Why you NEED to visit an art museum

Good ideas, but it still feels a lot like trying to find sense in something that doesn’t have any and does not need to exist.

As an artist I don't somewhat agree with your video. I 💯% agree with your video. Art museums and art galleries are suppose to be therapeutic for the artist and audience. Instead these spaces are used most of the time to promote a distorted idea of art for the sake of wealth and self-important egos

If you define art you limit it. This description is only part of what art does seen from the perspective of Alain de Boton the psychologist. If we were this prescriptive we would put it in a straight jacket which is the opposite of creativity and imagination. Art is whatever each one of us chooses to make of it like life. Part of the purpose of art is to be puzzling. This forces you to think and explore and use your imagination to interpret. All comment like this video is however useful food for thought and debate.

That was a very good vid thanks

aqui del piaget

Yes , very true , Art has healing effect , that’s why we have to have them on public spaces like subways. Parks etc.

This is genius!

Part of the process of art appreciation is discovering one's own value attributions. To arrive upon works that have been prescriptively categorized by some superstructure precludes much of the romance.

Jesus H. Christ.

Would it be ironic or actually therapeutic to put a museum of kindness in New York?

Royal Academy of Art`s 250th Summer Exhibition 2018 addressed this, curated `art made now` and chose a number of sub-topics in its 14 galleries such as `fun` (serious business I say!) and `politics` (not so serious business). It can be viewed until 19th August in London Royal Academy Arts.

This sounds like the opinion of someone who's never made art

Marcel Duchamp disliked this video 130 times

One great example of a space already doing something like this is the Museum of Broken Relationships (I believe there are two branches, one in Los Angeles)

that's a rather pretentious opinion and not at all comprehensive in context of the real issue.

One of the only claims that the school of life makes that I disagree with is that art should be treated in a concrete way as a healing mechanism.

This just doesn't seem to be feasable because of the sibjective nature of art - In thr same way that no piece of music is simply "sad" or "joyous" a work of art cannot be classified as a treatment course.for a certain mental issue.

However, art appreciation might help people find for themselves the things that they lack/appreciate/need in works of art.

I reccomend for you at the school of life to review your other video on the purpose of art - which I find to be much more accurate in it's depiction of art as a form of expression free for interpretation - and abandon the idea that art can be manipulated in ways that can make people think the "right" things through observing it.

I like your point BUT many 'recent' art styles wouldn't fit these theme-oriented displays because they're basically meaningless. How do you use the following for healing purposes? Consider post-modern art (conceptual art and installation art), e.g. a sheep in a tank of formaldehyde. Or Abstract art (e.g. a black square) or Dada (a defaced Mona Lisa painting or an upside down urinal).

Please cooperate with an art museum to make this happen. At least in one place!

People go to art museums just for something to do.

Beijin Museum actually arranged its art display by emotions ... 👌👌👌 my best experience!!! Even cried!

LOVE!

I seen a modern art Museum that had a wicker chair painted orange on display and acted like I was being shown something by Van gogh or Leonardo da Vinci. Needless to say I was not impressed by some dipshit's ability to paint a chair orange.

We view art for the purpose of self reflection. Period. (What does that say about those who would promote Picasso?) Museums are a medium for culturing the rich the way TV cultures the rest of us. The problem is, they show only ugly, confusing reflections. The professional artist makes art for money. Period. I should know because I've commissioned scores. Genuine art is created as a way of sharing a message - even if only with yourself, even if you don't know what that message is, and responsible art accurately reflects only the very best and most beautiful aspects of our world. Only then may viewing it be considered therapeutic. Thanks for sharing such great work!

there is a new and very fine art museum less than a mile away from where i live. celebrities come there and it houses some of the most famous pieces of american art. it's a place for stuffy rich people to have fancy dinners and for daughters to plan out their dream weddings. pomp and circumstance. what the fuck, art?

I don't feel that I need this much guidance as a media patron. But I love this idea.

I think that the idea of art museums with an emphasis on emotional therapy is a great idea, but to make all art museums this way is not a good or practical idea. Pardon the long post, but all of this popped in my head listening to this video:
Art and cultural history may not be a career-oriented subject of study, but it has its merits. It's important to look at what time period, what part of the world, and what person created the art. It gives you a window into that time period in a way that no artifact or written record can. Divorcing a work of art from its time period is an interesting idea, but we would lose so much on the way to this new interpretation.
For artist collections of art on tour whether the artist is alive or not (but especially if they're alive), the audience is invested not only in the art but the artist behind it. If Tim Burton or Paul Klee works were coming through my area, I'd rush to see them because these artists have inspired me so much. I would not want to randomly find them in an exhibition of the "uncomfortable" or "sensory," or worse, have overlooked the exhibit altogether because I didn't know they were there. As an aspiring artist (who'll probably never get into a museum because I'm an illustrator) if I had to choose between a solo exhibition and being a part of a thematic exposition, I'd definitely want people to know my work from a personal collection.
Finally, this idea is problematic because art is more than ever subjective. Before photography, at least in the western world, art was usually very literal. After the "photo bomb" artists had to create the world as they saw it or a world that wasn't or even not a world at all. The artist may have an intent for the work or not and while some works of contemporary art have universal reactions, many are far more interpretive. How do you put a work with subjective emotional response and meaning into a collection with a clear meaning? Unless you want to create the Museum of Chaos (not a bad idea) it won't work. You'd have to commission artists and art historians to work for you and many won't.
Where I live, we have a three-floor Museum of Art and History with a "whopping" $5 admission and at least one night a month admission free. The work here is by local artists who may present their memories in paintings, artistic inventions, fashion designs, and collaborative exhibitions with a theme. The theme of local history and culture is therapeutic, but more so educational and a way to interact with the community. Education and community are things I associate with church more than "therapy." Then again, I'm no longer religious and see church as problematic as it is therapeutic. Art, on the other hand, is a subjective experience. We do not take, we make.

Modern are sucks balls

Art defined purely as therapy/entertainment makes it little more meaningful than zoning out to tv.

art can be healing, but saying the purpose of art is healing is ridiculous.

yes!

Wouldn't what these works "address emotionally" be subjective to begin with? When people see art, they have a vast multitude of different reactions and perspectives. What an artist or the work intends to portray or represent could be completely different for someone else. I for one recommend putting art in place of it's elements, whether it's abstract, or otherwise.

I want to live in Alan's world.

I can't get over the fact that I seem to want to share almost all of your videos, even ones that I don't expect myself to like at all.

i'm so sad the world doesn't work according to The School Of Life's ideas, but also i'm hopeful for the future

Am I the only one horrified by this vision? Utilizing art to be therapeutic would be the end of all artistic freedom

This makes perfect and beautiful sense, Thank you!

No habrá museos para la ansiedad o para la amistad, pero hay exposiciones temáticas que se han enfocado en gatos, papel de la mujer, flores, punk, etcetera. Creo que están ignorando el trabajo de tantos curadores con este statement.

I sense Duchamp just from the title :>

as much as i would like to believe in art's therapeutic impact, i feel that visual arts have failed in comparison to music and storytelling when it comes to really reaching out to people and healing them.

A significant problem I see with the proposed layouts for art museums is that it imposes a definition on a piece. Many artists, both out of vogue appeal and, in some cases, a genuine belief would claim that their art can't be categorized under definitions such as 'Grief' or 'Anger'. We've already seen so many modern works vehemently run from definitions of genre.

Personally I think a chronological layout is a good one. In an expansive library it allows the viewer to take in a progression of how art changes over the years. This is one of an art galleries greatest feats. Sure you can see a slideshow of works laid out in chronological order but seeing something like the progression or digression of an artist like Munch as you move from gallery to gallery is a unique feeling. In this context the mere act of being in a museum becomes a medium in and of itself in which the the curator becomes an artist himself.

I would love to see a museum laid out like the way he explains

Now, if museums were laid out like this video mentions, I would actually think paying admissions fees would be worth it. As of right now, if it isn't FREE it isn't for ME.

The São Paulo Museum of Art (MASP) the collection is displayed in tempered crystal sheets leaned on concrete blocks bases. Its very different from other museums and it feels amazing to be there.

I'm not sure I agree here. I'm not sure it's a question of reorganizing art museums, so all the "sad" ones are in one room or one complete museum. Imagine telling someone, "Hey, let's go to the museum of Sadness today." Like we want to trust strangers to give us insight into very personal feelings. Yes, I know we do it all the time with art and books, etc. But, the idea of going to a museum for that, with overbearing curators... I think, whether a museum performs well or poorly has to do with the quality of the work more than how it's presented. And I've seen quality and poor work in every era.

Alain, recently the highly regarded former Metropolitan Museum of Art director, Philippe de Montebello, coauthored a book about art that a book reviewer said strangely excluded mentioning the benefit of viewing art. I think you have enough influence that maybe you could get Philippe to respond to your video or just to say what he believes is the benefit to viewing art.