Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[moralist]

So, therefore, using your "logic," these paintings must be ugly, and are "crap"?

Please read again what was said so that you can see the difference between what you think you responded to and what was actually said.

Does it follow that [some of] the [crap] that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"

Much of this thread has been your trying to convince others that ugly leftist crap is art, and it's given rise to all kinds of interesting responses, so at least it has some socially redeeming value.

Greg

[Jonathan]

So, therefore, using your "logic," these paintings must be ugly, and are "crap"?

Please read again what was said so that you can see the difference between what you think you responded to and what was actually said.

Does it follow that [some of] the [crap] that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"

Much of this thread has been your trying to convince others that ugly leftist crap is art, and it's given rise to all kinds of interesting responses, so at least it has some socially redeeming value.

Greg

You're incapable of answering the simplest of questions. Instead, you blather on and on, and then answer questions which no one asked. That's the kind of stuff that dishonest feminized leftists do. Evasions and distractions and prevarications and lies. It's just like Bill Clinton.

Here's the question once again:

"Does it follow that the art that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"

Yes or no. Don't be Clinton. Be a real man, and answer the question with a simple, direct yes or no.

J

[moralist]

"Does it follow that [some of] the [crap] that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"

Yes.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

George Washington made it possible for you to enjoy the freedom of living like an American if you choose to do so. That's totally up to you and only you... not me or anyone else.

Greg

Now, project yourself back to 1732 and George is being born, but that George is you. You will have all the brains, advantages and luck he did. Is there a chance you will be the Father of the Country using your present day philosophy of deserved consequences?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

"Does it follow that [some of] the [crap] that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"

Yes.

Greg

Change the question first you did.

--Yoda

[Roger Bissell]

You learn something every day.

Today I learned that I'm not only a hater, but I am filled with rage and engage in vilification.

And that I'm extremely dishonest.

I'm fascinated to know what else I'd discover about myself if Jonathan were not strictly focused on criticizing my ideas, as he claims to be.

REB

Why pay for therapy, when you can easily provoke an insecure artist from Minnesota to tell you what's wrong with you? Cool.

[Brant Gaede]

Yeah, if it's true. If only the Jews had armed themselves to the teeth the Aryans would have treated them differently. A world without real victims means a world without victimizers. Then what's the point of going to Berlin to "shoot that Nazi son-of-a-bitch"?

What I said applies to America today... not to Germany over 70 years ago. This is because America's government was formed in a uniquely different way from Germany's government.

In America today, if you're a weak whining victim of "government oppression" like Frank is, it's your own damned fault for failing to live like an American.

Greg

Your statement is somewhat defensible if you remove "like Frank is," for that's what you don't know only presume to know because of the narrow focus of his postings. Your philosophy amounts to a continuous ad hominem assault on all perceived deviants and deviations. It's a complete absence of grace.

--Brant

and now, it would seem, government does have something to do with it--ours is exceptional except quite a while ago you dumped all over my grandfather for writing a biography of James Madison and such such was and is your lack of respect for ideas including those ideas that made this country so unique and are so lacking today

[Newberry]

Today I learned that I'm not only a hater, but I am filled with rage and engage in vilification.

And that I'm extremely dishonest.

Isn't that interesting when the opposite is the truth ...

[Newberry]

I believe one of the functions of art is to induce a person into a kind so trance where his or her inner stories in autobiographical memory (and maybe semantic memory--I'm still working this through) can run in a free association manner, sort of like conscious dreaming, and these inner stories are attached to emotions and memories of emotions, which in turn become attached to the art being observed. As for narrative art like literature, I believe people have the capacity to experience the new narrative without forgetting their own--letting it run on top of their own and gathering and aligning emotions from these autobiographical memories through unconscious similarities, so to speak. Thus a mental web is constructed instead of a straight line. And a three-dimensional web at that.

Do you mean as in expanding our minds capacities? At least that is what I get from your above thought. That would dovetail nicely with Rand's thought that art enables us to imagine, with a kind of certainty, beyond the present - to give us the feeling that our imaginations can be made real.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The idea that two people could admire the same statue for radically different reasons upsets the whole Randian "art and sense of life" apple cart.

No, it doesn't, since Rand said that one could respond to artworks on many levels besides full sense-of-life affinity.

(I have multiple criticisms of Rand's "sense of life" idea - as she explicates it, I don't think it exists. But Hitler's and her both liking Greek statues isn't an applecart upsetter of her views.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re-post in case Jonathan didn't see the questions re visual art:

Unlike Roger, [Lakoff and Johnson] classify music as being more like abstract visual art than representational visual art. They see abstract visual art and music as "varying considerably" from being "realistic." And after quoting them in his article, Simon Zagorski-Thomas states that he agrees, and that he sees music as being "abstract representational." Their views are not in agreement with Roger's. In other words, Roger's position that abstract visual art = atonal music where realistic/representational art = tonal music is not a position that Jakoff and Johnson and Zagorsky-Thomas share.

I was referring to theories Roger has expressed earlier and published about regarding tonal drama, not to the statement you mention from this thread.

Music only rarely imitates natural sounds because it is generally an abstract art form. As you say, it is a medium of pure tones. It is a medium of abstract compositional relationships. The same is true of architecture and of abstract paintings and sculptures. They are media of pure forms, colors and textures. They are media of abstract compositional relationships.

I don't agree with the comparison. Exactly what is a pure form or color or texture? And although "abstract" paintings and sculptures use "compositional relationships," they don't have the precisely specifiable mathematical forms of musical relationships - a point I made earlier, I think on a different thread.

Also, again, I think the attempt to call music "representational" is unfortunate.

But this doesn't mean that I think that music should be classified with "abstract" painting and sculpture. I'd call music "abstract" in the sense of mathematics, but not in the sense applied to visual arts, which are depictive.

The term which I think is accurate regarding music's relationship to features of the world (dynamic features) is "analogical."

I've been reading Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art, and I think your describing Kandinsky as sharing "some of" the mysticality of Mondrian is a big understatement.

Haven't time for more at the moment.

Ellen

I think I'm understanding what Kandinsky was talking about in his desire to free visual art from material reality, and his claim that music is free from same - but as I understand his desire, and his views on the nature of music, they differ from the impression I've gotten from your posts. I don't agree with his views, but at least I'm feeling sympathetic to where he was coming from.

There was extensive discontent with the challenge to "spirituality" people of that time saw the scientific philosophy, and discoveries, as presenting.

Two other major declarations were published within a year of Kandinsky's:

Unamuno's The Tragic Sense of Life - reading some or all of which years later (1943), at Frank Lloyd Wright's suggestion, I believe catalyzed Rand's idea of beneveolent-versus-malevolent-universe premises, and her technical meaning of "sense of life."

Jung's Symbols of Transformation, the work which was the baseline work of his "Analytic Psychology" and which was the culminating and ostensive precipitator of Jung's and Freud's break (multiple other factors were contributory).

Two years later World War I started, cataclysmic end of the old order in Europe.

Ellen

[Newberry]

I have multiple criticisms of Rand's "sense of life" idea - as she explicates it, I don't think it exists.

Ellen

Go on! I am curious. Totally out of the blue I am guessing you might relate to sense of style rather than sense of life. I am reading Lessing's Prisons We Choose to Live Inside. Thanks for the hat tip. Her writing (non-fiction) is a pleasure to experience. It has a nice ebb and flow as she gently leads you through observations and ideas; some ideas and thoughts that are quite brutal - like one of the reasons for war is that people enjoy it.

[Francisco Ferrer]

The idea that two people could admire the same statue for radically different reasons upsets the whole Randian "art and sense of life" apple cart.

No, it doesn't, since Rand said that one could respond to artworks on many levels besides full sense-of-life affinity.

(I have multiple criticisms of Rand's "sense of life" idea - as she explicates it, I don't think it exists. But Hitler's and her both liking Greek statues isn't an applecart upsetter of her views.)

Ellen

If one saw, in real life, a beautiful woman wearing an exquisite evening gown, with a cold sore on her lips, the blemish would mean nothing but a minor affliction, and one would ignore it.

But a painting of such a woman would be a corrupt, obscenely viscious attack on man, on beauty, on all values–and one would experience a feeling of immense disgust and indignation at the artist. (There are also those who would feel something like approval and who would belong to the same moral category as the artist.)

The emotional response to that painting would be instantaneous, much faster than the viewer’s mind could identify all the reasons involved. The psychological mechanism which produces that response (and which produced the painting) is a man’s sense of life.

--Ayn Rand,

The

Romantic Manifesto

[Brant Gaede]

"Sense of life" is Rand pulling herself up by her esthetic bootstraps so we can look up at her looking down, but supposedly looking up some (it's pretend she is), and figure out someway to get up there with her also looking up. I don't mind her looking up. It's the rest of it. Sense of life has to be more than a stated consequence or it's not demonstrable. It's a rationalization of a claimed emotional reaction. I have never had any such emotion. But I do have emotional reactions I can label "my sense of life" but no one would know what I'm talking about.

Dominique smashing others' statues keeping her own.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Today I learned that I'm not only a hater, but I am filled with rage and engage in vilification.

And that I'm extremely dishonest.

Isn't that interesting when the opposite is the truth ...

Can I bid on the popcorn and drink concession?

--Brant

Michael?

[moralist]

Your statement is somewhat defensible if you remove "like Frank is," for that's what you don't know only presume to know because of the narrow focus of his postings.

But I know the principle, Brant..

People like Frank who see themselves as helpless victims complaining about how the US government is oppressing them while believing the liberal lie that it has nothing to do with their own failure to live like Americans.

The US government is NOT the enemy.

It ONLY responds to what people ARE.

I don't know from where you got the ridiculous idea that I don't like James Madison when I've been constantly communicating the principles he described.

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

How many times have I said that it's how you live that determines how the government treats you?

It's Madison's idea.

(jeez... get a clue, Brant)

By the way, do you disagree with John Adams?

I don't.

"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"If you're NOT free in America today...

...you're NOT living right."

--Greg

[Roger Bissell]

Those who can, philosophize.

Those who can't, bid on the popcorn and drink concession - or reveal their deep insecurity and obsessive nature by repeatedly attacking others as "haters" and "irrational" and "lying."

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Your statement is somewhat defensible if you remove "like Frank is," for that's what you don't know only presume to know because of the narrow focus of his postings.

But I know the principle, Brant..

People like Frank who see themselves as helpless victims complaining about how the US government is oppressing them while believing the liberal lie that it has nothing to do with their own failure to live like Americans.

The US government is NOT the enemy.

It ONLY responds to what people ARE.

I don't know from where you got the ridiculous idea that I don't like James Madison when I've been constantly communicating the principles he described.

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

How many times have I said that it's how you live that determines how the government treats you?

It's Madison's idea.

(jeez... get a clue, Brant)

By the way, do you disagree with John Adams?

I don't.

"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"If you're NOT free in America today...

...you're NOT living right."

--Greg

What I'm saying is you're no James Madison. Suddenly you invoke him.

Now, what do I mean when I say that you're not him? You are not a political philosopher. You have no use for it, only the particular fruit that grew from a tree someone else planted and tended. Then you come here and dump on people who try to find a way to make things better qua governance for themselves and others. Yes, you're an American but this is no longer America only United Statesuna. You're living off the inertia of past times. Your personal philosophy, which has real value so far as it goes, was not the philosophy of the Founding Fathers save in part, or there never would have been the American Revolution, just some nasty New England colonials who got their butts kicked.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

You learn something every day.

If only you would learn instead of behaving badly and then pouting when someone correctly identifies you as having behaved badly!

Today I learned that I'm not only a hater, but I am filled with rage and engage in vilification.

And that I'm extremely dishonest.

I'm fascinated to know what else I'd discover about myself if Jonathan were not strictly focused on criticizing my ideas, as he claims to be.

If you don't want to be identified as a hater, and as someone who expresses rage and attempts to vilify people based on their tastes in art, then stop doing those things!!!

You're acting as if I've been calling you random names that have nothing to do with your behavior. Go back and read my last post. I explained why I have identified you as being a hater who vilified people. Pouting is not an answer. It is not a valid response. Pouting doesn't erase from existence the fact that I accurately described your behavior.

Why pay for therapy, when you can easily provoke an insecure artist to tell you what's wrong with you? Cool.

You must be talking about Newberry, since I've been quite secure in dealing with substance despite your pouting and distractions. When will you get over your insecurities, and get around to answering all of the unanswered, substantive questions that I've asked?

Here are some of them once again (earlier you claimed that you were "quite interested" and that you had "some thoughts to share," so why not share them instead of hating on others' tastes in art and then pouting when someone identifies the fact of reality that you were hating on others' tastes in art?):

From post 769:

I was asking about the music itself, not the inclusion of the notes. Do you make any distinction between absolute music and program music if the program notes are removed from the equation?

In other words, if a composer intended to create a piece of program music based on a specific narrative, and listeners were denied access to the explanation of the narrative, shouldn't they still be able to identify what the composer intended to "represent"? If you're going to categorize tonal music as being "representational" in the same category as representational visual art, and you require representational visual art to present immediately identifiable entities that the artist intended to represent, then shouldn't the same standard apply to tonal music, and therefore shouldn't all listeners be able to instantly identify the specific narrative that the composer intended to "represent"?

Additionally, if a composer created a piece of tonal absolute music which was not intended to be "about" anything -- it wasn't based on a narrative, and it wasn't intended to "represent" anything -- then shouldn't listeners who claim to experience "virtual entities" in the music, and "virtual activities" or "virtual narratives," be accused of "just making stuff up" and "reading into" the music what is not there? Shouldn't they be identified as doing the aural equivalent of inventing their own constellations when looking at clusters of stars? Shouldn't it be "Give me a break!" time?

If the composer of a tonal piece of absolute music didn't intend to "represent" anything, are you saying that his work is "representational" anyway?!!! If so, shouldn't the same be true of a visual artist who didn't intend to represent anything -- if some viewers were to say, "Hey, this smear of paint looks kind of like a butterfly," would you categorize the painting as "representational" despite the fact that it wasn't intended to be?

Why do you think that tonal music has needed "training wheels"? Doesn't that tell you something about your classifying it as "representational," and as being in the same category as representational visual art?

Why do you think that program music which tried to be as "representational" as possible ended up actually mimicking/imitating the sounds of things in reality? Do you think that maybe it was because that's what the term "representation" actually means?

Why is the idea of program music -- music with external program notes -- perfectly acceptable to Objectivish-types, but the idea of external gallery notes accompanying abstract visual art is extremely upsetting and something to be fiercely ridiculed as being overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that abstract visual art has absolutely no effect whatsoever on its own?

Do you think that it is reasonable to consider the idea that it might be possible that the reason that Objectivish-types get so uptight and upset about others' responses to abstract paintings and sculptures is that maybe the O-types are resentful of people who don't need "training wheels" when it comes to visual art?

In post 781 I reminded you of some revious issues that you haven't addressed:

As I've said many times in many Objectivish fora, art is like a transmitter, and viewers are like receivers. The Objectivist Esthetics instructs the receivers that they are to judge the quality of the transmitter and its transmissions. In doing so, it doesn't address the possibility that the receivers might malfunction or be limited in some way -- that all receivers might not have the equal ability to receive transmissions clearly. The Objectivist Esthetics only addresses the issue of the transmitter's functioning or malfunctioning, and how it is to be judged. But if we are to be truly objective about it, don't we have to test and judge the levels at which both the transmitter and the receivers are functioning? If a receiver doesn't receive a message -- or even if several receivers don't -- is it rational to conclude that the transmitter failed to transmit?

What I find interesting are three things:

1) The "receivers" who are the most passionate about asserting that the limited range of frequencies that they are capable of receiving are the only valid frequencies in existence, and that all other receivers are lying or "rationalizing" when they claim to receive information on other frequencies, tend to associate or congregate only with similarly limited receivers, and, when discussing transmission/reception theory, they actively limit themselves to "learning" only from teachers who share their limitations and their belief that there are no receivable frequencies outside of those that they personally receive.

2) These limited "receivers" tend to act as if their congregating is somehow proof that there are no receivable frequencies outside of those that they receive. They seem to feel that their gathering en masse somehow constitutes objective proof that no receiver has abilities beyond their own. When congregated, they like to laugh at other receivers who claim to receive more frequencies.

3) The "receivers" who are limited in range of frequencies often show themselves to be incapable of receiving transmissions even well within the limited range that they accept as valid. When tested in that range, they reveal that they haven't received the transmissions as clearly as those who can receive more frequencies. They miss obvious things that were transmitted. They imagine receiving things that weren't transmitted. They garble meanings. Yet they insist that they're accurately receiving the transmissions within that range, and that anyone who says otherwise is lying, delusional, rationalizing, etc.

You, Roger, are that type of receiver -- the type that believes that no receiver could possibly function at a higher level, and that it is insulting and disgusting for anyone to even suggest that you are anything but the perfect, ultimate, top-of-the-line receiver.

The Objectivist notion of objective judgment is that it is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following logic and reason using a clearly identified objective standard. If you're claiming that judgments of beauty are objective, could you please prove it by clearly identifying the objective standards that you use in judging beauty, and explain the process of employing logic and reason that you follow when making judgments of beauty.

A new unanswered question comes from post 890:

"Which works of visual art do you, with your superior and purely objective tastes, rate as being worthy of being purchased for prices higher than any other art works? Identify your top five, please."

And here's a bonus oldie-but-goodie post that remains unanswered:

In the first quote of Linda Mann above, note that she says she expresses her theme by "choosing beautiful objects to paint" (and doing so with a careful, precise style). The ones I saw all contain either well-proportioned man-made objects or healthy specimens of fruits and vegetables.

So, if Linda Mann were to choose colorful, well-proportioned, man-made stone tiles as the "beautiful objects" that she wanted to paint in a still life, and if she were to selectively cut them and arrange them in a manner which pleased her, like this...

...and if she were to then create a painting of them like this...

...the painting would qualify as art according to your criteria, right?

If she were to explain that the theme of the painting is that the world is real, orderly and fascinating and that man is capable of understanding and enjoying it, and that she expressed this theme by choosing beautiful objects to paint, and by creating a composition that is purposeful and intriguing, and that she carefully rendered the objects and romantically enhanced their colors and textures, you'd agree that she succeeded, right?

Anyway, "Roger," when are you going to stop evading, and answer the question that I've asked many times now? The question is not going to go away. When each viewer of a work of visual art has a different opinion of what it means, why is it that your interpretation represents the artwork's "real" or "actual" meaning and anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing"? Why is it that when you can see no meaning where others do, they must be "rationalizing"? By what objective means have you tested and determined that your visual aesthetic capacities and sensitivities are not insufficient compared to those who you claim are "rationalizing"?

Is it even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, and which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend? Is it really so upsetting to consider the possibility that you might be lacking in some areas compared to others, that you might have a visual "tin ear"?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of a viewer's fitness to judge a work of art, and the relevance that such fitness has in qualifying or disqualifying him to opine on which things other humans can or cannot experience as art?

I'm especially interested in hearing answers to the questions about tonal music's needing "training wheels," and about why an artist who collects round stones, arranges them, and then paints of picture of them is creating art, but another artist who collects stone tiles, arranges them, and then paints a picture of them is not creating art.

Oh, and one more issue that I've raised to many people multiple times, but which still hasn't been addressed by anyone:

Anyway, it really is astounding that there are people here who hold the position that the abstract compositions of architecture and music can express enough emotion and meaning to qualify as art, but the abstract compositions of abstract paintings cannot. Heh. If I were to show you an abstract composition of forms, and tell you that it's an elevation drawing of a work of architecture, you'd exclaim that it presents great emotional depth and meaning, but if I were to show you the exact same drawing and tell you that it's an abstract painting, you'd say that it's meaningless nonsense and a vicious attack on "man's mind." [Are you seriously incapable of recognizing what a silly position it is assert that you can get deep emotion and meaning out of the proportions of slabs when they're called "architecture," but that other people are being ridiculous when claiming to get the same depth of emotion and meaning out of the same proportions of the same slabs when they're called "abstract sculpture"?]

J

[Jonathan]

Those who can, philosophize.

Those who can't, bid on the popcorn and drink concession - or reveal their deep insecurity and obsessive nature by repeatedly attacking others as "haters" and "irrational" and "lying."

REB

I've been practically begging you to philosophize. See post 994 for a few of the unanswered questions that I've reminded you of once again.

Those who can, philosophize.

Those who can't, pout.

There's a hell of a lot of substance waiting to be addressed by you, Roger. Will you finally step up to the plate and show that you can? Or will you continue to pout and confirm my suspicion that you can't?

J

[Jonathan]

"Does it follow that [some of] the [crap] that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"

Yes.

Greg

Change the question first you did.

--Yoda

Exactly. He's still being a Clinton.

J

[william.scherk]

There is a huge technical problem, an artist may not have the tools to execute exactly what he wants. And the results can turn out ugly unintentionally. That could be a motive of postmodernists, if the foundations of a fine art education are not available, then an artist is incapable of creating beauty; a great part of that is technical mastery. Yet creating ugliness is open to anyone reagardless of skill.

A well made point.

The task of the unskilled, undisciplined, and unprincipled artist is then to try to convince suckers that their ugly pieces of crap are beautiful...

...and the real kicker is that there are plenty of suckers who believe the artist's lie because they share the same lack of morality as the artist!

Who are the top 10 most expensive living Chinese artists at auction? artnet News was keen to find out. With the help of artnet's Analytics team and Fine Art and Design Price Database, we perused auction results from 2005 to 2014 and have selected the top 10 artists by lot.

Zeng Fanzhi, The Last Supper (2001) sold at Sotheby's Hong Kong on October 5, 2013, for $23,269,070.

Liu Xiaodong, Disobeying the Rules (1996) sold at Sotheby's Hong Kong on Sunday, October 5, 2014, for $8,530,818.

Greg, these two works back up your point, hat tip to Scherk. They are undoubtedly conveying some kind of message, Chinese Uncle Toms in the Last Supper painting? Coal miners after some kind of accident being transported naked in the back of truck? Or male nudists on a tour? Regardless the paintings feel like the artists didn't give a shit about the means, they both show no talent, and makes it very hard to feel empathy for the subjects. The one below might show a spontaneous gestural painting marks - but that runs aground if the gestures are amateurish, not like a master Rembrandt, Sargent, or Degas. The sad part is that it is almost impossible to feel any empathy for the subjects - why would anyone spend money on these, much less than 24 and 9 million dollars? Somewhere going on: the artists, the collectors, the critics, the agents, the culture have an ugly, loathing view of the world, themselves, and/or their culture. I would feel sick to stomach for what the price tags for these works say about humanity, but after 40 years of seeing the elevation of crap I get the sense that the modern art field has opened the doors for and embraced sociopaths.

There is too much moralistic lard in this commentary. The artist Liu has an ugly, loathing view of the world, himself, and his culture? Liu is a sociopath in some way?

Auction prices almost always seem insane at the high end. I think one's stomach can feel a sinking, dizzy, high seas lurch at the enormity of the transactions, even when the artwork is appreciably worthy to the eye of the onlooker.

Michael, I spent some time reading and viewing interviews and going over Liu's biography and education -- and looking at the sweep of his career in images from his studio.

I wonder if your feelings about Liu's work would change as mine did after taking a larger sample and taking in 'outside considerations' ...

You might get something out of this interview, in which Liu gives us a glimpse of his own art historical learning in the context of the Chinese 'new wave' -- very cogent to your reaction are the last few minutes of the video:

The only good thing about this painting is trying to figure out what it's about. I see hard hats and gas cylinders. Are these miners? Nothing really makes sense. Nothing adds up. Maybe the title refers to the artist. What else, btw, has he done? So far he looks several years away from graduation from art school.

[...]

Googling the artist Liu reveals quite a hodgepodge; he seems to have something going compositionally, that's all I can see; someone really good could duplicate him to the extent you'd not know who did what, not that one would; I didn't see anything I like nor much technical skill in painting and not being as esthete I can only say, "I just don't get it"

Have a look at the arc of his artmaking at his studio website, Brant. I was in the party stumped by the million dollar nudes in the truck. I could see the sure hand of a trained artist, but was puzzled by what was uniquely 'worthy' of attention and auction bids in the millions. It left me with several mysteries, obstacles of ignorance in 'getting it.'

In the video above Liu makes reference to shocking effects that the 'new wave' of art in the mid-eighties brought to the non-art world. One was the depiction of Han figures, the other nudity. The Chinese were, post-Deng, economically engaged as individuals but the private world was traditional, circumspect, prudish. Nudity in art was shocking and had (according to Liu's telling) a powerful social effect. Similarly, the figure in painting pre-New Wave was never Han. Depicting Han visages was breaking the academic rules that had directed art production up till that time.

In this context, I understand the wallop of nudity in that particular depiction. And maybe a little bit of the wallop of real, individual Han lives depicted. And having seen the art Liu produced over the years, I can see why his work is unique and valuable -- even if nine million dollars changing hands seems disproportionate to its beauty or romanticism.

The video below corrects my mistaken reporting that Liu does not use photographs. It was two photographs of meaning to him that led to the truck nudes painting. The photos together with the truck nudes packs a certain extra wallop.

Coal miners after some kind of accident being transported naked in the back of truck? Or male nudists on a tour?

Maybe you should consider learning something about the artist's context.

I agree with Jonathan -- learning more about the art and its maker can often answer the puzzles at hand -- as can cooperative inquiry, sharing finds, digging for context.

I try to put art in threads like these so folks can have something to hang their hats on. As here, the various reactions to Liu illustrate one of Jonathan's major points -- that reaction to disliked art can move into attacks on the artist or art-appreciator.

Moralistic masturbation about the ugly person/ugly art connection is demonstrated most clearly by Greg. He rubs one off on ugly Liu, and he feels good about his discernment, but he is demonstrably wrong (as the video interview shows) about Liu's morality. Xiu's moral calculus, or the sense of life underlying his art, is put forth in his own words. His expressions seem relatively congruent with the pith of Objectivish good things: individualism, meaning, value, reality -- at least to my lay understanding

Me, I am not troubled one whit at being called sociopathic for loving the art of Francis Bacon, or at being a sucker for appreciating the art of Liu Xiaodong. I think Liu is pretty freaking good at his job. It is ultimately of no importance that Roger or Michael or Brant thinks I am a fool for thinking that. I can't pretend it is.

So, I take nothing personally, and I don't feel it necessary to make it personal by overtly calling Roger or Michael or Brant names. But I do understand Jonathan's vexation at the most dismissive and moralistic rhetoric of the 'haters' even if I don't use his tactics in argument. The tactic of ascribing maleficent motives and debased humanity to a generalized class of 'suckers' and 'abusers' doesn't do much work in argument, and thus attracts the rapiers of Jonathan and William.

Here's a brief video looking at Liu and the making of the million dollar nudes, from Sotheby's:

The sad part is that it is almost impossible to feel any empathy for the subjects - why would anyone spend money on these, much less than 24 and 9 million dollars?

I think that the willingness to spend big money was likely due to recognition and appreciation of the risks that the artists took in defying evil forces and of their heroism of creating genuine personal expressions under conditions which were very hostile to genuine personal expressions.

This is almost certainly correct in broad strokes. There was a revolution or a 'liberation' in Chinese art following post-Deng capitalist liberation of the economy. The various dead hands of tradition and state mandate were cast off. Liu was a revolutionary in this sense, and part of the creative force that has raised China from the dirt of collectivism to the magnificence of the individual making the world by will...

It seems like there's no way to distinguish between a masochistic rich man who pays big bucks to have someone sadistically abuse him and a profoundly sensitive, discerning rich man who pays big bucks to buy something that "ordinary people" can't understand or appreciate - especially if/when the former is masquerading as the latter, in order to get some social approval to offset the misery of having purchased his own abuse.

Which is good, since I don't have lot of time or energy to spending sorting them out. If I were some sort of Objectivist (or Objectivish) guru, I might feel differently. But losers are losers, and it really doesn't matter why they're losers, as long as they leave me alone and don't try to get the government to rob me in order to support their nasty habits.

Roger, this is not moored to any particular image or topic. It's easy to mistake this kind of analogous generalizing for a personal evaluation of an individual artist or artwork. 'Ordinary people' like you may not appreciate Liu Xiaodong's output at all, may even detest it based on a couple or three images, but does that mean that Liu is cast in the role of sadistic abuser of a miserable loser? If so, can you elaborate?

If not, then I think it's too bad you don't attach opinions more closely to actual depictions of artworks. Examples often give greater depth to an argument or analysis.

I wish there was an easy way to defuse the feuds in this thread. If I could vaccinate, I would vaccinate against galloping rhetoric. Somehow there would be fewer outbreaks of 'hater' and 'loser' and 'abuser' and 'sociopath' and so on.

You'll find me trying on bonnets in OL's Pollyanna section, near the doors. I'm here all week.

Edited March 3, 2015 by william.scherk

[Roger Bissell]

No, William, I don't think Liu is a "sadistic abuser." One can be a masochist, desiring to inflict pain or suffering or humiliation upon oneself, with or without the active involvement of another person. If I bought one of Jonathan's or Michael's paintings and flagellated myself with it, either of those acts might make me a masochist - but neither act would (in itself) make either of them a "sadistic abuser." :-)

Liu is free to paint, and people are free to buy his paintings for whatever they're worth to them. And I'm free to form a judgment about the merits of the creations and the wisdom of purchasing them. And no insecure, belligerant, obsessive, name-calling artist is going to pry more comments from me without moderating his behavior.

I'm not going to consider either begging or "practically begging" as a sincere desire for philosophical dialogue, as long as the bitterness and hostility and "no I'm not, you are infinity-squared" B.S. continues. I am in the middle of writing four arrangements for a jazz concert and preparing a manuscript for journal submission. This is a spare-time activity, I'm not a masochist, and I go strictly by cost-benefit.

Ciao,

REB

Back to Finale and Microsoft Word...

[Jonathan]

No, William, I don't think Liu is a "sadistic abuser." One can be a masochist, desiring to inflict pain or suffering or humiliation upon oneself, with or without the active involvement of another person. If I bought one of Jonathan's or Michael's paintings and flagellated myself with it, either of those acts might make me a masochist - but neither act would (in itself) make either of them a "sadistic abuser." :-)

Liu is free to paint, and people are free to buy his paintings for whatever they're worth to them. And I'm free to form a judgment about the merits of the creations and the wisdom of purchasing them. And no insecure, belligerant, obsessive, name-calling artist is going to pry more comments from me without moderating his behavior.

I'm not going to consider either begging or "practically begging" as a sincere desire for philosophical dialogue, as long as the bitterness and hostility and "no I'm not, you are infinity-squared" B.S. continues. I am in the middle of writing four arrangements for a jazz concert and preparing a manuscript for journal submission. This is a spare-time activity, I'm not a masochist, and I go strictly by cost-benefit.

Ciao,

REB

Back to Finale and Microsoft Word...

Hahahahaha!!! I knew it! I knew that there wouldn't be any substance behind all of the bluffing and pouting and whining!!! There never is!!!

As I said earlier:

Those who can, philosophize.

Those who can't, pout.

But it is nice and handy now to have my compilation of several unanswered questions at the ready in post 994.

J

[Roger Bissell]

Never? Never is a long time.

I have a four-decade record of putting my views in print in peer-reviewed journals and presenting them to hostile audiences, so there is absolutely no reason to doubt that I have substantive opinions to offer on a number of subjects. I have plenty of substance to offer on the questions you raised as well, but none to share with you, unless I feel like it. That might happen tomorrow, or next week, or never. It depends mainly on you. I do not suffer fools, and I do not suffer hostile, abusive personal attacks. Occasionally I make the mistake of responding in kind...

You are awfully enthusiastic about attacking the views of others, but not so much for putting your own views on record. If you would like to establish credibility for anything beyond nihilistic personal attacks and disruption of civil discussions, please provide some references or links to published articles you have written and subjected to public criticism. If you would post even *one* published essay and submit it to the same opportunities for constructive criticism - let alone scathing, abrasive ridicule - that I have endured here, I would be very surprised.

REB