Here's an idea-- Justin Bieber is as emotionally moving
as Franz Liszt, Michelangelo, and Jerusalem.
Most of us are guilty of having at least a little fun at Justin
Bieber's expense, Idea Channel included.
Say what you will about the young Canadian native who
was plucked out of obscurity by Usher,
and went on to be at the top of a multi-qua-billion dollar pop
empire.
But his music has clearly had an effect on millions
of people the world over.
Here is one of the most famous entertainers-- and hairdos.
#neversaynever.
There's also a pretty good chance
that you've had a run in at one time or another
with a Belieber.
Justin Bieber's fan base is dedicated in the same way
that water is wet, and fire is hot, and Raven is "so Raven."
It is an essential part of their very being.
Now, at first glance, it might seem as though Justin Bieber
has nothing in common with 19th century composer and pianist
Franz Liszt, who was composing by the age of nine
and hobnobbing with Beethoven and Schubert
by 11-- who, aside from being one of the greatest
pianists of his time, became a benefactor to Richard
Wagner, Hector Berlioz, Edvard Grieg,
but not before revolutionizing not only piano,
but also organ and program music.
Actually, at second through 10th glance,
it doesn't really appear as though Liszt and Bieber have
anything in common, and they don't-- almost.
Which is to say, they do have something in common,
it's just not biographical or musical.
It's psychological.
Specifically, it's the psychological effect
that they had on their fans.
While Liszt's fans came about 100 years
before the idea of fandoms even existed, let alone
had cute names, there was a term Lisztomania,
to describe the effect he had on his concert attendees.
Considered a real, honest-to-Glob politic medical
condition caused by Franz Liszt himself.
Lisztomania was coined by author Heinrich Hiene--
no snickering-- to describe the extreme hysteria exhibited
by Liszt's fans, making it a pretty close cousin to the more
modern Bieber Fever.
I gotta fever.
People would clamber to catch his discarded gloves
and handkerchiefs.
He'd be met with exuberant crowds of ecstatic admirers.
People would save and sometimes even wear his discarded cigar
butts as jewelry.
Blegh!
Sound familiar?
Well, except for the cigar butts.
Now, while Liszt may have been the first and Bieber one
of the more recent, that doesn't make them the only.
This sort of thing actually happens with some frequency.
Beetle Mania, One Directioners, Katy Kats, Little Monsters,
Hulkamania-- all crazes focused around a particular cult
of personality, crazes which can have,
in many cases, intense effects on its participants.
It's actually a widespread enough phenomenon
that there is a name for the psychological effect
that these crazes have on people-- sort of.
Bear with me for a second.
Stendhal syndrome is the name given
to the dizziness, fainting, shortness of breath, confusion,
and even hallucination experienced
by art viewers-- also called Florence syndrome,
because of the frequency with which it affects tourists
to the old school Italian art mecca.
It usually has to do with an artwork's extreme beauty--
Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel or "David,"
da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," Botticelli's "Birth of Venus,"
or basically anything by Caravaggio.
All works possessing of some brain short-circuiting amount
of oomph or zazz or it.
It's not just works of art that can cause someone
to flip their lid a little, though.
Jerusalem syndrome describes when
otherwise sane and balanced people
experience extreme religious delusion and psychosis
upon visiting the holy land.
The walk around in makeshift togas and shouts psalms.
PARIS syndrome, experienced disproportionately
by young female Japanese tourists,
describes the extreme anxiety at trying
to reconcile the cultural ideal of Paris
with it's, no offense, sort of rude, dirty reality.
All of these thingg-- the creation of Adam,
Monet's water lilies, Paris, Jerusalem, Lizst's piano
playing, and, yes, even Justin Bieber, possess
an extreme subjective beauty experienced by so many people.
But what these things also possess
is an extreme cultural significance--
a weight inspired by but also beyond their history, palette,
skill, or hairdo, which leads us to wonder this.
How much of the intense reaction to these things
is inspired by their pzazz or their itness,
and how much is inspired by something else?
What the French call a certain-- I don't know what.
Liszt was an incredible pianist, Caravaggio
a masterful artist, and I can objectively
identify what it is about "As Long As You Love Me"
that millions of people enjoy.
But as fast and as skillfully and as awesomely
as Liszt can play piano or Bieber can Bieb, notes, or even
brush strokes, for that matter, by themselves
can't cause someone to faint or hallucinate.
Phenomenological philosopher Maurice Merleau Ponty
wrote that in perception, we do not think the object,
and we do not think ourselves thinking it.
We are given over to the object, and we
merge into this body that is more informed than we
are about the world.
When we experience music and artworks,
we aren't thinking about transverse pressure waves
or light bouncing off of paint, even though, in essence, that
is exactly what we are perceiving.
The moment in which you experience these things--
in the arena surrounded by Beliebers,
in a quiet gallery in front of the "Mona Lisa,"
they assemble, along with something else.
And we become aware.
The combination of a thing's quality, its effect on you
specifically and the creation of a relationship between you
and a culture or community through its shared experience
makes something like Justin Bieber,
for example, vastly more than the sum of his parts.
And, sure.
You can make the argument that Bieber's quality-- or even
the "Mona Lisa's," for that matter, is manufactured,
or false.
But think about it.
If whoever is doing the manufacturing had their way,
everything would be as successful as Justin Bieber
and the "Mona Lisa" combined.
It would all be some kind of "Bieberlisa."
It's that's something else that's tricky.
The something that's in common between all effective art
and performance-- something in common between Liszt, Bieber,
"Guernica," and, heck, maybe even Jerusalem, the Pantheon,
and Aston Martin, or, I don't know, Yosemite National Park--
that can cause a person to just--
MAN: Ahh!
Augh.
MAN: Ahh!
Ahh!
Ahhh.
[CRYING] It's so beautiful.
Ooh.
Whew.
All right.
What do you guys think?
What are the psychological and cultural conditions
that will cause a person to be tremendously moved
by a work of art?
Let us know in the comments.
And there's actually another syndrome
called Idea Channel syndrome, where
otherwise sane and balanced people subscribe to our show.
It could be you.
No one can help you.
You must face the comments section alone.
Let's see what you guys had to say about D&D.
So, in general, a ton of amazing stories about people
learning about themselves and their friends
and their community through playing tabletop games.
If you ever needed any inspiration
on why to start playing tabletop games,
last week's comment thread is the place to find it.
So thank you for sharing.
Flint20 says that D&D can increase your chances to become
more confident person, but that one
of the really important parts of the equation
is the people that you're playing with in that,
if they're not willing to experiment or do crazy things,
then the game might be a little bit boring.
And Redrick1987 says something similar-- that if you're DM
doesn't encourage experimentation or trying
weird stuff, then your game might
be a little flat-- both of which are very solid points.
Chriserony is curious about how to get started with D&D.
So, I mean, you can go to like a Barnes & Noble
or to the internet and buy one of the $50 packs.
But one of the beauties of tabletop gaming
is that you don't really need any more than just some pieces
of paper, a pencil, and a bunch of dice.
And then you just get together with some your friends,
and start telling a story.
And when someone wants to try something, roll for it
and see how it goes.
And just go from there.
It's kind of the beauty of the whole system.
To Pineapplesofphysics-- thank you.
Thank you very much.
And also, really?
Let's put the captioning system to a test.
A skunk sat on a stump and thunk the stump stunk
but the stump thunk the skunk stunk.
To Apocalypsedetonator, we're very
happy that you like the show, but we
promise that the videos will still
be here when your calc homework is done, which you should do.
You should do your calc homework.
Rpgresearch says that they' are actually doing research
to figure out whether or not the claims that
were made in last week's video are true, and says
that they have a bunch of data and figures
and stuff to back it up.
So if you're interested, you should check that out.
Nananac2 says that being a Dungeon Master
has made him very organized and has been a great learning
experience for him, and both he and the Misterfountain
are curious about my ideal RPG character, which I'm not
going to spend time doing it right now, because it's not
interesting to a lot of people.
But if you go to the very end of this video,
I will describe my ideal tabletop character.
Dontmockmysmock says that his personal experience indicates
that the thesis of last week's video is completely false,
and that he does not think Dungeons & Dragons players are,
in general, more confident or more successful--
which there's no discounting personal experience.
So thanks for telling us.
Marvelswe makes a really interesting point
about the fact that we make use the thoughts
of many different philosophers on Idea Channel, some of whom
might disagree with one another.
And my response to this is that in media and in technology
and in like theory and stuff, you
have to deal with many conflicting philosophies
in the same way that you do in everyday life.
And that really no matter how smart any one person
is, they don't get it 100%.
And so that's why we sort of cherry pick
from the thoughts of the people who think
are the most interesting.
So, my ideal RPG character.