Why is modern art so bad?

[Jonathan]

Why do you assume to know how much economic freedom that I've had, or ever will experience?

You made a personal comment and I answered you personally.

You don't and never will because of your attitude.

Greg

So, my attitude of laughing at your irrational posing will doom me to economic poverty? That's your theory? What an assclown.

It's not a theory. Just a principle.

You won't succeed in life with your attitude.

If you changed it, you'd have a much better odds.

Greg

I've already succeeded in life. So much for your "principle."

J

[Brant Gaede]

Why do you assume to know how much economic freedom that I've had, or ever will experience?

You made a personal comment and I answered you personally.

You don't and never will because of your attitude.

Greg

So, my attitude of laughing at your irrational posing will doom me to economic poverty? That's your theory? What an assclown.

It's not a theory. Just a principle.

You won't succeed in life with your attitude.

If you changed it, you'd have a much better odds.

Greg

I've already succeeded in life. So much for your "principle."

J

I know Greg won't change no matter what you say. I do, however, know how the argument might be resolved: send me all your money.

--Brant

we can all get along!

[moralist]

Why do you assume to know how much economic freedom that I've had, or ever will experience?

You made a personal comment and I answered you personally.

You don't and never will because of your attitude.

Greg

So, my attitude of laughing at your irrational posing will doom me to economic poverty? That's your theory? What an assclown.

It's not a theory. Just a principle.

You won't succeed in life with your attitude.

If you changed it, you'd have a much better odds.

Greg

I've already succeeded in life. So much for your "principle."

J

I know Greg won't change no matter what you say. I do, however, know how the argument might be resolved: send me all your money.

--Brant

we can all get along!

(pssst... Brant... you need to use the phrase "for the children'. )

Greg

[Samson Corwell]

But "personal" does not mean "nonobjective"; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally.

It does not depend on the "kind of person you are." Matters of taste are determined by emotions. They are not the result of objectivity, logical processes, or rational thinking. That is true regardless of what "kind of person you are." It is true of everyone. It was true of Rand. Her subjective tastes -- in foods, in music, and in a husband -- did not become objective just because she wanted to believe that she was a purely objective "kind of person."

Why is it that we find people arguing over the quality of art, but not, say, whether one really likes a certain type food? Arguing over the former would seem stupid, but would seem kind of pointless to be arguing over the form if neither felt that something wasn't at stake.

[Brant Gaede]

Naturalism food vs romantic food = nothing to talk about (I hope).

--Brant

[Robert Florczak]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

[Jonathan]

Why is it that we find people arguing over the quality of art, but not, say, whether one really likes a certain type food? Arguing over the former would seem stupid, but would seem kind of pointless to be arguing over the form if neither felt that something wasn't at stake.

There actually have been some people in Objectivist fora who have argued that their preferences in food (or in favorite colors, or cologne scents, etc.) are "objectively superior" to others' preferences. One example that I found pretty quickly: "Kasper" over at SLOP believed that his preference for French cuisine over Chinese was objective.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/5662?page=8

(You'll have to scroll down about 15 messages since SOLOP's links to individual posts have never worked.)

Arguing over the former would seem stupid, but would seem kind of pointless to be arguing over the form if neither felt that something wasn't at stake.

Yeah. They definitely feel that something important is at stake. They seem to need to believe in the illusion of their superiority. And not their superiority at producing anything, but at consuming! The "talent" that they are so proud of is that of being better than everyone else at liking things that others have produced. This "talent" most often just suddenly appears in people who have zero knowledge or experience with the art forms that they're judging. They just KNOW that their tastes are superior.

J

[william.scherk]

Objectivists don't argue about feed, food and nutrition, do they?

Naturalism food vs romantic food = nothing to talk about (I hope).

Dashed. We have Dr Mrs Doctor Diana dispensing her findings on Objectivish Eating (via her Paleo-diet community/cult).

Modern Paleo offers writings and other resources by Objectivists on the principles and practices of nutrition, fitness, and health most conducive to human flourishing.

We advocate a "paleo" perspective on these subjects. We use the evolutionary history of mankind, plus the best of modern science, as a broad framework to guide our daily choices about diet, exercise, supplementation, and medicine. The core of the paleo approach to health is the diet: we eschew grains, sugars, and modern vegetable oils in favor of high-quality meat, fish, eggs, and vegetables.

In addition, we advocate and practice "a philosophy for living on earth": Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

Here's a lovely looking muck pie called Raw Vegan Cheesecake, from the people at Raw Objectivism ...

[Jonathan]

Objectivists don't argue about feed, food and nutrition, do they?

Naturalism food vs romantic food = nothing to talk about (I hope).

Dashed. We have Dr Mrs Doctor Diana dispensing her findings on Objectivish Eating (via her Paleo-diet community/cult).

Modern Paleo offers writings and other resources by Objectivists on the principles and practices of nutrition, fitness, and health most conducive to human flourishing.

We advocate a "paleo" perspective on these subjects. We use the evolutionary history of mankind, plus the best of modern science, as a broad framework to guide our daily choices about diet, exercise, supplementation, and medicine. The core of the paleo approach to health is the diet: we eschew grains, sugars, and modern vegetable oils in favor of high-quality meat, fish, eggs, and vegetables.

In addition, we advocate and practice "a philosophy for living on earth": Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

Here's a lovely looking muck pie called Raw Vegan Cheesecake, from the people at Raw Objectivism ...

You'd think that Objectivists wouldn't need advice on their diets, since they should just objectively prefer the flavors of things that are good for them.

J

[william.scherk]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Thanks for letting us know you are reading the thread.

[Robert Florczak]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Thanks for letting us know you are reading the thread.

You're very welcome. I agree with many of the positions taken here--even those that are critical!

[Jonathan]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Thanks for letting us know you are reading the thread.

You're very welcome. I agree with many of the positions taken here--even those that are critical!

Please elaborate!

J

[Robert Florczak]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Thanks for letting us know you are reading the thread.

You're very welcome. I agree with many of the positions taken here--even those that are critical!

Please elaborate!

J

Like I said, my work is less than masterful. One can recognize the ideals of an artform yet personally fall short of them.

R

[moralist]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Hi Robert,

And thank you for taking the time and effort to make that thought provoking video, and for creating such noble and uplifting art... especially Moonlit Lovers. It's an excellent ideal of the potential moral beauty contained within the man woman relationship. You make the world better. Dennis' Prager University is a powerful vehicle to change the hearts and minds of people... and you made very good use of it.

Regards,

Greg

[Robert Florczak]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Hi Robert,

And thank you for taking the time and effort to make that thought provoking video, and for creating such noble and uplifting art... especially Moonlit Lovers. It's an excellent ideal of the potential moral beauty contained within the man woman relationship. You make the world better. Dennis' Prager University is a powerful vehicle to change the hearts and minds of people... and you made very good use of it.

Regards,

Greg

And thank you, Greg. I find the comments on this blog some of the most insightful I've seen on the internet regarding my position on aesthetics. The video has certainly stirred up a hornets' nest of discussiuon, much of it based on things I never said!

There will be follow-up videos explaining in more detail what the video could only touch upon in five minutes. First of all, the title was not my idea; I don't find all modern art to be bad. My original title for the script before it was filmed was, "Modern Art and the Death of Beauty," which is more accurately in keeping with my theme. Hopefully this and a number of other issues touched upon in the video will be given closer examination the next time around.

To be honest, "Moonlit Lovers" is not a favorite of mine, but it is for many others, hence its inclusion on the website. It was done for The Franklin Mint as an over-romanticized painting of Lancelot and Guinevere, and though I'm a serious fan of the Arthurian legends, it's far too sentimental for my taste. It should rightly be included in the illustration section. After a long career producing volumes of work, I have yet to create work I think worthy of admiration.

Cheers!

Robert

[moralist]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Hi Robert,

And thank you for taking the time and effort to make that thought provoking video, and for creating such noble and uplifting art... especially Moonlit Lovers. It's an excellent ideal of the potential moral beauty contained within the man woman relationship. You make the world better. Dennis' Prager University is a powerful vehicle to change the hearts and minds of people... and you made very good use of it.

Regards,

Greg

And thank you, Greg. I find the comments on this blog some of the most insightful I've seen on the internet regarding my position on aesthetics. The video has certainly stirred up a hornets' nest of discussiuon, much of it based on things I never said!

There will be follow-up videos explaining in more detail what the video could only touch upon in five minutes. First of all, the title was not my idea; I don't find all modern art to be bad. My original title for the script before it was filmed was, "Modern Art and the Death of Beauty," which is more accurately in keeping with my theme. Hopefully this and a number of other issues touched upon in the video will be given closer examination the next time around.

To be honest, "Moonlit Lovers" is not a favorite of mine, but it is for many others, hence its inclusion on the website. It was done for The Franklin Mint as an over-romanticized painting of Lancelot and Guinevere, and though I'm a serious fan of the Arthurian legends, it's far too sentimental for my taste. It should rightly be included in the illustration section. After a long career producing volumes of work, I have yet to create work I think worthy of admiration.

Cheers!

Robert

Robert, it makes perfect sense why that image held so much appeal. When I was a kid one of my favorite movies was "Prince Valiant" with Robert Wagner in 1954, so there's no way it could be too sentimental for me. I'm anything but a Prince, but when my wife looks at me that way, I sure feel as if I could be.

Thanks for the memory...

Greg

[Robert Florczak]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Hi Robert,

And thank you for taking the time and effort to make that thought provoking video, and for creating such noble and uplifting art... especially Moonlit Lovers. It's an excellent ideal of the potential moral beauty contained within the man woman relationship. You make the world better. Dennis' Prager University is a powerful vehicle to change the hearts and minds of people... and you made very good use of it.

Regards,

Greg

And thank you, Greg. I find the comments on this blog some of the most insightful I've seen on the internet regarding my position on aesthetics. The video has certainly stirred up a hornets' nest of discussiuon, much of it based on things I never said!

There will be follow-up videos explaining in more detail what the video could only touch upon in five minutes. First of all, the title was not my idea; I don't find all modern art to be bad. My original title for the script before it was filmed was, "Modern Art and the Death of Beauty," which is more accurately in keeping with my theme. Hopefully this and a number of other issues touched upon in the video will be given closer examination the next time around.

To be honest, "Moonlit Lovers" is not a favorite of mine, but it is for many others, hence its inclusion on the website. It was done for The Franklin Mint as an over-romanticized painting of Lancelot and Guinevere, and though I'm a serious fan of the Arthurian legends, it's far too sentimental for my taste. It should rightly be included in the illustration section. After a long career producing volumes of work, I have yet to create work I think worthy of admiration.

Cheers!

Robert

Robert, it makes perfect sense why that image held so much appeal. When I was a kid one of my favorite movies was "Prince Valiant" with Robert Wagner in 1954, so there's no way it could be too sentimental for me. I'm anything but a Prince, but when my wife looks at me that way, I sure feel as if I could be.

Thanks for the memory...

Greg

Glad for the sentimental childhood reminder (that kind of thing can't be too popular around here!). Relatedly, I'm 1,100 pages into a book about the day-by-day life of Errol Flynn; it's about 80% complete. I can well relate to the escapist draw of those films and characters.

R

[Jonathan]

Glad for the sentimental childhood reminder (that kind of thing can't be too popular around here!). Relatedly, I'm 1,100 pages into a book about the day-by-day life of Errol Flynn; it's about 80% complete. I can well relate to the escapist draw of those films and characters.

R

I think that sentimentality of childhood memories is as popular among members here as it is anywhere. The fact that we intellectually distinguish between objectivity and sentimentality in a discussion which was started to specifically address the proposed idea of objective standards in art doesn't mean that we are opposed to sentimentality.

Additionally, the thing with sentimentality is that its subjective nature means that not everyone will have had the same childhood experiences, and therefore will not be transported back to Greg's childhood. A painting of Kirk and Uhura would take me back. Or Mr. Moose and Bunny Rabbit.

As for things not being too popular around here, personally I have no problem with your use of the term "escapist" and your admission that you relate to the enjoyment of escapism, but I would guess that there are probably a few dedicated Randians here who are already enraged by it.

Anyway, thanks for showing up here and adding to the discussion. I think it's a nifty twist that you, the artist who created a painting being discussed, think that it is over-romanticized and far too sentimental. You apparently achieved your intentions, and if so, we could therefore objectively judge you to be technically proficient, but you also don't think that the painting is great art, despite it's achieving its intentions. So there must be more to judgments of art than objective standards. Intention and proficiency are not enough.

J

[Jonathan]

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Rand was escapist hoping to drag everyone into her escaped to reality where they really supposedly belonged, through her art and philosophy. In her own head she was properly grounded. In reality, it was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Such is the nature and fate of a great novelist. Looking at this phenomenon one can see a lot of real reality, of course, which helps in the seduction. Both her self-seduction and her readers. We all want something better--or should--for that's life, at least the rational and secular life. That's aspiration, especially important to growing and maturing youth--it's empowering.

--Brant

[PDS]

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

I would love to hear both of you answer this question. Thanks.

[moralist]

A truly fascinating discussion. Thank you for all your thoughts and opinions generated by the video.

Robert Florczak (an admittedly mediocre artist at best)

Hi Robert,

And thank you for taking the time and effort to make that thought provoking video, and for creating such noble and uplifting art... especially Moonlit Lovers. It's an excellent ideal of the potential moral beauty contained within the man woman relationship. You make the world better. Dennis' Prager University is a powerful vehicle to change the hearts and minds of people... and you made very good use of it.

Regards,

Greg

And thank you, Greg. I find the comments on this blog some of the most insightful I've seen on the internet regarding my position on aesthetics. The video has certainly stirred up a hornets' nest of discussiuon, much of it based on things I never said!

There will be follow-up videos explaining in more detail what the video could only touch upon in five minutes. First of all, the title was not my idea; I don't find all modern art to be bad. My original title for the script before it was filmed was, "Modern Art and the Death of Beauty," which is more accurately in keeping with my theme. Hopefully this and a number of other issues touched upon in the video will be given closer examination the next time around.

To be honest, "Moonlit Lovers" is not a favorite of mine, but it is for many others, hence its inclusion on the website. It was done for The Franklin Mint as an over-romanticized painting of Lancelot and Guinevere, and though I'm a serious fan of the Arthurian legends, it's far too sentimental for my taste. It should rightly be included in the illustration section. After a long career producing volumes of work, I have yet to create work I think worthy of admiration.

Cheers!

Robert

Robert, it makes perfect sense why that image held so much appeal. When I was a kid one of my favorite movies was "Prince Valiant" with Robert Wagner in 1954, so there's no way it could be too sentimental for me. I'm anything but a Prince, but when my wife looks at me that way, I sure feel as if I could be.

Thanks for the memory...

Greg

Glad for the sentimental childhood reminder (that kind of thing can't be too popular around here!). Relatedly, I'm 1,100 pages into a book about the day-by-day life of Errol Flynn; it's about 80% complete. I can well relate to the escapist draw of those films and characters.

R

Over the decades a sentimental memory evolved into an archetype that has a direct causal connection to my life today. Something I had idealized when very young became realized... and it's not the only one.

Ever notice that when you are looking for fruit on a tree, once you see the first one, it becomes much easier to see more? This same principle applies. In the long view having lived most of my life, there have accumulated a number of "dreams come true". Enough to be able to identify a template of the process... and that has never ceased to amaze me.

Greg

[Robert Florczak]

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

I enjoy the work of Ernst, Klee, Brancusi, Calder, Vlaminck, Kandinsky, even some Delaunay and Tobey, among others. I find much of their work to be good. Not great, but good. Keep in mind that I make a great distinction between quality and taste, a distinction infuriatingly confused and interchanged by many, and an issue into which I will further delve in subsequent videos. (Forgive, but I will have to take up your earlier post a little later...)

[Jonathan]

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

I enjoy the work of Ernst, Klee, Brancusi, Calder, Vlaminck, Kandinsky, even some Delaunay and Tobey, among others. I find much of their work to be good. Not great, but good. Keep in mind that I make a great distinction between quality and taste, a distinction infuriatingly confused and interchanged by many, and an issue into which I will further delve in subsequent videos. (Forgive, but I will have to take up your earlier post a little later...)

I'm looking forward to your future videos with great enthusiasm, especially if you plan on attempting to make an objective distinction between quality and taste, by which I mean a distinction which does not include any attempt to sneak in your own subjective tastes.

J

[Robert Florczak]

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

Btw, Robert, you say that you don't find all modern art to be bad. Will you please give some example of modern art that you think is good?

J

I enjoy the work of Ernst, Klee, Brancusi, Calder, Vlaminck, Kandinsky, even some Delaunay and Tobey, among others. I find much of their work to be good. Not great, but good. Keep in mind that I make a great distinction between quality and taste, a distinction infuriatingly confused and interchanged by many, and an issue into which I will further delve in subsequent videos. (Forgive, but I will have to take up your earlier post a little later...)

I'm looking forward to your future videos with great enthusiasm, especially if you plan on attempting to make an objective distinction between quality and taste, by which I mean a distinction which does not include any attempt to sneak in your own subjective tastes.

J

Sir....? Doest thou thinkest I would engage in such deception?!