Newberry Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 But reality won't hold still (for the most part) - and so we make photos and paintings and statues and music and architecture and literature that we can enjoy over and over, and ponder afresh each time.REBGreat sentiment to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 "Does it follow that [some of] the [crap] that I create is ugly since you've decided that I have ugly moral values and that I see beauty in that which is actually ugly?"Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Is this thread insane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Is this thread insane? Nope. Just subjective people ALL of whom have subjective opinions. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Nope.Just subjective people ALL of whom have subjective opinions. GregI wasn't addressing the inmates, only future generations.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I have stayed out of the "what's your interpretation" components of this thread so far, but must say that it is relatively obvious that the painting is consistent with what Rand would call a benevolent universe premise. Hell, there is even a hint of blue sky in the painting.The guy in the green hat is wiping his brow and planning a maneuver of some kind, there are two (or more) brotherly hands on shoulders showing they are "in this together", and there at least two looks of defiance in the face of seemingly difficult conditions. Overall, the impression of the painting is one of prevailing against adversity. Best of all, I think, are the twinkles in the eyes of the subjects--not an easy task for a painter to accomplish with Chinese subjects who naturally otherwise squint. I don't think I am reading this into the painting--these conclusions are apparent within the four corners of the painting. I like the painting a lot. Thank you for speaking up! I appreciate not being alone among the haters.The twinkle in the eyes that you mention is indeed impressive, and not only because of the physical nature of Asian eyes, but because of the very broad, loose painting style of the artist. He has managed to capture quite a lot of personality and attitude despite boiling everything down to broad, general brush strokes.J[edited to add:] P.S. Actually, I haven't been totally alone. Brant has been pretty reasonable and generally non-hateful on this thread.I am going to venture the opinion that some on this thread who dislike the painting are letting the artist's "loose" technique affect their interpretation of the painting. The painting "looks" kind of silly, upon first glance, because the artist's style is loose, as J mentions, and, let's face it, we are staring pretty squarely into an ass crack. This is why, however, good paintings require more than a "first glance". I am not attributing ill motives here, but simply offering a theory of why a painting that bears some of the benelovent earmarks I have described upthread can be viewed so differently among Objectivish brethren.Here is an analogy, probably too strained, but I will give it a whirl: having practiced as a trial lawyer for 28 years, I have become a somewhat well known expert on cross-examination. I have written scholarly articles on the topic, taught seminars on the topic, and more importantly, cross examined hundreds of live human beings in front of juries. Other lawyers hire me to advise them on how to try their cases. Cross examination is probably the single issue on which I have serious, recognized expertise. But I am not Perry Mason. If a stranger were to observe my cross examination of a witness--and if a stranger had a "Perry Mason" understanding of cross examination--he would walk away from my performance disappointed. "Wow. HIs style is too gentle. He wasn't as organized as I expected." etc. I have had jurors tell me this, actually--but my style is far more layered than appears on the surface. It is very loose. In reality, however, there are very few Perry Mason moments in trial. Other (good) trial lawyers can tell what I am doing, even though non-experts cannot (and this is actually part of the point...).My guess is that some on this thread have come to expect a Perry Mason moment when they take "glances" at paintings, partly because Rand impliedly taught them this "Gestalt" approach, and partly because, well, they aren't expert enough to look at a painting otherwise. Frankly, why should they be experts? Why should the average human know anything more about composition and technique (and many other things) in paintings than they do about cross-examination? Rand has shoehorned aesthics into philosophy, and, impliedly, many who have no business making judgments about art now feel the need to do so. Is it any wonder that such judgments might vary so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The problem with this particular painting for me is the +8 million price someone paid. I think this is a wonder as is much of the upper art pricing out of the big auction houses. If I simply contemplate it and imagine a Chinese context it comes from I do start to see things that you don't get instantaneously or without thought. It doesn't blow me off. That "last supper" does.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 We get art from someone's consciousness, we contemplate art by our own consciousness, we assess it as we must constantly judge reality from which the artist derives it.(Good word, "shoehorn". Coincidentally, I've been also considering it, as with what it seems Rand and Objectivists do with principles applied to facts. Sometimes it's a squeeze, others it's rather loose - now and again it's a perfect fit. But there's no avoiding the effort: with the potential for mistakes and poor fits, the method works).Art, by Rand, is inseparable from man's mind, I'm getting at.And we know well how nothing can top reason to her (other than reality).In this, art is a means to an end, not an end in itself ( I believe she means).This approach is hard to understand, at large. Art has gathered a mystique around it which almost appears sacrosanct to many people. I don't think shoehorning is apt, here - between reality, consciousness and art is a solid link. It might often take longer to connect, is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I'd say Jonathan is projecting, calling everyone he disagrees with a "hater" - but then he'd accuse me of projecting projecting onto him.That is the epitome of what happens when you get into a discussion with him. If you hit back, *you're* the aggressor and/or "hypocritical." Beware.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I've noticed this pattern a lot, especially in on-line discussions. If you criticize someone (or something) not on the list, whether they're a politician, entertainer, artist, or whatever, someone else on the list will attack you personally. It's like you've attacked them, by criticizing someone they admire or something they like, so they have to lash out not at your ideas, but at you, calling you...oh...just for example, a "hater." This pattern seems to happen across the board, politically at least, but probably also philosophically. Liberals, conservatives, even libertarians and Objectivist folk do this. It's a very pernicious practice. It derails civil discussion and good fellowship, for sure. I'm not clear on what the perp's gain from it, other than the pleasure of interfering with conversations they disapprove of.REBP.S. - I realize that some people really *are* haters, but calling everyone who criticizes things you like a "hater" is about as logical as calling everyone who criticizes President Obama a "racist." (I *do* hate Obama, but not because he's black. I wouldn't care if the next 10 Presidents were black, as long as they had a decent political philosophy and set of policies they were pursuing and the character to back it up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Greg and Jonathan are somewhat similar. For Greg everyone else is a bowling pin and he's the bowling ball. Jonathan is a wood chipper with logical blades some people like to throw themselves into. It's not as bad as it sounds, but I like to jazz it up.--BrantI'm a smart ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I wasn't addressing the inmates, only future generations. They'll be just as totally subjective as everyone here... ...and speaking of future generations, our daughter just gave birth yesterday. We're "Grandparents Reloaded". Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I wonder how Jonathan will take this news?--Brantis the baby objective or subjective?when you babysit and the baby cries your response will not be subjective--nope, you will rush to the objective by virtue of an objective compulsion objectively rendered by your new overlord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I wasn't addressing the inmates, only future generations.They'll be just as totally subjective as everyone here......and speaking of future generations, our daughter just gave birth yesterday. We're "Grandparents Reloaded". Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Awww....mazel tov, Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 We get art from someone's consciousness, we contemplate art by our own consciousness, we assess it as we must constantly judge reality from which the artist derives it.Nice! That is the magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Below is a recent painting by Cesar Santos, oil and charcoal on linen. He didn't post the title or size, but its just a little smaller than lifesize I guess it's about 4 x 3'. It's my favorite work of his. He combines photo reference, "quotes" historic works, and his own particular style to mold and color the figure. He is a young artist, 32, lives in Miami and is from Cuba. And he is having a very successful early career. This is nice contrast to the two Chinese artists from above, they do not have the skill set to achieve anything on this level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 is the baby objective or subjective?Every being is subjective......and that is the objective truth. when you babysit and the baby cries your response will not be subjective--Yes it will... ...but I will aspire that my subjective response will be in agreement with objective reality. :smile:Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 We get art from someone's consciousness, we contemplate art by our own consciousness, we assess it as we must constantly judge reality from which the artist derives it. Nice! That is the magic. I agree, Michael. Tony stated a beautiful truth. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Below is a recent painting by Cesar Santos, oil and charcoal on linen. He didn't post the title or size, but its just a little smaller than lifesize I guess it's about 4 x 3'. It's my favorite work of his. He combines photo reference, "quotes" historic works, and his own particular style to mold and color the figure. He is a young artist, 32, lives in Miami and is from Cuba. And he is having a very successful early career. This is nice contrast to the two Chinese artists from above, they do not have the skill set to achieve anything on this level.I love those boobs.--Brantcomparatively Capuletti isn't much--just look at this fiery woman jumping out at you; look at the humanity pouring out of her face (you know she's going to fly or already is, looking down like an eagle)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newberry Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I am on chapter six or so in Kahmi's book, just finishing up with photography as art discussion. I think she does an excellent non-judgmental job of describing the photo process, and contrasts that with drawing. And she does a superb job of getting quotes from some great and famous photographers, like Adams, about the nature of photography and how they compare it to fine art. Even though she classifies it as not art, I think the better way (at least in my mind) is simply that photography is photography, it works in a certain way. The distinctions would definitely change though when the photograph is manipulated into a totally different image.Two things I am enjoying tremendously is her calm style, and the very well researched facts, quotes, and experiences in seeing many works live. She is the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 http://www.afterimagegallery.com/featureadams.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I wasn't addressing the inmates, only future generations.They'll be just as totally subjective as everyone here......and speaking of future generations, our daughter just gave birth yesterday. We're "Grandparents Reloaded". GregCongrats, Greg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 We get art from someone's consciousness, we contemplate art by our own consciousness, we assess it as we must constantly judge reality from which the artist derives it. Nice! That is the magic.I agree, Michael.Tony stated a beautiful truth.GregThe key phrase in Tony's formulation above is "we assess it", i.e., we assess the work of art. "Assess" is defined as "to determine the importance or value" of something.What if "we" don't have the training to make such assessments? I have no idea how to assess blueprints for the building of a garage addition, or a skyscraper with the name of a tabloid publisher on top. As I said above, most lay people have no idea how to assess whether a successful cross examination has taken place.Why is it assumed that human beings have the capacity to make such assessments about art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 The key phrase in Tony's formulation above is "we assess it", i.e., we assess the work of art. "Assess" is defined as "to determine the importance or value" of something.What if "we" don't have the training to make such assessments?No training is necessary, because any subjective assessment a person makes of a work of art will always be driven by the moral values by which they live their life. This principle accounts for the wide spectrum of subjective responses to art......the abundant evidence of how this principle operates is made obvious in this very thread.Someone once told me a great quote:"We don't see the world as it is.We see the world as we are."Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now