utterly enthralling... as only the best lectures can be; Nick engages our sense of ourselves (as readers), and thus reveals to us 'our Lolita'.... It is in this reflection that we are afforded a contextualization to feelings otherwise pre-morphic to our readings... Nick's is - ultimately - a deeply humanistic approach; its wings and claws spread to give form to its shape of discourse, availing us rich vistas and referential panoramas.... and curled within those shadowy snarls of knotted root, a blinding humanism radiates, refracting and outwardly shining in a glaze of primary colors, in his languid pauses; in his stead-fast speech. pale fire may be a tri-dimensional vertically observed chess game, but Lolita is a primordial singularity of a chess puzzle... and i will never dare solve it; i don't care to see the other side of the rainbow when I can be flush in its arms of threatening impermanence
This lecture is so dense and classroom in it's analysis. Like watching a suspence thriller. Long have I thought. Today's snap shot culture with it's few second changes is so damaging. Far superior the format of a person who stands up and just talks with knowledge and a few pictures. We need to educate people to return to more of this style instead of spoiling developing minds with short lived vapid excitement.
In a nutshell: because he feels it is a great work of art, and that's all it needs to be - the same way, for instance, we don't call for the elimination of tigers, even though they kill people from time to time ....
Art as it’s own justification is a very reactionary conservative ideology. It is related to the anti-democratic, anti-rationalist anti-science counter-enlightenment movement and the Romantic movement in art. It’s part of the cult of the “artistic genius” tradition too, which itself is related to the unfortunate 20th century trend to personality cult in 20th century anti-democratic politics around demagogic figures like you-know-hoo, and you-know-moo and even the great orange one. It’s in this notion of the transcendent “artistic spirit” (which populist dictators and artists claiming the irrationalist romantic justification alike ) that is supposed to imbue their political visions and artistic creations with “morality” … or to be transcendent of the mediocre “morality” of the common person. The lecturer here runs snack into a paradox of course where Lolita, the work of art or “great literature” he feels compelled to distinguish from grubby, morally less ambiguous and illegal CP, cannot readily be so distinguished, due to his ideas about art itself. “Art” has allowed itself to be painted into this corner so to speak by continuing down the path set for it by the Romantic movement back in the early 19th century. This movement is also problematically related to all the reactionary conservative anti-democratic anti-reason, anti-liberal, counter-enlightenment philosophical and political developments that culminated in the birth of a new form of populist politics in the 20th century … fascism and the related NAZI movement. For a different point of view entirely from that expressed here in this lecture about art and the history, historiography and philosophy of art and the relationship of art to philosophy and knowledge itself … try looking up vids here on YT about Arthur Danto “The End of Art”. Marxists also have a different view of the relationships between art and the artist and society especially as it relates to how all art is an expression in some way of the ideology of the ruling or dominant economic class in society and how that class seeks to exploit members of the other classes and use its economic power and ideology to recreate its power relationships from one generation to the next. So in a sense art having a “justification” isn’t really the point to a Marxist. “Justification” of this kind is an expression of bourgeois sentimental morality or a reactionary fantasy depicting class oppression. Our lecturer today in this video gives a VERY boring traditional English department analytical discussion of Lolita in the liberal / Romantic tradition. It’s an apotheosis of this kind of quintessentially Candadian way of talking about anything where anything the least bit controversial has been steered well clear of … yes … even with Lolita. There’s a version of this discussion where the entire liberal audience now comfortably sitting there feeling safe in judgement that they’re not Humbert … he’s the sensitive encultured soul who’s gone of the ranch but they haven’t and they wouldn’t … the whole liberal audience should feel skewered by Lolita because the bourgeois male and family is what’s getting lampooned and how by sick aesthetic values of “art” it’s possible to twist that middle class family into Dolores Hazes nightmare … theyre inseparable. We all are. All his readers are implicated. There’s a version anyway. And no one should feel above it to discuss “psychiatry” and “jurisprudence”. Try a different theory of art. Not this one!
I felt it spent a bit too much time in the weeds of legislation and jurisprudence to be a 'model lecture', but interesting and insightful nonetheless. (Btw: lecturing as a competitive sport? ... I suppose ...!)
This man is a fantastic lecturer
utterly enthralling... as only the best lectures can be; Nick engages our sense of ourselves (as readers), and thus reveals to us 'our Lolita'....
It is in this reflection that we are afforded a contextualization to feelings otherwise pre-morphic to our readings...
Nick's is - ultimately - a deeply humanistic approach; its wings and claws spread to give form to its shape of discourse, availing us rich vistas and referential panoramas.... and curled within those shadowy snarls of knotted root, a blinding humanism radiates, refracting and outwardly shining in a glaze of primary colors, in his languid pauses; in his stead-fast speech. pale fire may be a tri-dimensional vertically observed chess game, but Lolita is a primordial singularity of a chess puzzle...
and i will never dare solve it; i don't care to see the other side of the rainbow when I can be flush in its arms of threatening impermanence
very enlightening lecture ! thank you
Thanks.
This lecture is so dense and classroom in it's analysis. Like watching a suspence thriller. Long have I thought. Today's snap shot culture with it's few second changes is so damaging. Far superior the format of a person who stands up and just talks with knowledge and a few pictures. We need to educate people to return to more of this style instead of spoiling developing minds with short lived vapid excitement.
Really great stuff
What a great end to the lecture. Damn
Art should not carry the burden of 'reforming /straightening the society' but The artists should.
He's very good.
Huxtables? That aged well.
Wow , his last comment is wiping out all he said about the negative points of the book! How come ?
In a nutshell: because he feels it is a great work of art, and that's all it needs to be - the same way, for instance, we don't call for the elimination of tigers, even though they kill people from time to time ....
Art as it’s own justification is a very reactionary conservative ideology. It is related to the anti-democratic, anti-rationalist anti-science counter-enlightenment movement and the Romantic movement in art. It’s part of the cult of the “artistic genius” tradition too, which itself is related to the unfortunate 20th century trend to personality cult in 20th century anti-democratic politics around demagogic figures like you-know-hoo, and you-know-moo and even the great orange one. It’s in this notion of the transcendent “artistic spirit” (which populist dictators and artists claiming the irrationalist romantic justification alike ) that is supposed to imbue their political visions and artistic creations with “morality” … or to be transcendent of the mediocre “morality” of the common person.
The lecturer here runs snack into a paradox of course where Lolita, the work of art or “great literature” he feels compelled to distinguish from grubby, morally less ambiguous and illegal CP, cannot readily be so distinguished, due to his ideas about art itself.
“Art” has allowed itself to be painted into this corner so to speak by continuing down the path set for it by the Romantic movement back in the early 19th century. This movement is also problematically related to all the reactionary conservative anti-democratic anti-reason, anti-liberal, counter-enlightenment philosophical and political developments that culminated in the birth of a new form of populist politics in the 20th century … fascism and the related NAZI movement.
For a different point of view entirely from that expressed here in this lecture about art and the history, historiography and philosophy of art and the relationship of art to philosophy and knowledge itself … try looking up vids here on YT about Arthur Danto “The End of Art”.
Marxists also have a different view of the relationships between art and the artist and society especially as it relates to how all art is an expression in some way of the ideology of the ruling or dominant economic class in society and how that class seeks to exploit members of the other classes and use its economic power and ideology to recreate its power relationships from one generation to the next. So in a sense art having a “justification” isn’t really the point to a Marxist. “Justification” of this kind is an expression of bourgeois sentimental morality or a reactionary fantasy depicting class oppression.
Our lecturer today in this video gives a VERY boring traditional English department analytical discussion of Lolita in the liberal / Romantic tradition. It’s an apotheosis of this kind of quintessentially Candadian way of talking about anything where anything the least bit controversial has been steered well clear of … yes … even with Lolita. There’s a version of this discussion where the entire liberal audience now comfortably sitting there feeling safe in judgement that they’re not Humbert … he’s the sensitive encultured soul who’s gone of the ranch but they haven’t and they wouldn’t … the whole liberal audience should feel skewered by Lolita because the bourgeois male and family is what’s getting lampooned and how by sick aesthetic values of “art” it’s possible to twist that middle class family into Dolores Hazes nightmare … theyre inseparable. We all are. All his readers are implicated. There’s a version anyway. And no one should feel above it to discuss “psychiatry” and “jurisprudence”.
Try a different theory of art. Not this one!
What is all this?
This is a lecture on the novel Lolita
I felt it spent a bit too much time in the weeds of legislation and jurisprudence to be a 'model lecture', but interesting and insightful nonetheless. (Btw: lecturing as a competitive sport? ... I suppose ...!)
Corruption
What are you saying?
@@freddywilson6784 she can't read.