WATCH part 1: [ Ссылка ]
Nietzsche assumed Richard Wagner's music and Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy were the products of an overflowing vitality, or a surplus of life. However, in the Joyful Science, he changes his mind. It was a mistake to think Wagner and Schopenhauer are a product of exuberance, rather, Wagner and Schopenhauer are a product of a lack of vitality.
Most notably in his work The Case of Wagner we find a long polemic that seeks to critique Wagner’s music, and with it, Schopenhauer’s philosophy. If there’s enough interest, we’ll do a separate video on Nietzsche versus Wagner. Comment below if you’re interested.
This video is not about criticism. In this follow-up video, we want to look at what kind of art this late Nietzsche considers good. If bad art procedes from a lack of vitality, what kind of art procedes from a surplus of vitality?
In the paragraph of the Joyful Science in question, Nietzsche drops four names:
“[Art may] proceed from gratitude and love:—art of this origin will always be an art of apotheosis, perhaps dithyrambic, as with Rubens, mocking divinely, as with Hafiz, or clear and kind-hearted as with Goethe, and spreading a Homeric brightness and glory over everything.”
--- Music in the video (CC)
Canon in D Major by Kevin MacLeod is is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0-licence. [ Ссылка ]
Source: [ Ссылка ]
Artist: [ Ссылка ]
