Art Quiz 4

[Jonathan]

1. Here's Rand using artistic style as a means of diagnosing "inner conflicts" and identifying the evil motives of artists attempting to disintegrate man's consciousness:

"Style is the most complex element of art, the most revealing and, often, the most baffling psychologically. The terrible inner conflicts from which artists suffer as much as (or, perhaps, more than) other men are magnified in their work. As an example: Salvador Dali, whose style projects the luminous clarity of a rational psycho-epistemology, while most (though not all) of his subjects project an irrational and revoltingly evil metaphysics. A similar, but less offensive, conflict may be seen in the paintings of Vermeer, who combines a brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism. At the other extreme of the stylistic continuum, observe the deliberate blurring and visual distortions of the so-called “painterly” school, from Rembrandt on down—down to the rebellion against consciousness, expressed by a phenomenon such as Cubism which seeks specifically to disintegrate man’s consciousness by painting objects as man does not perceive them (from several perspectives at once)."

With the above in mind, how terrible were the following artist's inner conflicts? Since Rand and many of her followers have objectively rated him to be a masterful artist who had a "virtuoso technique" of "disciplined power" and "sheer perfection of workmanship," I would assume that the wild deviations from true perspective in his painting below would have to have been intentional (after all, a master artist wouldn't make novice mistakes when it came to perspective). In which case, we must judge him as having chosen to rebel against consciousness and to disintegrate man's consciousness by painting objects as man does not perceive them (from several perspectives at once). So, since Rand adored his art, she therefore must have strongly identified with and valued his inner conflicts and shared his wish to rebel against and disintegrate consciousness. But why? What drove her to be so evil?

2. Is the following a work of art by Objectivist criteria? Is it a "re-creation of reality," or is it comprised of abstract, non-representational forms? What does it mean to you, if anything, and why?

3. Is the following a work of art by Objectivist criteria? Is it a "re-creation of reality," or is it comprised of abstract, non-representational forms? What does it mean to you, if anything, and why?

4. The following may appear to some people to be a blank space. It is not. If I and others can see and identify the realistic, representational image that it contains, but you can't, would the image therefore not be intelligible, expressive or meaningful to anyone, and would it therefore not be art to anyone?

J

[Brant Gaede]

I liked 2 and 3. I can't comment on 4 until I clean my computer screen. I don't like 1 and I sorta agree with Rand's first sentence in the quoted paragraph, not the rest of it.

The moralizing impulse means you have to have an opinion on something before you moralize. It's not the opinions as such that turn you powerful, it's the moralizing. But that power is a gift of the receiver not the giver. It's called "sanction" (of the victim).

Contrarily, here is Rand at her nicest as witnessed by me (at the Ford Hall Forum) attempting to answer a question from the audience without letting Judge Lurie repeat the question, which was his job in that context:

Ayn Rand: talk, talk

Judge Lurie: "Miss Rand! Miss Rand!"

Rand: "Yes Judge."

Lurie: "Let me repeat the question first."

Rand (somewhat sheepishly): "Sorry, Judge."

--Brant

quiz:

1) (The painting): I don't know what to paint so I'll do a selfie

2) I (Brant) don't know

3) I don't know

4) I don't know (until I clean the screen, then I won't know [statistical probability])

Why you (J) thought I might know something about these is beyond me, but one out of four ain't bad

[Brant Gaede]

http://www.aristos.org/capulett.htm

[Jonathan]

http://www.aristos.org/capulett.htm

Torres:

"Capuletti's work consistently projects positive human values..."

It's disgusting that Torres thinks that Capuletti's rebelling against consciousness and seeking to disintegrate it (by painting objects as man does not perceive them -- from several perspectives at once) is a "positive human value"! Inner conflicts!!! Revoltingly evil metaphysics!!!

J

[Brant Gaede]

It's somewhat interesting Capuletti painted a lot of women subjects with their backs turned or in profile. Even face on there seems to be no inner life. Only in the self-portraits do I get a sense of the artist getting inside the subject. He also liked to put his female subjects at a distance minimized by the landscape. I found the female nude looking out the open window with her feet not really touching the floor, but it's hard to tell that from the photograph. It's quite obvious when you see the original, but that was 45 years ago for me.

I have a somewhat higher opinion of Capuletti than Jonathan, but I don't think it's an accident he's all but disappeared and forgotten. All you have to do is walk through the Metropolitan Museum of Art to understand without words why there's no room in that inn for him.

--Brant