Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Jules Troy]

Like the Russian Gas experiment Creepypasta story?

[anthony]

But sure. You found 'something special' which you want to put down truthfully, for your own sake. Something of value, related intimately to your view of life - i.e. your metaphysical value premises.

Tony, that is so perfect an example of your force-fitting what others say into your presumptions.

What I was describing is NOT an issue of "metaphysical value premises," just of something I found interesting and attractive, no cosmic statement about man in relation to the universe.

Ellen

Ellen: You went to trouble to quite lyrically describe a scene, one more than "attractive" or "interesting" obviously - now you'd back down on its impact on you.

"Were I a painter, I would have painted that scene.". #69

No, NOT a scene "more than 'attractive' or 'interesting' obviously," and, no, I haven't backed down on its "impact" (yuk, I hate the use of that word to mean "effect," but that's a different issue).

A scene "'attractive' or 'interesting.'" And nothing more.

Whatever makes you think that that emotion is not precisely what motivates every artist?

I think it's sometimes what motivates an artist - the desire to capture something the artist found attractive or interesting. I think that there are other desires which might motivate an artist. I think that the same artist might be differently motivated on different occasions with different works.

What makes you believe that it's "NOT an issue of metaphysical value premises"?

Well...how about, an ability to read, and a crediting of Ayn Rand with having meant what she said "metaphysical value-judgments" are?

She meant the answers to such questions as (see for Lexicon excerpts):

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 the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?

~~ "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art"

[...] whether the universe is knowable or not, whether man has the power of choice or not, whether he can achieve his goals in life or not.

~~ "Philosophy and Sense of Life"

I disagree.

Who's talking of an explicit ""statement"" about man and the universe"?

No, clearly at that moment, it was you and the universe, alone. The (presumed) awe and grandeur you experienced of a night sky was what drove your creative impulse. Whatever later viewers would make of your painting or prose WOULD be an experience of your view of life - life amidst a universe. I.e. your metaphysical value judgment. An artist seldom (I think) sets out to make "statements". If he's good and has integrity, however, his contemplated vision of universe/man is apparent.

(This is one more instance of the "implicit" (or, "universal", as you call it) behind the act of creation, which does not need to be spelled out on every occasion.)

You get over-hung up on the phrase "metaphysical value judgment", I feel.The only alternative I can guess, is that you believe the universe "touched" your 'unconscious' mind.

Of course, it would have touched you sub-consciously, by my, or the Objectivist reckoning - but anything else is mystical.

Would you look at the amount you are reading into my mind, and into the presumed minds of persons who might have seen the painting had I been a painter and painted it?

Of what use is my telling you, it really wasn't all that froth, just a beautiful sight, and nothing more? You know it was more.

And note that you are now deserting "metaphysical value-judgments," saying that I'm "over hung-up on the phrase," when the phrase is the key to Rand's aesthetics.

So, do you accept that the requirement for a work's classifying as art is that it express "metaphysical value-judgments" or don't you?

Ellen

"Would you look at the amount you are reading my mind..."

["Because it was so enchanting to me, because I wanted to capture it..."]#69,ES

Ellen, take some credit, willya, for that evocative piece you wrote?

"...it wasn't all that froth..." !

Ahh, come on.

It's there, on paper so to speak, you can't now distance yourself from it, or from what it represents to my, or a reader's mind. There was something magnificent you saw, important.

And who's reading your mind? I'm reading the words. I'll supply the imagery from them.

"...and gasped in pleasure at the beauty of what I saw."

Do you really believe that 'metaphysical value-judgments' have to be in ~direct~ congruence to man WITH the cosmos? So that every narrative has to contain a person, a character?! Or every painting must contain the figure of a man or woman?! That's a literal interpretation of the concept.

Here, the judgment is a *metaphysical* one, which of course might indicate nature alone, or man, or both.

But always, if by implication, man is there.

(In your piece, as the narrator, too.)

It could conceivably have been written by a superb descriptor like the late John Updike. For sure, a Naturalist and mostly a determinist, but he was a fine writer.

(I am not assessing yours to be Naturalist writing, btw, it has a flavour of Romanticist realism.)

You said, if you'd been an artist, you'd have painted it. Got news for you: you did.

So tell me again that no "metaphysical value-judgment" was involved, and I'll tell you: bull - to me -the reader- there clearly was. Does that answer your last question?

[BaalChatzaf]

Why do people argue matters of beauty and aesthetics. It is all a matter of taste. Totally subjective.

One man's Ugly is another Man's ravishing and Beautiful. And vica versa. There is no objective basis for judging beauty. It is subjective and emotional.

Saying something is beautiful is just another way of saying "I like it".

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Why do people argue matters of beauty and aesthetics. It is all a matter of taste. Totally subjective.

One man's Ugly is another Man's ravishing and Beautiful. And vica versa. There is no objective basis for judging beauty. It is subjective and emotional.

Saying something is beautiful is just another way of saying "I like it".

Above all else Rand wanted to have a moral voice and an Objectivist Esthetics, stated or implied, must also carry her moral authority. Combine that with powerful, intelligent polemical writing and you get what you got from her in that illogical existential area of Objectivism.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

saying something is beautiful is just another way of saying "I like it".

Above all else Rand wanted to have a moral voice and an Objectivist Esthetics, stated or implied, must also carry her moral authority. Combine that with powerful, intelligent polemical writing and you get what you got from her in that illogical existential area of Objectivism.

--Brant

You said the main word ---- illogical.

[anthony]

saying something is beautiful is just another way of saying "I like it".

Above all else Rand wanted to have a moral voice and an Objectivist Esthetics, stated or implied, must also carry her moral authority. Combine that with powerful, intelligent polemical writing and you get what you got from her in that illogical existential area of Objectivism.

--Brant

You said the main word ---- illogical.

"Un-empirical", yes. "Illogical", no. Tie the logical to the conceptual and you get the glorious.

[anthony]

I agree Michael, discussions such as this remind me very much of what I read in "the old days of SOLO" before that whole messy split ..thing.

PS: Tony I have an f2.8!! Plenty of aperture to catch the action!

400mm? 800? That's the trouble with a long telephoto. You miss the over-view.

Forest for the tree and all that.

Sometimes you have to switch to a wide, say 20mm?

;]

[Jules Troy]

I have a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS HSM sport.

105mm nikon Micro

Nikon 18-300mm

Lost my kit lens lol.

For wide angle I'm going to be getting the nikon 14-24mm(or is it 12-24mm) can't remember exept it's like 1800 bucksss

[Ellen Stuttle]

Why do people argue matters of beauty and aesthetics. It is all a matter of taste. Totally subjective.

One man's Ugly is another Man's ravishing and Beautiful. And vica versa. There is no objective basis for judging beauty. It is subjective and emotional.

Saying something is beautiful is just another way of saying "I like it".

Ba'al Chatzaf

For one thing, dummkopf, we're talking about much more than "beauty." (Try reading the posts.)

And, no, saying that something is beautiful isn't just another way of saying "I like it." There are many things one might like without thinking of them as beautiful. And it is possible to think something is "beautiful" but not actually appealing to one's personal taste.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, Tony, I gather you liked my description in post #69 of the moon scene I'd have liked to capture in a painting.

I'll return to your remarks on a later occasion.

Before I proceed further, I want to contrast something you said with an earlier post of yours.

I'm having serious trouble trying to figure out on what basis you see "metaphysical value-judgments" in a work (or imagined work).

You say regarding my moon scene:

Do you really believe that 'metaphysical value-judgments' have to be in ~direct~ congruence to man WITH the cosmos? So that every narrative has to contain a person, a character?! Or every painting must contain the figure of a man or woman?! That's a literal interpretation of the concept.

Here, the judgment is a *metaphysical* one, which of course might indicate nature alone, or man, or both.

Yet, earlier, in the discussion on Jules' photography thread, when Jonathan presented you with a painting of an autumn leaf, asking you to identify whether or not it is art, you replied:

[...] it doesn't meet any criterion of representing the artist's metaphysical value-judgments, if that's what you mean. As a good illustration I'd hang it on my wall.

Here's the painting again.

Why do you say that the leaf painting doesn't but my moon-scene does represent metaphysical value-judgments?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Why do people argue matters of beauty and aesthetics.

My motivation for arguing about matters of beauty and aesthetics is that I want to find out which individual Objectivist is the one person whose aesthetic tastes, interpretations and judgments of art the truly objective ones. Ayn Rand used to be Queen of Objectivity in matters of aesthetic taste, and no other Objectivist or lowly Student of Objectivism dared question her. Then she died, and the remaining lesser Objectivists began to step forward and declare themselves to be the new One Possessor of Truly Objective Objectivity in Esthetics With an "E" and Not an "AE." I wonder how they each expect to prove that they are right and that their Objectivist comrades are "in denial" and "just really wrong" and "making stuff up."

Which of the many competing centers of the universe is the true center now that Rand is gone? Is it the person who is the shrillest in announcing how insulted he is that anyone would doubt or question him and that he'll very soon be flouncing from a discussion, or, as the case may be, banning those who are viciously personally attacking him by not conceding that he is standard and limit of aesthetic response? That seems to be the method that they all choose to try to prove how aesthetically objective they are.

Is it Tony? Is it Newberry? They both add quite a bit of crying to their victimhood, which is impressive! How about Roger Bissell? He's got his wife on his side vouching for the fact that he's the total limit of aesthetic sensitivity! Or maybe it's Stephen Hicks or Dr. Mrs. Dr. Comrade Sonia, PhD, because they're doctors of philosophy! Or maybe it's Pigero, since his selling point is that his consumer tastes are going to save the world!

Who is it? Who is the ONE? I need to know, and I MUST know HOW these centers of the universe would advise me, each other, or anyone else, on what method to use to objectively prove which of them is the real deal.

J

[Brant Gaede]

The "real deal" owns the Ayn Rand copyrights. If you want to eat you gotta dance--the dance dance.

Sorry. I thought you knew this.

--Brant

coulda saved a lot of time

follow the copyrights; follow the money; follow the movement: there's objective art* in them thar hills

*"Objective art" "is a hole in the ground with a liar on top."

[anthony]

Well, Tony, I gather you liked my description in post #69 of the moon scene I'd have liked to capture in a painting.

I'll return to your remarks on a later occasion.

Before I proceed further, I want to contrast something you said with an earlier post of yours.

I'm having serious trouble trying to figure out on what basis you see "metaphysical value-judgments" in a work (or imagined work).

You say regarding my moon scene:

Do you really believe that 'metaphysical value-judgments' have to be in ~direct~ congruence to man WITH the cosmos? So that every narrative has to contain a person, a character?! Or every painting must contain the figure of a man or woman?! That's a literal interpretation of the concept.

Here, the judgment is a *metaphysical* one, which of course might indicate nature alone, or man, or both.

Yet, earlier, in the discussion on Jules' photography thread, when Jonathan presented you with a painting of an autumn leaf, asking you to identify whether or not it is art, you replied:

[...] it doesn't meet any criterion of representing the artist's metaphysical value-judgments, if that's what you mean. As a good illustration I'd hang it on my wall.

Why do you say that the leaf painting doesn't but my moon-scene does represent metaphysical value-judgments?

Ellen

Ellen: There have to be in existence - millions - of paintings which contain no human presence.

Landscapes and still-lifes, yeah? Even the simplest still-life has many elements: background, foreground, the perception of perspective, shapes, contrasting and complementary colours, light and shade, the relationships between all of them...

But you have to bring back the leaf, the simplest reduction of a still life, possible.

(And why not? heh, it keeps the pot stirred.)

Is the leaf an illustration? It is a selective re-creation of reality, but what else? It is stylized. If there is 'importance', what is the importance? What does it represent and symbolize, Nature in its entirety? What does it convey about Nature then? Or is it just objet trouve?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

You know how it is when debaters have to resort to the most extreme, ad reductio, example to make their point, one senses that they've not 'proved' anything, and given up the point? This is how I feel about this example in respect of my earlier quote about mv-j's.

Nevertheless, since it is not important enough to argue over, and such a border line case, I'll concede it might just contain metaphysical value-judgments - if only you could identify them.

[anthony]

So we have J criticising metaphysical value-judgments, endlessly, when this concept is only a part of the broad theory.

WTF? I have not criticized metaphysical value-judgments, let alone endlessly. Jesus! Tony, seriously, how in the everlivingfuck did you manage to misinterpret my words so badly as to conclude that I was "criticizing metaphysical value-judgments"?

I was criticizing Objectivists' unproven claims that they unerringly identify artists' metaphysical value-judgments! I was criticizing their illogical assumption of their own aesthetic competence, and their claimed ability to know others's metaphysical value-judgments.

J

Is what you are stating that you fully endorse the *theory* of metaphysical value-judgments --

but, only criticize the *application*? By Objectivists, over-eager, inexperienced or otherwise.

Yes, that is a surprise. It got lost in the cracks somewhere. But I find your noise to signal ratio muddling, so I don't follow too close.

[anthony]

It looks like there's a false 'universal-objective equivalence' being voiced here.

They are not the same, I believe.

There is no value without a valuer, the individual; whereas underlying a lot in this thread is the assumption of the intrinsic value of "Art" - or of one artist, or of one picture. Which is where 'The Final Authority' - or unnecessary discord on what is 'objective' and therefore 'common to all'- sneaks in, unquestioned.

Albeit, when one comes down to the level of an individual and his values, there are essentially no 'subjective values'. Conversely, "universalism" dictates that every moral person should and would admire the same painting, (or the same girl, for that matter). I hardly think this is Objective or real.

All one's values are objective values (given a person as consistently rational as possible). But within a wide range, they will differ in their specifics, from one individual to the next. Especially, in art.

And because man's conceptual knowledge is imperfect but constantly increasing, his value in and evaluation of art will likely follow suit.

[Jules Troy]

http://digitalblasphemy.com/preview.shtml?i=fluorescence

This guy and this image back from 1999 first got me interested in digital art.

[Jonathan]

So we have J criticising metaphysical value-judgments, endlessly, when this concept is only a part of the broad theory.

WTF? I have not criticized metaphysical value-judgments, let alone endlessly. Jesus! Tony, seriously, how in the everlivingfuck did you manage to misinterpret my words so badly as to conclude that I was "criticizing metaphysical value-judgments"?

I was criticizing Objectivists' unproven claims that they unerringly identify artists' metaphysical value-judgments! I was criticizing their illogical assumption of their own aesthetic competence, and their claimed ability to know others's metaphysical value-judgments.

J

Is what you are stating that you fully endorse the *theory* of metaphysical value-judgments --

but, only criticize the *application*? By Objectivists, over-eager, inexperienced or otherwise.

Yes, that is a surprise. It got lost in the cracks somewhere. But I find your noise to signal ratio muddling, so I don't follow too close.

I accept the notion of "metaphysical value-judgments" as a legitimate concept, and one that has quite a lot of value to me and to others, but not necessarily to everyone. I accept the notion that art may be created according to metaphysical value-judgments, but not that it must. I accept that viewers may consider what metaphysical value-judgments they think an artwork may express or invoke in them, but not that they must, nor that the artwork must.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

For one thing, dummkopf, we're talking about much more than "beauty." (Try reading the posts.)

Dummkopf here has a 140 i.q. and can prove the equivalence the Tychonoff Compactification theorem and the Axiom of Choice (can you). No, I am not dummkopf. I am Mr. Literal Minded and I live mostly in the world of observable or demonstrable fact.

Aestheics, so far as I know, do NOT follow from physical laws. That means aesthetics is made up of whole cloth, attitude and opinion. So my opinion in matter of art and beauty is as good or bad as anyone else's since it is not based on verifiable fact or strict formal logic.

I assume you know what Hume said about books on metaphysics. I would say the same thing about books on aesthetics too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

For one thing, dummkopf, we're talking about much more than "beauty." (Try reading the posts.)

Dummkopf here has a 140 i.q. and can prove the equivalence the Tychonoff Compactification theorem and the Axiom of Choice (can you). No, I am not dummkopf. I am Mr. Literal Minded and I live mostly in the world of observable or demonstrable fact.

Aestheics, so far as I know, do NOT follow from physical laws. That means aesthetics is made up of whole cloth, attitude and opinion. So my opinion in matter of art and beauty is as good or bad as anyone else's since it is not based on verifiable fact or strict formal logic.

I assume you know what Hume said about books on metaphysics. I would say the same thing about books on aesthetics too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

She was kidding you a little. We're all dummkopfs here and there. I once knew an absolutely brilliant surgeon--a surgeon's surgeon--who didn't/couldn't diagnose an illness out of a wet paper bag, but boy! could he cut and sew!

--Brant

[PDS]

For one thing, dummkopf, we're talking about much more than "beauty." (Try reading the posts.)

Dummkopf here has a 140 i.q. and can prove the equivalence the Tychonoff Compactification theorem and the Axiom of Choice (can you). No, I am not dummkopf. I am Mr. Literal Minded and I live mostly in the world of observable or demonstrable fact.

Aestheics, so far as I know, do NOT follow from physical laws. That means aesthetics is made up of whole cloth, attitude and opinion. So my opinion in matter of art and beauty is as good or bad as anyone else's since it is not based on verifiable fact or strict formal logic.

I assume you know what Hume said about books on metaphysics. I would say the same thing about books on aesthetics too.

Ba'al Chatzaf

140? That's only 1 in 161.

I would have guessed higher. Seriously.

[Jules Troy]

He is just being modest!

[anthony]

So we have J criticising metaphysical value-judgments, endlessly, when this concept is only a part of the broad theory.

WTF? I have not criticized metaphysical value-judgments, let alone endlessly. Jesus! Tony, seriously, how in the everlivingfuck did you manage to misinterpret my words so badly as to conclude that I was "criticizing metaphysical value-judgments"?

I was criticizing Objectivists' unproven claims that they unerringly identify artists' metaphysical value-judgments! I was criticizing their illogical assumption of their own aesthetic competence, and their claimed ability to know others's metaphysical value-judgments.

J

Is what you are stating that you fully endorse the *theory* of metaphysical value-judgments --

but, only criticize the *application*? By Objectivists, over-eager, inexperienced or otherwise.

Yes, that is a surprise. It got lost in the cracks somewhere. But I find your noise to signal ratio muddling, so I don't follow too close.

I accept the notion of "metaphysical value-judgments" as a legitimate concept, and one that has quite a lot of value to me and to others, but not necessarily to everyone. I accept the notion that art may be created according to metaphysical value-judgments, but not that it must. I accept that viewers may consider what metaphysical value-judgments they think an artwork may express or invoke in them, but not that they must, nor that the artwork must.

J

No "must" about it, of course. The artist owes nothing to anyone except his honesty, in his very selfish struggle to distil a small piece of truth into physical form. Not that it's always that explicit a purpose, and not that it should be didactic. Like a philosopher though, he's pretty much out on the edge of inductive query, either reflecting existence or pointing to a better way of existence. If someone comes along and recognises what's there in the art work by implication and deduction, and holds it as "good", as an abstraction which he can integrate and recollect--all the better. Everybody gains.

[Brant Gaede]

He is just being modest!

More IQ than I've got.

--Brant

and less brains

[Jonathan]

No "must" about it, of course. The artist owes nothing to anyone except his honesty, in his very selfish struggle to distil a small piece of truth into physical form. Not that it's always that explicit a purpose, and not that it should be didactic. Like a philosopher though, he's pretty much out on the edge of inductive query, either reflecting existence or pointing to a better way of existence. If someone comes along and recognises what's there in the art work by implication and deduction, and holds it as "good", as an abstraction which he can integrate and recollect--all the better. Everybody gains.

I wasn't referring to what "the artist owes to anyone," but to what art must contain in order to qualify as art. My point being that I think that Rand was brilliant in identifying what she believed that she brought to her own personal process of creating art, but that her personal process is not the limit of art, nor is it a requirement. Things can qualify as art despite their not necessarily containing what Rand felt was essential to her literature, and despite their not being created according the process which she preferred. Rand knew nothing about the non-literary art forms, and she appears to have made no effort to critically examine how her personal theory of literature might not apply to the other arts or to other artists.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

140? That's only 1 in 161.

I would have guessed higher. Seriously.

I breathed in the fumes of tetra ethyl lead gasoline for the better part of my youth. I could have been smarter but leaded gasoline did me dirt. You are fortunate. You live in the era of unleaded gasoline.

Ba'al Chatzaf