Jonathan

Happy Birthday! J

Pat Boone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FtayZ7OOqM

Highly recommended: Finding Forrester William Forester (Sean Connery) is a reclusive author (something of a J. D. Salinger) who had published one very successful novel and then disappeared. Jamal Wallace (Rob Brown) is a bright teen whose test scores and basketball skills earn him a prestigious prep school scholarship. William and Jamal meet, and William becomes a secret friend and mentor to Jamal. Jamal is accused by one of his professors, Robert Crawford (F. Murray Abraham), of plagiarism when it is discovered that in one of his essays he has borrowed the title and first paragraph of one of William's old essays. Jamal can save himself by breaking his promise to protect William's privacy. William would have to end his seclusion to help Jamal (who borrowed William's work with permission, but handed it in without). J

I recently heard a Performance Today replay of little Anna Lee at the Aspen Music Festival, and it reminded me of this discussion. Pretty amazing kid. This is the only link that I could find, and unfortunately the "Hear the Interview, Performance" button isn't working on my machine, but maybe it will work for others: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4803376 J Speaking of Performance Today, have you ever listened to Bruce Adolphe's Piano Puzzler challenges? The November 8th challenge was the first one I had heard where I got both the tune and the composer. Fun stuff: http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast.php?id=4464231

Does anyone have any idea of what the extent may have been of Rand's training and experience with art forms other than literature? Could she read music, for example? Did she ever play any instruments, if only something like a recorder during her early school days? When doing research for The Fountainhead did she ever sketch or play with clay to get a sense of what it was like to actually create forms and spaces? J

I don't have time to add anything of much substance right now, or even to join the fizzling food fight (darn!), but I thought some of you might like Roberto Parada's work. A few of my favorites from his website: http://www.robertoparada.com/prints2/stare.html http://www.robertoparada.com/prints2/rackem.html http://www.robertoparada.com/prints3/garden.html http://www.robertoparada.com/prints4/jcash.html J

Victor: No, I'm not striving for photorealism, and I don't see my work as photorealistic. But others sometimes do. If anything drives me toward a realitic style, it's the desire to capture color subtleties which I've never been able to achieve in looser styles. Btw, Victor, do you have a standard in mind for classifying what is or is not photorealistic? Recently I was at a video store with a friend, and I commented that I loved the sketchy style of some of Drew Struzan's movie posters. My friend thought that the images were composited photographs. I pointed to what I thought were obvious pencil lines and brush strokes, but my friend couldn't see them. Which of us was right about how Struzan's style should be classified? As far as what I think of photorealism, if we can agree that works by, say, Holbein, Caravaggio, Vermeer, Ingres, Close and Estes are photorealism, then I'd say that I like a lot of it, and some of it doesn't do much for me. For what it's worth, I love a very wide variety of styles. Realism, scratchy-sketchy stuff, impressionistic impasto, scumbled abstract; you name it, and I probably like it or some variant of it. Btw, if I'm remembering correctly, Rand once ranted specifically about "painterly" styles, so it's nice to see Objectivists stating a preference for them compared to finer brushwork. I've been drawing since I was about 3 and painting in oils since about 7 or 8. I think of myself as being mostly self taught, but I was pointed in some good directions by a few caring teachers. I drew a lot on my own time, took all available art classes in high school, and I attended a course on commercial art at a technical college after high school. I've seen some very impressive pencil work. I see no differnce in principle between pencil, chalk, charcoal, pastel, pen and ink, etching, or any other drawing media. A drawing is a drawing. It's art. Jordan: Not at the moment (and, technically, my work has never been reproduced as serigraphs, I've prefered lithography and Iris/Giclees.) I'm finishing up a few pieces that I'd like to release en masse with "Pensive" and "Resolve." I'll let you know when prints are available. "Azaleas" is owned by a private party, and "GT" will not be on the market. Mark: Thank you, but I don't agree with the comparison to the finest realists in history. I'd have a long way to go before I could join those ranks. J

Thank you, Barbara, Brant, Rodney, Ellen and Gary. I'm happy that you've found something to enjoy in my work. E asked, He's a very successful business person from my neck of the woods. I'd been aware of his professional reputation for years, but hadn't had the opportunity to meet him until a few years ago. Despite the fact that he receives a lot of public attention, I found him to be very genuine and down to earth. Very idea-oriented. He radiated a sense of warmth and enthusiasm that made me want to try to capture it in paint. I'm very short on time right now, but at some point I'd like to addresss the issues of stylization -- "photorealism" vs "painterly" images -- that Rodney and Victor have brought up. I think that could be a very interesting discussion. Also, I just wanted to quickly mention that I'm not opposed to criticism, just in case anyone reading this thread may have misunderstood me to be too much of a Sensitive Susie. I don't want to discourage anyone from expressing their opinions about art, including mine. And I want to say that I don't think that ~all~ Objectivists I've encountered have been pompous, presumptuous zealots when it comes to art. Perhaps it's just the majority of the loudest of them. When I've shown my work in Objectivist forums in the past, it has received praise as well as what I would call good negative evaluations (which, to me, are when someone openly and honestly explains that they don't like certain works of art, and why, without presuming to give the artist art lessons, without claiming to represent Objectivism, and without implying that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational, immoral, mentally ill or anything like that). J

I can see Victor making such a comment given his art (I think his "curmudgeon nihilist" remark isn't so far off the mark). I have no idea why you'd make it, the stuff you've shown here would fit in well at http://www.cordair.com for instance. Shayne Well, if you can't think of any unsolicited advice that you might presume to e-mail me on how my work doesn't conform to proper Objectivist aesthetic principles (why you think my work is naturalism, why it expresses a horrible sense of life and muddled epistemology, why it reveals that I'm all sorts of bad things, etc.) then that's probably a good thing. I haven't always been so lucky in the past. But it's not primarily an issue of how Objectivists have responded to my art, but how many of them approach art in general. If you like art that they don't, it's seen as evidence that there's something seriously philosophically wrong with you. You'll be instructed that you need to raise your standards and stop helping the evil destroyers. You see, the world is going to end if people are inspired by, say, rock music rather than opera. To like rock is to spit on the greatness of opera. If you're uplifted by a painter whom another Objectivist doesn't have much respect for, the important thing is not that you're uplifted, but that you're guilty of trying to tear down greatness by glorifying mediocrity. There's no room for differences of opinion. If an Objectivist Cultural Warrior interprets a painting as having a negative meaning, then you are wrong to interpret it as having a positive meaning. The art is evil, end of story, and it says a lot about you that you defend it. Most people, including non-Objectivists, have very strong opinions about art. But, in my experience, hardly anyone outside of Objectivist circles believes that they can know a person's philosophy, sense of life, or morality based on the art that he or she creates or enjoys. Consider this: In the forums that I mentioned in an earlier post, I had pretty much limited myself to discussions on aesthetics and art. I intentionally avoided other aspects of philosophy. People who had no idea about my views on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics or politics nevertheless accused me of believing in all sorts of evil things, of being anti-Objectivist, of being a postmodernist scumbag, etc., simply because I often defended art that they hated (I should add, art that they often hated without having taken the time to actually ponder its possible meanings or its purely aesthetic merits). It's very common for Objectivists to pride themselves on judging others based on the art that they enjoy (or create) while ignoring the reasons given for enjoying it. J P.S. Forgive the rambling rant-like nature of this post. I didn't have time to edit it down and give it the tone that I'd prefer it to have.

SOLOYahoo!, SOLOHQ, RoR and a variety of other mostly Yahoo-based groups that have popped up and faded away over the years. Thank you. J

Thank you all for your comments. I deeply appreciate them. I've very rarely shared my work in Objectivist forums for a variety of reasons -- one of the primary ones being that Objectivist forums are populated with Objectivists, if you know what I mean. ;-) But I feel more at home on OL. Most people here seem to lack the hyper-zealot-Objecti-Nazi attitude toward art. Perhaps it's because there's a higher percentage of serious creative types here than elsewhere, and a deeper understanding and respect for the complexity of the creative process and the diversity of expressions and tastes. Anyway, thanks again for the positive responses. I'll post more of my work now and then, and at some point I'll provide links for anyone interested in purchasing originals or Giclées . J

A few samples of my work: "Pensive" Acrylic and Colored Pencil on Art Board © 1999 Jonathan R. Smith http://static.flickr...e3730bf5a_o.jpg "Resolve" Oil on Board © 2002 Jonathan R. Smith http://static.flickr...e8a3750bf_o.jpg "Azaleas" Oil on Board © 2004 Jonathan R. Smith http://static.flickr...ec442692f_o.jpg "GT" Oil on Canvas (detail of a portrait in progress) © 2006 Jonathan R. Smith http://static.flickr...99af38788_o.jpg

Michael D writes: So, when the masses hear Michael D's views that anyone can become the next Einstein or Michelangelo, and they ask him why he hasn't done so, and he answers, "Just because a person is capable of great things doesn't mean that he owes it to himself to do them," will they be inspired to start working really hard at developing their abilities, or will they become hopeless and lazy, reciting Michael's words that just because one could doesn't mean that one ought to? J

Shayne wrote: I don't know where you're getting that. No one is saying that anyone shouldn't try to achieve great things, or that effort is useless. My recognizing that Millais, at the age of 6, was able to draw better than most adult artists, and that he was good enough to be accepted at the Royal Academy at 11, and my recognition that there are focused adults who have yet to accomplish feats of similar greatness, and that perhaps they never will, even with 10 times the amount of time and effort, doesn't mean that it is impossible for them to achieve at a very high level, or even to eventually surpass Millais's level of accomplishment. The view that some people seem to be naturally talented and that talent may be a significant factor in life does not mean that hard work is useless, that talent is the only factor or even the most important factor. J

Angie, I wouldn't dismiss a person's accomplishments because he isn't famous, wealthy, socially adept or anything like that. If Shayne and Michael were living in poverty while quietly matching Edison's creativity in the privacy of their attics during their spare time, I'd respect their achievements. Profoundly. Just to be clear, I'm really not trying to piss on Shayne and Michael or their accomplishments. Without knowing anything about them other than what I've read here, I'd guess that they're probably very bright, creative and capable in their chosen vocations. For all I know, they could be much smarter and more able than I am. As I said earlier, my purpose in asking the questions I've asked isn't to be insulting, but to discover why people who believe that they can achieve at the ultimate level haven't done so (if they indeed haven't done so secretly). J

Shayne wrote: OK. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that if you or Michael were great achievers in the way that we've been talking about on this thread -- if you were contemporary Mozarts, Einsteins, Millais or Rands -- then I probably would have heard of your accomplishments. If my assumption was wrong, then, hey, great, please tell us about your inventions, discoveries or creations. But if I was correct and you haven't reached the level of those thinkers and creators, I'm just asking why you haven't. I'm not trying to be insulting. It's just hard for me to imagine Objectivists who know that they can be rich, famous, influential, world-class heroic achievers choosing instead to be much less than that. No, I'm not assuming that. I don't know for sure exactly what role talent may or may not play. But I've been around enough musicians and artists, both students and professionals, to recognize that people with roughly the same IQs, training and backgrounds can have vastly different abilities. I've seen many artists struggle to do what others can do effortlessly. I've seen dedicated, intelligent adults, who have studied and practiced diligently for decades, never reach the level of some goofy 14-year-old kid who has only been jamming or doodling for a year. I haven't yet heard a good alternative to "innate talent" to explain such things. Michael Dickey wrote: I'm definitely a moron when it comes to math. I tried very hard in school and couldn't get it. And I kept trying and trying. Math was painful and extremely difficult, but art and music, on the other hand, were pretty much a cakewalk. So was reading and writing. Other than math, I did quite well in school. I simply wanted to know why you haven't yet achieved at the level of an Einstein when you believe that you're capable of doing so. Was it laziness, or did you value something else higher? And what evidence can you present to us that you or anyone/everyone can will themselves to achieve at that level? Are we supposed to just take your word for it that you could, if you really really wanted to, achieve an Atlas Shrugged or an E=MC2, but you haven't, not because you lack natural talent, but because you just don't want to? J

Shayne and Michael Dickey, May I ask why, if you think that anyone can become world-class great, you haven't become great at anything? If you're upset that people who believe in innate differences such as talent are just looking for a way to excuse laziness, what excuse do you prefer to use to explain why you haven't achieved greatness? Why have talented individuals become world-class creators and achievers by the time they were half your age, yet you're still just non-great-Shayne and non-great-Michael? Are you saying that you chose to be lazy, that you knowingly chose not to fully develop yourselves even though you're convinced that people with ordinary capacities can achieve genius-level greatness? J

Victor: What I was getting at is that a painting style, like Gary Kelley's or Tamara de Lempicka's, which is fairly realistic but has been influenced by cubism, can be just as much an intentional distortion as caricature, and the cubism-like distortion can be employed for the same reasons. Victor: As I said, I think you make a good case. And, actually, I think that there are many, many serious fans of visual art who would also agree with you. A good example: I've seen some of Daumier's caricatures displayed at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. No one there seemed to believe that the works in the exhibition were not serious art. I think the only thing tainting the status of caricature as a serious art form is what you've complained about yourself: exhausted formulas, candy-cartoon colors, etc. Someone who is serious about caricature art should do a caricature of such caricaturists. ;-) Victor: I feel that I may be misinterpreting the question. If you're asking if I create art for a purpose other than making a living, then yes, I have a larger objective. If you're asking if I'm interested in using my art as a sort of aesthetic activism to try to convince the artworld that it should agree with my views on what is or is not art, then no. J

Thanks for your interest. I might post some scans of my work sometime. J

Victor, I think you present a very good case, and I appreciate your seriousness and passion. The art of yours that I've seen is clearly not low-grade amusement park or mall kiosk stuff, where, as you say in your article, the artists work in nothing but generalized formulas and cliched distortions. More importantly to me, the thoughtfulness with which you seem to ponder the concept or theme of what you're bringing to a painting is complemented by a real understanding of serious art essentials - lighting, color modulation, brushwork, etc. I look at your work and recognize that you understand technical things (perhaps even on a level of their long having become second nature by now) that some artists who would look down their noses at all caricaturists will probably never understand. Actually, now that I think of it, and maybe you've done something like this elsewhere already, it might be interesting to explore the entire spectrum of portraiture/caricature with illustrated examples. At what point does a portrait become caricature or vice versa? Is artist Gary Kelley's work (his Barnes & Noble cafe murals, for example) caricature, or is it a sort of gentle Iowan cubist realism? Was Tamara de Lempicka somewhat of a caricaturist? Were some of Ingres' intentionally distorted and highly stylized figures just barely verging on caricature? Are any of their works less artistically valid because they drastically distorted or altered reality for the purpose of enhancing expression? J

Victor, I work as an illustrator doing mostly 3D rendering and animation, but I also do some fine art painting, sculpting and photography. I prefer realistic styles, but I sometimes explore other modes if the subject calls for it. Btw, I've notice that a lot of the work that you've posted here doesn't include info about which media you've used. Are you working mostly in oil on canvas? J

Victor: Well, thank you, but I don't feel that I have a great sum of knowledge, just an intense passion for the subject. Why does it seem to you that I'm not a visual artist? J

Maybe a better way of looking at "talent" is to say that those whom we see as being naturally good at something actually have an innate lack of incompetence. I suck at math, and always have. I tried very hard in school, but could barely manage to be average at math up until junior high, after which I could no longer rise to the level of average. I'm totally incompetent at it. I'm less naturally incompetent at history, I'm only somewhat naturally incompetent at basketball and music, and I'm almost completely lacking in natural incompetence at visual art. J

I always find it hard to rate someone as "the best," and that's true with caricaturists. I think Hirschfeld was definitely one of the best, but I can't rate his work as being better than Mort Drucker's from the 70s, including his MAD magazine stuff, or better than C. F. Payne's work over the past dozen years (not including his Rockwellian Reader's Digest work, which I'm not a fan of). I'd say that Hirschfeld's work was the most stylistically distinct, Drucker was the most prolific and versatile (his work ranged from full-blown, full-color images to a style similar in its minimalism to Hirschfeld's), and Payne is the most refined, the most artsy, with much more focus than the other two on abstract elements such as compositional proportions and classical color palettes. To me, all three are tied as "the best." J

Bob Campbell: It's not too late to get in on the fun and enter to win fabulous prizes: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...entry3185