video why left-wing art looks so mentally ill, as well as his response to some of his critics in regards to this video. The core of this thesis is in the title. Remnant 777 believes that leftist art is demonstrabably mentally ill, which is to say it breaks from the traditionally accepted form that is accepted in artistic circles, that being composition, lighting, anatomy, etc. However, in doing so, Remnant 777 exposes a great weakness of his and indeed most right-wing critics who attacked leftist art in that he really can't explain what's wrong with the art he says is so terrible. Let me ask you, why is it that left-wing art looks, frankly, for a lack of a better term, >> mentally ill?

[00:01:36]>> It's like these drawings come out of a factory. They all look the same. And they all have the exact same themes, the same color designs, the same misshapen faces, the uncanny look to it. Why is this? Now, you're all smart enough to realize the irony of a man saying that all leftist art looks like it's made in a factory when he is in fact using AI art to communicate the factory itself.

[00:02:01]It seems kind of ironic that this guy is critiquing art for being the same when, as we'll see later on, he encourages all artists to draw from the same set of techniques and skills that he believes are the height of aesthetic pleasure.

[00:02:16]But of course, he runs into his first error here as well. Is it bad to have art that is flawed? I'd argue no.

[00:02:26]>> We don't we don't make mistakes. We have happy accidents. misshapen faces, misshapen designs, colors that don't match quite right. There are many iconic artists that did all that, too. The example that comes to mind immediately is, of course, Vincent Van Go. In his era, he was criticized for breaking convention. He was criticized for his globs of paint he just layer on the canvas, the way he didn't actually draw things as they were designed or looked like. Really, he made flowers look like big flaming torches in the grass. He made faces look twisted, misshapen. The clouds and the stars don't look like actual stars, but it communicates a feeling. It communicates an idea. This is how Van Go saw the world. And through his art, we get a sense of how he interpreted certain elements at play. By changing the dimensions or alternate dimensions, it draws attention to certain features of said art. Now, is that to say that the art he shows is good? Well, I'd argue no, not at all. It looks like there could be a lot of things can be improved upon it. However, he's also highly selective of which pieces he's choosing because I'm pretty sure these are made by actual teenagers or middle school students. Well, I thought about it for a long time and examined these drawings to figure out why they have that common style or theme to it and to figure out what causes this. And I came to some interesting realizations.

[00:03:50]>> It's not hard to criticize this art.

[00:03:52]It's flat colors. It's very, very bright. Maybe a little contrast in terms of design. It's unclear what the eye should be drawn to. Things are kind of roughly sketched out. Remnant doesn't show the names of the artists on screen, so we can't exactly go and check how old they were when they made the art. Nor can we see if this is a case of a young artist who had to grow into their craft.

[00:04:14]We're not given any context. That's the problem here.

[00:04:17]>> But before we dive in, I want to clarify. I'm not saying all left-wing art is weird or ugly or mentally ill-looking. No, frankly, the majority of art is dominated by the left. People who are higher in openness and creativity predominantly tend to be more left-wing. But I noticed something. For the mass abundance of left-wing art that looks disabled, frankly, I haven't seen that in the right. I haven't seen this large amount of weird art that's almost childlike looking come from the right.

[00:04:46]>> There's a lot to unpack here. First off, how do you define weird art? You're not really specific in how you exactly detail that, but for that matter, you haven't seen a lot of weird art from the right. Well, allow me to help you out.

[00:05:01]These are Pepe memes. These are wojacks.

[00:05:04]These are extremely common among the right. They're actually very frequently used among the right, as well as these lazy AI drawings that are done in the Jibli style. All of this is indicative of right-wing art and all of it is stolen. It is reappropriated. It is mimemetic. The reason why you don't see too many quote unquote weird artists from the right is that most of the quote unquote weird artists who produce that kind of art aren't actually making the art themselves, but taking something that was made by someone else and claiming it as their own. In other words, it's a cowardly approach. At least with these unfinished drawings, you can make the argument that they at least put their names behind it, that they are willing to stand behind their art, even if it is unfinished, even if it is a learning experience. With the right, it's very often taking something else that someone else made and claiming it as your own. I mean, I have as much evidence for that claim as you have for yours. So, who can say who's right?

[00:06:08]>> The people I've spoken to who make art and they're rightwing, it's very polished. It's higher level or at least not intellectually disabled like this.

[00:06:16]I'm very curious why Remnant thinks that this Templar art is rightwing. It's been around for at least 10 years as a meme repurposed over and over again for various different purposes, but the original artist does not seem to be credited anywhere. It looks professionally painted. It looks pretty clear. It's definitely not AI cuz it predates AI technology being able to create this kind of art. But I have a hard time figuring out how it's rightwing if you can't even figure out who the artist is. How do you know it's a right-wing piece of art? Quite frankly, it looks very corporate. Even if you know the artist by name, it's very clear that Remnant does not. As such, it's very difficult to say if this is right-wing art or isn't. It's also hard to say if the art in question that he showed is right-wing or not either because we do not know who the artist is. For all we know, it could be art made to make fun of a left-wing person.

[00:07:16]We don't really know because quite frankly, Remnant didn't provide a name to associate with the art.

[00:07:22]>> Foreshadowing is a literary device. And >> which begs the question, why? Well, I think there are many answers to it. One of them has to do with the fact that whenever you get into art, it's to be expected that you make drawings that look like this. It's pretty common. Most people start off not knowing what they're doing, especially considering if you want to draw something on a higher level, you have to understand that thing you're drawing. You have to understand the anatomy. There's a lot to unpack here. First off, we finally have a citation of an artist, [ __ ] also known as Wong Lling. Wong Ling is a very prolific artist. He has a web comic and everything. He's well known for his composition, his use of the color gray and monochrome color techniques, as well as the detail and shading and lighting in his fantasy art. He also makes his art in Blender and uses CG art to produce his art. So, it seems kind of odd comparing a pencil sketch to art rendered in a computer program using tablets and state-of-the-art technology to produce multicolored, multi-shaded works, doesn't it? Also, Wong Lling teaches art. So, we're talking about an art instructor versus art students, or potentially not even students of art, but just amateurs. You see, that's the difference here. You're comparing a professional artist to a casual artist.

[00:08:43]Wong Ling produces his art to sell it.

[00:08:46]If you want to make a portrait, you have to understand the skull, the muscles, the skin, the eyeballs, the mouth, the nose, the ears, all the rest. You have to study all of them. That's not even talking about hair and the different hairstyles you can have. So, when you're making drawings about people, it's very challenging. Your drawings by default are going to look really bad. Remnant appears to fetishize realism in art, crediting realism as being good. This, of course, ignores that many artists avoid realism or use exaggeration to draw more attention to certain traits.

[00:09:19]For example, in a lot of superhero comics, for example, you will see characters who are more triangular to appear more villainous, broader shoulders, and boxier bodies to encourage the visual of strength, whereas you might see rounder bodies being used to be more friendly. These are artistic techniques that are independent of actual human anatomy and more impressionistic. Impressionistic artists are very very influential in the field and are quite frequently around.

[00:09:49]Even the artists that you cited use impressionistic details to spread the feeling that you have when you look at art. Therefore, yes, while anatomy is important and musculature is important, it is not the only factor to consider.

[00:10:04]And in fact, by fetishizing realism over impressionism, you actually limit the types of art you can create. But the reason why we see this abundance of shitty art coming from the left is because they don't have self-awareness.

[00:10:19]It's tied into their philosophy. They don't believe that there's good or bad art. They believe there are preferences, but you cannot objectively say one piece of art is good or bad or one is better than the other. You can't. It's subjective. meaning they don't have any shame for what they create. They can't look at it and say, "This looks like hot garbage. I don't want to show people what I made. Their little doodle, according to their own philosophy, is not any better or worse than Michelangelo's paintings." You can't say that. You can say he's more skilled. You can say the drawings took more time or they're longer, but you can't say objectively any of those things make his paintings any better. That's the philosophy we're working with, and that kills motivation and growth. Remnant, that is by far the stupidest [ __ ] thing I've ever heard a person say. If Remnant actually understood the culture that produced these arts, you would realize how everything he just said is total [ __ ] Artists on Tumblr aren't merely critical of technique and style.

[00:11:16]They actually assign moral failings to you if your art does not conform to their expectations. There is such a thing as right and wrong and most likely you're on the wrong side of it if you're in that particular space. Don't believe me? Just talk to the Steven Universe fan art community. They bullied girls to the point of almost ending their own lives over objective failings with their art or subjective failing. The thing Remnant doesn't seem to understand is that yeah, they are objective criticisms to make about art and subjective criticisms to make about art, but there's still at the end of the day criticisms, and people are not going to hold their tongue if they want to complain on the internet, whether it's in right-wing spaces or left-wing spaces. Subjective flaws can be extremely loudly shouted, and it could be a moral failing for making these subjective flaws. Artists will not hesitate to give you feedback on your art and tell you exactly what they think. Nothing Remnant just said actually means anything because quite frankly, it doesn't matter if something is subjectively criticized or objectively criticized. At the end of the day, people will still talk with their entire chests to tell you what's wrong with it. And quite frankly, it's not about motivation. It's often about pushing someone down. Many artists in leftwing spaces have been known to have massive bullying campaigns to pressure artists into never producing art again if they feel there's a moral failing to it. This is well documented. This is not subjective or a lie. You can look up the [ __ ] harassment campaigns that have happened on Tumblr because an artist drew something slightly different than how a singular person thought it should be drawn. Further, nothing you said actually addresses the actual reason why Wong Lling's art looks like this and a pencil sketch looks like this. Different techniques, different programs, different mediums, different levels of experience, and different intentions for the art itself. A piece that is intended to be sold as merchandise does not have the same scrutiny with it that a fan artist on Tumblr might have. While on the other hand, if you have a right-wing person, someone who says there's good art, there's bad art, and it's not simply a subjective preference. Wait, hold on. So, what is wrong with the art on the right, can you explain that? As an artist, you can clearly explain what's wrong with it. If you say, well, it breaks from traditional form and structure of the human body. Well, is that a flaw? They're deliberately doing it. When grading art, you don't necessarily say, "How does it fit the rules?" You need to understand what the intentionality of the art is and if it accomplished the goal the artist set for it. What got in the artist's way when trying to produce their results? Is lighting an issue? Composition. The color catches the eye. It draws your attention to the parts the artist wanted to draw attention to. So, what's wrong with it? If your only argument is it's not a perfect representation of a person, that's a shitty critique to make because it doesn't actually tell you anything. Like, yeah, no [ __ ] It's not.

[00:14:34]It's not trying to. Are you going to complain about a picture of a rock that doesn't look exactly like a boulder you found in your backyard? No, of course not. Because that's a stupid thing to say. Also, one piece of art is a sculpture. The other piece of art is a painting. They are two different mediums once again with different techniques employed to produce the art. You cannot compare the two because that would be as stupid as saying, "Hey, this book with words on it is not as visually interesting as a blockbuster film with a hund00 million budget." It's really [ __ ] stupid to make this critique. He has a larger incentive to grow and develop the skill. And he's not going to show you all the times he messes up or creates hot garbage because he knows that's trash.

[00:15:20]>> It actually sounds like he's a [ __ ] coward if you if you won't be [ __ ] perfectly blunt about it. Yeah. No. Not wanting to show your art and works in progress to other peers is actually pretty [ __ ] cowardly because that means you're too insecure to post imperfect art to learn from your mistakes. You see, that's how artists grow. They make errors and get feedback on said errors. If someone isolates themsel and refuses to listen to any feedback on even their incomplete art, they'll never grow as an artist. In other words, your hypothetical right-wing artist is going to be stunted because he refuses to show his works in progress and instead thinks he can criticize his own art objectively. But that's simply not true. An objective critic is someone who is not emotionally compromised by knowing the effort it took to produce said art. You need another perspective to grow. He knows it's bad. Period. is as if I took a selfie every time I took a dump on the toilet or I posted all the embarrassing moments in my life. Oh, wait. The left also does that, too.

[00:16:28]>> Buddy, are you unaware the right posts their fair share of L's, too?

[00:16:31]>> I'd have skipped college.

[00:16:33]>> I got knocked out.

[00:16:34]>> Yeah, I know.

[00:16:35]>> Me and Nick dropped out.

[00:16:36]>> I'm so glad that they expelled me.

[00:16:38]>> You're not missing [ __ ] >> No, it was a blessing, man. I I have no education.

[00:16:42]>> I literally thought >> high school educated. That's it, >> dude. Education is for people that work for you, >> correct? Yeah.

[00:16:47]>> Come on, man. I saw those videos. cuz we know how you felt at first.

[00:16:51]>> Doing this rant right now. I wish I was walking around the dining hall like a normal kid, like a normal motherucker hanging out with my buddies in college.

[00:16:59]Even if college is the dumbesting thing known to man, I wish I had that experience and you guys took that away from me.

[00:17:05]>> This isn't uncommon to the left at all.

[00:17:07]So, it makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't they post their hot garbage shamelessly seeking validation from other people, which is very funny. They'll post it online, expect validation and praise.

[00:17:17]They'll seek it out and then they'll get mad at you if you're honest and you say, "Well, there are some things you could have done better," which is flawed. If you're showcasing your art and you're opening up yourself to positive praise, you should also be opening yourself up to criticism. Otherwise, you become delusional. There's something ironic about a guy saying that the left can't take criticism and then his immediate next video is response to criticism from this video calling his critics mentally ill. There's something very funny about that. You just can't make this [ __ ] up.

[00:17:46]All righty. So, I released a video a couple days ago. It's called Why Leftwing Art Looks So Mentally Ill. It got a lot of comments, a lot more than I expected, and I thought about it and I thought it would be entertaining and enjoyable for both the people who made these comments and other people who are just curious for me to make a response video. A lot of you made the exact same objection, so I can just clear it up all here and I don't have to make an individually written out response to all of them. And hey, you also get to be in a video. But to that I say he already has a defense built in. I'm making this video right now and there are going to be people in the comments saying, "My opinion is trash. I'm wrong." Imagine if I posted this video and I said, "Nobody in the comments is allowed to tell me I'm wrong. I only want praise from my good audience members." That's delusional. That's insane. But that's what they're doing with their art.

[00:18:34]Buddy, let me explain something to you.

[00:18:36]You named and shamed your critics, but you refuse to name the artists you're criticizing. Do you see the problem here? You're willing to put your critics on blast on your massively large channel, those who have no platform, and yet you're afraid to name the artists so that no one in your video can just look up the artist to see if they've improved or how old they are. You're effectively targeting your critics with your channel's platform, yet you're refusing to allow the artist to speak for themselves by demonstrating improvement.

[00:19:11]You act like they don't improve, yet you can't demonstrate that they have been stagnant. And I say art in quotations because that's just what we call any drawing people make today. You didn't make a drawing. You didn't make a sketch. You made art in quotations.

[00:19:26]You're comparing a pencil sketch of a face, a caricature that's more animated in style to anatomy sketches to the Mona Lisa.

[00:19:38]You do realize that Da Vinci also had anatomy sketches, right? Very prolifically. Do you think that that's like all of Da Vinci's art was the Mona Lisa? Like what are we what are we doing here? Like hell, what's even the flaw with the other two pieces of art? You keep saying they won't listen to criticism, but well but what's your criticism? Like what what are you trying to say? What's your point? You just, oh, it's mentally ill. Well, what does that mean? We know you just want to say a certain word that starts with letter R, but even that doesn't tell us what is actually wrong with the piece as you perceive it. For a video all about how artists can't take criticism, you're not actually showing what criticism they're supposed to take. I mean, one time I was in a chat room, somebody posted their picture, their art, and I pointed out the things that I liked and then I pointed out the things that they could have done better on. And then everybody attacked me, by the way, they were leftwing and said that I was wrong for pointing out what they could have done better, which is delusional. You might as well just tell everybody, "Hey, only compliments me." Imagine how delusional you would sound if you said that in any other context. You see, even assuming this actually happened and uh isn't made up, uh I have to ask, what was the thing you told her? Did you tell her her art looked mentally ill, or did you give meaningful criticism? Maybe you can change the coloration or shading or composition of the piece. Something tells me you didn't because you've been incapable of providing specific feedback on any pieces of art this entire video thus far and we're over halfway through it already. It also ties into their philosophy about how beauty is subjective. Everybody is beautiful.

[00:21:19]Everybody is a 10. Everybody is amazing.

[00:21:22]Unless you disagree with them, then they call you ugly. Beauty is subjective to these people. I made a video talking about how beautiful women are crazy. A lot of the comments simply said beauty is subjective, which is [ __ ] It's demonstrabably false, and I can make a video about that in the future. But that doesn't fit their worldview. They try and force this idea that beauty is something that they can equalize. If they simply call people beautiful, it makes them more beautiful or something like that. Beauty is whatever we call it. And we don't want ugly people to feel bad, right? So, let's just lie to them.

[00:21:55]>> Here's the problem with his argument.

[00:21:57]Ultimately speaking, you can't prove something is objectively beautiful. You can argue that they are traits that are commonly seen as attractive culturally, but those traits do not always carry over from culture to culture. Different people in different societies and different locations see things as objectively beautiful or not. The Venus of Willindorf was seen as beautiful in the ancient era it was constructed in, but that's different today. Or is it?

[00:22:25]Who [ __ ] knows? I don't [ __ ] know.

[00:22:27]Point is that if you argue that something is objective and has to be perfect, then quite frankly, you're maybe making a few errors there. Case in point, look at all the people with Mara Lago face. All the conservatives around Trump who have altered their face cosmetically to adhere to a standard.

[00:22:45]Most people think that's [ __ ] weird looking. It looks plastic. Take a look at Clavicular, a guy who's completely reshaped his body to looks max. The average woman I've spoken to thinks he looks creepy. He looks weird. He looks like a plastic doll. Everything he's done to look more attractive might actually kill him in the end. It's hard to say. I think personally pumping your body full of steroids and drugs may cause some health issues, but what do I know? The point is that these are subjective opinions of beauty that these people are so insecure about, they have to convince you they're objectively correct. and their insecurity prevents them from listening to anyone else who disagrees. To these people, they don't believe the things they say. Period.

[00:23:30]They don't. They view their compliments as an act of charity. I'm being charitable and kind and encouraging these people to feel good about themselves by calling them beautiful, to feel good about the things that they make. It's not honesty. It's also easier to make art if you're a leftwing person.

[00:23:45]After all, all art is on the same level.

[00:23:47]There's no such thing as good or bad art. It's simply preference. Meaning, whenever I make my shitty crayon drawings, I can show it to everybody, expect praise, say to myself that it's on the same level as Michelangelo's statues, and now I don't have to work. I don't have to spend those years developing those skills, put hours and hours into one drawing. I don't have to do any of that, which is pretty insane if you think about it. I would bet that this mentality we have, it breeds mental illness. It breeds delusional people about how they view themselves, about how they view their arts, their work. If you don't see reality for what it is, if you think that these two images are just as beautiful or just as amazing, that's delusional and insane, that's mentally ill. And the left is breeding this. I'm going to be honest, you're conflating a lot of different things here. You're taking art that is clearly from an artist who's inexperienced and comparing it to a different artist from a different era using a different medium to produce something very different for a commercial purpose. Did you think that Michelangelo's sculptures were made just for the sake of it? No. They were done because he was commissioned by a client to make it. Hell, you're so stupid you don't realize that the art that you're talking about isn't even a painting at all. It's digital art made in a computer that had access to different tools to render a different visual effect. A crayon does not have the same capabilities that Adobe does. You're so foolish. You think that there's no difference whatsoever between those two points. And you compare a person's face following plastic surgery, following reconstructive surgery that they elected to do with a kid's crayon drawing.

[00:25:32]This is inane. This is beyond stupid.

[00:25:37]This extends into the realm of what the [ __ ] are you actually talking about?

[00:25:43]While on the other hand, people who are right-wing, you don't see as much trash from them because they understand when they make trash and they're simply practicing. I'm not making art. I'm practicing my skills so that one day maybe I might be able to make a moderate piece of art. That's how they view it.

[00:25:58]the left. Any little [ __ ] they take on the canvas, that's a piece of art right there. That's why there are so many people just like this online. And again, I'm not saying everybody who's a leftist makes horrible looking art that looks mentally ill like this, but I'm saying that's why there are so many people who have this exact same uncanny, weird art style that looks intellectually stunted, as if a child made it or an adult that is mentally impaired. That's why we are seeing these things. And that's it for this video. I didn't go into detail of what art is or what beauty is. I can demonstrate what those things are and prove it. But if I did, this video would be so long. They deserve videos in themselves. And if you'd be interested in those things, be sure to give this video a like. So, here's the thing, of course, that we're kind of neglecting here. Every single piece of art he showed in this video featured some form of LGBT imagery. The implication here, of course, is that you're not criticizing the art for its physical qualities, because after all, if that were the case, you'd point it out.

[00:27:00]What's wrong with the coloration? What's wrong with the shading? Hell, I've criticized the art more effectively than you have, and I'm just responding to things you presented to me. No, the real thing that you're pointing out is that you're conflating LGBTQIA identity with mental illness. you're conflating the fact it has gay flags in it with them being mentally ill. After all, if the problem were that the colors were flat and that they weren't necessarily vivid or the shading was weak or the human anatomy wasn't perfect, you'd highlight that. Instead, all the art you show that you say is leftwing just has a gay flag on it. That's the only indication that it has any implication of being leftwing. But then again, he did have a second video. Maybe he elaborated more there as to what his points actually were.

[00:27:51]>> I'm going to leave timestamps to everything I address. And some of the most popular objections were, "What is art and what is beauty?" I address both of those. And I also address other separate comments.

[00:28:02]>> Now, I really don't care about him being ragebaited or some [ __ ] like that. I'm going to really hone in on the stuff that I think are worth discussing to see his response to feedback. I think that enriches his original argument quite a bit and I think illustrates just why it's worth poking further at this. So, let's go over the comments. One of the comments I just want to start off with is people claimed this was rage bait. It was not. The reason for this video was a lot of people on the right and people who are also artists had this exact same feeling that a lot of left-wing art that's mainstream, it looks so weird and has this uncanny style to it. And I thought about it for a long time and I finally came to a conclusion as to why that is. And that's why I made this video. It was more to address what a lot of people have been seeing and thinking about. There are people on the right and I've talked to them. They all say the exact same thing. It looks weird. It looks mentally ill. That's where I got the idea from. You know what? Actually, that just makes you sound like a hive mind who can't think for themselves. If you all have the exact same opinion, that's kind of sad if I'm going to be honest with you. You have to enjoy the exact same thing. you have to conform to one another's opinions. And why is it that every time you say the art looks ill, it's because it has a different pride flag on it. It's almost like there's some commonality with what you're talking about. But, uh, you're an objectively intelligent reasoner. You're not you're not just a simple homophobe who's trying to justify and polish up your bigotries with some fancy words that you don't actually use correctly.

[00:29:36]Right. And I actually thought most of the views would be from people who are right-wing and would agree with me. It was more to answer their question they already had. But I guess a lot of people on the left saw this and well, they didn't like the video. So now we're here, which is fine. I don't have any issues with people disagreeing with me.

[00:29:51]I find it enjoyable.

[00:29:52]>> Is that why you title your video, I made left-wing artists angry at me for telling the truth? Seems kind of funny how, you know, you can criticize everyone else, but when they criticize you right back, it's, you know, they're just mad. They just they just upset I told them the truth.

[00:30:10]This is so [ __ ] pathetic, dude.

[00:30:12]>> Some of these comments are long and because there are so many comments, I just want to skip to the points of their objection. For this person, they say, "The art you have shown here is obviously beginner art as well as made by children." It isn't actually, which is funny. In fact, one of the prime examples of what I was talking about, the weird art style that looked intellectually disabled. He's a leftist YouTuber who made videos about me. He's a Marxist and by no means is a child.

[00:30:37]Unless he has children make his banners, he's very bad at art, but he's certainly not a child.

[00:30:43]Oh. Oh, buddy. Oh, you you [ __ ] up in a way you don't really know. So, I actually know Alec Gunter, actually.

[00:30:51]We've talked a few times. Alex started as a rightwing content creator who shifted left over time. So, if he spent more of his life right-wing, but then shifted leftwing, what do you think that means? He came from the same place your artists came from. It's funny how that works out, isn't it? Also, just because it's his banner doesn't mean he drew it or for that matter is an artist at all.

[00:31:23]You compared professional art to amateur art and thought we wouldn't notice. In fact, amateur art by someone who was raised in a right-wing situation, was right-wing for a very long time, and thus should have developed the same skills you argue is inherent in right-wing art. But guess what? None of that even matters because Alec didn't do the thumbnail. I know this because I [ __ ] asked him. It was one of his mods who did it. So even your entire point attributing the art to Alec is completely [ __ ] because he didn't do the art. You didn't do even the barest amount of research, did you? And I would look for people who weren't children. I feel like that would be bullying if you only got art explicitly from children.

[00:32:20]That would just be bowling in my opinion and that's not the point of this video.

[00:32:24]I don't doubt that some of these images are made by children and if so, that's by mistake. But if I saw any indication of age on Twitter of them being a minor, I wouldn't use their art because again, that would be very disingenuous and that's not the goal. The point is though, if you are left-wing, you cannot say that their art, these drawings that they make are any better or worse than highlevel amazing beautiful art. You can't because art is subjective. You can't say that there's good or bad art.

[00:32:51]And if you disagree with me on that, that's fine. Then what I'm saying doesn't really apply to you or your beliefs.

[00:32:56]>> If they're not kids, then prove it. Give us the names for every artist you site.

[00:33:02]Why? Why hide it? Why withhold the information? I guess you think that we're going to trust you at your word, but um I don't trust you. That's the thing.

[00:33:10]>> But that was one point I was making in the video. But this person is very kind and courteous. You can read the whole comment here. Very kind person. They also asked, "What exactly makes a piece of art leftwing or right-wing? Is it simply the subject matter being depicted or the political leanings of the artist?" This video was mainly commenting on the political leanings of the artist. Again, how do you know what the political leanings of the artists are? Just because they have gay flags doesn't actually mean anything. As seen with many, many groups that are finding that it's kind of difficult to be gay while working with a right-wing organization, there are many people who are gay who also are more conservative.

[00:33:47]They end up getting their faces eaten by the leopards that they vote into office.

[00:33:51]But hey, they do exist. Next comment is K33 PR blatant homophobia. No, it isn't.

[00:33:57]And I tried not to overuse tons of gay flag drawings. I mean, if they had a gay flag in their drawing, it's safe to assume that they're leftwing. But one, that puts me in danger of YouTube. I'm not trying to say, "Hey, gay art is mentally ill." That's not the claim being made. I used in the thumbnail because it conveys the idea, "Hey, this is left-wing art. Right-wing artists aren't known for having gay flags in their drawings." Because it's one of those tricky situations that's hard to win at because if I put a bad drawing, people don't know it's made by a left-wing person. You can't. Only I do because I was looking into these Twitter artists. But if I show gay flags in their drawings, which makes it undeniably left-wing, now I'm just homophobic. Now I'm hating on gay people. What do you do? That's a sticky situation. But I still wanted to make the video and get across my point. None of this changes the fact you targeted primarily, exclusively LGBTQA artists and argued that they were in fact mentally ill and that's the only way you can identify them as left-wing. All of that actually proves it's very homophobic because you're targeting and being bigoted towards and making assumptions about the people based on what their sexuality is. Yeah, that's homophobic. That's textbook homophobia.

[00:35:11]Even at your most generous perspective and saying, "Oh, well, right people don't like gay flags." Okay, then you're saying that the right is homophobic. You know, like what what implication are you trying to get across here? you're not doing yourself any favors, so you might as well just shut the [ __ ] up. Shutting the [ __ ] up is a free action that can spare you from possibly shoving the entire boot that you're looking down your [ __ ] throat. And a lot of people say that I have a bias towards realism or semi-realism. And all the bad art I use is simply stylized cartoons. One, these aren't stylized. There's a difference between bad art and style. A person who is very skilled, who can draw very realistic art, but they choose to draw cartoons, that is style. It's a choice. But the people who cannot be realistic and they simply draw cartoons because that's the best they can do.

[00:36:01]That's not a choice. That's not a style.

[00:36:03]They have the inability to make great art. And you can tell because the images I used, they weren't simply cartoons.

[00:36:10]Their faces, the proportions, the structures of the drawing, they were all off. Anybody who actually does art can tell there's a difference between very bad art and someone drawing cartoons.

[00:36:22]There is a clear difference here. One is intentional, the other one doesn't know what they're doing. And those were the examples I used in the video. What about the cubist art from Picasso you showed then? That was clearly made by an artist who demonstrated that he understood how to draw human anatomy properly and chose to be a certain way. See, that's the problem here, isn't it? You thought we'd only think about the specific artwork you showed, but you showed other art too from artists who demonstrabably actually know what they're doing. Also, what about those anatomy sketches? How is that bad art? And also, drawing and displaying realistic art shows, hey, if I draw anything else, it's a choice. I already got to this high level of realism. It's at the end of the day a proof that you can create real amazing art. That's what it is at the end of the day. I don't think you actually understand what good art is. I'm gonna give you an example. Here's a picture of a building's side, right? You see that stair leading up, door, all that? Yeah.

[00:37:22]Looks pretty realistic at first glance.

[00:37:24]Right now, someone else examined this art from this artist who I'm sure isn't important at all, and decided to look at the angles at which the windows were facing. Do you notice how all the windows and doors and everything are angled incorrectly? If it was particularly from a realistic perspective by someone who knew what they were doing, they would angle all of the image so it kind of had a focal point so it was aligned properly. Yet it isn't. Everything is misaligned. The entire house makes no sense. Who is this stupid artist who drew this? Oh. Oh, that's my point. Right. Right. Yeah.

[00:38:00]Sometimes just worshiping realism isn't enough. You might think, "Oh, well, my art is realistic." But when you actually look at the art and truly scrutinize it, you realize that a lot of detail is hiding how poorly made the art is. But they also claims that I only used beginner art. Let me ask you though, what do you mean by beginner exactly? Do you mean that they're on a lower level or do you mean that they're just starting out? Because these people frankly are not just starting out. They have been drawing for quite a while. And my problem is they remain on this lower level consistently. They've created a large quantity of drawings.

[00:38:40]>> First off, when someone says beginning, they mean they're just starting out.

[00:38:44]Also, what is a large quantity of drawings? I can draw a hundred [ __ ] drawings in a few days. Doesn't mean I have a lot of experience drawing.

[00:38:54]Doesn't mean I'm not a beginner. It's all about how many years of experience they have as artists. and we can't verify how many years they've had as artists because you didn't provide anything >> that look horrible and they never improve. That's the point of this video.

[00:39:14]So, yes, they're on a beginner level and they remain on the beginner level and they don't progress beyond that. That's the problem I have with it.

[00:39:22]>> Prove they remain on the beginner level.

[00:39:25]You see, here's the thing. Just because an artist has a lot of drawings doesn't mean you chose to show a drawing that demonstrates their growth. For all I know, it could be an artist that you shows that has hundreds of pieces of art and you chose their first one deliberately. I don't know because I can't check your work. Is this the case for all left-winers? No, I'm not saying that. But there's a group I'm specifically touching on that does and that is seemingly allergic to growing or changing to improving. They cope and they lie to themselves as to why they don't need to improve. And also when I say this art looks mentally ill, what I mean by that is when you're on a lower level, especially when you're on a lower level, if you want to improve, you have to use a reference because now you have a set in stone goal. You're clearly defining failure and success. If you don't have one, you can never really prove whether you succeeded or failed.

[00:40:22]But a reference, it's undeniably in your face. This is revealing in ways I don't think Remnant intended because it tells us he values whether or not art can recreate something more than anything else. He cares about art not so much as artistic expression, but as a duplicate of what is in front of him. In other words, he thinks artists should function like cameras taking photographs based on this description. Maybe he doesn't mean that, but that's the message he sent across that or he wants artists to trace more. So, what I mean by when there's a mentally ill look is to say that these people are so delusional that they can't tell reality from their drawings. They look at their drawings and they say, "This is amazing. Look at what I created." Yet, it looks like [ __ ] That means you're unable to see what you're producing for what it is. To them, these two drawings are equally as amazing.

[00:41:19]It's just a different style. How do you know that? How How do you know that? I'm just asking you because you seem to be saying a lot about intentionality here, but you haven't actually showed what the artists are saying. We're getting all this secondhand from you. You're telling us what a multitude of other people who we can't identify think. How about instead you show us the words of the artist, >> Thor the Doge, the fact that you use AI art while saying this is noticeably degrading your credibility on this matter. Actually, I would not agree. I use AI art because it makes my videos faster to produce and it does a good job at illustrating the ideas I'm trying to convey. It's a tool at the end of the day. It's nothing more than that. I don't think that these AI images are art. That's really what it boils down to. And I can draw. I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but I can do realistic portraits. I wish I could actually show a couple of them, but they take time to make, and I have posted my best works on my social media, which I can't show because it get me doxed. Not going to lie, I actually tried looking to see if he stole and took credit for the Omniman art. I can't find any results in reverse image search, so he probably did just sketch it in a book and photograph it.

[00:42:28]But even still, even still, that doesn't change the fact that you still used AI art. I don't care if you are an established artist who knows how to draw. The moment you use AI art as a shortcut for your video, that's enough.

[00:42:42]Quite frankly, I'm not an artist, but I still commission artists to draw for my videos because I'd rather have authentic art than stolen assets pumped out by a machine that look [ __ ] terrible. I might make one for this video, but no, I don't think it takes away from my opinions or the things I say. And I think if it rubs you the wrong way, from what I can see the majority of the time, they tend to be insecure. One of the other objections they always made was art is subjective. And I mentioned in the previous video that I would talk about what art is. Now, I'm going to try and make this as short as possible because I want to get through more comments, but art is not subjective. Art at the end of the day is truth. That's what it is. It's being able to express truth. And it's very easy to prove this.

[00:43:25]People like to say when it comes to art, when it comes to paintings, when it comes to drawings, art is subjective.

[00:43:31]There is no such thing as good or bad art. It is simply taste. It is simply preference. This is untrue. And people commonly show with their own language with the things that they say that they don't actually believe this or understand it.

[00:43:44]>> Buddy, you just said nothing whatsoever.

[00:43:48]>> When was the last time you ever heard a person say that movie was bad?

[00:43:52]>> As much as I'd love to indulge you with your EFAP audition tape, I already addressed the idea of objective criticism in media in another video. If we can say so confidently, so easily without even batting an eye that movies, that acting, there is good and bad acting, what distinguishes them? This is key to revealing what art is, which is it's realistic. That is what art is.

[00:44:14]It's realism. You have to embody that character realistically as if they existed. And you're able to express that character for other people to see. And part of art is being able to express it well. You're saying two contradictory things. Expressing something well does not always mean expressing it realistically.

[00:44:34]The problem is that you think realistic representation is the only way you can express something well as opposed to using lighting, anatomy, composition, proportion, focus, all of that in a way that communicates the feeling of the art. I'll give you an example right now.

[00:44:54]The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is regarded as one of the greatest films ever made.

[00:44:59]It's also incredibly unrealistic. They are shadows painted on the walls.

[00:45:04]Buildings are made deliberately in a way that does not look logical. However, it's meant to express the feeling of being in a nightmare. Another example, Goya's black paintings. All of these paintings are incredibly dark and incredibly distorted. They are deliberately unrealistic because they're expressing the horrors in Goya's heart, including this iconic image, which by the way is not remotely realistic in any way whatsoever. However, you feel something when looking at it. That is the intentionality. If you're teaching a class and you have a hundred students and they all walk away with a hundred different ideas of what you said, all 100 different conclusions, you're a bad teacher. It's the same with art. You have to be able to interpret reality for what it is. And you have to be able to express reality for what it is. And you might say, "No, art is subjective. It's whatever we want. It has nothing to do with reality." Then you can never claim that there's any good or bad acting.

[00:46:04]There are any good or bad movies. Yet, we all do, and we have no problem saying that. This is [ __ ] stupid. There is good and bad acting, and there is good and bad art. But it's not about whether it's realistic or not. What matters, what divides good from bad art is if it properly communicates the idea the artist is trying to communicate. Does this art successfully communicate what the artist tried to say? Is this acting expressing the emotion in a way that makes the audience feel what the actor is feeling? If so, it was successful. If not, it wasn't. This has nothing to do with realism. It has to do with expressionism.

[00:46:50]This is an element that you seem to struggle with. We know that art is an expression of truth. That's what it is.

[00:46:58]And that's why I didn't include it into this video. Imagine me illustrating all of that. That would take a long time.

[00:47:03]Now, you can just look at this gameplay footage while I talk. And for the people who are saying, "Well, art is subjective, but there's still good and bad art." Explain to me how this could possibly be the case. If art is subjective, what you're saying is what is good and bad art is different from one person to another. Because if you're saying that art is subjective, you're saying that it's different for each person. They have different experiences.

[00:47:24]They have different cultures, different values, different emotions when they're seeing or creating the art. And we're not holding art to an objective standard. How can you say it is more than simply a preference? That is what a preference is. So, at the end of the day, you cannot escape the fact that if you say art is subjective, you're saying it's a preference. You can't say that there's good or bad art. You can only say, "I like one, but not the other."

[00:47:49]The people who say art is subjective, but there's still good and bad art, don't know what they're talking about.

[00:47:54]But again, feel free to explain to me how this could possibly be the case.

[00:47:58]>> The problem is you don't even understand why you're wrong. That's the tough part here. That's the sad part here. You're so caught up in these objective truths, in these specific narrow niches you have to conform to that you're you're missing everything. You're missing the actual obvious answer. The artist wants to communicate something. They try. Did they succeed? What got in their way?

[00:48:26]What aided them along their path? This is true for all art. When we say art is subjective, that does not mean you think the art is good or bad, it means how well the message was communicated varies from person to person. This is why you fail because you have to have art be good or you have to have it be bad. This reductive thinking is why you fail as a critic. The rest of this is just him rambling and responding to small comments talking about what it means to be objectively beautiful. you know, basic dog whistles I don't give a [ __ ] about. But I want to close up with something right now that I think is important. I want to show you all my favorite piece of art, my favorite painting of all time. Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan. Now, this art depicts the incident where Ivan the Terrible killed his own son in a fit of rage. He supposedly, according to legend, smashed his son over the head and immediately was horrified by his own action. What strikes me about this painting so well that I find myself drawn to it is not the correct anatomy because it's actually not totally correct. The eyes are too big for their sockets. The brows stretch impossibly far, but it creates what you think your face looks like when you're distraught. The expression on Ivan the Terrible's face isn't necessarily realistic. Yet, it perfectly captures the soul crushing feeling of knowing you've done something irreversible, knowing you've done something impossible to ever fix. The anatomy aids in this, but it breaks realism. The lighting is not realistic, but it draws attention to what needs to be drawn attention to. It is not about realism here, but it is about communicating a raw undying emotion of anguish, true anguish. And the more you look, the more devastating the image becomes. That is the image's power. That is its strength. And sure, you can point to marble statues of Roman-esque men, but let's be perfectly honest. Is that going to communicate a feeling to you, or does this communicate a feeling to you? That is why I think art is so powerful. It communicates sensation in the soul itself. The way remnant talks about it, it sounds more like he wants a stencil sketch of men's abs all over his room. In which case, I find it very odd he keeps making fun of gay people so much.

[00:51:04]I thought an artist had to teach how to look at the world, but I don't think that anymore.

[00:51:13]Now I just think about my relationship to eternity.