This definitely changes my viewing of this piece. I can engage it on the black- white tonal beauty but also for seeing the feelings of his family & culture, which I DO NOT SHARE. The irony of beautiful art created by a painter with ugly feelings & ideas.
The information you present is august and I always love to listen to it when I'm either painting on my easel or sketching on my drawing board. Keep up your fine work!
I saw his paintings when they were at the Clark about 10yrs ago. The book in the gift shop mentioned that he had a relationship with Oscar Wilde. Since it did not end well it is suspect that Whistler was a loose inspiration for Dorian Gray. Interesting Wilde would name his character Gray.
If we're to judge the works of people who lived many decades or centuries before us based on their personal takes on matters that weren't viewed as we view them in the present, there won't be anything standing. That's guaranteed.
Oh no ! I used to love that painting ! You are right : it does change my perception of it and I can't feel sorry for the fate of this cruel man nor his mother's. Thanks for having brought this to conscience. I would like to do to it the same thing Mr Bean did in the "Bean" movie by Rowan Atkinson, so all I would see is the "study in grey and black" and no human face. The movie is now even funnier in hindsight.
Even though Mr. Whistler was perfectly aware that his mother was a hideous old bat who looked like she'd had a cactus lodged up her backside, he stuck with her, and even took the time to paint this amazing picture of her. It's not just a painting. It's a picture of a mad old cow who he thought the world of. And that's marvellous... Well that's what I think.
Remember, Mr. Bean sneezed on Whisler’s mother's painting picture and used the tissue to wipe the marks off, but there was a mark on the painting because the pen ink was in the tissue, and the ink spread the tissue. Later, Mr. Bean used the Lacquer Thinner oil to wipe the mark off the painting. Unfortunately, the Laquer Thinner oil bleached the painting because the oil has a strong chemical. Furthermore, the lacquer thinner is made of crude oil; it can unfreeze the painting, boil it, and burn the paint on it. Secondly, Mr. Bean tried to wipe the bleach off the painting but accidentally erased the face of Whisler’s mother on the painting because the lacquer thinner oil made the painting bleach and burned the paint on it. Furthermore, wiping the bleach off the painting will erase the paint once you use the lacquer thinner to wipe the mark off the painting, and the oil unfreezes and burns the paint on the painting.
The meaning that I see here is that art distills the best from the artist, separating it from his (sometimes glaring) faults. The same applies to Richard Wagner, George Gordon Lord Byron, and many others whose works I enjoy but who I wouldn't want in my home.
It occurs to me that the confederate colors were blue and gray; that blue was also a color of the union armies; that the alternative designation for Negroes (from the Spanish word for black) is blacks. The defeat of the Confederacy to a racist Southern mind might suggest the surrounding of the pro-slavery population by black, either in its direct racial connotation or as a substitution for the perceived enabling "blue" Union victory, in either case, a "black" day for the slave system and its ideology. Or, perhaps, it simply was Whistler's art-for-art's-sake.
So perhaps the painting was a silent admission of the grief the Whistler family felt over the fall of the Southern Secession. A mother in Black, with Confederate Grey (or West Point Grey) behind her. Created by a man who conveniently found himself otherwise engaged during the conflict and then later spoke with flowery, insipid prose over the tragedy. Set against the background of the family history, this reads as an artistic representation of America’s “Lost Cause” movement. Whatever Whistler titled it, no artist ever creates art without infusing something of their world view into the work. Maybe he was unaware of his personal biases; or maybe he was intentional in his symbolic representation but hesitant to openly flaunt what amounted to Treason after the reunion of the States. Either way, I don’t know if he really belongs to the ranks of American artists, both due to his fleeing the nation and due to his loyalty to a Confederacy that directly opposed the central government.
I appreciate the research you pour into your videos, the composition, the thoughtfulness… I just discovered your channel last night, and I subscribed this morning ❤ I want to make one point that some might not agree with. It was the norm for white Americans to be racist in the 1880s. Not believing slavery should be legal is NOT the same as seeing black people as equal, and it’s helpful to contemporary people to make that distinction clear, especially since people still conflate the two.
This was at the Art Institute of Chicago in 2017, which I got to see as well as some of his other works. It's much bigger than I imagined. I remember going to see it before Mother's Day and was hoping to get a postcard of the painting to give to my mom. Unfortunately, the gift shop didn't have any.
My favourite bookstore was shutting its doors late last year and as part of my penultimate haul, I picked up a seemingly adorable miniature among others. It wasn't until two months later, on perusing the book that I learned what Thomas Carlyle stood for, as it contained excerpts from the cited work, though the title in this printing was even worse than the pejorative used in the video. With a flex nib and golden brown ink, I scrawled on one of the endpapers: 'Don't bother, Carlyle was quite racist.' Caveat emptor!
I love your videos, I always watch one before I begin to write my book. If I may, could you do an video about Hugo Simberg? Specificaly The Garden of Death, the painting always rent a space in my mind.
There is no separation. Breathe through the thought of it tumbles in your brain. The answer is no. Now go back to the joy of participating with the piece. And then, go on to enjoy the next....✌️💚☘️🍀 At the end of the day, God will do the separation, judgement and conviction. We...are still here, as is the art. Breathe. And enjoy.
I don't know what Whistler's intention was, but when I see this picture I see a widow who lost her husband and has no meaningful social connections only her son who painted this picture. She looks like someone who is wainting for death, but death doesn't come. It shows the loneliness of old age.
Sure are a lot of shades of gray. I don't think the discord link is active. I lost access to the channel after my attempt to sort out duplicate accounts failed spectacularly, and the code provided here is not accepted by the discord app.
in my opinion we have a duty to vet and check our opinions and beliefs properly before subscribing to them- are you an athiest? (Genuinely curious i have a point to make)
After learning the background, I think there is a subconcious internal to external expression of emotion here. The life is grey and not as vibrant as it was. The outlook now is grey for this womsn that grew up in the other. And, black os a color of mourning. So, she is in her grey world mourning the loss of what was.
I've always thought Whistler's titles for and descriptions of his paintings reeked of marketing. Perhaps it was just misdirection. I spent some time looking at this painting and thinking about it before watching the video, knowing nothing about the background you describe. What struck me was the resolute refusal of the subject of the painting to engage with the viewer, alongside the rectilinear, rigid composition and her stiff posture and terse expression. I saw someone holding the world at bay by maintaining a controlled personal demeanor and environment. Apart from the silly dopamine rush from having these thoughts supported by the history you describe, it makes me think about the difference between knowing a picture's story and being in ignorance when you critically examine it, and if we can learn anything from that difference.
The biography of this artist is a testimony to his skill as an artist. Whistler may not have attached any meaning other than the simple visual to his work, but his intent is itself irrelevant to the work. Whistler and his family may have been traitorous enslavers, but he was also a gifted artist and his work holds meaning that it doesn’t appear he was able to see.
there is and never can be such a thing as "ars gratia artis" (thanks MGM) art for art's sake is a refined and skimmed soup cooked up to try to justify ...well, I'm not sure *why* it became a trope. but it wasn't about art, I'm sure... you can't separate Caravaggio's violent life from his equally violent art. or Michelangelo's misogyny from his homoerotic art. or Leonardo's sublimity from his negatively aloof attitude to his fellow humans. the art is part and parcel of the artist, a product of *everything* that artist has learned, and has done, in their life.
Thank You - it is very gratifying to have someone acknowledge, albeit rarely, and all too briefly, the true meaning of art, namely the formal qualities rather than force art to be the slave of the causes du jour. Too bad that you just can't seem to leave it at that.
I have always found this painting very pretty. And that was even before I know who painted it or who is in the painting. To be honest it never really mattered to me. So I find that to me the artist achieved his goal. We are sometimes a bit too focused with meaning that we don't appreciate what is right in front of us. Even in this video we try to find meaning where the artist stated there is none. It's absurd to think that we don't believe the artist because such a famous painting can't be what it is without having an awesome backstory. Sure we can analyze it and it's okay to be curious but sometimes we will just overintellectualize things. I find we should enjoy art the way we enjoy music. It can make us feel good and make us move without even understanding the lyrics. We don't question the guitar or the drumkit. As long as it sounds right.
I wonder if it’s related to Barthes “Death of the Author.” Since it’s gained traction academically over my lifetime, we seem to want to put our own self into every piece of work. Having just finished a degree, I have been in courses where we were indeed asked to put our own meaning onto various pieces of music, creator be damned.
@@AlloftheGoodNamesAreTaken Thanks for your input. Death of the Author sounds intriguing. I will definitely have a look at it. As to putting ourselves in to it: I feel like it's just the art version of waiting for your turn to speak without actually listening. But I am aware I might have phrased this a bit stronger than I mean it. It's strange how we are so meaning-focused. We are trained to approach the arts (especially the visual arts) with a rational approach. Everything we do needs to be because of a rational decision to do so with a specific goal in mind. I paint too and feel that not everything is this rational from the POV of the creator (at least in my case). Sometimes it just feels right to paint a specific subject without knowing why at the time. Sure I can analyze my stuff afterwards and see a pattern and make up my rational explanation afterwards. But it would be a lie to say that I made that decision at the time of creation. What's your opinion on analyzing music that way you describe?
@@nenemydog You can find Barthes work free online. I understand what you mean about your art. As one who has only dabbled, that makes sense. In fact, I appreciated the idea that we were only supposed to be looking at color in this painting. I don’t think that gave it any less value. Regarding interpreting music through my personal lens that way, it was frustrating. Imagine taking an anti-war song from the sixties and justifying your opinion that it promotes the so-called “just war” theory in fundamentalist Christianity. Or claiming a song about lynching could be about anything else. (I got a poor grade for claiming that a song about lynching was exactly what it said. I was supposed to put my own meaning on it.) I am currently trying to breakdown Barthes idea, the timing of its publication, and how that has impacted my specific department (English Literature). But I don’t think that’s necessarily related to the video. Things like this do make me wonder if we all are looking for meaning in our own lives so much so that we insist that even the meaningless have meaning.
@@AlloftheGoodNamesAreTaken I have the feeling that it becomes easier to appreciate art for what it is when it is abstract in nature. Just like music (without lyrics of course). That's what must be interesting when standing in front of a big Painting by Pollock or Rothko. But people end up intellectualizing the art too. Often in the context of "I could have done that" or again the search for hidden meaning . I remember seeing an analysis of one of Rothkos works in which they took the painting and placed it within the artists personal timeline to make the point that he was expressing what he was experiencing because of these key events. While this could be possible I find it hard to be anything more than speculation. Just as you say about your music analysis. Of course there's better, more plausible arguments to be made but we can never be sure. Of course it can be interesting to analyze any medium through a completely different lens to give it new meaning. I completely agree. Projecting meaning unto everything is not always useful. It reminds me a bit of existentialist/absurdist thoughts in that aspect. @prettyDecentDude My point is not that art is meaningless. I think that it's not always the right approach to assume the artist had a very clear intention to begin with. Someone might paint a flower just for the color or shape and not think too much about the symbolic meaning of the specific flower.
@@Dimitris_Half The meaning may be that the artist finds the arrangement of gray and black pleasing, and nothing more. The reason the artist does something is not the sole or even most valuable aspect of a work of art. The most important value is the feelings and thoughts the work inspires in the viewer.
I have to say I disagree. I really think one should review these paintings the way Whistler intended. Those different shades aren’t boring at all. What he does is slowly step by step exploring our visual perception of the world and how much depth our mind can find in just two shades of the same color. To me this is quite amazing and much more existential than any family story could possibly be.
It's a shame that Whistler was born when he was. If abstraction was something he could have explored freely during his lifetime, he could have created completely original works that people don't have to work so hard to misinterpret.
Art for art sake, money for God sake. You may be a good artist without being a good person. Interesting video but I doubt I need to know more as there are so many other artists that are more important to me.
I don't know why you resist so much the formal aspects of a work of art. Why is it so difficult to appreciate them for what they are, why do you insist in bringing up "art for art's sake" as something of lesser esteem? To dimish the value inherent to the relationships between value, tone, composition and texture is to overlook one big (probably the biggest) characteristic of what makes a painting a painting. I did throughly enjoy your commentary here and the story you brought, but it seems like you are ignoring one big dimension of painting.
We as society are stepping into a new art epoch . Soon it will be obvious to the general public, that art isn’t constrained to a number of specific activities, like painting or music etc. The idea is the only “active ingredient”, that separates art from craft. Creating a pristine reproduction of Duchamp’s Fountain will be nothing but a urinal. Because it is stripped of the great abstract idea, that made it art, back in the day. The reason I think that the turning point in society’s attitude towards art is exactly now is because of AI generated content. Bare with me 😅 Any kid, who has fiddled with Midjourney etc, will not be impressed with a high quality picture of anything if the picture has nothing interesting to say. On the other hand a plain text prompt for a generative AI can be discussed for years without a need to see the generated picture
Study in antebellum racism. Really? Is that fair to his poor mother? Where goes the son, so went the mother? You didn't quote anything she said - probably nothing some old hag had to say was considered worth it anyway. It turns out she had a very interesting life but you would never know it because her famous son used her as a model. She has no voice, she sits in frustrated patience, the artist doesn't even allow her to make eye contact with the viewer, to at least make her case with a facial exptession. It's like he told her to sit down, shut up, and stare at the wall for the next week while I paint this sympathetic family portrait. Then 150 years later she gets berated for having a slave owning cousin or something. If we're going to start cancelling, let's start with androcentrism, man splaining, male gaze, I don't know, this is a rabbit hole that has nothing to say about this picture whatsoever.
This definitely changes my viewing of this piece. I can engage it on the black- white tonal beauty but also for seeing the feelings of his family & culture, which I DO NOT SHARE. The irony of beautiful art created by a painter with ugly feelings & ideas.
The information you present is august and I always love to listen to it when I'm either painting on my easel or sketching on my drawing board. Keep up your fine work!
I saw his paintings when they were at the Clark about 10yrs ago. The book in the gift shop mentioned that he had a relationship with Oscar Wilde. Since it did not end well it is suspect that Whistler was a loose inspiration for Dorian Gray. Interesting Wilde would name his character Gray.
Not gonna lie, my first thought was "is that the painting from the Mr Bean movie?"
The OG that wasn't messed up with a dick nose
wait is it? i dont remember
@@yunayunagi check out Bean and look up for his attempt to restore the art
The Canvas: We must always remember that the apolitical is the weapon of supremacists.
Us: Heh heh, Mr. Bean.
Mr. Bean
I agree 👍
Bean, 1997.
Thanks!
I thought I was gonna be clever and reference Mr. bean, turns out all the comments are bout Mr. Bean
If we're to judge the works of people who lived many decades or centuries before us based on their personal takes on matters that weren't viewed as we view them in the present,
there won't be anything standing.
That's guaranteed.
Agreed
Oh no ! I used to love that painting ! You are right : it does change my perception of it and I can't feel sorry for the fate of this cruel man nor his mother's. Thanks for having brought this to conscience.
I would like to do to it the same thing Mr Bean did in the "Bean" movie by Rowan Atkinson, so all I would see is the "study in grey and black" and no human face. The movie is now even funnier in hindsight.
Mr. Bean has forever changed the general public's perception of this painting
Even though Mr. Whistler was perfectly aware that his mother was a hideous old bat who looked like she'd had a cactus lodged up her backside, he stuck with her, and even took the time to paint this amazing picture of her. It's not just a painting. It's a picture of a mad old cow who he thought the world of. And that's marvellous... Well that's what I think.
👏👏
Bravo, bravo! I learnt a lot from your speech. Thank you, Dr. Bean~!
Mr Bean first comes to mind.
Remember, Mr. Bean sneezed on Whisler’s mother's painting picture and used the tissue to wipe the marks off, but there was a mark on the painting because the pen ink was in the tissue, and the ink spread the tissue. Later, Mr. Bean used the Lacquer Thinner oil to wipe the mark off the painting. Unfortunately, the Laquer Thinner oil bleached the painting because the oil has a strong chemical. Furthermore, the lacquer thinner is made of crude oil; it can unfreeze the painting, boil it, and burn the paint on it. Secondly, Mr. Bean tried to wipe the bleach off the painting but accidentally erased the face of Whisler’s mother on the painting because the lacquer thinner oil made the painting bleach and burned the paint on it. Furthermore, wiping the bleach off the painting will erase the paint once you use the lacquer thinner to wipe the mark off the painting, and the oil unfreezes and burns the paint on the painting.
Unfortunately, the Mr Bean film and thus modern culture's memory of this painting, omits the original title and intent of the artist
1. It's quite big
2. It's a picture of Whistler's Mother
Mr. Bean = modern culture
No, the film enhanced the cultural impact of this painting.
“… The identity of the sitter isn’t important. Let yourself be moved by the shades. …”
Nonsense. Mr. Bean elevated this piece.
Thanks for finally making this painting interesting to me
It can be hard separating the art from the artist. I think specifically of Kevin Spacey, who's films I love.
He was found not guilty at the end of the trial. Plenty of reprehensible people in "Tinseltown"
@@zetectic7968Interesting take. Sounds like the FBI needs to check your hard drive.
It is. When I see something with Kevin Spacey in it, I can't help looking at him in the light of his crimes.
The meaning that I see here is that art distills the best from the artist, separating it from his (sometimes glaring) faults. The same applies to Richard Wagner, George Gordon Lord Byron, and many others whose works I enjoy but who I wouldn't want in my home.
B E A N
The mother painting was in Musée d’Orsay. Just saw the painting last month
It occurs to me that the confederate colors were blue and gray; that blue was also a color of the union armies; that the alternative designation for Negroes (from the Spanish word for black) is blacks. The defeat of the Confederacy to a racist Southern mind might suggest the surrounding of the pro-slavery population by black, either in its direct racial connotation or as a substitution for the perceived enabling "blue" Union victory, in either case, a "black" day for the slave system and its ideology. Or, perhaps, it simply was Whistler's art-for-art's-sake.
She lived and died by strict morals she wasn't sure that she ever believed in
So perhaps the painting was a silent admission of the grief the Whistler family felt over the fall of the Southern Secession. A mother in Black, with Confederate Grey (or West Point Grey) behind her. Created by a man who conveniently found himself otherwise engaged during the conflict and then later spoke with flowery, insipid prose over the tragedy.
Set against the background of the family history, this reads as an artistic representation of America’s “Lost Cause” movement. Whatever Whistler titled it, no artist ever creates art without infusing something of their world view into the work. Maybe he was unaware of his personal biases; or maybe he was intentional in his symbolic representation but hesitant to openly flaunt what amounted to Treason after the reunion of the States.
Either way, I don’t know if he really belongs to the ranks of American artists, both due to his fleeing the nation and due to his loyalty to a Confederacy that directly opposed the central government.
I appreciate the research you pour into your videos, the composition, the thoughtfulness… I just discovered your channel last night, and I subscribed this morning ❤
I want to make one point that some might not agree with. It was the norm for white Americans to be racist in the 1880s. Not believing slavery should be legal is NOT the same as seeing black people as equal, and it’s helpful to contemporary people to make that distinction clear, especially since people still conflate the two.
This was at the Art Institute of Chicago in 2017, which I got to see as well as some of his other works. It's much bigger than I imagined. I remember going to see it before Mother's Day and was hoping to get a postcard of the painting to give to my mom. Unfortunately, the gift shop didn't have any.
My favourite bookstore was shutting its doors late last year and as part of my penultimate haul, I picked up a seemingly adorable miniature among others. It wasn't until two months later, on perusing the book that I learned what Thomas Carlyle stood for, as it contained excerpts from the cited work, though the title in this printing was even worse than the pejorative used in the video. With a flex nib and golden brown ink, I scrawled on one of the endpapers: 'Don't bother, Carlyle was quite racist.' Caveat emptor!
Whistler is NOT IN MY PANTHEON.
What a sophomoric analysis
He neglected to even mention the size of the painting
I love your videos, I always watch one before I begin to write my book. If I may, could you do an video about Hugo Simberg? Specificaly The Garden of Death, the painting always rent a space in my mind.
There is no separation. Breathe through the thought of it tumbles in your brain. The answer is no. Now go back to the joy of participating with the piece. And then, go on to enjoy the next....✌️💚☘️🍀 At the end of the day, God will do the separation, judgement and conviction. We...are still here, as is the art. Breathe. And enjoy.
excellent essay 👍
I don't know what Whistler's intention was, but when I see this picture I see a widow who lost her husband and has no meaningful social connections only her son who painted this picture. She looks like someone who is wainting for death, but death doesn't come. It shows the loneliness of old age.
Sure are a lot of shades of gray.
I don't think the discord link is active. I lost access to the channel after my attempt to sort out duplicate accounts failed spectacularly, and the code provided here is not accepted by the discord app.
This is why I have a fear of looking into the past of my favorite creatives. I had no idea that he was a Confederate.
I had no idea he was queer
in my opinion we have a duty to vet and check our opinions and beliefs properly before subscribing to them- are you an athiest? (Genuinely curious i have a point to make)
@@timothyodeyale6565 you know what they say about opinions.
After learning the background, I think there is a subconcious internal to external expression of emotion here. The life is grey and not as vibrant as it was. The outlook now is grey for this womsn that grew up in the other. And, black os a color of mourning. So, she is in her grey world mourning the loss of what was.
So love your essays
thank you
I've always thought Whistler's titles for and descriptions of his paintings reeked of marketing. Perhaps it was just misdirection. I spent some time looking at this painting and thinking about it before watching the video, knowing nothing about the background you describe. What struck me was the resolute refusal of the subject of the painting to engage with the viewer, alongside the rectilinear, rigid composition and her stiff posture and terse expression. I saw someone holding the world at bay by maintaining a controlled personal demeanor and environment. Apart from the silly dopamine rush from having these thoughts supported by the history you describe, it makes me think about the difference between knowing a picture's story and being in ignorance when you critically examine it, and if we can learn anything from that difference.
One of the best videos you've ever made
Ah, but the real question is, what was he always whistling, that people called him that...
Excellent video, ce serait intéressant que vous documentiez un artiste canadien.
Kent Monkman, perhaps?
The biography of this artist is a testimony to his skill as an artist. Whistler may not have attached any meaning other than the simple visual to his work, but his intent is itself irrelevant to the work.
Whistler and his family may have been traitorous enslavers, but he was also a gifted artist and his work holds meaning that it doesn’t appear he was able to see.
there is and never can be such a thing as "ars gratia artis" (thanks MGM)
art for art's sake is a refined and skimmed soup cooked up to try to justify
...well, I'm not sure *why* it became a trope.
but it wasn't about art, I'm sure...
you can't separate Caravaggio's violent life from his equally violent art.
or Michelangelo's misogyny from his homoerotic art.
or Leonardo's sublimity from his negatively aloof attitude to his fellow humans.
the art is part and parcel of the artist, a product of *everything* that artist has learned,
and has done, in their life.
Thank You - it is very gratifying to have someone acknowledge, albeit rarely, and all too briefly, the true meaning of art, namely the formal qualities rather than force art to be the slave of the causes du jour. Too bad that you just can't seem to leave it at that.
I have always found this painting very pretty. And that was even before I know who painted it or who is in the painting. To be honest it never really mattered to me. So I find that to me the artist achieved his goal. We are sometimes a bit too focused with meaning that we don't appreciate what is right in front of us. Even in this video we try to find meaning where the artist stated there is none. It's absurd to think that we don't believe the artist because such a famous painting can't be what it is without having an awesome backstory. Sure we can analyze it and it's okay to be curious but sometimes we will just overintellectualize things. I find we should enjoy art the way we enjoy music. It can make us feel good and make us move without even understanding the lyrics. We don't question the guitar or the drumkit. As long as it sounds right.
I wonder if it’s related to Barthes “Death of the Author.” Since it’s gained traction academically over my lifetime, we seem to want to put our own self into every piece of work. Having just finished a degree, I have been in courses where we were indeed asked to put our own meaning onto various pieces of music, creator be damned.
@@AlloftheGoodNamesAreTaken Thanks for your input. Death of the Author sounds intriguing. I will definitely have a look at it.
As to putting ourselves in to it: I feel like it's just the art version of waiting for your turn to speak without actually listening. But I am aware I might have phrased this a bit stronger than I mean it.
It's strange how we are so meaning-focused. We are trained to approach the arts (especially the visual arts) with a rational approach. Everything we do needs to be because of a rational decision to do so with a specific goal in mind. I paint too and feel that not everything is this rational from the POV of the creator (at least in my case). Sometimes it just feels right to paint a specific subject without knowing why at the time. Sure I can analyze my stuff afterwards and see a pattern and make up my rational explanation afterwards. But it would be a lie to say that I made that decision at the time of creation.
What's your opinion on analyzing music that way you describe?
@@nenemydog You can find Barthes work free online.
I understand what you mean about your art. As one who has only dabbled, that makes sense. In fact, I appreciated the idea that we were only supposed to be looking at color in this painting. I don’t think that gave it any less value.
Regarding interpreting music through my personal lens that way, it was frustrating. Imagine taking an anti-war song from the sixties and justifying your opinion that it promotes the so-called “just war” theory in fundamentalist Christianity. Or claiming a song about lynching could be about anything else. (I got a poor grade for claiming that a song about lynching was exactly what it said. I was supposed to put my own meaning on it.)
I am currently trying to breakdown Barthes idea, the timing of its publication, and how that has impacted my specific department (English Literature). But I don’t think that’s necessarily related to the video.
Things like this do make me wonder if we all are looking for meaning in our own lives so much so that we insist that even the meaningless have meaning.
@@AlloftheGoodNamesAreTaken I have the feeling that it becomes easier to appreciate art for what it is when it is abstract in nature. Just like music (without lyrics of course). That's what must be interesting when standing in front of a big Painting by Pollock or Rothko. But people end up intellectualizing the art too. Often in the context of "I could have done that" or again the search for hidden meaning . I remember seeing an analysis of one of Rothkos works in which they took the painting and placed it within the artists personal timeline to make the point that he was expressing what he was experiencing because of these key events. While this could be possible I find it hard to be anything more than speculation. Just as you say about your music analysis. Of course there's better, more plausible arguments to be made but we can never be sure.
Of course it can be interesting to analyze any medium through a completely different lens to give it new meaning.
I completely agree. Projecting meaning unto everything is not always useful. It reminds me a bit of existentialist/absurdist thoughts in that aspect.
@prettyDecentDude
My point is not that art is meaningless. I think that it's not always the right approach to assume the artist had a very clear intention to begin with. Someone might paint a flower just for the color or shape and not think too much about the symbolic meaning of the specific flower.
@@Dimitris_Half The meaning may be that the artist finds the arrangement of gray and black pleasing, and nothing more. The reason the artist does something is not the sole or even most valuable aspect of a work of art. The most important value is the feelings and thoughts the work inspires in the viewer.
but isn't that a poster?
The original is in Mr. Bean's house.
❤
I always thought Whistler was overrated.
Who knew?
I have to say I disagree.
I really think one should review these paintings the way Whistler intended.
Those different shades aren’t boring at all. What he does is slowly step by step exploring our visual perception of the world and how much depth our mind can find in just two shades of the same color. To me this is quite amazing and much more existential than any family story could possibly be.
So…basically. Whistler was a douche
It's a shame that Whistler was born when he was. If abstraction was something he could have explored freely during his lifetime, he could have created completely original works that people don't have to work so hard to misinterpret.
Art for art sake, money for God sake.
You may be a good artist without being a good person.
Interesting video but I doubt I need to know more as there are so many other artists that are more important to me.
I don't know why you resist so much the formal aspects of a work of art. Why is it so difficult to appreciate them for what they are, why do you insist in bringing up "art for art's sake" as something of lesser esteem? To dimish the value inherent to the relationships between value, tone, composition and texture is to overlook one big (probably the biggest) characteristic of what makes a painting a painting. I did throughly enjoy your commentary here and the story you brought, but it seems like you are ignoring one big dimension of painting.
This may be the most boring title of a video on this channel
sometimes, meaning is irrelevant
We as society are stepping into a new art epoch . Soon it will be obvious to the general public, that art isn’t constrained to a number of specific activities, like painting or music etc. The idea is the only “active ingredient”, that separates art from craft.
Creating a pristine reproduction of Duchamp’s Fountain will be nothing but a urinal. Because it is stripped of the great abstract idea, that made it art, back in the day.
The reason I think that the turning point in society’s attitude towards art is exactly now is because of AI generated content. Bare with me 😅
Any kid, who has fiddled with Midjourney etc, will not be impressed with a high quality picture of anything if the picture has nothing interesting to say.
On the other hand a plain text prompt for a generative AI can be discussed for years without a need to see the generated picture
I enjoyed this video, but it's weird how people treat the term Negro as a slur now. I dated, sure, but I never saw it as a slur.
Totally indifferent to the backstory.
Study in antebellum racism. Really? Is that fair to his poor mother? Where goes the son, so went the mother? You didn't quote anything she said - probably nothing some old hag had to say was considered worth it anyway. It turns out she had a very interesting life but you would never know it because her famous son used her as a model. She has no voice, she sits in frustrated patience, the artist doesn't even allow her to make eye contact with the viewer, to at least make her case with a facial exptession. It's like he told her to sit down, shut up, and stare at the wall for the next week while I paint this sympathetic family portrait. Then 150 years later she gets berated for having a slave owning cousin or something. If we're going to start cancelling, let's start with androcentrism, man splaining, male gaze, I don't know, this is a rabbit hole that has nothing to say about this picture whatsoever.
1st
This is kinda surface level and dumb lmao