Romantic Manifesto and Painting Talk, Questions?

[Newberry]

Gustave Courbet Self Portrait, 1845

Hi All,

July 13, '16 I will be giving an art talk in Vegas at the Atlas Summit/ #FreedomFest. The talk will be on Rand's concepts in the Romantic Manifesto and how they relate to painting, and perhaps sculpture. 

Maybe Jonathan, Scherk, and a few others have questions they would like to see discussed? The talk will be introducing RM to a general audience, and as a refresher presentation to those that are familiar with Rand. 

I don't mind "gotcha" questions as long as I can discern the queries and if not too complicated. I will respond to some of the comments here to clarify things, but I will keep my conclusions for the talk. 

[Jonathan]

On June 10, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Newberry said:

Gustave Courbet Self Portrait, 1845

Hi All,

July 13, '16 I will be giving an art talk in Vegas at the Atlas Summit/ #FreedomFest. The talk will be on Rand's concepts in the Romantic Manifesto and how they relate to painting, and perhaps sculpture. 

Maybe Jonathan, Scherk, and a few others have questions they would like to see discussed? The talk will be introducing RM to a general audience, and as a refresher presentation to those that are familiar with Rand. 

I don't mind "gotcha" questions as long as I can discern the queries and if not too complicated. I will respond to some of the comments here to clarify things, but I will keep my conclusions for the talk. 

My view is that Rand's concepts in the Romantic Manifesto when applied to painting aren't very informed or interesting. She was a novelist, and not a visual artist, and therefore had a rather limited view of the visual arts -- she treated it, and each of the other art forms, as a cheap imitation of literature.

And, sure, a part of the visual arts toolbox is that it is indeed capable of some amount of story-telling. But, if I were in an audience listening to a visual artist give a presentation, I'd be more interested in hearing his views on the visual aspects of the art form, rather than on the narrative aspects. I'd want to hear him go beyond Rand's limitations, and talk about the effects of light, shading, color, texture, paint application, etc.

People have noted that the Courbet self portrait, known as "The Desperate Man," expresses a sense of desperation, but also that it conveys a sort of a brashness and vigor, confidence and readiness to act. In other words, to translate many viewers' interpretations of the painting into Rand-speak, the painting's character seems to be experiencing a shock of some sort from an unidentified threat, but it appears to be only a temporary state, and one about which he seems to be capable of overcoming. In other words, these viewers detect a sense of hope and competence to deal with whatever is upsetting to the painting's character.

Are there elements in the painting which support that interpretation? Perhaps the mood of the lighting and the coloration? As a visual artist, what would you do differently with light, color and form if you wanted the character to appear to be doomed to desperation, and overwhelmed and fated to surrendering to whatever phenomenon is frightening him?

J

[Thorn]

Now, that's a really interesting question Jonathan. Let's talk shop. How would you do it?

I would probably put the key light more to the side, bump the intensity, and full on the opposite side to lift the shadows a bit. I'm thinking dramatic shadows and a somewhat unnatural light (most light is from the top).

Then I'd lower the chroma and cool down the palette.

This is certainly not the only way. Another's approach would, for example, be something like Munch's scream. I don't really have the proper words to describe the palette. Maybe pastel with contrasting colors? Anyhow, I think you get what I mean.

I would like to hear your thoughts. This kind of stuff is what I actually find interesting.

[Newberry]

Thanks for your responses guys.

[BaalChatzaf]

On 6/10/2016 at 6:32 PM, Newberry said:

Gustave Courbet Self Portrait, 1845 

Oh my God!!!  A zit!

[anthony]

A masterful work and why change it? The high key lighting gives it a lighter and less serious touch, more of momentary hair-pulling frustration/exasparation (at his wife, say) than dark desperation I think, ditto his expression. The tendons of his hands and wrists seem to have been paid much of the painter's attention, beautifully done.

[Jonathan]

18 hours ago, Thorn said:

Now, that's a really interesting question Jonathan. Let's talk shop. How would you do it?

I would probably put the key light more to the side, bump the intensity, and full on the opposite side to lift the shadows a bit. I'm thinking dramatic shadows and a somewhat unnatural light (most light is from the top).

Then I'd lower the chroma and cool down the palette.

This is certainly not the only way. Another's approach would, for example, be something like Munch's scream. I don't really have the proper words to describe the palette. Maybe pastel with contrasting colors? Anyhow, I think you get what I mean.

I would like to hear your thoughts. This kind of stuff is what I actually find interesting.

Color-wise, we're thinking the same, but lighting-wise, I'd eliminate the back/side light, and illuminate the scene from the viewer's position (the character is already looking at us, so our startling him and shining a light in his face might as well be the cause of his anxiety). But rather than a small point of intense light, like that of a candle, lantern or flashlight, I'd make the light source unnatural by diffusing it and spreading it out, as if what the character is looking at is the size of a human form and emitting a ghostly glow, which, given the setup of the scene, would mean a combination of straight-on and under-lighting. Soft, diffused highlights and shadows, neutrals, blues and greens.

J

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

A masterful work and why change it? 

I'd like you to try to answer that question for youself, Tony.  Think it through. See if you can come up with some reasons why I might have asked about how the painting would be handled differently if we wanted a different mood or "sense of life," or "metaphysical value judgment," or "artist's meaning," or whatever else one would prefer to call the effects of the painting.

J

[anthony]

Not much to "think" about, it's visualization of any possibilities followed by technical skills. Yup, several elements can be modified and re-done or completely changed and other subjects introduced until it's a hodge-podge of the painter's original vision. Low-key, dark-shadowed or 'Rembrandt lighting' would create a heavier, sombre mood, but the light I've mentioned. A picture is whole, you want your own "metaphysical value judgement" and sense of life, you do your own picture from scratch.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

In fiction, Rand said the writer, to get a good plot, had to work according to Aristotle's final causation principle even though (she claimed) that did not actually exist. As I understand it, final causation is an end result or effect that pulls its earlier incomplete parts toward it as opposed to efficient causation in which things act as causes that produce later effects.

She discussed this in The Art of Fiction--more precisely, in her fiction writing course, which was then condensed and edited into the book by another.

From this angle, I can understand her reluctance to entertain any value in nonrepresentational plastic art. I think she must have imagined what the artist viewed as normal or ideal thinking before painting the first stroke, then shuddered at a mind that thinks like that.  

There might be a question there you might want to look at. Rather than come up with one, I'm just putting this thought out. I haven't seen many people talk about Aristotle's theories of causation as Rand used them for art, so it's a fertile topic for newness.

On another point, there is something I believe needs to be addressed in O-Land: snobbery. I'm serious.

During Rand's life and since then, I have seen representational art used as a key marker for the Objectivist ingroup and outgroup. And it is a moral marker at that. 

But that's just the start. When representational art is discussed by certain Objectivist types, I often see them effect an overly refined posture that reminds me of a snooty Englishman looking down his nose and saying about an offense against refined taste, "But my dear sir, that is simply not done among decent society. Everybody knows... (yada yada yada)." I don't see this kind of snobbery when our dear little connoisseurs talk to "the enemy." But I have seen it a lot when they discuss things among the ingroup.

I guess the question would be where does the aesthetic inner life of a viewer end and the fear of ingroup peer pressure start? And what can be done to help a newbie navigate this so he stays true to his own inner aesthetic experience? What are the landmines along the way?

I see a huge booby-trap for self-deception in the O-Land snobbery about representational art and I have observed it over years. Note, this is not the same thing as defending nonrepresentational art. I am criticizing the snobbery, not the aesthetic, which I believe is only used as a tool and weapon when this snobbery arises.

I'm not going to point fingers at anyone--nor am I saying you are such a snob (and I don't believe you are)--because I am raising this issue as an issue, not as an attack on any particular people. And since Rand herself encouraged certain people who acted like this, I think she had a touch herself--probably due to her nostalgia for pre-WWI upper class European culture, which she sometimes wrote beautifully about.

Michael

[Newberry]

Michael, very thoughtful comments. You bring up a good issue of the objectivist snobbery, ha but it is in the minor leagues when compared professional art critics. Which I am guilty of but not as a tool of intimidation, rather I think because I am not great at verbal communication - it is something I have been working on this last year. Others have less of an excuse. ; )  But I will keep it in mind. I wonder if it is not a problem with humanities in general? And an excellent second point about neophytes, and the trouble they go through swallowing dictates. Glad you introduced that point to me, now it will be at the forefront of my mind navigating through the talk.

Abstraction as a tool is a part of the presentation: the role it plays in representational art vs. as a form in itself. Very different processes, knowledge, and execution.

I will research the Aristotle/Rand causation thing. I don't know now if it ties into the concept of an artwork being an end in itself that represents a mass of emotional, conceptual, and perceptual information.

[PDS]

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Michael,

In fiction, Rand said the writer, to get a good plot, had to work according to Aristotle's final causation principle even though (she claimed) that did not actually exist. As I understand it, final causation is an end result or effect that pulls its earlier incomplete parts toward it as opposed to efficient causation in which things act as causes that produce later effects.

She discussed this in The Art of Fiction--more precisely, in her fiction writing course, which was then condensed and edited into the book by another.

From this angle, I can understand her reluctance to entertain any value in nonrepresentational plastic art. I think she must have imagined what the artist viewed as normal or ideal thinking before painting the first stroke, then shuddered at a mind that thinks like that.  

There might be a question there you might want to look at. Rather than come up with one, I'm just putting this thought out. I haven't seen many people talk about Aristotle's theories of causation as Rand used them for art, so it's a fertile topic for newness.

On another point, there is something I believe needs to be addressed in O-Land: snobbery. I'm serious.

During Rand's life and since then, I have seen representational art used as a key marker for the Objectivist ingroup and outgroup. And it is a moral marker at that. 

But that's just the start. When representational art is discussed by certain Objectivist types, I often see them effect an overly refined posture that reminds me of a snooty Englishman looking down his nose and saying about an offense against refined taste, "But my dear sir, that is simply not done among decent society. Everybody knows... (yada yada yada)." I don't see this kind of snobbery when our dear little connoisseurs talk to "the enemy." But I have seen it a lot when they discuss things among the ingroup.

I guess the question would be where does the aesthetic inner life of a viewer end and the fear of ingroup peer pressure start? And what can be done to help a newbie navigate this so he stays true to his own inner aesthetic experience? What are the landmines along the way?

I see a huge booby-trap for self-deception in the O-Land snobbery about representational art and I have observed it over years. Note, this is not the same thing as defending nonrepresentational art. I am criticizing the snobbery, not the aesthetic, which I believe is only used as a tool and weapon when this snobbery arises.

I'm not going to point fingers at anyone--nor am I saying you are such a snob (and I don't believe you are)--because I am raising this issue as an issue, not as an attack on any particular people. And since Rand herself encouraged certain people who acted like this, I think she had a touch herself--probably due to her nostalgia for pre-WWI upper class European culture, which she sometimes wrote beautifully about.

Michael

Lots of wisdom in these comments, me thinks. 

[Jonathan]

On June 18, 2016 at 4:48 PM, anthony said:

Not much to "think" about, it's visualization of any possibilities followed by technical skills. Yup, several elements can be modified and re-done or completely changed and other subjects introduced until it's a hodge-podge of the painter's original vision. Low-key, dark-shadowed or 'Rembrandt lighting' would create a heavier, sombre mood, but the light I've mentioned. A picture is whole, you want your own "metaphysical value judgement" and sense of life, you do your own picture from scratch.

As expected, you're not getting it, and are resisting getting it.

J

[Jonathan]

30 minutes ago, PDS said:

Lots of wisdom in these comments, me thinks. 

Indeed!

J

[anthony]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

As expected, you're not getting it, and are resisting getting it.

J

You could start by "getting" that your commonly and earlier repeated - art as "story-telling" - is a falsehood. (e.g. "She treated it...as a cheap form of literature").  I believe you do know what Rand actually wrote: "Out of the countless number of concretes an artist isolates the things he regards as metaphysically essential.."etc. "Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness ..."etc. No story telling.

You can oppose Rand til you're blue in the face, but get the facts straight.

And I get "it". It is a simple challenge of perceptual visualization, you raised. I've remarked three times light and shadow changes the mood. Keep in mind there are some others who know lighting well.

So what else? Some random backgrounds, Photo Shopped into the picture might be fun...

  

[Brant Gaede]

On 6/18/2016 at 6:52 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Oh my God!!!  A zit!

Well, you ruined it.

--Brant

humor can be wrong

[Newberry]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 7:28 AM, anthony said:

A masterful work and why change it? The high key lighting gives it a lighter and less serious touch, more of momentary hair-pulling frustration/exasparation (at his wife, say) than dark desperation I think, ditto his expression. The tendons of his hands and wrists seem to have been paid much of the painter's attention, beautifully done.

Tony, thanks for sharing your response to the Courbet. It also mirrors my own, something along the lines of creative frustration, like: "how the hell am I going to solve this?!"

3 hours ago, anthony said:

...Rand actually wrote: "Out of the countless number of concretes an artist isolates the things he regards as metaphysically essential.."etc. "Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness ..."

This is along the lines of the issues my talk is heading. Thanks for you input.

[anthony]

Michael yes, I had not seen this painting before, but from now on, any time I feel exasparation or see it in someone else, will bring up the image anew, I'm sure. That's what art achieves, the viewer 'captures' a concrete that represents his concept (here, an emotion) and takes permanent ownership of it. At base, it's simply a source of further induction of real things, but with value-added emphasis - that it's been carefully selected from all the apparent chaos and arranged with a purpose, by an artist - it has "importance" to the artist, iow, which we implicitly accept. The only questions left, is can the viewer clearly recognize the image and how much importance does it contain for HIM.

(btw, an interesting exercise might be a 3-way comparison of emotions in portraits, this Courbet, The Scream which Thorn suggested, and say, The Laughing Cavalier. Contrasting treatments, senses of life and m.v.j.'s, methinks).

[Jonathan]

15 hours ago, anthony said:

You could start by "getting" that your commonly and earlier repeated - art as "story-telling" - is a falsehood. (e.g. "She treated it...as a cheap form of literature").  I believe you do know what Rand actually wrote: "Out of the countless number of concretes an artist isolates the things he regards as metaphysically essential.."etc. "Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness ..."etc. No story telling.

So, are you saying that the quote that you provided is the only thing Rand ever said about art? Heh.

"See? I provided a quote from Rand! And nothing in the quote says anything about storytelling! QED!"

Hillarious!

15 hours ago, anthony said:

You can oppose Rand til you're blue in the face, but get the facts straight.

And I get "it". It is a simple challenge of perceptual visualization, you raised. I've remarked three times light and shadow changes the mood. Keep in mind there are some others who know lighting well.

No, you don't get it.

 

15 hours ago, anthony said:

So what else? Some random backgrounds, Photo Shopped into the picture might be fun...

  

You totally don't get it. So dumb and angry! 

J

[Jonathan]

11 minutes ago, anthony said:

(btw, an interesting exercise might be a 3-way comparison of emotions in portraits, this Courbet, The Scream which Thorn suggested, and say, The Laughing Cavalier. Contrasting treatments, senses of life and m.v.j.'s, methinks).

Tony, Rand very clearly stated that you can't know the senses of life of fictional characters, or of artists, or of anyone else other than a spouse or very best friend after many years of knowing them. She actually scolded her audience of followers on the subject. And those were cognitively normal followers who didn't share your severe intellectual limitations. She would slap your face. She would scream at you to leave Objectivism alone.

J

[anthony]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Tony, Rand very clearly stated that you can't know the senses of life of fictional characters, or of artists, or of anyone else other than a spouse or very best friend after many years of knowing them. She actually scolded her audience of followers on the subject. And those were cognitively normal followers who didn't share your severe intellectual limitations. She would slap your face. She would scream at you to leave Objectivism alone.

J

Gosh! Really? Take another look.

"The emotional response to that painting would be instantaneous, much faster than the viewer's mind could identify all the reasons involved. The psychological mechanism which produces that response (and which produced the painting) is a man's sense of life"...

It is the artist's sense of life that controls and integrates his work, directing the innumerable choices he has to make, from the choice of subject to the subtlest details of style. It is the viewer's or reader's sense of life that responds to a work of art by a complex, reaction of acceptance and approval..."

"The subject of an art work expresses a view of man's existence, while the style expresses a view of man's consciousness. The subject reveals an artist's *metaphysics*, the style reveals his *psycho-epistemology*...

"A sense of life is the source of art, but it is NOT the sole qualification of an artist or of an esthetician, and it is NOT a criterion of esthetic judgment"...

"When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work--and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it". (TRM)

Therefore it would seem the artist is not so hidden from view as he perhaps would like. You have your own copy of Manifesto, please read and save me the trouble.

Can we go back to "contrasting" the three paintings, now?

 

[anthony]

Last one:

"That automatic impression - of oneself or of others - is only a lead; left untranslated, it can be a very deceptive lead. But if and when that intangible impression is supported by and unites with the conscious judgment of one's mind, the result is the most exultant form of certainty one can ever exeprience: it is the integration of mind and values.

"There are two aspects of man's experience which are the special province and expression of his sense of life: love and art."

You see, J. The artist can run but he can't hide. And why ever should he want to??

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Gosh! Really? Take another look.

"The emotional response to that painting would be instantaneous, much faster than the viewer's mind could identify all the reasons involved. The psychological mechanism which produces that response (and which produced the painting) is a man's sense of life"...

It is the artist's sense of life that controls and integrates his work, directing the innumerable choices he has to make, from the choice of subject to the subtlest details of style. It is the viewer's or reader's sense of life that responds to a work of art by a complex, reaction of acceptance and approval..."

"The subject of an art work expresses a view of man's existence, while the style expresses a view of man's consciousness. The subject reveals an artist's *metaphysics*, the style reveals his *psycho-epistemology*...

"A sense of life is the source of art, but it is NOT the sole qualification of an artist or of an esthetician, and it is NOT a criterion of esthetic judgment"...

"When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work--and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it". (TRM)

The above quotes don't refute my argument. In these statements, Rand was reserving for herself alone the ability to allegedly detect and identify others' "senses of life" and "metaphysical value-judgments." She had self-graded herself as having learned "to translate the meaning of an artwork into objective terms," and therefore of being "exposed to the essence of a man's character," but she scolded her followers to forget the idea that they had the same ability. She was special, she was the shepherd, and exempt from her admonishments that her sheep could not do what she could. And those specific sheep in the audience to whom she was speaking were much brighter than you, Tony.

Here's the relevant statement from Rand:

Quote

 

Now, in the light of what I have said, it is, of course, totally impossible to name the sense of life of fiction characters. You might name the sense of life of you, your closest friends, and then I doubt it. You may, after some years, know approximately the sense of life of the person you love, your wife or husband. Nobody beyond that. You cannot judge the sense of life of another person. That would be psychologizing. Judge them on their philosophical convictions; never mind what they feel as they express their ideas or whether what they is feel something else. That's not for you to judge, it's of no relevance. Euhh, judge people by their stated convictions. In the world of art, you can say, "I like this man's sense of life," even though his conscious convictions are, uh, somewhat different or opposite. But then his psychology is not what you are concerned with. You're concerned with the ideas as they are expressed in his work. 

It would be impossible to say the, tell the sense of life of a character in fiction. What you have to be able to tell is his convictions, his basic views on life. And I think Scarlett O'Hara had a pretty cheap, social metaphysical view of life, that's all. She was not a good character at all. In fact, none of them were in Gone with the Wind. It's a very fascinating novel. I like it very much. I think it's an excellent example of Romantic fiction—but the characters in it are atrocious. Uhh, now, is it necessary for a novelist to know the sense of life of the characters he writes? No. It's not necessary. It's impossible. How would he use this in working out the characters? He uses their conscious convictions.

Speaking of one's inability to know another's sense of life, now might be a good time to make a request: Please don't send me records or recommend music. You have no way of knowing my sense of life, although you have a better way of knowing mine than I have of knowing yours, since you've read my books, and my sense of life is on every page. You would have some grasp of it—but I hate to think how little.

 

See what I mean? She states that one can't know others' senses of life, then immediately ignores what she just said and claims to know Scarlett O'Hara's sense of life. See, YOU might have only some small inkling of someone else's "sense of life," but not much, where Rand IS capable of detecting it, but she hates to think of how little everyone else can detect. She's quite special, and magical in her abilities. The rest of mankind, not so much.

Rand had merely arbitrarily graded herself as possessing the ability to divine others' "senses of life" and "metaphysical value-judgements." Like many of her followers, she allowed for no possible falsification of her interpretations of art and her silly pronouncements of artists' "senses of life," "metaphysical value-judgments," character and psychology. She offered no proof of her judgments, and identified no rational process by which to measure and prove that she had actually identified "artists' meanings" in their works, or that she had correctly identified their "senses of life" or even their "metaphysical value-judgments." No proof or rationality whatsoever. In fact, many of her judgments of various artists' works, from Beethoven to Vermeer, are laughably wrong-headed, and nothing but her own whacky, subjective interpretations and projections of her own emotional problems.

 

Quote

Therefore it would seem the artist is not so hidden from view as he perhaps would like.

No, I think what happened is that Rand saw her idiot sheep mimicking her attempts at posing as superior and at judging artworks, as well as fictional characters' and  artists' "senses of life," and she was revolted and embarrassed at the abject stupidity that was being mirrored back to her, so she ordered them to cease the nonsense, even though she didn't quite have the bravery to recognize and accept it in herself, or to realize that she was the cause of their stupidity. She anointed herself priestess/witchdoctor who commanded special powers. It was something that she needed to believe in religiously. Hanging onto the magic belief in her superiority and ability to instantly and infallibly detect others' "senses of life" was very important to her.

 

Quote

Can we go back to "contrasting" the three paintings, now?

 

You can do whatever you want. No one's stopping you.

J

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

You see, J. The artist can run but he can't hide. And why ever should he want to??

No one has suggested that any artist is trying to hide. Rather, I've simply been pointing out that you can't know what you and other Objectisheep pretend to know about others based on your hostile and aesthetically inept "readings" of works of art.

Your idiotic response above is about as rational as a Salem judge, after being told that his methods of trying and sentencing witches is irrational, asserting that "Witches can run but can't hide!"

J

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

hostile

 

J

You project your own hostile anger on others. Nothing hostile was mentioned above by me (or Rand), but you consistently take the worst possible explanation. "Aesthetically inept" is a give-away of your art snobbery and general skepticism of the ability of others to look, identify and reason. And for psychologizing, you are tops and have always been.

If the sense of life of Munch's The Scream is not clear, what is?

"When [sense of life] is supported by and unites with the conscious judgment of one's mind, the result is the most exultant form of certainty ..." (Hostile? nah.)

You've (genuinely, perhaps) mixed up Rand speaking, as she was, generally - about other people and fictional characters - with her writing of the sense of life an artist exposes: "An artist reveals his naked soul in his work..." This has matched my own convictions and personal experiences with artists, including my introspection on the creative process. If not deeply, honestly 'visible', what is the value of his work? To repeat, he has no purpose in hiding and every reason to reveal himself in his art. His subconscious sense of life is his prime source.

To be so open is a marvellous and courageous commitment, and any other take on it could well be the 'hostile to artists' one (and unjustly untrue).