Why is modern art so bad?

[PDS]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

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

Over the decades a sentimental memory evolved into an archetype that has a direct causal connection to my life today. Something I had idealized when very young became realized... and it's not the only one.

Ever notice that when you are looking for fruit on a tree, once you see the first one, it becomes much easier to see more? This same principle applies. In the long view having lived most of my life, there have accumulated a number of "dreams come true". Enough to be able to identify a template of the process... and that has never ceased to amaze me.

Greg

Greg:

When you go "off script" you actually say some interesting things.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I'm late in welcoming you to OL.

I saw your video and I, too, have some takes on it that I believe you will find interesting. But I have to dig into this later.

By way of teaser, one of my exes (in Brazil when I lived there, her name is Lenora Porto Telles Pires) is a painter, both representational and modern. Her representational style is a bit New Agey (which I am not so fond of), but not her modern style (which I like very much). However, it was fascinating living with her.

She had to paint. It didn't matter what style she chose. She just had to do it. And on a few times when we ran out of money for canvases, she painted over top of previous paintings. She painted the bedroom door, the walls, any barren surface was at risk.

I had a very Randian view of painting when we first got together. Seeing all this up close made me challenge some of my premises. And I feel richer for having done so.

Like I said, I'll go into all this later. I just wanted to pop up and extend a warm welcome to you.

We have a tough crowd here, but each person speaks the truth as he or she perceives it. And there is a lot of working through the ideas. I have not seen anyone faking or snobbing so they can lord a phoney-baloney intellect over others. Frankly, I'm proud to host the forum activity of people of this level.

One final comment right now. I believe the reason a lot of modern art sells for such high amounts is money laundering or other forms of money hiding. That sounds like a quip, but I'm serious. I've seen some insider stuff. There are exceptions, but generally from what I have seen, modern art is a rich folks game. Poor folks need not apply.

How do I reconcile that with the painting compulsion of my ex when she went into modern art mode?

Damned if I know.

Michael

[moralist]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

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

Over the decades a sentimental memory evolved into an archetype that has a direct causal connection to my life today. Something I had idealized when very young became realized... and it's not the only one.

Ever notice that when you are looking for fruit on a tree, once you see the first one, it becomes much easier to see more? This same principle applies. In the long view having lived most of my life, there have accumulated a number of "dreams come true". Enough to be able to identify a template of the process... and that has never ceased to amaze me.

Greg

Greg:

When you go "off script" you actually say some interesting things.

I'm genuinely sorry, David. It was pure negligence, and I'll see that it never happens again.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

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

[Jonathan]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

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

Over the decades a sentimental memory evolved into an archetype that has a direct causal connection to my life today. Something I had idealized when very young became realized... and it's not the only one.

Ever notice that when you are looking for fruit on a tree, once you see the first one, it becomes much easier to see more? This same principle applies. In the long view having lived most of my life, there have accumulated a number of "dreams come true". Enough to be able to identify a template of the process... and that has never ceased to amaze me.

Greg

Greg:

When you go "off script" you actually say some interesting things.

I'm genuinely sorry, David. It was pure negligence, and I'll see that it never happens again.

Greg

Please don't see that it never happens again! Hearing you talk about your love of your existence is so much more appealing than hearing you attempting to degrade others before knowing anything about them.

J

[Brant Gaede]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

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

Over the decades a sentimental memory evolved into an archetype that has a direct causal connection to my life today. Something I had idealized when very young became realized... and it's not the only one.

Ever notice that when you are looking for fruit on a tree, once you see the first one, it becomes much easier to see more? This same principle applies. In the long view having lived most of my life, there have accumulated a number of "dreams come true". Enough to be able to identify a template of the process... and that has never ceased to amaze me.

Greg

Greg:

When you go "off script" you actually say some interesting things.

I'm genuinely sorry, David. It was pure negligence, and I'll see that it never happens again.

Greg

Please don't see that it never happens again! Hearing you talk about your love of your existence is so much more appealing than hearing you attempting to degrade others before knowing anything about them.

J

Just here to tighten up the formatting a bit.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] "Moonlit Lovers" [...] 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

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

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience, or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience". [AR]

Tastes are not a product of logic. They are not objective. Rand recognized that fact in her comments on music: she knew that unless certain criteria were met, musical preferences could not be called objective, but must be treated as a subjective matter. She knew that those criteria have never been met. She knew that her own stated process of objectivity has never yet applied to anyone's judgments of music.

1) Are you intending to imply that tastes are truths?

2) Rand expected that "her own stated process of objectivity" could be applied to judgments of music someday. She thought that the problem in such application was a temporary result of lack of knowledge of the physiology of musical response.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

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.

I'll ask what I'm trying to get at a different way.

Do you think that more skill was needed to paint da Vinci's "The Last Supper" than was needed to paint the examples in post #19?

I think that the answer is definitely "yes," irrespective of what either artist was trying to achieve and irrespective of whether Robert Florczak (the artist who did the paintings in post #19) could have done something comparable to da Vinci's "The Last Supper" if he'd intended to.

Ellen

Both Da Vinci and Florczak seem to lack skills in certain areas, but are quite good in other areas. Florczak's anatomy is more realistic than Da Vinci's, but that may be due to Florczak's probably using photographic reference where Da Vinci didn't have that option. Da Vinci's flesh coloring, halftone modulation and sfumato are much more realistic than Florczak's.

So, it comes down to which set of skills we subjectively prefer as viewers. Which type of lack of skill are each of us more likely to forgive, or perhaps not even notice? Personally, discoloration probably stands out more to me as looking amateurish, but I don't think that that could be called an objective preference. I once had a discussion with an artist friend about which was worse about another artist's painting: the human figure's merbromin flesh tones or it's disproportionate, jackrabbit feet and stovepipe ankles. I went with the coloring being worse, he went with the feet. Both are subjective preferences.

J

You know what, you haven't actually answered the question.

Another issue I'm wondering about is whether you claim that your evaluative category "visually incompetent" has any objective basis. Also the idea you've used in arguments with various people that some people might be poor visual "receivers."

Ellen

[moralist]

1) Are you intending to imply that tastes are truths?

While all tastes are subjective... they can, however, either agree with or disagree with objective truths... but they can never change objective truths.

Greg

[Robert Florczak]

Robert,

I'm late in welcoming you to OL.

I saw your video and I, too, have some takes on it that I believe you will find interesting. But I have to dig into this later.

By way of teaser, one of my exes (in Brazil when I lived there, her name is Lenora Porto Telles Pires) is a painter, both representational and modern. Her representational style is a bit New Agey (which I am not so fond of), but not her modern style (which I like very much). However, it was fascinating living with her.

She had to paint. It didn't matter what style she chose. She just had to do it. And on a few times when we ran out of money for canvases, she painted over top of previous paintings. She painted the bedroom door, the walls, any barren surface was at risk.

I had a very Randian view of painting when we first got together. Seeing all this up close made me challenge some of my premises. And I feel richer for having done so.

Like I said, I'll go into all this later. I just wanted to pop up and extend a warm welcome to you.

We have a tough crowd here, but each person speaks the truth as he or she perceives it. And there is a lot of working through the ideas. I have not seen anyone faking or snobbing so they can lord a phoney-baloney intellect over others. Frankly, I'm proud to host the forum activity of people of this level.

One final comment right now. I believe the reason a lot of modern art sells for such high amounts is money laundering or other forms of money hiding. That sounds like a quip, but I'm serious. I've seen some insider stuff. There are exceptions, but generally from what I have seen, modern art is a rich folks game. Poor folks need not apply.

How do I reconcile that with the painting compulsion of my ex when she went into modern art mode?

Damned if I know.

Michael

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

[moralist]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

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

Over the decades a sentimental memory evolved into an archetype that has a direct causal connection to my life today. Something I had idealized when very young became realized... and it's not the only one.

Ever notice that when you are looking for fruit on a tree, once you see the first one, it becomes much easier to see more? This same principle applies. In the long view having lived most of my life, there have accumulated a number of "dreams come true". Enough to be able to identify a template of the process... and that has never ceased to amaze me.

Greg

Greg:

When you go "off script" you actually say some interesting things.

I'm genuinely sorry, David. It was pure negligence, and I'll see that it never happens again.

Greg

Please don't see that it never happens again! Hearing you talk about your love of your existence is so much more appealing than hearing you attempting to degrade others before knowing anything about them.

J

There's that attitude again, Jonathan. It will not serve you well in life.

You're the only one who can degrade yourself by your own behavior.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

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

Over the decades a sentimental memory evolved into an archetype that has a direct causal connection to my life today. Something I had idealized when very young became realized... and it's not the only one.

Ever notice that when you are looking for fruit on a tree, once you see the first one, it becomes much easier to see more? This same principle applies. In the long view having lived most of my life, there have accumulated a number of "dreams come true". Enough to be able to identify a template of the process... and that has never ceased to amaze me.

Greg

Greg:

When you go "off script" you actually say some interesting things.

I'm genuinely sorry, David. It was pure negligence, and I'll see that it never happens again.

Greg

Please don't see that it never happens again! Hearing you talk about your love of your existence is so much more appealing than hearing you attempting to degrade others before knowing anything about them.

J

There's that attitude again, Jonathan. It will not serve you well in life.

You're the only one who can degrade yourself by your own behavior.

Greg

You admit failure but you will not stop.

--Brant

[Robert Florczak]

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

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

[Robert Florczak]

[...] "Moonlit Lovers" [...] 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

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

[Robert Florczak]

1) Are you intending to imply that tastes are truths?

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

[moralist]

1) Are you intending to imply that tastes are truths?

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

I look forward to seeing it, Robert, even though you'll be "preaching to the choir".

The subjective reaction/objective truth distinction seems to be more of a stumbling block for secularists who are less familiar with relating to an absolute.

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.

I'll ask what I'm trying to get at a different way.

Do you think that more skill was needed to paint da Vinci's "The Last Supper" than was needed to paint the examples in post #19?

I think that the answer is definitely "yes," irrespective of what either artist was trying to achieve and irrespective of whether Robert Florczak (the artist who did the paintings in post #19) could have done something comparable to da Vinci's "The Last Supper" if he'd intended to.

Ellen

Both Da Vinci and Florczak seem to lack skills in certain areas, but are quite good in other areas. Florczak's anatomy is more realistic than Da Vinci's, but that may be due to Florczak's probably using photographic reference where Da Vinci didn't have that option. Da Vinci's flesh coloring, halftone modulation and sfumato are much more realistic than Florczak's.

So, it comes down to which set of skills we subjectively prefer as viewers. Which type of lack of skill are each of us more likely to forgive, or perhaps not even notice? Personally, discoloration probably stands out more to me as looking amateurish, but I don't think that that could be called an objective preference. I once had a discussion with an artist friend about which was worse about another artist's painting: the human figure's merbromin flesh tones or it's disproportionate, jackrabbit feet and stovepipe ankles. I went with the coloring being worse, he went with the feet. Both are subjective preferences.

J

You know what, you haven't actually answered the question.

I have answered the question. My answer is "No, there are not objective standards of technical proficiency which are not artist's-intentions dependent." And, as I've said, the same is true judging not only art, but any activity, be it a plumber installing pipes in a factory, a chef shopping for ingredients in a grocery store, or NASA scientists launching something into space. We can't objectively judge their proficiency without knowing what they intended to accomplish.

Another issue I'm wondering about is whether you claim that your evaluative category "visually incompetent" has any objective basis.

It has as much of a basis as people recognizing that someone is musically "tone deaf."

Is "visual incompetence" objectively measurable? Sure. There are standard visuo-spatial-mechanical reasoning tests which I think would be applicable. Other valid tests might include the ability to distinguish between photographs and realistic paintings, to identify meaning in facial expressions and body language, and to detect perspective errors, among many other possible means of testing and measuring.

Also the idea you've used in arguments with various people that some people might be poor visual "receivers."

Do you dispute the idea that different people have different abilities, capacities and sensitivities? Some people are more verbal than visual, some are more mathematical than spatially oriented. Some people are better at understanding facial expressions and body language than others. Some people are terrible at hearing which musical notes or colors or patterns harmonize or clash. Some people can't see measurable deviations from reality in works of visual art -- a portrait drawing which, to most people, looks like the subject's face is caved in and drooping is judged by certain other people to be an anatomically photographic likeness. And I think that these differences in judging ability are definitely objectively measurable.

J

[Jonathan]

There's that attitude again, Jonathan. It will not serve you well in life.

My encouraging someone (you) to share positive expressions of his happiness rather than attempting to degrade others will not serve me well in life? So, the alternative that you're suggesting is that I should encourage people to attempt to degrade others?

You're the only one who can degrade yourself by your own behavior.

Yeah, that was why I used the word "attempting." Your attempting to degrade others hasn't been successful. You've only succeeded in degrading yourself, as Deanna so succinctly pointed out in post #51.

J

[Jonathan]

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.

I agree. But coming "very close to being objective" is not objective. Just as 99 is not 100.

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.

Yes, that intangible otherness -- that essential magic -- is wonderful, but not objective.

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.

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

[Jonathan]

1) Are you intending to imply that tastes are truths?

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.

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 (!).

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

[Robert Florczak]

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.

I agree. But coming "very close to being objective" is not objective. Just as 99 is not 100.

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.

Yes, that intangible otherness -- that essential magic -- is wonderful, but not objective.

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.

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

[Robert Florczak]

1) Are you intending to imply that tastes are truths?

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.

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 (!).

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

[moralist]

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.

Correlation is not causation. Anyone living by Judeo/Christian values is naturally going to have at least a loosely similar view of objectivity.

Religion is the moral art of subjectively relating to the absolute.

Greg

[moralist]

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.

Jonathan has a problem with his attitude.

Greg