Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Ellen Stuttle]

Also reprising this post of mine:

[....] I specifically chose the two paintings as examples because I have tested their ability to communicate meanings to a relatively large percentage of people. That's not to say, however, that I think that all abstract paintings are so direct, or that they must be so successful at communicating in order to quality as art.

What's "a relatively large percentage of people"?

Which people? I.e., from what populace did you get your sample?

Specifically what question(s) did you ask those whom you asked about the "meanings" of the two works?

Have the artists who did the respective works made statements about "meanings" they were attempting to convey?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

What's a "relatively large percentage of people"?

An example of a "relatively large percentage of people" would be if 17 out of 28 people interviewed at a gallery were to identify an artist's specifically intended meaning in a work of art while not being given access to those intentions through any external means. The "relatively" part involves comparing their responses to Objectivish-types who can't identify artists' meanings in realistic/representational paintings. 17 of 28 is a "relatively large percentage of people" compared to 0 of 8, or 0 of 20, or 0 of 36.

Which people? I.e., from what populace did you get your sample?

People who have expressed an interest in visual art and its ability, or lack thereof, to communicate. Enthusiastic fans of visual art. People who regularly visit visual art galleries. People who talk about art and aesthetics in online fora. Etc.

Specifically what question(s) did you ask those whom you asked about the "meanings" of the two works?

I generally ask a viewer what a given painting means to him or her, if anything, and why.

So are you indicating that at gallery showings of the two paintings (at the same showing? different showings?) you asked about 28 people what the paintings meant to him/her?

Or that you chose people you know or have encountered on online fora and then specifically asked about those two paintings?

Did any of those you asked answer with so specific a statement as the ones I've quoted from you - "Its meaning is that mankind should [...]" or "[...] that peace and gentleness are important human qualities"?

I have no trouble with the idea that you got such responses describing the first as suggesting strength, assertiveness, even "masculinity" and describing the second as suggesting peacefulness, gentleness, even "femininity," but I think the assertions you're claiming as the respective meanings are importing a specificity which is not there in the works and I'm doubtful that people you asked responded with that degree of specificity.

Have the artists who did the respective works made statements about "meanings" they were attempting to convey?

Yes. And they're not the only artists whose work I've used for testing.

Can you provide direct statements by the respective artists?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Why do Objectivish-types adore [Capuletti] despite his lack of talent (which should be evident to anyone with hands-on art experience)? Is it because Rand liked his work, and falsely told her followers that he was technically masterful? She lacked the visual competence to see that he was a student-level artist, and her followers, like Torres, and presumably Kamhi, follow her in pretending to see a level of quality and artistic imagination which isn't there.

How many current Objectivish types adore Capuletti? His work tended to receive praise from NYC area Objectivists when Rand was alive, but is it much mentioned these days in Objectivism-related venues?

I don't think that it's as effective as it used to be, but young O'ists are still being told by people like Torres from the when-Rand-was-alive generation to believe that Capuletti was "objectively" deserving of Rand's praise. Every once in a while I see a young O'ist listing Capuletti as one of the greats.

J

[Jonathan]

What's a "relatively large percentage of people"?

An example of a "relatively large percentage of people" would be if 17 out of 28 people interviewed at a gallery were to identify an artist's specifically intended meaning in a work of art while not being given access to those intentions through any external means. The "relatively" part involves comparing their responses to Objectivish-types who can't identify artists' meanings in realistic/representational paintings. 17 of 28 is a "relatively large percentage of people" compared to 0 of 8, or 0 of 20, or 0 of 36.

Which people? I.e., from what populace did you get your sample?

People who have expressed an interest in visual art and its ability, or lack thereof, to communicate. Enthusiastic fans of visual art. People who regularly visit visual art galleries. People who talk about art and aesthetics in online fora. Etc.

Specifically what question(s) did you ask those whom you asked about the "meanings" of the two works?

I generally ask a viewer what a given painting means to him or her, if anything, and why.

So are you indicating that at gallery showings of the two paintings (at the same showing? different showings?) you asked about 28 people what the paintings meant to him/her?

Or that you chose people you know or have encountered on online fora and then specifically asked about those two paintings?

Did any of those you asked answer with so specific a statement as the ones I've quoted from you - "Its meaning is that mankind should [...]" or "[...] that peace and gentleness are important human qualities"?

I have no trouble with the idea that you got such responses describing the first as suggesting strength, assertiveness, even "masculinity" and describing the second as suggesting peacefulness, gentleness, even "femininity," but I think the assertions you're claiming as the respective meanings are importing a specificity which is not there in the works and I'm doubtful that people you asked responded with that degree of specificity.

Have the artists who did the respective works made statements about "meanings" they were attempting to convey?

Yes. And they're not the only artists whose work I've used for testing.

Can you provide direct statements by the respective artists?

Ellen

Yes, at some point I will compile and post info and links regarding my various explorations of people's responses to art, and to the artists' statements about their intentions.

J

[Jonathan]

I was thinking today that Capuletti's work should be classified as "naive art."

The characteristics of naïve art are an awkward relationship to the formal qualities of painting. Especially non-respect of the 3 rules of the perspective (such as defined by the Progressive Painters of the Renaissance) :

1. decrease of the size of objects proportionally with distance,
2. muting of colors with distance,
3. decrease of the precision of details with distance,

The results are :

1. effects of perspective geometrically erroneous (awkward aspect of the works, children's drawings look, or medieval painting look, but the comparison stops there)
2. strong use of pattern, unrefined color on all the plans of the composition, without enfeeblement in the background,
3. an equal accuracy brought to details, including those of the background which should be shaded off.

How should we classify people who don't recognize its naiveté, but who believe that it is technically some of the greatest art ever?

J

[Jonathan]

Will someone please inform Brant that I apologized to him here?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I do not see any basis for your statements about the respective "meanings" of the image-pair you posted.

You say of the first:

"Its meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions."

And of the second:

"Its meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities."

Are you serious in the idea that an abstract painting can convey the cognitive content of a moral dictum, or a statement about the importance of certain human qualities?

Yes. I specifically chose the two paintings as examples because I have tested their ability to communicate meanings to a relatively large percentage of people. That's not to say, however, that I think that all abstract paintings are so direct, or that they must be so successful at communicating in order to quality as art.

I think that even highly representational and didactically intended art doesn't often convey so specific a message.

I agree. Many art forms, including realistically representational/mimetic ones, don't often convey so specific a message. Some abstract paintings communicate very specific meanings to certain viewers, where others don't. Some realistically representational paintings communicate very specific meanings to certain viewers, where others don't. Some music does, some doesn't. Some works of dance and poetry and architecture communicate meaning, some don't. Even some novels communicate intended meanings where others don't.

J

Speaking of communication, we didn't achieve it in that exchange.

What I was hoping in asking "Are you serious in the idea that an abstract painting can convey the cognitive content of a moral dictum, or a statement about the importance of certain human qualities?" was that you would reply, in effect, Oops, no, of course abstract paintings can't present such specific cognitive content as moral dictums or statements about anything.

My added sentence about "highly representational and didactically intended art" was tendered doubtfully - and was meant, as I thought was clear from the context, as referring to painting and sculpture. I can think of few examples of painting and sculpture - those mostly of a propagandistic type - which I think might, as works separated from the contexts of their use, be said to present such specific cognitive content as moral dictums or statements. But only "might be said." I'm doubtful.

For instance, Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms is a tentative candidate which comes to my mind, but I'm doubtful that the paintings alone without their context could be said to present "shoulds."

There are conventional signifiers which are used as warnings or instructions, such as red octagonal shapes, meaning "Stop," or jagged "lightning" figures, meaning "Danger of electrical shock," or circles with a diagonal slash, meaning "Don't" in regard to whatever's depicted in the circle. But there the meaning is conventionally assigned through standardized usage. It isn't in the signifiers of themselves.

Regarding music, I already said in post #208 above:

I don't think that music, as such, means anything. Nothing. Nada. Or that it "[has] to be interpreted as meaning something."

Regarding architecture, likewise.

Dance is complicated, because it might be intertwined with pantomime - and thus with the cognitive-content possibilities of story.

Literature, being verbal, is the exception among the art forms you mentioned in that it necessarily contains specific cognitive content.

Your response was in terms of communicating meanings. I hope you're seeing now that, although I used the word "convey," I wasn't actually thinking of communicating but of containing, of having in the art form.

My viewpoint is that if artists believe that they're expressing - or if viewers (or listeners) believe that they're detecting - moral dictums, or any type of specific statements, in abstract painting and sculpture (or in music or architecture), they're mistaken. Thus if, for instance, a painter says, "I meant such and such moral message," and a viewer claims to detect the message the painter claims to have meant, what's happened wasn't "communication."

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Where may I review [Kamhi's] scientific tests and findings?

Jonathan,

I'm intending to get back to the barrage of questions from which I singled out that one, but first I'd like to know:

Do you consider the various "tests" you say you've performed to be scientific?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Thus if, for instance, a painter says, "I meant such and such moral message," and a viewer claims to detect the message the painter claims to have meant, what's happened wasn't "communication."

Why would it not be communication? If one's meaning has been transmitted, received and understood as intended, that's what "communication" means, no?

If I give you a facial expression which is meant to convey disapproval, and you understand it to be disapproval, have I not communicated with you?

Are you saying that you believe that communication can only happen through standardized "conventional signifiers"?

J

[Jonathan]

Where may I review [Kamhi's] scientific tests and findings?

Jonathan,

I'm intending to get back to the barrage of questions from which I singled out that one, but first I'd like to know:

Do you consider the various "tests" you say you've performed to be scientific?

Ellen

No, I don't consider them to be scientific. They're not controlled enough to be science. I would call them preliminary explorations which might act a guide as to how science might test and compare the abilities and limits of the various art forms to communicate.

J

[Jonathan]

Speaking of communication, we didn't achieve it in that exchange.

What I was hoping in asking "Are you serious in the idea that an abstract painting can convey the cognitive content of a moral dictum, or a statement about the importance of certain human qualities?" was that you would reply, in effect, Oops, no, of course abstract paintings can't present such specific cognitive content as moral dictums or statements about anything.

We did achieve communication in that exchange. I answered your question. My answer is not what you expected or wanted to hear, but that's quite a different issue from whether or not we communicated. My answer to your question is that some works of art are capable of communicating to some people the type of content that you asked about.

J

[Jonathan]

Double standards?

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol. 4, No. 2, page 459:

On Metaphysical Value-Judgments in Art

In What Art Is, we were critical of the brief elaboration offered by Rand in “The Psycho-Epistemology of Art” of her concept of “metaphysical value-judgments”—the key term in the differentia of her definition of art. In particular, we took issue with the following series of questions, the answers to which are implicated in metaphysical value-judgments, according to Rand’s analysis:

Is the universe intelligible to man, or unintelligible andunknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does [he] have the power...to choose his goals and to achieve them...or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control? Is
man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil? ([1965b] 1975, 19)

We argued, in part, that “it is difficult to understand how the specific questions Rand poses would pertain to any art form but literature — unless the given work had a literary or narrative base (biblical, historical, mythological, or fictional) known to the viewer or listener”51(Torres & Kamhi 2000, 25). As an example, we cited Jacques-Louis David’s painting The Death of Socrates. Without knowledge of the historical event it refers to, we maintained, “one can only sense that some event of great moment is occurring, one cannot guess what[particular] values are at stake in the action depicted.”

Page 461:

Regarding the painting we cited, David’s Death of Socrates, Newberry notes only that “[q]uite independent of the story, the visual information...conveys variations on the themes of great loss and tragedy.” We would counter that if one cannot answer “loss of what?” and “what sort of tragedy?” one has not said very much. Unlike Newberry, however, we would not conclude that a painting is “not a good work” if it depends on culturally shared knowledge or associations for a full grasp of its moral (or other) import. Many paintings inspired by history, literature, or mythology have done so, to great effect.

Abstract paintings and postmodernist works have also done so. When we allow "outside considerations" and "extra-pictorial information" which informs viewers of "culturally shared knowledge or associations," the cultural import and expressiveness of, say, the grace and flow of Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, for example, has greatly affected many people.

Kamhi continued:

Yet, we would agree that a painting must make some sense without such extra-pictorial information (and, for that reason, we agree with Rand’s rejection of “abstract art”).

Precisely how much sense is "some sense"? And to whom must a painting make "some sense"? Kandinsky and I, and even Newberry (see his thoughts on spatial "transparency"), would agree that a saturated orange abstract form on a desaturated blue background would have the warm, confident attitude of approaching the viewer. Would that count as the painting making "some sense" to us without relying on extra-pictorial information? Or would it be only enough sense to be technically just shy of "some sense"?

When Ellen and I (and many others elsewhere) get a feeling of motion and upthrust from the first abstract sample image that I posted earlier, and weightlessness from the second, would that count as the images making "some sense" to us?

When Frank Lloyd Wright and many others saw the circle as having the spirituality of infinity, the triangle as having unity and aspiration, the spiral as having organic progress, and the square as having integrity, would that not count as those forms making "some sense"?

When Rand envisioned an abstract horizontal form which spread over the ground like arms outstretched, palms down, in great silent acceptance, and did not cling to the soil nor crouch under the sky, but seemed to lift the earth while its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down, would that not count as her making "some sense" of abstract forms?

Is making "some sense" enough to qualify something as art, of must it comply with Kamhi's stricter criteria in her new book (must it intelligibly embody ideas and values, and must it be imbued with meaning in a compelling way)? Which is it? Which of Kamhi's conflicting criteria is the one that she wishes to be applied equally to all art forms? Is it "some sense," or is an "intelligible embodiment of ideas and values in a compelling way"?

I would assume that, by either of Kamhi's criteria, still life and landscape paintings would not qualify as art, since they don't make "some sense": they don't make any sense to Objectivists in online fora; they don't communicate any notion of what values or ideas are important to the artist; and, additionally, culturally shared knowledge and associations are not applicable -- there are no "outside considerations" or "extra-pictorial information" that could be added about apples or gourds which would provide any meaningful context.

And of course we would also have to apply Kamhi's criteria to the abstract forms of music and dance. How much sense is "some sense" when it comes to those art forms? By what specific, objective standards and means would we determine and measure the ability of "ordinary citizens" of "the public" to make "some sense" of pieces of music and dance while not being exposed to "outside considerations" and "extra-musical information"?

I think it should be very clear by now that we are not talking about anything resembling objective criteria here, but about nothing but Kamhi's attempting to establish her own subjective tastes and personal aesthetic limitations as the standard for judging what is or is not art for all of mankind, and that even in doing so, she must resort to double -- or perhaps even triple -- standards in order to allow the art forms that she likes to qualify as art while not allowing those that she doesn't like.

J

[Jonathan]

Question:

Does it not logically follow that if, in order to qualify as a work of art, the work in question must reliably communicate the artist's intended meaning to others (to "ordinary citizens" and "the public" and "the folks next door" or whatever) -- that it must intelligibly embody ideas and values that are important to the individuals who create them -- then something cannot be declared a legitimate work of art if we don't have any record, external to the work in question, of the artist's specific intentions? If we have no external means of verifying which of our differing interpretations of the meaning of his work match his intentions, then we have no means of determining if his work has actually successfully communicated, and since we therefore can't tell if it has communicated, then we can't say that it meets Rand's or Kamhi's requirements of art, no?

J

[anthony]

I don't know who brought in "communication". I think an artist paints something he is drawn to that has special meaning for him, but initially it's a selfish endeavor. Not so? The reality uniquely depicted through his vision is still perceivable reality, since he also wants it to be known by others as he saw it. I think you're over-qualifying the intelligibility of "ideas and values". As long as it IS intelligible, a picture is a stand alone product of 'importance', evidently - and the viewer should deduce the artist's values from choices he made in it. (Subject, style and so on).

My personal problem with abstract art as art, is at least two things:

Suggestibility is not intelligibility.

Abstract pictures can grab one subconsciously and subjectively by relating them to scattered fragments from memory.

Then, no two persons will react in a remotely identical fashion to them. What then is the 'importance' of conveying something unconveyable, no more than a suggestion?

Style over substance.

As much as you can preselect pictures whose fundaments are lines, shapes and colors, and claim quite rightly that different colors or contrasting ones, and level lines, or smooth curves, or jagged, or diagonal ones--all have an 'aesthetic vocabulary' --

I will point out that all these are only *techniques*, well-used traditionally by realist artists and photographers in landscapes, figures etc.

IOW, there's nothing new, except for the fact that there is nothing recognizable in them as subject matter. It is all technique.

So, what was an old method - tried and tested, and I think based on a human's responses to natural environments - to hold and guide the viewer's eye and to further add drama (or tranqullity, etc) to the picture...has now become an end in itself, without referents to reality for one's mind to correspond to. Peacefulness, or energy is again subconsciously felt via these techniques, and cannot be attached to man's attributes or ideals.

My sense is of being vaguely cheated by abstract art, even when I occasionally find it fun.

[Jonathan]

I don't know who brought in "communication".

First Rand did. Then Kamhi reiterated it. Then you did in the rest of your post.

I think an artist paints something he is drawn to that has special meaning for him, but initially it's a selfish endeavor. Not so? The reality uniquely depicted through his vision is still perceivable reality, since he also wants it to be known by others as he saw it. I think you're over-qualifying the intelligibility of "ideas and values". As long as it IS intelligible, a picture is a stand alone product of 'importance', evidently - and the viewer should deduce the artist's values from choices he made in it. (Subject, style and so on).

My personal problem with abstract art as art, is at least two things:

Suggestibility is not intelligibility.

Abstract pictures can grab one subconsciously and subjectively by relating them to scattered fragments from memory.

Then, no two persons will react in a remotely identical fashion to them. What then is the 'importance' of conveying something unconveyable, no more than a suggestion?

Style over substance.

As much as you can preselect pictures whose fundaments are lines, shapes and colors, and claim quite rightly that different colors or contrasting ones, and level lines, or smooth curves, or jagged, or diagonal ones--all have an 'aesthetic vocabulary' --

I will point out that all these are only *techniques*, well-used traditionally by realist artists and photographers in landscapes, figures etc.

IOW, there's nothing new, except for the fact that there is nothing recognizable in them as subject matter. It is all technique.

So, what was an old method - tried and tested, and I think based on a human's responses to natural environments - to hold and guide the viewer's eye and to further add drama (or tranqullity, etc) to the picture...has now become an end in itself, without referents to reality for one's mind to correspond to. Peacefulness, or energy is again subconsciously felt via these techniques, and cannot be attached to man's attributes or ideals.

My sense is of being vaguely cheated by abstract art, even when I occasionally find it fun.

Yawn. Once again, everything you've said above also applies to music, dance, architecture, realistic still life and landscape paintings, and probably a lot of literature and drama.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thus if, for instance, a painter says, "I meant such and such moral message," and a viewer claims to detect the message the painter claims to have meant, what's happened wasn't "communication."

Why would it not be communication? If one's meaning has been transmitted, received and understood as intended, that's what "communication" means, no?

Something which isn't there - in this case discursive content - can't be communicated.

If I give you a facial expression which is meant to convey disapproval, and you understand it to be disapproval, have I not communicated with you?

Are you saying that you believe that communication can only happen through standardized "conventional signifiers"?

J

No, but discursive communication can only happen through symbols which refer. There aren't such in those two paintings - or in the vast majority of representational art either (I continue doubtful if in any).

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

We did achieve communication in that exchange. I answered your question. My answer is not what you expected or wanted to hear, but that's quite a different issue from whether or not we communicated. My answer to your question is that some works of art are capable of communicating to some people the type of content that you asked about

We didn't achieve communication and still aren't achieving communication. Possibly if you reread my post #232...

Meanwhile, I'm about 2/3 through reading Kamhi's book. She's swaying me toward her viewpoint on "abstract" painting and sculpture.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

[if] we have no means of determining if his work has actually successfully communicated, and since we therefore can't tell if it has communicated, then we can't say that it meets Rand's or Kamhi's requirements of art, no?

Neither Rand nor Kamhi makes communication a requirement of art.

Here, again, are Kamhi's criteria for visual art classifying as "fine art," the category she's talking about.

Kamhi's Criteria for Visual "Fine Art" - 2

The following statement opens Chapter 2 - "What Qualities Make a Work 'Art'? And How and Why Do We Respond?"

Who Says That's Art?

Chapter 2, pp. 33-34

As indicated in the previous chapter, the art dealt with here consists of the major visual arts - chiefly, painting and sculpture - as contrasted with the decorative or applied arts. What are their defining qualities? I suggested these:

Like all art, works of visual art are made with special skill and care. They are not the product of mere whim or chance.

Visual art is representational. It consists of two- or three-dimensional images of actual or imagined persons, places, objects, or events.

Such representations are not necessarily realistic in style, but they are intelligible and emotionally meaningful within their cultural context. They embody, in recognizable forms, ideas and values that are not only of personal significance important to the individual who created them but also have the potential to interest and move others.

A true work of art is the product of more than just technical skill. It involves a distinctive sensibility, an intensity of vision that brings the subject to life in a compelling way.

Any work that does not meet all these criteria is, in my view, either failed art or non-art. Though people may differ in judging whether a particular work meets them all, they can serve as a standard against which every work should be judged. If pressed to encapsulate these qualities in a formal definition, I would say:

Visual art is imagery that skillfully represents real or imagined people, places, and things in a form expressive of the maker's temperament, deeply held values, and view of life.

[....]

Ellen

[anthony]

Yawn. Once again, everything you've said above also applies to music, dance, architecture, realistic still life and landscape paintings, and probably a lot of literature and drama.

J

Pre-cisely, with which I suppose, you are acknowledging the common element to all those, (and many more: flower arranging, furniture design, etc.etc.).

'Art-fulness' is not necessarily or always art, but all art is 'artful'.

What I call 'artfulness' is some combination of line, shape, color harmony, design, composition (....) In art it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It brings aesthetic power to a representational image but does not supplant it as abstract art does.

'Abstract art', I've thought, is a desire by the artist to present a representation of his own mental abstraction of something in reality. Since it is indecipherable, his implied insistence is that we must take him on good faith. A short-cut, which turns out to be a dead end.

[Brant Gaede]

I think defining what "art" is (and therefore is not) will never result in a valid universal. Definition-description does somewhat better. There seems to be too much difference between what we commonly think of the art parts: painting, music, literature, etc., even "fine arts." Rand seemed to be onto something of interest with how one's senses react to one art or the other as opposed to cognitive evaluation--you need another sense to have another art--but that kind of leaves literature more out than in, art. I personally go with emotional reaction regardless of the nature of the stimulation, but that broadens out to every experience that one emotionally reacts too.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I personally go with emotional reaction regardless of the nature of the stimulation, but that broadens out to every experience that one emotionally reacts too.--Brant

Indeed. And that has relevance to the significance of Rand's inexperience and nonchalance toward the field of aesthetics leading her to misidentify the philosophical branch as "the study of art."

J

[Jonathan]

Yawn. Once again, everything you've said above also applies to music, dance, architecture, realistic still life and landscape paintings, and probably a lot of literature and drama.

J

Pre-cisely, with which I suppose, you are acknowledging the common element to all those, (and many more: flower arranging, furniture design, etc.etc.).

'Art-fulness' is not necessarily or always art, but all art is 'artful'.

What I call 'artfulness' is some combination of line, shape, color harmony, design, composition (....) In art it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It brings aesthetic power to a representational image but does not supplant it as abstract art does.

'Abstract art', I've thought, is a desire by the artist to present a representation of his own mental abstraction of something in reality. Since it is indecipherable, his implied insistence is that we must take him on good faith. A short-cut, which turns out to be a dead end.

Yeah, you still can't imagine, and you still refuse to believe, that others can experience what you can't.

Boring.

J

[Jonathan]

Thus if, for instance, a painter says, "I meant such and such moral message," and a viewer claims to detect the message the painter claims to have meant, what's happened wasn't "communication."

Why would it not be communication? If one's meaning has been transmitted, received and understood as intended, that's what "communication" means, no?

Something which isn't there - in this case discursive content - can't be communicated.

If I give you a facial expression which is meant to convey disapproval, and you understand it to be disapproval, have I not communicated with you?

Are you saying that you believe that communication can only happen through standardized "conventional signifiers"?

J

No, but discursive communication can only happen through symbols which refer. There aren't such in those two paintings - or in the vast majority of representational art either (I continue doubtful if in any).

Ellen

Who said anything about discursive communication? We've been discussing communication, period, not discursive communication.

J

[Jonathan]

We did achieve communication in that exchange. I answered your question. My answer is not what you expected or wanted to hear, but that's quite a different issue from whether or not we communicated. My answer to your question is that some works of art are capable of communicating to some people the type of content that you asked about

We didn't achieve communication and still aren't achieving communication. Possibly if you reread my post #232...

Meanwhile, I'm about 2/3 through reading Kamhi's book. She's swaying me toward her viewpoint on "abstract" painting and sculpture.

Ellen

Maybe you've been writing something different from what you intended? You've been writing about "communication," but now in recent posts, you've switched to writing about "discursive communication." Perhaps you had thought that you were writing about "discursive communication" all along, when you haven't been, and that is what's causing what you feel to be miscommunication?

J

[Jonathan]

Neither Rand nor Kamhi makes communication a requirement of art.

Do you mean "communication," or are you still arbitrarily injecting "discursive communication" into the discussion?

Both Rand and Kamhi DO make communication a requirement.

Neither makes "discursive communication" a requirement, but I haven't been talking about "discursive communication," where you seem to believe that we were.

J