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

[anthony]

Kant's "Transcendental Idealism" described by Schopenhauer:

"A distinction between the phenomenon and the thing itself, and a recognition that only the phenomenon is accessible to us because we do not know either ourselves or things as they are in themselves, but merely as they appear."

----

"Your teachers, the mystics of both schools, have reversed causality in their consciousness, then strove to reverse it in existence.

They take their emotions as a cause, and their mind as a passive effect. They make their emotions their tool for perceiving reality.

...An honest man...says "It is, therefore I want it; they say, "I want it, therefore it is".

...

They want to cheat the axioms of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving, but of creating existence, and existence, to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness--they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness..."[Galt]

[Newberry]

Schopenhauer is also interesting.

-----

"As with his philosophy as a whole, Schopenhauer takes his point of departure from Kant, praising him for deepening the subjective turn in philosophical aesthetics and thereby putting it on the right path.

Like Kant, he held that the phenomenon of beauty would only be illuminated through a careful scrutiny of its effects on the subject, rather than searching out the properties of objects--such as smoothness and delicacy--which putatively give rise to the feeling of the beautiful."

----[stanford]

(A rose is beautiful he wrote, for imparting "a feeling of disinterested pleasure").

Follows is S.'s 'hierarchy' of Sublime and Beauty:

# Feeling of Beauty - Light is reflected off a flower. (Pleasure from a mere perception of an object that cannot hurt observer.)

# Weakest Feeling of Sublime - Light reflected off stones. (Pleasure from beholding objects that pose no threat, yet themselves are devoid of life).

# Weaker Feeling of Sublime - Endless desert with no movement. (Pleasure from seeing objects that could not sustain life of the observer).

# Sublime - Turbulent nature. (Pleasure from perceiving objects that threaten to hurt or destroy observer).

# Full Feeling of Sublime. (Overpowering, turbulent Nature. (Pleasure from beholding very violent, destructive objects).

# Fullest Feeling of Sublime. (Immensity of Universe's extent or duration. Pleasure from knowledge of observer's nothingness and Oneness with nature).

[WikiPhilosophy]

How can Schop too be hated? ya gotta love him, subjective and all ).

That is a good find.

There seems to be an elephant in the room regarding 19th Century view of the sublime - and I am not a psychologist, but I think there is a psychotic element to interpreting a great state of being as being a witness to destruction or the being witness to our tiny insignificant beings contrasted to the power and vastness of the Universe. Yet those attitudes seems to be status quo now and disconnects humans from the process of flourishing.

Great artists, such as I listed above, transcended their culture's limitations, prejudices, and ideological dimness but they didn't have much help from philosophy. Yet philosophy should be the leader in the overview of human potentialities. I wish they, the philosophers, would get on to updating the concepts of sublime to reflect a benevolent view of human potential and highest reaches.

[ThatGuy]

Regarding the necessity of "fear" to invoke the sublime, and the proposal of removing the idea of fear from the concept, it might help for clarification, to go beyond Kant's usage by looking at the etymology of the word...("overcoming fear", while not directly mentioned, may be implied in the word "imposing", and, perhaps, "threshold"...)

sublime (adj.) 1580s, "expressing lofty ideas in an elevated manner," from Middle French sublime (15c.), or directly from Latin sublimis "uplifted, high, borne aloft, lofty, exalted, eminent, distinguished," possibly originally "sloping up to the lintel," from sub "up to" + limen "lintel, threshold, sill" (see limit (n.)). The sublime (n.) "the sublime part of anything, that which is stately or imposing" is from 1670s. For Sublime Porte, former title of the Ottoman government, see Porte.

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[Jonathan]

There seems to be an elephant in the room regarding 19th Century view of the sublime - and I am not a psychologist...

Thank God! Imagine the damage he'd do! Think of those poor, vulnerable patients!

...but I think there is a psychotic element to interpreting a great state of being as being a witness to destruction or the being witness to our tiny insignificant beings contrasted to the power and vastness of the Universe.

What's actually a psychotic element is someone's needing to willfully misinterpret others' ideas so that he can have something to feel that he is above, because he believes that such a hateful, fantasy mindset keeps his artistic "fire" alive.

Think about it. Is creating art a burden to such a person? I mean, that's what it sounds like to me. If you need to unjustly hate someone or something in order to inspire youself to get off your ass and paint, then you don't sound like you love to paint.

Anyway, the Sublime is not about walking away from an experience feeling tiny and insignificant.

Yet those attitudes seems to be status quo now and disconnects humans from the process of flourishing.

"Seems to be" based on, what, Newberry's need to believe that Kant is so powerfully evil that his works are still preventing people from flourishing, and heroic Newberry is going to do something about it, gosh darn it!?

Yet philosophy should be the leader in the overview of human potentialities.

Why? Because Rand told Newberry to believe that? The arts have actually been the profession that leads. Philosophy follows, and analyzes and explains what the artists did, and why.

I wish they, the philosophers, would get on to updating the concepts of sublime to reflect a benevolent view of human potential and highest reaches.

The Sublime was never malevolent. It didn't become malevolent just because Newberry very malevolently, willfully misinterpreted it as malevolent. It was always about human potential. The concept, over time, went through the typical process of discovery, and was analyzed with various theories and speculations, and then along came Kant and really nailed down the Sublime to reflect a benevolent view of human potential and highest reaches. Newberry is too filled with malevolence to accept that very obvious reality. He hatefully needs to invent enemies and stubbornly ignore reality in order to keep his "fire" alive.

J

[Jonathan]

Regarding the necessity of "fear" to invoke the sublime, and the proposal of removing the idea of fear from the concept, it might help for clarification, to go beyond Kant's usage by looking at the etymology of the word...("overcoming fear", while not directly mentioned, may be implied in the word "imposing", and, perhaps, "threshold"...)

sublime (adj.) 1580s, "expressing lofty ideas in an elevated manner," from Middle French sublime (15c.), or directly from Latin sublimis "uplifted, high, borne aloft, lofty, exalted, eminent, distinguished," possibly originally "sloping up to the lintel," from sub "up to" + limen "lintel, threshold, sill" (see limit (n.)). The sublime (n.) "the sublime part of anything, that which is stately or imposing" is from 1670s. For Sublime Porte, former title of the Ottoman government, see Porte.

You're not just "going beyond Kant's usage," but going outside of philosophy's usage. You've looked up a layman's meaning of the term. You might as well look up "metaphysical" the same way, come up with "difficult, convoluted, unduly complex," and then suggest that such a layman's meaning "might help for clarification" in a philosophical discussion.

The problem here is that going with a layman's definition is probably how philosophy novice Newberry went off the tracks in the first place. Knowing absolutely nothing about the history of the philosophy of aesthetics, he began with the layman's version of "sublime" since it was the only one he had ever heard of, and then he read Kant and came to the really dumb conclusion that Kant was trying to "change the meaning!" And of course, since Newberry needs to believe that Kant was a very evil and powerful influence, Kant's alleged "new" meaning of "sublime" just had to be evil -- it HAD to be about valuing destruction.

Willfully ignorant, hateful zealots should not try to do philosophy. At least not publicly. It's embarrassing.

J

[ThatGuy]

What I was suggesting was simply to get to the core of the concept, not to ignore philosophical usages, but maybe to see where the usages came from, or what they have in common (if there is a suggestion to change or alter the meaning of a word, it would make sense to look at the origin of said word...)

However, while I don't equate etymology with "layman's terms" (just thought that the etymology might be useful in the discussion), and while I don't consider myself a "willfully ignorant, hateful zealot", your cautionary point is taken.

[Newberry]

Regarding the necessity of "fear" to invoke the sublime, and the proposal of removing the idea of fear from the concept, it might help for clarification, to go beyond Kant's usage by looking at the etymology of the word...("overcoming fear", while not directly mentioned, may be implied in the word "imposing", and, perhaps, "threshold"...)

sublime (adj.) 1580s, "expressing lofty ideas in an elevated manner," from Middle French sublime (15c.), or directly from Latin sublimis "uplifted, high, borne aloft, lofty, exalted, eminent, distinguished," possibly originally "sloping up to the lintel," from sub "up to" + limen "lintel, threshold, sill" (see limit (n.)). The sublime (n.) "the sublime part of anything, that which is stately or imposing" is from 1670s. For Sublime Porte, former title of the Ottoman government, see Porte.

Excellent suggestion.

I think this shows a good example of the divide between our everyday usage of the sublime as something wonderfully high vs. the creepy philosophical idea.

[Jonathan]

Regarding the necessity of "fear" to invoke the sublime, and the proposal of removing the idea of fear from the concept, it might help for clarification, to go beyond Kant's usage by looking at the etymology of the word...("overcoming fear", while not directly mentioned, may be implied in the word "imposing", and, perhaps, "threshold"...)

sublime (adj.) 1580s, "expressing lofty ideas in an elevated manner," from Middle French sublime (15c.), or directly from Latin sublimis "uplifted, high, borne aloft, lofty, exalted, eminent, distinguished," possibly originally "sloping up to the lintel," from sub "up to" + limen "lintel, threshold, sill" (see limit (n.)). The sublime (n.) "the sublime part of anything, that which is stately or imposing" is from 1670s. For Sublime Porte, former title of the Ottoman government, see Porte.

Excellent suggestion.

I think this shows a good example of the divide between our everyday usage of the sublime as something wonderfully high vs. the creepy philosophical idea.

Yeah, the "creepy philosophical idea" that was so powerfully inspirational that Rand unknowingly adopted it as her signature aesthetic style, and is so powerful that Newberry continues to need to vilify Kant (and now other philosophers) so as to experience it!

It really doesn't get any better than this. And the bonus is that the one person on this thread who knows what he's talking about is the one that Newberry has blocked and put on "ignore" because he believes that he doesn't contribute anything worthwhile! Hahahaha!

J

[Jonathan]

What I was suggesting was simply to get to the core of the concept, not to ignore philosophical usages, but maybe to see where the usages came from, or what they have in common (if there is a suggestion to change or alter the meaning of a word, it would make sense to look at the origin of said word...)

However, while I don't equate etymology with "layman's terms" (just thought that the etymology might be useful in the discussion), and while I don't consider myself a "willfully ignorant, hateful zealot", your cautionary point is taken.

Reread my post. I wasn't calling you a willfully ignorant, hateful zealot.

J

[ThatGuy]

I apologize for misunderstanding, and thank you for the clarification.

[Jonathan]

What I was suggesting was simply to get to the core of the concept...

Let's do that. Let's go as far back as we know to the "core of the concept." Rather than starting with a comparatively recent translation/renaming of the concept of the Sublime, let's start with Ancient Greek Longinus's Peri Hypsous, in which he describes the effects of the concept as leading people "not to persuasion, but to ecstasy: for what is wonderful always goes together with a sense of dismay, and prevails over what is only convincing or delightful, since persuasion, as a rule, is within everyone's grasp: whereas, the Sublime, giving to speech an invincible power and strength, rises above every listener."

J

[Jonathan]

Btw, I disagree with Longinus that "persuasion...is within everyone's grasp." Certain people will not be persuaded, and especially not by reality. Hating is too valuable for them to give it up.

J

[Selene]

What I was suggesting was simply to get to the core of the concept...

Let's do that. Let's go as far back as we know to the "core of the concept." Rather than starting with a comparatively recent translation/renaming of the concept of the Sublime, let's start with Ancient Greek Longinus's Peri Hypsous, in which he describes the effects of the concept as leading people "not to persuasion, but to ecstasy: for what is wonderful always goes together with a sense of dismay, and prevails over what is only convincing or delightful, since persuasion, as a rule, is within everyone's grasp: whereas, the Sublime, giving to speech an invincible power and strength, rises above every listener."

J

Very interesting J...

Rhetoric Society Quarterly © 2004 Rhetoric Society of America

Abstract:

This essay argues that Peri Hypsous (On Height or On the Sublime, traditionally attributed to "Longinus") marks an important moment in the history of rhetoric, as rhetoric is presented therein as an autonomous, sublime object. Through notions of hypsos (height) and physis (nature), and an amalgamation of Ciceronian/lsocratean arid Gorgianic notions of rhetoric, "Longinus" frees rhetoric from the project of legitimation. He makes it a marvel that needs no justification--rhetoric "comes into its own." Even as I account for the emergence of this conception of rhetoric in Peri Hypsous, I question its helpfulness for rhetorical studies.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40232412?sid=21106330687113&uid=3739808&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3739256

The preview from the search specifically mentions Kant and the Sublime.

A...

[anthony]

What I was suggesting was simply to get to the core of the concept...

Let's do that. Let's go as far back as we know to the "core of the concept." Rather than starting with a comparatively recent translation/renaming of the concept of the Sublime, let's start with Ancient Greek Longinus's Peri Hypsous, in which he describes the effects of the concept as leading people "not to persuasion, but to ecstasy: for what is wonderful always goes together with a sense of dismay, and prevails over what is only convincing or delightful, since persuasion, as a rule, is within everyone's grasp: whereas, the Sublime, giving to speech an invincible power and strength, rises above every listener."

J

The history of a concept doesn't indicate much, it merely shows its provenance by former thinkers.

The "core of the concept" whichThatGuy is seeking, is a conceptual question, not historical.

Simply, all those who historically claimed that ecstacy accompanies dismay or terror, were mystical philosophers who made the same mind-body dichotomy. Subjectivists too, who judged with their feelings first. Kant as one, made the fundamental error of also splitting reality into two, the phenomenal and noumenal, so delimiting man's mind. Only by way of The Sublime and Beauty, I suppose, could one come closer to grasping the noumenal world, in Kant's take. The noumenal, another notion of Heaven.

"A state of non-contradictory joy" = happiness -- not fear, trembling - and ecstacy.

Of course, artists, especially Romanticists, do evoke such ultimate emotions, but never or hardly ever, 'above' content - rather, ~by way~ of the content.

An emotion is not causeless nor an end in itself.

"Like Kant, he [schopenhauer] held that the phenomenon of Beauty would only be illuminated through a careful scrutiny of its effects on the subject, rather than searching out the properties of objects..."

(Stanford Enc)

Evident primacy of consciousness, in other words.

[anthony]

It all comes down to the order of the questions: What is it? then, How does it make me feel? A subjectivist puts them back to front.

[Jonathan]

It all comes down to the order of the questions: What is it? then, How does it make me feel? A subjectivist puts them back to front.

That's how people like you and Newberry do history and philosophy. Back to front. You have your angry little feelings about something, generally because Rand told you to believe something that she didn't actually know much of anything about, and then you willfully misinterpret what the thing is that you're having your angry little feelings about. You can't get past your angry little feelings. They distort everything, and no amount of reality has any effect on you. By your own definition, you are "subjectivists."

J

[Jonathan]

The history of a concept doesn't indicate much, it merely shows its provenance by former thinkers.

The "core of the concept" whichThatGuy is seeking, is a conceptual question, not historical.

It is both a historical question and a conceptual one. We were discussing the origin of the concept. The origin of the "core of the concept" goes back to Longinus.

Simply, all those who historically claimed that ecstacy accompanies dismay or terror, were mystical philosophers who made the same mind-body dichotomy.

As always, you're making shit up off the top of your subjectivist head. You don't know squat about all of the philosophers who dealt with the issue of the Sublime. You're having angry little feelings, and you want to believe that having them makes whatever you say real.

Subjectivists too, who judged with their feelings first. Kant as one, made the fundamental error of also splitting reality into two, the phenomenal and noumenal, so delimiting man's mind. Only by way of The Sublime and Beauty, I suppose, could one come closer to grasping the noumenal world, in Kant's take. The noumenal, another notion of Heaven.

"A state of non-contradictory joy" = happiness -- not fear, trembling - and ecstasy.

YOU are the "subjectivist." YOU are, right now, practicing the act of judging with your feelings, and of opposing reality. That's ALL that you do!

And, while making your stupid condemnations of the Sublime, and of the philosophers who covered the topic in their work, you keep forgetting, or willfully ignoring, the fact that Rand's art -- all of it! -- employs the Sublime! It really is amazing that you are so geared up and ready to hate that even being informed of the reality that you are also condemning Rand doesn't slow you down for a second.

You've just gotta hate at all costs!

J

[Jonathan]

At Kamhi's blog, she has a new post in which she demonstrates just how proud and willing she is to be a bossy-pants. Here are a few excerpts that I thought were worth commenting on:

http://www.mmkamhi.com/2015/03/31/folded-paper-and-other-modern-drawings/

Is a piece of paper folded and then unfolded a drawing? A curator at the Morgan Library & Museum thinks so. And the Associate Dean of the Yale School of Art agrees with her.

I don't have a problem with that. What's the big deal? Drawing began with people using things like stones or sticks as simple styluses which didn't leave behind a pigmented medium, but which left an indentation or crease. The essential characteristic of drawing is that marks or lines are made, not the means or methods which are used to make them. It's really not something to get agitated about and get all confrontational at an exhibition.

Belonging to the old school that regards drawing as the art or act of representing people, places, or things on a surface chiefly by means of lines...

There is no "old school" which limits drawing to the "act of representing people, places, or things." A geometric drawing just as legitimately qualifies as a drawing as any representational drawing.

...I was moved to ask the curator of the show, Isabelle Dervaux, how she defines drawing. Surrounded by eager members of the press, she did not hesitate to reply: anything on paper. (As was clear from the aforementioned examples, she literally meant anything.) Then she quickly added, rather testily: I hate splitting hairs over what a drawing is.

How rudely and "testily" was Ms Dervaux asked the question? Heh. Kamhi LIVES to split hairs, so it is understandable that she would see someone's not wanting to be publicly lured into her bossy-pants hobby of splitting hairs as being "testy."

Hardly splitting hairs, Dervauxs wall label for the LeWitt piece informs us that he radically transformed the medium of drawing . . . [in part,] by exploring . . . different ways of producing a drawingfor instance, by tearing or folding paper. Here, he created a grid by folding and unfolding the sheet. I wanted them to be another kind of drawing, he said. They do make lines.

They do indeed make lines, just as pens and brushes and styluses do! So, what's the big freaking problem? Why so worked up about one means of creating lines on a piece of paper?

As for Gavin Turk, Dervaux notes that he was one of the Young British Artists who gained notoriety in the 1990s by creating sculptures and installations that question traditional notions of authorship. Nonetheless, she calls his exhaust pipe drawing elegant. Apparently unwilling to split hairs over the meaning of that word either, she ignores that it generally means a refined and graceful style and implies discriminating selectivity on the part of the maker. Having replaced himself as maker with his vans undiscriminating exhaust fumes, Turk has in fact rendered the notion of elegance preposterous.

Has Kamhi never heard of people referring to things in nature as "elegant"? If someone were to describe, say, a geyser, or a series of moon craters, or an arrangement of dew drops on a spider's web as "elegant," would Kamhi get up in their faces and screech that their use of the term renders the notion of "elegance" preposterous? Why so bossy and angry? What's behind it?

On the very next day after the press preview for the Morgan show, I happened to attend a panel discussion at the Art Students League on the revival of drawing instruction in art education. In the Q&A following the panels presentation, I introduced myself as the author of a new book dealing in part with the concerns discussed by the panel, and cited the example of LeWitts folded paper drawing at the Morgan as cautionary evidence of the contemporary artworlds ignorance regarding the discipline of drawing.

So, if people in the "contemporary artworld" disagree with any of Kamhi's opinions about the means of drawing, they are "ignorant" on the subject? If people accept a means of creating lines on paper as being a legitimate means of "drawing," where Kamhi personally does not, then those people's attitudes are "cautionary evidence" of total "ignorance of the discipline of drawing"? And Kamhi doesn't understand why anyone would call her an authoritarian who is trying to impose her views on others?!!!

Far from being applauded as a significant reminder of the challenges to be overcome...

Ah, of course! Kamhi expected her remark to be applauded!!! She is doing significant work in heroically fighting the "challenges to be overcome." Very, very significant work, such as rejecting certain means of creating marks or lines as qualifying as "drawing"!

...my remark met with a load of invective...

"Invective," eh? I wonder if others would describe Kamhi as having delivered a load of invective.

...from one of the paneliststhe Associate Dean of the Yale School of Art, Samuel Messer. Assailing me for daring to suggest that LeWitts work was not a drawing, he accused me of seeking to impose my view of art on others through my bookthe title of which I had mentioned.

He's right.

I sat there in stunned silence, waiting till discussion of other points had ended, and then went up to Messer. He was wrong, I said, to impute an authoritarian motive to me without having read my book, the goal of which is in fact to stimulate intelligent debate.

He wasn't wrong. He quickly picked up on who and what Kamhi is, apparently based on her smug and testy behavior, and he correctly identified her as being an authoritarian, confrontational bossy-pants!

J

[Brant Gaede]

LOL

[Brant Gaede]

At Kamhi's blog, she has a new post in which she demonstrates just how proud and willing she is to be a bossy-pants. Here are a few excerpts that I thought were worth commenting on:

http://www.mmkamhi.com/2015/03/31/folded-paper-and-other-modern-drawings/

Is a piece of paper folded and then unfolded a “drawing”? A curator at the Morgan Library & Museum thinks so. And the Associate Dean of the Yale School of Art agrees with her.

I don't have a problem with that. What's the big deal? Drawing began with people using things like stones or sticks as simple styluses which didn't leave behind a pigmented medium, but which left and indentation or crease. The essential characteristic of drawing is that marks or lines are made, not the means or methods which are used to make them. It's really not something to get agitated about and get all confrontational at an exhibition.

Belonging to the old school that regards drawing as the art or act of representing people, places, or things on a surface chiefly by means of lines...

There is no "old school" which limits drawing to the "act of representing people, places, or things." A geometric drawing just as legitimately qualifies as a drawing as any representational drawing.

...I was moved to ask the curator of the show, Isabelle Dervaux, how she defines “drawing.” Surrounded by eager members of the press, she did not hesitate to reply: “anything on paper.” (As was clear from the aforementioned examples, she literally meant anything.) Then she quickly added, rather testily: “I hate splitting hairs over what a drawing is.”

How rudely and "testily" was Ms Dervaux asked the question? Heh. Kamhi LIVES to split hairs, so it is understandable that she would see someone's not wanting be publicly lured into her bossy-pants hobby of splitting hairs as being "testy."

Hardly splitting hairs, Dervaux’s wall label for the LeWitt piece informs us that he radically transformed the medium of drawing . . . [in part,] by exploring . . . different ways of producing a drawing—for instance, by tearing or folding paper. Here, he created a grid by folding and unfolding the sheet. “I wanted them to be another kind of drawing,” he said. “They do make lines.”

They do indeed make lines, just as pens and brushes and styluses do! So, what's the big freaking problem? Why so worked up about one means of creating lines on a piece of paper?

As for Gavin Turk, Dervaux notes that he was one of the Young British Artists “who gained notoriety in the 1990s” by creating “sculptures and installations that question traditional notions of authorship.” Nonetheless, she calls his exhaust pipe drawing “elegant.” Apparently unwilling to split hairs over the meaning of that word either, she ignores that it generally means a “refined and graceful” style and implies discriminating selectivity on the part of the maker. Having replaced himself as maker with his van’s undiscriminating exhaust fumes, Turk has in fact rendered the notion of “elegance” preposterous.

Has Kamhi never heard of people referring to things in nature as "elegant"? If someone were to describe, say, a geyser, or a series of moon craters, or an arrangement of dew drops on a spider's web as "elegant," would Kamhi get up in their faces and screech that their use of the term renders the notion of "elegance" preposterous? Why so bossy and angry? What's behind it?

On the very next day after the press preview for the Morgan show, I happened to attend a panel discussion at the Art Students League on the revival of drawing instruction in art education. In the Q&A following the panel’s presentation, I introduced myself as the author of a new book dealing in part with the concerns discussed by the panel, and cited the example of LeWitt’s “folded paper drawing” at the Morgan as cautionary evidence of the contemporary artworld’s ignorance regarding the discipline of drawing.

So, if people in the "contemporary artworld" disagree with any of Kamhi's opinions about the means of drawing, they are "ignorant" on the subject? If people accept a means of creating lines on paper as being a legitimate means of "drawing," where Kamhi personally does not, then those people's attitudes are "cautionary evidence" of total "ignorance of the discipline of drawing"? And Kamhi doesn't understand why anyone would call her an authoritarian who is trying to impose her views on others?!!!

Far from being applauded as a significant reminder of the challenges to be overcome...

Ah, of course! Kamhi expected her remark to be applauded!!! She is doing significant work in heroically fighting the "challenges to be overcome." Very, very significant work, such as rejecting certain means of creating marks or lines as qualifying as "drawing"!

...my remark met with a load of invective...

"Invective," eh? I wonder if others would describe Kamhi as having delivered a load of invective.

...from one of the panelists—the Associate Dean of the Yale School of Art, Samuel Messer. Assailing me for daring to suggest that LeWitt’s work was not a drawing, he accused me of seeking to “impose” my view of art on others through my book—the title of which I had mentioned.

He's right.

I sat there in stunned silence, waiting till discussion of other points had ended, and then went up to Messer. He was wrong, I said, to impute an authoritarian motive to me without having read my book, the goal of which is in fact to stimulate intelligent debate.

He wasn't wrong. He quickly picked up on who and what Kamhi is, apparently based on her smug and testy behavior, and he correctly identified her as being an authoritarian, confrontational bossy-pants!

J

LOL

--Brant

I think I'm blocked too, but WTF?

[anthony]

40, 50, years ago, a Museum curator and Dean of Art at Yale would have been sniffy elitists in tweed jackets, resisting fresh artistic vision.

Now, one can bet they're hip dudes sporting the occasional pony tail and earring, supporting the egalitarian 'standard' of art - "it all goes, man, who do think you are to be judgmental!" Bet also on their grant money and intellectual prestige being dependent on not rocking the art world's boat.The same old false alternative applies, as it does between conservatism and progressivism politically. And then a few objective, independent voices speak up contrarily to the dictatorial mega-wealthy art industry and THEY are "authoritarian"? Give me a break.

[Jonathan]

40, 50, years ago, a Museum curator and Dean of Art at Yale would have been sniffy elitists in tweed jackets, resisting fresh artistic vision.

Now, one can bet they're hip dudes sporting the occasional pony tail and earring, supporting the egalitarian 'standard' of art - "it all goes, man, who do think you are to be judgmental!" Bet also on their grant money and intellectual prestige being dependent on not rocking the art world's boat.The same old false alternative applies, as it does between conservatism and progressivism politically. And then a few objective, independent voices speak up contrarily to the dictatorial mega-wealthy art industry and THEY are "authoritarian"? Give me a break.

Tony, your feelings and fantasies and wishes and whims aren't a valid argument. Merely calling your own feelings and opinions "objective," and those that you subjectively, whimsically agree with without understanding or analyzing them, doesn't magically make them objective in reality.

And, no, I won't give you a break. Roger Bissell's wife is the only person to whom I give breaks.

J

[anthony]

Er, we're discussing "objective" standards of art are we not? What it is, and what it might just not be.

Negation, mockery and innuendo isn't an argument. It should be clear by now I don't "whimsically agree" with anyone, I go by what I see and think. The whims are instead with those who declare any scrawl on paper to be art.

[moralist]

Bet also on their grant money and intellectual prestige being dependent on not rocking the art world's boat.

Grabbing the brass ring of government funding is a natural attractant to the dependent leftists who are willing to prostitute themselves to the "art world" in order to get it. It becomes a race to the bottom of the cesspool of depravity, as each "artist" tries to outdo the others by producing the most shocking outrageous ugly crap so as to get the most attention. It's by the blessing of shared values that they can only appeal to their own kind who deserve to be their prey.

Greg