Aesthetics....I've been waiting for this video for so long. Art to me is an expression of emotions, or an object that triggers emotion. For instance, when you are feeling particularly sad you might paint a canvas dark depressing colors. And while you're sad, you might find that you're drawn to pieces of art with those same depressing undertones. I think that when I find something aesthetically pleasing it is because I identify with the emotions of that piece, in that moment. To me art is raw human expression.... And how others identify with it. *drops mic*
Lots of masterpieces we know well and appreciate today have history for which we value them in a considerable degree. There wouldn't be such hype today around Mona Lisa, for example, if it wasn't stolen in 1911. Same goes for a scandal around Golden Adele. From a different point of view we tend to pay attention on new tendencies such as modernism and abstractionism as there were a huge deal at least at the start. Also there is a symbolism that attaches to a certain age and so on and so on. I think while the chain on the cat is not a part of an artwork, it is now a part of a narration that is more than an art itself. Four similar red canvases have more of a value when they placed side by side on a wall so we have much richer problematics then if those were placed apart. So basically my point is that we label some aesthetic object "piece of art" if we consider certain value on it. That is the narration in a piece as well as the whole story behind it.
I think it's also important to distinguish the question 'What is art?' from the question 'What is *good* art?'. The solid red canvas, for example can be art, whether or not it was intended to be so by whoever made it and its context, but it also might not be very good at the purpose of being art, depending on its construction, presentation, and even audience. Amid a group of 'art nerds' (folks who are deeply interested in and passionate about the subject of art), they could debate all day whether the Red Painting was 'good' art, but they'd probably all agree that it's at least 'being art', for some consistent definition of that term. Further, if natural beauty can exist as a form of art, then we must conclude that art does not require intention; that something can be art, whether or not it is 'created to be art'.
When the light of a newborn sun first fell on Eden's green and gold, Our father, Adam, sat 'neath the tree and scratched with a stick in the mold. And the first crude sketch the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart, 'Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, but is it Art?" - Rudyard Kipling
"He said that when we think about art, we should take care not to confuse the question, “Do I like it?” with the question, “Is it good?” Hume said that, as long as you’re being honest, you can’t be wrong about whether or not you like something. Because that’s totally subjective. But, the question of “Is it good?” is another matter entirely." ~Crash Course Philosophy #30
The truth is, that everything in the world has its own sense of beauty. And the artist senses the beauty and appreciate them aesthetically. And the art itself is just a way that the artist perceived the beauty at the time and try to record this sense of aesthetic appreciation as best as he could.
Personally, I think that aesthetic appreciation is an evolutionary adaptation that allows us to inherently be drawn towards that which might help us be more efficiently equipped to survive; this might also have been how language had begun to exist. I think it started with an appreciation for good tasting food; this eventually would create an aesthetic bias for both gustation [taste] & the food itself. Perhaps over time, food being visually pleasing might have evolved into the outside world being so as well; perhaps from the food, to the surrounding of the food, and so on. This aesthetic appeal for "beauty" might have motivation some to be the first to draw what they thought was beautiful or useful-thus art is invented. Art might have turned into a sort of Proto-language. "This is good" or "this is bad" might have been the meaning of the very first drawings, even if not intentionally done so knowingly. At this point body language might have developed to something far more sophisticated and with more varying dimension. Grunts and hoots may have begun to develop as to explain in better detail what they were trying to say about these drawings and their environment. Thus, after a great deal of time, verbal language emerges. Then, to better explain their art, their art itself became more sophisticated and efficient. Perhaps this is how written language emerged...🤔
In the painting example, the difference is the story and therefore the art is the story, not the physical painting itself. Part of aesthetics needs to be an understanding that context is what creates art. Squiggly lines on a page aren't writing until we understand language and give the squiggles context. Words on a page aren't a story until we read all of the words and relate them together. A story isn't art until we relate it to our lives and find some kind of deeper meaning that makes us feel the aesthetic appreciation. Art always exists in context and only exists in context. That's why a piece of art can have different meanings to different people, the context we carry inside us is different and thus each viewing of a piece of artwork is itself a different instance of art.
Hey CC I wanted an opinion on a theory of aesthetics that i've had for a while. I call it association aesthetics. Basically on the question of what actually is taste, what makes something look good, smell good, taste good and so on, I think in some part it is due to association. Let me explain, say a child feels the warmth of the sun on their skin and associates that pleasant physical feeling with that of the sun, then a painting of the sun reminds him of the physical pleasure he received when he first saw it. Saw also that a person first ate a burger when having a good time with his family, then the taste reminds them of the first time they tasted it and the enjoyment they felt at the time. etc. This way people are not wrong about aesthetics or have naturally different tastes but simply are the result of different experiences. What do you think?
I think art suffers from the same "problem" of communication, you have the message of the artist and you have what other people "hear" and how it's mind's (memories and experiences) are trigger by it.
As an enthusiastic ameteur artist I've thought about this quite a bit. I draw comic book influenced sci-fi/ fantasy art, and approach each piece from a purely analytical perspective as apposed to an emotiv one. I enjoy thinking about and playing with the way an eye naturally moves across a page or the different ways that the mind applies pattern recognition. You know as a way to keep myself entertained at coffeehouses. I feel that I have successfully made art when someone tells me a story about what they see in my work. Because that means I've pushed all the right buttons in their head, I have created something that invites perhaps a total stranger to tell THEMSELVES a story. A story that I never intended or even thought about because I was having all the fun playing with lines and shapes and tones. For me that is when my art is complete.
I believe everything has aesthetic and can be art. The amount of causal chains that led to x's existence is incomprehensible, and realizing that makes everything I witness an act of art. It is literally the creation of everything that has ever happened
The fact that Hank was talking about "little mistakes that others might overlook" while I stared disapprovingly at the animated bassoon that was floating upside-down.
I think about everything can be considered art if it amplifies a thought, feeling, emotion, memory etc. to the beholder. It makes a connection between what is seen or heard to what is felt. Soul food.
i think that wether something is or isn't good isn't objective. it's just a matter of colective subjectivism which agrees that to most people that particular artwork is good or not.
I personally believe that that "thing", that quality of art that makes us favor certain pieces more is pure emotion. In the rectangle example, it's entirely possible that one of the back stories will greatly appeal to you, which would invoke an emotional response whenever you see the red painting with that story and make you prefer that one over the others.
The most powerful artists are often the most innovative, making us question whether it's art or not, like Jackson Polluck's splatter technique, or Andy Warhol's paintings of soup cans and chom-choms.
The example of the identical red paintings is related to the old ship of theseus. In the case of the paintings the story about their creation is what holds their difference where the story of the ship is what creates it's consistent identity. Furthermore, this same issue relates to last episode with facts about "imaginary" objects. In short the whole reason we can have conversations about Harry Potter is the same kind of mental activity that we need to differentiate the paintings or call the ship of theseus the same ship when it returns to harbor.
I've been enjoying reading works on philosophy but aesthetics has thus far been avoided. I enjoyed this video and it has made me interested in aesthetics now.
I think art is defined not by intent but by the audience's experience. However learning intent can be part of the experience, hence the difference between the red paintings.
Just have to say that this was awesome! I am a student in literature, and as a part of my masters program I am currently reading philosophy, more specifically the ethics of science. This and the last episode is SO relevant to the essay I am currently writing. Thanks for everything and DFTBA!
we did an essay in highschool under defining what art was. and someone argued that anything can be art if we see it as art. another person argued that anything created by humans for more then a sticky useful purpose it is art. in both ways a pen can be art or a desk can be art if the designer takes into account colors or physical features. my teacher argued that theses views were reaching and wrong (although they still had passing grades) and that becuase pens and desks are not commonly excepted as art in there normal states that they are not art. She said that when she asked what was to talk about what makes something art and something else not art and that we were not suppose to argue that everything or nothing is art.
6:37 sums up what's wrong with the (+) plus/like option in Google plus. "do I like it?" / "is it good?" the dilemma you face when you see a post of a eulogy about a friend's mom. Do you like the beautifully put eulogy, do you dislike because you got sad, do you dislike because you hate the person or that person's mom or do you like because you hate that person or their mom but you like it because they are sad? it is tooo complicated! that is why i quit social media starting today. damn it.
For me art can created by artist to invoke emotions and inspire, to push others forward to make us think, what those emotions and thoughts are it is subjective but is was still an intent but also to show us his skill and how much work and hearth he put to perfect his craft, for me there is no difference between painting Ade by animal and sunset, they both can be pretty but still there is nothing behind it, just like sun didn't intended to look pretty the animal didn't put anything personal in it.
awww I'm an artist currently living in wine country in WA state...Right in the middle of the Columbia Valley...We have something like 200 wineries within 50 miles of our home...anyways, I always watch these but this was hit home...And we are beginning to be able to tell the differences in wine...It's true you can learn.
As I learned in art school, and always hold true, you can have all the intention in the world when creating art, but once you let it out into the world, there is no way to fully control how people view it or relate to it. The 4 matching paintings are totally equal unless you were told their back story and it means something to you. Like when people put tons of hours into renovating their house and believe it's simply worth more because they loved it, that means nothing to the buyer who is looking at it for the price, the location and if they personally find it aesthetically pleasing. Just because you "put so much into" something doesn't mean it's better.
I find aesthetics in things that normal people just take as purely technical string of numbers. Like nicely arranged timetables of trams and busses. Also, I absolutely did not choose my car by design, but purely by technical details, which after evaluating, gave me the best possible model. But if I could have a car I really want, nobody else would like it.
The chained cat is a perfect example of how we value and devalue art in the same instance. I like to think that the skunk is the artist and knows exactly what hes doing.
Maybe they should have covered the concept of the *Death of the Author* here since they touched on the subject of "art is something purposefully created by an author with a goal in mind." For those who don't know the concept is simple but quite important to our media obsessed culture, it posits that the intent of the author doesn't even matter and that your interpretation of the work is what matters. So the author could be trying to convey one thing and you draw the exact opposite conclusion and that this is valid. It has various implications, from a warning to authors that want to make a political point that they have to both present it well to avoid confusion but also that there is a risk they will understand the issue but choose the other side. And for readers it is a greenlight to make your fanficcy headcanon just as important as the original work :P
I really like Picasso cubism women. It was considered shockingly ugly at reveal. But i find it incredibly beautiful. And many people who copy the style of cubism perform it too technically with little actual expression.
The idea that art has both your subjective reaction and its objective quality making up its worth makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, if you only had subjectivity to go off of, then skills and knowledge of the medium wouldn't really have any meaning right? And at the same time, if we only had objectivity, art would simply mastery of that medium with nothing else-there would be a "perfect" way to execute each, and no other way could be valuable. Art would certainly lose value if it was all identical, just as it would if it was all made without skill. It explains why you might like "Sharknado" because of how it made you feel, despite the fact that it was a bad film in terms of technique. Or, how a child's finger painting could have emotional value and love expressed in it despite the fact that it was painted poorly. It even shows how a piece that has perfect execution can still fail to move its audience: why no company can find a perfect formula for producing winning movies, and how somebody can stare at a painting valued in the art world and feel nothing despite its objective quality. I can especially feel this in mediums like video games, which aren't really complete without the player-the piece is quite literally different depending on how the audience decides to proceed. It means art requires a balance of some kind between the artist(s) abilities to harness the medium and to pull from themselves and the world around them, to put something of their soul into it-a very human thing, which can't be done by a being without emotions, like a machine, without direction.
1:31 "Philosophers who ponder how and why aesthetic objects have such a hold on us, and what value they serve in our lives, are known as aestheticians". Then how come when I search the term "aesthetician", the only results are for skin and hair care specialists?
is that it for this course? I have never looked forward to anything on youtube until i found this channel. i was not fortunate enough (or smart enough) to benefit from humanities studies in higher education, but many of these videos have given me a great impetus for further understanding of what it means to be a person today. thank you to all who contribute to these productions, the quality always is up to par with the erudition of the themes. you always make my day.
Frankly to me none of the red paintings are art. I personally think art requires perceivable effort at the very least. I also think that art requires some measure of perceivable uniqueness. Some might argue that the history of the paintings distinguish them but then the paintings are not the art, the (maybe romanticized) historical recounting of their origin is the art, or at least closer to being art than a the paintings. I think the chained cat statue/statue of a chained cat is much more interesting, but I have no idea how to even begin to form a conclusive opinion.
Just finished CCP #31 and I thought the blenders with goldfishes were just dejavu. haha . I knew I have seen it before and confirmed it was here at 4:33 Marco Evaristti's blenders with goldfishes. LOL
Thank you very much, John Green and the others at _Crash Course_ Philosophy, for making this video! It is an interesting field if subject, this with aethetic art. I must confess that I am one of those people that are not particularly interested in art and do not have a good sense of art, which you talked about in the video. I do not like picture art or sculpture at all, I do not play and instrument and I seldom listen to music, but, as you said in the video, I do enjoy certain architecture and looking on picture of galaxies (like andromeda), neutron stars and other objects in space, so I am still a little bit interested. Also, I do enjoy your songs (like ‘The Universe is Weird’ or ‘Strange Charm’) and I have a favourite instrument: the piano. Thank you for making me think about what art really is. Before this, I though of art like pictures on the wall and maybe a sculpture here and there. By the way, if you say art also includes architecture, music and wine tasting, then what is the different between art and culture? Can art also be created by nature? Like, in my example, can a picture of a non-manmade object like a galaxy be art? Is the objects inherent beauty to us not art but the photograph art? Wow, philosophy is confusing...
Well, you say clearly yet there is no obvious answer, the discussion is obviously occurring. Few people would suggest that everything is art, where do you draw the line? Is excretion art? A rotting carcass? A random string of digits?
Okay but like, if you are informed of the backstory of a painting by a placard on the side that tells you the backstory, wouldn't that mean the placard is part of the art? So then they are no longer identical, and the art is really the story. Which, I mean, maybe that's "nonphysical" but it's written on the placard
I think there are two (or more) ways of determining whether art is good. 1: if it evokes a feeling in you. The stronger, more pleasant, and more memorable the feeling, the better the art. 2: If it evokes the feeling that the artist intends to communicate. That is why I respect post-modern art, even though most of it looks like trash to me.
How I define art: It must mean more than it is. It needs to represent something. If a painting of a boat, is just a painting of a boat; than its not art. If the boat had a deeper meaning, than it was art.
Interesting definition. Of course, that raises the question, who decides the meaning of something? Is it the creator? If so then if someone created a painting, but died before telling anyone what it meant, would we ever be able to tell if it was actually art? Or is it the observer, in which case certain things could be art to some people, but not to others? Personally, I tend to think that the observer ultimately determines the meaning of something, which is probably a reflection of my existentialist beliefs. However, I'm curious to know what you think.
Who decides the meaning of something? For example, if an artist splatters some paint on a canvas, and it reminds me deeply of my childhood and comes to represent that in my mind, is it art by your definition? When in that process did it become art?
That's kind of silly because no one knows what someone was thinking about when they made something, and even the author could just be lying about it. I would argue that the most recognized pieces of art that ever were didn't in fact have a deeper meaning, especially those made during the Italian renaissance.
I have good reason to believe that marijuana can help improve your aesthetic appreciation of art. In my personal experience I have noticed how the sharpening of my senses, caused by the psychoactive effects of marijuana, allow me to better perceive certain nuances which in my normal state of consciousness I would not have paid equal attention. If you are really interested in improving your capacity for aesthetic appreciation, I would recommend you to get high.
On the issue brought up in the thought bubble, history and the artist of that painting absolutely matters. It's why the orginal Mona Lisa or any other classical art is thought to be more valuable than any replica.
A question about the subjectivity of "do I like it?" and "is it good": Hume says we can't be "wrong" about whether we like something, though we may not be able to know/recognize whether it is objectively "good," but what if we CAN be wrong about whether we like it? For example, in Karen Blixen's story "Babette's Feast," a master French chef graciously cooks an elaborate feast for some repressed Danish townsfolk who normally eat only gruel and shun sensual pleasures. They taste the food, and the effects of its exquisite flavors are clearly "pleasurable," but the fact that it has this effect is to a degree, unsettling to them. Their moral repression and predisposition to reject pleasure and aesthetic appreciation at the very least tempers, possibly confuses, and perhaps even defeats their ability to even KNOW if they like the amazing food - letting alone the appreciation of its objective quality, they are even incapable of figuring out what "liking" it would even be, or mean. I bring this example up because we all subjectively learn to like or not like certain things, either by nature or nurture or some combination thereof, and so certainly the "liking" of something is more subjective than any objective criteria we give to examine the quality or ontology of a work of art. But if in fact we can be WRONG about what it even means to like something, is there something still objective (some small percentage) about enjoyment?
but what if I actually have no aesthetic appreciation.... I don't get enjoyment out of looking at a sunset, eating good food, listening to music, and I don't care if a stranger looks good or not.... I get enjoyment out of accomplishment and achievement, I get enjoyment from playing a game and having a good time or gaining knowledge. I like that "ah-ha" moment and the feeling of being smarter than I started out... is this normal?
Derpy Hooves I'd argue that an appreciation for art and developed sensory tastes are a part of learning. Do you know feel a sense of investment with book characters? A pang in your heart when JK Rowling kills XXXXXX? A hallejulah when the big bad is killed? That's enjoyment of something aesthetic. Intelligence comes in many ways, and developing your senses and aesthetic appreciation is only going to broaden your toolbox and improve your brain.
Can you please talk about how can art be art without being beautiful? Some art is shocking, some art is a frozen moment of time..etc. and if aesthetic value must mean beauty?
I feel this video is lacking. One of the most defining schools of thought regarding Aesthetics is Immanuel Kant, who opined that Aesthetic Judgement is derived from the effect it has on the observer, as opposed to the object itself, as well as an appeal to universality: everyone should be able to find aesthetic pleasure in an object for e.g. a small flower, something that requires no learning or taste in order to decipher as beautiful, or a Sunset (his examples, not mine); a thing cannot be aesthetic or sublime if there is no observer, therefore, all works of art are no more brilliant than a pile of dirt formed haphazardly in the event of a plague that wipes out humanity. A thing must be pleasing to all on some level. If somebody looks at a Picasso and says, "I don't get it", the said artist would say that it is because he does not yet understand, in much the same way that he himself does not understand written English. But then even the most dedicated of abstract artists recognise a Bellini or a Rembrandt as works of art that behold aesthetic value even if it is not to their personal taste, as do those that do not know a thing about Art (this might be due to preconceived notions of Artistry as opposed to a universal charm). This means Abstract Art lacks universal appeal, therefore, by Kant's estimation of Aesthetics, is non-aesthetic or rather, is Aesthetic Judgement exercised poorly, ergo unsublime. The Kantian view regarding Aesthetics is aimed not strictly at the definition of Art, focusing on the "Sublime", but I think having one more brilliant philosopher quoted and analysed would have greatly enriched this video's content.
I agree with Hume. Sometimes when I watch a film that I'm later asked to rate, I find that my "objective" rating is different to my personal rating. Sometimes they match, sometimes they don't. When they don't match it's usually because I've arrived at the film as an existing fan (of the franchise or the characters), so I might enjoy it more than its worth, or less so. One of Hume's criteria is freedom from prejudice; that sounds tricky but nonetheless we can learn to see things according to an external, agreed-upon criteria. It almost makes me feel hypocritical, but I know I'm not, when I say: "It's a poor film but I quite enjoy it."
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Hank's one spike of hair there is aesthetically intriguing.
Crash Course music theory, please make it happen!
*likes comment infinitely*
except I feel like I've already watched a lot of crash course-type music theory videos, and I still don't really understand it..
That is a good idea.
I wiiiish!
I second this... or whatever my comment may be.
Aesthetics....I've been waiting for this video for so long. Art to me is an expression of emotions, or an object that triggers emotion. For instance, when you are feeling particularly sad you might paint a canvas dark depressing colors. And while you're sad, you might find that you're drawn to pieces of art with those same depressing undertones. I think that when I find something aesthetically pleasing it is because I identify with the emotions of that piece, in that moment. To me art is raw human expression.... And how others identify with it. *drops mic*
Lots of masterpieces we know well and appreciate today have history for which we value them in a considerable degree. There wouldn't be such hype today around Mona Lisa, for example, if it wasn't stolen in 1911. Same goes for a scandal around Golden Adele. From a different point of view we tend to pay attention on new tendencies such as modernism and abstractionism as there were a huge deal at least at the start. Also there is a symbolism that attaches to a certain age and so on and so on.
I think while the chain on the cat is not a part of an artwork, it is now a part of a narration that is more than an art itself. Four similar red canvases have more of a value when they placed side by side on a wall so we have much richer problematics then if those were placed apart.
So basically my point is that we label some aesthetic object "piece of art" if we consider certain value on it. That is the narration in a piece as well as the whole story behind it.
I think it's also important to distinguish the question 'What is art?' from the question 'What is *good* art?'. The solid red canvas, for example can be art, whether or not it was intended to be so by whoever made it and its context, but it also might not be very good at the purpose of being art, depending on its construction, presentation, and even audience. Amid a group of 'art nerds' (folks who are deeply interested in and passionate about the subject of art), they could debate all day whether the Red Painting was 'good' art, but they'd probably all agree that it's at least 'being art', for some consistent definition of that term. Further, if natural beauty can exist as a form of art, then we must conclude that art does not require intention; that something can be art, whether or not it is 'created to be art'.
Exactly, no back story required.
When the light of a newborn sun first fell on Eden's green and gold,
Our father, Adam, sat 'neath the tree and scratched with a stick in the mold.
And the first crude sketch the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
'Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
- Rudyard Kipling
+
+
+
spitting like Kipling
with a tooth missing
"He said that when we think about art, we should take care not to confuse the question,
“Do I like it?” with the question, “Is it good?”
Hume said that, as long as you’re being honest, you can’t be wrong about whether or not you like something.
Because that’s totally subjective.
But, the question of “Is it good?” is another matter entirely."
~Crash Course Philosophy #30
Are bananas still chom choms?
what is banana?
Yes.
Bob Smith whats a banana?
yes, no worries, chom choms are still chom choms, why should it be otherwise?
I just assumed that they were called chom choms. Were they ever anything different?
The truth is, that everything in the world has its own sense of beauty. And the artist senses the beauty and appreciate them aesthetically. And the art itself is just a way that the artist perceived the beauty at the time and try to record this sense of aesthetic appreciation as best as he could.
I definitely wasn't born with good aesthetic taste
doddleoddle DOODIEEEE
Why are you here Dodie? That's so cool lol
You weren't born with good aesthetics period.
I'm sorry I didn't mean it.
excuse me party tattoos is the anthem of the century stop lying to yourself
DODIEEEEEEEEE
Personally, I think that aesthetic appreciation is an evolutionary adaptation that allows us to inherently be drawn towards that which might help us be more efficiently equipped to survive; this might also have been how language had begun to exist. I think it started with an appreciation for good tasting food; this eventually would create an aesthetic bias for both gustation [taste] & the food itself. Perhaps over time, food being visually pleasing might have evolved into the outside world being so as well; perhaps from the food, to the surrounding of the food, and so on. This aesthetic appeal for "beauty" might have motivation some to be the first to draw what they thought was beautiful or useful-thus art is invented. Art might have turned into a sort of Proto-language. "This is good" or "this is bad" might have been the meaning of the very first drawings, even if not intentionally done so knowingly. At this point body language might have developed to something far more sophisticated and with more varying dimension. Grunts and hoots may have begun to develop as to explain in better detail what they were trying to say about these drawings and their environment. Thus, after a great deal of time, verbal language emerges. Then, to better explain their art, their art itself became more sophisticated and efficient. Perhaps this is how written language emerged...🤔
Thanks CC, you've made third period that much more interesting
Now I want to know what third period is... DARN YOU CURIOSITY!
bet it's Philosophy
Probably
Or English, creative writing or literature.
+Connor Shea Prolly it's art. My school doesn't have a philosophy class. Maek me crie evrytim.
Hume was a badass at complicated philosophical dilemmas.
Have you checked Kant? Alos very badass at complicated philosophical dilemmas too, also complicated in his solutions for said problems.
In the painting example, the difference is the story and therefore the art is the story, not the physical painting itself. Part of aesthetics needs to be an understanding that context is what creates art. Squiggly lines on a page aren't writing until we understand language and give the squiggles context. Words on a page aren't a story until we read all of the words and relate them together. A story isn't art until we relate it to our lives and find some kind of deeper meaning that makes us feel the aesthetic appreciation.
Art always exists in context and only exists in context. That's why a piece of art can have different meanings to different people, the context we carry inside us is different and thus each viewing of a piece of artwork is itself a different instance of art.
Hey CC I wanted an opinion on a theory of aesthetics that i've had for a while. I call it association aesthetics. Basically on the question of what actually is taste, what makes something look good, smell good, taste good and so on, I think in some part it is due to association. Let me explain, say a child feels the warmth of the sun on their skin and associates that pleasant physical feeling with that of the sun, then a painting of the sun reminds him of the physical pleasure he received when he first saw it. Saw also that a person first ate a burger when having a good time with his family, then the taste reminds them of the first time they tasted it and the enjoyment they felt at the time. etc. This way people are not wrong about aesthetics or have naturally different tastes but simply are the result of different experiences. What do you think?
We all shared the very same experience back when we were babies, I mean breastfeeding. Yet, not all of like milk.
I think art suffers from the same "problem" of communication, you have the message of the artist and you have what other people "hear" and how it's mind's (memories and experiences) are trigger by it.
As an enthusiastic ameteur artist I've thought about this quite a bit. I draw comic book influenced sci-fi/ fantasy art, and approach each piece from a purely analytical perspective as apposed to an emotiv one. I enjoy thinking about and playing with the way an eye naturally moves across a page or the different ways that the mind applies pattern recognition. You know as a way to keep myself entertained at coffeehouses.
I feel that I have successfully made art when someone tells me a story about what they see in my work. Because that means I've pushed all the right buttons in their head, I have created something that invites perhaps a total stranger to tell THEMSELVES a story. A story that I never intended or even thought about because I was having all the fun playing with lines and shapes and tones. For me that is when my art is complete.
There is a surprising lack of ｖａｐｏｒｗａｖｅ related comments.
ａｅsthｅtic
ＳＡＭＰＬＥ ＴＥＸＴ
M E M E S
A E S T H E T I C
When macintosh plus 420 hits u hard like... " daddy more V A P O R W A V E "
I believe everything has aesthetic and can be art. The amount of causal chains that led to x's existence is incomprehensible, and realizing that makes everything I witness an act of art. It is literally the creation of everything that has ever happened
I agree.
The fact that Hank was talking about "little mistakes that others might overlook" while I stared disapprovingly at the animated bassoon that was floating upside-down.
Linguist who dabbles in Anarcho Syndicalism eating a banana = Nom Chom???
Noam Chomsky.
fuliajulia you mean, chom chom?
pity such a witty comment was followed by two stating the obvious.
What if he's a submissive and his French mistress puts cheese on the banana. Nom Chom's Dom's Fromage.
Your comment made me legitimately laugh in real life.
Oh I just hated that the square red paintings weren't square >< haha
I came down here just to find this comment lol. I was like "whyyyyy, though?" 😂
"We choose cars and phones and _shoes_ not SOLEly and sometimes not at all based on function." Pun intended?
Obviously not.
kicking myself for not catching that
this really gives me the boot.
Is a pun, art?
art thou is not smart?
Art can be produced by a machine, but the true idea of art can never be replaced by future technology. Art is our unique footprint on the earth.
"Complicated details that others might overlook." LIKE THAT THAT BASSOON IS UPSIDE DOWN?!
I think about everything can be considered art if it amplifies a thought, feeling, emotion, memory etc. to the beholder. It makes a connection between what is seen or heard to what is felt. Soul food.
i think that wether something is or isn't good isn't objective. it's just a matter of colective subjectivism which agrees that to most people that particular artwork is good or not.
I personally believe that that "thing", that quality of art that makes us favor certain pieces more is pure emotion. In the rectangle example, it's entirely possible that one of the back stories will greatly appeal to you, which would invoke an emotional response whenever you see the red painting with that story and make you prefer that one over the others.
The most powerful artists are often the most innovative, making us question whether it's art or not, like Jackson Polluck's splatter technique, or Andy Warhol's paintings of soup cans and chom-choms.
Art is the best argument for the human soul.
The example of the identical red paintings is related to the old ship of theseus. In the case of the paintings the story about their creation is what holds their difference where the story of the ship is what creates it's consistent identity.
Furthermore, this same issue relates to last episode with facts about "imaginary" objects. In short the whole reason we can have conversations about Harry Potter is the same kind of mental activity that we need to differentiate the paintings or call the ship of theseus the same ship when it returns to harbor.
I see that the room is getting darker and more immersive with each new episode.
"David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel" I LOVE the Monty Python references...
Yes! And at 4:11!
Except they got it wrong. It's "David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel"
I appreciate the aesthetics that are put into this Crash Course.
My bio teacher plays your videos and i subscribed right after :)
I've been enjoying reading works on philosophy but aesthetics has thus far been avoided. I enjoyed this video and it has made me interested in aesthetics now.
I think art is defined not by intent but by the audience's experience. However learning intent can be part of the experience, hence the difference between the red paintings.
7:45 I feel like I've grown to know this couple over the how many times they've been shown on a Crash Course episode
And Banana's are Chom Choms!
Just have to say that this was awesome! I am a student in literature, and as a part of my masters program I am currently reading philosophy, more specifically the ethics of science. This and the last episode is SO relevant to the essay I am currently writing. Thanks for everything and DFTBA!
we did an essay in highschool under defining what art was. and someone argued that anything can be art if we see it as art. another person argued that anything created by humans for more then a sticky useful purpose it is art. in both ways a pen can be art or a desk can be art if the designer takes into account colors or physical features. my teacher argued that theses views were reaching and wrong (although they still had passing grades) and that becuase pens and desks are not commonly excepted as art in there normal states that they are not art. She said that when she asked what was to talk about what makes something art and something else not art and that we were not suppose to argue that everything or nothing is art.
my aesthetic enjoyment: these videos
Came here looking for answers and now I have more questions :(
6:37 sums up what's wrong with the (+) plus/like option in Google plus. "do I like it?" / "is it good?"
the dilemma you face when you see a post of a eulogy about a friend's mom. Do you like the beautifully put eulogy, do you dislike because you got sad, do you dislike because you hate the person or that person's mom or do you like because you hate that person or their mom but you like it because they are sad?
it
is
tooo
complicated!
that is why i quit social media starting today. damn it.
For me art can created by artist to invoke emotions and inspire, to push others forward to make us think, what those emotions and thoughts are it is subjective but is was still an intent but also to show us his skill and how much work and hearth he put to perfect his craft, for me there is no difference between painting Ade by animal and sunset, they both can be pretty but still there is nothing behind it, just like sun didn't intended to look pretty the animal didn't put anything personal in it.
*sees a skunk painting*
I never knew I wanted this until now.
I don't know if I should count the T-shirt ad at the end of the video as a reminder that bananas are Chom-Choms
Life is art. Art is life. One man's garbage is another man's treasure.
I spent a whole paper talking about what art is. I don't even remember the conclusion I came to.
Thanks for the laugh of my day. I needed that.
awww I'm an artist currently living in wine country in WA state...Right in the middle of the Columbia Valley...We have something like 200 wineries within 50 miles of our home...anyways, I always watch these but this was hit home...And we are beginning to be able to tell the differences in wine...It's true you can learn.
As I learned in art school, and always hold true, you can have all the intention in the world when creating art, but once you let it out into the world, there is no way to fully control how people view it or relate to it. The 4 matching paintings are totally equal unless you were told their back story and it means something to you. Like when people put tons of hours into renovating their house and believe it's simply worth more because they loved it, that means nothing to the buyer who is looking at it for the price, the location and if they personally find it aesthetically pleasing. Just because you "put so much into" something doesn't mean it's better.
reason and rationalizing takes all the mystery, coincidence and personal feeling out of life.
So art nurtures those things back into our life, yes?
Being an arty type, I found this video very interesting. Good job :)
I find aesthetics in things that normal people just take as purely technical string of numbers. Like nicely arranged timetables of trams and busses. Also, I absolutely did not choose my car by design, but purely by technical details, which after evaluating, gave me the best possible model. But if I could have a car I really want, nobody else would like it.
Last time I was this early, chom choms were called bananas!
The chained cat is a perfect example of how we value and devalue art in the same instance. I like to think that the skunk is the artist and knows exactly what hes doing.
No one else saw the "Spirited Away" reference? I am disappointed in all of you
I, as an Intellectual always appreciate the *aesteTHICC* and beauty in PH
"I know it when I see it." Hanks one hair out from the rest!
If people can learn to appreciate something, and they come to same conclusion on it: it's objective.
Strong Mad just chilling on the shelf in the back ground.
Why haven't I found this before? This is GOLD. I enjoyed it so much.
Maybe they should have covered the concept of the *Death of the Author* here since they touched on the subject of "art is something purposefully created by an author with a goal in mind." For those who don't know the concept is simple but quite important to our media obsessed culture, it posits that the intent of the author doesn't even matter and that your interpretation of the work is what matters. So the author could be trying to convey one thing and you draw the exact opposite conclusion and that this is valid. It has various implications, from a warning to authors that want to make a political point that they have to both present it well to avoid confusion but also that there is a risk they will understand the issue but choose the other side. And for readers it is a greenlight to make your fanficcy headcanon just as important as the original work :P
I really like Picasso cubism women. It was considered shockingly ugly at reveal. But i find it incredibly beautiful.
And many people who copy the style of cubism perform it too technically with little actual expression.
HA! No-Face... the statue might be "spirited away"!! Bwahahahaha!! Good one! :-)
The idea that art has both your subjective reaction and its objective quality making up its worth makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, if you only had subjectivity to go off of, then skills and knowledge of the medium wouldn't really have any meaning right? And at the same time, if we only had objectivity, art would simply mastery of that medium with nothing else-there would be a "perfect" way to execute each, and no other way could be valuable. Art would certainly lose value if it was all identical, just as it would if it was all made without skill. It explains why you might like "Sharknado" because of how it made you feel, despite the fact that it was a bad film in terms of technique. Or, how a child's finger painting could have emotional value and love expressed in it despite the fact that it was painted poorly. It even shows how a piece that has perfect execution can still fail to move its audience: why no company can find a perfect formula for producing winning movies, and how somebody can stare at a painting valued in the art world and feel nothing despite its objective quality. I can especially feel this in mediums like video games, which aren't really complete without the player-the piece is quite literally different depending on how the audience decides to proceed. It means art requires a balance of some kind between the artist(s) abilities to harness the medium and to pull from themselves and the world around them, to put something of their soul into it-a very human thing, which can't be done by a being without emotions, like a machine, without direction.
Ha ha we get it A E S T H E T IC and V A P O R W AV E
I literally wrote a whole 2000 word essay based off the information in this and the next video, amazing work guys!
I'm always distracted by the wine drinking senior couple that appear in various episodes of various CC series. 7:46
I would agree with the notion "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
1:31 "Philosophers who ponder how and why aesthetic objects have such a hold on us, and what value they serve in our lives, are known as aestheticians".
Then how come when I search the term "aesthetician", the only results are for skin and hair care specialists?
Because they too are specialists in aesthetics?
is that it for this course? I have never looked forward to anything on youtube until i found this channel. i was not fortunate enough (or smart enough) to benefit from humanities studies in higher education, but many of these videos have given me a great impetus for further understanding of what it means to be a person today. thank you to all who contribute to these productions, the quality always is up to par with the erudition of the themes. you always make my day.
Frankly to me none of the red paintings are art. I personally think art requires perceivable effort at the very least. I also think that art requires some measure of perceivable uniqueness. Some might argue that the history of the paintings distinguish them but then the paintings are not the art, the (maybe romanticized) historical recounting of their origin is the art, or at least closer to being art than a the paintings.
I think the chained cat statue/statue of a chained cat is much more interesting, but I have no idea how to even begin to form a conclusive opinion.
Just finished CCP #31 and I thought the blenders with goldfishes were just dejavu. haha . I knew I have seen it before and confirmed it was here at 4:33 Marco Evaristti's blenders with goldfishes. LOL
I like Hank's small hair-antenna
Thank you very much, John Green and the others at _Crash Course_ Philosophy, for making this video! It is an interesting field if subject, this with aethetic art. I must confess that I am one of those people that are not particularly interested in art and do not have a good sense of art, which you talked about in the video. I do not like picture art or sculpture at all, I do not play and instrument and I seldom listen to music, but, as you said in the video, I do enjoy certain architecture and looking on picture of galaxies (like andromeda), neutron stars and other objects in space, so I am still a little bit interested. Also, I do enjoy your songs (like ‘The Universe is Weird’ or ‘Strange Charm’) and I have a favourite instrument: the piano.
Thank you for making me think about what art really is. Before this, I though of art like pictures on the wall and maybe a sculpture here and there. By the way, if you say art also includes architecture, music and wine tasting, then what is the different between art and culture? Can art also be created by nature? Like, in my example, can a picture of a non-manmade object like a galaxy be art? Is the objects inherent beauty to us not art but the photograph art? Wow, philosophy is confusing...
6:04 You can still have a *conversation* about a subjective topic, you just can't have a *debate* about it.
I got so happy when he said bassoon becouse I play the basson and not many people even remember it's an instrument
3:31
is that?... can't be!
*sigh*
*unzip*
abcefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
you know what it is
Sergeant Fidelis what is it?
@@srushtipatil6739 Harambe
I enjoy this playlist, philosophy is incredible for the mind's desire to think.
Clearly everything is art for different reasons. Silly debate.
Well, you say clearly yet there is no obvious answer, the discussion is obviously occurring.
Few people would suggest that everything is art, where do you draw the line? Is excretion art? A rotting carcass? A random string of digits?
This is simply fantastic.
Okay but like, if you are informed of the backstory of a painting by a placard on the side that tells you the backstory, wouldn't that mean the placard is part of the art? So then they are no longer identical, and the art is really the story. Which, I mean, maybe that's "nonphysical" but it's written on the placard
I think there are two (or more) ways of determining whether art is good. 1: if it evokes a feeling in you. The stronger, more pleasant, and more memorable the feeling, the better the art. 2: If it evokes the feeling that the artist intends to communicate. That is why I respect post-modern art, even though most of it looks like trash to me.
How I define art:
It must mean more than it is. It needs to represent something. If a painting of a boat, is just a painting of a boat; than its not art. If the boat had a deeper meaning, than it was art.
Interesting definition. Of course, that raises the question, who decides the meaning of something? Is it the creator? If so then if someone created a painting, but died before telling anyone what it meant, would we ever be able to tell if it was actually art? Or is it the observer, in which case certain things could be art to some people, but not to others?
Personally, I tend to think that the observer ultimately determines the meaning of something, which is probably a reflection of my existentialist beliefs. However, I'm curious to know what you think.
Who decides the meaning of something?
For example, if an artist splatters some paint on a canvas, and it reminds me deeply of my childhood and comes to represent that in my mind, is it art by your definition? When in that process did it become art?
How would you define a painting whose intention is solely to evoke an emotional response? For example, the Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas.
That's kind of silly because no one knows what someone was thinking about when they made something, and even the author could just be lying about it. I would argue that the most recognized pieces of art that ever were didn't in fact have a deeper meaning, especially those made during the Italian renaissance.
I agree somewhat. Art is something that invites interpretation and lets one see even something familiar, from a completly new angle.
I have good reason to believe that marijuana can help improve your aesthetic appreciation of art. In my personal experience I have noticed how the sharpening of my senses, caused by the psychoactive effects of marijuana, allow me to better perceive certain nuances which in my normal state of consciousness I would not have paid equal attention. If you are really interested in improving your capacity for aesthetic appreciation, I would recommend you to get high.
Wait are Chom Choms still the the yellow fruit we all "know"
+
True art is AN EXPLOSION!!!!!!!!!!!
Please make a video on Alchemy
Man, you really made me laugh, thanks! :D
that "elderly couple drinking a glass of wine" is becoming a running gag...
Art is a product of experience and human interpretation of sensory input. I can't see how it could be any other way.
Well said.
On the issue brought up in the thought bubble, history and the artist of that painting absolutely matters. It's why the orginal Mona Lisa or any other classical art is thought to be more valuable than any replica.
Aesthetic Appreciation: I thought this would be a video about Doctor Shini Somara.
A question about the subjectivity of "do I like it?" and "is it good":
Hume says we can't be "wrong" about whether we like something, though we may not be able to know/recognize whether it is objectively "good," but what if we CAN be wrong about whether we like it? For example, in Karen Blixen's story "Babette's Feast," a master French chef graciously cooks an elaborate feast for some repressed Danish townsfolk who normally eat only gruel and shun sensual pleasures. They taste the food, and the effects of its exquisite flavors are clearly "pleasurable," but the fact that it has this effect is to a degree, unsettling to them. Their moral repression and predisposition to reject pleasure and aesthetic appreciation at the very least tempers, possibly confuses, and perhaps even defeats their ability to even KNOW if they like the amazing food - letting alone the appreciation of its objective quality, they are even incapable of figuring out what "liking" it would even be, or mean.
I bring this example up because we all subjectively learn to like or not like certain things, either by nature or nurture or some combination thereof, and so certainly the "liking" of something is more subjective than any objective criteria we give to examine the quality or ontology of a work of art. But if in fact we can be WRONG about what it even means to like something, is there something still objective (some small percentage) about enjoyment?
but what if I actually have no aesthetic appreciation.... I don't get enjoyment out of looking at a sunset, eating good food, listening to music, and I don't care if a stranger looks good or not.... I get enjoyment out of accomplishment and achievement, I get enjoyment from playing a game and having a good time or gaining knowledge. I like that "ah-ha" moment and the feeling of being smarter than I started out... is this normal?
i feel the same way.
Yay! I'm not alone!
if you dont like all those stuff, you may have a serotonin problem (depresion).
I probably have depression, but I'm happier than I was, I thought I got over it.... oh well, I'm not suicidal
Derpy Hooves I'd argue that an appreciation for art and developed sensory tastes are a part of learning. Do you know feel a sense of investment with book characters? A pang in your heart when JK Rowling kills XXXXXX? A hallejulah when the big bad is killed? That's enjoyment of something aesthetic. Intelligence comes in many ways, and developing your senses and aesthetic appreciation is only going to broaden your toolbox and improve your brain.
Can you please talk about how can art be art without being beautiful? Some art is shocking, some art is a frozen moment of time..etc. and if aesthetic value must mean beauty?
the white album... weezer 10/10 Hank
truth is all negotiable and beauty is in the eye of the beholder
I feel this video is lacking. One of the most defining schools of thought regarding Aesthetics is Immanuel Kant, who opined that Aesthetic Judgement is derived from the effect it has on the observer, as opposed to the object itself, as well as an appeal to universality: everyone should be able to find aesthetic pleasure in an object for e.g. a small flower, something that requires no learning or taste in order to decipher as beautiful, or a Sunset (his examples, not mine); a thing cannot be aesthetic or sublime if there is no observer, therefore, all works of art are no more brilliant than a pile of dirt formed haphazardly in the event of a plague that wipes out humanity. A thing must be pleasing to all on some level. If somebody looks at a Picasso and says, "I don't get it", the said artist would say that it is because he does not yet understand, in much the same way that he himself does not understand written English. But then even the most dedicated of abstract artists recognise a Bellini or a Rembrandt as works of art that behold aesthetic value even if it is not to their personal taste, as do those that do not know a thing about Art (this might be due to preconceived notions of Artistry as opposed to a universal charm).
This means Abstract Art lacks universal appeal, therefore, by Kant's estimation of Aesthetics, is non-aesthetic or rather, is Aesthetic Judgement exercised poorly, ergo unsublime.
The Kantian view regarding Aesthetics is aimed not strictly at the definition of Art, focusing on the "Sublime", but I think having one more brilliant philosopher quoted and analysed would have greatly enriched this video's content.
I agree with Hume. Sometimes when I watch a film that I'm later asked to rate, I find that my "objective" rating is different to my personal rating. Sometimes they match, sometimes they don't. When they don't match it's usually because I've arrived at the film as an existing fan (of the franchise or the characters), so I might enjoy it more than its worth, or less so. One of Hume's criteria is freedom from prejudice; that sounds tricky but nonetheless we can learn to see things according to an external, agreed-upon criteria. It almost makes me feel hypocritical, but I know I'm not, when I say: "It's a poor film but I quite enjoy it."