Lecture 10 French Realism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 жов 2020
- Lecture 10 French Realism
ARTH2720 Art History from the Renaissance
Travis Lee Clark
Utah Valley University
In this lecture we talk about why Courbet wouldn't paint angels, how the Salon des Refuses shocked the public with a girl in a white dress and the legacy of Manet, the Avant Garde, and how Realism may have invented the modern concept of Art.
Also, I remember a fact from Sports History accurately! It's a miracle!
11:03 Gustave Courbet
26:19 Honoré Daumier
32:29 Jean-François Millet
37:02 Rosa Bonheur
43:10 Carolus-Duran
45:19 Frans Hals
45:58 Diego Velazquez
48:13 Éduard Manet
59:53 The Salon des Refusés
1:32:29 James McNeil Abbot Whistler
Here from tiktok 🤪 art teachers are literally the best teachers!
I adore your lectures !!!
You're one of the best lecturers, doctor Clark!
Idek why Im here but love these videos. Miss taking art history in high school
I love the presentation of this teacher, it's lively fun and so interesting. I am trying to learn as much as I can about art history. You are an easy subscription and I'll go and no doubt binge watch the rest of your channel
i love your videos an ungodly amount
These take me back to my days in AP Art History from 2018-2019 in high school, such a pleasure to listen to while writing.
Excellent! So, both the Romantic movement and the Realism movement can both be seen as a reaction to the Industrial revolution. The one saw the industrial age and the machine age as an undoing of a simpler, more bucolic existence and the other saw the industrial age in terms of the exploitation of the common people.
I’m excited hehehe French realism is 👌👌👌
Dude chilling, making paintings of fireworks:
Travis Lee Clark: So this has caused one of the GREATEST SCANDALS OF THE ART HISTORY
I just stumbled upon your lectures. Thank you so much for all you do
I dont study art but i sure love your videos thank you man!
Thank you!
Thanks again
Thanks!
I definitely love your lectures and am grateful for them. However, as much as I appreciate the long segment on Marx, I think your assesment on the things he's wrong about is terribly hasty. I understand that his theory of value is very commonly disputed and rejected by many economists along with numerous others who still find it instumental. But him simply being wrong about either the power of the ruling class or the opportunities the workers had for betterment of themselves, i.e. trade unions or even worse that they could buy into the capitalist line of thought is very clearly and imo accurately addressed by him, let alone generations of other thinkers and activists after him who took his theoretical framework as the basis of their understanding of the world.
Anyway sorry for being that whiny Marxist who's never satisfied with the degree of reverence given to Marx :) Thank you for the amazing lectures and for making them public.
That was wonderful, thank you
Why is Alexandre Cabanel (and post 1930s-40s academic art) not taught in the history of art? I noticed the same thing at my University and I am genuinely curious.
Glad you don't actually give lectures on economy, social issues and such.
In today's mainstream culture, avant-garde is a discriminatory term, it is not politically correct.
Can you elaborate on your opinion? I have never heard of the term avant-guard as being considered discriminatory.
@@gatblau1 Avantguard means that some of us are ahead of the rest while todays mainstream ideology dictates that we are all the same
@@regeleionescu935 The evolution of art has always been fueled by pioneers daring to push against the status quo and barriers of elitism. That sort of bravado to break norms is celebrated not discouraged in a lot of Western cultures today. The avant-garde is the exact enemy of political correctness as they just simply do not care, or else they wouldn’t have dared to step out of line the first place.
wow what a fabulous lecture thanks so much, great analysis, so easily explained, I have learnt tons! I was googling Courbet, and 2 hours later... I'll be back for all the others and no I don't know you from TikTok but I guess that is how you now have a worldwide set of subscribers (I'm London)
Insanely bad summary of Marx
I really do enjoy your videos, genuinely and truly I do, but going out of your way to falsify Marxist thought seems intellectually questionable, professionally dubious, and seems like a strange way to aggressively propagandize . Rich ppl being ppl isnt something useful to say (Capital specifically mentions that individuals are far less relevant than their "roles" or class positions). The Labor of theory of value is a theory supported by Ricardo and Smith (it's why capital takes this theory) so to suggest he was uniquely incorrect and then soft backtracking it seems again like useless propagandizing. Workers buying into the system is called "False Consciousness," the fact that theres a specifically marxist term for this hardly seems like an underestimation. There is a whole entire chapter in Capital literally dedicated to the struggle over the length of the working day, wherein laborers organize to work within the state for legal reforms to how long they had to work and various other working conditions. The First international, (wherein he and other leftists were present) was basically an international union to help workers develop power in their workplaces/nations.
I respect and appreciate the work you do generally, but that whole aside seemed noticeably misinformed for an academic
I appreciate the comments. I don't think I falsify Marx at all. In fact I endorse a large number of his tenets. Heck, nearly all of Social Art History is predicated on Marxist ideas so my entire discipline would tumble without him. Heck, just watch my lectures on Contemporary Art. We talk a LOT about alienation of society, consumerism, etc. All Marxist concepts. So no, I don't have it in for Marx. Still, he's not a god. He made mistakes, like every philosopher, and it's entirely fair to point those out. Hardly anyone in economics, left or right, believes in the labor theory of value anymore for example, and even the ones that do have modified it greatly from Marx's understanding. You may disagree but it's not like I'm on shaky ground to point that out. He also made a lot of predictions and almost none of them came true. Heck, the whole field of Neo-Marxist thought, from Marcuse and Adorno's "Culture Industry" is an attempt to explain why Marx's predictions did NOT come to fruition. Marx tends to look at things as collectivist constructs, obviously, and he undervalues individual choice and how that impacts society. So I'm afraid I disagree that recognizing that individual people in all classes and positions are fallible is somehow irrelevant. It isn't all just systemic institutions pushing us along like leaves in the stream. So maybe I'm a bit more old fashioned but misinformed? No, I just disagree.
Thanks for watching!
Marx is greate man, no doubt. Even a great man has a shortage. His modle is too classic like the Greco-Roman style without considering noisy variables, that are factors mentioned by Dr. Travis in his class. He needs take some statistic courses that may not be handy in his era.
Overally speaking, Marx is great in some levle even he has some flaws.
Accadamianammazoids - WHITE NOISE - AT LEAST ACT LIKE YOU HAVE AN INTEREST
good art history. bad marx history.