The Art Instinct

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(The way I use the corner is an asset for this site; evidently, my corner has around a hundred regular readers.) He posted an ultimatum to the site owner, but I solved that by deleting it and the stretch of posts pertaining to the controversy. He was then not socially etched into his ultimatum, and before long he resumed posting elsewhere at the site. (More recently he has been absent, for reasons entirely unknown to me.)

Stephen,

1. I am very glad to hear that your corner is getting regular readers and you are happy with it. I have no problem at all with the way you run it. In fact, I am pleased you put your own personality on the way you wish it to be.

2. I was totally unaware of the ultimatum from Dragonfly, etc. This is the first I have heard of it. But I totally support you manner of running your corner your way.

3. Dragonfly is absent because he and George Smith tangled.

Although he is absent and I disagree with him on several issues, I consider him a friend, He's a good dude. Seriously.

There is a way of being contentiously phlegmatic in a dismissive manner that is peculiarly Dutch. (Sardonic is a word that comes to mind, but it's not quite right--it's way too harsh.) I say that because I knew several such people from The Netherlands when I was in Brazil. Dragonfly reminds me of them, especially when he talks about Ayn Rand. (Kat used to crack up when she would ask me why he did this or that, and I would respond, "Because he's Dutch." )

Underneath, the Dutch people I knew had hearts of gold. I believe Dragonfly does, too. You just gotta learn their way of being to see it.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Concerning the first point of Jonathan’s #98:

Peter Johnson (Dragonfly) had posted a large image of Goya’s Saturn in that thread of my corner, which I regarded as my living room. He had images of a couple of other famous paintings in the post as well. He had a sentence or two of text at the bottom of the post. I don’t recall what he said. Not a thousand words, let alone his few words, could stand tall for attention next to the immediate overwhelming revulsion that I and everyone I have personally known feels at the sight of the Saturn painting.

So I edited his post by replacing the images with links to them. Peter was outraged and used profanity. That too is out in my corner. (The way I use the corner is an asset for this site; evidently, my corner has around a hundred regular readers.) He posted an ultimatum to the site owner, but I solved that by deleting it and the stretch of posts pertaining to the controversy. He was then not socially etched into his ultimatum, and before long he resumed posting elsewhere at the site. (More recently he has been absent, for reasons entirely unknown to me.)

In the post of yours that got puffed away in that stretch, I recall you remarking that Goya was a great painter. Agreed. That has certainly been my impression since discovering him back in college.

No, there was no discussion in that stretch on how conflict can work into beauty (nor whether beauty is the only valid aim in art, etc.), as you said you did not want to enter into discussion of substance in a sector of the site in which I had (limited) editorial control. That is fine. The same discussions can proceed elsewhere at this site.

As I remember it, two posts of mine were deleted. The first was after DF had posted his images, but prior to the controversy of your editing or deleting them (or at least prior to my being aware of any editing or deleting). I had expressed agreement with DF, and I pointed out the distinction between the disturbing content and the form in any image. What I was getting at is that if a person could isolate the actions depicted in an image (and what they mean to him) from the forms, he might see that morally judging the actions had clouded his aesthetic judgments of the beauty of the forms.

I then began thinking of a way to illustrate my point by finding a way to keep the forms of an image, but to alter them enough in Photoshop so that the image no longer contained the disturbing content, perhaps by blurring and posterizing it, or by replacing shocking items with something benign like flowers or tree limbs, or maybe by doing something as simple as rotating an image 90 or 180 degrees (depending on the image).

I was also thinking of looking for examples that I've seen of Op Art which I would describe as being made up of absolutely hideous color combinations and patterns which clash to the point of causing a dizzying hypnotic effect, but which I experience as beautiful. They're as disharmonious as you can get, but they're quite beautiful.

Before I could do that, though, I saw that the thread had turned ugly. A while later, I checked in again and DF's posts were gone, and mine was as well. At that point I saw that you had asked me to elaborate on post #4 (which still remains on the thread), and I responded that I wouldn't be doing so in your corner if posters weren't free to disagree with you. You then deleted that post.

I can understand that you wouldn't want profanity or certain images in your corner. I don't understand, though, why all of DF's posts needed to be deleted, including those which didn't contain profanity, or why mine which contained agreement with him was deleted. Did I miss something? Did DF request his posts be deleted rather than meddled with? Was mine deleted because it contained quotes from DF which he wanted removed? If so, wouldn't it have more reasonable to remove his comments from my post and leave mine, or to ask me to do so? Your performing such drastic surgery on the thread really seemed out of character to me. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, I've generally seen you as being much more cool-headed and reasonable than that.

Concerning the third point of #98:

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H

Sorry about the disarray in that set of links. Maybe some day I’ll write a book about Rand’s philosophy and weave it all together.

Thank you for the links. You should indeed write a book.

J

Edited February 5, 2011 by Jonathan

[Xray]

(Hey X, maybe he's THE ONE (nudge nudge wink wink)

Oops, Daunce, I had not thought of that! Looks like I spoiled it and can’t correct it anymore.

My main suspect on the list stills remains Scrooge McDuck though, and if it is Scrooge who posts as JB, he sure knows how to lay out a red herring.

This suggests a rather cowardly motive to JR.

The motive is not cowardly. It is tactical. For JR wants to avoid situations where he is not in control of the discussion.

If ~anyone~ doesn't merit such a slur, it would be JR. He has courageously articulated and defended his values publicly for over 40 years, and he has done so with his real name. Unlike some people on this list.

No, I think it's quite clear why he bailed on the discussion, as I indicated above, and as he himself made amply clear in his posts.

It is indeed quite clear why JR bailed on the discussion. The reasons I gave obviously differ from yours, but that's the beauty of a forum discussion, where the readers can study for themselves the validity of each party's assessment.

As for articulating and defending one's values, it is a big difference whether you do this by giving a lecture, writing articles, etc, or whether you find yourself in a direct exchange in places like a forum where you don’t hold the position of a teacher or lecturer.

Brant Gaede once wrote here that JR “doesn’t debate”. Brant was right.

What we need to ask ourselves when we set out to understand or evaluate any work of art is: "What is this thing? What does it do? How does it work?" What anyone intended this thing to be, what anyone intended it to do, how anyone intended it to work - all this is irrelevant.

To know what an author intended is far from irrelevant in understanding a work of art. For it helps you to see more clearly where the artist/author is coming from.

Going by your premises, one would have to regard e. g. Flaubert's intention to write 'a book about nothing' ("un livre sur rien") as irrelevant.

Or what do you make of the pivotal a statement by Flaubert “Madame Bovary, c’est moi”.

It was Flaubert’s own disillusion with Romanticism which got him to write the novel Madame Bovary, but per you, all this is irrelevant because one only has focus on the text itself? Doesn’t knowing where an author is coming from, what his/her intentions were, deepen the understanding of a work of literature? (I’ll focus on literature here because that's what I’m most familiar with).

You can see whether the artist accomplished what he/she intended by studying the history of a work's reception; you can focus on the specific esthetical techniqes used, techniques which for example an artist/auhor could have used because his/her intention was to go against a prior tradition.

Not even allowing an artist’s/author's intention to be regarded as a factor is an artificial and unnecessary severing of the work from its creator.

All this is also extremely elementary. At the risk of coming across like Jonathan, I'm somewhat taken aback by the ignorance of attempting to discuss meaning in the arts without apparently ever having heard of or considered what is usually known as "the intentional fallacy."

It looks like the term "intentional fallacy" was coined at a time when the focus was very much on the text itself, the text 'qua text' having a 'holy cow'-like status where it was almost considered a thought crime to take text-external factors into account as well.

As if a text automatically constituted some kind of self-explanatory entity. But when you take a closer look, even the most fervent advocates of purely ‘work-immanent interpretation’ always use text-external elements in their interpretations as well.

For example, if a literary critic goes by the premise that a work of art is to be considered as a harmonious entity the elements of which are in a functional context with each other, this text-external background from which the critic operates will guide his evaluation of the text.

As for your question you have towards a work of art “What is this thing?” – “What does it accomplish?” – again, since every conscious act performed by humans is done with an intention, any work of art you study is the product of an intentional act. To simply declare a artist’s intention as irrelevant is not justified at all.

In a past post on another thread, you wrote:

Writing is writing. The standards for judging it are the same whether it's fiction, poetry, or nonfiction. Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

Here's how to think about this issue, folks. .....

When I asked you:

Could you illustrate that catalog of yours with direct quotes from Rand? (e. g. "internal" rhyme, "intelligent" use of rhythm, "patterned imagery", "time-honored techniques" (of assonance, alliteration ...) etc."

You replied you did not have access to her books due to your being on the road.

When you returned, I tried again:

As for your claim of Rand being great "writer", I would like you to illustrate with concrete examples from her work together with explanations. TIA.

Xray:

I shan't be posting any further replies to you on this thread. It has become apparent to me that you have no interest in learning anything about the subject at hand (or, perhaps, any subject). All you're interested in doing is "proving" that your preconceived notions are correct. Good luck with that.

This is an interesting case of context-dropping, or better: context-ignoring. For on a public forum, you never only communicate as a sender A to one single receiver B, but also to everybody else who reads what you write. So if you think your receiver B won’t understand what you write, there is no reason to refuse supporting your assertion that Rand was such a great writer by providing concrete text examples from her work where you can demonstrate and explain.

For many readers on a forum dedicated to Ayn Rand would certainly be interested in seeing you do that - don't you think so?

Although he is absent and I disagree with him on several issues, I consider him a friend, He's a good dude. Seriously.

Dragonfly's absence here is a huge loss.

There is a way of being contentiously phlegmatic in a dismissive manner that is peculiarly Dutch.

DF - phlegmatic??

Underneath, the Dutch people I knew had hearts of gold. I believe Dragonfly does, too. You just gotta learn their way of being to see it.

I don't think one can categorize individuals by their nationality here. DF came across to me as a total individualist, as a very independent and oustanding thinker whom it would be impossible to pigeonhole in any way.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

For many readers on a forum dedicated to Ayn Rand would certainly be interested in seeing you do that - don't you think so?

Dear Ms.Xray,

One reader here would be interested in what you are out to accomplish.

If you believe that you have exposed one member here by your clever reasoning - because he burned your fingers once, it appears - think again.

If you believe you have skilfully and logically over-turned Rand, single-handedly, to readers - think again.

If you are you out to sow dissent and create division on "a forum dedicated to Ayn Rand", on which I can only recall you complimenting her once (on 'checking one's premises'), you've failed.

I suggest a reading of a recent post by a prolific member here, who openly and honestly stated his position as non-Objectivist, but respectful of many of its tenets - as an example of integrity, and transparency. Attributes I find lacking in you.

Tony

Edited February 5, 2011 by whYNOT

[Jonathan]

A few years ago in a discussion here on Kandinsky I posted this painting which qualifies as art by Rand's criteria:

It's a painting a of paint splatter that I had noticed on the marble slab that I use as a palette. Here's a photo of the splatter that the painting was based on:

In comparing the painting to the photo, you can see that I sharpened up the edges (reflecting my valuing of sharpness and clarity in cognition!), eliminated imperfections (accidents of nature), and romanticized and idealized the shapes (I had no choice but to stylize and romanticize them because I believe in volition). Since the subject matter of the painting is easily identifiable by anyone as a splatter of paint, and since a splatter of paint is just as much a thing from reality as anything else, the painting is representational, realistic and objective, and is therefore art according to Rand's criteria.

The painting is also very romantic and meaningful because, as I explained when I first posted it, "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."

As an artist, paint also has deep personal meaning to me. It represents my primary means of "re-creating reality" and expressing my radiant "sense of life."

The painting is therefore pure Romantic Realism.

J

Edited February 5, 2011 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Here's an excerpt from a post of mine, on SOLOP's Why Catholicism Is Beating Objectivism's Ass thread, which I thought might stimulate discussion here:

How would you define "objective aesthetic judgement"? As I see it, there are at least a couple of options:

1) We could go with Rand's notion of "objective aesthetic judgement," or something like it, which basically means looking at or listening to the evidence contained in a work of art and judging how well the creator expressed what he wished to express.

The main problems that I have with such a method is that it seems to assume that there is one correct interpretation of a work of art, that the person judging the art doesn't need to verify his interpretation by means outside of the art (after he has interpreted the art without reference to outside considerations), and that he is a competent judge of the arts.

Rand apparently didn't consider the fact that if one is to judge how well an artist has accomplished his task, one would have to have knowledge of what the artist intended to accomplish. The same would be true of judging anything objectively. If one wanted to objectively judge, say, a NASA mission, it wouldn't be enough to marvel at the technology, power, motion and structural features displayed. One would have read the mission plan to discover if the events that were witnessed had achieved the goal.

2) An "objective aesthetic judgment" would be one that judges art without regard to its creator, his intentions, or how well he performed his task. The idea would be to judge the experience that the art conveys, implies, allows, induces, etc.

I don't see how such a method of judging could avoid a high degree of subjectivity. To judge the experience that art allows us -- whether we call the experience a "microcosm" or a "simulation" -- without regard to its creator is, for all intents and purposes, the same as judging an entity or event in reality, which implies that such a method of aesthetic judgment should also apply to entities and events in reality. So, how would one objectively aesthetically evaluate a landscape or a bowl of fruit? What would it mean to do so?

I also think these earlier comments of mine from here are relevant to the issue of judgment and intention:

Here's Rand's statement [on "objective aesthetic judgments"] rewritten so that it's about objective evaluations of tasks in general, and not just aesthetic ones:

"In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the person's task, the purpose of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he achieved it — i.e., taking his purpose as criterion, evaluate the purely technical elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he accomplished (or failed to accomplish) his task..."

With that as our method of objective evaluation, please objectively evaluate the following:

A worker installs pipes on the ceiling of a chemical factory and then turns on a faucet, and the pipes spray water from what appear to us to be random seams.

Following Rand's method, identify the plumber's task and the purpose of his work. How well did he perform the task? Were the pipes supposed to spray water, or did he fail to connect all of them properly?

J

[william.scherk]

Since the subject matter of the painting is easily identifiable by anyone as a splatter of paint, and since a splatter of paint is just as much a thing from reality as anything else, the painting is representational, realistic and objective, and is therefore art according to Rand's criteria.

I think you might have something here, Jonathan, especially if you worked this up on a large scale. Here's a painting that David Geffen got off his hands for a mere $140,000,000. What's the price tag on yours? We may need some other rigorous objective criteria besides RandBissell's -- like market pricing -- to ascertain artistic value.

[Jonathan]

Since the subject matter of the painting is easily identifiable by anyone as a splatter of paint, and since a splatter of paint is just as much a thing from reality as anything else, the painting is representational, realistic and objective, and is therefore art according to Rand's criteria.

I think you might have something here, Jonathan, especially if you worked this up on a large scale. Here's a painting that David Geffen got off his hands for a mere $140,000,000. What's the price tag on yours?

I don't have Pollock's name-recognition, so my painting is only currently valued at $117,000,000.

J

[Xray]

Dear Ms.Xray,

One reader here would be interested in what you are out to accomplish.

I would like J. Riggenbach to provide evidence supporting his assertion that "Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century." (JR).

For that purpose, JR would have to provide text examples from Rand's work where he can demonstrate and explain in detail.

If you believe that you have exposed one member here by your clever reasoning - because he burned your fingers once, it appears - think again.

There was nothing to expose. Imo the issue in question stood out in bold relief anyway.

Nor do I recall "burned fingers" - you can go through the thread in question and see for yourself. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7596&st=240&p=80382entry80382

(JR's prescriptive value catalog regarding "good" writing is listed in the # 249 post there).

He does not even differentiate between non-fictional and fictional texts, only speaks of "good" writing and "bad" writing. One does not get that all day: Shakespeare's writing being approached with the same analyzing tools as an instruction manual for a TV set.

If you believe you have skilfully and logically over-turned Rand, single-handedly, to readers - think again.

I don't believe anything of the sort. Imo those who think they can, in a forum discussion, sway others away from their her subjective preferences and value choices, are sorely mistaken.

If you are you out to sow dissent and create division on "a forum dedicated to Ayn Rand", on which I can only recall you complimenting her once (on 'checking one's premises'), you've failed.

I used the "forum dedicated to Ayn Rand" remark to point out to JR that no doubt the other posters would be interested as well in seeing him demonstrate a detailed analysis of a Randian text passage using his 'value criteria' catalog.

I suggest a reading of a recent post by a prolific member here, who openly and honestly stated his position as non-Objectivist, but respectful of many of its tenets

I can't think right now of who that prolific member is. Who is it?

Looks like I don't pay much attention to people's declaring themselves to be (or not to be) an Objectivist. Or I haven't read that specific post at all, or read it cursorily only.

As for being respectful of many of Objectivism's tenets, this is a value judgement voiced by another member. But why "ought" I to say the same, in view of the fact that I disagree with many of Objectivism's tenets?

As for complementing Ayn Rand - "Check your premises" is indeed one of the best pieces of advice a philosopher can give.

Ever since I applied it for the first time, this principle has had a profound effect on many areas of my life.

So even philosophers whom we don't agree with still can exert influence on us.

Jennifer Burns, in the introduction to her book, writes that Rand's work launched many on an intellectual journey which lasted a lifetime, imo this also applies to many of her philosophical opponents.

There must be some kind of catalyst effect exerted by Rand's works which accomplishes that.

I don't know how exactly it works, but I know it does work since I too can feel this effect.

You made some interesting comments on AS on another thread:

I've never returned to Atlas Shrugged, since my first time.

Now, it is about time, after 30-odd years, to read it again.

Back then, it was too overwhelming for a (let's say) susceptible young man.

Come to think of it, I have never thought of it as a novel, more like a final statement consuming every last ounce of mental and spiritual energy of its author.

It is a great novel in its scope and depth, but it hurt to read. I prefer Objectivism 'straight up', in her non-fiction.

Come to think of it, I have never thought of it as a novel, more like a final statement consuming every last ounce of mental and spiritual energy of its author.

Well said. It would be interesting to see J. Riggenbach's comment on it.

It is a great novel in its scope and depth, but it hurt to read.

Why exactly did AS hurt to read?

Edited February 6, 2011 by Xray

[william.scherk]

I don't have Pollock's name-recognition, so my painting is only currently valued at $117,000,000.

I didn't post the picture of the pricey Pollock to twit you, but to contrast Objectivish prescriptions for evaluating art to the real world of trade in art. That illustration was implicit, and I should have been straightforward.

When I see and read discussions of art, I want specifics, I want illustrations, I want examples. That is why I liked the side-by-side comparisons you gave earlier. I read the Kamhi/Torres book and I felt really really sad for the authors. The world of art criticism, promotion, advertising, scholarly whoopups and so on is lavishly funded. The art world is awash in billions of dollars and thousands of salaried academics, and even more thousands who make their livings ancilliary to it. The K/T book competes with thousands of other books, some of which are colour-plated from beginning to end.

The world of Objectivish Art Talk is so irrelevant to that world it staggers me. It staggers me, moreover, that we can yawp on OL about art without posting illustrative examples.

To put my massively-irrelevant money where my even more massively-irrelevant mouth is, I post an image of one of my top fifty paintings of all time. I suspect that a strictly Objectivish reaction would be revulsion and dismissal: the painting would have zero objective value.

[caroljane]

I don't have Pollock's name-recognition, so my painting is only currently valued at $117,000,000.

I didn't post the picture of the pricey Pollock to twit you, but to contrast Objectivish prescriptions for evaluating art to the real world of trade in art. That illustration was implicit, and I should have been straightforward.

When I see and read discussions of art, I want specifics, I want illustrations, I want examples. That is why I liked the side-by-side comparisons you gave earlier. I read the Kamhi/Torres book and I felt really really sad for the authors. The world of art criticism, promotion, advertising, scholarly whoopups and so on is lavishly funded. The art world is awash in billions of dollars and thousands of salaried academics, and even more thousands who make their livings ancilliary to it. The K/T book competes with thousands of other books, some of which are colour-plated from beginning to end.

The world of Objectivish Art Talk is so irrelevant to that world it staggers me. It staggers me, moreover, that we can yawp on OL about art without posting illustrative examples.

To put my massively-irrelevant money where my even more massively-irrelevant mouth is, I post an image of one of my top fifty paintings of all time. I suspect that a strictly Objectivish reaction would be revulsion and dismissal: the painting would have zero objective value.

Reaction from Art idiot/ nonvisual thinker:

The words that come to mind are "the horror of power".

A quotation that comes to mind, maybe because of the colours, is James Shirley's "The Glories of our Blood and State" the last lines of which are:

"The garland withers on your brow, and boasts no more your mighty deeds.

Upon death's purple altar now, see how the victor-victim bleeds.

Your head must come to the cold tomb.

Only the actions of the just

Smell sweet, and blossom in their dust."

(I spent hours memorizing poetry when I should have been studying for exams, and if you're not nice to me, I will recite it at you.

You Have Been Warned.)

Carol

[Brant Gaede]

Since the subject matter of the painting is easily identifiable by anyone as a splatter of paint, and since a splatter of paint is just as much a thing from reality as anything else, the painting is representational, realistic and objective, and is therefore art according to Rand's criteria.

I think you might have something here, Jonathan, especially if you worked this up on a large scale. Here's a painting that David Geffen got off his hands for a mere $140,000,000. What's the price tag on yours? We may need some other rigorous objective criteria besides RandBissell's -- like market pricing -- to ascertain artistic value.

David can give me this painting any time he wants. I'd put it up on my wall. (I'd also see if I could get a banker to lend me some money against it.)

--Brant

[william.scherk]

"The garland withers on your brow, and boasts no more your mighty deeds.

Upon death's purple altar now, see how the victor-victim bleeds.

Your head must come to the cold tomb.

Only the actions of the just

Smell sweet, and blossom in their dust."

Carole, you may be an 'art idiot,' though I doubt it, but if you don't know anything about this study, you expressed a wonderful reaction from non-knowledge.

I cannot actually put in words why I appreciate the study, but the study moves me very much -- your quote carries the savour of my reaction (and not coincidentally does duty as valediction on Pharoah Mubarak).

Another artist on OL has published quite a lengthy Objectivish-infused set of criteria for evaluating values in art; I quote this criteria below (italics mine). I wonder if anyone dares use the criteria to deconstruct the study I posted -- for example, I would love to see Roger or Jonathan do so.

Rand claims that in art criticism one should analyze the artwork without outside considerations . . . . This means that the theme of a painting, for instance, should make its message clear without any prior knowledge of what the painting is about. We have to be like detectives and look for clues within the painting itself. I think it is important that I give some guidelines on how to look for these values in art as they underlie the observations that I will make about the paintings.

Here are some of the guidelines for detecting metaphysical value-judgments in painting.

1. Describe what you see.

2. The canvas is the Universe. Approach each and every artwork as if it is a universe in itself. Simply substitute “universe” for “canvas” and a whole new outlook will become apparent.

a. Look for the size of humanity in relationship to the canvas. This is symbolic of humanity’s importance in the universe: is humanity larger than life or tiny and insignificant?

b. How is humanity placed within this universe? At the top, bottom or center?

c. What is the most prominent feature within the canvas/universe and what is the main focus?

d. For non-figurative work, what are the outstanding things and how are they placed in the canvas?

3. What is the relationship of subject or person to their environment? This will tell us how important humanity is in relationship to society or nature.

a. Is there a significant difference of sizes between the setting and the subject?

b. Look for the possible symbolism of the objects and/or their relationships. For example, a barrier to freedom symbolized by a chain-link fence. Or, the state buildings are all-powerful above and humanity is crushed below.

c. Is there more emphasis placed on one thing more than another? For example, is there a disregard for the setting and is all the focus on the main figure?

4. Body language.

a. What are people doing? Are they bent, awkward or upright and elegant?

b. Think about the symbolic implications of their posture: are they approaching life as a servant, a thug, or a hero?

c. What are the most notable facial features?

5. Use adjectives to describe the style, color, and light. This is not a substitute for the facts that are represented in the painting, but using adjectives first to describe a general impression helps you find the facts. We are not analyzing whether the means of the painting are good or not, merely trying to get at the mood of the piece, just as how you might describe the weather outside as cheerful or crystal-clear.

a. Is the painting distorted, smeared, vague or is it orderly, in focus, complex?

b. Are the colors murky, dull or vibrant, bold? Are they in harmony or do they clash?

c. Is the light in the painting subdued or brilliant?

d. The symbolism of light and shadow cannot be missed: are the objects or persons dim and the unenlightened? Or are they enlightened by a radiant universe?

Edited February 6, 2011 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

WSS, of course nobody would dare come on here believing in their own idiocy, but I wasn't being that disingenuous. I "know what I like", sort of, and was quite surprised to be so struck by this. Maybe because it instantly connected with the poem which I already knew. My top fave artist is Alex Colville and I would love to own the Irving Oil painting. I also had a Wyeth print that my son likes, so I gave it to him for his new apartment. It's a regional thing with me I fear.

[caroljane]

WSS, of course nobody would dare come on here believing in their own idiocy, but I wasn't being that disingenuous. I "know what I like", sort of, and was quite surprised to be so struck by this. Maybe because it instantly connected with the poem which I already knew. My top fave artist is Alex Colville and I would love to own the Irving Oil painting. I also had a Wyeth print that my son likes, so I gave it to him for his new apartment. It's a regional thing with me I fear.

I should add that the son in question has inherited my sensibilities,Christina's World gazes across his living room at a garish yet menacing Loch Ness.

Nice kvotes eh?

Edited February 7, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Roger Bissell]

I don't have Pollock's name-recognition, so my painting is only currently valued at $117,000,000.

I didn't post the picture of the pricey Pollock to twit you, but to contrast Objectivish prescriptions for evaluating art to the real world of trade in art. That illustration was implicit, and I should have been straightforward.

When I see and read discussions of art, I want specifics, I want illustrations, I want examples. That is why I liked the side-by-side comparisons you gave earlier. I read the Kamhi/Torres book and I felt really really sad for the authors. The world of art criticism, promotion, advertising, scholarly whoopups and so on is lavishly funded. The art world is awash in billions of dollars and thousands of salaried academics, and even more thousands who make their livings ancilliary to it. The K/T book competes with thousands of other books, some of which are colour-plated from beginning to end.

The world of Objectivish Art Talk is so irrelevant to that world it staggers me. It staggers me, moreover, that we can yawp on OL about art without posting illustrative examples.

To put my massively-irrelevant money where my even more massively-irrelevant mouth is, I post an image of one of my top fifty paintings of all time. I suspect that a strictly Objectivish reaction would be revulsion and dismissal: the painting would have zero objective value.

William, I think this painting would be perfect for the "Roger E. Bissell Library" (the little room adjacent to my office). It captures my angst on those moments "on the throne," following my having eaten some really...active...food.

Seriously, it is a ~really~ cool painting. The fact that some Objectivish folks, and some non-Objectivish folks, would disdain it really doesn't matter to me. If I had a ~lot~ of artworks, I'm sure I could find just the right place for it in my home, since my tastes are quite eclectic.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Since the subject matter of the painting is easily identifiable by anyone as a splatter of paint, and since a splatter of paint is just as much a thing from reality as anything else, the painting is representational, realistic and objective, and is therefore art according to Rand's criteria.

I think you might have something here, Jonathan, especially if you worked this up on a large scale. Here's a painting that David Geffen got off his hands for a mere $140,000,000. What's the price tag on yours? We may need some other rigorous objective criteria besides RandBissell's -- like market pricing -- to ascertain artistic value.

I'd happily own at least a ~print~ of this one, too, William. I could lose myself in it, with great fascination, even though it doesn't really seem to say anything profound to me about the world.

Actually, it kind of says: "What world?" (Oh, yeah--the world of paint drips!)

REB

[Roger Bissell]

"The garland withers on your brow, and boasts no more your mighty deeds.

Upon death's purple altar now, see how the victor-victim bleeds.

Your head must come to the cold tomb.

Only the actions of the just

Smell sweet, and blossom in their dust."

Carole, you may be an 'art idiot,' though I doubt it, but if you don't know anything about this study, you expressed a wonderful reaction from non-knowledge.

I cannot actually put in words why I appreciate the study, but the study moves me very much -- your quote carries the savour of my reaction (and not coincidentally does duty as valediction on Pharoah Mubarak).

Another artist on OL has published quite a lengthy Objectivish-infused set of criteria for evaluating values in art; I quote this criteria below (italics mine). I wonder if anyone dares use the criteria to deconstruct the study I posted -- for example, I would love to see Roger or Jonathan do so.

Rand claims that in art criticism one should analyze the artwork without outside considerations . . . . This means that the theme of a painting, for instance, should make its message clear without any prior knowledge of what the painting is about. We have to be like detectives and look for clues within the painting itself. I think it is important that I give some guidelines on how to look for these values in art as they underlie the observations that I will make about the paintings.

Here are some of the guidelines for detecting metaphysical value-judgments in painting.

1. Describe what you see.

2. The canvas is the Universe. Approach each and every artwork as if it is a universe in itself. Simply substitute “universe” for “canvas” and a whole new outlook will become apparent.

a. Look for the size of humanity in relationship to the canvas. This is symbolic of humanity’s importance in the universe: is humanity larger than life or tiny and insignificant?

b. How is humanity placed within this universe? At the top, bottom or center?

c. What is the most prominent feature within the canvas/universe and what is the main focus?

d. For non-figurative work, what are the outstanding things and how are they placed in the canvas?

3. What is the relationship of subject or person to their environment? This will tell us how important humanity is in relationship to society or nature.

a. Is there a significant difference of sizes between the setting and the subject?

b. Look for the possible symbolism of the objects and/or their relationships. For example, a barrier to freedom symbolized by a chain-link fence. Or, the state buildings are all-powerful above and humanity is crushed below.

c. Is there more emphasis placed on one thing more than another? For example, is there a disregard for the setting and is all the focus on the main figure?

4. Body language.

a. What are people doing? Are they bent, awkward or upright and elegant?

b. Think about the symbolic implications of their posture: are they approaching life as a servant, a thug, or a hero?

c. What are the most notable facial features?

5. Use adjectives to describe the style, color, and light. This is not a substitute for the facts that are represented in the painting, but using adjectives first to describe a general impression helps you find the facts. We are not analyzing whether the means of the painting are good or not, merely trying to get at the mood of the piece, just as how you might describe the weather outside as cheerful or crystal-clear.

a. Is the painting distorted, smeared, vague or is it orderly, in focus, complex?

b. Are the colors murky, dull or vibrant, bold? Are they in harmony or do they clash?

c. Is the light in the painting subdued or brilliant?

d. The symbolism of light and shadow cannot be missed: are the objects or persons dim and the unenlightened? Or are they enlightened by a radiant universe?

William, thank you for posting this! I had forgotten that it appeared in one of the early issues of JARS.

I'm especially intrigued with the writer's point #2 (of course, being Mr. Microcosm-Rottweiler). I'm going to contact the writer and have a little discussion with him about it...

REB

[Guyau]

. . .

When I see and read discussions of art, . . .

I prefer the stuff itself.

The Young Gleaner

Paul Peel (1888)

[Selene]

. . .

When I see and read discussions of art, . . .

I prefer the stuff itself.

The Young Gleaner

Paul Peel (1888)

That is beautiful.

[william.scherk]

Seriously, it is a ~really~ cool painting. The fact that some Objectivish folks, and some non-Objectivish folks, would disdain it really doesn't matter to me.

Like Boydston, I like to view and ponder the works, primarily -- though of course I am also curious enough to read and ponder critical evaluations of particular works (an early immersion in ArtCritSpeak gave me an appreciation for lunatic prose that I still hold).

The Bacon canvas is in the collection of the Des Moines Art Center. If they ever need a new roof, they can sell it off. One of the last Bacon's on auction went for over 85 million smackers.

I would love to see other folk's faves.

Here's a video a friend did of a few of my drawings dating from the 1980s, which I think I have posted before at OL.

[Jonathan]

I didn't post the picture of the pricey Pollock to twit you, but to contrast Objectivish prescriptions for evaluating art to the real world of trade in art. That illustration was implicit, and I should have been straightforward.

No, we're cool. I didn't take your comment as twitting. I was just being silly with the $117,000,000 comment. I think my "Mutatis Mutandis Mantis" painting is actually probably worth about $12.50, plus postage and handling.

I wonder if anyone dares use the criteria to deconstruct the study I posted -- for example, I would love to see Roger or Jonathan do so.

I might take you up on that. I think that my Objectivish analysis of David's The Death of Socrates in post #75 has the beginnings of a good Newberrian review, and if fleshed out further, could be used as a model for finding meaning and making objective evaluations of any work of art.

J

[Guyau]

. . .

The title of a novel is an integral part of the work . . . the same is, properly, with regards a painting, as it is the theme/title which sets the stage. . .

Definitely part of the fun here:

City Landscape

Joan Mitchell (1955)

Nude Descending a Staircase

Marcel Duchamp (1912)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . .

When I see and read discussions of art, . . .

I prefer the stuff itself.

The Young Gleaner

Paul Peel (1888)

That is beautiful.

Yes.

“I’ve never wanted to own anything as much as I want this house you’re going to build for me, Howard. . . . And yet—I don’t feel that I’ll own it, because no matter what I do or pay, it’s still yours. It will always be yours.”

“It has to be mine,” said Roark. “But in another sense, Gail, you own that house and everything else I’ve built. You own every structure you’ve stopped before and heard yourself answering.”

“In what sense?”

“In the sense of that personal answer. What you feel in the presence of a thing you admire is just one word—‘Yes’. The affirmation, the acceptance, the sign of admittance. And that ‘Yes’ is more than an answer to one thing, it’s a kind of ‘Amen’ to life, to the earth that holds this thing, to the thought that created it, to yourself for being able to see it.”

. . .

[Roark speaking]

“When I listen to a symphony I love, I don’t get from it what the composer got. His ‘Yes’ was different from mine. He could have no concern for mine and no exact conception of it. That answer is too personal to each man. But in giving himself what he wanted, he gave me a great experience. I’m alone when I design a house, Gail, and you can never know the way in which I own it. But if you said your own ‘Amen’ to it—it’s also yours. And I’m glad it’s yours.”

(HR IV 582–83)

[caroljane]

Seriously, it is a ~really~ cool painting. The fact that some Objectivish folks, and some non-Objectivish folks, would disdain it really doesn't matter to me.

Like Boydston, I like to view and ponder the works, primarily -- though of course I am also curious enough to read and ponder critical evaluations of particular works (an early immersion in ArtCritSpeak gave me an appreciation for lunatic prose that I still hold).

The Bacon canvas is in the collection of the Des Moines Art Center. If they ever need a new roof, they can sell it off. One of the last Bacon's on auction went for over 85 million smackers.

I would love to see other folk's faves.

Here's a video a friend did of a few of my drawings dating from the 1980s, which I think I have posted before at OL.

I like.

Have you ever considered moving to bucolic Sackville, N.B.?

You could study in the Colville school and meld Canadian art into a transformative, bicoastal whole, while learning to speak with an Acadian accent.

Edited February 7, 2011 by daunce lynam

[kiaer.ts]

The Painted Word

PEOPLE DON’T READ THE MORNING NEWSPAPER, Marshall McLuhan once said, they slip into it like a warm bath. Too true, Marshall! Imagine being in New York City on the morning of Sunday, April 28, 1974, like I was, slipping into that great public bath, that vat, that spa, that, regional physiotherapy tank, that White Sulphur Springs, that Marienbad, that Ganges, that River Jordan for a million souls which is the Sunday New York Times. Soon I was submerged, weightless, suspended in the tepid depths of the thing, in Arts & Leisure, Section 2, page 19, in a state of perfect sensory deprivation, when all at once an extraordinary thing happened:

I noticed something!

Yet another clam-broth-colored current had begun to roll over me, as warm and predictable as the Gulf Stream ... a review, it was, by the Time’s dean of the arts, Hilton Kramer, of an exhibition at Yale University of “Seven Realists,” seven realistic painters . . . when I was jerked alert by the following:

“Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.”

Now, you may say, My God, man! You woke up over that? You forsook your blissful coma over a mere swell in the sea of words?

But I knew what I was looking at. I realized that without making the slightest effort I had come upon one of those utterances in search of which psychoanalysts and State Department monitors of the Moscow or Belgrade press are willing to endure a lifetime of tedium: namely, the seemingly innocuousobiter dicta, the words in passing, that give the game away.

What I saw before me was the critic-in-chief of The New York Times saying: In looking at a painting today, “to lack a persuasive theory is to lack somethingcrucial.” I read it again. It didn’t say “something helpful” or “enriching” or even “extremely valuable.” No, the word was crucial.

In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting.

Then and there I experienced a flash known as the Aha! phenomenon, and the buried life of contemporary art was revealed to me for the first time. The fogs lifted! The clouds passed! The motes, scales, conjunctival bloodshots, and Murine agonies fell away!

All these years, along with countless kindred souls, I am certain, I had made my way into the galleries of Upper Madison and Lower Soho and the Art Gildo Midway of Fifty-seventh Street, and into the museums, into the Modern, the Whitney, and the Guggenheim, the Bastard Bauhaus, the New Brutalist, and the Fountainhead Baroque, into the lowliest storefront churches and grandest Robber Baronial temples of Modernism. All these years I, like so many others, had stood in front of a thousand, two thousand, God-knows-how-many thousand Pollocks, de Koonings, Newmans, Nolands, Rothkos, Rauschenbergs, Judds, Johnses, Olitskis, Louises, Stills, Franz Klines, Frankenthalers, Kellys, and Frank Stellas, now squinting, now popping the eye sockets open, now drawing back, now moving closer—waiting, waiting, forever waiting for . . . it . . for it to come into focus, namely, the visual reward (for so much effort) which must be there, which everyone (tout le monde) knew to be there—waiting for something to radiate directly from the paintings on these invariably pure white walls, in this room, in this moment, into my own optic chiasma. All these years, in short, I had assumed that in art, if nowhere else, seeing is believing. Well—how very shortsighted! Now, at last, on April 28, 1974, I could see. I had gotten it backward all along. Not “seeing is believing,” you ninny, but “believing is seeing,” for Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text.

...

copyright © 1975 by Tom Wolfe