A Critical Response to Philosophy Tube’s “Is Art Meanin… — Transcript

[Music] Art's a messy subject. Google defines art as the expression or application of humans. There's no strict definition of what art is or isn't. In fact, defining art can be so complicated that, in my mind, there is only one truly definitive thing you can say about it. The goal of all art is to try to convey a feeling. Trying to pinpoint exactly what a piece of art is trying to say, what it's trying to get at, what you should take from it, what you should feel is next to impossible. You're never going to get that one true meaning that you've been looking for all of your life that fits every single piece together. Getting it is a really bad way to go about analyzing and interpreting art. I feel pity for anyone who tries to go about telling someone exactly how you should be interpreting art. When do you know you've gotten it or at least somewhere close to it? This is the idea that fellow YouTuber PhilosophyTube tries to tackle in her video "Is Art Meaningless?" a video that I think gets close to looking at how we should be interpreting art or at least ways to do it and ways to not do it. But ultimately, the final product comes out so wishy-washy and in certain parts hypocritical that it just stands as a really unnuanced and backwards way to go about looking at this subject. So let's not waste any further time and dive right into it.

[Music] I am the portrait of Madame X by John Singer Sargent. I was first exhibited in 1884, and I caused quite a stir in Paris because, although my artist intended for me to be a study in light and shade, audiences and critics thought I was trying to be sexually provocative. So which is it? What does the artwork mean? Abigail goes on to correctly point out how we can't truly be subjective in our interpretations of art without them coming out flawed or really misconstrued. But is it really the case that I can be about anything? If somebody says to you, "I just saw Doctor Strange 2," and you go, "Oh yeah, what's it about?" and they say, "It's about how love has an everlasting value even between two people of different social classes on a doomed ocean liner," you'd be like, "No, that's Titanic." It definitely seems like you can look at a work of art, think you know what it's about, and be wrong, which means the meaning, at least, is not subjective. However, she goes way too far into the other side where she only looks at how we can objectively look at art or if that's even possible. So assuming artworks do have objective meaning, how do we find out what the meaning is? If I don't get it, how do I get it? When I think the proper framing of this conversation is a melding between the two. You need objectivity and you need subjectivity if you want to have this kind of conversation. The two require a balance in artistic criticism and discussion. I can tell you that when I went and watched Taxi Driver, it was all about Donald Trump becoming president in the modern day. And you can say, "Really? Is that true?" and I can say, "Yes, it is. That is what it's about." And you would say, "Well, how do you know that?" And if my response is simply, "Well, that's just my interpretation," you can rightly call me a [ __ ] idiot. And if you are someone who thinks that is a valid interpretation of the movie Taxi Driver, your next question is going to be, "I believe that, but how do I go about demonstrating that?" Right there, you use the key word demonstrate it. You use evidence from the text, the movie, the art piece, the book, whatever the hell it is. You use evidence from the piece of media to give an argument in favor of your interpretation. Then someone else can counter it with evidence for their argument, for their interpretation of that text. That's the only real way objectivity can exist in art. You have a subjective interpretation that you use to justify with objective evidence. A point that I feel is so integral and so crucial to having these kinds of conversations. It blows my mind that Abigail doesn't think to point this out in her video revolving around the subject. Some philosophers have said that the meaning of an artwork is part of it, albeit not a part that you can see with your eyes. Take for instance Fountain, one of the most famous works of art ever. To the eyes, Fountain is identical to other urinals that are not art. So the argument goes, what makes it different is its meaning. If you don't get that meaning, you have, in a sense, failed to experience the artwork that is Fountain. Yeah, when it comes to sculptures or pieces of art that you can see in a gallery, a lot of the times the general meaning of the piece that people derive from it is going to rely on you knowing the context or the history of the piece itself. That much is true, but that's not to say you yourself can't have your own personal interpretations just by looking at the piece. Some art just requires you to do a little homework if you want to understand what makes it so significant. Artists don't really have intentions for their work the same way that an architect has an intention for a bridge. True, and yeah, that's pretty true. When you design a bridge, you plan it all out beforehand, and you have a very clear goal in mind. But art doesn't really work that way. That's true, and yeah, that's true. That's true, that's true, that's pretty true. Every brush stroke you add to a canvas, every line to a script, every note to a score changes the relationships between everything else and changes the whole. That's true. Yeah, that's true. Um, that's true. That's [ __ ] true. As you work, your intention develops. There isn't really one intention; there's an infinite sequence of them. So if we try to reconstruct my original intention to decide what the play is about, how is that going to work? Yeah, it's true that each decision you make when creating your art can change the context of the events that come before it or change the idea you have for the piece or change what it's going to become later. That's all true. But once you've finalized what it is, it doesn't become a collection of individual intentions that make up a whole. That's not how art works. I mean, you point this out yourself when you talk about your play. In the beginning, you meant for it to be one thing, but then by the end it became another. That's how making art works. Okay, if I just watched your play, Abigail, and I want to understand what that play means, what's the meaning that most people are going to get out of it? What does it even mean to me if I want to figure that out? I'm not going to sit there and consider what intention you had at every part of the process with every part of every scene because by the end of your piece, hopefully you had a goal in mind. You had an idea for what you wanted it to be, and you're going to try and reflect that throughout the play. Even if you have multiple meanings, even if there are multiple themes, those can all be seen and interpreted in their own right, but there has to be a center. There has to be a whole. One more note on that: you never want to try and figure out what the author originally intended the piece to be if you're trying to figure out what the finalized version of the piece is. Ideas and intentions that the author abandoned when constructing the final version of the piece should be treated as nothing more than some interesting trivia, as they changed it for a reason, and it's probably not going to get you any closer to figuring out what the finalized version of the piece is supposed to mean. And my suggestion is don't focus too much on the intellectual stuff or you might miss out on what the art really has to offer. The philosopher Susan Sontag says we should stop trying to interpret, stop trying to get... Let's talk about sourcing. Citing your sources is important for a number of reasons. One, it allows the viewer to understand where you're getting your information from. Two, it allows the viewer to read up on your sources and gain a better understanding of where you're getting your ideas from. And three, citing your sources makes it so the audience is better able to hold the creator accountable if they're incorrect about t...

should feel is next to impossible you're never going to get that one true meaning that you've been looking for all of your life that fits every single piece together getting it is a really bad way to go about

analyzing and interpreting art i feel pity for anyone who tries to go about telling someone exactly how you should be interpreting art when do you know you've gotten it or at least somewhere close to it this is the idea

that fellow youtuber philosophytube tries to tackle in her video is art meaningless a video that i think gets close to looking at how we should be interpreting art or at least ways to do it and ways to not do it but ultimately the final

product comes out so wishy-washy and in certain parts hypocritical that it just stands as a really unnuanced and backwards way to go about looking at this subject so let's not waste any further time and dive right into it

[Music] i am the portrait of madame x by john singer sergeant i was first exhibited in 1884 and i caused quite a stir in paris because although my artist intended for me to be a study in light and shade

audiences and critics thought i was trying to be sexually provocative so which is it what does the artwork mean abigail goes on to correctly point out how we can't truly be subjective in our interpretations of art without them

coming out flawed or really misconstrued but is it really the case that i can be about anything if somebody says to you i just saw doctor strange too and you go oh yeah what's it about and they say it's about

how love has an everlasting value even between two people of different social classes on a doomed ocean liner you'd be like no that's titanic it definitely seems like you can look at a work of art think you know what it's about

and be wrong which means the meaning at least is not subjective however she goes way too far into the other side where she only looks at how we can objectively look at art or if that's even possible so assuming

artworks do have objective meaning how do we find out what the meaning is if i don't get it how do i get it when i think the proper framing of this conversation is a melding between the two you need objectivity and you need

subjectivity if you want to have this kind of conversation the two require a balance and artistic criticism and discussion i can tell you that when i went and watched taxi driver it was all about donald trump becoming president in the

modern day and you can say really is that true and i can say yes it is that is that is what it's about and you would say well how do you know that and if my response is simply well that's

just my interpretation you can rightly call me a [ __ ] idiot and if you are someone who thinks that is a valid interpretation of the movie taxi driver your next question is going to be i believe that but how do i go

about demonstrating that right there you use the key word demonstrate it you use evidence from the text the movie the art piece the book whatever the hell it is you use evidence from the piece of media to give an

argument in favor of your interpretation then someone else can counter it with evidence for their argument for their interpretation of that text that's the only real way objectivity can exist in art you have a subjective interpretation that you use to justify with objective

evidence a point that i feel is so integral and so crucial to having these kind of conversations it blows my mind that abigail doesn't think to point this out in her video revolving around the subject some philosophers have said that

the meaning of an artwork is part of it albeit not a part that you can see with your eyes take for instance fountain one of the most famous works of art ever to the eyes fountain is identical to

other urinals that are not art so the argument goes what makes it different is its meaning if you don't get that meaning you have in a sense failed to experience the artwork that is fountain yeah when it comes to sculptures or pieces of art

that you can see in a gallery a lot of the times the general meaning of the piece that people derive from it is going to rely on you knowing the context or the history of the piece itself that much is true but that's not to say

you yourself can't have your own personal interpretations just by looking at the piece some art just requires you to do a little homework if you want to understand what makes it so significant artists don't really have intentions for

their work the same way that an architect has an intention for a bridge true and yeah that's pretty true when you design a bridge you plan it all out beforehand and you have a very clear goal in mind

but art doesn't really work that way that's true and yeah that's true that's true that's true that's pretty true every brush stroke you add to a canvas every line to a script every note to a score changes the relationships between

everything else and changes the whole that's true yeah that's true um that's true that's [ __ ] true as you work your intention develops there isn't really one intention there's an infinite sequence of them so if we try to reconstruct my original intention

to decide what the play is about how is that going to work yeah it's true that each decision you make when creating your art can change the context of the events that come before it or change the idea you have

for the piece or change what it's going to become later that's all true but once you've finalized what it is it doesn't become a collection of individual intentions that make up a whole that's not how art works i mean you point this

out yourself when you talk about your play in the beginning you meant for it to be one thing but then by the end it became another that's how making art works okay if i just watched your play abigail and i want to understand what

that play means what's the meaning that most people are going to get out of it what does it even mean to me if i want to figure that out i'm not going to sit there and consider what intention you had at every part of

the process with every part of every scene because by the end of your piece hopefully you had a goal in mind you had an idea for what you wanted it to be and you're going to try and reflect that

throughout the play even if you have multiple meanings even if there's multiple themes those can all be seen and interpreted in their own right but there has to be a center there has to be a whole one more note on that you never

want to try and figure out what the author originally intended the piece to be if you're trying to figure out what the finalized version of the piece is ideas and intentions that the author abandoned when constructing the final

version of the piece should be treated as nothing more than some interesting trivia as they changed it for a reason and it's probably not going to get you any closer to figuring out what the finalized version of the piece is

supposed to mean and my suggestion is don't focus too much on the intellectual stuff or you might miss out on what the art really has to offer the philosopher susan sontag says we should stop trying to interpret stop trying to get let's talk about

sourcing citing your sources is important for a number of reasons one it allows the viewer to understand where you're getting your information from two it allows the viewer to read up on your sources and gain a better understanding

of where you're getting your ideas from and three citing your sources makes it so the audience is better able to hold the creator accountable if they're incorrect about their analysis of the source's information or it can ensure trust in the audience by demonstrating

that they cared and were responsible enough to research their information and make it public for any and all criticism philosophytube is someone who cites a lot of sources but after watching this video i can't help but be skeptical

about how well she knows the sources that she is citing seeing that folding ideas video sourced in this section is particularly concerning the problem here is that she sources the video while discussing susan sontag's essay against interpretation there's a

disconnect and i think i know where it is sontag's view is basically that the act of interpretation and seeking out meaning and art kills art while folding ideas on the other hand explains a certain kind of anti-intellectualism that a lot of youtubers seem to exhibit

part of which is wrapped in the notion of denying art the capacity for meaning it is part of the process of denying art the capacity for meaning it is rare to find someone who will entirely reject the idea of approaching film broadly

from a thematic or metaphorical point of view but all too common to find people who will lightly sneer at the actual attempts to do so and suggest that it's overthinking things and by suggest i mean they will say it in exactly those

words but art isn't a statement or a question if it was the artist would just write it down art isn't philosophy with pictures it's art so turn off brain and tune in to the aesthetic experience when folding ideas talks

about how obvious he thinks the abstract nature of annihilation is and how obvious he finds the symbolism to be seriously this movie would be a fantastic film to base an entry-level unit around not because it is simple or

simplistic but because it is dense and wears most of its themes on its sleeve it is in a word blunt i wonder if abigail takes that to mean that she thinks he would agree with her when she says that people should

stop trying to get art and to just experience it if only people stop trying to understand annihilation then they could have gotten it right if they weren't so focused on trying to get it then they could have just experienced it and gotten it that

way right no so given this i don't know why you would think that susan sontag's view on interpretation and art is in any way compatible with folding ideas video throughout the entirety of his video he is arguing about how people should have

stopped looking at the literal and sort of engaged actively engaged in seeking meaning with the abstract meaning and nature of the film annihilation which directly goes against everything that sontag was advocating for in her essay interpretation is the revenge of the

intellect upon art even though it is the revenge of the intellect upon the world to interpret is to impoverish to deplete in the world to set up a shadow world of meanings real art has the capacity to make us nervous interpretation makes art

manageable conformable it is part of the process of denying art the capacity for meaning sontag's argument boiled down is basically that people seem to lack the ability to take into art on a pure sensory basis to just sit there and let

the art wash over them to take it in and experience it and be satisfied with that and maybe looking at the form of which the art was created and finding beauty out of that instead of always trying to

project meaning interpretation and throwing all this unnecessary stuff on top of it that the original art wasn't intended to do and to that point i think i can agree somewhat with her people seem to prioritize meaning over sensory

i had an experience with this recently when i tried to watch the film persona i couldn't tell you what the movie was about mainly because i haven't actually finished it i've only watched the first 10 minutes however in those 10 minutes i

cannot name the last time a movie has stuck with me like the opening images of persona have the lighting is gorgeous and the frame is filled with these abstract images that unsettled me in ways that i wasn't expecting i don't

know what meaning this movie is trying to get across yet but the imagery is compelling enough that i can't wait to come back and see more and maybe it's not entirely abigail's fault for misreading folding ideas video i went

and saw annihilation and i have a very open mind to abstract narrative and abstract themes and this sort of non-literal way of storytelling i have no issue with that in fact i actively encourage and support it i love that

kind of [ __ ] however when i got out of annihilation i did not forget the same experience that it seems folding ideas did i didn't find the themes or the narrative to be as obvious as he did the

ideas were there for sure but i wasn't able to connect them together in the same way folding ideas said you should easily be able to and i mean this only further works against abigail's point because the piece forces you to engage

with it if you want to agree with folding ideas perspective in the video then you have to engage with the meaning of art you have to engage with the narrative and engage with the abstract to find the ideas that it's trying to

prescribe to you or other ideas that you find from within it but if you take the advice of philosophytube in this section you're not gonna get what he's advocating for my disagreement comes with the idea that you don't have to

completely throw out the idea of interpretation or meaning to still take in everything that the sensory experience is willing to give you combining the two ways of experiencing art will only add to your benefit when you want to engage with art

so philosophytube is going to take sontag's stance and say that we shouldn't be intellectualizing art at all mind you and that we should just be experiencing it on an aesthetic level and we should not worry about intellectualizing interpreting or

finding meaning in art then why the [ __ ] would you cite a video whose entire prescription relies around interpreting metaphors i mean it kind of goes against everything that you yourself and sontag the philosopher you cite are advocating

for kind of weird right but art isn't a statement or a question if it was the artist would just write it down it wouldn't matter if the original author had written down the meaning of the text because we still have the text that we

as an audience can interpret for ourselves if you look at a lot of paintings by bekzinski with no context it's very easy to see the desolate environment and ample amounts of death and war imagery an easy interpretation a

game that is only aided when you learn about his life growing up in poland during world war ii however bekzinski claimed that he did not have any interpretations of his work and he didn't like them to be interpreted to

begin with and yet it is next to impossible not to see the echoes of his life all over his artwork clearly this demonstrates that we're able to interpret art for ourselves no matter what the artist tells us whether you

agree or disagree with these interpretations you can't deny that they exist but my biggest issue with all of this is that she words all of this very strongly as you can see if you've watched the video yourself or just

watched the clips that i've provided she seems to hold this stance very strongly until you get to the end of the video as for me and rothko i can try to put together all the different ideas that we've looked at

today i can bear in mind what susan sontag said about not intellectualizing things too much not intellectualizing things too much huh so is it better for us to turn off our brains and embrace the aesthetic experience or is it better to keep in

mind the idea that we don't intellectualize art too much you can say i'm being pedantic if you want but in all reality these are two very different statements saying there is room for interpretation and then saying there's absolutely no room for

interpretation at all and never delineating between the two is a major problem when you are trying to make a video where you discuss how people should be going about interpreting art or if they should be interpreting it at

all if you don't think they should be seeking out meaning make that clear as i thought you did if you can't make up your mind why the hell do you expect other people to do it through your video

that if you are writing a play creating a work of art for the stage forget about politics forget about interpretations and meaning and getting it and all of that is it entertaining do the audience want to know what happens next if you're

sitting in front of a work of art and you're trying to get it then you're a fool the play the story that's the thing that we're here for i'd be an idiot not to acknowledge this of course the

strength of your story and quality of your character should take precedence when you craft media and all of which should be considered over any political statement that could be made from it if you want a good example of this then

just look at the recent controversy surrounding the little mermaid adaptation with some calling the film's choice of a black actress into question and addressing this over the trailer's more substantive issues was she casted because disney is trying to pander maybe

but i hardly find it to be relevant to the quality of the film when the film has much more pressing issues working against it a movie's priorities need to be focused on the craft and less on its political interpretations however part

of the craft in my opinion is the themes something that abigail lumps in with the political statements of a piece of media because at the end of the day sending out a positive social or political message is important and can be

intertwined with the themes of a story but they are not dependent on one another meaning in my mind is essential to art when done right art is a universal means of communication one that can be used to shine a lens on

someone else's experience giving you an inside look into how they see the world that no amount of conversation would be able to convey art communicates the emotions of someone else's ideas or experiences this is why people constantly talk about a book that

changed their life a song that got them through a deep depression or a movie that opened their eyes to new perspectives art is a powerful tool for expression and communication taking that away and placing it in the same realm as

the much more rigid lens of political leanings is not just reductive but just plain sad really i see the discussion around death of an author the existence of subjectivity and objectivity and art all of this i find to be kind of a dead end

discussion at this point people are always locked into their perspectives and can't be shifted out of them without viewing the other side as being bad or irresponsible or morally or ethically questionable and so when a video from a

very popular figure comes out and doesn't point out things that i feel are necessary to having these discussions whether you agree or disagree with them poisons a well that's already well beyond repair so i don't expect anything i say here to change much of anything

but there are very basic things that i feel are very relevant in these sort of discussions so if you're not going to bring them up i feel like it's a missed opportunity and it's a hole that i could

fill with my own video not everything she says here is wrong as i pointed out not everything she says in this video that i didn't point out is bad but she's missing very key issues to this topic and just reading through the comments

section it was frustrating to see what people are taking away from it to have someone like philosophytube who is very popular gets a lot of views to have her come out and make a video around this subject a subject that i find to be a

black hole of discussion on the internet and have it be filled with such obvious flaws and problems and then that on top of that is kind of wishy-washy and hypocritical that's frustrating that's not conducive to improving the discourse around this

subject it seems like it's only going to nail people in who already agree with her and to everybody else it's not going to give them a concrete path forward to how they can view how they should be going

about art or viewing how other people go about engaging in art and it's an incredibly complicated subject that i just wish was tackled in a more comprehensive way and maybe that's the best way to end this off i don't know

[Music] whoa hey before you leave please go and check out this sick ass jojo merch if you've ever looked at any of my descriptions then you've definitely seen her socials before meg's was a huge help in getting my channel started up she's a

great friend of mine so go show her some love and buy some of this [ __ ] merch i mean even if you don't watch jojo like come on are you looking at this stuff it's just stunning hell i've barely

watched the show and i still own a couple pins and so if i can so can you till next time you