Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Brant Gaede]

So some questions arise: Can one be an esthetician without being an artist? Why not? Can one review a movie without being a movie producer if not director? Can one adopt a philosophy without being a philosopher? Can one be a politician without being a louse*?

--Brant

*power-swilling whore?

[anthony]

Visual artists are probably not that much different than martial artists.

I think the mistake that people make with J is that they forget he makes his living doing this stuff. From appearances, J is a master of the visual arts. He is an advanced black belt.

Not sure of that analogy, PDS. Off the top of my head, I could equally say there are very few expert auto engineers who are expert racing drivers - and hardly any racing drivers who...etc.

This is after all, the mind that we are talking about, from which art comes and to which it goes.

An artist is not necessarily any better a thinker and conceptualist than anyone is. Presuming so is where expertise tends to authoritarianism.

So we have J criticising metaphysical value-judgments, endlessly, when this concept is only a part of the broad theory.

And so what?

Does anyone really think that the emotional impact and further content of a good picture is meaningless? Is there something uncool in recognizing what one sees and taking inspiration/pleasure from it? Does the artist actually want whatever is so highly important to him to go over his viewers' heads!?

Pictures are simple: we see them instantly, and they speak to us. Or there's little to nothing. What's so difficult about that idea? Is there some unspoken sin in an artist/author being obvious about his view of existence? Even not consciously trying, what his outlook on life is, will come through to discerning viewers.

The fundamentals of art appreciation, I think: visual pull, emotional response, clarity and comprehensibility of an artist's vision. Not to say that one can easily psychologize the artist at first glance.

But the picture (or novel) is an end in itself and can and should be "psychologized"- to the maximum, in fact.

An artist is visible, by choice (and definition).

If not, what's his purpose?

[Jonathan]

So we have J criticising metaphysical value-judgments, endlessly, when this concept is only a part of the broad theory.

WTF? I have not criticized metaphysical value-judgments, let alone endlessly. Jesus! Tony, seriously, how in the everlivingfuck did you manage to misinterpret my words so badly as to conclude that I was "criticizing metaphysical value-judgments"?

I was criticizing Objectivists' unproven claims that they unerringly identify artists' metaphysical value-judgments! I was criticizing their illogical assumption of their own aesthetic competence, and their claimed ability to know others's metaphysical value-judgments.

You are comically, unbelievably bad at comprehending anything. Despite my extended efforts to spell things out to you, you still don't get it.

It's just insane.

J

[Jules Troy]

And here I thought this stuff only happened on solop.

"Sits back with a bag of popcorn."

[Jonathan]

I was thinking today about how often I've gotten the impression that most Objectivists don't really have any interest in aesthetics, other than in defending Rand's opinions, and, more importantly, they seem to have so little experience in viewing art and exchanging thoughts with others that they are completely unfamiliar with the reality that any two people (including any two Objectivists) very rarely agree on what any one artwork means. They've gotten all of their information on art from Rand rather than from reality, so they are shocked to discover that anyone might come along and claim that different people interpret the same evidence in an artwork differently.

They look at a painting, and believe that they see it's "actual theme!" (here and here, for example). It's right there on the canvas! How could anyone disagree?

So naive.

Anyway, thinking about past discussions on the subject, I remembered some old posts of mine which might better help those with mindsets like Tony's grasp the illogic of the Objectivist Esthetics' expectation that a viewer can objectively determine an "artist's meaning" while at the same time judging how well his work conveys that meaning, while avoiding "outside considerations" and therefore having no actual objective means of validating either judgment.

It can be hard to explain to certain people, but the primary issue is that of the problem of open-endedness in requiring both identification of the meaning of a work of art and evaluation of the means of achieving it.

This is what I mean, from here:

Let's say that an artist wants to present mankind as heroic, but he's somewhat lacking in skill, and the figures that he paints look distorted, which makes us interpret them as sickly and unhappy, among other negative things. If we don't know the artist's intentions, our interpretation of "his theme" is likely to be that mankind is doomed to be sickly and unhappy. Since we think that he projected that vision very effectively, we come to the conclusion that even though we don't like his vision of existence, strictly aesthetically speaking he has done a tremendous job of expressing his horrible view of mankind (as Rand said, one need not like or agree with a painting in order to judge it as aesthetically great).

Well, the problem is that it's not his view of mankind, it's not "his theme," and he's obviously not the great artist that we've rated him to be. If we don't know his intentions via external means, we have no objective standard by which to decide if he failed or succeeded in presenting his theme.

See how identifying the artist's meaning is in conflict with judging his skill at conveying the meaning?

Here's another post illustrating the problem:

The problem is that it's not great art. If they don't know the artist's intentions, they have no objective standard by which to decide if he failed or succeeded in his task. Once they feel that they've identified any meaning based on the content of the art, only a positive evaluation is possible: to them, the art successfully conveys what they've decided it means.

How would one apply Rand's method of aesthetic evaluation to a painting like The Death of Socrates, without relying on any outside considerations and without seeking information about the artist's intentions? What would the painting mean to someone who didn't know anything about it or why it was created?

It's an image of a man sitting on a bed being handed a cup while while those around him appear to be expressing grief. There are manacles on and under the bed. What's in the cup? Perhaps wine? Is the man a raging alcoholic who has been chained to the bed by his loved ones as a form of intervention? Now that he's been denied booze a few weeks, they feel they're ready to test his resolve by offering him a cup of wine? They're disappointed because the man is excited about being given a drink, and assuring them that he's certain that he can limit himself to just one cup?

So, to borrow "Roger's" terms, a painting either means that "life is possible" or "life is difficult or impossible." Therefore, is the alcoholic in the painting heroic for believing in his ability to exercise his volition over his addiction and drink only one cup, or is he doomed to the fate of deterministically caving in to his weakness? I'm going with the former. "Life is possible!"

The above would qualify as an objective esthetic judgment which follows Rand's criteria to the letter, wouldn't it? It's exactly the type of silliness that I've seen Rand and many of her followers engage in.

A specific example of such silliness on Rand's part is her judgment of Vermeer. Her avoidance of outside considerations and artist's intentions -- such as what type of society Vermeer lived in, what type of clothing or customs were common in his time, which technologies, world events and beliefs influenced him -- led her to come to the "objective" but ridiculous opinion that Vermeer was naturalistically painting the folks next door. Her avoidance of knowledge led her to impose her own context on Vermeer, which made her incapable of recognizing the romantic and allegorical nature of his art.

Is that the goal of the Objectivist Esthetics: to make "objective" but ridiculous aesthetic judgments due to willful ignorance?

I think that these posts are also valuable because they illustrate the illogic of the Objectivist position on "objective" aesthetic judgment by applying the same means and expectations to non-aesthetic judgments:

From here:

Here's Rand on "objective aesthetic judgments":

"In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life..."

How would one determine that one has identified the "artist's theme," as opposed to misidentifying it, if at no point one bothers to try to discover, by some means other than the art, what the artist intended to accomplish?

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

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

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

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

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

See the problem?

Here's another example of applying the principle to non-aesthetic judgments:

One cannot make "objective aesthetic judgments" according to Rand's meaning of the term if one hasn't discovered the artist's intentions by some means outside of his art, just as one can't make an objective evaluation of any mission if one hasn't discovered what the mission plan was.

Say that you're observing a woman who decides to go out and try to accomplish a specific task. She doesn't tell you what she's planning on doing or why -- you have no "outside considerations" by which to judge her actions. She crosses the street and enters a grocery store. She walks through a couple of aisles, picks up a jar of nutmeg and a bag of sugar, and then purchases them. What's your objective evaluation of her mission? Has she succeeded? To paraphrase Rand's comments on aesthetic judgments, evaluate the means by which the woman performed her task — i.e, taking her purpose as criterion, evaluate the effectiveness of her actions, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which she accomplished (or failed to accomplish) her goal.

Understand the principle? See how objective judgment of the task or mission is not possible without knowing the intended task or mission?

Here's the same thing applied to yet another example:

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

[Jonathan]

Oops, here's another part that I meant to include in my last post:

In an earlier post I gave the example of trying to identify a woman's task by watching her buying items in a store, and then trying to evaluate how well the task was accomplished. In the scenario, we don't know that she went to the store with the purpose of sticking to a healthy diet and buying ingredients for a salad, but then quickly gave in to her craving for sweets and decided to bake and devour a large batch of her favorite high-calorie cookies, for which she realized that she needed to pick up some nutmeg and sugar. Without knowledge of her intentions, judging how well she performed her task is meaningless -- she did what we saw her do, therefore she appears to have accomplished her task rather than having abandoned it, and therefore only a positive appraisal is possible.

The same is true of trying to identify meaning in a painting and to then evaluate the technical mastery with which an artist projected it, without reference to outside verification...

...In an earlier post I gave the hypothetical example of a painter who is somewhat lacking in skill, which makes some people interpret his figures as sickly and unhappy, even though the artist intended them to be heroic (let's say that he and a few others see his characters' expressions as serious and focused, and they don't understand how some people could see them otherwise).

If a viewer wasn't aware of the artist's intentions, and interpreted the artwork to mean that mankind is doomed to be sickly and unhappy, and the viewer decided that the painting very effectively projected that meaning, and concluded that the art is therefore aesthetically great, that would be an objective aesthetic evaluation according to your criteria, would it not? It would be what you're calling the "actual theme" of the painting since viewers would have no way of knowing that the figures were supposed to look heroically serious and focused, no?

See, the trouble that I'm having is in accepting the idea that a method of judging can be called "objective" according to Objectivism when it can lead one to conclude that bad art, which failed at conveying its creator's "view of life," is great art because it appears to have expertly conveyed the opposite view of life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to make a simple comment here. Not about aesthetics. I have a whole set of ideas on this, but they don't fit well with the frame that is structuring this debate.

(For the record and because I'm a blabber mouth , I have to say something. I love much of Rand's artistic taste when she likes something and agree with many of her aesthetic ideas, but I do not think several of the concepts she tried to make universal travel well outside of the Objectivist core storyline, starting with the idea of sense of life. That's an entire discussion in itself. Also, I love many of the works she bashed, starting with Beethoven and Shakespeare.

In my view, the context and the mindset of the audience are just as important as the material being presented for any aesthetic experience to be judged objectively. And that makes it hellishly difficult if you are trying to set meanings of art works in stone or attribute psychological tendencies to people for the way they respond to different kinds of art. Not impossible, but I don't see how to escape keeping to only the broadest generalizations.

For a quick example, a person who just lost a spouse might respond to the opening of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 with irritation as opposed to a person who feels great and has read Rand's opinion about it. That doesn't mean a damn thing about his psychology except to say he is grieving--and that has nothing to do with missing the message in the music. Later in life, he might hear that same piece and still get irritated because of the historical unconscious anchor to his grief. In other words, objectivity demands knowing the elements of both sides--artist and audience--if a correct description of the aesthetic experience is to mean anything at all. I could go on and on about all this, but I will wait for a different time.

I just want to say to Tony, I hear you, man. If that is the way you respond to art, do not get intimidated into changing your response. You are giving words to some of the things I feel, even when I disagree with you, which is not all the time. I tend to lean in Jonathan's direction, but the kind of challenge you guys are presenting to each other is what strong ideas are made of--on both sides.)

I believe there is only one big winner here: the reader.

And there is only one big loser: the person who has not read through this.

Despite all the spirited back and forth, there are some really good things to think about on both sides. (And that includes the other participants.)

Wonderful discussion, guys.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

I agree Michael, discussions such as this remind me very much of what I read in "the old days of SOLO" before that whole messy split ..thing.

PS: Tony I have an f2.8!! Plenty of aperture to catch the action!

[Jonathan]

PS: Tony I have an f2.8!! Plenty of aperture to catch the action!

That's a great example of how a metaphor, either verbal or visual, can be interpreted differently. Your mind is an f2.8, and therefore it takes in plenty of light? But it also has minimal depth of field! So, which interpretation is the "actual" and "objective" interpretation?

Personally, my mind is an f128. Maximum depth of field. And I don't rely only on existing light, or accept any artificial pressure of time constraints (I don't sacrifice clarity to the fast shutter speed of intellectual haste). And my lens and aperture blades are of such high quality that diffraction isn't an issue at such a tiny aperture. Pure, razor sharp clarity.

So the question is, by Objectivist PseudoEsthetic methods of judgment/witch hunting, which one of us is "in denial" and "just really wrong" in our aesthetic expressions of mind as aperture? We've chosen completely opposite expressions, and therefore we both can't be right, so one of us must be a real bastard. Which of us hates existence, feels doomed to a fate of determinist failure, has serious inner conflicts, and likes to kill puppies and kitties just for the fun of it?

Purely objectively speaking, I think it's you, Jules. You intellectually blurry f2.8 commie.

J

[Jules Troy]

Ahh but with an f2.8 aperture you can freeze all the detail of the moment right in front of you, blurring out all the distractions of a noisy background enabling one to really focus upon the subject matter right in front of you with crystal clear detail! In this way one can really see the important stuff and separate it clearly from the extraneous background!

Lmao touché!

Ps we both can be right. Different lens for different tasks. Both have their place and both can take gorgeous pictures.

[PDS]

So some questions arise: Can one be an esthetician without being an artist? Why not? Can one review a movie without being a movie producer if not director? Can one adopt a philosophy without being a philosopher? Can one be a politician without being a louse*?

--Brant

*power-swilling whore?

Good questions, Brant.

I suppose one can do all of those things without the prerequisites raise.

Of course, the question is--politicians aside--whether one can do any of these things competently after reading an essay or two.

[Brant Gaede]

So some questions arise: Can one be an esthetician without being an artist? Why not? Can one review a movie without being a movie producer if not director? Can one adopt a philosophy without being a philosopher? Can one be a politician without being a louse*?

--Brant

*power-swilling whore?

Good questions, Brant.

I suppose one can do all of those things without the prerequisites raise.

Of course, the question is--politicians aside--whether one can do any of these things competently after reading an essay or two.

Or writing an essay or two--that is, judged to be competent because of the implicit demand through powerful writing that one be considered not only competent but a great, unchallengeable authority. If you get sucked in, good luck getting out if its esthetics. Esthetics created Objectivism and thanks to Tony that's become clear to me, but one needs a different locus to deal with it. I don't think Tony has that which is why I told him he was trapped (in Objectivism, not just the art part), back on this thread a bit. It's more of the curse of lack of critical thinking in Objectivism from the beginning and thus why Objectivism died on the vine. Still, there's Atlas Shrugged. That still works because of the libertarian-political-economic prescience and great writing. See this:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/french-railway-operator-sncf-orders-trains-too-big

--Brant

Rand gave us Atlas Shrugged--she gave Objectivism to Nathaniel Branden (the latter was Seymourblogger's observation)--it finally blew up in his face--it had to--to his ultimate great relief--it's only taken me nearly 50 years to figure this out (no big personal deal; I did other things too)

[anthony]

I was thinking today about how often I've gotten the impression that most Objectivists don't really have any interest in aesthetics, other than in defending Rand's opinions, and, more importantly, they seem to have so little experience in viewing art and exchanging thoughts with others that they are completely unfamiliar with the reality that any two people (including any two Objectivists) very rarely agree on what any one artwork means. They've gotten all of their information on art from Rand rather than from reality, so they are shocked to discover that anyone might come along and claim that different people interpret the same evidence in an artwork differently.

They look at a painting, and believe that they see it's "actual theme!" (here and here, for example). It's right there on the canvas! How could anyone disagree?

So naive.

Anyway, thinking about past discussions on the subject, I remembered some old posts of mine which might better help those with mindsets like Tony's grasp the illogic of the Objectivist Esthetics' expectation that a viewer can objectively determine an "artist's meaning" while at the same time judging how well his work conveys that meaning, while avoiding "outside considerations" and therefore having no actual objective means of validating either judgment.

It can be hard to explain to certain people, but the primary issue is that of the problem of open-endedness in requiring both identification of the meaning of a work of art and evaluation of the means of achieving it.

This is what I mean, from here:

Let's say that an artist wants to present mankind as heroic, but he's somewhat lacking in skill, and the figures that he paints look distorted, which makes us interpret them as sickly and unhappy, among other negative things. If we don't know the artist's intentions, our interpretation of "his theme" is likely to be that mankind is doomed to be sickly and unhappy. Since we think that he projected that vision very effectively, we come to the conclusion that even though we don't like his vision of existence, strictly aesthetically speaking he has done a tremendous job of expressing his horrible view of mankind (as Rand said, one need not like or agree with a painting in order to judge it as aesthetically great).

Well, the problem is that it's not his view of mankind, it's not "his theme," and he's obviously not the great artist that we've rated him to be. If we don't know his intentions via external means, we have no objective standard by which to decide if he failed or succeeded in presenting his theme.

See how identifying the artist's meaning is in conflict with judging his skill at conveying the meaning?

Here's another post illustrating the problem:

The problem is that it's not great art. If they don't know the artist's intentions, they have no objective standard by which to decide if he failed or succeeded in his task. Once they feel that they've identified any meaning based on the content of the art, only a positive evaluation is possible: to them, the art successfully conveys what they've decided it means.

How would one apply Rand's method of aesthetic evaluation to a painting like The Death of Socrates, without relying on any outside considerations and without seeking information about the artist's intentions? What would the painting mean to someone who didn't know anything about it or why it was created?

It's an image of a man sitting on a bed being handed a cup while while those around him appear to be expressing grief. There are manacles on and under the bed. What's in the cup? Perhaps wine? Is the man a raging alcoholic who has been chained to the bed by his loved ones as a form of intervention? Now that he's been denied booze a few weeks, they feel they're ready to test his resolve by offering him a cup of wine? They're disappointed because the man is excited about being given a drink, and assuring them that he's certain that he can limit himself to just one cup?

So, to borrow "Roger's" terms, a painting either means that "life is possible" or "life is difficult or impossible." Therefore, is the alcoholic in the painting heroic for believing in his ability to exercise his volition over his addiction and drink only one cup, or is he doomed to the fate of deterministically caving in to his weakness? I'm going with the former. "Life is possible!"

The above would qualify as an objective esthetic judgment which follows Rand's criteria to the letter, wouldn't it? It's exactly the type of silliness that I've seen Rand and many of her followers engage in.

A specific example of such silliness on Rand's part is her judgment of Vermeer. Her avoidance of outside considerations and artist's intentions -- such as what type of society Vermeer lived in, what type of clothing or customs were common in his time, which technologies, world events and beliefs influenced him -- led her to come to the "objective" but ridiculous opinion that Vermeer was naturalistically painting the folks next door. Her avoidance of knowledge led her to impose her own context on Vermeer, which made her incapable of recognizing the romantic and allegorical nature of his art.

Is that the goal of the Objectivist Esthetics: to make "objective" but ridiculous aesthetic judgments due to willful ignorance?

I think that these posts are also valuable because they illustrate the illogic of the Objectivist position on "objective" aesthetic judgment by applying the same means and expectations to non-aesthetic judgments:

From here:

Here's Rand on "objective aesthetic judgments":

"In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life..."

How would one determine that one has identified the "artist's theme," as opposed to misidentifying it, if at no point one bothers to try to discover, by some means other than the art, what the artist intended to accomplish?

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

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

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

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

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

See the problem?

Here's another example of applying the principle to non-aesthetic judgments:

One cannot make "objective aesthetic judgments" according to Rand's meaning of the term if one hasn't discovered the artist's intentions by some means outside of his art, just as one can't make an objective evaluation of any mission if one hasn't discovered what the mission plan was.

Say that you're observing a woman who decides to go out and try to accomplish a specific task. She doesn't tell you what she's planning on doing or why -- you have no "outside considerations" by which to judge her actions. She crosses the street and enters a grocery store. She walks through a couple of aisles, picks up a jar of nutmeg and a bag of sugar, and then purchases them. What's your objective evaluation of her mission? Has she succeeded? To paraphrase Rand's comments on aesthetic judgments, evaluate the means by which the woman performed her task — i.e, taking her purpose as criterion, evaluate the effectiveness of her actions, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which she accomplished (or failed to accomplish) her goal.

Understand the principle? See how objective judgment of the task or mission is not possible without knowing the intended task or mission?

Here's the same thing applied to yet another example:

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

Yes, you make a legitimate point, and this is in a tricky area here.

Is "objective" - 'knowing' the artist's intention (his "task" and "mission") - or is it seeing what's THERE, on canvas? How much one knows -in anything- cannot ever be perfect and complete knowledge in order to be 'objective' - you agree?.

Another way, are we the viewers listening to the artist 'speak' primarily - or are we listening to his picture 'speak', primarily? Yes, the one should be the other with integral consistency.

("...according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments"). If people were ever so consistent though!

You've pointed out though what's evident - that for all kinds of reasons the artist might falsely convey something to many or a few viewers completely different to his intention.

Who's to trust finally? One's senses and mind which discover an initial and abiding core concept of the picture which one integrates into one's value structure? OR having to delve into all the literature, critiques, history and pedigree of the artist to try find their consensus of what "he meant" in the picture? Is this second approach actually 'objective'?

The picture comes first as a stand alone product, I feel. Bearing in mind that Rand's "task" is not the way you use "task"; her usage is (I think) a deductive method of establishing the picture's abstractions from all its concrete elements i.e. identifying the PAINTING - while you seem to use it as Objectivists simply trying to read the artist's mind. (I think.)

If this latter were true of Rand, I'd feel she was being intrinsicist or omniscient, and I believe I'd agree with you.

Objectively, I'd think one has no need to even know the artist's name in making an evaluation of his work. (I've often had a hesitation to putting a working title to a photograph, for instance, but that's me).

Everything which isn't there in the painting and that can't be inferred, is extraneous, I'm certain.

(It recalls for me an aged American writer whose novels I liked way back then, for their style and 'sense of life individualism'. I found out later on that he was a kind of renegade as well as a socialist, but gets worse, in a rage had also stabbed and slightly injured his wife. When I found out these things and since then, while feeling some disappointment in his various irrationalities, what still over-rides all the rest are those first memories of his novels' remarkable characters and sense of life).

[Jonathan]

Ahh but with an f2.8 aperture you can freeze all the detail of the moment right in front of you, blurring out all the distractions of a noisy background enabling one to really focus upon the subject matter right in front of you with crystal clear detail! In this way one can really see the important stuff and separate it clearly from the extraneous background!

Lmao touché!

Ps we both can be right. Different lens for different tasks. Both have their place and both can take gorgeous pictures.

All kidding aside, obviously you're right about the use of selective blurring as a means of putting greater importance on the main subject matter. It's like not playing all of the instruments in an orchestra at the same volume all of the time. The thing is, Rand didn't take any time to learn anything about the visual arts, including photography, and therefore couldn't conceive of any reasons or contexts in which her personal, subjective preference for sharpness everywhere and at all times wouldn't be "objectively" true.

Same with "foggy landscapes." One of the reasons that I love foggy landscapes is that they do the same thing that you identified selective focus as doing: they allow objects to stand out more clearly and be differentiated from their background. But, unfortunately, the Objectivist PseudoEsthetic/Witch-Detection Kit is very literalist and absolute in its methods, and opposed to learning. Liking foggy landscapes necessarily means that you have a foggy method of cognition and therefore prefer images to be vague and undifferentiated. And don't lie about it. Don't make up excuses about liking foggy landscapes and blurring because they make things clearer in a way that Rand hadn't considered. Nope, she knows your mind better than you do.

J

[Jonathan]

...Objectively, I'd think one has no need to even know the artist's name in making an evaluation of his work. (I've often had a hesitation to putting a working title to a photograph, for instance, but that's me).

Everything which isn't there in the painting and that can't be inferred, is extraneous, I'm certain.

(It recalls for me an aged American writer whose novels I liked way back then, for their style and 'sense of life individualism'. I found out later on that he was a kind of renegade as well as a socialist, but gets worse, in a rage had also stabbed and slightly injured his wife. When I found out these things and since then, while feeling some disappointment in his various irrationalities, what still over-rides all the rest are those first memories of his novels' remarkable characters and sense of life).

It depends on what you mean by "make an evaluation of his work." Do you mean that we don't need to know anything about the artist or his intentions in order to come to our own individual interpretations of what his work means to us, and we're not going to go around and tell others that their differing interpretations reveal that they are "in denial" and "really wrong," and that we're not going to insist that there is only one, single, objectively true meaning of the art? If so, then fine.

J

[Jonathan]

So some questions arise: Can one be an esthetician without being an artist?

Sure. Just this morning I had my hair cut by an aesthetician who isn't an artist.

But seriously, I think that someone can possibly do the philosophy of aesthetics, and even do it well, without being an artist.

Can one review a movie without being a movie producer if not director? Can one adopt a philosophy without being a philosopher?

I think that anyone who wants to review movies or adopt a philosophy should put in a lot of study first. One should know what one is talking about even if one is not actively productive in those fields.

Can one be a politician without being a louse*?

No.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan has a sense of humor.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

Politics:

Poli,poly meaning many.

Tics,ticks meaning blood sucking creatures!

[Ellen Stuttle]

But sure. You found 'something special' which you want to put down truthfully, for your own sake. Something of value, related intimately to your view of life - i.e. your metaphysical value premises.

Tony, that is so perfect an example of your force-fitting what others say into your presumptions.

What I was describing is NOT an issue of "metaphysical value premises," just of something I found interesting and attractive, no cosmic statement about man in relation to the universe.

Ellen

Ellen: You went to trouble to quite lyrically describe a scene, one more than "attractive" or "interesting" obviously - now you'd back down on its impact on you.

"Were I a painter, I would have painted that scene.". #69

No, NOT a scene "more than 'attractive' or 'interesting' obviously," and, no, I haven't backed down on its "impact" (yuk, I hate the use of that word to mean "effect," but that's a different issue).

A scene "'attractive' or 'interesting.'" And nothing more.

Whatever makes you think that that emotion is not precisely what motivates every artist?

I think it's sometimes what motivates an artist - the desire to capture something the artist found attractive or interesting. I think that there are other desires which might motivate an artist. I think that the same artist might be differently motivated on different occasions with different works.

What makes you believe that it's "NOT an issue of metaphysical value premises"?

Well...how about, an ability to read, and a crediting of Ayn Rand with having meant what she said "metaphysical value-judgments" are?

She meant the answers to such questions as (see for Lexicon excerpts):

Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life - or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?

~~ "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art"

[...] whether the universe is knowable or not, whether man has the power of choice or not, whether he can achieve his goals in life or not.

~~ "Philosophy and Sense of Life"

I disagree.

Who's talking of an explicit ""statement"" about man and the universe"?

No, clearly at that moment, it was you and the universe, alone. The (presumed) awe and grandeur you experienced of a night sky was what drove your creative impulse. Whatever later viewers would make of your painting or prose WOULD be an experience of your view of life - life amidst a universe. I.e. your metaphysical value judgment. An artist seldom (I think) sets out to make "statements". If he's good and has integrity, however, his contemplated vision of universe/man is apparent.

(This is one more instance of the "implicit" (or, "universal", as you call it) behind the act of creation, which does not need to be spelled out on every occasion.)

You get over-hung up on the phrase "metaphysical value judgment", I feel.The only alternative I can guess, is that you believe the universe "touched" your 'unconscious' mind.

Of course, it would have touched you sub-consciously, by my, or the Objectivist reckoning - but anything else is mystical.

Would you look at the amount you are reading into my mind, and into the presumed minds of persons who might have seen the painting had I been a painter and painted it?

Of what use is my telling you, it really wasn't all that froth, just a beautiful sight, and nothing more? You know it was more.

And note that you are now deserting "metaphysical value-judgments," saying that I'm "over hung-up on the phrase," when the phrase is the key to Rand's aesthetics.

So, do you accept that the requirement for a work's classifying as art is that it express "metaphysical value-judgments" or don't you?

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... discussions such as this remind me very much of what I read in "the old days of SOLO"...

Graaaaaaack!

[Brant Gaede]

... discussions such as this remind me very much of what I read in "the old days of SOLO"...

Graaaaaaack!

I think the reference is to SOLOHQ, not SLOP.

--Brant

I think I may be wrong

[Jules Troy]

Correct. SOLOHQ

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whew!

[Jules Troy]

O¿0

[Brant Gaede]

Correct. SOLOHQ

No, no, no!

CORRECTAMENTE!!!!

Let's not bore the reading public

--Brant

keep the brain juices flowing