Go to my main channel ruclips.net/user/VladVexlervideos Go to my second channel, Vlad Vexler Chat www.youtube.com/@VladVexlerChat/featured You can now support Vlad's work on Patreon! www.patreon.com/vladvexler Support Vlad via PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB Chapters: 00:00 Introduction 00:00 Art and injustice 10:45 Preview of main point 12:30 Good art vs bad art vs not art 23:35 Convergence of judgement 30:20 National characteristics in art 39:12 Reception of works of art
Hi Vlad. Loved the video, I started watching your stuff when the war broke out, but I find your "Mundane" topics to be equally if more interesting. Here's a question on the distinction between Good and Bad art. How much does the acceptance of the audience play into the calculation of whether art is actually good at all? I have two examples: Picasso for a example is widely recognized as an infleluencial artist, but in essense his paintings look like garbage when compared to a classic. I do know he is capable of better looking art, so I guess there is a level of intentionality there. The Other is Van Gogh, who in his time was unrecognized due to his non-adherance to the norm in the Art movements. Now ofcourse Van Gogh is often lauded as one of the Greats. One could it bad art in his day, and great art today. In a way, it seems to me like the acceptance of the audience elevated the quality of the original work. As defining Art is subjective at best.
There has to be a distinction between professional evaluation and popular evaluation, as Vlad said about the Moonlight Sonata. Some art which is not great may be thought to be great by many, but that doesn't make it so. A great work of art might moulder away in an attic and never be appreciated, that wouldn't take away from its greatness. Vlad spoke about how long it took for Schubert to be appreciated, for example.
you’re so hard working, vlad. your commitment to youtube is so appreciated. you really ensure that i go through every day thoughtfully, and kindly! all love, and all the best! ❤🌻
VLAD, This is my first time here to the philosophical channel. I realize that this realm of analysis and speculation is what I was intuitively searching for from your various ruminations about the war, and politics. My belly is finally upset with the toxic inherent messages on the war’s politics, which I’m now finding no new insights from the various vloggers. I look forward to the next installment in the progression of this analysis of national characteristics.😊😊😊😊
I have always had problems trying to understand if Handel's art was English or German. You could place Handel's art amoung that of Purcel and other great English renaissance composers like Byrd. After this period there is a huge gap to the next great period of english composers, the age of the British empire. Where there is a presence of a different kind of national characteristics. Handel has what was at the time called an anglo-saxon quality. It is of course a fiction, a very good english fiction. Handel was an import, but his music hit a nerve with the english audience. A nerve which is difficult to move. And his muaic has remained in the english imagination ever since.
The thought that I am left with is: isn’t there an attributional element to all art? In fact, it would be possible to extend this to the extreme… Suppose a highly spiritual person were to ascribe intention to God (if they are from a theistic religion) or a similar person from a non-theistic religion like Buddhism might ascribe the creative aspect of the unfolding Universe to the “basic goodness” of the Buddha nature that permeates all things… In other words, both individuals perceive an impersonal and infinitely creative and generative aspect of the cosmos. Such a person witnessing a beautiful sunset might understand the beauty as being a reflection of the the Universe’s inherent creativity, and also recognize their recognition of this perception as yet _another_ manifestation of the creativity of the Universe. If the witness were from a theistic tradition they might say “God is a magnificent and subtle artist.” If the witness were a Buddhist, they might say “what an auspicious event in the chain of causes and conditions to give rise to the sunset and to give rise to the perception of the sunset, and the discernment of the beauty.” In either case, their cognition is attributing qualities to the raw sensory input. That same person might view the child’s painting you mentioned and see the beauty in the innocent child, the beauty of their representational expression, the beauty and gratitude in being so fortunate to share such a precious moment… I think I would find it difficult to separate out anything from such a scenario and say “this isn’t art.” I’m ending up at an unexpected conclusion: Perhaps the real art is living skillfully… such that the beauty and goodness flow through you… Having said that, I suspect you might resonate with this idea because I think perhaps you do live your life like that… it certainly shows in the care and grace you bring to your creation. Thanks for the thought-provoking talk! Be well. 🙏
The greatest art has either one or several truths within it. The of the greatest injustices against art is the misuse of it for propaganda purposes whether the amazing paintings of Jorge Gonzalez Camarena for the communist Revolution in Mexico, movies such as Peter the Great by Dimitri Buchowetzki or the propaganda films with Wagner soundtracks made by Nazis. The turning of a lie into great art legitimises the lie and in context de-legitimises the art while as just art it remains high art of outstanding quality. Is it still compromised by the lies or forgiven for the context?
Spooky! was just discussing this the other day with a Ukrainian friend, namely, why is Nikolai Gogol considered a "Russian" writer since he was born in Ukraine... of course he wrote in the Russian language, and about Russia, and made a conscious decision to do so - as opposed to someone like Shevchenko for instance. But on the other hand there is something of an outsiders eye in his observations that seems inherently Ukrainian. Another interesting example is Joyce, who of course is Irish and writes about Ireland, but he writes in English, and he self-consciously moves to Continental Europe, and considers himself to be a European writer, and distances himself from both English and Irish literary traditions. I think it helps if we think about these overlapping identities as a Venn diagram rather than a Trivial Pursuit answer. Much like people's own identities are a layered and nuanced, ie is one English, or British etc. and of course, one can be both, or one or the other, depending on the situation. So for example, Gogol is both a Russian writer and a Ukrainian writer at the same time.
I honestly think you could be projecting into someone an identity that he may not have experienced like that. And reading the history of literature in that manner is very dangerous. Artists, if good enough, are of such a kind that they will enter eventually into imperialistic identities such as the russian one not because of any particular liking for them but because there's something in the essence of art that pushes you towards trascending national borders in the same way that empires that last more than a day tend to do, by violently anihilating the distance between peoples and manifesting the universal human features to such an extent that they completely erradicate any possibility whatsoever of formulating the claim for a nation state. Anyone who thinks that their nation has any kind of essence that is common to everyone inside of a patch of land but seen nowhere else, will run into deep troubles if he reads Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dante, etc, and sees themself into the picture. Because if they have any sense of coherence they will realize that can't be, for obvious reasons. Artist never fit the boxes of nation states. And anyone who just tries to make them fit because of egotistic purposes to the detriment of mankind will run into the trouble of being terribly unaware about the fact that there wouldn't have been a Virgil without Herodotus, nor a Calderon without Petrarca, nor a Garcia Márquez without Cervantes. At the end, the reason why he wrote in russian, is merely because it was the closest shot he could realistically get, to talking to all mankind, the same reason why I'm talking in english (which is also the language of an empire). And if we all knew esperanto, all good artist would immediately drop their native languages and write on it.
@@kogorun your claim is problematic. If i had wanted to say that i would have said that openly. And i do not disagree nor agree completely with that idea because i have enough of a far sight to see that you cannot have a state of any sort, not even the tiniest one, without an immense amount of political violence. And you can then go ahead and say that not all political violence is wrong because there's defensive and offensive violence, but then i would ask you, to what a degree is a violent action taken on the behalf of a collective identity made by all sorts of people some of which may disagree with said actions, self defense? War is war. Once that you already get to it at least make sure that future generations will get a better and more stable political situation than the previous one. And as you can clearly derive rationally from the demographics of history, events like the expansion of Rome teach us that the growth of a political entity brings prosperity and wealth and more people living better. While the medieval ages were characterized by the diametrical opposite. Pd: what I'm saying is at no moment an endorsement of putin even tho i walk on thin ice. Trying to claim otherwise would be the same as comparing putin with Julius Caesar, and he is not.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts - my talk’s implication is: such questions are centrally about the meaning of the writer’s works, which includes judgment about which works are most important. Not about biography. Or about what the writer says.
@@jmmh1313 I do not think it is obvious that all artists would give up there local language to start writing in the most universal language possible. Writing, or reading in different languages is just so... different...
Interesting talk, thank you Vlad. I think your final point in regards to post-hoc adopting of an artist after their work filters into the popular consciousness is an important one. I don't want to be too postmodern, but I think that it is possible to simultaneously hold contradictory opinions here and not be wrong on either count. Elgar, for example, was a rank outsider for most of his musical career in England. Partly this was social (he was a Catholic and therefore could not authentically be the "face" of British art music), but even artistically he was looked at as a fundamentally Germanic composer. The influence of Brahms and to a slightly lesser extent Wagner was clear, and Richard Strauss was his friend and mentor, who hailed him as (paraphrasing) bringing Germanic sophistication to das land ohne musik. Today, and even by his death, Elgar is seen as the living embodiment of Britishness, and a particularly crusty and unreconstructed form of Imperial Britishness at that. This has nothing to do with an anglicisation of Elgar's tonal language, which if anything got more and more like Richard Strauss as he aged, but rather because the size of Elgar's star dragged the English firmament to his position rather than the other way round. Hence, I believe that I can hold the opinions "Elgar was not 'English' at all, he was at the frontier of Germanic musicological thinking" and "Elgar is the most axiomatically British composer of all" in parallel. I also find it interesting that you point out that you use "national" characteristics, but that this can refer to any community. I wonder - does this have as much value when the communities form on the basis of these very artistic preferences? For example, (late) Brahms and (early) Mahler were briefly in Vienna and composing at the same time, one carrying the torch of Schumann and the other of Wagner. Can either or both be claimed as "Viennese"? Not in my mind. But Johann Strauss II (whom you mention) absolutely can and must be considered quintessentially Viennese. Why is this? For my money, apart from the fact that Strauss' waltzes were more popular with the common man than Brahms' or Mahler's contemporary work, we also have to look at the fact that Strauss does not already represent an ideological/factional party. I wish you a very pleasant afternoon and evening.
To me a child's drawing is art. It is created with aesthetic and expressive intent. "I like purple" is maybe not a sophisticated justification for an aesthetic choice, but it is a valid one. The criteria of control is not sufficient to exclude it imo, control and technical proficiency is always a question if degree and even Michael Angelo must have struggled and had moments of imperfect control over the rock or the paint. Also much of art includes elements of spontaneity and arbitrariness. (Pollock, Kurt Cobain, Isadora Duncan). "It sounds nice" or "I just like it" or "it reminds me of my shoes" does not exclude it from being art imo. I am also a philosooher btw but i always sucked at aesthetic philosophy and struggle with the concepts, happy to think about this again with your video. Last I thought about this, I sort of simply settled on deciding that "art" was a kind of socially constructed elitist category for human creativity and aesthetic self expression, you know kind of like what Duchamp was saying, how if you put a toilet in a museum it suddenly becomes worthy of the title. The term definitely carries something serious or pompous. I'm just spilling my thoughts here not sure of anything haha.
I spent a lot of time looking at 4-5 year old children's drawings when I was teaching English and honestly they often have definite intent behind their choices. For example one kid was just frantically filling the page with chaotic blue scribbles, I assumed he was just blanking out and asked him what he was drawing, he replied immediately ,"a storm" 😂
Often it looks like nonsense, but to them it isn't, is what I'm saying. They usually give very clear explanations for their choices. Try asking a kid to explain their drawing if you get the chance. Imo all they are really lacking is technical proficiency 😂
@terryhand Picasso also said you must learn the rules like a professional before you can break them as an artist. These painters didn't want to regain a child like naivety, reversing all they knew about controlling their medium but rather use what they learned through experience to inform them as to what they can eliminate or ignore, resembling a child like state. This is this is the reason the works of Picasso and Matisse couldn't be mistaken for the paintings of a child. There is a very obvious control and mastery of materials in their works. I do agree that academic training in painting is often useless, But don't believe someone can create a work of art without control.
It's not out of humility actually! It helps people not to have stuffed pushed their way that's not for them, and it helps this channel if people don't come here to then turn away. It's probably a losing battle though, as YT thinks this is content for main and chat viewers!
@@VladVexlerPhilosophyWhich demonstrates it's the RUclips algorithms fault (once again) not yourself. My knowledge of art history is severely limited & yet I thoroughly enjoyed watching/listening to something different. 😊
Because not everyone likes philosophy, and are more interested in present events and understanding it. However, in my case, I love philosophy, but I started with his Ukraine reflections. Since I found his approach so interesting, I’m quite interested to know more about his philosophy :).
Veeery interesting subject and one that I think about often. When I move around in public places I try to guess what nationality/culture people are. Russians are usually pretty easy to place right. They have a certain haircut, they almost never go alone, they are loud when they speak and they have an aura of dominance (aggressive even). It happened once in a supermarket that the person at the cash machine seemed to have an aura I did not remember experiencing before; he seemed absent, almost like air or even thinner. Yet, he knew exactly what he was doing and performed his work as any normal person. That's interesting, I thought. Maybe he had something bothering him in his personal life and therefore gave the air of not being there? I shopped at the same store again another day and met the same person and felt the same thin air aura. Then some kind of boss of his came to talk to him and they talked in Russian. I thought: "No, that employee is not Russian. His aura is so totally different." (This happened a few years before covid and before the war.) Then on the same day I read in a newspaper that the strongest growing foreign population in the job market was coming from Ukraine. Ok, I couldn't tell the difference between Russian and Ukrainian language, but based on the look and the "aura" of that person I concluded that he probably was Ukrainian. Note: I don't mean anything negative by describing his aura as "thin air". It was just so different from anything I have ever experienced that I have difficulty of describing it exactly.
I will paraphrase Alex Scriabin on this one, who once said: am I _not_ a Russian composer simply because I don't use folk tunes in my pieces? Glad to see you being active on philosophy channel, Vlad 🍻
Excellent. I'm an 'Australian artist' whose father was a cartoonist and my work is inspired by philosophy and esotericism. Please send help. Or, chuck another snag on the barbie will ya! Cheers mate.
Thanks for helping me understand and distinguish art with something that simply has good aesthetic quality. We grow up with the ascribed value judgement that art == good/deep and something that isn't art == bad/cheap. This helps resolve a weird gap between what I find aesthetically good and even emotionally significant, and what some deem as being "real art".
I remember reading in Nicholas Berdyaev many years ago this idea of intention- that art somehow precedes the actual physical production of an artwork… this mysterious thought that there are people - artists - who have not realised their artistic intention (women in patriarchal societies for instance). He saw the artwork as a “cooling down” of the original artistic intention.
I have a nice pair of contemporary artists from both cultures to compare iv you like: Dakha Braka and Otava Yo, note that they both make modern destinktive european folk as a genre and none is lesser than the other. But they are so uniquely diffrent in style that i think they would make a very good example.
I have been following the Ukrainian music scene (as much as I can through mainly Western sources like Spotify) since the war began. I noticed that even since 2014 a common thread of wanting to be distinct from Russia had emerged. And since the war an astonishing amount of anti-Russia music has exploded. Songs that musically are not very complex have become hits internationally, like the Bayraktar song. And 100+ year old folk songs like Oi u Luzi Chervona Kalyna are suddenly being covered left and right. It has made me more keenly aware that art exists in a close relationship with culture and history, and has deepened my understanding of how those things all intertwine with our humanity.
I feel welcome to watch all your channels Vlad. I do not find philosophy 'niche' or to those who are interested- it spreads into so many other topics and 'official' social sciences. I wish i could have spent more time in uni studying it, however studied it outside (with libraries help) & multiple book purchases. Keep the good work up and i hope you're fairing well enough!
Don't know if I agree with the "all of it is under control" or "some kind of significance to each thing you see". While an artist certainly has way more intent and control than a child, this is not absolute. Randomness does creep in inevitably (sometimes intentionally so, see e.g. Jackson Pollock, or Écriture automatique). Even a masterpiece might have unexplicable, "arbitrary" bits. At what percentage of those bits would you say it's not a work of art anymore but merely something of aesthetic value? Great discussion overall, thanks so much! By the way, I personally think Also sprach Zarathustra to be underrated in a similar way that Nietzsche himself was underrated as a philosopher at a time.
I listened to this thinking that 'tribal' might be a more apt term than 'national'. Especially given the magical and totemic functions of what we call 'Fine Art' in our fluid cultures and subcultures.
Thank you for bringing up accordion music, which I love (well, many genres of music and instruments, really). Listening to Richard Galliano always lifts my spirits and I'm always interested in finding new accordion artists and composers. Even today, they rarely pop up just like that. Somebody has to know somebody who then may become recommended in a small circle. Or there has to be a special accordion festival or something. One of the few composers that has composed for the accordion is Sofia Gubaidulina, half Russian and half Volga Tatar by origin. Now I have to try some Viviane Chassot. Thank you!
I love Beethoven’s Op. 10 No. 3 too! I’m very, very curious whether you might one day consider indulging us with your thoughts on a few aspects of Beethoven.
Yes I have a new channel for that but no videos on it yet - so sign up there and turn on notifications ! youtube.com/@VladVexlerMusic?si=oMRDPPBX3emuNIch
Oh don’t collapse the artist’s intention unconscious or otherwise and that of the work. Please no. Not even for a second. That mistake takes a lifetime to unlearn for some.
I wonder if a piece of art, good or bad, can be both a physical work and the artists' misdirection about their physical piece. Like those 3D glasses you sometimes get for particular 3D movies, the artists' words about his or her work are a deliberate misdirection or reinterpretation intended to transform how we understand a piece. If we hold what I just tried to ask as having some truth, does that mean that the constitutive element of a work includes the artist themselves? And if it might, can the artist mess about with that over time?
Vald, there are a great many flaws and prejudices embedded in your definition of good art. Intention-Creation-Reception as a model looks more like using a telephone than the nuances of artistic creation and engagement. Much so called 'good' or high art relies upon the viewer having the training, cultural familiarity and vocabulary to interpret the work. Does this mean that good art should 'speak' to everybody? What of art that is intentionally ambiguous; that allows space for the viewer to find their own interpretation and experience... is this bad art? Next I would want to know where you determine expertise or mastery is achieved over the unskilled 'non-artist'. At what point in your career do you get to call yourself an artist? Arguably the child scribbler may in fact achieve the intention-creation-reception dialogue irrespective of their skill and the highly skilled artist cannot convey their intention. Irronically the purple sun story you tell could easilly be part of a contemporary artist statement as they explore their psychological and cultural experiences of colour. There is is an honest exploration of conceptual links that is at the core of original art creation going on here. Many artists would tell you that they have never really achieved mastery as this is a constant journey in their practice. I think you need to consider a wider scope for defining art.
When the significant details in the work are part of a successfully realised intention, that's art. When Picasso was becoming an artist, his transitional painting, Science and Charity, contains two objects that express his style, and everything else in the canvass is derivative. That's how it works.
How, then, do I become a better composer? Someone once said a piece lacked 'spirituality' - as opposed to technique etc. I put it in part down to the transference, ie the simulation the guy listened to, but I also partly rewrote the piece, and I dont fully know whether I improved it. If the intention is to be profound: how do I know whether I am developing? Can this be in part taught? Affectionately Philippa
Do you write primarily for yourself or for a audience? When I was out djing I sometimes found myself playing what I liked and the crowd wernt always that impressed. I later began to read the crowd much better and was able to capture their attention for longer, while still slipping a few of my own tastes. Though I'm sure it's far removed from actually producing real music with real instruments.
Injustice example: My daughter, after studying theater to direct, became frustrated due to the bias against her. It was predominately homosexual male. That's why I went to see the "barbie" movie.
Wow more of this please. Was riveted. Lots of questions re artist of place and it artist of time bubbling up but not fully formed. Am not an intellectual but you painted your subject with your words your body your voice so clearly that it brought a shining light into my morning. Thanks a million Vlad.
On the subject of unusual artistic cross-overs, I recommend this video of a young French women - Tina S - playing an electric guitar version of Ludwig van Beethoven's - Moonlight Sonata (3rd Movement). It's quite astonishing: ruclips.net/video/o6rBK0BqL2w/видео.html
One third in and I have one quibble: Beethoven born in 1770 with a horn won't even have a chance to live. Bad analogy. Make him disfigured, like the hunchback of Notre Dame, and it's fine. A horned baby, or a child that develops a horn would be euthanised with prejudice, as the Catholic church still had undisputed power in Austria, and Christian denominations in general reigned supreme in Europe.
Not Art...I think of a story I saw online yesterday...Look up "Take the Money and Run", museum sues ..There is an artist who took a Great amount of money from a museum to create a piece of art that featured Money as a theme. It was to be actually included in the art piece and returned after the exhibition. The 'artist' turned in a large white canvas with nothing on it and titled it , yes, 'Take the Money and Run'. Which they did. And are being sued. I used to work in a museum. There are many works whose concept is simply to spit in face of the viewer. (Rather like MAGA Republicans). People need Much more courage to look inside themselves and determine if something is actually art or simply insult in the name of concept. The Emperor's New Clothes story may be the most salient art-as-literature we have today😅, if indeed art as social commentary is considered true Art!
I never completely understood the talk in the "Brothers Karamasow" - especially the part where Smirnow seems to hear that Iwan wants him to kill the old Karamasow. Is it a russian thing, like maybe Putin talked to his underlings about killing Prigoshin? To hear and follow orders 'between the lines'? And nobody ever said something specific?
Interesting topic...I especially like the classification good art/bad art/no art. It seems most of our current entertainment: movies, music etc would not be art...but yet they are highly entertaining/aesthetically pleasing. Also to fully appreciate paintings or music it helps to have a deeper knowledge to understand all the intricacies and aspects. If I hear people speaking French for example, I think it sounds beautiful...but I don't understand what is being said, kind of like with music/art I may think it is great but not fully comprehend the deeper meaning. These classifications are helpful. 👍
How about a lecture on Art Is Money? Because collectors obeying perceived trends alter extremely what art is considered successful, and what styles artists are influenced to produce. It produces a forking in the road....Art might develop completely differently , culture could lead to completely different places if not for conformity induced by money and people who value money ,but not art!! Who have no appreciation for it.
Fascinating. Your analysis puts into question what defines art and is it an interpretive to the individual. If I may, (apologies to the incoming storm from this) What would the National identity of Ilya Repin be considered then? Maybe art really has no national identity but is only influenced by the environment it evolves in (?) Many artists became expats that studied their craft of art in other countries for example Mary Cassatt. ..and I think you pegged it at the end.
I'm interested in what the community thinks of Marcel Waldorf's sculpture, "Petra"? Please view it and do get back to me if you can. Is there a universal standard that we can apply that defines good from bad art? An anarchist might look at "Petra" and say it is a magnificent depiction of the oppression of the police state, and is therefore good.
Thank you for the interesting video Vlad, I appreciate you making content about art and listening to your view. But let me object to it here: When you link art to intent, it seems to me that you do not account for the variety of creative processes that can be involved. In writing, there are two kinds that are widely common and recognized among writers: the outliner and the pantser. The outliner does use intent to construct his work like an architect, but the pantser goes with the flow and is often surprised himself by where it leads him. You might argue that this is unconscious intent, but it’s not obvious to me how you would prove such a point and to what degree this can even be called intent, as it is more like an open-end simulation based on certain premises rather than sth that has a fixed goal/intent. Many writers, including some of the best, report that their characters do things they did not anticipate and control and thus have an autonomy from the intent of the author. John Fowles, L M Montgomery and Hosseini have all made statements similar to this.
Wow! I never heard of Viviane Chassot before, but her interpretations of Haydn keyboard sonatas are absolutely marvelous 😍 ... Now! I will try to understand the rest of this talk ...
So by accruing enough influence characteristic to a region (maybe through their social circle or materials they used to learn) an artists work could display sufficient specific qualities to argue they belong to a place they never lived in? I really like that conclusion if I understood it correctly
If all actions taken by a human are inherently part of their nature, then all actions are natural. This presumes a definition of nature/natural that tilts towards both biological determism and a blanket moral endorsement of all somatically derived urges. If our nature is to live according to our purpose, then a great many of our actions can be contrary to this, and are thus proscribed on the basis of beung unnatural; This is not theological, but rather a classical understanding. The theological position is that the great anarchy of dysfunctional somatic urges are a part of a fallen nature. You don't get to dismiss classical philosophy at whim under the guise of disregarding theological stories, and state that others who appeal to different philosophical traditions are simply missing the point.
wow. I can't watch any of your channels anymore. I watched your war commentary too long. Parasocial backfire I guess. I'll keep trying from time to time. You're a fantastic foil.
Как объяснить феномен Анри Матисса музыканту: Представь что Рахманинов написал "Чижик Пыжик". Теперь представь что академики считают это одним из лучших произведений 20го века.
In terms of good art being marked out by the quality of its intentions. What about naïf art? The intention transfers from originator to nominator? The curator becomes collaborator?
I find the given definition of art to be needlessly restrictive. I think something that is not intended to be a piece of art can still be art. If a blacksmith crafts a real sturdy and practical tool with no artistic intent behind it, I think the craftmanship that's put into it still makes it art. I think essentially anything made by an entity/agent with intent, can be considered art.
Could you also give a national/ regional characteristic where the artist is the founder of a style? Is it a national characteristic if it didn't exist yet and we can only see it in the ripples of influence after the artist is gone.
Vlad, I never thought I'd see the day when you talked about football.....so, I must point out to you that the greatest footballing achievement in the last 80-ish years is when my club, The Arsenal, went through an entire Premier League season totally unbeaten and the football they played under Arsene Wenger was pure art on a football pitch. Up The Arsenal!!
ps. I considered becoming a football manager when I was a teen - and enjoyed being “coach” at 11 v 11 local games. I had genius tactics suitable for just below professional level football.
Well, well, this ol' Philistine was prepared to tolerate but not enjoy this lecture as I have😄. Glad you brought up the question of convergence (or maybe divergence) of American with European art in a talk which also includes music. I don't pretend to understand classical or jazz music, I just know what I like. But I've heard so much discussion, where both are described in mathematical and even scientific terms, which has always left me mystified. So can jazz be described as the equivalent or a younger extension of classical or do they just coexist by happenstance, not really having anything to do with the other? As for being primarily defined or inspired by geographic expanse, if this was the case, wouldn't American art be very similar Russian? And, for music, I'm aware it's the ultimate insult to many jazz artists to even try to associate their music with European classical.😄
This reminds me of constructing the argument for brexit…..the narrative of the arts relative to anglo chauvinism. Ppl like Michael Portillo, Fiona Bruce and Anthony Horowitz when not pushing their politics was shaping the supposed “objectivity” of their chauvinistic anglo worldview
Most good popular films have an intrinsically international Anglo-American character that is inseparable from the product. A popular film that is artistically significant could be filmed in New Zealand by a New Yorker or a Londoner while being written by an Australian or an American midwesterner. The national character of the film is intrinsically international - Is Hitchcock English, absolutely even if he did ultimately have dual citizenship, but his films also have a kind of dual citizenship because they embody the common culture of the English Speaking world. Likewise the most American of all films were often shot in London or at least show heavy influence from British directors and star heavily English casts. I’d say the same about the best Progressive Rock. Pink Floyd, Genesis, ELP and King Crimson are English bands, but like Abbey Road, Rock Music requires the influence of the Blues or it isn’t any form of rock music and will always have American style Instruments like modern guitars, drum kit, and synthesizers. Britain and America are completely different political entities even if we are highly politically, economically, and militarily aligned, but I don’t think you could reasonably say that we have completely distinct national cultures.
And then there’s movies like “a fistful of dollars”, which is among the most iconic of the western genre, directed by an Italian and based on a Japanese story.
I like to learn stuff, but I don't know anything about painting or classical music. There is way more stuff that a person can learn, than a person can learn in a human lifetime. We would need to live at least 400 years. Of course, if someone could live 400 years, there would be another 300+ years' worth of stuff to learn.
I'm curious as to whether there's any kind of objective basis for defining art in the ways this video outlines? I don't see any good reason to exclude a very beautiful piece of music or abstract painting that doesn't meet these criteria from being defined as art. What is the case for this definition being stronger than any other?
It’s not a definition of what a work of art is but a description of the distinctively human activity of making art. This account sketches it out psychologically.
As an art historian I find your lecture highly interesting. It touches into the chores of definitions of art. In the current context the Munich Degenerate Art exhibition 1937 comes to mind as well.
I did survive your lecture and I found it very interesting. There was one statement that I have some trouble with: The statement that good entertainment can have higher esthetic value than not so good art. I don't see why we would not look at good entertainment as art. The Magic Flute was certainly conceived as entertainment, certainly by Schikaneder. Yet we have all agreed to consider it art. And quite similarly for other examples like "Modern Times". The film is certainly great entertainment, but how can it be "not art"?
I majored in Art History at university in the early 1980’s. I haven’t listened to a lecture about art since then. It was lovely to listen to you speak about art and artists again. I will be thinking about this for awhile. Thank you 💛💙
Film can be good art, bad art, or non art, as well as wonderful entertainment or cheap entertainment. A piece of music within a film, if the film is good art, will be part of a good work of art - whether it could be independently art depends on what it is. I don't believe game music is likely to be art, although if you made Mozart game music, then it would be. But you wouldn't be listening to it properly in that case. - overall, IMO very little music specifically made for film will be art.
Im obviously not an expert in the slightest, as well as a bit of a postmodernist, but for me anything that's made with intentionality is art (making a mound of soil because you're building a house and digging out the basement? That mound is not art, at least if no one pays attention to how the mound turns out apart from physicalities like dimensions. - making a mound to mark something etc - art.) Theres no good or bad art as well, just art thats perceived well and art that's disregarded Edit: hooray, vlad kinda agrees on the intentionality part 😅 I would call product design art too though, just like movies or songs just made for entertainment instead of deeper reasons
It was interesting - possible someone could be an artist - go through the thought processes you have outline BUT not realise they are an artist or have produced art. I guess you are saying art is only art when other people recognise it as such . . . .
@@philippajoy4300 - thanks - in my case a sculpture (wooden plinth) . . . 🙂 Two people will eventually see a photograph . . . perhaps this is private art ?
The mentions of Wikipedia is funny, because I think you only used it to mean looking up geographical features of biographies or short descriptions. There are often huge fights between communities of editors over which nationality a famous person is (Tesla probably being the most prominent example). These fights are certainly not just restricted to artists, and I think they reflect a very real lack of objectivity in the source material available with regard to nationality (whether that objectivity is desirable or not is another question), and I think this might be due to the fact that what nationality is may be as contested as what art is...
I love your colorful illustrations of what you mean. Beethoven with a horn on his head? That's fantastic. Philosophy can be pretty dry as I'm well aware since some professors of mine were brilliant but very monotonous. I learned a lot from them. But I remember more from those who stuck amusing metaphors and illustrations into lectures. Ah, the human brain. 😂
TBH, when I first heard this, another metaphor from memory cropped up that of a sculpture of God with horns on his head because 'halo' in some translations , means horns and in my mind I was thinking Vlad considered Beethoven angelic.
So glad I found this discussion. A new way to look at art in all its various manifestations. I'm enriched by your discourse, enriched by thinking of art in the way you presented it. Your knowledge of artists is astonishing.
I would not call it a niche topic. Ukrainians and all other nations that suffered from imperialism and colonialism are quite a wide audience. So this topic is highly important. Unfortunately only a minor part are conscious about that. Culture/music/sports is out of politics as I heard dozens of time. But it is not true. You touched quite an important topic, especially in context in nowadays russian policy of cultural appropriation .
24:35 I don't really understand this. After all, consensus changes with the times and surrounding culture. To come back to the point you made at the beginning, the 18th century western consensus on non-European music would have been for it to be of inferior quality. Why is consensus important for something that's as subjective as preference on music?
There is so much here, far too much for a pithy RUclips comment. This upload, at least to me, provoked a range of movements from laughter to concern to future careful consideration. For now, I would like to show my appreciation concerning one point. I appreciate the Rothko example as Rothko being the main reason why I came to the conclusion that I did not know why I had an aversion to abstract art. After I had gained a personal understanding of 'essence', I started to feel 'a part of' instead 'apart from'. This brought me to Giacometti [paraphrase]: ..having an idea of what something should look like can make us blind in some ways. Actually, this is from a Sylvester interview with Giacometti. Once again thank you.
Go to my main channel
ruclips.net/user/VladVexlervideos
Go to my second channel, Vlad Vexler Chat
www.youtube.com/@VladVexlerChat/featured
You can now support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
00:00 Art and injustice
10:45 Preview of main point
12:30 Good art vs bad art vs not art
23:35 Convergence of judgement
30:20 National characteristics in art
39:12 Reception of works of art
Hi Vlad. Loved the video, I started watching your stuff when the war broke out, but I find your "Mundane" topics to be equally if more interesting.
Here's a question on the distinction between Good and Bad art. How much does the acceptance of the audience play into the calculation of whether art is actually good at all?
I have two examples:
Picasso for a example is widely recognized as an infleluencial artist, but in essense his paintings look like garbage when compared to a classic.
I do know he is capable of better looking art, so I guess there is a level of intentionality there.
The Other is Van Gogh, who in his time was unrecognized due to his non-adherance to the norm in the Art movements. Now ofcourse Van Gogh is often lauded as one of the Greats.
One could it bad art in his day, and great art today.
In a way, it seems to me like the acceptance of the audience elevated the quality of the original work. As defining Art is subjective at best.
There has to be a distinction between professional evaluation and popular evaluation, as Vlad said about the Moonlight Sonata. Some art which is not great may be thought to be great by many, but that doesn't make it so. A great work of art might moulder away in an attic and never be appreciated, that wouldn't take away from its greatness. Vlad spoke about how long it took for Schubert to be appreciated, for example.
Right, I’m calling my next album ‘the fireworks of unbearable boredom’
I like this new conversation a lot!
you’re so hard working, vlad. your commitment to youtube is so appreciated. you really ensure that i go through every day thoughtfully, and kindly! all love, and all the best! ❤🌻
Thank you so much and love your way!
VLAD, This is my first time here to the philosophical channel. I realize that this realm of analysis and speculation is what I was intuitively searching for from your various ruminations about the war, and politics. My belly is finally upset with the toxic inherent messages on the war’s politics, which I’m now finding no new insights from the various vloggers. I look forward to the next installment in the progression of this analysis of national characteristics.😊😊😊😊
Great to have you here! I am seriously committed to this channel. More to come!
Nothing starts a day off better than a fresh Vlad viddie.
Thank you!!!
I have always had problems trying to understand if Handel's art was English or German.
You could place Handel's art amoung that of Purcel and other great English renaissance composers like Byrd. After this period there is a huge gap to the next great period of english composers, the age of the British empire. Where there is a presence of a different kind of national characteristics.
Handel has what was at the time called an anglo-saxon quality. It is of course a fiction, a very good english fiction. Handel was an import, but his music hit a nerve with the english audience. A nerve which is difficult to move. And his muaic has remained in the english imagination ever since.
The thought that I am left with is: isn’t there an attributional element to all art?
In fact, it would be possible to extend this to the extreme…
Suppose a highly spiritual person were to ascribe intention to God (if they are from a theistic religion)
or a similar person from a non-theistic religion like Buddhism might ascribe the creative aspect of the unfolding Universe to the “basic goodness” of the Buddha nature that permeates all things…
In other words, both individuals perceive an impersonal and infinitely creative and generative aspect of the cosmos.
Such a person witnessing a beautiful sunset might understand the beauty as being a reflection of the the Universe’s inherent creativity, and also recognize their recognition of this perception as yet _another_ manifestation of the creativity of the Universe.
If the witness were from a theistic tradition they might say “God is a magnificent and subtle artist.”
If the witness were a Buddhist, they might say “what an auspicious event in the chain of causes and conditions to give rise to the sunset and to give rise to the perception of the sunset, and the discernment of the beauty.”
In either case, their cognition is attributing qualities to the raw sensory input.
That same person might view the child’s painting you mentioned and see the beauty in the innocent child, the beauty of their representational expression, the beauty and gratitude in being so fortunate to share such a precious moment… I think I would find it difficult to separate out anything from such a scenario and say “this isn’t art.”
I’m ending up at an unexpected conclusion:
Perhaps the real art is living skillfully… such that the beauty and goodness flow through you…
Having said that,
I suspect you might resonate with this idea because I think perhaps you do live your life like that… it certainly shows in the care and grace you bring to your creation.
Thanks for the thought-provoking talk! Be well. 🙏
This one was difficult to digest and lacks clarity on some points. But, it was a good exercise for my little intellect.
The greatest art has either one or several truths within it. The of the greatest injustices against art is the misuse of it for propaganda purposes whether the amazing paintings of Jorge Gonzalez Camarena for the communist Revolution in Mexico, movies such as Peter the Great by Dimitri Buchowetzki or the propaganda films with Wagner soundtracks made by Nazis. The turning of a lie into great art legitimises the lie and in context de-legitimises the art while as just art it remains high art of outstanding quality. Is it still compromised by the lies or forgiven for the context?
I love your wicked little lies 😉
Please serve them as often as your health allows.
Thank you for this lecture.
Spooky! was just discussing this the other day with a Ukrainian friend, namely, why is Nikolai Gogol considered a "Russian" writer since he was born in Ukraine... of course he wrote in the Russian language, and about Russia, and made a conscious decision to do so - as opposed to someone like Shevchenko for instance. But on the other hand there is something of an outsiders eye in his observations that seems inherently Ukrainian. Another interesting example is Joyce, who of course is Irish and writes about Ireland, but he writes in English, and he self-consciously moves to Continental Europe, and considers himself to be a European writer, and distances himself from both English and Irish literary traditions. I think it helps if we think about these overlapping identities as a Venn diagram rather than a Trivial Pursuit answer. Much like people's own identities are a layered and nuanced, ie is one English, or British etc. and of course, one can be both, or one or the other, depending on the situation. So for example, Gogol is both a Russian writer and a Ukrainian writer at the same time.
I honestly think you could be projecting into someone an identity that he may not have experienced like that. And reading the history of literature in that manner is very dangerous. Artists, if good enough, are of such a kind that they will enter eventually into imperialistic identities such as the russian one not because of any particular liking for them but because there's something in the essence of art that pushes you towards trascending national borders in the same way that empires that last more than a day tend to do, by violently anihilating the distance between peoples and manifesting the universal human features to such an extent that they completely erradicate any possibility whatsoever of formulating the claim for a nation state.
Anyone who thinks that their nation has any kind of essence that is common to everyone inside of a patch of land but seen nowhere else, will run into deep troubles if he reads Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dante, etc, and sees themself into the picture. Because if they have any sense of coherence they will realize that can't be, for obvious reasons.
Artist never fit the boxes of nation states. And anyone who just tries to make them fit because of egotistic purposes to the detriment of mankind will run into the trouble of being terribly unaware about the fact that there wouldn't have been a Virgil without Herodotus, nor a Calderon without Petrarca, nor a Garcia Márquez without Cervantes.
At the end, the reason why he wrote in russian, is merely because it was the closest shot he could realistically get, to talking to all mankind, the same reason why I'm talking in english (which is also the language of an empire). And if we all knew esperanto, all good artist would immediately drop their native languages and write on it.
@@jmmh1313 thats some big insinuation tht violently annihilating the distance between people is good for mankind.
@@kogorun your claim is problematic. If i had wanted to say that i would have said that openly. And i do not disagree nor agree completely with that idea because i have enough of a far sight to see that you cannot have a state of any sort, not even the tiniest one, without an immense amount of political violence. And you can then go ahead and say that not all political violence is wrong because there's defensive and offensive violence, but then i would ask you, to what a degree is a violent action taken on the behalf of a collective identity made by all sorts of people some of which may disagree with said actions, self defense?
War is war. Once that you already get to it at least make sure that future generations will get a better and more stable political situation than the previous one. And as you can clearly derive rationally from the demographics of history, events like the expansion of Rome teach us that the growth of a political entity brings prosperity and wealth and more people living better. While the medieval ages were characterized by the diametrical opposite.
Pd: what I'm saying is at no moment an endorsement of putin even tho i walk on thin ice. Trying to claim otherwise would be the same as comparing putin with Julius Caesar, and he is not.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts - my talk’s implication is: such questions are centrally about the meaning of the writer’s works, which includes judgment about which works are most important. Not about biography. Or about what the writer says.
@@jmmh1313 I do not think it is obvious that all artists would give up there local language to start writing in the most universal language possible. Writing, or reading in different languages is just so... different...
This was a really interesting lecture! You gave me a mild headache and an urge to look closer on our national-romantic composers and artists.
I’m glad it was interesting!
Interesting talk, thank you Vlad.
I think your final point in regards to post-hoc adopting of an artist after their work filters into the popular consciousness is an important one. I don't want to be too postmodern, but I think that it is possible to simultaneously hold contradictory opinions here and not be wrong on either count. Elgar, for example, was a rank outsider for most of his musical career in England. Partly this was social (he was a Catholic and therefore could not authentically be the "face" of British art music), but even artistically he was looked at as a fundamentally Germanic composer. The influence of Brahms and to a slightly lesser extent Wagner was clear, and Richard Strauss was his friend and mentor, who hailed him as (paraphrasing) bringing Germanic sophistication to das land ohne musik. Today, and even by his death, Elgar is seen as the living embodiment of Britishness, and a particularly crusty and unreconstructed form of Imperial Britishness at that. This has nothing to do with an anglicisation of Elgar's tonal language, which if anything got more and more like Richard Strauss as he aged, but rather because the size of Elgar's star dragged the English firmament to his position rather than the other way round. Hence, I believe that I can hold the opinions "Elgar was not 'English' at all, he was at the frontier of Germanic musicological thinking" and "Elgar is the most axiomatically British composer of all" in parallel.
I also find it interesting that you point out that you use "national" characteristics, but that this can refer to any community. I wonder - does this have as much value when the communities form on the basis of these very artistic preferences? For example, (late) Brahms and (early) Mahler were briefly in Vienna and composing at the same time, one carrying the torch of Schumann and the other of Wagner. Can either or both be claimed as "Viennese"? Not in my mind. But Johann Strauss II (whom you mention) absolutely can and must be considered quintessentially Viennese. Why is this? For my money, apart from the fact that Strauss' waltzes were more popular with the common man than Brahms' or Mahler's contemporary work, we also have to look at the fact that Strauss does not already represent an ideological/factional party.
I wish you a very pleasant afternoon and evening.
To me a child's drawing is art. It is created with aesthetic and expressive intent. "I like purple" is maybe not a sophisticated justification for an aesthetic choice, but it is a valid one. The criteria of control is not sufficient to exclude it imo, control and technical proficiency is always a question if degree and even Michael Angelo must have struggled and had moments of imperfect control over the rock or the paint. Also much of art includes elements of spontaneity and arbitrariness. (Pollock, Kurt Cobain, Isadora Duncan). "It sounds nice" or "I just like it" or "it reminds me of my shoes" does not exclude it from being art imo. I am also a philosooher btw but i always sucked at aesthetic philosophy and struggle with the concepts, happy to think about this again with your video. Last I thought about this, I sort of simply settled on deciding that "art" was a kind of socially constructed elitist category for human creativity and aesthetic self expression, you know kind of like what Duchamp was saying, how if you put a toilet in a museum it suddenly becomes worthy of the title. The term definitely carries something serious or pompous. I'm just spilling my thoughts here not sure of anything haha.
I spent a lot of time looking at 4-5 year old children's drawings when I was teaching English and honestly they often have definite intent behind their choices. For example one kid was just frantically filling the page with chaotic blue scribbles, I assumed he was just blanking out and asked him what he was drawing, he replied immediately ,"a storm" 😂
Often it looks like nonsense, but to them it isn't, is what I'm saying. They usually give very clear explanations for their choices. Try asking a kid to explain their drawing if you get the chance. Imo all they are really lacking is technical proficiency 😂
Thankyou for for putting that into words.
Picasso spent most of his career trying to regain the quality that only children have before any kind of academic training. As did Mattise.
@terryhand Picasso also said you must learn the rules like a professional before you can break them as an artist. These painters didn't want to regain a child like naivety, reversing all they knew about controlling their medium but rather use what they learned through experience to inform them as to what they can eliminate or ignore, resembling a child like state. This is this is the reason the works of Picasso and Matisse couldn't be mistaken for the paintings of a child. There is a very obvious control and mastery of materials in their works. I do agree that academic training in painting is often useless, But don't believe someone can create a work of art without control.
Oh come on! Why are you trying to discourage us from watching? Why would this only appeal to a niche audience?
Cos most people only care about the war. This is actually philosophical content.
It's not out of humility actually! It helps people not to have stuffed pushed their way that's not for them, and it helps this channel if people don't come here to then turn away. It's probably a losing battle though, as YT thinks this is content for main and chat viewers!
It's a clever ruse: "I dare you, this is not for everyone."
@@VladVexlerPhilosophyWhich demonstrates it's the RUclips algorithms fault (once again) not yourself.
My knowledge of art history is severely limited & yet I thoroughly enjoyed watching/listening to something different.
😊
Because not everyone likes philosophy, and are more interested in present events and understanding it.
However, in my case, I love philosophy, but I started with his Ukraine reflections. Since I found his approach so interesting, I’m quite interested to know more about his philosophy :).
Veeery interesting subject and one that I think about often. When I move around in public places I try to guess what nationality/culture people are. Russians are usually pretty easy to place right. They have a certain haircut, they almost never go alone, they are loud when they speak and they have an aura of dominance (aggressive even). It happened once in a supermarket that the person at the cash machine seemed to have an aura I did not remember experiencing before; he seemed absent, almost like air or even thinner. Yet, he knew exactly what he was doing and performed his work as any normal person. That's interesting, I thought. Maybe he had something bothering him in his personal life and therefore gave the air of not being there? I shopped at the same store again another day and met the same person and felt the same thin air aura. Then some kind of boss of his came to talk to him and they talked in Russian. I thought: "No, that employee is not Russian. His aura is so totally different." (This happened a few years before covid and before the war.) Then on the same day I read in a newspaper that the strongest growing foreign population in the job market was coming from Ukraine. Ok, I couldn't tell the difference between Russian and Ukrainian language, but based on the look and the "aura" of that person I concluded that he probably was Ukrainian. Note: I don't mean anything negative by describing his aura as "thin air". It was just so different from anything I have ever experienced that I have difficulty of describing it exactly.
I will paraphrase Alex Scriabin on this one, who once said: am I _not_ a Russian composer simply because I don't use folk tunes in my pieces?
Glad to see you being active on philosophy channel, Vlad 🍻
Excellent. I'm an 'Australian artist' whose father was a cartoonist and my work is inspired by philosophy and esotericism. Please send help. Or, chuck another snag on the barbie will ya! Cheers mate.
😆
Thanks for helping me understand and distinguish art with something that simply has good aesthetic quality. We grow up with the ascribed value judgement that art == good/deep and something that isn't art == bad/cheap. This helps resolve a weird gap between what I find aesthetically good and even emotionally significant, and what some deem as being "real art".
Thank you! Very interesting topic and I learned from you some about art and artist. I appreciate your contribution to our world!
Appreciate you!
I remember reading in Nicholas Berdyaev many years ago this idea of intention- that art somehow precedes the actual physical production of an artwork… this mysterious thought that there are people - artists - who have not realised their artistic intention (women in patriarchal societies for instance). He saw the artwork as a “cooling down” of the original artistic intention.
I have a nice pair of contemporary artists from both cultures to compare iv you like: Dakha Braka and Otava Yo, note that they both make modern destinktive european folk as a genre and none is lesser than the other. But they are so uniquely diffrent in style that i think they would make a very good example.
I have been following the Ukrainian music scene (as much as I can through mainly Western sources like Spotify) since the war began. I noticed that even since 2014 a common thread of wanting to be distinct from Russia had emerged. And since the war an astonishing amount of anti-Russia music has exploded. Songs that musically are not very complex have become hits internationally, like the Bayraktar song. And 100+ year old folk songs like Oi u Luzi Chervona Kalyna are suddenly being covered left and right. It has made me more keenly aware that art exists in a close relationship with culture and history, and has deepened my understanding of how those things all intertwine with our humanity.
I feel welcome to watch all your channels Vlad. I do not find philosophy 'niche' or to those who are interested- it spreads into so many other topics and 'official' social sciences.
I wish i could have spent more time in uni studying it, however studied it outside (with libraries help) & multiple book purchases.
Keep the good work up and i hope you're fairing well enough!
Don't know if I agree with the "all of it is under control" or "some kind of significance to each thing you see". While an artist certainly has way more intent and control than a child, this is not absolute. Randomness does creep in inevitably (sometimes intentionally so, see e.g. Jackson Pollock, or Écriture automatique). Even a masterpiece might have unexplicable, "arbitrary" bits. At what percentage of those bits would you say it's not a work of art anymore but merely something of aesthetic value? Great discussion overall, thanks so much! By the way, I personally think Also sprach Zarathustra to be underrated in a similar way that Nietzsche himself was underrated as a philosopher at a time.
I listened to this thinking that 'tribal' might be a more apt term than 'national'. Especially given the magical and totemic functions of what we call 'Fine Art' in our fluid cultures and subcultures.
Thank you for bringing up accordion music, which I love (well, many genres of music and instruments, really). Listening to Richard Galliano always lifts my spirits and I'm always interested in finding new accordion artists and composers. Even today, they rarely pop up just like that. Somebody has to know somebody who then may become recommended in a small circle. Or there has to be a special accordion festival or something. One of the few composers that has composed for the accordion is Sofia Gubaidulina, half Russian and half Volga Tatar by origin. Now I have to try some Viviane Chassot. Thank you!
I love Beethoven’s Op. 10 No. 3 too! I’m very, very curious whether you might one day consider indulging us with your thoughts on a few aspects of Beethoven.
Yes I have a new channel for that but no videos on it yet - so sign up there and turn on notifications ! youtube.com/@VladVexlerMusic?si=oMRDPPBX3emuNIch
Oh don’t collapse the artist’s intention unconscious or otherwise and that of the work. Please no. Not even for a second. That mistake takes a lifetime to unlearn for some.
I wonder if a piece of art, good or bad, can be both a physical work and the artists' misdirection about their physical piece. Like those 3D glasses you sometimes get for particular 3D movies, the artists' words about his or her work are a deliberate misdirection or reinterpretation intended to transform how we understand a piece.
If we hold what I just tried to ask as having some truth, does that mean that the constitutive element of a work includes the artist themselves? And if it might, can the artist mess about with that over time?
Vald, there are a great many flaws and prejudices embedded in your definition of good art. Intention-Creation-Reception as a model looks more like using a telephone than the nuances of artistic creation and engagement. Much so called 'good' or high art relies upon the viewer having the training, cultural familiarity and vocabulary to interpret the work. Does this mean that good art should 'speak' to everybody? What of art that is intentionally ambiguous; that allows space for the viewer to find their own interpretation and experience... is this bad art? Next I would want to know where you determine expertise or mastery is achieved over the unskilled 'non-artist'. At what point in your career do you get to call yourself an artist? Arguably the child scribbler may in fact achieve the intention-creation-reception dialogue irrespective of their skill and the highly skilled artist cannot convey their intention. Irronically the purple sun story you tell could easilly be part of a contemporary artist statement as they explore their psychological and cultural experiences of colour. There is is an honest exploration of conceptual links that is at the core of original art creation going on here. Many artists would tell you that they have never really achieved mastery as this is a constant journey in their practice. I think you need to consider a wider scope for defining art.
When the significant details in the work are part of a successfully realised intention, that's art. When Picasso was becoming an artist, his transitional painting, Science and Charity, contains two objects that express his style, and everything else in the canvass is derivative. That's how it works.
How, then, do I become a better composer? Someone once said a piece lacked 'spirituality' - as opposed to technique etc. I put it in part down to the transference, ie the simulation the guy listened to, but I also partly rewrote the piece, and I dont fully know whether I improved it. If the intention is to be profound: how do I know whether I am developing? Can this be in part taught? Affectionately Philippa
Do you write primarily for yourself or for a audience? When I was out djing I sometimes found myself playing what I liked and the crowd wernt always that impressed. I later began to read the crowd much better and was able to capture their attention for longer, while still slipping a few of my own tastes. Though I'm sure it's far removed from actually producing real music with real instruments.
I really enjoyed this. I found it very educational. Thank you and best wishes from Ireland.
Warm wishes your way and gratitude!
Thank you Vlad @@VladVexlerPhilosophy
I want you to review my paintings as a favor
Injustice example: My daughter, after studying theater to direct, became frustrated due to the bias against her. It was predominately homosexual male. That's why I went to see the "barbie" movie.
With the phrase "london light" i knew exactly and immediatly what you meant whilst never having been to london proper.
Interesting!
I muddle through this terrain, you bring a frame to work from ❤
Thanks for dragging me into thinking about art again. I needed that.
Pleasure!
Vlad my friend you are a true gem of RUclips, and I enjoy your philosophy videos immensely.
Wow more of this please. Was riveted. Lots of questions re artist of place and it artist of time bubbling up but not fully formed. Am not an intellectual but you painted your subject with your words your body your voice so clearly that it brought a shining light into my morning. Thanks a million Vlad.
So wonderful this was good for you! More to come!
35:37 the extraordinary geographical extent of.. Russia, Canada, Argentina, Australia, South Africa 🇿🇦 😅 the argument fails to convince.
On the subject of unusual artistic cross-overs, I recommend this video of a young French women - Tina S - playing an electric guitar version of Ludwig van Beethoven's - Moonlight Sonata (3rd Movement). It's quite astonishing: ruclips.net/video/o6rBK0BqL2w/видео.html
One third in and I have one quibble: Beethoven born in 1770 with a horn won't even have a chance to live. Bad analogy. Make him disfigured, like the hunchback of Notre Dame, and it's fine. A horned baby, or a child that develops a horn would be euthanised with prejudice, as the Catholic church still had undisputed power in Austria, and Christian denominations in general reigned supreme in Europe.
Not Art...I think of a story I saw online yesterday...Look up "Take the Money and Run", museum sues ..There is an artist who took a Great amount of money from a museum to create a piece of art that featured Money as a theme. It was to be actually included in the art piece and returned after the exhibition. The 'artist' turned in a large white canvas with nothing on it and titled it , yes, 'Take the Money and Run'. Which they did. And are being sued. I used to work in a museum. There are many works whose concept is simply to spit in face of the viewer. (Rather like MAGA Republicans). People need Much more courage to look inside themselves and determine if something is actually art or simply insult in the name of concept. The Emperor's New Clothes story may be the most salient art-as-literature we have today😅, if indeed art as social commentary is considered true Art!
I never completely understood the talk in the "Brothers Karamasow" - especially the part where Smirnow seems to hear that Iwan wants him to kill the old Karamasow. Is it a russian thing, like maybe Putin talked to his underlings about killing Prigoshin? To hear and follow orders 'between the lines'? And nobody ever said something specific?
Interesting topic...I especially like the classification good art/bad art/no art. It seems most of our current entertainment: movies, music etc would not be art...but yet they are highly entertaining/aesthetically pleasing. Also to fully appreciate paintings or music it helps to have a deeper knowledge to understand all the intricacies and aspects. If I hear people speaking French for example, I think it sounds beautiful...but I don't understand what is being said, kind of like with music/art I may think it is great but not fully comprehend the deeper meaning. These classifications are helpful. 👍
How about a lecture on Art Is Money? Because collectors obeying perceived trends alter extremely what art is considered successful, and what styles artists are influenced to produce. It produces a forking in the road....Art might develop completely differently , culture could lead to completely different places if not for conformity induced by money and people who value money ,but not art!! Who have no appreciation for it.
Fascinating. Your analysis puts into question what defines art and is it an interpretive to the individual.
If I may, (apologies to the incoming storm from this) What would the National identity of Ilya Repin be considered then? Maybe art really has no national identity but is only influenced by the environment it evolves in (?)
Many artists became expats that studied their craft of art in other countries for example Mary Cassatt. ..and I think you pegged it at the end.
I'm interested in what the community thinks of Marcel Waldorf's sculpture, "Petra"? Please view it and do get back to me if you can. Is there a universal standard that we can apply that defines good from bad art? An anarchist might look at "Petra" and say it is a magnificent depiction of the oppression of the police state, and is therefore good.
"Fireworks of unbearable boredom" .. wow, mate what a line! I may have to borrow that one to slip into convo sometime soon and see what happens 🙂
Thank you for the interesting video Vlad, I appreciate you making content about art and listening to your view. But let me object to it here: When you link art to intent, it seems to me that you do not account for the variety of creative processes that can be involved. In writing, there are two kinds that are widely common and recognized among writers: the outliner and the pantser. The outliner does use intent to construct his work like an architect, but the pantser goes with the flow and is often surprised himself by where it leads him. You might argue that this is unconscious intent, but it’s not obvious to me how you would prove such a point and to what degree this can even be called intent, as it is more like an open-end simulation based on certain premises rather than sth that has a fixed goal/intent. Many writers, including some of the best, report that their characters do things they did not anticipate and control and thus have an autonomy from the intent of the author. John Fowles, L M Montgomery and Hosseini have all made statements similar to this.
This might very well be the niche part of your audience, but I'm loving every single bit! Please share more of your thoughts!
More to come! Thank you!
Wow! I never heard of Viviane Chassot before, but her interpretations of Haydn keyboard sonatas are absolutely marvelous 😍 ... Now! I will try to understand the rest of this talk ...
Great you discovered her!
So by accruing enough influence characteristic to a region (maybe through their social circle or materials they used to learn) an artists work could display sufficient specific qualities to argue they belong to a place they never lived in? I really like that conclusion if I understood it correctly
If all actions taken by a human are inherently part of their nature, then all actions are natural. This presumes a definition of nature/natural that tilts towards both biological determism and a blanket moral endorsement of all somatically derived urges. If our nature is to live according to our purpose, then a great many of our actions can be contrary to this, and are thus proscribed on the basis of beung unnatural; This is not theological, but rather a classical understanding. The theological position is that the great anarchy of dysfunctional somatic urges are a part of a fallen nature. You don't get to dismiss classical philosophy at whim under the guise of disregarding theological stories, and state that others who appeal to different philosophical traditions are simply missing the point.
Thanks you so much for the phrase, "Fireworks of unbearable boredom”". 😍
wow. I can't watch any of your channels anymore. I watched your war commentary too long. Parasocial backfire I guess. I'll keep trying from time to time. You're a fantastic foil.
Go well!
Thanks for letting us know.
Как объяснить феномен Анри Матисса музыканту:
Представь что Рахманинов написал "Чижик Пыжик". Теперь представь что академики считают это одним из лучших произведений 20го века.
In terms of good art being marked out by the quality of its intentions. What about naïf art? The intention transfers from originator to nominator? The curator becomes collaborator?
I find the given definition of art to be needlessly restrictive. I think something that is not intended to be a piece of art can still be art. If a blacksmith crafts a real sturdy and practical tool with no artistic intent behind it, I think the craftmanship that's put into it still makes it art. I think essentially anything made by an entity/agent with intent, can be considered art.
You keep saying you can't pronounce "H", bet then you go on to pronounce it completely normally...
Could you also give a national/ regional characteristic where the artist is the founder of a style? Is it a national characteristic if it didn't exist yet and we can only see it in the ripples of influence after the artist is gone.
Pathetic delusions about his parenting skills, 😂😅😊!
Vlad, I never thought I'd see the day when you talked about football.....so, I must point out to you that the greatest footballing achievement in the last 80-ish years is when my club, The Arsenal, went through an entire Premier League season totally unbeaten and the football they played under Arsene Wenger was pure art on a football pitch.
Up The Arsenal!!
“Football + Philosophy” great combo! 😅
Ha ha yes Lehman, Toure, Campbell, Cole, Lauren, Pires, Gilberto, Vieira, Freddy, Henry, Bergkamp!
ps. I considered becoming a football manager when I was a teen - and enjoyed being “coach” at 11 v 11 local games. I had genius tactics suitable for just below professional level football.
Therefore your speech is fundamentaly musical ...
Well, well, this ol' Philistine was prepared to tolerate but not enjoy this lecture as I have😄. Glad you brought up the question of convergence (or maybe divergence) of American with European art in a talk which also includes music. I don't pretend to understand classical or jazz music, I just know what I like. But I've heard so much discussion, where both are described in mathematical and even scientific terms, which has always left me mystified. So can jazz be described as the equivalent or a younger extension of classical or do they just coexist by happenstance, not really having anything to do with the other? As for being primarily defined or inspired by geographic expanse, if this was the case, wouldn't American art be very similar Russian? And, for music, I'm aware it's the ultimate insult to many jazz artists to even try to associate their music with European classical.😄
How does someone test, in a consistent manner, beliefs to know if they are true or should be shed?
If there is no intended audience to a piece of art, let's say it's just thrown into a fire after creation, was it not art?
This reminds me of constructing the argument for brexit…..the narrative of the arts relative to anglo chauvinism.
Ppl like Michael Portillo, Fiona Bruce and Anthony Horowitz when not pushing their politics was shaping the supposed “objectivity” of their chauvinistic anglo worldview
All of which is produced by the bbc.
Most good popular films have an intrinsically international Anglo-American character that is inseparable from the product. A popular film that is artistically significant could be filmed in New Zealand by a New Yorker or a Londoner while being written by an Australian or an American midwesterner. The national character of the film is intrinsically international - Is Hitchcock English, absolutely even if he did ultimately have dual citizenship, but his films also have a kind of dual citizenship because they embody the common culture of the English Speaking world. Likewise the most American of all films were often shot in London or at least show heavy influence from British directors and star heavily English casts. I’d say the same about the best Progressive Rock. Pink Floyd, Genesis, ELP and King Crimson are English bands, but like Abbey Road, Rock Music requires the influence of the Blues or it isn’t any form of rock music and will always have American style Instruments like modern guitars, drum kit, and synthesizers. Britain and America are completely different political entities even if we are highly politically, economically, and militarily aligned, but I don’t think you could reasonably say that we have completely distinct national cultures.
And then there’s movies like “a fistful of dollars”, which is among the most iconic of the western genre, directed by an Italian and based on a Japanese story.
I agree, although the disclaimer peaked my curiosity enough that I watched. Thoroughly enjoyed btw!
This was very enjoyable. Lots to think about. Thanks Vlad!
Thank you for being here !
If an artist is the first one to use traits that are later considered as national characteristics, does their art have national characteristics?
I like to learn stuff, but I don't know anything about painting or classical music. There is way more stuff that a person can learn, than a person can learn in a human lifetime. We would need to live at least 400 years. Of course, if someone could live 400 years, there would be another 300+ years' worth of stuff to learn.
Don't let time put you off, it gets us all down.
Great video, shame the algorithim will punish you! I learnt a lot!
A great pleasure to have you!
"Good art" "Bad art"? We disagree. For myself I decide that. Art is Subjective for me.
Your last sentence is self refuting.
I'm curious as to whether there's any kind of objective basis for defining art in the ways this video outlines? I don't see any good reason to exclude a very beautiful piece of music or abstract painting that doesn't meet these criteria from being defined as art. What is the case for this definition being stronger than any other?
It’s not a definition of what a work of art is but a description of the distinctively human activity of making art. This account sketches it out psychologically.
What about Pigcosso the Pig?
Is that art?
4:22 it’s a dart brah but I don’t wanna get into the weeds
As an art historian I find your lecture highly interesting. It touches into the chores of definitions of art. In the current context the Munich Degenerate Art exhibition 1937 comes to mind as well.
Thank you for listening! The views implied here put front and centre artistic expression, rather than a definition of what a work of art might be.
I did survive your lecture and I found it very interesting. There was one statement that I have some trouble with: The statement that good entertainment can have higher esthetic value than not so good art. I don't see why we would not look at good entertainment as art. The Magic Flute was certainly conceived as entertainment, certainly by Schikaneder. Yet we have all agreed to consider it art. And quite similarly for other examples like "Modern Times". The film is certainly great entertainment, but how can it be "not art"?
The paradigm of art is transformation and expression. But there is no sharp distinction here.
@VladVexlerPhilosophy I've always found that art is best understood in terms of how it's perceived rather than how it's presented.
This was comfy as hell and quite interesting 😌
Thank you!
I majored in Art History at university in the early 1980’s. I haven’t listened to a lecture about art since then. It was lovely to listen to you speak about art and artists again. I will be thinking about this for awhile. Thank you 💛💙
There was a very good series on the baroque period by the BBC a few years ago, I suspect you'd be interested. It's easily found with a search
Very informative.
I'm curious Vlad, according to your definition of art, where does film/game music stand?
Film can be good art, bad art, or non art, as well as wonderful entertainment or cheap entertainment. A piece of music within a film, if the film is good art, will be part of a good work of art - whether it could be independently art depends on what it is. I don't believe game music is likely to be art, although if you made Mozart game music, then it would be. But you wouldn't be listening to it properly in that case. - overall, IMO very little music specifically made for film will be art.
What a treat! Thank you!
Im obviously not an expert in the slightest, as well as a bit of a postmodernist, but for me anything that's made with intentionality is art (making a mound of soil because you're building a house and digging out the basement? That mound is not art, at least if no one pays attention to how the mound turns out apart from physicalities like dimensions. - making a mound to mark something etc - art.)
Theres no good or bad art as well, just art thats perceived well and art that's disregarded
Edit: hooray, vlad kinda agrees on the intentionality part 😅 I would call product design art too though, just like movies or songs just made for entertainment instead of deeper reasons
It was interesting - possible someone could be an artist - go through the thought processes you have outline
BUT not realise they are an artist or have produced art.
I guess you are saying art is only art when other people recognise it as such . . . .
Cave paintings spring to mind.
@@philippajoy4300 - thanks - in my case a sculpture (wooden plinth) . . . 🙂
Two people will eventually see a photograph . . . perhaps this is private art ?
❤ beautiful
Freeeeeky
Do you know Roman Dubasevych (professor of Ukrainian literature in Germany), he had an outstanding interview in German?
Which interview?
@@begr_wiedererkennungswert Jung & Naiv: Folge 636
@@moonraker978 Danke.
The mentions of Wikipedia is funny, because I think you only used it to mean looking up geographical features of biographies or short descriptions. There are often huge fights between communities of editors over which nationality a famous person is (Tesla probably being the most prominent example). These fights are certainly not just restricted to artists, and I think they reflect a very real lack of objectivity in the source material available with regard to nationality (whether that objectivity is desirable or not is another question), and I think this might be due to the fact that what nationality is may be as contested as what art is...
I love your colorful illustrations of what you mean. Beethoven with a horn on his head? That's fantastic. Philosophy can be pretty dry as I'm well aware since some professors of mine were brilliant but very monotonous. I learned a lot from them. But I remember more from those who stuck amusing metaphors and illustrations into lectures. Ah, the human brain. 😂
TBH, when I first heard this, another metaphor from memory cropped up that of a sculpture of God with horns on his head because 'halo' in some translations , means horns and in my mind I was thinking Vlad considered Beethoven angelic.
So glad I found this discussion. A new way to look at art in all its various manifestations. I'm enriched by your discourse, enriched by thinking of art in the way you presented it. Your knowledge of artists is astonishing.
I would not call it a niche topic. Ukrainians and all other nations that suffered from imperialism and colonialism are quite a wide audience. So this topic is highly important. Unfortunately only a minor part are conscious about that. Culture/music/sports is out of politics as I heard dozens of time. But it is not true. You touched quite an important topic, especially in context in nowadays russian policy of cultural appropriation .
More please, Mr Vexler. The gardening has never seemed so informative.😊
Thank you!!
24:35 I don't really understand this. After all, consensus changes with the times and surrounding culture. To come back to the point you made at the beginning, the 18th century western consensus on non-European music would have been for it to be of inferior quality. Why is consensus important for something that's as subjective as preference on music?
There is so much here, far too much for a pithy RUclips comment. This upload, at least to me, provoked a range of movements from laughter to concern to future careful consideration. For now, I would like to show my appreciation concerning one point. I appreciate the Rothko example as Rothko being the main reason why I came to the conclusion that I did not know why I had an aversion to abstract art. After I had gained a personal understanding of 'essence', I started to feel 'a part of' instead 'apart from'. This brought me to Giacometti [paraphrase]: ..having an idea of what something should look like can make us blind in some ways. Actually, this is from a Sylvester interview with Giacometti. Once again thank you.