ThatOtherCaitlin I have not, but I'm thinking about it! I really don't love the way most Art History is taught, so I'm mulling over a way to do it creatively. Most Art History classes are TERRIBLE, and I'd like to be careful about it. Advice welcome!
Hmmmm... agreed. Honestly, you'll probably get the best ideas by asking Nerdfighteria. I just thought about it for awhile and the only thing I came up with is to make it a mystery game where you pick up interesting clues out in the real world that relate to a piece of art work and then discover what it is at the end. Or how about staging a living painting? Turn each one into a 45 second video (with costumes, dialogue, set, etc).
The Art Assignment I've taken some pretty great art history classes (which is probably why I am now getting a PhD in the field), but I also have a deep, longstanding love for art education and always wonder how to make that aspect of the art world better, less snooty and more generous. The funny thing about art history is: Most of my complaints about it have long been addressed ... but often at the cost of introducing another, perhaps equally annoying thing. When I got annoyed by the "great men" narratives of standard art history classes, I fell in love with feminist scholarship but really had to fight to get through the jargon. As an undergrad, I really liked the style of books like "The Story of Art" and still could not help but feel suspicious about the "neatness" of that book's history... When an art history class focused too much on the development of form, I missed learning about the context in which the art was made. And when a class focussed too much on politics, I missed being able to think about such "kitschy" ideas as beauty, truth and so forth. What exactly is it that YOU don't like about art history classes, Sarah? I think the only advice I have for future crash courses is this: Make it narrow. A history of all-art-ever will be sure to miss almost everything. :) Instead of organizing the course according to epochs and themes, you could design it around individual artworks you really like... or better yet about PAIRS of artworks! It would be a bit like the crash course literature, but would take advantage of the simple fact that you can easily hold up two artworks next to each other. With such compact comparisons, there could be room for the "hard" side of art history... the politics, the history, but it could also be a way to practice the "softer" but equally important aspects: What does it mean to look closely? What does it mean to find emotional content in a work? How can an artwork stick with us for the rest of our lives? But maybe I'm missing your point?
ThatOtherCaitlin I'd also love to see an Art History Crash Course. I'd even love to work on it! From the first time I learned any art history in elementary school art class to somewhere about junior year of college, I was bored to death of it. (I have always been super interested in making art, and had to take art history to be an art major.) But sometime late in college, when artists and art movements were taught not as isolated, discreet chunks but as a swirling flow of techniques, culture, and personal history did I begin to be more interested. It didn't occur to me that Picasso or Warhol or da Vinci didn't just stand on their own, but that their artwork connects to what went before it, or what was going on around them or inside them. RELATIONSHIPS between art, artists, and the various contexts in which they exist made art history infinitely more interesting than Great Man history.
The Art Assignment I took all of my Art History classes at Boston U. It was an amazing experience. There were a few classes that didn't quite gel with me, but for the most part I enjoyed all of them. There was one prof. who was, imho, amazing. I took every class he had on offer.
I saw a Van Vogh art exhibit on January 19th of 2013, and it moved me to the brink of tears. Pictures don't do his paintings justice, I got to see snapshots of his world through his eyes and his frantic brush strokes. Vincent painted quickly, far faster than most artists at the time, and you can almost feel the amount of mad energy and raw passion for nature poured onto the canvas, into the cypress trees and almond blossoms and sunflowers; the paintings are gorgeous, but as with most art, they are brought to their full potential in a gallery full of people interacting with it. I've noticed a lot of abstract pieces like Clyfford Still's and Mark Rothko's work require you give something to the art so it can give something to you in return. We too are spaces, we too are representation, experience, and expression. To understand the art is to understand a piece of your own humanity. Cool episode and discussion you two!
I felt the same! I mean, John Green only read 20 pages, of course, he didn't understand anything because Dewey is kind of hard to read, but really? This video only covers some of the important aspects of the book. I expected to watch a more profound analysis of the book, but I was wrong. I didn't like at all. Sorry, this time Art Assignment doesn't realize a good analysis. Dewey deserves more.
My art history professor in university once told me that when she taught Art History as an elective (to people doing non-art based majors like science or business) she would often have students "omg I didn't realize art could be so interesting." Her response was always "haven't you wondered why art is prevalent in every culture, historic or modern, everywhere in the world?" And even when we look far back in anthropological history - we see art dating back for hundreds of thousands of years. It's always been surprising to me some people "want to put art over there to one side" when it has been a huge part of human existence since the very beginning.
I love how you acknowledge that not many students will wade into and swim (for very long) in Dewey's language. It's been a long time since I read Dewey. Glad to dip back in with you.
I made it through 90 pages before giving up the ghost. Certain passages did bring up interesting thoughts for me. On page 28 he says, "Only because that life is usually so stunted, aborted, slack, or heavy laden, is the idea entertained that there is some inherent antagonism between the process of normal living and creation and enjoyment of works of esthetic art." This had me pondering why there is a distinction between "normal" living and "beautiful" living. Why esthetic moments have to be delegated to the realm of "art" instead of blending seamlessly into quotidian experiences. If, for example, you surround yourself with objects of beauty, even and especially utilitarian ones (say, a hand crafted wooden chair), your day to day interactions with them become artistic experiences. And your life itself will become a large work of art. A nice goal to have. Also, Dewey is super silly. Page 73: "But man, whether fortunately or unfortunately, is not a bird." Truth, Dewey, truth.
When you were discussing "esthetic" around 4:16 and Dewey says that it "denotes the consumer's rather than the producer's standpoint" I wanted to scream at you (John) "HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TOLD ME THAT ' _BOOKS BELONG TO THEIR READERS_ '!?! ISN'T THIS BASICALLY SAYING THE SAME THING FOR ART?" Of course, maybe it isn't. I had to read _Experience and Education_ ; that was enough Dewey for me.
SciJoy Yeah, I'm sure there were, but to be honest, it was a long time ago and whatever they were have just been absorbed into my own educational philosophies over the twenty years I've spend teaching since I read it. And it's STILL enough Dewey for a lifetime.
SciJoy I teach English Language Arts now, have taught math, and spent many years specializing in ELD classes (all high school). Donalyn Miller's THE BOOK WHISPERER is my Bible and is worth reading and considering no matter what subject/level you teach. Also love Kelly Gallagher's READICIDE, and Rafe Esquith's books are inspirational if you take them with a bit of salt. Much prefer these three due to the fact that they are/were long-time actual classroom teachers, not theoreticians who might have spent a couple years in a classroom, if that. I _occasionally_ deal with education matters on my channel, but not often. Can I assume you teach Science, at some level?
I’m an aerospace engineer, but I guess you could say I’m an informal educator. I mentor high school students, run after school programs, community events, create lessons, run a TH-cam channel… My goal is to give teachers, students, and life long learners tools and content to aid in STEM education (mostly hands-on). I think the current education system is broken and outdated. I don’t have the power or knowledge to fix the system, but I do have the ability to give teachers/learners more options. I’m really intrigued by flipping the classroom, MOOCs, open badges, and maker spaces. I also think more people in the community should help teachers out. You guys have a very difficult and important job. I read education books to know how to be a better informal teacher and how to help actual teachers. Thanks and hope this wasn’t too long of an answer.
I listened to a clip of his Experience and Education book. I found it funny that he said, “How many came to associate books with dull drudgery…” when criticizing education in schools. It is always frustrating to me when someone has wonderful ideas, but their message gets lost in grandiose or overly technical execution. I find this a lot in science and even art, which is why I love your channel (and ARTiculations ). When you want to communicate your message beyond your circle of colleagues, your voice must change.
Agreed SciJoy. The great minds many fields aren't always the best at conveying them to those newly learning the field. Those are separate skills. Unfortunately pedagogy gets undermined in an academic environment rewards (e.g. tenure) is reserved for those with the most pubs & citations and biggest grants, the same individuals who are often quite weak at communicating to the masses. And when someone is good at teaching or communicating to non-expert level audiences, they are written off as not the real scientists in the field. It's all very stratified and snobby. Which is one of the reasons I am so fond of Go VERB a NOUN. and online educational video in general where the learning is more important than the academic pedigree of the teacher.
He was writing in 1934. Again, the historical context is important. Dewey was not gandiose and his language depended on his audience. William James was known to be better at communicating with his students than Dewey. He was more popular but some times we need to give an effort to understand someone. Jane Austin's 19th century English is not easy for us, either. Sometimes we need to go to the secondary source first, in this case, Thomas Alexander. What I did was to go back and forth between Alexander and the original "Art as Experience". We can also learn to be more patient and to slow down, two qualities which are not terribly valued in our fast world. Now I consider Dewey as a vastly underrated philosopher, but he is coming back, from many directions and fields.
It's kinda reassuring to know that you are not the only one who found Dewey's philosofical prose so heavy and difficult to read hahahah Edit: even the translated versions are quite something
Yes i've been struggling hard reading the first 5 chapters. I barely understand what he says after multiple reads and interpretations, and looking up the meaning of some words.
Thank you for this post! I designed an entire installation entitled, "What is an Experience?" based off many of the questions that arouse from this book. Thank you!
I like and agree with the idea that something is "art" (dance, written word, spoken word, music, paintings, sculptures, etc.) if it evokes some type of strong reaction, either emotional or cerebral. I like to think that art is a creation that continues to create, and creates something unique to each individual.
this book is awesome and, while dense, very thoughtfully so. brimming with great ideas - while I enjoyed this video I feel it might be off putting to future potential readers. PLEASE DON T LET IT STOP YOU FROM READING THIS BOOK IF YOU HAVE ANY ARTISTIC PURSUITS WHATSOEVER. It sort of clarified a lot of what my mission as an artist here is supposed to be concerned with.
Sarah, have you read the book that Steve Martin wrote about art, art history, and trends in art in the last 20 years? It's called, "An Object of Beauty" and it's wonderful. You wouldn't think Steve Martin would be able to write a thoughtful book about art, but he totally did!
ultimatekai I read about 10 pages right when it came out, but I was turned off by it for some reason I can't quite recall. I think it was because his central character seemed such a stereotype. But I didn't give it enough of a chance. What did you like about it? Should I give it another try?
somehow i missed the announcement about reading this book- i probably wouldn't have made it the whole way through anyways- but i really enjoyed this video! I do think there is a separation sometimes between "art" and regular people. Last week, my friend took her family to a museum and even with the discounted kids prices, it still cost over $100 just to get inside. She said she probably won't be taking them back anytime soon, because it was too expensive. But shouldn't we want all kids to have the opportunity to go to museums, see art, experience more of the world? I know some countries have donation based admittance fees- it'd be nice if more places in America had that
I have watched this clip too many times lately because I have also found the book to be very dense. I will say that I have found that a lot of the ideas are easier to grapple with if I listen to the audio version and if I listen multiple times. That said, I think that the revolutionary ideas within Dewey's book are actually that I believe he is not actually talking about what we consider "high art" which is what art museums tell us art is... but artivism. I think that Dewey was way ahead of his time and he was really making a case for art to be a living experience, and in the 21st century we have had decades of seeing artivism in action and grappling with messages that artivists have presented to us. I wonder what your thoughts are on this?
2 minutes in and my brain automatically responded with, "It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself." My 90s addiction to Northern Exposure was and remains so worthwhile. (I do actually plan to give this book a go, despite its language-based shortcomings. I think I can do it.)
I really enjoyed this video! You highlighted some great points. I especially like the part where you said that Art being separate is bad for Art & people. I totally agree :) also.. Liverpool is art.. obv
Fun fact- man is rooted in a relatively gender neutral term in early german (the type the angli would have spoken), woman being a much later term (initially, meaning approximately wife). So when we say man instead of woman, its because man refers not to a gender but humans as a whole- a neutral term in a society that has lost its gendered terms and thus becomes confusing
Thank you! The American Heritage dictionary has a great usage note about the word "man" that goes into the etymology: www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=man
Aww, I love that book! I read it in philosophy grad school, but I didn't find it any more difficult than most aesthetics books were. I specialize in ethics though. And yes, any videos on basics would be great!
The self-importance John alludes to regarding Dewey's philosophy of artists reminds me of the essays I had to read in my 19th C. British Lit class. The "artists" were convinced that their opinions were of utmost importance and blathered on and on about it. I couldn't figure out what made their opinions so important.
I'm from colombia, one of my teachers told us to read this book for a final exam and I didn't not understanding, believe me, in spanish it's like 10 times more confusing. But this video saved my life 8 or my grade) , Sarah made everything so clear, thanks a lot
If you add to John Dewey, Lopez Quintas and Maffesoli, you can actually see a little bit more of the magic it brings to art as an experience and the mix up of individual and group experiences. c: ...if you're really into this....
5:06 AMEN to "reading requires your participation"! Really makes you think about what Literature professors and Language Arts teachers and History teachers go through every day, in retrospect. Wonder how many of them get up in the morning and ask themselves "Okay, how am I going to make my students give a damn about what I am trying to give?
I read this one in my undergrad - it was presented in a very different way (smaller sections rather than the book at large) so i found it a bit easier to digest. It was also in a class completely about participatory art and presented within the context of art being a part of everyday life. My question then, which remains the same now, is how do we get back to this notion of art being a part of the everyday. I feel like when I was in university, and even more in grad school, I was constantly in the art world, but now removed, working in an industry that is just bordering that world, I find myself not having those experiences. Is the honorous on me the viewer/experiencer or the artist/curator to present it in a way that will engage me in my everyday. Or is it the academy/gallery who is responsible for my artistic intake. Either way I am left searching for art in my everyday and finding it in the most unique of spaces... neither connected to the gallery or the academy.
About interpretation word 'Men': i think it's resonable and critical question that should be asked for students living today.. 😄 because the word 'history' is on the hot issue "his+story"( why not herstory?) 😉So we have to ask ourself all time when you read old book (in the past, world is anti feminist, right)
1:00 One of my favorite short films suffers from this same problem, even right there in the title: “Why Man Creates.” The film was made in 1968 and reflects its time period. Even so, it’s worth viewing.
I don't think Dewey uses Prejudice in the way we discuss it in the 2020s. I think he is referring to preconceived judgement, so art transforms an object such that when it is perceived by others, it wipes away previous judgements of the object and forces you to reassess it and reinterpret it. That's my lense anyway...
"The psychological conditions resulting from private control of the labor of other men for the sake of private gain, rather than any fixed psychological or economic law, are the forces that suppress and limit esthetic quality in the experience that accompanies processes of production. As long as art is the beauty parlor of civilization, neither art nor civilization is secure." 👆🏻 from chapter "Art and Civilization" ❣❣❣ I found this to be a very accessible book, considering it was written in the 1930's... Dewey spends most of the book talking about art theory with only oblique references to social context - a careful setup to drop, in the final chapter, revolutionary ideas about the relationship between art and societal structure. I am happy that the Art Assignment mentioned this book but disappointed by what Sarah and John chose to say about it.
Agree! And he was quite smug in his ignorance and acted the buffoon and still blabbered on as if his ideas were better than her thoughts. And his pandering comments of “woman” and “old dead prose...” are ridiculous. Just stop reading if you have no respect for what you’re reading! I’m sure the guy in this video has way more to offer the world than Dewey has. And as others have pointed out, even his use of “woman” is out dated so whatever.
I found the book hard but it helps if you read Thomas Alexander's book on Dewey's aesthetics. One mistake you made is that Dewey would certainly agree that ugliness and disgust are also an important part of aesthetics. You assume that aesthetics is only the experience of beauty. His theory of inquiry helps to take care of some of his weaknesses. For example, you may think that the mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb explosion is beautiful, from a distance. As we inquire into the more total experience of the atomic bomb, you experience the total disgust. If you cut off the experience too soon, you experience the ugliness. If you cut the experience too short, it is what Dewey calls everyday recognition as an object. If you continue to let the experience unfold through inquiry and extending the perception, you come closer to the Beauty or ugliness, or the truth or the meaning, or what Dewey considers true perception. Aesthetics is embodied and my need for embodiment in my intercultural communication exercises has been one of my projects in the last few years. I have written an article about it. If you want, I can send it to you.
I think it goes without saying, but say it anyway I will, that art is the precursor to invention and innovation. Imagination is the beginning of the artistic and scientific process. Scientists and engineers are often very good at imagining what is possible and I believe the sciences could not exist without art. The first human to use a tool, say a rock for example, had to imagine uses for that rock and that is art, that is the process of creation and when the next human came along and tied that rock to a stick with some vine and voila, a hammer. Art is necessary for progress and I get pretty grumpy when I hear that schools want to eliminate art programs in the interest of saving money. Keep up the good work Sarah, love it.
I haven't read the book and have a question: Does John Dewey acknowledge popular culture as "art" at all? If not, where does he draw the line? And if yes, could we consider that Art is surrounding us, after all, given that we are pretty much constantly surrounded by music and movie theaters?
Mauro Vilela Pietrobon Hello, So, in a different context, in his book The Public and its Problems, Dewey argues very strongly against elitism in politics. The same applies to his view of art. He is not for rigid "high/low brow art". Having said this, he does believe enjoyment of aesthetic experience becomes deeper and more intensified as we cultivate our aesthetic habits. Just as a painter can 'see' more, and a musician 'hear' more than someone without training in either domain, any of us would see, hear, touch, feel, etc., enjoy art products more fully the more we learn about how art products are made and the more we experience them with a view to learning. (This is my language, not his.) Popular art, now as in the first half of the 20th century, usually attempts to be accessible to the greatest number of people by appealing to our most evident commonalities. Dewey would not object to this, per say, but he would say it does stunt our growth, our ability to have deeper more intensified aesthetic experiences.
Book club suggestion Thesentür: Conscientious Objector to Formalism By Theodore A. Harris Thesentür: Conscientious Objector to Formalism is a series of minimal,image and quotation based works that uses poetry to confront mainstream art criticism, art history, to look beneath the surface politics of aesthetics and formalism in a presentation of art that is not self-referential or to put a Black face on the art history of imperialism.Formalism functions as the cosmetics of art criticism like aluminum siding on a slumlord’s property. It is an attempt to disguise what is crumbling beneath the surface politics of its proselytizing church bells,ringing, in the mega church / museums and galleries where there are more Black bodies guarding the white cube then exhibiting in it.What marginalized artist know is that canon formation is a battlefield and critical art is the weapon! In the crossed out words of Basquiat to repel ghosts.
I feel like the quote may have been misrepresented: "Art is the living and the concrete proof that man is capable of restoring consciously, and thus on the plane of meaning, the union of sense, need, impulse, and action characteristic of the living creature." -I don't think that Dewey was saying that 'art conquers all or is the epitome of human achievement' or anything like that. Not such a thing that Art is separate and achieved. Its much closer to us and much more common. "Art" as performed or exacted imposition out of lived space, can be a VERY wide spectrum of constructs explicated in a VERY wide array of methods. Dewey also writes on how we cannot escape "impressions" even when Beliefs do not subject themselves upon objects alone, objects subjectively incite impressions and just as described earlier in the video, Interactions. For example: If a person wants to kiss another person, that is art, by Dewey's terms. Using his book 'Experience and Nature' p.176 there seem to be two conditions he describes on creating a subjective ideal ,to paraphrase: 'If there is no power to renounce revery(1) AND when its not being used as an objective embodiment(2), Even if we do not understand the action quantitatively or dialectically it can be made personal and meaningful and "finds the spirit of subjective idealism congenial."(p.176) He then goes on to describe Experience itself as under ownership of "who's experience?" but this starts to end my point so back to the quote at hand. Continued Example: If a person wants to kiss another person, they could say "oh i saw this in a movie and I love the idea of it and I want to recreate what I saw so I can feel that pleasure those characters felt too..." they are absolutely open to revery ad will surely achieve something very close to "union of sense, need, impulse and action" but are still within a type of objective embodiment of what a kiss is since it has been seeded on a more objective but still intersubjectively accessible way. Where as a similar feeling could take place that would go through both conditions such as: "I really feel special next to this person in a way where I'm becoming aroused and I can imagine just how meaningful a kiss would be for both of us in different and similar ways and right now that is all I want to do with her"(thus experiencing revery and making art, art that simply and naturally establishes union of sense, need, impulse, action characteristic of the living creature, and humans are reflexive and sensitive enough that we can understand what this Art is and perform this act consciousLY, perhaps not for the single purpose of unifying, as purpose and meaning is a broader conversation, but for the purpose and of the meaning of acting itself, thus again establishing Union, which I believe Dewey was all about. )..... the guy is soooooo ahead of his time and even now, postmodern philosophy looks back on him as we enter a new technological age where what is sensed/felt can come so often from prepared objective embodiments of ideal (eg video game stories) but is inevitably entering subjective experience and ownership of a cellular singe of "who's experience"... ...Anyway thats enough I think I went too far. Hope I made my point.
Haha Dewey is no joke for sure. Super strong thinker. And I'm glad they give props to him in the video, He's the man. I guess another way of saying it would be that Dewey worked so hard to unbind the term "art" from its museum-like, voyeuristic, wine-drinking, pinky-up status. So when we talk about Art being proof that humans can get back in touch with themselves and their "Nature" ( A huge topic of Dewey's as you know ^_^ ) moving back to a union of the self, we're talking about something really simple and everyday experiential. We're NOT TALKING ABOUT MUSEUM STYLE ART, which they mention really well in this video but I think that when trying to interpret this quote they doubled back and didn't take their own wonderful conclusions into consideration and were wondering why his pragmatism turned to raw Idealism when he just wasn't talking about something that could be but rather something that happens daily for those who act without preconceived categories leading to foreclosing objective embodiment of things :) ...... ..................... Drink Water
sounds like this John Dewey guy would really like Journey (the video game, not the band) and Papers, Please. Video Games are a great medium to deliver an experience.
As soon as you guys were like, "This book is impossible," my brain said "challenge accepted," and then I bought it. This may have been a terrible mistake. I will know in 2 to 3 business days.
So what do you think of MONA in Hobart, Tasmania? Especially in the context of Dewey? There is also a museum in London that harkens back to the Wonderkabinett of there renaissance.
Oh, I'm glad I didn't try to read this book. The "man" thing would have so distracted me from the point as well. Gah! That always bugs me so much! Also, I'm glad that this is the way we're doing the book club now. As definitely one of the younger viewers of the Art Assignment (admittedly with a rather high reading level and overall understanding of the English language and such), I feel as though some of these books would have gone over my head. I still might try and read some though. After all, when I read Behind the Beautiful Forevers (at John's- and the nerd fighter book club's- recommendation), I absolutely loved it!
lol its as if that dude has literally never read philosophy before in his life, Dewey is nothing compared to reading Kant. I am reading Art as Experience for pleasure and its an incredibly 'ahead of its time' text from a pretty radical thinker that yes wrote that shit in 1930... Thank u Sarah for actually reading
Yeah, seriously. While the mild sexism is annoying, what stands out to me about the book most is his incredible insistence on multiculturalism. Dewey draws more insight out of cultural comparison than most today do; it's seriously remarkable for a man writing in his time period. I'll grant Dewey's prose can be turgid, but he's no, as you say, Kant (and Kant is no Hegel!). I don't know why they'd discuss a philosophy book if they're not going to bother rising to the challenge inherent to philosophical thinking.
Yeah, John Dewey just brings back memories of my very, very, very dry American philosophy class in college. We focused on the pragmatists and it was so hard to get through the reading for that class because of how dull it was. The education focused parts were interesting, mostly because I had an interest in education policy at the time, but the rest of it, yikes. I much prefer the ethics branch of philosophy.
Thank you David for your comment. "This book, along with Experience and Nature, initiated a revolution in human thought. These two reviewers are not the least bit aware of this." this is sad!
I love the idea of art being akin to an experience; it's why I value books and writing as art, because we are basically driven through an experience. It's also why the process of making art is so important as well, because that's an experience as well. That being said, Dewey was a sexist asshole. Just because I don't have a man's anatomy doesn't mean I can't partake!
I really enjoyed this video and discussion! However about five minutes in, every time one of you said the word art, my mind started translating it to mean a guy named Art. Very disconcerting but entertaining in a whole new way.
nosneb99 For a hot minute I considered naming our son "Art" and then quickly came to my senses. It would make my personal and professional lives very confused. Perhaps season III of The Art Assignment could change formats and be entirely about a guy named Art.
I'd suggest trying to understand American Pragmatism, as opposed to traditional philosophy, before trying to tackle this book. It is tempting, but if you really care about art, read the other stuff first. It is helpful and makes this read interesting. That's a lot to ask, but please do it.
I made it to page 178, which feels like a major accomplishment if the water mark was at 20! I read a lot of Dewey in grad school though, so I knew what I was in for with his 80-yr old, cold, dead prose. You two have a great rapport here and each contribute your own insightful substance while maintaining a conversational style that was easy to follow in spite of such arduous source material. Thank you both for clarifying the impenetrable with such an enjoyable, well-rounded discussion.
I think humans are art. Art is meaning and expression beyond the necessary like cream to coffee, humans have added meaning to everything basic thing in this world.
I remember having to read this for an Aesthetics class for my MFA. I thought there were some good ideas and some very problematic ideas wrapped up in an enigma surrounded by confusion with a nice bow of What The Fuck Is This Guy Talking About?
Yeah, I remember trying to get through portions of that book in college. Super dense. Baurdillard isn't much better. I would suggest Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language". It's quite a bit longer, but I think it's more digestible and covers more aspects of common life.
"the moral function of art itself is...to perfect the power to perceive" This is not far-fetched, utopian stuff about transforming society, and it's sad that virtually every public revisitation of Dewey's works seems to both take his ideas for granted and somehow miss the entire point he was making. You see this philosophy in Banksy, in Picasso's Guernica, in any still life painting from the past few centuries that stuns you with a strange feeling of immediacy absent from the other people walking through the gallery. More importantly, in my opinion, the nature of live music today (or even the craze that revived Bob Ross as a cult figure) demonstrates Dewey's understanding that in absorbing a work we are relating to a kind of performance of choice that resembles experience. Art heightens our perception and muffles prejudice because we see evidence, within the work itself, of inward striving to make something worth keeping. This is why kitsch is different, it's devoid of thought. "The artist embodies in himself the attitude of the perceiver while he works." But Dewey was an intellectual, not an artist, so fewer and fewer people have had an aesthetic experience reading his work. "[Human thought] is not something brought to bear upon nature from without; it is nature realizing its own potentialities..."
Omg yes! I have been reading this book for a paper I am writing on Artivism and you hit it head on. I honestly think that Dewey was just well ahead of his time-- he was still in a time where art was considered this high class sophisticated thing, but artivism of today really perfectly aligns with what he is talking about.
Thank you for your thoughtful conversation! I agree with so much of what you said...let me get my thoughts in order... For me, the defining characteristic of 'art' is the experience itself. I see art as something that gives you an emotional reaction, whether it's a straightforward one like crying at the end of TFIOS or a subtler, more nuanced one that you can't quite put your finger on. You may not know what exactly you're feeling, but you know you're feeling something. That's what I feel dance is particularly good at conveying, since it doesn't require words - the dancer has an experience that moves you to have some kind of reaction, and that reaction makes the original piece a work of art. And I'd argue that everyone will have a reaction to a different kind of art, so even if you don't get that reaction from everything in the museum (as Sarah said), chances are each piece will give that reaction to somebody who attends. I'm going to use an Andy Warhol example, since you mentioned him and his museum's here in Pittsburgh: I might not quite 'get' the 12-hour long videos of him staring at the camera smoking, but when the staff at the Warhol Museum contributes to the Carnegie Museums' Christmas Tree display with a tree-shaped pile of Brillo boxes, THAT I respond to strongly. I think that's the great and accessible thing about art - there are so many different ways of making art that chances are SOMETHING is going to give you that emotional reaction.
Well.. 🤔🤔 i think it's resonable and critical question that should be asked for students living today.. because the word 'history' is on the hot issue "his+story"( why not herstory?) 😉So we have to ask ourself all time when you read old book (in the past, world is anti feminist, right)
I don't see how John is annoying in this! He raises pointing questions regarding the book and questions the legitimacy of Dewey's argument. And yes, the prose is deliberately nuanced and hard. Why can't he say that?!
Yeah, this Crash Course History guy is a total putz. Dewey writes quite eloquently, and if you have any head on your shoulder you'll be able to parse what he's saying with perhaps a little struggle, but it's certainly not boring. Crash Course History by the way is one of the worst TH-cam History channels I've ever watched... they try way too hard to make history fun, but he and his twin (I think he has a twin) are the most awkward and lamest hosts ever. The show is incredibly unfunny. And if they put a fraction of the amount of effort into producing the show to be more academic as they do to try to make it look good and flashy, then you as the audience would probably learn something. Unfortunately, their idea of an interesting and engaging history channel is to talk way too fast, to spout off stupid little facts here and there as a way to try to impress you, and to bombard you with flashy things to look at. To them, that is the act of teaching history. It's as though they're thinking "look at me just making history all wacky and fun for you, oh boy... and here's another neat new fact about 1920, ho ho, isn't that neat *insert awkward attempt at making a dad joke seem funny*." Anyways, fuck Crash Course History is what I'm getting at. /rant
John, you're killing me -- I understand being PC and everything, but is it truly difficult for you to get around the word MAN (short for MANKIND) in a book? I understand you love etymology as much as I do, and if you go back, Man is short for Human, derived from Mannus, Boy meant servant, in high germanic Girl was a gender neutral word for child. Woman is almost guaranteed a more sexist term being deriverd from from wifmonn (meaning of course wife of man) if you truly want to be gender neutral, maybe use queen (o.e. cwene) or frau (o.e. fréo, same as free, freedom) and Carl/Karlmann for males. It gets a little ridiculous at this point (though I love knowing this stuff) and it's easier just to use the words of our time and understand the words of other times. I know this is a long rant, but if you do read it, I am curious if you say some of the things you say because you believe in them or because you have become known as a beacon of political correctness. If you can read Beowulf, you can get through Dewey's use of Man as Human without being offended.
Pimp Doubt So if I told you to picture the word 'man', you wouldn't visualize an adult male? Words have function and purpose, and most of their work goes on in the reader's head. Reading things from the past, or things from different cultures, doesn't mean that it isn't unpleasant and exclusionary to see language that shuts people out, or puts them down.
Threefive nine I get whatever you are saying but I think if I attempted to read that book I might not envision a man. Because I feel it is saying mankind which includes men women and everything in between. But I also can accept that this was a different era and so he may have intended for men but as a woman I can get a lot out of it too.
It truly depends on the context in which I hear or see a word. You can't pretend that in the written word context is not everything, If someone walks up to you and says the word "smoke" are they asking you for a cigarette? are they bringing to your attention a fire? Selling brisket?
Time is also a context. Just because Doyle meant 'ejaculated' purely as someone suddenly speaking, doesn't mean I won't find it funny as I read it today. However old authors intend us to understand 'man' (and I have found a few that switch back and forth between the universal and the male within paragraphs even), today my reaction can be bitterness, because I've seen what social phenomena goes along with that usage.
Bonito club de lectura: donde ninguno de los comentaristas han leído la obra y se dedican a señalar desde su ignorancia lo poco atractivo del libro. Pésimo video para tan buen canal.
I did read it, way back in the early 90s, and the basic premise of art being an active experience has stuck with me ever since. The "man" thing is super annoying---how unenlightened the male thinkers were then. The critical male thinkers could not go beyond their own thinking to correct that "cock up."
I'm not sure about this as my art history and philosophy knowledge is so limited, but it seems like the people that present the concept that art should be or is this glorification of humanity or the ideal of the highest achievement of humanity -- all seem to come from persons of privilege. If anyone would like to speak to that I would be interested to know if that is true or not.
Ara Lucia Ashburne Hey, Well to be honest I'm not sure I totally got your point so if you don't mind reformulating I'd be happy to reply. I can at least try to give you a reply mostly from a philosophical point of view cause that's what I do, but please let me know if it was out of topic. Basically a way to understand all this glorification of humans and everything can be understood when you put this idea back in its context : it fits perfectly in the case of Dewey as he was alive from kind of 1850s to1950s, and was from the United States. This era is fueled in glorification of humanity and its potentialities for two major reasons : Kant and the Industrial Revolution. Kant because you have the notion of absolute value of human beings and industrial revolution because people feel like they are unconditional masters of the world and nature (the paradigmatic representation of such a power is Friedrich's Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer). As Dewey published his book in 1934, so before WWII and because the US wasn't shocked by WWI as Europe was, he probably still believed in this kind of romantic ideal of man's power to do great things. And as you may have guessed, WWII had a huge impact on that romantic ideal and changed completely the structure and way people approached both philosophy and art - because of what happened in Germany and also for socio-economic and technologic reasons. Does it answer to your point? I do hope I was clear, may you or anyone feel free to correct me if I made a mistake somewhere !
Unicorns United! Let me try again... I was thinking in terms of any school of thought wherein they assert that art is intended to be about beautiful and good and exhibit the highest values of humanity... such as with the Greeks... and other Western ideologies that followed. It just seemed to be that I have only ever heard that from "white guys art people."
Okay so who claimed that art was about the high values of humanity? That's very broad, but let's try. First you are pretty right that in the western culture the positions people take about art have been shaped by european white people, who were necessarily priviledged if you define priviledge being paid for brain work, in opposition to other types of work. Now about schools of thought that assert that art is about displaying the highest values of humanity. First it needs to be precised, the Greek never said that. I guess that when you say the Greek it's Plato and Aristotle. Well Plato in his ideal city wanted to banish the poets (infamous for that, but often misunderstood). Aristotle valued art a bit more as he believed in art's educational power, through the notion of catharsis for example (again, even that notion is quite debated upon). I guess you can say that Christianism and Renaissance were the two major moments of the birth of the thinking that art shows the power of humanity : it's the Creation of Adam, in the Sixtine Chapelle, where Adam almost touches God. An artwork showing human's disposition to reach an almost-godly state. This is probably why you feel like it's some white people stuff - cause it takes its origins in white people societies. Did I make it this time ? :P
John entirely misunderstands Dewey, and instead fixates on the term "man," which was common usage in the 30s. Missing Dewey's ideas by getting caught up in misplaced or phony outrage is a serious failing. Is he trying to score points by showing how concerned he is? Disappointing.
Has Sarah done a crash course on Art History yet? Because I would watch it hard.
ThatOtherCaitlin I have not, but I'm thinking about it! I really don't love the way most Art History is taught, so I'm mulling over a way to do it creatively. Most Art History classes are TERRIBLE, and I'd like to be careful about it. Advice welcome!
Hmmmm... agreed. Honestly, you'll probably get the best ideas by asking Nerdfighteria. I just thought about it for awhile and the only thing I came up with is to make it a mystery game where you pick up interesting clues out in the real world that relate to a piece of art work and then discover what it is at the end. Or how about staging a living painting? Turn each one into a 45 second video (with costumes, dialogue, set, etc).
The Art Assignment I've taken some pretty great art history classes (which is probably why I am now getting a PhD in the field), but I also have a deep, longstanding love for art education and always wonder how to make that aspect of the art world better, less snooty and more generous.
The funny thing about art history is: Most of my complaints about it have long been addressed ... but often at the cost of introducing another, perhaps equally annoying thing.
When I got annoyed by the "great men" narratives of standard art history classes, I fell in love with feminist scholarship but really had to fight to get through the jargon. As an undergrad, I really liked the style of books like "The Story of Art" and still could not help but feel suspicious about the "neatness" of that book's history...
When an art history class focused too much on the development of form, I missed learning about the context in which the art was made. And when a class focussed too much on politics, I missed being able to think about such "kitschy" ideas as beauty, truth and so forth.
What exactly is it that YOU don't like about art history classes, Sarah?
I think the only advice I have for future crash courses is this: Make it narrow. A history of all-art-ever will be sure to miss almost everything. :) Instead of organizing the course according to epochs and themes, you could design it around individual artworks you really like... or better yet about PAIRS of artworks! It would be a bit like the crash course literature, but would take advantage of the simple fact that you can easily hold up two artworks next to each other.
With such compact comparisons, there could be room for the "hard" side of art history... the politics, the history, but it could also be a way to practice the "softer" but equally important aspects: What does it mean to look closely? What does it mean to find emotional content in a work? How can an artwork stick with us for the rest of our lives?
But maybe I'm missing your point?
ThatOtherCaitlin I'd also love to see an Art History Crash Course. I'd even love to work on it!
From the first time I learned any art history in elementary school art class to somewhere about junior year of college, I was bored to death of it. (I have always been super interested in making art, and had to take art history to be an art major.) But sometime late in college, when artists and art movements were taught not as isolated, discreet chunks but as a swirling flow of techniques, culture, and personal history did I begin to be more interested. It didn't occur to me that Picasso or Warhol or da Vinci didn't just stand on their own, but that their artwork connects to what went before it, or what was going on around them or inside them. RELATIONSHIPS between art, artists, and the various contexts in which they exist made art history infinitely more interesting than Great Man history.
The Art Assignment I took all of my Art History classes at Boston U. It was an amazing experience. There were a few classes that didn't quite gel with me, but for the most part I enjoyed all of them. There was one prof. who was, imho, amazing. I took every class he had on offer.
I saw a Van Vogh art exhibit on January 19th of 2013, and it moved me to the brink of tears. Pictures don't do his paintings justice, I got to see snapshots of his world through his eyes and his frantic brush strokes. Vincent painted quickly, far faster than most artists at the time, and you can almost feel the amount of mad energy and raw passion for nature poured onto the canvas, into the cypress trees and almond blossoms and sunflowers; the paintings are gorgeous, but as with most art, they are brought to their full potential in a gallery full of people interacting with it. I've noticed a lot of abstract pieces like Clyfford Still's and Mark Rothko's work require you give something to the art so it can give something to you in return. We too are spaces, we too are representation, experience, and expression. To understand the art is to understand a piece of your own humanity.
Cool episode and discussion you two!
This book, along with Experience and Nature, initiated a revolution in human thought. These two reviewers are not the least bit aware of this.
I felt the same! I mean, John Green only read 20 pages, of course, he didn't understand anything because Dewey is kind of hard to read, but really? This video only covers some of the important aspects of the book. I expected to watch a more profound analysis of the book, but I was wrong. I didn't like at all. Sorry, this time Art Assignment doesn't realize a good analysis. Dewey deserves more.
My art history professor in university once told me that when she taught Art History as an elective (to people doing non-art based majors like science or business) she would often have students "omg I didn't realize art could be so interesting." Her response was always "haven't you wondered why art is prevalent in every culture, historic or modern, everywhere in the world?" And even when we look far back in anthropological history - we see art dating back for hundreds of thousands of years. It's always been surprising to me some people "want to put art over there to one side" when it has been a huge part of human existence since the very beginning.
Everything is art, from the air we breathe to the water we drink.
Crash Course: Art History starring Sarah Green! Yay!
I love how you acknowledge that not many students will wade into and swim (for very long) in Dewey's language. It's been a long time since I read Dewey. Glad to dip back in with you.
I made it through 90 pages before giving up the ghost.
Certain passages did bring up interesting thoughts for me.
On page 28 he says, "Only because that life is usually so stunted, aborted, slack, or heavy laden, is the idea entertained that there is some inherent antagonism between the process of normal living and creation and enjoyment of works of esthetic art."
This had me pondering why there is a distinction between "normal" living and "beautiful" living. Why esthetic moments have to be delegated to the realm of "art" instead of blending seamlessly into quotidian experiences. If, for example, you surround yourself with objects of beauty, even and especially utilitarian ones (say, a hand crafted wooden chair), your day to day interactions with them become artistic experiences. And your life itself will become a large work of art. A nice goal to have.
Also, Dewey is super silly.
Page 73: "But man, whether fortunately or unfortunately, is not a bird."
Truth, Dewey, truth.
When you were discussing "esthetic" around 4:16 and Dewey says that it "denotes the consumer's rather than the producer's standpoint" I wanted to scream at you (John) "HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TOLD ME THAT ' _BOOKS BELONG TO THEIR READERS_ '!?! ISN'T THIS BASICALLY SAYING THE SAME THING FOR ART?"
Of course, maybe it isn't. I had to read _Experience and Education_ ; that was enough Dewey for me.
juststeveschannel how was Experience and Education? Were there good ideas hidden in rambling sentences?
SciJoy Yeah, I'm sure there were, but to be honest, it was a long time ago and whatever they were have just been absorbed into my own educational philosophies over the twenty years I've spend teaching since I read it. And it's STILL enough Dewey for a lifetime.
Lol. Fair enough. Are there any books on education you'd recommend? Hope you don't mind me asking, what do you teach?
SciJoy I teach English Language Arts now, have taught math, and spent many years specializing in ELD classes (all high school). Donalyn Miller's THE BOOK WHISPERER is my Bible and is worth reading and considering no matter what subject/level you teach. Also love Kelly Gallagher's READICIDE, and Rafe Esquith's books are inspirational if you take them with a bit of salt. Much prefer these three due to the fact that they are/were long-time actual classroom teachers, not theoreticians who might have spent a couple years in a classroom, if that. I _occasionally_ deal with education matters on my channel, but not often. Can I assume you teach Science, at some level?
I’m an aerospace engineer, but I guess you could say I’m an informal educator. I mentor high school students, run after school programs, community events, create lessons, run a TH-cam channel… My goal is to give teachers, students, and life long learners tools and content to aid in STEM education (mostly hands-on). I think the current education system is broken and outdated. I don’t have the power or knowledge to fix the system, but I do have the ability to give teachers/learners more options. I’m really intrigued by flipping the classroom, MOOCs, open badges, and maker spaces. I also think more people in the community should help teachers out. You guys have a very difficult and important job. I read education books to know how to be a better informal teacher and how to help actual teachers. Thanks and hope this wasn’t too long of an answer.
I listened to a clip of his Experience and Education book. I found it funny that he said, “How many came to associate books with dull drudgery…” when criticizing education in schools. It is always frustrating to me when someone has wonderful ideas, but their message gets lost in grandiose or overly technical execution. I find this a lot in science and even art, which is why I love your channel (and ARTiculations ). When you want to communicate your message beyond your circle of colleagues, your voice must change.
Agreed SciJoy. The great minds many fields aren't always the best at conveying them to those newly learning the field. Those are separate skills. Unfortunately pedagogy gets undermined in an academic environment rewards (e.g. tenure) is reserved for those with the most pubs & citations and biggest grants, the same individuals who are often quite weak at communicating to the masses. And when someone is good at teaching or communicating to non-expert level audiences, they are written off as not the real scientists in the field. It's all very stratified and snobby. Which is one of the reasons I am so fond of Go VERB a NOUN. and online educational video in general where the learning is more important than the academic pedigree of the teacher.
Meg Gilbert Excellent points. I totally agree.
He was writing in 1934. Again, the historical context is important. Dewey was not gandiose and his language depended on his audience. William James was known to be better at communicating with his students than Dewey. He was more popular but some times we need to give an effort to understand someone. Jane Austin's 19th century English is not easy for us, either. Sometimes we need to go to the secondary source first, in this case, Thomas Alexander. What I did was to go back and forth between Alexander and the original "Art as Experience". We can also learn to be more patient and to slow down, two qualities which are not terribly valued in our fast world. Now I consider Dewey as a vastly underrated philosopher, but he is coming back, from many directions and fields.
I had to read Dewey in my PhD program in Education and it was BRUTAL.
It's that dry and super complex??
It's kinda reassuring to know that you are not the only one who found Dewey's philosofical prose so heavy and difficult to read hahahah
Edit: even the translated versions are quite something
Yes i've been struggling hard reading the first 5 chapters. I barely understand what he says after multiple reads and interpretations, and looking up the meaning of some words.
Thank you for this post! I designed an entire installation entitled, "What is an Experience?" based off many of the questions that arouse from this book. Thank you!
I love John Green, but I feel like he doesn't add anything to the videos. He just distracts from Sarah's beautiful and eloquent ideas.
I like and agree with the idea that something is "art" (dance, written word, spoken word, music, paintings, sculptures, etc.) if it evokes some type of strong reaction, either emotional or cerebral. I like to think that art is a creation that continues to create, and creates something unique to each individual.
this book is awesome and, while dense, very thoughtfully so. brimming with great ideas - while I enjoyed this video I feel it might be off putting to future potential readers. PLEASE DON T LET IT STOP YOU FROM READING THIS BOOK IF YOU HAVE ANY ARTISTIC PURSUITS WHATSOEVER. It sort of clarified a lot of what my mission as an artist here is supposed to be concerned with.
Sarah, have you read the book that Steve Martin wrote about art, art history, and trends in art in the last 20 years? It's called, "An Object of Beauty" and it's wonderful. You wouldn't think Steve Martin would be able to write a thoughtful book about art, but he totally did!
ultimatekai I'm reading that right now! it's great so far :)
ultimatekai Steve Martin - IQ 142. Martin majored in Philosophy at Cal State and even considered becoming a professor at one time.
ultimatekai I read about 10 pages right when it came out, but I was turned off by it for some reason I can't quite recall. I think it was because his central character seemed such a stereotype. But I didn't give it enough of a chance. What did you like about it? Should I give it another try?
Shout out to the people who managed to finish this.
somehow i missed the announcement about reading this book- i probably wouldn't have made it the whole way through anyways- but i really enjoyed this video!
I do think there is a separation sometimes between "art" and regular people. Last week, my friend took her family to a museum and even with the discounted kids prices, it still cost over $100 just to get inside. She said she probably won't be taking them back anytime soon, because it was too expensive. But shouldn't we want all kids to have the opportunity to go to museums, see art, experience more of the world? I know some countries have donation based admittance fees- it'd be nice if more places in America had that
I have watched this clip too many times lately because I have also found the book to be very dense. I will say that I have found that a lot of the ideas are easier to grapple with if I listen to the audio version and if I listen multiple times. That said, I think that the revolutionary ideas within Dewey's book are actually that I believe he is not actually talking about what we consider "high art" which is what art museums tell us art is... but artivism. I think that Dewey was way ahead of his time and he was really making a case for art to be a living experience, and in the 21st century we have had decades of seeing artivism in action and grappling with messages that artivists have presented to us. I wonder what your thoughts are on this?
2 minutes in and my brain automatically responded with, "It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself." My 90s addiction to Northern Exposure was and remains so worthwhile.
(I do actually plan to give this book a go, despite its language-based shortcomings. I think I can do it.)
I really enjoyed this video! You highlighted some great points. I especially like the part where you said that Art being separate is bad for Art & people. I totally agree :) also.. Liverpool is art.. obv
Creoddity Thanks for sharing it on fb. I enjoyed it as well :) Have a good weekend.
Fun fact- man is rooted in a relatively gender neutral term in early german (the type the angli would have spoken), woman being a much later term (initially, meaning approximately wife). So when we say man instead of woman, its because man refers not to a gender but humans as a whole- a neutral term in a society that has lost its gendered terms and thus becomes confusing
Thank you! The American Heritage dictionary has a great usage note about the word "man" that goes into the etymology: www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=man
Aww, I love that book! I read it in philosophy grad school, but I didn't find it any more difficult than most aesthetics books were. I specialize in ethics though. And yes, any videos on basics would be great!
The self-importance John alludes to regarding Dewey's philosophy of artists reminds me of the essays I had to read in my 19th C. British Lit class. The "artists" were convinced that their opinions were of utmost importance and blathered on and on about it. I couldn't figure out what made their opinions so important.
I'm from colombia, one of my teachers told us to read this book for a final exam and I didn't not understanding, believe me, in spanish it's like 10 times more confusing. But this video saved my life 8 or my grade) , Sarah made everything so clear, thanks a lot
If you add to John Dewey, Lopez Quintas and Maffesoli, you can actually see a little bit more of the magic it brings to art as an experience and the mix up of individual and group experiences. c: ...if you're really into this....
5:06 AMEN to "reading requires your participation"! Really makes you think about what Literature professors and Language Arts teachers and History teachers go through every day, in retrospect. Wonder how many of them get up in the morning and ask themselves "Okay, how am I going to make my students give a damn about what I am trying to give?
I am constantly battling the metaphysical vs the existential, or vice versa, i think
I read this one in my undergrad - it was presented in a very different way (smaller sections rather than the book at large) so i found it a bit easier to digest. It was also in a class completely about participatory art and presented within the context of art being a part of everyday life. My question then, which remains the same now, is how do we get back to this notion of art being a part of the everyday. I feel like when I was in university, and even more in grad school, I was constantly in the art world, but now removed, working in an industry that is just bordering that world, I find myself not having those experiences. Is the honorous on me the viewer/experiencer or the artist/curator to present it in a way that will engage me in my everyday. Or is it the academy/gallery who is responsible for my artistic intake. Either way I am left searching for art in my everyday and finding it in the most unique of spaces... neither connected to the gallery or the academy.
Everything is art. Life is art. Nature is art. Human systems are art. Artz are Arting. All the time.
About interpretation word 'Men':
i think it's resonable and critical question that should be asked for students living today.. 😄 because the word 'history' is on the hot issue "his+story"( why not herstory?) 😉So we have to ask ourself all time when you read old book (in the past, world is anti feminist, right)
1:00 One of my favorite short films suffers from this same problem, even right there in the title: “Why Man Creates.” The film was made in 1968 and reflects its time period. Even so, it’s worth viewing.
Re: 5:00
This discussion sort of reminds me of Marshall McLuhan's concept of "hot media" and "cold media".
I don't think Dewey uses Prejudice in the way we discuss it in the 2020s. I think he is referring to preconceived judgement, so art transforms an object such that when it is perceived by others, it wipes away previous judgements of the object and forces you to reassess it and reinterpret it.
That's my lense anyway...
"The psychological conditions resulting from private control of the labor of other men for the sake of private gain, rather than any fixed psychological or economic law, are the forces that suppress and limit esthetic quality in the experience that accompanies processes of production.
As long as art is the beauty parlor of civilization, neither art nor civilization is secure."
👆🏻 from chapter "Art and Civilization"
❣❣❣
I found this to be a very accessible book, considering it was written in the 1930's...
Dewey spends most of the book talking about art theory with only oblique references to social context - a careful setup to drop, in the final chapter, revolutionary ideas about the relationship between art and societal structure.
I am happy that the Art Assignment mentioned this book but disappointed by what Sarah and John chose to say about it.
Good morning, good night, iridescent, alive, light.
John contributed nothing to this video other than self-admitted ignorance. Despite this, he spoke far more than Sarah. What the hell.
Agree! And he was quite smug in his ignorance and acted the buffoon and still blabbered on as if his ideas were better than her thoughts. And his pandering comments of “woman” and “old dead prose...” are ridiculous. Just stop reading if you have no respect for what you’re reading! I’m sure the guy in this video has way more to offer the world than Dewey has. And as others have pointed out, even his use of “woman” is out dated so whatever.
After WWII , art acquires a "new" definition, based on the experiences of the young commentators, for whom this book was not written.
oh my god, finally someone who accurately expresses how confusing philosophy is. John at 4:09
I found the book hard but it helps if you read Thomas Alexander's book on Dewey's aesthetics. One mistake you made is that Dewey would certainly agree that ugliness and disgust are also an important part of aesthetics. You assume that aesthetics is only the experience of beauty. His theory of inquiry helps to take care of some of his weaknesses. For example, you may think that the mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb explosion is beautiful, from a distance. As we inquire into the more total experience of the atomic bomb, you experience the total disgust. If you cut off the experience too soon, you experience the ugliness. If you cut the experience too short, it is what Dewey calls everyday recognition as an object. If you continue to let the experience unfold through inquiry and extending the perception, you come closer to the Beauty or ugliness, or the truth or the meaning, or what Dewey considers true perception. Aesthetics is embodied and my need for embodiment in my intercultural communication exercises has been one of my projects in the last few years. I have written an article about it. If you want, I can send it to you.
Epic
Book Club #3!!!!!
I think it goes without saying, but say it anyway I will, that art is the precursor to invention and innovation. Imagination is the beginning of the artistic and scientific process. Scientists and engineers are often very good at imagining what is possible and I believe the sciences could not exist without art. The first human to use a tool, say a rock for example, had to imagine uses for that rock and that is art, that is the process of creation and when the next human came along and tied that rock to a stick with some vine and voila, a hammer. Art is necessary for progress and I get pretty grumpy when I hear that schools want to eliminate art programs in the interest of saving money. Keep up the good work Sarah, love it.
I haven't read the book and have a question:
Does John Dewey acknowledge popular culture as "art" at all? If not, where does he draw the line? And if yes, could we consider that Art is surrounding us, after all, given that we are pretty much constantly surrounded by music and movie theaters?
Mauro Vilela Pietrobon
Hello,
So, in a different context, in his book The Public and its Problems, Dewey argues very strongly against elitism in politics. The same applies to his view of art. He is not for rigid "high/low brow art". Having said this, he does believe enjoyment of aesthetic experience becomes deeper and more intensified as we cultivate our aesthetic habits. Just as a painter can 'see' more, and a musician 'hear' more than someone without training in either domain, any of us would see, hear, touch, feel, etc., enjoy art products more fully the more we learn about how art products are made and the more we experience them with a view to learning. (This is my language, not his.) Popular art, now as in the first half of the 20th century, usually attempts to be accessible to the greatest number of people by appealing to our most evident commonalities. Dewey would not object to this, per say, but he would say it does stunt our growth, our ability to have deeper more intensified aesthetic experiences.
Great video. But greatest moment: John mentioned West Brom! Woo
Book club suggestion
Thesentür: Conscientious Objector to Formalism By Theodore A. Harris
Thesentür: Conscientious Objector to Formalism is a series of minimal,image and quotation based works that uses poetry to confront mainstream art criticism, art history, to look beneath the surface politics of aesthetics and formalism in a presentation of art that is not self-referential or to put a Black face on the art history of imperialism.Formalism functions as the cosmetics of art criticism like aluminum siding on a slumlord’s property. It is an attempt to disguise what is crumbling beneath the surface politics of its proselytizing church bells,ringing, in the mega church / museums and galleries where there are more Black bodies guarding the white cube then exhibiting in it.What marginalized artist know is that canon formation is a battlefield and critical art is the weapon! In the crossed out words of Basquiat to repel ghosts.
I feel like the quote may have been misrepresented:
"Art is the living and the concrete proof that man is capable of restoring consciously, and thus on the plane of meaning, the union of sense, need, impulse, and action characteristic of the living creature."
-I don't think that Dewey was saying that 'art conquers all or is the epitome of human achievement' or anything like that. Not such a thing that Art is separate and achieved. Its much closer to us and much more common. "Art" as performed or exacted imposition out of lived space, can be a VERY wide spectrum of constructs explicated in a VERY wide array of methods.
Dewey also writes on how we cannot escape "impressions" even when
Beliefs do not subject themselves upon objects alone, objects subjectively incite impressions and just as described earlier in the video, Interactions.
For example: If a person wants to kiss another person, that is art, by Dewey's terms. Using his book 'Experience and Nature' p.176 there seem to be two conditions he describes on creating a subjective ideal ,to paraphrase: 'If there is no power to renounce revery(1) AND when its not being used as an objective embodiment(2), Even if we do not understand the action quantitatively or dialectically it can be made personal and meaningful and "finds the spirit of subjective idealism congenial."(p.176) He then goes on to describe Experience itself as under ownership of "who's experience?" but this starts to end my point so back to the quote at hand.
Continued Example: If a person wants to kiss another person, they could say "oh i saw this in a movie and I love the idea of it and I want to recreate what I saw so I can feel that pleasure those characters felt too..." they are absolutely open to revery ad will surely achieve something very close to "union of sense, need, impulse and action" but are still within a type of objective embodiment of what a kiss is since it has been seeded on a more objective but still intersubjectively accessible way. Where as a similar feeling could take place that would go through both conditions such as: "I really feel special next to this person in a way where I'm becoming aroused and I can imagine just how meaningful a kiss would be for both of us in different and similar ways and right now that is all I want to do with her"(thus experiencing revery and making art, art that simply and naturally establishes union of sense, need, impulse, action characteristic of the living creature, and humans are reflexive and sensitive enough that we can understand what this Art is and perform this act consciousLY, perhaps not for the single purpose of unifying, as purpose and meaning is a broader conversation, but for the purpose and of the meaning of acting itself, thus again establishing Union, which I believe Dewey was all about. )..... the guy is soooooo ahead of his time and even now, postmodern philosophy looks back on him as we enter a new technological age where what is sensed/felt can come so often from prepared objective embodiments of ideal (eg video game stories) but is inevitably entering subjective experience and ownership of a cellular singe of "who's experience"...
...Anyway thats enough I think I went too far. Hope I made my point.
Haha Dewey is no joke for sure. Super strong thinker. And I'm glad they give props to him in the video, He's the man. I guess another way of saying it would be that Dewey worked so hard to unbind the term "art" from its museum-like, voyeuristic, wine-drinking, pinky-up status. So when we talk about Art being proof that humans can get back in touch with themselves and their "Nature" ( A huge topic of Dewey's as you know ^_^ ) moving back to a union of the self, we're talking about something really simple and everyday experiential. We're NOT TALKING ABOUT MUSEUM STYLE ART, which they mention really well in this video but I think that when trying to interpret this quote they doubled back and didn't take their own wonderful conclusions into consideration and were wondering why his pragmatism turned to raw Idealism when he just wasn't talking about something that could be but rather something that happens daily for those who act without preconceived categories leading to foreclosing objective embodiment of things :) ......
..................... Drink Water
THANKS for stopping me from getting the book. It sounds like it is one of those books that has some great ideas in a horrible package.
Is there a longer video of the discussion on this book? I mean did you guys read beyond the twenty pages cos I really would use that video right now!
sounds like this John Dewey guy would really like Journey (the video game, not the band) and Papers, Please. Video Games are a great medium to deliver an experience.
Paul rand shared in one of his lectures to read this book
As soon as you guys were like, "This book is impossible," my brain said "challenge accepted," and then I bought it. This may have been a terrible mistake. I will know in 2 to 3 business days.
Well, I'm probably going to read it, challenge accepted !
I love art.
So what do you think of MONA in Hobart, Tasmania? Especially in the context of Dewey? There is also a museum in London that harkens back to the Wonderkabinett of there renaissance.
Cool. Thanks
John: "--he talks about the nature of man or the will of man or whatever, and I just want to be like... OR WOMAN"
me: "... OR NON-BINARY PERSON"
It's just like the 'books belong to the readers' idea?
Oh, I'm glad I didn't try to read this book. The "man" thing would have so distracted me from the point as well. Gah! That always bugs me so much! Also, I'm glad that this is the way we're doing the book club now. As definitely one of the younger viewers of the Art Assignment (admittedly with a rather high reading level and overall understanding of the English language and such), I feel as though some of these books would have gone over my head. I still might try and read some though. After all, when I read Behind the Beautiful Forevers (at John's- and the nerd fighter book club's- recommendation), I absolutely loved it!
lol its as if that dude has literally never read philosophy before in his life, Dewey is nothing compared to reading Kant. I am reading Art as Experience for pleasure and its an incredibly 'ahead of its time' text from a pretty radical thinker that yes wrote that shit in 1930... Thank u Sarah for actually reading
Yeah, seriously. While the mild sexism is annoying, what stands out to me about the book most is his incredible insistence on multiculturalism. Dewey draws more insight out of cultural comparison than most today do; it's seriously remarkable for a man writing in his time period. I'll grant Dewey's prose can be turgid, but he's no, as you say, Kant (and Kant is no Hegel!). I don't know why they'd discuss a philosophy book if they're not going to bother rising to the challenge inherent to philosophical thinking.
Yeah, John Dewey just brings back memories of my very, very, very dry American philosophy class in college. We focused on the pragmatists and it was so hard to get through the reading for that class because of how dull it was. The education focused parts were interesting, mostly because I had an interest in education policy at the time, but the rest of it, yikes. I much prefer the ethics branch of philosophy.
Anytime a book has even implied mild sexism John immediately dislikes it, and has a hard time absorbing its contents.
Thank you David for your comment. "This book, along with Experience and Nature, initiated a revolution in human thought. These two reviewers are not the least bit aware of this." this is sad!
Please have a book list on your website
Good one! Thanks guys
I love the idea of art being akin to an experience; it's why I value books and writing as art, because we are basically driven through an experience. It's also why the process of making art is so important as well, because that's an experience as well.
That being said, Dewey was a sexist asshole. Just because I don't have a man's anatomy doesn't mean I can't partake!
I really enjoyed this video and discussion! However about five minutes in, every time one of you said the word art, my mind started translating it to mean a guy named Art. Very disconcerting but entertaining in a whole new way.
nosneb99 For a hot minute I considered naming our son "Art" and then quickly came to my senses. It would make my personal and professional lives very confused. Perhaps season III of The Art Assignment could change formats and be entirely about a guy named Art.
Yes!
I'd suggest trying to understand American Pragmatism, as opposed to traditional philosophy, before trying to tackle this book. It is tempting, but if you really care about art, read the other stuff first. It is helpful and makes this read interesting. That's a lot to ask, but please do it.
I really really like john and pbs not sure about this channel
I made it to page 178, which feels like a major accomplishment if the water mark was at 20! I read a lot of Dewey in grad school though, so I knew what I was in for with his 80-yr old, cold, dead prose.
You two have a great rapport here and each contribute your own insightful substance while maintaining a conversational style that was easy to follow in spite of such arduous source material. Thank you both for clarifying the impenetrable with such an enjoyable, well-rounded discussion.
I think humans are art. Art is meaning and expression beyond the necessary like cream to coffee, humans have added meaning to everything basic thing in this world.
New BOOK CLUB videos pleaseeeeee !!!!
Can someone tell me the difference between esthetic and aesthetic?
I remember having to read this for an Aesthetics class for my MFA. I thought there were some good ideas and some very problematic ideas wrapped up in an enigma surrounded by confusion with a nice bow of What The Fuck Is This Guy Talking About?
So... Did he read the book or not?
Yeah, I remember trying to get through portions of that book in college. Super dense. Baurdillard isn't much better. I would suggest Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language". It's quite a bit longer, but I think it's more digestible and covers more aspects of common life.
0:17 just like my English Class!
"the moral function of art itself is...to perfect the power to perceive"
This is not far-fetched, utopian stuff about transforming society, and it's sad that virtually every public revisitation of Dewey's works seems to both take his ideas for granted and somehow miss the entire point he was making. You see this philosophy in Banksy, in Picasso's Guernica, in any still life painting from the past few centuries that stuns you with a strange feeling of immediacy absent from the other people walking through the gallery. More importantly, in my opinion, the nature of live music today (or even the craze that revived Bob Ross as a cult figure) demonstrates Dewey's understanding that in absorbing a work we are relating to a kind of performance of choice that resembles experience. Art heightens our perception and muffles prejudice because we see evidence, within the work itself, of inward striving to make something worth keeping. This is why kitsch is different, it's devoid of thought.
"The artist embodies in himself the attitude of the perceiver while he works." But Dewey was an intellectual, not an artist, so fewer and fewer people have had an aesthetic experience reading his work. "[Human thought] is not something brought to bear upon nature from without; it is nature realizing its own potentialities..."
Omg yes! I have been reading this book for a paper I am writing on Artivism and you hit it head on. I honestly think that Dewey was just well ahead of his time-- he was still in a time where art was considered this high class sophisticated thing, but artivism of today really perfectly aligns with what he is talking about.
Thank you for your thoughtful conversation! I agree with so much of what you said...let me get my thoughts in order...
For me, the defining characteristic of 'art' is the experience itself. I see art as something that gives you an emotional reaction, whether it's a straightforward one like crying at the end of TFIOS or a subtler, more nuanced one that you can't quite put your finger on. You may not know what exactly you're feeling, but you know you're feeling something. That's what I feel dance is particularly good at conveying, since it doesn't require words - the dancer has an experience that moves you to have some kind of reaction, and that reaction makes the original piece a work of art.
And I'd argue that everyone will have a reaction to a different kind of art, so even if you don't get that reaction from everything in the museum (as Sarah said), chances are each piece will give that reaction to somebody who attends. I'm going to use an Andy Warhol example, since you mentioned him and his museum's here in Pittsburgh: I might not quite 'get' the 12-hour long videos of him staring at the camera smoking, but when the staff at the Warhol Museum contributes to the Carnegie Museums' Christmas Tree display with a tree-shaped pile of Brillo boxes, THAT I respond to strongly. I think that's the great and accessible thing about art - there are so many different ways of making art that chances are SOMETHING is going to give you that emotional reaction.
What about that mansplaning?
If Dewey writes _man_ and he means _human_ but you read _male_ then the problem is yours not his.
Well.. 🤔🤔 i think it's resonable and critical question that should be asked for students living today.. because the word 'history' is on the hot issue "his+story"( why not herstory?) 😉So we have to ask ourself all time when you read old book (in the past, world is anti feminist, right)
I liked the conversation in the video! I hope the book club will continue with another book suggestion.
I'm not a writer, but when writers refer to 'man' are they referring to huMAN/MANkind rather than men?
Yes, but using "man" to describe all humans reinforces male as the default sex.
Jessi S
Says who? I'm not an avid reader, yet I could work out that it meant mankind not men.
It's just an old way of saying it. A lot of people want to reframe the culture by changing the language used (i.e. mankind to human kind).
I wish I had the £20000 grand a term to go to public school. le sigh.
Well I tried to like this video, but for some reason it won't let me.
so nice and butefull vedios
I don't see how John is annoying in this! He raises pointing questions regarding the book and questions the legitimacy of Dewey's argument. And yes, the prose is deliberately nuanced and hard. Why can't he say that?!
hmmm after watching this video made me wanna read this apparently dreadful but wonderful book
+thingslaurasays I actually find Dewey's prose quite enjoyable. Give it a shot!
Yeah, this Crash Course History guy is a total putz. Dewey writes quite eloquently, and if you have any head on your shoulder you'll be able to parse what he's saying with perhaps a little struggle, but it's certainly not boring.
Crash Course History by the way is one of the worst TH-cam History channels I've ever watched... they try way too hard to make history fun, but he and his twin (I think he has a twin) are the most awkward and lamest hosts ever. The show is incredibly unfunny. And if they put a fraction of the amount of effort into producing the show to be more academic as they do to try to make it look good and flashy, then you as the audience would probably learn something. Unfortunately, their idea of an interesting and engaging history channel is to talk way too fast, to spout off stupid little facts here and there as a way to try to impress you, and to bombard you with flashy things to look at. To them, that is the act of teaching history. It's as though they're thinking "look at me just making history all wacky and fun for you, oh boy... and here's another neat new fact about 1920, ho ho, isn't that neat *insert awkward attempt at making a dad joke seem funny*."
Anyways, fuck Crash Course History is what I'm getting at. /rant
John, you're killing me -- I understand being PC and everything, but is it truly difficult for you to get around the word MAN (short for MANKIND) in a book? I understand you love etymology as much as I do, and if you go back, Man is short for Human, derived from Mannus, Boy meant servant, in high germanic Girl was a gender neutral word for child. Woman is almost guaranteed a more sexist term being deriverd from from wifmonn (meaning of course wife of man) if you truly want to be gender neutral, maybe use queen (o.e. cwene) or frau (o.e. fréo, same as free, freedom) and Carl/Karlmann for males. It gets a little ridiculous at this point (though I love knowing this stuff) and it's easier just to use the words of our time and understand the words of other times. I know this is a long rant, but if you do read it, I am curious if you say some of the things you say because you believe in them or because you have become known as a beacon of political correctness. If you can read Beowulf, you can get through Dewey's use of Man as Human without being offended.
Pimp Doubt So if I told you to picture the word 'man', you wouldn't visualize an adult male? Words have function and purpose, and most of their work goes on in the reader's head. Reading things from the past, or things from different cultures, doesn't mean that it isn't unpleasant and exclusionary to see language that shuts people out, or puts them down.
Threefive nine I get whatever you are saying but I think if I attempted to read that book I might not envision a man. Because I feel it is saying mankind which includes men women and everything in between. But I also can accept that this was a different era and so he may have intended for men but as a woman I can get a lot out of it too.
It truly depends on the context in which I hear or see a word. You can't pretend that in the written word context is not everything, If someone walks up to you and says the word "smoke" are they asking you for a cigarette? are they bringing to your attention a fire? Selling brisket?
Time is also a context. Just because Doyle meant 'ejaculated' purely as someone suddenly speaking, doesn't mean I won't find it funny as I read it today. However old authors intend us to understand 'man' (and I have found a few that switch back and forth between the universal and the male within paragraphs even), today my reaction can be bitterness, because I've seen what social phenomena goes along with that usage.
So, he doesn't understand it. I care why?
Bonito club de lectura: donde ninguno de los comentaristas han leído la obra y se dedican a señalar desde su ignorancia lo poco atractivo del libro. Pésimo video para tan buen canal.
I did read it, way back in the early 90s, and the basic premise of art being an active experience has stuck with me ever since. The "man" thing is super annoying---how unenlightened the male thinkers were then. The critical male thinkers could not go beyond their own thinking to correct that "cock up."
These two don't understand the book.
I'm not sure about this as my art history and philosophy knowledge is so limited, but it seems like the people that present the concept that art should be or is this glorification of humanity or the ideal of the highest achievement of humanity -- all seem to come from persons of privilege. If anyone would like to speak to that I would be interested to know if that is true or not.
Ara Lucia Ashburne Hey,
Well to be honest I'm not sure I totally got your point so if you don't mind reformulating I'd be happy to reply. I can at least try to give you a reply mostly from a philosophical point of view cause that's what I do, but please let me know if it was out of topic.
Basically a way to understand all this glorification of humans and everything can be understood when you put this idea back in its context : it fits perfectly in the case of Dewey as he was alive from kind of 1850s to1950s, and was from the United States.
This era is fueled in glorification of humanity and its potentialities for two major reasons : Kant and the Industrial Revolution. Kant because you have the notion of absolute value of human beings and industrial revolution because people feel like they are unconditional masters of the world and nature (the paradigmatic representation of such a power is Friedrich's Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer).
As Dewey published his book in 1934, so before WWII and because the US wasn't shocked by WWI as Europe was, he probably still believed in this kind of romantic ideal of man's power to do great things.
And as you may have guessed, WWII had a huge impact on that romantic ideal and changed completely the structure and way people approached both philosophy and art - because of what happened in Germany and also for socio-economic and technologic reasons.
Does it answer to your point? I do hope I was clear, may you or anyone feel free to correct me if I made a mistake somewhere !
Unicorns United! Let me try again... I was thinking in terms of any school of thought wherein they assert that art is intended to be about beautiful and good and exhibit the highest values of humanity... such as with the Greeks... and other Western ideologies that followed. It just seemed to be that I have only ever heard that from "white guys art people."
Okay so who claimed that art was about the high values of humanity?
That's very broad, but let's try.
First you are pretty right that in the western culture the positions people take about art have been shaped by european white people, who were necessarily priviledged if you define priviledge being paid for brain work, in opposition to other types of work.
Now about schools of thought that assert that art is about displaying the highest values of humanity.
First it needs to be precised, the Greek never said that. I guess that when you say the Greek it's Plato and Aristotle. Well Plato in his ideal city wanted to banish the poets (infamous for that, but often misunderstood). Aristotle valued art a bit more as he believed in art's educational power, through the notion of catharsis for example (again, even that notion is quite debated upon).
I guess you can say that Christianism and Renaissance were the two major moments of the birth of the thinking that art shows the power of humanity : it's the Creation of Adam, in the Sixtine Chapelle, where Adam almost touches God. An artwork showing human's disposition to reach an almost-godly state. This is probably why you feel like it's some white people stuff - cause it takes its origins in white people societies.
Did I make it this time ? :P
Unicorns United! Thanks for that clarification.
Ara Lucia Ashburne Glad I could help :)
1:07 sign of beta
I don't think that I could sit and read that book with the way it is written either.
John entirely misunderstands Dewey, and instead fixates on the term "man," which was common usage in the 30s. Missing Dewey's ideas by getting caught up in misplaced or phony outrage is a serious failing. Is he trying to score points by showing how concerned he is? Disappointing.
its funny because john doesn't really know how to part art into words and makes art words for a living . lol
He used the generic "man" to refer to man-kind??!!?!??!?! CALL THE POLICE, I GOT A MISOGYNIST OVER HERE!!!