Art and Subobjectivity

[sjw]

"One might wish (and I do) that Vermeer had chosen better subjects to express his theme, but to him, apparently the subjects were only the means to his end."

Rand's assessment of Vermeer overall does not not imply that she held it for each and every work of his. In the case at hand, clearly, light is not the only important thing about it.

[sjw]

Christian,

Thank you very much for the Kandinsky. It works perfectly for the point I was making about entities.

Michael

Ugh, I can't believe we... er I mean, you guys are seriously considering this junk as art. And your point hasn't been made at all until you concretize what you are talking about. How on earth is this "art" conceptual? How is it value-oriented? Don't refer to what some art "expert" thinks it says, point to what in the picture makes it so.

[sjw]

Gack. I once heard a story about this kettle...

Put up or shut up RCR. So far, I've explained my view, and I continue to explain. Nothing from you, Ellen, or Michael by way of explanation has yet appeared. The best I've seen eked out is the typical skeptic/nihilist "philosophy professor"-like attacks on Rand's definitions.

"Gack" indeed. "Fellow travelers" talking about that horrible mess as art. I wonder why on earth anything Rand wrote had any sort of appeal to someone who can "appreciate" that sort of thing qua art. It's so clearly anti-conceptual. I mean, some of the stuff posted would make fair floor tiles. Stuff to set a background context, not to be contemplated in and of itself as art.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Vermeer link:

The link which Shayne posted to The Geographer shows the painting much better, at least on my screen, than the image RCR provided.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/vermeer...rapher.jpg.html

The link has an "Image Viewer" button you can click which magnifies the painting to full screen.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Are we discussing your appraisal of that art or the nature of art? You asked originally about "conceptual." Now you are putting in "value-oriented." Still, I can live with that.

Romantic art (in the Randian sense) is value-oriented according to the values you hold. Not all art represents those values, though. Not all art is romantic nor can all art works be compared against each other using that standard.

Back to conceptual. In order to make concepts, you need entities. So that is why I am starting with entities.

Do you agree that entities are being presented on that painting? You don't have to like them for them to be entities.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ugh, I can't believe we... er I mean, you guys are seriously considering this junk as art. And your point hasn't been made at all until you concretize what you are talking about. How on earth is this "art" conceptual? How is it value-oriented? Don't refer to what some art "expert" thinks it says, point to what in the picture makes it so.

RCR, my advice is not to accept the challenge. Do not try to argue on the terms Shayne wants you to use. The terms he's using are incorrect. What he's asking you to do accepts Rand as the basis and then challenges you to prove that Kandinsky can be fit into his chosen terms. The category "conceptual" as used by Rand about paintings is ersatz anyway. It's something Rand and/or Mary Ann Sures came up with and basically means works AR liked.

As to the Kandinsky you posted. I looked at it, admiringly, and thought, Could people see that and not realize that it's art and very good? And then Shayne comes along and calls it junk. OK, Shayne thinks it's junk. Leave him to his opinion.

Ellen

___

[sjw]

Are we discussing your appraisal of that art or the nature of art? You asked originally about "conceptual." Now you are putting in "value-oriented." Still, I can live with that.

I brought up the conceptual in order to emphasize the point Victor amplified after mine, that all human endeavors should be conceptual. Art must be more than merely that, it must somehow express abstract values--that is the manner in which art is conceptual. Entities as such are not conceptual. They're just entities.

Romantic art (in the Randian sense) is value-oriented according to the values you hold. Not all art represents those values, though. Not all art is romantic nor can all art works be compared against each other using that standard.

Well, I'd have to agree that that muck RCR posted is art--it reflects the irrational values of the artist. An unknowable, jumbled, nonsensical universe being at the core. Beyond that it doesn't say much to me. Even pure abstract art created by random jerkings of the artist qualifies as art in that sense. So I should revise my point: it's not proper art to a rational being. I'd add that if someone gets some sort of value from it, it does not necessarily imply irrationality, they may just like the color patterns. But then they aren't really evaluating it as art, they're treating it more like a background design pattern, like floor tiles. (But I don't see how a person who understands what it is could get any value at all from it).

Back to conceptual. In order to make concepts, you need entities. So that is why I am starting with entities.

Do you agree that entities are being presented on that painting? You don't have to like them for them to be entities.

I don't see entities, I see a jumbled mess that seems to hint of entities without making a definite stand on whether they are entities or accidental smears of paint.

[sjw]

The terms he's using are incorrect.

Actually I did make an error. Corrected in the above post.

[Ellen Stuttle]

However, wasn't Rand's discussion of Vermeer along the same lines as yours?

"The closer an artist comes to a conceptual method of functioning visually, the greater his work. The greatest of all artists, Vermeer, devoted his painting to a single theme: light itself. The guiding principle of his compositions is: the *contextual* nature of our perception of light (and of color). The physical objects in a Vermeer canvas are chosen and placed in such a way that their combined interrelationships feature, lead to and make possible the painting's brightest patches of light, sometimes blindingly bright, in a manner which no one has been able to render before or since"

"One might wish (and I do) that Vermeer had chosen better subjects to express his theme, but to him, apparently the subjects were only the means to his end."

In that passage, yes, she did say something along the same lines. I think that Mary Ann -- and especially Joan -- had given her this explanation of Vermeer. Rand did like Vermeer, particularly a few of his paintings, The Geographer being one of them. But notice that she writes -- emphasizing what for her is a key word -- "One might wish (and I do) that Vermeer had chosen better SUBJECTS to express his theme [...]." I'm saying that his "subjects" aren't "subjects" in the sense she characteristically thought of "subjects" of a painting; they are "only the means." But she wasn't content with that, and she'd end up railing against him for a "naturalist" approach and for using "folks next door 'subjects.'" But this way of thinking of his paintings misses what's going on. The figures he's selecting are those which will give him the effects he wants to achieve. He's not making a "metaphysical value judgment" statement about "folks next door."

Do you see the difference?

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

Shayne wrote about music,

Well the concretes are the sounds. The abstractions are their conceptual relationships--which if it's really music, there will be some.

Then the concretes in abstract paintings and sculptures are the colors, forms and textures. The abstractions are their conceptual relationships -- which if it's abstract art, there will be some.

Shayne wrote,

Every Objectivist I have shown that to (I have it in my livingroom) has made comments along the lines that I did about that painting. Or were you trying to be sarcastic about something Rand said? If so, it's misplaced sarcasm unless she was talking about that particular painting.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. It's Rand's "objective" evaluation of Vermeer. She wasn't talking about a single painting, but the essence of his body of works. She thought that by her division of art into that which portrays man as capable of achievement and happiness versus that which portrays man as fated to defeat and despair, Vermeer's work represented the latter. By "folks next door" she basically meant that the characters in Vermeer's paintings were not shown as productive people pursuing values, but that they were just barely above the status of barefooted bumpkins wasting their lives away swilling moonshine and subsisting on whatever random critters happened to wander into their unkempt yards.

Shayne wrote to MSK,

I thought you meant that having simple low-level concepts like "round" might qualify something as art. There must be value concepts implied, like "effort", "achievement", "fear", etc.

As in Frank Lloyd Wright's view that "round" implied infinity and universality, the triangle implied structural unity and aspiration, the spiral, organic progress, and the square, integrity?

I'm not going to be able to find and upload good audio clips any time soon, so how about we try this in the mean time: Which value concept does the musical arrangement C C C D E G D C A G E G D, C C C D E G D C D E D C C imply?

Shayne wrote,

OK--but I think it'd be best if you posted an example of pure abstract art, and demonstrated how it was 1) conceptual; 2) implied value concepts. I don't even think you'll even be able to do 1 unless it's a mixed piece.

Here are two abstract paintings:

Which is loud, bold, strong and energetic, and which is quiet, relaxed and gentle? Is one more feminine and the other more masculine? Is one more extroverted and the other introverted? Which is more whimsical, carefree and playful, and which is more serious, determined or strained? Which has the feeling of weight, heat, pressure and exertion, and which is free of those things?

J

Edited January 26, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Ellen wrote,

The Geographer. What is "the subject" of that magnificent painting? Not "a man in deep thought." What that painting is "about" most profoundly is light, not the room, not the human; the human is only a metaphoric vehicle.

I think it's about light, and it's a nuanced symphony of colors, shapes and proportions (to use FLW's method of speaking), and it's also somewhat about "a man in deep thought."

J

[sjw]

Shayne wrote about music,

Well the concretes are the sounds. The abstractions are their conceptual relationships--which if it's really music, there will be some.

Then the concretes in abstract paintings and sculptures are the colors, forms and textures. The abstractions are their conceptual relationships -- which if it's abstract art, there will be some.

If you were to turn one of those paintings you posted into music, it'd have 3 notes repeating over and over for 5 minutes. But aside from that, an interesting point. It would be interesting to see an attempt at abstract art that mimicked music in this respect. I don't think it would work, but I don't know why at this moment.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. It's Rand's "objective" evaluation of Vermeer. She wasn't talking about a single painting, but the essence of his body of works.

I think you missed my point--that kind of essentialization permits exceptions. I don't think "The Geographer" is about hillbillies.

Which is loud, bold, strong and energetic, and which is quite, relaxed and gentle? Is one more feminine and the other more masculine? Is one more extroverted and the other introverted? Which is more whimsical, carefree and playful, and which is more serious, determined or strained? Which has the feeling of weight, heat, pressure and exertion, and which is free of those things?

Clever sophistry. You could take two pictures of many random objects, put them side-by-side, and more or less get the answers to line up how you wanted. That has more to do with the content implied by the suggestions than the paintings themselves. No one being reasonable would think "feminine" until you offered the suggestion, but once you did, then of course curves are going to look more feminine than corners. E.g., what's more feminine: A hammer, or a pillow? The answer doesn't imply that when we see "pillow" we think of women.

[Dragonfly]

Yes, I was being sarcastic. It's Rand's "objective" evaluation of Vermeer. She wasn't talking about a single painting, but the essence of his body of works. She thought that by her division of art into that which portrays man as capable of achievement and happiness versus that which portrays man as fated to defeat and despair, Vermeer's work represented the latter. By "folks next door" she basically meant that the characters in Vermeer's paintings were not shown as productive people pursuing values, but that they were just barely above the status of barefooted bumpkins wasting their lives away swilling moonshine and subsisting on whatever random critters happened to wander into their unkempt yards.

Exactly, and you wonder where she got that idea. Aren't astronomers, geographers, painters or musicians productive people pursuing values, or are they just "folks next door to kitchens"? She talks about the "conflict" between his brilliant style and his metaphysics of "bleak Naturalism". This shows she was completely out of her depth when judging art, as Vermeer certainly wasn't a naturalist painter (except when you use "naturalist" as a synonym for "realist", but that was certainly not what she meant). There isn't any conflict between Vermeer's style and his subjects. He wasn't the man to paint battlefields or people in heroic or ecstatic poses (thank God!), he was the painter of intimate and quiet scenes and not a Soviet realist or a Nazi artist. But there is nothing journalistic or accidental in his work, in Rand's own terms he was definitely a Romanticist (of course not in the official historical meaning of the term).

[reason.on]

However, wasn't Rand's discussion of Vermeer along the same lines as yours?

"The closer an artist comes to a conceptual method of functioning visually, the greater his work. The greatest of all artists, Vermeer, devoted his painting to a single theme: light itself. The guiding principle of his compositions is: the *contextual* nature of our perception of light (and of color). The physical objects in a Vermeer canvas are chosen and placed in such a way that their combined interrelationships feature, lead to and make possible the painting's brightest patches of light, sometimes blindingly bright, in a manner which no one has been able to render before or since"

"One might wish (and I do) that Vermeer had chosen better subjects to express his theme, but to him, apparently the subjects were only the means to his end."

In that passage, yes, she did say something along the same lines. I think that Mary Ann -- and especially Joan -- had given her this explanation of Vermeer. Rand did like Vermeer, particularly a few of his paintings, The Geographer being one of them. But notice that she writes -- emphasizing what for her is a key word -- "One might wish (and I do) that Vermeer had chosen better SUBJECTS to express his theme [...]." I'm saying that his "subjects" aren't "subjects" in the sense she characteristically thought of "subjects" of a painting; they are "only the means." But she wasn't content with that, and she'd end up railing against him for a "naturalist" approach and for using "folks next door 'subjects.'" But this way of thinking of his paintings misses what's going on. The figures he's selecting are those which will give him the effects he wants to achieve. He's not making a "metaphysical value judgment" statement about "folks next door."

Do you see the difference?

I do; yes. I have to admit that I've never taken much stock in this particular gripe Rand had of Vermeer (who I have also been very fond of since well before I knew who Ayn Rand was). The main thrust of her argument is in complete agreement with your take on Vermeer (and mine), and the rest seems a bit like an addendum which certainly didn't hamper her overall judgment of his work.

Specifically, (aside from what I already quoted) she writes of Vermeer, "A....conflict may be seen in the paintings of Vermeer, who combines a brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism."

I agree that this supposed conflict is illusory, and not something one can see self-evidently. In fact, I don't see Vermeer's paintings as reflecting the "bleak metaphysics of Naturalism" (even taking the paintings as Rand did) at all; I tend to think of Bruegel the Elder, as a great example of that. It has always seemed bizarre and curious to me that Rand would consider learning music, writing, cooking, cartography to be somehow un-Romantic, or reflective of the dull-life.

I even tend to think of Rand herself when I look at this one:

Am I supposed to conclude that the act of writing is some boring triviality suitable only for the "folks next door" (did Ayn Rand not have neighbors? :-)

RCR

Edited January 25, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Dragonfly]

BTW, I haven't heard anything more from Elizabeth since she wrote that excellent article that started this thread, I'd like to hear more from her.

[reason.on]

Well, I hope that you aren't calling me a pot. ;-)

LOL, sorry, no, of course not...lapse of precision.

I should have said, "I once heard a story about a doctor..." or better yet simply, "doctor, heal thyself!"

RCR

[Danneskjold]

BTW, I haven't heard anything more from Elizabeth since she wrote that excellent article that started this thread, I'd like to hear more from her.

I'll tell her you said so. What did we decide about that article anyway? I think I remember something about a misconception about what a metaphysical value judgment is.

[sjw]

Am I supposed to conclude that the act of writing is some boring triviality suitable only for the "folks next door" (did Ayn Rand not have neighbors? :-)

Why is it so difficult for you people to be balanced and fair when judging Ayn Rand's statements?

E.g.,

http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue_...ttle_street.htm

http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/milkmaid.htm

http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/view_of_delft.htm

And you're so hypocritical. On the one hand, Ellen claims that Vermeer did exactly what Rand accused him of: not exercising artistic selectivity on his choice of subject. On the other, there's this claim that Vermeer wasn't a naturalist when it came to selecting his subject. Well which is it? Is he a naturalist in regard to subject or isn't he?

The truth is that he's mixed. Rand was right about some of his paintings, less so about others. The Geographer is not naturalism in choice of subject. These are. But the style is not naturalism in either, and they can all be appreciated on those grounds. Vermeer was a great artist, and would have been even greater if he paid more heed to his choice in subject.

[Jonathan]

Shayne wrote,

Clever sophistry.

Ah. When will we hear your "clever sophistry" about the meaning of the music that I posted? Or is it not art? If not, why? Not enough notes or phrases? If so, how many notes would be needed before it becomes art so that you can detect meaning in it?

Shayne wrote,

You could take two pictures of many random objects, put them side-by-side, and more or less get the answers to line up how you wanted. That has more to do with the content implied by the suggestions than the paintings themselves. No one being reasonable would think "feminine" until you offered the suggestion, but once you did, then of course curves are going to look more feminine than corners.

I've barely scratched the surface of what "reasonable" people think and feel about those paintings without being prompted by the descriptions that I gave. Those descriptions, in fact, are merely the first quick impressions that they report upon first seeing them (even when displayed separately, and not in a side by side comparison as I presented them). This is really basic stuff, Shayne. Can you really not see any of it on your own?

Shayne wrote,

And you're so hypocritical. On the one hand, Ellen claims that Vermeer did exactly what Rand accused him of: not exercising artistic selectivity on his choice of subject.

No, that's not what Ellen was saying.

Shayne wrote,

On the other, there's this claim that Vermeer wasn't a naturalist when it came to selecting his subject. Well which is it? Is he a naturalist in regard to subject or isn't he?

I think you're confusing "subject" with "subject matter," or, to make it more clear, you're confusing "abstract subject or meaning" with "characters or elements within a painting." The subject of Vermeer's Milkmaid is not the milkmaid, just as "a lady who runs a railroad" is not the subject of Atlas Shrugged. The milkmaid is the painting's figure or character. The subject is the effect of the light, the composition, and the clarity and serenity of the moment.

Rand's use of "naturalist" means that a work of art shows mankind as lacking control over his life, as not pursuing his values, and as being a plaything of fate. None of Vermeer's works is "naturalist" by Rand's definition. His use of light is brilliant, his compositional structures are expertly balanced and expressive, and his characters are productive, happy and clean. His paintings are not about man lacking volition.

Shayne wrote,

The truth is that he's mixed. Rand was right about some of his paintings, less so about others. The Geographer is not naturalism in choice of subject. These are. But the style is not naturalism in either, and they can all be appreciated on those grounds. Vermeer was a great artist, and would have been even greater if he paid more heed to his choice in subject.

He did pay heed to his choice of subjects. You don't get what his subjects were. God, it's amusing when arrogant ignorance presumes to advise genius.

J

Edited January 26, 2007 by Jonathan

[sjw]

Ah. When will we hear your "clever sophistry" about the meaning of the music that I posted? Or is it not art? If not, why? Not enough notes or phrases? If so, how many notes would be needed before it becomes art so that you can detect meaning in it?

I explained why what you wrote was sophistry. You merely assert that something I might say in the future will be. Lame.

I've barely scratched the surface of what "reasonable" people think and feel about those paintings without being prompted by the descriptions that I gave. Those descriptions, in fact, are merely the first quick impressions that they report upon first seeing them (even when displayed separately, and not in a side by side comparison as I presented them). This is really basic stuff, Shayne. Can you really not see any of it on your own?

In other words, you get your assessments of abstract art in a second-handed manner. You can't justify or explain in terms that make sense to you, or by reference to any objective standard. Makes sense.

And you're so hypocritical. On the one hand, Ellen claims that Vermeer did exactly what Rand accused him of: not exercising artistic selectivity on his choice of subject.

No, that's not what Ellen was saying.

It's absolutely what she was saying. You and her can deny it until you're blue in the face, but it's all there: she said Vermeer was after style, using whatever subject was convenient to that end. He did not typically design the subject itself, as Rand would have preferred.

I think you're confusing "subject" with "subject matter," or, to make it more clear, you're confusing "abstract subject or meaning" with "characters or elements within a painting." The subject of Vermeer's Milkmaid is not the milkmaid, just as "a lady who runs a railroad" is not the subject of Atlas Shrugged. The milkmaid is the painting's figure or character. The subject is the effect of the light, the composition, and the clarity and serenity of the moment.

Ridiculous. I did no such thing. Which is why you assert this without referring to anything I actually said.

Rand's use of "naturalist" means that a work of art shows mankind as lacking control over his life, as not pursuing his values, and as being a plaything of fate. None of Vermeer's works is "naturalist" by Rand's definition. His use of light is brilliant, his compositional structures are expertly balanced and expressive, and his characters are productive, happy and clean. His paintings are not about man lacking volition.

Now you drop context. Rand said those things about his choice of subject, not the style. She specifically said the style contradicted the subject. So she in effect said he's mixed. She did not say that his works as a whole are pure naturalism.

He did pay heed to his choice of subjects. You don't get what his subjects were. God, it's amusing when arrogant ignorance presumes to advise genius.

What you mean to say is that your assertions about what Vermeer did are valid while mine are not, but instead of providing evidence, you fling insults and hope that that will do. It won't.

Edited January 26, 2007 by sjw

[Victor Pross]

Christian,

Thank you very much for the Kandinsky. It works perfectly for the point I was making about entities.

Michael

Michael,

Entities? I find your defense for “abstract art” objectionable, but I think that so would abstract painters! How ironic is that? Jonathan is correct in saying that abstract painting is ‘theory-driven’ and what is being driven is an absolute subjectivism. They wanted a world of 'pure spirit'--entitie free. The birth of abstract art [or abstract Expressionism] was spawned by a “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” orientation. For modernists, "abstract" means "non-representational" and “non-objective.” Pay heed to this last item: NON-OBJECTIVE. Seeking the inscrutable was their aim. They succeeded.

For thousands of years the inimitable and vital function of art was (and is) to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction. The purpose of art is the objectification of values. To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form. But this is not an “institutional definition” approach—as Christian would charge. The case to be made for actual works of art is epistemological—not by an appeal to tradition as such. Abstract painters ignore the epistemological requirements of visual perception and representation. The dependence of human cognition on perception is biologically determined. This, in short, is why ‘abstract painting’ is not art.

So the case for or against “abstract art”--as art--is not contingent on the writings of Ayn Rand. [And Ellen, alleging a difficulty of Rand’s views is not the removal of the obstacle that has been made against abstract art by dozens of other thinkers].

A little knowledge of art history could go a long way to avoid making spurious arguments.

-Victor

Edited January 26, 2007 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

This, in short, is why ‘abstract painting’ is not art.

Victor, why do you think it's important to not call it art, rather than calling it bad art? It fits Rand's definition, except the values involved are anti-conceptual, essentially they portray a hatred of reason.

[Victor Pross]

This, in short, is why ‘abstract painting’ is not art.

Victor, why do you think it's important to not call it art, rather than calling it bad art? It fits Rand's definition, except the values involved are anti-conceptual, essentially they portray a hatred of reason.

Shayne,

Does not my post above satisfactory answer this question at all?

Well, to say a little more: I agree with a point you made that we should not just “stare at Rand’s definition” without taking into context everything else covered in her esthetic theory—of which intelligibility is but one item. The theories that spawned and sustain abstract painting and the modernist movement is false right down to the core—epistemologically and metaphysically--thus rendering their works as ‘non art.’ Definitions and reality aren’t infinitely elastic. Applying a definition of art to spattered paint on a canvas cannot be done for reasons pointed out again and again. It is what it is: um, spattered paint on a canvas.

-Victor

Edited January 26, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Jonathan]

Shayne wrote,

I explained why what you wrote was sophistry. You merely assert that something I might say in the future will be. Lame.

OK, sorry. Let me rephrase my question. When will we hear your objective identification of the subject and meaning of the music?

In other words, you get your assessments of abstract art in a second-handed manner. You can't justify or explain in terms that make sense to you, or by reference to any objective standard. Makes sense.

Ha. No. The only reason I mentioned others is because you made the claim that "no one being reasonable" would see such things in the art. Many of their assessments correspond with my own. I also see and feel much more than what I mentioned, as do others. I also have some differing views than what others do. I don't rely at all on their assessments in order to find meaning in the paintings.

It's absolutely what she was saying. You and her can deny it...

Her can deny it? :-)

...until you're blue in the face, but it's all there: she said Vermeer was after style, using whatever subject was convenient to that end. He did not typically design the subject itself, as Rand would have preferred.

Again, the subject is not the character. The character is not the subject.

Here's what Ellen said:

What is "the subject" of that magnificent painting? Not "a man in deep thought." What that painting is "about" most profoundly is light, not the room, not the human; the human is only a metaphoric vehicle.

and:

The figures he's selecting are those which will give him the effects he wants to achieve. He's not making a "metaphysical value judgment" statement about "folks next door."

She means that the character is not the subject. She does not mean, as you claimed, that Vermeer was "not exercising artistic selectivity on his choice of subject."

I said earlier that I think that "a man in deep thought" is somewhat the subject of The Geographer. What I meant was that it's not an accurate description of the subject, but it's kind of close. I think a better description of the subject would be something more like "the feeling of the play of light, contemplation and clarity of mind." The man is not the subject, but the feeling of what he's doing in combination with the feeling of the light and the symphony of colors, shapes and proportions is the subject.

Now you drop context. Rand said those things about his choice of subject, not the style. She specifically said the style contradicted the subject. So she in effect said he's mixed. She did not say that his works as a whole are pure naturalism.

Rand may have confused herself by using the word "subject" to mean "abstract subject or meaning" most of the time, to mean "items depicted or characters" on some occasions, and sometimes she seems to have treated the meanings as interchangeable, when they're not.

In the case of Vermeer, if Rand was using the term "subject" to mean "the characters" or "what the characters are doing" then she could not accurately call his subjects "naturalist" since his characters are not shown as lacking volition or being defeated. If she was using the term "subject" to mean the abstract meaning and the effect that the image evokes, then she could not accurately call his subjects "naturalist" since the abstract meaning and feeling evoked is not defeat or denial of volition.

The manner in which Vermeer rendered light and depicted objects with his delicate brushwork is his style, but the effects evoked by that style -- the feeling of the play of light, the feeling of the arrangements of form and color, and the feelings of clear contemplation, serenity, solitude, love, laughter, etc. -- are the subjects of his paintings. The style of Vermeer's paintings do not contradict the subjects, nor do the characters contradict the subjects, nor do the characters contradict the style.

What you mean to say is that your assertions about what Vermeer did are valid while mine are not, but instead of providing evidence, you fling insults and hope that that will do. It won't.

You want evidence? Look at the paintings. They are not images of defeat and despair. They're not denials of volition or man's capacity for success or happiness. The fact that the characters are not building monuments, inventing engines or heroically leaping through the air with obvious expressions of ecstasy on their faces, as Rand may have wished, doesn't mean that they're caving in to a malevolent universe.

J

Edited January 26, 2007 by Jonathan

[sjw]

Well, to say a little more: I agree with a point you made that we should not just “stare at Rand’s definition” without taking into context everything else covered in her esthetic theory—of which intelligibility is but one item. The theories that spawned and sustain abstract painting and the modernist movement is false right down to the core—epistemologically and metaphysically--thus rendering their works as ‘non art.’ Definitions and reality aren’t infinitely elastic. Applying a definition of art to spattered paint on a canvas cannot be done for reasons pointed out again and again. It is what it is: um, spattered paint on a canvas.

I think your policy is going to get you in trouble epistemologically. What do you do with mixed cases? Like abstract art that has a semblance of elements from valid art? At some point you're going to start call it art. But you won't be able to draw a line, a principle that differentiates one from the other. Which is to say that your concept of art will be subjective. Ironic, yes?

Bad art is still art--even art that hypocritically attempts to destroy a rational conception of art is art.

Look up the "Frozen Abstraction" fallacy in the Lexicon. I think it applies here.