Art and Subobjectivity

[PalePower]

Ayn Rand's view of art is probably the only part of her philosophy in which I seem to disagree just as much as I agree. My main problem is: to what extent can one actually, "objectively" objectify art? Isn't that one of the defining aspects of art in general - that a large part of it is subjective?

It's been a little while since I've read The Romantic Manifesto (and I can't seem to find it), but I believe I remember the following excerpts correctly.

For example, at one point Rand claims that, as "art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments," it is not only shameful, but immoral for an artist to paint a physically unattractive person - since doing so would obviously promote a life filled with ugliness and pain. This struck me as absolutely ridiculous. Visual art - to a great extent - CANNOT be objective. There are so many ways to interpret a painting, and to oversimplify it that much is an insult both to the painter and anyone who would hope to get anything out of art. A painting of an unattractive person can mean a number of things - for example, the overcoming the difficulty of life's unwanted hardships, the dignity and inner beauty a person can possess despite a less-than-appealing exterior, and, of course, extolling or just accepting a life full of pain. But the list never stops there. What about horror for the sake of horror - and KNOWING that it is horror (so that the picture's ugliness will intentionally repel and make one aware of what it is that is disgusting in life and why - an also praise-worthy purpose). What about humor? In this case, you could burrow deeply and say that painting ugly people would serve the exact same purpose as painting beautiful people: in laughing at the ugly people, you laugh at the ugliness of life, and so remain true and even more steadfast to life's beauty. But that doesn't always have to be the case - sometimes things are just . . . funny. For example, I remember one year when our family went to the beach, my sister (an absolutely amazing artist) made a collection of "Beach-Bum" sketches: she hunted down the absolute ugliest people on the beach she could find and memorialized them in her sketchbook. They were fantastic - we seriously could not stop cracking up when looking at them. They made us happy. But does that mean that we're immoral people - because she actively sought out ugliness, and that we actively took pleasure in looking at it? Try as I might, I can't sense the evil creeping through me. She (my sister) also told me that drawing fatter people was more challenging and fun than drawing thin, pretty people, because the latter all look the same and are insanely simple to slash out on paper. Does this also make her an immoral person - hunting down imperfection for the sake of improving her skill and providing herself with some challenging joy?

Physically unattractive people are not immoral as a result of their appearance. Neither are their depictions. Rand makes the mistake of taking a symbol and casting it as a one-sided object, containing an indisputable identity. A is A - fat, ugly people are not evil. (Really?!) A is A - a subjective painting is not an objective statement. (Doubtless some paintings do have clear-cut messages, determined by their history and the artist's intention behind it. This doesn't mean, however, that a viewer isn't allowed to get something else out of the painting that the artist perhaps didn't even conceive.) To say otherwise is to strangle individual thought with end-all dogma.

In another passage, Ayn Rand mentioned the morality that could lie behind still-lifes. The superior still-life artist, for example, would strive to paint the most beautiful, luscious, delicious-looking apple known to mankind, even if no such Perfect apple had ever really existed. The apple, of course, could only symbolize life in general, and that life is supposed to be beautiful, luscious, perfect, and ... delicious. The viewer would then look at this apple and think, "Wow! That's what I always thought an apple should look like!" and thus walk away filled with hope for the future as all his aspirations had been affirmed in that apple's beauty. The painting of a rotted, stinking, or even slightly dusty apple, could only be a denial of life's joy and a welcoming of impending death. It would depress its viewers and be the bane of mankind in general.

My God, woman! It's a friggin APPLE. You could just as easily say that the picture of the perfect apple, as it was never seen in reality, is making a mockery of ideals and you should never strive for your hopes and dreams since they will only be as achievable as that painted apple is edible. There's no way to state the painting's purpose objectively - since there are no objective clues. It's highly likely that the artist did not have any conception of recreating his view of reality at all when painting the still life - perhaps it was simply a practice in technique. Perhaps he just liked the colors, or the interesting shapes (and the more rotted, the more interesting the shape).

Rand's whole stance on art - and the fact that she is so unwavering in it - strikes me as a tendency of hers to inject philosophy into EVERYTHING - and the further tendency to inject her opinion and preference into an objective philosophy. If all artists wanted to be philosophers, they would've been too busy writing essays than to paint. If all artists wanted to depict reality's ideal based on strict physical first impressions, we'd be missing out on a lot of the variety that life has to offer us; more importantly, we'd be stomping on people's creativity and growth.

So is art really "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments?" Undoubtedly much of art is. But that is not the only purpose art can serve, nor can the first "Rand" purpose be achieved in just one, unwavering manner.

I believe it is healthy, smart, and beneficial to the viewer to look at art objectively, but keep in mind that there are different objects that that piece of art can be focused on - a sort of subobjectivity. Art's meaning can be subjective to the viewer/listener, but that doesn't mean that each can't equally support their interpretation with objective aspects from that art work.

The same holds true for music. I believe at one point in The Romantic Manifesto, Rand acknowledges that music can mean different things to different listeners. Later on in the book, however, she criticizes modern music as "taking the listeners back to the primitive lifestyle of the tribal Africans" (not an exact quote) and that the reason it takes "some getting used to" is because their music advocates a philosophy that weakens the mind. Absolutely ludicrous. You could just as easily say that to listen to classical music in this day and age is to live a life that denies mental progress - since you are, after all, still listening and - God forbid, enjoying! - music written hundreds of years ago when they did not have electricity or planes, listening to composers that - oh no! - might have even believed in God! (Get rid of all my Bach recordings - it'll corrupt my mind!)

It's all too easy to see that Ayn Rand was NOT an artist and she was NOT a musician because she is so blatantly unaware of the many nuances of these professions that captivate their followers - that although painters do have a desire to express their vision of life, they also love the way that lines swoops upwards so smoothly, and the way those colors blend together so perfectly, or the way they clash against each other so daringly, and the thrill they experience simply from capturing a scene of reality so accurately on canvas by the sheer skill of their eye and their hand, even if the scene is a little garish, isn't it totally COOL that colors on paper can produce an emotional reaction?; that although musicians do have a desire to express their vision of life, they also love the way this instrument feels just like an extension of their body under a perfectly postured hand, and the absolute clarity of this note that they themselves are producing, and the way that note sounds when placed against another, and another, even if it is dissonant and makes you cringe a little bit, isn't it just totally COOL to think that vibrations in the air can SOUND that way and can even affect your emotions?

Artists like to depict their ideal reality, yes, but they also enjoy reality as it is - because it is simply so FASCINATING.

The same is true for architecture - yes, a building does have a specific purpose, and should, for practical reasons, be constructed to meet those requirements, but that doesn't mean that the building is in any way "immoral." IT'S A BUILDING. I like gothic architecture. I like old, Victorian houses, and Greek architecture on non-Greek buildings. They're interesting, and, yes, beautiful.

Rand did an excellent job of clarifying what a big part of art DOES mean. However, there's more to a picture than meets the eye, and there's more to art than strict philosophy.

Edited December 30, 2006 by ENonemaker

[Ellen Stuttle]

Elizabeth, it's late (early am) my time, I have troubles reading a computer screen whatever the hour, and your post is long and contains some long paragraphs. BUT, upon glancing through it...I suspect you'll find many here who are on the same or similar wavelength. See, e.g., posts by "Jonathan" and replies -- I think you can search by poster's name.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

"What about humor? In this case, you could burrow deeply and say that painting ugly people would serve the exact same purpose as painting beautiful people: in laughing at the ugly people, you laugh at the ugliness of life, and so remain true and even more steadfast to life's beauty. But that doesn't always have to be the case - sometimes things are just . . . funny."

Elizabeth,

Yes, humor in art! Now you are speaking my language. I found your post of particular interest. As you can see, I’m a caricature artist. Or rather, I’m an artist who can do caricatures.

I’m empathetic to much of what you express in your post, especially regarding the subject of humor. It’s fair to say that the art of caricature—or even more broadly speaking, illustrations—doesn’t get its due respect among the artistic literati. However, this snobbish attitude is disappearing in subtle increments as time moves along. Somewhere along the line humor in visual art has been dealt a deadly blow. Those who determine “taste” have decided it’s alright for an artist to move us to tears, anger, awe or out-and-out repulsion—but to make his audience laugh was considered beneath the artist’s station. Satirical work, like that of Daumier, can be just as provocative.

I always enjoyed drawing people. As a child, I was inclined from the very start to “twist the divine human form into silly putty shapes” as one reviewer put it. You said that "painters do have a desire to express their vision of life, they also love the way that lines swoops upwards so smoothly, and the way those colors blend together so perfectly, or the way they clash against each other so daringly, and the thrill they experience simply from capturing a scene of reality so accurately on canvas by the sheer skill of their eye and their hand, even if the scene is a little garish, isn't it totally COOL that colors on paper can produce an emotional reaction." Believe me, I know what you are speaking about here. This sensation is part of the pleasure that I receive from painting, and I am also conscious enough to be aware of the viewer’s pleasure, and so technique must come at hand as well or else I would have nothing more than what would resemble a child’s finger painting with its various swatches and swirls of color across the canvas. But I do know what you are speaking of here.

I have been a professional artist for a number of years. I have experienced many different reactions to my art over the years—from joyful laughter to awe-struck appreciation to disconcerted confusion to even hostility. The more mild responses of protest have ranged from “Don’t you draw real people?” to “Why do you draw such weird stuff” to “What kind of acid trip are you on?” This could crush the heart of a sensitive artist. Of course, I always retain my cool as the jovial bohemian emeritus that I truly am.

Liz, regarding your comment about “laughing at the ugliness of the world”. That really spoke to me. That is so me. Caricaturing was my way of coping with what I took to be a troubling reality. This “troubling reality” still haunts me to this day. It is the light in me, the good within me, that wishes to expose the dark side of the world—to alert the viewer of it—by ridiculing it in caricature. It is not an exploration of any dark side in me. It is an external exploration, not internal. My caricatures cannot come out decorous and beautifully detached: they must be, and are, charged with fear, horror, moral outrage, humor, and irreverence. You need an extraordinary gift for humor to laugh away all the perilous things in this world.

Anyway, I think I have said enough, but I do have more to say in regards to this post. Soon.

-Victor-

Jean Chrétien George Orwell –

Jack NicholsonSalvador Dali

Post-script: Elizabeth, you wrote: "Rand claims that, as "art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments," it is not only shameful, but immoral for an artist to paint a physically unattractive person - since doing so would obviously promote a life filled with ugliness and pain. This struck me as absolutely ridiculous." Of this, I have much to say. But a little later...very late now.

***

Edited December 30, 2006 by Victor Pross

[jenright]

For example, at one point Rand claims that, as "art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments," it is not only shameful, but immoral for an artist to paint a physically unattractive person - since doing so would obviously promote a life filled with ugliness and pain.

Elizabeth, you raise a host of issues. I just want to mention that Rand did change her mind somewhat on this topic.

In a chapter of The Romantic Manifesto, Rand complained about Rembrandt's painting of a side of beef. She said it was a bad choice of subject, a waste of his skill, and esthetically unjustifiable.

In a later essay, not included in The Romantic Manifesto, she wrote about Capuletti's painting of a wall with peeling paint and cracked plaster. She said the subject would be perfect for the life-is-decay kind of art, but that Capuletti had transformed the subject into an object of beauty. She said she would not have believed it was possible.

But this revised view did not make it into the book.

John

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Elizabeth,

If the metaphysical value judgments are only external, Rand's definition and way of thinking are consistent. If an artist includes his own brain--and the processes within--as a part of what exists (i.e., "the metaphysical"), the contemplation of an artwork becomes far more complex than creating a religious idol for surrogate worship. I do not mean this sarcastically, either, as I think this really is what Rand was after.

For a good example, I used to be involved with an abstract painter (who also did wonderful academic style when she wanted). Now, to fully understand what I am going to say, I want you to do a small experiment. Close your eyes and open them quickly. Try to perceive that moment when the light has not formed into patterns, but is almost there. This painter managed to capture that moment extremely well (and I have seen many other painters who successfully do this, also). So what would happen to me (and other viewers that I talked to) was that I would start looking at one of her paintings and soon I was daydreaming all over the place. I could look at it for a long time without getting bored or even perceiving the time passing. It seemed to induce a "daydream state" in me.

I enjoy that experience quite a lot, so I cannot trash all abstract painting as traditional Objectivists are want to do (although there is a lot of garbage, too). I consider my own mind as part of reality. It has a nature and daydreaming is part of that nature. A particular kind of abstract art touches that particular reality in me and encourages it to selectively recreate its own process. It doesn't tell me what to daydream, but it does induce in me how to daydream. It is intense and very pleasurable.

This is just one example where art is used differently than what Rand reasoned. Her conclusion is correct if it is considered only as one part of the whole story. One proper use of art is as a surrogate religion (measured and characterized by "sense of life"), i.e., it deals with emotions where religion has traditionally exercised a monopoly. Rand mentioned this in an introduction to The Fountainhead). Much art does serve the purpose she proclaimed, but this view is incomplete. Art is not used exclusively for that purpose. There are other uses, valid and positive uses, and they are based on the nature of man's mind as well.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Elizabeth wrote,

So is art really "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments?" Undoubtedly much of art is. But that is not the only purpose art can serve, nor can the first "Rand" purpose be achieved in just one, unwavering manner.

Depending on what a person believes that "according to" and "metaphysical value-judgments" mean, I think that you could say that all art is indeed created "according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

Metaphysical value-judgments are a person's view of the fundamental nature of existence. According to Rand, they answer such questions as "Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life -- or is he a helpless plaything of forces beyond his control? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?"

So, going back to your examples, Elizabeth, if an artist painted an ugly person for the reasons you listed, his answer to Rand's metaphysical quiz would be: "Yes, man can find happiness on earth. He is capable of overcoming the difficulty of life's unwanted hardships. He can choose to be dignified and have inner beauty despite irrelevant accidents of nature."

The artist's metaphysical value-judgments -- his fundamental views of existence, of what's important to him -- guided the selections he made in creating the art.

His art doesn't have to communicate his metaphysical values, nor does he have to try to make his art about communicating them. He doesn't have to take into consideration how those who view his work might interpret it. For example, it would be irrelevant if Rand or some of her followers threw hissy fits and claimed to know which Eeevil metaphysical value-judgments actually drove the artist to paint the image. The fact that they couldn't reliably identify which metaphysical value-judgments guided the artist in creating the work wouldn't mean that his metaphysical value-judgments didn't guide his choices (nor would it mean that his art isn't good).

More simply put, the artist's job is to create whatever he wants according to whatever he values. His job is not to illustrate a blunt, artless representation of his values so that even shallow, visually challenged people can "get it" at first glance and offer their approval.

Elizabeth wrote,

In another passage, Ayn Rand mentioned the morality that could lie behind still-lifes. The superior still-life artist, for example, would strive to paint the most beautiful, luscious, delicious-looking apple known to mankind, even if no such Perfect apple had ever really existed. The apple, of course, could only symbolize life in general, and that life is supposed to be beautiful, luscious, perfect, and ... delicious. The viewer would then look at this apple and think, "Wow! That's what I always thought an apple should look like!"

and

...that although painters do have a desire to express their vision of life, they also love the way that lines swoops upwards so smoothly, and the way those colors blend together so perfectly, or the way they clash against each other so daringly...

I'm currently thinking about working on a painting that I'd call "Abstract Objectivism." It would be a very large canvas, at least 8' x 12', filled with what would look exactly like paint splatters. But the dots that make up the splatters would actually be life-size, realistically rendered grapes. I'd go with "perfect" grapes instead of Rand's "perfect" apple because I'd want to use what I think is a more festive, secular fruit, and avoid over-used religious symbolism (which refers to the garden of Eden). I see the painting as the ultimate work of art because it would communicate my joyous sense of life to everyone from Pollock fans to hardcore Randroids. Just imagine how wonderful it would be that Randroids would be able to appreciate the power of its abstract compositional beauty because I've subverted their robotic programming by slipping in enough mimesis that they wouldn't be able to deny that the painting is art!

Btw, Elizabeth, a belated welcome to OL. You're very talented, and obviously very bright, ethusiastic and independent, and it's good to have you here.

J

Edited December 31, 2006 by Jonathan

[PalePower]

More simply put, the artist's job is to create whatever he wants according to whatever he values. His job is not to illustrate a blunt, artless representation of his values so that even shallow, visually challenged people can "get it" at first glance and offer their approval.

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say, only you phrased it much better. I admire and love the clarification that Rand brings to much of artistic interpretation, but it's insulting (and potentially dead-boring) when she strives to bring it down to such a simplistic level.

I'm currently thinking about working on a painting that I'd call "Abstract Objectivism." It would be a very large canvas, at least 8' x 12', filled with what would look exactly like paint splatters. But the dots that make up the splatters would actually be life-size, realistically rendered grapes. I'd go with "perfect" grapes instead of Rand's "perfect" apple because I'd want to use what I think is a more festive, secular fruit, and avoid over-used religious symbolism (which refers to the garden of Eden). I see the painting as the ultimate work of art because it would communicate my joyous sense of life to everyone from Pollock fans to hardcore Randroids. Just imagine how wonderful it would be that Randroids would be able to appreciate the power of its abstract compositional beauty because I've subverted their robotic programming by slipping in enough mimesis that they wouldn't be able to deny that the painting is art!

That sounds like an extremely creative idea!! Whenever you finish it (though it sounds like it'll take a while) I'd like to see it.

Btw, Elizabeth, a belated welcome to OL. You're very talented, and obviously very bright, ethusiastic and independent, and it's good to have you here.

Thank you so much! I think I'm really going to like being a part of this forum.

Victor,

I

LOVE

your caricatures. They honestly made me lawl. Especially Dali. And I'd like to hear the other stuff you have to say, which you alluded to. . .

Michael,

That sounds incredibly interesting. Is there an image of it online that you can link me to?

~Elizabeth

Edited January 1, 2007 by ENonemaker

[Victor Pross]

According to Objectivism, the inimitable and vital function of art is to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction.*(1.1) But abstractions do not have the propinquity, the power, the reality, and the sheer presence of the world as we perceive and react to it emotionally.**(2.1)

We can use artistic techniques like pictorial representations or metaphor to show what an idea looks like: this is what a graph of economic growth does, for example.

Art performs this function for the most fundamental abstractions: the elements of a world-view. *(1.2)

The purpose of art is the objectification of values. The fundamental motive of an artist---by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not---is to objectify, to concretize his values, his view of what is important in life.***(3.1) To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form.***(3.2) A person’s world-view, his deepest values, his philosophy, are experienced most clearly when represented in concrete form, a work of art can touch the deepest places in us, feelings we often have trouble defining and making explicit.*(1.3)

My view differs from that of Jonathan and MSK: I have a less generous view of “abstract art.” Why? To keep our abstractions tied to the world, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to clothe them in specific forms that unite the universality of the abstraction with the specificity and immediacy—the reality---of the particulars.**(2.2) This is a principle to be practiced not just in art, but also in all area of human thought and endeavor. Abstract “art” might produce a certain pleasurable or entertaining effect—such as MSK reports—it may be a pleasant way to play with colors, it may make an interesting design to add to the interior of one’s living room, but it is not art.

Human cultures have invented countless ways to embody abstractions. Rituals, ceremonies, and holidays help us appreciate the meaning of important events in personal life and social life, such as birth, marriage, death, victories, and achievements.**(2.3) Art has performed this function in every culture and religion. Ancient Greek culture, for example, placed a high value on physical beauty, grace, and, in men, athletic strength---as in the sculpture of Polyclitus whose Doryphorus set the classical cannon for the proportions of the male body.**(2.4) Examples like the above could be multiplied indefinitely.

Art is the most powerful means of creating embodied abstractions. In art we can experience in a concrete form an astonishing prosperous meaning through the artist’s work. In the hands of the talented, the masters, and the genius---artistic creation can provide the most complex, the most precise, the subtlest, the most evocative, the most powerful and effective form of an embodied abstraction.**(2.5)

That’s the power and purpose of art. That’s my attraction to it.

-Victor-

****

Jonathan's "Resolve."

My "Two Virgins."

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

Please see here for initial identification.

* Plagiarized from FAQ: What does Objectivism Consider to be Art (Aesthetics) answered by William Thomas. The original passages read as follows:

(1.1)

The unique and vital function of art is to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction.

(1.2)

We can use artistic techniques like pictorial representation or metaphor to show what an idea looks like: this is what a graph of economic growth does, for example. Art as such performs this function for the most fundamental abstractions: the elements of a world- view.

(1.3)

And because a person's world-view, his deepest values, are experienced most clearly in the emotional form of a sense of life, [see

FAQ: What is Philosophy"

] a work of art can touch the deepest places in us, feelings we often have trouble defining and making explicit.

** Plagiarized from Art and Ideals by David Kelley. The original passages read as follows:

(2.1)

Abstractions do not have the immediacy, the power, the reality, the felt constraint, and the sheer presence of the world as we perceive and react to it emotionally.

(2.2)

To keep our abstractions tied to the world, therefore, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to clothe them in specific forms that unite the universality of the abstraction with the specificity and immediacy—the reality—of the particular.

(2.3)

Human cultures have invented countless ways to embody abstractions. Rituals, ceremonies, and holidays help us appreciate the meaning of important events in personal and social life, such as birth, marriage, death, seasons, victories, and achievements.

(2.4)

Art has performed this function in every culture and religion. Ancient Greek culture, for example, placed a high value on physical beauty, grace, and, in men, athletic strength—as in the sculpture of Polyclitus, whose Doryphorus set the classical canon for the proportions of the male body.

(2.5)

Art is the most powerful means of creating embodied abstractions. In art we can experience perceptual objects and worlds that achieve an extraordinarily rich meaning through the artist's work of selecting his subject and shaping the work to embody his vision. In the hands of a master, artistic creation can provide the most complex, the most precise, the most subtle, the most evocative—in short the most powerful and effective—form of embodied abstraction.

*** Plagiarized from The Art of Fiction by Ayn Rand. The original passages read as follows:

(3.1) - pp. 13-14

The purpose of all art is the objectification of values. The fundamental motive of a writer—by the implication of the activity, whether he knows it consciously or not—is to objectify his values, his view of what is important in life.

(3.2) - p. 14

To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form.

OL extends its deepest apologies to William Thomas, David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff, the heir of Ayn Rand.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Danneskjold]

I'm with Victor on this one. Victor's drawings do show metaphysical value judgements. The way I see it Victor's caricature's just say "This is what this person should look like" or saying that people's outsides should reflect their actions etc. I'm not real into telling other people what they mean by stuff, but that's what I got out of those pictures.

Interestingly enough, when you interpret Ayn Rand's statements the way that Elizabeth did, photography is as immoral as an art form as is abstract art. It does create a new view of reality and therefore is not art. What makes photography art is when it represents an idea.

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

My view differs from that of Jonathan and MSK: I have a less generous view of “abstract art.” Why? To keep our abstractions tied to the world, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to clothe them in specific forms that unite the universality of the abstraction with the specificity and immediacy—the reality---of the particulars. This is a principle to be practiced not just in art, but also in all area of human thought and endeavor. Abstract “art” might produce a certain pleasurable or entertaining effect—such as MSK reports—it may be a pleasant way to play with colors, it may make an interesting design to add to the interior of one’s living room, but it is not art.

Do you apply the same reasoning to music and architecture? Shouldn't our requirements for art apply to all art forms equally?

Also, shouldn't a rational theory of aesthetics take into account the fact that what affects one person may not affect another? When millions of people claim that they feel something when looking at abstract art, that they feel it as deeply as what others claim to feel when listening to music, should their testimony be disregarded because Ayn, Victor or others don't feel it?

J

[Danneskjold]

Argument from numbers. People can feel something deeply and still be wrong. Half my family feels deeply that there is a God of the universe, they do not base this on rationality, does that mean that God exists? Because they feel that he does?

The problem is that with art it's like any other thing that has the meaning created by humans. Words are taken how a person feels that they are meant. If I say the sky is green and you say no, it's blue, the sky's color isn't percieved differently. The difference is how the perception is expressed. Because green and blue are terms created by the human mind the human mind can define and redefine them. The new definition may not be accepted, but it is still there.

Just because one person feels one thing when looking at the picture doesn't make them any more right than I would be if I claimed the sky was green. The reasons that Ayn Rand, Victor, and others are different is because they look at it rationally.

[Dragonfly]

Just because one person feels one thing when looking at the picture doesn't make them any more right than I would be if I claimed the sky was green. The reasons that Ayn Rand, Victor, and others are different is because they look at it rationally.

This is not a valid comparison. Colors like green and blue can be defined objectively, so if you say that the sky is green, I can prove that you are wrong. But contrary to Rand's claim, appreciation for art can not be objectively defined. You may at most for yourself define standards to judge art, but you can't claim that these standards are universally valid. An eloquent example is given by Rand herself: there is nothing rational in her condemnation of Mozart, Beethoven, Rembrandt or the Impressionists.

[Jonathan]

Jeff,

Would you mind answering the first question that I asked Victor: "Do you apply the same reasoning to music and architecture?"

Thanks,

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Do you include inner mental processes as part of reality? And do you think it is irrational to contemplate them in art?

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Just because one person feels one thing when looking at the picture doesn't make them any more right than I would be if I claimed the sky was green. The reasons that Ayn Rand, Victor, and others are different is because they look at it rationally.

This is not a valid comparison. Colors like green and blue can be defined objectively, so if you say that the sky is green, I can prove that you are wrong. But contrary to Rand's claim, appreciation for art can not be objectively defined. You may at most for yourself define standards to judge art, but you can't claim that these standards are universally valid. An eloquent example is given by Rand herself: there is nothing rational in her condemnation of Mozart, Beethoven, Rembrandt or the Impressionists.

Strawman, we are not talking about judgement of art, we are talking about its definition.

Jonathan said:

Jeff,

Would you mind answering the first question that I asked Victor: "Do you apply the same reasoning to music and architecture?"

Thanks,

J

No, I wouldn't. I would no more call an abstract painting with no base in some type of form, like Victor said, art than I would call a pile of sticks with no structure architecture. Nor would I call the bangings on a drum of a four or five year old music. It is lacking certain things such as a melody or rhythem that make music, music. Abstract paintings are lacking in reality, which is key in painting art. If those who do just paint splatter type things call themselves artists, then I'm an architect. I play Jinga and pickup sticks. I'm sure you are all so very impressed with my architectural prowess.

Michael said:

Jeff,

Do you include inner mental processes as part of reality? And do you think it is irrational to contemplate them in art?

Michael

Inner processes are part of reality. Expression of them, however, is so subjective in what a person sees that you can hardly say that an abstract painting that serves no purpose other than to provoke feelings about inner processes in people with no perceivable form does not in any way represent them in reality. There is a difference between provoking mental processes and expressing them.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Danneskjold]

Minutes after my last post, my father and I got in a discussion about the definition of art. I asked him to name one thing that has a subjective definition, or a definition that varies from person to person. He said, "fun". Now, this took me a second because people all have different ideas of what fun is. Then I realized that I was asking the wrong question. The question is what fun is, not what is fun. The difference is subtle. When you are defining what fun is, you are defining the feeling/state of mine that is represented by the word "fun". When you are asking "What is fun?" you are asking for a subjective opinion on what inspires that feeling/state of mind in you or the quality of fun whether that be zero quality (no fun) or high quality.

This can be applied to art in that we are not trying to define standards by which we determine the quality of art. We are defining what art is. The definition of what something is can not be rooted in a subjective, because then it isn't real.

Happiness has a specific definition, as does sadness, as does every other emotion, feeling, or thing that exists in reality. It is the judgement of these ideas that is subjective.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Whoever said anything about "no perceivable form"?

Some of your brush strokes are so broad they are covering up important subjects and making you oversimplify to the point of error.

And yes, inner processes are part of reality. You are wrong about the expression of them being "so subjective." See Rand's comments on style for the traditional Objectivist viewpoint on this.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Victor and I (supposing I am interpreting Victor's statement right) believe that art must be grounded in reality. That is what I mean by no percievable form. If it is grounded in reality it has perceivable form, if it is not it doesn't.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

When you insinuate that all abstract art has no perceivable form, you err. Much of it does have a perceivable form and is "grounded in reality." To be frank, I much prefer the "selective recreation of reality" of several abstract artists to exact reality, such as magnifying the exact form of a dust particle, for instance.

But I know what you mean. The type of art you are talking about is referred to in Brazil as "academic art." Some is good (see Jonathan's work or Dragonfly's for excellent paintings), but much is sterile and imitative.

Incidentally, what do you think of this painting? It was Ayn Rand's favorite painting and several parts of it have no relationship to reality whatsoever.

Would you call that a great painting if you did not know it was Rand's favorite? Look inside yourself and be very exacting with yourself on this. If you saw that painting suddenly without knowing anything about it, what would you really think of it?

Without this kind of introspection, you run the risk of missing a huge amount of wonderful artistic experiences. The only one who will be poorer will be you, since the world (and free market) will still go on having them.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

That picture that was Rand's favorite is definitely art. When I say art must be based in reality I mean that it must have the shape of something that exists in reality. Much of abstract art still qualifies. I just ask that it is not paint splatter or wire bending that is referred to as art. I would go so far as to say that things that are exact depictions of something (a photograph of a baseball with no message) is not art. Everything has to have a foundation. Art's is reality. Reality, how ever, is only the foundation. But just like a foundation is not a building, reality is not art. A photograph that doesn't have any type of value judgement is not art either.

Victor's drawings are art. They are not exact depictions of reality, they are very loose. However, they still use reality as the foundation. Impressionism is art, it's an impression of reality.

[Jonathan]

When I say art must be based in reality I mean that it must have the shape of something that exists in reality.

And music has the shape (or sound) of which things that exist in reality?

J

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

There is a movement, which has been prevailing in academia for a long time which teaches that art is indefinable, inexplicable, and beyond evaluation. These ideas are preached like unquestioned dogma in our schools, museums, and in the press.*(1.1) Whether you buy the point of view I have expressed above or not, you should ask yourself whether this "Art is all good/Everything is art/Art is whatever anyone says it is" philosophy has ever been verified to you or whether it was just repeated over and over or put forth in an menacing manner where the implication was that if you didn't accept it you must be some “unenlightened philistine.”

This subjectivist philosophy [i’m calling an ace an ace] has damaged the art world tremendously. It has removed the teaching of actual skills from the educational system. It has dried up most markets for actual art [note here I didn’t say ‘good art’ I said actual art.] It has created a self-sustaining, self-congratulatory, anti-intellectual segment of society dedicated to the obliteration of art. These ideas stunt the development of young artists, poison public discourse on art, obscure an accurate history of the arts, and worse--keep excellent works of art off museum walls and tossed to the basement.*(1.2) Perhaps one of my paintings and Johhathan’s ‘Resolve’ will best next in line for the basement].

Today, finger painting and piles of trash—even excrement--are given press coverage and immense amounts of museum space---while radiant masterpieces are kept in the basement.*(1.3) This is the danger you encounter when philosophy has failed to provide a rational definition of ART, every thing is tossed into the pot—including a urinal and the kitchen sink. In short, the movement to eliminate art, to confuse the public and to re-write art history is very damaging.*(1.4)

Jeff, I encourage you to continue to openly challenging these bad ideas—that is the only way that we can trounce the demolition of the art world and start the rejuvenation of the arts. Of course this means variance, of course it means hurt feelings, of course it means facing up to error, and of course it will mean that careers based on those false ideas will be put at risk--but it is also the right thing to do and I am determined to fight for improvement. It's well worth the trouble to keep on rocking the boat. I intend to continue to rock even harder*(1.5)

-Victor

edit: Note here that I don’t think MSK or Jonathan are apart of some plans to tear down Western civilization, they are merely mistaken.

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

*(1) Plagiarized from Q&A on Art Renewal Center (ACR), "Q: Why is this even an issue? Why not just enjoy art without rocking the boat?" answered by Brian Yoder (dated April 4, 2004). The original passages read as follows:

(1.1)

There is a movement which has been dominant in academia for a long time which teaches that art is undefinable, inexplicable, and beyond evaluation as good and bad.

(1.2)

Whether you buy the point of view I have expressed above or not, you should ask yourself whether this "Art is undefinable"/"Art is all good"/"Everything is art"/"Art is whatever anyone says it is" philosophy has ever been proven to you or whether it was just repeated over and over or put forth in an intimidating manner where the implication was that if you didn't accept it you must be some unenlightened philistine.

This philosophy has damaged the art world tremendously. It has removed the teaching of actual skills from the educational system. It has dried up most markets for good art. It has created a self-sustaining, self-congratulatory, anti-intellectual segment of society dedicated to the eradication of good art and art in general. These ideas stunt the development of young artists, poison public discourse on art, obscure an accurate history of the arts, and keep excellent works of art off museum walls and in the basement.

(1.3)

Finger painting and oddball piles of trash (or worse) are given press coverage and vast amounts of museum space, while brilliant masterpieces are kept in the basement...

(1.4)

In short, the movement to eliminate art, to confuse the public, and to re-write history is horribly damaging.

(1.5)

Openly challenging these bad ideas is the only way that we can overcome the destruction of the art world and start the rebuilding. Of course this means conflict, of course it means hurt feelings, of course it means confronting error, and of course it will mean that careers based on those false ideas will be put at risk, but it is also the right thing to do and I am determined to fight for improvement even if it means some people will have their ideas challenged and even if it means some people will be mad at me. It's well worth the trouble to keep on rocking the boat, and I intend to continue to rock even harder.

OL extends its deepest apologies to Brian Yoder.

Edited July 28, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Much of abstract art still qualifies.

Jeff,

We definitely agree here. I used to be very severe about abstract art. Nowadays, I kick myself for having closed my mind to all of it--all those years convinced of dogma! What a waste of the precious hours of my life that could have been richer.

Just like all media, there is good abstract art and there is much junk. In academic painting, there there is good art and there is much junk. In caricatures, there is also much junk. Trashing a whole category without opening your understanding to the actual values being portrayed--trying to impose a purpose to which the form is not suited--is a huge mistake.

For example, I know several Objectivists who do not appreciate Victor's art at all. They judge his paintings by one or two standards only and shut themselves off from all other possibilities: (1) the same standard they use for academic art (thus to them, Victor's art is malevolent because it represents distorted figures that are not properly integrated as per reality and sometimes includes things like dismembered parts), or (2) caricature as an op-ed newspaper kind of humor only (which they confine to mocking, thus they think Victor's art is evil because it mocks great people--i.e., the possibility of greatness itself--by lampooning a good person). Nothing on earth makes them see the impishness and mischievousness that is actually a playful celebration of differences in people--sort of like a little girl trying to walk in her father's house-shoes, for a very simple example. Those who are open get a prank-like or jiggled kind of chuckle that is almost impossible to communicate to one who shuts himself off. There is also a personal style that is recognizable from other artists (which is not so easy to achieve--try to develop one sometime), so there is even a further satisfaction in knowing that a first-hand artist is displaying his work, not a second-hander.

The same principle holds for great abstract art (and some other forms not accepted by orthodox Objectivists).

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Forgive me for talking too specifically about visual arts. Personally, I do not like the coupling of music and paintings. Visual arts and phonetic arts are so completely different by nature that I would have a hard time justifying a defintion to encompass both of them. Maybe the problem with defining all the arts and what does or does not qualify is not the definitions in and of themselves, but that the subject is too broad to have a definition that is both broad and specific enough to express what is needed to be expressed.

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

You have an uncanny insight when analyzing my art. I believe you have even managed to uproot subconscious premises and make them fully conscious to me, the artist. You’re assessment of my art is entirely equitable. [Mind you, I still disagree with you about abstract “art”—which I will write more about.]

Victor

Edited January 3, 2007 by Victor Pross