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

[Jonathan]

Then there's also this old post in which I created a splatter painting which conforms to Rand's (and Kamhi's) definition and criteria of art:

Here's a photo of a paint splatter that I noticed this morning on the marble sheet that I use as a palette:

Here's a little painting that I created based on the splatter:



Notice that I eliminated the textural imperfections and idealized the shapes. Since it is a painting of a splatter, and a splatter is just as much a thing from reality as a person, apple or flower, the painting is representational, realistic and objective, and should therefore qualify as art by Victor's and Rand's definitions.
-----

And I defended it in this post:

Paint is a product created by man. He invented it to protect and beautify his world. As a still life, a painting of a splatter of paint implies that man is active and using paint to improve the value of the objects which provide for or give meaning to his existence. It's a heroic symbol of productivity.

What subject matter would you prefer that I paint instead, the "ideal apple" that Rand described -- an entity whose existence and beauty are accidents of nature? Is that what you're saying, Victor, that you think man is a plaything of fate and that you resent the idea that I used my skills to present the opposite view?

-----

J

[Brant Gaede]

Freedom in art means leaving artists--whomever they be or think they be--alone to do their artistic things. If you don't like the result don't buy it. I suppose you can think your way into liking a work of art but isn't liking or not liking it generally a spontaneous thing? Well, let the artist be spontaneous if he wants to be, a la an act of creation. This is cultural freedom. Contrarily, we are not talking about initiation of force fascism but de facto cultural fascism by would be authority figures, especially, for us, Ayn Rand through her continual rationalizations about what art is and implication of what it should be, and if you don't agree that's more on you than her. The problem with Rand and art is the same problem of Rand and philosophy generally: top-downerism. This peaked with Galt's speech and continued with more emphasis with Objectivism and NBI. While that blew up, ARI lifeboated away the I-don't-wanna-be-a-critical-thinker-individuals-so-let's-pretend-God-is-Ayn-Rand-as-a-woman-up-in-the-sky-looking-down-on-us-the-saved-by-her-philosophy-and-other-non-fiction-works-such-as-OPAR-and-the-rejection-of-the-arbitrary-assertion-and--look-up! (damn!)--it's Leonard Peikoff too!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Then there's also this old post in which I created a splatter painting which conforms to Rand's (and Kamhi's) definition and criteria of art:

Here's a photo of a paint splatter that I noticed this morning on the marble sheet that I use as a palette:

Here's a little painting that I created based on the splatter:

Notice that I eliminated the textural imperfections and idealized the shapes. Since it is a painting of a splatter, and a splatter is just as much a thing from reality as a person, apple or flower, the painting is representational, realistic and objective, and should therefore qualify as art by Victor's and Rand's definitions.

-----

And I defended it in this post:

Paint is a product created by man. He invented it to protect and beautify his world. As a still life, a painting of a splatter of paint implies that man is active and using paint to improve the value of the objects which provide for or give meaning to his existence. It's a heroic symbol of productivity.

What subject matter would you prefer that I paint instead, the "ideal apple" that Rand described -- an entity whose existence and beauty are accidents of nature? Is that what you're saying, Victor, that you think man is a plaything of fate and that you resent the idea that I used my skills to present the opposite view?

-----

J

Never mind the palaver. My opening bid is one million dollars!

--Brant

and my choice!

[Jonathan]

Freedom in art means leaving artists--whomever they be or think they be--alone to do their artistic things. If you don't like the result don't buy it. I suppose you can think your way into liking a work of art but isn't liking or not liking it generally a spontaneous thing? Well, let the artist be spontaneous if he wants to be, a la an act of creation. This is cultural freedom. Contrarily, we are not talking about initiation of force fascism but de facto cultural fascism by would be authority figures, especially, for us, Ayn Rand through her continual rationalizations about what art is and implication of what it should be, and if you don't agree that's more on you than her. The problem with Rand and art is the same problem of Rand and philosophy generally: top-downerism. This peaked with Galt's speech and continued with more emphasis with Objectivism and NBI. While that blew up, ARI lifeboated away the I-don't-wanna-be-a-critical-thinker-individuals-so-let's-pretend-God-is-Ayn-Rand-as-a-woman-up-in-the-sky-looking-down-on-us-the-saved-by-her-philosophy-and-other-non-fiction-works-such-as-OPAR-and-the-rejection-of-the-arbitrary-assertion-and--look-up! (damn!)--it's Leonard Peikoff too!

--Brant

The sad thing is that The Fountainhead was the opposite point of view. It was about artistic independence and rebellion, not following the aesthetic rules. It was Rand accepting and promoting an abstract visual art form.

J

[Jonathan]

As a leftist, you were trained to worship random drivel as "art".

Greg

Art historians shall now have to start thinking of the Soviet Union and other communist dictatorships as non-left-wing. For the dominant style of those regimes was realism.

I was speaking of leftists and their perversion for contemporary abstract art. That is neither abstract nor contemporary. But nevertheless, it's nice try at wallowing in the dead past you're in love with, Frank

Greg

WTF?

??????

Greg, do you think that Pollock is contemporary?!!!

?????

[anthony]

The fact that that is the limit of your experience doesn't make it true of everyone.

No percept, no concept. Man seeks out reality and his reality in all things (it is his nature) and therefore looks for what he can 'relate' to in a painting, which means any sign of life, or of nature or existence.

I've given examples many times in the past of my perceiving the content of abstract paintings, and objectively describing their attributes and the reasons for their effects on me and others, and the resulting concepts and meanings. Here's one set of comparison examples:

The first gives me the feeling of energy, determination and action. It's meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions. The specific angularity and proportions of the shapes is what conveys motion and rising to me, the dramatic contrasts and bold colors suggest passion, heat, pressure and struggle, and the bulk of the forms and the roughness of the textures give me the feeling of strength and rugged durability. I see it as a very physically masculine painting. It's extroverted, dominant, serious and aggressive. It's like Atlas pushing upward.

The second image gives me the feeling of serenity. It's meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities. The colors are subdued and calming. There is practically no drama or contrast -- the forms are delicate and faint, and they convey a soothing gentleness, playfulness and weightlessness. The image is like a visual whisper. I see it as a very physically feminine painting. It's withdrawn and introverted, and anything but aggressive. It's like a mother caressing a child.

J

"...doesn't make it true of everyone." cuts both ways. What you feel doesn't make it true either.

It's well known - the human response to colors - so I won't be surprised that someone should feel energy, (etc) for reds, plus the angular lines -- or calm (etc) for pleasant blues, plus the soft curves. Interior decorators know this, photographers and painters, too.

You are reasoning backwards here. I.e. the colors in the paintings evoke emotions, the emotions suggest (rationalized) Randian ideals (to you), therefore... the paintings must be art.

It is still being argued "what is art?"--a long way before we get onto metaphysical value-judgements, and what is Naturalist and Romantic Realist.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I was speaking of leftists and their perversion for contemporary abstract art. That is neither abstract nor contemporary.

The picture (by Alexander Gerasimov, winner of the Stalin Prize in 1941), is neither contemporary nor abstract. Thus either the Soviet Union was not leftist or leftists do not always have a "perversion for contemporary abstract art."

But nevertheless, it's nice try at wallowing in the dead past you're in love with, Frank

Ever notice that this site is dedicated to a woman who was born in 1905 and died 32 years ago? And that many of the contributors spend a great deal of time here poring over the past writings of this dead woman? What's up with all that wallowing in the dead past on a site that you spend so much of your entertainment time on?

Here's the deal. I'll stop stop referring to the works of dead Russian painters of the last century if you'll stop referring to the holy scriptures of men who lived in the dead past of two millennia ago.

[Jonathan]

Who Says That's Art?

Such representations are not necessarily realistic in style, but they are intelligible and emotionally meaningful within their cultural context. They embody, in recognizable forms, ideas and values that are not only of personal significance important to the individual who created them but also have the potential to interest and move others.

Specifically what ideas and values does each of the images in the left column represent?

Anyone? Please specifically identify the artists' metaphysical value-judgments. Identify the "artists' meanings." In the past when I've posted these to Objectivish fora, no one has been able to do so. So, so far, they don't qualify as art.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Deal, Frank? I don't have no deal. I don't have to do no stinkin' deals!

--Brant

[Jonathan]

"...doesn't make it true of everyone." cuts both ways. What you feel doesn't make it true either.

You're right that it does cut both ways, which is why I don't assert that you don't feel what you claim to feel. If I don't feel what you do, I don't stupidly, arbitrarily and defensively claim that you're only pretending to feel it.

It's well known - the human response to colors - so I won't be surprised that someone should feel energy, (etc) for reds, plus the angular lines -- or calm (etc) for pleasant blues, plus the soft curves. Interior decorators know this, photographers and painters, too.

You are reasoning backwards here. I.e. the colors in the paintings evoke emotions, the emotions suggest (rationalized) Randian ideals (to you), therefore... the paintings must be art.

Why are you calling my descriptions of the abstract paintings "Randian ideals"? The second was anything but a Randian ideal.

But anyway, I suspected that there would be a double standard: When the emotions that Rand felt when listening to the abstract forms of music suggested "Randian ideals" (or anything else) to her, that was considered a valid method of understanding the art form, but when I do exactly the same thing with the abstract forms of visual art, I'm "rationalizing!" Heh.

So, your position appears to be that it is "well known" that abstract colors and forms have specific effects on people, but that I am somehow nevertheless "rationalizing" in identifying the specific effects of calm colors and soft curves as being gentle and feminine, and in identifying rugged, energetic colors and forms as being masculine and aggressive?!!! You appear to be saying that practically everyone will feel the softness and calm or the ruggedness and energy in the color-forms, but that it is a "rationalization" to come to any meaning about the feelings of soft-calm or rugged-energy?!!!

J

[moralist]

Ever notice that this site is dedicated to a woman who was born in 1905 and died 32 years ago?

My comments were in regard to the leftist fetish for abstract "art" as it is right now in the present... not the past. So you may now return to where you like to live.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Ever notice that this site is dedicated to a woman who was born in 1905 and died 32 years ago?

My comments were in regard to the leftist fetish for abstract "art" as it is right now in the present... not the past. So you may now return to where you like to live.

Greg

The contemporary left doesn't have a fetish for abstract art, but for postmodernist art.

J

[moralist]

Greg, do you think that Pollock is contemporary? ( histrionics removed)

Yes... relatively so when compared to, say, the 1600's.

Greg

[moralist]

The contemporary left doesn't have a fetish for abstract art, but for postmodernist art.

Ok. That descriptor is fine with me.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Greg, do you think that Pollock is contemporary? ( histrionics removed)

Yes... relatively so when compared to, say, the 1600's.

Greg

So, Pollock is contemporary, but Socialist Realism is not, even though they occurred at the same time?

J

[Jonathan]

The contemporary left doesn't have a fetish for abstract art, but for postmodernist art.

Ok. That descriptor is fine with me.

Greg

It's more than a "descriptor." Do you realize that abstract art and postmodernist art are not the same thing? Pollock is not postmodernist.

J

[moralist]

The contemporary left doesn't have a fetish for abstract art, but for postmodernist art.

Ok. That descriptor is fine with me.

Greg

It's more than a "descriptor." Do you realize that abstract art and postmodernist art are not the same thing? Pollock is not postmodernist.

J

(shrug...) That's fine, Jonathan. I don't care. Use any word you want. Stuff like isn't important to me like it is to you. It's still a leftist fetish regardless.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Not knowing anything about post modern art I wikied in and after a few glimpses I wikied out. Nothing there for me. I'm only interested in individual works of art, not art part of a movement and especially not of this one. Strikes me as art for suckers or Peter Keatings.

--Brant

now, abstract art . . .

[moralist]

Yeah, there's something weak spineless and dependent about collectivist art.

Greg

[anthony]

"...doesn't make it true of everyone." cuts both ways. What you feel doesn't make it true either.

You're right that it does cut both ways, which is why I don't assert that you don't feel what you claim to feel. If I don't feel what you do, I don't stupidly, arbitrarily and defensively claim that you're only pretending to feel it.

It's well known - the human response to colors - so I won't be surprised that someone should feel energy, (etc) for reds, plus the angular lines -- or calm (etc) for pleasant blues, plus the soft curves. Interior decorators know this, photographers and painters, too.

You are reasoning backwards here. I.e. the colors in the paintings evoke emotions, the emotions suggest (rationalized) Randian ideals (to you), therefore... the paintings must be art.

Why are you calling my descriptions of the abstract paintings "Randian ideals"? The second was anything but a Randian ideal.

But anyway, I suspected that there would be a double standard: When the emotions that Rand felt when listening to the abstract forms of music suggested "Randian ideals" (or anything else) to her, that was considered a valid method of understanding the art form, but when I do exactly the same thing with the abstract forms of visual art, I'm "rationalizing!" Heh.

So, your position appears to be that it is "well known" that abstract colors and forms have specific effects on people, but that I am somehow nevertheless "rationalizing" in identifying the specific effects of calm colors and soft curves as being gentle and feminine, and in identifying rugged, energetic colors and forms as being masculine and aggressive?!!! You appear to be saying that practically everyone will feel the softness and calm or the ruggedness and energy in the color-forms, but that it is a "rationalization" to come to any meaning about the feelings of soft-calm or rugged-energy?!!!

J

No, you are person-alizing (or is that 'anthropomorphizing') colors through their subconscious effect on emotions, and from your emotions into possessing human qualities.

Thereby trying to fulfill the requirement of realist or representational art, of containing intelligible referents to life or existence.

One's emotions are no criteria. (Music is a special area, which Rand could only ultimately explain emotionally and "subjectively", but can't be transferred to other art forms).

One's subjective, subconscious and emotional response to color and shape unrelated to reality (except a subjective one, imagined in one person's mind), falls far short of 'proving' and justifying 'abstract art' to be art.

I think the 'secret' of these other pictures you recently showed, is that man naturally looks for reality in all things, and tries to find it -even- where it doesn't exist.

Imagining random shapes of clouds to be various 'things', is an example.

I relate the syndrome to focusing an image on the ground-glass screen of a camera - then gradually de-focusing the lens. At various points of defocus the image moves from still clearly recognizable (say, of a field of flowers) - to less indentifiable but attractive blurs of colors - through less recognizable color-shapes - to eventually nothing at all, just over all, confused blur. A photo taken of that interim stage ('Impressionist', maybe) may still have many viewers correctly identifying the subject - this is what I think some abstractionists seem to want to do, to stay on the barely recognizable edge without falling over it.

So to my mind there is a spectrum of intelligible art with 'neo-abstract impressionist' art at one extreme point- pictures which could still be identified as something 'real'. But then distinctly apart, there's the larger field of abstract art which is impossible to identify, except for subjective guesses. Then your guess is no better than mine of what it is supposed to represent.

You might admit, despite your selected images, most abstract art is nowhere on the 'spectrum' at all.

[Jonathan]

One's emotions are no criteria. (Music is a special area, which Rand could only ultimately explain emotionally and "subjectively", but can't be transferred to other art forms).

Music is not a special area just because you've arbitrarily declared it to be. Music's method can be transferred to other art forms, and I demonstrated how very objectively. In fact, the method of interpreting visual art that I described is much more objectively demonstrable than anyone's attempting to objectively explain the effects and meanings of music.

But I do think it's funny that you want to try to compartmentalize human cognition so as to continue to adhere to Rand's rules of art. You say that the emotional effects of color are "well known," just as those of music are, but you believe that emotions can be legitimately translated into meaning when it comes from aural abstract art, but it is absolutely unimaginable and ridiculous to believe that emotions can be translated into meaning when the source Is visual abstract art. That's just silly.

One's subjective, subconscious and emotional response to color and shape unrelated to reality (except a subjective one, imagined in one person's mind), falls far short of 'proving' and justifying 'abstract art' to be art.

Why are you calling the responses "subjective" now? You had just stated in a previous post that the effects of color on humans are "well known," and you agreed that certain specific colors were calm where others were energetic, and that certain forms were soft where others were rugged. Your assertion that responses to color and shape are "unrelated to reality" is just plain stupid. The responses are very directly related to reality in that they are identifications of attributes of things in reality.

I think the 'secret' of these other pictures you recently showed, is that man naturally looks for reality in all things, and tries to find it -even- where it doesn't exist.

The attributes DO exist in the paintings exactly as I described. Bright saturated reds and oranges are the colors, in objective reality, of heat and energy. Desaturated blue is the color, in objective reality, of lack of heat and energy. Sharp angles and rugged textures, in objective reality, are sharp, hard and rugged. Curves and thin lines are, in objective reality, soft, gentle, and delicate.

Your position really just comes down to the refusal to see, and the refusal to know.

J

[Brant Gaede]

What is "desaturated blue"? You don't want to stick your finger into the blue flame--or any flame of course--of a welder's torch.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Third, that such imagery, while not necessarily realistic in style, is intelligible within its cultural context.

Postmodernist art is intelligible within its cultural context. The problem is that Kamhi doesn't like that cultural context, and therefore wishes to impose a different context onto it: the context of the "average person." It's really quite odd to see that mindset associated with Objectivism -- the mindset of attempting to invalidate the context of those who are most experienced and knowledgeable and to replace it with those who are the least experienced and the most ignorant.

J

[moralist]

Music is not a special area just because you've arbitrarily declared it to be.

Music is indeed a special mathematically harmonious vibrational language all its own.

One could even use it as evidence of God, because music exists outside the physical process of evolution... and yet exerts profound effects upon humanity.

Greg

[Jonathan]

What is "desaturated blue"? You don't want to stick your finger into the blue flame--or any flame of course--of a welder's torch.

--Brant

The blue of a welder's torch would be a very saturated blue.

J