Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Seems crazy that men can identify a type of body far out in the universe, and yet can't come to agreement of what constitutes art - simply, a man made entity that's been around, forever. No trouble with the written word, everyone knows an advert from an instruction manual, a news report from a work of fiction. What is it that renders art a special case? Some guy envisages and puts something together out of other things, with a final plan in mind. Which covers everything anyone can 'create': engineered, crafted, designed, invented, constructed, re-created, etc. etc. You the observer can see the result directly, or deduce its purpose. If in doubt, you can ask him what he made, and why.

Art is man-made  and it comes in such variety that it is not definable in terms of material or physical properties.  

Art is not a simple man made entity (such as a paper-clip).  Art is a variety of objects and activities.  Also the intentions or mental states of the artist is part of what his art is.  Unfortunately none of us have mental telepathy so we have to approximate this intangible with inferences from the external behavior of the artist in question. 

It is much easier, therefore,  to define a quasar than a work of art. 

[anthony]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Art is man-made  and it comes in such variety that it is not definable in terms of material or physical properties.  

Art is not a simple man made entity (such as a paper-clip).  Art is a variety of objects and activities.  Also the intentions or mental states of the artist is part of what his art is.  Unfortunately none of us have mental telepathy so we have to approximate this intangible with inferences from the external behavior of the artist in question. 

It is much easier, therefore,  to define a quasar than a work of art. 

See, you've expressed what the average person believes of artists and art, and why it and the making of it has become a mystique/mystery which supposedly is above men's knowing. Art isn't "intangible". As with everything, you see, perceive, identify and have an emotion from it - and then can abstract it. You wouldn't need to "define" (except to identify it as art - or craft - or - industrial design - or -ornamentation? - etc.) An error is to psychologize the artist and his general reputation, to try to (subjectively) elicit information about his art. So don't look for extraneous causes, just see the artwork as isolated reality, and take his 'opinion' of the reality, literally at his word. I am certain most artists dedicate as much (and more) painstaking perfection and rigorous clarity to their work - as a scientist to your quasars. His art shows his re-made piece of existence and the world, which he finds important - all one owes to him is to immerse oneself in it for a while. The variety you remark on: indeed, but each work still falls within a category under a wider category, under wider categories - and so on.

[Newberry]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Art is not a simple man made entity (such as a paper-clip).  Art is a variety of objects and activities.  Also the intentions or mental states of the artist is part of what his art is. 

2

Bob, I think this is the first reasonable thing you have said about art.
Years ago I had the pleasure to friend Jan Koenderink, a vision scientist. He tackles some of the complex issues of visual perception, and he sees some overlap with figurative artists. I just uploaded his lecture, Science and Art in the 21st Century, here. https://newberryarchive.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/science-and-art-in-the-21st-century-by-jan-koenderink/ You might enjoy his way of thinking.

[Theo]

Robert wrote: Art is not a simple man made entity (such as a paper-clip).  Art is a variety of objects and activities.

Ok, so what you are saying is, if I arrange a few paper-clips of various colours together as part of some activity, then I have created art.

[Theo]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Also the intentions or mental states of the artist is part of what his art is.  Unfortunately none of us have mental telepathy so we have to approximate this intangible with inferences from the external behavior of the artist in question. 

 

But this is exactly what art does, it shows, in a cognitive way the mental state of an artist. The mental state of Henry Moore applied to his works vs the mental state of Michelangelo applied to his works is obvious. Are you implying that if an artwork is unintelligible to a viewer it is only because the viewer doesn't know the artist's mental state? If an artist creates grotesque "Axe Through Head" art, we could not possibly know the mental state of the artist? ("Axe Through Head" art is a term I use for totally malevolent art after viewing an artist's work with the same title)

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, anthony said:

See, you've expressed what the average person believes of artists and art, and why it and the making of it has become a mystique/mystery which supposedly is above men's knowing. Art isn't "intangible". As with everything, you see, perceive, identify and have an emotion from it - and then can abstract it. You wouldn't need to "define" (except to identify it as art - or craft - or - industrial design - or -ornamentation? - etc.) An error is to psychologize the artist and his general reputation, to try to (subjectively) elicit information about his art. So don't look for extraneous causes, just see the artwork as isolated reality, and take his 'opinion' of the reality, literally at his word. I am certain most artists dedicate as much (and more) painstaking perfection and rigorous clarity to their work - as a scientist to your quasars. His art shows his re-made piece of existence and the world, which he finds important - all one owes to him is to immerse oneself in it for a while. The variety you remark on: indeed, but each work still falls within a category under a wider category, under wider categories - and so on.

Art is NOT a mystery.  It is just hard to define.  The real difficulty is getting into the "mind" of other people. Just because something is difficult does not mean it is mystical,  magic  or beyond understanding.  Look how long it took humans to understand what lightning was.

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, Theo said:

Robert wrote: Art is not a simple man made entity (such as a paper-clip).  Art is a variety of objects and activities.

Ok, so what you are saying is, if I arrange a few paper-clips of various colours together as part of some activity, then I have created art.

I did not say that. You inferred that.   What I imply is my business.  What you infer is your business.

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, Theo said:

But this is exactly what art does, it shows, in a cognitive way the mental state of an artist. The mental state of Henry Moore applied to his works vs the mental state of Michelangelo applied to his works is obvious. Are you implying that if an artwork is unintelligible to a viewer it is only because the viewer doesn't know the artist's mental state? If an artist creates grotesque "Axe Through Head" art, we could not possibly know the mental state of the artist? ("Axe Through Head" art is a term I use for totally malevolent art after viewing an artist's work with the same title)

Art may be the occasion for us to infer or guess the mental state of another person.   Art is far from definite or clear in that regard.  That is why some objects of art are interpreted differently by the beholders.   Art is not unintelligible.  Art is ambiguous. Are you an infallible  interpreter of the art of others?  Can you "read their minds"?  I can't do that.  And I doubt whether you can. 

[Brant Gaede]

8 hours ago, Theo said:

Robert wrote: Art is not a simple man made entity (such as a paper-clip).  Art is a variety of objects and activities.

Ok, so what you are saying is, if I arrange a few paper-clips of various colours together as part of some activity, then I have created art.

If you say so. If you don't, that's okay too.

But your understanding cannot be objectified. It does not travel by itself. If some one else agrees with you, then it has traveled.

What is and is not art is only a matter of opinion. Reasons can be adduced, of course. A strong case is possible one way or another.

Let's take a purported work of "art." We'll keep it simple--a painting. To its creator it's art. Someone else sees it and to that person it's art. That person has a visceral reaction to it. I'd say we now have two works of art in one painting. The artist's work of art and the someone else's work of art. Production and two consumptions.

Now here comes you. You have no gut reaction to it whatsoever, but because of this or that about the painting--say you think it's "abstract"--you  declare it's not art and the creator not an artist. Then I come along and say, "WTF are you?" A cultural fascist? What's your interest?

--Brant

 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Art is NOT a mystery.  It is just hard to define.  The real difficulty is getting into the "mind" of other people. Just because something is difficult does not mean it is mystical,  magic  or beyond understanding.  Look how long it took humans to understand what lightning was.

I repeat, what are you doing trying to "define"? Why do you need to attempt to 'get into' his mind? Look at the picture and absorb the concrete reality he depicts, and the way he depicts it, which you can abstract and conceptualize like all reality.

This isn't lightning and other (once) mysterious natural phenomena, the artist created it to be perceived and understood by other minds. If not, if there's no clarity, then the honesty and validity of his art has to be questioned.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

I repeat, what are you doing trying to "define"? Why do you need to attempt to 'get into' his mind? Look at the picture and absorb the concrete reality he depicts, and the way he depicts it, which you can abstract and conceptualize like all reality.

This isn't lightning and other (once) mysterious natural phenomena, the artist created it to be perceived and understood by other minds. If not, if there's no clarity, then the honesty and validity of his art has to be questioned.

 

What does the phrase "validity of art"  mean?

[Theo]

12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Art is far from definite or clear in that regard.  That is why some objects of art are interpreted differently by the beholders.   Art is not unintelligible.  Art is ambiguous.

 

The objects are removed from "Abstract art" - that is why it IS called "Abstract art". Removing the objects makes it unintelligible and unclear.

[Theo]

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Let's take a purported work of "art." We'll keep it simple--a painting. To its creator it's art. Someone else sees it and to that person it's art. That person has a visceral reaction to it. I'd say we now have two works of art in one painting. The artist's work of art and the someone else's work of art. Production and two consumptions.

Now here comes you. You have no gut reaction to it whatsoever, but because of this or that about the painting--say you think it's "abstract"--you declare it's not art and the creator not an artist. Then I come along and say, "WTF are you?" A cultural fascist? What's your interest?

--Brant

 

What makes visual art great is its ability to project and convey a theme which becomes instantly understood by the viewer. But to then take that medium and remove its most important element "the subject" then wonder why I don't get some "gut reaction".
Identifying the nature of something and recognizing it for what it is or isn't, is being a "cultural fascist" in your eyes.

[Brant Gaede]

29 minutes ago, Theo said:

What makes visual art great is its ability to project and convey a theme which becomes instantly understood by the viewer. But to then take that medium and remove its most important element "the subject" then wonder why I don't get some "gut reaction".
Identifying the nature of something and recognizing it for what it is or isn't, is being a "cultural fascist" in your eyes.

There are 188 posts in this thread. Have you read many previous ones?

--Brant

 

[Theo]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

There are 188 posts in this thread. Have you read many previous ones?

--Brant

 

I have. I addressed Jonathan's posts (indirectly) by explaining clearly in my earlier post the difference between decorative design and visual fine art, and how they can not be lumped together in the same category.

Robert, Brant, neither of you have addressed removing subject matter from visual art - the crucial element that makes up a painting/sculpture to give it meaning. An artist can not depict light without the object it shines on, or render texture without an object to make it real, or apply colour and disconnect it from its visual form. To take an art form, remove everything that gives it clarity and meaning, then to evade this issue by claiming art is whatever you make it.

[Brant Gaede]

55 minutes ago, Theo said:

The objects are removed from "Abstract art" - that is why it IS called "Abstract art". Removing the objects makes it unintelligible and unclear.

To you.

Were the "objects" ever there in the first place? All you are saying is you want "objects."

"Unintelligible and unclear" to you. Given any piece of "abstract art" I may or may not agree with you--agree, not generalize.

Personally, I think all art is abstract. That's what I think. I'm not arguing the idea.

--Brant

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

2 minutes ago, Theo said:

I have. I addressed Jonathan's posts (indirectly) by explaining clearly in my earlier post the difference between decorative design and visual fine art, and how they can not be lumped together in the same category.

Robert, Brant, neither of you have addressed removing subject matter from visual art - the crucial element that makes up a painting/sculpture to give it meaning. An artist can not depict light without the object it shines on, or render texture without an object to make it real, or apply colour and disconnect it from its visual form. To take an art form, remove everything that gives it clarity and meaning, then to evade this issue by claiming art is whatever you make it.

We are obviously talking past each other.

--Brant

good luck with Jonathan--why don't you quote him?

[anthony]

22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What does the phrase "validity of art"  mean?

That's the subject here, you may have noticed. Does paint on canvas, distributed randomly/geometrically/etc., constitute valid art?

If the painter says it is, must he/she be believed? Does an independent eye and consciousness accept whatever someone claims?

Do you trust what you see, btw, or whatever someone else says they see?

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

That's the subject here, you may have noticed. Does paint on canvas, distributed randomly/geometrically/etc., constitute valid art?

If the painter says it is, must he/she be believed? Does an independent eye and consciousness accept whatever someone claims?

Do you trust what you see, btw, or whatever someone else says they see?

So the question is: "What is art.... really?"

[anthony]

13 hours ago, Theo said:

What makes visual art great is its ability to project and convey a theme which becomes instantly understood by the viewer. But to then take that medium and remove its most important element "the subject" then wonder why I don't get some "gut reaction".
 

I've conjectured that abstract painters endeavored to find a shortcut, by eliminating the subject and taking viewers straight to their emotional responses. It is justifiably claimed that specific colours, lines and shapes may cause certain moods - peaceful, dynamic, and so on - like the colour a room is painted and its dominant design can do.

But moods are not emotions, lacking that wide range and complexity.

And emotions aren't formed that way in consciousness. Emotion can't occur without referents to reality, and one's values (unless perceptual confusion is considered an emotion). 

A viewer has to see, comprehend and integrate something real, A SUBJECT (as well, importantly, the way it's stylized and presented) and THEN he experiences a pertinent emotion, according to his value system.

A bold attempt to break with classic art, create a new, non-conformist genre? - might be said for the first abstract painters. Likely it would have been a short-lived experiment - but what followed were authority figures and intellectuals with vested interests bolstering the invalid art form, I think.  

To not see what 'something' IS, quickly ends the critical 'discourse' between artist's mind and viewer's mind - then his work can only be considered as arbitrary and subjective.

[BaalChatzaf]

12 minutes ago, anthony said:

 

And emotions aren't formed that way in consciousness. Emotion can't occur without referents to reality, and one's values (unless perceptual confusion is considered an emotion). 

There have been cases of unfocused or ungrounded rage  and fear.  This is clearly not a normal state of "mind" (I dislike using that word, but I can't think of a better one right now). 

[Peter]

47 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There have been cases of unfocused or ungrounded rage  and fear.  This is clearly not a normal state of "mind" (I dislike using that word, but I can't think of a better one right now). 

If you look at “Starry Night” you might think the artist was hallucinating. If you look at “The Scream” you might think the artist is mentally ill. Does what becomes “famous” or “valuable” define an era in history? And then we have ignored artists who are only appreciated at a later period in history. I will sometimes see an abstract work of art selling for millions and it truly looks like a kid painted it, or that it is a joke.

Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

If you look at “Starry Night” you might think the artist was hallucinating. If you look at “The Scream” you might think the artist is mentally ill. Does what becomes “famous” or “valuable” define an era in history? And then we have ignored artists who are only appreciated at a later period in history. I will sometimes see an abstract work of art selling for millions and it truly looks like a kid painted it, or that it is a joke.

Peter

Some artists might be "ahead of their time"

[Peter]

Art can be a "pattern" like some Amerind art or even chaotic, but the proof is in the inner sense of rightness the viewer feels. Imagine buying a famous painting for a million bucks and you hang it on your wall. Then after loathing it for a year it ends up in a museum, the attic, or in the garage. I think it is funny how the so called experts pontificate about the merits of a piece of art that looks like it came from Bellview Sanitarium or from the trash bin of the middle school.

Peter   

[Theo]

On 2017-6-4 at 0:30 PM, Brant Gaede said:

We are obviously talking past each other.

--Brant

good luck with Jonathan--why don't you quote him?

I think Tony's responses to Jonathan have been succinct and on the mark. However, I will look at commenting on some of Jonathan's reference to specific examples when I get time.