anthony Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: The art I like abstracts reality and magnifies beauty, mystery, ideas, etc. --Brant The magical-seeming embellishment - lifting the image above the ordinary - is all in "stylization". His mastery of stylization (plus technique) covers *everything* important, after the artist's initial choice of subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 14 minutes ago, anthony said: The appreciation of beauty had moral connotations to the Sublimists (esp. Kant). One is good - because one feels for beauty. Kant made the statement that no criminal could possibly love beauty, or words to that effect. Sentimental and untrue. He was known for formulating a connection from beauty to his ethics, and we know how that turned out. Kant wasn't a "Sublimist." There's no such thing. It's a category that you made up. Kant simply addressed the concept of the Sublime, just as many other philosophers have. Rand didn't address the concept because she was such a novice in the field of aesthetics that she didn't even know what the Sublime was. She was so unaware of the history of the branch of philosophy that she didn't know that she had made Kant's notion of the Sublime her signature aesthetic style. She stupidly attacked Kant as being the "father of modern art" without citing any sources, and while not realizing that he was actually the father of her art. No quotes. No reasoning to back up her views. Nothing. She hadn't read Kant's Critique on art and aesthetics. She may have read some out-of-context snippets given to her by one of the zombies in her circle of followers who was looking to give the most hostile misreading possible to Kant and find the confirmation bias that would confirm him as being deserving of Rand's wrath. But that's the extent of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Jonathan said: Kant wasn't a "Sublimist." There's no such thing. It's a category that you made up. Kant simply addressed the concept of the Sublime, just as many other philosophers have. Rand didn't address the concept because she was such a novice in the field of aesthetics that she didn't even know what the Sublime was. She was so unaware of the history of the branch of philosophy that she didn't know that she had made Kant's notion of the Sublime her signature aesthetic style. She stupidly attacked Kant as being the "father of modern art" without citing any sources, and while not realizing that he was actually the father of her art. No quotes. No reasoning to back up her views. Nothing. She hadn't read Kant's Critique on art and aesthetics. She may have read some out-of-context snippets given to her by one of the zombies in her circle of followers who was looking to give the most hostile misreading possible to Kant and find the confirmation bias that would confirm him as being deserving of Rand's wrath. But that's the extent of it. Yes, "addressed" and wrote on at length and depth as one major proponent. Not a category I invented. Loosely, he and Burke and Schopenhauer and others, have been called "Sublimists" in aesthetics, by academics and that's good enough for me. The sublime isn't a "concept". But the effect can be explained logically. As those gentlemen explain it and I know from experience, it's clearly a ~physiological~ response to some 'thing' which has vast magnitude or overpowering force. For a second or more, one's senses 'can't take in' and perceive this event or entity, or the mind place it in context, nor identify and integrate it - creating a temporary mental hiatus. After a while, one will establish what it is. Give them due, Kant et al probably weren't to know this about the human physiology. To transfer "the sublime" to Rand's fiction (or any fiction) is ludicrous. Which may be why she didn't recognize it. What you read of are occasions of great emotional euphoria/ecstacy/reverence as consequence (like any emotion) to a character identifying some experience or existent, and pertaining to his value-judgments. In other words Rand depicts how he/she is in a state of non-contradictory joy. You can't package-deal every instance of the great emotions as being "the sublime" - merely because it may be 'a sublime' emotion. The emotion was here first and always known to mankind before it gained such high status as so-called "concept". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 2 hours ago, anthony said: Yes, "addressed" and wrote on at length and depth as one major proponent. Not a category I invented. Loosely, he and Burke and Schopenhauer and others, have been called "Sublimists" in aesthetics, by academics and that's good enough for me. As usual, you're just making shit up. Quote The sublime isn't a "concept". False. It's a concept. You're a moron. Quote To transfer "the sublime" to Rand's fiction (or any fiction) is ludicrous. I haven't "transfered" the Sublime to Rand's fiction. I've identified the reality that her fiction conforms to the aesthetic effect known as the Sublime. All of her novels deal with the effect of the mass of society as a threatening force of magnitude which the novels' heroes -- and many readers -- feel their will to resist. Quote To transfer "the sublime" to Rand's fiction (or any fiction) is ludicrous. Which may be why she didn't recognize it. What you read of are occasions of great emotional euphoria/ecstacy/reverence as consequence (like any emotion) to a character identifying some experience or existent, and pertaining to his value-judgments. In other words Rand depicts how he/she is in a state of non-contradictory joy. You can't package-deal every instance of the great emotions as being "the sublime" - merely because it may be 'a sublime' emotion. The emotion was here first and always known to mankind before it gained such high status as so-called "concept". You're a moron who can't follow a simple conversation, and who assigns people views that they don't hold, and who generally just makes up irrational shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 "The psycho-epistemological process of communication between an artist and a viewer or reader goes as follows: the artist starts with a broad abstraction which he has to concretize, to bring into reality by means of the appropriate particulars; the viewer perceives the particulars, integrates them and grasps the abstraction from which they came, thus completing the circle. Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction; the viewing process resembles a process of induction. "This does not mean that communication is the primary purpose of an artist: his primary purpose is to bring his view of man and of existence into reality; but to be brought into reality, it has to be translated into objective (therefore, communicable) terms." – AR My bolding. So, prove it. Show that works from all of the forms that Objectivism accepts as valid have successfully been translated into objective terms and that communication has been achieved. Objectively demonstrate that any alleged works of representational painting, literature, drama, music, dance, and architecture have ever succeeded in conforming to the above description. Demonstrate that any viewer has grasped the specific abstraction that any artist attempted to concretize by means of appropriate particulars while the viewer was denied access to "outside considerations" and based his or her interpretation only on the content of the work. Take your time. I'll continue to wait. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 3 hours ago, Jonathan said: "The psycho-epistemological process of communication between an artist and a viewer or reader goes as follows: the artist starts with a broad abstraction which he has to concretize, to bring into reality by means of the appropriate particulars; the viewer perceives the particulars, integrates them and grasps the abstraction from which they came, thus completing the circle. Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction; the viewing process resembles a process of induction. "This does not mean that communication is the primary purpose of an artist: his primary purpose is to bring his view of man and of existence into reality; but to be brought into reality, it has to be translated into objective (therefore, communicable) terms." – AR My bolding. So, prove it. Show that works... J An insightful passage I was going to quote. Rand is only *describing* a process, which many instantly recognize as true. See J., nobody "proves" a chain of concepts. One creates it for oneself to comprehend the ideas. "Objectively demonstrate" (again) is your demand to "empirically demonstrate". Still you haven't got the distinction. The "sublime" is a false concept, this was an explanation for men's sensations to overpowering natural phenomena that those philosophers couldn't understand. It didn't hurt either that they could introduce emotional primacy... My explanation is much more rational. Indeed, I 'made it up', by observation, introspecting and thinking, and am fairly proud of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, anthony said: An insightful passage I was going to quote. Rand is only describing a process, which many instantly recognize as true. See J., nobody "proves" a chain of concepts... So, what you're saying is that Rand was describing an imaginary process that doesn't apply to reality. I agree. That's what I've been saying. It's the point of this thread. Her aesthetic theory is a fantasy. It's fiction. It's a subjective whim that has no connection to reality. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jonathan said: So, what you're saying is that Rand was describing an imaginary process that doesn't apply to reality. I agree. That's what I've been saying. It's the point of this thread. Her aesthetic theory is a fantasy. It's fiction. It's a subjective whim that has no connection to reality. J How shall I put this for you? Here: Rand was describing a process true to the objective reality of consciousness. (That you see the process as imaginary, speaks volumes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Jonathan said: Objectively demonstrate that any alleged works of representational painting, literature, drama, music, dance, and architecture have ever succeeded in conforming to the above description. Add sculpture to that list, but remove architecture. Architecture, by its nature, is a design discipline. I understand Rand may have conceded that architecture was not art later in her life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 34 minutes ago, Theo said: Add sculpture to that list... Oh, right, good catch. Sculpture should indeed be added to the list. 34 minutes ago, Theo said: ...but remove architecture. Architecture, by its nature, is a design discipline. I understand Rand may have conceded that architecture was not art later in her life. Nope. Objectivism doesn't change based on rumors that Rand may have changed her views. Her estate has been silent on the issue. I've asked a few of the people there, in e-mails, to comment publicly, but they've declined. So, until they present some evidence that she altered her view, the official Objectivist position is that architecture is still listed as qualifying as art (despite its obviously not qualifying according to Objectivism's criteria). And, regardless, Rand's beliefs that architecture conveyed enough meaning to her to allow the art form to qualify as art don't suddenly disappear from existence. Nor does her belief that she could experience the architect's "sense of life," "metaphysical value-judgments," and intended abstract meaning through his work. So, even if representatives of the estate produce evidence that she changed her mind and dropped architecture, that ain't the end of it. More would have be to cut from the official Objectivist Esthetics, such as the condemnations of others for doing the same thing in regard to other abstract art forms that Rand did in regard to architecture. The knife cuts both ways. Either her tantrums about others and their alleged desire to destroy proper cognition and whatever were wrong, highly inappropriate, and something which should be rejected and apologized for, or they should be applied equally to Rand. Was she a viciously evil drooling beast and destroyer, an obscenely monstrous and loathsome aborted embyo with empty sockets who emits inarticulate sounds resembling snarls and moans, who crawls through a bloody muck, red froth dripping from her jaws, and struggles to throw the froth at her own non-existent face, who pauses periodically and, lifting the stumps of her arms, screams in abysmal terror at the universe at large? If not, maybe it's time for the estate and her followers to recognize how stupid that shit was of her to say? J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 45 minutes ago, anthony said: How shall I put this for you? Here: Rand was describing a process true to the objective reality of consciousness. (That you see the process as imaginary, speaks volumes). Demonstrate that the process has happened in reality. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 - The Significance of Light - Joseph Mallord William Turner, Snow Storm: Hannibal and His Army Crossing the Alps, 1812. The Tate The poet Ezra Pound once said that there were two kinds of artists. The first kind were those who make beautiful pictures – with all the answers in them. You go away seeing no more than you did before. The second kind, the kind like Turner, he said, they change you. They haunt you. You have to get “educated-up.” You see beauty in a hundred places you never dreamed of. - WORDS BY: John D’Agostino WORKS: www.EmpireofGlass.com - Joseph Mallord William Turner (1775-1851) was the English Romantic landscape painter par excellence, and a dramatist of light. Ever the sublimist, Turner’s work always seems to be of two minds and moods (one of his pictures was actually titled Sunrise with Sea Monsters). The serene is always somehow mixed with the apocalyptic, the light always with the dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Oh scoot back to your safe space, William! ;) Dollars in the sky - I ask you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) Olağanüstü bir Performans.. pic.twitter.com/2uuvKa5SjF — Fuat (@fguzfguz) October 21, 2017 Edited October 25, 2017 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 The Turner is a great "demonstration". First, is how the "sublime" has been snuck into many disaster (etc.) paintings -- painted, it follows circuitously, by "sublimists". (Notice Turner is named so in the narrative ). But it looks that any intense emotion elicited from an artwork basically qualifies as "the sublime". One size (emotion) fits all? It began with the explanation of the sublime in actuality, of men's reaction to nature at its hugest or most overpowering in real life - imagine being suddenly hit by a hurricane or the earth upheaving under you - (which I pose as causing a short physiological 'shock' to one's perception). And then, the notion has been moved into art, by neat sleight of hand. No difference? Really? That indicates to me what I've noticed, Kant for one didn't sufficiently distinguish between nature's beauty/sublimity - and what an artist (re)creates through his consciousness. Throughout, his intent was to impose his harmony between nature and man (and men and men)come what may. As this is a painting, it does NOT, of course elicit a "physiological shock" in this case, and no emotion immediately - before perceiving, identifying, integrating and making a value judgment, derived from what's observed in the picture. (Clearly one has to know what something IS, before feeling emotions). The muted golden colors from a veiled sun (the baleful eye) contrasting with other dark, ominous tones will probably be the first thing that attracts a viewer's vision. Then he discerns that it's actually a massively looming storm or other immense disturbance, and finally the eye settles on the rocky foreground and those puny people overwhelmed by the scale of the elements, in obvious fearful disarray. The composition accentuates the contrast of scale. As a working theme, I call this "men in peril". My gut feeling would be awe at the scene and pity for the people's plight, since it seems they couldn't survive the catastrophe. Albeit the work is broadly naturalistic (man with no volitional control, at the mercy of his environment) and though it transmits a dismal view of existence, because of the effect of the light and atmospherics I think it is still a stunning piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 25, 2017 Author Share Posted October 25, 2017 10 hours ago, anthony said: The Turner is a great "demonstration"... You don't appear to have understood what you were asked to demonstrate. 10 hours ago, anthony said: First, is how the "sublime" has been snuck into many disaster (etc.) paintings -- painted, it follows circuitously, by "sublimists". (Notice Turner is named so in the narrative ). Yes, Turner is being called a sublimist. He was a painter who explored the Sublime movement in visual art. A painter. You had claimed that philosophers, not painters, were referred to as "sublimists." See the difference? The Sublime wasn't "snuck into" the paintings. The artists were openly exploring the Sublime in art. Take your paranoia pills. 10 hours ago, anthony said: But it looks that any intense emotion elicited from an artwork basically qualifies as "the sublime". One size (emotion) fits all? Really? That's the way that it looks to you? You've somehow leapt to that kooky opinion? No one has claimed or suggested that any intense emotion qualifies as the Sublime. People are quite clear in what qualifies, and Turner's work adheres to the criteria. The secret evil motives that you think that you're detecting are only in your head. They're not real. 10 hours ago, anthony said: It began with the explanation of the sublime in actuality, of men's reaction to nature at its hugest or most overpowering in real life - imagine being suddenly hit by a hurricane or the earth upheaving under you - (which I pose as causing a short physiological 'shock' to one's perception). And then, the notion has been moved into art, by neat sleight of hand. No difference? Really? No sleight of hand. Just artists re-creating things observed in reality. Isn't that sunrise beautiful? I'm gonna paint it, and capture the beauty on canvas! And isn't that chasm beneath the mountain range Sublime? I'm gonna capture that on canvas too! Nothing to get upset about. Take your pills. 10 hours ago, anthony said: As this is a painting, it does NOT, of course elicit a "physiological shock" in this case... Are you claiming to speak for all people? 10 hours ago, anthony said: The muted golden colors from a veiled sun (the baleful eye) contrasting with other dark, ominous tones will probably be the first thing that attracts a viewer's vision. Then he discerns that it's actually a massively looming storm or other immense disturbance, and finally the eye settles on the rocky foreground and those puny people overwhelmed by the scale of the elements, in obvious fearful disarray. The composition accentuates the contrast of scale. As a working theme, I call this "men in peril". My gut feeling would be awe at the scene and pity for the people's plight, since it seems they couldn't survive the catastrophe. Albeit the work is broadly naturalistic (man with no volitional control, at the mercy of his environment) and though it transmits a dismal view of existence, because of the effect of the light and atmospherics I think it is still a stunning piece. You talk about "the eye." Why? Why say that when you mean your eye. Is it possible that other people might experience the elements in different orders? Might they see things that you've missed? 10 hours ago, anthony said: Albeit the work is broadly naturalistic (man with no volitional control, at the mercy of his environment) and though it transmits a dismal view of existence, because of the effect of the light and atmospherics I think it is still a stunning piece. Heh, it's naturalistic and presents a dismal view of existence, does it? And where is the verification that that is what the artist intended? Tony, buddy, I didn't ask you give your personal, subjective opinions about a painting after having looked it up and read a little about it and its creator (and still getting it wrong). Apparently you didn't pay attention to the specifics of the challenge, especially the parts about viewers being denied access to outside considerations, and about verifying the artists' intentions. Thanks for sort of pretending to try. J P.S. It is interesting that you chose Turner, since I've used his work as test samples in the past. Past Rand-followers didn't do very well at all with his work. Some thought is was abstract, some thought that it was indistinguishable from toddlers' work, some called it "lesser art" and "no-talent mess" that "anyone could do." Some assured me that paintings such as his can't be considered great since the average person could do the same and "replicate it with ease." Giants, all of them! Real-life Roarks and Galts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 25, 2017 Author Share Posted October 25, 2017 13 hours ago, anthony said: Then he discerns that it's actually a massively looming storm or other immense disturbance, and finally the eye settles on the rocky foreground and those puny people overwhelmed by the scale of the elements, in obvious fearful disarray. Tony, who are the people, and what are they doing? What makes you think that they are overwhelmed? Did the people whom Turner depicted fail in their mission due to a snowstorm, or did they succeed in their trek? What does he show them doing? Are they all dead? Are they giving up? I'm not asking what you want to believe. I'm asking what the reality is. Did the people depicted face a challenge, devise a heroic and herculean solution, and follow through on it? Or were they "dismal" and "naturalistic" folks next door who gave up before even starting? Did they rise to a challenge, or did they passively accept fate? J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 25, 2017 Author Share Posted October 25, 2017 16 hours ago, anthony said: The serene is always somehow mixed with the apocalyptic, the light always with the dark. I'm trying to think of which novelist the above quote reminds me of. Hmmm. It feels like the name is on the tip of my tongue. Who could it be? Please, someone, help me out. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 OK! Why does it seem you aren't acquainted with compositional design in a painting? Can't be. "The eye" was certainly "intended" by this artist to alight first on the brightest spot, the sun, deliberately framed within the cloud's curve, and to follow the curve down and around to the foreground and to the human figures, and coming to rest against the rock. One's vision is not static, it scans a scene. That compositional technique is very much in keeping with classical art, directing and holding one's vision across or round a painting to the "centre of interest" (subject matter) with various 'tricks', like lines, shapes and light or shadows. Thank you, I did no research into Turner's works and had forgotten anything I'd learned about him, so kept myself to "no other considerations". You call everybody a liar, on principle, when caught out - so it's no bother you won't believe me. And you keep forgetting what's paramount to Objectivist art theory: the life of the individual whose mind requires 'spiritual nourishment'. For a moment, forget your background and try to understand that. In which case it is of minor matter that one may be wrong about art technique, history and so on. So, it's quite irrelevant if Turner didn't intend or know about his work's "dismal view of existence". It is for the purpose of a rational indivdualist's understanding. Anyhow, "dismal" (at least) is what it shows, once one removes one's "sublimist" blinders. Many a non-objectivist too, will find this picture e.g. gloomy (etc.). (A child is often the most clear-eyed and truthful-minded viewer of art, I'm often saying - he or she sees what is there, with no prejudices - and for me, that simplicity is the essence of doing a picture justice and appreciating art. Well above needing art "expertise" and training). Believing the old ideas about art and its almost religious aura - elitist and unquestionable - you evidently dislike to have your preconceptions and authority challenged by O'ist amateurs, and I'm hardly one. The Sublime. Emotions are emotions, in a large range (and further combinations) in response to a huge range of possible entities (so, joy, terror - etc.) by the objective values a rational person has. Just because many artists and aesthetic philosophers from way back, quite superstitiously believed in the "sublime" (and its attractive religious connotations) hasn't any validity that it 'transcends' consciousness. As I read. They are objectively wrong, and their numbers are irrelevant. 1. The sublime is not an existent in nature. 2. Nature hasn't "purposiveness"(IK) for man's life - it just is. 3. Therefore, the "sublime" exists solely in one's head. 4. It is by the philosophers' explanations, an artificial formulation. 5. Since it is non-conceptual, it can't be anything but a sensation or emotion, felt from seeing the content of an artwork (or physiological, seeing some reality) 6. Every emotion experienced is identifiable to one's mind, and its cause mostly explicable. 7. By knowing these things about the simple, emotional identity of this non-concept, one source of neo-mysticism traditionally attached to art, becomes null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 38 minutes ago, Jonathan said: Tony, who are the people, and what are they doing? What makes you think that they are overwhelmed? Did the people whom Turner depicted fail in their mission due to a snowstorm, or did they succeed in their trek? What does he show them doing? Are they all dead? Are they giving up? I'm not asking what you want to believe. I'm asking what the reality is. Did the people depicted face a challenge, devise a heroic and herculean solution, and follow through on it? Or were they "dismal" and "naturalistic" folks next door who gave up before even starting? Did they rise to a challenge, or did they passively accept fate? J Extraneous considerations... sorry, this is no novel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 25, 2017 Author Share Posted October 25, 2017 8 minutes ago, anthony said: OK! Why does it seem you aren't acquainted with compositional design in a painting? Hmmm. So, if I experience a composition differently than you do, I must be unacquainted with compositional design? Hahaha! Tony, show us your art. Show us your compositions. 10 minutes ago, anthony said: Thank you, I did no research into Turner's works and had forgotten anything I'd learned about him, so kept myself to "no other considerations". So, you didn't read the title of the work or any of the information in the essay that you posted? 10 minutes ago, anthony said: And you keep forgetting what's paramount to Objectivist art theory: the life of the individual whose mind requires 'spiritual nourishment'. For a moment, forget your background and try to understand that. Oops, you're back to blabbering and making shit up! Try to stick with reality and to be coherent. Try to focus on what other people are actually saying, and try to recognize that the versions of them that you've invented in your head aren't real. If you want to argue with the imaginary people in your head, that's fine. Enjoy yourself. But why do it here? We aren't seeing and hearing them, so when you respond to what you think they're saying, it just sounds crazy to us. 10 minutes ago, anthony said: It is of little matter that one may be wrong about art technique. So, it's quite irrelevant if Turner didn't intend or know about his work's "dismal view of existence". It is for the purpose of a rational indivdualist's understanding. In other words, Tony's interpretation is the right one, regardless of what the artist intended, and regardless of what his work actually contains. 10 minutes ago, anthony said: Anyhow, "dismal" (at least) is what it shows, once one removes one's "sublimist" blinders. Many a non-objectivist too, will find this picture e.g. gloomy (etc.). Many people find Rand's work gloomy for the same reasons. Does the fact that a work of art contains some dark elements automatically make it "dismal"? 10 minutes ago, anthony said: Believing the old, subjective ideas about art and its almost religious aura - elitist and unquestionable - you evidently dislike to have your preconceptions and authority challenged by O'ist amateurs, and I'm hardly one. No. Recognizing the reality of aesthetic response being subjective is rational. Believing in Ayn Rand's unproven, self-contradictory, double-standard-studded theories regarding art forms about which she new little or nothing is what has a "religious aura." You're the elitist wannabe. You're just not good at it. Your posing makes you look like a fool. And, sorry, but, yes, you're an O-ist amateur. You're a clutter-brained goof. 10 minutes ago, anthony said: The Sublime. Emotions are emotions, in a large range (and further combinations) in response to a huge range of possible entities (so, joy, terror - etc.) by the objective values a rational person has. Just because many artists and aesthetic philosophers from way back, believed in the "sublime" (and its attractive religious connotations) hasn't any validity that it 'transcends' consciousness. As I read. They are objectively wrong, and their numbers are irrelevant. 1. The sublime is not an existent in nature. 2. Nature hasn't "purposiveness" for man's life - it just is. 3. Therefore, the "sublime" exists solely in one's head. 4. It is by their explanation, an artificial formulation. 5. Since it is non-conceptual, it can't be anything but a sensation or emotion, felt from seeing the content of an artwork (or physiological, seeing some reality) 6. Every emotion experienced is identifiable to one's mind, and mostly explicable. 7. By knowing these things about the simple, emotional identity of this non-concept, one source of neo-mysticism traditionally attached to art, becomes null and void. Blabberty blabbery nonsense blibber blabber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Blubber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 25, 2017 Author Share Posted October 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, anthony said: Extraneous considerations... sorry, this is no novel. My questions about what the art contains are not extraneous considerations: "What makes you think that they are overwhelmed?" "What does he show them doing? Are they all dead? Are they giving up?" My questions about Turner's intentions are relevant to objectively verifying if he succeeded in communicating his meaning to you: "Did the people whom Turner depicted fail in their mission due to a snowstorm, or did they succeed in their trek?" I get it that you're trying your hardest to not allow yourself to understand the relevance of my questions. You want to "blank out," as Rand used to say. And you're not alone. His Royal Published Highness is with you, as is Auntie Kamhi, and Uncle Pigero. Such evasions are a normal human reaction. They're not good reactions, and they're doing a lot of harm to your cause, but they are pretty typical J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 25, 2017 Author Share Posted October 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, anthony said: Blubber. Oh, you're right! I left our "blubber." You do indeed blubber along with your blabbering. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now