Theo

Add sculpture to that list, but remove architecture. Architecture, by its nature, is a design discipline. I understand Rand may have conceded that architecture was not art later in her life.

So what is it that you need me to explain for you to understand? Are you expecting me to compile a list of paintings that qualify as objective art? Do you need me to analyse each one? Do you need me to show you examples of masterful stylisation? Do you need me to show you how recognisable subject can project meaning within a painting? I continue to point out how the nature of representational painting and abstract painting differ, but that clearly is not enough for you. None of the above is important to you when you want to hold onto a lie (like a priest), a lie that tries to make something into that which it is not! Ayn Rand has exposed that lie! In fact, that lie was exposed as self-evident long before Rand came along.

I explained clearly that abstract art was aligned with decorative design - just because I left out some detail (surely I don't need to explain the design process here), does not make me a rationalist. I assume most people understand it at least in a basic way. Also, it is clear that representational painting is not decorative design in any way and assumed I didn't need to elaborate further, but I will if I have to. What part of what I wrote don't you understand? If a "creator" staples a tyre to a wall and calls it art, does not make it art. In fact, this subjectivist view would make it utterly impossible to answer any questions on art. "Anything goes" is not a valid understanding of anything, simply because you don't know the answer. Or, what I suspect is, you want to cling onto a falsehood - you want to believe abstract painting is art.

In art, like philosophy, you won't get the "proof" you are looking for. This is not a science experiment! Validating knowledge on art requires first understanding the nature of the subject we are talking about and to do this it is crucial to answering questions such as; Why does man create or even need art? Since art is uniquely man-made, how does it relate to man as a conceptual being? Why recreate (stylise) reality? etc. What we are dealing with here are very broad abstractions and I believe Ayn Rand asked and answered these brilliantly. To fully understand these concepts requires tracing them back to references in reality. That is exactly why representational painting and abstract painting CAN NOT be retained within the same concept, art, simply because everything about the nature of both are totally different - they have absolutely nothing in common - in the way they are created and in the way a viewer responds to them. At best, abstract painting is decorative design. Recognising something for what it is or is not, does not make me a fascist. How?! How can a theme be conveyed without a subject? How can something contain subject matter and contain none at the same time? How can an artist stylise reality, without reference to reality? As I have explained in my previous post, every element that makes art possible has been removed in abstract painting. Empiricists hate and recoil from broad abstractions - it is all too much for them and they can only resort to cynical, snide comments. The only option for an empiricist is to turn to pure subjectivism to provide them with "answers", here is a perfect example: That was Jonathan's attempt to give abstract art some meaning!?

Of course Jonathan, you must hate it every time I mention anything about, stylisation, subject matter and theme, as these are the essential ingredients that make up objective art - and which are totally ABSENT in abstract art! The term abstract art is a joke! Abstract implies there is something conceptual about it. Abstract art cannot even be perceptual, it can only convey sensations, much like decorative design. Compare a Vermeer next to a Pollock painting, there is no way they can be conceptually grouped into the same category of fine art just because they are both contained within a frame - one is art, one is not.

Most artists are self-taught if they recognise in themselves that they have strong visual/spacial capabilities and then develop them further. It also depends on the individual and how they prefer to learn. Some people need to go to Uni to learn but you definitely don't have to as there is a lot of resources on art available.

When you click on the thumbnail, it goes to a larger image.

How I want to stylise a bouquet of flowers eliminates the boredom, but if I only had flowers in the painting without any other element to give it context, that would be boring to me.

Neither is right or wrong - it depends on the intentions of the artist. However, from a cognitive point of view, the question arises, does the artist wish to project his/her subject matter with clarity or not. You can decide for yourself whether clarity of thought is right or wrong - I know my opinion on this.

Thanks, Brant. Your criticisms are valid. There is a difficult balance between having an online gallery and marketing ie images that end up outside of my website can be traced back. Also, Google search do like words (text), so deleting titles may affect this.

I sense ugly cynicism from you - and nothing intelligent to contribute!

Jonathan, to address your painfully concrete-bound tiles example. Of course, you can see tiles, because the shapes are tiled. But they don’t represent tiles stylistically. There is a massive difference between textured shapes, colours that vaguely resemble tiles and representing tiles in a room, showing how the light reflects off the surface, how the colours change within different areas of the room showing bounce light, simply showing only the essential details that makeup tiles and not just every single detail etc. Your tiles example is equivalent to saying that this is a praying mantis:

Firstly, Jonathan, you need to distinguish clearly in your mind the difference between the chosen subject matter and how an artist chooses to represent it. This clarity is needed to know what makes up an artwork and how it can project any given theme. There are many aspects that makes-up an artwork - but the 2 primaries are subject and stylisation. When I said a painting must contain at less two related entities in order to project a theme, I was obviously referring to subject matter. I should have made it clear that attributes of entities also contribute to a theme. I never said an artwork was not an artwork because it contained only one entity. I said that for an artwork to project a theme it must contain at least 2 related entities, very similar to concept formation. In regards to the image of the apple, YES it is a work of art. It has a reasonably good method of stylisation, but in regards to subject matter, it IS very limited. It is as if the apple has been isolated from anything else giving it any context. Simply compare that image to most early masters works which contain many related elements, which may even include an apple.

Interestingly Peter, as a conceptual being, your first reaction was to try and find something concrete within the image to represent reality - try to give it some meaning.

An emphatic NO, Jonathan. You have deliberately made them NOT look like tiles, and even if you did, that would not be enough. The image would still be on the most basic perceptual level. Any painted object must be given a context by adding at least one other recognisable entity that it can be related to, showing its significance of being included. The early Dutch painters included floor tiles in their artworks but these were not their primary choice of subject. To further illustrate my point here is a drawing by Glenn Keane Posted by Thorn. It demonstrates how relating entities and its attributes give meaning to an artwork. Also, I agree with Tony's description of it: Tony wrote: 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 her vivacity and movement. The drawing contains at least 2 related concretes to convey its subject matter allowing the viewer to recognise the artist's intention: pretty girl, her expression, flowing hair (movement/wind). The emotion it evokes, the movement it conveys, forms, contrast, the composition, all would amount to a ZERO without the recognisable subject matter. Now, back to Linda Mann's paintings. Here is a link to one of her paintings I like (however, still-lifes are generally not my favoured subject). The painting is well stylised and her craftsmanship is superb. The sunlit objects, forms, shine, texture, vibrant colours all convey a bold realism and a tangible view of the world. http://www.lindamann.com/sqal.htm Below, I have created an "abstract painting" of her painting. My apologies Linda! I removed all the recognisable objects and kept only the attributes - colours, shapes, shade. Sure, you could learn all about colour theory and in regards to both images, you could say: The brightest and largest element is closest to the shadow making it more prominent. The eye is also drawn to the green element in contrast with the surrounding warm elements - but in Linda's painting these further enhance her chosen objects but in my "masterpiece" they only enhance the colour itself. There is no reference to objects which means the composition is lost (the viewing angle, the positional relation between entities). Form, light, texture are all lost - reality is completely lost and all you are left with is the unintelligible.

I think Tony's responses to Jonathan have been succinct and on the mark. However, I will look at commenting on some of Jonathan's reference to specific examples when I get time.

I have. I addressed Jonathan's posts (indirectly) by explaining clearly in my earlier post the difference between decorative design and visual fine art, and how they can not be lumped together in the same category. Robert, Brant, neither of you have addressed removing subject matter from visual art - the crucial element that makes up a painting/sculpture to give it meaning. An artist can not depict light without the object it shines on, or render texture without an object to make it real, or apply colour and disconnect it from its visual form. To take an art form, remove everything that gives it clarity and meaning, then to evade this issue by claiming art is whatever you make it.

What makes visual art great is its ability to project and convey a theme which becomes instantly understood by the viewer. But to then take that medium and remove its most important element "the subject" then wonder why I don't get some "gut reaction". Identifying the nature of something and recognizing it for what it is or isn't, is being a "cultural fascist" in your eyes.

The objects are removed from "Abstract art" - that is why it IS called "Abstract art". Removing the objects makes it unintelligible and unclear.

But this is exactly what art does, it shows, in a cognitive way the mental state of an artist. The mental state of Henry Moore applied to his works vs the mental state of Michelangelo applied to his works is obvious. Are you implying that if an artwork is unintelligible to a viewer it is only because the viewer doesn't know the artist's mental state? If an artist creates grotesque "Axe Through Head" art, we could not possibly know the mental state of the artist? ("Axe Through Head" art is a term I use for totally malevolent art after viewing an artist's work with the same title)

Robert wrote: Art is not a simple man made entity (such as a paper-clip). Art is a variety of objects and activities. Ok, so what you are saying is, if I arrange a few paper-clips of various colours together as part of some activity, then I have created art.

Brant wrote: Uh, huh. Art is what you say it is. Artists are who you say they are. The reason I can not agree with this anything goes view on art is because, for example, if a person looks at a car and believes that it is a wonderful work of art because he sees the beauty in it, what that person is seeing is the thought, design, craftsmanship that has gone into it or maybe he just likes the shade of red. To place it in the same conceptual category as visual fine art and totally ignoring the way in which it is created, the design process including the utilitarian reason for creating it is an insult to both the field of design and the field of painting/sculpture. Is a Ferrari a painting or a sculpture? Oh silly me I forgot - anything goes, it's anything you believe it is. Someone may ask - does it really matter? Of course, it matters. The "Art is what you say it is" view of art is evading the actual process and reasons why an artist creates art. It is a disservice to the design process to pretend that it is anything other than a decorative process, just as it is a disservice to fine art to using non-representational elements; because it relies on observing objects in reality and showing how significant those objects are to the artist by the way in which they are included and by simply including them. It is an intellectual crime to ignore the nature of both fields. The design disciplines include a very broad field: decorative design, architecture, cooking, fashion, graphics, jewellery, bridges, cars etc. The visual fine arts are very specific in its nature and it is made up primarily of painting and sculpture (dance, movies are made up of combinations). The nature of visual fine art allows an artist to convey broad themes which can only be achieved via representational means ie dealing with recognisable subjects that relate to each other. Those elements may include: how light shines on an object, the pose of a character, the contrast and placement of objects, the colour/tone of an object. Many artworks don’t necessarily convey an obvious theme because of the limited elements or disconnected elements within.

Brant wrote: If you are an abstract artist you may say you are not an abstract artist because what you do is not art. That contradiction, however, does not travel. You may also say the contrary. Same contradiction. What a person calls themselves is irrelevant - if a person paints a canvas red and calls themselves an artist that doesn't make them an artist. I clearly spelt out the different processes in creating fine art and decorative design which you did not address. Brant wrote: Whoever says he's an artist and what he does is make art, I never argue the point. I merely like it or not. Your definition of art is whether you like it or not - this is a complete cop-out. Brant wrote: The point is what is and is not art cannot be objectified, only defined into and out of existence. That's the province of esthetics, not philosophy. Hence, turf wars. Your "personal view" vs someone else's. What does this mean? You can not define things out of existence. One can believe that Kandinsky is a master artist or Michelangelo is a designer but it does not change the existence or nature of their works. Brant wrote: The closest I can objectify art is to say it's all abstract. Fine art is in the province of both esthetics and philosophy because of the process I outlined and its ability to convey meaning - ironically, great representational paintings should be called abstract art because of the themes they project. "Abstract art" projects nothing but sensations - a red canvas is no more than a red canvas but it can feel warm which is the province of design. Both processes are so different they are not in the same category.

A representational painter focuses on the attributes of his/her chosen subject ie colour, light, texture and decides how these attributes enhance his subject. How an artist arranges his subject matter also highlights and makes prominent certain elements within the composition. Through a process of stylisation the painter will either exaggerate certain attributes and details or omit them depending on the effect and end result. Further to this, for an artist to convey a broader theme in their work they must include 2 or more visually related objects/elements. So what does an abstract "artist" do? They take attributes ie colour, light, texture and disconnect them from the entities they represent and then pretend that they have some meaning without those entities in the form of their "feelings" or "experiences". Attributes alone convey NOTHING other than pure sensations. Attributes disconnected from entities don't even reach the perceptual level. My own personal view is clear: I do not knock abstract "art" I simply state that it is NOT art and is at best decorative and should be recognised for what it is. Design discipline uses decorative elements to the best effect and you see this in architecture, interior design, graphic design, car design etc.