Art as Microcosm (2004)

[Jonathan]

11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

In order to demonstrate that Hilla Rebay really was experiencing said "essence" upon contemplating Kandinsky's art, you'll first need to make a plausible case that there is said "essence."  Good luck.

Thanks, but I don’t need the luck since I wouldn’t argue that there is an “essence” outside of Rebay’s describing her personal experience as such. I think that all statements of what any person believes is the “essence" of creation, or of any of the art forms, comes down to each individual’s subjective opinions based on their own personal experiences, sensitivities and limitations.

 

11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Note: I'm not accusing Rebay of pretentiousness.  I think that she really was sincerely, deeply, profoundly moved by Kandinsky's art.

I agree, and that has been my entire point: There is no reason to take the frantic, insecure, Objectivish position of doubting or rejecting anyone’s statements that they were "sincerely, deeply, profoundly moved" by any work of art; the fact that O’vishes don’t themselves experience the same depth and profundity is not a logical or rational basis on which to doubt others’ experiences, or to call them lies, delusions, etc.

An individual work of art that Rebay may have experienced as a primary essence of creation might do little or nothing for me or you. In such a case, I’m not at all uncomfortable with the idea that I lack her sensitivities to the effects of the work in question. Likewise, if you say that a certain poem or ballet knocks the wind out of you, but it bores me, I wouldn’t find it upsetting in the least if anyone were to say that, in regard to the artwork in question, and perhaps even the entire genre, I appear to be aesthetically limited, unaware, unobservant, uninterested, etc. I would not be able to understand someone’s needing to tell you that you’re lying, delusional or pretentious when you claim that you experience depth, emotional impact, expressiveness and meaning that I and others might not.

 

11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

But must one be lacking in artistic sensitivity to doubt that whatever she experienced was in fact "the primary essence of creation"?

One must be lacking in not only artistic sensitivity, but also in general life experience and fundamental social interaction in order to not recognize the very simple reality that others often experience in art what one does not. Many people have differing views on what they think is the “essence” of creation, what is the “essence” of each of the art forms, and what is the “essence” of each individual work of art. There doesn’t have to be a single, universal, objectively definable/identifiable “essence” of any of those categories in order for one to accept the reality that another person is reporting that she experienced what she describes as an “essence.” She has an opinion on what is essential, then she experiences a work of art which meets her criteria of what she thinks is essential, and then states that the art work hit her essence button. We don’t have to agree with her on what is essential, nor do we have to even accept the idea that anything can boil down to a single “essence,” in order to recognize and accept that she experiences it as an essence, even though we do not.

It’s the old tale of the blind men touching different parts of an elephant. One touches the trunk and thinks it’s a serpent, another touches a leg and thinks it’s a tree, etc. Rand “touched” the subject of “art” and felt only the story-telling part, so the "essence" of all art forms became those aspects which were most similar to literature. Rebay touched only the visual compositional part. Both made the mistake of irrationally rejecting — sometimes quite angrily — others’ statements about the parts that they were touching.

Why not listen to and accept others’ descriptions of the parts that they are touching? What’s with the insecure little psychological need to assert that others can’t possibly be touching a part that is different from the part that one is touching?

 

J

[Roger Bissell]

13 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

In order to demonstrate that Hilla Rebay really was experiencing said "essence" upon contemplating Kandinsky's art, you'll first need to make a plausible case that there is said "essence."  Good luck.

 

Ellen, I would sure appreciate it if some rational, artistically inclined person could do this. Being myself very aesthetically limited, visually unaware and unobservant, I would greatly benefit from the advanced knowledge, experience and sensitivities of those who see not only what those with normal aesthetic and visual/observational capacities are able to see, but even more. The following seems like such a good example of the kind of deep aesthetic insight that I am incapable of:

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

Thanks, William, for sharing this. It will have a prominent place of honor in the book I am writing.

REB

[anthony]

Being freed by "the increase in material ease of life" now allows man's greater access to the spiritual life and non-objectivity? I argue the opposite, that it is ever more demanding on his mind - *consciousness ~ identification*: or, 'spirituality' in its real sense. It has always been fascinating how mankind always needs one form of religiosity or another, to which even ~especially~ the most assured atheists I've found are susceptible. They only switch allegiances from a Deity. Call it The State, the People, Gaia, Art, New Age, etc. Even, in some ways,Technology. In there somewhere is the deep-seated human need to be spiritually subsumed by something greater, to be given purpose/meaning, and to experience...more.

Rebay expresses her case very well, for the little there is; it's all psychic rubbish of course. "Sensitivity" is simply heightened perception, which anyone could and should train towards by practising and clearly seeing as much as can be seen, and eliciting the most possible from it. Any further, and one enters the realms of suggestion, association, or clairvoyance (or the High Priesthood of Unidentifiable Art).

The picture is nice, I like the blues, its depth and the swirly-ness. It would have no less attractiveness on my wall than other designs I like, and have no meaning for me, past that. "Design" is what it is, after all, the reductionism when you subtract real things and leave behind attractive colors and shapes.

 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

Ellen, I would sure appreciate it if some rational, artistically inclined person could do this.

One of the drawbacks of blanking out reality, such as blocking posts from informed critics of your uneducated opinions on subjects about which you know nothing while posing as a published expert, is that you miss the rational explanations from artistically inclined people. But, then again, that's the purpose of such blocking, isn't it? Roger wants to wish rationality out of existence rather attempt to address it, since attempting to address it, and failing miserably, would only highlight its potency.

 

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

Being myself very aesthetically limited, visually unaware and unobservant...

You are indeed very aesthetically limited, visually unaware and unobservant. You've revealed many times your lack of exposure to visual arts education, your lack of awareness of the historical meanings of the terms used in visual arts, your unfamiliarity with basic visual arts issues, and your complete lack of technical knowledge of the visual arts.

 

1 hour ago, Roger Bissell said:

Thanks, William, for sharing this. It will have a prominent place of honor in the book I am writing.

Will it be yet another book based completely on the Argument From Personal Incredulity and your total lack of visual arts education and knowledge, or will you be working up the bravery to address some of the many, many criticisms that I've offered which you've evaded at all costs? Heh. My bet would be that it's the former.

J

[Jonathan]

On May 20, 2016 at 2:00 PM, william.scherk said:

"Gesture" is about the only thing I retain from Grade 9 Art class.  The poor woman who was our teacher found it hard to make contact with her students, who were still mostly at  the construction paper, white glue and sparkle stage. She was not pretentious, except in her heavy sighs. which were recurrent.  

Why I recall her mention of "Gesture" is by virtue of the examples she brought to class.  She showed on a large scale -- in large paintings and sculptures of human form, in tableaux vivants, in various more lyrical compositions from the late Romantic period -- and she showed us on a small scale (in calligraphy) and in modernist tropes in graphics.   What she seemed to be telling me is that where there is 'living' or 'vital' gesture, there is life. Pretty basic.  And I can't be bothered to go check how poorly I now denote "Gesture."

Jonathan, kidding and archness aside (if I can), what is "Gesture," how is it possibly a shibboleth, or a too-elastic term, where does it help a person understand their visceral reaction to art -- what is it to you, and does my reaction to what I perceive as "Gesture" strike you odd?

For myself the reaction is an  emotional/technical appraisal gestalt, a snapshot of my mind and heart. When I like something I cannot always immediately discuss the details, but I can point to this and that and the other that rings my bells.  I would have to be paid money for actually putting together an essay on the recent things from our fellow OL member ...

What I thought was useful in pulling in these new Newberry's is to illustrate a step or side path of the artist's journey. These pictures no more typify Newberry's production than does his still lifes, or his intricate renderings of objects other than humans. Because we know a fair bit about his career, we can find them a mere sport, an emanation of a particular time and place and range of influences (including, perhaps criticism he received here). They mayn't be used to judge his entire oeuvre.  

But, again, to the personal crank. I know it was a critic of Newberry who gave us here notice of the newer canvases flying out of his studio wet.  I sure would be interested in a plain old Jonathan reaction, without perhaps dragging in poor Tony and the Ghosts of Arguments Past.

But hey.  

Bump. Placeholder/reminder.

J

[Brant Gaede]

The only thing that strikes me by way of example by "gesture" is the look on the face of Michelangelo's David. It made him both completely human and completely heroic at the same time. In Objectivism, as per an article in The Objectivist, that look shouldn't be there, thus stripping out the humanity--that is to say, the face on the statue becomes only a little more metaphysically significant than any other part of the statue, for not only would the humanity be gone, so would consciousness itself--most if not all of it.

Now, David could be steadfastly looking at his future without fear, but there would go the heroism. Then it would only be how well he could use that sling. That rendition of David would be him actually looking at his past, knowing the outcome before it happened. As done by Michelangelo, however, he is looking at an uncertain future, which is what we all do when we confront great difficulties.

In Rand's favorite novel, Calumet K, the exhausted protagonist leaves to get some sleep at the critical junction of his constructive enterprise. If it isn't done just so it will collapse, but he's so confident in his crew, his design and his instructions that's not a problem for him. I'd call this business or capitalist heroism. The hero lives in a world where he can prosper and produce. But his life is not on the line. When it comes to actual warfare, it's a whole another ballgame. Rand did not write about actual warfare. The closest was in Atlas Shrugged. Even there there was little "spilling the blood of tyrants." The bad boys merely ended up unemployed. In real life, no matter how much a country is ground down you still need to shoot them down to get rid of them. That's what happened to Allende, et al. So Rand instructed us on how to get rid of the communist regime in Cuba: economic blockade will cause it to collapse. Sorry, even in her old middle age she was naive. She was for brains beating guns. I don't think she dug westerns. That might be a girl-boy divide and it might also be a European-American divide, for she obviously, to me, retained a lot of the subservient European culture she was born into. There aren't too many real Americans in her two great novels, especially American masculine polloi. Classical Americans don't give up and there are a hell of a lot of us left.

--Brant

to a leftist Allende was a good guy and Stalin betrayed communism and Lenin was a hero--and let's hear it for socialism!

(I've no training in the visual arts whatsoever)

[anthony]

On 2016/05/25 at 10:01 PM, Jonathan said:

It’s the old tale of the blind men touching different parts of an elephant. One touches the trunk and thinks it’s a serpent, another touches a leg and thinks it’s a tree, etc. Rand “touched” the subject of “art” and felt only the story-telling part, so the "essence" of all art forms became those aspects which were most similar to literature. Rebay touched only the visual compositional part. Both made the mistake of irrationally rejecting — sometimes quite angrily — others’ statements about the parts that they were touching.

Why not listen to and accept others’ descriptions of the parts that they are touching? What’s with the insecure little psychological need to assert that others can’t possibly be touching a part that is different from the part that one is touching?

 

J

The "story-telling part" which Rand supposedly "touched" because of her literary leanings, isn't so - in her explanation. It's not 'a story', although some inferences about action and character in a picture can be deduced by an artist's special treatment and emphasis. Not however, by researching the background history and pedigree and such; a picture is a stand-alone product. 'Outside considerations' are another topic of interest and study.

"By a selective re-creation, art isolates and integrates those aspects of reality which represent man's fundamental view of himself and of existence". ...

"An artist isolates the things which he regards as metaphysically essential and integrates them into a single new concrete that represents an embodied abstraction".

"Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts." [The Psycho-Epistemology of Art]

(Especially note the last sentence). On seeing an artwork (percept), what this brings to one's mind is the pertaining abstraction - for instance, some person (recalling Brant's affinity for 'Guernica')could instantly react with: Exactly, this is what the senselessness of war and destruction means to me, conceptually! Or: Yes! I have the same image of man and existence! (Looking at David, perhaps) Or, nothing: These artworks are not my views at all.

The purpose (I think) has dual, overlapping roles: epistemologically, an aid to concept creation - and morally, the spiritual energy to keep working to one's goals. (Another could be a valuable aid to one's introspection of premises: i.e. With a certain image, why do I have such a negative emotional response to such a positive view of existence..? and vice-versa)

A completely false dichotomy is the separation of an image into two parts: a. aesthetics b. subject matter. It's like the so-called soul/body dichotomy, you can't have one without the other. Compositional elements - beauty and aesthetics - are assumed here, which haven't existence without a body. And the finer and more practised the artist, the better he accomplishes all the techniques - loosely, the 'craft of art'. It may be too, something ugly, plain or dreary, in subject, which is rendered beautifully. 

[Jonathan]

On May 20, 2016 at 2:00 PM, william.scherk said:

"Gesture" is about the only thing I retain from Grade 9 Art class.  The poor woman who was our teacher found it hard to make contact with her students, who were still mostly at  the construction paper, white glue and sparkle stage. She was not pretentious, except in her heavy sighs. which were recurrent.  

Why I recall her mention of "Gesture" is by virtue of the examples she brought to class.  She showed on a large scale -- in large paintings and sculptures of human form, in tableaux vivants, in various more lyrical compositions from the late Romantic period -- and she showed us on a small scale (in calligraphy) and in modernist tropes in graphics.   What she seemed to be telling me is that where there is 'living' or 'vital' gesture, there is life. Pretty basic.  And I can't be bothered to go check how poorly I now denote "Gesture."

Jonathan, kidding and archness aside (if I can), what is "Gesture," how is it possibly a shibboleth, or a too-elastic term, where does it help a person understand their visceral reaction to art -- what is it to you, and does my reaction to what I perceive as "Gesture" strike you odd?

No, your reaction, and your use of "gesture" don't strike me as odd at all. In my experience, it's totally normal to hear the term used as you used it in response to the smoke paintings. In playing at being aghast at your talk of "gesture," I was donning the limited capacities and the personal incredulities of visually aesthetically inept bossypants poseurs like Roger, Tony and Tamhikorres®™. They are incapable of grasping what the concept "gesture" might mean when not applied to a human form. (Well, actually, they seem to grasp it when the term is applied to a piece of music, and even to a work of architecture, but then they suddenly just cannot fathom what it might pertain to when looking at flowing forms which are not human (you could take a flowing, gestural drawing of geometric shapes, call the drawing "abstract art," and Rand's little dunces would laugh at the suggestion that it was "art" and that it was "gestural," but then you could take the exact same drawing, label it "architectural front elevation drawing," and they would declare that it was art and that they could see the gesture and understand the work's meaning.)

 

Quote

For myself the reaction is an  emotional/technical appraisal gestalt, a snapshot of my mind and heart. When I like something I cannot always immediately discuss the details, but I can point to this and that and the other that rings my bells.

Well said. I think that that "snapshot" can sometimes indeed be difficult to put into words. Sometimes it's not easy to bring the subconscious workings forward, and to explain the how and why behind the effects and responses. I see it as being identical to watching Rand's followers trying to explain the how and why behind their reactions to music.

 

Quote

But, again, to the personal crank. I know it was a critic of Newberry who gave us here notice of the newer canvases flying out of his studio wet.  I sure would be interested in a plain old Jonathan reaction, without perhaps dragging in poor Tony and the Ghosts of Arguments Past.

 

I'm woking on that. I'd like to share my plain old reaction, but I'll have to think about it first -- about what I want to say, and what I want to not say.

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

The "story-telling part" which Rand supposedly "touched" because of her literary leanings, isn't so - in her explanation. It's not 'a story', although some inferences about action and character in a picture can be deduced by an artist's special treatment and emphasis. Not however, by researching the background history and pedigree and such; a picture is a stand-alone product. 'Outside considerations' are another topic of interest and study.

"By a selective re-creation, art isolates and integrates those aspects of reality which represent man's fundamental view of himself and of existence". ...

"An artist isolates the things which he regards as metaphysically essential and integrates them into a single new concrete that represents an embodied abstraction".

"Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man's concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts." [The Psycho-Epistemology of Art]

(Especially note the last sentence). On seeing an artwork (percept), what this brings to one's mind is the pertaining abstraction - for instance, some person (recalling Brant's affinity for 'Guernica')could instantly react with: Exactly, this is what the senselessness of war and destruction means to me, conceptually! Or: Yes! I have the same image of man and existence! (Looking at David, perhaps) Or, nothing: These artworks are not my views at all.

The purpose (I think) has dual, overlapping roles: epistemologically, an aid to concept creation - and morally, the spiritual energy to keep working to one's goals. (Another could be a valuable aid to one's introspection of premises: i.e. With a certain image, why do I have such a negative emotional response to such a positive view of existence..? and vice-versa)

A completely false dichotomy is the separation of an image into two parts: a. aesthetics b. subject matter. It's like the so-called soul/body dichotomy, you can't have one without the other. Compositional elements - beauty and aesthetics - are assumed here, which haven't existence without a body. And the finer and more practised the artist, the better he accomplishes all the techniques - loosely, the 'craft of art'. It may be too, something ugly, plain or dreary, in subject, which is rendered beautifully. 

As Billy would say: "Garble."

J

[anthony]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

As Billy would say: "Garble."

J

The Rand quotes, too? Then I think conceptualization and consciousness is all garble to you.

But now you should know better about Rand and her "story". Your guesses about Rand's art theory have generally been all over the place.

[anthony]

"Gesture" is in the style of the art, by the stylization of an artist - and although being a metaphor, not mystifying. Aptly in keeping with "microcosm" as the theme of this thread, it is illuminating just how neo-mysticism and empiricism reflects here - about art, as it does in philosophies and people. On the one hand, is constantly analysed and admired the manual/visual techniques: of brush strokes, colour and perspective and so on - on the other, is the suggestion of transcendant and mysterious processes at work. Only one or the other. The artist as manual worker - or, as the conveyor of man's spirituality.

I maintain that each and both sell the artist short, as not the reality of what some artists should be respected for.

1) Art is man-made.

Which means, elements of nature have been reconstructed and reconfigured by an individual.

Which means, yes, "art imitates nature" - abstractly speaking - but not without a human agent. A potential image had to pass through ~someone's~ consciousness, to be identified, to be self-acknowledged 'important', in order to ever be made into concrete form. Somebody first had to identify what image he wanted to achieve, and keep on identifying (envisaging) his final goal with every brush stroke, until completion. Therefore, the image HAS to take its identity from him personally, by the nature of his conscious mind and subconscious. In return, the viewer's consciousness ~identifies~ and takes something out for its own benefit. No mystique is involved, and the technicalities are merely a means to an end.

I think roughly that's the core of all art, but *identification* and *consciousness* are never mentioned in these art discussions or outside. And they are barely mentioned by Kant in his aesthetics, unstrangely.

 

[william.scherk]

On 5/20/2016 at 11:39 AM, Quoting, William, Smith Jonathan He said:

"Of all the smokey recent things from Newberry, this is one of my favourites. I like it for the free gesture. It has an exuberance and freedom that is so lovely to see in Newberry's production."

"Free gesture"  "exuberance and freedom"

40 minutes ago, anthony said:

"Gesture" is in the style of the art, by the stylization of an artist - and while being a metaphor, not mystifying. Aptly in keeping with "microcosm" as the theme of this, it is illuminating just how neo-mysticism and empiricism reflects here - about art, as it does in philosophies and people.

I can try to translate this into a more standard English:  While  being a metaphor not mystifying, aptly in keeping with microcosm, it is illuminating Gesture is of the style the art. This does not mystify (me).  In keeping with it, as them of this, just how reflects here mysticism. It me mystify does, not. It reflects here just how. Empiricism reflects here. Here reflects it Empiricism. And mysticism here it being reflected. It does. It does in people. It does in me not. About art. Here.

I applaud the gestural freedom and abstraction Tony brings with his inventive if-jarring arabesques on our shared heritage, English.  The giddy swoops between missing active subjects of no-term-limits run-on thoughts is like zip-lining through a canopy. Exhilarating and just a bit scary.  A few hard thuds. Memorable, if mostly a blur. 

My gestalt snapshot is kind of me being witness, a kind of awe, wherein I spectate on something ineffable,  like the aching-with-meaning gibberish of Ulysses.

We each pay the rent around here in different ways.

Quote

On the one hand, is constantly analysed and admired the manual/visual techniques: of brush strokes, colour and perspective and so on - on the other, is the suggestion of transcendant and mysterious processes at work. Only one or the other. The artist as manual worker - or, as the conveyor of man's spirituality.

Is constantly analysed by whom and so technique. Is the suggestion. Transcendance mysteriousness at work suggestion One. Or the Other. My worker while hands only. Spirituality conveyed it. By the other hand. No.

I love these discussions about art that mentions art not by, only the Them circling pitiless above in the updraft.  Tony the Them circling the ineffable, the inhumane the artless. But the other hand no.  

No, Jonathan! -- do you hear?  No them pitiless empty art talk hand rent concept talk talk value death. No.

Three this game play it. Can.

Edited May 27, 2016 by william.scherk
Try to de-snark. Broke de-snarker, failed.

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

The Rand quotes, too?

No, dimwit, just your statements.

J

[Jonathan]

26 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Is constantly analysed by whom and so technique. Is the suggestion. Transcendance mysteriousness at work suggestion One. Or the Other. My worker while hands only. Spirituality conveyed it. By the other hand. No.

I love these discussions about art that mentions art not by, only the Them circling pitiless above in the updraft.  Tony the Them circling the ineffable, the inhumane the artless. But the other hand no.  

No, Jonathan! -- do you hear?  No them pitiless empty art talk hand rent concept talk talk value death. No.

Three this game play it. Can.

Someone has to think thoughts! Don't you know epistemolgy? All this time, in hundreds of posts, I've never seen you mention that gestures are gestures. No one ever mentions it. Something has to be a thing. Where is the thing in Kant aesthetics? Why do you argue against the agent in aesthetics, Williams? A potential image has to be envisaged, and you're therefore a Skeptic to tell me that I shouldn't use my mind, but that I should wear mystical powers invisible Emperor clothes that made by Kant.

3) A person would have to look at a work of art to see it. Don't tell me that it can be seen without looking at it. In turn, there is no dichotomy, conceptually speaking, in false dichotomies versus spiritual fuel, so it also has to be looked at to be seen, even if, hypothetically, seeing involved the eyes if you argued against it from the other side. Stop denying, therefore, that non-unseen art is man-made, and that it has to first be looked at -- perceived -- in order to then be allowed to not become the dichotomy.

J

[anthony]

Oh, the non-conceptualists are annoyed. Was I better understood than anyone is honest enough to admit? Don't go away boys. I can always discover some more of what makes a skeptic-empiricist tick. William, there comes a point with fine prose-writing of putting self-admiration and beauty of words above any real substance. It appears I stray the other way from you, luckily.

[Roger Bissell]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

On 5/20/2016 at 1:39 PM, Quoting, William, Smith Jonathan He said:

"Of all the smokey recent things from Newberry, this is one of my favourites. I like it for the free gesture. It has an exuberance and freedom that is so lovely to see in Newberry's production."

 

"Free gesture"  "exuberance and freedom"

2 hours ago, anthony said:

"Gesture" is in the style of the art, by the stylization of an artist - and while being a metaphor, not mystifying. Aptly in keeping with "microcosm" as the theme of this, it is illuminating just how neo-mysticism and empiricism reflects here - about art, as it does in philosophies and people.

 

I can try to translate this into a more standard English:  While  being a metaphor not mystifying, aptly in keeping with microcosm, it is illuminating Gesture is of the style the art. This does not mystify (me).  In keeping with it, as them of this, just how reflects here mysticism. It me mystify does, not. It reflects here just how. Empiricism reflects here. Here reflects it Empiricism. And mysticism here it being reflected. It does. It does in people. It does in me not. About art. Here.

I applaud the gestural freedom and abstraction Tony brings with his inventive if-jarring arabesques on our shared heritage, English.  The giddy swoops between missing active subjects of no-term-limits run-on thoughts is like zip-lining through a canopy. Exhilarating and just a bit scary.  A few hard thuds. Memorable, if mostly a blur. 

My gestalt snapshot is kind of me being witness, a kind of awe, wherein I spectate on something ineffable,  like the aching-with-meaning gibberish of Ulysses.

We each pay the rent around here in different ways.

Quote

On the one hand, is constantly analysed and admired the manual/visual techniques: of brush strokes, colour and perspective and so on - on the other, is the suggestion of transcendant and mysterious processes at work. Only one or the other. The artist as manual worker - or, as the conveyor of man's spirituality.

 

Is constantly analysed by whom and so technique. Is the suggestion. Transcendance mysteriousness at work suggestion One. Or the Other. My worker while hands only. Spirituality conveyed it. By the other hand. No.

I love these discussions about art that mentions art not by, only the Them circling pitiless above in the updraft.  Tony the Them circling the ineffable, the inhumane the artless. But the other hand no.  

No, Jonathan! -- do you hear?  No them pitiless empty art talk hand rent concept talk talk value death. No.

Three this game play it. Can.

 

This has disturbing echoes of Yoda and Sarah Palin. With maybe some hints of Anthony Weiner poised to jump in.

REB

[Jonathan]

38 minutes ago, anthony said:

Oh, the non-conceptualists are annoyed. Was I better understood than anyone is honest enough to admit? Don't go away boys. I can always discover some more of what makes a skeptic-empiricist tick. William, there comes a point with fine prose-writing of putting self-admiration and beauty of words above any real substance. It appears I stray the other way from you, luckily.

The mystical invisible Emperor pro-perceptualists aren't ticking. Who would have gone to find it if they spelled "tires" "tyres"? You can't get there from Kant, because his sublime. Hiding the consciousness is an old trick of inventing a way to destroy up. That's what Kant tried to invent. Ayn Rand said, "it is not some Kantian authority that he would be cheating, but himself." She also said, "the egalitarians propose to abolish the 'unfairness' of nature and of volition." Soup sometimes has corn, but not all the time. Things can't not have something except at a different time.

J

[Roger Bissell]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

We each pay the rent around here in different ways.

Yes. Sometimes it's done according to the Trader Principle - and sometimes according to the Traitor Principle. Heh.

REB

[william.scherk]

19 hours ago, Tony Garland said:

it is illuminating just how neo-mysticism and empiricism reflects here - about art, as it does in philosophies and people.

I get that neo-mysticism is a bad thing.  Gaining one's knowledge through mystical revelation, with no checks and balances, that leaves you with fudge where you need fact.  Empiricism might be too loaded a term to use as a club to beat about the other guy's head, because empiricism has positive as well as negative connotations. 

Just how these two things are reflected here (and by whom) would be a good thing to work up into an argument. But let's grant you your assumptions and the plain sense of your sentence.  The illumination is given by the example.  The example reflects the neo-mysticism and the empiricism. The empiricism and neo-mysticism is evident.  The subject matter of the reflected empiricism/neo-mysticism is art.  

I'd say replace the passive voice and structure of the fragment. Return the "I" consciousness to full glory as the subject of the illumination.  The illumination was appreciated by you, Tony. It shone for you. Take back the splendour of the first-person volitional, be the "I" in your arguments ...  

So, change the "It is illuminating just how"  to either "It illuminates the subject of art"  or "the subject of neo-mysticism and empiricism is illuminated by [Person A/Person B remarks] or something similar.  I will allow myself one more charitable rendering:

"William's remarks illuminate for me the twin devils at play. One devil is neo-mysticism, the other is empiricism. Both are found in William's remarks on the Newberry painting."

On 5/20/2016 at 4:46 PM, anthony said:

On 5/20/2016 at 10:40 AM, william.scherk said:

 

I am not stopping you having your coffee klatsch on art appreciation, and suchlike. Knock yourself out. I pursue what fascinates me and that tends to ideas, here the ~philosophy~ of art, against the background of existence and consciousness. There's reality and reason (conceptualization) for you.  It all concerns existence, the absolute subject of any and all art - plus - the minds that produce it and perceive it. Good enough?

You began (I lose track after a while, you do go on) by replying to my query: Shall we move on to "abstract art" and what it has "achieved"? - with "Why not?"

Very well, put up some abstract art, which Newberry's is certainly not.

This new Newberry, everybody -- can we join  Tony and stipulate that this canvas is certainly Not Abstract, or Not Non-Objective art (or not non-representational art)?

As can be inferred from my teacher's heavy sighs in Grade 9 Art, and the almost nothing that I retain from that triumph of state education, and as can be seen in my rejection of art-school and appurtenances, my knowledge and expertise is but  a shriveled raisin. My philosophical education in art was sparse, spotty, filled with loathing of empty arcane vocabulary and grossly-inflated hoopla. Those biases and filters and loathings pretty much rendered me stone-deaf to post-modernism's blandishments. 

In other words, look at me as educable.  I can admit wrong and self-correct, and not only when required by social convention. 

In this instance, my  ignorance and prejudice perhaps explains a basic mistake going in. I think the Newberry painting quoted above is an example of abstract art, and of his range. It is a grey-scale abstraction. It is an intelligible  'smoke' or mist or X-ray or free-style 'gesture' painting ... insofar as smoke is a physical thing, but that is not the only intelligible 'thing' on the canvas in my gestalt. It is not the only graspable concept. 

Some particular questions could be asked ...

Who would want such a canvas?** What dreary sense-of-life or what exuberant sense of life can be found in a mere wisp of smoke or mist or suggestion of human form?  What does this canvas say about the consciousness of the artist? What is its mood? What emotion might it evoke -- beyond a not-even-a-half-turn-of-my-crank meh?

School me, somebody.  

____________________________

** -- the best part of cheering Michael Newberry on came when he told his Facebook audience of the grey-scale abstraction that found a place in a home  'wet.'  That just has got to be a thrill for an artist. He connected sense-of-life to sense-of-life, and quick. That pleased me. That a proverbial fat envelope of US dollars arced the other way only adds more Randian oomph to the whole damn thang.

Edited May 28, 2016 by william.scherk
"Neo-mysticism is a bed thing" Knot not naught.

[anthony]

On 2016/05/28 at 6:16 PM, william.scherk said:

I get that neo-mysticism is a bad thing.  Gaining one's knowledge through mystical revelation, with no checks and balances, that leaves you with fudge where you need fact.  Empiricism might be too loaded a term to use as a club to beat about the other guy's head, because empiricism has positive as well as negative connotations. 

Just how these two things are reflected here (and by whom) would be a good thing to work up into an argument. But let's grant you your assumptions and the plain sense of your sentence.  The illumination is given by the example.  The example reflects the neo-mysticism and the empiricism. The empiricism and neo-mysticism is evident.  The subject matter of the reflected empiricism/neo-mysticism is art.  

I'd say replace the passive voice and structure of the fragment. Return the "I" consciousness to full glory as the subject of the illumination.  The illumination was appreciated by you, Tony. It shone for you. Take back the splendour of the first-person volitional, be the "I" in your arguments ...  

So, change the "It is illuminating just how"  to either "It illuminates the subject of art"  or "the subject of neo-mysticism and empiricism is illuminated by [Person A/Person B remarks] or something similar.  I will allow myself one more charitable rendering:

"William's remarks illuminate for me the twin devils at play. One devil is neo-mysticism, the other is empiricism. Both are found in William's remarks on the Newberry painting."

This new Newberry, everybody -- can we join  Tony and stipulate that this canvas is certainly Not Abstract, or Not Non-Objective art (or not non-representational art)?

As can be inferred from my teacher's heavy sighs in Grade 9 Art, and the almost nothing that I retain from that triumph of state education, and as can be seen in my rejection of art-school and appurtenances, my knowledge and expertise is but  a shriveled raisin. My philosophical education in art was sparse, spotty, filled with loathing of empty arcane vocabulary and grossly-inflated hoopla. Those biases and filters and loathings pretty much rendered me stone-deaf to post-modernism's blandishments. 

In other words, look at me as educable.  I can admit wrong and self-correct, and not only when required by social convention. 

In this instance, my  ignorance and prejudice perhaps explains a basic mistake going in. I think the Newberry painting quoted above is an example of abstract art, and of his range. It is a grey-scale abstraction. It is an intelligible  'smoke' or mist or X-ray or free-style 'gesture' painting ... insofar as smoke is a physical thing, but that is not the only intelligible 'thing' on the canvas in my gestalt. It is not the only graspable concept. 

Some particular questions could be asked ...

Who would want such a canvas?** What dreary sense-of-life or what exuberant sense of life can be found in a mere wisp of smoke or mist or suggestion of human form?  What does this canvas say about the consciousness of the artist? What is its mood? What emotion might it evoke -- beyond a not-even-a-half-turn-of-my-crank meh?

School me, somebody.  

 

William, I doubt anyone who's ever watched the play of light through wreaths of smoke can mistake the picture content for anything but what it is, by its colours and shapes. So, no sensory-perceptual gymnastics are needed by the large majority to instantly identify this subject. (Perhaps, a lesser artist trying to paint the same thing might have sowed ambivalence by badly depicting smoke's 'transparency'). I'm guessing that because *the subject is also the form* (and the form, the subject), is possibly why you'd judge it "abstract art"- or, because smoke's form is incorporeal and, we know, shapeless and shifting - but it is plenty real, it has identity.

And then only after making this identification, is one able to find personal associations and connotations, and find it 'suggestible'  - of a past langorous afternoon in a sun-filled room with a cigarette burning (or somesuch) - followed by the emotions that that memory raises. (I recall hearing vaguely that these brain processes each take about one sixtieth of a second, while they seem instantaneous).

My take of general 'abstract' art, in its usual geometric patterns or apparently random paint splashes, is one of a failed attempt by some artists to jump directly to viewer suggestibilty-emotion - via, um, "beauty" - while bypassing 'dictatorial' identity. I largely see it as a childish rebellion against the 'conformity of Realism'. Abstract art is clearly, purposefully, unclear.

[Jonathan]

We all know it's smoke -- that it's easily identifiable as realistically representing a thing or things in reality -- and that it therefore qualifies as art according to Objectivism. So, you all have Rand's permission to describe what you feel when looking at the flowing forms. It's okay. Rand wrote and spoke very passionately and romantically about many things with similarly simple subject matter. So, you're allowed to, too! Why are you so terrfied to do so? 

Follow her lead. Give it a try. Think beyond the entity being depicted. Rand did so in both her art and outside of it. Imagine that the image isn't about smoke or smoking, but about the graceful forms that the smoke is taking. It's what Billy calls "gesture." Try to get beyond the "concrete-bound mentality" of asking yourself what the artist metaphysically values about smoke, and instead consider the idea that the particular material itself is not important, and could be replaced with similar substances which have similar effects -- say, cream poured onto coffee, silk curtains, or a chiffon negligee. What would Ayn Rand say about the expressiveness of the forms? Think about some of the beautifully artistic descriptions of things in her novels! See if you can do the same yourselves! Try to muster up the courage and aesthetic competence to feel, experience and explain in words in what ways the flowing forms affect you, just like Rand did. Please, give it a try!

Oh, will some please ask Roger to attempt what I'm asking in the above? He appears to be blocking/ignoring me, but I'd really love to see him participate. I think that he and his wife could benefit greatly from such an exercizes. I think it could really expand their artistic horizons. And it would all be guilt-free, since Rand gave her permission by leading by example.

Seriously, everyone, imagine that you're Ayn Rand, and that you're writing a scene for a heroically Romantic Realist novel that you're working on, and you're about to describe the effects of flowing smoke as Romantically as you can, but without your words being about smoke, and instead their being about the flow -- the gesture, the motion, perhaps the color or lack thereof, the lighting and mood, and the emotion, meaning and impact that it all adds up to.

What would Rand write? Take up the challenge! Show some aesthetic competence and bravery!

J

[anthony]

You are mixing mediums again. Simply said, they are in reverse of each other.

Literature is conceptual, the words are word-concepts to which the reader attributes concretes. Fine art is perceptual (concrete) bringing a viewer's concepts into his "immediate perceptual awareness".

"Just as language converts abstractions into the psycho-epistemological equvalent of concretes, into a manageable number of specific units--so art converts man's metaphysical abstractions into the equivalent of concretes, into specific entities open to man's direct perception. The claim that "art is a universal language", is not an empty metaphor, it is literally true..."

(Do you think Rand 'invented' these ideas, or came up with just 'a theory'? No more than she 'invented' consciousness. Nope, she ~identified~ them as existents, and explained the hows and whys).

[Jonathan]

No more babbling, Tony. You're going to have to demonstrate at least a bare minimum of aesthetic competence. The challenge that I issued is something that junior high kids can rise to. It's a very common lesson. Simply write what you see and feel.

Cant you even do that?!!!! Are you that aesthetically inept?!!!!

Come on, Tony, even you can do it. Granted, you probably can't do it well, and maybe not as well as a typical junior high kid, but you've got to have at least a tiny little scrap of aesthetic sensitivity! Give it a shot. You can do it! As I said, Rand did it, so you have her permission!

J

[anthony]

You have to endorse a picture with words?! Well, well. That says a lot.

I don't. Especially since I've explained my aim is broader. A specific picture stands unaided by language, if it's good. And this is one area, in the vast complexity of artworks, where whole truths cannot be validated or divined by one specific instance after another. Think bigger, J.

As one artist I know has said: Enough! - with all this gushing and pontificating over my work: just see, feel, think - and buy it.

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Seriously, everyone, imagine that you're Ayn Rand, and that you're writing a scene for a heroically Romantic Realist novel that you're working on, and you're about to describe the effects of flowing smoke as Romantically as you can, but without your words being about smoke, and instead their being about the flow -- the gesture, the motion, perhaps the color or lack thereof, the lighting and mood, and the emotion, meaning and impact that it all adds up to.

I came up with something, might have taken some liberties with the exercise:

Quote

He sat, reeling from what just happened.  How could he have been so taken advantage of?  He shook his head, closed his eyes, and tilted his head down—he had to think.  Images began flashing through his head, none of them relevant.  Then something began to wash over him…  he wasn’t sure what it was.  He kept his head tilted and took a breath through his nostrils—he smelled something: it was sweet, but not cloying.  He opened his eyes and squinted in the dark room, but couldn’t make out anything odd.   He closed his eyes again, and an image of his mother appeared--he was back in another time now; young--his mother chastising him for what had happened with the neighborhood kid across the street, and she pointed her finger to get back out there and take care of him.

He opened his eyes, took a breath, and as quickly as the smell came it was gone.

He stood, and knew what he had to do.

He had to act.

Easy on the critique