Awesome Heroic Sculpture by Living Artist

[merjet]

It is kind of amusing that you guys are discussing book cover illustration as if it were high fine art. It would be like comparing the film score of the Fountainhead to a Tchaikovsky symphony.

I do wonder that if your methodology is like this in this topic, that it would be the same for other topics and fields as well.

It's not clear whom you are addressing. Regardless, I made no assumption it was "high fine art", nor did I compare it to the "awesome heroic sculpture." But I wonder how amusing your methods, whatever they are, would be in the professional domains of others, e.g. advanced math or science. If I'm one of your targets, I welcome your professional opinion on art, but not haughtiness.

[Newberry]

If I'm one of your targets, I welcome your professional opinion on art, but not haughtiness.

What a silly stance. Think about it.

...I wonder how amusing your methods, whatever they are, would be in the professional domains of others, e.g. advanced math or science.

Go ahead. Reverse the scenario. Let me know if you want me to walk you through the context of this thread if you don't understand what it is.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I just found a point where my perspective differs from yours. I don't see upwardness in terms of a God...

Not necessarily a "god" as such, but anything similar. The statue's god could be The Truth, Justice or The Good. His god might even be something like zealous devotion to True Objectivism, or to the notion of Moral Perfection (which, as we've all seen, is one of the gods worshiped by some who idolize Rand), or to the imagined unmatched grandeur of his own soul (which appears to be Newberry's god), or to the idea of being proudly, buffoonishly passionate about how passionate he is about being passionate about passion (which is pompous Pigero's god), or to any other notion of making oneself a vessel or servant of The Ideal Belief.

...but instead as an affirmation in relation to a universal force on earth: gravity. To give words in an oversimplified child-like manner of how this emotion feels inside me, what goes up is alive and what can't go up anymore is dead. (Please take that as an emotion and not a definition.)

That sculpture hits this spot hard in my emotions.

I understand. We simply respond to the sculpture differently. I'm glad that it connects with you.

J

Edited October 19, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

It is impossible for me to respond to subjective opinions. What would be great is more identification coming from you all and bit more care in getting from A to B. What you see and how you connected that to in conclusion is significant for me, opinions without that...not.

Michael

Hilarious. Do you mean being objective and using care in getting from A to B like simply declaring that something is an "awesome heroic sculpture"?

J

[Jonathan]

It is kind of amusing that you guys are discussing book cover illustration as if it were high fine art. It would be like comparing the film score of the Fountainhead to a Tchaikovsky symphony.

I think that's their entire point, Michael. They're saying that the art that you think is awesome is, to them, more like a corny book cover illustration than a Tchaikovsky symphony.

J

[Jonathan]

I think there's much more to his work than would immediately meet the eye from the rather O'ist-friendly look of the Zarathustra piece.

I agree. Even though I don't like the Zarathustra sculpture, I think that Schipperheyn is a very talented artist.

J

[Newberry]

It is impossible for me to respond to subjective opinions. What would be great is more identification coming from you all and bit more care in getting from A to B. What you see and how you connected that to in conclusion is significant for me, opinions without that...not.

Michael

Hilarious. Do you mean being objective and using care in getting from A to B like simply declaring that something is an "awesome heroic sculpture"?

J

Jonathan. I didn't offer a critique. You did. Try one without being subjective, you will grow in the process.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan. I didn't offer a critique. You did.

God, what a jackass. I didn't "offer a critique." I commented on what my response to the statue is, but in more detail than you did, you self-important clown. My impression that the figure is submitting to a "god" (or to a godlike idea) is just as objectively valid as any interpretation that you would make.

Try one without being subjective, you will grow in the process.

Master Newberry, if I grow enough from following your teachings, will I someday be given the chance to see if I can snatch the pebbles from your hand and become a full-fledged Newberrian priest?

J

[Dragonfly]

On the solo forum I found this comment:

At OL, a contingent there thinks it looks like a begging, lewd, fascist pansy!

Strange, I must have missed those posts. Have any posts been deleted?

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

I really wish I could help you out but you get blinded far too easily. In Rhodes, I saw a lot of Greeks would blow their stack and be contrarian to their own disadvantage, oddly, they would forget all of it the next day and charm the birds out of the trees. I think Americans hold onto a grudge far longer, if not forever! hahahahaaah

You simply need to come to terms that I am not a diplomat, I am very proud of my accomplishments, I know my shit, and I am very happy with my life and art.

You will find, either explicitly or implicitly, in all our correspondence that you go crazy because I am that way. See, if I were you, I would be more curious about how Newberry kept his art and spirit alive--then trying to find some little detail to prove him wrong. I include my criticisms of Postmodern art as being instrumental to being clear headed and focused in my own art. You cannot have both.

So, good luck to you, and perhaps sometime in the future you will be better able to cope with me.

Michael

[Jonathan]

On the solo forum I found this comment:

At OL, a contingent there thinks it looks like a begging, lewd, fascist pansy!

Strange, I must have missed those posts. Have any posts been deleted?

Well, I did say that the figure appeared to be perhaps begging from below for God's guidance or assistance, and though I mentioned that the overwhelming emphasis on the cock and balls was not something that I liked about the sculpture, that's quite different from saying that it is "lewd." If that's what Supreme Master Newberry thinks that I was saying, then it's merely his subjective interpretation of my remarks.

[Edited to add:] There are works of art that I've seen which have placed what I think is too much emphasis on any number of different body parts, like, say, hands or feet, but that doesn't mean that I think the overemphasized hands or feet in those works are "lewd."

J

Edited October 19, 2007 by Jonathan

[Dragonfly]

But what about the fascist pansy?

[Jonathan]

So, good luck to you, and perhaps sometime in the future you will be better able to cope with me.

Good luck to you too, Supreme Master Newberry. My hope for you is that someday you'll be able to have a strong enough sense of security to recognize that others can have different responses to art than you do without their being Eeevil or insufficient soul-wise. I also hope that some day you can become confident enough in yourself to address the substance of others' public criticisms of your publicly presented ideas, instead of doing everything that you can to avoid recognizing the foolishness of some of your views.

Best,

J

Edited October 19, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

But what about the fascist pansy?

Who knows?

[Newberry]

I love the contrast between light and dark. Below is a Solo reply, in full, to a my comment about what it feels like to be in Zarathustra pose. I think it is wonderful contrast of vitality and proactive feeling to the empty cynicism I experienced, in part, here. You could call the difference, night and day. The poster is Lance Davey.

Haha yes, I did the same thing! (though I wasn't about to admit it in a hurry, alone in the house mimicking a sculpture, people would question your sanity.) I got it wrong the first time, the hands were above my face not the throat as with the sculpture, and my head was tilted back but not parallel with the ground. In the sculpture the head is parallel with the ground, which is as far back as the head will go, which says to me that it's been thrown back, not just tilted.

Shifting the hands down and getting the head in line shifted my perception immediately. You go from supplication (begging, fascist, pansy so to speak) to 'potential kinetic energy' I think is the best way to describe it, and that potential is wound up and held there in that moment. When that potential motion is released it's going to go 'out' not 'up'. Hah, you've got me quite drawn into this now... the other thing to consider is that he is not going to unleash that energy, but focus it back in to his body, drop the arms and step calmly and resolutely (but no less powerfully) forward while breathing out.

The breathing I think is important, and thinking about at what point of his breathing he is at gives more insight. The most unnatural thing would be to be in that pose while breathing out. It looks as though he has drawn his body up and his breath in and it's just being held theeeeeeeeeeeeere then any second noooooooooooooow WOOOOOOOOSH.

This EXACT thing happens in Shakespeare's Henry V (though more violently), the tempo and the building energy of the delivery of:

"Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit to his full height!"

It builds and builds and builds then peaks at 'height'... then WOOOOOOOOSH the balance tips and out comes that pent up energy with:

"ON, ON! You noblest English!"

I had the distinct pleasure of playing Henry in Henry V. And in that speech there's this crazy 'positive feedback' that happens with the words and with your body when you really NAIL that speech. They start driving each other and it builds exponentially up to 'height' and just at that point there's this sublime moment of balance, this pause where everything is taut and held and so full of potential energy!

That sculpture I think is in that pause, that moment where all that energy has been built up and it's there and it's held and it's ecstasy. Look at his face, the eyes are closed the mouth open... phwoar!

[Jonathan]

Over on SOLOP, Supreme Master Newberry wrote,

They are still voting over there whether this sculpture by Marc Quinn,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...er_Pregnant.jpg

should be their symbol to represent the spirit of Objectivist Living.

Since I've said many times in various O'forums that I see Quinn's sculpture as representing hope, courage, resilience, confidence and pride, and that I think that Quinn achieved his intention of expressing the idea of free will conquering the notion of destiny, I would have no problem at all with the sculpture representing the spirit of OL.

But if we were to actually vote on an official symbol for OL, I'd cast mine for the Supreme Master's "Rend." Despite its being an image of pure agony and despair, the Supreme Master insists that it "equals" glorious "shimmering passion" where other artists' visions of the same subject "equal" "wallowing" and various other Eeevils. I think that adopting it as our official symbol would be a constant reminder of why the Objectivist movement is often a laughing stock: the hypocrisy, overbearing self-importance and incoherence of its guru wannabes.

The Supreme Master also wrote,

I think several of them are still trying to get into the pose as we speak, but, perhaps, they all ready know what it feels like to be severely limited.

We don't know exactly what it's like to be severely limited, but I think we have a pretty good idea after watching the Supreme Master in action here. I don't think that any of us could help but get a very detailed idea of how painfully limited he can be, both emotionally and intellectually, when it comes to dealing with his self-contradictions and hypocrisies (or "inconsistencies" as MSK so generously wishes to call them). I don't know about others here, but I've tried to get my mind into the "pose" of the Supreme Master's mind, but twisting my thoughts and contorting logic that severely was just too painful. I've given up on trying, and now feel mostly pity that it's apparently the Supreme Master's normal state.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A sculpture to represent the spirit of Objectivist Living? That's an interesting thought.

I do not think Quinn's sculpture represents the spirit here since it represents triumph of the human spirit over severe lifelong metaphysical adversity and I doubt many OL members suffer from severe lifelong metaphysical adversity. This would be like making the play The Miracle Worker by William Gibson about Helen Keller represent the spirit of OL.

Incidentally, here are some of Ayn Rand's words regarding that play ("Kant Versus Sullivan," The Objectivist, March 1970 — this was essentially Rand critiquing an article in the November 20, 1969 issue of The Journal of Philosophy, "Science Without Experience" by Paul K. Feyerabend):

Through all the ages, a major attack on man's conceptual faculty was directed at its foundation, i.e., at his senses—in the form of the allegation that man's senses are "unreliable." It remained for the brazenness of the twentieth century to declare that man's senses are superfluous.

If you want to grasp fully the abysmal nature of that claim and, simultaneously, to grasp the origin of concepts and their dependence on sensory evidence, I will refer you to a famous play. One might think that such a subject cannot be dramatized, but it has been—simply, eloquently, heart-breakingly—and it is not a work of fiction, but a dramatization of historical facts. It is The Miracle Worker by William Gibson and it tells the story of how Annie Sullivan brought Helen Keller to grasp the nature of language.

If you have seen the superlative performance of Patty Duke in the role of Helen Keller, in the stage or screen version of the play, you have seen the image of man projected by "Science Without Experience"—or as near to it as a living human being can come.

. . .

To my knowledge, The Miracle Worker is the only epistemological play ever written. It holds the viewer in tensely mounting suspense, not over a chase or a bank robbery, but over the question of whether a human mind will come to life.

. . .

I suggest that you read The Miracle Worker and study its implications.

Now just to make sure Rand was not glossing over the ugliness or horror of a protagonist born without sight or hearing, here is Rand's description:

Helen Keller was not that article's ideal—a creature devoid of all sensory contact with reality—but she came close to it: blind and deaf since infancy, i.e., deprived of sight and hearing, she was left with nothing but the sense of touch to guide her (she retained also the senses of smell and taste, which are not of great cognitive value to a human being).

Try to remember the incommunicable horror of that child's state, communicated by Patty Duke: a creature who is neither human nor animal, with all the power of a human potential, but reduced to a sub-animal helplessness; a savage, violent, hostile creature fighting desperately for self-preservation in an unknowable world, fighting to live somehow with a chronic state of terror and hopeless bewilderment; a human mind (proved later to be an unusually intelligent mind) struggling frantically, in total darkness and silence, to perceive, to grasp, to understand, but unable to understand its own need, goal or struggle.

This is mentally similar to the physical state of the woman in Quinn's sculpture. I do not think that Rand, in her admiration for the play, was claiming that the state of being born blind and deaf is as life should and could be, especially as she mentioned "a creature who is neither human nor animal," just as I do not think Quinn was claiming that those born without limbs are human beings as they could and should be.

As admirable as the human spirit overcoming such severe lifelong metaphysical adversity is, this is not the spirit manifest in the posts I read on OL.

Of course, each poster has his/her own nature, so a collective "spirit" is nothing more than an average taken by doing some kind of aesthetic summing and dividing of the individuals posting. Since independence of first-hand minds is the prime value I foster (and I believe most regular OL posters hold a similar value), when I think of the spirit of OL in terms of sculpture, I think of The Thinker by Rodin.

I find the following phrase from the above link particularly appropriate: "... eventually what we know as The Thinker evolved into a more symbolic representation of creativity, intellect, and above all—thought."

Now that describes the spirit of OL.

Out of respect for the newly arrived young, I will refrain from mentioning which sculpture I think represents the spirit of SLOP.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"The Thinker" was derided by an Objectivist, Rand or Peikoff perhaps, I don't remember, in the 60s. The idea was that thinking wasn't such an agony.

--Brant

[merjet]

"The Thinker" was derided by an Objectivist, Rand or Peikoff perhaps, I don't remember, in the 60s. The idea was that thinking wasn't such an agony.

--Brant

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/rodin.html

[Dragonfly]

Mary Ann Sures denounced the work in 1969 in The Objectivist. I can't find my copy now, but here is some information about the article. So throw away now all your Rodin copies, as Rand (by proxy) condemned him as an artist.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think Rand herself said a shorter version of Mary Ann's comments -- in one of her art essays? (I'm away from home and can't check.)

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

I think Alexandra York, in her book From The Fountainhead to the Future, also had a typically O'ist, negative view of The Thinker. If I recall, she seemed to believe that thinking should always be a purely joyous thing, without any strain (I envision her whispering in Rodin's ear while he was creating the piece, advising him that the figure should be expressing thinking/creating as a happy, effortless process, like frolicking in bright sunshine, perhaps with fluffy, cuddly bunnies, with back bent as far backwards as possible while leaping through the air. Hooray, I'm thinking!!! Weeeee!!!).

You know, I think that the Objectivist movement could use a little "agony" in its thinking processes. It seems that many Objectivists abandon thinking when it gets just a little uncomfortable or difficult.

J

Edited October 20, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

I do not think Quinn's sculpture represents the spirit here since it represents triumph of the human spirit over severe lifelong metaphysical adversity and I doubt many OL members suffer from severe lifelong metaphysical adversity. This would be like making the play The Miracle Worker by William Gibson about Helen Keller represent the spirit of OL.

Well, when contemplating the spirit of a work of art and whether or not it might represent the attitudes of a group of people, I don't think it's important to try to match specific circumstances or details. That's the error that people like Supreme Master Newberry, Joe Rowlands, pompous Pigero, Cresswell and others often seem to make when judging others' judgments of art. They see a single, isolated aspect of a work of art that they dislike and claim that because the art contains it, it "equals" a "sub-human" soul, or other such nonsense, and that those who value the spirit of the work as a whole actually value that isolated aspect.

We all don't need to be a woman who runs a railroad to identify with the spirit of Atlas Shrugged.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All I can say is that the independence to disagree with the Objectivist orthodoxy on art is one of the characteristics of the "spirit of OL." I don't want to speak for anybody, but I can't imagine any of the OL posters on their worst day coming up with something like the following from Metaphysics in Marble by Mary Ann Sures, The Objectivist, February and March 1969 (on ORC, from the link given by Merlin).

One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, The Thinker, sums up his view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging in mental activity.

The very first time I read this, my jaw dropped open. And that was in my Randroid phase years ago. That interpretation is one of the most boneheaded things I ever read coming out of the orthodoxy. I put it in the same league with Peikoff's original moral condemnation of the film The Titanic saying, before he saw it that it was "pure Karl Marx from beginning to end," and after he saw it that Rose (the heroine) was a prostitute. (See here for communist and here for prostitute.)

"The size and development of his body indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted."

Say what? Are we even looking at the same sculpture? That is one hell of a statement to feed a public that is supposed to think for itself. The body ACTUALLY looks like it is STILL powerful and energetic. What is wrong with her? Where is the flab and fallen muscles? Are we supposed to take her comment on faith and ignore the evidence of our own eyes? I won't even go into the rest of her observations. Sures reminds me of the Brazilian police during the military dictatorship describing a man with 5 bullets in his head as a suicide.

I think I will stay with the rest of humanity on this one. The Thinker is a GREAT work of art and one of mankind's treasures. I love it deeply. Bless Rodin for having made it.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Thanks for linking to Peikoff's reviews of Titanic. I had forgotten how silly he could be.