• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. I've seen lots of pictures of interiors. Also, I live fairly close to the Weisman Art Museum, and I like it better up close and personal than from a distance. Yeah, well that's what people said about Wright as well. I think that a lot of Objectivists who love Wright's architecture, had they been born and raised in pre-Wrightian days, would have had fits of hysteria over his work once it came along. They would have been competing with each other over who could screech the loudest in agreeing with the critics of Wright's time who opined that his work was ugly, monstrous, awkward, unmodeled, rud
  2. Here's a pretty safe project by Gehry which shouldn't make Objectivists scream "nihilism, nihilism!": Like the works by Frank Lloyd Wright that Objectivists are comfortable with, it directly mimics things from reality (like Wright mimicked a waterfall, forest, etc.), and spells things out nice and clearly. Personally, I like some of Gehry's work and some of it I don't. That which I like, I like for the same evil reasons that I like improvisational music, such as jazz (that destructive form of mindless nihilism): it's fun, free, intui
  3. (When You Say Nothing at All - Alison Kraus) (Melissa - Allman Brothers Band) (No One Needs To Know - Shania Twain) (Red Headed Woman - Bruce Springsteen) Okay, maybe that one's a little closer to lust than love. (The Air That I Breathe - The Hollies) (We've Only Just Begun - Carpenters) (The Way you Look Tonight - Sinatra) Couldn't find a
  4. Well, okay, but I don't see "cow pies" in any of his work. Great. And I think that an abstract expression of an action or feeling (attributes or emotions as opposed to objects) would also qualify as a microcosmic expression, whether it was accomplished through a musical composition or through arrangements of forms and colors. Decay in still lifes is sometimes used to imply the feeling of superfluous abundance -- so much wealth that some of it is going to waste. The portrayal of "sickly trees" might have nothing to do with implying "a world where life is not successful." The artist could be
  5. I'll have more to add to the discussion later, but for now... I'm guessing that these may be the pieces that Roger was referring to: They don't look like poop to me. They're not my favorites of Kapoor's work, but they remind me somewhat of the feeling that I get from the tranquil microcosms of traditional Japanese rock gardens, like this:
  6. Why would you think that I'm joking? Not only are you engaged in an inquiry into the means by which music conveys or expresses emotion, but your essay makes it clear that you're also engaged in a similar inquiry regarding architecture. You seem to believe that you can experience profound aesthetic depth and discern an architect's metaphysical value-judgments by viewing the abstract forms of his work. You seem to think that you can detect that one architect's work is "rationally ordered, and seamlessly joined with nature," that it "tells us that the world makes sense" and that it "seeks to comm
  7. There certainly are erotic symbols in art, but there are also people who focus a little too much on "finding" such symbolism in every art work that they come across (and, if you're one of them, my use of "come across" here isn't meant as erotic symbolism). I think it was something that was heavily preached in art schools in the 70s -- almost everyone I know who got their visual arts education then tends to like pointing out all of the pee pees and wee wees that they can spot in a work of art (sort of a "Where's Dildo?" game for them, I guess), and contemplating the artist's hang ups with sex.
  8. Jonathan uses the screen name "keysersozekill" on Atlantis, and Atlanteans often refer to him as "Soze" or "the Soze." There's a lot of goofy stuff which has happened on Atlantis, amidst the shouting and the actual philosophizing; but the humor is fairly untranslatable to non-Atlanteans. Ellen ___ I got the name from the film The Usual Suspects, in which Keyser Soze is the mysterious underworld kingpin. J
  9. Roger wrote, Roger, when you have some time, would you mind providing some material to contrast against your future analysis of Dragonfly's favorite Schubert songs? Do a Google image search for Anish Kapoor, and then share with us the names of your three favorites of Kapoor's art, particularly in regard to their emotional content, and why you like them. I will then reflect on them and provide my own analysis of that content in the terms of which Objectivists might be skeptical. J
  10. Wishing you the best with your recovery, Chris. J
  11. My wife has the same reaction to Raphael's work. You could put 100 paintings by different artists on a wall and she'd spot the Raphael right away. If you asked her if she recognized his use of color, or his style, brushwork, or anything like that, she'd say, "No, I just felt creeped out when I came into the room, and I realized that the creepiness was coming from that painting." J
  12. RCR: Good for you. Love what you love. I like a lot of the art at Cordair as well. Btw, I DO NOT want to give the impression that I'm looking down on anything, including the methods by which other people enjoy art. If you like heavy narrative in visual art, more power to you. If I can make you also see something in the way that I appreciate it, hopefully you'll benefit from that as well. One of my favorite things about art and other people is discovering new insights by looking through their eyes or listening through their ears. My best friend loves music that I normally wouldn't get anything
  13. MSK wrote, I understand, and thank you for that. I should have waited to make my comment about "Romantic Realism" at another time. Looking back on my post, I see that it could appear to be a little cold. There you are standing up for us, and what do I do? I correct you on a technical point. Dumb. I am grateful, Michael, both for your being a voice of fairness and for your kind words about my work, and that's what I should have expressed in my post. That's a very common thing in O'ist circles. If you defend art that other O'ists hate (or think is not art), you'll be accused of attacking the a
  14. I haven't much time for discussion at the moment but wanted to make a couple of quick comments: Kevin, that was a wonderful post (#530). I often read your posts and think, "Yeah, that pretty much says it all. Nothing to add to that." But now I realize that something really should be added: "Please post more often." Not to make a big deal out of it, MSK, but I don't call my work "Romantic Realism." Rand was a wonderful artist and thinker, she has inspired me in countless ways, and I respect the hell out of her, but I don't want to categorize my work using her terms as she meant them. If I had t
  15. E: They were painted by elephants from conceptual artists Komar and Melamid's Asian Elephant Art & Conservation Project: J
  16. It's interesting that Ellen would bring up Ravel at this point in the conversation. During the past half dozen years I've occasionally asked Objectivists (who insist that art must be intelligible -- that we must be able to identify the artist's subject without relying on outside considerations) to identify the subject of the Bolero, and so far, no one has done so (I ask about the Bolero because it's a very popular piece, most people are familiar with it, and many people are obviously affected by it and believe that it is art). Why haven't Objectivists taken me up on my request? I can tell you
  17. Victor wrote, Yes, he did have a technique (several, actually). He was very much in control of how and where he was applying the paint. It wasn't random. There are many people who would be able to instantly identify the styles and techniques of many different abstract artists, perhaps even more accurately than you could distinguish between which paintings were created by Raphael and which were not. One thing at a time, Victor. My "hands are full" too. I'm not addressing any of your diversions until you answer my questions. Well, okay, just one quick observation. The first image you posted is
  18. Victor wrote, I see that you're still leaving architecture and music out of your rants about faulty epistemology. You've told us that you don't think that architecture is art, yet for some unexplained reason you still don't seem to be upset about the "primacy of consciousness orientation" of those who try to pass it off as art. Not very consistent, Victor. You haven't yet announced that music isn't art even though many composers and musicians do not intend to “tie abstractions to concretes” in their music. They wouldn't agree with Roger Bissell's theory of music presenting virtual entities, o
  19. Shayne wrote. I don't know what you're seeing on your monitor, but the actual painting is bright and clean, and has a feeling of freshness. It's not about "doing chores" if that's what you're thinking. It's about the feeling of a busy little section of street and the type of day that is flooded with ambient light. The scene's buildings are not "run-down." They look as though they're clean and well maintained, and there's no visual information to suggest that the women are old or fat. As is true with several of Vermeer's paintings, the clothing has a lot of bulk to it. With the style of dress
  20. I did look at his paintings. I have two hanging up in my house. I don't think they are images of defeat and despair. At least 2/3 of the links I posted though are Naturalism (I think 3/3 but lets not quibble). Not in its most principled sense. But definitely in the sense of "Instead of presenting a *metaphysical* view of man and of existence, the Naturalists presented a *journalistic* view." In choice of subject, Vermeer often does that. And it contradicts his style. I think you have misunderstood why Rand thought that this journalistic approach implied a denial of volition, but it is definite
  21. Shayne wrote, OK, sorry. Let me rephrase my question. When will we hear your objective identification of the subject and meaning of the music? 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. Her can deny it? :-) Again, the subject is not the character
  22. Shayne wrote, 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, 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 sid
  23. Ellen wrote, I don't think that "anything can be art" is commonly used as a proper "definition," but more as a general observation which has a lot of truth to it. It's the recognition that if you try to stake out and guard the boundaries of what you think is and is not art, artists will find multiple exceptions to your rules and alter the shape of your perimeter. I agree with you that a lot of the stuff in the art world seems to have reached the point of silliness. Much of it is theory driven, and has all sorts of complex mind twists to it -- many of them quite wrong-headed, in my opinion. Bu
  24. Ellen wrote, 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