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

[Newberry]

We listen to the finished product, and that must be all we know and should know. Regardless of the composer's intentions and his mastery, or not.

BUT, any decent composer is well aware as he's writing and playing sections of the piece for himself, that certain chords, structures, instruments... and all the rest, DO have (and have had) a particular emotional effect. This in itself is telling. If not proof, it indicates music is very much emotionally universal, not arbitrary.

What is "universal" is all in the composer's head. Watch the musical Oliver. The song that starts right after the intermission makes me cry when Mark Lester sings. I doubt if that's a universal though it may be common. I'd put up the vid, but it won't work as illustration unless you watched the movie to that point or had previously watched it. There is something deep in my psychological history that was triggered, but why should I or anyone think it's any universal even if the emotion per se is?

--Brant

Brant, I am glad you shared an authentic experience to an art work, but you have basically been "played" by the director, writer, and composer. I don't know the musical well, but it's about the trials and tribulations of being in an 19th Century orphanage? There are universities, workshops, coaches, and theorists essentially the Hollywood industry, and the film industry as a whole that know every way to "Make them laugh, make them cry." It's naive of you to think it is somehow accidental and unique. Aesthetics is a discussion on how the arts' work. Instead of you trying to figure out why you were affected by Oliver, you took it for granted. And now you whine as if there is nothing to aesthetics.

[Brant Gaede]

We listen to the finished product, and that must be all we know and should know. Regardless of the composer's intentions and his mastery, or not.

BUT, any decent composer is well aware as he's writing and playing sections of the piece for himself, that certain chords, structures, instruments... and all the rest, DO have (and have had) a particular emotional effect. This in itself is telling. If not proof, it indicates music is very much emotionally universal, not arbitrary.

What is "universal" is all in the composer's head. Watch the musical Oliver. The song that starts right after the intermission makes me cry when Mark Lester sings. I doubt if that's a universal though it may be common. I'd put up the vid, but it won't work as illustration unless you watched the movie to that point or had previously watched it. There is something deep in my psychological history that was triggered, but why should I or anyone think it's any universal even if the emotion per se is?

Brant, I am glad you shared an authentic experience to an art work, but you have basically been "played" by the director, writer, and composer. I don't know the musical well, but it's about the trials and tribulations of being in an 19th Century orphanage? There are universities, workshops, coaches, and theorists essentially the Hollywood industry, and the film industry as a whole that know every way to "Make them laugh, make them cry." It's naive of you to think it is somehow accidental and unique. Aesthetics is a discussion on how the arts' work. Instead of you trying to figure out why you were affected by Oliver, you took it for granted. And now you whine as if there is nothing to aesthetics.

You can get great but not absolute congruity. But instead of generalizing out of ignorance, rent the flick so I have something better to respond to. I do think you've partly explained why most of what comes out of Hollywood is crap.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

We listen to the finished product, and that must be all we know and should know. Regardless of the composer's intentions and his mastery, or not.

BUT, any decent composer is well aware as he's writing and playing sections of the piece for himself, that certain chords, structures, instruments... and all the rest, DO have (and have had) a particular emotional effect. This in itself is telling. If not proof, it indicates music is very much emotionally universal, not arbitrary.

What is "universal" is all in the composer's head. Watch the musical Oliver. The song that starts right after the intermission makes me cry when Mark Lester sings. I doubt if that's a universal though it may be common. I'd put up the vid, but it won't work as illustration unless you watched the movie to that point or had previously watched it. There is something deep in my psychological history that was triggered, but why should I or anyone think it's any universal even if the emotion per se is?

Brant, I am glad you shared an authentic experience to an art work . . . .

There. That's a good reset of the discussion.

--Brant

defenseless, tender and vulnerable

[william.scherk]

My last comment was a long, dreary ramble. Here, to re-orient to the original topic, "Who says that's art," I give you an untitled artwork, for slaughter, for joyous deconstruction, for grumbles, for emotional reaction, for an artist's appreciation..

Try twice.

Twice. Earlier upload may have been too large for the forum ...

[Newberry]

My last comment was a long, dreary ramble. Here, to re-orient to the original topic, "Who says that's art," I give you an untitled artwork, for slaughter, for joyous deconstruction, for grumbles, for emotional reaction, for an artist's appreciation..

One of yours?

[Jonathan]

Brant, I am glad you shared an authentic experience to an art work, but you have basically been "played" by the director, writer, and composer. I don't know the musical well, but it's about the trials and tribulations of being in an 19th Century orphanage? There are universities, workshops, coaches, and theorists essentially the Hollywood industry, and the film industry as a whole that know every way to "Make them laugh, make them cry." It's naive of you to think it is somehow accidental and unique. Aesthetics is a discussion on how the arts' work. Instead of you trying to figure out why you were affected by Oliver, you took it for granted. And now you whine as if there is nothing to aesthetics.

You can get great but not absolute congruity. But instead of generalizing out of ignorance, rent the flick so I have something better to respond to.

And be sure to watch more than one random fifth of it! Hahahaha! Get it? (Back when Newbsie was a very active Objectivist Cultural Guru/Warrior, he viewed only one fifth of The Cremaster Cycle before offering up his heroically hateful pretend review of it to his fellow hatefully heroic gurus and warriors.)

I do think you've partly explained why most of what comes out of Hollywood is crap.

Ba-BAM! Knocked it out of the park! When you have an industry researching and employing cliches, you end up with cliched art, and that's what people here are arguing in favor of, in contrast to Roark's attitude. Roark's originality and creative independence attract people to Objectivism, and then Objectivism's Esthetics turns them into anti-Roarks!

J

[william.scherk]

My last comment was a long, dreary ramble. Here, to re-orient to the original topic, "Who says that's art," I give you an untitled artwork, for slaughter, for joyous deconstruction, for grumbles, for emotional reaction, for an artist's appreciation..

One of yours?

Yes, a canvas painted in 1985 ...

[Newberry]

Yes, a canvas painted in 1985 ...

Yes, I had a deja vu of recognition from having seen a few of your works before, but I don't think you included this one there. If you had started young in painting, and continued it without interruption you might have been a great painter. You have much more talent than the Chinese guy, though I can see why you like him. You used a great sense of color in the ocher shadows of some of the figures and how that contrasts with rust red shadows. I would have liked to have you as a serious student at around 19 years old, but I would have pushed you to master anatomy, form, and space.

[Brant Gaede]

My last comment was a long, dreary ramble. Here, to re-orient to the original topic, "Who says that's art," I give you an untitled artwork, for slaughter, for joyous deconstruction, for grumbles, for emotional reaction, for an artist's appreciation..

One of yours?

Yes, a canvas painted in 1985 ...

I have to agree in the only areas I might be qualified to comment: look at the faces. It's as if the insides have come outside. Plus, there is a great sense of dynamism held back. With the Chinese guys in the truck you have to think your way into the painting. Not Bill's. It's almost like his characters are instantly enveloping you. I see six distinct personalities, which is remarkable considering the ostensible sketchiness.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I would have liked to have you as a serious student at around 19 years old, but I would have pushed you to master anatomy, form, and space.

It's quite sweet that Newberry wants his students to have the skills that he didn't achieve for himself! It's kind of like a father who never had the opportunity to go to college and who therefore wants to give his son that opportunity. Lovely! It just warms my heart!

J

[Brant Gaede]

I would have liked to have you as a serious student at around 19 years old, but I would have pushed you to master anatomy, form, and space.

It's quite sweet that Newberry wants his students to have the skills that he didn't achieve for himself! It's kind of like a father who never had the opportunity to go to college and who therefore wants to give his son that opportunity. Lovely! It just warms my heart!

J

The best way to learn is to teach. Maybe that's why it's so poignant.

--Brant

[moralist]

William writes:

Yes, a canvas painted in 1985 ...

Yikes.

No wonder our values are so different.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Why isn't anyone "objectively" identifying the "artist's theme" based only on the content of the work and allowing no outside considerations? It's very strange that Objectivish-types almost never practice the "objective" method of aesthetic judgment that Rand identified, but instead usually practice a method which she specifically identified as not being valid.

What's the one truly objectively correct interpretation of Bill's painting?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Why isn't anyone "objectively" identifying the "artist's theme" based only on the content of the work and allowing no outside considerations? It's very strange that Objectivish-types almost never practice the "objective" method of aesthetic judgment that Rand identified, but instead usually practice a method which she specifically identified as not being valid.

What's the one truly objectively correct interpretation of Bill's painting?

J

There isn't one except there isn't one.

--Brant

I win the fur-lined bathtub!

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:

Why isn't anyone "objectively" identifying the "artist's theme" based only on the content of the work and allowing no outside considerations?

Because everyone is totally subjective. So each subjective opinion will be determined by the moral values each individual lives by.

In my subjective opinion, William should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

Greg

[Selene]

In my subjective opinion, William should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

Greg

What would possess you to come to that conclusion?

A...

[moralist]

Adam writes:

What would possess you to come to that conclusion?

Just a subjective opinion as equally subjective as everyone else's opinions. It's so incredibly soullessly ugly it hurts my eyes. Leftist crap "art" tends to be like that because it's an expression of leftist crap values.

Greg

[anthony]

In my subjective opinion, William should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

Greg

What would possess you to come to that conclusion?

A...

Adam, too right. Greg, your statement is a cheap shot, arbitrary and uncalled for, if one likes the picture or doesn't.

"Subjective" it is, as such better kept to yourself.

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan writes:

Why isn't anyone "objectively" identifying the "artist's theme" based only on the content of the work and allowing no outside considerations?

Because everyone is totally subjective. So each subjective opinion will be determined by the moral values each individual lives by.

In my subjective opinion, William should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

Greg

That's shameful.

--Brant

[Selene]

Greg:

Your comment was un-Christian, un-christian, small, or, big "O."

Frankly, it was personally offensive to me.

I just want to be crystal clear about this matter.

A...

[Jonathan]

Greg is just being his typical apey conservative self.

As Rand so effectively said:

"Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy. The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect...This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises."

Greg dreams of using the force of government to punish creators of art that he doesn't like. Not at all surprising.

J

[Selene]

...they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect...This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises."

Define "conservative."

You used a very broad brush J.

The conservatives that I know personally, do not believe in "imposing" censorship, do not want to "determine" moral values and do not want to enforce a "governmental establishment of morality."

A...

[Jonathan]

...they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect...This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises."

Define "conservative."

You used a very broad brush J.

The conservatives that I know personally, do not believe in "imposing" censorship, do not want to "determine" moral values and do not want to enforce a "governmental establishment of morality."

A...

A...

Rand was talking about the type conservatives who wanted control of others' morality and artistic expressions. If the conservatives whom you know don't fit that description, then great!

J

[Selene]

Rand was talking about the type conservatives who wanted control of others' morality and artistic expressions. If the conservatives whom you know don't fit that description, then great!

J

Lol...I know J, I was there.

From "A Suggestion," The Objectivist Newsletter, October 1963:

In today's state of political confusion and contradictions, it is difficult to endorse any candidate with any degree of certainty. All one can say is that it appears, at present, that Senator Goldwater may become very much worth supporting, particularly in view of his recent stand on Cuba and the nuclear test treaty -- and most particularly because he seems to be our last chance to preserve two-party government.

If, between now and nomination or election time, Senator Goldwater should change his stand, or adopt some major form of "me-too'ing" compromise, or tie his candidacy to some doctrine of a mystical nature -- we will, of course, be free not to vote for him. At present, he is the best candidate in the field.

Damn, I wish I had saved all of the Newsletters.

Very exciting time to be alive, 16, working in Manhattan and being involved in the Objectivist movement in NY City.

A...

[Newberry]

In my subjective opinion, William should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

Greg

What would possess you to come to that conclusion?

A...

Adam, too right. Greg, your statement is a cheap shot, arbitrary and uncalled for, if one likes the picture or doesn't.

"Subjective" it is, as such better kept to yourself.

Interesting. Greg is expressing his moral conclusion about the painting and its maker Bill. But he doesn't say "when I look at this painting I feel ..." I can empathize with Greg about this, I react in a similar way about both good and bad: the artist is really creepy, what a genius, etc. But I try to keep a lid on it when it comes to putting it in writing. Far from being a negative it helps guide one through life, honing their likes and dislikes, and investing their time and energy accordingly.

About Bill's painting I stayed away from the subject matter and commented only on that I like the color harmonies. But if I look at the subject matter, what I see is some naked transsexuals, notice the head gear of the two guys top left and right. And notice top right the floating red lips and extreme makeup of the eye; which looks kind of evil to me. The setting is quite misty, and I wonder what are partial nude transsexuals and other males doing? Taking a sauna together? Maybe the subject is a drug induced experience where figures morph from a drag show into an a naked gathering?

Earlier I mentioned that Bill has a lot of talent but is missing some technical fundamentals. One of the things about the more you know in technique the more you flesh out exactly what you want to say, and it forces the artist to really examine what they are offering. But if the skill is haphazard deeper introspection can stay vague.