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

[Jonathan]

Meanwhile, I'm about 2/3 through reading Kamhi's book. She's swaying me toward her viewpoint on "abstract" painting and sculpture.

Ellen

I don't think that it really matters which way that you go, as long as you're consistent, which Kamhi is not. If one requires intelligible representations of things in art, and therefore one rejects abstract visual art, then consistency demands that music and dance must also be rejected.

J

P.S. I think that this whole issue may come down to Objectivish-types being confused over the idea of "essence" when defining an entity. They seem to have come to the mistaken position that an entity is limited to its "essence." In other words, visually speaking, they think that an entitiy's "essence" is its form, and therefore they believe that it is wrong for an artist to leave out its "essence" and to show only its secondary attributes. They appear to believe that they (and therefore everyone else) can only get meaning from essential characteristics, and that secondary characteristics cannot possibly have any meaning whatsoever...except in music, dance and any other abstract art form that Rand gave them permission to accept as valid despite their not meeting her criteria.

[Jonathan]

The scholar Denis Dutton once asked:

"Personally, I find Rand's definition of art absurdly limited. By the way, exactly what reality is 're-created' in a Bach fugue?"

The question remains unanswered by Torres and Kamhi. It's the elephant in the room. It's the comically obvious contradiction and double standard which all the scholarly posing in the world can't conceal. It's the issue around which Objectivish-types hem and haw, equivocate, bluff, bluster, and prevaricate. It's a legitimate reason that essays, articles and books on the Objectivist Esthetics are not taken seriously.

J

[Jonathan]

Excerpt From: Michelle Marder Kamhi. Who Says That's Art? A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts. iBooks.

This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/CIFH3.l

Also relevant to Mondrianas to many other abstract paintersare a telling series of experiments that Solso reported upon. Performed by the prominent British neuroscientist Semir Zeki, these experiments show significant differences in the way the brain responds to abstract patterns, on one hand, and realistic images, on the other. With his student Ludovica Marini, Zeki sought to discover what areas of the brain are normally activated when humans view colors as properties of objects rather than in abstract compositions similar to Mondrian's. They found that "much larger parts of the brain are activated" by colored images than by colors in an abstract context. Imagery not only engages more of the brain's visual processing center, it also involves "regions of the brain traditionally associated with higher cognitive functions"in particular, the hippocampus, which manages both emotion and long-term memory. Nonetheless, the authors uncritically observe that abstract work has been "a very dominant tendency in modern art."

Zeki and Marini did not employ actual works of art in their experiments, only simulations of Mondrian paintings. But they speculate in their conclusion that a study undertaken with such works would probably yield similar results. Regrettably, no such study has yet been undertaken. Studies of that kind might have the beneficial effect of countering the claims made for abstract art as a meaningful form of expression.

Heh. Um, I wonder if Kamhi would be shocked to discover that different parts of the brain are also used when listening to music without lyrics versus listening to music with lyrics. Would such information suggest to her that music is therefore meaningless? If similar studies were to show that much larger parts of the brain are activated by realistic images than by music, would Kamhi conclude that the study made a strong case against music qualifying as a meaningful form of expression? If studies of cognitive function were to show that significantly more portions of the brain are used when viewing a movie than when watching a ballet, would that also be a "telling" experiment?

And, OMG, I can't believe the folly of these people not testing actual works of art, but instead thinking that it would be acceptable to substitute them with "simulations"!!! Way to taint the science right out of the gate! What were they thinking?! It's like, if you wanted to test the effects of music on the brain, would it even occur to you to do something as stupid as not testing actual music, but to instead test simulations of music?!!! WTF? What would be the point of intentionally eliminating the actual artistry, and replacing it with a cheap approximation? It seems that the only possible purpose of doing so would be to achieve the intended result of claiming that test subjects didn't respond to the art, even though they weren't exposed to the art.

J

[Jonathan]

If Frank Lloyd Wright were alive today, and we were able to test his brain activity in response to the abstract compositions of architecture, do you think that we might observe more brain activity in him than in some average "ordinary citizen" dope who has no interest in the art form of architecture?

If we were to show Wright examples of great architecture versus simulations of architecture, do you think that his brain activity would be the same in response to both? Would it be rational to expect that he should have the same aesthetic and cognitive response to expertly crafted architectural compositions as he had to comparatively awkward simulations?

If we were to test Kamhi and Torres's brains for activity while viewing architecture, would the results apply universally to all people? Would it be logical to conclude that enthusiastic fans and practitioners of the art form would necessarily have the same level of brain activity as people who aren't interested in the art form and who admit to not getting enough out of it to classify it as an art form?

J

[anthony]

Excerpt From: Michelle Marder Kamhi. Who Says That's Art? A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts. iBooks.

This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/CIFH3.l

Also relevant to Mondrianas to many other abstract paintersare a telling series of experiments that Solso reported upon. Performed by the prominent British neuroscientist Semir Zeki, these experiments show significant differences in the way the brain responds to abstract patterns, on one hand, and realistic images, on the other. With his student Ludovica Marini, Zeki sought to discover what areas of the brain are normally activated when humans view colors as properties of objects rather than in abstract compositions similar to Mondrian's. They found that "much larger parts of the brain are activated" by colored images than by colors in an abstract context. Imagery not only engages more of the brain's visual processing center, it also involves "regions of the brain traditionally associated with higher cognitive functions"in particular, the hippocampus, which manages both emotion and long-term memory. Nonetheless, the authors uncritically observe that abstract work has been "a very dominant tendency in modern art."

J

Quite an interesting study ("'...much larger parts of the brain are activated' by colored images than by colors in an abstract context").

Interesting, though intuitive. It's gratifying to see neuroscience catching up and confirming what we know, introspectively.

It reminded me of something in TRM.

Rand - on "blobs of color" in "new art" - wrote:

"This produces nothing, in the viewer's consciousness, but the boredom of being unemployed".

J, this sort of empirical experiment should please you, since it is some iota of 'proof' which you've often asked for. So why tear into it? ("Simulations!!!")

You couldn't expect the experimenter to borrow an original Mondrian for the tests, surely? heh. A replica, or many approximations will get the same result I imagine, importantly without the subject knowing anything of the paintings' pedigree (preferably someone who hasn't any interest in art) to prevent cognitive bias.

(Easy, fella - don't want you busting a gut).

[Jonathan]

Tony, please read post 254.

Um, the idea with science isn't to make approximations, to imagine results, to fantasize that one's intuitions and introspections are being confirmed, or to make wild, unsupported speculations based on having tested simulations of what one actually intended to test.

But let's do some intuiting and introspecting now. Earlier you were unable to tell the difference between a painting by a little girl and a Pollock. I was able to tell the difference. Would you intuit that more brain activity was involved when I looked at the painting than when you did? Would you introspect that I must have been much more aware and that I noticed more specific information and details about the image, such as color selectivity, style, graphic rhythm, etc.? Or would you expect that science would show that your level of brain activity was the limit of human cognition, and that my level of brain activity could not have exceeded yours?

J

[anthony]

I noticed more specific information and details about the image...

J

But there's the basic and wrong premise you continue with. It's what gives rise to irrelevant (or at most, peripheral) issues such as expertise in, and pre-knowledge of an artist - and art generally. You can know more than I, agreed, but can you ~see~ better? Is "specific information" about technique a prerequisite for understanding a representational image? Why so then, for abstract images? In recognising the techniques employed, does it lend a psychic insight into an artist's purpose and meaning?

Who is art mostly produced for, then? for the art-intellectuals with fine art degrees, and the big-money buyers? That is the elitist 'artocracy' I meant earlier.

Somewhere in Art and Cognition, AR emphasizes this point, that the "how" is always secondary to the "what". I'd call it content over stylization (and of course the latter is important too).

A Pollock, or by a novice...why should anyone have to know the difference, going in? Hardly an objective and independent position.

And no, no fantasy - neuroscience is beginning to empirically justify what philosophers have taught about consciousness; despite anyone disapproving of the results.

[Jonathan]

But there's the basic and wrong premise you continue with. It's what gives rise to irrelevant (or at most, peripheral) issues such as expertise in, and pre-knowledge of an artist - and art generally.

I'm not talking about "expertise" or "pre-knowledge," but about simple observation, awareness and understanding. I am more aware and observant of visual phenomena than you are. And significantly so.

Have you ever been tested for visual, spatial and mechanical reasoning? Such testing is not about "pre-knowledge of an artist and art in general." It is about recognizing and understanding visual information. That's what I'm talking about. Not expertise in art history. In fact, I'm talking about the visual awareness and understanding that I had as far back as kindergarten and elementary school, long before I had ever heard of abstract artists. I have always been very visually competent.

You can know more than I, agreed, but can you ~see~ better?

Yes, absolutely! That's exactly what I'm saying. I see better than you do. I see and comprehend massively more in visuals than you do. And, again, I'm not just talking about abstract forms and colors, but about realistic images as well. I see things that would take months of teaching you, or perhaps even years, in order to make you see them.

Is "specific information" about technique a prerequisite for understanding a representational image? Why so then, for abstract images?

No, specific information about technique is not a prerequisite for understanding a representational image, nor is it for abstract images. You've jumped to an erroneous assumption and conclusion.

In recognising the techniques employed, does it lend a psychic insight into an artist's purpose and meaning?

Are you asking me if I think that style can be expressive? If so, then, yes.

Are you suggesting that if I see something that you don't, I must be claiming to have "psychic" abilities?

Who is art mostly produced for, then? for the art-intellectuals with fine art degrees, and the big-money buyers?

You sound very resentful. Art isn't produced for "art-intellectuals," but for people who are passionate about art, and who get a lot out of it. It is not produced for people who pay no attention to it and see nothing in it, and who get emotionally worked up about the fact that others do see something in it.

Since you think that visual art should be produced for average folks next door, should all other things also be limited and dumbed down so as not to be insultingly elitist? Should, say, physics be limited to what you personally can grasp?

That is the elitist 'artocracy' I meant earlier.

The fact that other people observe more than you do doesn't make them elitist. You're still starting with yourself and your tastes and sensitivities as the assumed standards and limits of what is normal, and then accusing others of elitism in comparison based on those standards. Well, you haven't shown that you should be considered the standard of what is normal. Rather than my being an "elitist," I might be the standard of normal, and you might be visually deficient.

Either way, it shouldn't be so upsetting to you. I suck at math. But I don't go around resenting people who are good at math. I don't tell them that they're just making things up when I don't understand what they're talking about. I don't think that they're "elitists mathocrats" because they're not willing to limit mathematics to my level.

And no, no fantasy - neuroscience is beginning to empirically justify what philosophers have taught about consciousness; despite anyone disapproving of the results.

I don't disapprove of the results at all. I just disagree with the non-scientific interpretations of the results and the unwarranted speculations. Do you understand how science works? The idea isn't to try to confirm one's biases. The idea of testing one's hypotheses is to try one's hardest to disprove them.

J

[Jonathan]

Tony, do you think that the character Howard Roark was a nasty elitist artocrat? After all, he didn't care what average Joes thought of his work. He didn't limit himself to their limitations.

When you read The Fountainhead, were you rooting for those who wanted to bring Roark down to their level, and to stop him from being such an elitist snotty-pants? Since he worked producing an abstract art form, do you think that he was a destroyer whose mind was in the final stages of disintegration?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Have I an ongoing history of "kindergarten-level stuff" with you?

--Brant

No, you don't have a history of kindergarten-level stuff. But on the issue of desaturated blue being cool, that's kindergarten, and I'm not interested in teaching or arguing kindergarten-level stuff. If you're seriously interested, go read books on the subject. Maybe start with the knowledge that the notion of warmth and coolness of colors is not a modernist or postmodernist concoction, but rather has been around since the beginning of time. It's not something new and shocking and hard to observe and understand.

The problem seems simply to be your saying desaturated blue instead of blue. There are two logical implications--that saturated would be hotter and that it would be colder. In any case, I note your arrogant, condescending anger. I don't accept being talked down to by anyone so you are blocked, permanently.

--Brant

Instead of speculating and picking and nitpicking from a state of ignorance, go out and learn what cool versus warm colors are, and why.

I'm not angry. I'm just not interested in experiencing the boredom and aggravation of dealing one more time with someone who doesn't know the most elementary things about color but brings up the irrelevant objection that certain blues in certain limited conditions are hot, and then clings to that argument and refuses to learn, observe and acknowledge all of the contexts in which blue is cool.

J

Sometimes a little generosity goes a long way--or the lack the other direction. Telling me to go read a book when you could have explained things to me in two or three sentences instead of explaining and then suggesting a book is quite a difference. Anyway, back-reading this thread to read the you I had missed I found you had posted you had apologized to me. Since I find you valuable it's irrational to cut my own throat on this. You have a way of untangling logical knots that matches my ability with humorous one-liners, so I'll accept it when I find it in a few minutes.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Have I an ongoing history of "kindergarten-level stuff" with you?

--Brant

No, you don't have a history of kindergarten-level stuff. But on the issue of desaturated blue being cool, that's kindergarten, and I'm not interested in teaching or arguing kindergarten-level stuff. If you're seriously interested, go read books on the subject. Maybe start with the knowledge that the notion of warmth and coolness of colors is not a modernist or postmodernist concoction, but rather has been around since the beginning of time. It's not something new and shocking and hard to observe and understand.

The problem seems simply to be your saying desaturated blue instead of blue. There are two logical implications--that saturated would be hotter and that it would be colder. In any case, I note your arrogant, condescending anger. I don't accept being talked down to by anyone so you are blocked, permanently.

--Brant

Brant, I want to apologize to you. I'm sorry for having taken out my frustration on you. I'm just sick and tired of hearing the example of the blue flame. It's the exception to the rule that pops into people's heads, and, generally, since they're oblivious to the rule, they act as if their exception should therefore be the rule. And then they can't see or understand examples of the actual rule. Even with illustrations.

But I shouldn't have assumed that you were coming from that mindset. Sorry.

J

No problemo. But you should spend your winters in Mexico--not Minnesota.

--Brant

[anthony]

The elitist artocrat holds himself above reality and perception. He's the High Priest of Art who doesn't really want to be understood, just revered without cause. (And benefit from feeding or advising a massively wealthy market).

And so, abstract art: the perfect medium for fakers.

("If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand", is the implication).

(As depicted in the novel btw, Roark didn't have to explain his work, it stood for itself - elitist and superior, in reality).

"Dumbed down", is of course a false dichotomy and non-sequitur which you snuck in here.

The central point Kamhi makes is "intelligibility", and so far little you've shown is that new or unknown, even to inferior photographers like me, who obviously (you seem to know) can't understand all the varieties of perspective, line, color contrast and all the rest. Yeah, red, yellow or blue convey one mood, a sinuous curve indicates another, -- symbols and techniques, with different effects. But all on their own in abstract images, replacing reality? Admire the symbolism, and derive real entities and human qualities from them? Hell, no, an impossible and artificial stretch, rationalistic and rationalizing.

It comes back to,

"This produces nothing, in the viewer's consciousness, but the boredom of being unemployed".

Really, J: you don't have to show that you know your stuff because you're an artist, or show you're an artist because you know your stuff. 'Confirmation bias'. You are an artist because of skills, talents, sensitivity, observational ability - it's a given. You haven't made a case for unintelligibility in art and that's what counts here, and rather not to presume on others' unawareness and insensitivity..

[Jonathan]

Have I an ongoing history of "kindergarten-level stuff" with you?

--Brant

No, you don't have a history of kindergarten-level stuff. But on the issue of desaturated blue being cool, that's kindergarten, and I'm not interested in teaching or arguing kindergarten-level stuff. If you're seriously interested, go read books on the subject. Maybe start with the knowledge that the notion of warmth and coolness of colors is not a modernist or postmodernist concoction, but rather has been around since the beginning of time. It's not something new and shocking and hard to observe and understand.

The problem seems simply to be your saying desaturated blue instead of blue. There are two logical implications--that saturated would be hotter and that it would be colder. In any case, I note your arrogant, condescending anger. I don't accept being talked down to by anyone so you are blocked, permanently.

--Brant

Instead of speculating and picking and nitpicking from a state of ignorance, go out and learn what cool versus warm colors are, and why.

I'm not angry. I'm just not interested in experiencing the boredom and aggravation of dealing one more time with someone who doesn't know the most elementary things about color but brings up the irrelevant objection that certain blues in certain limited conditions are hot, and then clings to that argument and refuses to learn, observe and acknowledge all of the contexts in which blue is cool.

J

Sometimes a little generosity goes a long way--or the lack the other direction. Telling me to go read a book when you could have explained things to me in two or three sentences instead of explaining and then suggesting a book is quite a difference. Anyway, back-reading this thread to read the you I had missed I found you had posted you had apologized to me. Since I find you valuable it's irrational to cut my own throat on this. You have a way of untangling logical knots that matches my ability with humorous one-liners, so I'll accept it when I find it in a few minutes.

--Brant

Have I an ongoing history of "kindergarten-level stuff" with you?

--Brant

No, you don't have a history of kindergarten-level stuff. But on the issue of desaturated blue being cool, that's kindergarten, and I'm not interested in teaching or arguing kindergarten-level stuff. If you're seriously interested, go read books on the subject. Maybe start with the knowledge that the notion of warmth and coolness of colors is not a modernist or postmodernist concoction, but rather has been around since the beginning of time. It's not something new and shocking and hard to observe and understand.

The problem seems simply to be your saying desaturated blue instead of blue. There are two logical implications--that saturated would be hotter and that it would be colder. In any case, I note your arrogant, condescending anger. I don't accept being talked down to by anyone so you are blocked, permanently.

--Brant

Brant, I want to apologize to you. I'm sorry for having taken out my frustration on you. I'm just sick and tired of hearing the example of the blue flame. It's the exception to the rule that pops into people's heads, and, generally, since they're oblivious to the rule, they act as if their exception should therefore be the rule. And then they can't see or understand examples of the actual rule. Even with illustrations.

But I shouldn't have assumed that you were coming from that mindset. Sorry.

J

No problemo. But you should spend your winters in Mexico--not Minnesota.

--Brant

Thank you, Brant!

J

[Brant Gaede]

Whew! I was afraid we'd start again. Let the next argument be over something else.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

The elitist artocrat holds himself above reality and perception. He is the High Priest of art who doesn't really want to be understood, just revered without cause. (And a part of advising a massively wealthy market).

Who are you talking about? It sounds as if you're describing a fictional person that Rand told you to believe in, but who doesn't actually exist in reality.

And so, abstract art: the perfect medium for fakers.

("If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand", is the implication).

I don't think that the implication is "If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand." A lot of people have asked and were open to learning, and were then are able to understand and fully enjoy the effects of abstract color and form. Only those who refuse to understand don't understand.

(As depicted in the novel btw, Roark didn't have to explain his work, it stood for itself - elitist and superior, in reality).

That's not true. His work was rejected over and over again. He was charged with and convicted of professional incompetence. At his first trial, he offered no defense, but only let his work stand for itself (all that he presented in court were photos of his work). The judge did not find his work standing for itself to be sufficient.

"Dumbed down" is of course a false dichotomy which you snuck in here.

No, it's not. Your position is that you want art to be limited to your personal level of intelligibility and sensitivity.

The central point Kamhi makes is "intelligibility", and so far little you've shown is that unknown, even to inferior photographers like me, who obviously (you seem to know) can't understand all the varieties of perspective, line, color contrast and all the rest. Yeah, red, yellow or blue convey one mood, a sinuous curve indicates another, -- symbols, with different effects. But all on their own in abstract images, replacing reality?

They are not "replacing" reality. They are just as much a part of reality as identifiable likenesses of forms are. They are attributes of things in reality.

Admire the symbolism, and derive real entities and human qualities from them? Hell, no, an impossible and artificial stretch, rationalistic and rationalizing.

That's an arbitrary assertion with nothing to back it up. Prove that it is impossible to derive real entities and human qualities from abstract images. Hint: the fact that something is impossible for you doesn't make it impossible for all of mankind.

It comes back to,

"This produces nothing, in the viewer's consciousness, but the boredom of being unemployed".

Which viewer is "the viewer"? Do you actually think that it is rational to conclude that everyone's consciousness is bored and unemployed just because yours is, or because Rand's was? Once again, just like Kamhi, your entire argument comes down to nothing but attempting to universalize your own personal lack of aesthetic and cognitive response, and to arbitrarily deny the reality of others' responses.

Really, J: you don't have to show that you know your stuff because you're an artist, or show you're an artist because you know your stuff. 'Confirmation bias'. You are an artist because of skills, talents, sensitivity, observational ability - it's a given. You haven't made a case for unintelligibility in art and that's what counts here, and rather not to presume on others' unawareness and insensitivity.

I'm making no presumptions about your unawareness and insensitivity. I'm making observations. I've been witnessing your lack of visual awareness and sensitivity for several years.

J

[anthony]

(As depicted in the novel btw, Roark didn't have to explain his work, it stood for itself - elitist and superior, in reality).

That's not true. His work was rejected over and over again. He was charged with and convicted of professional incompetence. At his first trial, he offered no defense, but only let his work stand for itself (all that he presented in court were photos of his work). The judge did not find his work standing for itself to be sufficient.

J

Then you haven't asked yourself WHY Roark's buildings were rejected regularly?

Clearly, they were, well, "intelligible"- at the very least. But many didn't appreciate them. Why?

Wasn't it because the people who saw them, rejected his vision of man's nobility?

Here, then, was clear, independent virtue in the representational form of a building, which only those rational few who saw it and were of like-minds, honored and admired. (It's maybe 20 years since I last read TF, but this is too central to forget).

I.e. universal appeal of an artwork is often no sign of its excellence - and sometimes quite the opposite.

Roark's works constituted objectively-merited, rational 'elitism', as opposed to the many authoritarian, mystical 'elitists' in the art world.

[anthony]

Admire the symbolism, and derive real entities and human qualities from them? Hell, no, an impossible and artificial stretch, rationalistic and rationalizing.

That's an arbitrary assertion with nothing to back it up. Prove that it is impossible to derive real entities and human qualities from abstract images. Hint: the fact that something is impossible for you doesn't make it impossible for all of mankind.

It comes back to,

"This produces nothing, in the viewer's consciousness, but the boredom of being unemployed".

Which viewer is "the viewer"? Do you actually think that it is rational to conclude that everyone's consciousness is bored and unemployed just because yours is, or because Rand's was? Once again, just like Kamhi, your entire argument comes down to nothing but attempting to universalize your own personal lack of aesthetic and cognitive response, and to arbitrarily deny the reality of others' responses.

J

J. Do you realise how often you use "everyone"--"universal"-- "proof"?

If it comes from me (or any one person) it must be "subjective" - right? And how can I know anything without empirical proof - yes?

No.

It seems I haven't convinced you before of the fallacy of this universalism/empiricism dichotomy: i.e. of requiring someone to first scientifically test the consciousness of a large number of people before anything can be established, with any certainty, for all mankind.

But objectivity does not equate with universality, and Objectivism isn't an empiricist philosophy. Its base of metaphysics is inclusive of 'man', all men, and its epistemology is perceptual-conceptual. ("...not acquired by logic apart from experience, or by experience apart from logic, but ~by the application of logic to experience~". LPeikoff)

"The visual arts do not deal with the sensory field of awareness as such, but with ~the sensory field as perceived by a conceptual consciousness~"(Rand)

As aside, luckily for me my standards of "visual awareness" are not reliant on anyone else.

Enough from me for awhile.

( I'm ready to read more Kamhi...)

[Jonathan]

J. Do you realise how often you use "everyone"--"universal"-- "proof"?

Yes, I use the terms "everyone" and "universal" when people like you or Kamhi are claiming to speak for everyone, and when you are attempting to impose your personal aesthetic limitations as universal. I use the terms when you arbitrarily assert that people must be pretending to experience what you don't.

As for "proof," I already know from past discussions that you don't like the idea of proof.

If it comes from me (or any one person) it must be "subjective" - right?

No. It has nothing to do with from whom it comes.

And how can I know anything without empirical proof - yes?

No.

You can't know others' aesthetic responses and cognitive limits without proof. You can't know what others are capable of based on observing your own personal limitations.

It seems I haven't convinced you before of the fallacy of this universalism/empiricism dichotomy: i.e. of requiring someone to first scientifically test the consciousness of a large number of people before anything can be established, with any certainty, for all mankind.

I'm sorry that you don't like reality, but you can't claim to know something about the limits of aesthetic response of all of mankind by merely introspecting and observing your own personal limits. You can't arbitrarily ignore and willfully reject others' direct statements of what they experience and call yourself rational or objective.

J

[Jonathan]

(As depicted in the novel btw, Roark didn't have to explain his work, it stood for itself - elitist and superior, in reality).

That's not true. His work was rejected over and over again. He was charged with and convicted of professional incompetence. At his first trial, he offered no defense, but only let his work stand for itself (all that he presented in court were photos of his work). The judge did not find his work standing for itself to be sufficient.

J

Then you haven't asked yourself WHY Roark's buildings were rejected regularly?

Clearly, they were, well, "intelligible"- at the very least. But many didn't appreciate them. Why?

Wasn't it because the people who saw them, rejected his vision of man's nobility?

Here, then, was clear, independent virtue in the representational form of a building, which only those rational few who saw it and were of like-minds, honored and admired. (It's maybe 20 years since I last read TF, but this is too central to forget).

I.e. universal appeal of an artwork is often no sign of its excellence - and sometimes quite the opposite.

Roark's works constituted objectively-merited, rational 'elitism', as opposed to the many authoritarian, mystical 'elitists' in the art world.

Kamhi and Torres say that architecture is not a valid art form. Their view is that it is not intelligible. They find no meaning in it, and they don't think that it expresses or communicates anything of depth. Therefore if you claim to find meaning it, you are pretending. And Rand was pretending.

See, the way that it works is that in any disagreement about expressiveness and meaningfulness in art, the person who is lacking the most in aesthetic sensitivity trumps everyone else. So, since Kamhi and Torres don't get anything out of architecture, where you do, their not getting anything out of it cancels out your getting something out of it. They don't have to prove anything about your ability to get anything out of it, but can just introspect and observe their own limitations, and that will allow them to know that you're pretending.

So, long story short, The Fountainhead is a destructive fantasy, because it portrays a world in which people can get meaning out of architecture as an art form, rather than portraying the reality that everyone is limited to sharing Kamhi and Torres' lack of deep, meaningful response to architecture.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I think there's art in architecture just as there is art in writing. You know it when you see it. You know it when you read it.

There is also art in pornography. I know it when I see it. You can also read it. Hence, porn is the bridge between what you see and what you read. This universality can be extended to that nineteen-teens ballet that featured simulated masturbation. Now we've got four arts under one cover. Oh, yeah. Ballet is done with music. Five! All because of porn. (If we now shoehorn photography into this we've got six.)

Now, about that lack of depth in architecture. Just go inside, damnit! (Another link to porn.) That's how Hitchcock ended "North by Northwest," with that train plowing into that tunnel.

Art should be treated as an axiom. You have the art (artwork): metaphysics. You have the creator of art (artist): epistemology. The artist says that's art because he said it's art and since he made it he's an artist. Thus a modern Ayn Rand can be a philosophical esthetician if she leaves out the morality for morality is not axiomatic, but doesn't leave out any art and artist. Reality and reason, art and artist--got it?

The artist rules!

--Brant

hope this clears up any confusion--or at least pushes it aside (creative destruction)

[Jonathan]

Kamhi:
"Most relevant in that connection, the authors quote cognitive neuroscientist Merlin Donald's view that a work of art "is a communication between the minds of the artist and the viewer." Should they not then have asked what is communicated in Abstract Expressionist work?"
---

If a person requires that art must communicate specific values or ideas between the artist and viewers, then that person should indeed ask what is communicated in abstract art. The person should then also not only ask, but scientifically test all of the art forms to see if they communicate, to what degree, and to what percentage of people. The tests should equally employ the same standards and not be tainted or biased, and therefore should include test subjects who are enthusiastic fans of the art forms rather than limiting the tests to people who admit to getting nothing out of an art form, or who are perhaps even ideologically enraged about the existence of various art forms.

Where is Kamhi's evidence from the cognitive sciences which proves that music, dance, and realistic still life and landscape paintings [edited to add: or Vermeer's Milkmaid (see post 272)] communicate specific intended values/ideas/meanings? Where is her evidence that those alleged art forms are any better at actually communicating than abstract visual art?

And technically, if communication is a requirement, then there really would be no such thing as valid art forms or categories, but instead, each individual work would have to be tested and then either confirmed or rejected. As I wrote earlier, if communication is a requirement, then nothing can legitimately be called a work of art if it does not include an attached external statement by the artist about his intentions, which would be revealed to viewers after they gave their interpretations of what they thought his work was intended to communicate. If their interpretations matched his intentions, the work could be called art. If not, not. If the work didn't include the attached external statement, then it would not qualify as art since there would be no way to confirm that the artist's intentions were successfully conveyed.

J


Excerpt From: Michelle Marder Kamhi. Who Says That's Art? A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/CIFH3.l

[Jonathan]

"As Liedtke documented, images of milkmaids and kitchen wenches in Dutch and Flemish art had long had erotic associations, often indicated with vulgar explicitness. Since Vermeer was undoubtedly familiar with that tradition, the ways in which he departed from it are probably significant. In notable respects, he elevated the theme. He not only avoided crudely obvious iconography, he also simplified and focused the composition to enhance the maid's dignity and importance. Her sculpturesque figure is almost monumental in effect. At the same time, he endowed her face with a psychological depth and subtlety of expression totally new to the theme.

"A "politically correct" curator might have exploited the work to castigate Vermeer for alleged sexism as a "dead, white, European male." Instead, Liedtke showed that in comparison with the standards of his day Vermeer treated the painting's female subject with remarkable sensitivity, even respectseeming to suggest that, appealing though she is, she is no mere object to be trifled with. Such an account is credible. It is not only grounded in the culture of the painting's time and place, it is also consistent with the work's perceptible properties and the tenor of many of Vermeer's other works."

Excerpt From: Michelle Marder Kamhi. Who Says That's Art? A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts. iBooks.

-----

In an a book heavily influenced by the Objectivist Esthetics, in a chapter on intellectual bullies, and under a section titled Revealing or Fabricating Artistic Intentions, it's quite odd that Kamhi doesn't mention Rand's judgments of Vermeer and his work after offering such a glowing and potent argument which uses Vermeer as an example.

Since Vermeer was not painting slice-of-life kitchen Naturalism featuring the statistically average folks next door who were volition-lacking playthings of deterministic fate, as Rand believed, what are we to conclude? By Rand's stated method of "objective aesthetic judgment," are we to conclude that Vermeer was a bad artist because he failed to communicate his intended meaning to the Founder and Queen of Objectivity, or are we to conclude that Rand's Objectivist method was highly flawed, and that she was perhaps not a very competent judge of visual art?

Wouldn't her thoughts on Vermeer's "inner conflicts" and bleak metaphysics, which she thought were revealed in his art, be perfect examples of both intellectual bullying and fabricating artist's intentions? In fact, aren't they much better examples than the ones that Kamhi gives in her book? Aren't Rand's more vicious and wrongheaded?

J

[Jonathan]

Btw, why does Kamhi accept Vermeer's work as art? She rejects both photography and photorealism, so how could Vermeer's work qualify? The evidence shows that he used a camera obscura. I don't think that he used it to quite the extent as shown in the film Tim's Vermeer, but he certainly used photographic projection and tracing to the same degree as Estes or Close or Eakins, whose photo-projected works Kamhi and Torres say don't qualify as art.

There's still so much "art" to be rejected! There's still so much destruction and elimination to look forward to!

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Who said anything about discursive communication? We've been discussing communication, period, not discursive communication.

I was talking about discursive communication from my initial question to you in post #214 about the "meanings" you attributed to those two paintings. (The question part is repeated below.)

You attributed discursive meaning to both:

"[...] mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions."

"[...] peace and gentleness are important human qualities."

I do not see any basis for your statements about the respective "meanings" of the image-pair you posted.

You say of the first:

"Its meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions."

And of the second:

"Its meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities."

Are you serious in the idea that an abstract painting can convey the cognitive content of a moral dictum, or a statement about the importance of certain human qualities?

I think that even highly representational and didactically intended art doesn't often convey so specific a message.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Maybe you've been writing something different from what you intended? You've been writing about "communication," but now in recent posts, you've switched to writing about "discursive communication." Perhaps you had thought that you were writing about "discursive communication" all along, when you haven't been, and that is what's causing what you feel to be miscommunication?

J

I was asking all along about your attributing discursive meaning to those two paintings. I even then attempted to alert you that that's what I was asking about, and that maybe my meaning wasn't coming through to you. Obviously it wasn't. Maybe now, with the above post, it will.

Ellen