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

[Brant Gaede]

Obama is "pathetically weak"?

Yes.

Absolutely.

...but he only ~appears~ to be strong to weak people.

In reality, he's the Islamic fascists' little poodle.

He and Kerry are the ultimate bend-over tag team

Greg

Now we're in the realm of shifting definitions and understandings. He's pretty much getting what he wants and it's hard to say he's "weak" in the context of that. It's his ideology that's weak except it's so sanctioned it gains strength off the sanction. Take that away and he falls flat on his face. He wouldn't even be President, no better than a Senator from a thoroughly corrupt state.

--Brant

[moralist]

Obama is "pathetically weak"?

Yes.

Absolutely.

...but he only ~appears~ to be strong to weak people.

In reality, he's the Islamic fascists' little poodle.

He and Kerry are the ultimate bend-over tag team

Greg

Now we're in the realm of shifting definitions and understandings.

The more I clarify my definitions, the more you'll understand that I have always been saying the same thing.

He's pretty much getting what he wants and it's hard to say he's "weak" in the context of that.

While that's generally true domestically because of his political support from the liberal majority, as well as the media, and the universities, and the public service unions.

I'm talking about the feminized weakness of Obama's (and Kerry's) foreign policy dealings with the Islamic fascists. He's getting played by the Iranians who are running circles around him and Kerry. They're getting a nuclear bomb because he's giving it to them.

Weak feminized liberal males are no match for evil people...

...and evil people KNOW it.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Ah. You don't think Obama is evil, just weak.

So, evil embraces him both from the rear (Chicago) and the front (Iran) and because he's weak he's useful. I think that explains it.

--Brant

he displaced Jimmy Carter in the weakness parade--I think he was elected not just because he's black (actually more white and Arab) but because he's so PC cool too

you and Ba'al have a lot in common: a circle of some excellence albeit unexpandable though you both try, sort of

[moralist]

Ah. You don't think Obama is evil, just weak.

Yes.

A relevant distinction to be aware of.

Hitler was evil. Neville Chamberain was weak.

Weak people enable evil people. For example: Obama and Kerry enable Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Realize, this is a government which recently stated publicly: "The destruction of Israel is non negotiable".

you and Ba'al have a lot in common:

While Bob and I have different subjective opinions on many topics, nevertheless there remains a basic underlying affinity.

Bob knows Hebrew, and although I don't know Hebrew, I appreciate Hebrew.

I've been reading a layman's book that barely scratches the surface of the logic that was built into the design of one of the most ancient languages on Earth.. The implications are far deeper than you could ever imagine.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

If you know this book--what book was that?--"barely scratches the surface of the logic [so on and so forth]" of Hebrew, why are you reading it considering what you already know?

--Brant

[moralist]

If you know this book--what book was that?--"barely scratches the surface of the logic [so on and so forth]" of Hebrew, why are you reading it considering what you already know?

--Brant

It's called "Buried Treasure" by Rabbi Daniel Lapin and his wife Susan Lapin. They're locals here. Hebrew is a tribute to God's wisdom and I read it just for enjoyment.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

If you know this book--what book was that?--"barely scratches the surface of the logic [so on and so forth]" of Hebrew, why are you reading it considering what you already know?

--Brant

It's called "Buried Treasure" by Rabbi Daniel Lapin and his wife Susan Lapin. They're locals here. Hebrew is a tribute to God's wisdom and I read it just for enjoyment.

Greg

But how do you know it's only superficial unless the authors said so--and how so? The implication is there is something much better to refer to.

--Brant

[moralist]

If you know this book--what book was that?--"barely scratches the surface of the logic [so on and so forth]" of Hebrew, why are you reading it considering what you already know?

--Brant

It's called "Buried Treasure" by Rabbi Daniel Lapin and his wife Susan Lapin. They're locals here. Hebrew is a tribute to God's wisdom and I read it just for enjoyment.

Greg

But how do you know it's only superficial unless the authors said so--and how so? The implication is there is something much better to refer to.

--Brant

There is... and it can be found in the objective reality of your own life.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I've just been thinking--about art. About crap.

By my lights almost anything can be art if it comes with an "artist" who says it's "art." Otherwise too much would be encompassed for any one definition. However, this makes "art" a weak concept. The world is filled with crap called "art." Call it crappy art only much of it is too bad to think of as art, only crap. Crap is a much stronger concept so even if it's art I'd only call it crap. The "art" in crap just disappears, unless one likes it. Why would one reach into a pile of crap to pull out the "art," much less jump into it?

--Brant

it's still subjective, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with subjective

[Selene]

--Brant

it's still subjective, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with subjective

An aspect that Ayn never acquiesced to and it damages her personal credibility.

She was a human and her deification by some is, insane.

A...

from an imperfect human

[Brant Gaede]

Well, there's not much excuse for it now for the ARI types come across as bleached out ARs that way. She had an extremely strong and charismatic personality, that great accent and brains--oh, yes, and she wrote that novel, as Leonard Peikoff kept saying. She got a lot of deserved respect but that also built a roadblock to properly understanding and dealing with her ideas that continued long after she died, but it got weaker and weaker over time. Trying to understand her is like trying to understand the Vietnam War. You need space and time and the piling up of facts and analyses that match up and the bigger context and contexts that come with all that--that is, the thinking about her and her ideas in a myriad of ways.

--Brant

[Selene]

Precisely, Brant.

I was fortunate to be involved very early on in the '60's when she was blossoming as a public figure, and I lived in NY City, the epicenter.

The window in my bedroom faced directly West and since we lived on the highest Westerly ridge of Long Island in Queens, the Empire State building was the tallest structure and dominated the sunset sky.

To come home from an NBI night, and stand reflectively at that window, and see that building where we had just heard the incredible voice of rational thought is unforgettable.

It was astounding to see those opening sessions of row after row of glowing alive faces that had actual hope that there was a place for them and an unlimited future.

It was worth every moment.

A...

[Newberry]

--Brant

it's still subjective, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with subjective

An aspect that Ayn never acquiesced to and it damages her personal credibility.

She was a human and her deification by some is, insane.

A...

from an imperfect human

Art is neither all subjective nor all objective. Somewhere else Brant said that there is no objectivity in art, which cuts him from learning what he might. I don't know if anyone here has taught it, but a teacher can be objective about some parameters. One college class I taught was the figure. The students learned and were graded on the figure from the bones out, as well as composition, form, and depth. All of which has nothing to do with whether to student was gifted or not. I delighted in talented students, its fun to see what they can do. But the grades were only on the stuff I could reasonably justify, not on their talent (for me talent is something innate and can't be taught - like a beautiful voice). And I had no complaints about the grades I gave. None of them ever said anything such as "it's only your opinion, it's all subjective." They did ask how they could improve their grade. It would be ridiculous to give grades on whether or not they had talent and not on grasping and executing their knowledge of anatomy, placement of the figure, etc.

I finished Kahmi's book and would give it 4 1/2 stars out of 5. Beautifully researched, and she shared a broad spectrum of knowledge of the contemporary art scene, great in-depth quotes from the intellectuals and artists, and very interesting connections between art and our physiology.

[Selene]

--Brant

it's still subjective, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with subjective

An aspect that Ayn never acquiesced to and it damages her personal credibility.

She was a human and her deification by some is, insane.

A...

from an imperfect human

Art is neither all subjective nor all objective.

Michael, is that a response to what I just posted?

A...

[Newberry]

Michael, is that a response to what I just posted?

A...

Not really, I was just addressing subjectivism vs objectivity in art. But about deification of humans, I am all for it from secular point of view - Michelangelo, Puccini, Rand, Roger Federer, maybe even George Smith (though his fields of interest are not personally interesting to me) - they gives us what godliness looks like in real life.

[Selene]

Michael, is that a response to what I just posted?

A...

Not really, ...But about deification of humans, I am all for it from secular point of view - Michelangelo, Puccini, Rand, Roger Federer, maybe even George Smith (though his fields of interest are not personally interesting to me) - they gives us what godliness looks like in real life.

Ah, deification.

So, can you be clear.

The "deification" of Ayn, by some, is something you support?

A...

[Jonathan]

Art is neither all subjective nor all objective.

Do you not understand what the words "objective" and "subjective" mean?

Objectivity is a type of judgement which is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Subjectivity is a type of judgment which is influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Therefore anything which is not "all objective" is subjective. Any judgment which includes any amount of personal feelings is subjective. Any single judgment is one or the other, objective or subjective.

Somewhere else Brant said that there is no objectivity in art, which cuts him from learning what he might.

Heh. You should stop posing and pretending to be a sage, and focus on what you might learn rather than worrying about what Brant might learn.

If Brant meant that subjectivity cannot be removed from art, then he was correct. All art includes the "influences of personal feelings and opinions," and therefore is not objective.

I don't know if anyone here has taught it, but a teacher can be objective about some parameters.

Yes, but being objective about "some parameters" doesn't equal being objective about art itself. Objectively judging a mere portion or component of the whole is nothing more than a judgment of that portion or component, and not of the whole. Judgments of works of art as wholes cannot being objective. It is an objective fact of reality that art, by its nature, is subjective -- it is necessarily "influenced by personal feelings or opinions."

J

[Jonathan]

Kamhi has a (relatively) new blog post in which she arbitrarily ignores her own very uptight and bossy rules about art by accepting mere illustrations that she likes as being legitimate art!

J

[Jonathan]

Michael, is that a response to what I just posted?

A...

Not really, ...But about deification of humans, I am all for it from secular point of view - Michelangelo, Puccini, Rand, Roger Federer, maybe even George Smith (though his fields of interest are not personally interesting to me) - they gives us what godliness looks like in real life.

Ah, deification.

So, can you be clear.

The "deification" of Ayn, by some, is something you support?

A...

He does indeed support the deification of Rand, and, just as importantly, the demonization of Kant.

J

[Selene]

Michael, is that a response to what I just posted?

A...

Not really, ...But about deification of humans, I am all for it from secular point of view - Michelangelo, Puccini, Rand, Roger Federer, maybe even George Smith (though his fields of interest are not personally interesting to me) - they gives us what godliness looks like in real life.

Ah, deification.

So, can you be clear.

The "deification" of Ayn, by some, is something you support?

A...

He does indeed support the deification of Rand, and, just as importantly, the demonization of Kant.

J

Now J...can we let him step into his own bear traps...

now I have to bait the damn thing...

[Newberry]

Michael, is that a response to what I just posted?

A...

Not really, ...But about deification of humans, I am all for it from secular point of view - Michelangelo, Puccini, Rand, Roger Federer, maybe even George Smith (though his fields of interest are not personally interesting to me) - they gives us what godliness looks like in real life.

Ah, deification.

So, can you be clear.

The "deification" of Ayn, by some, is something you support?

A...

He does indeed support the deification of Rand, and, just as importantly, the demonization of Kant.

J

Now J...can we let him step into his own bear traps...

now I have to bait the damn thing...

LOL.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Kamhi has a (relatively) new blog post in which she arbitrarily ignores her own very uptight and bossy rules about art by accepting mere illustrations that she likes as being legitimate art!

J

Where do you get the idea that Kamhi disallows all illustrations from "being legitimate art"?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Kamhi has a (relatively) new blog post in which she arbitrarily ignores her own very uptight and bossy rules about art by accepting mere illustrations that she likes as being legitimate art!

J

Where do you get the idea that Kamhi disallows all illustrations from "being legitimate art"?

Ellen

Where do you get the idea that I get the idea that Kamhi disallows all illustrations from being legitimate art?!!! Chase thine own electrons first!!!

The point is that Kamhi's view is that certain illustrations are not art because they do not meet her uptight and bossy definition and criteria, and that the illustrations by Barbara Wolff should be among those, at least by any rational, objective, and consistent standard.

Wolff creates decorations, embellishments and designs. Their function is to illustrate and "adorn" texts and to visually report or catalog various items mentioned in the text, just as illustrators of machine operation/installation manuals do (which Kamhi's uptight and bossy rules don't accept as legitimate art no matter how artfully and expressively they are executed). Wolff's illustrations are not intended to present a "re-creation" or fictional alternative to reality, but to depict/record/report examples from reality which reflect the content of the text.

In many of her illustrations, the gilded, embossed text itself is the primary image, with flowers and leaves serving only as secondary decorations to it, and in some cases, the images are completely abstract, containing only non-representational patterns/designs. Gasp!

Wolff's images do not present identifiable value-judgments, and many look more like a children's encyclopedia page on ornithology or ichthyology than anything intended to express the sort of deep and specific value-meaning that Kamhi requires in art.

Additionally, significant sections of Wolff's illustrations don't even count as "drawings" or "pictures" by Kamhi's criteria because they include a means of creating lines which enrages Kamhi: blind foil embossing! Just like folding a piece of paper to create a line, Wolff creates raised or indented lines using gesso covered with foil. That is not a proper or acceptable means of creating lines according to Kamhi's arbitrary criteria, and therefore any elements which were created using such methods must be disregarded, and there's not much left to Wolff's "art" after such disregarding. Gilded embossing is evil, and an attempt to destroy human cognition!!!

Also, by any objective standards, Wolff's work isn't praiseworthy compared to that of other artists. There are countless artists out there who are technically much better than Wolff. So, why does Kamhi praise her rather than them? Doesn't Kamhi claim to be all about "objectivity" in aesthetic judgment?

She praises Wolff because she subjectively likes her work, despite its not be great by any objective standards, just as she adores Gauguin despite his not being great by any objectively measurable standards, and just as Torres adores Capuletti despite his being rather mediocre and deficient by any objective standards.

Kamhi's definition and criteria for art are subjective and arbitrary, and she arbitrarily ignores them when they become inconvenient to her.

J

[Jonathan]

Michael, is that a response to what I just posted?

A...

Not really, ...But about deification of humans, I am all for it from secular point of view - Michelangelo, Puccini, Rand, Roger Federer, maybe even George Smith (though his fields of interest are not personally interesting to me) - they gives us what godliness looks like in real life.

Ah, deification.

So, can you be clear.

The "deification" of Ayn, by some, is something you support?

A...

He does indeed support the deification of Rand, and, just as importantly, the demonization of Kant.

J

Now J...can we let him step into his own bear traps...

now I have to bait the damn thing...

You didn't think that he already stepped in it?!!!

How mangled from stumbling and bumbling into multiple traps -- both those set by others and those of his own making -- does Newberry have to be to satisfy you?

J

[Jonathan]

Kamhi has a new blog post today, “Public Art” for Whom?

Excerpts and my commentary:

The recent installation of a newly commissioned work entitled Masks (Pentagon) by Thomas Houseago in New York's Rockefeller Plaza highlights the latest of a long list of bizarre projects spearheaded by the Public Art Fund.

Like numerous other projects organized by the Fund and supported by prominent public officials and business leaders in recent years, it promotes the "anything goes" agenda of the contemporary art world far more than it serves the public.

To me, it appears to present art which clearly and easily qualifies as art by Kamhi’s criteria. The Masks sculpture presents identifiable representations of things in reality, just as she requires. So, what’s the problem? Is the problem that she doesn’t want it to quality as art even though it does by her own criteria?!!! It’s somehow evil “anything goes” nastiness even though it meets her own criteria?!!!

Flouting the traditional view of art as something made with great skill and care, for example, the piece entailed such creative processes on Houseago's part as his incorporating the footprints left by his young daughter's dancing on damp clay and his "hurling lumps of clay down from a ladder." Not quite the techniques employed by the likes of Michelangelo or Donatello.

Including random effects and textures and such is not an act of “flouting” traditional means of art-making, but of employing them. The fact that an artist has included his daughter’s footprints and has hurled lumps of clay doesn’t in any way suggest that he hasn’t also used great skill and care. An artist can do both. They are not mutually exclusive. Traditionally, both painting and sculpture have often included such means of creating textures, including tossing, hurling, and flecking. In fact, it’s probably pretty rare to find traditional art which doesn’t include any such shortcuts. Kamhi should actually study the traditional processes of creating art rather than just making wrong assumptions about how it was made. Artists have not traditionally followed the uptight and bossy rules that she arbitrarily invents off the top of her head and falsely asserts to have been the “tradition."

The work also involves the interactive gimmickry of enabling visitors to view their surroundings through openings in the masks.

And? Is that bad? Are we supposed to know that we’re supposed to be upset about interactive art just because Kamhi is? What is so upsetting about it to her?

Are we also supposed to be upset about Rand’s interactive gimmickry?

Such spurious approaches to art-making are standard fare in today's art world, which embraces virtually anything—except traditional painting and sculpture, that is.

Why is Kamhi evoking “tradition”? Didn’t she used to claim to be “objective” rather than tradition-based? Is it because the work of art in question meets her “objective” criteria of representing identifiable likenesses of things in reality, but she nonetheless wants to disqualify it as art?

Since her standard of judgment now appears to be tradition, how has she determined that traditional artists did not use the methods that she is so upset about? Has she actually studied their methods, and can she prove that traditional artists never included random textures and effects in their works? Does she have any substance to back up her emotings?

J