Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Brant Gaede]

That helps, but I don't know for what for I'm not a painter. Taken in its entirety the face as MN did it seems the best part of a painting I don't like. Putting this change in only makes it incongruous. The improvement makes for a nicer face. Nice, however, has nothing to do with the painting's concern with strength and power.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

They strike me as graduate-type study work more than anything and exceptionally well done, not as final renderings of art.

--Brant

Your comment is/was similar to my opinion.

But I didn't know the artist Cadmus, after googling his work, I think his drawings are best - here are two of his paintings, and one drawing:

The golfing satire looks like it was a major investment of time, observation, and work. Personally, I would ask why this theme - if I was going to spend months on a project, would there be something more worthwhile to paint? To be clear, I would not ask him that question, the painting is already his answer.

Below is another satire, about the artificiality of love? What I like in the these works is that there is a story going on, and more information that I can get in one look. But definitely missing for me is the care and sensitivity that he has in his nude drawings. I would think the paintings themes don't inspire the artist to bring out is depth of care in capturing the subjects, but it could also be that he draws better than paints? I don't know the answer.

Generally I find the more figures in a painting the less I like the result which tends to push the composition toward kitsch. One or two is okay to work with but three plus gets progressively worse in my experience as what you see keeps dividing your attention, distracting if not disintegrating the viewer's focus. This seems especially true in dynamic renderings. If the whole scene is pastoral and laid back you can shove in all kinds of people, even naked people, and the painting in terms of color and style can hold it all together--that is, such is just people, in some repose, not doing but only being. But Max Parish only used a figure or two, didn't he?

--Brant

just one way to kitsch, however, as I consider MP as kitsch so supreme call it "art" anyway

[PDS]

Brant writes:

When I was a kid and this happened an adult intervened.

I wouldn't be too concerned. The great moral equalizer is that each of us is getting exactly what we deserve in our own life as the result of our attitude.

Greg

Fascinating, Greg. I've never heard you say this before. You should stop hiding your lamp under a bushel!

Good to know that my "attitude" will keep me from getting hit by a drunk driver some day. I can now cross that worry off my list.

By the way, I would recommend wearing a cup if you are ever tempted to share your secrets with somebody undergoing chemotherapy.

[Jonathan]

That helps, but I don't know for what for I'm not a painter. Taken in its entirety the face as MN did it seems the best part of a painting I don't like. Putting this change in only makes it incongruous. The improvement makes for a nicer face. Nice, however, has nothing to do with the painting's concern with strength and power.

--Brant

Interesting! So you interpret a misshapen face as being strong and powerful because it looks like it has withstood some beatings? Ugly and deformed can equal rugged and durable as opposed to Newberry's contextless, one-size-fits-all interpretation that it must equal a "subhuman soul"? If that's what you're saying, then I think you have a valid point.

The only problem is that I don't think that Newberry actually intended his painting's character's face to look like a punching bag.

Anyway, here's the full original version next to a full version with the face corrected:

Seeing it like this, do you still think that the "nicer face" interferes with what you took to be the painting's theme?

J

[Jonathan]

Fascinating, Greg. I've never heard you say this before. You should stop hiding your lamp under a bushel!

The fun thing is that when being made fun of for being an apey parrot, Greg somehow thinks that repeating what he's already repeated 10,000 times is a devastating comeback which proves that he's not at all an apey parrot.

J

[Brant Gaede]

No (about the "nicer face"), but that's because the twisted body is so distracting. Now I wonder about the theme. I don't get it any longer. What's going on? What happened? What's what? Post hunt?

--Brant

[william.scherk]

They [Newberry and Cadmus nude figures] strike me as graduate-type study work more than anything and exceptionally well done, not as final renderings of art.

Your comment is/was similar to my opinion.

But I didn't know the artist Cadmus, after googling his work, I think his drawings are best - here are two of his paintings, and one drawing:

The golfing satire looks like it was a major investment of time, observation, and work. Personally, I would ask why this theme - if I was going to spend months on a project, would there be something more worthwhile to paint? To be clear, I would not ask him that question, the painting is already his answer. [...]

Below is another satire, about the artificiality of love?

What I like in the these works is that there is a story going on, and more information that I can get in one look. But definitely missing for me is the care and sensitivity that he has in his nude drawings. I would think the paintings themes don't inspire the artist to bring out is depth of care in capturing the subjects, but it could also be that he draws better than paints? I don't know the answer.

The nudes recumbent of Cadmus that I posted were generally from late in his career, whereas the Golfing picture (part of a series on suburbia) was painted in 1936 ... Manikin** was completed in 1951.

Michael, I posted the Cadmus nudes to illustrate superb skills in rendering human anatomy. I contrast it with the lesser skill evident in Counterpose. Since you don't want to touch the subject of technical errors in Counterpose, it's hard to see anything but sour grapes in your reaction to Cadmus.

He is a celebrated master of the male form, and his 'graduate-type' work is sought-after and subject to art-price inflation (as noted, one of his works auctioned at almost half a million dollars). He is well-represented in museums of American art. You might not like that he is celebrated and held to be a master. You might not like that his paintings and drawings fetch huge dollar figures. You might not like the proportion of Cadmus' fame and influence and legacy measured against your own -- but you invite such comparisons.

It's unsettling to see you deprecate Cadmus -- and judge that he lacks "care and sensitivity" and "depth of care in capturing his subjects" -- while completely avoiding any discussion of your own occasional shortcomings.

A bit of a Cadmus biography from DC Moore Gallery (his full artistic CV is here):

In 1919, at the age of 15, Cadmus left high school and entered the National Academy of Design, studying first under Charles Hinton. Cadmus learned to draw from plaster casts in preparation for the living model and two years later he was admitted to the life drawing class. He received a bronze medal from the Academy the following year for excellence in the discipline. He began to study printmaking under William Auerbach-Levy in 1923, and soon after began exhibiting his work and publishing illustrations for the weekly book review section of The New York Herald-Tribune. By 1926 Cadmus completed his course work at the Academy, having won numerous scholarships and prizes for excellence.

From 1928 to 1931 Cadmus was employed as a layout artist at a New York advertising agency. He continued taking sketch classes, studying with Joseph Pennell and Charles Locke at the Art Students League. It was here that he met fellow student Jared French who was to become perhaps the single most important influence on Cadmus’s life and work. It was French who encouraged Cadmus to abandon commercial work and pursue a career as a fine artist. Several years after meeting, the two decided to travel to Europe in search of a more stimulating environment where they could live inexpensively and paint.

In October of 1931 Cadmus and French departed aboard an oil tanker bound for France. They traveled first to Paris, then purchased bicycles in Chartres and toured cities and museums throughout France and Spain. With Ibiza or Mallorca in mind, the two headed south, eventually settling for an extended period in the Mallorcan fishing village of Puerto de Andraitx. Cadmus was prolific during the stay in Mallorca, painting a number of what are considered his first major early works: YMCA Locker Room, Shore Leave, Self Portrait: Mallorca, Mallorcan Fishermen, and others. Cadmus and French resumed touring on the continent in 1932, and saw the principal cities, artistic sites, and museums of Germany, Austria, and Italy before returning to Mallorca.

[...]

Cadmus’s first important museum exhibition was “Three American Painters,” mounted in Baltimore in 1942. The following year sixteen of the artist’s works were included in the seminal exhibition “American Realists and Magic Realists” at the Museum of Modern Art, curated by Lincoln Kirstein.

Along with French, Cadmus encouraged the young painter George Tooker, whom the two had met at the Art Students League in 1944, to work in the egg tempera medium as they practiced it -- Tooker had previously learned Reginald Marsh’s egg tempera technique. In the mid-1940s Cadmus continued to paint his Fire Island scenes, and also began a series of panels depicting The Seven Deadly Sins. These works were shown in 1949 at Cadmus’s third one-man exhibition at Midtown Galleries. The series is now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and the museum mounted a solo exhibition of Cadmus’s work in 1995 which featured the “Sins” along with other works from their collection.

____________________

** Michael, your comment about Manikins as "another satire, about the artificiality of love?" seems rather ignorant. The artwork is not a satire, but a depiction of love. The give that it is not satire is the inclusion of Gide's Corydon.

You don't seem to be as outraged by homosexuality depicted in art as our resident moralist troll, but I sometimes wonder if an evident distaste for such things is a function of your manifesto or your Randianism or is part of a moral stance about sexually-charged subjects in art.

That all said, I do respect your sensibility on a few 'scandalous' Cadmus' large works from the 1930s. They were disturbing, unsettling works. Their subject matter can still engender discomfort if not overwhelm a delicate soul. Comparing them to the serene nudes of later years is interesting and educational.

Edited March 26, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Too much to whack Michael over the head with. And Cadmus is a great hodgepodge. A lot of technical skill but the composition is all over the place.

--Brant

[Newberry]

Michael, I posted the Cadmus nudes to illustrate superb skills in rendering human anatomy.

That is indisputable. I would have loved to learn anatomy from him in the 70's.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Since Ellen gracefully retired, this debate has lost its form, anyway.

I haven't retired, gracefully or otherwise. I've been "immersed" in weather-related issues, some political, some literal.

The literal part is water damage. We got leaking from a basement window well which had never overfilled before in the 23 years we've lived in this house. I noticed in time to avert major damage, but enough mess was produced to keep me busy dealing with water molecules and their consequences instead of chasing the (basic issues) "electrons" which Jonathan finds tedious and irrelevant.

Meanwhile, I did read part of the "About Painting" section of Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art, and I'm wondering where the "quite rational" material Jonathan spoke of in post #815 begins.

Kandinsky [...] was actually quite rational when getting down to the business of analyzing and explaining the effects of color and shape.

Ellen

[moralist]

PDS writes:

Good to know that my "attitude" will keep me from getting hit by a drunk driver some day. I can now cross that worry off my list.

When you disagree with something it's only natural to assume the absurd so as to invalidate it in your own mind.

There are things you get in life as the result of your attitude,

and things you don't get in life as the result of your attitude.

The wisdom is in knowing which is which, so that you can understand exactly how much more of your own suffering is self inflicted than you ~feel~ it is.

By the way, I would recommend wearing a cup if you are ever tempted to share your secrets with somebody undergoing chemotherapy.

This demonstrates your assumption of the absurd so as to blame others for your own self inflicted suffering.

A good attitude can mean everything in how well a person responds to chemotherapy, but of course from your previous comment you obviously don't believe this either, and so you get what you deserve as the result of your own attitude.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

PDS writes:

Good to know that my "attitude" will keep me from getting hit by a drunk driver some day. I can now cross that worry off my list.

When you disagree with something it's only natural to assume the absurd so as to invalidate it in your own mind.

There are things you get in life as the result of your attitude,

and things you don't get in life as the result of your attitude.

The wisdom is in knowing which is which, so that you can understand exactly how much more of your own suffering is self inflicted than you ~feel~ it is.

By the way, I would recommend wearing a cup if you are ever tempted to share your secrets with somebody undergoing chemotherapy.

This demonstrates your assumption of the absurd so as to blame others for your own self inflicted suffering.

A good attitude can mean everything in how well a person responds to chemotherapy, but of course from your previous comment you obviously don't believe this either, and so you get what you deserve as the result of your own attitude.

Greg

Doctor to patient: Have a good attitude or the chemo won't work.

--Brant

reductio ad absurdum is now a logical fallacy?

[PDS]

PDS writes:

Good to know that my "attitude" will keep me from getting hit by a drunk driver some day. I can now cross that worry off my list.

When you disagree with something it's only natural to assume the absurd so as to invalidate it in your own mind.

There are things you get in life as the result of your attitude,

and things you don't get in life as the result of your attitude.

The wisdom is in knowing which is which, so that you can understand exactly how much more of your own suffering is self inflicted than you ~feel~ it is.

By the way, I would recommend wearing a cup if you are ever tempted to share your secrets with somebody undergoing chemotherapy.

This demonstrates your assumption of the absurd so as to blame others for your own self inflicted suffering.

A good attitude can mean everything in how well a person responds to chemotherapy, but of course from your previous comment you obviously don't believe this either, and so you get what you deserve as the result of your own attitude.

Greg

Doctor to patient: Have a good attitude or the chemo won't work.

--Brant

reductio ad absurdum is now a logical fallacy?

Yes--exactly--although don't let Greg's other move go unnoticed. In response to the prospect of getting kicked in the balls by a cancer patient, it looks like he is now backsliding into a poor man's version of the serenity prayer, i.e., having the wisdom to know what things are and aren't affected by one's attitude.

This contradicts at least 1,000 previous posts he has made, but, alas, I consider this true progress, and a cause for rejoicing. The Moralist is growing morally, and is almost a Stoic!

I say amen to that!

[Jonathan]

It's unsettling to see you deprecate Cadmus -- and judge that he lacks "care and sensitivity" and "depth of care in capturing his subjects" -- while completely avoiding any discussion of your own occasional shortcomings.

That's typical Newberry for you. I think he's reached the point of actually believing in the fantasy Randian version of himself. I think that the need to believe in it prevents him from seeing his own obvious errors, both in his paintings, and in his whacky interpretations of Kant and other things. He's not strong enough to face reality.

Wouldn't it be fun to see what kind of art the real Newberry would create? I mean, if we could perform a sort of spiritual/intellectual dialysis on him, and cleanse him of the Objecti-bug's poison, I think it would be very fascinating to see what ideas and vision the real human being would express, as opposed to this vessel which has been programmed to pose and preen, and to paint art that he thinks a real-life Objectivist hero would paint.

Once in while, very rarely, we get a glimpse behind the mask. I don't think that the real Michael, the one that existed as a true individual prior to being brainwashed by Rand, is happy being pushed down and silenced for the sake of serving Rand's vision. I think he'd rather serve his own, but he doesn't have the courage to break free, and that makes him very angry at those who have always been themselves, and have never been Rand's little second-hander bitches. Very angry. And that's one of the major reasons that he deprecates artists who are much better than he is.

J

[Jonathan]

I haven't retired, gracefully or otherwise. I've been "immersed" in weather-related issues, some political, some literal.

The literal part is water damage. We got leaking from a basement window well which had never overfilled before in the 23 years we've lived in this house. I noticed in time to avert major damage, but enough mess was produced to keep me busy dealing with water molecules and their consequences...

Best of luck with the house issues. Dealing with leaks and water damage really sucks, and I don't envy you.

...instead of chasing the (basic issues) "electrons" which Jonathan finds tedious and irrelevant.

Heh. Which "basic issues" were those? The ones where you misremembered and misrepresented my positions, resisted being corrected, and then finally realized that you were wrong? Or the ones where you imported your own personal meanings of terms, rather than going with the long-established ones, and then resisted being corrected, and then finally realized that you were wrong? Or the ones where you couldn't see what I was talking about because didn't want to see and hadn't read what I was referring to? Or the ones where you came up with a theory about what past thinkers mistakes were prior to knowing anything about them, and then went out intentionally misinterpreting them so as to confirm your theory? Those "basic issues"?

Meanwhile, I did read part of the "About Painting" section of Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art, and I'm wondering where the "quite rational" material Jonathan spoke of in post #815 begins.

You read part of a section, and now you're wondering where the material is that I spoke of? Hmmm. Maybe it's in one of the many parts or the sections that you haven't read? Since you're trying very hard to not find it, what do you think the odds are that you would recognized it if it jumped up and bit you in the face?

J

[Brant Gaede]

It's unsettling to see you deprecate Cadmus -- and judge that he lacks "care and sensitivity" and "depth of care in capturing his subjects" -- while completely avoiding any discussion of your own occasional shortcomings.

That's typical Newberry for you. I think he's reached the point of actually believing in the fantasy Randian version of himself. I think that the need to believe in it prevents him from seeing his own obvious errors, both in his paintings, and in his whacky interpretations of Kant and other things. He's not strong enough to face reality.

Wouldn't it be fun to see what kind of art the real Newberry would create? I mean, if we could perform a sort of spiritual/intellectual dialysis on him, and cleanse him of the Objecti-bug's poison, I think it would be very fascinating to see what ideas and vision the real human being would express, as opposed to this vessel which has been programmed to pose and preen, and to paint art that he thinks a real-life Objectivist hero would paint.

Once in while, very rarely, we get a glimpse behind the mask. I don't think that the real Michael, the one that existed as a true individual prior to being brainwashed by Rand, is happy being pushed down and silenced for the sake of serving Rand's vision. I think he'd rather serve his own, but he doesn't have the courage to break free, and that makes him very angry at those who have always been themselves, and have never been Rand's little second-hander bitches. Very angry. And that's one of the major reasons that he deprecates artists who are much better than he is.

J

I used to be one of those. I have her portrait looking down on me as I type these words. I'm afraid if I turn it around she'll burn a hole right through the wall and break free to attack Tucson.

--Brant

a man of civil civic virtue

[Selene]

Lots of works of art to argue about here:

 

http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/download-100000-art-images-in-high-resolution-from-the-getty.html

 

The Rue Mosnier with Flags (Getty Museum)

 

http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/825/edouard-man . .

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know why Michael keeps sticking his ideological head into this meat grinder of a thread or the why of Jonathan's bad manners. Each seems an intractable aspect of personality. Michael's good manners, however, is not an argument against logical and factual criticism just because it is delivered by psychologizing body blows. This means the criticism is accepted even sanctioned for not being countered as such by Michael. Since OL is about ideas, Michael is playing the ironic role of a troll, maybe without knowing it or wanting to.

--Brant

heh, heh--I'm not so nice either--heh, heh

[Mikee]

Perhaps it's interesting just to plumb the depths of Jonathan's depravity...

This thread has become the dog fight pit of OL.

[Adam throws in another piece of meat...]

[Selene]

Perhaps it's interesting just to plumb the depths of Jonathan's depravity...

This thread has become the dog fight pit of OL.

[Adam throws in another piece of meat...]

Hey...

Obviously many are starving for the meat of argument, so, I was just being a good little altruist ...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Perhaps it's interesting just to plumb the depths of Jonathan's depravity...

This thread has become the dog fight pit of OL.

[Adam throws in another piece of meat...]

That's funny. Jonathan is too shallow to be depraved. As for me, deep down I'm shallow too.

--Brant

[PDS]

Perhaps it's interesting just to plumb the depths of Jonathan's depravity...

This thread has become the dog fight pit of OL.

[Adam throws in another piece of meat...]

That's funny. Jonathan is too shallow to be depraved. As for me, deep down I'm shallow too.

--Brant

Your use of balanced antithesis enveloped within a pun will be little noted nor long remembered here, but we cannot forget what you've done here.

[Newberry]

I don't know why Michael keeps sticking his ideological head into this meat grinder of a thread or the why of Jonathan's bad manners... Michael's good manners, however, is not an argument against logical and factual criticism...This means the criticism is accepted even sanctioned for not being countered as such by Michael.

Brant, I thought it would be obvious why I post on the thread, but I will state that here. Michelle Kahmi's book Who Says That's Art, might well be one of the most important books on the nature of painting in this decade. There is now a quite vibrant figurative art movement that is robust with hundreds of exceptionally talented artists. In the 70's it was a wasteland of postmodern and abstract art, with only rare exceptions of figurative art surfacing. The internet may have contributed to this figurative movement as it is easy to share and see what lone, and often unrecognized artists are making. With a few breakthroughs figurative art may leave postmodernism aside as a failed experiment.

Thanks for the compliment on my good manners.

About criticism of artists, when I taught Foundation year students at Otis College of Art and Design, I changed the critique format. The standard format is that student's line the walls with their project, and then students criticize each work. My opinion was that the format didn't work towards helping the student learn anything new or grow as an artist. There was also the element of neophytes putting other artists down, and not knowing what they were talking about - their aim was simply to be nasty. The change I made was that each student could introduce his own work, mention what didn't work, what they would change if they had more time, and tell us what they thought they did well. And no one could negatively criticize another's work. But as the teacher I sometimes had to point out a negative, if the student didn't mention it, as it would affect the student's grade.

That may seem naive, but it is not - anyone can do negative criticism, but it does not tell us how to make an art work better. Da Vinci as been said to be surprised that peasants could see what was off in an ongoing painting, which of course doesn't mean they know how to solve the painting's problems. The change in critique format elevated the discussion from what doesn't work to what and why the work was successful. Understanding what makes something work is 100 times more creative and intelligent than negative insights.

Qualifier: practicing artists are not students, they are busy expressing themselves with the tools they have. There doesn't seem to be many options for the viewer to comment other than they like or dislike works and why. Suggesting how they can improve doesn't really address how art works, its a little like rewriting a page in another's novel - no one has the ability to direct another's soul, no matter how appealing that might be to some people's fantasies.

Ha, I am guilty of negative criticism of the two Chinese artists. I thought for 26 million dollars I should be blown away by talent of extraordinary genius! I was disappointed.

As far as negative criticism directed at me. I have been away for a few years, and when I came back I read through many of the aesthetic threads and saw with some of the posters either negative patterns, or nothing redeeming in their opinions; I blocked them. About half the current posters on this thread I've blocked so I am getting a kind of fragmented view of the whole discussion. And I enjoy that. I noticed Scherk making some negative comments, but his depth of research is definitely appreciated.

Also underlining this thread is Rand's aesthetics and the view of artist creator. It's an compelling vision and insanely difficult to accomplish and maintain. Many people fall by the wayside, finding that they don't have enough support for their art to survive. Over the years I have come across such people, and some of them have been bitter and direct their frustration at Rand and others who have managed to live professionally as artists while also maintaining their artistic integrity. To them I wish that our culture could have been more supportive of their quest and hope that they can retire in comfort and be able then to have all the time they need to make art that pleases them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since OL is about ideas, Michael is playing the ironic role of a troll, maybe without knowing it or wanting to.

Brant,

I disagree.

I haven't seen Michael do any trolling. I have seen him ignore hostility in the purest sense of the word--not even acknowledge it.

Other than that, he has presented positive feedback to comments he has liked (sometimes without much substance, like "great comment" and similar, but still positive) and has presented his ideas.

How on earth is that trolling?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Well, thanks for the summing up. I guess you block Jonathan, or why any others? It explains why he complains and you don't explain and for the little actual substance from this last post. I'm not slamming you by intent to slam you but from the import of all you really aren't dealing with and your extensive blocking makes you a worse de facto troll than I thought and discourteous to everyone else here. That's okay since lack of courtesy defines this thread more than anything else and I care about civility hardly at all. Reminds me of how Jimmy Wales destroyed Atlantis with it. That you're a nice guy and Jonathan isn't raises the question of why Jonathan isn't respecting you, but the answer is found in all his postings about you and what you seem to be and be actually about. And that book, your defense of which is essentially absent to the point I've no desire to peruse it--the book. When it comes to art ideology is crap unless personal and held to one's vest only expressed in the product with which the public--the public be damned--may do what it may.

--Brant

"art" does not occupy a river called "art" but overflows almost all confining banks and, as in all floods, culture accepts it or not but does not witch hunt the creation's creator, not right here in River City--that's the proper relationship between creativity and society: freedom