Art and Subobjectivity

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

Still, let me ask you another question: Would you call urinals and animal dung--presented “for contemplation”--as art?

Lastly, would you say that abstract “art,” [damn those scare quotes, huh?] as created by chimps or elephants, is art?

When answering, keep this in mind: For modernists, "abstract" means "non-representational" or "non-figurative"…and “non-objective.”

Hey Victor,

I noticed that you haven't answered my questions about music. Music is "non-representational" or "non-figurative" and “non-objective," yet you seem to believe that it is art. Why? Are you trying to destroy the meaning of art? Are you allowing yourself to live with a contradiction? Or, if you've come to the conclusion that music is not art by your definition, why aren't you saying so with the same passion with which you state your views on abstract art?

Would you call the sounds of urinals flushing and animals farting art? How about the "re-creations" of those sounds? For example, Michael and Rich seem to know a hell of a lot about music theory and sound production, and I'd bet that they could precisely write notes, select instrumental timbres and effects (I'm thinking heavy use of a "flanger" would work well) and record them to sound like flushing and farting, or, if you prefer, they could recreate realistic orchestral representations of the sounds of doves cooing and kittens purring. Would the result be art? Since it would be "representational," "figurative" and "objective" where music isn't, wouldn't it fulfill your definition of art much better than music would? Wouldn't it be "objective music"?

J

[Jonathan]

When I was a young child, my father was a high school teacher and coach, and sometimes he would take me with him to his school on Saturdays so that I could play in the gym while he caught up on his work. While walking with him in the halls on one such Saturday, we passed a classroom in which an older boy and girl were screaming at each other. I was shocked at the fierceness of their argument, and I looked up at my father to see his reaction. He wasn't affected by it at all.

Was the argument art? I had an intense emotional response to it. I felt aspects of what could be called the senses of life of the boy and girl -- she seemed to be clear-headed and justifiably angry, and he seemed capricious and irrational.

The reason that my father wasn't affected by it, like I was, was that it was indeed art. When he saw my reaction to the argument, he told me not worry, it was just pretend. The older students were acting. They were practicing for a play.

Was the argument not art when I didn't know that it was art? Did it become art once I understood the context of what they were doing? Or was it always art despite any viewer's inability (mine) to recognize it as such?

An idea for a play:

A gallery owner is sweeping the floors of one of his empty gallery rooms while waiting for one of his artists to deliver her latest work of art. The artist arrives with an empty shopping cart, and rolls it to the center of the room. The gallery owner asks what's going on. The artist answers that she's delivering her latest work. The owner asks where it is. The artist answers that the shopping cart is the art. They argue about it, discussing various aesthetic theories and definitions of art.

When they realize that they're getting nowhere, they invite members of the audience to become art patrons and "jurors" in the play who will decide whether or not the shopping cart is art (much like in Rand's play Night of January 16th). Victor, being one of the audience members selected, immediately shows his disgust and shouts that of course the cart is not art. He and the other jurors discuss the matter, offering all sorts of interesting ideas and arguments, and they eventually decide that the shopping cart is not art.

End of play.

Would the above play be art? Would it be art if Victor and the other audience members didn't know in advance that it was a play? Would it be art if a real artist and a real gallery owner staged the play in a real gallery and intentionally didn't inform Victor and the rest of the gallery visitors that it was a play?

J

Edited January 5, 2007 by Jonathan

[Danneskjold]

Yes, it was art regardless of your perception of it. If it was not art because you didn't know that it was supposed to be art then the definition of art would be subjective. If you look at my post on page two (the second to last post by me on that page) you can see my explanation of why a definition cannot be subjective.

In short, it is art because existence exists regardless of how we percieve it. The play that you didn't know was a play was art because it was a play in spite of you percieving it as an argument. Primacy of exitence.

In my view, the shopping cart is not art because it is not something new. Art, the way I see it, has to have some creative element. Something must be different about a piece of art in order for it to be art. (The exception for practical purposes would be copies of pieces of art sold for the purpose of profit.)

Edited January 5, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Jonathan]

Jeff wrote,

In my view, the shopping cart is not art because it is not something new. Art, the way I see it, has to have some creative element. Something must be different about a piece of art in order for it to be art.

I didn't ask if the shopping cart was art. I asked if a play about a shopping cart being placed in a gallery is art, a play which invites viewers to become participants without their knowing that it's a play.

J

[Victor Pross]

Jeff wrote,

In my view, the shopping cart is not art because it is not something new. Art, the way I see it, has to have some creative element. Something must be different about a piece of art in order for it to be art.

I didn't ask if the shopping cart was art. I asked if a play about a shopping cart being placed in a gallery is art, a play which invites viewers to become participants without their knowing that it's a play.

J

Johathan,

If you are setting up the scenario to that of Rand’s January 16th play that involves characters, a conflict—basically a plot story with a resolution—then it is a play regardless if the audience knew this or not. I believe that despite his misunderstanding, Jeff answered your question.

But let’s draw out your hypothetical scenario with a variation: suppose I stumble out of bed having been medicated and walk into the nearest theatre where Neil Simon’s play ‘Chapter Two’ was playing but I merely thought couples where having a lover’s quarrel up on this wooden platform—would this be a spectacle or a play. Hey, J—it’s a play, regardless of my misunderstanding.

I hardly think tossing in your “is the shopping cart art” garnish supports whatever point you thought you were making.

Question: do you think there is an objective defintion for art?

Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

I answered your question, then threw in the last part for kicks and giggles.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I don't know about art, but your play is definitiely entertainment.

The Objectivist Jerry Springer show!

Michael

[Jonathan]

Victor asked,

Question: do you think there is an objective defintion for art?

Before I answer, I'll remind you again that you haven't yet answered my questions about music. Is music art according to your definition of art?

Now, is there an objective definition of art? Sure, there could be. I don't know that I'd be able to come up with one that I'd be satisfied with. How about this for starters: "Art is a means of expression and/or contemplation, created according to what an artist believes or feels is a fundamental or important aspect of existence, and may include both objective and subjective elements. A viewer or listener's responses to art may be objective and/or subjective."

(An objective definition of "art" need not exclude subjectivity as a defining characteristic, just as an objective definition of "subjective" need not exclude it -- it is ojective to identify the fact that something subjective is subjective.)

Your turn. Is music art according to your definition of art?

J

[Jonathan]

Jeff wrote,

I answered your question, then threw in the last part for kicks and giggles.

So we've established a scenario in which the act of placing a shopping cart -- or a urinal, dung heap, etc. -- in a gallery, and the resulting responses, discussions and conclusions, would be art even by Objectivist definitions and standards.

J

[Danneskjold]

Not quite. The performance itself is art. The people in it that are unaware of it being a performance, however, are not performing. They are not reacting, not performing. They are not artists because they are not selectively recreating. One can be part of a performance an still not be a performer.

[Danneskjold]

...Also, definitions cannot be subjective. There can be different concepts of the same word with different definitions, but do not mistake differing concepts with a singular concept having a subjective definition. A definition cannot be subjective because it is a contradiction in terms. The latin root of the word definition (correct me if I'm wrong) is the same as finite (although I do not claim to be absolutely sure what that root is). If something is finite than it has a limited number. There is no limit on the number of subjective definitions....

(An objective definition of "art" need not exclude subjectivity as a defining characteristic, just as an objective definition of "subjective" need not exclude it -- it is ojective to identify the fact that something subjective is subjective.)

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. What I think you are saying is that a definition can acknowledge that appreciation of something is subjective. In that case you would be right.

If you are saying that a definition can be subjective you are wrong. A definition cannot be subjective because if it is subjective then it is not defining anything, and therefore isn't a definition. I hate to quote myself but

...Also, definitions cannot be subjective. There can be different concepts of the same word with different definitions, but do not mistake differing concepts with a singular concept having a subjective definition. A definition cannot be subjective because it is a contradiction in terms. The latin root of the word definition (correct me if I'm wrong) is the same as finite (although I do not claim to be absolutely sure what that root is). If something is finite than it has a limited number. There is no limit on the number of subjective definitions....

To say a definition is subjective is to deny a definition's existence because it is a contradiction. To deny the existence of a definition of a concept is to deny the existence an identity of a concept, to deny the existence of an identity of a concept is to deny that concept's existence.

Francisco d'Anconia said:

James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning."

Edited January 6, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Yes, indeed, you answered my questions “selectively” all right—glossing over the most important point of my thread--and that is the etiological root of the definition of “art” as I explained it in my post above.

As a convenient reference, I said:

In its original and broadest sense, the term art (derived from the Latin ars, artis) dates back to antiquity and it is synonymous with the Greek term techne—which refers to the concept “skill” or “technique”. Like all concepts, this idea -- art -- did not occur in a vacuum as if it were some cerebral construct divorced from real experience. The term has a long genesis dating back to the ancient Greek concept of “mimetic arts.” It developed out of long tradition of surveying similarities between the existing art forms as well as differences between them and other products and activities—and the idea of “skill” is primary to the conception of art and it is embedded in the term. The abandonment of objective representation in the visual arts was the most profound of modernism’s departures from this tradition. This is art history 101.

The emphasis here is “technique” and “skill.” Let’s always keep this original definition in mind when discussing the subject of art. This way, we’ll be guided in knowing what qualifies as art and what does not. This will keep us on the same page and objective communication will hopefully not be lost to emotion and/or needless misunderstandings.

By the way, regarding this, my question remains: where do we find “technique” or “skill” in abstract art? Let’s take the cognitive approach first, shall we? Just how [speaking objectively—and in view of the origins of the concept ‘art’] is abstract art, art?

** **

In due course, [other following posts] my primary approach regarding art n comprehension will be along the lines of Rand’s approach—in one respect: I will argue for the intelligibility and objectification. Both these considerations are crucial if 'man-made creations' are to qualify as art. In doing so, I’ll work along side of the original definition of art—that it must evolve skill and technique. Definitions and intelligibility are crucial in the contemplation, the understanding and the creation of art. In fact, it is crucial in any human endeavor.

I’m sorry, Michael, but I find your dissertation on art so troubling I hardly know where to begin. I would rather be intellectually allied on this subject, but I can’t do that honestly.

But let’s move along.

Now you made a big issue of differentiating between the “cognitive” and the “normative” when deliberating art. My approach will be the cognitive--as I understand the term. And I’ll try to avoid any “normative bombast” in arguing against abstract art and modernism. Let’s begin:

You offered a definition of art as thus:

"an object or performance made by and for human beings solely for the purpose of contemplation."

From here, you offer a few qualifiers and examples in the cognitive realm—as you use the term in any case.

“Art…is exhibited in special display spaces like galleries, museums, halls, etc. People go there to contemplate it.”

The problem that I have with your definition of art is the following: anything under the sun can be tossed into the pot as being an “art work”--so long as the word “cognitive” is plastered on it. This would include urinals, cockroaches, animal dung…anything.

The question of skill and technique—let alone intelligibility—is not touched on. What’s more, what is there to be “contemplated”? And just exactly how do these objects become art merely by the grace of being placed in museums and galleries—with the ‘intention’ that they are to be contemplated as art? If so inclined, I would point out that this looms of a “primacy of consciousness” orientation.

In a crucial passage from post # 45 you wrote: “It is clear to me that ‘art’ can be defined cognitively to include all art. To be defined normatively, it needs to be attached to a system of thought [italics mine]. Aside from the problem that the opening sentence—“it is clear to me that ‘art’ can be defined cognitively to include all art”—is circular as best, but a compelling question pops to mind from the paragraph: what is this system of thought? You don’t say.

The stressed word is “cognitive”. It is always used in such a manner as to excuse any manner of subjectivism [in fact, the term ‘cognitive’ itself is used subjectively and arbitrarily] and no thought is given to skill or art’s original definition. You suggested that I have trouble in understanding the terms “cognitive” and “normative”—and, by God, in the manner that you have employed the words—is it any wonder? What's more, you assure us that [art] “can be defined normatively in purely subjective terms. All of those are valid definitions, too, with the proper qualifications.”

What do you mean “in purely subjective terms”? Is this to say that when approaching art in a normative manner, subjectivism is offered free rein? And what are these “proper qualifications”?

In Post 45, you give us a clue: “…a cockroach can be an artwork. But there has to be some element present of human involvement in the overall use of the cockroach and intent of contemplation.”

The piercing term here is intent of contemplation—as in ART is "an object or performance made by and for human beings solely for the purpose of contemplation; it is exhibited in special display spaces like galleries, museums, halls, etc. People go there to contemplate it; a cockroach can be a work of art [providing ‘human involvement’ is there] with intent of contemplation.

Without wishing to be obnoxious or combative, this whole approach to the question of art is riddled with obfuscation and circular reasoning—to say nothing of the contradictions! It is ridiculous to think that anything can become art by having the status conferred upon it by ‘intent.’ And aside from the brazen subjectivity, consider the contradictions riddled throughout these passages:

“Cognitively I consider those items (urinals and dung) as parts of works of art since they are within compositions made by man. These compositions are used by mankind as art. They even meet the metaphysical value judgment condition. Normatively I most emphatically do not consider them as art (and not just from Objectivist principles, either). Also, subjectively I do not. I would neither produce nor consume such stuff as art…But cognitively, the urinal is not simply a utility item or the dung simply waste as they are in other contexts. They are used for contemplation, thus they are art. If these products are purchased, they are sold and taxed as "art works," not as a urinal or fertilizer.

You insist that—normatively speaking—urinals and dung are emphatically not art, but cognitively—given that the “intent” is that they are to be considered art--so therefore, they are art! This is irrational! You conclude: “Normatively I most emphatically do not consider them as art...Also, subjectively I do not. I would neither produce nor consume such stuff as art.”

This merely means to me: Any given man-made object can be art and not art at the same time. [!!??]

I’m troubled by the idea that when approaching man-made objects—cognitively—the object is able to be ordained as ART, but it can be cancelled out as being an object of art when approached—normatively. This whole approach strikes me as intellectual folly. It strikes as nothing more than embracing a contradiction. In fact, the subjectivism and contradictions are truly astounding throughout all your dissertations on art. To my mind, your whole argument is utterly vacant owing to the subjectivity and blatant circularity. It told me nothing about the actual nature of art works or how they differ from other human artifacts--in terms of essentials and free of contradictions.

Victor

p.s.

I’m sorry if any “rhetoric” in this post sounds combative, but of course any manner of refutation or disagreement can come across as such.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You insist that—normatively speaking—urinals and dung are emphatically not art, but cognitively—given that the “intent” is that they are to be considered art--so therefore, they are art! This is irrational! You conclude: “Normatively I most emphatically do not consider them as art...Also, subjectively I do not. I would neither produce nor consume such stuff as art.”

This merely means to me: Any given art man-made object can be art and not art at the same time. [!!??]

I’m troubled by the idea that when approaching man-made objects—cognitively—the object is able to be ordained as ART, but it can be cancelled out as being an object of art when approached—normatively. This whole approach strikes me as intellectual folly. It strikes as nothing more than embracing a contradiction.

Victor,

I appreciate the change in tone. Thank you. Your long post is more or less summed up by the part quoted above. I certainly feel your pain on what seemingly looks like a contradiction. But here is the rub:

Cognitively, art means one thing.

Normatively, art means something else.

The same word is used for different concepts.

The cognitive concept is the broader one and the normative concept is the more narrow one--and it includes the cognitive abstraction.

Here is what Rand wrote in The Romanic Manifesto, "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art," on the cognitive and normative categories of concepts:

Consider the enormous conceptual integration involved in any statement, from the conversation of a child to the discourse of a scientist. Consider the long conceptual chain that starts from simple, ostensive definitions and rises to higher and still higher concepts, forming a hierarchical structure of knowledge so complex that no electronic computer could approach it. It is by means of such chains that man has to acquire and retain his knowledge of reality.

Yet this is the simpler part of his psycho-epistemological task. There is another part which is still more complex.

The other part consists of applying his knowledge—i.e., evaluating the facts of reality, choosing his goals and guiding his actions accordingly. To do that, man needs another chain of concepts, derived from and dependent on the first, yet separate and, in a sense, more complex: a chain of normative abstractions.

While cognitive abstractions identify the facts of reality, normative abstractions evaluate the facts, thus prescribing a choice of values and a course of action. Cognitive abstractions deal with that which is; normative abstractions deal with that which ought to be (in the realms open to man's choice).

Cognitively, art is nothing more than a human activity and product as opposed to other human activities and products. Normatively, it involves values.

Does that help? Try to understand this and it will start to become clear.

I once had a long discussion about this concerning rights--especially focusing on the "divine right of kings." Cognitively this concept is a right. Normatively, as Rand stated that one right cannot cancel another (but forgot to qualify with "under Objectivism") there are many Objectivists who do not admit that the word "right" can have more than one definition. They claim that the "divine right of kings" is not a right at all, even as they use the word "right" to identify it.

The same goes for abstract art (or modern art). You are claiming that abstract art is not art at all, even as you use the term "art" to identify what you are talking about and condemning.

This is where the cognitive and normative confusion comes in. I repeat, the same word is being used for two different concepts. Thus my statement that is giving you such a pause is not a contradiction at all. I am discussing two different concepts, but using the same word. This is an inconvenience of the English language. I do not like it--and I want to stress that I really, really, really do not like it because of all the confusion it generates, but there it is. I didn't make the English language.

Also, don't be thrown because I reserve the right to make subjective identifications for myself in addition to cognitive and normative ones. This is the right of everyone. On a subjective level, what is art to me (what I find valuable as art) is not necessarily art to another person and the defining characteristic of this is personal preference. This does not affect the cognitive or normative concepts, though, so what I do not consider as art subjectively can perfectly be art according to the cognitive concept. Here we have a third concept for the same word.

About the derivation of the term, this is important only as a curiosity. It shows which concepts and other word forms were involved in the history and evolution of the word that is presently used for the current concept(s), but this is not fundamental to the current concept(s). That is why I did not discuss it so long as we are discussing something fundamental like which category of concepts we are using. (This does not mean that I am indifferent to the history and derivation of the term and do not find it fascinating--actually I do find it very interesting.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

You helped to distinguish between the cognitive and normative—generally speaking--but I nevertheless still find your definition of art problematic. And your explanation of the cognitive and normative still falls short to explain how modern art and “abstract art”…is art—notwithstanding that the term ‘art’ is being applied. [Really, it is only as a matter of expediency so that a mutual conversation is able to be conducted on a given subject.]

Cognitive...normative...it seems to me that any contradiction can be argued away—in ethics, politics and esthetics, etc--by claiming “oh, yeah, in the cognitive use, of course capitalism is practical, but in the normative use--communism is moral.”

Yeah, right.

Fairly soon, I’ll argue that abstract “art” and modern art—is not art whatsoever. And your definition of art as "an object or performance made by and for human beings solely for the purpose of contemplation” is still rife with problems—and I don’t see that stamping the word “cognitive” upon things alleged to be “art works” ordains intelligibility and legitimacy on these said objects making them 'art'. Sorry.

-Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

By the way, regarding this, my question remains: where do we find “technique” or “skill” in abstract art?

Do you think that technique and skill are not possible in abstract art? Then you're wrong, but I understand your confusion. You probably mean: with abstract art any charlatan (or a chimp) without any skill or technique can put some paint on a canvas and call it art (or others call it art if the chimp is the author). I symphathize with that feeling, the idea of abstract art can and does attract a lot of poseurs and cheats. The error is in thinking that this disqualifies the notion of abstract art. In that sense, abstract art can be compared to writing a novel. Anyone can write a "novel", there is no need for any special skill or ability. Part of such a novel may look like this: asdf8943 2kjsf gd890-asdfl;kl;]sfh #@$ sdf (nb6..., or like this: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...". Now of course we don't accept this kind of drivel as a real novel, of which one of the distinguishing characteristics is that technique and skill are needed to write it. The fact that "novel" in the sense "any kind of text that is put into a book" allows for a lot of trash to be called "novel" does not mean that there isn't a subcategory of "real novels" for which such abilities are needed. Well, the same applies to the notion of "abstract art". As a general category of "anything that is put on a canvas and that doesn't represent reality", it makes of course the creation of a lot of worthless art works possible. But that doesn't exclude the possibility of "real" abstract art (analogue to the "real novel") for which skill and technique are needed. The fact that we see a tremendous amount of the first type of abstract art around us does not imply that this is the only possibility.

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

You peaked my interest, but then you let me down. You make the claim that there is fraudulent abstract and “real” abstract art--without providing examples or without elaborating on a distinction.

-Victor

[Dragonfly]

You peaked my interest, but then you let me down. You make the claim that there is fraudulent abstract and “real” abstract art--without providing examples or without elaborating on a distinction.

Because that is a different question, my primary point was that you can't condemn abstract art a priori while it is the refuge of a lot of charlatans. Personally I'm not very interested in abstract art, but I remember having seen years ago having seen abstract paintings of a (relatively unknown) Dutch painter that I found fascinating. Unfortunately I can't remember his name now. I've also been playing with the idea of making some abstract painting myself, to prove that it is possible to make something worthwile, but the problem is that I enjoy so much working in a realistic style that it hasn't happened yet. Perhaps when I'll have more time and a bigger house.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And your explanation of the cognitive and normative still falls short to explain how modern art and “abstract art”…is art—notwithstanding that the term ‘art’ is being applied. [Really, it is only as a matter of expediency so that a mutual conversation is able to be conducted on a given subject.]

Victor,

So you mean that you like to communicate with words that have no concepts behind them, only "expediency" (whatever that is)? What "expediency" are you talking about if not conceptual?

Think about it.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jeff wrote,

Not quite. The performance itself is art. The people in it that are unaware of it being a performance, however, are not performing. They are not reacting, not performing. They are not artists because they are not selectively recreating. One can be part of a performance an still not be a performer.

Good point. So let's alter the scenario a little: Some of the gallery's visitors would know that the whole thing is a performance, and some would not. Those who did not know would not be artists or performers, but, since those who were performers would be interacting with, responding to, and being influenced by the opinions of those who were not performers, the opinions of the non-performers would play a part in shaping the outcome of the art.

So, now we've established a scenario in which the act of placing a shopping cart -- or a urinal, dung heap, etc. -- in a gallery, and the resulting responses, discussions and conclusions, would be art even by Objectivist definitions and standards.

J

[Victor Pross]

And your explanation of the cognitive and normative still falls short to explain how modern art and “abstract art”…is art—notwithstanding that the term ‘art’ is being applied. [Really, it is only as a matter of expediency so that a mutual conversation is able to be conducted on a given subject.]

Victor,

So you mean that you like to communicate with words that have no concepts behind them, only "expediency" (whatever that is)? What "expediency" are you talking about if not conceptual?

Think about it.

Michael

Abstract art is not art. Why not? This is what I'll cover soon enough. And when I say "abstract art"--I’m simply referring to the popular designation given to it, but it is an alleged art form. Shall I coin some other word for it? How about this: junk---or this: a wasted canvas--or this: stuff to fill up a modern boutique for the merchandising of reputations of non-talented people in which the art [the 'stuff'] is the incidental by-product.

I covered by bases either way—cognitively and normatively, and the negative conclusion is now consistent in both.

Don’t try the semantic gaslight on me. B)

-Victor

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Jeff wrote,

Not quite. The performance itself is art. The people in it that are unaware of it being a performance, however, are not performing. They are not reacting, not performing. They are not artists because they are not selectively recreating. One can be part of a performance an still not be a performer.

Good point. So let's alter the scenario a little: Some of the gallery's visitors would know that the whole thing is a performance, and some would not. Those who did not know would not be artists or performers, but, since those who were performers would be interacting with, responding to, and being influenced by the opinions of those who were not performers, the opinions of the non-performers would play a part in shaping the outcome of the art.

So, now we've established a scenario in which the act of placing a shopping cart -- or a urinal, dung heap, etc. -- in a gallery, and the resulting responses, discussions and conclusions, would be art even by Objectivist definitions and standards.

J

Jonathan,

The problem I have with your scenarios is that such a “play” would never be successful without support from the NEA [National Endowment for the Arts]. :turned:

-Victor-

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don’t try the semantic gaslight on me. B)

Victor,

On the contrary, by refusing to accept a common definition for a common term, you are trying to impose a normative definition on the cognitive (which is broader). Notice that your "alternatives" all all value judgments. You can rant and rave about this all day, but it still will have no impact on the world since it is essentially a semantic issue.

Ideas move the world, not mere words. IMHO you would do much better to sell your version of art (the concept) than try to deny something within the common experience of human beings in most all cultures. Those who could be swayed by good ideas usually dismiss something wrong like that as crackpottery. This approach is actually counterproductive.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Don’t try the semantic gaslight on me. B)

Victor,

On the contrary, by refusing to accept a common definition for a common term, you are trying to impose a normative definition on the cognitive (which is broader). Notice that your "alternatives" all all value judgments. You can rant and rave about this all day, but it still will have no impact on the world since it is essentially a semantic issue.

Ideas move the world, not mere words. IMHO you would do much better to sell your version of art (the concept) than try to deny something within the common experience of human beings in most all cultures. Those who could be swayed by good ideas usually dismiss something wrong like that as crackpottery. This approach is actually counterproductive.

Michael

Michael,

The only reason that “abstract art” is called art is because of the continued efforts of alleged art experts to “educate” the public on the merits of modernism. That is part of the reason—and only part of the reason--why the term is apart of the common coinage of public exchange when referring to this junk. So what? It's still not art.

Okay, time for a change-up in the pursuit of wisdom.

Semantics aside, how about we try this approach: if I demonstrate that the birth of abstract art [or abstract Expressionism] was spawned by a “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” orientation—as a matter of fact, beyond any reasonable doubt—would you still confer the status of 'art' upon it?

Once I demonstrate this, ask yourself this: what is there to “contemplate” in abstract art if its purpose was to strip away objective cognition and the entire perceivable universe? I would really like to know. What do you say?

I’ll post a separate short essay entitled “Abstract Art: an absolute primacy of consciousness orientation.” This essay will cover the philosophical origins of abstract art—which is, basically, a theory driven school that has been propagated by various occult beliefs. Abstract art, as stated, was spawned by an absolute subjectivism—both metaphysically and epistemologically. If I demonstrate this--to your satisfaction--would you still call this an art form?

I was an art major and such a feat will not take a great deal of my time or energy.

Victor

edit: Ideas move the world? You got that right, brother.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

I would be very interested in such an essay, personally. I think you should write it regardless.

[Victor Pross]

I would be very interested in such an essay, personally. I think you should write it regardless.

Jeff,

Yes, I will.

I have argued elsewhere: Art is the most powerful means of creating embodied abstractions. In art we can experience in a concrete form an extraordinary rich meaning through the artist’s work. To keep our abstractions tied to the world, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to clothe them in specific forms that unite the universality of the abstraction with the specificity and immediacy—the reality---of the particulars. This is a principle to be practiced not just in art, but also in all areas of human thought and endeavor. The pioneers of abstract Expressionism sought to revert and contradict this entire approach by focusing on a supernatural realm via the pipe-lines of their emotions. [La-la].

It is no wonder Rand called it "anti-art."

-Victor

Edited January 7, 2007 by Victor Pross