Schipperheyn's Thus Spoke Zarathustra


Newberry

Recommended Posts

I agree that we can feel horror while viewing a painting. That doesn't mean that we can know the artist's "sense of life" or his "metaphysical value-judgments" just because we can point to visual evidence which explains why we've experienced an emotion while looking at one of his artworks. I don't see any benefit in the Objectivish habit of focusing so much attention on trying to judge the artist through his art, as opposed to simply experiencing the art and contemplating our own reactions to it.

This contradicts my experience in making art, and my response to art in cases which I know the artist. Their art is like a window into their soul, and my personal experience with many artists confirm this. I think that a big difference between your view and mine is the difference between being a commercial artist and a fine artist: the fine artist is creating exclusively through their soul and a commercial artist is using his skill as a craft for hire. For commercial art your above statement makes perfect sense to me, though it simply doesn't apply to fine art.

For example, I could take a commission to paint someone's portrait, I may like the person, I may want to do a great job, I may give it my all--but that simply isn't the same as facing a blank canvas, in which you can choose anything out of the entire universe, or from your soul, imagination, or memory. The portrait is a craft, and can be incredibly heartfelt--the latter is a profound world view of the artist. These both make perfect sense to me. You are welcome to disagree but I will place my own experience over accepting your opinion on the topic.

I also think that this is why you have so much trouble with my view of art, you are applying your experience as a commercial artist, and it simply doesn't apply to fine art. I believe I mentioned this earlier about William Wray, and he was adamant about the profound difference between the two, and how much he had to learn about himself, grow, and gain confidence to express his world view before he could tackle being a fine artist.

Edited by Newberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree that we can feel horror while viewing a painting. That doesn't mean that we can know the artist's "sense of life" or his "metaphysical value-judgments" just because we can point to visual evidence which explains why we've experienced an emotion while looking at one of his artworks. I don't see any benefit in the Objectivish habit of focusing so much attention on trying to judge the artist through his art, as opposed to simply experiencing the art and contemplating our own reactions to it.

This contradicts my experience in making art, and my response to art in cases which I know the artist. Their art is like a window into their soul, and my personal experience with many artists confirm this.

My personal experience of having witnessed you judge various artists' "senses of life" and "metaphysical value judgments" has been that your method is very unreliable, especially when you're making negative judgments, and that you have little or no interest in considering aspects of a work of art which don't "confirm" your opinions of what you think the art means and of what type of person created it. The point isn't that you never get it right, but that art and psychology are not math or science. You can't know, with the certainty that you pretend, why another person created a work of art, what it means to him, and what his "sense of life" is.

Like me, Kamhi and Torres have also commented on some of your "facile" interpretations, your "simplistic generalizations," and the "futility" of your "approach to artistic 'detection.'" They've done so because they recognize that your judgments of artists contradict their knowledge of the artists.

I've never seen anything to indicate that you try to disprove your rash judgments of artists. Several times in the past I've quoted statements from the artists themselves which contradict your judgments, yet it had no effect on your judgments. If your method were applied to biology, after seeing ten white swans you'd conclude that all swans are white, and when someone then showed you a black swan, you'd deny that it was a swan because you've "objectively" concluded that all swans are white. Such an approach is silly enough when applied to science, but it becomes complete buffoonery when applied to something as complex and laden with subjectivity as art and "sense of life."

But let's cut to the chase. You often say that judging an artist and his art takes hard work. That would seem to imply that there's a pretty big window for error and differences in interpretation. Do you think that you've ever been wrong or unfair about one of your judgments of artists? Do you think that it's even possible for you to be wrong? How much of a work of art do you need to see in order to be satisfied that you've accurately and fairly judged the artist who created it? Will looking at as little as one sixth of a work of art allow you to accurately judge the artist, or is your cutoff point one fifth?

I think that a big difference between your view and mine is the difference between being a commercial artist and a fine artist: the fine artist is creating exclusively through their soul and a commercial artist is using his skill as a craft for hire. For commercial art your above statement makes perfect sense to me, though it simply doesn't apply to fine art.

But I also work as a fine artist, as I've told you many times. I paint and sculpt professionally, and I used to do quite a lot of fine art photography which included the use of advanced special effects techniques (some of which were actual innovations of mine), which means that my photos were not limited to capturing things "as they exist in reality" (which is the wrongheaded Official Objectivist Theory of what photography is limited to doing). I've also worked professionally as a musician creating original music. So, if anything, I have more experience in more fine art fields than you have. Why does your theory of our differences need to ignore my fine art experiences?

Btw, I've seen you say in the past that you don't pretend to comment as an expert on things about which you have no expertise, yet I've also seen you declare that photography isn't a valid art form, and I've seen you comment, as a pretend expert, on film, performance and installation art. So, apparently I've missed the listings in your bio of your qualifications and expertise in those areas. Will you please post links to your photographs, films, performances and installations, or explain why you think that don't need to have had any professional experience in those genres in order to consider yourself qualified to comment?

For example, I could take a commission to paint someone's portrait, I may like the person, I may want to do a great job, I may give it my all--but that simply isn't the same as facing a blank canvas, in which you can choose anything out of the entire universe, or from your soul, imagination, or memory. The portrait is a craft, and can be incredibly heartfelt--the latter is a profound world view of the artist. These both make perfect sense to me. You are welcome to disagree but I will place my own experience over accepting your opinion on the topic.

I largely agree with that, which is why I've never taken a commission to paint a portrait. Where I disagree with you is that I don't think that all commissioned art opportunities necessarily demand that an artist not start with a "blank canvas." I've sculpted friezes in which I was commissioned to fill a space with whatever I chose. In those cases, the only difference between how you and I create art was that my work was in such demand that people were willing to buy it before I created it.

I also think that this is why you have so much trouble with my view of art, you are applying your experience as a commercial artist, and it simply doesn't apply to fine art.

I think that's probably what you need to believe. It seems to be very important to you to make moral judgments of artists based on their art, and of people who enjoy art that you don't. You don't seem to like the fact that others can find different meanings in art than you do without their being mistaken, evil or psychologically deficient.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your objections are so strange to me...

You remind me of SNL's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. Were you not capable of understanding the words that I used?

The questions that I asked were not rhetorical. Perhaps my objections would sound less strange to you if you were to try to answer them. Here they are again:

Do you think that you've ever been wrong or unfair about one of your judgments of artists?

Do you think that it's even possible for you to be wrong?

How much of a work of art do you need to see in order to be satisfied that you've accurately and fairly judged the artist who created it? Will looking at as little as one sixth of a work of art allow you to accurately judge the artist, or is your cutoff point one fifth? [This question makes reference to your review of Matthew Barney's Cremaster Cycle after having seen only one fifth of it.]

Will you please post links to your photographs, films, performances and installations, or explain why you think that don't need to have had any professional experience in those genres in order to consider yourself qualified to comment?

Thanks,

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions are not rhetorical but they are prejorative. You are chasing Michael around the tree. You are also using the obverse of an argument from authority in demanding his credentials. I didn't ask for his credentials as a psychologist when he presumed to get inside my head inquiring about my motives implying I liked to kill people and blow things up then stating he was inclinded to believe I was a "destroyer." I merely pointed out he was attacking the person--moi. I could have used that destroyer argument myself in attacking that lousy statue with more authority than his attack on me, but no more if I had attacked the sculptor personally.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that you've ever been wrong or unfair about one of your judgments of artists?

Recently on Solo, I commented that "But, then in the arts there is no hammer of proof, one simply has to persuade sensible people about truth of it." I do know that I often cite many examples of the works, and cite observations, and give facts which lead to my opinions. You can't ask much more than that from anyone making a commentary. And if you don't like it, too bad.

Do you think that it's even possible for you to be wrong?

Sure, but context is important, good faith is important, and I have noticed in my current reviews that I am offering ways to look at works in a fresh way, like seeking the symbolism of the work, as a device to look closer at the work.

How much of a work of art do you need to see in order to be satisfied that you've accurately and fairly judged the artist who created it? Will looking at as little as one sixth of a work of art allow you to accurately judge the artist, or is your cutoff point one fifth? [This question makes reference to your review of Matthew Barney's Cremaster Cycle after having seen only one fifth of it.]

We have been here before. Move on.

Will you please post links to your photographs, films, performances and installations, or explain why you think that don't need to have had any professional experience in those genres in order to consider yourself qualified to comment?

This is why it is difficult to discuss with you. You don't mean movies, photography, interior design, or acting in the normal sense. You are talking about postmodernists that present those things not as what they are but as visual art in galleries or museums. Having had a postmodern art education, having lectured on Postmoderism, and Kant's aesthetics, and published articles about them, I am reasonably qualified to discuss PM aesthetics, and anything to do with visual arts. Turn it around, what qualifies you to make any comments? I only know that you have drawn/painted four images, and you have the ability to press the "send" button on online forums.

Do you want to defend Martin Creed's Empty Room, or his recording of his farts replayed, as an installation art, at the Tate in London? Do I need to have become an expert in recording farts to not have an high opinion of that project to be presented in visual arts museum?

I am all for reading your articles on the values of postmodern art, so instead of being a back seat driver, publish and lecture your views. You act like a silly victim and that I am to blame for it. Childish.

I have a collector that read this thread, :), she said that you don't debate but bait. :) But always in the back of my mind is that other people read this, and there may be a few people who want to understand more about art, who want to understand what all the passion is about, and I try my best, even though you wear my patience thin, to speak to them.

I am all for challenging you to match me. Go public with your real name, show all you work you do, publish--these things are significant and important to me. You might find me to be one of your most enthusiastic supporters.

There is the classic expression: can't have and eat your cake too. You want credit without putting up the substance for it.

Michael

Edited by Newberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that you've ever been wrong or unfair about one of your judgments of artists?

Recently on Solo, I commented that "But, then in the arts there is no hammer of proof, one simply has to persuade sensible people about truth of it."

Ah. So there's no real proof to back up your moral and psychological judgments of other artists and their fans, but your judgments are nonetheless the "truth," and "sensible people" can be persuaded of your unprovable truth, with "sensible people" being defined as "those who are willing to agree with Newberry that his judgments are true"?

I do know that I often cite many examples of the works, and cite observations, and give facts which lead to my opinions. You can't ask much more than that from anyone making a commentary. And if you don't like it, too bad.

But we're not talking only about art and your personal responses to it, but about your attacks on the character of others based on the art that they create, like or dislike, despite the fact that they also cite their observations and give facts which lead to their opinions which differ from yours.

Do you think that it's even possible for you to be wrong?

Sure, but context is important, good faith is important, and I have noticed in my current reviews that I am offering ways to look at works in a fresh way, like seeking the symbolism of the work, as a device to look closer at the work.

By what standard is it an act of "good faith" to negatively review a work of art after seeing only a fifth of it?

How much of a work of art do you need to see in order to be satisfied that you've accurately and fairly judged the artist who created it? Will looking at as little as one sixth of a work of art allow you to accurately judge the artist, or is your cutoff point one fifth? [This question makes reference to your review of Matthew Barney's Cremaster Cycle after having seen only one fifth of it.]

We have been here before. Move on.

Yes, we've been here before, and you haven't answered my questions. I'll "move on" after you explain why it was fair and "sensible" of you to view one fifth of a work of art, and to then write a review of it in which you tried to give the impression that you had seen the entire work. How was that an act of "good faith" and of persuading people of the "truth"?

Will you please post links to your photographs, films, performances and installations, or explain why you think that don't need to have had any professional experience in those genres in order to consider yourself qualified to comment?

This is why it is difficult to discuss with you. You don't mean movies, photography, interior design, or acting in the normal sense.

Actually, I do mean photography, film and performance "in the normal sense." You have no expertise in those areas, do you? You apparently have practically zero technical knowledge of those media and their possibilities and limitations.

And Matthew Barney's art films are not disqualified as films "in the normal sense" just because you've decided to dislike them after seeing a only portion of one of his projects.

You are talking about postmodernists that present those things not as what they are but as visual art in galleries or museums.

I see. Your expert qualifications are that you don't like the art forms in question and where they're shown, despite the fact that photography, film and performance art are visual art forms.

Having had a postmodern art education, having lectured on Postmoderism, and Kant's aesthetics, and published articles about them, I am reasonably qualified to discuss PM aesthetics, and anything to do with visual arts.

Your having gone to art school and written articles for obscure Objectivist publications and websites, and having lectured at your own events, at Objectivist seminars, and at college functions led by an Objectivist professor friend of yours by no means makes you an expert on the art forms we're discussing. One doesn't become an expert on something like photography or performance art by publishing his uninformed opinions about photography and performance art. The fact that you've had minor success in trying to publicly state your opinions doesn't add anything to your qualifications to express those opinions. If you appeared on CNN fifty times to talk about physics, it wouldn't make you a physicist. It might fool some gullible people into believing that you're qualified to talk about the subject, but we're discussing your actual qualifications, not your ability to fool people into believing that you have qualifications.

You've demonstrated that you have some experience writing articles and giving lectures, but you haven't demonstrated that you have any experience creating photographs, films, performances or installations.

Turn it around, what qualifies you to make any comments? I only know that you have drawn/painted four images, and you have the ability to press the "send" button on online forums.

If you haven't noticed, I haven't claimed to be qualified to make the types of comments about others that you make. That's the point. Haven't you been following along? I haven't claimed that my expertise in any field has enabled me to "detect" others' "senses of life" and "metaphysical value-judgments" based on looking at one of their artworks, or based on their disliking a work of art that I like, or vice versa. When someone says that they think that a work of art is finely crafted but they don't like it, I don't smear them with the accusation that they're the cynical product of an American dark ages of art.

Do you want to defend Martin Creed's Empty Room, or his recording of his farts replayed, as an installation art, at the Tate in London? Do I need to have become an expert in recording farts to not have an high opinion of that project to be presented in visual arts museum?

I am all for reading your articles on the values of postmodern art, so instead of being a back seat driver, publish and lecture your views. You act like a silly victim and that I am to blame for it. Childish.

I have a collector that read this thread, :), she said that you don't debate but bait. :)

Funny. Of the two of us, I'm usually the one dealing with substance, while you're usually the one avoiding answering questions. Anyway, your collector friend is welcome to join the discussion here and speak for herself, as are the many people who send me private messages expressing the view that, although you're a talented artist, you're also often a ridiculously self-important buffoon.

But always in the back of my mind is that other people read this, and there may be a few people who want to understand more about art, who want to understand what all the passion is about, and I try my best, even though you wear my patience thin, to speak to them.

I am all for challenging you to match me. Go public with your real name, show all you work you do, publish--these things are significant and important to me. You might find me to be one of your most enthusiastic supporters.

There is the classic expression: can't have and eat your cake too. You want credit without putting up the substance for it.

Where did you get the idea that I was looking for "credit"? This isn't about me, my art, or how many people I've been able to convince to take my views seriously and publish them despite my having no expertise in the areas that I'm opining about, but about your judgments of others based on their art or their responses to it. It's about you imagining that your being a painter somehow qualifies you to use art as a psychological and moral Rorschach test.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions are not rhetorical but they are prejorative. You are chasing Michael around the tree. You are also using the obverse of an argument from authority in demanding his credentials.

Michael has claimed that he doesn't pretend to speak as an authority on subjects about which he is not an authority. I wouldn't be asking for his credentials if he had not made such statements about his credentials and their relevance to his willingness to comment on a subject.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

You stop too soon. You started to mention a few things about postmodern art forms, but then you don't go on. Please do. You seem to be a fan of Mathew Barney, well talk about it.

About me being a buffoon, well, maybe you are right. Maybe your not. Over on Solo, there were some quotes of great composers lambasting Brahms.

Tchaikovsky: "I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless bastard! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius. Why, in comparison with him, Raff is a giant, not to speak of Rubinstein, who is after all a live and important human being, while Brahms is chaotic and absolutely empty dried-up stuff."

Hugo Wolf: "The art of composing without ideas has decidedly found in Brahms one of its worthiest representatives."

Mahler: "I have gone through all of Brahms pretty well by now. All I can say of him is that he's a puny little dwarf with a rather narrow chest."

Britten: "It's not bad Brahms I mind', it's good Brahms I can't stand." (hat tip to Grace)

Over on Rebirth, Sam is showing his up-to-dateness by creating a blank logo to signify in the invisible hand.

I think Stephen Hicks will be recognized as one of the greatest thinkers of the 21st Century, but, then may he won't. I might be a hero of new direction in the arts, maybe no.

Maybe my conviction irks you unbearably, maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions are not rhetorical but they are prejorative. You are chasing Michael around the tree. You are also using the obverse of an argument from authority in demanding his credentials.

Michael has claimed that he doesn't pretend to speak as an authority on subjects about which he is not an authority. I wouldn't be asking for his credentials if he had not made such statements about his credentials and their relevance to his willingness to comment on a subject.

J

Then you are both making the same mistake. This world is full of authoritative, credentialed nonsense.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

You stop too soon. You started to mention a few things about postmodern art forms, but then you don't go on. Please do. You seem to be a fan of Mathew Barney, well talk about it.

I'm not a "fan" of Barney's work. Some of it connects with me pretty deeply and a lot of it doesn't. I don't have to be a fan to recognize that your writing a review of his art after seeing only a portion of it is foolish. I'm also not overly fond of, say, Carson McCullers, but if you were to read a few pages from the middle of The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter and then pretend to write a review of the entire novel, I'd think it would be just as foolish.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions are not rhetorical but they are prejorative. You are chasing Michael around the tree. You are also using the obverse of an argument from authority in demanding his credentials.

Michael has claimed that he doesn't pretend to speak as an authority on subjects about which he is not an authority. I wouldn't be asking for his credentials if he had not made such statements about his credentials and their relevance to his willingness to comment on a subject.

J

Then you are both making the same mistake. This world is full of authoritative, credentialed nonsense.

--Brant

My pointing out that Michael doesn't have the credentials which he claims he'd need in order to comment on the subjects that he comments on doesn't mean that I believe that his having such credentials, if he had them, would necessarily make his comments valid or appropriate. Likewise, if you were to claim that people should have a government issued degree before commenting on philosophy, I wouldn't be accepting your ideas on such credentials if I were to point out that you frequently comment on philosophy without a government degree. It's not an act of accepting someone's views on credentials to suggest that his actions appear to contradict his views.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

A few comments of this abruptly stopped thread... indeed, the first is the wonder of its abruptness, aside from the crass cross bickering, for there is much left in the balance of discussion...

For one, there is a strangeness to me of the face supposedly being 'hidden' - when in fact it is not, and to the extent it seems so is that the perspective of one seeing this sculpture is the 'looking up' one that is not a familiar one in this day and age, and indeed - to a number even in here it seems - an insulting perspective one is induced to doing... how odd, from one who purports to the heroic, the uplifting - purports, because the given answer is to bury it BENEATH the level of the viewer, so that it becomes the viewer who possesses the superlative in the relationship...

The hands, tho, are the most remarkable of this sculpture - and tho has been remarked by two women as meriting comment, has austidiously been avoided... the whole figure is a frozen moment in time, when a decision has been rendered, an 'enlightenment' of sorts, a 'conclusion' reached, one indeed of arching importance - an importune moment - in which the smacking of the one hand into the palm of the other is of great significance, the "raison d'etre" of the sculpture's being, in fact... and the response has been as if it were an acting of vulgerness...

Coupling that with the so-called emphasis of the genital only serves to show the innerness of those who dispairingly see this part of the sculpture as 'kitsch' and 'vulger' in addition to the hands... the glory of this work is that, in a rare moment, someone was willing to glorify the HUMAN - not the nude human, but the NAKED one, and THAT is the unforgivable 'sin' committed...

And as for the 'pigeon-toedness' - as mentioned, this is a moment frozen in time, including a turning point in motion, a further metaphoric playing of the theming in this work...

There is more on this - but this should be enough to take another look-see..

Anonrobt

...........

www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com

Edited by anonrobt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now