Why is modern art so bad?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Artists who are that bad shouldn't be lecturing about what is good and bad in art. Maxfield Parrish he's not. Parrish deserves criticism; this is pathetic.

--Brant

That's my reaction too. One look and GAAK. It isn't the scenes. I could like the scenes if they were done my someone good, say Waterhouse, Talmeda, one of that group of artists.

Continuing with the question about technical standards which I asked Jonathan, those paintings provide a handy example.

At first, I was taking you to mean technical standards by "qua art," but then, in the next paragraph and in your reply to Michael, you talk about "tastes."

I meant technical standards and tastes, as in "which technical standards do your subjective tastes make you prefer"?

I'd like to see you state outright if you think that there are no objective standards of technical proficiency.

There are objective standards of technical proficiency, but in order to judge an artist's technical proficiency by any standard, we'd first have to know if he intended to comply with that standard. For example, a viewer might choose to judge a work of art as being inferior because it does not technically adhere to visual reality. But art is not necessarily about adhering to visual reality, and the artist may have intended to deviate from reality for expressive purposes. Therefore one cannot just subjectively or arbitrarily choose "adherence to visual reality" as one's standard of judging technical proficiency and call one's judgment "objective."

J

I agree up to a point about the significance of the artist's intention in applying a standard of technical proficiency. However, I think that there are standards and cases where you don't have to know what the artist intends. For instance, would you call the three paintings in post #19 good art if you were informed that the artist was intending to produce works which look like paint-by-number kitsch?

Ellen

[Francisco Ferrer]

Florczak's video and the samples of his work that follow do more to establish the ultimate subjectivity of value judgments than any argument I could write.

[BaalChatzaf]

I especially like this one...

It expresses noble human qualities worthy of aspiration.

Greg

Oh Kryst!!! How Romantic

[Brant Gaede]

I especially like this one...

It expresses noble human qualities worthy of aspiration.

Greg

If someone would rape that woman she might turn into something real, albeit a tragedy. And the guy? He couldn't protect her if he had an army, not that he could have an army. If this were the Mona Lisa and I were to say the same thing ("rape"), I'd be rightfully damned and condemned for saying such a thing about the subject of that portrait.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

What if the picture showed the Princess sucking on Prince Valiant's wee wee. Would it still be Good Art.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tmj]

She'd do better to hold his blade, is it off limits to just her or because of her?

[moralist]

Is Florczak's work objectively great art?

It's good art in that it subjectively conveys a message of the objective reality of goodness. Since everyone is a subjective being, my response to it is purely subjective. And each person's subjective response to it can either agree or disagree with the objective reality of goodness.

Which qualities are those? Monarchical rule? Shoddy architecture? Poor ellipse management?

We each see something different in that picture because we each look with different eyes. And our different eyes are the result of each of us living by completely different moral standards.

I subjectively see the moral beauty of goodness of the man woman relationship... which is the foundation of civilization. That this moral goodness exists is an objective truth to which I subjectively agree... and to which you subjectively disagree.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Is Florczak's work objectively great art?

It's good art in that it subjectively conveys a message of the objective reality of goodness. Since everyone is a subjective being, my response to it is purely subjective. And each person's subjective response to it can either agree or disagree with the objective reality of goodness.

Greg

Uh, maybe it has to do with the quality of art and not what you call "goodness."

Do you begin to realize how totally the preacher you are?

--Brant

a vain question

[Jonathan]

My favorite part of Florczak's video is when he says, "'How can art be objectively measured?'" I'm challenged. In responding, I simply point to the artistic results produced by universal standards compared to what is produced by relativism."

First of all, there are no "universal standards" in art, and never have been. The standards that Florczak subjectively prefers are not "universal" just because he prefers them. The entire history of art is filled with artists rejecting the last generation's tastes, styles, methods and standards, and usually ending up surpassing their predecessors in one way or another.

The phenomenon of artists rejecting rules and choosing their own way did not begin with modernism. The best artists --- the most original and creative ones -- tended to tell the establishment to shove their rules. They didn't build careers by surrendering their originality and mimicking Maxfield Parrish. If there is anything approaching a "universal standard" in art history, it is fierce independence, and not obedience to one's masters or blatantly copying one's heroes.

Secondly, it really is both funny and sad (as Billy said in post 19), and actually pretty embarrassing, that Florczak seems to believe that his pointing to something that he likes is objective proof that it is better than that which he doesn't like. Clearly he doesn't understand what objectivity is, or the illogic of his method. As I've said many times in the past when discussing others with similar wrongheaded notions, we could apply the same idiotic method to flavors:

"'How can flavors be objectively measured?'" I'm challenged. In responding, I simply ask doubters to join me in tasting peaches in comparison to blueberries. See? Peaches taste great and blueberries suck! Peaches are delicious by universal standards, where blueberries can only be liked by destroyers who are into relativism."

Finally, I enjoy the fact that Florczak, and many people with the same mindset, become so emotionally upset by the medium that an artist uses that they can't judge his art strictly aesthetically. They can't set aside their emotions.

"What do you think of the artistry of this painting?"
"It was created using elephant poop!"
"Yes, but what if it was clay or colored plaster instead? Forget the poop. What do you think of the graphic itself?"
"It was created using elephant poop!"

They're so wrapped up in their own emotional responses, and they spend so much of their time behaving subjectively and irrationally, yet they have such a strong need to believe that they're "objective." Why is that? They don't practice objectivity in their arguments, but instead present non sequiturs, falsehoods and subjective opinions. They should be arguing in favor of subjectivity and relativism, since it's what they practice most of the time.

J

[Jonathan]

Is Florczak's work objectively great art?

It's good art in that it subjectively conveys a message of the objective reality of goodness. Since everyone is a subjective being, my response to it is purely subjective. And each person's subjective response to it can either agree or disagree with the objective reality of goodness.

Which qualities are those? Monarchical rule? Shoddy architecture? Poor ellipse management?

We each see something different in that picture because we each look with different eyes. And our different eyes are the result of each of us living by completely different moral standards.

I subjectively see the moral beauty of goodness of the man woman relationship... which is the foundation of civilization. That this moral goodness exists is an objective truth to which I subjectively agree... and to which you subjectively disagree.

Greg

Where did I disagree? Where did I give my judgment of the painting?

J

[Jonathan]

There are objective standards of technical proficiency, but in order to judge an artist's technical proficiency by any standard, we'd first have to know if he intended to comply with that standard. For example, a viewer might choose to judge a work of art as being inferior because it does not technically adhere to visual reality. But art is not necessarily about adhering to visual reality, and the artist may have intended to deviate from reality for expressive purposes. Therefore one cannot just subjectively or arbitrarily choose "adherence to visual reality" as one's standard of judging technical proficiency and call one's judgment "objective."

J

I agree up to a point about the significance of the artist's intention in applying a standard of technical proficiency. However, I think that there are standards and cases where you don't have to know what the artist intends. For instance, would you call the three paintings in post #19 good art if you were informed that the artist was intending to produce works which look like paint-by-number kitsch?

Ellen

No, I wouldn't call it "good art." In the quote of mine above that you're responding to, I referred to "objective standards of technical proficiency," not to "objective standards of good art." So, if an artist intended to make his work look like paint-by-numbers kitsch, and succeeded in doing so, I would say that he achieved his intended "objective standard of technical proficiency."

J

[Jonathan]

Florczak's video and the samples of his work that follow do more to establish the ultimate subjectivity of value judgments than any argument I could write.

Well said.

J

[moralist]

Is Florczak's work objectively great art?

It's good art in that it subjectively conveys a message of the objective reality of goodness. Since everyone is a subjective being, my response to it is purely subjective. And each person's subjective response to it can either agree or disagree with the objective reality of goodness.

Which qualities are those? Monarchical rule? Shoddy architecture? Poor ellipse management?

We each see something different in that picture because we each look with different eyes. And our different eyes are the result of each of us living by completely different moral standards.

I subjectively see the moral beauty of goodness of the man woman relationship... which is the foundation of civilization. That this moral goodness exists is an objective truth to which I subjectively agree... and to which you subjectively disagree.

Greg

Where did I disagree? Where did I give my judgment of the painting?

J

Here.

Jonathan wrote: Which qualities are those? Monarchical rule? Shoddy architecture? Poor ellipse management?

[Ellen Stuttle]

There are objective standards of technical proficiency, but in order to judge an artist's technical proficiency by any standard, we'd first have to know if he intended to comply with that standard. For example, a viewer might choose to judge a work of art as being inferior because it does not technically adhere to visual reality. But art is not necessarily about adhering to visual reality, and the artist may have intended to deviate from reality for expressive purposes. Therefore one cannot just subjectively or arbitrarily choose "adherence to visual reality" as one's standard of judging technical proficiency and call one's judgment "objective."

J

I agree up to a point about the significance of the artist's intention in applying a standard of technical proficiency. However, I think that there are standards and cases where you don't have to know what the artist intends. For instance, would you call the three paintings in post #19 good art if you were informed that the artist was intending to produce works which look like paint-by-number kitsch?

Ellen

No, I wouldn't call it "good art." In the quote of mine above that you're responding to, I referred to "objective standards of technical proficiency," not to "objective standards of good art." So, if an artist intended to make his work look like paint-by-numbers kitsch, and succeeded in doing so, I would say that he achieved his intended "objective standard of technical proficiency."

J

You sure are being hard to get a clear answer from. Isn't it obvious that I, too, was talking about "technical proficiency" and meant by "good art" judgment according to technical standards of proficiency? I'm trying to find out if you think that there are standards of technical proficiency which aren't artist's-intentions dependent.

Now of course I'm also curious as to what you mean in saying that, no, you wouldn't call those paintings "good art" even if the artist intended to make the work look like paint-by-numbers kitsch. And if you'd call whatever standards you're employing for "good art" objective.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

If you deliberately make a good job of making bad art it's bad art. If it's good art you failed to make bad art. You did a bad job respecting your intent.

--Brant

clear as mud?

[Ellen Stuttle]

If you deliberately make a good job of making bad art it's bad art. If it's good art you failed to make bad art. You did a bad job respecting your intent.

--Brant

clear as mud?

Yes, clear as mud, since by what standard if not a technical-proficiency standard are you assessing "good" versus "bad" art?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

If you deliberately make a good job of making bad art it's bad art. If it's good art you failed to make bad art. You did a bad job respecting your intent.

--Brant

clear as mud?

Yes, clear as mud, since by what standard if not a technical-proficiency standard are you assessing "good" versus "bad" art?

Well, Ellen, I know it when I see it!

--Brant

[moralist]

On the topic of art... this evening, my wife and I just finished watching the Movie: "Tim's Vermeer".

If you have any interest in art, or even if you don't, you just HAVE to see this one!

It's the totally fascinating and intriguing process of discovering the solution to a 350 year old art mystery.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Tim's Vermeer thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14463&hl=%2Btim%26%2339%3Bs+%2Bvermeer

[moralist]

Thanks, Frank. Missed that one.

I'm glad others have also seen that remarkable story. I really admire Tim's patience, focus, and tenacity in following his intellectual curiosity.

Greg

[Jonathan]

I'm trying to find out if you think that there are standards of technical proficiency which aren't artist's-intentions dependent.

No, I don't think that there are objective standards of technical proficiency which are not artist's-intentions dependent. I think that sometimes we can know to a fairly high degree of certainty that an artist lacks certain technical skills, but we can't know for sure without interviewing him about his intentions.

The same is true of judging non-artisic endeavors. I've given these examples many times in the past:

A worker installs pipes on the ceiling of a chemical factory and then turns on a faucet, and the pipes spray water from what appear to us to be random seams.

Following Rand's method, identify the plumber's task and the purpose of his work. How well did he perform the task? Were the pipes supposed to spray water, or did he fail to connect all of them properly?

Say that you're observing a woman who decides to go out and try to accomplish a specific task. She doesn't tell you what she's planning on doing or why -- you have no "outside considerations" by which to judge her actions. She crosses the street and enters a grocery store. She walks through a couple of aisles, picks up a jar of nutmeg and a bag of sugar, and then purchases them. What's your objective evaluation of her mission? Has she succeeded? To paraphrase Rand's comments on aesthetic judgments, evaluate the means by which the woman performed her task — i.e, taking her purpose as criterion, evaluate the effectiveness of her actions, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which she accomplished (or failed to accomplish) her goal.

If one wanted to objectively judge, say, a NASA mission, it wouldn't be enough to marvel at the technology, power, motion and structural features displayed. One would have read the mission plan to discover if the events that were witnessed had achieved the goal.

---

Now of course I'm also curious as to what you mean in saying that, no, you wouldn't call those paintings "good art" even if the artist intended to make the work look like paint-by-numbers kitsch.

What I'm saying is that a work of art does not become "good" just because the artist was technically proficient in achieving his intentions. There is more to art than technical proficiency and intention. It also necessarily includes the subjective emotional responses of the person judging the art. My view is that the very nature of art is that it includes a great deal of subjectivity, and that it therefore cannot be judged objectively as a whole -- only isolated elements can be judged objectively.

An artist could intend to draw a simple stick man. His succeeding technically at doing so wouldn't make the art great. Objectively speaking, it would only mean that we could judge him as having succeeded in technically achieving his intentions. The same would be true of a person intending to bake a specific type of cake. His succeeding at baking it just as he intended would not be enough for us to come to the judgment that it was a good cake. Our judgment would also include how good it tasted to each of us as individuals.

And if you'd call whatever standards you're employing for "good art" objective.

No, I wouldn't call the standards that I'm employing "objective." As I said in my first post on this thread, art does not have objective standards. Judgments of art necessarily include subjective preferences and tastes. That which includes subjective preferences and tastes cannot properly be called "objective," even though it may include some elements of objectivity.

J

[moralist]

No, I wouldn't call the standards that I'm employing "objective." As I said in my first post on this thread, art does not have objective standards.

...but art can express objective standards.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

No, I wouldn't call the standards that I'm employing "objective." As I said in my first post on this thread, art does not have objective standards.

...but art can express objective standards.

Greg

For technique, not content. You're trying to come in the back door here.

--Brant

but I caught you on the video

[moralist]

Brant, I've never claimed objective standards for art... only the objective process of matching when the world and what is in us harmonize causing us to perceive beauty. This objective fact of inner matching outer is what accounts for the subjective reactions of some people loving beauty while others love ugliness.

Ayn Rand expressed objective standards in her written art...

Two people can read her exact same words (outer world) and yet have wildly different subjective reactions to them (within). This is because what is inside people can be as different as night and day.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Is Florczak's work objectively great art?

It's good art in that it subjectively conveys a message of the objective reality of goodness. Since everyone is a subjective being, my response to it is purely subjective. And each person's subjective response to it can either agree or disagree with the objective reality of goodness.

Which qualities are those? Monarchical rule? Shoddy architecture? Poor ellipse management?

We each see something different in that picture because we each look with different eyes. And our different eyes are the result of each of us living by completely different moral standards.

I subjectively see the moral beauty of goodness of the man woman relationship... which is the foundation of civilization. That this moral goodness exists is an objective truth to which I subjectively agree... and to which you subjectively disagree.

Greg

Where did I disagree? Where did I give my judgment of the painting?

J

Here.

Jonathan wrote: Which qualities are those? Monarchical rule? Shoddy architecture? Poor ellipse management?

Those aren't judgments of the painting. They are questions about your interpretations of the content of the painting.

J