Thinkers on photography that Flusser mentions near the end: 1. Roland Barthes 2. Marshall McLuhan 3. Abraham Moles
@suledrake11 жыл бұрын
Thank you for uploading this!
@onesecbeforetheend11 жыл бұрын
Oh great, how did i miss that for a whole year! i've only seen the last part of this in another vid. Lovely. And the interaction with the reporter is so much proving Flusser's ideas on private and public.
@Lbambozzi12 жыл бұрын
glad to hear that!
@vitorreboucas68155 жыл бұрын
Most verbally articulated person I know
@jorgeloureiro8 жыл бұрын
thnx peace
@tomjansykora5 жыл бұрын
A good one. But for the TV in the background. I needed to scroll down a bit to have it out of view to focus on the thoughts :)
@bpmotion6 жыл бұрын
wow
@r4ltman12 жыл бұрын
10:08 McLuhan said this in the 60s in war and peace in the global village, said typed thought sang
@gencshehu10 жыл бұрын
As in, the technique of writing brought a revolution in the way and manner of thinking. New techniques usually come from play, but when taken seriously they offer a degree of instrumentality that is far superior in the evolutionary sense (ie allow you to reproduce more of your own). The instrument, the tool, the technology, up to, as some would say, the phallus - penis.
@2006bencruz13 жыл бұрын
"It is a fact that functionally complex systems are a challenge to creative thought whereas functionally simple systems are stultifying, idiotic."(Vilém Flusser), we must know more about a 'fluss'ent' philosopher in so much language...
@suledrake11 жыл бұрын
I never knew "fascistoid" was a word! I'm gonna use this on someone one of these days. Also, I love that he finds Barthes wrong. I disagree with much of what he says about photography. On the other hand, Flusser's writings on photography have had a profound affect on me.
@maldoror5750
2 жыл бұрын
How do they differ in terms of their ideas on photography?
@seanankerr28647 жыл бұрын
This is interesting, it definitely strikes a chord and I am very sympathetic to the whole medium is the message thing, but it is recorded in 1988, his argument centres around things getting worse, so it should be testable, have we really declined so much since then? If so what are the measures? You could argue that some things have certainly gotten worse, there is for example less accountability with regards power (for example the 80's saving and loans crisis led to convictions, the 2008 crash led to hardly any), the world has become more economically unequal, we have utterly failed to face up to the challenge of global warming, things which were considered completely unacceptable then (such as torture) are now far more tolerated, culture has become far more stagnant and exclusive. On the other hands some thing have improved, gay rights for example, it is easier for people to come out now, than it was then (though I'd bet rates of depression have gotten worse, though that could be a sign of less stringent/more open diagnosis), a higher percentage of people are educated and literate, the end of real existing socialism in the West has led to certain thinkers and writers being more seriously considered by larger groups of people, means and possibilities for communication have expanded (albeit ones that are for the most part what Flusser decries as functionally simple), we have increased the number of people on the planet by a few billion, yet we seem to have not suffered any increase in famines. You can of course make a case for on balance things getting worse, but it is far from one-way traffic.
@sawtoothiandi
4 жыл бұрын
just found this video today. his theory seems to concur with marshal mcluhan. i have long 'felt' that the media we use is very much being under-utilised. it is hard to express exactly what i think it could be, but just experimental cinema for example. i would have thought the ideas and techniques there would have become more commonly accepted. yet there seems to be a general philistinism and reactionary thread. reversion to 'safe' modes of expression. what do you think of today?
@maldoror5750
2 жыл бұрын
@@sawtoothiandi well said. I v much agree on the point of mainstream cinema’s slow adoption of more experimental approaches to the form. That said, part of the ‘magic’ (for the lack of a better term atm) of said avant feats of every preceding era is their antagonism towards standardisation. Whereas phenomenona such as the transgressively postmodern methods of hip-hop or modern art’s turn to abstraction have been ordained into the fabric of popular culture, cinema has been more monolithic in terms of what the greater appeal is - for the most part, as the somewhat steady, mainstream success of experimental ‘auteurs’ like David Lynch can’t be ignored.
Пікірлер: 21
OMG, this man is absolutely brilliant.
...this man is absolutely brilliant..!I agree...
great archive ❤
Thinkers on photography that Flusser mentions near the end: 1. Roland Barthes 2. Marshall McLuhan 3. Abraham Moles
Thank you for uploading this!
Oh great, how did i miss that for a whole year! i've only seen the last part of this in another vid. Lovely. And the interaction with the reporter is so much proving Flusser's ideas on private and public.
glad to hear that!
Most verbally articulated person I know
thnx peace
A good one. But for the TV in the background. I needed to scroll down a bit to have it out of view to focus on the thoughts :)
wow
10:08 McLuhan said this in the 60s in war and peace in the global village, said typed thought sang
As in, the technique of writing brought a revolution in the way and manner of thinking. New techniques usually come from play, but when taken seriously they offer a degree of instrumentality that is far superior in the evolutionary sense (ie allow you to reproduce more of your own). The instrument, the tool, the technology, up to, as some would say, the phallus - penis.
"It is a fact that functionally complex systems are a challenge to creative thought whereas functionally simple systems are stultifying, idiotic."(Vilém Flusser), we must know more about a 'fluss'ent' philosopher in so much language...
I never knew "fascistoid" was a word! I'm gonna use this on someone one of these days. Also, I love that he finds Barthes wrong. I disagree with much of what he says about photography. On the other hand, Flusser's writings on photography have had a profound affect on me.
@maldoror5750
2 жыл бұрын
How do they differ in terms of their ideas on photography?
This is interesting, it definitely strikes a chord and I am very sympathetic to the whole medium is the message thing, but it is recorded in 1988, his argument centres around things getting worse, so it should be testable, have we really declined so much since then? If so what are the measures? You could argue that some things have certainly gotten worse, there is for example less accountability with regards power (for example the 80's saving and loans crisis led to convictions, the 2008 crash led to hardly any), the world has become more economically unequal, we have utterly failed to face up to the challenge of global warming, things which were considered completely unacceptable then (such as torture) are now far more tolerated, culture has become far more stagnant and exclusive. On the other hands some thing have improved, gay rights for example, it is easier for people to come out now, than it was then (though I'd bet rates of depression have gotten worse, though that could be a sign of less stringent/more open diagnosis), a higher percentage of people are educated and literate, the end of real existing socialism in the West has led to certain thinkers and writers being more seriously considered by larger groups of people, means and possibilities for communication have expanded (albeit ones that are for the most part what Flusser decries as functionally simple), we have increased the number of people on the planet by a few billion, yet we seem to have not suffered any increase in famines. You can of course make a case for on balance things getting worse, but it is far from one-way traffic.
@sawtoothiandi
4 жыл бұрын
just found this video today. his theory seems to concur with marshal mcluhan. i have long 'felt' that the media we use is very much being under-utilised. it is hard to express exactly what i think it could be, but just experimental cinema for example. i would have thought the ideas and techniques there would have become more commonly accepted. yet there seems to be a general philistinism and reactionary thread. reversion to 'safe' modes of expression. what do you think of today?
@maldoror5750
2 жыл бұрын
@@sawtoothiandi well said. I v much agree on the point of mainstream cinema’s slow adoption of more experimental approaches to the form. That said, part of the ‘magic’ (for the lack of a better term atm) of said avant feats of every preceding era is their antagonism towards standardisation. Whereas phenomenona such as the transgressively postmodern methods of hip-hop or modern art’s turn to abstraction have been ordained into the fabric of popular culture, cinema has been more monolithic in terms of what the greater appeal is - for the most part, as the somewhat steady, mainstream success of experimental ‘auteurs’ like David Lynch can’t be ignored.
08:53 this guy is
2:06 internet memes