Apples - Rand on Still Life Paintings, Plus

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, your inimitableness continues to humble a a wretched second hand world. I recall you also once value traded with fellow Freedom Leaper WSS to create a Man Medallion of stark ruthless uncompromisingness, or something. Now your overarching artistic vision embraces, yea, all creatures great and small!

Eat your heart out Kanye West.

In awe,

c.

Actually, I don't think Jonathan has "an overarching artistic vision,"--at least not one he has shared with us. That's J., the artist. J. the esthetician seems to be very Catholic qua art and he has not said, for instance, that Objective-kitsch is not art only very strongly implied that it's terrible art. It's Tony who's into art-not art through his very cloudly Objectivist lens he thinks is objectification but is only his own subjectification. So when he tries to impose--he does not stop--his tastes on others (his esthetic "reasoning" actually), others complain. The effrontery is compounded by his refusal to even illustrate what he's talking about.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Yes, J is more about chopping away the marble that doesn't look like part of an elephant , than sculpting a high altar of Esthetic theory.It is ok by me but tough on those who follow Rand!s Thesean threads through the labyrinth into the sanctuary.

myself un encumbered by any theories of art whatever, I was very bothered by that free romantic lady sunbathing on top of the skyscraper who would Fall right off it if she rolled over even slightly.r,p

[PDS]

The dog's anus is a momentum killer. This much is true.

[caroljane]

Incidentally I have just finished Martin Chuzzlewit w/Phiz. Illustrations and two thoughts::

- Some of Dickens's savagely satiric comments on aw the America of 1840 still apply

- illustration and cartooning in general are probably as old as cave art and as sublimely indifferent to philosophy's definitions.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I share some of Rand's enthusiasms: the Classical and Renaissance periods, Michelangelo and Vermeer, Hugo and Rostand.

Getting around to commenting on the inclusion of Michelangelo and Vermeer among "Rand's enthusiasms"...

Rand was mixed on both. She called Vermeer the greatest painter and praised his style *, but said that he combined "a brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism" * and presented as his subjects "the folks next door [...] to kitchens." *

If you look back to post #29, you can find the start, in Tony's agreeing with Rand on Vermeer, of the long altercation to follow.

Except for some material on the "David," Michelangelo hasn't come up for much mention on the thread, and I don't recall off hand there being anything said about Rand's considering his work "malevolent universe," similarly to Beethoven's.

Here's a mention of Rand regarding Michelangelo from the Full Context interview with Joan Blumenthal. (In a separate post, I'll quote the whole section from that interview about Rand's and Joan's disagreements on art.)

Blumenthal: [....] I love Michelangelo. She thought he was malevolent, Now, there is a streak of malevolence, according to the way Ayn saw things, but it seems to me utterly irrelevant compared to the grandeur of Michelangelo, the huge scale of his view of humanity and so on. But she thought he was malevolent and that was the most important thing to her.

Q: Even The David?

Blumenthal: I don't remember what she thought about The David particularly. That would be, I suppose, more innocuous in her eyes. But I don't want to second-guess her. I do remember telling her once what I saw in the Roman The Pieta, but she couldn't get past the subject. I was seeing beyond the subject.

Ellen

[Jules Troy]

Was he in essence coerced by the church into working for them? Paint/sculpt this or be murdered for blasphemy? One had to wonder what he would have created if left to his own passions for honest customers...

[Ellen Stuttle]

From a 2008 post of mine, here's the section I mentioned in the post two above from the March 1993 Full Context interview with Joan Blumenthal.

[....]

Joan Blumenthal, unlike Mary Ann, ran into difficulties in discussions of differences with Ayn. Here's an indicative passage from the interview with Joan Blumenthal in "Full Context." It doesn't go into how very strained the Blumenthals came to find their relationship with Ayn in the final years before they left; but it gives some hints of areas which became problematic.

(I, btw, happened to be attending the lecture Joan stomped out of because of remarks Leonard Peikoff made about Rembrandt. I don't remember what Leonard said, and I didn't know at the time why Joan suddenly exited in a swirl, obviously furious. I recall that she was dressed in painter's garb; she hadn't had time to change before the lecture. At the break she was sitting cross-legged on a long buffet table in the large hall area outside the lecture room, expostulating animatedly to a group standing around her. She was very ticked-off. I still chuckle remembering how fired up she was.)

"Full Context," March 1993

Interview with Joan Mitchell Blumenthal

by Karen Reedstrom

pp. 7-8

Q: What did Ayn Rand think of impressionism and why?

Blumenthal: She disliked it very much. It went against her idea of conceptual art (which is a complicated subject about which we all could disagree). She thought that the juxtaposition of colors into non-defined areas and the intrusion of atmosphere indicated a poor psycho-epistemology. That's what she told me. She also thought it was naturalistic. I've already indicated that I don't agree with most of that. And I don't think it's naturalistic either for the most part.

Q: So do you think it was just a personal thing that she had that she tried to apply a general aesthetic principle on?

Blumenthal: Well, there were things that she personally liked. Those she elevated to the good. She was particularly enamored of the style she called conceptual, which is a little difficult to describe. It's easier to see it but it's clearly demarcated edges and clear demarcations within the form, no gradual gradations. I can hardly think of anything more opposite to impressionism. So it's not surprising that she didn't like it and that she thought it indicated a poor psycho-epistemology. That was something she said about things she didn't like. She didn't like Rembrandt. In that case I felt very, very alienated because Rembrandt did not have a poor any kind of epistemology, psycho or otherwise. He absolutely knew what he was doing.

Q:: It seems that he really saw the figure as the most important thing, and he made it dramatic.

Blumenthal: He's very selective in his use of lights and darks. He's almost more psychologically insightful than anyone. Also he did beautiful landscapes. And what Ayn Rand held against him was the side of beef painting--which is absurd! If you're evaluating an artist, you have to look over the whole work. The side of beef was something she did not understand. It's a 17th century subject that had particular meaning for its day. He did it very well, but Ayn did not understand its meaning.

Q: So she didn't understand the context of the artist or look any deeper, but just gave a judgment?

Blumenthal: Yes, sometimes. She had an enormous tendency to judge things by style. I'm very content oriented, so I was aware of it. But she had a really great love for the style that she called conceptual, and when it was not present, it was hard for her to like anything. She was personally very generous to me about my art. I wish she had been more generous to great artists.

Q: Did you like impressionism back then when you knew her?

Blumenthal: Oh, yes; I've always liked impressionism.

Q: Did you ever argue with her about it.

Blumenthal: Uh huh. Many times.

Q: I guess you couldn't come to any kind of agreement?

Blumenthal: No, we couldn't come to any agreement about painting or about the other arts, usually, which is not to say that we didn't have areas of agreement. We did, but the areas of disagreement were greater. I am very impressed with her definition of art. I've heard hundreds of them, and I've never heard one that's as good, nor can I conceive of one that would be any better. I am definitely not in a position to disagree about literature, because I'm not well acquainted with it. We had countless discussions about painting, music, sculpture, ballet, and poetry. Often we would agree in principle--if the principle was broad enough, but rarely in application. We did have different levels of knowledge, that seemed to matter. She knew much more about literature but she didn't know much about the other arts. Clearly we were looking for different things. For example, I love Bach. Obviously, Ayn didn't. And she thought that Mozart was pre-music!

Q: I disagree.

Blumenthal: That's what she said. I love Michelangelo. She thought he was malevolent, Now, there is a streak of malevolence, according to the way Ayn saw things, but it seems to me utterly irrelevant compared to the grandeur of Michelangelo, the huge scale of his view of humanity and so on. But she thought he was malevolent and that was the most important thing to her.

Q: Even The David?

Blumenthal: I don't remember what she thought about The David particularly. That would be, I suppose, more innocuous in her eyes. But I don't want to second-guess her. I do remember telling her once what I saw in the Roman The Pieta, but she couldn't get past the subject. I was seeing beyond the subject.

Anyway, I like many styles and, as I say, I'm content-oriented. I thought the content of ballet was far broader than she did. I think Shakespeare is a great poet. She liked Kipling. So there was a lot of aesthetic disagreement. I walked out of the lecture in which Leonard Peikoff was saying something unpleasant about Rembrandt. I just couldn't stand for it anymore. I felt like I was betraying my values.

Q: What would you like to add to Rand's aesthetic theory?

Blumenthal: I've never thought of adding to Ayn's aesthetic theories. I'm not a aesthetician. If I were I would embrace her definition of art and start from scratch everywhere else..

I would not embrace Rand's definition of art.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Was he in essence coerced by the church into working for them? Paint/sculpt this or be murdered for blasphemy? One had to wonder what he would have created if left to his own passions for honest customers...

Way I've heard, Michelangelo competed to get the commissions, far from being coerced. There was a play Larry and I saw at the Hartford Stage a year or so, maybe more, ago about the rivalry between da Vinci and Michelangelo, including some stuff about the latter's scrabbling to get the ceiling commission. I don't know how historically accurate the play was.

Regarding Tony's calling illustrations not art. By Tony's standards, a high percentage of the world's greatest art, including most of Michelangelo's, including the "David," doesn't qualify as art since it's illustrating someone else's story.

Ellen

[Jules Troy]

Ahh ok.

Btw I still laugh my ass off every time I scroll down and see J's dog render, scarred for life with laughter I am!!

[Brant Gaede]

Rand's definition of art is well worth a serious thought or two--or three.

--Brant

the thinker-no, not that Thinker

[BaalChatzaf]

Rand's definition of art is well worth a serious thought or two--or three.

--Brant

the thinker-no, not that Thinker

No one recreates the reality that exists outside our skins.

At best small parts of it can be duplicated by sophisticated molecular synthesis.

[Brant Gaede]

Rand's definition of art is well worth a serious thought or two--or three.

--Brant

the thinker-no, not that Thinker

No one recreates the reality that exists outside our skins.

At best small parts of it can be duplicated by sophisticated molecular synthesis.

Not true and please make some sense.

Why you think your ignorance is a valuable contribution to a discussion is beyond me. I don't talk about any "sophisticated molecular synthesis" because I try to avoid my own ignorance unless I'm asking a question. Returning the favor is a good trade. You are privileged to make the first sentence if you make a few more backing it up. Can't or won't do it is all the same; there's nothing to talk about.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

I share some of Rand's enthusiasms: the Classical and Renaissance periods, Michelangelo and Vermeer, Hugo and Rostand.

Getting around to commenting on the inclusion of Michelangelo and Vermeer among "Rand's enthusiasms"...

Rand was mixed on both. She called Vermeer the greatest painter and praised his style *, but said that he combined "a brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism" * and presented as his subjects "the folks next door [...] to kitchens." *

If you look back to post #29, you can find the start, in Tony's agreeing with Rand on Vermeer, of the long altercation to follow.

Except for some material on the "David," Michelangelo hasn't come up for much mention on the thread, and I don't recall off hand there being anything said about Rand's considering his work "malevolent universe," similarly to Beethoven's.

Here's a mention of Rand regarding Michelangelo from the Full Context interview with Joan Blumenthal. (In a separate post, I'll quote the whole section from that interview about Rand's and Joan's disagreements on art.)

Blumenthal: [....] I love Michelangelo. She thought he was malevolent, Now, there is a streak of malevolence, according to the way Ayn saw things, but it seems to me utterly irrelevant compared to the grandeur of Michelangelo, the huge scale of his view of humanity and so on. But she thought he was malevolent and that was the most important thing to her.

Q: Even The David?

Blumenthal: I don't remember what she thought about The David particularly. That would be, I suppose, more innocuous in her eyes. But I don't want to second-guess her. I do remember telling her once what I saw in the Roman The Pieta, but she couldn't get past the subject. I was seeing beyond the subject.

Ellen

I think I'm on firm ground in saying that nothing appeared in The Objectivist without Rand's full approval. Thus I took Mary Ann Sures's endorsement of Michelangelo as a reflection of Rand's: "Michelangelo was the greatest artist of the Renaissance, and his work may be taken as representative of the spirit of that era." It is true that Sures later scolds the sculptor of The Dying Slave for "tragic heroism," for portraying "man as a being for whom existence means struggle . . . but who will struggle in vain." ("Metaphysics in Marble," The Objectivist, February and March 1969)

But once we start eliminating all the visual artists Rand had the least misgivings about, who the hell is left? Frank O'Connor?

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think I'm on firm ground in saying that nothing appeared in The Objectivist without Rand's full approval. Thus I took Mary Ann Sures's endorsement of Michelangelo as a reflection of Rand's: "Michelangelo was the greatest artist of the Renaissance, and his work may be taken as representative of the spirit of that era." It is true that Sures later scolds the sculptor of The Dying Slave for "tragic heroism," for portraying "man as a being for whom existence means struggle . . . but who will struggle in vain." ("Metaphysics in Marble," The Objectivist, February and March 1969)

But once we start eliminating all the visual artists Rand had the least misgivings about, who the hell is left? Frank O'Connor?

I'm sure that you are on firm ground in saying that nothing appeared in The Objectivist without Rand's full approval. Sometimes - often after the split - with her assistance in writing the material.

But I wouldn't take the sentence you quote from the Sures article as being an "endorsement" in the sense of meaning that Michelangelo was an enthusiasm of Rand's. She called Vermeer the greatest painter, but she wasn't personally enthused about his work.

Her slam at Vermeer as displaying "the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism" is a description I'll get back to, since it's indicative of her extending her meaning of "Naturalism" from her initial - 1961/1962 - correct use of the term as applying to particular novelists of the second half of the nineteenth through early twentieth centuries to her later use of the term as an omnibus category opposed to "Romanticism."

A detail about Michelangelo: Joan talks about Rand's being put off by the subject of the Pietà:

Nonetheless, in a passage about sculpture which I quoted in post #3, Rand praises the technical mastery the statue exhibits:

"Art and Cognition"

pg. 40, The Romantic Manifesto,

Signet 1975 paperback Second Revised Edition

(originally published in the April-June 1971

issues of The Objectivist)

[....]

Psycho-epistemologically, it is the requirements of the sense of touch that make the texture of a human body a crucial element in sculpture, and virtually a hallmark of great sculptors. Observe the manner in which the softness, the smoothness, the pliant resiliency of the skin is conveyed by rigid marble in such statues as the Venus de Milo or Michelangelo's Pietà.

[....]

I think that one has to see the statue to know how incredibly it conveys an impression of actual skin. Thus I surmise that Rand took the conveyor-belt trip past the statue at the Vatican's pavilion during the 1964/65 World's Fair held in Flushing Meadows.

I recycled on that conveyor belt several times, wishing I could stop the motion, and straining to take in every detail I could despite the motion. Even with the very non-ideal viewing conditions, I was awestruck by how that statue looks.

I'll interpret your concluding question as sarcasm, but remind you that, along with Frank O'Connor, we're left with Capuletti.

Ellen

[Francisco Ferrer]

we're left with Capuletti.

Ellen

Whose forays into surrealism did not escape Rand's critical eye.

[Jonathan]

I was just reading Louis Torres's online comments on Capuletti.

One thing caught my eye and got me wondering:

"In the summer of 1967 I was fortunate enough to visit Capuletti in his Paris studio. Three years later, I had the opportunity to view his work again at a solo exhibition at the Hammer Galleries in New York City and to renew my acquaintance with him."

So, Torres was a Randroid as far back as 67? And he went along on, what, a tour of Capuletti's studio for "students of Objectivism," arranged/sponsored by some official Objectivist organization?

Does anyone know the history of Torres and Kamhi and their involvement, if any, with Rand and official Objectivism? I can't find much information about them. Were they fixtures at Rand's events? Were they outspoken and active during her lifetime? Did they choose a side after The Break? At what point did they graduate from "students of Objectivism" to bossy-pants guru-wannabes? Were they always so strongly focused, as they are now, on smugly scolding everyone on what is not art?

How is it that so many of Rand's followers who have a strong interest in art can't see for themselves that Rand was mistaken to judge Capuletti's technical skills so highly? How is it possible that none of these Objectivist self-professed art lovers/scholars/authorities has enough training or experience in the visual arts to think for themselves and to recognize that Capuletti's work is student-quality?

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, your inimitableness continues to humble a a wretched second hand world.

Yes, I know. I am awesome, and your recognizing my awesomeness has earned you a higher ranking in value.

I recall you also once value traded with fellow Freedom Leaper WSS to create a Man Medallion of stark ruthless uncompromisingness, or something.

Billy and I portrayed daringly brilliant stark ruthless uncompromisingness.

Now your overarching artistic vision embraces, yea, all creatures great and small!

Eat your heart out Kanye West.

In awe,

c.

You're welcome.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, your inimitableness continues to humble a a wretched second hand world. I recall you also once value traded with fellow Freedom Leaper WSS to create a Man Medallion of stark ruthless uncompromisingness, or something. Now your overarching artistic vision embraces, yea, all creatures great and small!

Eat your heart out Kanye West.

In awe,

c.

Freedom Leapers? Into, out or over?

--Brant

u can't pin Carol down

[Brant Gaede]

I was just reading Louis Torres's online comments on Capuletti.

One thing caught my eye and got me wondering:

"In the summer of 1967 I was fortunate enough to visit Capuletti in his Paris studio. Three years later, I had the opportunity to view his work again at a solo exhibition at the Hammer Galleries in New York City and to renew my acquaintance with him."

So, Torres was a Randroid as far back as 67? And he went along on, what, a tour of Capuletti's studio for "students of Objectivism," arranged/sponsored by some official Objectivist organization?

Does anyone know the history of Torres and Kamhi and their involvement, if any, with Rand and official Objectivism? I can't find much information about them. Were they fixtures at Rand's events? Were they outspoken and active during her lifetime? Did they chose a side after The Break? At what point did they graduate from "students of Objectivism" to bossy-pants guru-wannabes? Were they always so strongly focused, as they are now, on smugly scolding everyone on what is not art?

How is it that so many of Rand's followers who have a strong interest in art can't see for themselves that Rand was mistaken to judge Capuletti's technical skills so highly? How is it possible that none of these Objectivist self-professed art lovers/scholars/authorities has enough training or experience in the visual arts to think for themselves and to recognize that Capuletti's work is student-quality?

J

I think it's better than "student quality." I think it falls down too often compositionally and by subject matter. There were certainly technical mistakes. One painting I liked quite a lot when I saw it at the Hammer Gallery in 1970 was ruined by the fact that the woman subject's feet seemed to be floating above the floor. Phillip J. Smith, my acting teacher, made the same observation back then. (I don't know what happened to Phill or even if he's still with us. He'd be in his mid 80s now.) I told Arthur Silber over 40 years ago I didn't like that I found the artist "cold and abstract," but Arthur exclaimed that was why he liked him! (This is not a category of impressionism.) What's really sad is how much better Capo was than Frank O'Connor. My favorite Frank O'Connor work, "Diminishing Returns," could have used more three-dimensionality off the two-dimensional surface. For me that would have powered it into the "great" category, but remember, subjectivity reigns. Frank needed to have started painting 30 years younger.

If the asked for prices in 1970 for a Capuletti reflected true market value, they'd all be selling for six figures today if the same market obtained. (The paintings.)

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I was just reading Louis Torres's online comments on Capuletti.

One thing caught my eye and got me wondering:

"In the summer of 1967 I was fortunate enough to visit Capuletti in his Paris studio. Three years later, I had the opportunity to view his work again at a solo exhibition at the Hammer Galleries in New York City and to renew my acquaintance with him."

So, Torres was a Randroid as far back as 67? And he went along on, what, a tour of Capuletti's studio for "students of Objectivism," arranged/sponsored by some official Objectivist organization?

The May 1967 Objectivist Calendar has this announcement:

Reservations for NBI's twenty-one day Tour of Europe - which leaves from New York City on July 22 and returns on August 11 - are still being accepted. [contact address follows]

Maybe the tour was when Torres visited Capuletti's studio. Don't know - or remember anything I might have heard/read about how far back Torres and/or Kamhi was connected with Objectivism. There was a "Full Context" interview with Kamhi, in the July-August 2000 issue, but no link to excerpts or to a bio in the FC Index. There was an interview with Torres in the October 1990 issue. A link is given to a bio wherein is said

"He has had a strong interest in the philosophy of Objectivism since the early 1960's, when he began attending lectures at the Nathaniel Branden Institute in New York."

Ellen

Add: I have Kamhi's FC interview but not Torres'. She didn't start reading Rand until after she met him in 1984.

[Jonathan]

Thanks for the info!

J

[Backlighting]

Ellen said "I would not embrace Rand's definition of art"

Neither do I.

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen said "I would not embrace Rand's definition of art"

Neither do I.

Wait a minute! Where's the love? First, we make an orphan. Second, we toss it out in the street!?

--Brant

OH ! THE HUMANITY !!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Speaking of Rand's definition of art:

See post #16 on the "Literary History..." thread for a brief synopsis of the history of Rand's earliest (1961/62) talk on aesthetics.

The definition she used in the Columbia Radio broadcast version, titled "Out Esthetic Vacuum" (I'm assuming that Roger Bissell transcribed accurately), was:

Art is a re-creation of reality according to the artist's values.

I.e., she hadn't yet included the word "selective" or specifically referred to "metaphysical value-judgments," although she was saying already then that art is a concretization of metaphysics.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

"Full Context," March 1993

Interview with Joan Mitchell Blumenthal

by Karen Reedstrom

[....]

Blumenthal: [...] she thought [impressionism] indicated a poor psycho-epistemology. That was something she said about things she didn't like. She didn't like Rembrandt. In that case I felt very, very alienated because Rembrandt did not have a poor any kind of epistemology, psycho or otherwise. He absolutely knew what he was doing.

Q:: It seems that he really saw the figure as the most important thing, and he made it dramatic.

Blumenthal: He's very selective in his use of lights and darks. He's almost more psychologically insightful than anyone. Also he did beautiful landscapes. And what Ayn Rand held against him was the side of beef painting--which is absurd! If you're evaluating an artist, you have to look over the whole work. The side of beef was something she did not understand. It's a 17th century subject that had particular meaning for its day. He did it very well, but Ayn did not understand its meaning.

[....]

For Rand's statement about the Rembrandt side of beef painting, see.

Looking up an old discussion of architects, I came across this by me from 2007:

There's one of the ways in which I part company with Rand on art, her objection (and reasons for her objection) to the Rembrandt side of beef. Why does one need to "[contemplate and ponder] the meaning or significance expressed"? Where from comes any requirement that Rembrandt (or any painter) has to be trying to "say something profound about the world"? Maybe he thought the side of beef was beautiful. (Is there something inherently non-beautiful about it?) Maybe he was interested by the technical challenge (as Chopin was in writing his Etudes). Maybe both. Why is there any need for whatever he was doing being justified? The painting is an expert painting. Maybe people like to look at it to appreciate its expertise and/or because it shows them the beauty in a side of beef.

Ellen