The Positive Side of Art Criticism

[Newberry]

Daud Akhriev

Hey all,

Some of you know I dabble in art criticism. I like to play with good vs. evil. Recently I posted images and websites from several exceptionally good artists. http://michaelnewberry.com/av/nocomment2/nocomment2.html

It has been really a great pleasure to do so and a refreshing change from putting the screws to postmodern pumpkin heads.

Previously, I canvased what was happening right now at contemporary art museums and came up with this sad group: http://michaelnewberry.com/av/nocomment/nocomment.html

Hope you enjoy the contrast, you know, the light/dark thing, and I hope you come across a special artist that you didn't know before.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited November 3, 2007 by Newberry

[Philip Coates]

WOW! I really, really like this!

This is absolutely beautiful. I love not only the contrast, but the skillful, precise, fine-tuned realism (no post-impressionist 'muddiness') and the colors. (It's not important, but I gather that this is probably a bridge under construction - the curved steel girders in the forgeground are often used to lift a bridge in a drawbridge type way.)

The shadows leading off to the distant end of the bridge are a great touch. They lead us in, make us want to walk across, give a tantalizing sense of depth. . . Also, it's very well framed and balanced with the masses of the entities.

Industrial or construction scenes, powerplants, bridges, railyards, refineries can have a stark beauty both in art and in real life (e.g., Jersey Turnpike approaching Manhattan from the West -- around Bayonne? I think. With the docks on one side and the airport and massive oil refineries on the othere).

[Chris Grieb]

Michael the artist;

I making the distinction from Michael the moderator.

I think the painting is wonderful. A quick look at the other works says they are very good. We all need something like this. Both the comments and the art works.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Jonathan]

Hi Michael.

A few comments:

~ Those are some fine examples of good work by very talented contemporary artists. I've seen some of their work shown in a variety of today's more popular art magazines. Jeremy Lipking (I love his Rachel) and Jacob Collins are my favorite artists of the group you've posted, though Candace is the painting that I like the least of Collins' work -- the figure's features and pose are a very odd combination of confused adult sensuality and infant-like pudginess. The head and neck are much too masculine and ugly for my tastes in the painting's genre. Rotate the image 180° to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. It's an uncomfortable cluster of sexuality, woman, infant and boy. Not that I'm opposed to an artist exploring gender identity issues in his art. I just don't think that this painting was intended to do so, or if it was, it hasn't been done well.

~ On an earlier thread you said that you would be posting images by artists who you think are "worthy but unrecognized." As I mentioned above, I've seen some of these artists in popular art magazines that can be purchase in any bookstore in America. In the sources that I've found which reveal the prices that these artists' works are commanding, they seem to be doing quite well financially with their art. So, in what way do you think that they are "unrecognized"? I understand that their work isn't being displayed in museums that were not established for the purpose of showing their type of art, but is that your definition of "recognition" -- you expect curators who are passionate about other types of art to suddenly change their tastes and dedicate their lives and fortunes to displaying the art that you want them to? Or did you mean that people like you and other Objectivists haven't publicly recognized these artists until now? If so, I agree, and I'm happy to see you finally doing so.

~ I think it should be noted that one of the artists in the group that you posted is Melissa Hefferlin, who was a student of yours, if I remember correctly, and another, Daud Akhriev, is her husband.

~ The painting of the bridge by Akhriev that you posted above makes me think that it's the type of image that Kandinsky would have enjoyed. Turn it sideways or upsidedown, and it might be precisely the type of thing which inspired him to contemplate the power of pure abstraction.

~ Speaking of rotating the image, about a dozen years ago I took some photos of the underside of the I-35W bridge that recently collapsed. I studied them and was hoping to find time to return to the site and paint a few different views of it. They would have looked a lot like Akhriev's painting inverted. I don't think the new bridge will have quite the same abstract appeal.

~ I noticed that this thread is in the "Art Gallery," but your examples of Eeevil pomo art is in the "Aesthetics" folder. Am I correct in assuming that was a conscious decision on your part? Works of art that you don't like don't count as "art," and discussions about them should be categorized under "aesthetics" because they are only theoretically alleged to be art? Heh.

~ Wasn't there a scene in Atlas Shrugged where Dagny had what could be called a deep sense of life response to a vase or something like that in Rearden's office? It's interesting that fictional Objectivists can react that way, but real life Objectivists are required to get their undies in a serious twist over pieces by artists like Minoru Ohira.

Anyway, thanks for sharing this group of artists.

J

Edited November 4, 2007 by Jonathan

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

Real quick, and back to the easel.

1. I am not an Objectivist. I speak for myself.

2. Likes and dislikes, of mine or others, are irrelevant to me concerning aesthetic judgment.

3. Contemporary art museums state that they are showing the best of contemporary art--I disagree.

Understanding this might help you to understand me better. If not, then not.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Real quick, and back to the easel.

1. I am not an Objectivist. I speak for myself.

Interesting. I've always thought that you've toed the Objectivist line, especially when it came to aesthetics. Which parts of Objectivist philosophy do you disagree with?

2. Likes and dislikes, of mine or others, are irrelevant to me concerning aesthetic judgment.

Yeah, right. You're a purely logical, objective art machine when it comes to tallying up what any given work of art "equals." Your subjective preferences and prejudices never have anything to do with it. Ha!

3. Contemporary art museums state that they are showing the best of contemporary art--I disagree.

I often disagree as well. Just as I don't believe that cordair.com shows the best contemporary art, or that you create the best (despite the fact that I like some of your work and think that you're very talented).

J

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; What do you think of Cordair Gallery? I have no problems with disagreements with Ayn Rand or Objectivism providing you're not saying I just don't feel that way.

[Newberry]

Michael; What do you think of Cordair Gallery? I have no problems with disagreements with Ayn Rand or Objectivism providing you're not saying I just don't feel that way.

Oh Chris,

You are baiting me!

So I will answer in a kind of riddle.

I once complimented, as a post on his website, Brian Larson. I mentioned that I included a few of his paintings in a lecture I gave. I used his work as a example of the communication of ideas; in a similar vein as Magritte. He replied that ideas were all that mattered.

Michael

[Newberry]

QUOTE(Newberry @ Nov 4 2007, 02:07 PM) *

2. Likes and dislikes, of mine or others, are irrelevant to me concerning aesthetic judgment.

Yeah, right. You're a purely logical, objective art machine when it comes to tallying up what any given work of art "equals." Your subjective preferences and prejudices never have anything to do with it. Ha!

The thing is Jonathan, sometimes I feel a bit squeamish about likes in art. I don't find that someone's likes does anything to help in understanding anything about art. For example, my top four likes are; Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Picasso, and Duchamp. A fanatical religious humanist; a darkly moody observer; a pragmaticist; and a clever nihilist.

Just because I think that an artist is doing good works doesn't mean I like them and vice versa. I don't like da Vinci and I do like Francis Bacon. Yet, da Vinci has a brilliant world view and Bacon has a grotesquely pathetic one.

Sometimes my likes and aesthetic evaluations come together--like in Rembrandt's Danae, in which I am in awe of it aesthetically and I love everything about it emotionally.

Danae

There are a few people that assume that because I comment on a negative world view that necessarily I don't like the work. For example, in my presentation on Metaphysical Value Judgments in Art, there are two positive works I don't like at all, de la Tour and the Bierstadt.

Self-Portrait, de la Tour

Bierstadt

Conversely, I prefer the Saville and the Bacon over them. But, not because of the world views of any of them.

Saville

Bacon

Does this help? ;)

Michael

[Jonathan]

Does this help? ;)

Michael

I'm not sure if it helps. It might be just another example of your hypocrisy. Pardon me. Your "inconsistency." When others explain that a work of art is technically masterful but they don't like it, you accuse them of expressing empty cynicism. When they point to the body language of a finely crafted statue and say that it implies a religious-like attitude of invoking a god, you say that it's a great insight into how the angst and current dark ages of American art affects its victims. Does the same apply to you? Are cynicism, angst and darkness the reasons that you dislike the La Tour and Bierstadt paintings and why you like the Saville and Bacon paintings?

Btw, why do you still assume that a painting must present an artist's "world view" and that you can "detect" it with your, um, peculiar methods of interpretation? I mean, you do realize, don't you, that it's complete buffoonery to suggest that Kandinsky's "world view," as revealed through his art, was that the universe was unintelligible and unknowable?

J

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

Was there a sincere question in there?

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Was there a sincere question in there?

Michael

I'll take that as a "yes" -- yes, by the standards that you apply to others, you're aesthetic judgments are dark, angst-ridden and cynical.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan,

Was there a sincere question in there?

Michael

I'll take that as a "yes" -- yes, by the standards that you apply to others, you're aesthetic judgments are dark, angst-ridden and cynical.

J

If so, so what? But I don't understand why you appreciate his work as an artist since his "aesthetic judgments are ...." I mean, that's there in his art, too--no?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Jesus, Brant. The point is not that Michael's judgments of art, or his likes or dislikes, are cynical, angst-ridden and the product of a modern dark age. The point is that mine, Dragonfly's, Jim Shay's, Roger Bissell's, etc., aren't either, and that Michael applies one standard to himself and another to those whose tastes or interpretations of art differ from his. Understand?

J

[Brant Gaede]

deleted. I misunderstood Jonathon's post above.

--Brant

Edited November 7, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

deleted. I misunderstood Jonathon's post above.

--Brant

Oh. I was just in the middle of responding to your response. I guess there's no need if we now understand each other.

Sorry if my posts have been confusing in any way.

J

[Brant Gaede]

deleted. I misunderstood Jonathon's post above.

--Brant

Oh. I was just in the middle of responding to your response. I guess there's no need if we now understand each other.

Sorry if my posts have been confusing in any way.

J

I misunderstood the first sentence B.C. (before coffee).

I have no comment now on the rest.

--Brant

[mvir9]

Michael (Newberry):

It does seem that Jonathan gets his jollies from baiting you rather than de-bating with you.

Regarding your view of art -- I am utterly intrigued and impressed by your ability to assess a painting on its technical merits, without imposing your moral stamp on technical ability. This is much more objective than I have yet been able to be!

Like you, I adore Danae (Rembrandt), but I abhor the likes of Saville and Bacon. I cannot easily separate my world view from the technical ability of an artist. Granted, my technical knowledge is lacking (yes, the understatement is intended), so maybe the best I can do is to assess the works based on their world-views until I gain more knowledge.

On the other hand, I know literature. Dante and Dostoevsky are two of my favorite authors -- and their world-views were horrendous, to say the least.

[Chris Grieb]

There is a painting in the National Gallery by De La Torro of a woman praying over a skull. I have always found it very striking.

[Newberry]

Like you, I adore Danae (Rembrandt), but I abhor the likes of Saville and Bacon. I cannot easily separate my world view from the technical ability of an artist. Granted, my technical knowledge is lacking (yes, the understatement is intended), so maybe the best I can do is to assess the works based on their world-views until I gain more knowledge.

On the other hand, I know literature. Dante and Dostoevsky are two of my favorite authors -- and their world-views were horrendous, to say the least.

Wonderful points Ginnie. I have no patience for music, literature, and movies, which are far afield from my personal taste. I can't watch horror films, have no time for Philip Glass, and detest James Joyce. But when it comes to visual arts, I am interested in everything about it, and a powerful artist is a powerful artist regardless of their subject. I think many experts in their fields feel a similar way. I know that S. Hicks, enjoys reading all kinds of philosophers, regardless if he agrees with them or not. And your point about literature above illustrates that perfectly.

Michael