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

[Mikee]

--Brant

...he said it was the best thing that had ever happened to him.

And so it was, Brant. After the fact, it is very clear.

I must say (when perusing other people's book shelves as is my habit) that I've seen more copies locally of 'Honoring' and '6 Pillars' than I have of Atlas and TF - owned by people who've never heard of Objectivism.

Six years ago this November I took shameful advantage of an offer Nathaniel put up on his webpage for a free session with him.

I had only a few years before(!) discovered his writings from my friend's girlfriend who raved about him. Though naturally I'd read his essays in AR's books and realized they were academically linked.

So, I made an appointment with NB's PA and phoned one evening. He seemed gratified to know his books were selling here, and of my slightly incoherent admiration for his work. We went onto Objectivism and he asked me if I'd read 'J-Day'. I said no. He asked if I knew about the breakup. No.

Impossible as it seems, I'd been so far out of the loop, that six years ago I had no idea of a romantic affair and a consequent split. So, superficially, I learned about the whole blow-up from NB, himself.

I learned much more after joining OL.

Anyhow, I believe I can still recall his gentle, amused chuckle at my naive ignorance.

Tony,

I had a similar experience, in that I read Ayn Rand in the late 60's first, heard of Nathaniel through AR's books, "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" I believe. I knew nothing of their romantic relationship and break-up until reading about it on the forums, ten years ago now. I read and reread "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" and later learned of the NB intensives in Los Angeles and attended my first in December of 1976, and several times in 1977 to my great benefit. (Brant disputes my time line, but it's my life. I ran the Culver City marathon in 1977 when living down there. I have the cassette tapes of my work with NB, dated). I was in awe of Nathaniel Branden, his presence, his humor, goodwill, absolute honesty. And very great intelligence. It was awesome watching him work with others. One thing I did not know until years later (I knew nothing of NB's personal life) in between the time in Dec 1976 and later in 1977 when I next attended an intensive, Dr. Branden's wife Patrecia died. I noted a difference but I thought it was my perceptions had changed. I had gone through an enormous amount of personal searching and changes after working with Dr. Branden the first time. He was completely professional even during what most certainly was an extremely difficult time for him. I regret that I never contacted Dr. Branden in subsequent years. I frankly didn't want to waste his time on my hero worship, I felt he had already fixed me as well as I could be fixed and I was mostly happy and living a productive life. It would have been such a pleasure to see him and hear him talk again. Thank you Brant for your recently posted video, I hadn't seen it before and it was a pleasure to watch.

[Brant Gaede]

It is possible you attended an Intensive in LA in Dec.1976 I knew nothing about. I thought the Feb. 1977 one in Washington DC was the first albeit unofficial Intensive. He closed down the NYC therapy group in January 1977. He announced his Intensive to the group maybe three months before. In his memoir he did state he started in LA but I thought that was the formal start in March 1977. I'm pretty sure there was an LA Intensive in March. I might be wrong. Patrecia died in late March.

Note, if you have dated cassettes of your work that was characteristic of his therapy groups. I have them too. I don't think he wanted anyone recording any of their Intensive works as it would be distracting and inhibiting to others also working as there was too much chance of recording someone else. He only did a little one on one work in the Intensives, and usually toward the end. If those cassettes are one on one it wasn't during his Intensives. There might be one exception, but not a body of work. The Intensives were emphatically not psycho-therapy. I saw him do one on one work in an Intensive using sentence completion which he stopped by saying it wasn't appropriate in the context to take it any further to protect the fellow's privacy.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Leigh had discovered The Psychology of Self Esteem without knowing anything about the author. Not even a photograph on the back of the book cover. She was blown away. Naturally enough there she was in a bookstore rooting around in the psychology section for more Branden books when someone asked her about what interested her there? She said she was crazy about Branden and suggested reading him. She didn't know she was suggesting that to Nathaniel Branden himself.

--Brant

so they got married

That absolutely has to go into the movie.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

The first denotes an artist's mind in the final stages of disintegration, I think.

Don't be so mean to little Karen.

Tony -- heh -- are you really so unaware and unobservant that you can't see the differences in style and color selectivity in little Karen's painting versus Pollock's? Wow!!!

You can be certain the artist who made it and the people who value it share the same moral standards.

Greg

I knew nothing about Pollack's life and had made a flippant comment that it took a lot of dope to see reality like that. It was actually alcohol, and he killed himself driving drunk. So he was actually quite effective in communicating truth through his "art".

Greg

It's pretty damned amazing that you can see Pollock's values and state of mind in a painting created by a girl named "Karen." It's almost as impressive as the time that Michael Newberry believed that he had gained a major insight into my soul based on looking at a picture that someone else had posted as an example of good art, and on which I hadn't commented. Extraordinary mind powers like that are always impressive to see in action.

I have to wonder if you feel certain that little Karen must be living the same lifestyle as Pollock, and that she'll also die while driving drunk? After all, isn't that what her art reveals to you?

J

[Jonathan]

Leigh had discovered The Psychology of Self Esteem without knowing anything about the author. Not even a photograph on the back of the book cover. She was blown away. Naturally enough there she was in a bookstore rooting around in the psychology section for more Branden books when someone asked her about what interested her there? She said she was crazy about Branden and suggested reading him. She didn't know she was suggesting that to Nathaniel Branden himself.

--Brant

so they got married

That absolutely has to go into the movie.

Robert Campbell

"Meet-cute."

J

[Brant Gaede]

I remember driving drunk in 1967. I wasn't in an accident, but if I had been and had been killed what would that have revealed about my non-work to that time--that that would have been explained?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Leigh had discovered The Psychology of Self Esteem without knowing anything about the author. Not even a photograph on the back of the book cover. She was blown away. Naturally enough there she was in a bookstore rooting around in the psychology section for more Branden books when someone asked her about what interested her there? She said she was crazy about Branden and suggested reading him. She didn't know she was suggesting that to Nathaniel Branden himself.

--Brant

so they got married

That absolutely has to go into the movie.

Robert Campbell

I've never thought about Nathaniel's life in a movie. I was too seminally fixated on Ayn Rand for the greater influence she had on my life, not that his wasn't considerable. But I could write the screenplay as it's already naturally structured with several options. The real movie problem would be getting actors powerful enough to play Rand, Branden, et al., even Peikoff, a very strong character in his own right. I don't know where you'd find them. I doubt if you could. Eric Stolz as Branden was 1/3 Branden. You'd need an Anne Bancroft as Ayn Rand.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I remember driving drunk in 1967. I wasn't in an accident, but if I had been and had been killed what would that have revealed about my non-work to that time--that that would have been explained?

--Brant

I think that we would have had to go by what you were listening to on the radio at the time. If you were listening to the glorious work of a non-drunk, like Mario Lanza, then...oops...er...if you were listening to drugged up rockers like Ted Nugent or Gene Simmons, then...er...no, wait...I mean...

J

[anthony]

The first denotes an artist's mind in the final stages of disintegration, I think.

Don't be so mean to little Karen.

Tony -- heh -- are you really so unaware and unobservant that you can't see the differences in style and color selectivity in little Karen's painting versus Pollock's? Wow!!!

J

Completely unaware, it seems. For reasons I've made clear, his work has never held my attention since first seeing .

Mistaking "Karen" for Pollock was apparently an error Francisco made too, since he posted it and attributed it as his.

Looking over a JP site, I will say that I think his brushwork is extraordinary - unlike Karen's splatter. Who's she, his daughter?

What I've said about abstract art stands, though.

[Jonathan]

What I've said about abstract art stands, though.

What you've said is that the abstract painting denotes that Karen's mind is in the final stages of disintegration.

That's a really clownishly Randroid thing to say, and it is absurd for you to continue to stand behind it even after you've learned that the painting was created by a little girl.

J

[Jonathan]

Tony -- heh -- are you really so unaware and unobservant that you can't see the differences in style and color selectivity in little Karen's painting versus Pollock's? Wow!!!

Completely unaware, it seems.

Indeed.

And therefore we should establish your level of awareness, observation and aesthetic response as the universal standard for determining what is not art. You're a mountain of lack, and therefore even more qualified than Kamhi to tell everyone what is not art!

Mistaking "Karen" for Pollock was apparently an error Francisco made too, since he posted it and attributed it as his.

Or perhaps he was testing people.

J

[anthony]

What I've said about abstract art stands, though.

What you've said is that the abstract painting denotes that Karen's mind is in the final stages of disintegration.

That's a really clownishly Randroid thing to say, and it is absurd for you to continue to stand behind it even after you've learned that the painting was created by a little girl.

J

Quite: I, as Randroid would of course say that, and you would of course say what you've said in reply.

We know how this goes. ;]

What you miss, it is the broad concept of abstract art which I've largely discussed, whatever the single concrete example - whomever it was painted by. By definition, abstract art doesn't depict reality, in its essence it disintegrates the mind..

[anthony]

Oh, and btw, the above is what I think, and I experience, personally.

Strangely, too, I have no interest in following the history and techniques of artists I don't admire.

"Extraneous" details, as I said.

[Jonathan]

What I've said about abstract art stands, though.

What you've said is that the abstract painting denotes that Karen's mind is in the final stages of disintegration.

That's a really clownishly Randroid thing to say, and it is absurd for you to continue to stand behind it even after you've learned that the painting was created by a little girl.

J

Quite: I, as Randroid would of course say that, and you would of course say what you've said in reply.

We know how this goes. ;]

What you miss, it is the broad concept of abstract art which I've largely discussed, whatever the single concrete example - whomever it was painted by. By definition, abstract art doesn't depict reality, in its essence it disintegrates the mind..

Whose mind has been disintegrated by abstract art? I mean real people in reality. Name them. Not the fictional people in your head, but real people. Cite the specifics of the known cases of people's minds being disintegrated by abstract art.

J

[Jonathan]

Oh, and btw, the above is what I think, and I experience, personally.

Strangely, too, I have no interest in following the history and techniques of artists I don't admire.

"Extraneous" details, as I said.

Oh, of course! If you don't like something, you shouldn't bother to learn anything about it. The fact that you dislike it is all you need to know. There's no sense in having any curiosity about anything, learning from others, or viewing something from a different perspective that you hadn't been aware of. Just be governed by your immediate emotions and shut out everything that you dislike!

J

[anthony]

Are we talking art, here, or are we talking information and education about art?

Which is primary? What matters most to the individual?

[anthony]

What I've said about abstract art stands, though.

What you've said is that the abstract painting denotes that Karen's mind is in the final stages of disintegration.

That's a really clownishly Randroid thing to say, and it is absurd for you to continue to stand behind it even after you've learned that the painting was created by a little girl.

J

Quite: I, as Randroid would of course say that, and you would of course say what you've said in reply.

We know how this goes. ;]

What you miss, it is the broad concept of abstract art which I've largely discussed, whatever the single concrete example - whomever it was painted by. By definition, abstract art doesn't depict reality, in its essence it disintegrates the mind..

Whose mind has been disintegrated by abstract art? I mean real people in reality. Name them. Not the fictional people in your head, but real people. Cite the specifics of the known cases of people's minds being disintegrated by abstract art.

J

Trace back any item you choose from today's headlines, about disintegrated societies and persons anywhere -- and assure me that art and its decline into skepticism and disregard for man's mind has nothing to do with them.

Are we seeing a better universal grasp of reality, or not?

Do people in general, better respect their own minds and lives - and those of others - or not?

Think about it.

[Jonathan]

What I've said about abstract art stands, though.

What you've said is that the abstract painting denotes that Karen's mind is in the final stages of disintegration.

That's a really clownishly Randroid thing to say, and it is absurd for you to continue to stand behind it even after you've learned that the painting was created by a little girl.

J

Quite: I, as Randroid would of course say that, and you would of course say what you've said in reply.

We know how this goes. ;]

What you miss, it is the broad concept of abstract art which I've largely discussed, whatever the single concrete example - whomever it was painted by. By definition, abstract art doesn't depict reality, in its essence it disintegrates the mind..

Whose mind has been disintegrated by abstract art? I mean real people in reality. Name them. Not the fictional people in your head, but real people. Cite the specifics of the known cases of people's minds being disintegrated by abstract art.

J

Trace back any item you choose from today's headlines, about disintegrated societies and persons anywhere -- and assure me that art and its decline into skepticism and disregard for man's mind has nothing to do with them.

Are we seeing a better universal grasp of reality, or not?

Do people in general, better respect their own minds and lives - and those of others - or not?

Think about it.

I don't see any cases studies listed, or names of individuals whose minds were disintegrated by abstract art. I just see fantasy inspired by Rand's frantic opinions about abstract art.

J

[Jonathan]

Are we talking art, here, or are we talking information and education about art?

Which is primary? What matters most to the individual?

We're talking about people being pigheadedly unaware and unobservant, and about that state of mind leading to their believing and spouting all sorts of nonsense about others' minds being disintegrated by art.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Are we talking art, here, or are we talking information and education about art?

Which is primary? What matters most to the individual?

We're talking about people being pigheadedly unaware and unobservant, and about that state of mind leading to their believing and spouting all sorts of nonsense about others' minds being disintegrated by art.

J

Ah, but it feels so good. Kinda orgasmic.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

-- as for the subject of It Ain't Art, I am sometimes baffled by the prices paid for what Kamhi (and likely Rand) categorize as NotArt. For example, this triptych by Francis Bacon hauled in $142 million.

There are only three references to Bacon listed in the Index.

One is a contrast between Frick's "sensibilities and predilections" and those of the collector, Steve Cohen, whose "avowedly favorite work is Screaming Pope, by Francis Bacon" (pg. 205).

One is a passing reference to Pollock's and Bacon's "work mirror[ing] their confused and tormented lives" (pg. 235).

The third is a footnote which says:

pg. 296

55. Of the works illustrated in Thompson's color plates, only two (by Francis Bacon) might qualify as art here, though certainly not art of high quality. The remainder are pieces by Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, and Damien Hirst, among others.

Ellen

Thanks for the references, Ellen. I note that Kamhi has at her website a full list with hyperlinks of 'Images of Works Cited in Who Says That’s Art?' But only one Bacon is noted -- one of his many versions of 'Screaming Pope.'

Using the Look Inside feature at Amazon, I tried to find the text/page that refers to "Thompson's color plates," but it is not included in pages reproduced there.

It is interesting that she would find a couple of Bacon's works to be almost-art.

Is this art?

Edited December 16, 2014 by william.scherk

[Francisco Ferrer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um, FF: I was 'speaking for' J. Pollock, here. ;-]

 

 

I see. The discussion of an artist's works involves making up statements on behalf of the artist. I'm getting a brand new insight into "Objectivist esthetics."

 

 

HAH. There's what I meant by "arbitrary assertion" in abstract art!

 

You can make up what ever statement you like since you CAN'T know "the meaning", and if the artist knows, he's not telling.

 

You got it.

 

 

So "Objectivist" esthetics is about making arbitrary assertions on behalf of the creator of the art? Since I can't know what Beethoven "meant" by his Symphony No. 5 in C minor, I am entitled to assert that it is about the "malevolence of the universe." More than that, I am entitled to assert that Beethoven said that it is about the "malevolence of the universe."

 

In this view, uncertainty is the logical basis for drawing conclusions and for putting words into other people's mouths.

 

Rand's methodology in the arts is becoming clearer by the moment. Keep talking.

 

 

Ah, no. You didn't get it.

 

It is the artist, not me, who is making (what I likened to) an 'arbitrary assertion' - when there are no referents to reality in his picture.

It is normally a verbal statement, but could as well be pictoral, I think.

 

In response, I - the viewer - can come up with any "arbitrary" notion I feel like, as to its 'meaning'.

 

"Hey cool, man! This painting is about the cosmos and humans' suffering and confusion...!" (For example)

 

Rand on the arbitrary:

 

""Arbitrary" means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual..."

 

"An arbitrary idea is sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality..."

 

"Since an arbitrary statement has no connection to man's means of knowledge or his grasp of reality, cognitively speaking such a claim must be treated as though nothing had been said".

 

FF, if you want AR's "methodology in the arts" go to the source, not my extrapolations of it.

 

 

 

You say there are "no referents to reality" in the picture, but let me remind you that art is not a mirror to reality but, according to Rand, "a selective recreation of reality." Thus Pollock's swirls and splotches of color do not attempt to reproduce reality or provide one-to-one referents--nor should they. His work recreates reality. That is, it takes the materials of this world and uses them to create a new world.

....

 

If "'Arbitrary' means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual," then the burden is on you to show where the artist has put forth a claim.

 

 

 

It's surprising how Rand can be misinterpreted. "A re-creation of reality" does not -only- mean "materials of this world" refashioned into another shape.

(Though, of course they also are. Paint into an image, bronze into statue, existing language (words) into story).

 

But much further, the "shape" it is given portrays 'another' reality, too -- as the artist sees it --and that is the highest significance (in Rand's reckoning, as we know by her analysis).

 

As for any painting of unidentifiable squiggles, etc., I don't have to "prove" anything about the artist's "claim".

 

On what other authority can you assess his work, a visual medium, but on what you see and don't see there? Seeing is believing, as it's said.

 

This specific artist HAS - implicitly - made "a claim"... by his work.

Which is, he does not consider conveying reality or clarity to his audience as important.

 

Fine, I take him 'at his word'.

If a man speaks in meaningless gibberish to me, I am entitled to answer in kind, or not respond at all.

The "burden" as you put it, is on the artist, first.

 

'Anthem' is a specious comparison to make since you and I fully understand the novella's content and meaning. It can't be evaded by any mind, it speaks for itself and cannot be mistaken for an "arbitrary assertion".

 

Frankly, I don't necessarily care for Big Name artists and Big Money art: I think the reverence shown for some artists and their work, has more to do with extraneous factors than the art itself. This approaches an authoritarian mysticism, to my mind.

 

 

Who is misinterpreting Rand? Where does she specify that a work's recreation of reality must adhere to a particular subject, format, arrangement or protocol in order to qualify as art per se? If Rand's beloved Sergei Rachmaninoff can scribble certain notes on a staff "in accordance with his value-judgments," why can't Jackson Pollock drip paint on a canvas in accordance with his? To disqualify Pollock's work as meaningless or to "speak for" Pollock and have him declare his own work is without meaning (i.e. lie about what he said), is to define art strictly in terms of one's own tastes:  If you don't like it, it must not be art.

 

In Post #49 you said that "It is the artist, not me, who is making (what I likened to) an 'arbitrary assertion."' You went on to define "arbitrary as a "claim put forth in the absence of evidence." Now you say that his claim is that "he does not consider conveying reality or clarity to his audience as important."

 

First of all, we do not know that Pollock said or believed any such thing. More importantly, let's remember that the purpose of art, at least according to Rand, is not to "convey reality" but to recreate reality. Conveying reality is what people who collect fingerprints and who snap passport photos do. Recreating reality is what most painters, sculptors, composers, and poets do.

 

Finally, nothing in Rand's definition excludes artists who do not express themselves with clarity.

 

So while Pollock's arrangement of colors on a canvas may not be to your liking, it still meets the criterion of recreating reality.

 

Now, what about meaning? Must art take the shape of something recognizable in order to be meaningful?

 

Sergei Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf imitates a bird call:

 

 

Sergei Rachmaninoff's Etude-Tableaux Op.33 No.2 in C major does not imitate a bird or anything else that I can tell:

 

May we then safely send Rachmaninoff's work to the gibberish bin because it does not contain any "referents to reality"?

 

 

 Your theory of art amounts to nothing more than feelings parading around in pseudo-scientific garb.

[anthony]

Your theory of art amounts to nothing more than feelings parading around in pseudo-scientific garb.

And so on, and so forth...a smokescreen, FF.

Scientific? But O'ism isn't a philosophy of empiricism: instead, sense-percept-concept.

If you misunderstand "a re-creation of reality" to mean the 'reality of paint' or other material - itself - whether spattered in any random manner or, arranged with painstaking care - I've no idea how to discuss this.

To repeat (in my words), it's the artist's image of reality which he (re)creates, depicting identifiable components from reality resulting in a new (man-made) reality (his).

See it now?

You recognise reality 'at large', right? Do you seek it in a manmade image?

Another way - is one supposed by the artist to recognise what reality he has rendered (say, in the abstract you showed)? Do you think the artist him(her)-self expects we the viewers to recognise it? Should he, in fact, be coherent at all?

One might assume that a piece of abstract art represents something important (to him) about the artist's inner state (perhaps) or his purview of reality and existence (perhaps) --

but, how do we know??(Subjective)

why should we have to take it on Faith??

if one didn't 'know' - or believe - that "it is a Jackson Pollock, you know!", one realistically could assume it was by a child, or a drunk who'd picked up a paint brush for the first time.

What entirely different status would the public place in the picture, knowing it is by one, not the other? (Authoritarian)

Additionally, what disdain is shown by an otherwise expert artist, to his audience's minds, when he produces a work for the public which cannot POSSIBLY be understood consistently by anyone?

---

FF, you've evidently picked up mismatched bits and pieces of Rand's theory on art - please knock it all you wish but grok it, first.

The basis of all of Rand is reality and reason. That's all of it, simply, as you know. Which means that nothing to her was more sacrosanct than man's mind. Art, she saw as both result, and precursor, of that one fundamental-- i.e., art either affirms or undermines his perceptual and conceptual capacity. So did she rate clarity* highly? Hell, yes--and for good reason it seems.

*[Which does not preclude subtlety, btw]

[Brant Gaede]

We have art--all kinds of art all over the place. Sans Rand, what is the practical need to define it a certain way? Anyone can define "art" into and out of existence--architecture is or is not art. Describing art and artistic endeavors, however sloppily or lacking in overall inclusiveness, seems to be the proper, empirical way to knowledge. Otherwise it's a search either for a unified theory or, more likely, a way to kick the undesirables off the ranch. It's like the head of that Mormon sect where a bunch of older men had several wives, kicking out the surplus teenaged boys who had to go to Las Vegas and prostitute themselves to survive thereby reducing the sexual competition.

It's your job to tell anyone interested that Objectivism is and when they arrive we'll tell them what it is. Same thing. In this case the tellers that it is are the boys hanging on for dear life until their usefulness is done. If you don't agree with Fact and Value you aren't an Objectivist. Go to Vegas and do the capitalist thing--sell yourself to a socialist--you're likely going to be in bed with them anyway--we don't care, just as long as you're not around us. Then everybody will be happy, happy, happy. (If Atlas Shrugged has been read by 10 million different people--all the way through--the population of Vegas would be about 10 million more today with the immoral capitalist whores selling themselves to each other. This means, Dr. Peikoff, Rand only wrote the damn thing for the glory and the money--ego and lucre, and the morality is a smokescreen joke along with "reason" and welcome to Objectivist reality, Sally.)

--Brant

ranting but not panting

the "ranch" is a philosophical cyst

[anthony]

We have art--all kinds of art all over the place. Sans Rand, what is the practical need to define it a certain way?

--Brant

That's the bare truth of the matter. All kinds of art, and why typify it - can it be typified? (yes, in broad terms, with endless variations on a theme, I think).

What good does art do mankind or each of us, and why? Can it actually do harm to the mind?

Always in the background is Objectivist principles, method and ethics.

You have the start of a good-faith discussion, there - how these art discussions 'should' start. I believe there are small holes in Rand's theory of art, but it's hard to examine them without a more or less similar grounding in what AR "meant", and some forebearance and good faith allowed one.

I can go on all day but I've had my say here.

Ellen, over to you. ;]