Wednesday, November 11, 2015
ICA 11/11
Bailey uses philosophy and scholarship to understand the art object that is "No Church in the Wild." Now that we have reviewed Bailey's argument, do you think the move to use Nietzsche to read Kanye was effective? In other words, does the argument make you rethink the video, it's message, it's purpose, or its aesthetic value? Keep in mind that Bailey's overarching purpose was to argue for the value of philosophy by demonstrating how it can help us gain "a broader understanding of something." He wants to demonstrate that philosophy is a tool that can enable us to "unpack" art objects.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, because I can see the two aspects of art present in the music video and they definitely each give off a certain vibe of either good or bad. I do see what Bailey was talking about in the music video and I can see how it could have gone another way. I do feel that philosophy explains the video, especially in terms of good vs bad and Apollonian vs Dionysian.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that philosophy is applicable made by Bailey was not very effective in my opinion. He just further disproved himself. After reading his discussion, I really have gained nothing. Perhaps this is just me being close-minded, or maybe it's my math and science brain at work, but philosophy is not exactly a priority for me, nor should it be for anyone. Sure, it was interesting, but as far as practicality goes, I still see none. The 2 hours of my life that I spent reading and discussing this piece could've been spent much more productively. Perhaps I could have been volunteering, or studying for my other classes that are more applicable to my major. The argument was interesting and he made some good points, but at the end of the day, who really cares to read so much into Kanye anyways? Can't we just enjoy music for music's sake?
ReplyDeleteI think that Bailey's argument isn't necessary to understand the main point of the video, but it definitely does help gain a broader understanding. He "unpacks" many different aspects of the video and also the lyrics of the song, using different aspects of philosophy to find a deeper meaning. I think that at times in the argument this really worked and made a lot of sense, but at other points it just caused confusion for me. I think that although he was trying to prove that philosophy can be applied to everyday life to understand things better, his argument just confused me in a way that most other philosophy articles do.
ReplyDeleteBailey did allow me to take a closer look at "No Church in the Wild," however I do not believe his argument was completely necessary to the track and video's understanding. Most people can realize that there was a fight between what's usually considered "good" and "bad" in the video, and that ultimately the "bad" side won. However, Bailey's argument did allow me to look deeper into the meaning of the Apollonian and Dionysus, and how these elements relate to this track. Also, I was able to interpret the meaning further in terms of the nihilistic perspective that is portrayed in this song, by showing that nothing really means anything.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Bailey's argument made me rethink anything about "No Church in the Wild." I think the effectiveness of Bailey's writing was more on the end of having his audience achieve an understanding of philosophies rather than of the video itself. From reading the article I felt that I learned a lot about the definitions and ideas behind Dionysian and Apollonian aspects of art, Nietzschean concepts, and nihilism, but my outlook on the video remained the same. The video depicts a battle between good and bad or authority and rebels, and I don't really need philosophy to understand that.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Bailey's argument was effective. I had never seen the video before, so it really couldn't make me rethink it. Yet, I could see everything that he was talking about. I saw the good,Apollonian, side and the bad, Dionysian, side. I see how the philosophy relates to the video. I probably could have realized that there was a battle between good and evil without reading his argument, but his argument helped me relate the video to philosophy and history. Bonus note: the elephant is in the video because the bad side won making everything wild, and elephants live in the wild. Just kidding, I really don't know why it's in the video but I liked it.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, Bailey's argument was initially effective. Although I hadn't even heard the song before, let alone the video, I was able to imagine and visualize the video before seeing it. After watching the video, I understand the points he made even further, but am still fuzzy on the philosophical concepts. Overall, it left me a bit confused.
ReplyDeleteNietzsche's philosophical views are overarching and Bailey's use of them to interpret Kanye West's song was entirely appropriate. He described the fight of good and evil in a believable and persuasive way. I didn't know this video before reading the review but after reading it, I definitely am making more philosophical connections. I disagree with the fact that it makes me see the video differently. Instead, I think it encourages me to analyze the intent of the video in a way I wouldn't have before. Aesthetically nothing changed for me because it was dark and cynical before I read the review and it is dark and cynical after.
ReplyDeleteI think Baileys argument was effective based on the fact that it achieved his goal of giving practical meaning to philosophy. Although it was effective, I don't think that it was entirely useful. Watching the music video, there is an obvious struggle between good (police) and bad (the people rioting). It is also obvious that the bad ends up overcoming the good. We can see this without the further explanation through philosophical terms and reasoning. I do think it was interesting how what Kanye does relates so much with the philosophical ideas. It is interesting to look at the video with a further complexity then just good vs. bad, but I don't think it is necessary to understand what the video is about.
ReplyDeleteBonus: The elephant is often seen as an animal of strength and power. The fact that the bad overcame the good could show a power shift and an overcoming through the use of force.
I think Bailey's argument with Nietzsche as the basis for analysis was and is effective. Through his piece, Bailey explains how Kanye is saying something about the war between good and evil, which is determined by society. I think that through this discussion, Kanye is arguing that the so called bad people and really the good, because they bring balance and social revolution. Their existence challenges the modern standards and brings up the involvement of Dionysian and Apollonian philosophical notions.
ReplyDeleteBailey's argument does not make me rethink the video for "No Church in the Wild," as much as it simply gives me a deeper understanding of it. I think anyone could watch the video and understand the bottom line of good vs evil. However, I do think that Bailey's philosophical ideas do add to the effect of the scenes. Instead of just good and evil, it becomes Apollonian ideas vs Dionysian ideas. And I think that that conflict is more real, as humans struggle with that conflict on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteBailey's interpretation of Kanye using philosophy was extremely effective, as the clash between the Dionysian and Apollonian are very prevalent throughout the video. The good vs bad, organized vs. chaotic is so well analyzed by Bailey's use of philosophy, and gives a better and broader understanding of "No Church in the Wild."
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think Bailey's argument was valid, I don't think it was effective. Without reading his article, I would have noticed certain aspects of the music video. I think he just expanded on these, not really offering a new interpretation, just making it more academic.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that using Nietzsche to read this video was effective for Bailey's argument. This idea of good and bad didn't make me rethink the video because when I watched it it was obvious that it was a battle of good vs bad. I don't think that this Kanye video needs philosophy to "unpack" itself as an art object because the video's message is very clearly stated.
ReplyDeleteI think that discussing Nietzsche to read this video was effective. After reading the comparison, I felt like I gained something new from what he had to say. Going back and watching the video now, I see the bigger philosophical meaning behind different parts of the video.
ReplyDeleteI see Bailey's argument for Nietzsche but for me it just didn't seem that applicable. It was kind of a stretch. You don't need philosophy to understand the purpose because it is very obvious from the video. Philosophy could be used but I think it's a very round about way.
ReplyDeleteYes it was effective, honestly I don't like Kanye that much but this interpretation of the video made me want to give him a little more credibility.
ReplyDeleteI do think that using Nietzsche to read Kanye was effective. The basic premise and purpose of this video is not difficult to understand, but through Nietzsche, you can see that there are deeper, underlying concepts that can only be understood through closer analyzing. For example, I liked the point about how society says blacks are mainly Dionysian. This video demonstrates this, and it's a point I would not have really thought about without this article.
ReplyDelete