I remember being at an art gallery when someone approached me and said, how do you feel about these. I said something like. 'well its interesting that youre supposed to derive meaning from the color stories, just colors being next to one another", so he said back, "And what is the meaning you derive from it?" and i literally could not answer him, lol.
Counter to that, the wall text at the NGA for the Rothko room does waaaaayyy too much lifting when it comes to imparting a sense of meaning by explaining Rothko’s life, depression, and “eventual suicide” after saying his works are meant to be viewed through emotion not theory.
Art is an expression of human communication. I'm certainly for it challengin the viewer... but if they're so challenged they can't make heads nor tails of it, that isn't on them.
Its not about controlling ideas, but nudging the marketplace of ideas in the desired direction. Thinking about it gives me the chills to be honest. I love this video.
Love it. The relation this collection of paintings has to government attempts to control our every day thoughts and actions sounds like a Dale Gribble fever dream made real.
Yeah, that’s what drew me to the story compared to, say, the Pollock one. Pollock feels like a rough draft of this same intent by comparison- and doesn’t include a “secret” gallery/collection.
I really love that Chomsky quote! There's a good argument to be made that it fits the exact philosophy of Twitter, in which there is a lot of debate but none of it seeming to really go anywhere as it's inherently limited by the system and the structure of the website.
Oh, yeah, for sure. And yet...Twitter is a relatively effective tool for a lot of things, and for some insane reason corporations are terrified of it and respond quicker there than on any dedicated customer service platform. The flip side of this is that you see entire news articles talking about "twitter outrage" and then the tweet they cite has like one retweet, 4 likes, and one reply. It's not designed for actual discourse, but on some levels it does occasionally get things done and start conversations. (now, as to whether those conversations go in healthy directions or are deeply prone to oversimplification and bad faiths readings due to the nature of the medium... well, you're right to point those out)
@@Rosencreutzzz I'm not sure, but I think you might not have even realized to (righfully) further confirm the OP in his contribution, as well as your personal (rightful) observations in the video. Chomsky's quote doesn't just equally fit Twitter's philosophy. The proces of mass media cherrypicking and enhancing fringe opinions to steer debates a certain way, sounds very similar to the dynamics trying to limit (artistic) expressions within a spectrum of acceptable opinion.
The Washington Color School sounds like the kind of thing that the SCP Foundation would create in order to contain, like, some sort of seriously mundane but still anomalous AWCY? project. Someone could probably write a whole skip for that.
I don't know if I disagree with Chomsky's quote at the end here, but Kraut's video about him definitely dumpstered my opinion about him in general. I digress. The algorithm tossed me one of your videos last week, and I've been hooked since the first. I look forward to more from you! But in the meantime, back to the steady crawl from oldest to newest...
Hi, not looking to start a flame war but I thought I'd mention that Kraut might not be the person you think he is. Tl;dr he was a right wing grifter for a while before his current UA-cam run. Fredda did an excellent video detailing this about 6 months ago that is worth watching if this interests you.
@@Austin-gj7zj Thank you for the video suggestion. I think it's very good and eye-opening. It's a pretty solid torpedo of Kraut's methodology. For what it's worth, I wouldn't know anything about Chomsky's genocide denial without him, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room for speculation and ulterior interpretation of the matter, based on the sources I've seen. The UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found ample evidence of deliberate genocide perpetrated against the Bosniaks, and we have blinkingly obvious documentation of Serb concentration camps indefinitely detaining Bosniak civilians. And we likewise have footage and written testimony from Chomsky flippantly downplaying the "genocide" as a "massacre", and the concentration camps as "refugee camps people could leave if they wanted". The exact evidence he's downplaying is available for anybody to watch on UA-cam, showing emaciated Bosniak men behind barbed wire, being led around by armed guards and too afraid to say anything about the conditions they are being kept in. I don't know how to hold this evidence without coming to the conclusion that Chomsky's just explicitly chosen to torque the facts of the suffering of countless thousands of people for his own selfish agenda, whatever it may be. Maybe he was afraid it would hurt his credibility and public image if he backed down. Maybe it was ideologically-motivated. Maybe he didn't want the evidence to undermine his criticisms of NATO. I just thought I should get that out of the way, for anybody who incidentally doesn't watch Kraut's video - a very fair decision. My valuation of Kraut is diminished, but my opinion of Chomsky remains where it was.
@@stalwort1692 thanks for taking my reply seriously, I came to the same conclusions you did when I found this out. I'm glad we could reach an understanding. The history you outline here is valuable. Two of my friends growing up were the children of Bosniak refugees and I know their stories well.
@@Austin-gj7zjI first heard of Kraut and Tea when he was promoting Islamophobia in Germany during the Syrian refugee crisis. That anyone takes anything he has to say seriously is kind of mind boggling to me. You just go from being the guy who promotes xenophobia and racism as a "centrist" position to "OK, but this time I'm really a centrist," and people just buy it? Then again, as they say, if you scratch a Liberal...
Apparantly something similar have happend in Norway where the state sponsors non figurative abstract art and figurative art has become less profitable.
Excellent! Would like to see more visuals, even your face. The sounds quality is really good and content kept me listening the entire way through. I think you could go far with this.
*"abstraction given order"* is a wonderful line. kinda speaks to the CIAs role in the cultural cold war more broadly. great video. you made Serge Guilbaut and Francis Saunders proud
This video remind me of the story of the famous fountain , a ready-made by marcel Duchamps . Duchamps join the society of independent artist ,who was created to exhibit avant-garde art freely , to give view to avant-garde art when they where mocked by a lot of media . In 1917 ,Duchamps wanted to test that devotion , so he created a trap (and question the definition of art at the same time , it was clever ) He chose the fountain , who was nonetheless than a inverted urinal with a nickname "R. Mutt" on it. (it is a ready-made ) . He try to put the fountain on the list for the next exhibition but was refuse because the vast majority of the menbers didn't think it was fitting. The thing is , if the fountain was refuse , the society didn't promote free view to avant-garde art , but if they accept it , the public and press will mock them Duchamp could easely participate to the debate , because a very few menbers know he was R.Mutt . Fountain was refuse but he already went that far to invite one of his allegedly rich friend who wanted to see the famous fountain, and possibly buy it. (at least his friend wanted to pretended to buy it ) The society where shocked and embarassed . they couldn't hide the fact that they where refusing something , and also in that particular case , the supposed rich wanted to buy it , so they could gain money. But more importantly , this was a question for if fountain was a piece of art or not. And by that exemple , a general question for what is art . Some say it was immoral (the society was based in the US , and puritanism was higher than today for sure ) but he responded that you can buy a urinal in a store , and it not immoral at all to do so . Some other say that it was plagiarism , because he don't make the object himself. His response was that the important part was that R.Mutt chose this piece in particular , not that he made it by itself. By this act , the artist change the view of the object , transform his use value. Fountain is not longer an urinal , but a work of art. Finally , Duchamps later say that a piece of art is also made by the admiration of other show to it. the public is the last part of the creative procces . It may sound stupid , but it made me realise at that time i learn about fountain that it is very difficult to define "art". The idea behind the fountain is more important than the fountain itself , and Duchamps was aware of it .
8:32 I golfed with Kim Jung IL and it is totally not a lie that he is the greatest golfer in the world. He hit 18 hole in ones in a row that day. I couldnt believe it but it happened.
I wonder if US Intelligence is behind the the push to popularize NFTs. As utterly ridiculous as they seem, it makes sense when you compare them to valuable works of art. In many ways they are superior....at least for what the CIA would use them for. Through blockchain technology their authenticity is unmistakable, they are much more easy to transport ( you just send them via the internet) they dont deteriorate over time, they would make a great sort of pseudo digital currency. You wouldnt even have to co-opt artists into producing them, you could just get celebrities to do it....and you already control them through blackmail and what not. And of course you can always embed secret info in them.
Washington Color School makes me feel uncomfortable. Like watching a period place about the South, or the existence of Song of the South. It sounds a lot more like something brought up in Brown v Board of Education than art
Guy is literally trying to get his head around ideas of containment mechanisms and controled opposition, while also thinking that CIA is right-wing. Maybe, perhaps, one day you may also become dissident.
What is the CIA if not the instrument of the maintenance of American capitalism. That’s not a conspiracy that’s what they do. That’s what they always have done and why wouldn’t they? They were created to do that.
I watched the video three times and am still not entirely sure what led you to this conclusion, so I'm asking directly. Are you annoyed that an artist implied they wouldn't have sold to the CIA because they're "left-leaning", you know that's not even a tangible point in the larger scope of the video, right? And you know those politics aren't the same as yours, right? He also then literally implies its Liberal propaganda, but maybe you missed that bit? What happened to you between then and there that I did not experience?
@@5x385 I was talking about the nature of the CIA - and that both its' enemies abroad and oppressed dissidents within (although more so by the FBI) are not (primarily) left-wing, but rather rigth-wing (culturally reactionary, third-positionist in economic matters), e.g. those who lost the second world war.
@@christianmanila3721 So, who's "guy", I interpreted what you said as being pretty confrontational. As in, "Your first mistake is in assuming the CIA is right-wing", is that what you meant? What you've just said also just sounds like, "The CIA oppresses the right-wing."
I remember being at an art gallery when someone approached me and said, how do you feel about these. I said something like. 'well its interesting that youre supposed to derive meaning from the color stories, just colors being next to one another", so he said back, "And what is the meaning you derive from it?" and i literally could not answer him, lol.
Counter to that, the wall text at the NGA for the Rothko room does waaaaayyy too much lifting when it comes to imparting a sense of meaning by explaining Rothko’s life, depression, and “eventual suicide” after saying his works are meant to be viewed through emotion not theory.
Art is an expression of human communication. I'm certainly for it challengin the viewer... but if they're so challenged they can't make heads nor tails of it, that isn't on them.
Its not about controlling ideas, but nudging the marketplace of ideas in the desired direction. Thinking about it gives me the chills to be honest. I love this video.
They want to promote art that does not makes you think, art that has no questions nor ideas, just colors
Love it. The relation this collection of paintings has to government attempts to control our every day thoughts and actions sounds like a Dale Gribble fever dream made real.
Yeah, that’s what drew me to the story compared to, say, the Pollock one. Pollock feels like a rough draft of this same intent by comparison- and doesn’t include a “secret” gallery/collection.
“What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context.”
- Rosemary, _Metal Gear Solid 2_
I really love that Chomsky quote! There's a good argument to be made that it fits the exact philosophy of Twitter, in which there is a lot of debate but none of it seeming to really go anywhere as it's inherently limited by the system and the structure of the website.
Oh, yeah, for sure. And yet...Twitter is a relatively effective tool for a lot of things, and for some insane reason corporations are terrified of it and respond quicker there than on any dedicated customer service platform.
The flip side of this is that you see entire news articles talking about "twitter outrage" and then the tweet they cite has like one retweet, 4 likes, and one reply.
It's not designed for actual discourse, but on some levels it does occasionally get things done and start conversations. (now, as to whether those conversations go in healthy directions or are deeply prone to oversimplification and bad faiths readings due to the nature of the medium... well, you're right to point those out)
@@Rosencreutzzz I'm not sure, but I think you might not have even realized to (righfully) further confirm the OP in his contribution, as well as your personal (rightful) observations in the video. Chomsky's quote doesn't just equally fit Twitter's philosophy. The proces of mass media cherrypicking and enhancing fringe opinions to steer debates a certain way, sounds very similar to the dynamics trying to limit (artistic) expressions within a spectrum of acceptable opinion.
The Washington Color School sounds like the kind of thing that the SCP Foundation would create in order to contain, like, some sort of seriously mundane but still anomalous AWCY? project.
Someone could probably write a whole skip for that.
YOURE SO RIGHT ACTUALLY
Are We CIA Yet?
I don't know if I disagree with Chomsky's quote at the end here, but Kraut's video about him definitely dumpstered my opinion about him in general.
I digress. The algorithm tossed me one of your videos last week, and I've been hooked since the first. I look forward to more from you! But in the meantime, back to the steady crawl from oldest to newest...
What you mean a genocide denier shouldn't be the height of leftist analysis? Nooo
Hi, not looking to start a flame war but I thought I'd mention that Kraut might not be the person you think he is. Tl;dr he was a right wing grifter for a while before his current UA-cam run. Fredda did an excellent video detailing this about 6 months ago that is worth watching if this interests you.
@@Austin-gj7zj Thank you for the video suggestion. I think it's very good and eye-opening. It's a pretty solid torpedo of Kraut's methodology.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't know anything about Chomsky's genocide denial without him, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room for speculation and ulterior interpretation of the matter, based on the sources I've seen. The UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found ample evidence of deliberate genocide perpetrated against the Bosniaks, and we have blinkingly obvious documentation of Serb concentration camps indefinitely detaining Bosniak civilians. And we likewise have footage and written testimony from Chomsky flippantly downplaying the "genocide" as a "massacre", and the concentration camps as "refugee camps people could leave if they wanted". The exact evidence he's downplaying is available for anybody to watch on UA-cam, showing emaciated Bosniak men behind barbed wire, being led around by armed guards and too afraid to say anything about the conditions they are being kept in.
I don't know how to hold this evidence without coming to the conclusion that Chomsky's just explicitly chosen to torque the facts of the suffering of countless thousands of people for his own selfish agenda, whatever it may be. Maybe he was afraid it would hurt his credibility and public image if he backed down. Maybe it was ideologically-motivated. Maybe he didn't want the evidence to undermine his criticisms of NATO.
I just thought I should get that out of the way, for anybody who incidentally doesn't watch Kraut's video - a very fair decision. My valuation of Kraut is diminished, but my opinion of Chomsky remains where it was.
@@stalwort1692 thanks for taking my reply seriously, I came to the same conclusions you did when I found this out. I'm glad we could reach an understanding. The history you outline here is valuable. Two of my friends growing up were the children of Bosniak refugees and I know their stories well.
@@Austin-gj7zjI first heard of Kraut and Tea when he was promoting Islamophobia in Germany during the Syrian refugee crisis. That anyone takes anything he has to say seriously is kind of mind boggling to me. You just go from being the guy who promotes xenophobia and racism as a "centrist" position to "OK, but this time I'm really a centrist," and people just buy it?
Then again, as they say, if you scratch a Liberal...
Apparantly something similar have happend in Norway where the state sponsors non figurative abstract art and figurative art has become less profitable.
Excellent! Would like to see more visuals, even your face. The sounds quality is really good and content kept me listening the entire way through. I think you could go far with this.
*"abstraction given order"* is a wonderful line. kinda speaks to the CIAs role in the cultural cold war more broadly. great video. you made Serge Guilbaut and Francis Saunders proud
This video remind me of the story of the famous fountain , a ready-made by marcel Duchamps . Duchamps join the society of independent artist ,who was created to exhibit avant-garde art freely , to give view to avant-garde art when they where mocked by a lot of media . In 1917 ,Duchamps wanted to test that devotion , so he created a trap (and question the definition of art at the same time , it was clever )
He chose the fountain , who was nonetheless than a inverted urinal with a nickname "R. Mutt" on it. (it is a ready-made ) . He try to put the fountain on the list for the next exhibition but was refuse because the vast majority of the menbers didn't think it was fitting. The thing is , if the fountain was refuse , the society didn't promote free view to avant-garde art , but if they accept it , the public and press will mock them
Duchamp could easely participate to the debate , because a very few menbers know he was R.Mutt . Fountain was refuse but he already went that far to invite one of his allegedly rich friend who wanted to see the famous fountain, and possibly buy it. (at least his friend wanted to pretended to buy it ) The society where shocked and embarassed . they couldn't hide the fact that they where refusing something , and also in that particular case , the supposed rich wanted to buy it , so they could gain money.
But more importantly , this was a question for if fountain was a piece of art or not. And by that exemple , a general question for what is art . Some say it was immoral (the society was based in the US , and puritanism was higher than today for sure ) but he responded that you can buy a urinal in a store , and it not immoral at all to do so . Some other say that it was plagiarism , because he don't make the object himself. His response was that the important part was that R.Mutt chose this piece in particular , not that he made it by itself. By this act , the artist change the view of the object , transform his use value. Fountain is not longer an urinal , but a work of art. Finally , Duchamps later say that a piece of art is also made by the admiration of other show to it. the public is the last part of the creative procces .
It may sound stupid , but it made me realise at that time i learn about fountain that it is very difficult to define "art". The idea behind the fountain is more important than the fountain itself , and Duchamps was aware of it .
8:32 I golfed with Kim Jung IL and it is totally not a lie that he is the greatest golfer in the world. He hit 18 hole in ones in a row that day. I couldnt believe it but it happened.
Don’t forget about the music department. Laurel canyon is but one example of government agencies putting out their own “art”
please google what "begs the question" actually means
very gud 👍
I wonder if US Intelligence is behind the the push to popularize NFTs. As utterly ridiculous as they seem, it makes sense when you compare them to valuable works of art. In many ways they are superior....at least for what the CIA would use them for. Through blockchain technology their authenticity is unmistakable, they are much more easy to transport ( you just send them via the internet) they dont deteriorate over time, they would make a great sort of pseudo digital currency. You wouldnt even have to co-opt artists into producing them, you could just get celebrities to do it....and you already control them through blackmail and what not. And of course you can always embed secret info in them.
Hey Gene Davis was a huge inspiration for my visual art, so are they still buying? houses cost too much
That is the most capitalistic way of doing propaganda, genius
No one beats the CIA at propaganda....not even the Israelis
An affair? JFK....oh...well...adds changes motivations, doesn't it? Sort of a reverse bathsheba moment, ain't it?
🖤
Washington Color School makes me feel uncomfortable. Like watching a period place about the South, or the existence of Song of the South. It sounds a lot more like something brought up in Brown v Board of Education than art
🌹✖️
This is why people don't like "art".
No, this is exactly why I love art.
hunter bidens art is a great investment
They look like what Aliens think human Art should be
Is there a purposeful reason why such an interesting subject is being presented in such a dull and boring manner?
Average UA-cam commenter trying to engage in scholarly material without vine booms
Least brainrotted critically online person
Guy is literally trying to get his head around ideas of containment mechanisms and controled opposition, while also thinking that CIA is right-wing. Maybe, perhaps, one day you may also become dissident.
What is the CIA if not the instrument of the maintenance of American capitalism. That’s not a conspiracy that’s what they do. That’s what they always have done and why wouldn’t they? They were created to do that.
@@PasteurizedLettuce (((Capitalism))), yeah, sure...
I watched the video three times and am still not entirely sure what led you to this conclusion, so I'm asking directly. Are you annoyed that an artist implied they wouldn't have sold to the CIA because they're "left-leaning", you know that's not even a tangible point in the larger scope of the video, right? And you know those politics aren't the same as yours, right? He also then literally implies its Liberal propaganda, but maybe you missed that bit? What happened to you between then and there that I did not experience?
@@5x385 I was talking about the nature of the CIA - and that both its' enemies abroad and oppressed dissidents within (although more so by the FBI) are not (primarily) left-wing, but rather rigth-wing (culturally reactionary, third-positionist in economic matters), e.g. those who lost the second world war.
@@christianmanila3721 So, who's "guy", I interpreted what you said as being pretty confrontational. As in, "Your first mistake is in assuming the CIA is right-wing", is that what you meant? What you've just said also just sounds like, "The CIA oppresses the right-wing."