Have I Been Excommunicated/Unpersoned?

[Serapis Bey]

You expressed puzzlement above as to why the questions might have not seemed "polite." How about, because the hidden agenda looked obvious?

I didn't intend to hide the "agenda." I assumed that anyone reading my comments to Roger would recognize that I was (politely but directly) rejecting his implied claim of objectivity of judgments of beauty, and challenging him to back them up with proof, and that I was reminding him that the concept of objectivity has a very specific meaning according to Objectivism, and that I'd expect Roger to follow it in offering proof (I did so because so many times I've seen Objectivists play word games with the concept "objectivity" when they want to claim that one of their subjective judgments is actually objective -- I wanted to preempt any of that type of thing by immediately and clearly defining the concept being used and identifying the standards and criteria of what constitutes proof).

Incidentally, I see that Stephen has now deleted everyone's posts on that subject. For those who didn't see them, Ba'al Bob had written something to the effect that judgments of beauty and such are a matter of subjective personal taste/preference. Roger replied to the effect that Ba'al Bob's statement was nothing but a matter of subjective personal taste/preference. Ba'al Bob then made a brief statement rejecting Roger's. So that's the background of this issue. That's where I came in.

>People here do have a "history" with you. I suspect that Roger might have felt that you were just trying to set him up.

What do you mean by "set him up"? Do you mean to do something by deceit and trickery in order to frame him? If so, I had no intention of deceiving or tricking Roger. Likewise, if Roger were to assert that he can teleport, I wouldn't be attempting to deceive or trick him if I were to politely challenge him to prove it.

My opinion is that some of your behavior really does produce a disgusted reaction from some people, for instance Stephen Boydstun.

I think that it's quite common for people to have a very negative reaction to potent challenges to their beliefs, especially when they've tried to establish themselves as having a scholarly reputation regarding those beliefs. They do things like delete arguments that they don't like, start flame war rants to complain that they're being mistreated, attempt to use ridicule as a substitute for argument, etc.

Regarding Roger's wife's remark, you've looked to me, with the way you've kept reverting to that, as if it's a thorn in your side that keeps festering. Similar to the historic appearance to me of your reverting and reverting to Rand's "Trash" reply about Parrish.

My initial mentioning on this thread of Roger's use of his wife's comment, and my doing it parenthetically I might add, was a legitimate response to Roger's attempt to claim that my describing others' reactions as angry was an issue of projection. My mentioning it was just a small part of the evidence that I cited to support my view that others appear to be angry when challenged on their mistaken or contradictory beliefs.

And my further repeating of it after that is just a response to Roger's demand that I stop mentioning it. I look at it as a moral decision. When someone makes demands when they should be apologizing, I think it's practically mandatory to send them the signal that their demands will not be met.

If we were having a discussion here at OL about math, and I were to state that 2 + 2 = 4, and you were to then say that you disagreed, and that you showed my statement to your husband who is a very sensitive appreciator of mathematics, and he said, "Give me a break," I don't think you'd be in a position to be making demands that I not mention your use of his opinion in such a lame attempt at ridicule. You wouldn't have the right to complain that I was laughing at the fact that his statement actually demonstrates that both he and you are anything but sensitive appreciators of mathematics.

Additional perspective:

Roger's view on the effects of music is that we identify or associate human actions and attributes with the music's form, despite not being given a full or direct likeness of a human being. In viewing music in that way, he is using the same method that Rand used in her descriptions in The Fountainhead of the effects of the abstract forms and colors in works of architecture. He is using exactly the same method that I used in describing human actions and attributes in abstract paintings. He is using the same method that Kandinsky used in explaining the effects of color and shape.

The problem is that he doesn't recognize it, and seems to be determined not to recognize it. And therefore he doesn't recognize that I am anything but angry about his views or his attempt to ridicule my approach to identifying meaning in abstract painting. I can't be angry about it. I can only laugh at the fact that Roger and his wife are unknowingly ridiculing Roger's own method of abstracting entities and their actions from music.

Mrs. Bissell's "Give me a break" comment is no less applicable to Roger's method of finding meaning in music and to Rand's method of finding it in architecture than it is to my or Kandinsky's method of finding meaning in the forms, colors and relationships in abstract paintings:

"The first gives me the feeling of energy, determination and action. It's meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions. The specific angularity and proportions of the shapes is what conveys motion and rising to me, the dramatic contrasts and bold colors suggest passion, heat, pressure and struggle, and the bulk of the forms and the roughness of the textures give me the feeling of strength and rugged durability. I see it as a very physically masculine painting. It's extroverted, dominant, serious and aggressive. It's like Atlas pushing upward. The second image gives me the feeling of serenity. It's meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities. The colors are subdued and calming. There is practically no drama or contrast -- the forms are delicate and faint, and they convey a soothing gentleness, playfulness and weightlessness. The image is like a visual whisper. I see it as a very physically feminine painting. It's withdrawn and introverted, and anything but aggressive. It's like a mother caressing a child."

"Give me a break!"

"The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow -- until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments -- a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: '...in His image and likeness...' "

"Give me a break!"

"Its lines were horizontal, not the lines reaching to heaven, but the lines of the earth. It seemed to spread over the ground like arms outstretched at shoulder height. Palms down, in great silent acceptance. It did not cling to the soil and it did not crouch under the sky. It seemed to lift the earth, and its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down."

"Give me a break!"

"Generally speaking, warmth and cold in a color means an approach respectively to yellow or to blue. This distinction is, so to speak, on one basis, the color having a constant fundamental appeal, but assuming a more material or non-material quality. The movement is a horizontal one, the warm colors approaching the spectator, the cold ones retreating from him...Yellow and blue have another movement which affects the first antithesis -- an ex- and concentric movement. If two circles are drawn and painted respectively yellow and blue, brief concentration will reveal in the yellow a spreading movement out from the center, and a noticeable approach to the spectator. The blue, on the other hand, moves in upon itself, like a snail retreating into its shell, and draws away from the spectator...The first movement of yellow, that of approach to the spectator (which can be increased by the intensification of the yellow), and also the second movement, that of over-spreading the boundaries, have a material parallel in the human energy which assails every obstacle blindly, and bursts forth aimlessly in every direction...Yellow, if steadily gazed at in any geometric form, has a disturbing influence, and reveals in the color an insistent, aggressive character (it is worth noting that the sour-tasting lemon and the shrill-singing canary are both yellow)...Blue is the typical heavenly color. The ultimate feeling it creates is one of rest. When it sinks almost to black, it echoes a grief that is hardly human. When it rises toward white, a movement little suited to it, its appeal to men grows weaker and more distant."

"Give me a break!"

"For me, the secondary re-creation level ('representation') does not need to be visual/tactile, just something that behaves generally (very generally) like physical entities...[a melody] is something ~like~ an entity, in certain respects...Consider instead the popular song 'My Heart Stood Still.' It has wonderful upward sweeping phrases in major, and they convey a lush, yearning, surging feeling that completely fits the lyrics."

"Give me a break!"

You've said similar things before but not when I had a bit of time to ask: What do you mean by it? Specifically by the statement that "In a way, [the Objectivist Esthetics] is the starting point of the philosophy."...I have speculations as to what you might mean, and my own view of a way in which the statement might be true. What I've been thinking ever since I read The Mysterious Valley (translated) last winter is that Rand's reaction to Cyrus Paltons, the character in the book with whom she fell in love at age 9, combined with her reactions to the military band music she'd heard, I think age 6, on vacation in the Crimea, was "the starting point of the philosophy," content-wise.

But I don't know if that's the sort of "starting point" you're thinking of.

Yes, I'm thinking of Rand's early aesthetic responses. More on that subject later.

J

Dude, what are you hoping to accomplish with this. Perhaps I am missing something. I haven't read you too closely but I can tell you are passionate about art. Do you create art? Why not get busy with that? How about enjoying art. Or discussing your favorite art with others and sharing impressions. Why this need nail down some "correct" theory of art? I can understand the practical value in being clear about one's epistemology, or ethics or politics. But does this discussion really serve you in any practical way? Does having an Objective theory of art allow you to create art more effectively than you otherwise would? Since you are Objectivish, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not seeking approval from others to feel good about your own aesthetic choices. What's the deal here? It's starting to give me a headache.

[Jonathan]

Dude, what are you hoping to accomplish with this. Perhaps I am missing something. I haven't read you too closely but I can tell you are passionate about art.

Um, yeah, I think you'd need to read closely to grasp what the argument is about.

Do you create art? Why not get busy with that? How about enjoying art.

Yes, I do all of those things.

Or discussing your favorite art with others and sharing impressions.

That's usually incredibly boring.

Why this need nail down some "correct" theory of art?

Where did you get the idea that I'm trying to nail down some correct theory of art? I'm only pointing out contradictions and double standards in others' attempts to establish their theories of art as the "correct" ones.

What's the deal here? It's starting to give me a headache.

Then take two aspirin, and either pay closer attention so that you can actually grasp the issues being discussed, or stop reading any threads on the subject of aesthetics. Make up your mind. Pay full attention or pay no attention.

J

[Serapis Bey]

Where did you get the idea that I'm trying to nail down some correct theory of art? I'm only pointing out contradictions and double standards in others' attempts to establish their theories of art as the "correct" ones.

Ah, I see. Carry on then.

troll reckonize troll

*fistbump*

[Ellen Stuttle]

 

Where did you get the idea that I'm trying to nail down some correct theory of art? I'm only pointing out contradictions and double standards in others' attempts to establish their theories of art as the "correct" ones.

I'm both shocked and epiphanized by that statement. It does explain why I chronically have troubles trying to figure out what your point is. But then, you see, I've thought that you had one -- I.e., that under the Baroque adornments of frosting, there was a cake in there somewhere. Maybe the wording "nail down" is too "hey, final" sounding, but are you seriously disavowing an effort to find a correct -- which I take to mean a true -- theory of art, or at least of the visual arts?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Where did you get the idea that I'm trying to nail down some correct theory of art? I'm only pointing out contradictions and double standards in others' attempts to establish their theories of art as the "correct" ones.

I'm both shocked and epiphanized by that statement. It does explain why I chronically have troubles trying to figure out what your point is. But then, you see, I've thought that you had one -- I.e., that under the Baroque adornments of frosting, there was a cake in there somewhere. Maybe the wording "nail down" is too "hey, final" sounding, but are you seriously disavowing an effort to find a correct -- which I take to mean a true -- theory of art, or at least of the visual arts?

Ellen

I think it's more like it hasn't happened yet, not that it can't. It's his "Show me the beef!" argument--and that so far all there is is vegetarian patties pretending to be beef meat and the pattiers are refusing to discuss it with him. There seem to be to me two different supposed objectifications of esthetics: a description of what is going on and had been going on by whom and/or what (okay by me) and what is good and bad in art--apart from technique--what is and isn't art, who is and isn't an artist. For me, if someone claims to be an artist, that's fine. I like it or not or am indifferent, but go ahead and be an artist and make your art. It's all subjective and variable. I do not like how Jonathan addresses these people and issues, but essentially that's between him and them for I'm out of the loop. They all know a lot more about art and esthetics than I do. I simply don't want artists, whoever they are and whatever they do, objectified out of existence into a psychological fascism that destroys creativity.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I'm both shocked and epiphanized by that statement. It does explain why I chronically have troubles trying to figure out what your point is. But then, you see, I've thought that you had one -- I.e., that under the Baroque adornments of frosting, there was a cake in there somewhere.

I see my position as the opposite: There is so much more cake there than what any theorists have ever "nailed down."

Maybe the wording "nail down" is too "hey, final" sounding...

Yes, I think that the wording of the "nailed down" part is what's throwing you.

...but are you seriously disavowing an effort to find a correct -- which I take to mean a true -- theory of art, or at least of the visual arts?

I'm very interested in gaining knowledge and truth in the field of aesthetics, and in understanding how and why the various art forms can affect different people, but I think that the mindset that there is, as you said above, a "hey, final" theory of art beyond which nothing new will be discovered, and that such a theory can be applied easily -- or even nonchalantly -- to all of the art forms, is incredibly hubristic and shortsighted.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I assumed that anyone reading my comments to Roger would recognize that I was (politely but directly) rejecting his implied claim of objectivity of judgments of beauty[.]

Was he implying a claim of "objectivity of judgments of beauty"? Or of what is and isn't art? The two aren't the same issue.

I thought that what you and Roger were arguing about is whether or not abstract painting is art.

What do you mean by "set him up"?

"'Come into my parlor,' said the spider to the fly."

Or the wolf donning Granny's clothes in the Little Red Riding Hood story.

My opinion is that some of your behavior really does produce a disgusted reaction from some people, for instance Stephen Boydstun.

I think that it's quite common for people to have a very negative reaction to potent challenges to their beliefs, especially when they've tried to establish themselves as having a scholarly reputation regarding those beliefs. They do things like delete arguments that they don't like, start flame war rants to complain that they're being mistreated, attempt to use ridicule as a substitute for argument, etc.

As usual, you shift the issue from "your behavior" to people's reacting to having their beliefs challenged.

I think that you have your own version of the Chanticleer tale. Chanticleer thought that his crowing made the sun rise. You think that your argumentative prowress drives people angrily from the barnyard, but really they leave because they think that you're acting like a twerp. For short. And adjust details appropriately according to whether they leave or they eject you.

Also, you appear to assume that people who react negatively to you have actually read your arguments. Big assumption (unless they directly quote your arguments).

Regarding the thread Stephen deleted, you've said that he'd earlier deleted a post by Dragonfly and one by you. Did Dragonfly's post contain an embedded image of Goya's painting of Saturn devouring his children? And did yours pick up that image? I vaguely recall there being a thread where Stephen deleted a couple images of that painting, but I'm not sure if it was the thread you're talking about.

When someone makes demands when they should be apologizing, I think it's practically mandatory to send them the signal that their demands will not be met.

If we were having a discussion here at OL about math, and I were to state that 2 + 2 = 4, and you were to then say that you disagreed, and that you showed my statement to your husband who is a very sensitive appreciator of mathematics, and he said, "Give me a break," I don't think you'd be in a position to be making demands that I not mention your use of his opinion in such a lame attempt at ridicule. You wouldn't have the right to complain that I was laughing at the fact that his statement actually demonstrates that both he and you are anything but sensitive appreciators of mathematics.

Is your analogy meant to infer that you categorize the statement "abstract painting qualifies as art" as belonging on the same level of stipulated definitional truth as "2 + 2 = 4"?

(As I expect you know, I agree with you that abstract painting is art, but I can see a basis for dispute -- and there's some stuff which its producers call "abstract painting" which I think really is just squiggles or whatever.)

As to apologizing, I think that Roger would have been smart to apologize back when. At this stage though, with all your twistings of the knife bringing his wife into it, my opinion is that apologies would be in order from you. At minimum, dropping references to Roger's wife in further comments on Roger's views.

All the above said, the examples you then went on to give interest me. I'd even like to add to them -- if the context were different.

--

I'm both shocked and epiphanized by that statement. It does explain why I chronically have troubles trying to figure out what your point is. But then, you see, I've thought that you had one -- I.e., that under the Baroque adornments of frosting, there was a cake in there somewhere.

I see my position as the opposite: There is so much more cake there than what any theorists have ever "nailed down."

I think that there's much more cake than any theorists have ever "nailed down" -- or ever will "nail down" -- to the subject of art. But I didn't mean the subject of art. I meant your posts, with all the excrescences and feudings which make the "cake" content you offer hard to find.

For instance, the current thread. Those parallel examples you quoted are the sorts of things I read your posts looking for, but all the stuff one has to dig down past to get to them.....

Ellen

[caroljane]

J is not a chanticleer. I see him as the terrier who will always catch the pant leg but never the car.

None of us will ever catch the car and not everyone cares for the taste of pant leg. But what we pursue is worth pursuing.

[tmj]

Reading J's posts has certainly made me examine my understanding of art as a concept.

[Jonathan]

Was he implying a claim of "objectivity of judgments of beauty"? Or of what is and isn't art? The two aren't the same issue.

Roger was referring to judgments of beauty. The post of mine in which I challenged Roger to comply with the Objectivist concept of "objectivity" (which is the volitional application of logic and reason using a clearly identified objective standard) in supporting his position that judgments of beauty are objective, was a response to Roger's rejection of Ba'al Bob's statement that judgments of beauty are a matter of taste and personal preference. I'd provide a link to the discussion so that you could see for yourself, but Stephen deleted the entire thread, so there's nothing to link to.

"'Come into my parlor,' said the spider to the fly."

Or the wolf donning Granny's clothes in the Little Red Riding Hood story.

As I said in an earlier post, I had no intention of deceiving or tricking Roger. I assumed that anyone reading my comments to Roger would recognize that I was politely but directly rejecting his implied claim of objectivity of judgments of beauty, and challenging him to back them up with proof.

As usual, you shift the issue from "your behavior" to people's reacting to having their beliefs challenged.

I think that you have your own version of the Chanticleer tale. Chanticleer thought that his crowing made the sun rise. You think that your argumentative prowress drives people angrily from the barnyard, but really they leave because they think that you're acting like a twerp. For short. And adjust details appropriately according to whether they leave or they eject you.

Anyone could claim that anyone else is acting like a twerp. I think that Roger is being twerpy when taking the position that his tastes and interpretations of art are objective, and that everyone else is "in denial" and "rationalizing" when they have different tastes and interpretations. I think he's twerpy to drag his wife's incredulity into a discussion as an attempt at intimidation while avoiding addressing the substance of my positions. I think Stephen is twerpy for deleting others' arguments and visual examples. Yet I haven't used their twerpy behavior as an excuse to act all uppity and offended and run away from the discussions. I'm still here, and my substance still hasn't been answered.

As for my being a Chanticleer, on all of the occasions that I've crowed about my argumentative prowess, it has been in regard to my arguments that have not been answered. I don't think that it's unreasonable for me to conclude that my opponents have no answers.

Also, you appear to assume that people who react negatively to you have actually read your arguments. Big assumption (unless they directly quote your arguments).

Roger has often directly quoted my arguments while while avoiding answering them.

Regarding the thread Stephen deleted, you've said that he'd earlier deleted a post by Dragonfly and one by you. Did Dragonfly's post contain an embedded image of Goya's painting of Saturn devouring his children?

I'm not sure which of Goya's images Dragonfly had posted, but I think that the Saturn was probably one of them.

And did yours pick up that image?

No, my post did not include any images. And additional posts of mine were deleted on that thread which had nothing to do with the Goya images.

I vaguely recall there being a thread where Stephen deleted a couple images of that painting, but I'm not sure if it was the thread you're talking about.

Yes, it was the thread that I'm talking about. It was the same thread on which I more recently posted my challenge to Roger that he comply with the Objectivist concept of objectivity in proving his claim that judgments of beauty are objective. Stephen edited, deleted and fussily rearranged pieces of the thread, then eventually deleted the entire thread, and just recently he reposted content from it under a new thread name.

Is your analogy meant to infer that you categorize the statement "abstract painting qualifies as art" as belonging on the same level of stipulated definitional truth as "2 + 2 = 4"?

Yes. If the statements "music is art," "architecture is art," and "dance is art" are on the same level of stipulated definitional truth as "2 + 2 = 4," then the statement "abstract painting is art" is on exactly the same level.

(As I expect you know, I agree with you that abstract painting is art, but I can see a basis for dispute -- and there's some stuff which its producers call "abstract painting" which I think really is just squiggles or whatever.)

Sure, but if we employ the same standards used in disputing abstract painting, there is also a basis for disputing the status of music, architecture and dance as qualifying as art. Every time that I've tested Objectivists by giving them examples of those art forms, while not allowing them access to "outside considerations," they have not been able to successfully follow Rand's criteria of objectively identifying subjects and meanings. Those art forms are not objectively intelligible to Objectivists, and therefore could be said to "cease to be art."

As to apologizing, I think that Roger would have been smart to apologize back when. At this stage though, with all your twistings of the knife bringing his wife into it, my opinion is that apologies would be in order from you. At minimum, dropping references to Roger's wife in further comments on Roger's views.

He brought his wife into it. This is what happens when someone brings his wife into an argument as an attempt at using ridicule as a substitute for argument. Besides, I've already made a very generous offer to Roger that I will no longer mention his wife if he agrees to never bring up her or her aesthetic opinions again, and if he agrees to never again denigrate any other person with the claim that they are "rationalizing" when disagreeing with his interpretations of works of art, and if agrees to never make another "personal attack" on Rand by being critical of her level of knowledge of music. If he stops dishing out what he can't take, I'll be more than happy to not have to throw it back in his face.

All the above said, the examples you then went on to give interest me. I'd even like to add to them -- if the context were different.

Well then let's change the context on a new thread and have a pleasant conversation about it.

I think that there's much more cake than any theorists have ever "nailed down" -- or ever will "nail down" -- to the subject of art. But I didn't mean the subject of art. I meant your posts, with all the excrescences and feudings which make the "cake" content you offer hard to find.

For instance, the current thread. Those parallel examples you quoted are the sorts of things I read your posts looking for, but all the stuff one has to dig down past to get to them.....

Keep in mind that I started this thread for the purpose of addressing the excrescences and feudings. So look on the bright side. We got some cake where there was never intended to be any.

J

[caroljane]

J is not a chanticleer. I see him as the terrier who will always catch the pant leg but never the car.

None of us will ever catch the car and not everyone cares for the taste of pant leg. But what we pursue is worth pursuing.

I just realized I would like to see what I said here as a painting in the style of Colville. But I don't know what it would look like.

Maybe I have learned more from the art threads here than I thought.

[Jonathan]

Have you ever noticed that the entities in Colville's paintings rarely cast shadows on the ground or on other entities?

J

[caroljane]

Have you ever noticed that the entities in Colville's paintings rarely cast shadows on the ground or on other entities?

J

No! Without looking them up, I am remembering the Irving Oil and the horse-train one, and my whole impression is of shadows, shadows which obviously must only be in my mind.

That is amazing.

[caroljane]

Or maybe I do not know the difference between darkness and shadows, or the truth about light.

[Jonathan]

I thought that it might be fun to repost just a few of my favorite questions to Roger which remain unanswered:

In the first quote of Linda Mann above, note that she says she expresses her theme by "choosing beautiful objects to paint" (and doing so with a careful, precise style). The ones I saw all contain either well-proportioned man-made objects or healthy specimens of fruits and vegetables.

So, if Linda Mann were to choose colorful, well-proportioned, man-made stone tiles as the "beautiful objects" that she wanted to paint in a still life, and if she were to selectively cut them and arrange them in a manner which pleased her, like this...



...and if she were to then create a painting of them like this...



...the painting would qualify as art according to your criteria, right?

If she were to explain that the theme of the painting is that the world is real, orderly and fascinating and that man is capable of understanding and enjoying it, and that she expressed this theme by choosing beautiful objects to paint, and by creating a composition that is purposeful and intriguing, and that she carefully rendered the objects and romantically enhanced their colors and textures, you'd agree that she succeeded, right?

Anyway, "Roger," when are you going to stop evading, and answer the question that I've asked many times now? The question is not going to go away. When each viewer of a work of visual art has a different opinion of what it means, why is it that your interpretation represents the artwork's "real" or "actual" meaning and anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing"? Why is it that when you can see no meaning where others do, they must be "rationalizing"? By what objective means have you tested and determined that your visual aesthetic capacities and sensitivities are not insufficient compared to those who you claim are "rationalizing"?

Is it even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, and which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend? Is it really so upsetting to consider the possibility that you might be lacking in some areas compared to others, that you might have a visual "tin ear"?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of a viewer's fitness to judge a work of art, and the relevance that such fitness has in qualifying or disqualifying him to opine on which things other humans can or cannot experience as art?

My impression has been that those last few questions are especially disturbing to Roger. He takes them as "personal attacks." He seems to think that it is a vicious insult for me to even suggest that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities and knowledge that he lacks, and that we might be at a level of visual comprehension and aesthetic experience that he'll never reach. It's inconceivable! Impossible! And therefore nothing but a personal attack!

J

[Brant Gaede]

I thought that it might be fun to repost just a few of my favorite questions to Roger which remain unanswered:

In the first quote of Linda Mann above, note that she says she expresses her theme by "choosing beautiful objects to paint" (and doing so with a careful, precise style). The ones I saw all contain either well-proportioned man-made objects or healthy specimens of fruits and vegetables.

So, if Linda Mann were to choose colorful, well-proportioned, man-made stone tiles as the "beautiful objects" that she wanted to paint in a still life, and if she were to selectively cut them and arrange them in a manner which pleased her, like this...

...and if she were to then create a painting of them like this...

...the painting would qualify as art according to your criteria, right?

If she were to explain that the theme of the painting is that the world is real, orderly and fascinating and that man is capable of understanding and enjoying it, and that she expressed this theme by choosing beautiful objects to paint, and by creating a composition that is purposeful and intriguing, and that she carefully rendered the objects and romantically enhanced their colors and textures, you'd agree that she succeeded, right?

Anyway, "Roger," when are you going to stop evading, and answer the question that I've asked many times now? The question is not going to go away. When each viewer of a work of visual art has a different opinion of what it means, why is it that your interpretation represents the artwork's "real" or "actual" meaning and anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing"? Why is it that when you can see no meaning where others do, they must be "rationalizing"? By what objective means have you tested and determined that your visual aesthetic capacities and sensitivities are not insufficient compared to those who you claim are "rationalizing"?

Is it even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, and which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend? Is it really so upsetting to consider the possibility that you might be lacking in some areas compared to others, that you might have a visual "tin ear"?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of a viewer's fitness to judge a work of art, and the relevance that such fitness has in qualifying or disqualifying him to opine on which things other humans can or cannot experience as art?

My impression has been that those last few questions are especially disturbing to Roger. He takes them as "personal attacks." He seems to think that it is a vicious insult for me to even suggest that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities and knowledge that he lacks, and that we might be at a level of visual comprehension and aesthetic experience that he'll never reach. It's inconceivable! Impossible! And therefore nothing but a personal attack!

J

You don't seem to get it: it's a personal attack right now by you. Even if he did one on you please stop doing your own wrong.

As for the illustrated material, I like it and if I put it on my wall I'd call it art and if anyone visited and said that's nice but it isn't art I'd say I didn't ask you (no, not you) if it was and you're in my home so you agree it's art or keep your lips zipped. It's called courtesy, and if you do that but go around telling everybody we both know that silly Brant has stuff on his walls he calls art that isn't art you (no, not you) won't be invited to any more of my orgies parties.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Aw, c'mon Brant -- don't exile him from the, uh, symposia-- we know he can be annoying but he's kind of cute.

Lubricia

Gaedorama regular

[Jonathan]

You don't seem to get it: it's a personal attack right now by you. Even if he did one on you please stop doing your own wrong.

No, it's not a personal attack. It's nothing but my identifying very elementary questions regarding the philosophy of aesthetics, and my matter-of-factly observing Roger's reactions to such questions.

The question of viewers' fitness to judge art is a vital concern of aesthetics.

J

P.S. I just reviewed some more of my past discussions with Roger, and I have to say that, as a visual arts professional, I've actually been very generous and patient in dealing with the attitude that Roger brings to discussing the visual arts from his novice perspective.

[Brant Gaede]

You don't seem to get it: it's a personal attack right now by you. Even if he did one on you please stop doing your own wrong.

No, it's not a personal attack. It's nothing but my identifying very elementary questions regarding the philosophy of aesthetics, and my matter-of-factly observing Roger's reactions to such questions.

The question of viewers' fitness to judge art is a vital concern of aesthetics.

J

P.S. I just reviewed some more of my past discussions with Roger, and I have to say that, as a visual arts professional, I've actually been very generous and patient in dealing with the attitude that Roger brings to discussing the visual arts from his novice perspective.

I was wrong. Remove "seem to."

--Brant

I promise to stop here

[Jonathan]

I promise to stop here

Good. I've had enough of your vicious personal attacks.

J