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

[Newberry]

Michael, I spent some time reading and viewing interviews and going over Liu's biography and education -- and looking at the sweep of his career in images from his studio.

I wonder if your feelings about Liu's work would change as mine did after taking a larger sample and taking in 'outside considerations' ...

You might get something out of this interview, in which Liu gives us a glimpse of his own art historical learning in the context of the Chinese 'new wave' -- very cogent to your reaction are the last few minutes of the video:

Hey Bill, Again I very much enjoy the effort you put into this post. I watched the interview, and looked at more work. He did mention that life was so much more interesting than what art depicts. But I am afraid none of it reaches me like you suggest it might. So how to reply?

This is pastel by Casey Klahn. It has movement, color use, light, immediacy, great composition, innovative use of negative spaces, nuanced, bold, and surprising. Any combination of these elements excites my eye and engages me. This is part of a floral series of 100 drawings. Each one a variation, that stands alone and plays off the preceding drawings. When I think of an artist drawing or painting immediately from life, this is the kind of standard that I think is awesome. I chatted with Casey a few weeks ago and is knowledge of color theory is profound, and he has genuine excitement about it and how his pastels come alive with it.

[Jonathan]

I have plenty of substance to offer, and none to share with you unless I feel like it. I have a four-decade record of putting my views in print, so there is absolutely no reason to doubt that I have opinions to offer.

Oh, I think that you have lots of "opinions," but I don't think that you have coherent, rational answers to my questions. If you had them, you'd have given them a long time ago. You'd love to shut me up, and to show that I'm wrong. You'd love to blow my arguments out of the water. But you can't. You don't have the ammo. You have nothing of rational substance in response to my questions. All that you have is pouting and distractions, and, now, embarrassing appeals to your "established credibility."

If you would like to establish credibility for anything beyond nihilistic personal attacks and disruption of civil discussions, please provide some references or links to published articles you have written and subjected to public criticism.

I don't accept "established credibility" as a substitute for rational argument. I don't accept your self-appraisal of your high status and authority, due to your having had your views published in your friends' publications, as a valid replacement to hearing answers to my questions. And I find your "Don't you know who I am? I outrank you!" pose hilarious -- it's quite predictable and unsurprising that you would have the attitude of believing that citing your past accomplishments would have any relevance whatsoever! It's very Rogerish!!!

The fact remains that I've asked questions and issued challenges, over and over again, which you claim to have answers for, and which you claim to be eager to address, but then you always end up weaseling out of doing so. Your tender feelings get hurt when someone is as blunt in criticizing your views as you have been in criticizing others', or when your status, authority and "established credibility" isn't revered.

But, since you're in such an eager mood to cite your "established credibility," please, do continue!!! What are your credentials in the visual arts, including architecture? I mean other than having been allowed by your friends to opine in their publications about the visual arts despite your not having any real credentials in the subject? Which courses in the visual arts and visual arts history have you taken? Which degrees have you earned in the visual arts, and from which institutions? Or are you somehow laboring under the delusion that your "established credibility" in other art forms magically translates to credibility in the visual arts?

You're just a mass of self-declared status and authority, despite your having no real credentials, and your status and authority should suffice as valid substitutes to answers to my questions?

Hahahahaha!

Now, you talk about having been subjected to "public criticism" of your published opinions. Which of your critics had real credentials in the visual arts, and were not of the Objectivish persuasion? Give us some examples of your having face some real-world fast, hard pitches from non-Objectivish types on the subject of visual art, as opposed to facing only relatively slow, soft pitches from generally like-minded people.

J

[moralist]

Change the question first you did.

Of course I did, Brant. I wrote the same question twice. I'm surprised you took so long to notice.

Because a straight answer deserves a straight question,

I first removed Jonathan's crookedness from it.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Change the question first you did.

Of course I did, Brant. I wrote the same question twice. I'm surprised you took so long to notice.

Because a straight answer deserves a straight question,

I first removed Jonathan's crookedness from it.

Greg

I noticed it the first time.

I didn't want to see it three times as new times.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

There is a huge technical problem, an artist may not have the tools to execute exactly what he wants. And the results can turn out ugly unintentionally. That could be a motive of postmodernists, if the foundations of a fine art education are not available, then an artist is incapable of creating beauty; a great part of that is technical mastery. Yet creating ugliness is open to anyone reagardless of skill.

A well made point.

The task of the unskilled, undisciplined, and unprincipled artist is then to try to convince suckers that their ugly pieces of crap are beautiful...

...and the real kicker is that there are plenty of suckers who believe the artist's lie because they share the same lack of morality as the artist!

Who are the top 10 most expensive living Chinese artists at auction? artnet News was keen to find out. With the help of artnet's Analytics team and Fine Art and Design Price Database, we perused auction results from 2005 to 2014 and have selected the top 10 artists by lot.

Zeng Fanzhi, The Last Supper (2001) sold at Sotheby's Hong Kong on October 5, 2013, for $23,269,070.

Liu Xiaodong, Disobeying the Rules (1996) sold at Sotheby's Hong Kong on Sunday, October 5, 2014, for $8,530,818.

Greg, these two works back up your point, hat tip to Scherk. They are undoubtedly conveying some kind of message, Chinese Uncle Toms in the Last Supper painting? Coal miners after some kind of accident being transported naked in the back of truck? Or male nudists on a tour? Regardless the paintings feel like the artists didn't give a shit about the means, they both show no talent, and makes it very hard to feel empathy for the subjects. The one below might show a spontaneous gestural painting marks - but that runs aground if the gestures are amateurish, not like a master Rembrandt, Sargent, or Degas. The sad part is that it is almost impossible to feel any empathy for the subjects - why would anyone spend money on these, much less than 24 and 9 million dollars? Somewhere going on: the artists, the collectors, the critics, the agents, the culture have an ugly, loathing view of the world, themselves, and/or their culture. I would feel sick to stomach for what the price tags for these works say about humanity, but after 40 years of seeing the elevation of crap I get the sense that the modern art field has opened the doors for and embraced sociopaths.

There is too much moralistic lard in this commentary. The artist Liu has an ugly, loathing view of the world, himself, and his culture? Liu is a sociopath in some way?

Auction prices almost always seem insane at the high end. I think one's stomach can feel a sinking, dizzy, high seas lurch at the enormity of the transactions, even when the artwork is appreciably worthy to the eye of the onlooker.

Michael, I spent some time reading and viewing interviews and going over Liu's biography and education -- and looking at the sweep of his career in images from his studio.

I wonder if your feelings about Liu's work would change as mine did after taking a larger sample and taking in 'outside considerations' ...

You might get something out of this interview, in which Liu gives us a glimpse of his own art historical learning in the context of the Chinese 'new wave' -- very cogent to your reaction are the last few minutes of the video:

The only good thing about this painting is trying to figure out what it's about. I see hard hats and gas cylinders. Are these miners? Nothing really makes sense. Nothing adds up. Maybe the title refers to the artist. What else, btw, has he done? So far he looks several years away from graduation from art school.

[...]

Googling the artist Liu reveals quite a hodgepodge; he seems to have something going compositionally, that's all I can see; someone really good could duplicate him to the extent you'd not know who did what, not that one would; I didn't see anything I like nor much technical skill in painting and not being as esthete I can only say, "I just don't get it"

Have a look at the arc of his artmaking at his studio website, Brant. I was in the party stumped by the million dollar nudes in the truck. I could see the sure hand of a trained artist, but was puzzled by what was uniquely 'worthy' of attention and auction bids in the millions. It left me with several mysteries, obstacles of ignorance in 'getting it.'

In the video above Liu makes reference to shocking effects that the 'new wave' of art in the mid-eighties brought to the non-art world. One was the depiction of Han figures, the other nudity. The Chinese were, post-Deng, economically engaged as individuals but the private world was traditional, circumspect, prudish. Nudity in art was shocking and had (according to Liu's telling) a powerful social effect. Similarly, the figure in painting pre-New Wave was never Han. Depicting Han visages was breaking the academic rules that had directed art production up till that time.

In this context, I understand the wallop of nudity in that particular depiction. And maybe a little bit of the wallop of real, individual Han lives depicted. And having seen the art Liu produced over the years, I can see why his work is unique and valuable -- even if nine million dollars changing hands seems disproportionate to its beauty or romanticism.

The video below corrects my mistaken reporting that Liu does not use photographs. It was two photographs of meaning to him that led to the truck nudes painting. The photos together with the truck nudes packs a certain extra wallop.

Coal miners after some kind of accident being transported naked in the back of truck? Or male nudists on a tour?

Maybe you should consider learning something about the artist's context.

I agree with Jonathan -- learning more about the art and its maker can often answer the puzzles at hand -- as can cooperative inquiry, sharing finds, digging for context.

I try to put art in threads like these so folks can have something to hang their hats on. As here, the various reactions to Liu illustrate one of Jonathan's major points -- that reaction to disliked art can move into attacks on the artist or art-appreciator.

Moralistic masturbation about the ugly person/ugly art connection is demonstrated most clearly by Greg. He rubs one off on ugly Liu, and he feels good about his discernment, but he is demonstrably wrong (as the video interview shows) about Liu's morality. Xiu's moral calculus, or the sense of life underlying his art, is put forth in his own words. His expressions seem relatively congruent with the pith of Objectivish good things: individualism, meaning, value, reality -- at least to my lay understanding

Me, I am not troubled one whit at being called sociopathic for loving the art of Francis Bacon, or at being a sucker for appreciating the art of Liu Xiaodong. I think Liu is pretty freaking good at his job. It is ultimately of no importance that Roger or Michael or Brant thinks I am a fool for thinking that. I can't pretend it is.

So, I take nothing personally, and I don't feel it necessary to make it personal by overtly calling Roger or Michael or Brant names. But I do understand Jonathan's vexation at the most dismissive and moralistic rhetoric of the 'haters' even if I don't use his tactics in argument. The tactic of ascribing maleficent motives and debased humanity to a generalized class of 'suckers' and 'abusers' doesn't do much work in argument, and thus attracts the rapiers of Jonathan and William.

Here's a brief video looking at Liu and the making of the million dollar nudes, from Sotheby's:

The sad part is that it is almost impossible to feel any empathy for the subjects - why would anyone spend money on these, much less than 24 and 9 million dollars?

I think that the willingness to spend big money was likely due to recognition and appreciation of the risks that the artists took in defying evil forces and of their heroism of creating genuine personal expressions under conditions which were very hostile to genuine personal expressions.

This is almost certainly correct in broad strokes. There was a revolution or a 'liberation' in Chinese art following post-Deng capitalist liberation of the economy. The various dead hands of tradition and state mandate were cast off. Liu was a revolutionary in this sense, and part of the creative force that has raised China from the dirt of collectivism to the magnificence of the individual making the world by will...

It seems like there's no way to distinguish between a masochistic rich man who pays big bucks to have someone sadistically abuse him and a profoundly sensitive, discerning rich man who pays big bucks to buy something that "ordinary people" can't understand or appreciate - especially if/when the former is masquerading as the latter, in order to get some social approval to offset the misery of having purchased his own abuse.

Which is good, since I don't have lot of time or energy to spending sorting them out. If I were some sort of Objectivist (or Objectivish) guru, I might feel differently. But losers are losers, and it really doesn't matter why they're losers, as long as they leave me alone and don't try to get the government to rob me in order to support their nasty habits.

Roger, this is not moored to any particular image or topic. It's easy to mistake this kind of analogous generalizing for a personal evaluation of an individual artist or artwork. 'Ordinary people' like you may not appreciate Liu Xiaodong's output at all, may even detest it based on a couple or three images, but does that mean that Liu is cast in the role of sadistic abuser of a miserable loser? If so, can you elaborate?

If not, then I think it's too bad you don't attach opinions more closely to actual depictions of artworks. Examples often give greater depth to an argument or analysis.

I wish there was an easy way to defuse the feuds in this thread. If I could vaccinate, I would vaccinate against galloping rhetoric. Somehow there would be fewer outbreaks of 'hater' and 'loser' and 'abuser' and 'sociopath' and so on.

You'll find me trying on bonnets in OL's Pollyanna section, near the doors. I'm here all week.

As I said I got more in the way of appreciation for the nudes in the truck by spending some effort contemplating it. Thanks for the additional input. It's not a painting I'd want personally, but if I were Chinese I could very well want it badly.

I do think this sort of thing calls into question Rand's idea of instantaneously looking at a painting and feeling "sense of life" artistic appreciation and acknowledgement of yes it is or no it isn't. I mean it can take some effort to actually look and see and the more you see and think about what you are looking at you could do a switchover, even an emotional one.

--Brant

[moralist]

What I'm saying is you're no James Madison. Suddenly you invoke him.

It was in response to your remarks about Madison. I merely agree with the moral principle he so aptly described, and I've also described that same principle many times here.

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?

--Madison

Have you ever noticed that his statement declares that government is not a cause, but rather an effect?

I don't think so...

Government is bottom up, Brant... not top down. In America Today, you hold ALL the power to determine how the government will treat you.

(..and please feel free to imply that everything I say refers to "in America today" )

Greg

[moralist]

I noticed it the first time.

I didn't want to see it three times as new times.

That's up to Jonathan.

Greg

[Jonathan]

To Greg, just like to Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

J

[moralist]

Greg, these two works back up your point, hat tip to Scherk. They are undoubtedly conveying some kind of message, Chinese Uncle Toms in the Last Supper painting? Coal miners after some kind of accident being transported naked in the back of truck? Or male nudists on a tour? Regardless the paintings feel like the artists didn't give a shit about the means, they both show no talent, and makes it very hard to feel empathy for the subjects. The one below might show a spontaneous gestural painting marks - but that runs aground if the gestures are amateurish, not like a master Rembrandt, Sargent, or Degas. The sad part is that it is almost impossible to feel any empathy for the subjects - why would anyone spend money on these, much less than 24 and 9 million dollars? Somewhere going on: the artists, the collectors, the critics, the agents, the culture have an ugly, loathing view of the world, themselves, and/or their culture. I would feel sick to stomach for what the price tags for these works say about humanity, but after 40 years of seeing the elevation of crap I get the sense that the modern art field has opened the doors for and embraced sociopaths.

Indeed, those price tags speak volumes.The people who were willing to pay millions of dollars did so because they shared the same "ugly loathing view of the world" as the painter. In every financial transaction there is a prerequisite "meeting of the minds"... shared values, or a shared lack of them.

No shared values = no transaction.

Peddling leftist crap as art all depends on finding the right suckers who can be convinced to believe leftist crap is art.

but after 40 years of seeing the elevation of crap I get the sense that the modern art field has opened the doors for and embraced sociopaths.

Amen.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Hey Bill, Again I very much enjoy the effort you put into this post. I watched the interview, and looked at more work. He did mention that life was so much more interesting than what art depicts.

Liu was actually a little more specific than that. What he was getting at was that painting an image based on observing life was much more realistic, convincing and genuine than painting purely from imagination and from the artifice of completely staged settings. It's a very Randian position to take. Rand observed real events, attitudes, and features in real people, and then purified, essentialized and romanticized them (William Hickman, for example, who was romanticized into Danny Renahan, and then eventually into Howard Roark). Liu did the same. He took some snapshot-captured moments and transformed them into something quite different. He created a Romantic (in Rand's meaning of the term) Realist image of people enduring the hardship of oppression with grace and dignity. The naked men in the truck are the same thing as John Galt displaying grace and dignity while strapped to the torture device.

But I am afraid none of it reaches me like you suggest it might. So how to reply?

When has any amount of reality ever reached you once you've made up your mind to hate something?

What I find especially curious is that those who are the most ardent defenders of Objectivism and of the Objectivist Esthetics don't practice Rand's notion of "objective esthetic judgment" when judging art.

Her view was:

In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking histheme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life...

Since art is a philosophical composite, it is not a contradiction to say: “This is a great work of art, but I don’t like it,” provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values.

Her followers practice something very different, if not opposite. They don't observe the work of art and carefully, dispassionately add up its elements to identify a thematic subject and meaning, and then later come to a moral appraisal and appropriate emotional response. Instead, they immediately emote, long before they've had a chance to consider all that the art might contain and mean. They rush to a subjective judgment, usually a very angry one, and then refuse to consider any of the many elements that others point out to them, and which they missed while rushing to judgment. And then they stubbornly try to maintain their rushed judgment by willfully finding something to misinterpret in the artist's statements about his work and process.

If Objectivism's strongest supporters can't practice Rand's notion of objectivity in judging art -- just as she didn't practice it -- but prefer to practice a very emotionalized brand of subjectivity combined with a sort of prejudicial moralizing disguised as aesthetic judgment, what does that say about the theory? What does it illustrate about the subjective nature of art, and the folly of trying to make subjective tastes objective?

J

[Jonathan]

The Objectivish Haters' Method Applied to We The Living:

"I can't be bothered to read it carefully, or even entirely. I read a few pages at the beginning and end. The novel probably allegedly conveys some kind of message or something, mankind is destined to die on the frozen tundra of life? Whatever. Ho-hum. I'm so bored! It is impossible to feel any empathy for the subjects - why would anyone spend money on the novel, or read the whole thing? Only masochistic rich men who want to be sadistically abused would buy it and put themselves through that torture. Not "ordinary people." The author has an ugly, loathing view of the world, herself, her culture and all of existence. I would feel sick to my stomach about what this work says about humanity, but after 40 years of being profoundly brilliant and pure, and looking down on everything that is so far beneath me, I have built up an immunity to sociopaths like the author."

---

Incidentally, Objectivish-types love to refer to the levels of aesthetic sensitivity and awareness of "ordinary people," "average citizens," "the majority of the public," "most people" and such when hating on the art forms that they love to hate. Anyone who gets more out of a work of art than these ordinary Joe Sixpaks is an uppity, elitist, pretentious art snob. But then, when the overwhelming majority of average Joe Sixpacks believes that the characters in Atlas Shrugged were shallow, cardboard cutouts which were anything but "Realist," genuine or convincing, why, suddenly Mr. Sixpack folks-next-door doesn't know what in the hell he is talking about, and we shouldn't use him as the standard for judging what is good in art, and it would be nonsense to dumb everything down to such a low standard.

Heh.

J

[william.scherk]

I am going to venture the opinion that some on this thread who dislike the [Liu] 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.

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?

It looks like there has been some further cogitation from those folks who were perhaps repulsed by Liu's painting when it first appeared upthread. Your gentle lawyerly style of address probably played a part in engendering reassessments.

-- what I forgot to mention is how much a given painting can have an impact in person. Who knows what Michael and Roger and Greg might feel when standing in front of the real thing? I suspect it would be a quick 'sense of life' emotion/mood/affect, either flatlined or angered or irritated or revolted.

However, knowing now more of Liu (if only a glance was given to the other works depicted, and nothing given to his studio or videos, interviews, art world bumf) these viewers might be arrested before a canvas. Who knows ... they might feel more positive emotional reactions, might indeed 'like' this or that.

The depiction of Liu painting from life in a disaster zone changed my perception of the artwork -- the girls on the bicycle cart in front of earthquake damage is large, large enough to permit a distant, global snapshot as well as a close-in examination of the brushwork. I think the very largeness would have an impact on those who so far dislike Liu's work more generally.

Here's a brief Q & A on this particular painting, from dGenerateFilms' CinemaTalk: Interview with Professor Eugene Wang on Chinese Art and Film.

dGF: In April, you presented at the “Just Images” symposium. Your topic was “Documentary Apathy and Sympathy: Liu Xiadong between Canvas and Camera.” Please tell us about your presentation.

Liu Xiaodong paints "Getting Out of Beichuan" (photo: Supernice.eu)

EG: In 2010 Liu Xiadong went to Sichuan to paint an earthquake scene. He set up this huge canvas and began to paint. Actually, he wasn’t painting the earthquake scene per-se. He invited a group of young woman from other towns to pose as models in front of this earthquake-caused pile of rubble. The sheer set up is mind-boggling.

When this work was first shown, I was completely blown away by it. It is a huge canvas. The exhibition did a good job using multi-media to present it. You also have the photograph of him working with the models. You also have a video of him working and directing the models. This case intrigued me because I’m always interested in inter-media. How painting and photography interact with each other.

The case with Liu Xiaodong made it particularly interesting because he spearheaded the new generation of painters that came of ages in the 1990′s. The way they make their impact and distinctions is through not buying into national narratives, choosing to stay on the margins and exploring the marginality. They seem to be interested in the mood and gestures that are normally outside the larger narratives. There are certain received ways of characterizing how within the narrative characters work. Liu Xiaodong is, however, concerned about what is going on outside of the framework. He focuses on the migrants, the outcasts, people who don’t belong anywhere. He portrays these characters with nonchalance and indifference.

-- so, I am left wondering if any of this contextual information affects prior 'sense of life' shudders. It's interesting to speculate on what a fair and informed Objectivish argument could be made that Liu's work is bad art. I don't think that Greg, Roger and Michael would label this 'bad art,' however. I think Greg would label it ugly and Liu a moral degenerate and that would be that. Roger might venture a crisp review of the context followed by a careful paragraph or two explaining that his personal dislike of the artist does not imply a debased sense of life nor any moral squalor in the artist or artwork.

Michael Newberry would I guess walk back his earlier commentary and show an updated appreciation for some work that does not turn his personal crank. I think he'd not make his personal crank the standard of assessment.

Indeed. I completely agree, Brant.

It seems like there's no way to distinguish between a masochistic rich man who pays big bucks to have someone sadistically abuse him and a profoundly sensitive, discerning rich man who pays big bucks to buy something that "ordinary people" can't understand or appreciate - especially if/when the former is masquerading as the latter, in order to get some social approval to offset the misery of having purchased his own abuse.

Which is good, since I don't have lot of time or energy to spending sorting them out. If I were some sort of Objectivist (or Objectivish) guru, I might feel differently. But losers are losers, and it really doesn't matter why they're losers, as long as they leave me alone and don't try to get the government to rob me in order to support their nasty habits.

Roger, this is not moored to any particular image or topic. It's easy to mistake this kind of analogous generalizing for a personal evaluation of an individual artist or artwork. 'Ordinary people' like you may not appreciate Liu Xiaodong's output at all, may even detest it based on a couple or three images, but does that mean that Liu is cast in the role of sadistic abuser of a miserable loser? If so, can you elaborate?

If not, then I think it's too bad you don't attach opinions more closely to actual depictions of artworks. Examples often give greater depth to an argument or analysis.

No, William, I don't think Liu is a "sadistic abuser." One can be a masochist, desiring to inflict pain or suffering or humiliation upon oneself, with or without the active involvement of another person. If I bought one of Jonathan's or Michael's paintings and flagellated myself with it, either of those acts might make me a masochist - but neither act would (in itself) make either of them a "sadistic abuser."

If you don't think Liu is a sadistic abuser, I'm glad -- it wasn't at all clear if you were commenting on any of the Chinese artworks. I didn't know who or what you were referring to in the excerpt I responded to. I suppose now it was a generic characterization of some kind that had no relation to Liu's work (and auction prices) at all.

I wonder still what you do think about Liu's work, if anything -- now that you have made clear the generic rhetoric of sadism and abuse is floating above the concretes on view.

I think you would probably ultimately agree with Jonathan that a personal 'meh' to a particular oeuvre does not or need not signal a wholesale denunciation of said work and its creator. Your words about misery, abuse, losers do not apply to Liu's work, if I understand you correctly.

Liu is free to paint, and people are free to buy his paintings for whatever they're worth to them. And I'm free to form a judgment about the merits of the creations and the wisdom of purchasing them. And no insecure, belligerant, obsessive, name-calling artist is going to pry more comments from me without moderating his behavior.

I am glad you have freely formed a judgment on Liu's creations that does not include accusing him of inflicting misery and abuse on losers. I am glad you don't think anyone who values his art is a loser. In a perfect world, you would find time to venture an analysis of his work, its appeal, its valuation, the qualities that either leave you neutral, disliking or liking. Tony and Brant have done so briefly and effectively.

My more pointed questions would be: Can you stand down from a J-hadi state of alert? Put Jonathan on ignore for a while? Remember your audience apart from J-had? Tell decent Objectivish onlookers how to approach and judge examples like the following?

I'm not going to consider either begging or "practically begging" as a sincere desire for philosophical dialogue, as long as the bitterness and hostility and "no I'm not, you are infinity-squared" B.S. continues. I am in the middle of writing four arrangements for a jazz concert and preparing a manuscript for journal submission. This is a spare-time activity, I'm not a masochist, and I go strictly by cost-benefit.

Nothing wrong with venturing a broad general condemnation of abusers and losers ... and nothing wrong with personal 'meh' responses. And nothing wrong with being too busy to bother engaging with anyone you figure is not treating you with good faith.

There's more to the thread than Jonathan's Cutting Queries, or rhetoric about hate. I did detect a state of high dudgeon in your first expostulations up above, but now believe most of the dudgeon is in reaction to remorseless stabbing criticism, not in reaction to Liu.

Hey Bill, Again I very much enjoy the effort you put into this post. I watched the interview, and looked at more work. He did mention that life was so much more interesting than what art depicts. But I am afraid none of it reaches me like you suggest it might. So how to reply?

This is pastel by Casey Klahn. It has movement, color use, light, immediacy, great composition, innovative use of negative spaces, nuanced, bold, and surprising. Any combination of these elements excites my eye and engages me. This is part of a floral series of 100 drawings. Each one a variation, that stands alone and plays off the preceding drawings. When I think of an artist drawing or painting immediately from life, this is the kind of standard that I think is awesome. I chatted with Casey a few weeks ago and is knowledge of color theory is profound, and he has genuine excitement about it and how his pastels come alive with it.

Regarding 'how to reply," are you updating or revising your earlier comments about Liu, Michael? I took away a few strong characterizations of Liu from your earlier reaction: "didn't give a shit ... shows no talent ... gestures are amateurish ... has an ugly, loathing view of the world, himself, and/or his culture ... "

As for the Casey Klahn, this work is new to me, thanks. Here's a couple other works of his:

I don't dislike the works above, but I prefer Emily Carr:

If you had more to say about Liu Xiaodong, I am interested. Interested in what in particular captivates/repels, stirs emotion, inculcates a judgment. I'm interested in how folks reach their opinions, and how they explain conflicting opinions. I don't know if you have more thoughts to relate on this particular guy and his work (and his insane auction statistic). I hope so.

As I said I got more in the way of appreciation for the nudes in the truck by spending some effort contemplating it. Thanks for the additional input. It's not a painting I'd want personally, but if I were Chinese I could very well want it badly.

I do think this sort of thing calls into question Rand's idea of instantaneously looking at a painting and feeling "sense of life" artistic appreciation and acknowledgement of yes it is or no it isn't. I mean it can take some effort to actually look and see and the more you see and think about what you are looking at you could do a switchover, even an emotional one.

It is the artist’s sense of life that controls and integrates his work, directing the innumerable choices he has to make, from the choice of subject to the subtlest details of style. It is the viewer’s or reader’s sense of life that responds to a work of art by a complex, yet automatic reaction of acceptance and approval, or rejection and condemnation.

This does not mean that a sense of life is a valid criterion of esthetic merit, either for the artist or the viewer. A sense of life is not infallible. But a sense of life is the source of art, the psychological mechanism which enables man to create a realm such as art.

-- it's almost as if some hear Rand saying 'trust your first rejection' and 'condemnation is automatic' ... without hearing the caveats about criteria of esthetic merit and the warning of fallibility.

Maybe the most censorious and indignant about art like Liu's are taking a cue from Rand: condemn, reject and denounce away. It's fun. Give yourself a break, convince yourself into thinking condemnation is utterly deserved.

I can get a thrill from reading Rand's hot rhetoric in denunciations. I can even try to thrill myself by using a hot rhetoric. But the thrill is generally gone on the second draft -- until and unless I can construct a reasonable, rational argument to support every step in my judgment.

More of Emily Carr. Her works are celebrated here in her home province. For me they have a haunting quality, with the haunting represented in the remnants of the cultures the white folk found upon 'contact.' I surmise that other Canadians also respond to the haunting, as the aboriginal works were -- in Carr's hands -- beautiful. Fading away and falling into disrepair, beautiful expressions of culture captured for later generations. I forgive her loose impressionist brushwork because the evocative power of the canvases is so palpable to me.

Edited March 4, 2015 by william.scherk

[Newberry]

Michael Newberry would I guess walk back his earlier commentary and show an updated appreciation for some work that does not turn his personal crank. I think he'd not make his personal crank the standard of assessment...

Regarding 'how to reply," are you updating or revising your earlier comments about Liu, Michael?

Oh, no, not at all. The more I see confirms that his style is what it is.

Speaking of style. I get the sense that you want to convince me of something. I enjoy that you have put research effort into your posts, and I like that you share your opinions.

[Roger Bissell]

William, thanks for your comments in #1012.

You wrote: "...it wasn't at all clear if you were commenting on any of the Chinese artworks. I didn't know who or what you were referring to in the excerpt I responded to. I suppose now it was a generic characterization of some kind that had no relation to Liu's work (and auction prices) at all."

I wouldn't say it had *no* relation to Liu's work. It was just a sincere general belief that was prompted by that particular discussion. It sparked a broad epiphany which I chose to share in that form at that point in time. It seemed relevant from an overall "philosophy of life" perspective, and I figured it might be helpful. Like art, I find aesthetics and philosophy more interesting when they're kept connected to life and values.

You also wrote: "Can you tell decent Objectivish onlookers how to approach and judge [visual artworks]?"

I am not going to tell them how to approach and judge music, let alone paintings or other artworks. For now, I will just call peoples' attention to this very interesting 1988 essay in Reason Papers by Mary Sirridge entitled "Hospers on the Artist's Intentions." Here's the link:

http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/13/rp_13_12.pdf

Thanks again.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Michael (re 1013 and other posts) - thank you for your benevolent, positive sharing here on OL. I also appreciate your various helpful suggestions.

REB

[Newberry]

Like art, I find aesthetics and philosophy more interesting when they're kept connected to life and values.

As for my audience, I am not going to tell them how to approach and judge music, let alone paintings or other artworks.

http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/13/rp_13_12.pdf

REB

Roger, I like both your comments above very much.

I checked out the link on Hospers On the Artist's Intentions, I would need to read it over about 4 times because of the philosopher speak. But there was a one very nice concept, about unintentional things, like spilled ketchup, clay pots that break in the kiln, etc. making the point that there is something in the artwork that should be what it should. I am thinking of Michelangelo's concept that figure is already in the block of marble and all he has to do is release it.

And thanks, I appreciate the compliment.

[Jonathan]

William, thanks for your worthwhile, collegial comments in #1012.

You wrote: "...it wasn't at all clear if you were commenting on any of the Chinese artworks. I didn't know who or what you were referring to in the excerpt I responded to. I suppose now it was a generic characterization of some kind that had no relation to Liu's work (and auction prices) at all."

I wouldn't say it had *no* relation to Liu's work. It was just a sincere general belief that was prompted by that particular discussion. It sparked a broad epiphany which I chose to share in that form at that point in time. It seemed relevant from an overall "philosophy of life" perspective, and I figured it might be helpful. Like art, I find aesthetics and philosophy more interesting when they're kept connected to life and values.

You also wrote: "Can you stand down from a J-hadi state of alert? Put Jonathan on ignore for a while? Remember your audience apart from J-had? Tell decent Objectivish onlookers how to approach and judge [visual artworks]?"

Thanks for the suggestion about Cutting Queries and hate-oriented rhetoric. I am standing down and have activated "ignore mode." As for my audience, I am not going to tell them how to approach and judge music, let alone paintings or other artworks. My incredulity response to nondescript lumps of matter being presented as sculpture was unfortunately characterized as some sort of fallacious and/or authoritarian attempt to tell people what to think.

That's false.

Here is how Roger's comment on "nondescript lumps of matter" was actually characterized:

In contrast, if someone presents nondescript lumps of brownish material as a work of art and claims it is profound and deep in its aesthetic meaning, yes, I do respond with incredulity, and so do many people who are otherwise extremely tolerant and ecumenical in their non-rejection of the aesthetic responses of others. And no, it is not unreasonable or arbitrary to expect an explanation of how these nondescript lumps present anything meaningful and worth contemplating.

And if someone were to give you such an explanation, would you listen to it, and contemplate it without hostility, or would you plug your ears and immediately have the uncontrollable emotional need to scream, "Give me a break!" If a person were to give you a very detailed explanation, would you later lie that you were given no explanation, and claim that you were told instead that "to those who understand, no explanation is necessary, and to those who don't, no explanation is possible"?

If a person were to explain to you that the "nondescript lumps of brownish material" had the same aesthetic effect on him as looking at the rolling hills of a freshly planted field, that it was like a wonderful little microcosm of agriculture and new life, would you still be so upset and still need to deny the validity of his aesthetic response?

See? No one characterized Roger's response an "attempt to tell people what to think."

Thanks again for trying to inject sanity and civility into the 'hood.

If you want "sanity and civility" and "collegiality," then start behaving in the way that you expect others to behave. Treat your opponents with the civility and respect that you demand of them.

Here are a few things that you should work on while you're sulking, licking your wounds, and nursing your bruised ego:

When people explain to you what they see and experience in a work of art, don't smugly accuse them of "rationalizing." That's not collegial.

When people explain to you, multiple times, over and over again, what they see and experience in a work of art, don't lie and say that they didn't give you an explanation, but that they had the attitude of "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary, to those who don't, none is possible." That's not civil or honest.

Learn to curb your snarky blurtings of incredulity, and your reportings of your wife's. They're not substantive or respectful.

Stop dragging out the tired, worn, unoriginal, fallacious characterization of others' responses to art as being akin to The Emperor's New Clothes, especially considering how visually unaware and unobservant you and others have shown yourselves to be on this thread.

Drop the stupid psychologizing based on others' tastes and responses to art.

I would love to have some civil, respectful conversations here, if you and others would be willing to learn to recognize and manage your bad behavior. It's a two-way street. I've been allowing you to set the tone. I've just been following suit. Whenever you want to have a nice, polite, collegial discussion, just come on back without the type of hater snarkiness that I've listed above. Please, pretty please, delve into all of my unanswered questions, apply your published-scholar powers to them, and dish out nothing but pure intellectual substance, and I'll be more than happy to bring the same attitude!

J

[Roger Bissell]

Michael, in #1016, you wrote: "I am thinking of Michelangelo's concept that figure is already in the block of marble and all he has to do is release it."

LOL. That's a lot like the way I write music or essays. I keep "whittling" away (aka editing), until everything that "doesn't look like a horse" is gone. :-)

REB

[Brant Gaede]

William, thanks for your worthwhile, collegial comments in #1012.

You wrote: "...it wasn't at all clear if you were commenting on any of the Chinese artworks. I didn't know who or what you were referring to in the excerpt I responded to. I suppose now it was a generic characterization of some kind that had no relation to Liu's work (and auction prices) at all."

I wouldn't say it had *no* relation to Liu's work. It was just a sincere general belief that was prompted by that particular discussion. It sparked a broad epiphany which I chose to share in that form at that point in time. It seemed relevant from an overall "philosophy of life" perspective, and I figured it might be helpful. Like art, I find aesthetics and philosophy more interesting when they're kept connected to life and values.

You also wrote: "Can you stand down from a J-hadi state of alert? Put Jonathan on ignore for a while? Remember your audience apart from J-had? Tell decent Objectivish onlookers how to approach and judge [visual artworks]?"

Thanks for the suggestion about Cutting Queries and hate-oriented rhetoric. I am standing down and have activated "ignore mode." As for my audience, I am not going to tell them how to approach and judge music, let alone paintings or other artworks. My incredulity response to nondescript lumps of matter being presented as sculpture was unfortunately characterized as some sort of fallacious and/or authoritarian attempt to tell people what to think.

That's false.

Here is how Roger's comment on "nondescript lumps of matter" was actually characterized:

In contrast, if someone presents nondescript lumps of brownish material as a work of art and claims it is profound and deep in its aesthetic meaning, yes, I do respond with incredulity, and so do many people who are otherwise extremely tolerant and ecumenical in their non-rejection of the aesthetic responses of others. And no, it is not unreasonable or arbitrary to expect an explanation of how these nondescript lumps present anything meaningful and worth contemplating.

And if someone were to give you such an explanation, would you listen to it, and contemplate it without hostility, or would you plug your ears and immediately have the uncontrollable emotional need to scream, "Give me a break!" If a person were to give you a very detailed explanation, would you later lie that you were given no explanation, and claim that you were told instead that "to those who understand, no explanation is necessary, and to those who don't, no explanation is possible"?

If a person were to explain to you that the "nondescript lumps of brownish material" had the same aesthetic effect on him as looking at the rolling hills of a freshly planted field, that it was like a wonderful little microcosm of agriculture and new life, would you still be so upset and still need to deny the validity of his aesthetic response?

See? No one characterized Roger's response an "attempt to tell people what to think."

Thanks again for trying to inject sanity and civility into the 'hood.

If you want "sanity and civility" and "collegiality," then start behaving in the way that you expect others to behave. Treat your opponents with the civility and respect that you demand of them.

Here are a few things that you should work on while your sulking, licking your wounds, and nursing your bruised ego:

When people explain to you what they see and experience in a work of art, don't smugly accuse them of "rationalizing." That's not collegial.

When people explain to you, multiple times, over and over again, what they see and experience in a work of art, don't lie and say that they didn't give you an explanation, but that they had the attitude of "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary, to those who don't none is possible." That's not civil or honest.

Learn to curb your snarky blurtings of incredulity, and your reportings of your wife's. They're not substantive or respectful.

Stop dragging out the tired, worn, unoriginal, fallacious characterization of others' responses to art as being akin to The Emperor's New Clothes, especially considering how visually unaware and unobservant you and others have shown yourselves to be on this thread.

Drop the stupid psychologizing based on others' tastes and responses to art.

I would love to have some civil, respectful conversations here, if you and others would be willing to learn to recognize and manage your bad behavior. It's a two-way street. I've been allowing you to set the tone. I've just been following suit. Whenever you want to have a nice, polite, collegial discussion, just come on back without the type of hater snarkiness that I've listed above. Please, pretty please, delve into all of my unanswered questions, apply your published-scholar powers to them, and dish out nothing but pure intellectual substance, and I'll be more than happy to bring the same attitude!

J

You are asking for the impossible.

--Brant

oil and water

[Jonathan]

You are asking for the impossible.

--Brant

oil and water

I know that I'm asking the impossible.

Roger doesn't actually want civility. He's just using the incivility complaint as an excuse to avoid dealing with the substance of all of my unanswered questions (and he probably realizes that there are many, many more additional unanswered questions that I've asked of him in the past; the handful of them that I posted in 994 are just the tip of Roger's iceberg of intellectual evasion).

Anyway, I took a few moments to go back and review where things started to get snarky with Roger on this thread, and it turns out that I remembered correctly that it was Roger who was the one who started in with the little personal jabs in 386, and then he very rapidly escalated it from there (for some reason still unknown to me, my use of the word "immersed" made him very surly and snarly.)

I responded primarily with substance, and even politely explained my use of the word "immerse," and lightly and jovially returned some of his little jabs.

That really pissed off His Royal Published Highness! He wigged out in 396. You see, I am not to talk to His Majesty in the way that He talked to me! I am to sit as His learned feet, and revere and adore Him, and thank Him for any crumb of great wisdom that He might deign to bestow on lowly, unpublished me.

In that post, His Highness pouted:

"At the risk of appearing that I have nothing to say in reply to your rebuttals above, I am again going to discontinue taking part in these discussions. You can, and I'm sure will, continue to ridicule me behind my back - but I'm not going to stay here and let you spit in my face."

That's right! I spat in His Imperial Grace's face by simply identifying His perplexing tenderness over my use of the word "immerse"! Sayeth not "immerse" in His lofty presence! He hath forbidden it!!!

But, fortunately, His Majesty did reveal the true cause of His rage in the quote of His that I just cited: His fear of appearing to have nothing to say in response to my rebuttals was a valid fear, because He actually has nothing of rational substance with which to answer them. His insanely disproportionate anger about my use of "immersed," and His complaint of being mercilessly ridiculed by me, were very badly executed attempts at diversion. It was a cloud of squid ink intended to hide the fact that His Published Eminence was getting His ass kicked, intellectually, by an unpublished little nobody peasant.

J

[Jonathan]

Michael (re 1013 and other posts) - thank you for your benevolent, positive sharing here on OL. I also appreciate your various helpful suggestions.

REB

The ideal scenario now would be that Roger decides to reward Newberry's masquerade -- of benevolence and of offering "various helpful suggestions"-- and to punish my evil lack of reverence, by revisiting Newberry's "helpful suggestions" in interpreting and judging Kant's notion of Sublimity, and then, out of spite of being disrespected by me, allowing himself to become, like Stephen Hicks, intellectually poisoned by Newberry's toxicity!

[Brant Gaede]

You are asking for the impossible.

--Brant

oil and water

I know that I'm asking the impossible.

Roger doesn't actually want civility. He's just using the incivility complaint as an excuse to avoid dealing with the substance of all of my unanswered questions (and he probably realizes that there are many, many more additional unanswered questions that I've asked of him in the past; the handful of them that I posted in 994 are just the tip of Roger's iceberg of intellectual evasion).

Anyway, I took a few moments to go back and review where things started to get snarky with Roger on this thread, and it turns out that I remembered correctly that it was Roger who was the one who started in with the little personal jabs in 386, and then he very rapidly escalated it from there (for some reason still unknown to me, my use of the word "immersed" made him very surly and snarly.)

I responded primarily with substance, and even politely explained my use of the word "immerse," and lightly and jovially returned some of his little jabs.

That really pissed off His Royal Published Highness! He wigged out in 396. You see, I am not to talk to His Majesty in the way that he talked to me! I am to sit as his learned feet, and revere and adore Him, and thank him for any crumb of great wisdom that he might deign to bestow on lowly, unpublished me.

In that post, His Highness pouted:

"At the risk of appearing that I have nothing to say in reply to your rebuttals above, I am again going to discontinue taking part in these discussions. You can, and I'm sure will, continue to ridicule me behind my back - but I'm not going to stay here and let you spit in my face."

That's right! I spat in His Imperial Grace's face by simply identifying his perplexing tenderness over my use of the word "immerse"! Sayeth not "immerse" in His lofty presence! He hath forbidden it!!!

But, fortunately, His Majesty did reveal the true cause of His rage in the quote of His that I just cited: His fear of appearing to have nothing to say in response to my rebuttals was a valid fear, because He actually has nothing of rational substance with which to answer them. His insanely disproportionate anger about my use of "immersed," and His complaint of being mercilessly ridiculed by me, were very badly executed attempts at diversion. It was a cloud of squid ink intended to hide the fact that His Published Eminence was getting His ass kicked, intellectually, by an unpublished little nobody peasant.

J

I've not considered the substance of a discussion on esthetics enough to comment on esthetics apart from what I like and don't like and why substantially, but I only find respect for the discussion on esthetics as such between you and Ellen, not you and Roger and Michael N. and only somewhat with Tony. When you don't engage them it's too much of too little (for me), but they seem to be buddies.

--Brant

[moralist]

Brant:

You are asking for the impossible.

--Brant

oil and water

It is impossible because the two views are utterly irreconcilable.

You have leftists peddling crap as art,

and those who don't buy the sales pitch.

Whenever moral values don't match,

no transaction can take place.

Greg

[PDS]

Brant:

You are asking for the impossible.

--Brant

oil and water

It is impossible because the two views are utterly irreconcilable.

You have leftists peddling crap as art,

and those who don't buy the sales pitch.

Whenever moral values don't match,

no transaction can take place.

Greg

Greg: we get it. You say something like this about every other comment on this website. Do you ever tire of saying the same thing over and over and over?

Here, unless you're claiming Jonathan to be a "leftist", you're not even in the correct ballpark. Have you even read his posts on this thread?

Brant's "oil and water" comment has nothing to do with your knee jerk assertions of subjectivity you seem to feel duty bound to inject into each thread here on OL.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant's "oil and water" comment has nothing to do with your knee jerk assertions of subjectivity you seem to feel duty bound to inject into each thread here on OL.

True, but it does travel. Greg pulled a gun on me and told me to get off my horse and off he rode.

--Brant

boo hoo--I wuz robbed!