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

[Jonathan]

Though Ive never been to a seance, I'll give it a try.

The Medium.

Quiet, now, please! Something is coming through from the other side. Yes, yes -- a woman! Quite pretty, not too old, I'm hearing her name, Joan - no Jill, no, Jacky - um, Suzy? Yes! She says you have to eat more, you need exercise and to go out more, and she misses you...wait, she is growing fainter - oh, I have lost her. That will be $20 please.

(Sort of reminds me of abstract art).

Sort of reminds me of Objectivish interpretations of Vermeer and Capuletti!

J

[Jonathan]

Btw, Greg, the painting that you liked by Robert Florczak here is not art by Kamhi's criteria.

(shrug...) So?

It's merely my subjective opinion. I happen to like it because it's noble and uplifting and bespeaks the beauty of morality in a relationship. Other people like ugliness and spastic baby scribbles... and that's their subjective opinion.

Greg

I asked you a specific question. I didn't ask if you like the painting or why. I didn't ask about your highly emotional defensiveness and your desperate emotional need to believe how icky and naughty other people are for having tastes that differ from yours. I asked if you like Kamhi's criteria after discovering that they conclude that the Florczak painting is not art.

J

[moralist]

I asked you a specific question.

And I already answered, Jonathan:

I don't care.

You have yet to explain yourself and are still evading.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

I asked if you [Greg] like Kamhi's criteria after discovering that they conclude that the Florczak painting is not art.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the painting isn't art by Kamhi's criteria?

I especially like this one...

It expresses noble human qualities worthy of aspiration.

Greg

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Ugh.

I didn't like J's either, but I don't know if he did in any particular or especial way.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some animals might communicate fairly complexly, but the claims of true language in non-human animals don't stand up, I think. In any case, if someone reasoned as I indicated, the reasoning would be faulty.

Ellen,

I think there are incredibly complex communications between animals, starting with swarm-making in lower life forms. But all communication in animals other than humans are calls to behavior patterns. I agree communication of high-level abstractions is foreign to them.

But it's not just concepts and logic.

The human race is the only species known to tell stories.

I wish Rand had dealt more with this storytelling aspect of epistemology. Or maybe not. Instead of explaining it, she did it superbly. She probably came out better that way.

Michael

[anthony]

Though Ive never been to a seance, I'll give it a try.

The Medium.

Quiet, now, please! Something is coming through from the other side. Yes, yes -- a woman! Quite pretty, not too old, I'm hearing her name, Joan - no Jill, no, Jacky - um, Suzy? Yes! She says you have to eat more, you need exercise and to go out more, and she misses you...wait, she is growing fainter - oh, I have lost her. That will be $20 please.

(Sort of reminds me of abstract art).

Sort of reminds me of Objectivish interpretations of Vermeer and Capuletti!

J

Perhaps - I have barely kept abreast of others' criticisms. The interpretation of specific fine art paintings isn't an exact science--significant or subtle details may be missed, or other things may be 'read in' that are not there. Studying Rand's thesis doesn't make for an instant and expert art appreciator.

Still, along with other works, it is a philosophical base and introduction for a start - under one's own steam - into art, and with application one should quickly learn better how to see and contemplate art (and reality). In this increase of our powers of observation lies one of the great values of a good artist. It is also important (I think) that academic opinions about an artwork don't influence one - to the extent of even ignoring them; honest mistakes of interpretation matter much less than finding depth and significant meaning, independently amd personally

You can always come back to a picture and check its (and your) premises.

It is fixed in existence and time.

The question is, after all, how much mystery is there in what one can SEE for oneself?

Why should artists not want to be "seen"? Why should a sensitive Medium alone have powers to show us the Other Side?

Abstract art cannot even be MIS-interpreted, it is malleable to what the viewer feels and wants to see, or has 'developed a code' to decipher. It can't pass the notional test of 'falsification'.

In my opinion, it's an arbitrary assertion - against the rational assertion of representational art.

[Brant Gaede]

"Representational art" can't be an irrational assertion? Reason is not in the art; it's in the head. Art is about putting something into the head more or less pre-reason. You're trying to jump into the process, which spikes this. You can do better than champion Soviet Realism.

--Brant

[anthony]

"Representational art" can't be an irrational assertion? Reason is not in the art; it's in the head. Art is about putting something into the head more or less pre-reason.

--Brant

Heh. I knew someone would jump on that. I mean of course, "rational", as consonant with reality, i.e. sensory and perceptual. Prior to the value-judgement which has to follow. The two, together, constitute Objectivist "rationality", I believe.

"Real" is the first and immediate requisite, before 'good' or 'bad'.

[anthony]

I asked if you [Greg] like Kamhi's criteria after discovering that they conclude that the Florczak painting is not art.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the painting isn't art by Kamhi's criteria?

Ellen

Ellen, I'm glad you asked what was puzzling me too. I thought I must be forgetting or overlooking something from Kamhi's "criteria".

A review of the picture instantly conveys that it is art, to me, albeit with a guileless and simple, maybe jejeune, stylization. IOW, it is not going to please aestheticians. However, it carries a pleasantly innocent quality (sense of life...) - as well as a view of a benevolent existence and of goals that man can attain. If, yet again, rather callow.

Oddly, because of -or despite- its simplicity, I find the image sticks in my mind.

[Brant Gaede]

"Representational art" can't be an irrational assertion? Reason is not in the art; it's in the head. Art is about putting something into the head more or less pre-reason.

--Brant

Heh. I knew someone would jump on that. I mean of course, "rational", as consonant with reality, i.e. sensory and perceptual. Prior to the value-judgement which has to follow. The two, together, constitute Objectivist "rationality", I believe.

"Real" is the first and immediate requisite, before 'good' or 'bad'.

Do you think that horrible kitsch Greg likes in post 504 is "consonant with reality"--"real"? It must be what you think is good, at least its "first and immediate requisite," for Greg thinks it's "good" and two seemingly human figures are "representational" of human. What you are actually saying here is it's not art if it's not "representational" or "abstract art" is a contradiction in terms. Sneaky.

An artist making art doesn't only think of what he is representing but what's in the head of the future viewer consequent to his nature and his nurture. In #504 the artist is addressing that in Greg. It's not in me unless he wants to drive me away, except I don't think such a dolt could begin to know me. As for abstract art itself, I've never seen any I could describe as great except in the style of Monet--not Pollock. I prefer what you call "representational." If I had a Monet or Picasso, I'd hang it on my wall but not for long for the buyer would soon be arriving.

"Miss Rand. What would you do with a Picasso if you owned it?" "I'd sell it." (Laughter)

--Brant

Vincent van Gogh: abstract artist

[Jonathan]

You have yet to explain yourself and are still evading.

Actually, I did explain. In post 467 I wrote,

"I'm an artist, so I think it's only natural that I would have a 'heavy personal investment' in my view of art."

I think the problem, Greg, is that you are mischaracterizing my interest in the matter. Due to your heavy personal emotional investment in hating abstract art, you misidentify me as being passionate only about the issue of abstract art qualifying as art. Your blinding hatred of abstract art has apparently prevented you from noticing that I've also been defending architecture on the same grounds (despite the fact that I create architecture even less frequently than I create abstract paintings or sculptures), and I've been just as passionate in defending various other art forms against Kamhi's and Torres's arbitrary, Personally Incredulous declarations of what's not art, including photography, and miniature realist/representational sculptures.

Now, contrary to what you say above, you have not answered the question. You have not explained why you are so enraged about abstract art, and about other people's tastes.

J

[Jonathan]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the painting isn't art by Kamhi's criteria?

It's an illustration! Kamhi doesn't accept illustrations as art.

The creator of the image explicitly identified it as an illustration, and stated that it wasn't to his own tastes. It was created at someone else's behest (The Franklin Mint) rather than as a result of the creator's own expressive needs/values/metaphysics/etc. He rated it as being over-romanticized and far too sentimental. He referred to the type of characters in the image as having an "escapist draw."

Therefore: "Not art!!! It's not art!!! It's not art, not art, NOT art!!!"

J

[Jonathan]

Please give a direct link to your mother and child question. I'm not avoiding it. I haven't seen it, wherever it is. There are many more posts on this thread than I've managed to read.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224528

The painting didn't make me feel inspired to be strong and bold or to pursue my passions. Rather, it made me feel that strength and boldness and passion were important to the artist.

Have you never looked at a painting of, say, a mother and child, and thought that it communicated the fact that, even though motherhood may not have been important to you, the artist felt that motherhood was important, and more specifically, that raising and nurturing a child is immensely satisfying, rewarding and dignified, only to later discover that that was exactly what the artist intended the image to communicate?!!!

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&p=224722

Do you not understand that a work of art is recognizable to people as a work of art, and that people generally understand that works of art usually contain something that is important in some way to the artist, and therefore when looking at a work of art, people understand that there is a context which involves the likelihood that what is presented in the art is probably in some way important to the artist?!!! With that in mind, do you really think that it's a big or impossible leap that an artist can nonverbally communicate that something is important to him, be it, say, heroic patriotism, sexuality, athletic health and bold masculinity, gentle nurturing motherhood, etc.?

-----

J

[Jonathan]

Though Ive never been to a seance, I'll give it a try.

The Medium.

Quiet, now, please! Something is coming through from the other side. Yes, yes -- a woman! Quite pretty, not too old, I'm hearing her name, Joan - no Jill, no, Jacky - um, Suzy? Yes! She says you have to eat more, you need exercise and to go out more, and she misses you...wait, she is growing fainter - oh, I have lost her. That will be $20 please.

(Sort of reminds me of abstract art).

Sort of reminds me of Objectivish interpretations of Vermeer and Capuletti!

J

Perhaps - I have barely kept abreast of others' criticisms. The interpretation of specific fine art paintings isn't an exact science--significant or subtle details may be missed, or other things may be 'read in' that are not there. Studying Rand's thesis doesn't make for an instant and expert art appreciator.

Still, along with other works, it is a philosophical base and introduction for a start - under one's own steam - into art, and with application one should quickly learn better how to see and contemplate art (and reality). In this increase of our powers of observation lies one of the great values of a good artist. It is also important (I think) that academic opinions about an artwork don't influence one - to the extent of even ignoring them; honest mistakes of interpretation matter much less than finding depth and significant meaning, independently amd personally

You can always come back to a picture and check its (and your) premises.

It is fixed in existence and time.

The question is, after all, how much mystery is there in what one can SEE for oneself?

Why should artists not want to be "seen"? Why should a sensitive Medium alone have powers to show us the Other Side?

Abstract art cannot even be MIS-interpreted, it is malleable to what the viewer feels and wants to see, or has 'developed a code' to decipher. It can't pass the notional test of 'falsification'.

In my opinion, it's an arbitrary assertion - against the rational assertion of representational art.

What about architecture?

J

[anthony]

Brant, It is consonant with reality in that it is 'intelligible', it agrees with our experience of the visual attributes of people and nature.

As contrasted with the 'abstract', we clearly see and recognize the picture's components. Look at it this way, how could you assess it as horrible kitsch if you couldn't perceive and understand its subject matter and premises? What is critical here, is that to be art, this picture does not have to be consonant with any one individual's idea of romantic love (or life, etc) - nor he with it. Thats another level of judgement.

[Jonathan]

Though Ive never been to a seance, I'll give it a try.

The Medium.

Quiet, now, please! Something is coming through from the other side. Yes, yes -- a woman! Quite pretty, not too old, I'm hearing her name, Joan - no Jill, no, Jacky - um, Suzy? Yes! She says you have to eat more, you need exercise and to go out more, and she misses you...wait, she is growing fainter - oh, I have lost her. That will be $20 please.

(Sort of reminds me of abstract art).

Sort of reminds me of Objectivish interpretations of Vermeer and Capuletti!

J

Perhaps - I have barely kept abreast of others' criticisms.

This post contains the issue that I was referring to:

"As Liedtke documented, images of milkmaids and kitchen wenches in Dutch and Flemish art had long had erotic associations, often indicated with vulgar explicitness. Since Vermeer was undoubtedly familiar with that tradition, the ways in which he departed from it are probably significant. In notable respects, he elevated the theme. He not only avoided crudely obvious iconography, he also simplified and focused the composition to enhance the maid's dignity and importance. Her sculpturesque figure is almost monumental in effect. At the same time, he endowed her face with a psychological depth and subtlety of expression totally new to the theme.

"A "politically correct" curator might have exploited the work to castigate Vermeer for alleged sexism as a "dead, white, European male." Instead, Liedtke showed that in comparison with the standards of his day Vermeer treated the painting's female subject with remarkable sensitivity, even respectseeming to suggest that, appealing though she is, she is no mere object to be trifled with. Such an account is credible. It is not only grounded in the culture of the painting's time and place, it is also consistent with the work's perceptible properties and the tenor of many of Vermeer's other works."

Excerpt From: Michelle Marder Kamhi. Who Says That's Art? A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts. iBooks.

-----

In an a book heavily influenced by the Objectivist Esthetics, in a chapter on intellectual bullies, and under a section titled Revealing or Fabricating Artistic Intentions, it's quite odd that Kamhi doesn't mention Rand's judgments of Vermeer and his work after offering such a glowing and potent argument which uses Vermeer as an example.

Since Vermeer was not painting slice-of-life kitchen Naturalism featuring the statistically average folks next door who were volition-lacking playthings of deterministic fate, as Rand believed, what are we to conclude? By Rand's stated method of "objective aesthetic judgment," are we to conclude that Vermeer was a bad artist because he failed to communicate his intended meaning to the Founder and Queen of Objectivity, or are we to conclude that Rand's Objectivist method was highly flawed, and that she was perhaps not a very competent judge of visual art?

Wouldn't her thoughts on Vermeer's "inner conflicts" and bleak metaphysics, which she thought were revealed in his art, be perfect examples of both intellectual bullying and fabricating artist's intentions? In fact, aren't they much better examples than the ones that Kamhi gives in her book? Aren't Rand's more vicious and wrongheaded?

J

J

[moralist]

I wish Rand had dealt more with this storytelling aspect of epistemology. Or maybe not. Instead of explaining it, she did it superbly. She probably came out better that way.

She sure did, Michael...

Ayn Rand defined the difference between teaching and being.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, It is consonant with reality in that it is 'intelligible', it agrees with our experience of the visual attributes of people and nature.

As contrasted with the 'abstract', we clearly see and recognize the picture's components. Look at it this way, how could you assess it as horrible kitsch if you couldn't perceive and understand its subject matter and premises? What is critical here, is that to be art, this picture does not have to be consonant with any one individual's idea of romantic love (or life, etc) - nor he with it. Thats another level of judgement.

"Kitsch" is merely my personal esthetic evaluation--of a work of art. The subject matter is shallow cliche with no psychological depth or exploration. Greg has a completely different evaluation and experience. Put up a Monet and I'll evaluate that respecting my personal experience. Not a Pollock. It does nothing to me. I will not say it's not art, however. Some art you have to actually see up close and personal to properly appreciate or "get." Abstract art exists, Tony, and I have it on good authority a "Ship of Fools" of it is approaching South Africa. Will you turn it away--send it back?

--Brant

[moralist]

Do you think that horrible kitsch Greg likes in post 504 is "consonant with reality"--"real"?

Yes.

It represents the reality of goodness and that's why I like it. It has a direct connection to the most important relationship in my life.

What good woman doesn't want the man who is worthy of her respect to cherish her?

And what good man doesn't want to be worthy of the respect of the woman he cherishes.

To quote Jack Nicholson in the movie "As Good as it Gets":

"You make me want to be a better man."

It's simple to know by your own personal experience what is and isn't art.

If it has a scent, it's art.

If it smells, it isn't.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Greg and Tony have given their views on the Florczak painting:

I especially like this one...



It expresses noble human qualities worthy of aspiration.

Greg

A review of the picture instantly conveys that it is art, to me, albeit with a guileless and simple, maybe jejeune, stylization. IOW, it is not going to please aestheticians. However, it carries a pleasantly innocent quality (sense of life...) - as well as a view of a benevolent existence and of goals that man can attain. If, yet again, rather callow.
Oddly, because of -or despite- its simplicity, I find the image sticks in my mind.

It represents the reality of goodness and that's why I like it. It has a direct connection to the most important relationship in my life.

What good woman doesn't want the man who is worthy of her respect to cherish her?
And what good man doesn't want to be worthy of the respect of the woman he cherishes.

To quote Jack Nicholson in the movie "As Good as it Gets":

"You make me want to be a better man."

Ellen's position is that the two of you are just makin' shit up and "reading into" the image what's not actually there. Her view is that the high-level concepts that you describe as being conveyed in the image can't possibly be conveyed non-verbally, and can only be conveyed discursively.

So why are you guys claiming to be able to experience and understand something which is beyond what Ellen has identified as the limits of all of mankind?

It's simple to know by your own personal experience what is and isn't art.

If it has a scent, it's art.

If it smells, it isn't.

So, then, what you just wrote isn't art, huh?

J

[anthony]

Greg and Tony have given their views on the Florczak painting:

Ellen's position is that the two of you are just makin' shit up and "reading into" the image what's not actually there. Her view is that the high-level concepts that you describe as being conveyed in the image can't possibly be conveyed non-verbally, and can only be conveyed discursively.

So why are you guys claiming to be able to experience and understand something which is beyond what Ellen has identified as the limits of all of mankind?

J

I'm positive you have Ellen out of context, these were likely her thoughts about abstract art: Because here is a picture at its most simplistic and easy to 'read'. If it won't seem out of place on a chocolate box is due to mediocre aesthetics and its sentimental theme. It is not ever going to be considered Romantic Realism, since it has little "authenticity" (by Rand).

But aesthetic value does not save a picture, when its theme, subject, sense of life and value judgements are of the lowest order.

Take the four images you posted (#498). Excellent aesthetics, but all the rest is repugnant.

They are art, too.

[Jonathan]

One issue that I've asked about hasn't gotten any responses, and I'd really like to hear what people think.

What's the deal with some objects in reality being okay to paint or sculpt, but others not? Why is it virtuous to paint an arrangement of fruits and vegetables, or flowers, or even random stones or marbles or knickknacks, and such paintings are classified as art, but it is vicious to paint arrangements of colorful tiles, or soup cans, or soap boxes, or sides of beef, and painting them is so nasty that some of the paintings which contain such things don't even qualify as art?

Rand wrote:

It is a common experience to observe that a particular painting—for example, a still life of apples—makes its subject “more real than it is in reality.” The apples seem brighter and firmer, they seem to possess an almost self-assertive character, a kind of heightened reality which neither their real-life models nor any color photograph can match. Yet if one examines them closely, one sees that no real-life apple ever looked like that. What is it, then, that the artist has done? He has created a visual abstraction.

He has performed the process of concept-formation—of isolating and integrating—but in exclusively visual terms. He has isolated the essential, distinguishing characteristics of apples, and integrated them into a single visual unit. He has brought the conceptual method of functioning to the operations of a single sense organ, the organ of sight.

But she also wrote:

The end does not justify the means—neither in ethics nor in esthetics. And neither do the means justify the end: there is no esthetic justification for the spectacle of Rembrandt’s great artistic skill employed to portray a side of beef.

That particular painting may be taken as a symbol of everything I am opposed to in art and in literature. At the age of seven, I could not understand why anyone would wish to paint or to admire pictures of dead fish, garbage cans or fat peasant women with triple chins. Today, I understand the psychological causes of such esthetic phenomena—and the more I understand, the more I oppose them.

Why is it wonderful to use one's great artistic skills to paint a dead apple -- or an old, peeling, blotched, cracked plaster wall (Capuletti) -- but it's an act of psychological perversion to paint the food source that was the main ingredient in the dish that was Rand's favorite to cook? I see no connection between a side of beef and "garbage cans or fat peasant women with triple chins." Was Rand saying that processing an animal for food is somehow immoral? Was she saying that it is a disturbing activity, and that showing where beef stroganoff comes from is somehow worse than eating the beef? Was she saying that she wanted to blank out of her mind where her beef came from? If so, why? Why was seeing the reality of the source of her food so upsetting to her? And if that reality was so upsetting, wasn't it then a very good thing that the artist chose to address a subject whose reality people try to evade for the sake of their own comfort and hypocrisy?

J

[Jonathan]

I'm positive you have Ellen out of context, these were likely her thoughts about abstract art: Because here is a picture at its most simplistic and easy to 'read'.

No, her view is that non-verbal communication can't reach the level of "high-order conceptual abstractions." Her position is that only discursive communication can achieve that level.

Excellent aesthetics, but all the rest is repugnant.

So, you're saying it is repugnant for an artist to show the evil that he opposes? Is the same true of Rand and her art?

J

[Jonathan]

Brant, It is consonant with reality in that it is 'intelligible', it agrees with our experience of the visual attributes of people and nature.

As contrasted with the 'abstract', we clearly see and recognize the picture's components. Look at it this way, how could you assess it as horrible kitsch if you couldn't perceive and understand its subject matter and premises? What is critical here, is that to be art, this picture does not have to be consonant with any one individual's idea of romantic love (or life, etc) - nor he with it. Thats another level of judgement.

"Kitsch" is merely my personal esthetic evaluation--of a work of art. The subject matter is shallow cliche with no psychological depth or exploration. Greg has a completely different evaluation and experience.

It's primarily an issue of taste and experience. Tastes are acquired through experience. They take time to develop and to refine. Aesthetically, Greg is an ingénue. He's the adult equivalent of little girls being aesthetically hooked on, and loyal to, pink and glitter. Which is a valid aesthetic experience. Nothing at all wrong with that. He's sitting with us here at the adult table, but he's not quite ready to order from the adult menu, preferring the known comfort of his mac 'n' cheese, corn dogs and sippy juice to scary and disgusting grown up fare like calamari, asparagus and wine.

J