These are 70+ short videos for art students, covering subjects like media, style, practice, skill and deskilling, the history of art education, ideas of the beautiful and sublime, politics and art, gender and art, Eurocentrism, decolonizing art, ideas of modernism and postmodernism, many more.
Hope you repent James. I was a student of Art History from 2007 - 2011. Your name cropped up on occasion. Jesus is God in the flesh and I hope you come to know Him. The algorithm suggested your video for some peculiar reason because I don’t often search out art videos these days. And the world has gone to wrack and ruin. We’re in the last days. People are quite vicious. And this world is a real cesspit.
According to Gombrich ( utube conversation with Charlie Rose) this book was not written for children. His previous book was: he was asked to write The Story of Art for children but refused saying he would write one for adults.
Hi professor, thanks for the video. it seems like ‘practice’ is more about the idea/concept behind an artist’s mind which could explain why they want to make this work/a series of work along the years, which should be consistent. So if they’ve changed their concerns entirely, we might say it’s a different practice. Also I’ve been thinking how we’d describe a modernist artist’s practice, do they have a practice or they just have a style?
I think you're right about the first thing -- "practice" definitely implies a concept, which is systematically or regularly evident in the work. "Style" is a completely different question, and to a large extent "practice" replaces "style" in postmodern art.
Hi professor James Elkins, I am a college freshman in an artschool, and I am preparing a personal project for my portfolio. The problem i am having is about choosing a topic to develop the project. My lecture said I have to choose a topic that sufficiently affects the community at a certain scale, and the topic must have something related to myself as an artistic researcher. I was so confused with the "relation" of the topic that my lecturer told me to find when I choose a topic. I want to ask you for some advide, if you have time to reply my comment, i will very appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Hi, not an easy one! Usually the teacher means that the work has to have a social message (it has to be about politics for example), or it has to be done out in the community, so people who don't go to museums and galleries can interact with it. Since it's a research assignment, maybe you could look up some political or socially-oriented work. Here are some names off the top of my head: they're all interesting people. Félix González-Torres, Pablo Helguera, Mark Dion, Doris Salcedo. Hopefully you can find something in their work that connects to yours. Good luck!
@@JamesElkins Wow, your answer actually helps me got some keys, thank you a lot, professor. I very like your lectures series on youtube by the way! I gained a lot of things after watching them.
It would be "wonderful" for art history books to not use words that are Greek of Latin...Why?? Why would that be a wonderful thing? I can't help but think of a corrosive virus that wants to inject itself into everything "western" and cause it's extinction as if it would free us from some kind of oppressive prison, this obsession with liberation and hatred of the past is so boring.
Hi, not sure if you'd like to exchange ideas here -- but there are reasons for the idea of avoiding some Greek and Latin concepts. Here's an example: "picture" comes from Latin "pictura," and over the centuries it's accumulated lots of meanings, inclding "tableau," German "Bild," etc. But in other cultures, where there is no such concept, "picture" can mean something very different. In Tibetan, I've been told, one of the words used to refer to "picture" means "support," as in a table leg or a chair; the idea is that a "picture" is something that supports the deity who is depicted in it. So by looking at different traditions, we can understand concepts more widely, and also see how the concepts we use are unexpectedly specific.
@@JamesElkins Again, roots of the West: bad and dirty; let's mince into magical and pure Eastern cultures and raid their language for treasures to bring them back into our own culture and change everything, turn it all upside-down and inside out to free ourselves from the horrible dirty Edenic Fall...why can't Greek and Latin exist ALONGSIDE other words from other languages, why must everything be replaced? A truly integral view would see all as equally valid and having a place in the puzzle. Greek and Latin and the European tradition is a beautiful thing and the boundaries of such should be respected, as other cultures' boundaries should be respected too.
I actually agree with you. There's nothing "wrong" with the Greek and Latin roots of European terms: the idea is to think not only in them but with them, alongside them, with other terms -- for better understanding all around.
I think it's two-fold: (1) It's in the dealers' interest to not be too positive or negative, but to let the art and public speak, only controlling the market when they can (for the purposes of selling high). (2) Visual/classical art is largely dead, and a lot of it is now run by modern types themselves, so it's only natural that they would want to end judgement. They make terrible art and want to be praised for it, and pat each other on the back. If I'm right, and looking at other trends in the other artistic domains, it ought to be the case that these fields will fall soon, too. In fact, I think there is some evidence for this already. I mean, you claim that people are either extremely positive or negative with opera, drama, fiction, and otherwise, but I'm not so sure. Regardless, these are all falling. It's likely the future of art as such is in films, video games, comics, online creations, A.I., and otherwise. In all these areas, since about 2017, there has been a shift towards a non-judgement. The only times you see profound judgement is when it's propaganda and enforced one way or the other (either by the state or the controlling population/mob). Otherwise, there is a great movement with Gen-Z which is more in the direction of depression and 'thrownness', so they don't really judge anything in any direction: everything is just 'is'. On top of this, there is a feeling that to be positive or negative is immoral and harmful in some regard. On the cinema and video game front and such: you often see only positive reviews here, to let everybody be happy about whatever they want, and to keep the companies happy. For example, if Nintendo pays you for a review or gives you powers (early access), you are pretty much required to give the game a 10/10 rating, even if it's bad or has major issues, or you personally hate it. Your merely the mouthpiece for the company. If you say it's bad, they will never hire you again. As a result, I think all of art is going in the direction of non-judgement, with pockets of extreme judgement as a crowd, as opposed to individuals. It used to be, back in the 1980s or so, that individuals were actually paid to have individual options, and/or this was the way to gain attention (maybe even profits). Some reviews were negative, some were positive. This was famously the case with video games between 1975 and 2005 -- certainly 1975 and 1995. Within the industry itself, there has been a shift towards 'nothingness', let's call it. Many experts have come out talking about this: coders and game designers today cry in the corner if you shout at them, for example, or ask them to do more than 15 minutes of work. This is the new Gen-Z framework, and has impacted all of these areas since the 2000s. It seemingly extends slightly into the last generation, too (so, those born around 1990). I know the same is true for novel reviews and novelists, as well. Comics have also become completely run by Gen-Z and are examples of small cults or childish groupings (more in line with the underground 'zine' world and other niche areas of expression and modernist community-building). I don't think it's useful to have no judgement in the age of the Internet, though we might say that the postmodernist or likewise framework is also flawed. There are a few problems going on, including simply a far larger population than before in many of these areas, coupled with the childishness and inability to accept hurt feelings or form their own personal thoughts. The Internet itself cannot be the problem, given that it existed back in 2003 and there was no shortage of the more classical judgement. But, it evidently has not helped, in line with the way Gen-Z has moved. I have to assume that this is a form of postmodernism which suggests that 'judgement' itself is a lie or wrong. That's why we see it exist in the 1980s or 1990s, before the Internet and Gen-Z. It just spoke to them most -- or shaped them, whichever is correct. Difficult to know. We need to study this a lot deeper over the next 10 or 20 years, is my guess. I also have to assume that, to the degree opera is still 'classical' in this way, it's because it's not filled with Gen-Z and there is no real benefit to it being non-judgement-based. As I said, this likely isn't the issue for the future compared to the globalisation forms of video games, novels, comic books, and films. If we only look at these things since 2017 or so, we notice that there is a trend towards non-judgement or complete judgement (for critics, they love everything Disney does; the average person hates it). This is why so many review sites show terrible conflicts, and many companies are banning negative reviews. As for poetry, I see this as also having no sense of judgement. As we speak, my nation (England) is throwing away all the great poets of the past and replacing them with random African and Ukrainian poets (not straw-manning or so forth -- this is literally what they did). And, assuming my judgement is anything to consider (maybe this is why they want to remove the notion), it's not because the latter are better than Owens or Shelley. I've read them: they mostly consist of sloppy, unpolished stream-of-consciousness rants about childhood, daily life, and political, topical issues. A lot of weather in there, too, and other generalities. Most of the great poetry of the past had little of that, if any. This is to be taught in all the schools by 2025, and fully replace most English poetry. This, not even dealing with the matter of if it's correct to remove poets of one's own nation. (I understand that not all stream-of-consciousness writing is polished, but you'll notice the very best of the last 100 years has come from true geniuses of this world. Even then, half of them did polish it -- they just polished it so well that you cannot tell.) Now, it's worth noting that certain areas of modernity and the digital realm literally do benefit from negative coverage, so this is seen as a positive to many. For example, disliking a RU-vid video is 'good' in certain ways, as it helps with viewership and traffic. Anything that is based around news or the spreading of information, more so, online, is a victim here or can be. Since we know bad news travels like three times faster than good -- likely in line with the fact humans feel negative emotions 2.5-3.0 more than positive, and we simply care about negative issues more as they are far more important and interesting, innately. This can backfire, of course. If everybody hates Disney, this is likely bad for Disney. This is why they try to control and ban and corrupt. But, let's go back 40 years to a more normative time. Disney had no problem with people debating their output or even disagreeing with it: this created interest and more traffic, and profits, as a general rule. Also, negative feedback had an even less negative impact compared to social media. If I say something really bad about Disney on Twitter, this can become a far worse situation than it ought to be. This is the true power, the negative power, of social media compared to classical media or just friends at a café. Its reach is unstoppable, and its failure to properly frame context and emotionality. But, the Internet is so fast that being non-judgemental is unwise as it all becomes a sea of nothingness. On top of this, to pretend that X is Y or equal is not only unwise but immoral. To lose your own sense of self, to never have a judgement on anything, is immoral. I also think it's impossible and is bound to boil over sooner or later, and make the critic 'snap', mentally and otherwise. I think this might explain many people today and how crazy they have become, and how violent in one direction or the other. Sure, I hate Lenin and Leninism, but I'll have tea with a Leninist and even let him scream outside my house. This is his freedom, and I'm here to defend it to my death; that is what it means to believe in freedom and rights and the soul of man. This does not mean, however, I have no opinion, or merely a weak one. The 'old' critics had a better understanding of this very delicate complexity. Not that it's even that complex, you just have to be a noble human being with control over your emotions, and have a belief system within yourself. This is where we might have found the rub, as it were. Critics today are either mouthpieces of their overlords or have the emotional control of a child, and are ants without a hill; lost and without a moral structure. The critics, of their own free will, having no judgement at all, fall into two camps. First, they are more Jungian in nature, and believe that it's up to the viewer/reader to make up his own mind, so they don't want to throw anything onto them. Second, they are cowards or lack the ability to think and feel. As you can imagine, sadly, the latter camp is filled, where the former is almost empty. Your own datasets prove as much: very few are interested in the deeper meanings of art or playing the role of 'conduit' and true thinker. We've seen very few examples of that over the last 60 years. The best you can hope for, if they view art wholly within a Marxian and postmodernist framework of 'culture' and 'politics' and 'history'. Evidently, this is almost always getting further away from art and truth and the deeper meanings, not closer. Most critics, pro and otherwise, don't have anything to say, and don't know what they're talking about, and are fearful. They don't want the mob to attack them for saying something wrong, or losing their fans. You see this in all areas of life, and the arts are no different (at least, for the last 7 years or so).
My take on art school is that it is about: Personal interactions, shared experiences and exposure to ideas. Looking at and experiencing existing works of art. Learning about and gaining experiences with visual and other sensory media. Understanding the visual and sensory experience of color, form, space and motion. Creating artwork in a way that fulfills personal needs. Art school is not about analyzing the meaning of artworks. I think that Gary Winogrand said something like - if you want to tell a story, a number two pencil is infinitely more effective than any photograph (he was a photographer).
Thanks for that. I think often it's true. The other side of the coin depends on where you're going with your art. If you're making a kind of art that is aimed at a particular public (performance, conceptual, postminimal, gender-based, political) then it can be important to analyze the work so you can project it the way you want.
Some arguments for keeping life drawing as fundamental, even though it may not be directly relevant to the subject matter of the students own work: 1. Cognitive practice: brain/ hand/ material connection 2. Concentration 3. Appreciation of the human form as is: physicality, movement, expression, etc. I had a wonderful drawing teacher who included mark making and materiality in our drawing practice. It got me thinking in abstract terms. It was a game changer!
I agree on all those, provided the instructor also talks about the reasons life drawing was valued in European academies, what it might mean for a roomfull of people to look at a naked person, etc. - the situation is so interesting, so full of meaning, that it's odd to just present it as natural or necessary for any artist.
@@JamesElkins You made me aware that I indeed thought it was natural. In India's art schools life drawing and drawing from nature is seen as necessary and fundamental. However models are not naked. So, its definitely cultural :)
Not sure if you want a conversation on this -- I'd say that the results of deskilling (which isn't the agent, but the symptom of cultural shifts in interest) is, for better or worse, the sum of art in the last fifty years or so -- so it's part of art history. Realist painting skills, and other technical academic skills, haven't quite been lost. The art world might become more interesting if they are gradually reintegrated into "desiklled" media and practices!
Thank you so much. I was reading Butler's essay last weekend and very difficult to understand. I am glad to know I was not the only one. :) Very helpful lecture.
So happy to find this series. I am a student at RCA and I wanted to get some lectures about art theory which is not provided by RCA at all as you can imagine. Thank you! :)
Professor, a question: at 8:35 the annotation to the slide read that Krauss claimed that photographs were indexical signs, representing the photons hitting the film. In this case wouldn't they just be indexical to the medium of photographs, not the resulting images? When the image projects onto our retina, and we compose our recollection of it on a support,then this may also be interpreted as the indexing of that event...
That's right, and it's been said that the digital age then decisively freed photography of the indexical. I think the persistence of the theory-since it's still cited by critics and used by artists in statements-has more to do with the idea that photography has a different relation to the world than other media. Indexicality is an index of that (!) not a consistent argument for it.
James, I just finished watching all of your lectures you have currently available and wanted to express my appreciation for you putting them up like this. Such an invaluable resource! Thank you for all the hard work you put in to make these available. Looking forward to more (whenever you get the energy)!
Definitely pagan--one hypothesis is that it's myrtle, which would make the figure Venus. It was probably obscure to the original viewers as well, which fits the theme (strange pagan deities).
For me, learning art history and theory had the same but also the opposite effect. When I was majoring in Art History and Theory, there were some paintings that I thought if I'll see in real life I can't simply stand still, only to find that when I finally saw them in person, the anticipated emotional impact was absent. This paradox prompted reflection on the interplay between intellectual understanding and visceral response in the realm of art appreciation.
Hey James, I’m a student from SAIC currently on exchange at slade. I’ve had a class with you so it’s great to be able to stay tuned in across the pond.
9 месяцев назад
Great lecture, but I would argue that "traditional chinese culture" was NOT swept away by the communist revolution, quite the contrary, it was fortified.
Such a complex subject. Art certainly changed. I'd like to say the traditional media are present but marginalized (lacquer) and reimagined (inkbrush painting).
Can you have theory without ideology? Like all ideologies they fall apart when picked at. In a few years people will be embarrassed that they fell for DEI ideology.
Is there a C31 video and any videos between H28-H51? Are the three private videos in the playlist related to the lectures, or are they deliberately made private @JamesElkins
There are about 15 made but not recorded. I hope to record them if I ever have the time! The "private" ones are not secrets, they're just not art history. As always, all comments are welcome.
@@JamesElkins No problem. It's passable. And after dancing on the aesthetic third rail for so many years that exhaustion is well-earned. The work is brilliant and profoundly a gift to humanity.
Thank you - that was a delight "Sys-gendered self exploitative" is such a glorious way to put it! Women who want attention, and they will have you know: they're quite determined.
@@JamesElkins been reflecting... Always dangerous. Art, and perhaps fine art especially, comes down to what you like. It's OK, I suppose, to judge what someone likes, but only under the understanding that it's very difficult to curate one's own taste. What you like, is pretty much, what you like: unless you lie for dramatic effect.
It's a complicated subject, but in general I'd say "one's own taste" is often not what it seems. The world of tastes isn't comprised of individual subjectivities, each with its own response: instead taste is inherited, often without our knowing. There are relatively few ways of experiencing modern and postmodern art, and they can be learned and recognized. For the students in these timeline exericises, it can be useful to realize they are not alone in their tastes, but they share common ground with often large movements and ideas (like surrealism). They're all still very recognizable individuals (!) but they become parts of wider conversations with shared values.
@@JamesElkins Humm... Not sure I buy that frame. IMO only individuals have tastes - groups have culture. Taste denotes the personal experiencing of pleasure, affinity or wonder as a result of interacting with subject matter. Groups may have a list of sanctioned, and banned works, but the appreciating can only happen on an individual basis. Yes - sure thing - culture taught me to appreciate art; but it's me that smiles when it's good - not a tribunal of elders.
