recorded it on my phone at a conference in London, searched high and low for the clip online but it hasn't been uploaded anywhere, it's from ; 'John Berger talks to James Mossman', 1970
@@ralphpritchard5224 hi ralph, how are you doing? Listen... I can't grasp the meaning from the middle or t'he vídeo til the end... I can't notice some key words... the end part, for example is difficult for me.
@@joandanielramon8166 Transcript It seems to be that then this creativity, which we are so attracted by in artists, which basically is why we are so interested in artists. This creativity, which in fact is, potentially, in everybody will find its expression in life itself. I see art, as we understand it, as a tragic phenomenon. A comment, as I've said before, of a mortality of reality, because the reality, which is given, in which people live, is so profoundly unsatisfactory and at certain times intolerable. Would in such a society, in which ideally everybody was a socially-creative person, would there be an elimination of tragedy? No, no, no, because I think that the human situation is tragic. That is the result of self-consciousness. It isn't tragedy that is intolerable. What is intolerable is, if that tragedy isn't given it's due dignity. Hope this helps. :)
@@ilikeyouabit2 the Denial of Death by Becker is a good place to start if you agree with these sentiments. Art, ideology, religion or any such endeavour is a response to the tragedy of self consciousness and our awareness of mortality.
Generally I'm surprised that Berger makes these points as his general ideological stance is too materialist. If you read his books he sees the function of art much more narrowly (that is his Marxist approach where he sees art mainly through the limited lens of power dynamics).
where is this from? is it on youtube?
recorded it on my phone at a conference in London, searched high and low for the clip online but it hasn't been uploaded anywhere, it's from ; 'John Berger talks to James Mossman', 1970
@@ralphpritchard5224 hi ralph, how are you doing? Listen... I can't grasp the meaning from the middle or t'he vídeo til the end... I can't notice some key words... the end part, for example is difficult for me.
@@joandanielramon8166 Transcript
It seems to be that then
this creativity, which we are so attracted by in artists,
which basically is why we are so interested in artists.
This creativity, which in fact is, potentially, in everybody
will find its expression in life itself.
I see art, as we understand it, as a tragic phenomenon.
A comment, as I've said before, of a mortality of reality,
because the reality, which is given, in which people live,
is so profoundly unsatisfactory and at certain times intolerable.
Would in such a society, in which ideally everybody was a socially-creative person,
would there be an elimination of tragedy?
No, no, no, because I think that the human situation is tragic.
That is the result of self-consciousness.
It isn't tragedy that is intolerable.
What is intolerable is, if that tragedy isn't given it's due dignity.
Hope this helps. :)
@@ilikeyouabit2 the Denial of Death by Becker is a good place to start if you agree with these sentiments. Art, ideology, religion or any such endeavour is a response to the tragedy of self consciousness and our awareness of mortality.
Generally I'm surprised that Berger makes these points as his general ideological stance is too materialist. If you read his books he sees the function of art much more narrowly (that is his Marxist approach where he sees art mainly through the limited lens of power dynamics).