"The origin of the word 'curador' (pt) comes from the Latin, curator, which means that he has an administration in his care, designating the tutor, the person who cares, the one in charge of caring. Most commonly employed in the visual arts, curatorship from an institutional point of view, in this context, generically designates the process of organizing and publicly assembling a set of works by an artist or set of artists." Thank you a lot for those videos!
You told us to throw video idea at you, Micheal Jordon and the sublime There’s a fear and awe that’ transcends sport . Jordon could make you feel like Moses staring at a burning Bush. I will now enjoy your new video
That sounds really interesting, thanks! I would definitely like to do something on the sublime soon! I thought this was good - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Wzj4h0R_ryQ.html
Top notch content! You should do video about causality of fascism/holocaust/wwii and postmodernism/cultural marxism/civil rights. Kinda hard topic, however you would be maybe first youtuber to tackle it.
I think one thing that needs to be understood is that when it comes to history, if it doesnt effect people in a way that no one knows about it, its never going down in the books. All history is is a collection of historical perceptions of people, and sometimes that can be an end in itself, but in terms of objective truth, if that is even important, we'll have to synthesize all the different sources of information(primary sources)
@@shawnruby7011 Well, every piece of media is propaganda if you mean by propaganda something that is propagated. Would you mind specifying what you mean?
All meaning is relational, and the implicit acceptance of a deterministic temporal system seems intertwined with the perceptual framework dictating it. People tend to let rather broad presuppositions govern their existential interactions, we do not we dont inhibit the same conceptual worlds.
Depends what you mean by a "deterministic temporal system". We have physical sciences at a certain level can be very predictive but using approximations. With language truth, meanings and concepts slip... that doesn't mean we cannot use clear straightforward language to reduce ambiguity and word play.
This is an argument for a post-modern approach to the writing of history using Foucault as a guide. Now we have a confession from Prof Christopher Dummitt (Trent U) that postmodern history is also a pack of different lies. Quillette, Sept. 17, 2019
Foucault wasn't the best historian in terms of his history of madness. However, power should be and is a valid tool of analysis. However, I don't 5hink there is anything odd about having a shifting emphasis / perspective based on the latest values and societal mores. I just think when you stsrt to see power relations that can be a one sided way to think and any analysis can become somewhat binary a bit like the culture wars. The historian should still aim towards objectivity and truthfulness despite the fact it's something that can never be achieved ... :-)
Dummitt, in that article, criticises his own approach and that of the hard social constructionism he followed (in this case, the idea that biology does not influence sex). He doesn't criticise soft social constructionism, post modernism, or even Foucault.
@@Ted_Eddy I think that in work inspired by Foucault there's a tendency to see power as bad. Foucault doesn't say power is bad. The closest he comes to denouncing power is when it is in a system of domination.
great video mate. if I may make a suggestion in your productions, especially for this video. incorporate the educational concept of social constructivism. It argues that collectively we create knowledge. it will buttress your epistemological lense on this video. thanks for the video. finally, someone on youtube who tries to be objective.
@@cameronchurchill4147 Interesting point, how then should we approach history. Another interesting point, you deconstructed the issue as a postmodernist would.
@@nektariosmaniatopoulos262 Haha very good, but im afraid deconstructing an argument and regarding its simpler bits is a bit older than this guy, i mean damn re Bertrand Russel, if not just generally how people think
@@nektariosmaniatopoulos262 Oh and, there are a lot of different lenses, all useful, a Marxist lense, a power play between organisations that function as organisms almost, you know this, some are better methods than others though.
@@cameronchurchill4147 It the way we have been taught to think as postmodernists. We r a bunch of children who r fascinated with our toys, so we take them apart, but the irony is that we can't put them back together again, nor construct anything better.
If you genuinely read Evans' In defense of History, then you merely ignored absolutely everything in it and pushed your own narrative instead. Typical.
the problem with deconstruction and the postmodern critique is that it doesn't solve the main issue of what to value. it just tries to achieve the meaningless act of valuing in the first place (because valuing something means to devalue other things). tries to solve the problem of exclusion by creating a nihilistic meta framework to avoid excluding anything. but at the same time is the nihilism that excludes everyone at the same time. because we need to value something as a group or collective to avoid to fall into tribalism. which is exactly what postmodern thinking did. the nihilistic approach towards society and human beings produced identity politics as a compensation for collective values. but identity politics it is just a symptom of the postmodern existential crisis of value that led us in the first place.
I haven't watched the video and correct me if I am wrong of course but could we also argue that maybe the fact we value something as a group (such as the existence of a god) is then what sets up tribalism as then you have the people who believe the shared value and the ones who don't - us and them. And so maybe you could potentially say that true nihilism is the only way we can be departed from these tribes by realising their foundations they stand on - shared meaning. Though I guess we would as you suggest make our own tribes up again.Maybe these tribes in some light are a bit better as people can disprove eachothers ideas as they don't rely as much on core bliks such as the existence of god.I would still argue we need nihilism though as it shows us, to me at least, the fact our tribes are based on these shared - usually falsifiable - beliefs and maybe just everything really is just opinion (which really fucking sucks in same ways but is alright in other lights)
@@mytonstudent8929 I truly believe nihilism was the state in which we were way back in the day, when tribes started to arise. So, it is not surprise that it is happening again with identity politics. A unifying value structure should allow people to share a common goal and unite as a solid group beyond shallow personality traits such as gender or the color of your skin.
@@AB-ok7hu fair enough, i think we maybe disagree on whether we need nihilism or not but I do agree that identity politics reduces people down to appearances and helps us to establish even more differences between us as people. I'm glad we agree on that.
Or you can just avoid all this by doing a social history and history of accounts of people present, such like that of the new left historians in the united states. you dont need any assumptions, other than what you would need to understand what people are saying in the past....
