Brilliant. I've been belittled by my colleagues all my career for wanting to create beauty and spiritually meaningful paintings, to teach the craft of drawing and painting rather than encouraging my students to "express themselves". The success I had in their eyes was due to the ignorance of people who didn't "understand art". I find it really soothing that there seems to be a movement among younger artists, to get to a new (old) understanding of art. In my eyes the concept of "everything is art and everybody is an artist" has paved the way for our Fast Food society, thus contributed massively to the problems we are facing now. A slow art movement that makes people think long and hard about what they are doing, what they are conveying in their paintings, will contribute to the solutions we need.

The experience of being humiliated by an illustrious Canadian art school when I was in my early teens (far too soon for me), for loving the masters, I failed miserably, and cost my parent dearly. I avoided studying the craft later, though I continued privately to produce for myself, though I new it lacked the discipline in the craft. In my 60s, I took a 2 week course with a fellow from the Angel Academy in Florence (he visited Canada where I was living), and I learned how little I know and how untrained I am and how late I had left this effort. It is not that I can't learn because I'm too old now, but in my late 70s I feel tapped out. Fortunately I was able to learn the craft of playing the piano from a master, and enjoyed a performing career for many years (in restaurants and hotels). Not high art by any means, but a joyous romp through music which touched me deeply, with a broad range of genres which seemed to appeal to a lot of people. Funny how life can happen. What you've articulated here I've felt and known for a very long time though not in the detail you've brought to the discussion. Thank you for anchoring this depth of understanding so succinctly and wisely.💐

Great information, thanks for the work you put into this.

When people ask me what I paint, I say I paint whatever the hell I want. I feel no obligation to follow Kant's or Hegel's rules, or your rules. If you find inspiration from Odd Nerdrum, that's a good thing, I suppose. But there are a lot of portals into this thing we call 'art', and neither one of us is going to agree on the correct one. The Larry Shiner book that you cite looks interesting, but I would also mention Jean Gebser's 'The Ever-Present Origin', a comprehensive history of human consciousness, and what the art of a given epoch can reveal about the state of consciousness of the time. If you have no interest in that type of discussion, then you might want to temper your judgement of so-called modern art.

Well said👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 Can't wait for next video

Thank you for summarizing so much valuable information into one video.

You've never read Kant and are projecting symptoms of postmodernity onto him. Genius, to Kant, was very different from unrefined natural talent. Genius has to be carefully regulated by taste before it can achieve anything worthwhile. "taste, like judgment in general, is the discipline (or corrective) of genius. It severely clips its wings, and makes it orderly or polished; but at the same time it gives it guidance directing and controlling its flight, so that it may preserve its character of finality"

This was excellent. Thanks for putting this together.

It is clear that it is impossible to cover all the details in a 10 minute video, even so I do not consider that the omissions are acceptable. First of all, the comparison of Kant with Aristotle is not pertinent, Aristotle's Poetic is above all a study and description of the components that tragedy has and that make it so special, in a way it is a kind of manual. On the other hand, the Critique of Judgement of Immanuel Kant is above all an investigation into our abilities to make aesthetic judgments, and how these are related to our abilities to understand the world and create moral concepts, of those things that Kant dedicates himself to in two other books and the Critique of the Judgement has to be seen in relation to the theory that it explains in them, which we can criticize, judge incompletely or directly false, what we cannot do is reduce it in the way you are doing it and say that kant is "the father of art". In the Critique of Judgement Kant never tries to give rules or precepts of how the works should be done, since he is not writing a manual. even when he makes a division of the arts he declares that it is only provisional and that anyone can correct it (since that is not his job). Then there are many details in the interpretation of their terms that are not right, Kant never tells us that we should judge "purely with indifference", what he tells us is that it is when we see a painting or a play that we do not do it to satisfy a physical or moral necessity. One could even say that what Kant wanted to say is that the emotion that these works generate in us is so great that we become "indifferent" to all other things. Kant also does not tell us that the artist should not know where his inspiration comes from, what he tells us is that the artist can never give us an explanation of a "scientific and precise" nature of the origin of his work, there is a passage that illustrates That: -"You can learn everything that Newton has expounded in his immortal work The Principles of the Philosophy of Nature, no matter how great the head is to find them; but you cannot learn to do poetry with ingenuity, no matter how detailed. be all the precepts of poetry and excellent models of it. The reason is that Newton could present not only himself, but any other, in an intuitive and determined way in his succession, from the first elements of geometry to the greatest and most profound discoveries, but neither a Homer nor a Wieland can show how their ideas, rich in fantasy and at the same time full of thought, meet and arise in their heads. " That is very different from what you want us to see, and in reality it is not so easy to refute. Another thing that seems very wrong to me is to say that "modernism" comes from the "German philosophy" represented by Kant and his "successor" Hegel. German philosophy is too wide and the divergences in opinions have always been present, Kant's theories were attacked and his weak points were shown since he published them, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi was the first. To call Hegel the successor of Kant and the magnification of Kant's ideas about art is, in fact, to see things as a Hegelian would. I repeat that the divergences in the philosophical plane of the time were many, Fichte and Shelling considered themselves heirs of Kant, Hegel criticized them both, and Hegel's own system is very different from Kant's. On the other hand, Schopenhauer disdained Hegel and saw himself as the legitimate successor to Kant's reflection. when you refer to the philosophy of Kant, or even to the "German philosophy" you are being too simplistic; even more so when you speak of "modernism".You say that it begins with Kant, but there is no shortage of people who would say that it begins with Descartes, or with Pascal, or with Montaigne, or with Machiavelli... Obviously trying to present a starting point is not fruitful, you will always find a predecessor. But suppose that when you speak of "modernism" you speak of the painters' opposition to imitation and of the personal (and perhaps arrogant) search for experimentation, if we establish these parameters we will see that "modernism" does not begin in the 19th century but rather in The Renaissance. obviously No one would agree with me if I said that because despite everything in The Renaissance, although there was experimentation, the tradition endured . The problem is that after the creation of the academies, tradition (which is something natural) gradually becomes a rule (which is imposed), and it is normal that people have arisen who oppose those rules. Of course, after that come all the problems that lead us to contemporary art, and I completely agree with you when you say that we must follow a tradition, since following it is not an imposition but a simple natural tendency. and seek to express eternal things

Thank you so much for this concise and brilliant video!

Great video!

Great video my guy 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

William Graf’s video on Bouguereau talks on points about how French art critics and auction houses helped remove classical painters from the competition. I really enjoy any info I can find about not only how abstract art came about (I don’t really care about that much), but also how classical sculpture, painting and drawing became excommunicated and made irrelevant. How do those major mediums of the millennia become irrelevant in a matter of a century?

@edesanna8989

2 жыл бұрын

Where can I find William Graf's video? Thanks.

It would be great if it was translated into Spanish or another language to reach more people, thanks for sharing your thoughts, very valuable!

Looking forward to a discussion of how pop surrealism and the popular return of figure painting fit into this!

Enjoying your videos! Great stuff. This video makes explicit a certain theme. In many of your videos, it’s present as a subtle, background theme - for example mentions of ethos, pathos, etc. Very Aristotelean. Youre undoubtedly right about Kant and Hagel. But there’s so little appreciation of Christ’s influences prior to impressionism and modern art. You even maintain the lense of ancient Greeks while showing churches and discussing “the prodigal son” The whole arc could be recast in Christian terms rather than the way you do. So, both concepts are key.

An excellent video! Thank you very much! Can you please tell me the name of the Norwegian painter that you mentioned at the end of the video? Keep up the good work!

We need more content like this! Thanks n keep going!!🔥🔥

His hair is art.

Nice video, look forward to seeing more of your stuff. Keep it up.

Incredibly insightful but truly sad.

Thankyou for awakening me!

Lo importante aquí no sería la filosofía de Kant o Hegel, son esos cabellos rizados, los veo y son como los de Durero! Sin lugar a dudas el arte del peio con rulos estária allí en Noruega con este pintor! Admirable realmente.

Super video dude

Durer has a reincarnation. I agree for the most part, though I would not concede to the 'modernists' the term 'art', let alone define it as an enemy of traditional culture. Rather I think it would be better to drag it back towards its earlier definition, with connotations of skill and craftsmanship and mastery of technique. I also think it's a bit much blaming the Germans for the deterioration, on the basis of two baneful 'philosophers'. I'm sure there were plenty of Germans who opposed that way of thinking, certainly those who gave us German romanticism were interested in the sublime and numinous.

Excellent presentation! I was hoping that you would mention the horrendous effect of mid-20th century American art critic Clement Greenberg, but you really hit the basics here, no doubt about it!

Why not discuss the importance of Thomist philosophy and Christianity on art instead of narrowly focusing on Aristotelian principles?

Our local council in Byron Bay Australia commissioned a huge costly aluminum sculpture to be a feature as you drive into a popular international tourist destination. The sculpture said nothing and was ugly in appearance. The community set about a campaign to remove it as it degraded the brand that made Byron Bay an attraction. The council finally made the decision to remove it at the Sculptor's despair. Modern-day nothing Art is a reflection of helping to alienate humanism and an emptiness in our soul.

Odd Nerdrum is a world recognized painter. I he isnt let in any particular exhibition its just a matter of who is judging the event. Dont lose your sleep over that.

Sadly, the modernism has ruled almost all art school in the whole world. If somebody is interested in classical/traditional art is very difficult to find a master...

With 'disinterested' Kant does not mean indifferent, he means that you can't judge beauty on a personal need. A painting of food should not become more beautiful when you are hungry.

@yutu49

10 ай бұрын

If you paint and draw like a beast, so does the beast indifferently look upon it; all that matters to the beast is gluttony and lust.

@fatrick9001

7 ай бұрын

Seems like just another way of saying you should be passionless. I prefer passion so I'll disregard his "advice".

@pietervoogt

7 ай бұрын

@@fatrick9001 No he doesn't mean that at all. He just means that other things in the world are for a practical gain, while the passion for art is just for the art.

That Immanuel guy was a real Kant.

Thank you for this.

Its all known to me but its good to spread such videos. It will help people to understand the lies.

Does anyone knows any reference book that explains it?

@fuzzwald

6 ай бұрын

Mein Kampf is a good place to start.

Nailed it!

Paste and copy do we really wanna go there every generation really find itself ,not the past but the Revolution

Thank you

"somebody with authority...?"

Great video, and great that you are putting this alternative history in the public domain. I disagree with what appears to be your implicit position that contemporary or conceptual art has no value. I would think it is a very different approach from the French Academie that has developed a lot since Kant and Hegel, particularly with the advent of postmodern theory. I very much agree, however, that craft and the traditional functions of art have been denigrated in the interest of valorising a very particular avenue that artists followed, which is of course, although you don't mention it, tied to the emergence of new non-state/non-church markets, such as the French Burghers and English aristocrats. I think a lot of the values you mention, the genius artist and sublime inspiration, are unfortunetely adopted rather unreflectively by current artists who don't notice that they may be simply following market trends. In defense of the value of contemporary art: If one were to follow its rational, which few contemporary artists actually do, one should conclude that keeping to a distinctive style severely limits the development of your practice, which should continuously explore relationships between form and content. We might think here of Sean Scully, painting the same thing for decades. A truth is that if he were to significantly change his style (accepting that he did recently dare to do some figurative work), he would risk sabotaging the market value of his existing work, potentially costing him and the people who have supported him millions. I make this point just to note the value that contemporary art principles could provide if anyone followed them with integrity, principles which I don't think are necessarily in direct competition with the more traditional principles you value. For me, this competition is market-driven. Horses for courses, there is value to be found in most creative practices, which placing them in a fixed hierarchy often obscures. I suspect you disagree with my positions but I think we are in many ways on the same page. Thanks for the video. Hope you make more!

Wot an artistic hairstyle!

Wow!

Lo mejor.si tuviera sub titulos en español

If I'm not wrong this is something like Michael Lifshitz article "Why I am not a modernist."

🙌🏾🙌🏾❤️

Wait. So your telling me our perception of culture has changed since the renaissance??? No wayy 🤯🤯. Any notion of ‘skill’ or ‘beauty’ started to die once we could mechanically reproduce images and objects. They’re pretty much redundant in art today. We’re intelligent enough as a species to that understand that art today is way more useful as an exchange of ideas rather than a means of painting a pretty picture. It’s fine that you’re into the classics but don’t have a problem with everyone else not wanting to be stuck in the past

Indifference is still an emotion. And there is nothing original about re-using everyday objects.

I like your postings, videos and most of what you do/say though I strongly disagree with your use of the language, the eurocentrism of your theories and taking for granted that there is such thing as universality e.g. "we all know that is not true" and the "greatest civilizations", represented only by images depicting European architecture. Is this on purpuse? Why not show images of the ancient Egypt or the Chinese culture? They, in fact, have concepts similar to the technique mastery you are trying to explain. This, I would say, is a major problem in the world of painting and music, and it shows the refusal to admitting that many of their concepts are taken from elder cultures and a profound desdain for cultural products from outside the "Western world" (which, to be honest, is conformed by mostly countries from the northwest of Europe and some English speaking ones).

@ams9449

3 жыл бұрын

Because he's obviously speaking of Renaissance and Renaissance is born in Europe. Not China and not Egypt. What happened in Florence changed the world on an objective level.

@srabantidasgupta7389

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with you. May be it is so because they colonised the world, gave terms and recorded it in their language that we would be adapting to, to speak to each other at a global scale

@diceglia

2 жыл бұрын

@IvanCruz I understand you're trying to be inclusive of all cultures. But you cannot be inclusive at a point to try to merge all of them, what would ultimately destroy each of them. We have to respect history and the way things happened. History is to be analysed, and learn with. As much as you cannot merge your own life history with the life history of a complete strange person. Diversity is rich in its differences, respecting those differences is key to live in harmony. It's easy, let's just be fascinated by each other's culture, and not try to make a soup of all of them together.

@BM-pt6sy

2 жыл бұрын

of course the neo Kantians are crying white supremacy 😂😂

I am going to step on some toes here; and it is probably a good thing I am not in Europe; but this has been on my mind for some time. A quick google search will reveal that Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche were German Jews; and the important "art critics" (a profession arising in the 19th century) were also primarily Jewish; as they were in the 20th. How was it that this group of Jewish intellectuals overwhelmed French artists and then all of Europe and then the Americas ( the last great American art movement being the Ashcan School which formed around Robert Henri; after Henri, the native American art movements were ended in favor of Kantian "Art.")? Were the French Enlightenment intellectuals so weak minded; or were they of the same tribe though hidden? Even the English artist and aesthetician Sir Joshua Reynolds of the latter 18th century was cast into the dustbin of history. In short, the entire aesthetic tradition of Europe from Aristotle to Reynolds was overthrown in the 19th century. Again, In short, the Judaical drive to destroy European civilization and its people has been an ongoing successful project for over at least two centuries.

Brilliant, this should be taught in schools

Hmm I think you confuse mode of expression with a certain way of expressing it , style , so let me ask you is music art? Is classical music the only music worthy to be considered art? So an American civilization who creates rock and roll is not art because is not European? Is Japanese music art ? Or folklore music...? The new trends in music cannot be called art... ? if you want to be call kitch is fine but is simply an style of painting, like conceptual art is a form of art, painting was an art an still is , a painter is an artist because he practices the art of painting, an actor is also an artist because theater is an art form, as cinema and photography.... Plato and Aristóteles philosophy paved the way to classical art... why cant’t Hegel or Kant influence modern art? What’s wrong with different ideas?

@PinturaYdibujoENVIVO

3 жыл бұрын

@Radio Lover yeap they can , there’s is an old saying : “for taste and colors the poets haven’t written “ although philosophy can be part of art , it doesn’t need it to be...

@ams9449

3 жыл бұрын

If those different ideas are inferior and yet they want to erase the old, good ones just out of economic speculation...well, that's a lot of wrong right there. Ugliness is not a style.

@PinturaYdibujoENVIVO

3 жыл бұрын

@@ams9449 thats just one aspect , under your argument abstract art is inferior...again is art not philosophy.... an philosophy has different views...a new style of music is simply different....if not everybody would be listening to Mozart or the same style of music.... not everybody is european.... when you learn that nobody posseses the truth...you are wiser ;)

2 жыл бұрын

I think this video is spinning too much on the issue. Art can be anything, taste is subjective. In the case of painting we are just staring at shapes on a bidimensional surface. Sometimes the arrangement of the shapes looks like something we know from the physical world and triggers subjective responses in us. Other times the arrangement of the shapes looks like nothing relatable, but colors and textures can still trigger a response by association.

I really like Nic's perspective. I especially agree with his supposition that Kant and Hegel had a huge affect on how we understand art today. However, as much as I think Kitsch is a great term, and a great means of discerning differences between approaches, I do like classical historian's division of art into three categories; High Art, Low Art and Fine Art. Kant and Hegel promoted fine art, and it can be argued that this is not art at all. But High Art and Low Art (Mass Arts or Popular Art) perform all the perennial (humanist - eternal) functions of art. Cartoons, graphic novels, TV shows, movies, etc. dominated by visuals perform the same functions as High Art. High Art deals with big humanist themes that are universally positive, but can often be propaganda for authority (church, dictators, elected politicians, CEOs, etc.) As a result history is found in art, but NOT Fine Art. There is no history in Fine Art because there is often no subject at all that relates to historical events or the way people actually thought about their lives and relation to each other. High Art and Low Art share four basic functions that are very difficult to find in Fine Art. Fine "artworks" are essentially Nonsense Objects in which you can read/believe what you want, where the intention is to allow for subjective interpretations. Nic is correct though - we shouldn't be so ready to support the pseudo-art world of Fine Art because its function is to be beneficial primarily to those who create Fine Art (those with limited or non-existent talent) and those in power who love Fine Art because it's the safest art in the world. The C.I.A. was a big supporter of Fine Art in a battle against the Soviet Union from the 1950s to the 1970s. An excellent book on the subject is Frances Stonor Saunders', The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. Once the C.I.A. revealed the incredible political value of Fine Art (because of its false association with intellectualism and liberal thought) China, the Soviet Union, and other totalitarian governments created a red line where artists are told they are free to express themselves so long as they never criticize the ruling authority. China will murder cartoonists (even Chinese expats who don't live in China) for criticizing their authority. Fine Art is the safest art in the world because it is essentially meaningless - fly food for intellectuals. Or you can think of Fine Art as "intellectual signalling." Sadly because Fine Art is so easy to do (very egalitarian) and because it benefits those in power (a perfect relationship between the talentless and the powerful) the power of true art that perform all the basic social functions which help to create social cohesion and celebrate the best humans have to offer each other is pushed aside in the process. This is why movies and TV is loved so much, while it is very difficult to sell High Art or sometimes really good Popular Art. And why you will so often hear Fine Artists denigrating popular culture, especially Hollywood, and popular movies. I LOVE Odd Nerdrum's work and Nic's is great too. I first saw Odd's paintings at the Frye Gallery in Seattle (I'm Canadian) and was totally blown away. It was the first time in years I was so excited to look at a painting. Thanks for this video. Sorry for my little essay, but it's time we Perennial artists (creators of High and Low Art) fought back against the nihilism and negative functions of Fine Art.

Nic, last week I attended in Rome the annual modern art display. This gives new artists that paint and sculpt in the shadow of what today's view of what an image should be. My wife has the modern philosophy, i take more of the kitsch view. But, we both agreed on this, "we are viewing art with no substance".

Based.

The philosophy of modern art is a yeast that has worked through the dough.

Kant and Hegel wrote at the same time. Why call Hegel a successor. Both German idealists.

@grafplaten

2 жыл бұрын

Hegel was born about 46 years after Kant, and his major works were written after Kant's death. Calling Hegel Kant's successor is an oversimplification, since many other philosophers (Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer, etc.) also developed various aspects of Kant's philosophy in their own works.

Was Hegel a Jew living in Germany?

@aeneasbarone6753

3 жыл бұрын

Hegel was not a jew

If you read any art history EVERYBODY learned and copied ideas or work from others. EVERYBODY>

I see history slightly different... Since Hegel and Marx, art is to be only an extension of their idea of the collective (secularised version of God). Arts only purpose is a utilitarian one to the society. The artist shouldn't exist for themselves or in search of universal truths about individual humans but reflect the collective will (of their time). "High art" has progressively removed the artist from the work and art objects are created that are manufactured without the individual artists hand in it (Warhol, Koons, Hirst etc). If there is a connection made by venerating a personality, its only for monetary reasons by either a high end gallery or auction house or to assign funding. If an artist's actual hand is involved, it must be a humble one, unskilled and not reflecting superiority or individual skill but rather the ambiguity, uncertainty and anxiety of the broken human condition and the implied need for the collective (secular version of original sin) .... or more appropriately over the last few decades , representing marginalisation from the dominant power structure. Art must be a dialectic with power to purify the collective but never challenge the idea of a collective. Artists must be voluntarily obedient to the ideology of the collective or they are not producing art, they are defying the "good of society" and are enemies of progress, "equity" and respect for their fellow citizens. They should be banished or ignored and certainly not funded. All the above is not only Eurocentric but Germanic in its view of society. It requires obedience, a historically abundant resource in Germany. Most of all, it requires that an (idea be a physical entity) (Kant). The collective is not to be thought of as merely an idea but a real organism. Of course this requires people possessing enlightened guidance, (bureaucrats, administrators, leaders) so it can be "purified" and directed. We all found out how well that works during the 20th century. Nothing will change until epistemology is rethought. PS: If you buy into ideas as things, they can not only be framed arbitrarily so things can be their opposite (a urinal or a totalitarian government), they can also be an actual physical weapon. We can see this play out presently on most campuses.

By only acknowledging Eurocentric view of Art you dismiss thousand of years of art cultures Asian, African, Mexican and on and on...

I disagree almost entirely; however, this is a well conceived and executed presentation throwing light on Arts strangeness ! Nice work. But another look at modern Art would uncover freedom not tyranny. Thanks

Can tell you don’t look at a lot of contemporary art. Craft is definitely favorable again

I've always had the gut instinct that the academic world was lying to me. As I read my Art History textbooks, I asked myself, "What are they lying about and why are they lying?". It was obvious that they tried to segregate periods and cultures in order to detract from the obvious fact that the collective whole was the work of our race.

Renaissance guy sitting in a gaming chair is a wildly alt-right look. Cool video though, I doubt painting has much influence on todays culture and "mans minds" considering ~1% of the population actually interacts with the medium in any sort of meaningful way. For most people classical painting is that thing they steal in movies, the idea that the any significant chunk of the population are going to galleries and having their brains boiled by cubism is retarded. Besides if classical art did become popular again it would probably be in the form of Jeep and McDonalds commercials.

@bodeaalex1142

2 жыл бұрын

You underestimate the influence of classical and modern painting on today's society and how people still get exposed to it. For example, photography, which everyone uses today, was and still is influenced by old ideals of painting. Even a Disney movie seen by billions ussualy references A LOT classical painting. And fashion, how many times fashion 'rediscovered' the folds through old paintings and sculptures, the twenties flapper short dresses coming directly from the greek painted vases and basreliefs (togheter with the modern dance of Isadora Duncan). And modern painting, all today's design that surrounds us influenced by the flat colors and simple shapes of Matisse, Mondrian. You sound like those who replied to that recent survey 'what is the most unnecessary job?' with 'artist, duh' yet during covid lockdown they binged on tones of Netflix productions that bring togheter every possible form of ancient and modern art.

@MarkoVasev

2 жыл бұрын

@@bodeaalex1142 I agree that contemporary media uses techniques and concepts pioneered by artists and painters. I also agree that fashion, photography and film are important and culturally significant. Mr Culture Wars was making an argument specifically within the context of paintings, not on art culture in general. 'What is the most unnecessary job?' I would say everything that can be considered 'financial industries'. Drawing and painting are both pastimes of mine and I love art galleries and art history.

a crash car is synonymous to abstract in painting and complimentary, conceptual art..... lol...

incredibly tone deaf and condescending take.

Conservative propaganda

@Mid940

9 ай бұрын

🤡🤡

Riddle me this batman. On an individualistic level. What if the person just wants to draw, they want to learn all they can and appreciate everything. What if they don't want to have a story to tell or a lesson to give, they just want to make something beautiful. Something that can be criticized but also in a way that's fair. Is it wrong for an individual to make something on their own whims? Not even going by modern art standards, and not exactly by the whims of your romantic bullshit. Just drawings. Is that inherently wrong?

@BigBossEats

Жыл бұрын

I don't like garish art pieces that represent cynical statements that mock or pull things apart. I enjoy things with an inherent beauty. But I'm not going to only consume one type of painting that is very strict in its rules. God gave us all of those colors. I believe he wanted us to use them. We should know the rules and when the break them, respect the masters, and try to strive for things that are uplifting.