Thank you for taking pain and make the English and making it available to wider audience. I know it must be hour of work to subtitle it. Well, you’ve chosen interesting topic to tackle. And made it simple to understand. To certain points. For fuller understanding it would be interesting, though, to discuss in the first place the original Plato’s theory in more details. To mention what he was talking about when he talked about “art”. The idea of mutual influence of art and reality, in an unending chain reality-->art-->reality-->… (you didn’t mention it but I think it is understood that this chain can go on endlessly) is in a way you developed a build-up on the original Plato’s theory. But there is good way to support this build-up by focusing more on the Plato’s philosophy itself, especially since you mentioned cave metaphor and his theory of ideas in one of videos previous. The main question, when we talk about Plato’s attitude about art cannot be separated from this theory of ideas. Because the dispute in ancient Greece was partially discussion not about whether art is mimicking the reality or not, but what is reality itself. Or to reformulate it, how’s art relating to truth? It is important to notice that for Plato, what artist mimic is not the truth, but already the mimic of truth. (since the objects artist takes from the “real” word are just the shadows, or the copies of the ideas of those object, which are in turn the only truth/reality. In that way the world we see around us, and works of art would be both just the two levels of the copy of reality, i. e. in qualitatively the same relationship to truth. We must bear this in mind when we pose the question: is art copying the reality? And, is reality copying the art sometime? Without strictly defining what is “reality” in Plato’s sense, we cannot understand the theory properly. Validity of applying that theory to modern art forms, and trying to explain mutual influence of reality and art based on this theory will be dependent on the fully understood Plato’s ontology. If we fail one, we’ll fail the other. Let me turn to your examples of mutual influence of reality and art. You pointed it right: art very often influences reality. Sometime it is in substantial way (as when engaged movie provokes political changes and the fight for better or more just society) and sometimes in just banal way (I’m wearing dolce vita sweater while writing this). But to talk about this in the context of mimesis is a huge step forward from methodological point of view. I don’t think that it is irrelevant what forms of art Plato (and other ancient philosophers for that matter) had in mind when he discussed it. Your examples are good and easily understandable. But we cannot test the theory really on it. You should discuss it (if you start from mimesis theory and end up in explaining that art is copying reality, but also vice versa some time) on more appropriate art form. That would be interesting. For example, try to discuss that beautiful Van Gogh’s “Artist’s bedroom” behind you from that point of view. Show us how this is mimicking the reality and in what way it can also be the role model for the next level of reality. I think it could be done easily, same as you did with movie examples, but it would be more appropriate considering your starting point. In fact, the whole series of mimesis theory would be very welcome. To make one video just about the core theory and then a few videos with examples from art of different genres and periods. That would be fun. In spite of my at the moment critical comments, I thank you for the clear and concise presentation of the very demanding topic. It is excellent starting point for discussion.
Oh boy, this is some comment! First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed critique. I agree that the mimetic theory cannot be understood/explained without fully understanding Plato’s ontology. But I made a video on this very concept so I didn't want to repeat myself. Also, one of the main reasons I started this channel was to talk about the narratives we as "homo fictus" create and thus change reality. To me it's not a far reach to use modern examples to explain the interactive formation of reality and narratives. Take the realists, for example. They did believe in an objective, observable reality and diminished the role of the narrator to be a mirror-holder. Yet what they did changed the world because that's what fiction does: give individuals a chance to be an individual and not be a component of the mass. But maybe I couldn't build the video right, I admit that. My videos aren't scripted so the fiction-building might be weak due to improvised speech. As for the painting behind me, it is a reproduction (or at least a humble attempt to it :) ) of Van Gogh with oil pastels. Expressionism is my favorite school in art so I'd be more than happy to talk about it and the way it affected reality. Thanks again for your comment and keep watching! Cheers!
@@herkesicinsanatPlease, don't be too humble. Your video was excellent and very well composed. And my comments are not an attempt to diminish its value. Quite opposite. You provoked some thoughts and that’s the most you can do in this medium and in scope of 12 minutes video. And anyway, making such a video unscripted is quite an accomplishment. Thank you once more. And just out of curiosity, when you talk about “reproduction (or at least a humble attempt to it :) ) of Van Gogh with oil pastels” does it is your attempt? Because if so, I’m really impressed. Congratulations! Expecting next video…
@@kresokrnic Thanks! I never thought you were trying to diminish its value, no worries there. I appreciate the critique and hopefully, I'll get better at composing my thoughts. To answer your question, yes, the humble attempt is by me and I'm glad you liked it!
Merhaba, fark ettim ki tesadüf eseri bulduğum bu video da ki saygıdeğer hocam, meğer okuduğum üniversitenin öğretim üyelerindenmiş. Bir gün kampüste karşılaşmak dileğiyle… Diğer kuramları da sizden dinlemek çok güzel olurdu✨
Merhaba, bir zamanlar buraya birşeyler bırakmış olmanın sürprizleri oluyor böyle. Edebiyat bölümünde ne zaman isterseniz çayımı içmeye gelebilirsiniz 😊
Hocam Anlatımcı eleştiri Yansıtma kuramını reddetmiş ve eserin dış dünya gerçekliğine tutulan ayna değil, sanatçının iç dünyasına açılan penceredir demiş. Bunu anlamadım yani dış dünya gerçekleri ve iç dünya olarak kastedilen kavramlar nelerdir?
Nasıl bir haftadır görmemişim bu videoyu?! Sizi ayrı, bu videoları ayrı özlüyoruz. İyi ki buradasınız!
Canım Semiha 🤗 Ben de sizi özlüyorum. Bir şekilde buluştuğumuza mutluyum ben de.
Yeni videoları dört gözle bekliyoruz hocam :)
Hocam,
Sizi burada gormek cok guzel. Bu guzel video icin cok tesekkurler.
Teşekkürler Emrecim. Seni de görmek çok güzel. Çok sevgiler 🥰
Hocam derslerinizi özledim yahu! Zaman ayırıp video çektiğiniz için teşekkürler, takipteyiz :)
Ne güzel bunu duymak, izlediğiniz için teşekkürler ☺️
Bizim baldan tatlı Hülya Hocamız.Nasıl özledik, nasıl bir bilseniz?
Nice presentation. Thank you!
Hocam sabırsızlıkla bekliyorduk🥰
Geç oldu ama yapabildim sonunda 😊
Thank you for taking pain and make the English and making it available to wider audience. I know it must be hour of work to subtitle it.
Well, you’ve chosen interesting topic to tackle. And made it simple to understand. To certain points. For fuller understanding it would be interesting, though, to discuss in the first place the original Plato’s theory in more details. To mention what he was talking about when he talked about “art”. The idea of mutual influence of art and reality, in an unending chain reality-->art-->reality-->… (you didn’t mention it but I think it is understood that this chain can go on endlessly) is in a way you developed a build-up on the original Plato’s theory. But there is good way to support this build-up by focusing more on the Plato’s philosophy itself, especially since you mentioned cave metaphor and his theory of ideas in one of videos previous. The main question, when we talk about Plato’s attitude about art cannot be separated from this theory of ideas. Because the dispute in ancient Greece was partially discussion not about whether art is mimicking the reality or not, but what is reality itself. Or to reformulate it, how’s art relating to truth? It is important to notice that for Plato, what artist mimic is not the truth, but already the mimic of truth. (since the objects artist takes from the “real” word are just the shadows, or the copies of the ideas of those object, which are in turn the only truth/reality. In that way the world we see around us, and works of art would be both just the two levels of the copy of reality, i. e. in qualitatively the same relationship to truth. We must bear this in mind when we pose the question: is art copying the reality? And, is reality copying the art sometime? Without strictly defining what is “reality” in Plato’s sense, we cannot understand the theory properly. Validity of applying that theory to modern art forms, and trying to explain mutual influence of reality and art based on this theory will be dependent on the fully understood Plato’s ontology. If we fail one, we’ll fail the other.
Let me turn to your examples of mutual influence of reality and art. You pointed it right: art very often influences reality. Sometime it is in substantial way (as when engaged movie provokes political changes and the fight for better or more just society) and sometimes in just banal way (I’m wearing dolce vita sweater while writing this). But to talk about this in the context of mimesis is a huge step forward from methodological point of view. I don’t think that it is irrelevant what forms of art Plato (and other ancient philosophers for that matter) had in mind when he discussed it. Your examples are good and easily understandable. But we cannot test the theory really on it. You should discuss it (if you start from mimesis theory and end up in explaining that art is copying reality, but also vice versa some time) on more appropriate art form. That would be interesting. For example, try to discuss that beautiful Van Gogh’s “Artist’s bedroom” behind you from that point of view. Show us how this is mimicking the reality and in what way it can also be the role model for the next level of reality. I think it could be done easily, same as you did with movie examples, but it would be more appropriate considering your starting point. In fact, the whole series of mimesis theory would be very welcome. To make one video just about the core theory and then a few videos with examples from art of different genres and periods. That would be fun.
In spite of my at the moment critical comments, I thank you for the clear and concise presentation of the very demanding topic. It is excellent starting point for discussion.
Oh boy, this is some comment! First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed critique. I agree that the mimetic theory cannot be understood/explained without fully understanding Plato’s ontology. But I made a video on this very concept so I didn't want to repeat myself. Also, one of the main reasons I started this channel was to talk about the narratives we as "homo fictus" create and thus change reality. To me it's not a far reach to use modern examples to explain the interactive formation of reality and narratives. Take the realists, for example. They did believe in an objective, observable reality and diminished the role of the narrator to be a mirror-holder. Yet what they did changed the world because that's what fiction does: give individuals a chance to be an individual and not be a component of the mass. But maybe I couldn't build the video right, I admit that. My videos aren't scripted so the fiction-building might be weak due to improvised speech. As for the painting behind me, it is a reproduction (or at least a humble attempt to it :) ) of Van Gogh with oil pastels. Expressionism is my favorite school in art so I'd be more than happy to talk about it and the way it affected reality. Thanks again for your comment and keep watching! Cheers!
@@herkesicinsanatPlease, don't be too humble. Your video was excellent and very well composed. And my comments are not an attempt to diminish its value. Quite opposite. You provoked some thoughts and that’s the most you can do in this medium and in scope of 12 minutes video. And anyway, making such a video unscripted is quite an accomplishment. Thank you once more. And just out of curiosity, when you talk about “reproduction (or at least a humble attempt to it :) ) of Van Gogh with oil pastels” does it is your attempt? Because if so, I’m really impressed. Congratulations! Expecting next video…
@@kresokrnic Thanks! I never thought you were trying to diminish its value, no worries there. I appreciate the critique and hopefully, I'll get better at composing my thoughts. To answer your question, yes, the humble attempt is by me and I'm glad you liked it!
Merhaba, fark ettim ki tesadüf eseri bulduğum bu video da ki saygıdeğer hocam, meğer okuduğum üniversitenin öğretim üyelerindenmiş. Bir gün kampüste karşılaşmak dileğiyle… Diğer kuramları da sizden dinlemek çok güzel olurdu✨
Merhaba, bir zamanlar buraya birşeyler bırakmış olmanın sürprizleri oluyor böyle. Edebiyat bölümünde ne zaman isterseniz çayımı içmeye gelebilirsiniz 😊
Hocam Anlatımcı eleştiri Yansıtma kuramını reddetmiş ve eserin dış dünya gerçekliğine tutulan ayna değil, sanatçının iç dünyasına açılan penceredir demiş. Bunu anlamadım yani dış dünya gerçekleri ve iç dünya olarak kastedilen kavramlar nelerdir?
2023 YKS 11. soru
Canlı dersten gelenler🥰