Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Brant Gaede]

We have art--all kinds of art all over the place. Sans Rand, what is the practical need to define it a certain way?

--Brant

That's the bare truth of the matter. All kinds of art, and why typify it - can it be typified? (yes, in broad terms, with endless variations on a theme, I think).

What good does art do mankind or each of us, and why? Can it do harm to the mind?

Always in the background is Objectivist principles, method and ethics.

You have the start of a good-faith discussion, there - how these art discussions 'should' start. I believe there are small holes in Rand's theory of art, but it's hard to examine them without a more or less similar grounding in what AR "meant", and some forebearance and good faith allowed one.

I can go on all day but I've had my say here.

Ellen, over to you. ;]

Keep talking. It's better than talking about torture with people who have no idea about what it really is--thank God!

--Brant

[anthony]

You mean it's not torture reading my stuff?!

Forget waterboarding -- you're gonna read whYNOT...

Please, NO - I'll talk!

[moralist]

We have art--all kinds of art all over the place. Sans Rand, what is the practical need to define it a certain way?

--Brant

That's the bare truth of the matter. All kinds of art, and why typify it - can it be typified? (yes, in broad terms, with endless variations on a theme, I think).

What good does art do mankind or each of us, and why? Can it actually do harm to the mind?

Always in the background is Objectivist principles, method and ethics.

You have to stop, Tony. You're making too much sense.

Greg

[Jonathan]

To repeat (in my words), it's the artist's image of reality which he (re)creates, depicting identifiable components from reality resulting in a new (man-made) reality (his).

See it now?

I see it. You're saying that music doesn't qualify as art.

You recognise reality 'at large', right? Do you seek it in a manmade image?

Another way - is one supposed by the artist to recognise what reality he has rendered (say, in the abstract you showed)? Do you think the artist him(her)-self expects we the viewers to recognise it? Should he, in fact, be coherent at all?

Yup. You're definitely saying that music is not art.

One might assume that a piece of abstract art represents something important (to him) about the artist's inner state (perhaps) or his purview of reality and existence (perhaps) --

but, how do we know??(Subjective)

Who's "we"? Unaware, unobservant you? Anyway, what you just said applies equally to music.

why should we have to take it on Faith??

Do you take it on faith with music? You don't have to take anything on faith. If you don't experience anything in a work of art, then go find some art that does something for you. If you can't believe that other people experience what you don't, then fuck off. What do want? Are you demanding that people deny their experiences because you don't share them? Do you want them to admit to you that they don't experience what they say they do? What is the point of your being so worked up about others experiencing in abstract art what you don't?

if one didn't 'know' - or believe - that "it is a Jackson Pollock, you know!", one realistically could assume it was by a child, or a drunk who'd picked up a paint brush for the first time.

Who is the "one" that you're talking about? You? Unaware, unobservant you? And why do all of you anti-abstract art panickers always refer to Pollock as if he represents all abstract art? There are many other abstract painters, and most people -- including those who are not fans of abstract art -- can tell quite easily that a child could not paint what they paint.

What entirely different status would the public place in the picture, knowing it is by one, not the other? (Authoritarian)

Why are you so concerned about "the public" and what everyone else thinks? Why are you trying to control and delegitimize other people and their aesthetic responses based on your own (or lack thereof)?

Additionally, what disdain is shown by an otherwise expert artist, to his audience's minds, when he produces a work for the public which cannot POSSIBLY be understood consistently by anyone?

The fact that YOU cannot understand something does not mean that no one else can. Unaware, unobservant you are not the universal standard of human cognition or aesthetic response.

Anyway, again, everything you've said is also true of music. And realitist still life paintings. When I've asked Objectivish folk to identify subjects and meanings in still lifes, they haven't been able to do so. Some people are aware and observant and sensitive, and they get things out of art. Others aren't, and don't. The latter are not in charge of deciding what is or is not art for everyone else, even though they very badly want to be.

The basis of all of Rand is reality and reason.

Heh. Yeah. Good one. The reality and reason of defining art as a re-creation of reality, and then allowing genres which do not re-create reality!

When tested in reality, very little qualifies as art when using Rand's definition and criteria. Architecture, music, dance, poetry, still life paintings -- and even quite a lot of overtly narrative paintings, dramas and novels if we use the average Objectivist's lack of response as our standard.

J

[moralist]

It's pretty damned amazing that you can see Pollock's values and state of mind in a painting created by a girl named "Karen."

Yes it is. Thank you for acknowledging the truth.

This is a deranged imbecile who destroyed himself...

And this is how an idiot sees reality...

But I at least have to give him some credit for fooling gullible leftists into believing he was an "artist". Pollack had no more skill than a little girl.

And so my original point doesn't get lost in the static:

Anyone who puts a high high value on Pollock's paint spasms also shares his moral values.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Now, Rand's moral values. She writes a novel in which the world goes to hell because John Galt bs convinces all the producers to go passive-aggressive and retire from it. Millions starve (back story). This badly reflects on the moral values of all her fans. Also, when the play The Unconquered opened in the late 1930s it was so bad to her she had to gulp down some serious vodka to go see it. Staggering out of the theater she got in her car and killed her--oh, wait, she didn't--but if she had your liking of We the Living would reflect your moral scumery.

--Brant

tricking Nathaniel Branden into her bed . . . after tricking him into marrying Barbara tricking Barbara too boot and kicking her husband out of their apartment to make use of the adulterous bed (the bed's moral values went to hell too because it enjoyed all the vibrations) . . .

scum, scum, scum!--I'm just scum for admiring Ayn Rand

[Francisco Ferrer]

1. Alcoholism/substance abuse is irrelevant to modern art. Just as there were modernist painters who were not alcoholics (Mark Tobey, for example), there were alcoholics who practiced in other schools of art, such as Toulouse-Lautrec.

2. Modernism is irrelevant to leftism. One of modern art's champions was Hilton Kramer, a political conservative who wrote frequently for National Review.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I saw this pop up recently and it seems germane to this discussion:

How the Infection of Postmodernism is Now Killing Its Designers
by Kasimir Urbanski
Dec 16, 2014
EveryJoe

If you keep saying “there’s no such thing as true or false, right or wrong, there’s only personal narratives that can only be forced or defended by Semantics,” you are arguing for the intellectual equivalent of “Might-Makes-Right.” And the problem with that is that this philosophy very rarely favors the weak, the poor, minorities, etc., for very long.

The Left kept telling the Right that their ideas about Truth or Morals didn't mean anything and were equally valid as anyone’s opinion. That all authority was inherently illegitimate. That rules were for squares, man; and that we could create our own reality. And sure, the Left had an idea of trying to force a hippie-wonderland reality of being “Nice”, “tolerant”, of helping minorities, etc. But they had no intellectual or moral basis for these ideas, because they believe in nothing. Their principle was that it was their opinion that we should be nice, their “narrative” of how we should be to each other, and they bet the whole farm on their certainty that they could control Language (Semantics) in such a way as to run circles around the old dumb right-wingers who stupid enough still actually believe in stuff.

Now we have people running the Right (not the ones at the base, but the elites of the Right) who have figured out the game, and been absorbed into the postmodernist paradigm; so they suddenly don’t believe in Truth either. The problem is, their Narrative of being Complete Psychopaths In It For Themselves is a stronger Semantic Weapon than the liberal-douchebag narrative of being snide but ineffective whiners.

It was the same reason more than one hippie commune failed: as soon as you say “there are no rules, we can all do our own thing and rap it out, brother!”, the guy who’s going to win from that is the asshole who is best at being the most manipulative.

This is more of a rant than an article, but I believe there is something worth considering in it. And it starts with art.

Can there be objective values or is the whole thing subjective? That is the question. If you get total subjectivity and only individualized narrative in the arts (postmodernism), once that takes, you can easily extend it to reality and politics in the culture. Then society, with no standards, melts down into a system where the most brutal and manipulative "assholes" take all (to use Urbanski's colorful descriptive).

This process is very close to what I mean by core story, at least it runs in parallel. Standards or lack of them are spread by stories, but the core story will reflect the culture's main emphasis on objective and subjective values.

And guess what the most manipulative people will do? That's right. Create a core story with values embedded that allow them to get and keep power. And they always start with art. Even religions start with art (storytelling).

I'm not sure who on the right Urbanski is referring to when he said the elite right has embraced postmodernism. But in the comments (where there was a lot of trolling), on guy said: "I think the article is a good start and I think the overall point is true. If it is lacking anything it is concrete example of this behavior. I might suggest that a future article be focused upon a case study of how this behavior turns a constructive debate into a shrill infantile shout match."

Urbanski replied, "Oh, there will be such articles, I guarantee it. This was an introduction to what will be ONE of the running themes of my writing here on EveryJoe."

So it might be worth keeping and eye out for the follow-ups to see what he comes up with.

Michael

[Jonathan]

1. Alcoholism/substance abuse is irrelevant to modern art. Just as there were modernist painters who were not alcoholics (Mark Tobey, for example), there were alcoholics who practiced in other schools of art, such as Toulouse-Lautrec.

2. Modernism is irrelevant to leftism. One of modern art's champions was Hilton Kramer, a political conservative who wrote frequently for National Review.

Logic and reason don't work on Greg. He has no more thinking skills than a little girl. His method of thinking is make believe and emotion and affirming the consequent.

J

[Jonathan]

This is more of a rant than an article, but I believe there is something worth considering in it. And it starts with art.

Can there be objective values or is the whole thing subjective?

Do you mean can there be objective aesthetic values or do you mean can there be objective moral values? If the former, then no. If the latter, then yes.

If a postmodernist artist creates, say, a work of music which she says represents and advocates her belief that murder, torture and theft are virtues, then we can objectively judge her to have had the intention of portraying vices as virtues.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Esthetic values can be objectified if they are technical, as in how to apply paint, use perspective, etc. That's all. Esthetics is not about valuing for the esthetic values of the esthetician cannot be generalized over humanity. Esthetics is only about what is. That's objectification. Moral evaluation of a work of art may be appropriate, but outside the legitimate discipline of esthetics. Rand liked to mix it all up and then dump it on the reader. She did the same thing--dump on the reader--in the introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness, with an "insult" (Nathaniel Branden).

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Esthetic values can be objectified if they are technical, as in how to apply paint, use perspective, etc. That's all.

What you're calling "esthetic values" above are not actually aesthetic judgments, but utilitarian judgments as applied to the technical means of creating art. Applying paint at the desired thickness and consistency is an issue of the science of physical measurement, not of taste and sentiment, and therefore not of aesthetics. The use of proper perspective is an issue of accurately applying geometry, not of taste and sentiment, and therefore not of aesthetics. Only the psychological/emotional effects that paint application and conformity to (or deviation from) proper perspective have on us are issues of aesthetics.

Moral evaluation of a work of art may be appropriate, but outside the legitimate discipline of esthetics.

Exactly!

J

[moralist]

1. Alcoholism/substance abuse is irrelevant to modern art.

While there will be exceptions to a generality... exceptions do not invalidate a generality.

The left owns Libertinism. It is an article of religious faith that are no objective moral standards of personal behavior. Dope and alcohol are revered as Holy Sacraments. One example: Both figure heavily in the world of contemporary "popular" music with a long list of self-destructed artists.The world of art (painting sculpture movies music) belongs primarily to the left because it is a feminine ideology. And while there are certainly exceptions to this, nevertheless it remains to be generally true.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

The world of art (painting sculpture movies music) belongs primarily to the left because it is a feminine ideology. And while there are certainly exceptions to this, nevertheless it remains to be generally true.

Greg

Your PhD adviser says, "Go with this." Do you know what that means?

--Brant

Edited December 18, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[PDS]

The world of art (painting sculpture movies music) belongs primarily to the left because it is a feminine ideology. And while there are certainly exceptions to this, nevertheless it remains to be generally true.

Greg

You PhD advisor says, "Go with this." Do you know what that means?

--Brant

This is hilarious.

[Mikee]

I might give this thread a try now that my doc has advised I start taking a shit load of cardizem and xanax...

[Supraventricular tachycardia]

[Ellen Stuttle]

Kamhi's Criteria for Visual "Fine Art" - 1

In both Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Who Says That's Art?, Kamhi gives her criteria for including a visual work in the category "fine art."

I'll post both versions. They differ somewhat in wording.

The list from Chapter 1 - "What Exactly Are We Talking About?" - is given in a chapter section titled "What Have Non-European Peoples Thought About Art?"

uWho Says That's Art?

Chapter 1, pg. 24

[...] if one regards as "mainstream" the common premises of people outside the artworld, I would argue that they are not so very different from those of non-Western traditional cultures. [....]

[M]y own basic assumptions about the nature of art are largely at odds with those of most art critics and scholars and probably resemble those held, if only implicitly, by many people. Moreover, it is not difficult to find clear counterparts of such thought in non-Western cultures. What are some of these basic assumptions?

- First, that all works of art are made with special care and skill - they are not the product of casual whim, chance, or accident.

- Second, that the emotionally meaningful forms of visual art consist of two- or three-dimensional representations of actual or imagined persons, places, objects, or events. They are not abstract.

- Third, that such imagery, while not necessarily realistic in style, is intelligible within its cultural context. It embodies, in comprehensible forms, ideas and values that are important to the individuals who create them and have the potential to interest and move others.

- Fourth, that a true work of art is the product of more than just technical skill, or craft. It involves a personal sensitivity, talent, or vision, which enabled the painter or sculptor to bring a subject to life and imbue it with meaning in a compelling way. The most extraordinary instances of that elusive quality are referred to as artistic "genius."

Any work that does not possess all these attributes is either failed art or non-art in my view.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Kamhi's Criteria for Visual "Fine Art" - 2

The following statement opens Chapter 2 - "What Qualities Make a Work 'Art'? And How and Why Do We Respond?"

Who Says That's Art?

Chapter 2, pp. 33-34

As indicated in the previous chapter, the art dealt with here consists of the major visual arts - chiefly, painting and sculpture - as contrasted with the decorative or applied arts. What are their defining qualities? I suggested these:

Like all art, works of visual art are made with special skill and care. They are not the product of mere whim or chance.

Visual art is representational. It consists of two- or three-dimensional images of actual or imagined persons, places, objects, or events.

Such representations are not necessarily realistic in style, but they are intelligible and emotionally meaningful within their cultural context. They embody, in recognizable forms, ideas and values that are not only of personal significance important to the individual who created them but also have the potential to interest and move others.

A true work of art is the product of more than just technical skill. It involves a distinctive sensibility, an intensity of vision that brings the subject to life in a compelling way.

Any work that does not meet all these criteria is, in my view, either failed art or non-art. Though people may differ in judging whether a particular work meets them all, they can serve as a standard against which every work should be judged. If pressed to encapsulate these qualities in a formal definition, I would say:

Visual art is imagery that skillfully represents real or imagined people, places, and things in a form expressive of the maker's temperament, deeply held values, and view of life.

Throughout this book, I frequently refer to "painting and sculpture." Let me make clear that this is meant as a shorthand way of designating all the arts of two- and three-dimensional imagery. In addition to paintings in oil and other media and sculptures chiseled in stone or carved in wood, these may include drawings, etchings, and woodblock prints, as well as figures shaped in clay and cast in metal.

As my defining criteria indicate, however, not every instance of imagery qualifies as art. Paint-by-numbers landscapes made by amateur hobbyists, for example, are obviously not art in the sense dealt with here. They are based on someone else's template; very little skill is involved in their making; and the resulting images are formulaic, superficial, and essentially vapid. Nor do mass-produced replicas of famous works of sculpture qualify as art, although the originals themselves surely do. Nor should advertisements and other forms of "commercial art" be confused with fine art. All these examples belong in the broad category of "visual culture." Such imagery differs in fundamental ways from fine art, although some of today's academics and art teachers regrettably ignore these distinctions.

Ellen

[moralist]

Logic and reason don't work on Greg.

Certainly not the amoral "logic and reason" of the feminized left. So I'm happy they don't work on me, because I'd be an unproductive failure if they did. Our difference in views can be attributed to each of us living by different standards.

Greg

[anthony]

Ellen, Kamhi is clear as crystal - but the art-ocrats won't approve.

[Brant Gaede]

Logic and reason don't work on Greg.

Certainly not the amoral "logic and reason" of the feminized left. So I'm happy they don't work on me, because I'd be an unproductive failure if they did. Our difference in views can be attributed to each of us living by different standards.

Greg

Not for me: art, logic and reason.

--Brant

keep digging--China's next!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you mean can there be objective aesthetic values or do you mean can there be objective moral values?

Jonathan,

I mean there can be both.

Like all objective measurements of quality, though, you have to set a standard, otherwise you can't measure anything.

Objective measurements are comparative in nature.

What happens when no standard is set? There is no objectivity. Here's an example with non art so you know what I am talking about.

Someone looks at a beach and says it's a long stretch of beach. You could say, "Not if you're a giant alien from outer space."

In both cases there is an implicit standard since there is no such measurement as "long." What does "long" mean objectively? If you don't compare it to anything or provide any context (which gives a background for comparison), "long" is simply a word that could mean anything to anyone. Thinking that way, it doesn't even have to refer to length.

The implicit measurement is the size of the observer, though. Without that, the statement is entirely subjective. With it, the statement is objective, both when the human says the stretch is long and the giant alien says it is not.

Using this form of measurement, let's look at art. And instead of saying "long," let's say "good." Does "good" mean anything without a standard? Just floating out there by itself?

No.

It's a qualitative measurement and it needs a standard to have meaning.

But let's ask about good to take a closer look.

What is a good story and what is a bad one aesthetically?

Here's an example of a bad story:

A rock on the side of the road.

But there is an implicit aesthetic standard that has been in place since the dawn of storytelling. A story has to include a change of time. I can measure the story above with that standard. There is no change of time in the story. Thus objectively, it's a bad story if someone is presenting it as one.

A rock was on the side of the road from dawn until night.

That's still not a good story (there are other aesthetic standards), but objectively, in aesthetic terms, it no longer suffers from the defect of lack of change in time. So it's no longer a bad story for that reason.

I can extend this to include other stuff, but that's enough for the purpose of an example of an aesthetic standard.

Now I can make this even more objective by showing how narratives effect changes in the human brain through fMRI scans and psychological studies. This means I can separately test and peg specific elements of narrative (the initial aesthetic standards) directly to how the human brain works and back it up with science.

That's objective.

I suspect when you and I use the term aesthetically objective and subjective, we are not talking about the same things.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Ellen, Kamhi is clear as crystal -

Kamhi is indeed clear as crystal: She is attempting to establish her own aesthetic limitations as the standard for all of mankind. She requires art to be "intelligible and emotionally meaningful." To whom? How does Kamhi determine what is "intelligible and emotionally meaningful"? If she doesn't get it or respond to it emotionally, then she believes that it is unintelligible and meaningless for the entire human race, even if others get it and responds to it emotionally. In fact, when other people get it and respond to it emotionally, Kamhi petulantly claims that the are only pretending to!

but the art-ocrats won't approve.

Kamhi is the "art-ocrat." She has dedicated her entire life to telling other people what is not art based on her own personal lack of aesthetic response. Other people are not telling Kamhi what is not art. See how that works, Tony? Those who are not being the bossy-pantses can't accurately be called "art-ocrats."

J

[moralist]

Not for me: art, logic and reason.

That all depends by what standard you reason, Brant...

Jonathan holds the leftist definition of "logic and reason"... while I do not. So naturally what he worships as "reason and logic" in modern abstract art, I regard as random baby drool.

Greg

[moralist]

Do you mean can there be objective aesthetic values or do you mean can there be objective moral values?

Both.

The former serves the higher purpose of the latter.

Greg