Mess or Masterpiece?

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Generally, I am not a fan of this kind of art, but what this guy does in the video looked like a lot of fun and the finished piece didn't turn out bad. Art can be judged in many ways and by many standards, but I like what I like according to my own standards. And I like this.

Also, I probably should have posted this in the Objectivist Living Room.

[moralist]

Mess or masterpiece?

Mess!

Greg

[RobinReborn]

What does this reveal about the artist's sense of life?

[jts]

What does this reveal about the artist's sense of life?

Disintegration says Ayn Rand Lexicon. Disintegration is to the mind what decomposition is to the body. Death. The worship of death.

quote:

Decomposition is the postscript to the death of a human body; disintegration is the preface to the death of a human mind. Disintegration is the keynote and goal of modern art—the disintegration of man’s conceptual faculty, and the retrogression of an adult mind to the state of a mewling infant.

To reduce man’s consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to “moods,” of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.

[moralist]

What an insightful descriptor, Jerry...

dis-integration.

There's a reason that dung slinging is associated with leftism. Leftism is a degenerate ideology.

Greg

[Selene]

What does this reveal about the artist's sense of life?

Disintegration says Ayn Rand Lexicon. Disintegration is to the mind what decomposition is to the body. Death. The worship of death.

quote:

Decomposition is the postscript to the death of a human body; disintegration is the preface to the death of a human mind. Disintegration is the keynote and goal of modern art—the disintegration of man’s conceptual faculty, and the retrogression of an adult mind to the state of a mewling infant.

To reduce man’s consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to “moods,” of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.

Although Ayn had a tangential point to make there, this does not cut it at all as an axiom.

“Everything you can imagine is real.”

― Pablo Picasso

“There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.”

― Pablo Picasso

One of my personal favorites which I have heard quoted as [if I could only learn to draw as I did when I was a five year old!]...

“Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.”

― Pablo Picasso

“If I paint a wild horse, you might not see the horse... but surely you will see the wildness!”

― Pablo Picasso

“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”

― Pablo Picasso

A...

[Richard Wiig]

A mess, without a doubt.

[Jonathan]

What does this reveal about the artist's sense of life?

That would depend on which of Rand's contradictory views on the subject you choose to believe as representing her actual view. She stated that no one could know another's sense of life based on such limited information, and that to attempt to judge another's sense of life was a visciously inappropriate thing to do, but yet she indulged in exactly that type of inappropriate judgement.

The bigger issue, though, is that Objectivism is focused on objectivity, reason, logic and proof. The frantic eagerness for psychological and sense of life condemnations that are common among Rand's followers is not consistent with that focus. In other words, let's see the objective research. Let's see objective standards and measurements of "sense of life" judgmetns and responses, rather than the total absence of such, and rather than the eagerness to indulge in the anti-objective, pseudoscience, witch trial mindset.

J

[Jonathan]

What does this reveal about the artist's sense of life?

Disintegration says Ayn Rand Lexicon. Disintegration is to the mind what decomposition is to the body. Death. The worship of death.

quote:

Decomposition is the postscript to the death of a human body; disintegration is the preface to the death of a human mind. Disintegration is the keynote and goal of modern art—the disintegration of man’s conceptual faculty, and the retrogression of an adult mind to the state of a mewling infant.

To reduce man’s consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to “moods,” of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.

Here's what she had to say about the decorative arts:

"The psycho-epistemological base of the decorative arts is not conceptual, but purely sensory: their standard of value is appeal to the senses of sight and/or touch. Their material is colors and shapes in nonrepresentational combinations conveying no meaning other than visual harmony..."

So, her position was that the decorative arts exist for the purpose of reducing man's consciousness to the level of sensations, and that such a purpose was a "valuable task." Why wasn't she enraged about people getting pleasure from the decorative arts at the sensory level? Pretty smears of color are wonderful and valuable and cheerful when called "decorative art," and they're something to get extremely worked up about and to throw ridiculous, psychilogizing temper tantrums over when called "fine art"? Irrational.

Also where is her objective proof that nonrepresentational combinations of shapes and colors convey "no meaning other than visual harmony"? Logically, the fact that Rand could get no meaning from shapes and colors is not proof that no one else could. Non sequitur. Not rational.

Additionally, why is "visual harmony" not enough to count as being conceptual and as having meaning, but aural harmony is?

J

[Jonathan]

For those of you who are severely uptight about absract art, watch the video of the painter, and imagine that he's not creating fine art, but a mere decorative design for something like birthday wrapping paper or a skateboard. Think of it as just a harmless decoration, and not something to be scared and angry about. Look at it as something that Rand gave you permission to not hate because it's technically in a category of things which are acceptable to evoke pleasure in you at the sensory level. Now, it's pretty cool, huh? Graphically speaking, it has action and excitement. It has lively, sporty colors. It has a very free, improvisational style, just like a fun birthday party or certain skateboard techniques. It's wild and bold, and nothing to get all worked up over. See what I'm saying? Can you see and experience these aesthetic effects if we call it a decorative design and not art?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Enough bad art in this world for everybody who needs it.

[moralist]

Enough bad art in this world for everybody who needs it.

...even a surplus.

[Jonathan]

Enough bad art in this world for everybody who needs it.

And, oh, how badly certain people need it! They love to hate it. Some people have even dedicated their entire petty little lives to needing to hate it!

J

[Brant Gaede]

Enough bad art in this world for everybody who needs it.

And, oh, how badly certain people need it! They love to hate it. Some people have even dedicated their entire petty little lives to needing to hate it!

J

If it wasn't for bad art there'd be no good art for there'd be no way up the mountain. In that sense, since "bad" is tied into morality, we can posit art as being good to better to best so far, all from value judgments. In that context "bad" only means it can be done better and the doing of it by an artist who knows better is, derivatively, immoral for he's up to no good or just doing something on commission. Thus, to strive to do your best and to do it better is moral and the contrary immoral but outside esthetics. Esthetics is technical evaluation and classification for those who care about someone else's viewpoint, commonly other estheticians, some of whom see themselves as competitors. Morality is for absolute exclusion and control. That is the essential nature of morality, per se. People need morality for they have free will. This is extended in many but not all cases into law. Outside legal necessity it can be fascistic without the fascist fist. Morality to politics is vertical philosophical integration. Morality qua morality unto itself can be wrong horizontally applied oneself to another outside the family and maybe the tribe. Within the family is a much more delicate and complicated situation.

The Objectivist animadverting upon certain art as immoral is on the horizontal plane of control apropos the Objectivist tribe, not vertical into politics which would mean the bad (immoral) artist goes to jail--or worse. The proper way to deal with this is with with words and actions consonant with those words. For instance, if you like something arty go get it or do it anyway. Screw the moralizing. Especially when it comes to art. The general creation of art is a garden filled with so many art weeds you can't get rid of the weeds without getting rid of the best stuff; then you'll find the weeds are still there anyway. You cannot know the best stuff until you see it--you experience it. And first it needs to be made. The bad drives out the good in politics. It doesn't have that power in art for art is created by demand so the corruption is already there. Pre-WWI European culture, which Ayn Rand so claimed to love, if she was right, was tremendously life affirming and optimistic. It was destroyed by WWI--that is, politics, not another culture which merely replaced the previous one. (Some say the sinking of the Titanic in 1912 had a lot to do with it, but how could that have been more than an overture?)

--Brant

[jts]

Chimpanzee creating abstract art. Nope, that's not me.

[Jonathan]

Elephant creating representational art.

[moralist]

If it wasn't for bad art there'd be no good art for there'd be no way up the mountain.

That is certainly true.

Leftist crap slinging is useful in that it provides a clear contrast to art.

Greg

[Jonathan]

...Esthetics is technical evaluation and classification for those who care about someone else's viewpoint, commonly other estheticians, some of whom see themselves as competitors...

I'd say that aesthetics is primarily subjective taste. When most people say that a work of art is good, what they really mean is that they like it. There can be technical criteria involved, but usually most people don't know much of anything about those criteria. For example, when Objectivist guru-wannabes, who have no actual visual arts technical knowledge, training or experience, claim that a certain painting is an example of "sheer perfection of workmanship," or of "disciplined power and precision," what they're really saying is, "I like it, and I'm pretending to know something about technical criteria because I need to believe that my liking something must be 'objective.'"

The Objectivist animadverting upon certain art as immoral is on the horizontal plane of control apropos the Objectivist tribe, not vertical into politics which would mean the bad (immoral) artist goes to jail--or worse. The proper way to deal with this is with with words and actions consonant with those words. For instance, if you like something arty go get it or do it anyway. Screw the moralizing. Especially when it comes to art. The general creation of art is a garden filled with so many art weeds you can't get rid of the weeds without getting rid of the best stuff; then you'll find the weeds are still there anyway. You cannot know the best stuff until you see it--you experience it. And first it needs to be made. The bad drives out the good in politics. It doesn't have that power in art for art is created by demand so the corruption is already there. Pre-WWI European culture, which Ayn Rand so claimed to love, if she was right, was tremendously life affirming and optimistic. It was destroyed by WWI--that is, politics, not another culture which merely replaced the previous one. (Some say the sinking of the Titanic in 1912 had a lot to do with it, but how could that have been more than an overture?)

The entire history of art has been young artists rejecting the limiting tastes, styles, customs and rules of the past. Breaking with the past is not something new, nor is traditionalists/classicists and ignoramuses freaking out about the new. Howard Roark is the attitude of art and aesthetics, not the "Objectivist Esthetics."

J

[Brant Gaede]

No doubt about it--Howard Roark was for the young reader at the door of adulthood. In some ways Ayn outgrew him and in someways not. Insofar as she did, it was likely inevitable. I give her a pass for everything except trying to understand her. She is a whole book unto herself and it is a hell of a book.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Howard Roark was individualism. He was the message "Don't conform to the established authorities, ideas and traditional ways. Be yourself, think and create for yourself."

The Objectivist Esthetics is anti-individualism. Its message is "Conform to the new authority, Ayn Rand, and to her subjective aesthetic preferences, tastes and limitations. Follow Ayn, and think and create what she would like."

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Howard Roark was individualism. He was the message "Don't conform to the established authorities, ideas and traditional ways. Be yourself, think and create for yourself."

The Objectivist Esthetics is anti-individualism. Its message is "Conform to the new authority, Ayn Rand, and to her subjective aesthetic preferences, tastes and limitations. Follow Ayn, and think and create what she would like."

Here, here!

Michael

[Jonathan]

Howard Roark was individualism. He was the message "Don't conform to the established authorities, ideas and traditional ways. Be yourself, think and create for yourself."

The Objectivist Esthetics is anti-individualism. Its message is "Conform to the new authority, Ayn Rand, and to her subjective aesthetic preferences, tastes and limitations. Follow Ayn, and think and create what she would like."

Here, here!

Michael

The problem is, how is it that Howard Roark attracts so many people who want to become Ellsworth Tooheys who serve Ayn Rand's personal tastes?!!!

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The problem is, how is it that Howard Roark attracts so many people who want to become Ellsworth Tooheys who serve Ayn Rand's personal tastes?!!!

Jonathan,

It took me a long time to understand this. The problem is not in Rand's message. It's in the mentality of people who confuse idea with identity, who confuse attitude with performance, and flock together in groups (mental and/or physical).

I harp on independent thinking so much because I (like so many others around here on OL) am a person interested in Objectivism, not an Objectivist who happens to be a person in my spare time. My soul is individual and my species is human. Neither are labels seeking validation from a central figure.

In general, to look for a real-life Howard Roark in O-Land is to look in the wrong place. There are plenty of people out there who do it their way and have been deeply influenced by Roark, starting with Mark Cuban. Hell, even a Marxist film director like Oliver Stone has used Roark as a role-model. (Thank God his project for redoing The Fountainhead fizzled. ) He's as wrong as they come on just about everything political, but he does his career his way. And, boy, is he a great movie director.

Also, look at the folks surrounding Richard Branson, Joe Polish, Singularity University, etc. There are lots and lots of people in love with Roark among them. Not one of them, to my knowledge, ape Rand's personal artistic tastes. But all of them are high-end achievers who are molding the world in their image.

Michael

[Jonathan]

In general, to look for a real-life Howard Roark in O-Land is to look in the wrong place.

Yeah, I understand, but I'm not really looking for Roarks so much as wondering why all of these Ellsworth Tooheys -- these bossy little control freaks who want to tell everyone what to think and do -- are attracted to Rand's art. Why are there so damned many of them?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Howard Roark was individualism. He was the message "Don't conform to the established authorities, ideas and traditional ways. Be yourself, think and create for yourself."

The Objectivist Esthetics is anti-individualism. Its message is "Conform to the new authority, Ayn Rand, and to her subjective aesthetic preferences, tastes and limitations. Follow Ayn, and think and create what she would like."

J

But that's Objectivism generally. Conform. Naturally enough many do after being swept off their feet by her fiction. It's the Rand novelist-philosopher dichotomy. Three choices: fall on the novelist side, the philosopher side or roam the middle in some confusion. The last is because of Galt's speech. If you're the greatest philosopher since Aristotle your admirers and followers aren't up to criticizing you, that's for sure. That's the odds.

--Brant

you may respectfully ask your questions (unless the question reveals you to be scum)

Rand was absolutely a control freak of the first order