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

[Selene]

I liken it to "capitalism" in a "mixed economy". The boundaries and identities have become so blurred along with the definitions, that many can hardly tell which is which any more, or choose to.

Excellent point Tony.

It is getting close to where forty per cent of the folks who are productive "choose to" detach and not even care about the differences because there is a malady of "there is no difference between the two" measurably creating apathy amongst the folks who pay the freight.

Also, it is more than apathy, it is an unconscious fear that they will be next to be singled out for action by the state/bureaucracy/agency.

At a very primitive level, a person knows that if he has to rely on a bureaucracy, or, master for survival, it can be withheld at a whim.

Now that has accelerated to drugs and medical treatment.

Would you not do your job for the state if your child needed monthly renewable medications to stay healthy?

Different chains for different necks.

A...

There is a "generational hole" particularly in the male population between 35 and and 50 who have given up.

One of the underestimated aspects of Atlas is the amount of folks who just gave up and just went through the motions at work with just a concern of not getting the blame for whatever happens.

[anthony]

Overlap, they can do: since an artist is also a craftsman - but the reverse? And is there exact equivalence?

Objectively it's not true - but this topic is finally back on point (for a while).

"Who says that's art?"

I liken it to "capitalism" in a "mixed economy". The boundaries and identities have become so blurred along with the definitions, that many can hardly tell which is which any more, or choose to.

You seem to have a way of nuancing yourself into and out of difficult positions which you don't really manage to defend or object to.

--Brant

or maybe it's just the way you use the high-stepping language

Okay, I strongly object!

Since I'd made arguments to separate art and craft a few times in this thread, I thought I'd try a softer approach.

[Brant Gaede]

I think you're using the "arts and crafts" context. That's a very delimited slice of craftsmanship. However, arts and crafts are not two different things. I think it means arty crafts for by itself there is no "arts," only art although arts can be used semantically to mean "the arts." But those arts are plural while arts and crafts is singular per se while the plural is "many arts and crafts."

--Brant

I don't know if the above is bullshit supreme or supreme bullshit (notice how I complement myself either way (by excluding a middle?)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Craftsmanship: Low____________Not so low______________Not so high______________High (degree of)

All artists are craftsmen: they craft and to craft is to create.

You can create a painting high in subject matter and the juxtaposition of same and demonstrate mediocre craftsmanship or even worse.

You are confusing craftsmen with tradesmen. In any case, quality of craftsmanship has nothing to do with whether you are an artist or not. A good or bad artist, sure.

If I try to fix my plumbing and I make a mess that's not me a plumber--that can be objectified--but me a mess maker (or an idiot). If I go get some tools and paint and start slapping it on a canvas then I'm an artist (or an idiot). Whether I'm an artist or not is between me and what I'm doing. (No idiot knows he's an idiot [are there any women idiots or is that just a man thing? (In any case I've never met a woman idiot)] much less call himself one except in pain or in fun). It's just an opinion; doesn't matter whose, for who is an artist and what is art can't be objectified enough for there is more in heaven and hell than is dreamt of in your "art", Michael.

--Brant

both whom you read and you went off the tracks on this one--fortunately, no one was killed or injured (news at 11)

Brant,

I can't make any sense out of this.

I start to, then I don't.

Then I start to again.

Then I don't.

Michael

[moralist]

Michael writes: ...why would anyone want to paint humans as pathetic and subhuman?

The obvious answer is pathetic subhuman painters would, in order to promote their depravity.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:

At a very primitive level, a person knows that if he has to rely on a bureaucracy, or, master for survival, it can be withheld at a whim.

You have just hit upon a great truth, Brant.

Everyone is controlled by their own NEED for the huge bureaucracies that make others pay their bills:

Government

Education

Insurance

Healthcare

Simply tally up all the money you pay for those thoroughly immoral corrupted leftist collectivist economic sectors... and you will have accurately plumbed the depths of your own self imposed slavery.

...and it's your own God-damned fault.

Greg

[Newberry]

Michael writes: ...why would anyone want to paint humans as pathetic and subhuman?

The obvious answer is pathetic subhuman painters would, in order to promote their depravity.

Greg

That's it, but I still don't understand why they would not go to a therapist instead, challenge themselves to solve their problems, and keep the aim on having a vital life?

It's way out of my writing scope to communicate this well but I don't think the primary purpose of high fine art is self-expression or freedom, rather its nature is about feeding the human spirit with further and further insights into humankind's possibilities. In painting it would be understanding further nuances into seeing; and expressing nuanced and positive levels of emotions, that an audience may have not yet experienced. I wonder if postmodern's success is not due to that so many artists are not up for this epic challenge, and go the opposite way in doing everything they can to destroy the essence of art?

[Brant Gaede]

Craftsmanship: Low____________Not so low______________Not so high______________High (degree of)

All artists are craftsmen: they craft and to craft is to create.

You can create a painting high in subject matter and the juxtaposition of same and demonstrate mediocre craftsmanship or even worse.

You are confusing craftsmen with tradesmen. In any case, quality of craftsmanship has nothing to do with whether you are an artist or not. A good or bad artist, sure.

If I try to fix my plumbing and I make a mess that's not me a plumber--that can be objectified--but me a mess maker (or an idiot). If I go get some tools and paint and start slapping it on a canvas then I'm an artist (or an idiot). Whether I'm an artist or not is between me and what I'm doing. (No idiot knows he's an idiot [are there any women idiots or is that just a man thing? (In any case I've never met a woman idiot)] much less call himself one except in pain or in fun). It's just an opinion; doesn't matter whose, for who is an artist and what is art can't be objectified enough for there is more in heaven and hell than is dreamt of in your "art", Michael.

--Brant

both whom you read and you went off the tracks on this one--fortunately, no one was killed or injured (news at 11)

Brant,

I can't make any sense out of this.

I start to, then I don't.

Then I start to again.

Then I don't.

Michael

Don't give up!

--Brant

I'm rooting for you!

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-03-28

[william.scherk]

I put some on ignore because I can fairly safely assume they haven't contributed greatly to the discussions.

Exactly.

"The only things Michael Newberry wants to disrupt are the success and acclaim of artists he considers depraved or otherwise squalid in subject, theme, goal."

You are giving me too much credit. I have no power to disrupt what other artists do. Indeed I like that artists express themselves even I don't like what they express. I prefer that by 100 times compared to hacks or commission artists - I would prefer to have a Jenny Saville (which you should btw credit), than to a Maxfield Parrish or Norman Rockwell.

I have read some of your critique of Jenny Saville's painting. You say Saville is a postmodern artist who mangles two tools of art -- the subject and the means. Additionally, she chooses a subject matter that will "stretch your capacity for the unimaginable, usually by projecting a thoroughly disgusting state."

Branded, by J. Saville is an example of the technique in painting. It is a self-portrait in which the obese female artist thrusts out a fistful of her flesh towards us in an angry and defensive gesture. Incised scalpel-like wounds that spell out words "delicate" and "decorative" cover her rotten-colored flesh. Both these works intentionally take us into psychotic states.

If I understand correctly, her work took you into a psychotic state, but is otherwise preferable to Maxfield Parrish or Normal Rockwell. Despite the thoroughgoing disgust projected, you would choose her work before the other two. This is exciting! Perhaps one day we will read a comparative review of Rockwell V Saville. I can only imagine the contortions necessary to up-value 'psychotic' state over the crashing and awful ennui produced in you by, say, this:

This one doesn't look like a Saville to me, I know the bottom one is a Saville, and the one of the row of women I haven't seen before but I would guess it's a Saville. This one I think it is yours, it has a similar fragmented style as the transsexual painting, and this one is a theme of Medea. If it's yours, you have/had a lot of talent. I thought you were a rocker turned bureaucrat? But this is a work of a painter. I like the transparency and color nuance.

If it is yours, you have enough art knowledge to be respectful of my work. So what gives? It would make more sense to me for you to see what I have done right on my path, than wasting time on putdowns.

[Added:]

I was a little confused by the middle work you posted a few posts above, I only knew of a couple of Saville's works,

The picture that confused you is indeed by Jenny Saville, painted in 2012, titled "Study for Isis and Horus." I am flattered by your mistake. She is consolidating her Big Deal status as a contemporary artist, fetching up to two million dollars at auction. I don't fancy her much, but hey, you may change my mind. She has started to corner the Francis Bacon/Lucian Freud lovers and will one day perhaps be subject to crazed art world inflation as they have been.

As for this bit about the artwork -- "If it is yours, you have enough art knowledge to be respectful of my work" -- this sounds like shushing. If William has the sure eye and virtuoso technique evident in Saville's study, then he has art knowledge. If he has that much art knowledge, then he ought to be respectful of Michael's work. There is scant logic in that, no reason for kid gloves. If William is a virtuoso, then his eye should be trusted when he tells you that something is 'off' in a specimen.

It's like this: You get what you give, Michael. When you step out of your role as art-maker and mount the pulpit of art criticism, your own 'respect' sometimes falls away forgotten and your rhetoric begins to include invective or veiled psychological diagnostics.

-- "So what gives? It would make more sense to me for you to see what I have done right on my path, than wasting time on putdowns." You get what you give ... you give tutorials prescribing excellence and perfection, and you give frank opinions on other working artists' failures.

With the plaintive "what gives?" I think you are trying to convince me of something! I suspect you are wishing I not write anything you would perceive as a put-down. This is baffling except as a kind of lèse-majesté. It leaves no room for frank talk from me, while leaving the field to your opinions.

One way respect ...

What I respect about you is that you have made a living by your art alone. That is achievement. It marks you out from part-timers and amateurs. You are committed to your project, it isn't a second job or a hobby. I can only respect that drive and continual work ethic. Add to that a kind of 'service to the Objectivish 'cause' over the years, a fight for a better, more rational, more Randian art-world -- I can appreciate the service and yet still find wanting some of your actual chops in the double-realm of making/critiquing.

-- even if adopting Randian overgarments is partly calculated self-promotion, you didn't gird loins for Rand only for self-promotion. I think you truly believe you are an exemplary Randian figure, whether or not I or anyone find you above and beyond criticism.

If you are asking for a Senior Statesman discount or VIP pass to the no-criticism zone, that is not on.

Back to what maybe smarted -- technical criticism, mention of 'hip dysplasia' and other infelicities in your canvas "Counterpose," I found some of your remarks on this work:

There are a lot of voices in my head and I paint using them all: the general and the pansy; the heart and the mind; and the technician and the lover. Alone and separate they don't create satisfying art - I need them all to step in and contribute. It is only when they align and I hear a chorus of "YES" in my head that I am on the right track. The feeling of that moment is exhilarating and that is the theme of the painting! The moral of the story is that sometimes it can be painful dealing with your inner voices, but if you dialog with them, you can turn a negative situation around towards something wonderful.

Now, I want to hear more about The General and The Pansy in your head. They must have some awful arguments. Perhaps The Technician could have another look at Counterpose and tell The Lover that it did not achieve all its goals.

I'll repost the notes on criticism from your interview:

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.

So, there is the Newberry Deal: don't step on me because I am terribly sincere and authentic. But I will step on fellow artists with great pleasure.

That's the hard kernel of disagreement with Jonathan -- you want immunity from the very thing you rain down upon others. The disagreement (and disagreeableness) stems from perception of a double standard.

I haven't given any opinion on Jenny Saville's psychosis-enabling canvas, nor on the other two items I posted. Here is one I find satisfying despite its surface sketchiness -- it appeals as a palimpsest, layered, veiled, suggestive. I think it thrills one of my Picasso circuits. I have no doubt others will find this a splodgey muck.

It's untitled, completed in 2014, from the Gagosian Gallery, and of staggering size in real life. See the full-screen video of the show it appeared in here: http://gagosian.vaesite.net/__data/94308a16d967a4f749e2106af581068e.mp4

Edited March 28, 2015 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

If it is yours, you have enough art knowledge to be respectful of my work. So what gives? It would make more sense to me for you to see what I have done right on my path, than wasting time on putdowns.

Bill,

See how it works? Approaching certain people in O-land with civility, sweetness, kid gloves, etc., doesn't get you anywhere. They see any disagreement with their appraisals of themselves and their talents as vicious attacks, no matter how gently you deliver the critique. In fact, pulling your punches and responding with civility and sweetness to their incivility and downright nastiness only feeds their ridiculously overinflated options of themselves.

In Newberry's mind, there are no, and can be no, valid criticisms of his work. He has self-graded it to be perfect, and therefore any criticism is necessarily false and therefore very disrespectful, no matter how politely you word it, and no matter how objective and potent your evidence. Objectively showing that any of Newberry's paintings are flawed in any way is nothing but a dishonest, disrespectful "putdown." The only honest and rational response to Supreme Master Newberry's work is praise. Anyone who has "enough art knowledge" would necessarily know that Newberry is only to be adored and worshiped.

The funny thing is that his pose actually works on certain people, especially people who don't have "enough art knowledge." It's very similar to people in the early 2000s who were dazzled by Pigero's self-appraisals and self-promotions.

J

[william.scherk]

This is disquieting.

Michael writes: ...why would anyone want to paint humans as pathetic and subhuman?

The obvious answer is pathetic subhuman painters would, in order to promote their depravity.

That's it, but I still don't understand why they would not go to a therapist instead, challenge themselves to solve their problems, and keep the aim on having a vital life?

In the context of the comments, your challenge is to defend the psychologically-tormented Saville's art -- its pathetic, depraved, subhuman essential worth -- against the Parrish/Rockwell Axis and its lesser artistic values to you personally.

I'd advise unhitching your wagon from Moralist in the mid-term, though. He doesn't hesitate to use a person's sexuality as a cudgel. He will turn on you the moment you show signs of being feminized or libertine or having any gay sensibility. I am sure he caught the subtext that Paul Cadmus was gay, but hasn't yet caught the subtext that Michael Newberry too may be gay, bless his Christian heart.

I advise this only because at some point he will reintroduce his gay causation theory and you will be forced to admit he is not a useful ally in discussion, despite your borrowing his comments to forward your argument on Saville's subhuman, pathetic, depraved person and art.

On the other hand, perhaps personally-abusive moralizing is a medium in which you seek to excel, and quoting Moralist approvingly is in line with that goal. In which case, I wish you a happy marriage of convenience. Explain to your partner how you choose Saville over Rockwell for the honeymoon suite's walls, and have fun.

[Newberry]

I have read some of your critique of Jenny Saville's painting. You say Saville is a postmodern artist who mangles two tools of art -- the subject and the means. Additionally, she chooses a subject matter that will "stretch your capacity for the unimaginable, usually by projecting a thoroughly disgusting state."

Branded, by J. Saville is an example of the technique in painting. It is a self-portrait in which the obese female artist thrusts out a fistful of her flesh towards us in an angry and defensive gesture. Incised scalpel-like wounds that spell out words "delicate" and "decorative" cover her rotten-colored flesh. Both these works intentionally take us into psychotic states.

What I respect about you is that you have made a living by your art alone. That is achievement. It marks you out from part-timers and amateurs. You are committed to your project, it isn't a second job or a hobby. I can only respect that drive and continual work ethic.

"I have read some of your critique of Jenny Saville's painting."

I wouldn't call it a critque of her painting, that would be an involved article. Rather I used a work of hers to illustrate a segment of the postmodern movement, in which they use painterly means and disturbing ends. I am sure she would like it, rather than see it as put down.

"You say Saville is a postmodern artist who mangles two tools of art..."

Perhaps you should check that again. - I didn't say she "mangles two tools of art." Because she is a wonderful painter.

Thanks for the respect about the achievement of my art calling.

"Back to what maybe smarted -- technical criticism, mention of 'hip dysplasia' and other infelicities in your canvas "Counterpose,""

Lol, it's simple - anyone can criticize any work of mine, but addressing it to me is waste of time. About 3 times in the last 30 years I have asked artist friends I highly regard what they thought, of a problem I was dealing with. I think professional painters should not accept criticism on principle. It's their unique vision not another's. I think you miss the wisdom this approach, it is one of the factors that enabled me to stay on my path. Please don't insist, I like the research you do for your posts but if the price of admission is to accept criticism, then I will decline.

[william.scherk]

If it is yours, you have enough art knowledge to be respectful of my work. So what gives? It would make more sense to me for you to see what I have done right on my path, than wasting time on putdowns.

Bill,

See how it works? Approaching certain people in O-land with civility, sweetness, kid gloves, etc., doesn't get you anywhere. They see any disagreement with their appraisals of themselves and their talents as vicious attacks, no matter how gently you deliver the critique. In fact, pulling your punches and responding with civility and sweetness to their incivility and downright nastiness only feeds their ridiculously overinflated options of themselves.

Looking over many threads over many years, I think its just another instance of The Curse Of Newberry (in the sense he is cursed by 'post-modernism').

I've said I don't mind the insouciant "I do not care what critics say," or "I laugh at criticism." It's a sign of arrogance and a sign of genius, not always overlapping. I also don't mind a vulnerable "please stop criticizing me." What boggles my mind is a person doing the two things at the same time. I guess The Pansy outranks The General sometimes, but it doesn't make sense otherwise. If you don't care, don't utter plaintive cries that critics desist. It's bizarre.

As for civility, that's different from sweetness, and kidgloves are for dangerous and vulnerable items, not human beings of unshakable self-esteem. A Michael Newberry does not deserve special treatment over any other person active or departed at OL, unless and until he is granted a private subdomain. If MSK gives him control over his own Corner, then he could properly manage discourse, and exclude unhelpful or critical comments. He can continue to do so at his own internet palaces. He can't demand something not due in an open forum. If he doesn't want to face criticism then he can flounce off or use the blocking feature more widely.

I think I will, however, retire from Newberry-centric discussion if I can. I can salt the road every now and again with puzzling art and artists ... as I did with the Chinese auction results, with Liu Xiaodong, and Saville and so on. I can match Newberry's arrogance and put him on Ignore.

Before I do that, I should address this:

"You say Saville is a postmodern artist who mangles two tools of art..."

Perhaps you should check that again. - I didn't say she "mangles two tools of art." Because she is a wonderful painter.

This is a bizarre complaint. The full text of your remarks makes obvious the contortion -- emphases added:

The Encyclopedia Encarta describes the aims of Dadaists' (the first postmodern artists) works as "...designed to shock or bewilder, in order to provoke a reconsideration of accepted aesthetic values". But postmodern art goes much further than merely raising challenges to specific values; it is meant to disrupt your psychological and epistemological processes or, in other words, to shatter your sanity and throttle your mind. To accomplish this, postmodern artists mangle two tools of art, the subject and the means:

1. They choose a subject matter that will stretch your capacity for the unimaginable, usually by projecting a thoroughly disgusting state. Cultural Gothic by P. McCarthy is a good example of this in sculpture. It is a mechanized sculpture group in which a father encourages his adolescent son to "know" a goat. Branded, by J. Saville is an example of the technique in painting. It is a self-portrait in which the obese female artist thrusts out a fistful of her flesh towards us in an angry and defensive gesture. Incised scalpel-like wounds that spell out words "delicate" and "decorative" cover her rotten-colored flesh. Both these works intentionally take us into psychotic states.
2. Parenthetically, it could be implied that I take issue with these artists right to express themselves. This is not the case. My point here is that these works are esteemed by the postmodern establishment exclusively for their shocking content and not for their quality as painting or sculpture. Let them shock the viewer, but viewer be ware, you are not viewing art, you a being duped.

So, Jenny Saville's painting is not art, and her postmodernist not-art painting mangles the subject, but she is a wonderful painter. Yes, a subhuman, depraved person whose work invokes a psychotic state and who needs to go to therapy instead of the studio -- but a wonderful painter. Who is duping here? Who is duping who?

Let criticism rain down. Let there be healthy crops. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let stagnant pools be either fish-farmed or drained and developed. Let us not poison the well we each draw from, nor use psychology for target practice on our peers.

If you can give it, you can take it. If you can't take it, you don't belong on a discussion forum.

Edited March 29, 2015 by william.scherk

[moralist]

Michael writes:

That's it, but I still don't understand why they would not go to a therapist instead, challenge themselves to solve their problems, and keep the aim on having a vital life?

Yeah, that's what a normal person would do.

But when some people choose to worship the ugliness inside themselves, they will naturally express that ugliness outwardly into the world around them. Their only appeal is to others who have the same ugliness within them.

This is the beauty of moral law:

When someone calls ugly crap "art", the only people capable of believing their lie are those who have the same ugliness in themselves. And those who don't, simply see the ugly crap for what it is in the light of reality.

By moral law, the ugly crap peddler and the ugly crap worshipper each deserve the other.

And like all moral truths this one is also double edged, in that people who love beauty express it and appreciate it when they see it in the world, as well as in others and themselves. This is because beauty uplifts and inspires the people who love it, to do better and to become better people.

The ugly worshippers and the beauty lovers are very much like two distinctly different races of people, as different as night and day. And there is a moral abyss separating one race from the other...

...thank God.

Greg

[Mikee]

I think Michael Newberry makes perfect sense. A person could choose to express ugliness in their art, make images that are disgusting to another persons sensibilities, or not depending on shared experiences. Regardless of what you think of what they are expressing you could acknowledge their talent at expressing it. Also, art is not falsifiable, like science, math, logic. What is the point of accepting criticism? Would you even still be able to consider yourself an artist if you "accepted" criticism and changed your creations? What is the point of criticism anyway? It either resonates or it doesn't, you buy it or leave it alone. Either way it is a personal experience of the creator and the buyer. It's a matter of indifference to everyone else.

[Selene]

Either way it is a personal experience of the creator and the buyer. It's a matter of indifference to everyone else.

Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.

Dale Carnegie

[Brant Gaede]

Lol, it's simple - anyone can criticize any work of mine, but addressing it to me is waste of time. About 3 times in the last 30 years I have asked artist friends I highly regard what they thought, of a problem I was dealing with. I think professional painters should not accept criticism on principle. It's their unique vision not another's. I think you miss the wisdom this approach, it is one of the factors that enabled me to stay on my path. Please don't insist, I like the research you do for your posts but if the price of admission is to accept criticism, then I will decline.

Now I know why you don't argue with Jonathan. You are everything he says you are.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

There are two sides to that.

If you look out into the millionaire world, there are some very rich folks who are huge fans of Ayn Rand (who are not part of any Objectivist movement): Mark Cuban, Joe Polish and the circle of marketers and business-people who surround Richard Branson, and those bleed off into the Singularity University crowd, and so on. This is not a small bunch of people. There are lots of them out there.

What they get from Rand is the self-help part--staying true to a transformative vision above all else. Elevating oneself through focused effort and hard work. I know this for a fact because I read and listen to many of them.

There is another approach to Rand where the people want to save the world in the name of... er... reason or whatever. They mostly look at the defects of those around them, point the finger, condemn, preach and so on. You will find this in O-Land movement groups a lot. (I'm not saying you did this just now. I'm merely pointing to a general tendency.)

Which side shall one favor? That is the question.

I'm not going to defend the statement by Michael you quoted or criticize it. He's a big boy and seems to be holding his own quite well.

However, I think it is instructive to look at it and ask what one believes: if he is coming from an angle of shallow vanity or, instead, the self-help message he got from Rand early on (if she is where he he got it--regardless, the commitment to vision I'm talking about is the same no matter where it comes from).

I personally lean toward the self-help side (commitment to vision). I know that's the part I resonated the most with Rand in myself years ago, I still do, and I surround myself with materials from those better off than me who are the same. So I tend to see this in others by default, especially if they are consistent producers.

As to the charge that O-Land people harshly criticize others, but do not accept criticism well if at all (especially regarding art), this O-Land habit has direct roots in Rand's own demeanor. She lived it. She portrayed it in her fictional heroes.

Let me be blunt and say primates learn mainly by imitation.

I don't complain about it, though, because I used to produce pop singers in Brazil. I had to learn to deal with this or simply leave the profession. Believe me when I say O-Land people (even boneheads like Perigo) are pikers by comparison. Talk about narcissistic thin-skinned vanity on steroids! Then throw a crapload of sex, drugs, money and violence on top and you start to get an image of what I lived.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the kind (re this double-standard) tends to be the same in O-Land (minus perks like sex and drugs ), but the degree is a lot less. And there is a transformative vision in the mix.

Because of that and other experiences and thinking over a few decades, my own preference has developed to be the following. I prefer a consistent producer to have and maintain a mental filter that keeps the fire in him blazing so he keeps on producing even if that filter bothers others, than have him try to be communicative and reasonable to others to the point he loses the fire and starts cranking out crap, that is, when he can latch on to a sliver of gumption to crank out anything.

Does it have to be either-or? Damned if I know. I do know I have seen both up close, so I know it is either-or with some people. I've seen other cases, too, but I've seen a lot of those two poles, including the decadence of a few really good producers because they changed their mental filters to suit others.

I used to say you have to love artists to put up with them.

I happen to love artists.

(And, btw, rich entrepreneurs who love Rand. )

Michael

PS - Further btw - Happy birthday.

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, Michael's philosophy and philosophical approach to his art, and likely logically too to his life, seems quite consistent through the years as explicated upon by him on this thread. I think it's admirable for that but still wrong, but for me a triviality except he does more than make art which anyone can take or leave, appreciate or not. I'm sorry for his young students for there can't be any such thing as a young, fully developed out of the box ready to go Howard Roark. Similarly, I'm sorry for young readers of Rand's last two novels who wonder how do I get there from here?--not understanding there is no there to get to for her heroes are incomplete. They never had any "here"--that was something the author never addressed.

For me Michael is intellectual stone. This is probably common to most artists, at least as painters, but it doesn't seem to matter to most of them; they just keep working where their brains work. You can say the same about Randian heroes. Their brilliance is only the author's. She nowhere indicated how they could be brilliant, she just said they were. The only major exception was Rearden having a creative epiphany with his bridge design. Yes, Roark made a few mistakes in his work. In his life, by the author's metrics, his big mistake was helping Peter Keating, setting Peter up for his fall from personal and professional grace out of a height he could not recover from with his pitiful attempts at painting. If Jonathan's complaints are true about Michael and Michael tried a new approach to his work Michael would also fall from too great a height. This will never happen for he has exceedingly well armored himself from destructive introspection--or he's basically right anyway and Jonathan's wrong so there's no danger of any fall down. Michael, Greg and Howard Roark, if not et al., have no self doubts, at least none shared. In that way, In that sense, they are like Michelangelo's "David"--the greatest rendering of a human being in stone ever--but without that worried brow and without that they all fall down. Ayn Rand herself fell down the most that way, refusing to believe or acknowledge lack of personal perfection so she sacrificed a lot of her natural humanity to her work which reflected the same mistake.

So, Jonathan can complain all he wants about Roarkian professional approach to work not being Newberry's, true, but they well match up beneath that small albeit quite choice slice. Jonathan's complaints logically wash over the entirety of the Randian corpus. You cannot be anything but a second-hander if you incorporate her esthetic, philosophical and other notions, some called "Objectivism," and give up your own authentic self. She implicitly and powerfully demands you swallow it all whole. Galt's Speech is a huge infusion of righteousness poured right down the reader's throat. The telling irony of the life and work of Ayn Rand is how much of Czarist and communist Russia infected each. It seems inevitable considering she fought it so much existentially, that there must have been a lot inside she couldn't completely transcend. She only created one authentically American hero, Hank Rearden. Atlas Shrugged is not full of Americans; it's full of Russian-Americans, the baddies being the most Russian of all and the rest incomplete to a fault with Galt next to nothing he's so abstract.

--Brant

[anthony]

You have to ask yourself Why?

There's nothing very wrong with straight, 'mirror to life' Naturalism. I think it can be very good and at least honest sometimes, warts and all..

This artist 'could' have depicted plain, big women in a sympathetic light - aiming to show their inner strength and courage, perhaps.

Perceptive post. I think you're right that is possible to show great human characteristics in average looking people. But it does beg the question you asked above, why would anyone want to paint humans as pathetic and subhuman?

Because of her view of existence, mankind, a woman - and herself...? i.e., as the victim for life, one who has no volition in the matter. Not enough for Saville to show that physical 'inequality' exists (which nobody has to be told) she's created a pathetic martyr to 'inequality', for any person merely being born anything other than beautiful.

In supposedly revealing the superficiality of society, she paradoxically extols superficiality by her portrayal, in which the physical counts more than depth of character, and other people's glib opinions of oneself (the incised 'branding') count most of all.

The viewer in his turn is expected to react with guilt or shame for ever preferring beauty over ugliness. (In ideas, as much as in women's looks). So much for art with "a social conscience".

[anthony]

I think Michael Newberry makes perfect sense. A person could choose to express ugliness in their art, make images that are disgusting to another persons sensibilities, or not depending on shared experiences. Regardless of what you think of what they are expressing you could acknowledge their talent at expressing it. Also, art is not falsifiable, like science, math, logic. What is the point of accepting criticism? Would you even still be able to consider yourself an artist if you "accepted" criticism and changed your creations? What is the point of criticism anyway? It either resonates or it doesn't, you buy it or leave it alone. Either way it is a personal experience of the creator and the buyer. It's a matter of indifference to everyone else.

Certainly I haven't seen anyone psychologized as much as Michael has been. I don't understand why.

He makes sense.

There is a sub-text running through this argument.

Underneath: Who says that's art? - there is also: Who are ~you~ to judge?

So--it is acceptable for one to 'judge reality', but art is too sacrosanct to judge, by just anybody?

Art isn't 'real'??

Nuh-uh.

If anything, unlike the chaos and confusion of life, an artist encapsulates, essentializes and simplifies existence (based on his judgment of life).

Artworks pass judgment and invite judgment, that's the nature of art. Where better for a viewer to 'practise' identifying and thinking?

[Jonathan]

Lol, it's simple - anyone can criticize any work of mine, but addressing it to me is waste of time. About 3 times in the last 30 years I have asked artist friends I highly regard what they thought, of a problem I was dealing with. I think professional painters should not accept criticism on principle. It's their unique vision not another's. I think you miss the wisdom this approach, it is one of the factors that enabled me to stay on my path. Please don't insist, I like the research you do for your posts but if the price of admission is to accept criticism, then I will decline.

Now I know why you don't argue with Jonathan. You are everything he says you are.

--Brant

Yeah. Has anyone suggested on this thread that Newberry should change his "unique vision"? No, they have not. What have they suggested instead? They've suggested, and objectively demonstrated, that Newberry's paintings have some technical shortcomings. That has nothing to do with his unique vision. In fact, it is a suggestion that his unique vision would be better served and more powerfully expressed if he were to gain more knowledge and control, and eliminate those technical shortcomings.

The only thing that has been said here about Newberry's vision is that it often seems to be subservient to Rand's. I, for one, would love to see a purely Newberrian unique vision, rather than one that is co-authored by Newberry and the ghost of Ayn Rand.

J

[Jonathan]

Looking over many threads over many years, I think its just another instance of The Curse Of Newberry (in the sense he is cursed by 'post-modernism').

Yes, that's his love for and his addiction to experiencing Kantian Sublimity. Newberry needs a scary, powerfully destructive, imaginary enemy which allows him to feel the thrill of his will to resist. The funny part of it is that he always forgets that the postmodernists' methods that he hates and complains about are the same ones that Rand used.

I've said I don't mind the insouciant "I do not care what critics say," or "I laugh at criticism." It's a sign of arrogance and a sign of genius, not always overlapping. I also don't mind a vulnerable "please stop criticizing me." What boggles my mind is a person doing the two things at the same time. I guess The Pansy outranks The General sometimes, but it doesn't make sense otherwise. If you don't care, don't utter plaintive cries that critics desist. It's bizarre.

The pretend "I don't care what critics say" attitude is just weak Objectivish-types second-handedly play-acting the heroic role exactly as Rand told them to play it. They're pretending to be Howard Roark saying to Ellsworth Toohey: "But I don't think of you." And then a few moments later -- after their opponents haven't followed the script and therefore haven't been devastated into silence, but instead deliver potent, objective, rational arguments that the Randian role-players can't answer -- they can't stay in character, and their real weakling selves take over to whine that they don't get the respect that they deserve. Bizarre indeed, and very fragile and insecure.

Newberry says that he won't allow anyone to tamper with his "unique vision," which would be a wonderful position to take if anyone were trying to tamper with it. What's more bizarre, however, is his extending the same attitude to doing history of philosophy: he won't listen to any criticisms and corrections of his willfully hostile misinterpretations and wrongheaded judgments of Kant's notion of the Sublime. He won't let reality interfere with his position. It's as if he believes that, as with his art, he is supposed to have a personal "unique vision" of history and philosophy, rather than an accurate one, and that anyone's attempts to get him to understand historical reality are just disrespectful attempts to change his unique artistic vision. Not just bizarre, but totally fucking bizarre!

I think I will, however, retire from Newberry-centric discussion if I can. I can salt the road every now and again with puzzling art and artists ... as I did with the Chinese auction results, with Liu Xiaodong, and Saville and so on. I can match Newberry's arrogance and put him on Ignore.

It's not really arrogance but weakness.

Btw, Bill, I loved your quoting from the Kaizen interview. Funny stuff. I love observing the good ol' boys Objectivish network, and especially Newberry's having intellectually poisoned Hicks with his hateful, prejudiced distortions of Kant. I once tried to give Hicks a heads up on how Newberry had led him down a very wrong path, but he wouldn't listen. Plugged his ears. He didn't like my attitude, and said that he had been told by friends that I was a big meanie who wasn't worth listening to. Heh. He's willing to stake his reputation as a professional philosopher on trusting Newberry's scholarly pose. I think his doing so is going to yield a great bounty of future entertainment value.

J

[Newberry]

Michael writes:

That's it, but I still don't understand why they would not go to a therapist instead, challenge themselves to solve their problems, and keep the aim on having a vital life?

Yeah, that's what a normal person would do.

You'd think that would be obvious. Still curious as to why someone would share their ugliness, much less bathe in it.

But when some people choose to worship the ugliness inside themselves, they will naturally express that ugliness outwardly into the world around them...And those who don't, simply see the ugly crap for what it is in the light of reality.

And like all moral truths this one is also double edged, in that people who love beauty express it and appreciate it when they see it in the world, as well as in others and themselves. This is because beauty uplifts and inspires the people who love it, to do better and to become better people.

The ugly worshippers and the beauty lovers are very much like two distinctly different races of people, as different as night and day. And there is a moral abyss separating one race from the other...

Exactly. When I was younger I thought just of shinning a light on things would open new horizons, and it didn't matter to me if people were dim. Now it's "good people on the bus, bad people off."

[anthony]

"Kantian Sublimity"?

The same Kant who said:

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny *knowledge* in order to make room for *faith*"?!

It makes sense, for if Kantian Sublimity is faith-based (the "noumenal") who'd respond to it but art mystics?

Encyc Britt summarizes:

"Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man's speculative reason can only know phenomena, and can never penetrate to the noumenon. Man however, is not altogether excluded from the noumenal, because practical reason --i.e., the capacity for acting as a moral agent--makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated, in which freedom, God, and immortality abide".

(And we are familiar with Kant on morality. If you really want to be honest, it's "praiseworthy", but lacks "moral import". If there's something 'in it for you selfishly', like others' acclaim, then your act of sacrifice for others can't be moral since it is not sufficiently self-sacrificial).