Nic Thurman on How Modernism Originated with Kant and Hegel and Why Kitsch is a Viable Alternative 

I like these discussions. Modern Art dominates the the shaping of our consciousness aesthetic as many aimlessly follow with out thinking about how our values are shaped. Sheep will follow dominant leaders with out questions. That's why we are losing our souls.Kitsch ideology helps us hold onto our individuality

Interesting ideas, but is more of the same. “Odnerdruism”, his view of classical painting is very personal. I think if you truly follow the greeks and Romans there should be other painters who do not follow his aestrhetics or think the same. Invite others who follow the classical path but not necesarily Rembrandesque. That is only a narrow point of view. The truly classical spirit but be open to discussion, debate , rethoric to healthy reasoning of other opposing ideas. The program would be richer and open up to other painters and thinkers.

I get many of the ideas exposed here and I have been to the Memorosa website reading through the theories and explanations given there. I must say I find many contradictions on the whole presentation of the ideas and of course am left with more questions than answers. When you start making distinctions about this type of painting vs this other type, or this painter (Tiziano) vs this other painter (Rembrandt), you are already recognising specific styles and differences between them, which then you are trying to negate in the same dogmas that are being presented. The very same idea of having two categories with nothing in between is more of a sign of argumentational weakness (and even perhaps a little bit shallow). Trying to define as a totalitarian systems of values that oppose each other. First of all, where does the word Kitsch comes from? Ethymologically and historically speaking? Then we also got the concept of "classic", which there is not just one definition of. Classic is not something that is a monolithic structure. It was something that develop over time, and the very fact of a development implies change, movement, evolution, etc. There is a reason why we speak within the classic about the work of this painter, sculpture, poet, architect, etc. And even within each artist, there is a reason why we can recognize and talk about the early works , or the mature works of..... Then also the matter of the "essence of painting", why aren't we talking about cave paintings? Perhaps we can come closer to the essence of painting by looking at those rather than the works of what are here explained as "classic". By the way, Aristotle, nor Kant, nor Apelles nor Homer where exposed to these works, in fact they are closer in time to us, than they are in time to the cave paintings in france. Those are things that only time and accidental discovery have exposed us to, but something that in my opinion have the potential to bring us even closer to the question of the essence of painting. Once we start think about the essence of painting with those works in mind, many of the "values" that are exhibited here in both categories fall very very short, and in fact the feel more like excuses to explain one over the other with words, when in reality, the essence of painting is far from the realm of words (and hence far from philosophies, written or spoken stories, etc). And even though the ideas exposed here are mere dogma, I still can appreciate very much the paintings and understand the work of many of Odd Nerdrum and artists circle

Very.interesting I never heard of these specific list of nerdrumism dogmas it’s quite impeccable I like it

Dear Jan-Ove, I am an American who has listened to quite a few of your podcasts. I have written a six page story recently which I suspect you might be able to relate to and enjoy. My way of giving you something back for all of the stimulating podcasts. Are you interested in reading it; and, if so, what is the email address I can send it to as an attachment in Word? Best regards. Richard Leiter.

I also disagree with the interpretation regarding Kant's ideas on "pure color". He surely does not mean that only primary, unmixed color can be considered beautiful, but that the use of color should be inherently bound with the communication of form. My interpretation of this is that color should be subservient to the elucidation of form. It is not a formula for what colors are allowed. "In painting, sculpture, and in all the formative arts-in architecture, and horticulture, so far as they are beautiful arts-the delineation is the essential thing; and here it is not what gratifies in sensation but what pleases by means of its form that is fundamental for taste. The colours which light up the sketch belong to the charm; they may indeed enliven the object for sensation, but they cannot make it worthy of contemplation and beautiful. In most cases they are rather limited by the requirements of the beautiful form; and even where charm is permissible it is ennobled solely by this."

I disagree with your interpretation of Kant's "aesthetic indifference" which you touch on around 17:00. Your point about reducing a tree to its essential shape seems disconnected to Kant's ideas of aesthetic judgement and closer to something to do with Platonic ideals. Maybe I am misunderstanding. However, I believe the point of Kant's ideas on aesthetic indifference has to do with the aim of being objective about one's perception of beauty. It has nothing to do with being indifferent towards the subject. The term "indifference" refers to suspending one's subjective thoughts about a particular object of judgement (as much as one can) in order to make a determination about its beauty. To me this search for a means of determining objective/universal beauty seems quite in line with Kitsch thinking. "We wish only to know if this mere representation of the object is accompanied in me with satisfaction, however indifferent I may be as regards the existence of the object of this representation. We easily see that in saying it is beautiful and in showing that I have taste, I am concerned, not with that in which I depend on the existence of the object, but with that which I make out of this representation in myself. Every one must admit that a judgement about beauty, in which the least interest mingles, is very partial and is not a pure judgement of taste. We must not be in the least prejudiced in favour of the existence of the things, but be quite indifferent in this respect, in order to play the judge in things of taste."

Keep on rockin'! I am suprised that you haven't researched Promo-SM!

85 percent black?

🙄 bla bla bla

Ignoring art historical facts to confirm your (or Odd’s) views obfuscates the truth which seems to contradict your whole shtick.