Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[Jonathan]

16 hours ago, anthony said:

Oh scoot back to your safe space, William! ;) Dollars in the sky - I ask you.

It's the Objectivist Sign of the Cross!

In the name of Ayn,

And the proper Sense of Life,

And the designated Intellectual Heir.

Amen.

[william.scherk]

21 hours ago, I pasted some text from an article I found about Turner {direct link added} said:

[ WORDS BY:     John D’Agostino ]

[...]

 

Spoiler

4 hours ago, I merely quoted from D'Agostino, did not use it as outside consideration said:

I did no research into Turner's works and had forgotten anything I'd learned about him, so kept myself to "no other considerations".

 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by william.scherk
I did some poking around in my safe space

[Jonathan]

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

[...]

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

So, the "objective" interpretation of The Slave Ship would be that Turner loved slavery, as well as killing slaves by throwing them to the sharks, and he thought that doing so was not just super fun but metaphysically valuable. The eye sees that it is objectively clear, of course, that to him, enjoying killing slaves as brutally as possible was the essence of existence.

And Kant is the one who taught him to love killing slaves and to promote doing so through his art.

[william.scherk]

6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It's the Objectivist Sign of the Cross!

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by william.scherk
Gremlins

[BaalChatzaf]

What is it about gold, that causes people to assign a value to it  far beyond its utility value?

Don't get me wrong.  I have nothing against gold.  It has some very attractive and useful properties.  It is conductive, durable,  divisible, maliabel,  rust-proof and subjectively speaking,  it is quite pretty to look at.  But there are other metals  just as useful (some even more useful)  and subjectively attractive.    So once again, I ask,  why gold?  The members of the Lakotah Tribe used to remark that gold was the metal that seem to drive the white-eyes crazy.  The Lakotah were driven off the land they occupied for ten thousand years, because gold was discovered on their territory (The Black Hills). 

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What is it about gold, that causes people to assign a value to it far beyond its utility value?

 

Gold has the right characteristics to act as money. It has had a history of holding the perfect spot on the spectrum from scarcity to abundance.

More:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-30/doug-casey-why-gold-money

Quote

 

Aristotle listed them in the 4th century BCE. A good money must be all of the following:

Durable: A good money shouldn’t fall apart in your pocket nor evaporate when you aren’t looking. It should be indestructible. This is why we don’t use fruit for money. It can rot, be eaten by insects, and so on. It doesn’t last.

Divisible: A good money needs to be convertible into larger and smaller pieces without losing its value, to fit a transaction of any size. This is why we don’t use things like porcelain for money—half a Ming vase isn’t worth much.

Consistent: A good money is something that always looks the same, so that it’s easy to recognize, each piece identical to the next. This is why we don’t use things like oil paintings for money; each painting, even by the same artist, of the same size and composed of the same materials is unique. It’s also why we don’t use real estate as money. One piece is always different from another piece.

Convenient: A good money packs a lot of value into a small package and is highly portable. This is why we don’t use water for money, as essential as it is—just imagine how much you’d have to deliver to pay for a new house, not to mention all the problems you’d have with the escrow. It’s also why we don’t use other metals like lead, or even copper. The coins would have to be too huge to handle easily to be of sufficient value.

Intrinsically valuable: A good money is something many people want or can use. This is critical to money functioning as a means of exchange; even if I’m not a jeweler, I know that someone, somewhere wants gold and will take it in exchange for something else of value to me. This is why we don’t—or shouldn’t—use things like scraps of paper for money, no matter how impressive the inscriptions upon them might be.

Actually, there’s a sixth reason Aristotle should have mentioned, but it wasn’t relevant in his age, because nobody would have thought of it…it can’t be created out of thin air.

Not even the kings and emperors who clipped and diluted coins would have dared imagine that they could get away with trying to use something essentially worthless as money.

These are the reasons why gold is the best money. It’s not a gold bug religion, nor a barbaric superstition. It’s simply common sense. Gold is particularly good for use as money, just as aluminum is particularly good for making aircraft, steel is good for the structures of buildings, uranium is good for fueling nuclear power plants, and paper is good for making books. Not money. If you try to make airplanes out of lead, or money out of paper, you’re in for a crash.

That gold is money is simply the result of the market process, seeking optimum means of storing value and making exchanges.

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Gold has the right characteristics to act as money. It has had a history of holding the perfect spot on the spectrum from scarcity to abundance.

More:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-30/doug-casey-why-gold-money

 

What you call "intrinsically valuable"  I would call "exchangeable"  in the sense that people are willing to trade things for the gold.   This is somewhat subjective.  Why isn't platinum "intrinsically valuable"?  It has most of the other characteristics that gold does.  No doubt about it.  Gold is popular for cultural reasons more that physical reasons. That is probably why certain gemstones can function as money.

[Jonathan]

Well, I didn't call it "intrinsically valuable," the article that I linked to did.

Why gold and not platinum? Is it as easily recognized and distinguishable from other metals as gold is? Does is have a history of having the right abundance and scarcity? 

[Brant Gaede]

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What is it about gold, that causes people to assign a value to it  far beyond its utility value?

Don't get me wrong.  I have nothing against gold.  It has some very attractive and useful properties.  It is conductive, durable,  divisible, maliabel,  rust-proof and subjectively speaking,  it is quite pretty to look at.  But there are other metals  just as useful (some even more useful)  and subjectively attractive.    So once again, I ask,  why gold?  The members of the Lakotah Tribe used to remark that gold was the metal that seem to drive the white-eyes crazy.  The Lakotah were driven off the land they occupied for ten thousand years, because gold was discovered on their territory (The Black Hills). 

10,000 years? I think not. They were driven out of "their" territory into the Black Hills first.

--Brant

why gold?--why not?

[anthony]

On 10/25/2017 at 6:20 PM, Jonathan said:

Tony, who are the people, and what are they doing? What makes you think that they are overwhelmed? Did the people whom Turner depicted fail in their mission due to a snowstorm, or did they succeed in their trek? What does he show them doing? Are they all dead? Are they giving up?

I'm not asking what you want to believe. I'm asking what the reality is. Did the people depicted face a challenge, devise a heroic and herculean solution, and follow through on it? Or were they "dismal" and "naturalistic" folks next door who gave up before even starting? Did they rise to a challenge, or did they passively accept fate?

J

 

I'm fascinated by this approach. It points to a polar difference you and I have about contemplating art. Unsurprising, considering the contrasting differences in our epistemology. I understand now your insistence too, about my having to "prove" the "intention" of an artist. By your expectations, obviously no one can.

You seem to think there's a "narrative" element - which the artist has included - in a picture. How? That touches on where I've noticed and commented on your mixing of media, i.e. with fiction (and not just by Rand's clear distinctions).

All those aspects you raise above, you *can't know* - about the artist's intentions. (As if you see a moving picture - a movie - rather than only what IS there).

Naturally there are some things implicit in an image one may sometimes ask oneself: how did this 'situation' arise? What came next? Who is this person/people? Where is this? These are secondary to the image and the answers inessential to the artist's purpose and one's own.

But an image is an end in itself. It's a stand alone. One could, and does, go off into imaginative flights of fancy about the subject, contents, and setting in a picture, but always in the knowledge that they are one's OWN mental associations, and which cannot be conveyed by any artist.

Leave out what one *knows* empirically of a picture - all other considerations, including the title/caption, the artist's identity, or its possible historical significance, and one can see the picture properly as it is. It is loosely, a slice of life, his isolation and treatment of a part of reality fixed in time and space, but general to alltime and all viewers, which an artist thought highly important. A "story" and narrative conversely has to be transmitted by word-concept, and there's the vital nature and distinction of visual art which has no other way but to convey ideas with visual 'language'.

(I must say I don't believe I have heard of this "story" view of visual art. I have mixed with artists and once had a very good fine artist for a girl friend. I have shot maybe fifty thousand frames in my mixed photographic career and never tried to 'make a story' of an image. I recall there were a times I did a photo essay using a series of pictures showing further activities on one theme, which rather proves the point of "moving pictures". Each picture is stand alone, and looking back, I believe every one of those exposures I've made I tried to make something special and significant of the subject matter, in terms of my view/opinion/value-assessment of it. That has meant often experimenting, and always finding or creating the right light, a fresh compositional technique - and any of a dozen things that make a picture original, interesting/beautiful/dramatic, while personal to one's style.)

[Jonathan]

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

I'm fascinated by this approach. It points to a polar difference you and I have about contemplating art. Unsurprising, considering the contrasting differences in our epistemology. I understand your insistence too, about my having to "prove" the "intention" of an artist. By your standards, obviously no one can.

You would do better to try to stick to addressing substance rather than trying to psychologuze.

proving the artists' intentions isn't my invention, it's Rand's, and Kamhi's, and yours. I'm only asking you to apply the exact same weapon that you try to use to reject abstract art to the art forms that you accept as valid. YOU demand proof that viewers have actually identified artists' intentions. Heh, well adhere to your own requirements!

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

You seem to think there's a "narrative" element - which the artist has included - in a picture. How? That touches on where I've noticed and commented on your mixing of media (and not just by Rand's clear distinctions).

Yes, artists often include narrative elements. You're just discovering this now?

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

All those aspects you say above, you *can't* know - about the artist's intentions. (As if you see a moving picture, a movie, rather than only what IS there).

Tell it to Rand!

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

Naturally there are some things implicit in an image one may sometimes ask oneself: how did this 'situation' arise? What came next? Who is this person/people? Where is this? These are secondary to the image and the answers inessential to the artist's purpose and one's own.

But an image is an end in itself. It's a stand alone. One could, and does, go off into imaginative flights of fancy about the subject, contents, and setting in a picture, but always in the knowledge that they are one's OWN mental associations, and which cannot be conveyed by any artist.

Do you understand that you're rejecting Rand's view of art? She had the opposite view! 

Dont get me wrong, I'm not negatively judging you for disagreeing with Rand. It's fine that you do. I'm just wondering if you understand that you're disagreeing with her.

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

Leave out what one *knows* empirically - all other considerations, including the title/caption - of a painting: the artist's identity, or its possible historical significance, and one can see the picture properly as it is. It is loosely, a slice of life, his isolation and treatment of a part of reality fixed in time and space, which an artist thought highly important. A "story" and narrative conversely has to be transmitted by word-concept, and there's the vital nature and distinction of visual art which has no other way but to convey ideas with visual 'language'.

Visual art has a very long history of including narrative elements, and viewers have not been limited to your personal limitations and preferences that you describe above. The art forms don't bend to the authority of ignorant novices, like you or Rand. Reality is reality.

 

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

(I must say I don't believe I have heard of this "story" view of visual art. I have mixed with artists and once had a very good fine artist for a girl friend. I have shot maybe fifty thousand frames in my mixed photographic career and never tried to 'make a story' of an image. I recall there were a few times I did a photo essay using a series of pictures, which rather proves the point of "moving pictures". Each picture is stand alone, and looking back every one of those exposures I've made I tried to make something special and significant of the subject matter, in terms of my view/opinion/value-assessment of it. That has meant often experimenting and always finding or creating the right light, a fresh compositional technique - and any of a dozen things that make a picture original, interesting/beautiful/dramatic, while personal to one's style.)

Well, if you, Tony, don't include narrative elements, then of course no one does! Narrative elements cease to exist if Tony wishes them to go away.

Narrative elements in visual art are irrelevant because Tony doesn't like them, and if you accidentally find them, you should ignore them. And artists' intentions have no relevance in "objectively" judging their work. Art, for some magical reason, is the one field where we don't need to know a producer's intentions before trying to objectively judge how well he performed his task.

 

[anthony]

Well, as usual a word-storm evading what I directly said of what clearly exists, or my experiences. I doubt you want to pursue the truth.

My standard is reality, finally - not what Rand said - what's yours?

Btw, perhaps look up "psychologizing" (G. Smith opened a good thread you can find here).

To base one's opinions on what one hears someone say (and repeatedly so) on any subject, is not "psychologizing". You take their revealed information as explicitly what they believe, and have the morallly selfish right to evaluate it and their reasoning methodology, by an objective standard.

"Psychologizing" is more literal, guessing about and invoking someone's possible 'psychological' make-up, or applying pop-psychology to them.

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Well, as usual a word-storm evading what I directly said of what clearly exists, or my experiences. I doubt you want to pursue the truth.

My standard is reality, finally - not what Rand said - what's yours?

Why didn't you answer my question? If your standard is reality and you're not obedient to Rand's authority, then why do you have such a difficult time acknowledging the reality that you're in disagreement with Rand's view?

Here's the question again:

"Do you understand that you're rejecting Rand's view of art? She had the opposite view! 

"Dont get me wrong, I'm not negatively judging you for disagreeing with Rand. It's fine that you do. I'm just wondering if you understand that you're disagreeing with her."

Her ghost isn't going to come and get you if admit to the reality that you disagree with her on this point. So, muster up some courage! Stop evading! Answer the question: Do you understand that you're rejecting Rand's view of art?

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Btw, perhaps look up "psychologizing" (G. Smith opened a good thread you can find here).

To base one's opinions on what one hears someone say (and repeatedly so) on any subject, is not "psychologizing". You take their revealed information as explicitly what they believe, and have the morallly selfish right to evaluate it and their reasoning methodology, by an objective standard.

But you haven't done that. Instead you've invented straw men, and you've assigned to me positions that I don't hold. You've indulged in non sequiturs and just outright made shit up.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Psychologizing" is more literal, guessing about and invoking someone's possible 'psychological' make-up, or applying pop-psychology to them.

Yup, that's what you do, and worse.

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

Here's the question again:

"Do you understand that you're rejecting Rand's view of art? She had the opposite view! 

 

 

Again - there is no "story" before and beyond what is in the picture. All "narrative elements" are in the art, or they are arbitrary conjecture.

You ask the ridiculous questions: "Did they succeed in their trek... are they all dead?" etc. etc. :

Nobody knows. Do you? It's like asking - "Did Mona Lisa have a happy life and many children?" If that's the "narrative element" you can deduce from an artwork, please post an example.

The "stories" are YOUR idea of "intentions" the artist has, and evidently pointless and false. 

The true intentions of an artist are simple: What everyone with eyesight plainly sees existing in the art work (the minor qualification I always add, that one can learn to see art with increasing sophistication).

And because art, by AR, is "A re-creation...according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments", what is to be plainly seen is the choice of subject (which "expresses a view of man's existence") and the choice of style (which "expresses a view of man's consciousness"). Those very broad categories provide a start to evaluate an artwork, by AR.

Then comes your abstract art non-sequitur, as a distraction from the line of enquiry into those "stories":

"...only asking you to apply the exact same weapon that you try to use to reject abstract art to the art forms that you think are valid". [J]

But abstract art, by definition, can NOT be "plainly seen". So can't be categorised as "art".

You state as you have claimed continuously, that some can identify any abstract artist's "intentions", and it is -I- who must prove them wrong. And I keep repeating that YOU are the demander of empirical proof, a standard which I reject in art.I.e. YOU have the burden "of empirical proof" not me, since I couldn't care less about the scientifically-tested findings, except for amusement at the certain failure of finding "proof". By now, if anyone could "prove" anything intelligible in abstract art, bar vague, broad emotions, you can be sure we'd know about it.

It follows, that how does one see the "view of man's existence" in a mode of art which doesn't show "man's existence"? (Which is devoid of reality?) If not that, then the artist's intention is moot.

Ha! You are most free and easy - and subjective - about what you selectively and non-contextually quote from Rand's literature, and leave out; you don't understand what she means and therefore can't know whether or not I'm rejecting her view of art. 

Check "psychologizing". Another thing you don't get.

 

[Jonathan]

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

Again - there is no "story" before and beyond what is in the picture. All "narrative elements" are in the art, or they are arbitrary conjecture.

Art does indeed contain narrative elements!

And it is quite a leap to assert that the only other option is that narrative information is "arbitrary conjecture." See, people have historical knowledge, and they recognize famous historical events which are depicted in paintings, including when being denied access to what Rand called "outside considerations."

The long history of artists using various methods, including the visual reference to famous historical events, doesn't get canceled and wiped from existence just because you don't like narrative content in visual art due to you mistaken belief that Rand was opposed to it.

 

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

You ask the ridiculous questions: "Did they succeed in their trek... are they all dead?" etc. etc. :

Nobody knows. Do you?

Yes, I do know. It's well-documented history. Look it up.

But you can also answer many of the questions without reference to the famous historical event. Look at the picture. Are the people all dead? Are they doing anything? Can you recognize any of their actions? Other people can. Give it a try! Rand did so in regard to visual art, so you can too! You have permission despite having believed that you didn't!

 

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

The "stories" are YOUR idea of "intentions" the artist has, and evidently pointless and false. 

Huh? It's a fact of reality that artists include narrative content and references in their art. They consciously intend to do so. They intend for the content to be easily recognizable by viewers. Are you seriously denying this?

 

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

The true intentions of an artist are simple: what everyone with sight plainly sees in the art work(with the secondary qualification I always add, that one can learn to see art with increasing sophistication).

What about when everyone sees that an image contains, say, the narrative content of the specific figures of Mary weeping at the death of Christ? Are you suggesting that viewers should repress their recognition of the characters of Mary and Christ, and pretend that it's an unknown lady and man, and that the viewers don't know if the man is dead or just napping or passed out, and maybe the lady is crying because she is fed up with his drinking and laziness? Is that your notion of "objective" art appreciation?

 

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

But abstract art, by definition, can NOT be "plainly seen". So can't be categorised as "art".

I know! Music, which is an abstract form, can NOT be plainly seen (or heard -- it does not present identifiable aural likenesses of things in reality). Same with architecture! Same with dance!

 

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

You state as you have claimed continuously, that some can identify any abstract artist's "intentions", and it is -I- who must prove them wrong. And I keep repeating that YOU are the demander of empirical proof, a standard which I reject in art.I.e. YOU have the burden "of empirical proof" not me, since I couldn't care less about the scientifically-tested findings, except for amusement at the certain failure of finding "proof". By now, if anyone could "prove" anything intelligible in abstract art, bar vague, broad emotions, you can be sure we'd know about it.

Ditto representational realist art: If any of you Rand-obeyers could demonstrate that anything has ever been objectively shown to meet her definition and criteria, you'd be posting it so that we'd be sure to know about it. Instead, you dodge and evade.

The Objectivist Esthetics is dead. R.I.P.

 

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

It follows, that how does one see the "view of man's existence" in a mode of art which doesn't show "man's existence"? (Which is devoid of reality?)

Ha! You are most free and easy - and subjective - about what you selectively and non-contextually quote from Rand's literature, and leave out; you don't understand what she means and therefore can't know whether or not I'm rejecting her view of art. 

Check "psychologizing". Another thing you don't get.

 

You dodged the question again. Evasion. You're disagreeing with Rand on narrative content, but don't have the courage to admit it. Heh. She identified narrative content in visual and allowed it to inform her judgment of meaning. And so did those in her "inner circle" or "the collective" who wrote on art under her direct guidance for her publications.

You're being a petulant fool.

 

[william.scherk]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Leave out what one *knows* empirically of a picture - all other considerations, including the title/caption, the artist's identity, or its possible historical significance, and one can see the picture properly as it is.

39 minutes ago, anthony said:

And because art is "A recreation...according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments", what is to be plainly seen is the choice of subject (which "expresses a view of man's existence") and the choice of style (which "expresses a view of man's consciousness"). Those very broad categories provide a start to evaluate an artwork.

[Brant Gaede]

12 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You would do better to try to stick to addressing substance rather than trying to psychologuze.

proving the artists' intentions isn't my invention, it's Rand's, and Kamhi's, and yours. I'm only asking you to apply the exact same weapon that you try to use to reject abstract art to the art forms that you accept as valid. YOU demand proof that viewers have actually identified artists' intentions. Heh, well adhere to your own requirements!

Yes, artists often include narrative elements. You're just discovering this now?

Tell it to Rand!

Do you understand that you're rejecting Rand's view of art? She had the opposite view! 

Dont get me wrong, I'm not negatively judging you for disagreeing with Rand. It's fine that you do. I'm just wondering if you understand that you're disagreeing with her.

Visual art has a very long history of including narrative elements, and viewers have not been limited to your personal limitations and preferences that you describe above. The art forms don't bend to the authority of ignorant novices, like you or Rand. Reality is reality.

 

Well, if you, Tony, don't include narrative elements, then of course no one does! Narrative elements cease to exist if Tony wishes them to go away.

Narrative elements in visual art are irrelevant because Tony doesn't like them, and if you accidentally find them, you should ignore them. And artists' intentions have no relevance in "objectively" judging their work. Art, for some magical reason, is the one field where we don't need to know a producer's intentions before trying to objectively judge how well he performed his task.

If "Guernica!" doesn't have a narrative element--to say the least--no painting does.

--Brant

[anthony]

10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If "Guernica!" doesn't have a narrative element--to say the least--no painting does.

--Brant

But the narrative is not an integral part of the painting, it does not "have" the element. What can be inferred, is that the artist depicted something destructive which disturbed him (from all the disintegrated entities scattered in the picture) maybe abstracted from his imagination or maybe documentary art from an actual happening, we can't tell. It appears to be the result of war, any specific battle or all "war", how does the art tell us further? You had to know the history of the event at Guernica to connect to and to give it added significance.

 

 

[anthony]

18 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Art does indeed contain narrative elements!

And it is quite a leap to assert that the only other option is that narrative information is "arbitrary conjecture." See, people have historical knowledge, and they recognize famous historical events which are depicted in paintings, including when being denied access to what Rand called "outside considerations."

The long history of artists using various methods, including the visual reference to famous historical events, doesn't get canceled and wiped from existence just because you don't like narrative content in visual art due to you mistaken belief that Rand was opposed to it.

 

Yes, I do know. It's well-documented history. Look it up.

But you can also answer many of the questions without reference to the famous historical event. Look at the picture. Are the people all dead? Are they doing anything? Can you recognize any of their actions? Other people can. Give it a try! Rand did so in regard to visual art, so you can too! You have permission despite having believed that you didn't!

 

Huh? It's a fact of reality that artists include narrative content and references in their art. They consciously intend to do so. They intend for the content to be easily recognizable by viewers. Are you seriously denying this?

 

 

.

 

1

In other words, an artwork can't stand alone without propping up. The more outside support, the better. Title, caption, name and fame of the painter, the money value, etc.

Therefore you need: Language. Word-concepts. Extraneous facts. Often, superfluous connotations. Rather, the individual (for his good) has the goal of objective 'justice', to identify and evaluate the art on its own merits, keeping out (often) prejudicial knowledge. (And it goes for "justice" to another person's statements too - which you will call "psychologizing". Your misreading of that, is why no one must "psychologize" about art, you often said and implied.)

"Well documented history". I must "look it up". Nonsense. You are crossing categories: historicism, art education, etc. with pure art. Your argument for applying foreknowledge of known events to art is a form of argument from authority, the 'experts' - and so subjective, for art critique by an individual.

I don't have to be told that artists have taken themes from historical and religious events, but does how the event transpires for good or bad, as known (by everyone, presumably)from the history books, Bible, novels, somehow 'exist' there in the painting? The Turner painting, case in point. Pictorially, we only can see agitated, non-specific "people" facing an immense storm.

But best of all is your ingenuous statement "Reality is reality". Heh. "It's a fact of reality..." and so on. What you mean is "a fact of history".

It's the reality ~of the painting~ which is above any other consideration, or else what are we wasting time here for?

Clearly, Rand took art and its making and viewing far more seriously than you. Since, what you never mention, the consciousness, man's life, existence, are never separable from art and are central to her theory.

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

But the narrative is not an integral part of the painting, it does not "have" the element. What can be inferred, is that the artist depicted something destructive which disturbed him (from all the disintegrated entities scattered in the picture) maybe abstracted from his imagination or maybe documentary art from an actual happening, we can't tell. It appears to be the result of war, any specific battle or all "war", how does the art tell us further? You had to know the history of the event at Guernica to connect to and to give it added significance.

You may have a point. Take away the title and what have you got?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

6 hours ago, anthony said:

In other words, an artwork can't stand alone without propping up.

Prove that any work of art has stood alone without propping up, and complied with Rand's halfbaked theory of art.

6 hours ago, anthony said:

Therefore you need: Language. Word-concepts. Extraneous facts. Often, superfluous connotations. Rather, the individual (for his good) has the goal of objective 'justice', to identify and evaluate the art on its own merits, keeping out (often) prejudicial knowledge. (And it goes for "justice" to another person's statements too - which you will call "psychologizing". Your misreading of that, is why no one must "psychologize" about art, you often said and implied.)

You're doing you typical thing of kookily going off course and imagining positions that I haven't taken and don't advocate. You're inventing nonsense and  following irrational tangents and distractions. Clutterbrained.

Quote

"Well documented history". I must "look it up". Nonsense. You are crossing categories: historicism, art education, etc. with pure art. Your argument for applying foreknowledge of known events to art is a form of argument from authority, the 'experts' - and so subjective, for art critique by an individual.

WTF. Hahahaha!

Quote

I don't have to be told that artists have taken themes from historical and religious events, but does how the event transpires for good or bad, as known (by everyone, presumably)from tyhe history books, Bible, novels, somehow 'exist' there in the painting? The Turner painting, case in point. Pictorially, we only can see agitated, non-specific "people" facing an immense storm.

"We"? Not all people are retarded.

Quote

But best of all is your ingenuous statement "Reality is reality". Heh. "It's a fact of reality..." and so on. What you mean is "a fact of history".

Don't tell me what I mean. You get it wrong so often.

Quote

It's the reality ~of the painting~ which is above any other consideration, or else what are we wasting time here for?

The reality is that many paintings include easily identifiable, famous characters from history, and depictions of famous events. That reality does disappear from existence because you want to blank it out due to obeying your nutty interpretation of Rand's theories.

Quote

Clearly, Rand took art and its making and viewing far more seriously than you. Since, what you never mention, the consciousness, man's life, existence, are never separable from art and are central to her theory.

She was a novice in the philosophical branch of aesthetics. She new basically nothing about its history. She had an inexperienced layman's understanding of the visual arts. She bluffed on the subject. She put on a show of confidence and authority with nothing to back it up. And you fell for it.

[Jonathan]

Tony, before your imagination runs even wilder, an invents all sorts of nonsense arguments against positions that I don't hold, please notice that I haven't said that all paintings contain famous historical characters and events which are easily identifiable.

[william.scherk]

Doesn't anyone want to discuss the art itself?

14 hours ago, anthony said:

It's the reality ~of the painting~ which is above any other consideration, or else what are we wasting time here for?

Edited October 28, 2017 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

On October 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Jonathan said:

[....]

I wrote - here 

[ES]  "[...], is there any basis on which you would say of any type of man-made image that it couldn't qualify as art? Or, reverse the direction, do you have any criteria which a man-made image must meet - beyond being a man-made image - in order to qualify as art?"

You replied - here:

[J]  "Rand's view was that, in order to qualify as art, it had to be created according to the creator's metaphysical value judgments, and only those judgments, and had to be created only for pure contemplation. It could serve no other purpose. It could not be "utilitarian," such as advertising imagery or technical manual illustrations.

"In Rand's world, artists walk or chew gum, never both at the same time. (Except artists who are architects; they qualify as artists while creating work which she accepts as art despite specifically saying that it "does not re-create reality," and which she admits serves utilitarian purposes."

Apologies for sniping just that section and leaving the rest aside. No time for discussing now. I think your description of what Rand thought re criteria is correct, but what I was asking is what, if any, criteria you think a man-made image must meet to qualify as art. I've wondered for a long while on what basis, if any, you'd rule out any man-made image from the category "art."

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wrote - here:  

[ES] "Repeat, Rand's strictures on technical evaluation presuppose that a work has been classified as art. "

On October 23, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Jonathan said:

Then let's take one step back. Let's unpresuppose. What was the process for classifying the work as art?

What objective means was used to determine that the creator of the work created it according to his metaphysical value judgments, versus that he created it for a different reason or purpose?

J

Oops, I almost missed that post.  There you're going for foundations, which I wish you would go after instead of trying to get "abstract" painting and sculpture into Rand's theory by coattailing on music.  Contra your view, I think that if one accepts Rand's foundational theory, then "abstract" painting and sculpture don't squeak in.  But are her foundations correct?

My viewpoint, as you might recall I've said in the past, is that her basic theory is (1) too narrow and (2) reliant on her notions of "sense of life," of which she presents three different accounts, and no way of establishing any of them.

I'd like to see an attempt at presenting what you'd consider a good theory of art.

Ellen