I love this. As an artist who is not located in an art hub like NYC or LA, I miss being embroidered by this discourse. If you are looking for your 1000 true fans, you have found one.
I'm confused as to why you're discarding Tatol's criticisms on the basis that he lacks an understanding of history's interaction with the present. Doesn't he thoroughly cite throughout the piece the historical tradition from which "cool" art is born? I feel like his understanding of this is fairly solid, even if it too is tainted by the "present's perspective on the past" note on historical perspectives. Regardless, his frustration with this exhibit specifically is that it seems to exist like some "cool" ouroboros where it just reproduces the signifiers of "cool" but doesn't actually yield any novel, Kantian "aesthetic experience." I think Tatol wants to do away with the reproduction of cool without the underlying revolution like in the 60's, like you said, but also to restore the meaning behind responding to the world, behind producing something new and interesting. In any case, the artistic dread you might feel of not knowing where to go with making art after this sort of criticism is emblematic of the lack of underlying revolution, I think. Obviously, it is hard to drum up a new, worldwide revolution against a social issue as a single person, and this is not within the realistic realm of possibilities for an artist. But the frustration and the fear that Tatol feels is real. When you get so wrapped up in neo-neos and post-posts, it is so, so hard to pull yourself out from the total destruction and deconstruction of meaning and back toward actual, authentic communication of meaning through aesthetic experience. I would say that American literature has certainly experienced this problem, too, after plenty of experimentation with postmodernism produced a sort of "postmodern cool" MFA-type that actively squirmed away from authenticity and meaning-making in favor of recreating things that sounded smart and cool but (arguably) lacked sincerity or worldly bearing. I'm not sure I agree that art is "nothing but" anything, but that is a different conversation entirely and it is late now. Plus, I am writing at length about art criticism in a RUclips comment, which is pretty silly. I will note, beyond all else, that I appreciate that you are engaging with art and with art criticism in a good-faith manner. That is valuable.
The main point is that history is always an idea which is projected backwards from the present. Therefore whatever a society or a group finds to be valuable in the present will necessarily inform how they see the past. For example a Catholic Theologian is concerned with the truth of the glory of God, so history, for a Catholic theologian, would appear as the unfolding of the glory of God. Without a clear sense of the values and tasks of the present, history becomes quite muddy and incomprehensible.
History is not just a random collection of events, but a rational process unfolding towards a specific goal - the realization of human freedom. Or the progressive self-actualization of "World Spirit" where each historical epoch contributes to this ultimate goal, making "actuality" the manifestation of this developing freedom through concrete historical events and institutions.
@@ernestoh429 Yes, but that's a speculative proposition. We must make it true. It is not given. For Hegel it seemed obvious that history was the progress of the consciousness of Freedom. Yet after the industrial revolution that idea cannot be taken for granted. That's why we need Marx. It's also why the claims of postmodernists against that notion of history, seem plausible today.
I've always been profoundly disturbed to watch people struggling furiously toward a mirage of coolness that they've conjured out of a misremembered past or off others too aloof to their needs to have projected anything perceivable... your comments about artist's statements are exactly the point - you don't have to project your own meaning into the minds of others by attempting to approximate what they might perceive as meaningful, it's the same as trying to be cool - an act of evisceration that makes someone into a type of empty vessel that exists only to be filled with the joy of being perceived as that which your efforts already demonstrate you can not actually be.
Good video, it's cool to see something which could have been an essay exist in the real world, like what would have been a paragraph on a substack is delivered on a park bench and is completely mixed in with actual existing art and life. Of course it's still a video, but the commentary is more concretely placed in reality than it would be in a written piece.
Wow yes thanks for this, it’s a conversation friends and I have often about the culture of our small and rather image-focused (image in the sense of detached-‘cool’ that this video proffers) college campus. We pose endless analyses and solutions to this isolated coolness that has just as well frozen campus culture, and it time and again comes back to history - or our lack of perception of history. What do we do when standing for nothing was once political, but now we’re just standing for nothing and have sick outfits but can’t even strike up a conversation with the person next to us. Yeah I guess it all goes back to Vietnam. I’m a fan of this video, made me raise an eyebrow thank you.
If art is born of the society it has been created in, it is impossible for society to create a world in which the artist envisions. It feels that until the philosophy of society changes, the overwhelming majority of the art will not be any different than what it is now. It is only those artists that are able to think and feel critically and not get swept up by society that could possibly affect individuals with their art, hopefully creating a ripple effect into the world.
Please make another one that touches on contemporary art activism and the next emerging form of coolness and the socio political changes that make the state of art making with the coming integration of machine learning and arguments for decentralization and activism towards collectivity as opposed to individualized coolness.
@@_mixedsignals I talk about the minimalists in my new episode. I would love to do an episode in Marfa though too. ruclips.net/video/M6ClbD53pBI/видео.html
Interesting assessment of the origins of cool. My own feeling was that it had roots in white beat writers aping black jazz heads. Per this analysis, their detached posture emerged from disenfranchisement and dissolution with white media and music-industry types that put them on a pedestal for their art while retaining control of meaning-making and money-making. But in both cases it seems the self conscious detachment follows from an inability to parlay boundless artistic creativity into political or material change- a retrenchment into likeminded tribes isolated from the messiness and phoniness of a tottering empire
Yeah there's a definitely an argument to be made for a deeper history of "cool" that can be traced back to the Baudelarian flaneur of the 19th century. But Cool didn't really become the universal aspiration of youth culture until the 20th century.
borrowed some notes from hypernormalization i see! and yes people have devoted themselves to a false concept of what is cool, while they utterly lack the notion of what made anything cool in the first place. and describing art sometimes ruins it
Cool video, shoulda delved into the concept and philosophies of being cool historically coming out of Black American communities. "Being Cool" is jazz/jive slang. No speaking about the philosophy of something being cool in tis context without that history. appropriated by the Beatniks of the 50s, infatuated by BA art, life, slang and music. peace
Indeed and how the idea of being cool exemplified by a nonchalant or insouciant demeanor is an coping mechanism developed by black men living under a system of slavery and then segregation, where any display of emotion could result in punishment. Too happy, you must have done something wrong, to sad you are ungrateful, angry , you have no right to anger etc… American coolness emerged out of this environment.
Again, none of this actually has anything to do with legitimate art history. Everything post 19th century art, with the exception of outliers remains absolute dribble dog shit. I like the fact that you criticize the prevalence of “contemporary” art having the press release as its crutch to legitimize its existence, because clearly the art can not stand on its own as an aesthetic object. But honestly 90% at-least of the work I see on websites such as CAD or art viewer are literal slop, that requires no attention to control/ understanding of form, light, line, nature, or expression. These are pivotal ingredients that render: art. Art is as some point observational, even if generated from the mind. Its origin comes from Nature. What these clowns make now a days: are largely un related to any semblance of the forementioned sentence . And its not even interesting to criticize, nor should it be criticized. It should just be abandoned, because criticizing it gives it more percieved legitimacy. Modernism - the movements there after post modernism etc and capitalism, completely destroyed “art.” Quoting 20th century french philosophers should never be a source for criticism of art, but are what unfortunately drives MFA programs. Academia, which unfortunatly snuck its dirty influence into the market in the last 100 years has altered the perception of the sheeple at the art fairs, the buyers, dealers, curators and institutions. The last relevant critics were those the likes of Baudeliare and even he was getting into the weeds amongst the coming of impressionism. The curriculum taught at these mfa programs are nothing short of dog shit and the schools themselves are ponzi schemes peddle-ing students with an incurring debt for 3 seconds of possible “success.” Yes, we know.. most art is now bad. Thanks for telling us again, I suppose its not obvious to everyone.. and its sad. Shout out to the Ateliers across the globe keeping the practice of art as a “craft” prevalent, because inherently.. thats what art is.. a craft.
The idea of Modernism emerged along with Baudelaire's writing in the 19th century. Modernism much like "cool" was a response to a historically specific social crisis. You are totally right about MFA programs, though!
The point that i’m making is that the social crisis began already after the point which the commercial market was destroying the legacy and legitimacy of craft in art. There really is no specific moment when modernism “emerged” it was only the shift from things being noticibly representational to non representational art that things really started going to the shit bin. People pin different artists as the father of modernism, but these are all opinions. Especially if its just regarding one form of art: painting. Was it Delacroix, was it Manet? Does it really matter who it was.. not really. Both great artists and painters but this is not the point.
I wish I was in a tax bracket or geographical location that allowed me to find this video relatable. But thank you for broadening my understanding of this world I will never be a part of 🥲
One of the most thought provoking pieces to grace my timeline in months. More plz
More coming!
Really glad this showed up on my feed today. I'd love to see more of this.
Stay tuned! More episodes coming soon
Maybe the aloofness were the pigeons we fed along the way.
I love this. As an artist who is not located in an art hub like NYC or LA, I miss being embroidered by this discourse. If you are looking for your 1000 true fans, you have found one.
Thank you!
I'm confused as to why you're discarding Tatol's criticisms on the basis that he lacks an understanding of history's interaction with the present. Doesn't he thoroughly cite throughout the piece the historical tradition from which "cool" art is born? I feel like his understanding of this is fairly solid, even if it too is tainted by the "present's perspective on the past" note on historical perspectives. Regardless, his frustration with this exhibit specifically is that it seems to exist like some "cool" ouroboros where it just reproduces the signifiers of "cool" but doesn't actually yield any novel, Kantian "aesthetic experience." I think Tatol wants to do away with the reproduction of cool without the underlying revolution like in the 60's, like you said, but also to restore the meaning behind responding to the world, behind producing something new and interesting.
In any case, the artistic dread you might feel of not knowing where to go with making art after this sort of criticism is emblematic of the lack of underlying revolution, I think. Obviously, it is hard to drum up a new, worldwide revolution against a social issue as a single person, and this is not within the realistic realm of possibilities for an artist. But the frustration and the fear that Tatol feels is real. When you get so wrapped up in neo-neos and post-posts, it is so, so hard to pull yourself out from the total destruction and deconstruction of meaning and back toward actual, authentic communication of meaning through aesthetic experience. I would say that American literature has certainly experienced this problem, too, after plenty of experimentation with postmodernism produced a sort of "postmodern cool" MFA-type that actively squirmed away from authenticity and meaning-making in favor of recreating things that sounded smart and cool but (arguably) lacked sincerity or worldly bearing.
I'm not sure I agree that art is "nothing but" anything, but that is a different conversation entirely and it is late now. Plus, I am writing at length about art criticism in a RUclips comment, which is pretty silly. I will note, beyond all else, that I appreciate that you are engaging with art and with art criticism in a good-faith manner. That is valuable.
shit got weird somewhere along the line
The main point is that history is always an idea which is projected backwards from the present. Therefore whatever a society or a group finds to be valuable in the present will necessarily inform how they see the past. For example a Catholic Theologian is concerned with the truth of the glory of God, so history, for a Catholic theologian, would appear as the unfolding of the glory of God. Without a clear sense of the values and tasks of the present, history becomes quite muddy and incomprehensible.
History is not just a random collection of events, but a rational process unfolding towards a specific goal - the realization of human freedom. Or the progressive self-actualization of "World Spirit" where each historical epoch contributes to this ultimate goal, making "actuality" the manifestation of this developing freedom through concrete historical events and institutions.
@@ernestoh429 Yes, but that's a speculative proposition. We must make it true. It is not given. For Hegel it seemed obvious that history was the progress of the consciousness of Freedom. Yet after the industrial revolution that idea cannot be taken for granted. That's why we need Marx. It's also why the claims of postmodernists against that notion of history, seem plausible today.
I've always been profoundly disturbed to watch people struggling furiously toward a mirage of coolness that they've conjured out of a misremembered past or off others too aloof to their needs to have projected anything perceivable... your comments about artist's statements are exactly the point - you don't have to project your own meaning into the minds of others by attempting to approximate what they might perceive as meaningful, it's the same as trying to be cool - an act of evisceration that makes someone into a type of empty vessel that exists only to be filled with the joy of being perceived as that which your efforts already demonstrate you can not actually be.
yo i loved this video. found your editing decisions all super inspiring, and really liked blending into documentary.
Glad you enjoyed it!
thank you!! something like this has been on my mind for a few weeks now and this moved me. cant wait for more to come
Episode 2 coming next week!
“The pigeon’s name was Colin. Here are his papers.”
interesting take on cool as a coping mechanism for “impotency” or inability to change the world.
i wanna sit on that idea
I’m actually impotent which has driven me to be perhaps the coolest man on the planet.
Good video, it's cool to see something which could have been an essay exist in the real world, like what would have been a paragraph on a substack is delivered on a park bench and is completely mixed in with actual existing art and life. Of course it's still a video, but the commentary is more concretely placed in reality than it would be in a written piece.
Actually Existing Commentary
Yes, I hope this series can continue. There was a series of crticism called TheDeathofArt on RUclips. It only lasted 5.? Episodes!
You can watch Episode 2 here: ruclips.net/video/M6ClbD53pBI/видео.html and Episode 3 is in the works!
Love the cinematography style
Great video
Thanks!
Brave and unapologetic
Wow yes thanks for this, it’s a conversation friends and I have often about the culture of our small and rather image-focused (image in the sense of detached-‘cool’ that this video proffers) college campus. We pose endless analyses and solutions to this isolated coolness that has just as well frozen campus culture, and it time and again comes back to history - or our lack of perception of history. What do we do when standing for nothing was once political, but now we’re just standing for nothing and have sick outfits but can’t even strike up a conversation with the person next to us. Yeah I guess it all goes back to Vietnam. I’m a fan of this video, made me raise an eyebrow thank you.
Very thought provoking. Thank you.
I like the way you join the dots between Society + Art - not many people doing this these days.
Thanks!
Is this a skit?
Nvm I understand
I’m really curious as to how this series will continue
Excellent
Thanks!
If art is born of the society it has been created in, it is impossible for society to create a world in which the artist envisions. It feels that until the philosophy of society changes, the overwhelming majority of the art will not be any different than what it is now. It is only those artists that are able to think and feel critically and not get swept up by society that could possibly affect individuals with their art, hopefully creating a ripple effect into the world.
Props to the camera operator too
But isn't the context about the pigeons the part from the past the art is now interacting with in the present?
Please make another one that touches on contemporary art activism and the next emerging form of coolness and the socio political changes that make the state of art making with the coming integration of machine learning and arguments for decentralization and activism towards collectivity as opposed to individualized coolness.
sick vid, last point's spot on
Does this whole topic have much immediacy outside of Manhattan, though? Do you find it so?
Yes I think so. The ahistorical character of the present is a broad social problem that even extends beyond art.
@@TheYearbookCommitteeNYC The video is immensely enjoyable - just I'm not sure I thought so for the intended reasons.
"Show, Don't Tell"
I'd be curious what your take on Marfa is, specifically the Judd Foundation / Chinati stuff, of course...but the larger context, too.
@@_mixedsignals I talk about the minimalists in my new episode. I would love to do an episode in Marfa though too. ruclips.net/video/M6ClbD53pBI/видео.html
@@TheYearbookCommitteeNYC Looking forward to it!
My g
Woa
I shouldn't have to read about the art to get it.
What do i have left but to be earnest
Dare to be cringe!
Interesting assessment of the origins of cool. My own feeling was that it had roots in white beat writers aping black jazz heads. Per this analysis, their detached posture emerged from disenfranchisement and dissolution with white media and music-industry types that put them on a pedestal for their art while retaining control of meaning-making and money-making.
But in both cases it seems the self conscious detachment follows from an inability to parlay boundless artistic creativity into political or material change- a retrenchment into likeminded tribes isolated from the messiness and phoniness of a tottering empire
Yeah there's a definitely an argument to be made for a deeper history of "cool" that can be traced back to the Baudelarian flaneur of the 19th century. But Cool didn't really become the universal aspiration of youth culture until the 20th century.
@@TheYearbookCommitteeNYC smart
borrowed some notes from hypernormalization i see! and yes people have devoted themselves to a false concept of what is cool, while they utterly lack the notion of what made anything cool in the first place. and describing art sometimes ruins it
art
cool
Cool video, shoulda delved into the concept and philosophies of being cool historically coming out of Black American communities. "Being Cool" is jazz/jive slang. No speaking about the philosophy of something being cool in tis context without that history. appropriated by the Beatniks of the 50s, infatuated by BA art, life, slang and music. peace
Indeed and how the idea of being cool exemplified by a nonchalant or insouciant demeanor is an coping mechanism developed by black men living under a system of slavery and then segregation, where any display of emotion could result in punishment. Too happy, you must have done something wrong, to sad you are ungrateful, angry , you have no right to anger etc… American coolness emerged out of this environment.
Interesting
Oh
honestly I care ab out the pigeons o > o
KIRAC enjoyer?
I love Kirac!
🆒
so you must not be into conceptual art ,
History linear and circular. Past and present. Cool and uncool.
The camera moving up down, right left.. too much bro.
Again, none of this actually has anything to do with legitimate art history. Everything post 19th century art, with the exception of outliers remains absolute dribble dog shit. I like the fact that you criticize the prevalence of “contemporary” art having the press release as its crutch to legitimize its existence, because clearly the art can not stand on its own as an aesthetic object. But honestly 90% at-least of the work I see on websites such as CAD or art viewer are literal slop, that requires no attention to control/ understanding of form, light, line, nature, or expression. These are pivotal ingredients that render: art. Art is as some point observational, even if generated from the mind. Its origin comes from Nature. What these clowns make now a days: are largely un related to any semblance of the forementioned sentence . And its not even interesting to criticize, nor should it be criticized. It should just be abandoned, because criticizing it gives it more percieved legitimacy. Modernism - the movements there after post modernism etc and capitalism, completely destroyed “art.” Quoting 20th century french philosophers should never be a source for criticism of art, but are what unfortunately drives MFA programs. Academia, which unfortunatly snuck its dirty influence into the market in the last 100 years has altered the perception of the sheeple at the art fairs, the buyers, dealers, curators and institutions. The last relevant critics were those the likes of Baudeliare and even he was getting into the weeds amongst the coming of impressionism. The curriculum taught at these mfa programs are nothing short of dog shit and the schools themselves are ponzi schemes peddle-ing students with an incurring debt for 3 seconds of possible “success.” Yes, we know.. most art is now bad. Thanks for telling us again, I suppose its not obvious to everyone.. and its sad. Shout out to the Ateliers across the globe keeping the practice of art as a “craft” prevalent, because inherently.. thats what art is.. a craft.
The idea of Modernism emerged along with Baudelaire's writing in the 19th century. Modernism much like "cool" was a response to a historically specific social crisis. You are totally right about MFA programs, though!
The point that i’m making is that the social crisis began already after the point which the commercial market was destroying the legacy and legitimacy of craft in art. There really is no specific moment when modernism “emerged” it was only the shift from things being noticibly representational to non representational art that things really started going to the shit bin. People pin different artists as the father of modernism, but these are all opinions. Especially if its just regarding one form of art: painting. Was it Delacroix, was it Manet? Does it really matter who it was.. not really. Both great artists and painters but this is not the point.
Literature, and criticism are NOT art.
@@m.e.5313 You should really read Arthur Danto's "The End of Art." It might help crystallize some of your thoughts on this in unexpected ways.
kant
Tripe about tripe about tripe.
I want to watch more
Episode 2 coming soon!
I wish I was in a tax bracket or geographical location that allowed me to find this video relatable. But thank you for broadening my understanding of this world I will never be a part of 🥲
For Baudelaire the precondition for being a Dandy was having the leisure to not need to make a living for yourself. Lots of those people in NYC.