Art as Microcosm (2004)

[Brant Gaede]

So, he can delete this entire thread?

[anthony]

Interesting, I'd not known this is the same guy behind London's Orbit and Chicago's Cloud Gate. A few of his stainless steel sculptures I enjoyed (as far as "installation art" goes). Definitely a fixation with wombs, portals and passages ...These ones above look more like infantile schoolboy pranks. From some research, Kapoor seems rather the prima donna looking for attention and making political 'statements' through his sculptures. Apparently he was irritated that Chicagoans affectionately renamed his piece 'The Bean', and he has since then painted over the mirror finish in an extreme black pigment developed by the military (which he is the only artist with the rights to use!) and so almost destroyed its attractiveness I'd imagine. Sour grapes perhaps?

What's significant and great is the irrepressible human need to identify an object, as much within art - as it is seen by known referents in reality: So it has a fancy title, a bean it looks like, a Bean it is.

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I was replying to Roger and that was a reference to your bad manners.

Um, yeah, I know that. See, I was making fun of the fact that you didn't notice Roger's bad manners. I get a kick out of how that works.

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Where did Roger's post go to--the one he suggested I block you?

I have no idea. This thread is not in Roger's safe space corner, so he doesn't have the power to delete posts, or I should say that he doesn't have the power to delete others' posts.

J

[Jonathan]

7 minutes ago, anthony said:

What's significant and great is the irrepressible human need to identify an object as it is seen, by known referents...

Indeed! And that's how all of the abstract art forms work! From architecture to abstract sculpture, from music and dance to abstract paintings, each individual identifies aspects and characteristics in the artworks as being similar to things in reality! Where people who are very aesthetically limited, visually unaware and unobservant -- like Roger, Tony, Kamhi and Torres, etc. -- see only the most obvious aspects of an abstract work, other people with normal aesthetic and visual/observational capacities see much more, such as the expressiveness of colors, surface textures, reflections, proportions, etc. And then there are people who have even more advanced knowledge, experience and sensitivities who see even more.

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

So, he can delete this entire thread?

If Roger could delete this entire thread, he would have done so long ago. That's how he rolls when faced with informed criticism that he can't answer. When he has the option of wiping inconvenient realities out of existence, he takes advantage of it. He jumps right on it.

J

[anthony]

29 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Indeed! And that's how all of the abstract art forms work! From architecture to abstract sculpture, from music and dance to abstract paintings, each individual identifies aspects and characteristics in the artworks as being similar to things in reality! Where people who are very aesthetically limited, visually unaware and unobservant -- like Roger, Tony, Kamhi and Torres, etc. -- see only the most obvious aspects of an abstract work, other people with normal aesthetic and visual/observational capacities see much more, such as the expressiveness of colors, surface textures, reflections, proportions, etc. And then there are people who have even more advanced knowledge, experience and sensitivities who see even more.

J

Not bad, but the flaw in your argument is that Kapoor clearly didn't set out to design 'a bean'.

What's great, I think, is it doesn't stop people *trying* to identify, even when wrong. There is nothing complex about recognizing 'a bean shape'.

Connotation and association gets one only a little way, then breaks down completely into subjectivity. It's like the game of a group of kids perceiving shapes in clouds, where, except for an obvious and simple image, nobody will have consensus on 'what it is'. An artist may mean otherwise anyway. (Unless he's one of those who doesn't have a clue himself, so chickens out and passes the buck to the viewer - I'm just the conduit, it is what you wish it to be. Don't ask me, I'm the artist!).

[Jonathan]

4 minutes ago, anthony said:

Not bad, but the flaw in your argument is that Kapoor clearly didn't set out to design 'a bean'.

I didn't say that he did.

Despite the artwork's having that nickname, most people aren't limited to seeing it as a bean.

 

4 minutes ago, anthony said:

Connotation gets one only so far, then breaks down completely into subjectivity.

Absolutely! That's the nature of the abstract art forms! People's interpretations of and responses to music, dance, abstract painting and sculptures, and architecture are subjective!

 

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

It's like the game of a group of kids perceiving shapes in clouds, where, except for an obvious image...

For YOU, with your extreme visual, observational and cognitive limitations, it probably is like kids perceiving shapes in clouds, but the same is not true of normal people, or of visually gifted ones. The whole human race is not limited to your personal ineptitudes.

 

10 minutes ago, anthony said:

...nobody will have consensus on 'what it is'.

That's true of all art forms, and not just the abstract ones. People disagree more than they agree on "what it is," including when discussing realist works of art.

 

12 minutes ago, anthony said:

An artist may mean otherwise anyway. (Unless he's one of those who doesn't have a clue himself, so chickens out and passes the buck to the viewer - I'm just the conduit, it is what you wish it to be).

Certainly! And a good example of an artist "meaning otherwise" is Rand's novel The Fountainhead. She intended to create an "ideal man," but ended up creating one who violated his own philosophical beliefs, as well as her own, by perpetrating the fraud of passing off his work as someone else's in order to deny others their right to not hire him; by working on a project to which he was explicitly morally opposed; and then by offering up the irrational lie that others had violated a contract that they didn't have with him.

J

[william.scherk]

What fun this thread is. Some carefully wrought insults are not being received. A micro black hole of discussion.

Quote

Anish Kapoor Coats “Cloud Gate” in the Darkest Black Known to Humanity

• by The Editors on April 1, 2016

Anish Kapoor’s “Cloud Gate” (2006) following the artist’s recent recoating in Vantablack (photo courtesy City of Chicago)

Taking advantage of his exclusive rights to make artistic use of the high-tech, light-absorbing material Vantablack, the British artist Anish Kapoor has covered the entire surface of his Chicago public sculpture “Cloud Gate” (2006) with it. The result, a looming black orb that neutralizes 99.965% of the radiation that hits it, is a far cry from the mirrored selfie beacon that Chicagoans and tourists have come to love.

“The public has had a decade to interact with the reflective surface of ‘Cloud Gate,’ and I felt it was time for a change,” Kapoor told Hyperallergic. “Whereas the sculpture was originally about play and surface appearance, I think the Vantablack version is more about introspection, about becoming disoriented, lost, and enveloped in an overwhelming void of nothingness.”

Visitors take selfies in front of Anish Kapoor’s “Cloud Gate” (photo by@iannahlouisehimel/Instagram)

In spite of the artist’s existential ideas about the revamped sculpture, the change of tone doesn’t seem to have deterred the droves of selfie-snappers. Since the artwork’s re-unveiling on Monday, tourists have been posting photos of themselves standing in front of or playfully cowering beneath the towering blob of blackness. Meanwhile, locals have taken to calling it “The Black Bean,” a twist on its prior nickname, “The Bean.”

“I didn’t believe my friends when they first told me that he’d covered the Bean in that ultra-black paint of his,” said Leigh Millicent, a student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, who visited the sculpture earlier this week. “But he did, and it’s really, really black. Black as midnight on a moonless night.”

Kapoor said that he was pleased with his first public experiment with Vantablack and plans to spend the next year applying it to all of his large-scale outdoor works, beginning with his London tower, the fire-engine red “ArcelorMittal Orbit” (2012). “Since I started taking on these large public projects, the world has become a much darker place,” he said. “I want my work to reflect that.”

 

[Brant Gaede]

It looks like I could really like "Cloud Gate."

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Um, yeah, I know that. See, I was making fun of the fact that you didn't notice Roger's bad manners. I get a kick out of how that works.

I have no idea. This thread is not in Roger's safe space corner, so he doesn't have the power to delete posts, or I should say that he doesn't have the power to delete others' posts.

J

I've been aware of what you call Roger's bad manners. I decline to enter those discussions for I don't claim much knowledge of esthetics and don't care for those arguments. I also don't read much about Objectivism anymore and have never read one issue of JARS. I may have read one or two articles previously published in JARS. Many decades ago I would have read anything to do with Objectivism and Ayn Rand, but have become much more selective for there's too much out there and too much of low quality. This includes Peikoff's "Dim Hypothesis"--tell me why it's valuable; no one else has--I never finished the last two acclaimed Rand bios, though I will. The material filtered through ARI is garbage to me (let me see the original stuff). Etc. There is also the more basic problem in that Rand completely over-valued philosophy in human existence, mostly by excluding other important influences. I don't hold that against her in spite of the fact she took too easily to larding it on. That's fine; that's her philosophy. Everybody has one. Hers was much more remarkable and valuable than most for most aren't even consciously realized or examined or utilized except haphazardly.

Since esthetics are not part of Objectivism and cannot be objectified except for techniques of artistic creation (paint applied this way creates that effect), you continually win your arguments with Roger for you have so little to defend and Roger way too much. That ironically leaves you somewhat vulnerable to charges of nihilism. So I charge you with that--that is, what is your esthetic philosophy?

--Brant

someone else may have asked you this; I've not read everything to say the least

[Jonathan]

47 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Since esthetics are not part of Objectivism and cannot be objectified except for techniques of artistic creation (paint applied this way creates that effect), you continually win your arguments with Roger for you have so little to defend and Roger way too much. That ironically leaves you somewhat vulnerable to charges of nihilism.

Nihilism?!! That does not logically follow. Not at all.

In fact, the opposite is true: The Objectivish approach seems to be thrilled and excited at the idea of destruction and nullification in the field of art -- of telling everyone what is not art based on Objectivish-types' personal aesthetic limitations, and asserting that others don't experience what they claim to. Objectivish poseur scholar-wannabes experience nothing -- nihil -- in certain art forms, and they illogically claim that there is therefore nothing to experience in them, and that others who claim to experience anything are pretending, lying or delusional. There's your nihilism.

54 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

So I charge you with that--that is, what is your esthetic philosophy?

Read some of my very recent, previous posts on this thread. I've clearly identified my position on the abstract art forms, including painting, music, dance, and architecture.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Okay.

edit: I'm beginning to see some of that in your replies to Anthony. But I'm looking for esthetic structure apropos the creation of art. Philosophy is all about "should be." What is yours for the creation of art or am I missing something that needs to be in my head? Can we get true philosophy into art?

--Brant

I say, let 'em make it! Let "God" sort it out!

Edited May 17, 2016 by Brant Gaede
waiting for God ot

[anthony]

17 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Okay.

edit: I'm beginning to see some of that in your replies to Anthony. But I'm looking for esthetic structure apropos the creation of art. Philosophy is all about "should be." What is yours for the creation of art or am I missing something that needs to be in my head? Can we get true philosophy into art?

--Brant

I say, let 'em make it! Let "God" sort it out!

To me the big error is the assumption that Rand/Objectivism *prescribes* how art ~must~ be made. (Maybe an unhappy error also made by some young O'ist artists). That notion itself, from critics, I think is an implied argument from authority which, one can infer from all over her works, would have very likely disturbed Rand. Artworks exist as man-made existents and we see them and can't help assessing them. That is their purpose. And where art comes from, is first from within the preconceptual subconscious (and then, consciousness) of individuals, each to his own. An artist should never be prescribed to, or worse, allow his own source (his sense of life) to be over-ruled.

But then, is art to be left uninvestigated, by all but the 'experts'? does one have the right (or - the gall) to analyse the nature of this mind-made art with one's own mind? Doesn't one have to know first what a supposed artwork "is" (depicts of reality) before experiencing relevant emotions and sharing - or not - the life-view it expresses? Is art in its millions of forms and renditions a potential value to men's lives? Yes, but can one know, and by what standards, which is of value and which is not, to the benefit of one's life? Etc.

But ultimately it seems one is disallowed to question or doubt anything in art. Especially not to find 'selfish' value in it. Very plainly, the weight of authoritarianism comes only from the art establishment; not from the few numbers of challengers, the independent minds who ask - why? who says? ("Because WE say so"). And yet, Objectivists and some others are the dogmatic bullies?!

Noticeably, I find little or no mention of consciousness in these art debates. Strange. Man's mind, which Rand was a fierce proponent of, for all the stated and validated reasons. I gather then, that here's where detractors have their unexplained gripe/anger with anybody's objective approach:

Because they don't like this - that art is subordinate to man's consciousness. In its creation and contemplation.

Irrefutably, since its existence emanates from a consciousness, with a skilled hand directed by it too. Thereafter, another eye and mind perceives it to (or attempt to) grasp ~what~ the artist sees, and ~why~ his depiction was so important to the artist. But the counter-effort of close to a century, has been the reverse: to subordinate consciousness to art, what I call trying to "mystify" art. It can only be an attempted escape from consciousness and reality. First priority, to be intelligible, is the artist's personal responsibility - the visibility of and integrity to his art - failing which, after one's best perusal, that abstract work is no better than an arbitrary assertion one can walk away from.  

So going back, an artist can create whatever he wants. Who's stopping him? A viewer can respond accordingly, and ditto.

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

To me the big error is the assumption that Rand/Objectivism *prescribes* how art ~must~ be made.

Who is making that error? Is it the straw man who lives in your whacky head?

You should get him to post his arguments so that we have a better idea of what you think that you're arguing against.

 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

But then, is art to be left uninvestigated, by all but the 'experts'?

No. Art is to be investigated by all, including the experts, despite your wish to exclude them. The fact that you very strongly resent the idea that other people might have greater knowledge, sensitivities and observational abilities than you do doesn't disqualify their aesthetic responses and interpretations. We all know that you have the need to believe that you are the limit of aesthetic response and cognitive validity, and that anyone who claims to experience and understand anything that you can't must be lying and evil and trying to destroy proper human cognition, but that's just not reality. The reality is that you're dumb, very aesthetically lacking, unobservant and unaware.

 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Doesn't one have to know first what a supposed artwork "is" (depicts of reality) before experiencing relevant emotions and sharing - or not - the life-view it expresses?

So, you're saying that you're opposed to music qualifying as an art form.

I think you'd really be fun to play chess with. Checkmate after checkmate. You just don't think ahead at all. Not even one move ahead.

 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

But ultimately it seems one is disallowed to question or doubt anything in art. Especially not to find 'selfish' value in it. Very plainly, the weight of authoritarianism comes only from the art establishment; not from the few numbers of challengers, the independent minds who ask - why? who says? ("Because WE say so"). And yet, Objectivists and some others are the dogmatic bullies?!

Find all of the value that you want in art!!! Please do!!! No one's stopping you!!! No one is telling you that the art that you value is not art, and that you're trying to destroy man's proper method of cognition, dipshit!!!

But, please, when you don't find anything in a work of art, due to being aesthetically lacking, dumb, unobservant and unaware, why do you, and your fellow bossy-pants little Rand-followers feel so strongly that you have to tell others that they shouldn't find anything of value in it either? Why is that? Heh.

And what do expect to be the reaction that you get from people whom you're accusing of lying about their aesthetic/hermeneutic responses to art? They're "bullies" for not caving in to your accusations, and for not limiting themselves to your personal limitations? Is that what you're saying?

Seriously, I want to know what you expect from people. When you and other aesthetically-lacking Rand zealots claim that others' aesthetic responses are not valid, or that they're lies or delusions or whatever, do you actually expect them to ignore and deny the reality of their experiences just because you say so?!!!

 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

...the independent minds who ask...

You don't have an independent mind. You're 100% a second-rate Rand-follower. You're incapable of thinking for yourself.

 

3 hours ago, anthony said:

...why? who says? ("Because WE say so"). And yet, Objectivists and some others are the dogmatic bullies?!

Yes, you're the dogmatic bullies.

When truly independent minds ask others what they experience in art, they listen to and accept the answers. They learn from others and their perspectives and experiences. Not so with Objectivists. You need to vilify others. You need to feel superior, despite being quite lacking. You need to believe that you're the absolute limit of cognition and aesthetic capacity, and that anyone who claims to experience anything that you can't must be evil.

You're childish and insecure. You're Dunnning-Kruger.

J

[anthony]

20 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Who is making that error? Is it the straw man who lives in your whacky head?

You should get him to post his arguments so that we have a better idea of what you think that you're arguing against.

 

 

 

 

J

Kidding, right? Or being economical with the truth as usual. That general concept has been often expressed in all these art debates - broadly as Rand's 'prescriptiveness' in art - or Objectivist 'moralizing' to artists - or etc.etc. But of course I haven't seen you ever object before. Most selective is your recall - and opposition.

The "concept" broken down, is

1. Rand's specific examples of art, and the over all category of Romantic Realism she extolled, is what I, an art consumer and Objectivist, must admire/enjoy, too. (i.e.Throw out those Beethovens - and as for jazz...)

2. This type of art is what I, as artist and Objectivist, ~should~ be creating. (e.g.  Reproducing Vermeer's "brilliant clarity of style" - and as for having bleak metaphysical premises, better to fake benevolent ones or not paint at all...).

(Because SHE "said so").

The second aspect, damaging and constrictive to an artist's expression, is well-considered in a cautionary essay by Peter Sainte-Andre (I think titled Self-Censorship in Art - approx) who approaches the matter with good knowledge of Objectivism and empathy to O'ist artists. It appeared in OL recently.

You haven't thought or heard about any of this "straw man"? Tell me another.

I think the old truism paraphrased holds true for a young artist (or viewer): Take your inspiration from the greats, but find your own individual style soonest and be true to that while growing from there. Everything I've read in Rand supports this, nothing detracts.

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

2. This type of art is what I, as artist and Objectivist, ~should~ be creating. [...]  (Because SHE "said so").

The second aspect, damaging and constrictive to an artist's expression, is well-considered in a cautionary essay by Peter Sainte-Andre (I think titled Self-Censorship in Art - approx) who approaches the matter with good knowledge of Objectivism and empathy to O'ist artists. It appeared in OL recently.

Was it this, Tony? --

On 3/27/2016 at 4:11 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is something you might want to look at that I came across Googling. It starts with the Rand and Stalin quotes. Artist Shrugged by Peter Saint-Andre (1999).

Excerpt:  

Where are the Objectivist artists? Where are the novelists and poets,
painters and sculptors, architects and musicians who aim to apply Ayn
Rand's ideas and example to the creation of art that will inspire the
soul? Why has Rand's work not led to an artistic renaissance, even one
limited to some lively subculture of creative individuals under her
influence?

The answer, I think, is that the artists -- like the heroes of Rand's
novel Atlas Shrugged -- are on strike.

How can this be? Doesn't Rand's core philosophy advocate intellectual
independence, individualism, and personal freedom? What in that
combination can there be to strike against?

There must be something, because the artists are on strike. The
silence of artists influenced by Rand is deafening. From the
perspective of the wider culture, such artists do not exist. Even in
the subcultures of fiction-writing and of libertarianism, there are
precious few artists of note whom one can identify as having been
influenced strongly by Rand -- generally one of the most influential
thinkers and artists of the twentieth century. And the closer an
artist was or is to Rand's orbit and the little world of Objectivism,
the less likely he or she is to be artistically creative and
productive. The few exceptions, such as novelist Kay Nolte Smith, are
known for being just that: exceptions.

Why? Is there something in Rand's ideas that stifles artistic
creativity? 
 

Edited May 18, 2016 by william.scherk
Added, replaced image from Michael Newberry's "Smoke Series."

[anthony]

J. I will read you with more attention when you can - at least - mention "consciousness" every now and again.

I see you tip-toed around quoting that 'elephant' in my previous post. It was my major point, clearly, of art being subordinate to consciousness. Is this the effect of the sublime and aesthetics of Kant? How anyone can discuss art without an awareness of his consciousness (subconscious, senses, cognition, emotions, concepts) and that of an artist's, is beyond me.

 

[anthony]

Thank you, William. I will read it again, but that seems to be it. They are things that need to be said and he does it excellently.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

 Everything I've read in Rand supports this, nothing detracts.

So wrong it's incredibly wrong.

--Brant

[anthony]

I keep returning to Nathaniel Branden saying that the trouble is Objectivists don't think enough. I'll speak for myself, he was so right, but there is a hellish - or exciting - amount to think. No better place than in art. In her theory Rand stayed constant to her philosophy, to the extent TRM could be read as an Objectivist tract, from the axioms, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and even touching onto politics. Some of it could be considered a bit of a stretch, but the fundaments stay true.

However, what I see as an initial (though temporary) conundrum/paradox about Objectivism, is that one has to gradually make the principles one's own (to form your own concepts from observed facts) ... but, dammit, it can only be achieved with a huge amount of inductive knowledge - which you don't have yet, when young. Of course, it is natural and right for youngsters to be captivated by the principles, although lacking enough life-knowledge. Eventually, they can and with effort, will connect experience to their concepts.

In the mean time, what about artist-O'ists? Rand here, made plain and I agree, that the deep source of art is from one's subconscious, pre-conceptual "sense of life". "... the psychological mechanism which enables man to create a realm such as art". That we all have, as given. It was not of one's own making, it just is, a leftover from early formative years (clearly) - but - not written in stone. It is also "*not* infallible"[AR]. If it so happens that the young artist has a rather darker sense of life, while still recognizing the value in Objectivism and Rand's fiction, he-she will be desperately aware of the gap in his make up, between his darker premises, and "man as he ought to be" (and so on). What would be heartbreaking is that he-she 'self-censors' their first forays into painting - writing - to try to accomodate those at first quite overwhelming principles, which he-she hasn't *consciously* formed as yet. (I.e., "rationalistically"). Therefore, trying to create, derivatively. It can't be stated enough I believe, that the real creative energy comes from one's unique and original "sense of life" - and it should not be forced and limited, regardless of "Romantic", "Naturalist" or whatever complexities of art categories. A sense of life can change to a degree, along with one's later growth of conscious principles. In art as well, I'm sure, the artist's work evolves with him and his concepts.

 

[anthony]

21 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

So wrong it's incredibly wrong.

--Brant

What are you now, another Wolf?

;)

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

[...] you can - at least - mention "consciousness" every now and again.

It's good tactics to state plainly what you would like to hear from an interlocutor. I don't want to derail your exchange with Jonathan, but I think if you want to see 'consciousness' mentioned in context, it's your move. If you can show the importance of considering consciousness to a given discussion, they we all win. But you are asking a lot of someone who considers you a moron.

Quote

[...] quoting that 'elephant' in my previous post. It was my major point, clearly, of art being subordinate to consciousness.

Tony says:  Art is subordinate to consciousness. I stated this clearly in a previous post. It seems to me like an Elephant in the Room.

Quote

Is this the effect of the sublime and aesthetics of Kant?

Is the presence of the Elephant in the Room (due to/an effect of) Kant's Sublime? Is the pachyderm an effect of the esthetics of Kant?

Where is 'consciousness' in the Ignored Elephant issue?   Where is the clearly stated point, again?

Quote

How anyone can discuss art without an awareness of his consciousness (subconscious, senses, cognition, emotions, concepts) and that of an artist's, is beyond me.

Oh, this is a bit murky.  Something is beyond you(r understanding), inexplicable, OK.  Anyone is involved, OK.  Anyone has a consciousness. Correct. So, the thing you do not seem to bring in from Beyond .... the thing .... is murky.   I will try again to Charity-ize what I find confusing on first and second read.

I will try to put it into a declarative form, and extract the meaning from the numerous subclauses without object, for this is a quite functional sentence with a first word "I".  

{someone/anyone can discuss art}

{a person can discuss art} with or without awareness of [Whose?] {consciousness in general | consciousness} of {the person himself OR AND an/the artist}

I don't understand art discussions wherein no one talks about  "consciousness." I mean their own consciousness and that of the artist.  I believe that art is subordinate to consciousness.  

Here is the thing, Tony.  After long reading of your arguments in various art discussions, I don't think I fully understand your belief.   I don't understand the mechanics of the subordination, and I cannot think of an illustrative example you would use.  This is probably because the term "Consciousness" is  over-determined.   

However, this time I think I almost 'get' the gestalt, because there is a list of items or aspects of consciousness that you want discussed:  (the) Subconscious/ (a) subconscious mind; senses; 'cognitions'; emotions, concepts.

To my eyes, then, it is fruitful indeed to talk about a particular object or series of objects (the work or Artist A) with reference to aspects of consciousness as listed.  Further discussion can sprout from  exploration of the subject/object/cognition/appraisal conditions you think are either appropriate or missing. 

In other words, if you tightened up your language and made more shorter, declarative sentences, disposed of all the hanging clauses, EDITED your comments, there is a lot of fruitful ground to open up.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Thank you, William. I will read [the 1999 article by Saint-Andre] again, but that seems to be it. They are things that need to be said and he does it excellently.

It is a very useful article, though a bit anachronistic perhaps (in that he had not yet seen the fruits of the Cordair Gallery or suchlike -- with I think a Randian-influenced stable of artists able to achieve the 'heroic' in Man in their works, if not a school or colony).

There are a few takeaways for me on first reading. I'd be curious enough to read your thoughts, so I will give an off-the-top-of-my-head "in other words."

• Randian artists were on strike in1999
• There is something in Rand's ideas that stifles artistic creativity
• The dark side of Rand's aesthetic thought is "Objectivist Realism"
• For reasons both psychological and philosophical, self-censorship has always been rampant in the Objectivist movement.
• To generalize, an art-work is never about the nature of reality as such, but always about an aspect of reality -- and often a deeply particular and personal aspect.
• Art focuses on the personally important or significant, whereas philosophy (metaphysics) focuses on the essential or universal
• Paradoxically, the best art is philosophical in a non-philosophical way: it formulates its principles aesthetically.
• To the extent that a work of art is philosophical, it is so in itself and in its own way -- it is not a mere condensation of an already worked-out philosophical viewpoint.
• The deeper meaning of art is organic, not discursive: it grows out of the particulars presented in the work of art.
• It is not forced by ideology or pre-existing philosophy, but emerges from an individual artist's reflections on experience. 

Plenty more, but I hope this shows the strokes of his argument. For his conclusions, you will need to continue reading past the 'forced by ideology or pre-existing philosophy' in Saint-Andre's text.

Personally, his essay makes me turn to all the things I hated in the art-world as I understood it in the years from 1978 to 1993.  I was afflicted with a disgust at what I can now call 'forced' art but especially the florid, gimmicky Discourse that surrounded its 'forced' production. It seemed to me at the time I applied for art school (1980-ish) that what was being taught was not what I wanted to know. I did not want to have ideological insertions into my dreams of art. I did not want to be profound, or much-discussed in the special language of the then academy. 

I wish we could have less of "you are a fucking moron" style argument in threads that are about art. Why do our discussions tend to devolve this way, or is it devolution. Does anyone tire of the hectoring and insulting tone taken from time to time?

Tony, thanks for the reference. It is so important to consider the individual consciousness of an individual artist, and to discuss the work of an artist with reference to the actual work of his individual 'soul,' so to speak. In Saint-Andre's article, he reproduces a photograph of the Adam's Monument by Saint-Gaudens.

Tony, you seek to have other people wield a term -- "Consciousness."  It would do your own argument good if you applied yourself to Saint-Andre's article with reference to what you want to see in discussion of art/s.

Can you please extract from his article those telling passages that support your general view of art and artists, or at least knit together your 'consciousness' concerns with what he says?

It is kind of a 'gotcha,' perhaps.  Your argument cited the guy and the article. It would be useful if you carried your argument forward a ways. I would surely learn from that. 

-- and please forgive any tartness in the top remarks.  I don't point out soft spots in your communication to put you down, but to show you how some presentations detract from or obscure your embedded points.  I don't know exactly what it is, Tony, but it has to do with word order and object/subject instances in verbal phrases. Sometimes I have to pick through your utterances to piece together which verb goes with which noun, and which clause refers to which subclause in a preceding no-subject passage. 

Think of putting a bit more 'art of composition' into your utterances, Tony. It won't stop Jonathan from callling you a moron or a tyrant or nitwit, but hey.

I feel I have something to say on these subject every few months, though I do read them. This thread has distemper, I thought, and needed a vet.  But what do I know?

Edited May 18, 2016 by william.scherk
Spelking, grrrammar.

[anthony]

"Consciousness - mentioned in context".

Here is the thing, William: J. has not once mentioned the word "consciousness" in my memory of 100's of posts.

Why don't you ask him why not? Otherwise, it is a bit of a cheek aiming this at me, when consciousness is most I write about. If none of you agree on it as axiomatic, or don't understand it, let's be hearing from you or read some Rand.. 

Is art derived (and understood) from consciousness? Yes/no?

Here, one is not a moron for limiting art to so-called "aesthetics", et al, - but "a moron" for focusing on the source of art, the what and the why. Art posed as anticonceptual empiricism is OK?

Back to the usual suspects, just like old times.

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

J. I will read you with more attention when you can - at least - mention "consciousness" every now and again.

Um, are you conscious? You don't appear to be. I feel like I'm talking to Rand's "drooling beast."

How did you fail to understand that I've been quite specifically addressing the issue of consciousness?!!!

My point, repeated many times in many different ways, has been that unobservant, visual-aesthetically lacking people, like you, Roger, Kamhi and Torres, etc., do not represent the limits of human consciousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When it comes to looking at visual art, the bunch of you is very much below average. You're cognitively ill-equipped. Your consciousnesses are lesser than those of other people.

Here's an example of my discussing consciousness in a recent post:

"The fact that you very strongly resent the idea that other people might have greater knowledge, sensitivities and observational abilities than you do doesn't disqualify their aesthetic responses and interpretations. We all know that you have the need to believe that you are the limit of aesthetic response and cognitive validity, and that anyone who claims to experience and understand anything that you can't must be lying and evil and trying to destroy proper human cognition, but that's just not reality. The reality is that you're dumb, very aesthetically lacking, unobservant and unaware."

See? In the above quote, I'm addressing the issue of consciousness, and how your mistake is in believing that your personal consciousness represents the limit of mental ability for all of mankind. See, your method is to simply refuse to believe that human consciousness is capable of more that what you personally are cognitively capable of!!!!

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

I see you tip-toed around quoting that 'elephant' in my previous post. It was my major point, clearly, of art being subordinate to consciousness.

 Yes, art is subordinate to consciousness!!!

It's just not subordinate to your dopey consciousness!!!! Your personal cognitive limitations are not the limitations of the entire human race!!! The fact that you or Rand or Roger or Kamhiandtorres™ don't observe or grasp or experience something in a work of art doesn't mean that there is nothing to observe or grasp or experience. Your personal visual-aesthetic ineptitude is not the standard by which human consciousness is defined and limited. 

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Is this the effect of the sublime and aesthetics of Kant? How anyone can discuss art without an awareness of his consciousness (subconscious, senses, cognition, emotions, concepts) and that of an artist's, is beyond me.

Well, obviously there is quite a lot that is beyond you. You're a whole truckload of dumb and irrational. You're continuing to display a mindset that reinforces my point that your inability to grasp anything in certain works of art is not proof of anything but of your personal shortcomings. In short, whether it's in regard to visual art, to rational discourse, to the general use of logic, or to the ability to observe and pay attention, your consciousness is a blurry mess.

J

[anthony]

When not art-empiricism, we get elitist-rationalist-art. Sides of the same false coin, Rand makes sense.

Both ways, the dumb public doesn't know shit! We don't know how to see ... you see.

We need art courses on perspective, art history and whatever -- to understand a picture! -- what rubbish.

(I gotta listen to this grandstanding of visual techniques I knew from photography in my 20's. Nah).