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

[Jonathan]

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.

I don't have a "sole emphasis." The only reason that we've been discussing technical things is they are the only aspects of art that are objectively measurable. I'm simply trying to find common ground with Objectivish-types who have the sole emphasis of believing in the "objectivity" of the very subjective field of aesthetics.

As for finding things boring, I find the highly subjective, if not downright irrational, aesthetic interpretations and judgments in O-land quite boring. I find the blatant double standards laughable (the sheer hostility shown for talented artists who are not associated with Objectivism, and the blind generosity extended to lesser-talented artists who are associated with Objectivism). I find incompetence posing as superiority hilarious. I find you, Tony, to be especially comical in not learning a thing from just having made a fool of yourself, once again, in misidentifying a painting of a woman as being a painting of a man, and then coming right back with the completely transparent and ineffective pose of snooty superiority. Do you actually forget your bumbling errors that quickly? Or do you think that others will forget them if you pretend that they never happened and pose as if you're brilliant?

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

Ah, yes, you're so superior! And your judgments and opinions are oh so lofty and intelligent, despite your not having the slightest clue about the very basic nuts and bolts! Someone of your stunning brilliance need not bother himself with the lowly task of backing up his judgments with silly, "concrete bound" reality! Why, your uninformed, inexperienced, unobservant, unaware, subjective opinions about art trump informed, experienced, observant, objective judgments!

What a clown.

J

[anthony]

"Purblind"? I doubt it.

I don't know much about Newberry, but I don't hear him ever mention Rand or Objectivism. I don't believe he has.

Why should he? He doesn't need to support her or oppose her, it's superfluous. He deals with reality (as does Objectivism).

However, I've seen he treats art for what it basically is, as ideas. J hasn't opened up in this way in hundreds of posts that I recall.

So J "is not willing to talk about the philosophy of art"? So who's forcing him? And why should it affect in the slightest what I, or anyone, wants to talk about? He (sarcastically) brought up Rand in the above post, not I.

Newberry, in the relatively small number of his posts, has freely offered insight to his thoughts and feelings for WHY he paints.

This alone is "philosophy of art" enough for me. People can look at a thousand pictures and not gain one iota of insight, of art with respect to one's own mind. They might see them as pretty pictures, and move on. Newberry lifts the curtain on what he does and why - and is happy to reveal his own thoughts and motives in painting. In a more convivial setting he'd open up more, I'd guess.

Rand too, if not read with negativity, smearing and rejection, lifts the curtain on art in a big way. As usual, when some reject her ideas, it usually means they have not been grasped - or understood all too well.

Simply, the reality of art is that it has a nature. So has consciousness. These basics define her art philosophy from which all the rest follows. Anything unfamiliar, "hateful" or controversial about that?

[william.scherk]

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

--Brant

There is one Michael Newberry among the nudes. The rest are by American artist Paul Cadmus. See this breezy little bio if you haven't heard of him.

Drawings like those shown generally fetch sizable dollars (though not millions) on the market, and many have been settled into American art museums. One exceptional painting at auction sold for over $450,000, with a couple others topping $300,000. His sketchier items seem to be have-able for upwards of five grand, and prints, books and other reproductions sell well for smaller numbers. He had a long career, dying at 95. His later works were not as disturbing as his career-makers. Portraying a straightforward homosexual sensibility no longer frightens the horses.

Here are a couple of works of Cadmus that are of a grander scale and ambition than those intimate nudes shown above. These will no doubt quicken the hearts of the moralists:

What I Believe. 1948

Bar Itallia. 1955

[anthony]

J: Just not interested, man.

I've heard it all before.

I don't even think it is my so-called superiority that irks you - it's the fact that I (or others) might know enough to not have to bow to your superiority. True, I don't paint, but for one thing, I have looked at and thought about perspective and perspective control since I picked up a camera, nearly 45 years ago.

That's all by the way. Nuts and bolts. This is a debate about art on a philosophy forum.

You want to consider the IDEAS and bring in some of your own, or don't you?

Foolish me! My error of identification - man-woman (Artemis! you idiot, Tony) and I must feel diminished. Nope, water off a duck's back to me. Do you realise how turning this into your little triumph makes you to appear? He made an error, ergo, he obviously knows nothing...really not objective, man.

Since Ellen gracefully retired, this debate has lost its form, anyway.

As I say, just not interested.

[Jonathan]

J: Just not interested, man.

I've heard it all before.

I don't even think it is my so-called superiority that irks you - it's the fact that I (or others) might know enough to not have to bow to your superiority.

Oh, you certainly don't bow to the reality of my superior knowledge and experience in the field, but instead presume to instruct me. Heh. It's a very common attitude among Rand's followers.

The actual issue here is that you don't bow down to reality. I'm simply the messenger.

True, I don't paint, but for one thing, I have looked at and thought about perspective and perspective control since I picked up a camera, nearly 45 years ago.

Thinking about perspective while looking through a camera isn't a valid substitute for actually learning and practicing the geometric principles of perspective. It's like saying that you don't need to learn anything about economics because you've thought a lot about numbers and counting while watching Sesame Street.

You don't even know enough about perspective, or any other aspect of visual art, to know how little you know about it.

That's all by the way. Nuts and bolts. This is a debate about art on a philosophy forum.

This isn't just any philosophy forum, but an Objectivist one, and Objectivism starts with the "nuts and bolts," and builds upward from there. It doesn't begin by declaring that reality isn't important because it's just "all by the way" and "nuts and bolts." It doesn't start with Tony's uninformed, subjective opinions and pretend that they're objective and valid and brilliant despite their clashing with the nuts and bolts of reality.

You want to consider the IDEAS and bring in some of your own, or don't you?

I've brought LOADS of ideas here, including many that you can't even get your mind around because you're so programmed by Rand's mistaken ideas. Go back and read this thread from the beginning and try to start answering all of the substantive questions that I've asked that no one, including you, has yet answered. Go back and take up all of the challenges that I've issued but which everyone has so far evaded.

Foolish me! My error of identification - man-woman (Artemis! you idiot, Tony) and I must feel diminished. Nope, water off a duck's back to me. Do you realise how turning this into your little triumph makes you to appear? He made an error, ergo, he obviously knows nothing...really not objective, man.

Crying and whining isn't going to change the fact that the ability to be visually aware and observant is very relevant to discussions and judgments of art. You've shown yourself several times now to be quite unaware and unobservant, yet here you still are trying to maintain your original pose as being the universal embodiment of aesthetic and cognitive capacity. You have to be dragged kicking and screaming just to begin to see something, and then, after you get a mere glimpse of a fraction of all that can be seen, you stop looking, and you blurt out that you're not impressed, and that you're not convinced that others can see what you can't.

After all of this, you still believe that you shouldn't in any way feel diminished to any degree. Nothing -- no public act of yours which reveals your own uninformed foolishness -- will convince you that your opinion of yourself might not match reality.

Since Ellen gracefully retired, this debate has lost its form, anyway.

Really? You thought that Ellen's tedious and irrelevant failed electron-chasing provided great form?

As I say, just not interested.

Please, then, pretty please, do stop talking to me if you're not going to contribute anything of substance! Good riddance!!

J

[Jonathan]

"Purblind"? I doubt it.

I don't know much about Newberry, but I don't hear him ever mention Rand or Objectivism. I don't believe he has.

I've known Newbsie online for about 14 years now. He used to mention Rand and Objectivism quite a lot, but at some point, I think that he wanted to appear to be a purely original thinker, so he stopped crediting her, and even started to say that he wasn't an Objectivist. I then asked him which aspects of Objectivism he disagrees with, and, of course, he didn't answer. He doesn't disagree. He toes the line. He just doesn't want to be called an Objectivist because it makes him look like the intellectual follower that he actually is.

Why should he? He doesn't need to support her or oppose her, it's superfluous. He deals with reality (as does Objectivism).

He actually does need to support and follow her. When it can be clearly, overwhelmingly shown that Rand was in conflict with reality, Newberry goes with Rand rather than with reality. Look at his embarrassing views on Kant and the Sublime. They are very anti-reality (as are Objectivism's views of Kant's aesthetics). Newberry went into his "investigation" of Kant with the goal and purpose of vindicating Rand's wrongheaded opinion, he therefore willfully misread Kant with great hostility, mistakenly believed that he found vindication for Rand in Kant's notion of the Sublime, and now he adamantly refuses to consider reality when it comes to Kant and the Sublime.

However, I've seen he treats art for what it basically is, as ideas. J hasn't opened up in this way in hundreds of posts that I recall.

So J "is not willing to talk about the philosophy of art"? So who's forcing him? And why should it affect in the slightest what I, or anyone, wants to talk about? He (sarcastically) brought up Rand in the above post, not I.

Practically all that I do here is talk about the philosophy of art.

Newberry, in the relatively small number of his posts, has freely offered insight to his thoughts and feelings for WHY he paints.

This thread isn't about why people paint.

This alone is "philosophy of art" enough for me. People can look at a thousand pictures and not gain one iota of insight, of art with respect to one's own mind. They might see them as pretty pictures, and move on. Newberry lifts the curtain on what he does and why - and is happy to reveal his own thoughts and motives in painting. In a more convivial setting he'd open up more, I'd guess.

Newberry also very angrily and unfairly condemns other artists, and stupidly smears them as having views and motives that they don't. It's really too bad that he's not content to stick with the very positive and inspiring approach that you mentioned. He's at his best when avoiding his pompous "mentor" attitude of looking down at all art that he didn't create, and of irrationally vilifying past philosophers whose ideas are actually the core of Rand's aesthetic style. Heh.

Rand too, if not read with negativity, smearing and rejection, lifts the curtain on art in a big way. As usual, when some reject her ideas, it usually means they have not been grasped - or understood all too well.

No, it usually means that her obvious mistakes and contradictions have been recognized and rejected. You know, like her idea that art must re-create reality and that it cannot serve a utilitarian function, but that architecture, which she says "does not re-create reality," and which she recognizes as being utilitarian, is nevertheless art. When people identify and reject her errors, it's not because the haven't grasped them.

Rand had some great insights about art, but she also got a lot wrong. You seem to want to talk about only the things that she got right, and you want to piss and moan when someone wants to correct what she got wrong. You're upset that people prefer reality over Rand.

Simply, the reality of art is that it has a nature. So has consciousness. These basics define her art philosophy from which all the rest follows. Anything unfamiliar, "hateful" or controversial about that?

All the rest does not actually follow. Which is why people can't answer the questions and challenges that I've issued here. The deal with doing actual philosophy, Tony, isn't just to believe, but to think, preferably very deeply and critically. The idea is to challenge beliefs and propositions, and to rigorously test them. That's what I've been doing here. It's what you and others have been avoiding doing because you're upset that I'm very effectively blowing some of your unwarranted beliefs out of the water, and you have no substantive answers. Yet you want to cling to the beliefs.

J

[william.scherk]

I don't know much about Newberry, but I don't hear him ever mention Rand or Objectivism. I don't believe he has.

Why should he? He doesn't need to support her or oppose her, it's superfluous. He deals with reality (as does Objectivism).

Tony, Michael Newberry has published in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies special esthetics symposium issue, Vol 2-2, "A discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy of art inspired by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi's book, What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand."

Michael Newberry argues that, contrary to Rand, Torres and Kamhi (authors of What Art Is) do not recognize the connections between major art forms and the metaphysical questions they seek to answer. Many of the authors' conclusions, including their re-definition of Rand's concept of art, are based on a negation of these connections. But such links are crucial to Rand's concept of metaphysical value judgments; Newberry provides examples in support of Rand's view

See the full text of Michael's article "On Metaphysical Value-Judgments" from JARS special issue here at the Newberry site, and see a video of Michael at the Atlas Society 2013 symposium on Romanticism Today. It's a great excursion:

In this video, artist Michael Newberry interacts with the Atlas Summit audience to find insights about older and contemporary romantic artworks. The session explores concepts of goal-directed action in means, emotion, sought-out states of being, and loss beyond our control. It teases out Objectivism’s stance on art that “can and ought to be.” Because of the personal nature of art the goal of the presentation is to engage concepts, like in a dance, rather than as a dictate.

He is in the rank of a Rand scholar, cited by Kamhi in her crabby reaction to the JARS issue some dozen times.

Michael was a strong presence in Rand-friendly sites like the old SOLO and Perigo's remnant Solo Passion (until he smote Perigo mightily in a classic, insulting post). I would say he is avowedly in the Rand orbit and a happy Objectivish warrior for better arts and culture.

[Jonathan]

I thought that this might be helpful to those who don't have much experience or much of an eye for judging renderings of the human form.

Here's an inverted comparison of Newberry's original (on the left) with a version in which the face's major structural and proportional errors have been corrected:

Do you understand now that, purely objectively speaking, Bill and my criticisms have merit? Can you see the errors for yourself now?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Corrected? Now better? Uncorrected it seems stronger.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Corrected? Now better? Uncorrected it seems stronger.

--Brant

Well, sometimes things such as misshapen faces and greasy skin can indeed have a stronger aesthetic effect than anatomically correct and oil-free faces. Sometimes ugly and deformed is "stronger" than beautiful and healthy.

Speaking of deformity in art, here are some quotes from Newberry from back in 2004:

"Deformity in art has unmistakable metaphysical and symbolic connotations, none of them good."

"Nothing will change the fact that a mangled body is not a standard for human ideal or for the heroic."

"Physicality in painting and sculpture convey much, much more than they do in reality—the form of the human body is the means to convey emotions and thoughts: a mangled body equals a sub-human soul."

J

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:In order to know that an artist's distortions were intentional...

No.

It's sufficient that they only appear to be intentional.

That's what it's all about... appearance.

Greg

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:

Polly want a cracker...

There it is... the attitude of a failure.

Greg

[Selene]

The "Sidewalk" chalk artists...create art by my judgment.

"3d street art are gaining much popularity these days. Notable brands are already taking advantage of public’s curiosity on 3D street paintings to create awareness for their products. You’ll see some later in the post. In today’s post, I’d like to show you some of the really stunning 3d Street art that I’ve came across and I think you’ll like them too. Full list after jump.

Hot river. Nearly the whole street were taken to create this earth cracking effect. Brilliant piece of art! (via Edgar Mueller)"

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/absolutely-stunning-3d-street-art-paintings/

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Corrected? Now better? Uncorrected it seems stronger.

--Brant

Well, sometimes things such as misshapen faces and greasy skin can indeed have a stronger aesthetic effect than anatomically correct and oil-free faces. Sometimes ugly and deformed is "stronger" than beautiful and healthy.

Speaking of deformity in art, here are some quotes from Newberry from back in 2004:

"Deformity in art has unmistakable metaphysical and symbolic connotations, none of them good."

"Nothing will change the fact that a mangled body is not a standard for human ideal or for the heroic."

"Physicality in painting and sculpture convey much, much more than they do in reality—the form of the human body is the means to convey emotions and thoughts: a mangled body equals a sub-human soul."

J

Well, maybe he needs to have been a photographer? But we are right now talking about two renderings of a painting, not his philosophical guff.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Jonathan writes:

Polly want a cracker...

There it is... the attitude of a failure.

Greg

Apey want a cracker! Apey want a cracker! Apey want a cracker! Apey want a cracker!

J

[Jonathan]

Corrected? Now better? Uncorrected it seems stronger.

--Brant

Well, sometimes things such as misshapen faces and greasy skin can indeed have a stronger aesthetic effect than anatomically correct and oil-free faces. Sometimes ugly and deformed is "stronger" than beautiful and healthy.

Speaking of deformity in art, here are some quotes from Newberry from back in 2004:

"Deformity in art has unmistakable metaphysical and symbolic connotations, none of them good."

"Nothing will change the fact that a mangled body is not a standard for human ideal or for the heroic."

"Physicality in painting and sculpture convey much, much more than they do in reality—the form of the human body is the means to convey emotions and thoughts: a mangled body equals a sub-human soul."

J

Well, maybe he needs to have been a photographer? But we are right now talking about two renderings of a painting, not his philosophical guff.

--Brant

I was suggesting that we should apply his "philosophical guff" to his own work. When he creates mangled forms, we should follow his rules of interpretation about the unmistakable metaphysical and symbolic connotations. When he creates images of hip dysplasia, contorted joints, and punched-in faces which have the fever sweats, why should they not be judged as "equalling a subhuman soul"? What kind of person would inflict such nightmarish images on the world?

I can't quite make myself bring the glee to negatively judging Newberry's work that he brings to judging others', but I'll work on it.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Everybody must be having fun here or who's not is an idiot.

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan writes:

Polly want a cracker...

There it is... the attitude of a failure.

Greg

Apey want a cracker! Apey want a cracker! Apey want a cracker! Apey want a cracker!

J

When I was a kid and this happened an adult intervened.

--Brant

it was hard to be a kid with adults around and about so we took off and were gone all day (Mom was so glad)--today Child Protective Services shows up (Mom goes to jail)!

[PDS]

I thought that this might be helpful to those who don't have much experience or much of an eye for judging renderings of the human form.

Here's an inverted comparison of Newberry's original (on the left) with a version in which the face's major structural and proportional errors have been corrected:

Do you understand now that, purely objectively speaking, Bill and my criticisms have merit? Can you see the errors for yourself now?

J

I will say this about Newbsie's original: that shnaz the lady is sporting is longer than train smoke. That, and somebody needs to turn on the air conditioning in that studio...

[PDS]

Corrected? Now better? Uncorrected it seems stronger.

--Brant

Well, sometimes things such as misshapen faces and greasy skin can indeed have a stronger aesthetic effect than anatomically correct and oil-free faces. Sometimes ugly and deformed is "stronger" than beautiful and healthy.

Speaking of deformity in art, here are some quotes from Newberry from back in 2004:

"Deformity in art has unmistakable metaphysical and symbolic connotations, none of them good."

"Nothing will change the fact that a mangled body is not a standard for human ideal or for the heroic."

"Physicality in painting and sculpture convey much, much more than they do in reality—the form of the human body is the means to convey emotions and thoughts: a mangled body equals a sub-human soul."

J

Well, maybe he needs to have been a photographer? But we are right now talking about two renderings of a painting, not his philosophical guff.

--Brant

I was suggesting that we should apply his "philosophical guff" to his own work. When he creates mangled forms, we should follow his rules of interpretation about the unmistakable metaphysical and symbolic connotations. When he creates images of hip dysplasia, contorted joints, and punched-in faces which have the fever sweats, why should they not be judged as "equalling a subhuman soul"? What kind of person would inflict such nightmarish images on the world?

I can't quite make myself bring the glee to negatively judging Newberry's work that he brings to judging others', but I'll work on it.

J

I have to agree. A wise philospher once did say: judge, and be prepared to be judged. I see no reason why this doesn't apply to Newbsie.

[moralist]

Brant writes:

Everybody must be having fun here or who's not is an idiot.

A valid assumption, Brant...

This thread is quite entertaining for having so little to do with real life.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:

When I was a kid and this happened an adult intervened.

I wouldn't be too concerned. The great moral equalizer is that each of us is getting exactly what we deserve in our own life as the result of our attitude.

Greg

[Newberry]

Newberry, in the relatively small number of his posts, has freely offered insight to his thoughts and feelings for WHY he paints.

This alone is "philosophy of art" enough for me. People can look at a thousand pictures and not gain one iota of insight, of art with respect to one's own mind. They might see them as pretty pictures, and move on. Newberry lifts the curtain on what he does and why - and is happy to reveal his own thoughts and motives in painting. In a more convivial setting he'd open up more, I'd guess.

Rand too, if not read with negativity, smearing and rejection, lifts the curtain on art in a big way. As usual, when some reject her ideas, it usually means they have not been grasped - or understood all too well.

Simply, the reality of art is that it has a nature. So has consciousness. These basics define her art philosophy from which all the rest follows. Anything unfamiliar, "hateful" or controversial about that?

Your comments above are gracious, and I think perceptive about Rand and how she "lifts the curtain" about the nature of art, especially to those that are open to understanding.

[Newberry]

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

--Brant

Your comment is/was similar to my opinion.

But I didn't know the artist Cadmus, after googling his work, I think his drawings are best - here are two of his paintings, and one drawing:

The golfing satire looks like it was a major investment of time, observation, and work. Personally, I would ask why this theme - if I was going to spend months on a project, would there be something more worthwhile to paint? To be clear, I would not ask him that question, the painting is already his answer.

Below is another satire, about the artificiality of love? What I like in the these works is that there is a story going on, and more information that I can get in one look. But definitely missing for me is the care and sensitivity that he has in his nude drawings. I would think the paintings themes don't inspire the artist to bring out is depth of care in capturing the subjects, but it could also be that he draws better than paints? I don't know the answer.

[Jonathan]

Here's an animated GIF alternating back and forth between original and corrected versions, which I think might be more effective than the earlier side-by-side comparison that I posted: