Thorn

14 hours ago, anthony said:

All equivocations, false equivalences and rationalizations. Same old empirical rap posing as intellectualisms. In your anti-intellectual take on it, I believe you think the music must "re-create reality" -physically - in your living room! But of course Rand didn't think of that and "contradicted herself"...! Wow, you do take her very lightly. I have ~a little~ more respect than that, for your mentor, Kant, and I think he was a dreamy fantasist about art, beauty, the sublime

Calling it so won't make it so.

On 2 October 2016 at 5:08 AM, anthony said:

You'd have to define how you mean "abstract". Abstract as in 'abstract art', is accepted to mean there are no real subjects ~at all~ to see, isn't as you apparently use it, which seems to me roughly "a subtle suggestion of something less well-defined and reduced to essentials". The minimalist styles in the drawings do suggest emotion or activity to the viewers, I agree. I quite like the one of the girl and its suggestion of the her vivacity and movement. As you say yourself, the abstract quality is what YOU make of the pictures in your eyes and mind - only human minds can abstract anything. iow "abstract" can't be inherent to a picture, here they are simply the artists' deliberate stylizing choices. So these aren't at all "abstract art" which is only incoherent lines and shapes etc. - but representational, as you say.

And if you think that the subject matter is ~ever~ "secondary", just try to visualize these images totally without real, intelligible subjects and you might see that the results can't be anything but a confused mess!

I did describe what I meant by 'abstract', referring to the qualities of line, proportion, weight, rhythm etc.

I have no problem imagining these qualities without intelligible subjects. Not confusing or incoherent at all.

I've never been to Kiev, but it seems like many of the fascinating places in eastern europe. There's this contrast between grey, communist, concrete (with graffiti, obviously) and wonderful city centers witch buildings ranging back to the middle ages. With that contrast in mind, I find it difficult to enjoy this graffiti. Even though it's impressive, and I can see the value as a reaction to the communist oppression in these countries, I still see it in contrast to the great beauty and culture you can find in eastern europe

 

On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎22 at 9:33 PM, Brant Gaede said:

An excellent case can be made, I think, that all art is abstract--that that might be what basically unites all the arts.

--Brant

Well, I can only speak for myself here but I've found that my enjoyment of art is very abstract. For example, one of my favorite artists - Glenn Keane - is a legandary Disney animator. While I enjoy the movies from Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks (I have, after all, spent a couple of years studying this kind of stuff), I'm not sold on the aesthetics. It's lacking, in a similar way that I find Thomas Kincaid to be lacking. Technically great, but... but... then you have some of the artists working on these films. Like Glenn Keane. Here's on of his drawing of Pochahontas:

 

I find that to be incredibly beautiful. The lines are so wonderfully weighted, full of emotion, nicely blended and expressive. He's said himself that "drawing [refering to linework, I believe] is the seismograph of the soul". Then you have stuff like the transformation of The Beast, which I enjoy a millions time more than the finished work:

 

Sure, this is representational art. No doubt about that. However, the real qualities I find are abstract. Like the transformation of The Beast, which to me is like one of Michelangelo's drawings or sculptures coming to life. It's all in the lines, proportions and movements. The subject matter is all secondary.

On 2016-06-18 at 4:28 PM, anthony said:

A masterful work and why change it? The high key lighting gives it a lighter and less serious touch, more of momentary hair-pulling frustration/exasparation (at his wife, say) than dark desperation I think, ditto his expression. The tendons of his hands and wrists seem to have been paid much of the painter's attention, beautifully done.

Maybe the question was meant to make you think about the asethetic qualities aside from the narrative, and not a suggestion that the painting needed changing? You know, actual considerations you'd have to make as an artist. Considerations i'm sure Gustave Courbet did make.

How are you supposed to even discuss art if don't have a firm grasp of these aspects?

On ‎2016‎-‎06‎-‎18 at 6:55 PM, Jonathan said:

Color-wise, we're thinking the same, but lighting-wise, I'd eliminate the back/side light, and illuminate the scene from the viewer's position (the character is already looking at us, so our startling him and shining a light in his face might as well be the cause of his anxiety). But rather than a small point of intense light, like that of a candle, lantern or flashlight, I'd make the light source unnatural by diffusing it and spreading it out, as if what the character is looking at is the size of a human form and emitting a ghostly glow, which, given the setup of the scene, would mean a combination of straight-on and under-lighting. Soft, diffused highlights and shadows, neutrals, blues and greens.

J

Ah, yes. I wonder why I didn't think of that. Maybe because I was blind drunk, or maybe because I tend to associate such lighting with spookyness (which is not quite right for desperation). But, I think your lighting scheme would work really well - the way I picture it. Give him an uncanny glow, with that expression, tweak the palette and I think you would get a very strong sense of desperation.

I think it would be a good exercise to do some paintovers when I go on vacation.

Now, that's a really interesting question Jonathan. Let's talk shop. How would you do it?

I would probably put the key light more to the side, bump the intensity, and full on the opposite side to lift the shadows a bit. I'm thinking dramatic shadows and a somewhat unnatural light (most light is from the top).

Then I'd lower the chroma and cool down the palette.

This is certainly not the only way. Another's approach would, for example, be something like Munch's scream. I don't really have the proper words to describe the palette. Maybe pastel with contrasting colors? Anyhow, I think you get what I mean.

I would like to hear your thoughts. This kind of stuff is what I actually find interesting.

18 hours ago, anthony said:

An emotion, identifiable too, is a rapid reaction to making an identity of something - and, according to one's metaphysical view of existence.

This is borderline word soup. I take it you mean emotions follow one's metaphysical value judgements.

18 hours ago, anthony said:

So it is not a certainty to be the same emotion someone else has in the same circumstance.

Agreed, What does that matter?

18 hours ago, anthony said:

In Sublimity, I guess this one you describe would fall under "pleasurable terror", of the imagined possibility of harm while knowing you're safe. Not "dynamic" sublime, more like the "mathematical" sublime of vast space. That feeling, everyone has known at some stage, is of 'discombobulation', a temporary 'disembodiment' and mental hiatus from briefly being unable to take in the scale of the height and view, which your sight is not accustomed to.

Maybe that's what you would feel, but I certainly did not. Yes, it would fall under "pleasurable terror", but hardly safe. It was a certain kind of exaltation.

18 hours ago, anthony said:

So what, really? We are capable of a huge range of emotions and this is one of them.

The point is describing a certain kind of emotion, something which many philosophers have identified as a certain aesthetic quality.

18 hours ago, anthony said:

Unless one considers emotions are "tools of cognition", so prime causes. Unless the object by philosophers is to -emotionally- link our minds directly Nature, to achieve "Oneness". Then, through beauty and sublime in art -emotionally- link us to all mankind. Except, it is the knowledge and understanding of man and nature by which we feel emotions for them. The more you know, the more you feel - in a nutshell. Is that so hard?

You are not making any sense. Now this is qualified word soup and a complete non-sequitur.

It's about identifying a certain kind of emotion, a certain kind of quality, that can be experienced in certain situations. Replace sublime with beauty, if that helps.

Take a fine art nude of, say, a woman. Her face is serene, limbs are gracefully shaped and the forms are curving freely like wind. Looking at the artwork you may get this peculiar feeling of harmony, like everything about the woman is fitting percetly and put together just right. Now, what is this strange quality? I know, let's call it beauty!

Of course, someone interjects: "So what, really? Unless one considers emotions are "tools of cognition", so prime causes" and so on and so forth. Does that really make sense to you? For really reals?

I think these threads must be considered some form of installation art. You should make a collage of images and quotes and approach some art gallery with it. ;)

On a more serious note... Last summer I was in San Marino. It's like a mountain rising up from the flatlands in northern Italy. On top of the mountain there's an old medieval city.

Of course I had to get to the top. Scale the highest walls and look out over the landscape. That's what you do, right?

Standing there, on top of the wall, and looking out is a peculiar kind of feeling. The height  is dizzying and the view is mesmerizing. It's absolutely delightful, but also scary. I'm not particularly scared of heights, but I get very dizzy. That's a bit frightening when you're facing a 1,5-2km drop to the nearest rock. But seeing that landscape from a birds perspective is well worth it.

I would call the feeling sublime. That's my understanding of the term. Now, is that so frigging hard to understand?

Very nice modelling of form in the portrait. I noticed some of it was lost in the finished piece due to a bit muted skin tones (I think it needs some of the warmth from the light/skin to make the face pop). Could just be differences in the photographs though.

A trip to countries like germany might be educational for some. You would find lots of nudity on very public display, including ads for brothels and sex clubs. And guess what? It's not a big deal. Glance away if you don't like it. No one is being traumatized.

I think we need ourselves some heavy stuff here. What better to start with than Death - The Philosopher?

 

And then some Cynic:

Lastly some Meshuggah, with one of the greatest drummers you can find. Seriously, Morgan's drumming here is both fucking legendary och epic at the same time. It should come as no suprise that he's a jazz/fusion drummer originally.

 

14 minutes ago, PDS said:

Somebody is getting their leg pulled, that's for sure.  

Juding by Jonathan's post it must be someone getting their finger pulled

Both of the previous artist are, obviously, heavily influenced by Zdizlaw Beksinski;

Another polish artist, Darius Zawadski:

I don't know why, but I find myself quite fascinated by some dark art. In some ways I tend to actually find it quite uplifting, in some weird way. It reminds me of something Stanley Kubrik said about life after death, finding it a very positive thought.

Anyhow, i'd like to dedicate this thread to dark artworks. I invite everyone to share art that would fit here. I would really appreciate it, because i'm trying to create a visual library for inspiration to create my own pieces.

First out here is Piotr Jablonski, a polish concept artist:

 

 

Well, I do like Peikoff's intepretation. From the images i've seen there is some kind of peacful rapture to the statue. I guess it's hard to say without seeing it in person, but from the images it doesn't look much like a man dying. Perhaps that's what Michelangelo intended, the slave being finally free in death. I don't know.

I do wonder, however, what muscle that could so dramatically change Peikoff's interpretation.  Maybe it was the flexor digitorum longus pulling the slaves index finger... Yeah, that must be it! ;)

Earlier on this thread we had discussed the Rolling Stones' Paint it Black. Last night, while watching Sunday night football, I saw a commercial for Call of Duty: Black Ops III which includes the song. It's all action and adventure, just as I had described the effects of the music on me and others. So, obviously, the advertising people who put the clip together were "objectively" wrong, just like I was, and were "rationalizing" what they took the song to express.

Here's the clip:

J

Honestly though, that's one of the worlds most awesome songs. Seriously!

I've loved it since I could remember, and my dad used to play in i his car whenever we went somewhere (he's of the generation where The Stones where something new).

Speaking of art though, have you guys seen much of what good advertising studios put out? Because, that stuff is so fucking mindblowiningly impressive. Imagine having, say, one minute of video where you have to put in great dramaturgy, music and visual to directly sell whatever product it is you have.

I don't think most people reflect over it, but for those of us with a little bit of art background and insight into the business it's so incredibly impressive.

A few years ago, in school, we actually did a small comcercial for a big toy company. Everyone was really happy and proud about it, but despite our best efforts it got rejected. If I remember correctly it was because it did not sell the product fast enough - we failed to hook any potential costumers right away. And they were, of course, complete right.

I believe that today you'll find the greatest artists in the enterainment industry or advertising. There's so much incredible talent in these fields, and they're just growing bigger and bigger.

Grr still can't find that elusive arctic fox, but in the meantime I captured this big horned ram running down the mountain towards me.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/bighorned-ram-charge-jestephotography-ltd.html

In my opinion, this is one of your best photos. It's a keeper, for damn sure, whatever you do with your portfolio. I hope you sell a lot of prints on that one, because you deserve it.

I'm curious as to what kind of flash set up you're using. How to you get the adequate range when shooting wildlife? Do you use a very powerful flash and/or a snoot to focus the light beam?

I've tried some wildlife photography and... well, fuck me sideways but that's difficult! I mean, you can try and shoot some birds with a telephoto lense, but birds scare easily and bigger animals will either fly away or try to eat you alive. It's the most difficult kind of photography I can think of, and i've tried my hands on just about any kind of photography. I wish I could do what you're doing.

Keep up the good work, and I hope you sell a lot of prints!

In particular for the visual arts, it's a good idea to closely study the how and why of Rand's theory, but mostly get over her 'what' - her own preferences and dislikes. What possesses objective value for one individual to the next, varies widely in art, I think

So, we know how she cricized Vermeer and praised Capuletti. Why did she do that?

I also find it a bit of a problem with an aesthetic theory that talks about judging art, when it's originator makes poor judgements of art.

Oh, but Newbsie's contorted freaks are very Objectivist! His art is an example of what happens when Rand's followers attempt to impose her aesthetic rules and tastes onto visual art, and when they adopt the fantasy of being real life visual arts equivalents of Howard Roark. Objectivism in the visual arts is the practice of the artist announcing through his work that he possesses the explosively joyous, passionate, and proper "sense-of-life" that he is required to have as an Objectivist, via overtly visually signaling his internal state in his characters' external states -- through excessively artificially posed body language, and artlessly staged, unrealistic environments. That's Objectivist visual art 101.

J

In what sense do you use the word Objectivist? I'm not so sure Ayn Rand would have approved of some of the Objectivist art. I mean, if she thought Maxfield Parrish was trash, then what about Objecti-kitsch?

In the above, I use the word "Objectivist" in the sense of Rand's publicly presented aesthetic rules and tastes in art, even though I don't think of those rules and tastes as qualifying as "objective" or "Objectivist" (my view is that much of her aesthetic theory does not comply with the Objectivist epistemology).

As for which works of art Rand would have approved of, that's anyone's guess, especially in the realm of the visual arts. She was inconsistent, and she had novice tastes. She seemed to enjoy hating a lot of art, and looking for something to condemn in it (her peculiar interpretations of Vermeer's work being a great example of novice visual abilities combined with a hostile attitude). The smart money would bet that any painting that you were to show her would likely be met with bile.

She did give some indications now and then about her subjective preferences in visual art. And her followers include those tastes in their art. Bright colors, uncontrolled/non-limited palette, wide value gamut contrast, sharp outlines, differentiated colors-contours, hard lighting, hard shadows, overtly expressive characters, etc.

I agree that if she had seen what her followers interpret her as having wished for, she probably wouldn't have liked it. She wasn't a visual artist, and I don't think that she could really visualize how crappy visual art would be if anyone actually indulged her attempt to impose her theory of literature onto the visual arts.

J

True, they do follow her aesthetics. At least when taken at face value. However, regurgitating the same themes and doing the n'th number of contrived poses expressing joy and rapture doesn't go well with the rest of her ideas. I don't think that's what she envisioned. I can only speculate, of course.

Yeah, it's hard to guess what she would have approved of. Calling her interpretations of Vermeer 'peculiar' is too kind. They're flat out wrong. Only thing she got right was calling his handling of light masterful, though it's hardly what his painting were about. Capuletti has also been mentioned before, and though I like some of his work he was hardly a "virtuoso". Her judgement on visual art certainly was strange.

Oh, but Newbsie's contorted freaks are very Objectivist! His art is an example of what happens when Rand's followers attempt to impose her aesthetic rules and tastes onto visual art, and when they adopt the fantasy of being real life visual arts equivalents of Howard Roark. Objectivism in the visual arts is the practice of the artist announcing through his work that he possesses the explosively joyous, passionate, and proper "sense-of-life" that he is required to have as an Objectivist, via overtly visually signaling his internal state in his characters' external states -- through excessively artificially posed body language, and artlessly staged, unrealistic environments. That's Objectivist visual art 101.

J

In what sense do you use the word Objectivist? I'm not so sure Ayn Rand would have approved of some of the Objectivist art. I mean, if she thought Maxfield Parrish was trash, then what about Objecti-kitsch?

Another objection I have to suggestions is that how is an artist going to grow in their unique way when they take advice from others? It is how each artist solves problems that make art their own. A populist artist like Kinkaid spent all his time repeating his popular successes following the taste of what the buyers wanted and lost his identity – then drank himself to death, right when he should be in his prime.

A lot of people like the idea of directing a fine artist, I think it is an irresistible ego trap for some, and some of them can be good souls too, but the height of class is to never go there. Speaking of trash …

I think that's the last thing an artist needs to worry about. You grow in your own way by doing the art you like doing, no matter where the suggestion or idea came from.

Would you hold the same attitude towards ideas? That critique and suggestions hamper growth and prevents you from developing your own unique thinking?

That's not how you think independently and that's not how you develop your own artistic vision.

The best artists I know of have spent years giving and recieving brutal critiques, copied masterworks, experimenting and trying new tools. That's how they've developed badass skills and eventually found their own thing.

Then, of course, there's a difference between style and execution. Style is certainly more personal and harder to critique. However, when it's a matter of a displaced hip and a melted face, such critique is pureley technical.

'awesome' heh

Related to 'juice', as in:

"Wow, nice shape-juice man!" or "love that color-juice, brah!".

Wyeth has some really awesome creepy mood-juice going. ;)

I wonder what Torres sees, and what he does not, in Wyeth's work. I mean what details? What makes him see an overall "dignity" and "tranquility"?

Does he see the rustic, worn and dirty state of the scene?

What do rutted, dirt roads suggest about the standard of living? What do the details of the scenes suggest about the type of work that the people do? What do the details suggest about their levels of education, success, disposable income, luxury, etc.?

Does Torres see that windows in Wyeth's houses are sparse and small? What does that one fact reveal about the inhabitants and their living conditions? What does it suggest about their economic state, about their financial prospects and expectations?

Do these details add up to "tranquility"? Or does one get tranquility out of Wyeth's work only if one hasn't noticed, contemplated and felt the significance of such details?

J

Well, I suppose death is (very) tranquil...

By the way, who else thinks Child's Play is a movie about a cute doll, named Chucky, that heroically fights oppression? An allegory of the individual versus the state. Whoever thinks otherwise must clearly have a very twisted sense of life. There's no other possible explanation.

(I find Wyeth's painting exceptionally and fascinatingly creepy. I must take some time to study it to figure out how he achieved the effect.)

Here's one of his that I find to be deliciously creepy:

The Witching Hour.

J

Oh, that's cool! Now I definitely have to study him. Learning to do creepy moods might prove useful, plus... it's fun.

Speaking of fun, I wonder why I've never seen Objectivists make that judgement of an artists sense of life. Like no artist ever went "hey, this is kinda cool - let's make it awesome!". Oh no, because it's far more likely they are evil and twisted...