Robert Florczak

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Robert Florczak

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Robert Florczak
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Robert Florczak's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. The scare quotes were not "snide." Prager "University" is not actually a university, and that's all that I was identifying. It appears to be about expressing opinions more than teaching actual knowledge. J And modern universities aren't rife with opinionators? They are filled more with indoctrinaires than teachers, which is why Prager "University's" motto is "We teach what isn't taught." And there is a wealth of knowledge in the videos, contrary to your assessment (have you watched many?). It may not be an accredited establishment but it does have immense value, if only in exposing another side of critical subjects and getting people to discuss them--as has nicely happened on this blog. Robert
  2. While all tastes are subjective... they can, however, either agree with or disagree with objective truths... but they can never change objective truths. Greg Well said, Greg. Just curious, but did the two of you happen to get your notions of "objectivity" from the same place? Prager "University," perhaps? If so, could you please provide a link to any writings or videos there that influenced your notions? I'd be very interested in exploring them. Have you read Rand? I don't think that she would be turning in her grave over any confusion between quality and taste, but would contribute heavily to the confusion. She in fact did so during her lifetime. Examples: She believed that she was discussing objective quality in visual art when praising sharp outlines, bright, pure colors, cleanliness and clarity, and while denouncing blurriness and mysterious fog, murk and muddy colors. She was actually talking about nothing but her subjective tastes and preferences. J My "notions" of objective aesthetics come from various sources on the subject written through the ages; they are out there to be found from Vesari to Rosenburg to Scruton. It is also a subject I have personally expanded upon through my own observations, experiences, and teaching, and hope I'm bringing something fresh and valuable to the table of discussion. Little if any of my conclusions come from a connection to Prager University (btw, why the snide quotation marks? Is it difficult to accept the idea of a virtual online academy?). If anything, Prager and his associates have been influenced by my positions. I have read much Rand, J. Your interpretation of her being subjective when discussing objective quality may be accurate for you, but she herself would not have agreed. Robert
  3. I agree. But coming "very close to being objective" is not objective. Just as 99 is not 100. Yes, that intangible otherness -- that essential magic -- is wonderful, but not objective. I think you're misunderstanding my position. I am not adopting or being influenced by a "modern concern with intentions." In general, like you, I don't find artists' intentions relevant either. They only become relevant when someone is claiming to be able to objectively judge an artist's technical skills. Since the field of art frequently includes the act of artists intentionally deviating from visual reality for expressive purposes, we cannot arbitrarily impose adherence to visual reality as the standard of judgment. To make an objective judgment of skill -- any skill -- we first need to know what was intended to be accomplished. As I've said previously on this thread, the same is true of judging non-art as well. We can't objectively judge how well a plumber has succeed at installing pipes (which spray water from spots which appear to us to be random) in a factory without knowing his purpose. We can't watch a rocket take off and then return and splash down days later and objectively judge it to be a feat of technical mastery without knowing the mission plan and whether or not it succeeded. J I agree that "coming close" is not purely being "objective," J. But achieving perfection is also impossible in many things, yet I believe the striving for it is both a magnificent incentive and a noble one. This is how I view the "objective" in aesthetics. We may never be capable of attaining the speed of light but attempting to has its own inherent value. I don't include that "otherness" in the realms of the objective. Yet is another significant ingredient missing from much of art in the last century or so. The clarification of your position on "intentions" touches on other concerns of mine that are too involved for me to get into at this point. To simplify, every medium, from the visual arts to music to literature, has elements definitional and unique to that medium, and the greatest art is that which addresses those unique elements of the respective medium. When an artist stretches his work to inhabit one or more other mediums it waters down the mediums and makes it difficult to assess it on any recognizable level. So, it matters not to me that an artsist's intentions were to comment on global warming by presenting a Happening wherein a boombox blares his original music consisting of poetry performed in a language of his invention. He may have fully succeeded vis-à-vis his intentions, but I as the audience for his "art" have nothing solid on which to interpret or evaluate the "work." He certainly has the right (something that some in the public seem to have wrongly inferred I would prevent) to express himself in whatever bizarre manner he chooses, but he must be prepared for the inevitable raised eyebrows towards it and understandable dismissals of it. Relatedly, but also for reasons too involved for me to get into at the moment, I personally champion the concept of "the ideal" and believe that the finest art should be able to operate in a vacuum, demonstrating universal standards of aesthetics, and unencumbered by the evanescence of eras and cultures. Rembrandt's "Raising of Lazarus" is an aesthetically monumental work even if the subject matter is unfamiliar to the viewer. Knowing the back story only adds to its monumentality and showcases the artistic apex of of what humanity can produce. Oldenburg's "Apple Core," for all its culturally sniggering intentions, does not. At best, it is merely clever, something to which the eternal Rembrandt would never stoop. Robert
  4. While all tastes are subjective... they can, however, either agree with or disagree with objective truths... but they can never change objective truths. Greg Well said, Greg. In fact, I plan in the next video to specifically address the difference between quality and taste, the constant confusion of which would have Ayn Rand turning in her grave if she were still living (!). Robert
  5. I wondered if it was supposed to be Lancelot and Guinevere. About 35 years ago I read a slew of versions of the Arthurian legends, one of which - Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon, a strongly different perspective from the traditional tales - is one of my all-time favorite novels. Ellen The personal project highest on my list of upcoming work, Ellen, is a series of paintings depicting the legends of Camelot, all portrayed within the actual British locations in which the stories are said to have taken place. As far as I know, this has never been done before in art. There certainly is a "slew" of wonderful literature on the subject; I can well relate to your enjoyment of "Mists." Robert
  6. I enjoy the work of Ernst, Klee, Brancusi, Calder, Vlaminck, Kandinsky, even some Delaunay and Tobey, among others. I find much of their work to be good. Not great, but good. Keep in mind that I make a great distinction between quality and taste, a distinction infuriatingly confused and interchanged by many, and an issue into which I will further delve in subsequent videos. (Forgive, but I will have to take up your earlier post a little later...) I'm looking forward to your future videos with great enthusiasm, especially if you plan on attempting to make an objective distinction between quality and taste, by which I mean a distinction which does not include any attempt to sneak in your own subjective tastes. J Sir....? Doest thou thinkest I would engage in such deception?! Um, nothing personal, but no one in the history of mankind has yet separated his or her subjective tastes from their allegedly "objective" methods of judging art. The concept of "quality" in art necessarily needs a clearly identified standard, and that standard is always chosen subjectively. Usually the people who are subjectively choosing the standard while claiming objectivity don't realize that they're smuggling in their subjective preferences, so, no, I'm not accusing you of deception. If you're like all humans before you, you will probably come up with your own quirky and inconsistent definition of "objectivity" which can be applied selectively so that your subjective judgments are called "objective." And while doing so, you might very well have the intention of not being deceptive or dishonest. J Nothing personal taken, J. (As an aside, a couple of friends and I back in 1973 formed a group called The Unoffendables because we discovered that we were precisely that, and could find no others who truly were. We still can't!) To be perfectly honest, I too believe that true objectivity regarding aesthetics is impossible (just don't let anyone outside this blog know I said so. Deal?!). The "laws" governing it would have to have dropped in from the cosmos for it to be so. But what I do observe and accept is that there are historic artistic elements that come very close to being purely objective, and when applied to the creative process seem to produce work that over the generations is universally experienced to be superior. This subject is incredibly complex and difficult to reduce to the necessary limitations of a blog, but the discussions here indicate the possibility of tackling it further. One other thing I must throw into the mix is the somewhat synergistic behavior of truly great art, something that seems to be experienced only by saturating one's self in years of looking at art. By this I mean that, above and beyond the "traceble" elements of aesthetics that Jakob Rosenberg references, is a certain "something," an intangible otherness that is exuded when in the presence of truly great work. Mind you, this is coming from an agnostic, non-believing, skeptic through-and-through, so I'm not the kind to be easily seduced by things ethereal. However, this artistic synergy does appear to be something worth considering, even scientifically investigated (Sam Harris has been trespassing into this neuro-woo woo territory of late) to determine if there may be a component operating beyond the simply subjective areas of taste. I have to conclude that the behavior of Raphael's deft hand across a canvas has some universality to it that manages to translate to audiences centuries later, something I highly doubt will be the case with the 28-foot high sculpture of a dog unrinating on tan outer wall of the Orange County Museum. Harking back to an earlier comment of yours, J, I actually don't find an artist's intentions any more relevant than that of someone performing a moral deed. It is a modern conceipt, this concern with intentions, and I'm much more concerned and interested in the results of things. If someone wants to give a million dollars to a hospital for cancer research with the private intention of having the oncology building named after him, that is his business; many people will benefit. I take the same pragmatic approach to the artist: the most admirable intentions of the artist mean nothing if the final results are horrendous. My "intentions" when creating "Moonlit Lovers" were to satisfy a particular slice of the public that The Franklin Mint was targeting, and the final results probably suceeded in that regard. To my purely aesthetic eye, however, it did not. Had I attacked the subject fully on my own (the Arthurian cycle is a project I plan to complete), the painting would have looked nothing like what you now see. Good and tasty discussions, all. Thanks for the opportunity. Robert
  7. Hello, Michael, and thank you for the welcome. The video has created a storm around the internet and I've been alerted to a number of discussions about it, few that are worth looking into. The thread here is the most lucid I've seen and the only one in which I've decided to engage. Great argumentas all, including, as I've said, those that take my positions (and my work) to task. I enjoyed your anecdotes about the ex and her compulsion to paint. It seems she might have benefitted more from visiting her analyst than her art dealer! Regarding objective aesthetics, I have thought long and deeply about this subject for decades and have pre-considered what (I think) are all the legitimate and "gotcha" arguments, which is why I find the discussions here about the video most interesting. I look forward to your digging into your take on the video. Robert
  8. I enjoy the work of Ernst, Klee, Brancusi, Calder, Vlaminck, Kandinsky, even some Delaunay and Tobey, among others. I find much of their work to be good. Not great, but good. Keep in mind that I make a great distinction between quality and taste, a distinction infuriatingly confused and interchanged by many, and an issue into which I will further delve in subsequent videos. (Forgive, but I will have to take up your earlier post a little later...) I'm looking forward to your future videos with great enthusiasm, especially if you plan on attempting to make an objective distinction between quality and taste, by which I mean a distinction which does not include any attempt to sneak in your own subjective tastes. J Sir....? Doest thou thinkest I would engage in such deception?!
  9. I enjoy the work of Ernst, Klee, Brancusi, Calder, Vlaminck, Kandinsky, even some Delaunay and Tobey, among others. I find much of their work to be good. Not great, but good. Keep in mind that I make a great distinction between quality and taste, a distinction infuriatingly confused and interchanged by many, and an issue into which I will further delve in subsequent videos. (Forgive, but I will have to take up your earlier post a little later...)
  10. Hi Robert, And thank you for taking the time and effort to make that thought provoking video, and for creating such noble and uplifting art... especially Moonlit Lovers. It's an excellent ideal of the potential moral beauty contained within the man woman relationship. You make the world better. Dennis' Prager University is a powerful vehicle to change the hearts and minds of people... and you made very good use of it. Regards, Greg And thank you, Greg. I find the comments on this blog some of the most insightful I've seen on the internet regarding my position on aesthetics. The video has certainly stirred up a hornets' nest of discussiuon, much of it based on things I never said! There will be follow-up videos explaining in more detail what the video could only touch upon in five minutes. First of all, the title was not my idea; I don't find all modern art to be bad. My original title for the script before it was filmed was, "Modern Art and the Death of Beauty," which is more accurately in keeping with my theme. Hopefully this and a number of other issues touched upon in the video will be given closer examination the next time around. To be honest, "Moonlit Lovers" is not a favorite of mine, but it is for many others, hence its inclusion on the website. It was done for The Franklin Mint as an over-romanticized painting of Lancelot and Guinevere, and though I'm a serious fan of the Arthurian legends, it's far too sentimental for my taste. It should rightly be included in the illustration section. After a long career producing volumes of work, I have yet to create work I think worthy of admiration. Cheers! Robert Robert, it makes perfect sense why that image held so much appeal. When I was a kid one of my favorite movies was "Prince Valiant" with Robert Wagner in 1954, so there's no way it could be too sentimental for me. I'm anything but a Prince, but when my wife looks at me that way, I sure feel as if I could be. Thanks for the memory... Greg Glad for the sentimental childhood reminder (that kind of thing can't be too popular around here!). Relatedly, I'm 1,100 pages into a book about the day-by-day life of Errol Flynn; it's about 80% complete. I can well relate to the escapist draw of those films and characters. R
  11. Hi Robert, And thank you for taking the time and effort to make that thought provoking video, and for creating such noble and uplifting art... especially Moonlit Lovers. It's an excellent ideal of the potential moral beauty contained within the man woman relationship. You make the world better. Dennis' Prager University is a powerful vehicle to change the hearts and minds of people... and you made very good use of it. Regards, Greg And thank you, Greg. I find the comments on this blog some of the most insightful I've seen on the internet regarding my position on aesthetics. The video has certainly stirred up a hornets' nest of discussiuon, much of it based on things I never said! There will be follow-up videos explaining in more detail what the video could only touch upon in five minutes. First of all, the title was not my idea; I don't find all modern art to be bad. My original title for the script before it was filmed was, "Modern Art and the Death of Beauty," which is more accurately in keeping with my theme. Hopefully this and a number of other issues touched upon in the video will be given closer examination the next time around. To be honest, "Moonlit Lovers" is not a favorite of mine, but it is for many others, hence its inclusion on the website. It was done for The Franklin Mint as an over-romanticized painting of Lancelot and Guinevere, and though I'm a serious fan of the Arthurian legends, it's far too sentimental for my taste. It should rightly be included in the illustration section. After a long career producing volumes of work, I have yet to create work I think worthy of admiration. Cheers! Robert
  12. Thanks for letting us know you are reading the thread. You're very welcome. I agree with many of the positions taken here--even those that are critical! Please elaborate! J Like I said, my work is less than masterful. One can recognize the ideals of an artform yet personally fall short of them. R
  13. Thanks for letting us know you are reading the thread. You're very welcome. I agree with many of the positions taken here--even those that are critical!
  14. A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video. Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)