Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.


Jonathan

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Establishing what IS art, generally, is the starting point to throw light on that fallacy.

Nothing IS art under the Objectivist Esthetics: Nothing, ever, has been objectively proven to meet the Objectivist Esthetics' criteria for art. Nothing!!! Ever!!!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, anthony said:

Right, I got carried away again. ;) Still, the mega principle is that art is a subtle and powerful force for positive, or negative. I don't think I've met an artist who doesn't (mostly, tacitly) appreciate this fact and his/her power to influence minds-emotions through his works. I firmly believe (hell, it's clear) that many people believe that art is, to a degree, some sort of 'metaphysical given', a quasi-mystical "creation" -- not the 'man made' product, imbued with any of the human virtues, vices or errors that its very-human artist owns. Establishing what IS art, generally, is the starting point to throw light on that fallacy.

(it beats me how an artist could - both - take pride in HIS mind's accomplishment - and simultaneously - accept awe from others for being a 'mystically - inspired genius'. Cake and eat it... something in his/her psyche has to give way).

Establishing what art is is the artist's job. The one who makes "art."

His art. Not mine or yours.

Same for us.

Opinions. Un-universalizable opinions.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the trail of What Art Is Not, another rider weighs in ...

On 9/17/2016 at 9:37 AM, anthony said:

Wordless William has finally shown some abstract art [...] - 1, 3, and 6, are 'abstract' - while the remainder contain referents to reality in them, to a greater and lesser degree.

This is Number 4.  Art, because not abstract, which criteria means it qualifies for Objectively-Approved?

"References reality" seems to be a zone beyond which is decor, design, fun, props, intangibles, architecture, Cy Twombly ...

But, ride on, game on. What reality is referenced in this public sculpture, fellow riders?

9903.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I am an artist. I make art. Here is my art.

You have a different opinion?

You don't like it?

Don't buy it.

Buy Joe's.

Or Moe's.

Or no's.

--Brant

get out of my way!

Are you telling me "the artist knows best"? Is that because he knows 'the secret source' of art, and we, the uniintiated, can't work out how it's made? It's not so hard, though very demanding to do well.

It takes both parties to tango, artist and viewer.

"Self-anointed" (Bob). While I possibly may anoint myself Royalty or a Formula One racer, it doesn't make me Prince Phillip or Lewis Hamilton.

Yup, nobody's stopping anyone calling himself an artist and producing whatever he pleases: but when adoring art intellectuals, curators and so on, promote his abstract, or sillier mindless pieces of "modern art" to the level of art, and the world follows unquestioningly - any individual can call "foul!", and has that right too.

(Peculiar this. When a small number of Objectivists, and Kamhi/Torres, want to delineate the bounds of art by objective standards - not empirical, subjective or mystical - and say that certain things are NOT-art, they are decried as art fascists. What about the zillion more who arbitrarily claim: it IS art! ? Same fascism, no? (And with what is a very recent phenomenon, un-realist art). Anyhow, consider this, who is really authoritarian here? A minority?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

On the trail of What Art Is Not, another rider weighs in ...

This is Number 4.  Art, because not abstract, which criteria means it qualifies for Objectively-Approved?

"References reality" seems to be a zone beyond which is decor, design, fun, props, intangibles, architecture, Cy Twombly ...

But, ride on, game on. What reality is referenced in this public sculpture, fellow riders?

9903.jpg

 

Now you are getting the picture, William. "Decor, design, fun, props ..." Exactly.

What's wrong with the description "fun"? Or "design"? Etc. An image can be fun, without being art. A decoration will be often pretty, and not art. The design of an implement can be effective as well as ergonomic and visually appealing. But a kettle or an automobile "is art"?

And there are also many "fun", realist, art works.

What "reality is referenced" in that installation? Yet again, we have to consider a vague, borderline example (as though it seals any argument...)

For me, it could represent something organic - possibly "vegetable" but redolent more of "animal" - or a combination. I'd settle for the foot/claw of some giant beast like a dinosaur. It is "fun".

Have fun in London, loaded with your cheap Pounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, anthony said:

Are you telling me "the artist knows best"? Is that because he knows 'the secret source' of art, and we, the uniintiated, can't work out how it's made? It's not so hard, though very demanding to do well.

The "artist knows best" is actually your position. The artist Ayn Rand made arbitrary, subjective and self-contradictory declarations about what is or is not art, without proof, and in regard to art forms about which she knew practically nothing, and you obediently follow and repeat her ignorance and irrationality.

 

8 hours ago, anthony said:

It takes both parties to tango, artist and viewer.

And yet you, and all other Rand-followers, can't answer my challenges (copied at the end of this thread's initial post) that you objectively prove that artists and viewers have ever successfully "tangoed" according to your own criteria.

 

8 hours ago, anthony said:

"Self-anointed" (Bob). While I possibly may anoint myself Royalty or a Formula One racer, it doesn't make me Prince Phillip or Lewis Hamilton.

The only people who have anointed themselves are Rand and her followers. They pose as authorities while being unable to answer the the most basic and fundamental of challenges.

 

8 hours ago, anthony said:

Yup, nobody's stopping anyone calling himself an artist and producing whatever he pleases: but when adoring art intellectuals, curators and so on, promote his abstract, or sillier mindless pieces of "modern art" to the level of art, and the world follows unquestioningly - any individual can call "foul!", and has that right too.

The actual "unquestioning" followers are those who adoringly buy into Rand's theory of Objectivist Esthetics while not being able demonstrate that any work has ever qualified as art by their own criteria.

 

8 hours ago, anthony said:

(Peculiar this. When a small number of Objectivists, and Kamhi/Torres, want to delineate the bounds of art by objective standards - not empirical, subjective or mystical - and say that certain things are NOT-art, they are decried as art fascists...)

False. They are called "art fascists" when they can't objectively prove that anything qualifies as art by their own standards, but yet they arbitrarily want to tell others what is not art -- they resent the same "objective standards" being applied to their favorite art, the same standards that they used to try to invalidate abstract visual art. In effect, they try to sneak in the idea that the art that they accept as valid actually meets their criteria; they seem to hope that everyone will take them at their word, at that no one will expect to see proof that those works have been objectively shown to meet their criteria.

I haven't merely demanded that proof, but I've also tested Objectivists/Rand-followers with realist-representational paintings. They have been unable to comply with Rand's and her followers' "objective standards" and "objective criteria."

Nothing qualifies as art by the Objectivist Esthetics.

 

8 hours ago, anthony said:

(...What about the zillion more who arbitrarily claim: it IS art! ? Same fascism, no? (And with what is a very recent phenomenon, un-realist art). Anyhow, consider this, who is really authoritarian here? A minority?)

You're the most irrational, illogical person ever.

Um, when someone says that they think that something qualifies as art, they are not telling you that you must also experience it as art. They're simply recognizing and reporting that they and others get enough out of it to classify it as art. See, conceptually, the way that it works is that people, like you, who who don't experience anything in a work of art don't get to veto the experiences of others. Your personal lack of response doesn't cancel out others' depth of response. Understand?

I've often mentioned that I don't get much, if anything, out of a lot of operatic works. Other people say that they get great depth and meaning out of the genre. It would be really mentally fucked up for me to accuse them of being art fascists and authoritarians because they won't accept my lack of response as trumping their depth of response. See how looney the thinking is behind your position? If I, as someone who is aesthetically numb to most opera, insist that opera fans are "art fascists" if they categorize opera as a valid art form despite my telling them that it does nothing for me, I would hope that someone would help me to find some good psychological counseling.

It is very fascinating observing you, though, Tony. Someone is a "fascist" if they don't deny their own experiences and accept your personal limits as the limits of all mankind.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anthony said:

What I keep yammering on about, is this is primarily about "identity" and less about "art", a secondary.

If it loses grasp of "identity" mankind are goners, and I'd think first to go will be art.

 

Great, then objectively demonstrate that anything has ever met the Objectivist Esthetics' criteria and qualified as what the Objectivist Esthetics asserts is the "identity" of "art."

J

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nothing qualifies as art by Objectivist Esthetics". Empirical "proof".  Bosh. You haven't read a word I said about empiricism and art being contradictions.

"They". "Their". Who are these "Objectivists" you constantly cite, as "proof" of the invalidity of O'ist esthetics? One or two you confused with superfluous "empirical" b.s. and a few border-line, Impressionist pictures?

If there is anything recognizable 'of reality' in an image - YES, it 100% "qualifies as art". "Representational", as has been the vast proportion of all art created. Every Objectivist should know that, and so do you. All because, intelligibility is first priority in order to identify the subject. And of next importance is the subject's treatment or "stylization" by the artist, so his existential values, or lack of, may be evaluated.. The 'what' precedes the 'how'. So brag about your "tests", if it makes you happy, but don't evade the crux of the issue with strawmen of un-named Objectivists and ignorant caricatures of O'ist art theory.

Nobody wants to take on these questions: Why should *everything* made by man be "art"? Is it - in fact? And if you don't quite agree with "everything", then you STILL have to somewhere draw a cut-off point between art - and non-art. Where is that point? Anyone?

I've earlier shown my 'literary art' in gibberish words in a sentence which any sane person would laugh at, ignore or become irritated with. But then - why does anyone not take it seriously, and believe me? It's what "I wished to be art", written in my newly invented vocabulary. I even claim to have collated a new dictionary of new word-concepts. How do you know otherwise?

It is no different - conceptually - from visual art, which also has a "vocabulary" (plainly, self-evidently) called "reality". What you can SEE. What exists there that one can make sense of. Notwithstanding the secondary aesthetic technicalities, conventions and skillsets which most artists are educated in. But yet, in this case of unintelligibility - abstract art - no one laughs at it; everyone bows to the artist's authority, because HE must know what he meant, if you don't, and perhaps because it's performed with a little decorative skill (when it's not random paint splatter).

Then some "sensitives" say they can experience emotions, because of colours (etc) in abstract art - but they will never specify what subjects they can see. It is not even emotion I think, it is "moods", like the ambience in an interior lit with "mood" lighting.

The great impossibility: emotion detached from idenitity.

Go ahead, J. Put yourself to the test with above abstract pictures 1, 3, and 6. Convey to us what subjects you SEE; your emotions don't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Nothing qualifies as art by Objectivist Esthetics". Empirical "proof".  Bosh. You haven't read a word I said about empiricism and art being contradictions.

It's hilarious that, when anyone says that abstract visual art qualifies as art, you demand that they empirically prove their claims, via scientific, double-blind experiments, but when you or any other Rand-follower is simply asked to do the same in regard to the works which you baldly assert meet your criteria, then suddenly the method that you proposed is evil "empiricism."

Here's the link and the relevant quote and the method that you proposed to test abstract art:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16100-concerning-essences-especially-in-art/&do=findComment&comment=257035

Quote

To know better, this intuitive insight should be empirically tested in several double-blind experiments, using unknown artworks by unknown artists. Claimants would state what they 'see', against the artist's testimony of what he 'meant', or at least what he was feeling at the time. (If he meant anything beyond a nice design).

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"They". "Their". Who are these "Objectivists" you constantly cite, as "proof" of the invalidity of O'ist esthetics? One or two you confused with superfluous "empirical" b.s. and a few border-line, Impressionist pictures?

Try to pay attention, Tony. NO Objectivist has ever demonstrated that they have complied with the Objectivist Esthetics and identified any subject or any "artist's meaning"in ANY work of art. Complying with the Objectivist Esthetics would mean that a viewer must identify the "artist's meaning" based only on the content of the work, and allowing no outside considerations, just as you suggested above in the method that you proposed for testing abstract visual art.

And no, the images are not "border-line, Impressionist pictures," but realist representational ones. Some were even almost photorealistic in their painting style. There are exceptions, but, in general, Objectivists and similar Rand-followers are visually unaware and unobservant, or what I like to call "visually incompetent."

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Nobody wants to take on these questions: Why should *everything* made by man be "art"? Is it - in fact? And if you don't quite agree with "everything", then you STILL have to somewhere draw a cut-off point between art - and non-art. Where is that point? Anyone?

I'll take on the questions.

Who is proposing the idea that "everything" made by man is art?

Even if someone were taking that position, why is it upsetting to you, and something that you immediately, emotionally oppose?

Is there something scary to you about the idea that mankind is aesthetically sensitive and active, and therefore may put art into everything he does to one degree or another?

Why must we draw a "cut-off point"between art and non-art? Knowledge is often tentative and incomplete. Your personal discomfort with that fact doesn't drive philosophy. The proper answer in such situations is, "I don't know yet," because the silly desire to impose an artificial "cut-off point" only results in the comically irrational double standards and contradictions that are so glaringly obvious in the Objectivist Esthetics.

Additionally, you've often repeated the silly statement that "If everything is art, then nothing is." Non sequitur. Does not logically follow. Do us all a favor, and take a course in logic.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

It is no different - conceptually - from visual art, which also has a "vocabulary" (plainly, self-evidently) called "reality". What you can SEE.

What I can see and understand is significantly more than what you can, including in both realist representational art and abstract art. You, Tony, are not the universal limit of human cognitive function. You are unaware and unobservant, not to mention unintelligent and illogical.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

What exists there that one can make sense of.

Why use the word "one" in the above, when you're actually referring to you? There is much that you, Tony, can't make sense of. They same is not true of all people. Once again, as always, you are trying to smuggle in your own personal limitations as the universal standard of all mankind. Human cognitive function is not limited to your personal limits of cognitive function.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

But yet, in this case of unintelligibility - abstract art - no one laughs at it; everyone bows to the artist's authority...

False. That's only the silly narrative that you and other Rand-followers invent as an attempted means of rejecting others' aesthetic responses. They report what they experience, and then you assert, without proof, that they do not actually experience what they say, but are pretending to in order to impress authorities.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

...because HE must know what he meant, if you don't, and perhaps because it's performed with a little decorative skill (when it's not random paint splatter).

No one has made that argument. You're back to building straw men again. Man, you really enjoy arguing with the imaginary enemies who live in your head!

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Then some "sensitives" say they can experience emotions, because of colours (etc) in abstract art - but they will never specify what subjects they can see. It is not even emotion I think, it is "moods", like the ambience in an interior lit with "mood" lighting.

You're lying. I've very specifically identified subjects and meanings in many abstract images. I've repeatedly posted my descriptions multiple times in discussion in which you participated. You're dishonest as hell.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

The great impossibility: emotion detached from idenitity.

You're still lying. I've explained precisely why the emotions that I've experience in abstract works were tied directly to the identity of the colors, forms and textures.

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Go ahead, J. Put yourself to the test with above abstract pictures 1, 3, and 6. Convey to us what subjects you SEE; your emotions don't count.

I don't accept your arbitrary, double-standard dictates about what does or does not "count," because you don't either (when dealing with music, or dance, or architecture, or any other abstract art form that Objectivism accepts as valid, emotions DO count!).

But I'll gladly give my responses. Let's start with the first three, and then you can evade taking a turn at indentifying "artist's meanings" in works of representational realism.

Image 1: I see vibrant, energetic action, with individual “virtual entities” (as His Royal Published Majesty refers to the non-representational means of music) acting and affecting each other through their environment. The concentric circles are like waves expanding and modulating as they go. Simplified to an Objectivist-style “essence," I would say that its meaning/emotional affect on me is like a public discussion, with ideas being exchange, reflected, modified and honed. I see it as a valuing of interaction and exchange.

Image 2: I see fiery warm hues behind a gauzy transparent barrier which diffracts and both blurs and sharpens the image behind it. To me, it has the feeling of the awareness of time/distance of a memory. Its like fondly looking back without wanting to return there.

Image 3: This image is similar to Image 1, but less compositionally impactful to me. It doesn’t have the self-consistency of Image 1. The “virtual entities” feel more local and isolated. They feel more individualistic and independent, but also as if they haven’t benefitted from being exposed to others who differ. The image feels like a tradeoff: Are you willing to miss out on some great human discoveries and exchanges on a grand scale in order to maintain self and originality but on a small scale?

 

Your turn. Identify the thematic subjects and meanings in the following works in the left hand column. Identify the “intelligible subjects and meanings.” Identify the “artists’ meanings.”

2693303411_40dbc3f704_o.jpg

When you've completed this test, we'll move on to others that I've posted in various O-fora, which include more than still lifes or landscapes, and which no Rand-follower has ever been able to identify "artists' meanings."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of her recent online art tantrums, Kamhi had a fit about a painting by Alex Garant.

Kamhi wrote,
 

Quote

Garant says she aims “to engage the viewer in a sensory journey” and “to create an aesthetically pleasing optical illusion.” But I defy you to gaze at one of her odd images for more than a few seconds. I found it impossible. Feeling as if my eyes were crossed, I had to turn away from what was a distinctly unpleasant experience.

Yet the adjunct professor and middle school teacher who had “explored” Garant’s work as an example of contemporary art for inclusion in her lessons concludes her article by claiming that it “magnetically draws the viewer in (emphasis mine), forcing us to question the essence of the figure before us.” Which left me wondering if she had ever actually looked at those bizarre images for more than an instant, or had questioned why she herself had emphasized their “dizzying effect.” Pity the poor middle schoolers who will receive lessons on such “art”!

 

Here’s a jpeg of the painting:

Alex Garant - Comet

 

Hmmm. First of all, why does Kamhi use scare quotes around the word “art”? Is she suggesting that the piece does not meet her "objective" criteria?

If so, WTF?!!! It presents an easily identifiable likeness of an entity from reality, does it not? So, on what grounds would Kamhi judge it to not qualify as art? Is she just making up criteria again as she goes along? What, she just doesn't like it, so it's therefore NOT ART!™?

Anyway, more importantly, I think that Objectivists should borrow the image, and use it as representing the Objectivist Esthetics!

First of all, much like Garant’s quoted aims, the Objectivist Esthetics creates “an aesthetically pleasing optical illusion.” The Objectivist Esthetics pretends to be objective, rational, and intellectually serious, but in reality has nothing to back it up. It’s merely a (poor) illusion of a serious philosophy of aesthetics.

Second, like the image, the Objectivist Esthetics is a dizzying mess of double standards and self-contradictions. Most of us have seen images of people bent into weird positions to visually convey the notion of someone intellectually “twisting themselves into pretzels” in order to avoid accepting reality. Those images can be effective, but they’re too physical, in my personal opinion. The Garant image, I think, better signifies the type of mental state, rather than physical, behind the Objectivist Esthetics.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I don't demand tests. I have no need of them. That's your 'scientific' standard - J - and you must live up to it, not I.

"..acting and affecting each other through their environment... fondly looking back ... from being exposed to others who differ..."

This sounds like a puffed-up critique for a hi-brow Art mag. Meaningless, rationalistic rubbish you imagine in your head, which nobody else will experience from those pictures. You can fool some of the people some of the time, bud.

Keep it straight. Objectivism deals with and in reality - and senses, percepts and concepts. Not what you 'feel' something to be. Not what an artist wishes it to be. Especially any suspect 'abstract artist' who has to conceal reality. Emotions come from real things, not ephemera.

And it isn't surprising that anti-conceptual empiricism (in art!) should revert to mysticism. Where else can it turn?? You have given me some great insights.

btw: the "identity of colors, forms and textures" is not the reality of an image, they are the physical components the artist selects and molds to MAKE the image, to GIVE it identity.

What the painting shows, IS the reality. Jeez, even an artist can't get the distinction...an overdose of Kant on 'beauty and the sublime', I think.

I find your personal slurs, coming from you, to be complimentary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

It's hilarious that, when anyone says that abstract visual art qualifies as art, you demand that they empirically prove their claims, via scientific, double-blind experiments, but when you or any other Rand-follower is simply asked to do the same in regard to the works which you baldly assert meet your criteria, then suddenly the method that you proposed is evil "empiricism."

Here's the link and the relevant quote and the method that you proposed to test abstract art:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16100-concerning-essences-especially-in-art/&do=findComment&comment=257035

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!

 

Try to pay attention, Tony. NO Objectivist has ever demonstrated that they have complied with the Objectivist Esthetics and identified any subject or any "artist's meaning"in ANY work of art. Complying with the Objectivist Esthetics would mean that a viewer must identify the "artist's meaning" based only on the content of the work, and allowing no outside considerations, just as you suggested above in the method that you proposed for testing abstract visual art.

And no, the images are not "border-line, Impressionist pictures," but realist representational ones. Some were even almost photorealistic in their painting style. There are exceptions, but, in general, Objectivists and similar Rand-followers are visually unaware and unobservant, or what I like to call "visually incompetent."

 

I'll take on the questions.

Who is proposing the idea that "everything" made by man is art?

Even if someone were taking that position, why is it upsetting to you, and something that you immediately, emotionally oppose?

Is there something scary to you about the idea that mankind is aesthetically sensitive and active, and therefore may put art into everything he does to one degree or another?

Why must we draw a "cut-off point"between art and non-art? Knowledge is often tentative and incomplete. Your personal discomfort with that fact doesn't drive philosophy. The proper answer in such situations is, "I don't know yet," because the silly desire to impose an artificial "cut-off point" only results in the comically irrational double standards and contradictions that are so glaringly obvious in the Objectivist Esthetics.

Additionally, you've often repeated the silly statement that "If everything is art, then nothing is." Non sequitur. Does not logically follow. Do us all a favor, and take a course in logic.

 

What I can see and understand is significantly more than what you can, including in both realist representational art and abstract art. You, Tony, are not the universal limit of human cognitive function. You are unaware and unobservant, not to mention unintelligent and illogical.

 

Why use the word "one" in the above, when you're actually referring to you? There is much that you, Tony, can't make sense of. They same is not true of all people. Once again, as always, you are trying to smuggle in your own personal limitations as the universal standard of all mankind. Human cognitive function is not limited to your personal limits of cognitive function.

 

False. That's only the silly narrative that you and other Rand-followers invent as an attempted means of rejecting others' aesthetic responses. They report what they experience, and then you assert, without proof, that they do not actually experience what they say, but are pretending to in order to impress authorities.

 

No one has made that argument. You're back to building straw men again. Man, you really enjoy arguing with the imaginary enemies who live in your head!

 

You're lying. I've very specifically identified subjects and meanings in many abstract images. I've repeatedly posted my descriptions multiple times in discussion in which you participated. You're dishonest as hell.

 

You're still lying. I've explained precisely why the emotions that I've experience in abstract works were tied directly to the identity of the colors, forms and textures.

 

I don't accept your arbitrary, double-standard dictates about what does or does not "count," because you don't either (when dealing with music, or dance, or architecture, or any other abstract art form that Objectivism accepts as valid, emotions DO count!).

But I'll gladly give my responses. Let's start with the first three, and then you can evade taking a turn at indentifying "artist's meanings" in works of representational realism.

Image 1: I see vibrant, energetic action, with individual “virtual entities” (as His Royal Published Majesty refers to the non-representational means of music) acting and affecting each other through their environment. The concentric circles are like waves expanding and modulating as they go. Simplified to an Objectivist-style “essence," I would say that its meaning/emotional affect on me is like a public discussion, with ideas being exchange, reflected, modified and honed. I see it as a valuing of interaction and exchange.

Image 2: I see fiery warm hues behind a gauzy transparent barrier which diffracts and both blurs and sharpens the image behind it. To me, it has the feeling of the awareness of time/distance of a memory. Its like fondly looking back without wanting to return there.

Image 3: This image is similar to Image 1, but less compositionally impactful to me. It doesn’t have the self-consistency of Image 1. The “virtual entities” feel more local and isolated. They feel more individualistic and independent, but also as if they haven’t benefitted from being exposed to others who differ. The image feels like a tradeoff: Are you willing to miss out on some great human discoveries and exchanges on a grand scale in order to maintain self and originality but on a small scale?

 

Your turn. Identify the thematic subjects and meanings in the following works in the left hand column. Identify the “intelligible subjects and meanings.” Identify the “artists’ meanings.”

2693303411_40dbc3f704_o.jpg

When you've completed this test, we'll move on to others that I've posted in various O-fora, which include more than still lifes or landscapes, and which no Rand-follower has ever been able to identify "artists' meanings."

J

Those match-ups are excellent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

 I don't demand tests. I have no need of them.

You're lying. I just provided a link and a quote in which you demanded a test.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

This sounds like a puffed-up critique for a hi-brow Art mag. Meaningless, rationalistic rubbish you imagine in your head, which nobody else will experience from those pictures. You can fool some of the people some of the time, bud.

Heh, you should read Rand's puffed-up comments on the paintings that she liked! They're way more pompous and pretentious than anything in a "hi-brow Art mag," especially since its so clear that she doesn't really know anything about the technical aspects of visual art, but pretends to. Her bluffs are transparent and awkward. And her reviews of visual art are very singularly Ayn-Randish -- no one else on the planet would read into the artworks what she did.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Keep it straight. Objectivism deals with and in reality - and senses, percepts and concepts. Not what you 'feel' something to be. Not what an artist wishes it to be. Especially any suspect 'abstract artist' who has to conceal reality. Emotions come from real things, not ephemera.

No, the Objectivist Esthetics doesn't "deal with and in reality." It only deals with what Rand and her visually incompetent followers are limited to experiencing in art. Reality is not limited to their limitations just because they say so.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

And it isn't surprising that anti-conceptual empiricism (in art!) should revert to mysticism. Where else can it turn?? You have given me some great insights.

You're inventing and fighting those imaginary opponents in your kooky head again!

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

btw: the "identity of colors, forms and textures" is not the reality of an image, they are the physical components the artist selects and molds to MAKE the image, to GIVE it identity.

What the painting shows, IS the reality.

What it shows to whom? I and others are not limited to your limitations.

As predicted, you're going to evade identifying "artists' meanings" in the representational realist paintings that I posted. Nothing still qualifies as art by the Objectivist Esthetics. Your failure to apply the criteria is just one more confirmation of the death of the Objectivist Esthetics.

J

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

It's hilarious that, when anyone says that abstract visual art qualifies as art, you demand that they empirically prove their claims, via scientific, double-blind experiments, but when you or any other Rand-follower is simply asked to do the same in regard to the works which you baldly assert meet your criteria, then suddenly the method that you proposed is evil "empiricism."

Here's the link and the relevant quote and the method that you proposed to test abstract art:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16100-concerning-essences-especially-in-art/&do=findComment&comment=257035

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!

 

Try to pay attention, Tony. NO Objectivist has ever demonstrated that they have complied with the Objectivist Esthetics and identified any subject or any "artist's meaning"in ANY work of art. Complying with the Objectivist Esthetics would mean that a viewer must identify the "artist's meaning" based only on the content of the work, and allowing no outside considerations, just as you suggested above in the method that you proposed for testing abstract visual art.

And no, the images are not "border-line, Impressionist pictures," but realist representational ones. Some were even almost photorealistic in their painting style. There are exceptions, but, in general, Objectivists and similar Rand-followers are visually unaware and unobservant, or what I like to call "visually incompetent."

 

I'll take on the questions.

Who is proposing the idea that "everything" made by man is art?

Even if someone were taking that position, why is it upsetting to you, and something that you immediately, emotionally oppose?

Is there something scary to you about the idea that mankind is aesthetically sensitive and active, and therefore may put art into everything he does to one degree or another?

Why must we draw a "cut-off point"between art and non-art? Knowledge is often tentative and incomplete. Your personal discomfort with that fact doesn't drive philosophy. The proper answer in such situations is, "I don't know yet," because the silly desire to impose an artificial "cut-off point" only results in the comically irrational double standards and contradictions that are so glaringly obvious in the Objectivist Esthetics.

Additionally, you've often repeated the silly statement that "If everything is art, then nothing is." Non sequitur. Does not logically follow. Do us all a favor, and take a course in logic.

 

What I can see and understand is significantly more than what you can, including in both realist representational art and abstract art. You, Tony, are not the universal limit of human cognitive function. You are unaware and unobservant, not to mention unintelligent and illogical.

 

Why use the word "one" in the above, when you're actually referring to you? There is much that you, Tony, can't make sense of. They same is not true of all people. Once again, as always, you are trying to smuggle in your own personal limitations as the universal standard of all mankind. Human cognitive function is not limited to your personal limits of cognitive function.

 

False. That's only the silly narrative that you and other Rand-followers invent as an attempted means of rejecting others' aesthetic responses. They report what they experience, and then you assert, without proof, that they do not actually experience what they say, but are pretending to in order to impress authorities.

 

No one has made that argument. You're back to building straw men again. Man, you really enjoy arguing with the imaginary enemies who live in your head!

 

You're lying. I've very specifically identified subjects and meanings in many abstract images. I've repeatedly posted my descriptions multiple times in discussion in which you participated. You're dishonest as hell.

 

You're still lying. I've explained precisely why the emotions that I've experience in abstract works were tied directly to the identity of the colors, forms and textures.

 

I don't accept your arbitrary, double-standard dictates about what does or does not "count," because you don't either (when dealing with music, or dance, or architecture, or any other abstract art form that Objectivism accepts as valid, emotions DO count!).

But I'll gladly give my responses. Let's start with the first three, and then you can evade taking a turn at indentifying "artist's meanings" in works of representational realism.

Image 1: I see vibrant, energetic action, with individual “virtual entities” (as His Royal Published Majesty refers to the non-representational means of music) acting and affecting each other through their environment. The concentric circles are like waves expanding and modulating as they go. Simplified to an Objectivist-style “essence," I would say that its meaning/emotional affect on me is like a public discussion, with ideas being exchange, reflected, modified and honed. I see it as a valuing of interaction and exchange.

Image 2: I see fiery warm hues behind a gauzy transparent barrier which diffracts and both blurs and sharpens the image behind it. To me, it has the feeling of the awareness of time/distance of a memory. Its like fondly looking back without wanting to return there.

Image 3: This image is similar to Image 1, but less compositionally impactful to me. It doesn’t have the self-consistency of Image 1. The “virtual entities” feel more local and isolated. They feel more individualistic and independent, but also as if they haven’t benefitted from being exposed to others who differ. The image feels like a tradeoff: Are you willing to miss out on some great human discoveries and exchanges on a grand scale in order to maintain self and originality but on a small scale?

 

Your turn. Identify the thematic subjects and meanings in the following works in the left hand column. Identify the “intelligible subjects and meanings.” Identify the “artists’ meanings.”

2693303411_40dbc3f704_o.jpg

When you've completed this test, we'll move on to others that I've posted in various O-fora, which include more than still lifes or landscapes, and which no Rand-follower has ever been able to identify "artists' meanings."

J

I generally like those on the left side better than those on the right. The ones on the right make me think about why I have responded thusly, but I can't say why--yet.

--Brant

thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You're lying. I just provided a link and a quote in which you demanded a test.

 

 

J

 

Doing your slippery bit again. You have turned this upside-down.

A hundred times the past years, you have demanded of Objectivists: "show me the proof!"

What "proof"? Of what is visible to all, of what one can see...?

Finally, I now said that you do it yourself. The onus was always on YOU, as the supposed abstract art expert - AND - as the art-empiricist, to validate your claims of abstract art's intelligibility. The burden of proof is on the claimant - remember?

While the Objectivist states, visible things don't need "proof", they just *are*.

 So far, you have made arbitrary/emotional assertions, about what you say you find in the three abstract pics. But no proof yet. For that, you would have to show:

1. What secret code you and all abstract artists have, in recognizing each colour and texture etc. or combinations, that gives you such mood insights. Which means explaining to readers your analysis of the contents of each picture, in entirety. 2. Then: proper, empirical proof - tested scientifically against other 'experts' who should approximately conclude with the same stories you intuited. 3. (This would be the clincher. Signed affidavits by the artists who painted them, affirming the same things).

You want empiricism, ya got it.

Or else your "sensitive" readings remain arbitrary assertions. A cute parlor trick or a psychic phenomenon (like reading tea leaves).

If you can't accomplish the tests, then it follows you always disingenuously knew O'ists couldn't either.

J. I've been noticing over all these debates:

Although perhaps 95% of all art existing is realist, you like to negotiate on the dim fringes of "identification" - often depicting ambivalent, to Impressionist, to doubtful imagery - always invoking connotation, association. "Could be... may be... Who knows...?". This is worse than what the 'abstract artists' do, as far as I'm concerned. At least they are clear in their unclarity. The art 'in-betweeners' deliberately insert uncertainty in others' vision and minds.  Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Cynicism. Emotionalism. Authority figures. Loss of independence.

THAT sums up the general state of art today (and the state of men's minds - and culture).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anthony said:

 

While the Objectivist states, visible things don't need "proof", they just *are*. 

Have you ever heard of the Ames Room Illusion?

please see:  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Doing your slippery bit again. You have turned this upside-down.

A hundred times the past years, you have demanded of Objectivists: "show me the proof!"

What "proof"? Of what is visible to all, of what one can see...?

Finally, I now said that you do it yourself. The onus was always on YOU, as the supposed abstract art expert - AND - as the art-empiricist, to validate your claims of abstract art's intelligibility. The burden of proof is on the claimant - remember?

While the Objectivist states, visible things don't need "proof", they just *are*.

Hahahaha!

Dopey, did you not look at the images that I described?!!! Can you seriously not see the vibrant concentric circles expanding like waves, and modulating as they go? They are visible things, which, as you just said, “don’t need proof.”

 

9 hours ago, anthony said:

So far, you have made arbitrary/emotional assertions, about what you say you find in the three abstract pics. But no proof yet. For that, you would have to show:

1. What secret code you and all abstract artists have, in recognizing each colour and texture etc. or combinations, that gives you such mood insights. Which means explaining to readers your analysis of the contents of each picture, in entirety.

There is no “secret code” in abstract art, just as there isn’t one in representational realism. Intense colors in representational realist paintings which have the characteristics of heat, passion and energy also have the same characteristics of heat, passion and energy in abstract paintings! Rough textures which convey ruggedness in representational realist paintings also convey ruggedness in abstract paintings! Flowing curves which convey motion and weightlessness in representational realist paintings also convey motion and weightlessness in abstract paintings!

 

9 hours ago, anthony said:

2. Then: proper, empirical proof - tested scientifically against other 'experts' who should approximately conclude with the same stories you intuited. 3. (This would be the clincher. Signed affidavits by the artists who painted them, affirming the same things).

You want empiricism, ya got it.

Or else your "sensitive" readings remain arbitrary assertions. A cute parlor trick or a psychic phenomenon (like reading tea leaves).

If you can't accomplish the tests, then it follows you always disingenuously knew O'ists couldn't either.

Heh. WTF? I really can’t make any sense of the muddled, twisted “thinking” that you’re using here.

Um, the essence of my criticism of Rand and her followers in the field of aesthetics is really quite simple: The same criteria and standards should apply to all art works. If fans of abstract art can’t just state what they see and experience in a work of art, but must prove that they are actually identifying “artists’ meanings,” then the same should apply to Rand and her followers — they also can’t just state what they see and experience in a work of art, but must prove that they have actually identified “artists’ meanings.”

Anyway, thanks for your attempted “input.” You’ve done an excellent job of illustrating the total irrationality, double standards, contradictions and mind-boggling nonsense that Rand’s followers indulge in when it comes to the field of aesthetics. You’ve given a demonstration of why the Objectivist Esthetics isn’t just dead, but is seriously mangled/rotted dead.

 

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Although perhaps 95% of all art existing is realist, you like to negotiate on the dim fringes of "identification" - often depicting ambivalent, to Impressionist, to doubtful imagery - always invoking connotation, association. "Could be... may be... Who knows...?". This is worse than what the 'abstract artists' do, as far as I'm concerned. At least they are clear in their unclarity. The art 'in-betweeners' deliberately insert uncertainty in others' vision and minds.  Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Cynicism. Emotionalism. Authority figures. Loss of independence.

THAT sums up the general state of art today (and the state of men's minds - and culture).

Again, thanks for "trying.” I’m still hoping that some of Rand’s brighter followers will step up and address the substance of my criticisms. Some of them are capable of being quite intelligent, and I’d love to see them redeem themselves intellectually by displaying the courage to deal with the challenges that I’ve placed before them rather than evading, pouting and leaving the argument to lesser defenders, like you, who do much more damage to Objectivism than good.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Have you ever heard of the Ames Room Illusion?

please see:  

 

Yah, It about sums up my argument about art. "Fallibility doesn't make knowledge impossible, knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility". Peikoff.

Otherwise, put - you presuppose the existence of certainty by knowing something to be "an illusion".

Good that we don't live in this cunningly created stunt full time, hey Bob?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Hahahaha!

Dopey, did you not look at the images that I described?!!! Can you seriously not see the vibrant concentric circles expanding like waves, and modulating as they go? They are visible things, which, as you just said, “don’t need proof.”

 

J

Just as the sort of stoned mind which fixes its gaze on a motif of the wall paper: Wow dude, d'you see those concentric circles expanding like waves...planetary orbits ... the spinning electrons of an atom ...  whatever a blank mind fancies. "Faking reality" is what it is. I had a designer friend, a "commercial artist", and she regularly painted and drew similar designs, quite intricate some times. For e.g. gift wrapping paper, wall paper. Meaningless (she knew that) and pretty. If a section were reproduced on canvas and showed to you, you'd doubtless find your own subjective meaning in it. 'Abstract artists' couldn't tell the difference, between much decorative design and most types of (symmetrical, homogenous) 'abstract art'. You're faking/fantasizing and it doesn't work on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, anthony said:

Yah, It about sums up my argument about art. "Fallibility doesn't make knowledge impossible, knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility". Peikoff.

Otherwise, put - you presuppose the existence of certainty by knowing something to be "an illusion".

Good that we don't live in this cunningly created stunt full time, hey Bob?

And it is good that we don't take our perceptions literally,  especially when they look like a contradiction. 

Physics has progressed as it has because we look beyond the first impressions given by our senses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2016 at 3:38 PM, anthony said:

 I don't demand tests. I have no need of them. That's your 'scientific' standard - J - and you must live up to it, not I.

"..acting and affecting each other through their environment... fondly looking back ... from being exposed to others who differ..."

This sounds like a puffed-up critique for a hi-brow Art mag. Meaningless, rationalistic rubbish you imagine in your head, which nobody else will experience from those pictures. You can fool some of the people some of the time, bud.

Keep it straight. Objectivism deals with and in reality - and senses, percepts and concepts. Not what you 'feel' something to be. Not what an artist wishes it to be. Especially any suspect 'abstract artist' who has to conceal reality. Emotions come from real things, not ephemera.

And it isn't surprising that anti-conceptual empiricism (in art!) should revert to mysticism. Where else can it turn?? You have given me some great insights.

btw: the "identity of colors, forms and textures" is not the reality of an image, they are the physical components the artist selects and molds to MAKE the image, to GIVE it identity.

What the painting shows, IS the reality. Jeez, even an artist can't get the distinction...an overdose of Kant on 'beauty and the sublime', I think.

I find your personal slurs, coming from you, to be complimentary.

You are treating "art" like an axiom without axiomatic reasoning.

Johnathan insults people the way a jackhammer insults concrete.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now