Awesome essay. Censorship, is, in it's own way, a form of publicity (Streisand Effect). The naming and renaming (censorship) of this piece, emphasizes its theme, and would be less without this background. Thanks for bringing it up!
I’ve come to realize most of my youthful presumption of the meaninglessness of visual art was really just institutions refusing to reveal the actual intentions and meanings behind the works. Attempts to remove politics from art and life do nothing but strip the world of clarity and leave us incapable of comprehending how systems function and how art has its own unique role. Thank you for this video. I finally appreciate the intent of pointillism.
Absolutely dismayed that the true resonance of this painting wasn’t revealed to me in school! Was barely glanced over. I thought it was merely a reflection of mainstream appreciation of the aesthetic more than anything truly moving. The piece itself is emotional to behold due to its size and fuzzy feelings of a hazy summer day enunciated by the pointillist technique, something to get lost in.
This is the first time I have had the principals and historical/geopolitcal context of ANARCHISM laid out and explained to me, and for three years I attended a graduate program at The New School for Social Research (NYC), surrounded by self-proclaimed Anarchists. Never in all my many casual discussions with them was Anarchism broken down like this simply. I just thought I was too thick to understand it. An added bonus was this was done in the context of explaining one my favorite art movements.
Wow! I had never come across this ideological analysis of the painting, nor did I know that Signac was an anarchist. I had only ever seen pointillism from a scientific /aesthetic angle. Thank you!
@@simaturna9765 If you do some research, you will find that he embraced an anarchic utopia. Politically, he was an anarchist. The meaning of the word was different to that of today's.
never before has anyone defined pointillism this way to me. what a more profound understanding i now have about this rather shortlived artistic method. makes wayyyyyyyyy more sense to me now. merci bien!
Same. I didn't realize that at least this painter was using it to make a statement. I've always thought of pointillism as sort of stiff and tame, but I'll look at it differently now.
Sorry but Shawn's explanation is not the correct explanation 😀 (the real reason is a pseudo scientific reason about the diffraction of light that you have probably already heard about), and it does not make sense the way he and you think it does , not at all 😀... because it is not complete, and when you complete it... it annihilates his anarchist narrative 😀... try to complete it by yourself if you can... what is the central element that Shawn forgot to put in the frame of his anarchist narrative... and completely destroys it when you add it ? 😀
One of my faves now. Proud Anarchist. Knowing that utopia is possible. Honestly the only state of the world we should move toward. It would be defitist not to. Knowing that beauty can exist makes the world worth living in.
Utopia's literal definition is that of a perfect place. In general, an utopia is impossible because there either is a problem or as a society we will find something to complain about. Yet worst, an anarchist utopia? If you, by literal definition, attempt to abolish all forms of power then there will be no organization, doing so means you would need an overseer and therefore you just created your own power, your own quasi form of government. Just analyzing the painting, who will maintain the grass length? Or the walking path? Who will keep the house on the far right of the painting? People do not perform acts merely for others' satisfaction.
And also, if as some some definitions you do not believe in personal property, everything falls apart. Distribution of goods cannot be performed without some sort of organization and control over resources which, again, you cannot have without organization or some sort of control which you cannot obtain without some sort of power/government. It seems running even a small community would be hard as an anarchist.
@@joshuamonroy2779 I seem to have a different experience. Those small communities are quite happy. Also people are not exactly as you expect them to be. For example there's a need for meaning that's now is largely overshadowed by the need of money. Do you really think that most having not enough to keep them motivated to bend over backwards through 3 jobs is the only way? Maybe abolishing "wellfair state" and everybody paying for the health-care or dying if they can't will solve all problems? Or immigrants are the problem?😄 anyway you have a very lacklustre knowledge of what anarchists are and never interacted with them. I enjoy the freedom to think. It's rather cool. That's what I love the most in our workshops, debates. You'd find a quite open-minded bunch. Quite the opposite of the rigidity of anarchy you envision. Weird that. Rigid anarchy. Kinda that dress don't fit, bro. 😉
@@joshuamonroy2779 Anarchy does not mean no organization, just no hierarchical organisation. People will still work, organize, cooperate etc. as needed. This could be through local consensus based councils, syndicalist unions, worker cooperatives, and confederative processes of recallable delegates.
I have a lot of things to say about this video... about Signac, about pointillisme, about history and history of arts, about propaganda... and I could add 2 personal anecdotes linked to at least 2 of the topics I mentioned... but it would be a very long post... or 6 long posts... and I unfortunately don't have the time to do it right now... So I put this video in the videos I must see later (even if I already watched it 2 times 😀) in order to find it easily when I have enough time to structure this mess of many different topics all connected together which are bringing up very important questions on all those different topics, still as important today as they were at the time 😀... I think I will start with history and The Commune where much more than 20 000 "Communards" were executed by the "Versaillais"... I will explain why the real number is closer to 30 000 victims executed than to the 20 000 in the video.. 30 000 executions in one week... without counting the tenths of thousands who were deported in French colonies... Contrary to you, Shawn, I am not an anarchist 😀... and when an anarchist says 20 000, the non-anarchist that I am should normally not answer 30 000 victims of the repression 😀... but I love truth 😀... so I say 30 000 😀... as at least one person imprisoned on your YT page says : "Be seeing you !" 😀...
6:50 Inversely, if someone can create double the product in the same timeframe, then we could have: Double the wheat to feed people with Double the clean water availability for drinking and cleaning Double the lumber for building and life-sustaining fires in the winter etc. etc. One unfortunate flaw of many simple utopian concepts, like what's described in a functioning Anarchistic society, is that they assume less work = better for all. No, less work = better for the individual. While we should take advantage of technological and social advancements to lower the workload of every citizen when it makes sense, we also do need to push people to keep working hard in the face of an easy out, for the sake of their common man who needs food, water, medicine, customer service, etc. Doubly so for the elderly, disabled, and ill. What we have now is too far in one direction, but we always need to be vigilant of the dangers in going too far in the other direction. To do otherwise is to be ignorant and cause harm. I had no idea that Paul Signac was an Anarchist, it makes so much sense looking back at his most famous pieces. Something about his peaceful groups of people lazily enjoying themselves in utter peace always felt strange but pleasant. You know that just-out-of-frame a dog is peeing on someone's beach towel or a homeless person is making a ruckus or a group of teenagers are getting rowdy. But before you look over and ruin the moment, it's still nice to take in the serenity, and if more people aimed towards that sort of serenity as being their goal for both themselves and their common man, the world may be a better place.
Anarchy shares the ideals of socialism, but without the structure. It's a fantasy in which everyone is kind and fair to one another without need of authority nor democracy. The idea is that, for example, there would be no groups of violent, marauding, raping men trying to control weaker individuals because there would be so many trees from which one could pluck fruits... Anarchism is a well-meaning but completely immature political fantasy that mostly appeals to young idealists who usually grow out of it after some lucid thought experimentation.
As some other posted the message in the painting is ever present and important. Very much so now with the current political map and status. Totalitarian regimes come in all colours and disguises and "common" people gets stripped of their rights and means to fight poverty even in the "western world". Russian fascism, tories in UK, Xi Jinping in China, US with incompetent or dangerous presidents the list is very long.😟
Errico Malatesta was a communist like most anarchists are but he was not a Utopian communist, which is different strain of thought from anarchist communism. In fact Malatesta called other people Utopians. This RU-vidr has a series about this on his second channel Germinal ru-vid.com/group/PLSdoMJbM2osaa-IRzCEBNjwCjcYxCeEuo
Great video but that is a remarkably one sided view of French history... It is of course far more complex and so I just hope people don't form any opinions based on this without doing thorough research. Little bit irresponsible to be honest.
Selling his paintings would no longer be necessary for him because his well-being would be taken care of, painting then would just become a passionate expression all just for itself. Agree with the argument or not, you are missing the point here.
Most artists would probably prefer to simply make art for art's sake. As an artist myself, I'd rather spend my time painting murals on the walls of my house that nobody but me will see than spend it either working a 9-5 job and squeezing art into the cracks of time that leaves or trying to work with galleries and agents and buyers and all that nonsense to try to sell enough art to make a living. So much art dies before it's ever made because the artist simply can't afford to make art and feed themselves at the same time.
@@pizzallama7424 By whom would he be taken care of? Without our highly efficient economy we simply couldnt sustain the amounts of people alive at the moment. We would starve. We also wouldnt make technological advancements as quickly anymore. Maybe you are of the position that we are too many anyway and that the problems technology solves are self-generated and wouldnt even be needed in a post-civilatory world. Dont delude yourself about the following: 1. This world wouldnt be a paradise. Life is much harsher without the current systems, supply chains and such. You can substract hierachy or information systems such as money and the high living standards still remaining. 2. You have to kill billions of people or sterilize them in eugenic programs first. Nothing short of a genocide is necessary to arrive at this point, because such systems cant sustain the amounts of people alive today. 3. Hierachies would reemerge due to evolutionary advantage.
Anarchists obviously don't fight for harmony, they fight to do whatever they want and everyone else in the world should accept that. It's not about 'institutions of power' that cause disharmony, it's anyone - including anarchists that think they have a right to do things which others absolutely do not appreciate.
Like most things, anarchism is a solid ideology on paper. However, most things written on paper forget one major element… the human factor. A world without leaders or some sort of enforcers those who enjoy suffering and violence thrive. Any and all harmony that is gained from a lack of social hierarchy is lost as the strong naturally prey on the weak. Not everyone follows the idea of a common good and without leaders or said enforces these wild elements destroy the idea of anarchism.
The idea that enforcers (police, etc.) in society aren't inherently violent abusers of their positions who inflict suffering as a matter of course is hopelessly idealistic. I grant that anarchists are idealists, but I find them no more absurd than the notion that "enforcers" are somehow more peaceful.
@@lou2949 Sometimes and sometimes not. That is why the idea of systems which self-regulate through law, democratic process and seperation of power are hard learned lessons from history. Not just leaders dont always follow the idea of a common good. Leaders are no different from anyone else. Getting rid of leaders wont get rid of people seeking to harm others and also it wont get rid of leaders either as such ways of organization have a great competitive advantage. They will reemerge. It is about chosing what hierachy and how to bound it; not if hierachy or no hierachy at all. The reason why such hierachial structures permeates virtually all cultures is because groups adopting it have an evolutionary advantage. The best we can hope for is balancing and checking power and build systems which incentivise the greater good. Obviously this isnt without error and obviously the end goal isnt a paradise, but considering the massacres and disasters that have stemmed from humans trying to achieve utopias it is very much preferable.
@@FabricofTime That's black and white thinking. The idea behind enforcement is that it must be seperated from other powers. It must be regulated through other power. Not because enforcers are inherently "violent abusers of their positions" but because some may be exactly that (like any other human) and when go unchecked can inflict great harm. Notice the difference? You are thinking in absolutist and quite ignorant terms.
Amazing work! This is by far one of my favorite paintings and I never thought I´d see a video essay on it. I've always thought the subtitle "The Golden Age Has Not Passed, It Is Yet to Come" is alluded to in the center figure of the child striving towards the fruit being offered by the mother, as if to imply that this is an achievable reality that we must continue to push for.
Your channel, and especially videos of this subject, motivates me to pursue a career in art history. As a young anarchist, it’s really nice to see that political lens being put on art history. After watching the vast majority of your videos in the last couple of weeks, I’d like to thank you for each and every one of them because it’s not often one is able to see such love and care put into videos.
Oh wow!! Thank you so much! I'm so glad I can reach people on the intersection of anarchism and art. Being an anarchist myself, I still struggle a bit with how art stands in relation to anarchism. It's definitely something I'm attempting to explore. If you ever find relevant authors, ideas or texts, don't hesitate to send them my way :)
Your name evokes such beautiful memories because it is shared by Gabriel Fauré, Gabriel Urbain Fauré (12 May 1845 - 4 November 1924), a French Romantic composer, organist, pianist and teacher. He was one of the foremost French...from Wiki quote. As I was learning to play flute, my favorite classical piece of all time is his Sicilienne.
Thank you so much for helping me understand pointillism. I never knew that the “point” of it was anarchy and I never knew anarchy was anything other than punk ‘80s revolution. I’m better for having watched this.
This for me, was eye opening. TBH anarchy has always made me uncomfortable because I did not understand it from an informed point that this video provided. Do you ever invite people for dinner? My only criticism of your videos is that you don't let the viewer know where (if) the work can be seen. It would be helpful to have this information in the notes. Thanks
Thank you for this. This is the first time I have had the principals and historical/geopolitcal context of ANARCHISM laid out and explained to me, and for three years I attended a graduate program at The New School for Social Research, surrounded by self-proclaimed Anarchists. Never in all my many casual discussions with them was Anarchism broken down like this. An added bonus was this was done in the context of explaining one my favorite art movements.
I've always had a soft spot for Impressionism and it's ilk, and I recently had the chance to see some Signac paintings up close and was absolutely enamored with to the point he's now one of my favorite artists.
I don't know.. if your political stance is needed to give your painting any power, if without it, it just looks bland and boring, the painting was probably not that successful
Anarchism is not a natural social order, nor does the lack of it lead to corruption, as this is a VERY French problem, as over and over again throughout French history there have been rulers who both abuse their power, and are given a lot of it, while simultaneously thinking they are literal gods. VERY French and English.
What an idealist. I love his art, but like many ideas in this world, it would never be practical. Communism and socialism has tried time and again to make the perfect world. There is one little problem, people are not perfect and it will never exist. Trying to force it, results in a much worse world in the end.
I don't believe in anarchy, since it would, like all other forms government, result in a select few abusing and manipulating others to accumulate immense power and wealth over others. In the same way as capitalism and communism promises "power to the people" or "power to the individual", that is never really the case. In reality, I think socialism is probably a good compromise to apply in the real world, since it forces everyone to contribute to the greater good in some ways at the least (high taxes and high welfare). It also generally applies the "allemansrätten" or "all man's right", making private property free to explore to anyone, including foraging. And because of welfare, practically no one is left to live on the streets and education and healthcare is completely free. There are faults in the system, of course. But it has worked well in many countries including my own.
@user-tp5yp2bv6z So many people share this belief, because we live in a society, that rewards greedy and egoistic behaviour, foul play and abuse of power. So, of cause that is, what we overwhelmingly often experience. I like to point out, that we are still and against all odds capable to be kind and gracious, without beeing rewarded for these acts of altruism. I don't think that humans are bad by nature. I think humans get corrupted by a bad enviroment.
Socialism was the basis of the most oppressive states in human history with the exception of facism. I agree that hierachies naturally arise and power tends to accumulate. That's precisely the problem for socialism. The best we can aim for is balancing and checking power, and socialism doesnt has such mechanisms at all, with the aim to enlargen the space of individual empancipation without destalblizing society at the same time. Ideologies like Anarcho-syndicalism honestly sound like paradise to me (state socialism like hell), but they are terribly unrealistic.
This is why we need communısm. Only that leading to the worldwide abolıshment of capıtalism will render the state unneccessary. Only when people no longer need institutions like government to be taken from the bourgeoısie and turned against the rıch, will society be able to function without politics.
For Marx it was the end stage of Communism, total centralized government is a necessary means to the end of redistributing the means of the production to the people but once all hierarchy was done away with the state would dissolve into a classless self governed society. I don't agree with the ideology but the two do share the same end state vision
@@redhawk105 yeah.. the end vision could be argued as being a purposeful deception or just a plain old fashioned cruel irony. Limited government is the best working model of the protection of liberty that we have. The balancing act is getting to how much government is needed without over doing it.
@@timdanyo898 Anarchism is inherently socialist, and many anarchists (current and historical) are/were communists. Neither communism nor socialism are inherently about state-control, that conception just comes from the specific form of socialism that became dominant as a world power. It's about social ownership of production, which anarchists and some other socialists tend to achieve through worker cooperatives, syndicalism (like in revolutionary Catalonia), local consensus based community councils, usufruct etc.
@@KarlSnarks If you are talking about small communes living "off the grid" like the hippy communes of old trying to make it within a capitalist, protective construct, then maybe.. but to call oneself a socialist and an anarchist in the same sentence is oxymoronic. Anarchy is the absence of government by its very definition. Socialists and communists like to say they are "anarchists" because they know that anarchy is the first step (societal breakdown) towards implementing a new system of control. Burn down the old and raise up the new! We know that socialists, fascists, and communists are authoritarian in practice, but try to obfuscate this fact because it doesn't sell. Your political understanding is built off of a false political spectrum. If you see total government control on the hard left and no government control on the far right then you can see how it all plays out. Unfortunately, the vast majority of governments are oligarchies which is the few rule the many. All communist, fascist, socialist, dictatorships, and monarchies are all just versions of oligarchies. A full blown anarchistic society has never been sustained or proven over time. Anarchy is merely a temporary period between two system of power. That's why I call BS when someone says they are an anarchist. They are either ignorant, naive and/or clueless to think it's a real and positive and working political state, or they are in fact a deviant power hungry authoritarian type who is manipulative with ulterior motives.
From what I understand about anarchy, it leads to communisms and we know from our past and present (N Korea) that communism leads to unimaginable human suffering and millions of deaths sooo.... maybe the French authorities were right to do what they did
North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with a functionally-hereditary despotic monarchy. They aren't communist in the Marxist sense any more than Nazis are socialists. Just because a ruling group puts a word in their title doesn't mean their actions accurately fit that word.
@@halguy5745 When a revolution comes anarchists stand no chance against the state socialists. Anarchists have been executed in large numbers by socialist regimes for being "reactionary" just like so many other "dissidents".
Hierarchy is innate to human nature. It's naivety to the point of madness to think that destroying all hierarchies in society, would bring it to perfect harmony, instead of chaos and barbarism.
No, of course, some hierarchies are absolutely fine. For example, nobody would argue against a parent having authority over their children. There are also hierarchies in knowledge. A medical doctor has some authority when it comes to telling me what I should be doing in terms of my health and there is some kind of hierarchy there too. The kind of hierarchy that needs to be abolished, at least to anarchists, are the institutionalized hierarchies. Those hierarchies create chaos insofar as they create social tension between the powerful and the powerless. For example, when it comes to private property, a whole group, because devoid of property, need to sell their labour to another group who do hold property. The group without any property are dedicating 40h a week (sometimes more) to working under someone else's authority. This property owner can dictate how this worker acts, dresses, when that worker needs to show up to work, when that worker needs to smile, etc... If the worker doesn't comply with the authority figure, this worker will get fired and risk losing their income (which means not being able to pay for food, shelter, etc.). If this worker disobeys authority and gets fired from their job, they'll either starve or have to find another authority figure for which to work. In the case of private property (and there are many more examples), at least to anarchists, this is chaos. This is barbarism.
@@TheCanvasArtHistory I get your point. But I still think it's naive to think that simply destroying to the ground a "bad hierarchy", will solve any problems. Human relations and society are overwhelmingly complex. It would be too pretentious to assume that anyone or any group would be able to come up with a better system from the top of their heads, that wouldn't end up being even worse than what is already in place. A smarter way to at least improve the level of harmony in society, would be to gradually reform and improve on the hierarchies we already have, since they, even with all their faults, were able to take us so far, in relative peace and order.
