Kandinsky

[Dragonfly]

BTW, it is KaNdinsky.

Edit: I see it has been corrected now...

Edited January 8, 2007 by Dragonfly

[Kevin Haggerty]

I voted yes. We humans spend a good third of our lives (that's 30 years out of a life of 90) asleep and much of that time dreaming. I dare say, therefore, that what we experience in our dreams is important. I find something familiar to a lot of abstract art, something native to my awareness. It can put me in a very thoughtful frame of mind, as I think Michael mentioned in a different thread.

"Yeah, but Kandinsky didn't say that that was what he was after," you may argue. And I say that the vast majority of artists shouldn't talk about their art. What the artist consciously intends and what the artist actually accomplishes are two very different things much of the time, and that's prolly for the best. I'd hate to read the obtuse and maudlin essays Shakespeare might have written about King Lear. Too much conscious control of one's art can easily lead to didacticism. By the same token, too much of the unintentional can simply fail to register in the viewer's mind as much of anything.

And why does music get a pass here? Why aren't we puting Beethoven's synphonies up for ridicule? "Gimme car horns and cricket songs or it's just jibberish!" Look at a synphony orchestra, all these complex machines designed to render abstract (pure) sound, working together to creat vast abstract landscapes of noise. Why is that "art," and a Pollack drip painting a disgusting insult to human rationality?

That infamous painting of Pollack's has always struck me as very musical. It's not a happy song it sings, by any means. It's painful and confused, yet full of longing and mystery. I look into that painting and I see a dark wood dappled with moonlight. I see a drunken man's insights blurred by the very thing that opens him to them. I see a man's pain transmuted into beauty, like in a Billie Holiday song. Have any of you actually seen these works? In person? There's no comparison. The first time I saw a Rothko first hand it moved me to tears.

-Kevin

[reason.on]

I'm curious, does anyone here draw a meaningful distinction betwixt "art" and "design"??

For example, if the work of Kandinsky and other abstract artists doesn't qualify as "art" by Randian standards, then what about FLW's stained glass windows, etc?

RCR

[Victor Pross]

Christian,

Kandinsky and other abstract painters does't qulify as art by rational standards -- not by a Randian standard, however much I agree with her.

Victor

[Dragonfly]

Kandinsky and other abstract painters does't qulify as art by rational standards -- not by a Randian standard, however much I agree with her.

That is an arbitrary statement which doesn't become true by merely repeating it; what are here "rational standards"?

[reason.on]

Kandinsky and other abstract painters does't qulify as art by rational standards -- not by a Randian standard, however much I agree with her.

That is an arbitrary statement which doesn't become true by merely repeating it; what are here "rational standards"?

I agree with Peter here. Although I'm not sure it isn't impossible to generate to set of "rational standards" for what is and isn't art (i.e. I do not believe any old thing can be considered "art", but I don't yet have clear lines drawn), I don't think we have them yet (Rand certainly didn't formulate them fully).

The questions linger; "art" vs. "design" (two seperate species or not), and what of FLW's work? Art or not art...and why.

RCR

[Jonathan]

Here's a photo of a paint splatter that I noticed this morning on the marble sheet that I use as a palette:

Here's a little painting that I created based on the splatter:

Notice that I eliminated the textural imperfections and idealized the shapes. Since it is a painting of a splatter, and a splatter is just as much a thing from reality as a person, apple or flower, the painting is representational, realistic and objective, and should therefore qualify as art by Victor's and Rand's definitions.

J

Edited January 8, 2007 by Jonathan

[reason.on]

Here's a photo of a paint splatter that I noticed this morning on the marble sheet that I use as a palette:

...reminds me of something one might see as a visual-aide in "The Aristocrats".... :-)

RCR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It kind of looks like what an ET could and should look like.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

An interesting Rorschach picture (BTW, why are these always symmetric?). My first impressions are: a Praying mantis and Popeye's Olive Oyl.

[Danneskjold]

It's art. I think it is worthless, but it's art.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Kat]

This is Flik from A Bug's Life. Jonathan's painting reminded me of this guy. Hmmmm, are computer animated characters art?????

Also, if art is to be narrowly defined as a recreation of reality, does that mean that imagination and creativity are no longer important?

Personally, I recognize art is the wider definition commonly used as a general term. I would include decorative arts like stained glass in that as well as computer art, illustration and graphic design. Many different types of media can be used. My opinion of a particular work doesn't change the fact that it is art in the general sense. If I think something is good art or bad art, that is a value judgment on my part and doesn't determine whether a piece is art or not.

Romantic realism may be the best art in the opinion of many, including Ayn Rand, but it does not change the definition of art to the rest of the English speaking world. It is a matter of personal taste in art. Yes, some art is crap and some people have lousy taste in art. Pollack's work is a fine example of art as crap, but it is still classified as art in the general sense. One's taste is in art doesn't define art; it only expresses one's preferences. As much as people try, you can't take the "art" out of "post-modern art" or "folk art" or any other art that you personally don't fancy.

Kat

[Danneskjold]

Kat,

This is Flik from A Bug's Life. Jonathan's painting reminded me of this guy. Hmmmm, are computer animated characters art?????

I don't see why not if it's a recreation of reality that presents a metaphysical value judgement.

Also, if art is to be narrowly defined as a recreation of reality, does that mean that imagination and creativity are no longer important?

On the contrary I would say that creativity is essential in all works of art. That is why it is a recreation. It implies that this creation is different than the original. This is, I think, why Victor in the thread on Aesthetics said that photography is not art. It's not a recreation, it's just a copy.

Personally, I recognize art is the wider definition commonly used as a general term. I would include decorative arts like stained glass in that as well as computer art, illustration and graphic design. Many different types of media can be used. My opinion of a particular work doesn't change the fact that it is art in the general sense. If I think something is good art or bad art, that is a value judgment on my part and doesn't determine whether a piece is art or not.

Many of these things can be art. For instance, the stain glassed windows on chapels that I have seen depicting Mary holding baby Jesus. However, we are defining art. Our opinions, if you ask Victor and I, have nothing to do with definition. We just think that in order to have art be a meaningful concept that it must have a more restricted definition than the current one. We dislike the current one because nearly anything can be called art.

Romantic realism may be the best art in the opinion of many, including Ayn Rand, but it does not change the definition of art to the rest of the English speaking world. It is a matter of personal taste in art. Yes, some art is crap and some people have lousy taste in art. Pollack's work is a fine example of art as crap, but it is still classified as art in the general sense. One's taste is in art doesn't define art; it only expresses one's preferences. As much as people try, you can't take the "art" out of "post-modern art" or "folk art" or any other art that you personally don't fancy.

We aren't saying that the art is crap, or isn't crap, or anything else. We are saying that the current definition of art is inadequate. That is why we like a more rational definition than the one currently presented.

[studiodekadent]

Kandinsky is my equal favorite painter. The other favorite is Botticelli. Now, I do not buy into Rand's Aesthetics: if it were true that an Objectivist sense of life produces favorable reactions towards romantic art exclusively, then I am not an Objectivist because I like some naturalistic art (such as musicians like Front 242), some art based upon selective recreation of reality according to the artists disvalues (Horror films, most of the music I listen to, and the music I make myself).

Since I am an Objectivist, I think I count as at least some evidence that Rand's aesthetics are at least somewhat faulty.

[Victor Pross]

"A recreation of reality" does not mean "a slavish copying of reality"-- as if one were a photographer. It can mean the stylization of reality with lots of creativity -- bounded only by intelligibility and the principles of human cognition.

Modernism flouts the regulations of the human mind: it is targeted to a human being as he does not perceive and cannot think. Even though the defenders of Modernisnism [and not just in painting] claim that the aim is to discover "higher levels of consciousness" it is, in fact, the attempt not to re-create reality, but to annihilate our understanding of reality. It is the attempt to disintegrate a human being’s mind. It is an attempt to invert the purpose of art, the purpose it has served for thousands of years. In place of purposeful focus, meaningful selectivity, integration, and clarity, Modernist art cultivates lack of focus, the arbitrary, the random, the meaningless.

Victor

Edited January 10, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

So, would anybody like to try to define art so that Victor and I can shoot holes in it by telling you how far it extends over the bounds of what should be considered art?

I have a lot of respect for MSK because he actually did do that. Bravo.

[Danneskjold]

I wish people would tell WHY they voted how they did instead of just voting.

[Jonathan]

Jeff wrote,

So, would anybody like to try to define art so that Victor and I can shoot holes in it by telling you how far it extends over the bounds of what should be considered art?

I gave a rough definition in post #58 on the Art and Subobjectivity thread:

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."

Also on the Art and Subobjectivity thread, Ellen gave a definition in her post #211 on Susanne Langer's ideas:

I think that maybe how I'd define art is "presentational form which evokes what meaningful process is like." I don't know if I'd stick with that. I've felt reluctant to try to give a definition, having witnessed all the troubles Rand's definition has led to.

Please shoot holes. Hopefully I'll learn something from you which will help me refine my thinking.

Jeff wrote,

I wish people would tell WHY they voted how they did instead of just voting.

Read the Art and Subobjectivity thread. :-)

J

[Kevin Haggerty]

I wish people would tell WHY they voted how they did instead of just voting.

I gave my reasons in post #27.

Y'know, I'm much more a psychology guy than a philosophy guy, so the question that keeps coming up for me in reading these threads on art is: Why do these folks prefer a narrow definition of art to a broad one? What does their stringent definition serve? What does it clarify? What evils does it prevent? Off the cuff, it seems to be simply elitist. Defining art as something I do, but Frank Loyd Wright, for instance, didn't do--lol--honestly, it strikes me as a tad egomaniacal.

My grandma was fond of saying, "Anything done well is an art." That definition doesn't bother me at all. I find it encouraging, even enpowering and inspiring. If we bring our own creative power to our work we can make an art of it. But you folks are hunting some other game and I don't know why.

Whenever I visit this site I think about the project of winning the hearts and minds of America over to Objectivism. How ya gonna do that by telling folks that most of what they consider to be art, just ain't?

How about this: art is man-made beauty. And when I say man-made, I mean with intent--art is not made by accident, though accident is often a component of art as it can be in any endeavor. There are happy accidents. And as an artist, I've come to respect and trust my subconscious impulses. If I don't over-think things, wonderful things can happen.

What the hell is beauty anyway? Does it exist, strictly speaking? Is it real? Is it important? I think beauty is about as important as it gets. To my mind, there is no higher calling than the project of increasing the amount of beauty in the world.

-Kevin

[Danneskjold]

Jonathan,

"presentational form which evokes what meaningful process is like."

That is a good definition. My problem with it is that there are many things that present themselves and everything can be said to evoke what meaningful process is like. Rand's definition is equally subjective in the second half, however the first half restricts that quite a bit. Things that I could make a good argument that would fall under that definition would be a science journal, a piece of manufacturing equipment, a mathematical proof, and a family pedigree. All of these things manifest themselves physically and carry out, show, or take part in a process.

Personally I think you could improve your definition by including "created by and for humans" from Michael's definition, and perhaps made "by and for the human mind" to exclude involuntary processes of the human body. Also, if I were to take your position I would add "through abstract or creative means" to the end. This would allow for the recreation of reality so cherished by those following Rand, as well as allow Kandinsky to put his two cents in. Any suggestions?

Edit: It might end up something like "presentational form made by and for the human mind, which evokes what meaningful process is like through abstract or creative means."

Edit2: That was off-the-cuff though. I will see how well I like it when I have more time to think about it. I do know that it eliminates the problem of the scientific journals and mathematical proofs due to the fact that those prove reality and do not create.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whenever I visit this site I think about the project of winning the hearts and minds of America over to Objectivism. How ya gonna do that by telling folks that most of what they consider to be art, just ain't?

Kevin,

That is my own view, and not just on art either.

Among the top 3 or 4 most irritating habits of Objectivists, I find that trying to usurp common terms for commonplace things, and giving them specialized meanings by claiming that all other meanings don't exist, is right up there near number one. It's like scraping dry fingernails across a blackboard.

This approach is taken by people who do not want their view to be the best view that exists. They want it to be the only view that exists, even if that means blanking out the rest of reality.

I can't think of a worse manner of convincing anybody of anything than telling him that what he sees in front of him does not exist, except maybe farting in public while talking about the sublime.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

We aren't saying it doesn't exist, just saying we have a different name for it.

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

How you doing partner? That's right--partner. I feel like I have an ally in ya. You have been fighting it out, huh.

I just got in from a long day and I'll be jumping in real soon.

V

Edited January 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

[Jonathan was quoting ES] "presentational form which evokes what meaningful process is like."

That is a good definition. My problem with it is that there are many things that present themselves and everything can be said to evoke what meaningful process is like. Rand's definition is equally subjective in the second half, however the first half restricts that quite a bit. Things that I could make a good argument that would fall under that definition would be a science journal, a piece of manufacturing equipment, a mathematical proof, and a family pedigree. All of these things manifest themselves physically and carry out, show, or take part in a process.

Personally I think you could improve your definition by including "created by and for humans" from Michael's definition, and perhaps made "by and for the human mind" to exclude involuntary processes of the human body. Also, if I were to take your position I would add "through abstract or creative means" to the end. This would allow for the recreation of reality so cherished by those following Rand, as well as allow Kandinsky to put his two cents in. Any suggestions?

Edit: It might end up something like "presentational form made by and for the human mind, which evokes what meaningful process is like through abstract or creative means."

Edit2: That was off-the-cuff though. I will see how well I like it when I have more time to think about it. I do know that it eliminates the problem of the scientific journals and mathematical proofs due to the fact that those prove reality and do not create.

Jeff, I have to chuckle reading that. You didn't understand the meaning of "presentational form." I grant that I was brief and sketchy in what I said (post 211, "Art and Subobjectivity Thread"), but you didn't grok it. For one thing "created by and for humans [or it might be some other species of symbol-producing animal]" and "through abstract or creative means" is already entailed in the meaning of "presentational form." And your interpretation of what "present" means in the usage is common-parlance usage, whereas the term is a specialized technical one. That of course quite militates against its being adopted or even understood by the general populace. I don't think it would ever happen that the man in the street would use that definition. Also, "the problem of the scientific journals and mathematical proofs" is already eliminated, because those are "discursive form," the contrast form to "presentational."

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I voted yes. We humans spend a good third of our lives (that's 30 years out of a life of 90) asleep and much of that time dreaming. I dare say, therefore, that what we experience in our dreams is important. I find something familiar to a lot of abstract art, something native to my awareness. It can put me in a very thoughtful frame of mind, as I think Michael mentioned in a different thread.

Same here. I think it's getting down to the archetypal level, the form-forming level. And I suspect that there are "visual templates," such as reactiveness to edges, which underlie visual perception. It's like abstract art is getting at the forms which are behind our ability to perceive visually. (Another thing some of them are getting at is like chemical and molecular process.) I do think that there are abstract artists who are fradulent, putting one over, no intelligence in what they're doing. But something like Kandinsky. Oh, my god, awesome, IMO.

"Yeah, but Kandinsky didn't say that that was what he was after," you may argue. And I say that the vast majority of artists shouldn't talk about their art. What the artist consciously intends and what the artist actually accomplishes are two very different things much of the time, and that's prolly for the best. I'd hate to read the obtuse and maudlin essays Shakespeare might have written about King Lear.

I don't think he'd have had the time for it -- assuming that Shakespeare did write Shakespeare. Too much work to do running his theater. ;-)

Ellen

___

Edited January 11, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle