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

[moralist]

Brant writes:

It might be you're only considering the end result.

Brilliant. You have it exactly right. Thanks, Brant.

I'm a mechanic.

Greg

[Jonathan]

(As long as it remains consistent throughout...

That's what I just said. Newberry's perspective is not consistent throughout. In Lovers Jumping, it's very inconsistent.

...and I might agree that his leaping couple is a little off).

"Might" you also agree that 45 degrees plus 45 degrees is 90 degrees? The geometry of perspective isn't a matter of your personal, subjective tastes, feelings and interpretations. I mean, I know that Objectivish types are used to claiming that their every subjective response is "objective," but usually they do so in regard to phenomena to which objectivity cannot apply. In this case, there really is an objective means of measuring and judging, yet you're acting as if your subjective appraisal/hunch trumps that objective means! Absolutely hilarious!!!

With Michael's 'Artemis' and other nudes, as well as that great 'Sculptor', I see nothing but a masterful use of proportion and perspective.

I didn't ask if you could "see" any errors. I suggested that you should objectively measure them. Do you know how to do so? No?

Earlier on this thread, I mentioned a very uptight and self-important Randroid artist named Ifat from OO who believed that I was "just making things up" when I identified perspective errors in a painting (created by someone other than Ifat) which she had posted as an example of good art. Like you, she also couldn't "see" the errors. Contrary to her overinflated opinion of herself, her inability to see was proof of nothing but her inability to see. The perspective errors were still there in reality, and hadn't been magically blinked out of existence by her inability to see them.

The human body has to be the hardest to paint perspectively 'correct' - straight lines and planes easy by comparison.

I wish that I had had Newberry as a student when he was around 19 years old (and when I was around 15 years old). I would have taught him perspective, and pushed him to master it rather than mastering the art of excuse-making. I wish that I had gotten to him before he was exposed to Rand. He could have been a truly great artist if her writings hadn't poisoned his ego with fantasy visions of himself. He also might have been a fine art/culture commentator if Rand's writings hadn't instilled in him the belief in his own infallibility and the unwillingness to admit to error even when faced with overwhelming evidence of his mistakes.

To show the contrast, the male nude, 'Artemis' shows a more fore-shortened perspective, as if viewed from a distance -- while the female nude, 'Counterpoise', has a much greater receding perspective, more 'depth', with its emphasis on her head, chest and hand, to her relatively small extremities. So, indicating a very close viewpoint of the artist(which makes the onlooker feel more intimately involved. "Pulled in", as it were).

Thanks for the lesson, but I'd prefer that you actually objectively measure the perspective.

After all that, it's not draughtsman-like reproductions of reality that matters most. The artist might even defy the rules, change whatever he wants in the scene, for his particular purpose - to place importance on one aspect.

There's that wonderfully generous attitude that Objectivish-types display only when the art which is being judged was created by Rand or by someone who is known to be an acolyte of hers!

J

[Jonathan]

Tony, I think your understanding of perspective is spot on.

The concept of visually making things bigger as they come forward and smaller as they go back, works well, and allows the artist a lot of freedom to create. Trying to be absolutely perfect can easily backfire if one is off by a millimeter.

It's really not that difficult to avoid being off by a millimeter. It's simply an issue of self-discipline and practice. It's merely a matter of volitionally choosing not to be lazy and cognitively vague, foggy and careless.

Rather if an object is coming forward and the artist errs on making it too big, that still feels right to me, even if there is some distortion. At least that is the way I taught to students, and I do myself.

That's pitiful. A lazy, excuse-making attitude being passed on to the next generation. Lowered standards, slop, and the "close enough" mindset. Students should be challenged, not coddled and comprachicoed.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan writes:

"likes" are supposed to have nothing to do with valid aesthetic judgments of art.

Each person's individual subjective perceptions of beauty or ugliness are driven by their moral values. So if a person has rotten moral values they will subjectively perceive beauty where others subjectively perceive ugliness. Now those subjective perceptions will either agree or disagree with objective reality depending on each person's morality.

In my subjective opinion, it is impossible to make a valid amoral aesthetic judgment, as art serves the greater purpose of morality.

Greg

What do you get when you cross an ape with a parrot?

[Newberry]

"... what I mean by "esthetic judgments" apart from a moral evaluation of a finished product. They would include use of various techniques from perspective to choice of paint, use of contrast, size of canvas, detail, etc.

--Brant

Exactly.

[Brant Gaede]

I think bad perspective could be good art if it's deliberate for the effect created. The artist, of course, would have to know perspective.

--Brant

but I don't really know what I'm talking about

[anthony]

I think bad perspective could be good art if it's deliberate for the effect created. The artist, of course, would have to know perspective.

--Brant

but I don't really know what I'm talking about

You are right, I think. But know the rules well, before you break them (for a clear purpose). Technique shouldn't be a tyrant.

Art, to be commanded must be obeyed.

;-]

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:

What do you get when you cross an ape with a parrot?

That ugly attitude will always be an obstacle to success in your life. You're free to disagree with my view that art serves the higher noble purpose of morality. It explains why yours doesn't... because you don't.

Greg

[moralist]

Tony writes:

You are right, I think. But know the rules well, before you break them (for a clear purpose). Technique shouldn't be a tyrant.

Art, to be commanded must be obeyed.

;-]

Every artist reserves the right to poetic license... as long as it's intentional.

Greg

[Newberry]

I think bad perspective could be good art if it's deliberate for the effect created. The artist, of course, would have to know perspective.

--Brant

but I don't really know what I'm talking about

Youre on a run. Picasso is a good extreme example. Michelangelo also morphed perspective and body forms.

[Newberry]

Tony writes:

You are right, I think. But know the rules well, before you break them (for a clear purpose). Technique shouldn't be a tyrant.

Art, to be commanded must be obeyed.

;-]

Every artist reserves the right to poetic license... as long as it's intentional.

Greg

I couldn't agree more on both quotes.

[Jonathan]

Hahahahaha! Somehow I missed this nugget earlier:

To show the contrast, the male nude, 'Artemis' shows a more fore-shortened perspective, as if viewed from a distance -- while the female nude, 'Counterpoise', has a much greater receding perspective, more 'depth', with its emphasis on her head, chest and hand, to her relatively small extremities.

Um, Tony, heh, Artemis is not supposed to be a male. Hahahaha! So, in claiming that the woman that Newberry painted is a man, are you admitting to your own aesthetic incompetence as a viewer, or to Neberry's as a creator?

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan writes:

What do you get when you cross an ape with a parrot?

That ugly attitude will always be an obstacle to success in your life. You're free to disagree with my view that art serves the higher noble purpose of morality. It explains why yours doesn't... because you don't.

Greg

Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker! Polly want a cracker!

J

[Jonathan]

Tony writes: You are right, I think. But know the rules well, before you break them (for a clear purpose). Technique shouldn't be a tyrant.Art, to be commanded must be obeyed.;-]

Every artist reserves the right to poetic license... as long as it's intentional. :wink:Greg

In order to know that an artist's distortions were intentional, we'd have to see several examples of his work in which he intended to accurately represent reality and succeeded. After all, any mediocre artist can falsely claim that he has mastered anatomy, proportion and perspective and that his carelessly sloppy errors were intentional for the purpose of expression. Btw, what does an awkward, disproportionate human form express?

It is very interesting that the excuse-makers are coming out of the woodwork. Where were they when others' art was being judged? Why weren't the same excuses and generosity offered up then? Heh.

J

[PDS]

Tony writes: You are right, I think. But know the rules well, before you break them (for a clear purpose). Technique shouldn't be a tyrant.Art, to be commanded must be obeyed.;-]

Every artist reserves the right to poetic license... as long as it's intentional. :wink:Greg

In order to know that an artist's distortions were intentional, we'd have to see several examples of his work in which he intended to accurately represent reality and succeeded. After all, any mediocre artist can falsely claim that he has mastered anatomy, proportion and perspective and that his carelessly sloppy errors were intentional for the purpose of expression. Btw, what does an awkward, disproportionate human form express?

It is very interesting that the excuse-makers are coming out of the woodwork. Where were they when others' art was being judged? Why weren't the same excuses and generosity offered up then? Heh.

J

It is rather amusing to see the "leeway" given to Newberry on this thread, as, say, compared to our painter friends upthread.

[william.scherk]

The human body has to be the hardest to paint perspectively 'correct' - straight lines and planes easy by comparison. [...]

After all that, it's not draughtsman-like reproductions of reality that matters most. The artist might even defy the rules, change whatever he wants in the scene, for his particular purpose - to place importance on one aspect.

Tony, I think your understanding of perspective is spot on.

The concept of visually making things bigger as they come forward and smaller as they go back, works well, and allows the artist a lot of freedom to create. Trying to be absolutely perfect can easily backfire if one is off by a millimeter.

It's really not that difficult to avoid being off my a millimeter. It's simply an issue of self-discipline and practice. It's merely a matter of volitionally choosing not to be lazy and cognitively vague, foggy and careless.

Realistic recumbent nudes are hard to master. Perfection is achievable, I think, but the task requires a sense of form akin to 'perfect pitch' -- a 'good eye' -- and the skill to effect the work of rendering. Sometimes the rendering suggests the artist had such a sense of proportion and volume that he did not need to labour over details, his hand-eye coordination tightly coupled enough to guide each stroke and mark unerringly.

To cleanse the palate, here are some nudes recumbent that I find to have closed in on perfect rendering. Some folks here might find these exceptionally well-done in terms of form, living anatomy, and space -- and yet at the same time those same folks might find them unsatisfying as artistic creations. They might be felt 'cold,' stiff, fussy, 'academic,' lacking spark that pleases the sensibility of the viewer. Spoilered to protect OL's resident moralizing troll from shock and restraining orders and child sexual abuse.

-- side note to Tony G: you wrote of male and female forms, giving example of Michael Newberry's "Artemis" as a male figure (comparing the perspective to that of the female figure of "Counterpose"). Artemis is actually drawn from female models. There is an article on the making of Artemis by Newberry here, lavishly illustrated, and here is a time-lapse video of its making, too:

From a great, revealing interview with Michael Newberry, on the subject of mistakes and criticism:

When I make mistakes, I’m like, “Damn, I made a mistake! Oh, good! I don’t have to go down that path again. Now that is behind me.” It just moves aside, and I concentrate on where I want to go.

Kaizen: The art world is highly competitive, like any other area of human endeavor, and critics and other artists can be harsh with each other. How do you deal with criticism of your art?

Newberry: It’s really hard, but I don’t come across much criticism of my art. [...] So I don’t get nasty comments or really critical comments. I think people acknowledge that, while they may not like my work, they don’t want to step on someone who is terribly sincere and authentic. It just doesn’t lend itself to being criticized.

I kind of like this insouciant approach. Criticism directed pointedly at a piece of work comes up against self-awareness, self-assessment, formidable firmness of intent and unfettered self-esteem. I don't think Michael can or ought to respond to the particular anatomical critiques of the nude in "Counterpose." It would involve him in discussion that does not comport with his purpose in art-making.

Now, Jonathan may be right that Michael's harsh notes on other artists are undermined by his non-response to technical criticism of his own work. But there is no pay-off for Michael in response to critical notes on Hip Dysplasia. It wouldn't be appropriate for him to respond to the critiques any more than it would be appropriate for me to respond to the zany Transsexual Evil Eye Sauna Drug Dream interpretation given to that blue canvas above.

In each case the artwork found a home with those who love and cherish it and find continuing value in it. Nothing written here will alter those relationships.

Edited March 23, 2015 by william.scherk

[anthony]

William,

Thanks for the nude studies. They are really good, with one, #5, of the back of a reclining male, outstanding, imo.

And thanks for the heads up about my mistake, delivered without "See? Gotcha!"

No one person knows it all or seen it all, or is the final word of authority in art.

In fact, there's no reason one has to 'know' anything at all but what a picture evinces in him. All the rest is filler.

[Brant Gaede]

Here's a headline for moralist:

Australian Art Museum Offers First-Ever Nude Tours

wine will be served

all booked up

--Brant

(big, bad Brant)

[Jonathan]

No one person knows it all or seen it all, or is the final word of authority in art.

Not even the giants among giants, like Newberry or Pigero? Or his Royal Published Majesty, Roger Bissell, who is absolutely objectively certain that his interpretation of any work of art is the one true, objectively correct interpretation? Not even the co-centers of the art universe and the self-appointed representatives/embodiments of the cognitive and aesthetic limits of all mankind, Kamhi and Torres?!! Not even <gasp!> the greatest and most rational and perfectly-objective-in-every-way, Ayn Rand?!!!!

J

[Jonathan]

Tony writes: You are right, I think. But know the rules well, before you break them (for a clear purpose). Technique shouldn't be a tyrant.Art, to be commanded must be obeyed.;-]

Every artist reserves the right to poetic license... as long as it's intentional. :wink:Greg

In order to know that an artist's distortions were intentional, we'd have to see several examples of his work in which he intended to accurately represent reality and succeeded. After all, any mediocre artist can falsely claim that he has mastered anatomy, proportion and perspective and that his carelessly sloppy errors were intentional for the purpose of expression. Btw, what does an awkward, disproportionate human form express?

It is very interesting that the excuse-makers are coming out of the woodwork. Where were they when others' art was being judged? Why weren't the same excuses and generosity offered up then? Heh.

J

It is rather amusing to see the "leeway" given to Newberry on this thread, as, say, compared to our painter friends upthread.

Yes, the leeway given to Newbsie is one of the more entertaining examples of the double standards and subjectivity that Objectivish-types practice in judging art. This entire thread has been a gold mine of Objectivish-types illustrating their inability to practice the methods that they preach and parrot. And yet most of them still pigheadedly refuse to accept reality.

J

[Newberry]

To cleanse the palate, here are some nudes recumbent that I find to have closed in on perfect rendering. Some folks here might find these exceptionally well-done in terms of form, living anatomy, and space -- and yet at the same time those same folks might find them unsatisfying as artistic creations.

Very perceptive comments.

[Brant Gaede]

They strike me as graduate-type study work more than anything and exceptionally well done, not as final renderings of art.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If we consider the esthetics of various American automobiles from the 1920s through the present such are entirely in the eyes of the beholders. No one reads anything to find out what they like best. If they like automobiles they have personal and quite subjective preferences. I especially like a red 1965 GTO hardtop with black interior. I've never had an idea of objectifying this so someone else might agree with me and maybe even come to covet the same car. Maybe we only need estheticans the way we need movie reviewers to sort out innumerable choices, for the rest of us have different lives to live than go see 400 movies a year.

--Brant

[anthony]

No one person knows it all or seen it all, or is the final word of authority in art.

Not even <gasp!> the greatest and most rational and perfectly-objective-in-every-way, Ayn Rand?!!!!

J

It's rather late in the day to suggest to you yet again, that the conceptual chain from basic technical proficiencies in the construction of art, such as, oh - 'perspective' - to the function of the consciousness that creates art or grasps it - and why art is important to man - i.e. the philosophy of art ... is a very long way.

I find your sole emphasis on technicality, quite boring and most concrete bound.

So this gets bogged down on the nuts and bolts which is where some prefer it to be and are most comfortable.

[Brant Gaede]

No one person knows it all or seen it all, or is the final word of authority in art.

Not even <gasp!> the greatest and most rational and perfectly-objective-in-every-way, Ayn Rand?!!!!

J

It's rather late in the day to suggest to you yet again, that the conceptual chain from basic technical proficiencies in the construction of art, such as, oh - 'perspective' - to the function of the consciousness that creates art or grasps it - and why art is important to man - i.e. the philosophy of art ... is a very long way.

I find your sole emphasis on technicality, quite boring and most concrete bound.

So this gets bogged down on the nuts and bolts which is where some prefer it to be and are most comfortable.

You seem purblind to the fact Jonathan is not willing to talk about "the philosophy of art" because it's not his philosophy of art and his antagonistic relations here are with those not willing to even defend and discuss their own philosophy, only chuck it up as an objective given like rocks spewed out of the Ayn Rand volcano.

--Brant

a major blast of minor significance unless you are close by