Buy art, get meaning, profit? | Cognitive psych reading of Rule 8, Jordan B. Peterson's Beyond Order

I think what you said twards the end is one of the reasons why I love webcomics and train graffiti so much. Released for free and in the case of train graffiti something that you will probably never see again, but given to the world freely because you have something to contribute. very few people will get rich making good art but we are still compelled to make it

You’re so right about the people who were and are never able to contribute to society in a creative way due to the system we’re in. I yearn for being able to do my own creative things but I just don’t have the energy with the excessive work hours I’m forced to do. This is the same story for billions I’m sure.

When we look back upon classical music and art, the fact that many of the notable examples we have were made by rich people just goes to show how people with the luxury of time on their hands can do beautiful things

Sounds like "rural" to me

Peterson is clearly a true artist because he has no fucking clue what he's saying

HELL YEAH GHOST REFERENCE

Cass I daresay Chapter 8 inspired you in a certain way. You embraced it, and that is good. Art.

I went to the Three Bedrooms exhibition in Chicago a good while back, and sculpture-like is very appropriate to describe Van Gogh's work. It was really interesting standing back to see the combined work and then closing in to see the chaos of the paint and brushstrokes. Interestingly, having now seen his work in person the best emulation and reproduction of the texture of his work was a knit/embroidered blanket of Starry Night.

Where I literally was left with my mouth agape was when he said artists have a "biological niche." Like as if there is a section of the human species that is born with certain intrinsic traits that require them to live and serve a certain function in a certain way, or the species will fail and go extinct?

<3 for saying 'van gogh' correctly

"There's so much ugly in the world," says the 3rd rate Batman villain, with zero awareness he's among the ugly in the world.

"[Unhappy noise]" could sum up so much of your commentary on this series, not to mention my response to Jordibles in general. Kitty worked hard to make me emit happy noises instead.
Apparently that Dutch painter's name is said something like "Rye'z-dahl", if Wikipedia is correct.
And that was Un chien andalou you were talking about, yes? French, yes. I have trouble looking at that shot too, although that's not the main issue I have with that film.

Why is he like this?

Do you like his books in general?

Yeah it's "rural." Just makes me think of "The Rural Juror."

Jordan my disdain for tradition has nothing to do with my artsy pretension they're utterly unrelated phenomenon

Here for the freshly cooked 🦞

If you're going to analyze ''someone saying NOTHING'', try sinking your teeth into the nugatory dribble and bafflegab of Judith Butler, the ''non binary woman'' who is more concerned with ''men's rights to be a woman'' than ''it'' is concerned with actual women's rights and safety and produced such ''gems'' as:

'The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.'

Dissect the source and intention of that obsfuscatory, self referential postmodern stinker of a sentence, we know you won't because some people are more equal than others and some ''snake oil salespersons'' are too ''progressive'' to criticize right?

"Old world - nothing modern" was my take on what she said. But when you suggested 'rural' I think you might be right. I can see how someone from her background might get 'rural' confused with 'ural'. But I can also see how someone from eastern Europe with a mouthful of tongue and rubels might struggle with 'old'.

I think she's been sold down the river with this one - if the brief was 'gimme something based on Van Gogh's lilies', she wasn't really left with much to play with. Mind you, I can imagine sitting down at the computer thinking, man, I've got all these pictures to do - this one looks like an easy one to phone in and I can put more effort into the others.
But all this post hoc rationalisation for why the whole thing is an insipid, dull fart of an image is proper Peterson level BS. It's such an uninteresting image. And how hard is it to find a photo of irises - I bet 30 seconds on google would give you a collage of purple florescence so vivid it would give you hay fever.
It reminds me of that game where you use simple images in a line to recreate a phrase - I mean it's basic emoji territory. Let's face it. The truth is the flowers are out of focus because the image she used was too small and she had to de-pixellate it with some basic blur tool on photoshop.

okay okay okay so artists transmute the nigredo -- poor Black and brown neighborhoods -- into the albedo -- white neighborhoods with rising property values -- through a process of geographic alchemy

and this is morally neutral to positive since the commodification of all things is only natural as hobbes's exegesis of darwin clearly demonstrates

mmmhmm mmmhmm mmmhmm very interest such deep history is more or less bunk

Sapolsky mentioned! We used his book “why zebras don’t get ulcers” as a framework for a stress biology seminar during undergrad. He’s got a lot of good stuff in that book, much more practical than Petersons rambling

Peterson be like: "If God IS dead, why am I still living in his corpse? Checkmate Nietzsche!"

"They start to become informed by them but they do not know how or why"

Oh man - what a giveaway! Is this not Peterson owning up to his own phenomenon?

Listen to me lobster children - listen to me and be informed by me and only me - yeah don't ask why or wonder how...you don't need to know why or how...it just is....look into my eyes....look into my eyes.....

Jesus christ. The art world is extremely fertile ground for the pompous and pretentious, but man, Peterson really digs into the manure, doesn't he. His nonsense beans grow very tall.

Yeah, what do you expect from sudo intellectual, you know ;

hmmm. Coincidentally I've just come back from a morning looking for colour ringed (banded) birds at my local nature reserve - and I can attest to how difficult it is to spot them in large flocks.
But I can imagine that at short range, a point of focus would help as the wildebeest run off in an amorphous brown blur. However, it does seem more like a non scientific anecdote that fakes intellectual weight when it's attached to Peterson's 'tall poppy' story.

Why so bad faith? I get not liking the guy, but I don't think a lot of this critique lands when purposefully misrepresenting the author's reasoning. He's a decent writer, nothing extraordinary for sure, like all the other "self-help" literature, so do not think trying so hard to tear it down is the best move.
However, there are plenty of examples of him saying borderline deranged stuff on twitter or in some interviews, so I recommend just going for those; reading and "analyzing" his book seems like a waste of time with this approach.

Peterson doesn't have a clue why people scoffed at the Impressionists. It wasn't because they were looking in a 'new way' - it was entirely because their work was 'sketchy' or 'unfinished' - a mere 'impression'. It was Monet's picture 'Impression, sunrise' (Manet was not strictly speaking part of the Impressionist movement , he just found himself part of the gang of outcasts because of the scandal of painting actual naked ladies instead of made up goddesses) that set the standard for Impressionist art - but you're right to be skeptical of Peterson's claim that 'we're all impressionists now'. The art world itself moved on and while Impressionism got popular fairly recently, actual artists are not engaging with it anymore, and the general public wouldn't know a Renoir from a Rubens.

It seems like many people are marvelled by artists because they can't fathom that they can create art in any form when they just have to start and work at it. I'd be the next Tolkien or Sanderson if I got a nickel for every time I heard, 'Oh wow, you wrote a book! I've always wanted to write a book.' No one approaches a drywaller to enthuse, 'I've always wanted to drywall my house!' In all its forms, art is a skill that can be learned and honed. Far more importantly, art-making can and should be fun! I bang on my ukulele in my room, alone, because it's fun, not because I am interested in being good at it.

Appreciated the glimpses of the beautiful Divine - little spark of joy right there.

The end is wonderful.
Like it's all good but as we say in Spanish; it closes with a gold-work button

What the fuck is he talking about!!??? The artists who end up making the most art that gets the most attention is made by people with more resources and privileges!

I think the artist’s point about the flowers being out of focus could be referencing the fallibility of memory rather than our ability to capture images. Or even about how what you think is beautiful when you’re young isn’t the same as what you think is beautiful when you’re old. I think both struggle to connect to Van Gogh but since Peterson is a shit interviewer we’ll never know

A quote that has stuck with me in recent years, and closely mirrors one of the last points made in the video:

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."

Your Jordan Peterson voice will never not make me giggle and kick my feet! 😂

This applies to all kinds of art btw

she said rural, nothing modern.

I thought I'd do some research. Wikipedia does not have this work as one of the most expensive sales of a painting. It's a nit, but I kind of feel that when you present yourself so confidently, and that you are so "right" and that those that disagree with you are "silencing you" nits sort of demand to be picked. I'm nice like that. Maybe you'll not get involved with that particular nit in the future Jordan?

Does the idea of historical value not exist to JBP?

Wait is that it? Have we cracked the code for why JBP doesn't explain what means ever? Because if he did explain his meaning that would make his work propaganda.

Just a guess on the artist's comment on the out of focus look being reminiscent of 30-40 years ago visual style, I can see it (maybe add on a few decades) maybe referring to the look of mass printed material, newspaper or magazine ads not using the highest quality paper or printing, especially a three color process where you could end up with minor alignment issues messing with the appearance.

How utterly typical that someone so protective of hierarchical capitalism believes that he should be able to benefit from art without supporting artists.

I enjoyed how you managed to bring all your analysis together in the latter part of the vid. The brief art history & conclusion was a really solid ending that hightlighted all that was missing from the abstract meanderings you'd waded through in the first half. JP comically riding the rail & "ressentamon" call back are the cherry on top lol.

In which the Lobster King is choosing to compare us artists to cleaner fish... He doesn't deserve art.