Kandinsky

[Kat]

[Victor Pross]

The early proponents of abstract art embraced the opposite pole of the mistaken mind-body dichotomy reacting against the “materialism” that dominated European thought in the late nineteenth century. For them, the material world of perceptible objects in three-dimensional space had no connection to the world of “pure spirit” and must therefore be eliminated.

Only through the ‘annihilation’ of objective reality and time and space, could art express the “new consciousness” towards which humanity was evolving. That was the idea.

It is absolute subjectivism that they sought—in metaphysics and epistemology.

Abstract artists entertained the belief that color is a kind of formless energy---free of the material world. Before the “awakening soul” could complete its evolution, Kandinsky claimed, it must be liberated from the “nightmare of materialism”—by which he meant ‘objective reality.’

Now vote. :turned:

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Subjectivism is a form of metaphysical value judgment. It is not the only basis for abstract art, but it is a major one (one of the worst). Even at its worst, this premise still fits the bill.

I voted.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Subjectivism is a form of metaphysical value judgment. It is not the only basis for abstract art, but it is a major one (one of the worst). Even at its worst, this premise still fits the bill.

I voted.

Michael

But Abstract painting is not a 'selective recreation of reality'--now vote. As Objectivists, we know that reality is determined by how many noses you can count.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But Abstract painting is not a 'selective recreation of reality'--now vote.

Yes it is, so there.

I already voted.

Michael

[Mikee]

I've already voted.

Kadinsky's work is not my favorite, but I like it far better than a Victor Pross caricature. "Art" for the purpose of mocking and insults hardly qualifies as art. Kadinsky has more universal appeal, appealing to the ability of the human mind to respond emotionally to colors, lines and patterns.

[Victor Pross]

I've already voted.

Kadinsky's work is not my favorite, but I like it far better than a Victor Pross caricature. "Art" for the purpose of mocking and insults hardly qualifies as art. Kadinsky has more universal appeal, appealing to the ability of the human mind to respond emotionally to colors, lines and patterns.

Mikee,

I won’t follow up in this post by insulting you. Why should I? Your post stands on its own to be judged by its own content.

I’m sorry you feel that way about my art, you can’t please everybody—not that I’m trying to. :turned:

-Victor

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[BAMF]

Heresy!

[Danneskjold]

I've already voted.

Kadinsky's work is not my favorite, but I like it far better than a Victor Pross caricature. "Art" for the purpose of mocking and insults hardly qualifies as art. Kadinsky has more universal appeal, appealing to the ability of the human mind to respond emotionally to colors, lines and patterns.

Mikee,

I won’t follow up in this post by insulting you. Why should I? Your post stands on its own to be judged by its own content.

I’m sorry you feel that way about my art, you can’t please everybody—not that I’m trying to. :turned:

-Victor

I'll address it for you then.

First you either referred to it as art or you didn't because you used those quotation marks. Pictures aren't art if they're used to insult people? Since when? Art can express whatever idea it damn well wants too. Victor's art is selective recreation of reality with a twist that is his metaphysical value judgement. Besides, what do you have against insults? You just insulted Victor. Who Kadanisky appeals to also has no bearing on whether or not it is art.

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

Well, you took the words right out of my mouth. Hey, I think we are studying the same philosophy. Yep, those Kandinsky colors sure are puuuuur-deeeey—therefore its art! Woooo-heeee! Color--ergo--art! That was easy!

Victor

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

Well, you took the words right out of my mouth. Hey, I think we are studying the same philosophy. Yep, those Kandinsky colors sure are puuuuur-deeeey—therefore its art! Woooo-heeee! Color--ergo--art! That was easy!

Victor

Jeff,

There are art historians and art curators who would disagree with you and me regarding this matter. But then again, there were institutions who disagreed with Howard Roark. Who did this single punk think he was to disagree with so many others?

Well, we know how the story ends.

[Victor Pross]

Mikee,

I don’t know how much or how little you know about Objectivism, but I feel—as an artist—if I didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt to explain, as best as I am able, as to why I mock abstract painting when it is purported to be art by the established wisdom.

According to Objectivism, the unique and vital function of art is to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction. But abstractions do not have the immediacy, the power, the reality, and the sheer presence of the world as we perceive and react to it emotionally. We can use artistic techniques like pictorial representations or metaphor to show what an idea looks like: this is what a graph of economic growth does, for example. Art performs this function for the most fundamental abstractions: the elements of a world-view.

The purpose of art is the objectification of values. The fundamental motive of an artist---by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not---is to objectify, to concretize his values, his view of what is important in life. To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form. A person’s world-view, his deepest values, his philosophy, are experienced most clearly when represented in concrete form, a work of art can touch the deepest places in us, feelings we often have trouble defining and making explicit.

However, 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 area of human thought and endeavour.

Human cultures have invented countless ways to embody abstractions: rituals, ceremonies, and holidays help us appreciate the meaning of important events in personal life and social life, such as birth, marriage, death, victories, and achievements. Art has performed this function in every culture and religion. Myths and legends give us concrete images of our ideals embodied in the flesh. Every human society has recreated its world in stories and music, in pictures and sculpture, and in derivative forms of art such as theatre and dance.

Examples like the above could be multiplied indefinitely. But regardless of the medium or the content of the ideal or abstraction, whether it is religious or secular, rational or irrational, malevolent or benevolent, happy or sad, inspired or horrific---the function of art is to embody the abstract standard in a specific concrete form that has the immediacy and motivating power of direct perception.

A work of art, though an imitation of natural forms, is never a copy if it. The artist does not merely simulate reality: he stylizes it. The result is, as it has been said, a universe in microcosm. The artist does not create his work ex nihilo—but bases it on objective, perceptible reality.

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. In the hands of the talented, the masters, and the genius---artistic creation can provide the most complex, the most precise, the subtlest, the most evocative, the most powerful and effective form of an embodied abstraction.

-Victor

[Victor Pross]

Now, given all that I have said above—and if you agree with me--take a look at the following work and tell me if it fits the bill.

http://www.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/classes/ah111/pollack1.jpg

[Danneskjold]

That is an utterly shameful painting. I think I may have been able to match that talent 16 years ago.

That, however, is normative. Because we are trying to define art on another thread, will someone please explain to me under what definition that is art?

Edited January 8, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Victor Pross]

That is an utterly shameful painting. I think I may have been able to match that talent 16 years ago.

That, however, is normative. Because we are trying to define art on another thread, will someone please explain to me under what definition that is art?

Jeff,

The "institution definition" would take care of it, that will save that painting---and that way you can toss in anything else you want to make it magically 'art' by intent and wish. Hey, put some beer in there, if you don’t mind? This artist is thirsty. Beer as art!

-V-

[Danneskjold]

The problem is that all disagreements beg the question. The question is "What is art?". When I say "That's not art" I have begged the question. When I say, "That can't be the definition of art because this is a piece of art" I have begged the question.

[Victor Pross]

The problem is that all disagreements beg the question. The question is "What is art?". When I say "That's not art" I have begged the question. When I say, "That can't be the definition of art because this is a piece of art" I have begged the question.

What is art? Definitions help in this quest. Definitions, of course, must be objective. A universal way of unfolding a definition is to delimit its genus (the general class of things to which it belongs) and differentia (how this particular class of things differs from the others of its genus). We can take it from there...this is some intellectual challenge. Rand did a pretty good job.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

We're winning in the majority vote, not that that proves anything. Who's voted where? I know I voted no.

[Dragonfly]

But Abstract painting is not a 'selective recreation of reality'--now vote. As Objectivists, we know that reality is determined by how many noses you can count.

Why should art be a selective recreation of reality? Because Rand said so?

[Victor Pross]

But Abstract painting is not a 'selective recreation of reality'--now vote. As Objectivists, we know that reality is determined by how many noses you can count.

Why should art be a selective recreation of reality? Because Rand said so?

No, it was an observation--not a dictate. This is what artists have been doing, as a matter of fact, for thousands of years. Dragonfly, when you have painted anything, you chose a subject matter, did you not? You selected what to include and what not to for “visual economy.”

Victor

[Dragonfly]

No, it was an observation--not a dictate. This is what artists have been doing, as a matter of fact, for thousands of years.

Oh, because it was tradition? And an artist shouldn't change tradition?

Dragonfly, when you have painted anything, you chose a subject matter, did you not? You selected what to include and what not to for “visual economy.”

If I'd make an abstract painting, I would also select what to include and what not. Whether it is a recreation of reality or not is not relevant.

[Danneskjold]

You got a better definition that does not include anything that isn't already named?

[Victor Pross]

No, it was an observation--not a dictate. This is what artists have been doing, as a matter of fact, for thousands of years.

Oh, because it was tradition? And an artist shouldn't change tradition?

Dragonfly, when you have painted anything, you chose a subject matter, did you not? You selected what to include and what not to for “visual economy.”

If I'd make an abstract painting, I would also select what to include and what not. Whether it is a recreation of reality or not is not relevant.

[1] No, it is not a “tradition” or convention. If you want to break from what you call a tradition, go ahead and do it. What would your painting look like I wonder?

[2] Yes, sure, like what colors to select—but to a limited extent. The thing of abstract painting is largely the arbitrariness of it. Look at Jack the Dipper and his random inscrutable swirls of drips and blobs. Plus "selectivity" also covers so much more--such a theme and subject matter. You do not have that in abstract painting. Hell, I don't have that on my apartment walls that I asked the landlord to repaint. Is anybody going to conduct a poll on my apt. wall? They have color and are painted.

Victor

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

[1] No, it is not a “tradition” or convention. If you want to break from what you call a tradition, go ahead and do it. What would your painting look like I wonder?

Your argument to defend the definition "selective recreation of reality" was "this is what artists have been doing for thousands of years". If that isn't an argument from tradition, I don't know what is.

[2] Yes, sure, like what colors to select—but to a limited extent. The thing of abstract painting is largely the arbitrariness of it.

I've refuted that argument before. There is no more arbitrariness in abstract painting than in writing a book or writing a musical composition; in the two latter cases you can make as much garbage as in abstract painting, but that is no reason to exclude those activities from art. (Anyway, where is the recreation of reality in music?). Particular examples don't mean anything, similar examples can easily be given in literature and in music.

[Dragonfly]

You got a better definition that does not include anything that isn't already named?

Why should I bother? I don't have to give a good definition to recognize a bad one. Anyway, I think Michael has done a fairly good job at it.