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

[anthony]

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

!!! J. You know better than that. Literary art has movement over time in which characters can overcome their circumstances and in Romanticist fiction, prevail.

Visual art hasn't that luxury. It's all or nothing in a single frame. What Rand called "importance" to the artist, is all in his choice of subject and treatment.

The artist, even the most Naturalist, isn't in public service, he isn't a reporter of the repugnant; if he shows something remarkably ugly, he means ugliness and suffering prevail for men, not the opposite, or that it must be opposed. He glorifies evil.

[Jonathan]

!!! J. You know better than that. Literary art has movement over time in which characters can overcome their circumstances and in Romanticist fiction, prevail.

The characters didn't overcome their circumstance or prevail in We The Living.

The artist, even the most Naturalist, isn't in public service, he isn't a reporter of the repugnant; if he shows something remarkably ugly, he means ugliness and suffering prevail for men, not the opposite, or that it must be opposed. He glorifies evil.

So, then you're saying that Rand's presentation of the horror of We The Living, in which the characters fail and die, means that ugliness and suffering prevail for men. You're saying that she was glorifying evil.

J

[moralist]

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?

I believe Ellen can speak for herself without you trying to make her into your little sock puppet.

You've sunk to a new low, Jonathan...

...and even over something in which you claim to have no personal participation.

Greg

[Jonathan]

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?

I believe Ellen can speak for herself without you trying to make her into your little sock puppet.

You've sunk to a new low, Jonathan...

...and even over something in which you claim to have no personal participation.

Greg

Wow, Greg, you're just so delicate and easily worked up and offended. You're the personification of feminized leftism.

J

[anthony]

!!! J. You know better than that. Literary art has movement over time in which characters can overcome their circumstances and in Romanticist fiction, prevail.

The characters didn't overcome their circumstance or prevail in We The Living.

The artist, even the most Naturalist, isn't in public service, he isn't a reporter of the repugnant; if he shows something remarkably ugly, he means ugliness and suffering prevail for men, not the opposite, or that it must be opposed. He glorifies evil.

So, then you're saying that Rand's presentation of the horror of We The Living, in which the characters fail and die, means that ugliness and suffering prevail for men. You're saying that she was glorifying evil.

J

You may choose to focus out of context on the last page of the novel, I prefer to view the whole "forest'. Realism, you know, is one of two core premises of Romanticism, and realism doesn't always HAVE to mean happy endings. But (a big but) is that Kira lived her life up to that point, by her own uncompromising morality, independently, on her own terms. Regardless of Communism's altruism-collectivism which surrounded her. Only, it seems clear, a bullet could stop her indomitable spirit. Or other extreme force. If the State, ultimately, defeated her--then that was a significant decision the author made, to demonstrate the evil which was Soviet Russia. (Here, it's maybe the closest Rand touched on Naturalism). Romanticism has the central premise that man is a being of volitional consciousness. In TRM, Rand explained the twin elements of this (although, in reality they are not isolated) as man is implicitly choosing of his morality, character and virtue - and - existentially, that the Universe is not a malign instrument out to stop him: so he can and may achieve his goals. (Virtues gaining values, simply). Rand's other novels all contain both aspects of 'a volitional consciousness', this is a departure. In her ~character and spirit~ while not so much WTL's plot and theme, Kira is my favorite.

[Jonathan]

You may choose to focus out of context on the last page of the novel, I prefer to view the whole.

You only prefer to "view the whole" when it was created by Rand. Anyone else is taken out of conext and is accused of "glorifying evil" when doing exactly the same thing Rand did.

It's weird how quickly you abandoned your own requirements of Romanticism, which were that characters must "overcome their circumstances" and "prevail."

Why not just cut to the chase, and identify your actual criteria: Anything created by Ayn Rand is Romanticism, and anything created by anyone else who Tony doesn't like is not.

J

[anthony]

Still not seeing the difference between literature and visual art, J.

If let's say, a novel begins, continues and ends, with repugnant, weak or defeated characters, in a plot depicting a world in which nothing is possible except suffering--then (only then) could we have the approximate, conceptual equivalent of the images I am referring to. A picture is a "whole" statement in itself. Its subject and content should not be arbitrarily and whimsically selected.

[Jonathan]

Still not seeing the difference between literature and visual art, J.

If let's say, a novel begins, continues and ends, with repugnant, weak or defeated characters, in a plot depicting a world in which nothing is possible except suffering--then (only then) could we have the approximate, conceptual equivalent of the images I am referring to. A picture is a "whole" statement in itself. Its subject and content should not be arbitrarily and whimsically selected.

You posted you response quickly enough that you may not have seen what I edited mine to include:

It's weird how quickly you abandoned your own requirements of Romanticism, which were that characters must "overcome their circumstances" and "prevail."

Why not just cut to the chase, and identify your actual criteria: Anything created by Ayn Rand is Romanticism, and anything created by anyone else who Tony doesn't like is not.

J

[moralist]

Wow, Greg, you're just so delicate and easily worked up and offended. You're the personification of feminized leftism.

Now that's an ironic response, Jonathan... when artists today are primarily feminized leftist males.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Are there any masculinized leftest males?

Hey! What about the females? Transgenders? Martians?

--Brant

the world doesn't give a flying fuck--but I'm enjoying the wet paper towel fight

[anthony]

J

A reminder of what we are talking about. Not like many other artists' forms of Naturalism which have otherwise benign and redeeming features, but a metaphysical view of existence much more debased. It can only bring to mind that man is a rightful victim of others' brutality. One might just as well watch a video of a helpless prisoner in a cage being burned to death, while his tormentors cheer. Images best blotted from one's mind.

Right. In the final analysis, for my own purpose, observations and inspiration it is my own understanding of art and Romanticism which counts to me. Unless someone else shows an interest, my own.

[Brant Gaede]

Debased or not debased. This is not a question of abstract or not abstract. That category belongs to representational art only. The abstract cannot take in any moral category for it cannot, of course, represent any. Esthetics can state the morality seemed to be garnered in representational art--there doesn't have to be any in any particular work--it cannot qua esthetics commend or condemn, just identify more or less absolutely. When an esthetician does that it's merely layered on top of his--her--profession, not integrated with it without degrading it. But even that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong to do pass moral judgment on a work of art. It's only wrong to say morality is part of the discipline.

You see that obviously enough in the legal profession when a lawyer represents a client known to him to be guilty.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Wow, Greg, you're just so delicate and easily worked up and offended. You're the personification of feminized leftism.

Now that's an ironic response, Jonathan... when artists today are primarily feminized leftist males.

Greg

I'm still curious as to why you're so worked up about abstract art. Why is attacking it so important to you? I've tried a few times now to get you interested in discussing the other conceptually relevant issues of this thread, and I've even tried to get you to expand your horizons and discuss your disagreements with others' positions here. But you'll have none of that. You're only interested in expressing your emotional investment in hating abstract art, and in fighting with me. Why is that? When Kamhi writes an opinion about judging art which you disagree with, you just "don't care." When I point out that your judgments of art are in conflict with Ellen's position, you get very upset, and not with Ellen, but with ME for simply informing you of your differences!!! On the other hand, my judgments and differences of opinion are obviously very important to you. You're fixated on me and my opinions. You can't stop picking fights with me. You're obsessed. But why? Why does what I say matter so much to you?

J

[Jonathan]

J

A reminder of what we are talking about. Not like many other artists' forms of Naturalism which have otherwise benign and redeeming features, but a metaphysical view of existence much more debased. It can only bring to mind that man is a rightful victim of others' brutality. One might just as well watch a video of a helpless prisoner in a cage being burned to death, while his tormentors cheer. Images best blotted from one's mind.

Right. In the final analysis, for my own purpose, observations and inspiration it is my own understanding of art and Romanticism which counts to me. Unless someone else shows an interest, my own.

Um, Tony, remember how you were just talking about context? Well, you might want to slow it down a bit and consider the fact that some of those images that I posted have been cropped. They are details of larger images, and I posted the details for the purpose of simply showing that artworks contained dark elements in the past, long before Greg's hated "feminized leftists" took over.

Seriously, bro, you really should consider taking it down a few notches, and contemplate applying the same careful generosity to all artworks that you give to Rand's.

J

[Jonathan]

I'm disappointed that no one other than Brant has attempted to answer the questions in my recent art quiz.

I'm especially interested in hearing answers to questions 2, 3 and 4.

In fact, I'm quite surprised that no one appears to have any curiosity about the realistic/representational image in question 4. I think it is quite clever. Can no one here see what it is, or figure out a very simple way to see what it is?!!! The more that you know about visuals, imagery, and the manipulation of images, the more comprehensible and clear you should be able to see the image. It's worth the little effort that would be needed! It's got some good humor to it!

As for 2 and 3, honestly, do they visually communicate nothing to any of you? There are people who classify the images as realist/representational.

Hello? Anyone?

J

1. Here's Rand using artistic style as a means of diagnosing "inner conflicts" and identifying the evil motives of artists attempting to disintegrate man's consciousness:

"Style is the most complex element of art, the most revealing and, often, the most baffling psychologically. The terrible inner conflicts from which artists suffer as much as (or, perhaps, more than) other men are magnified in their work. As an example: Salvador Dali, whose style projects the luminous clarity of a rational psycho-epistemology, while most (though not all) of his subjects project an irrational and revoltingly evil metaphysics. A similar, but less offensive, conflict may be seen in the paintings of Vermeer, who combines a brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism. At the other extreme of the stylistic continuum, observe the deliberate blurring and visual distortions of the so-called “painterly” school, from Rembrandt on down—down to the rebellion against consciousness, expressed by a phenomenon such as Cubism which seeks specifically to disintegrate man’s consciousness by painting objects as man does not perceive them (from several perspectives at once)."

With the above in mind, how terrible were the following artist's inner conflicts? Since Rand and many of her followers have objectively rated him to be a masterful artist who had a "virtuoso technique" of "disciplined power" and "sheer perfection of workmanship," I would assume that the wild deviations from true perspective in his painting below would have to have been intentional (after all, a master artist wouldn't make novice mistakes when it came to perspective). In which case, we must judge him as having chosen to rebel against consciousness and to disintegrate man's consciousness by painting objects as man does not perceive them (from several perspectives at once). So, since Rand adored his art, she therefore must have strongly identified with and valued his inner conflicts and shared his wish to rebel against and disintegrate consciousness. But why? What drove her to be so evil?

2. Is the following a work of art by Objectivist criteria? Is it a "re-creation of reality," or is it comprised of abstract, non-representational forms? What does it mean to you, if anything, and why?

3. Is the following a work of art by Objectivist criteria? Is it a "re-creation of reality," or is it comprised of abstract, non-representational forms? What does it mean to you, if anything, and why?

4. The following may appear to some people to be a blank space. It is not. If I and others can see and identify the realistic, representational image that it contains, but you can't, would the image therefore not be intelligible, expressive or meaningful to anyone, and would it therefore not be art to anyone?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Brant is not enough.

--Brant

dang!

[Jonathan]

Normally, Brant would probably be more than enough, but in this case Brant's answers were that he didn't know.

J

[Brant Gaede]

You have to put a nickle in the slot. I don't work for free.

--Brant

or PayPal

[moralist]

I'm still curious as to why you're so worked up about abstract art.

I'm actually not, Jonathan. You're looking through your own emotionality.

Why is attacking it so important to you?

It only seems like an attack when you take things personally because of your own heavy emotional investment in abstract art.

I've tried a few times now to get you interested in discussing the other conceptually relevant issues of this thread...

I have. With Brant and Tony. And any differences I might have with your view can all simply be attributed to each of us living by different values.Greg

[Jonathan]

I'm actually not, Jonathan. You're looking through your own emotionality.

And any differences I might have with your view can all simply be attributed to each of us living by different values.

I'm really not interested in hearing any more of your relativist hippy feminized leftist gibberish, Greg.

J

[Brant Gaede]

A crypto humor thread!

--Brant

[anthony]

Seriously, bro, you really should consider taking it down a few notches, and contemplate applying the same careful generosity to all artworks that you give to Rand's.

J

Generosity. What for, generosity? I go one better, I treat artworks seriously, I take their artists' word for it. What else is art for, if not to see the world through an other's eyes, experience what's important to him or her, and just occasionally have one's own view of life affirmed?

"Don't take me seriously, I don't mean it" - is roughly what modern art is about. So, a Warhol picture might be claiming that a Campbell's soup can, or a series of repeated, vari-toned photos of Monroe, is self-ironic. It's an 'in joke' directed at consumerism, or celebrity-dom (and fetches big bucks) he might be implying. I take him at his word, they aren't be taken seriously.

(And abstract art has the best evasion: "Ha. You can't take my art seriously and judge it, since you can't even understand it in the first place!")

You seen to think I -ungenerously- go around judging, praising and condemning art, according to Naturalism/Romanticism types.

I've made the point often enough, that I try to see what's 'there', to appreciate the inherent style, look for often unexpected values, and so on, regardless of category. If the picture grabs me aesthetically and content-wise, it settles more deeply into my mind. I think I have rather eclectic tastes which cross several categories of art, fiction and music. Going back to broad categories, I've said before I prefer some great Naturalism (of the non-boring kind) to so-so, unoriginal Romanticism, of which there isn't a vast selection anyway - but now and again, it all comes together as the best of the latter.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Tony, if you say the art you don't like is still art I've no argument with you. The food I throw out in the garbage is still food. There's a lot of food crap I don't buy in the first place because I think it's crap. If you think abstract art is crap, that's fine, but it's not esthetics generalized off your moral taste base, only your own personal esthetics and those who share your tastes in arts or your taste in an art.

I don't, btw, see any moral issues in any art I have on my walls. I don't own "Guernica." Moral issues are primarily, qua art, dealt with in novels. I have no interest in novels without moral issues. Poetry that way is like painting. There a moral issue--likely to be singular--may not even be expressed or greatly muted. Or it may be there as much as in any novel, maybe more so. In music? I think you need lyrics for that. I think architecture is the best place to find Objectivist (cultural) moral issues through esthetics, but then you need deal with--as I've heard--a Leonard Peikoff not being bonkers about skyscrapers. (I personally think it's likely skyscapers is a masculine phallic response and an expression of Rand's own masculine side. The end of The Fountainhead is a gigantic celebration of the erect male organ with the female ascending it to get her romantic-sexual reward. Much more powerful than the end of Atlas Shrugged, for John Galt was no Howard Roark. Her whole great novel was a celebration of castrated men by castrating them through a strike. At least the union boys man picket lines, hoot and jeer. The miners might even shoot somebody. Wanna mess with the Teamsteers?

--Brant

reason to rant as I talk myself up

[moralist]

Her whole great novel was a celebration of castrated men by castrating them through a strike.

Ayn Rand was surprisingly prescient in predicting the consequences of the increasing number of weak spineless emasculated liberal males in America. And this nation is presently reaping the economic and social results of abandoning the strength of American values.

Greg

[moralist]

I'm really not interested in hearing any more of your relativist hippy feminized leftist gibberish, Greg.

You at least made an attempt at humor, Jonathan. But what makes it funny is that its a comment by a superfluous flighty artist to a practical real world mechanic. I could live without people who do what you do... while you could not live without people who do what I do.

Greg