Thanks for making this. The couch and maybe the absent painting reminds me of how Peterson points out that as adults we often don't see the fine details and the colours and visual truth of what is actually there but rather for the sake of efficiency and filtering out details not relevant to what our immediate goals are, we just kind of have low resolution 'placeholders' in the stead of the incredible amounts of possibly distracting detail that we would see without them. He was saying it takes a child who hasn't yet developed placeholders to show us the colours and details we wouldn't notice normally. I think artists do this too, they do away with the placeholders. So to me the couch and maybe the absent painting is the placeholder that we often have for a couch or a painting in our daily life and the reflection is sans placeholder. Also I think some psychedelics do this as well. A similar process happened when Huxley took mescaline in the doors of perception, he suddenly notices all the fine detail and gradients of colour he didn't notice before, all the filters and placeholders were gone.
Your point about "place holders" is a good one, I also think the painting is an accurate portrayal of how, even as adults, we tend to perceive the world in a subjective way e.g. we concentrate upon a particular feature/first impressions of a scene that presents itself to us. The problem is that we now live in a media environment saturated with photographic images/videos that present "everything at once" - this is an unnatural way for humans to perceive, but this technologically mediated form is presented to us as the default, "normal" way. Painting is one of the few antidotes left to counter this normalization of the unnatural. Best, Paul.
I know nothing about art, I would like to make that clear. First impressions - I like the mirroring of the chairs (and the chair in the mirror which looks wrong?) , mirroring of pots and finials either side of the mirror. The floor is exceptional. The darkness of the carpet seems to me to be too black off left. Then looking in the mirror there is a picture and a bright bed(?) . Everything in the mirror looks wrong . I think it is looking back at another time and the painting is in the past and on the wall. The two chairs are back to back, why? Empty chairs back to back and missing picture on the wall, it's not a happy painting is it?
I personally don’t get a sad vibe from the painting - for me, it’s more about the way in which Menzel manages to portray how we might size up a room visually when we walk into it. The way we experience instantaneous impressions is not like a photograph- we might concentrate (as in the painting) on one side to the exclusion of the other. That’s why I think painting is so important- it keeps us in touch with reality in a profoundly different manner to a photograph’s much more “objective” representation, but that’s the mode that now dominates our lives. However, I wouldn’t want to naysay your more miserable interpretation, I’m all for promoting the miserable qualities in art! 😀 Best, Paul.
Please don't be put off by videos like this that get very few comments. The world need as much non ideological examination of art and philosophy as possible.
The chairs on the right are bothering me. They're aligned perfectly with the frame of the thing they're in front of; the window frame for left chair and mirror frame for right. The rear leg of the right chair is actually blended into the mirror frame. It's like the chairs are not satisfactorily grounded. They're also in awkward positions and because they're chairs, it means you cant comfortably sit and rest.
I think you're totally right & the not being able to rest reinforces the sense that this is a gaze that flits around the room without settling - for me, Menzel is replicating in the supposed genre of a "still life" how even seemingly dull scenes are never still - at least the way we experience them as human beings rather than the dead, inert lens of a camera. The lack of grounding of the chairs is also underlined by the glossy appearance of the floor - almost like water? If you check out another of his paintings on Wiki Commons - "Rear of House and Backyard" - you'll see another example of how much he packs into a seemingly banal scene. Thanks for the comment! Best, Paul.
@@DrPaulA.Taylor Thanks for the reply Paul. I can see the water and I think the direction of brush strokes reinforce that. How the scene looks 'active'; I like your point that a camera cant achieve this in the same way. Also, Rear of House and Backyard, I notice that it feels like you're actually there! (more than what a photo would convey) (imo)
@@BrandonCourt hi again. If you check out his other paintings on WikiArt - “The foot of the artist” (for the hardcore foot fetishist in your life); “The Iron Rolling Mill” is one of his most famous (although outside Germany he’s not massively well known); & finally I’ve always found “The Studio Wall” weirdly unsettling… I’ll try and do a whole Menzel video at some point in the future. Very best, Paul.
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
Yes! I've loved this interjection in my life. Thank you!
Thanks for making this. The couch and maybe the absent painting reminds me of how Peterson points out that as adults we often don't see the fine details and the colours and visual truth of what is actually there but rather for the sake of efficiency and filtering out details not relevant to what our immediate goals are, we just kind of have low resolution 'placeholders' in the stead of the incredible amounts of possibly distracting detail that we would see without them. He was saying it takes a child who hasn't yet developed placeholders to show us the colours and details we wouldn't notice normally. I think artists do this too, they do away with the placeholders.
So to me the couch and maybe the absent painting is the placeholder that we often have for a couch or a painting in our daily life and the reflection is sans placeholder. Also I think some psychedelics do this as well. A similar process happened when Huxley took mescaline in the doors of perception, he suddenly notices all the fine detail and gradients of colour he didn't notice before, all the filters and placeholders were gone.
Your point about "place holders" is a good one, I also think the painting is an accurate portrayal of how, even as adults, we tend to perceive the world in a subjective way e.g. we concentrate upon a particular feature/first impressions of a scene that presents itself to us. The problem is that we now live in a media environment saturated with photographic images/videos that present "everything at once" - this is an unnatural way for humans to perceive, but this technologically mediated form is presented to us as the default, "normal" way. Painting is one of the few antidotes left to counter this normalization of the unnatural. Best, Paul.
I know nothing about art, I would like to make that clear.
First impressions - I like the mirroring of the chairs (and the chair in the mirror which looks wrong?) , mirroring of pots and finials either side of the mirror. The floor is exceptional. The darkness of the carpet seems to me to be too black off left. Then looking in the mirror there is a picture and a bright bed(?) . Everything in the mirror looks wrong . I think it is looking back at another time and the painting is in the past and on the wall. The two chairs are back to back, why? Empty chairs back to back and missing picture on the wall, it's not a happy painting is it?
I personally don’t get a sad vibe from the painting - for me, it’s more about the way in which Menzel manages to portray how we might size up a room visually when we walk into it. The way we experience instantaneous impressions is not like a photograph- we might concentrate (as in the painting) on one side to the exclusion of the other. That’s why I think painting is so important- it keeps us in touch with reality in a profoundly different manner to a photograph’s much more “objective” representation, but that’s the mode that now dominates our lives. However, I wouldn’t want to naysay your more miserable interpretation, I’m all for promoting the miserable qualities in art! 😀 Best, Paul.
Please don't be put off by videos like this that get very few comments. The world need as much non ideological examination of art and philosophy as possible.
The chairs on the right are bothering me. They're aligned perfectly with the frame of the thing they're in front of; the window frame for left chair and mirror frame for right. The rear leg of the right chair is actually blended into the mirror frame. It's like the chairs are not satisfactorily grounded. They're also in awkward positions and because they're chairs, it means you cant comfortably sit and rest.
I think you're totally right & the not being able to rest reinforces the sense that this is a gaze that flits around the room without settling - for me, Menzel is replicating in the supposed genre of a "still life" how even seemingly dull scenes are never still - at least the way we experience them as human beings rather than the dead, inert lens of a camera. The lack of grounding of the chairs is also underlined by the glossy appearance of the floor - almost like water? If you check out another of his paintings on Wiki Commons - "Rear of House and Backyard" - you'll see another example of how much he packs into a seemingly banal scene. Thanks for the comment! Best, Paul.
@@DrPaulA.Taylor Thanks for the reply Paul. I can see the water and I think the direction of brush strokes reinforce that. How the scene looks 'active'; I like your point that a camera cant achieve this in the same way. Also, Rear of House and Backyard, I notice that it feels like you're actually there! (more than what a photo would convey) (imo)
@@BrandonCourt hi again. If you check out his other paintings on WikiArt - “The foot of the artist” (for the hardcore foot fetishist in your life); “The Iron Rolling Mill” is one of his most famous (although outside Germany he’s not massively well known); & finally I’ve always found “The Studio Wall” weirdly unsettling… I’ll try and do a whole Menzel video at some point in the future. Very best, Paul.