John Dewey's Art As Experience

Into this is the second video for John Dewey's art as experience. We're still in chapter one and a live creature Let me get the PowerPoint Going here and we're gonna sort of dive right in where we left off. I was looking ahead at the material and it looks like We're probably gonna have to split the first chapter into three videos I don't really like how the last one went. It went a little bit too long And so again, you know looking ahead. I'm thinking this is probably gonna be at least At least another 40 minutes before we even move on to chapter two I'll try to rush through a little bit of this because some of it I think it's just sort of he gets pretty repetitive here But even though these these quotes may seem a bit repetitive I added them for reason right some of them have Well, some of us just sort of recap to keep you on page here because he'll add some new points and You kind of bring it back to his original points. You kind of like I guess to sort of illustrate the relationship Right now writing in the first chapter. We're we haven't really got into any positive theory yet We've kind of just talked about some of the problems With art theory and why why it doesn't work, right? Why why art theory? Has been wrongheaded so far some of the problems that Due to the nature of art in modern society, right? So this this first quote doesn't really I guess Jump right to that matter, but we're gonna get to in the next slide So I better just shut up and just just read the quote and by the end of this video We're probably gonna have a good idea of exactly why the name of this chapter is the live preacher So far, he seems to be You know John Dewey in the essay seems to be focusing primarily on the distinction between One of the distinction between but this this sort of compartmentalization of art throughout history And his assertion that it wasn't that way art originally is a direct It's directly tied to a cultural communal life experience and it's been sort of Removed from that in more recent times due to all these forces that again we talked about in the last video nationalism and realism just made a couple and here he again kind of repeats the point of the inability of art theories to get to the heart of the matter because they ignore art as it actually Originates inexperience and Where it comes from in practice? so Let's see. What do he has to say? about that right so theories Which isolate art and its appreciation by placing them in a realm of their own? Disconnected from other modes of modes of experiencing are not Inherent in the subject matter so you don't have art looking at art just in itself Doesn't necessitate that separation This arises do he says because of specifiable extraneous conditions We talked about those in the last video right again rise of capitalism the nation-state imperialism industrialization Artists plus these theories of art like Kant and Schopenhauer which make artistic or sorry Experience purely contemplative and not very active So going on embedded as they are in institutions and in habits of life these conditions the ones You know these these ones that that separate art Operate effectively because they work so unconsciously the theorist assumes they are embedded in the nature of things, right? So theory again starts with these already sort of artificial Compartmentalized conceptions of art and that leads them astray Nevertheless Nevertheless the influence of these conditions is not confined to theory. So again, it's not just philosophers who make this mistake or do we This this has creeped into the popular understanding of art So it's not confined to theory as I have already indicated it deeply affects the practice of living driving away aesthetic perceptions that are necessary ingredients of happiness or Reducing them to the level of compensating transient pleasurable excitations, right so in other words this idea of art as just something that is a Diversion right we go to the concert to get away to de-stress at the end of the week And then we go back to our job, right? He doesn't like that He thinks that this old, you know this older, you know The art like the Parthenon the Greek Parthenon this work of art that was not just beautiful and a wonderful work of art it was also a celebration of the Athenian democracy and this Symbol of civic pride and it was utilized as an actual building, you know in this endeavor He doesn't like us to separate this right? He thinks that actually this is a necessary ingredient for our happiness But nevertheless, this is the popular conception and so for him the nature of the problem from the quote here is that of recovering the continuity of aesthetic experience with normal processes of Living right so we need to bring art back into life Brought back into normal experience and stop thinking of it as separate and segregated from all other experience Art is not not separated from life right or at least it shouldn't be and it wasn't originally Purdue Theory can start with and from Acknowledged works of art only when the aesthetic is has already been Compartmentalized or only when works of art are set in a niche apart instead of being Celebrations recognized as such of the things of ordinary experience, right? so like the Parthenon was not just a great work of art that is celebration of or the ordinary experience of the Athenian a Democrat the Athenian citizen even a crude experience if authentically an experience is More fit to give a clue to the intrinsic nature of aesthetic experience Then is an object already set apart from any other mode of experience so you're probably wondering why I have these photos here of Joe Osteen and and and a picture from inside the Cathedral the soccer her in Paris, right? I want to consider one of those beautiful cathedrals in the world the second most visited Church in Paris after Notre Dame but anyway He might argue that if you know If you're like, let's say you're a parishioner or I don't know what you would call it a member of Joe Osteen's church You know, you remember the congregation and you go there and you actually get some you know, what are you know? Put aside whatever you think about Joe Osteen. I know he's a pretty controversial figure, you know, I Anytime I mentioned him anywhere I get all these comments about it You know, I don't really feel one way or the other about to be honest with you But I know like there's a lot of people, you know who feel like he's a fake or a fraud or whatever But that's beside the point if you're one of his congregation Let's say and you go to his church on Sunday and you really have this Incredible experience Spirituality, right, you know, even though you know, you might think of that as it's a crude experience Compared to the beauty that you see here on the left in the church, you know inside the the basilica of the soccer Cor, right still though if you go to the soccer chorus just a tourist and you're just looking at at it, you know For Dewey it loses a bit of its vibrancy. It loses its original aesthetic appeal You know as opposed to let's let's imagine somebody who actually went to the soccer here, you know back when it was first constructed one of the members of the church there who actually was just you know was transported away by the beauty and the spirituality that was invoked right and in Contemplating, you know these deep truths of the universe and their salvation and you know again, you know even if you're not a spiritual person you can imagine, you know, how Impactful and how vibrant that experience might have been to the spiritual Member of that church, right? So, you know, he might argue that again some tourists going to see the soccer career, you know They might be seeing art. That's more beautiful or you know a little bit more Less crude you might say that's the word he uses but still it's not really Intrinsic to the nature of aesthetic experience you're you're losing that aesthetic part You know for him it's it's too detached And again, this is you know for my students at U of H who you know by now you should understand Kant a little bit It's a far cry from Kant and you might even say from Schopenhauer, right? Although you could say this is a bit in line with Nietzsche, right? Nietzsche's notion of the Dionysian and how that you know in the Dionysian experience of art. We lose ourselves right, we lose our sense of Individuality become one right so you might go to see Joel Osteen and you know His sermon or the songs that are being played, you know, sure they might not be as artful as like a Beethoven concerto, but If they if they move you in a certain spiritual way, I think Dewey would argue that they are more properly or authentically An experience and not an aesthetic experience So, you know interesting point. I don't know if you'd agree with that, right? But again, he still thinks theory loses sight of this because theory, you know art theory tries to detach the artwork from You know the context from which it was created and the function which it served and Dewey thinks that you're losing something there Inevitably your theory is going to be wrong and so he writes that writers of aesthetic theory often raised the question of whether Aesthetic philosophy can aid in the cultivation of aesthetic appreciation You know if if you were in my philosophy of art class earlier this semester remember Hume makes the point that this is possible that that that through theory or through I guess rational or Thoughtful debate debates probably the wrong word, but reflection maybe is a better word. We can become better critics We can become better We can develop better taste Hume seems to think this right, so this is a question again Dewey's not wrong has been raised throughout the history of philosophy of art The question is a branch of the general of a general theory of criticism Which it seems to me fails to accomplish its full office If it does not indicate what to look for and what to find in concrete aesthetic objects, right? This is something I think Hume fails to do He you know Hume David Hume just says if it's if it pleases us and it generally pleases humanity throughout history Despite any other prejudices we might have to enjoy it then it's it's seen as having higher value aesthetically So I don't think really for Dewey that wouldn't be enough of an answer, right? That's just it's it sort of begs the question. Well. Why does it right? You know this is maybe it's true Maybe empirically, you know, remember David Hume is an empiricist maybe empirically if you look at the history of art This is true that works of art that we claim to be masterpieces or works of art that have just generally been accepted and generally Please us, but you still haven't explained why they please us, right? So for Dewey again Of any theory of criticism fails to accomplish its full office What it actually has to do what it sets out to do if it does not indicate what to look for and what to find in concrete aesthetic objects a philosophy of art is sterilized unless it makes us aware of the function of art in relation to other modes of experience and unless it indicates why this function is so inadequately realized and Unless it suggests the conditions under which the office would be successfully performed, right? So what are the standards basically? What is a satisfactory Execution of a work of art right what what makes the work of art effective first off? What is the function? What is the telos if you want to use that Greek term if you want to go back to Aristotle? What's the aim? What's the purpose and under what conditions is this purpose fulfilled and is it's not fulfilled, right? What gets in the way of right? So again for for Dewey Any and all philosophies of art They need to answer these concerns, right they have to explain what arts function is in relation to other modes of experience what makes it different or similar to other modes of experience and how or why does a work of art adequately or inadequately fulfill this function and He writes that no amount of ecstatic eulogy of Finished works can of itself assist the understanding or the generation of such work So again, I think that this is maybe a an area where he will disagree with Schopenhauer, I don't know if he disagrees with them Maybe that's not the right way to put it But I would say if he read Schopenhauer and I'm assuming he has he doesn't mention him in this book But I'm assuming that he would probably Accuse Schopenhauer of this of eulogizing you right for Schopenhauer. You can't put it into words You're you're at one with the universe. It's this will you have a direct You have a direct experience of your own will and you just have to understand that the whole universe is a part of that Will you're one with it? So when you see for instance a flower growing, it's that is the will that's the will trying to become a flower trying to become a beautiful plant and When you experience art it is this sort of ecstatic experience Now again, he's not denying that you can't enjoy art if you can't explain it but he's talking about being a philosopher of art so again Flowers can be enjoyed with without knowing about the interactions of soil air moisture and seeds of which they are the result But they cannot be understood Without taking just these interactions into account and theory is a matter of understanding, right? So we mentioned this a little bit in the last video, right? I can understand or I can appreciate the beauty of a flower without knowing about all the you know The properties that make it Able to be beautiful. I don't mean I need to know about soil air moisture, etc But I'm a theorist and I understand it I do so so so do he thinks that to be a good philosophy of art Esthetician right a speed Somebody who does a philosophy of art who practices aesthetics? This is key. You have to do this. We can't be like you and just say oh, well, it just pleases us to be fair To you there is a point in his essay and I can't quote it Verbatim but he says something to the effect that You know certain Things are enjoyable to humans just because of the way that we're framed, right? So our body, you know, he seems to be alluding to biology and I think that's kind of you know Where do he is coming from to he's gonna get a little bit more in detail about this He's not a scientist. He's not a biologist. So he's not gonna get you know, don't think Don't think he's gonna jump into like evolutionary biology and things like this But he is gonna tie it to the idea of being a living organism interacting with the environment and how that interaction with our environment leads to this notion of art and the need for art and Its origins in that experience or the experience of a living a living organism adapting to its environment so Theory he says is concerned with discovering the nature of the production of works of art and of their enjoyment How is it that the everyday making of things grows into that form of making which is genuinely Artistic again, you know, this is the problem. How do we how did art come about? What's the origin of art? This is a problem. We're gonna see in the Heidegger lectures, right? He focuses on origins of a work of art Where does it come from? Where's the basis for art? What does art tell us? You know, what is its function I think these are concerns that Dewey and Heidegger both share, right? How is it that our everyday enjoyment of scenes and situations develops into the peculiar? Satisfaction that attends to the experience which is emphatically aesthetic. These are the questions that theory must answer and the answers cannot be found unless we are willing to find the germs and roots in Matters of experience that we do not currently regard as aesthetic. In other words our everyday normal experience We got to look to just our everyday sort of practical engagement with the world and Sort of understand what experiences in general before we understand what it is to be an aesthetic experience So having discovered these active seeds We may follow the course of their growth into the highest forms of finished and refined art So he's gonna talk about though, you know the living creature now we finally get into really more, you know detail You know addressing details addressing The title of the chapter right? Well, why is he why do you title this chapter the live creature? We're still kind of in the dark about that, right? But being a living organism being a live animal for for Dewey Understanding what that means and the nature of being a living organism and being a living being dealing with one's environment Understand that is a necessary prerequisite to understanding any aesthetic experience at all I think that that should hopefully become somewhat clear So let's read this quote here where he finally starts to get to the details here this this this notion of the live creature So the nature of experience is determined by the essential conditions of life while man is other than bird and beasts he shares basic vital functions with them and Has to make the same basal adjustments if he is to continue the process of living Having the same vital needs man derives the means by which he breathes Moves looks and listens the very brain with which he coordinates his senses and his movements from his animal forebears This is interesting. You know, we're gonna get more into this notion of dealing my environment but when we get to this notion of Overcoming the obstacles that my environment presents. I can't help but Think of Schopenhauer here. And of course Schopenhauer is a far cry. I would say from Dewey But it's interesting how many of these philosophies of art all come to some point where they have to confront this notion of strife and tension that is somehow inherent in life and must be Represented in works of art and might even be the impetus for works of art That might be something Nietzsche would would agree with and Dewey it seems to be saying that as well So the environment plays a key role in the aesthetic of a culture Right. We look at these pictures here. We've got the Inuit, you know, he has to adapt to his environment Like the woman where you know Living in the desert has to adapt to her environment and the objects that they use and create the technology implementations that they create to Overcome their their the impediments that the environment presents to them These for Dewey are the seeds of art and seeds of artistic creation So the first great consideration is that life goes on in an environment not merely in it But because of it through interaction with it No creature lives nearly under its skin Its subcutaneous organs are means of connection with what lies beyond its bodily frame To which in order to live it must adjust itself by accommodation and defense But also by conquest the career and destiny of a living being are bound up with it with its interchanges with its environment Not externally but in the most intimate way, right? So humans or any live creature is Not just a product but sort of an intimate intertwined Element of its environment right and and the way that it adapts to the environment is a key I would say or need Dewey will say to understanding the art or the implementations that occur as a result of this This encounter I hate to use the word encounter because that still seems to separate the creature from the environment In a much greater degree. I think that Dewey would like us to think Do we would allow? In this regard I think Dewey although as far as I know him and Heidegger did didn't really read much of each other if any of each other's work Probably ignored each other but this I think they share this in common, especially if you read the early work of Heidegger this idea that Myself the notion of myself the individual is Intimately tied to my Environing world that's the term that Dewey would use my environing World or my environment, right? Heidegger would just talk about the world or world structure so there's this embeddedness of all of us in our Environment and we are in a certain sense a reflection of our environment and our adaptation to that environment so Every need say hunger for fresh air or food is a lack that denotes at least a temporary absence of adequate Adjustments with surrounding so there's this inherent tension at most times between ourselves in our environment I'm you know, you know sure modernity and and in all the luxuries of technology have helped to Ease this tension and we don't feel it I think to the extent that we used to perhaps when we were, you know, you know cavemen hunter-gatherers our species Nevertheless, this is an element of our experience. Is this overcoming this tension? You know at the very least we were gonna get hungry and need some food to satisfy our hunger We're never ever gonna be fully satiated, right? This just doesn't happen So again, I this reminds me quite a bit of Schopenhauer, but of course Schopenhauer is coming from you know, probably the perspective of The Buddhist or the Hindu philosopher thinking more in terms of you know, my subjective Contemplative self trying to deal with reality and the sort of struggles and attachments That bind to my ego and letting go of those where I think whereas I think Dewey Is really thinking about this strictly in terms of sort of a Darwinian biological perspective, right? We're we're adapting You know survival of the fittest The environment changes us and we adapt to it and in a certain sense. We're unaware of this So it's also a demand right? The environment is a demand Reaching out into the environment To make it to make good the lack and to restore Adjustment by building at least a temporary equilibrium Life itself consists of phases in which the organism's organism falls out of step with the march of surrounding things and Then recovers unison with it either through effort or by some happy chance And in a growing life, the recovery is never mere return to a prior state For it is enriched by the state of disparity and resistance Through which it has successfully passed And if the gap between the organism and the environment is too wide the creature dies If its activity is not enhanced by the temporary alienation it merely subsists life grows When a temporary falling out is a transition to a more extensive balance of the energies of the organism with those conditions Under which it lives Lot there's a lot going on here in this quote obvious. It's a long quote But this reminds me of the famous quote from Nietzsche, right? Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger Not so not so much For for Dewey, there's another option, right? It's either gonna make you stronger and I guess that's like that's the positive, right? You know, if the gap is too wide you'll die, right? So it will kill you right if the act if the activity is not enhanced it just subsists so it doesn't make you stronger You just subsist you're able to sort of maintain your your status as a living creature, right but There's something about Overcoming tension and overcoming these encumberments these temporary Lacks these temporary absences that call out for adjustment if we're able to adapt to the and Incorporate that into our being In Nietzsche's right it makes us stronger right? What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right? So it gives us a fuller richer More complex Experience right a more lived experience more complex more Fruitful I don't know if the fruitful is the right word but extensive that's the word he likes to use right an extensive Way of life to these and the ending and these are common places We're always struggling right where is insofar as we're a living being insofar as we're an organism. We're always in this Mode attention and struggling and overcoming but these biological common common places are Something more than that They reach to the roots of the aesthetic in Experience if life continues and if in continuing it expands, right? They're gonna have that word expansion, right if we overcome these obstacles in through this overcoming we expand our existence expand our possibilities and our our mode of being In in that case, there's an overcoming of factors of opposition and conflict, right? If life continues and if he's expands there is an overcoming of factors Opposition and conflict there's a transformation of them Into differentiated aspects of a higher powered and more significant life We have more power more significance more fulfillment Potentially in our life the marvel of organic of vital Adaptation through expansion instead of by contraction and passive accommodation actually takes place, right? So instead of just contracting and shrinking from the problem instead of just passively accommodating ourself to the problem We overcome it conquer it right that takes place for Dewey Here is the germ is right here in germ our balance and harmony attain through rhythm equilibrium comes about not mechanically and inertly but out of it and because of Tension right so tension creates the capacity for the aesthetic in experience because there's tension because there's these moments of Instability and these other moments of equilibrium. This is the basis This is the germ in all living experience for the aesthetic Order he says cannot but be admirable in a world constantly threatened with disorder In a world where living creatures can go on living only by taking advantage of whatever order exists about them Incorporating it into themselves In a world like in a world like ours Every living creature that attains sensibility welcomes order with the response of harmonious feeling whenever it finds a congruous order about For only when an organism shares in the ordered relations of its environment does it secure the stability essential to living and When the participation comes after a phase of disruption conflict it bears within itself the germs of a consummation Akin to the aesthetic right so that's the clue in Experience right that's where we get this notion of the aesthetic. It's these moments of tension and then Resolution right resolve overcoming equilibrium and so he says since the artist cares in a peculiar way For the fit the phase of experience in which union is achieved. He does not shun moments of resistance and tension He rather cultivates them not for their own sake but because of their potentiality Bringing to living consciousness an experience that is unified and total right so tension resistance Necessary for aesthetic experience. That's why the artist revels in it right. Yeah, that's part of his duty That's how he creates good art. That's maybe one of the ways that the aesthetic experience is Successful is it's able to create tension which is resolved Which is resolved in this equilibrium? And again that this sounds a bit like Schopenhauer, but for different reasons right for Schopenhauer's there's inevitable tension and living and being a living being and Trying to survive and sort of this notion of the ego that we attach ourselves to But then every once in a while through artistic experience we can kind of let go of that and just be one with everything This is I think a little bit more mundane than what Dewey's talking about here It's just when we're just we're relaxed and we're not worried about the past or the present or the future In fact, we'll talk about those relations and in the next video She's gonna get to that right then in our normal mode of consciousness. This is also very Heideggerian Or Dewey and I don't know who you know Heidegger maybe gets would get credit for it You know this idea that the past the present the future Two things that that we attach ourselves to in our everyday modes But sometimes being sort of let go of it just sort of become one and we get getting this sort of flow of things It's not stressed out about all so Like Nietzsche and again, I'm sure you know do even hate the comparison to Nietzsche, but sorry, dude Sorry, there is a lot of parallels. I mean, it's obvious You're gonna see especially when I get to the next quote maybe not this one with the next quote I mean in this quote, he seems to be you know saying something quite new We we talked about in one of the final lectures on Nietzsche's birth of tragedy, I think it was lecture 7 We talked about this the concept of the theoretical man Socrates was the Sort of archetype maybe the first example of the theoretical man in the West Western culture Boom, I think what Dewey is talking about here when he referred to the scientific man Is something quite similar to what Nietzsche has in mind? so in contrast to The person whose purpose is aesthetic The scientific man is interested in problems in situations wherein tension between the matter of Observation and of thought is marked a market. Of course, he cares for the resolution But he does not rest in it He passes on to another problem using an attained solution only as a stepping stone from which to set on foot further Inquiries. Okay. So remember if you if you did watch the Nietzsche videos, you'll see that Nietzsche he compares the theoretical man To a sort of artist like that. He creates science as his art form and the pursuit of science itself is What gives his life purpose, right? It's what gives the answer to you know, to nihilism, right to you know The view that there's no meaning in the world Of course There's meaning the meaning is finding truth and the way you find truth is through science And that that's the pursuit that gives you a life purpose, okay so that's sort of Nietzsche's account of science and why science is akin to The artistic endeavor because it's funny it gives us an answer to to life It gives us an answer to the question of the meaning of life purpose. It gives us something to do meaningful but here with Dewey He's saying something that I think needs you to agree with but I don't really see it in each his essay, right? So this idea that there's no resolution per se in the scientific endeavor sure There will be certain resolutions these scientists who studying trying to come up with this Solution to a particular problem will come up with a solution to that problem, you know right now We're dealing with this kovat 19 crisis, you know, they're working on a vaccine. I'm sure diligently various labs throughout the world And once they come up with the vaccine, that's great There'll be a certain resolution to that but that doesn't end the scientific endeavor The researcher is going to go on to keep researching the virus. I'm sure even after there is a vaccine for it there's still gonna be research done on the Coronavirus in all of its forms and manifestations, right? So it's not like the work of art where the artist has this sort of idea Creates a work of art and then there's this resolution and then when we see the work of art we get this feeling of resolution Right. There's this endlessness to the scientific inquiry in a way, I mean, I think Nietzsche would get on board with that because you know, he says remember that that You know Lessing was all honest about this Lessing said that the scientists were that they cared more about the pursuit of truth than for the truth itself But here's where I think Dewey and Nietzsche are quite on board with each other and where they're very controversial this is a very controversial claim that they're making that the difference between the aesthetic mode of existence or experience and the intellectual modes of experience are not quite as different as they seem and as most Critics or theorists would want us to believe this is something I think that Nietzsche, Dewey, and I would say probably Heidegger would agree on, right? That this separation between aesthetic and intellectual and theoretical And even practical that these are somewhat false distinctions. So there's a long quote. Let's go ahead plow through it and see what Dewey Has to say and try to uncover what his argument is here. I think what we're gonna have to do is um in the video On this one, right, but I'm gonna read this quote. We'll stop it here. I told you the first couple videos will be very long And then the next ones will get shorter and shorter So let's try to wrap it up with this quote here where again Dewey is distinguishing between you know The aesthetic approach to experience that you might find in an artist creating a work of art and the intellectual approach you'll find in a scientist research the difference between the aesthetic and the intellectual is Thus one of the place where emphasis falls in the constant rhythm that marks the interaction of the live creature with his surroundings the ultimate matter of both emphases in Experience is the same as is also their general form the odd notion that an artist does not think and a scientific inquirer does nothing else is The result of converting a difference of tempo and emphasis Into a difference of kind, you know, so for Dewey the artist and the scientists aren't really doing much different from the sort of standpoint Experience and how they experience things there's there's conflict there's resolution. There's just a difference in tempo, right? There's a difference in tempo and a difference of emphasis The thinker has his aesthetic moment When his ideas cease to be mere ideas and become corporate meanings of objects, right? He's no longer working with figures and and formulae and dealing with these abstract, you know Theories, but he actually sees it work in an experiment and sees it come to fruition The artist on the other hand has his problems and thinks as he works, right? The problem isn't something that requires a long research Sort of a research Program to to arrive at fulfillment. It has to be enacted through creation Right. His thought is more immediately embodied in the object because of the comparative remoteness of his in the scientific worker operates with symbols words and mathematical signs The artist does his thinking in the very qualitative media he works in and The terms lie so close to the object that he is producing that they merge directly into So if you want to think of the scientist as a creator, that's probably a bad way of thinking of it But just to sort of help with the analogy If the scientist is a creator and his his discovery is his creation It's something that is far and remote from him until it's discovered right while the scientist is doing the research, right? While the scientist is looking under the microscope taking notes You know making all these these jotting down all all the levels and all the readings on all his devices You know once that scientist once he or she Is done with that Then it's like yeah, there's this aha moment just like there is an art But that aha moment is so remote from that person until it comes Whereas for the artist the artist I guess apparently is gonna have this idea in their mind Knows exactly what they want to create and as they're creating the work It is directly becoming embodied in that work as they carve that Sculpture as they write their novel as they paint their painting They see that that that that artistic inspiration that was in their mind. It was in their thought Directly transferred into something physical unlike the scientist who until the moment of discovery is working in the completely abstract realm okay, so We've already started talking about the environment We've started talking about the living creature and how the living creature interacts with their environment And how this has a direct impact on experience and on the art that results from that experience And what makes certain things aesthetic and other things not aesthetic so we stop the video here We're still on chapter one believe it or not like I said, I warned you about this. There's a lot of information Once we get through chapter one though I think it's gonna be a lot easier and a lot faster a lot of the more exciting too because we're actually gonna see his Theory in action how how it actually works in particular works of art, so I better stop the video here I've already gone longer than I wanted to I think we're at like over 30 minutes Yeah, 40 minutes already 42 minutes, so let me stop it here. See you on the other side We got one more video to get through chapter one, and then we'll move on to some really dynamic stuff with you So thanks for sticking it out