Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Ellen Stuttle]

And here's a line for Tony from the same interview with Jonathan Lopez which is excerpted above:

[bold emphasis added]

It's often said that Van Meegeren had no talent. Personally, I think that's a bit too harsh. He actually did have some real ability, and he enjoyed a measure of success as a society portraitist during the 1920s. But as he became involved with forgery, he lost his way as an artist. In his review of my book in The New Yorker, Peter Schjeldahl had a wonderful line about this: "The state of being oneself dies when set aside." There actually was a Van Meegeren exhibition in Rotterdam back in 1996, to coincide with the big Vermeer show at the Mauritshuis in The Hague. It was interesting, but a bit too large, I thought. Really, a little Van Meegeren goes a long way.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The Complete Vermeer Works

The linked site, vermeer-foundation.org, has the best and most maneuverable display of Vermeer's works. The 136 images, arranged 24/page (except for the last page), include many close-ups of details. All the images can be clicked on to produce full-screen display.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

But, anyway, you and Ellen make good points, and I'll admit that my "99 percent certainty" comment is probably a bit too certain. There's a possibility that Johannes' daddy painted the images. Or maybe an uncle or something.

See Jon Boone's suggestion in the article I quoted from above:

essentialvermeer.com link

The simplest explanation covering all the facts of the case is that the painting is a copy executed either by the original painter, Ficherelli, in Florence, or by another artist in Ficherelli’s circle. The later signatures on the painting likely refer to one or several of the many artists at the time with the name of Meer or van der Meer, not Johannes Vermeer of Delft.

Ellen

Recent test results make Boone's position above, from 2002, not necessarily the "simplest explanation." Very advanced modern isotope analysis performed earlier this year, and made public maybe just a week or two ago, identifies the lead in the white paint as not being Italian, but Dutch, and almost identical to the lead in Diana and Her Companions. The scientists are apparently confident enough in their testing methods to say that the paint used in both is likely from the same batch.

So, there are a few possible "simplest explanations":

• Someone in Ficherelli's circle used Dutch lead rather than Italian when creating the Saint Praxedis copy, and had a name somewhat similar to Vermeer's, which he signed to the painting.

• Vermeer's father, or someone in his family, or someone with a similar name from the same area, painted the image, and perhaps painted Diana and Her Companions and Christ in the House of Martha and Mary as well.

• Two or more different artists happened to use the same source of Dutch lead, and they happened to have some stylistic similarities to Vermeer, and further modern testing of many random samples of paintings from all over the world from the same time period might reveal that the lead was a common art material in several countries.

• Van Meegeren found a good local source for natural lead white while creating his forgeries, which perhaps he eventually ran out of and switched to contemporary processed lead, and it would make sense that his natural Dutch lead would therefore have the same characteristics of the lead that Vermeer and other masters used since it would be from the exact same source, or almost the exact same source.

J

[Jonathan]

Ok, here's some explanation of the "Nazi fantasy of Vermeer" comment.

The following is from an interview with Jonathan Lopez on the essentialvermeer site (Lopez is the author of The Man Who Made Vermeers):

essentialvermeer.com link

Van Meegeren's Supper at Emmaus looks like an episode of The Munsters.

Heh. That's so true.

The story of Van Meegeren, his fooling the art establishment and making them look like absolute idiots, being charged with selling national treasures to the Nazis, and then having to confess to the lesser crime of forgery, and having to prove that the paintings were fakes against the background of testimony of the elite art experts who had been fooled and whose reputations were at stake, is such a fascinating tale that I don't understand why Hollywood has never produced a film about it.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Recent test results make Boone's position above, from 2002, not necessarily the "simplest explanation." Very advanced modern isotope analysis performed earlier this year, and made public maybe just a week or two ago, identifies the lead in the white paint as not being Italian, but Dutch, and almost identical to the lead in Diana and Her Companions. The scientists are apparently confident enough in their testing methods to say that the paint used in both is likely from the same batch.

So, there are a few possible "simplest explanations":

[....]

Really interesting (to me), Jonathan.

Some questions:

First, do you have a link to the public report? I'd like to see the details.

How big a batch was "the same batch" - large enough for there still to be some of it for Van Meegeren to use?

You mentioned earlier that the paintings tested against were other ones under dispute. Was a rationale given for not testing against later paintings which aren't disputed as being by THE Vermeer?

Regarding the first possibility you give, someone in Ficherelli's circle using Dutch lead, is there any evidence you know of that Italian painters sometimes did use Dutch lead?

~~~

Re a different disputed painting, "The Procuress." Has that definitely been established as being by Johannes/Jan Vermeer?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The story of Van Meegeren, his fooling the art establishment and making them look like absolute idiots, being charged with selling national treasures to the Nazis, and then having to confess to the lesser crime of forgery, and having to prove that the paintings were fakes against the background of testimony of the elite art experts who had been fooled and whose reputations were at stake, is such a fascinating tale that I don't understand why Hollywood has never produced a film about it.

J

I think I'm glad that Hollywood hasn't produced a film about it, since, fascinating as the real story is, a Hollywood production would probably add frills and make alterations, and then there'd be disputes about the accuracy of the film and.....

Ellen

PS: Please don't miss #280 when you check in again.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

essentialvermeer.com link

Van Meegeren's Supper at Emmaus looks like an episode of The Munsters.

Heh. That's so true.

Speaking of Rand's requirement of judging art works using no external considerations, what would tell the viewer - without the captions - that Van Meegeren's Vermeer forgeries featuring Christ are supposed to be scenes from the story of Christ?

You can find links to the set on this mystidios.com page.

Ellen

[anthony]

Specifically in regard to art, I think that she made an error of analogizing in the reverse direction from the literature -> visual arts direction which Jonathan has mentioned many times (her applying her idiosyncratic meanings of "Romanticism" and "Naturalism" in literature to other types of art).

Ellen

Ellen, On the face of it, the differences of literature and visual art 'should' have no distinction in Romanticism and Naturalism. Art is art, essentially. We apply direct perception and elicit direct and indirect enlightenment. The processes between the literary and visual differ by degree, but not kind I think. I agree that visual art is harder to assess - but the basic evaluation for any Naturalism, is: Does this artwork hold a mirror up to life? Life as it is? (Or life as it could be and should be?)

This is the broadest evaluation, with overlap, with room for what I'd call a picture's mixed premises--but it holds for all the pictures (and sculpture) shown so far in this thread, which are Naturalist.

"The mirror" might depict anger, suspicion, vapidity or mundanity; or show brutishness or fear or boredom.

As with Vermeer's and Picasso's work, the "mirror" may be accurate and insightful to humanity- and aesthetically pleasing- but there's no avoiding that the artist is showing life as it IS. Naturalism has its own rewards when achieved excellently, but it cannot elevate reason, volition and rational morality as can Romanticism. Vermeer for instance, has what I think of as a journalist's keen and perhaps caustic eye for people in various situations; again, if one can only get past the mystique of A Great Artist, and see his painting for what it is, beyond the perceptual level.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see the value of the labels.

--Brant

obscuring and confusing and too exponentially simple in their distorting reductionism

[anthony]

Labels have their purpose in identification. This is the broadest category, Naturalist or Romanticist -- only after which may come reductionism to sub-categories. Art, like everything else, cannot avoid identity, following with a normative assessment. Otherwise it is all just attractive pictures and stories of no use to man or woman except for brief entertainment.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Specifically in regard to art, I think that she made an error of analogizing in the reverse direction from the literature -> visual arts direction which Jonathan has mentioned many times (her applying her idiosyncratic meanings of "Romanticism" and "Naturalism" in literature to other types of art).

Ellen, On the face of it, the differences of literature and visual art 'should' have no distinction in Romanticism and Naturalism. Art is art, essentially.

On what "face of it"? Note my describing Rand's meanings of "Romanticism" and "Naturalism" as "idiosyncratic."

For Rand, the difference between "Romanticism" and "Naturalism" is that "Romanticism" presents man as possessing volition and "Naturalism" presents man as not having volition.

How do paintings go about presenting this difference, according to you?

You state that "all the pictures (and sculpture) shown so far in this thread [...] are Naturalist."

Would you please comply with a request Jonathan has made of you a number of times and supply some examples of paintings which you classify as "Romanticist"?

We apply direct perception and elicit direct and indirect enlightenment. The processes between the literary and visual differ by degree, but not kind I think.

I don't agree with the description of what we do, as I stated in the post - #243 - from which you quote, in the paragraph which followed the paragraph you quoted.

I think that she extrapolated from visual art's providing something one can look at to her idea that abstractions are made perceptible in art. However, even with the visual arts what the artist provides is a semblance which requires imaginative apprehension to "see," so the idea doesn't really work even with visual art, and it's very contrived as applied to literature and music.

My disagreements with Rand's theory go to root basics, so it isn't going to work when you make an assertion "this is what we do" as if expecting me to accept it.

I agree that visual art is harder to assess [...].

Your agreement isn't with something I said, and, Tony, don't you think it's time for you to stop making presumptuous statements like the following?

[...] if one can only get past the mystique of A Great Artist, and see his painting for what it is, beyond the perceptual level.

I.e., someone who doesn't see Vermeer the way you do is caught in "the mystique of a Great Artist."

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Labels have their purpose in identification. This is the broadest category, Naturalist or Romanticist -- only after which may come reductionism to sub-categories. Art, like everything else, cannot avoid identity, following with a normative assessment. Otherwise it is all just attractive pictures and stories of no use to man or woman except for brief entertainment.

That's a good short example of the way you leap to sweeping conclusions from presumptions.

What you've said, compressed, is:

If one doesn't accept Rand's breakdown into Naturalist versus Romanticist categories, then "it is all just attractive pictures and stories of no use to man or woman except for brief entertainment."

The conclusion doesn't follow.

Ellen

[Jules Troy]

Yeah I'm sorry but I don't need to know that a sculpture created by Michelangelo was created by him. If I view it it's going to kick me in the head and my reaction after I pick my jaw off the floor is still going to be "holy shit that's beautiful".

[anthony]

Labels have their purpose in identification. This is the broadest category, Naturalist or Romanticist -- only after which may come reductionism to sub-categories. Art, like everything else, cannot avoid identity, following with a normative assessment. Otherwise it is all just attractive pictures and stories of no use to man or woman except for brief entertainment.

That's a good short example of the way you leap to sweeping conclusions from presumptions.

What you've said, compressed, is:

If one doesn't accept Rand's breakdown into Naturalist versus Romanticist categories, then "it is all just attractive pictures and stories of no use to man or woman except for brief entertainment."

The conclusion doesn't follow.

Ellen

Ellen, Best to not over-compress: If you read carefully, I merely expressed Rand's normative purpose for art, all art. Up to you or anyone to decide which art is 'good' (and why it is so). Up to you or anyone to choose that you don't see art as having a normative value...at all.

What else? The beauty of art-the aesthetics? Great, but not sufficient, obviously to some people.

I haven't seen that you reply to "a mirror held up to life" - as the basic definition of Naturalism, one that is to my knowledge not "idiosynchratic" at all. I think it's accepted generally. Do you disagree that Vermeer (e.g.) represented life "as it is"?

You haven't replied either to its complete contrast with "life as it could and should be" - depicting man as volitionally effectual to deal with existence (primarily).

But if your disagreement with Rand "goes to root basics", what are we wasting time discussing this for?

Your frankness obviates anything further said, if it's all nonsense to you. Objectivism -no surprise-applies objectivity to art, and simultaneously arrives from it too (I think). Rational selfishness (I know your opinion of this too) draws from Romantic-realist art as well. Nuff said.

[anthony]

Yeah I'm sorry but I don't need to know that a sculpture created by Michelangelo was created by him. If I view it it's going to kick me in the head and my reaction after I pick my jaw off the floor is still going to be "holy shit that's beautiful".

Yes, for sure. Nobody's argued that beauty in art is unimportant. What about the sculpture in #248?

It is just as beautiful, aesthetically. But is there another difference?

[Brant Gaede]

I can understnding thinking applied to a novel which is afterall a conglomeration of words, but a statue or a painting as part of the first experience? Then why when the thinking starts must we force it into Randian(?) categories or any category not of our own construction? An esthetician might use some Randian esthetics along with other esthetics applied to this and that, but the mere appreciator? This is another example of what I call "traducification" of private esthetic experience.

Why do you, Tony, expect me to let Big Esthetician get into my head and get between me and my experience of a work of art? Or insult me about the quality of my experience being "of no use" to me "except as brief entertainment"? WTF?

--Brant

must be something in the water in South Africa not in America

[anthony]

I can understnding thinking applied to a novel which is afterall a conglomeration of words, but a statue or a painting as part of the first experience? Then why when the thinking starts must we force it into Randian(?) categories or any category not of our own construction? An esthetician might use some Randian esthetics along with other esthetics applied to this and that, but the mere appreciator? This is another example of what I call "traducification" of private esthetic experience.

Why do you, Tony, expect me to let Big Esthetician get into my head and get between me and my experience of a work of art? Or insult me about the quality of my experience being "of no use" to me "except as brief entertainment"? WTF?

--Brant

must be something in the water in South Africa not in America

Not for the first time I've been taken out of the full context.

You find value at "first experience", and I reckon you have found normative value.

If I lightly and for effect, compared art appreciation *without* normative value (as is the basic premise contested here, I think) - to simple entertainment --well, one would know from all else I have said, that I am fully aware of intermediate values in art. And other values. Take one line here or there, and I don't receive a just reading.

[Jules Troy]

I thought that sculpture was really nice!

[Brant Gaede]

Not for the first time I've been taken out of the full context.

You find value at "first experience", and I reckon you have found normative value.

If I lightly and for effect, compared art appreciation *without* normative value (as is the basic premise contested here, I think) - to simple entertainment --well, one would know from all else I have said, that I am fully aware of intermediary values in art. And other values. Take one line here or there, and I don't receive a just reading.

I didn't take your "lightly" lightly. If you were after a light effect . . .

If you want to improve and expand on Rand, okay. Stand or fall. If you want to simply explain her--why? I think it's the former.

I'll do you the favor of dropping out of this--this, not the thread.

--Brant

edit: Indian giver

Edited June 14, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[Jules Troy]

I like pie.

[Brant Gaede]

I like pie.

With ice cream on top--Ayn Rand loved the Rev. Ike.

--Brant

[anthony]

Yeah I'm sorry but I don't need to know that a sculpture created by Michelangelo was created by him. If I view it it's going to kick me in the head and my reaction after I pick my jaw off the floor is still going to be "holy shit that's beautiful".

Yes, for sure. Nobody's argued that beauty in art is unimportant. What about the sculpture in #248?

It is just as beautiful, aesthetically. But is there another difference?

OK: By "nice" I infer the sculpture is aesthetically pleasing to you. It is beautiful, it has the same elements of superior bodily form superbly rendered as, say, Michelangelo's David. But what else? You observe the drama there? The muscular tension and the expressions on the faces? All apparent is the violence portrayed of a man over a woman.

Contrast with 'David' - a man alone, in his stance of unashamedly naked pride and confidence.

The first statue evinces one's alarm or even disgust at the plight of the woman - brute force of the more physically powerful primitive person over someone weak. We don't have to be told that life can be like that, but the artist seemed to think it was important. i.e. he showed life as he views it --as it is. Conversely, 'David' depicts something much more important - further towards man and life as they "should be". Therefore, once one begins looking closely and thinking about an artwork, one can't help making a moral judgment of it, of what is 'good' (for mankind as a whole, but especially for each of us to carry away, conceptually) and what is 'bad'.

Albeit, that both works may be assessed to have aesthetic parity.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] I merely expressed Rand's normative purpose for art, all art.

Will you please state in a sentence what you think "Rand's normative purpose for art, all art" is?

Next question - please answer this - have you looked at either of the sets of Vermeer's works to which I've linked?

(Possibly you have a slow internet connection and you aren't looking at linked artworks due to their taking a long time to load. If this is the case, please say so.)

Next, re-re-repeating the request that you supply some examples of paintings which you consider "Romanticist."

(Again, if your problem about complying with the request is internet speed, please say so.)

I haven't seen that you reply to "a mirror held up to life" - as the basic definition of Naturalism, one that is to my knowledge not "idiosynchratic" at all. I think it's accepted generally. Do you disagree that Vermeer (e.g.) represented life "as it is"?

You haven't replied either to its complete contrast with "life as it could and should be" - depicting man as volitionally effectual to deal with existence (primarily).

Tony, I don't think there is any "complete contrast." Romanticism holds up a mirror to life, too. What Rand describes as being "Naturalist" literary method is a caricature. (And, btw, Aristotle did not say what Rand thought he did - "life as it could and should be." She seems to have picked that misstatement up from Nock.)

The basic distinction, to repeat, which Rand draws between "Romanticism" and "Naturalism" is her claim that:

Romanticism "recognizes the existence of volition" and Naturalism "denies it."

So could you tell me what is there in Vermeer's paintings which denies volition?

Vermeer painted people reading and writing letters, playing musical instruments, a woman weighing pearls in a balance, a woman pouring a controlled stream of milk from a jug into a bowl, the bowl set on a table where there's fresh-baked bread, women sweeping and scrubbing the stoops of houses, persons conversing next to a canal wherein are moored Dutch vessels of commerce, sparkling clean tiles in the interiors of homes, internal paintings on the wall, some of which are maps of Dutch enterprise, a geographer, an astronomer, and more.

Where do you detect any lack of volition in all this?

(Also, since in another post you brought up the statue of a rape supplied in one of Jonathan's posts, where do you see any lack of volition in that? I see a struggle between volitional agents with opposed goals.)

But if your disagreement with Rand "goes to root basics", what are we wasting time discussing this for? Your frankness obviates anything further said, if it's all nonsense to you.

I don't feel that I'm wasting my time, though you might feel that you're wasting yours. Some points of interest to me arise willy-nilly.

Objectivism -no surprise-applies objectivity to art, and simultaneously arrives from it too (I think). Rational selfishness (I know your opinion of this too) draws from Romantic-realist art as well. Nuff said.

I do not think that "Objectivism" - i.e., Rand's aesthetics - applies objectivity in art. (Nor do I think that you know my opinion of "Rational selfishness." Maybe you think you know, but that's a different statement. )

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Yeah I'm sorry but I don't need to know that a sculpture created by Michelangelo was created by him. If I view it it's going to kick me in the head and my reaction after I pick my jaw off the floor is still going to be "holy shit that's beautiful".

Jules,

I'm not sure to whom that remark is addressed. If it's to Jonathan and me because of our interest in whether those three paintings attributed to Vermeer in his beginning years really were by him, for one thing, people interested in an art form are, in my experience, generally interested in noting the style features which are specific to a particular artist. For another - speaking for myself, but I think that Jonathan feels this way too - it doesn't seem either stylistically or attitudinally plausible that Vermeer did those three works, even as a neophyte artist. Plus their lack of quality makes their attribution to him seem insulting.

As to enjoyment of an artwork, however, like you, I don't need to know who produced an artwork to react to it. (And I'm sure that neither does Jonathan.)

Ellen

[Jules Troy]

Labels have their purpose in identification. This is the broadest category, Naturalist or Romanticist -- only after which may come reductionism to sub-categories. Art, like everything else, cannot avoid identity, following with a normative assessment. Otherwise it is all just attractive pictures and stories of no use to man or woman except for brief entertainment.