What Zizek Gets So Wrong about Art! | Episode #86.5 | The Re-Think | Elliott Earls
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2019
- Hey art school kids! Does your professor belittle you or make you feel stupid by quoting Zizek? If so, fight back by watching this epsiode, "What Zizek Gets So Wrong About Art." #Zizek #ArtSchool #MFA
- Розваги
“Everything you need to know about the next piece you are making is in your previous work” love that
Thanks for your video. Zizek did not say that craftsmanship ALONE is crucial in creating new art. Perhaps Zizek would even agree with Adorno that it is imaginable that great art does not exist in every age of human history (which I profoundly agree with, I am a composer, and an amateur poet, later I switch to philosophy. Our age is like the 3nd c. BC in which great creations in arts have finished (due to the intrinsic logic of the media of the old artistic genres; eg. epic as a genre of creation died); the rest to be done is to theoreticize them). I don't suppose that Zizek was unaware of your examples of craftsmanship; everybody has seen something exquisitely crafted but has no aesthetic value at all. And please keep in mind that when Zizek was talking about Art, he was not just talking about visual art. I can well imagine that a novelist lives among a certain marginalized social group for 2 decades and writes a realist novel with great "craftsmanship".
As for beauty as an ideology, Zizek did NOT say that beauty has once been non-ideological. His point is simply that Adorno's modernist logic of art doesn't work in today's capitalist artistic world (at least the modernist logic did not accomplish what they claimed to be accomplished, Cf. Surrealist manifesto, and other artistic manifestoes); on the one hand, museums, concert halls, and the Art and Music Departments of colleges rely almost universally on capitalist fundings; on the other hand, modernism has dominated the entire art world in the recent decades, and the result is that no art piece is shocking (and thus subversive) like Duchamp's installation art any more. And I personally know lots of young composers who believe exclusively in "being themselves" (and thus matches Zizek's description that they want just to put some fancy ideas into artworks) and never listen to their contemporaries' pieces, and the result is that, although they believe that they are "creating" something new, most of them just produce leaves with different vein or spot patterns; and when they are asked "why do you compose in the similar way with Ligeti/Ferneyhough/Cage/Grisey/Lachenmann", they boast that "no two leaves are the same."
I’ve been trying to define my own “aesthetic set” of sort and I was wondering what your thoughts were on the “axis” that modern art and art critique must submit itself to.
(In attempts to make myself clear) If subjective terms like beauty can no longer be taken “seriously” within critique (and if I have understood your point, that some skepticism must be leveled towards craftsmanship as an universal rubric) how must one differentiate between “good” and “bad” art (which implies there is a need to differentiate art at all which might not be the case).
I totally agree with Zizek.
No, Zizek misses art education; his solution to the salvage of contemporary art is clearly ideological.
At some point, Zizek is right: artists should study and work in studios hard, but it is also obvious for every profession.
Art, as said in the video, is mainly based on ideas; craftmanship is only a component of the art piece, not the domain of art. Art is not craft work; it is not design, it is not just a beauty thing. Art contains freedom and independence, which craft no.
Just sharing my own perspective on the situation, Zizek solution to the salvage of contemporary art is clearly ideological. Implementing craft into art does not save art, because good art does not make good craft.
Perhaps when you say that 'good craftsmanship' is not 'subversive' (7:10), perhaps it's this need to be subversive, rather than well-crafted, that Zizek is criticizing as 'ideological' (as the need to be 'subversive' over 'competent' might degrade the entire art----much as one may utter louder and louder provocations with worse and worse wording; which isn't quite compelling, but rather unattractive).
I'm not sure that Zizek excluded beauty from the good craftsmanship, but that it was craftsmanship was important...he's not wrong that a lot traditional craft was abandoned with concept art...
Reintegration of beauty, into craft and design. I do like that notion. I agree craft alone is not enough...but I'm thinking not just of visual art, but of literature and music.
Interesting to see the topic of beauty coming up on your channel. While at Cranbrook it seemed like nobody was really interested in talking about it (at least in 2D). So much of the conversation was about the aboutness/conceptual terrain of the work. Its a subject that I have become very interested in lately and I get that late capitalisms influence on culture can skew ideas of what beauty is, but it is undeniable that there are certain works that have an "essence" about them that is truly beautiful. I've been interested in beauty in architecture as of late and have come across some writings about this essence that old European cities have. Most of these old cities didn't have a master plan. They unfolded over time and were deeply linked to the people that built them and those that came after. I think modernism has really had a strangle hold on what people now view as beautiful and much of it stems from our obsession with the maker/master plan/genius idea, but not as much emphasis on the way a piece continues to generate beauty or this essence over time--after the design/making phase. Anyway, don't really have a solid point to wrap this up, but just sort of nice that this topic came up as its something I've thought a lot about. The reason it has interested me is because i was showing my work to a Cranbrook alumn between my first and second year and he asked me specifically about one of my pieces and whether I thought it was beautiful or not. I had no idea what to say and sounded like a moron as i stumbled through my answer. He then said he didn't think it was beautiful. Totally messed with me from that point on.
Odd that the issue isn’t discussed. I never really thought about the fact that it’s left out of the conversation. Hmmm ( 💬....) I’ve got to think about why that is
It's interesting that you feel this way, because I thought it was pretty covered my first year and now looking back it wasn't as much. Maybe it's in the interest of the cohort? It always stayed at the back of my mind regarding formalist aspects (e.g. type, layout, contrast, balance) but it never felt like a thematic coherence between work that was normally deemed successful v. unsuccessful in their interpretations.
I really love what you say about European Cities, could you elaborate on an example of a non European City that falls short due to an obsession with a master or master plan.
How do you apply this holistic integration in late capitalist dynamic that shapes the unconscious of most artist in the need of succeeding in this market? Also, how to you apply this in a hyper-specialized society that worships competitiveness by trying to make art as objective as possible(music competitions for example). I would appreciate your ideas!
Thank you for that
By relating Beauty back to Plato I'm not sure if you mean to say that it is Ideological in that it relates back to Ideological convictions, or whether it is Ideological in an etymological sense: in that it relates back to Ideas. The first case is not universal, the second one is irrelevant to what is being argued, because anything that comes from a conscious walking talking person can be called Ideological in that sense.
However I do agree that the re-integration of beauty is necessary.
I‘m sorry. You didn‘t grasp what Zizek is talking about.
Uh... yes I did. I’m sorry.
Egghead.
Just sharing my own perspective on the situation, Zizek solution to the salvage of contemporary art is clearly ideological. Implementing craft into art does not save art, because good art does not make good craft.
Lol he talks about hard work, the struggle to produce craft, a form that reftects the essence. The trap is to go ahead with your radical ideas,missing the appropriate form. He talks about struggle missing, not the formal craft. And you are talking about craftsmanship as component of capitalist market. If you just studied his philosophy in depth, you want be able to argrue. For the moment ,this is Zizek out of context:)
How do you understand ideology?
I think Zizek confuses art with pop culture art. Yes, the left has no art of it's own because big industries tend to suck the work of an artist and tries to make profit from everything the artist does. I as an leftist would want from the artist to make art for the sake of art.Unfortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, artists need to survive, to pay taxes. Besides that big industries suck everything, like for example Disney. Long ago they made awesome children movies, the ones everyone adores. Today they are stuck in reboots. They are afraid to be creative, to take risks, because they could lose money.
5:00 you are attacking Zizek's critique of Adorno by simply criticizing What Adorno said in a different way. If you were to ask Zizek, which is true, that beauty has become or always was ideological, I imagine he would agree with you. At least from what I've read. But that wasn't the point he was making.
6:30 this is the meat and potatoes of what zizek is saying and what I'm sure everyone wanted to hear was your reasoning behind why "Damian Hurst Sharks" is actually not an example of Adorno's subversives/ avoiding beauty. Instead you glance over the only interesting part with "i disagree".
7:10 Zizek says the subversive left should focus on craftsmanship as their new form of of subversion. You counter by stating that craftsmanship is an integral part of the late capitalist aesthetic and citing some examples. This does not refute what zizek is saying at all. You're implying that there is a false dichotomy, that Craftsman ship can only belong to either the establishment or the subversives and hence Zizek is being silly. But it is a false dichotomy. Zizek's been known to claim that all of western philosophy can be distilled from just Plato, Descartes and Hegel. I would suggest you read Hegel, but, oh that's right, Hegel's not so often assigned in academia.
Much easier: Go watch the episode of Malcom in the middle "Emancipation" season 3 episode two. Its 20 minutes or so. Realize that you are arguing to try and beat the system. He is arguing to try and break it.
8:00 Again this is NOT his fundamental assumption. Listen to what he is saying quite literally. And yes maybe those objects are brought to a ridiculous level of craftsmanship, but again that is not what he's saying. He's saying they aren't valorized in the subversive-left community for their craftsmanship. He is talking about what should the community of the left hold up as virtues.
9:30 yes the latter part of his answer is his answer. You are just willfully misunderstanding him.
Record your response on an phone and hit me with it. I’ll make a response to your video. Hit me back if you’re down.
I liked the orignial post..
It’s still up
Just sharing my own perspective on the situation, Zizek solution to the salvage of contemporary art is clearly ideological. Implementing craft into art does not save art, because good art does not make good craft.
Thanks, for this Elliot! Enlightening as usual. Every time I see Koons work, Sol LeWitt's quote "Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution" comes to mind. Personally, I'd take meaning/idea/concept over craft any day. ;)
Killer
Beauty in art is the naturally selected adaptation to a non-captive audience. The ugliness of the avant-garde is what is ideological, and indeed reactionary to certain Great events of the early 20th century. And thus those reactionary avant garde Theorists project that ideologic-ality upon this ancient evolutionary adaptation (to which those Theorists are directly opposed). The 2nd World and the 1st-World-Avant-Garde didn't need to be beautiful because they had captive audiences.
Zizek misses art education; his solution to the salvage of contemporary art is clearly ideological.
At some point, Zizek is right: artists should study and work in studios hard, but it is also obvious for every profession.
Art, as said in the video, is mainly based on ideas; craftmanship is only a component of the art piece, not the domain of art. Art is not craft work; it is not design, it is not just a beauty thing. Art contains freedom and independence, which craft no.
After seeing his criticisms, and your response, my guess would be that he would agree with you, and just didn't take into account the finer details, that he was oblivious to.
Mocking a guy’s foreign sounding name. Deeply philosophical.
I've been letting this video marinate for a few days while I went back and forth about my own feelings on how art and design operates. One thing that kept poking me in the back of the head is the constant use of the word "aesthetic" in the popular vernacular. I've always seen aesthetics as a question, a dialogue as you put it, on how the beauty or elegance of a piece can constitute itself or be distilled from a form. I hear it in many variations refer to the style or objective likeability of a piece, though (one of my biggest gripes is on Masterchef - they will constantly refer to the "aesthetics of the dish" when they want to talk about what it looks like). To me it's becoming slang, it's becoming more memetic with its use, much in the way that scale means both the potential sizing as well as making something larger. So I guess my point is, to question the aesthetic meaning of the object, regardless of craft, is that really to question our own pre-conditioning, sensitivity, and quality of life? Not so much of the appeal of the work, but what we can find compelling contrasted against what we find mundane from overuse? And if this is so, I think craft is more so about the content of the work with the question of aesthetics being its byproduct which is situated in capitalism and value judgement.
Zizek destroyed with facts and logic
hardly
>what zizek gets wrong
No
Yes
fyi i don't know what the problematic humour was in the previous video, but making fun of his name is just typical western supremacist behaviour and really not cool at this level of dialectics
“Problematic humor”, there was a time when that was a tautology. It’s telling that in 2020 there’s even the term, “problematic humor.” It’s a shame that that’s not redundant.
@@StudioPractice1 i don't think it's a shame to call out systemic bullying by people in power towards minorities. maybe the internet is just allowing the underdogs to create alliances and call out exclusivist structures of power. don't get me wrong, debate and disagreement thumbs up, but seems like you know the greeks well enough to understand picking on a person is indeed disarming, but not intelectually valid.
Then the maneuver of identifying one philosopher’s opinion with your opponent’s opinion without proving the opinions are identical (ie Adorno is the same as Zizek?)
Plus … why so hostile?
Forget Danto … you’re bringing on the death of art yourself with all your negative energy.
Sorry … I like to follow but … no follow here.
I agree with your larger points. The video is mean spirited. I’ve considered taking it down. It’s in bad faith. I appreciate your comment. As an artist- one tries different things. The tone of the video is off.
Nahhh Zizek is totally right...
Zizek is soo wrong about alot alot of things
Why do you care?
@@slofty for the same reason you cared enough to reply to my comment.
@@brycecream007 In that case you agree with a great deal - but not all - of Zizek's points. Glad to know we think alike and my chiming in may have possibly played a role in changing your mind!
@@slofty what do you like about him
@@brycecream007 You only need to read _The Sublime Object of Ideology;_ you can find a used copy online and get it shipped for a few bucks; lastly, everything else you can forget about unless you're in academia. His popularity as a social critic is - as far as I know (I could be wrong) - largely, but not entirely, a byproduct of interest shown after Astra Taylor's (wife of now-disbanded Neutral Milk Hotel's Jeff Mangum) _Zizek!_ in IIRC 2005.
Likability is irrelevant in philosophy and the discourse thereof as far as I'm concerned.
Your condescending tone seems out of place. It seems like you're picking a fight for no reason with Zizek. Also, it seems a bit unfair to nitpick a response to an interview question, rather than an excerpt from a book or lecture, which would be less off the cuff.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but your presentation is more of a turn off than your points are compelling imo.
I agree
cameras are strange things
@@StudioPractice1 I really like your series about Analogical Reasoning btw I took a lot from it.
Thanks. It’s all good. I feel ambivalent about some of my videos. This ones a bit harsh. My original edit of this that I posted was been more childish. 💩
Dude art is childish you have a right to make joke, yea he take cocaine it’s OBVIOUS, dont CENSOR yourself dude