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

[Newberry]

(Addressed to Ellen)

The problem is that you don't have an understanding of the larger context of art history. You're a novice who just recently started to discover what "abstract" means in the arts, and you're probably still not clear on that. You've read some of Kandinsky, nothing else in the deep, wide history of visual art, and now you're an expert? Heh.

J

Funny, by your posts and works it doesn't seem you have taken art history courses, or even fine art classes.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The problem is that you don't have an understanding of the larger context of art history. You're a novice who just recently started to discover what "abstract" means in the arts, and you're probably still not clear on that. You've read some of Kandinsky, nothing else in the deep, wide history of visual art, and now you're an expert? Heh.

J

As if "abstract" means some one meaning in "the arts." I have a long history of its use regarding music, where its usage hasn't matched what you say it's been for roughly a hundred years regarding the visual arts. It doesn't need much reading regarding the visual arts to find out how confused the usage has been there. Kandinsky himself soon grew to dislike the term "abstract" as "misleading," and he changed his mind, in print, three times on what term he wanted to use as the designation of his art.

In fact I have been reading other things "in the deep, wide history of visual art." I updated you previously on your claim that I'd read "some" of Kandinsky. By that point I'd read almost all of Kandinsky's collected works, several major works two or three times. I've subsequently read the incidental bits which I hadn't yet gotten around to.

I make no claim to be an expert on the history of the visual arts (I'd qualify as semi-expert on the history of music and of literature) - but I've become expert enough on the history of the visual arts to be well aware of how defective your reports are.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

(Ellen started it all, BTW, way back when)

Yes, I did, and according to Jonathan:

n your very first post on this thread you attempted to take a shot at me, [...].

Since the only mention of Jonathan I remembered making in the opening post was the straightforward factual statement that he's one of the people who have leveled a criticism which Kamhi addressed in her introduction, I reread the opening post wondering if I'd forgotten saying something which might plausibly be interpreted as "tak[ing] a shot."

Nope.

link to post #1

Ellen

"Plausibly be interpreted" by whom? By Ellen, who is in electron-chase, petty contradict mode?

J

Oh, by anyone who isn't hair-trigger sensitive to presumed "tak[ing] a shot." I gather that you considered my stating that Kamhi addresses a criticism you leveled an example of shot-taking.

(I'll remind you that your "electron-chase" metaphor displays ignorance of basic chemistry.)

Ellen

[Newberry]

William: I liked when you finally showed your teeth to Lindsay Perigo and flounced of Solopassion some time ago. Sometimes you need a display of teeth or aggression, or maybe sometimes you get sick of people and their pretensions and stupidities. I am sure you are quite the cut-up in private, and that when provoked you can be nasty in turn.

Interesting post William. You brought up a lot of interesting things to talk about; the break with Solopassion; teeth; and the objectivist audience for artists.

Let me cover some of your misconceptions. I am not here to market my work, though I had in the past. And though I am in the collections of Kelley, Hicks, Cresswell and few other people associated with the movement, objectivists only make up about 2% of the work I sell.

I am here, as I guess most everyone else is, because I like discussing ideas. And I am fairly sure most everyone here started as kids wondering about the nature of the world and ideas.

You think my objection to criticism and suggestions is out of anger and hurt feelings, lol, it is quite different; perhaps puzzlement? On the other side the people that “get” my work rise up in my estimation.

Another objection I have to suggestions is that how is an artist going to grow in their unique way when they take advice from others? It is how each artist solves problems that make art their own. A populist artist like Kinkaid spent all his time repeating his popular successes following the taste of what the buyers wanted and lost his identity – then drank himself to death, right when he should be in his prime.

A lot of people like the idea of directing a fine artist, I think it is an irresistible ego trap for some, and some of them can be good souls too, but the height of class is to never go there. Speaking of trash …

The teeth showing is playful experiment and theater; and not exactly fair. But the results, so far, are interesting.

As for interrupting my work being here, it seems the opposite, for the last three days I have blocked out a new work of two of my biggest figures.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The "outside considerations" issue seems to be a hot button, I don't know why.

Is that the end of your curiosity on the subject?

Try thinking! Where did the "outside considerations" issue come from? What does it mean? Is it a logical criterion to place on art, or is it really just an arbitrary requirement that Rand imposed for irrational reasons? These are the types of questions that serious, respected thinkers ask themselves and attempt to answer.

J

Where did the issue come from? As I said, from your wrenching a particulhar sentence of Rand's out of context and then wielding "outside considerations" as an inappropriate wholesale taunt willy-nilly.

Ellen

Actually, you wrenched it. I've had to remind you that the issue isn't just Rand's not allowing "outside considerations," but also, and perhaps more importantly, her requirement of judging art based only on the "evidence contained in the work." You're getting to the point where you can't remember the first part of a sentence when you're at its end. When reminded of it, you assert that Rand didn't mean to apply the thought in the first half to that in the second.

Judging art for aesthetic merit is the context. And you've over and over talked as if Rand were such an idiot, she meant, for instance, that one should judge how well Michelangelo executed his "theme" in the David without knowing what the statue is a statue of.

Your reading of that discussion is incredibly nitpicking uncharitable.

A good example is her statement, "As a recreation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject it ceases to be art."

As to remembering the first part of a sentence when you're at its end, you display that problem abundantly. And more than just the first part of a sentence. The example you cite is a prime case of your not tracking the local and wider context in which a sentence appears. You've used the sentence you quote as basis for making the absurd claim that Rand thought that music is representational and must have a subject - ignoring the fifteen pages on music which she wrote in the same essay. Also ignoring that her context in the quoted sentence is visual art, in what she called the metaphysical sense, versus decoration - and that the entire supposed conundrum which you've attempted to employ as a major critique would disappear if only Rand had included the obviously implied adjective "visual" before the word "art" in the sentence - as she did in other sentences in the passage.

Ellen

[Newberry]

The problem is that you don't have an understanding of the larger context of art history. You're a novice who just recently started to discover what "abstract" means in the arts, and you're probably still not clear on that. You've read some of Kandinsky, nothing else in the deep, wide history of visual art, and now you're an expert? Heh.

J

As if "abstract" means some one meaning in "the arts." I have a long history of its use regarding music, where its usage hasn't matched what you say it's been for roughly a hundred years regarding the visual arts. It doesn't need much reading regarding the visual arts to find out how confused the usage has been there. Kandinsky himself soon grew to dislike the term "abstract" as "misleading," and he changed his mind, in print, three times on what term he wanted to use as the designation of his art.

In fact I have been reading other things "in the deep, wide history of visual art." I updated you previously on your claim that I'd read "some" of Kandinsky. By that point I'd read almost all of Kandinsky's collected works, several major works two or three times. I've subsequently read the incidental bits which I hadn't yet gotten around to.

I make no claim to be an expert on the history of the visual arts (I'd qualify as semi-expert on the history of music and of literature) - but I've become expert enough on the history of the visual arts to be well aware of how defective your reports are.

Ellen

Worth repeating. : )

[Ellen Stuttle]

No answer, as expected. I'll cross it off my list of "actual" issues.

J

What "it"? As if you glimmered before setting off on a quarrel over the eraser example. I wonder if you'd ever noticed that detail before.

I hope to get back eventually to the geek site and its expectation of human evolvement (computers being today's locus for such hopes, supplanting the theosophical-type hopes of Kandinsky's time and of the later, watered-down "Age of Aquarius" newagers).

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I hope you start a new thread, Ellen. This one is much too long and is endlessly repeating itself.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Question for Jonathan: Would you agree that this is an example of someone experiencing Kantian Sublimity, though alas, the viewer does not?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XN3Ehqyt4cFromthe Sublime to the Ridiculous?

I guess it's possible that Sublimity was experienced, but I think it's more likely that the experience was primarily vanity and oblivious self-unawareness.

J

[Jonathan]

Not addressed to me, but a few things popped out like a house on fire. Maybe a whole neighborhood.

Imagine an architect that spends most of his time arguing on a Randian forum. It would seem a little dinky and ingrown at best -- if it were like a Cresswell, there could be added oddity of not having had his architecture ever built...

the price you pay for being an artist out of the studio and onto the 'street' is that every hack and courtier and crook will have something to say once something is placed in view...

I suggest you show more of your present works to us...

Let's suppose that I fancied myself as a literary artist. Guilty as charged, pitching my art almost exclusively to Objectivists, which I've done as long as I can remember. There wasn't much choice. I'm sixth millionth most popular author on Amazon (dead last), routinely rubbished by critics, ignored by agents, publishers and film producers, and 100% unwelcome among Libertarians, no matter how many review copies I throw at them. "Placing in view" does nothing at all in my experience.

I'd rather not see any more Adam and Eves, thanks. Awful stuff, though not as bad as the pix WSS posted above.

Whether I should post more of my work is an uninteresting problem, especially my unbuilt movie scripts.

Yours is an issue of marketing. Consider trying a new approach. Ask youself, "Might I come across as desperate if I do it this way?"

Hold back a little. Consider not quoting your self-published books as often as you do. Actually join the discussion and respond spontaneously rather than with quotes from your books. Don't shove them in our faces every chance you get.

Get to know us, say hi, howdy do. Speak like a natural human being (as you do in the above post to which I'm responding). Don't bluff or pose. Treat us with good will and respect.

Then, once in a while, share your work and ask us to take a look.

J

[9thdoctor]

Question for Jonathan: Would you agree that this is an example of someone experiencing Kantian Sublimity, though alas, the viewer does not?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XN3Ehqyt4cFromthe Sublime to the Ridiculous?

I guess it's possible that Sublimity was experienced, but I think it's more likely that the experience was primarily vanity and oblivious self-unawareness.

J

Yeah yeah I was just kidding around.

There's definitely Sublimity on display here:

It might serve as a useful illustration. The dogfights 1 minute in, for example.

[Jonathan]

(Addressed to Ellen)

The problem is that you don't have an understanding of the larger context of art history. You're a novice who just recently started to discover what "abstract" means in the arts, and you're probably still not clear on that. You've read some of Kandinsky, nothing else in the deep, wide history of visual art, and now you're an expert? Heh.

J

Funny, by your posts and works it doesn't seem you have taken art history courses, or even fine art classes.

Heh.

Do you have any substance yet in response to the quotes from Kant that I provided in which he specifically said what you stupidly claimed that he had not? You had claimed that he never said anything about overcoming the terrific entities which inspire the Sublime. I cited three quotes which prove you wrong (and there are more quotes).

So, what is it about my intellectually kicking your ass like that which makes you conclude that I haven't taken any art history courses?

Enough with the distractions and the whining and lashing out, Newbsie. No one's falling for it. C'mon, show some honesty and integrity and just admit to having been wrong about this one issue. Be rational. Be a real man. Practice the virtue of acknowledging your error. Own up to your mistake. Face and accept the obvious reality of the situation. Denying reality isn't going to work.

J

[Jonathan]

Question for Jonathan: Would you agree that this is an example of someone experiencing Kantian Sublimity, though alas, the viewer does not?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XN3Ehqyt4cFromthe Sublime to the Ridiculous?

I guess it's possible that Sublimity was experienced, but I think it's more likely that the experience was primarily vanity and oblivious self-unawareness.J

Yeah yeah I was just kidding around.There's definitely Sublimity on display here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGbxmsDFVnE&feature=youtu.beItmight serve as a useful illustration. The dogfights 1 minute in, for example.

Wow! Yes, that appears to have bunches of Sublimity.

J

[Jonathan]

I am here, as I guess most everyone else is, because I like discussing ideas.

When will you actually discuss some ideas? All that I see is your refusal to discuss the proof that has been provided against your falsehoods.

J

[Jonathan]

I gather that you considered my stating that Kamhi addresses a criticism you leveled an example of shot-taking.

I meant that your series of misrepresenting my views, including your misrepresenting my criticism of Kamhi, was your engaging in shot-taking.

But I'm willing to admit to being wrong, since it's also quite possible that you're no longer capable of remembering who has taken what position.

(I'll remind you that your "electron-chase" metaphor displays ignorance of basic chemistry.)

Ellen

Oh, yes, please do!!! There's nothing more exciting and important, or more of an "actual" issue, than hearing you electron chase about the term "electron chase."

J

[anthony]

Here, let me provide some quotes from the OO discussion that I mentioned which Ninth and I had with that blithering idiot Miovas.

Here's a link to the thread. What a doozy.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/23118-kant-and-aesthetics/&page=1

I'm afraid what Tony wrote (1610) falls in the category of "not even wrong".

Possibly. And probably the only logical response to 'not even right' by Kant. ;)

Still, I eagerly anticipate being shown how right he was. Kant starts at some stratospheric level in his mind and declares things to be so, which he alone sees. What a refreshing contrast is Objectivist theory which begins at the most fundamental basics and layers on top of those.

[Jonathan]

No answer, as expected. I'll cross it off my list of "actual" issues.

J

What "it"?

Hahahaha!!!! Oh my god!

Um, you'll have to apply your electron chase powers to this one. Go back and figure it out for youself. It's not worth my time to help you with your inability to pay attention.

J

[Jonathan]

Here, let me provide some quotes from the OO discussion that I mentioned which Ninth and I had with that blithering idiot Miovas.

Here's a link to the thread. What a doozy.http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/23118-kant-and-aesthetics/&page=1

I'm afraid what Tony wrote (1610) falls in the category of "not even wrong".

Possibly. And probably the only logical response to 'not even right' by Kant. ;)

Still, I eagerly anticipate being shown how right he was.

In post 1551 I gave a wonderful example of how right Kant was, by showing Newberry experiencing the Kantian Sublime in response to the 9/11 attacks:

Your essay Terrorism and Postmodern Art is a great example of a study in dumb and unaware.

In the essay, while attempting to vilify Kant's notion of the Sublime, you inadvertently and unknowingly admit to your own pride of having experienced the Kantian Sublime in reaction to the 9/11 attacks!!!

Here's what you wrote in that essay:

"On the other side of humanity, a vast majority of people felt universal shock. Waves of anger, sorrow, and sadness have followed. Though, personally, after I experienced the shock of the attack, I felt none of those other emotions. Instead a quiet calm spread over me and I knew it was a time for cold, calculating, and uncompromising action and thought. A time to expose evil and put it in its place. And a time to stand up proudly and defend the values of civilization against the onslaught of a species of human beings that romanticize destruction."

You don't understand it, in fact you refuse to understand it, but what you wrote in that quote is exactly what the experience of the Kantian Sublime is! You proudly felt your will to resist this thing of great magnitude and terror which was a "shock" and "beyond comprehension," and you felt that it was time to stand up for your values, or, as Kant said, "regard your estate as exalted above" the terrifying phenomenon. And you did so while imagining that you were rejecting Kant. Dumb.

Kant starts at some stratospheric level in his mind and declares things to be so, which he alone sees. What a refreshing contrast is Objectivist theory which begins at the most fundamental basics and layers on top of those.

No, dum-dum, Kant was a professional philosopher, and he started with the expectation that he was addressing other professional philosophers who were up to speed and informed about the history of the concepts that he was discussing. He wasn't addressing idiot philosophical hobbyist Rand zealots who refuse to study the history of the concepts.

It is not true that "he alone sees" what he was talking about. Everyone sees it, except for a few moronic Rand followers. It's really not that hard or "stratospheric." In order to not get it, one pretty much has to be opposed to getting it. One has to be predetermined to misrepresent, vilify and hate Kant (and to unknowingly engage in the collateral damage of vilifying previous philosophers who took essentially the same position).

J

[Jonathan]

I think it is time for a draw-off between me, you, and Jonathan. We can suggest a subject and a simple medium and get to work for a day, and then bring it to our peers for cool dissection or operatic bloodletting.

That could be fun, but I think it would be even more fun to add an Amadeus twist and "play in the manner of Salieri": we draw in each others' styles!

One undersized, misaligned eye! Males with jackrabbit-proportioned feet! Romantic Realist hip dysplasia and broken necks and backs! Guido Oompa Loompa skin tones!

Outlines. Inverted hues. Pervy transvestite men in queen of the desert headgear being arrested in the name of protecting the children at Apey Greg's behest!

J

Sometimes my sense of humor isn't taken as intended, so I just want to be clear that the above statement shouldn't be misunderstood as my agreeing with Apey's interpretations or appraisals of Bill's art.

J

[9thdoctor]

Possibly. And probably the only logical response to 'not even right' by Kant. ;)

Still, I eagerly anticipate being shown how right he was.

Right, meaning what? Are you saying that the experience Kant describes is something you've never had? That no one's ever had? Or that's somehow wrong/evil if they have? Or that's wrong/evil for an artist to strive for?

[anthony]

Right is always whatever is true to objective reality.

Kant's "universalizability" (which is what you seem to imply) is the justification I believe for his 'Categorical Imperative', and is many degrees off from objectivity. Have an experience, or don't have it, or ten people see the same thing and respond ten ways; but man's metaphysical nature is what is unvarying and constant. "An experience", in all its Sublimity, is not the foundation for art as such, that I can honestly tell. However, it could very well be what a specific artist expresses or attempts to depict in a specific artwork.

The choice of an artist to do what he wants is no less than any individual freedom.

Evil? who said evil? That's what J. does.

[Thorn]

Another objection I have to suggestions is that how is an artist going to grow in their unique way when they take advice from others? It is how each artist solves problems that make art their own. A populist artist like Kinkaid spent all his time repeating his popular successes following the taste of what the buyers wanted and lost his identity – then drank himself to death, right when he should be in his prime.

A lot of people like the idea of directing a fine artist, I think it is an irresistible ego trap for some, and some of them can be good souls too, but the height of class is to never go there. Speaking of trash …

I think that's the last thing an artist needs to worry about. You grow in your own way by doing the art you like doing, no matter where the suggestion or idea came from.

Would you hold the same attitude towards ideas? That critique and suggestions hamper growth and prevents you from developing your own unique thinking?

That's not how you think independently and that's not how you develop your own artistic vision.

The best artists I know of have spent years giving and recieving brutal critiques, copied masterworks, experimenting and trying new tools. That's how they've developed badass skills and eventually found their own thing.

Then, of course, there's a difference between style and execution. Style is certainly more personal and harder to critique. However, when it's a matter of a displaced hip and a melted face, such critique is pureley technical.

[Brant Gaede]

I think it is time for a draw-off between me, you, and Jonathan. We can suggest a subject and a simple medium and get to work for a day, and then bring it to our peers for cool dissection or operatic bloodletting.

That could be fun, but I think it would be even more fun to add an Amadeus twist and "play in the manner of Salieri": we draw in each others' styles!

One undersized, misaligned eye! Males with jackrabbit-proportioned feet! Romantic Realist hip dysplasia and broken necks and backs! Guido Oompa Loompa skin tones!

Outlines. Inverted hues. Pervy transvestite men in queen of the desert headgear being arrested in the name of protecting the children at Apey Greg's behest!

J

Sometimes my sense of humor isn't taken as intended, so I just want to be clear that the above statement shouldn't be misunderstood as my agreeing with Apey's interpretations or appraisals of Bill's art.

J, when you're into humor you need to always do this: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: , etc.

-- :smile:

[anthony]

Thorn, In the end you're advising the same independence to Newberry that he articulated another way.

But a good tie-in with thinking and ideas. There is "advice" that is intended to destroy confidence in one's mind. There is "critique" that is performed with the best of all motives. Separating them is the tricky part.

[Newberry]

Another objection I have to suggestions is that how is an artist going to grow in their unique way when they take advice from others? It is how each artist solves problems that make art their own. A populist artist like Kinkaid spent all his time repeating his popular successes following the taste of what the buyers wanted and lost his identity – then drank himself to death, right when he should be in his prime.

A lot of people like the idea of directing a fine artist, I think it is an irresistible ego trap for some, and some of them can be good souls too, but the height of class is to never go there. Speaking of trash …

I think that's the last thing an artist needs to worry about. You grow in your own way by doing the art you like doing, no matter where the suggestion or idea came from.

Would you hold the same attitude towards ideas? That critique and suggestions hamper growth and prevents you from developing your own unique thinking?

That's not how you think independently and that's not how you develop your own artistic vision.

The best artists I know of have spent years giving and recieving brutal critiques, copied masterworks, experimenting and trying new tools. That's how they've developed badass skills and eventually found their own thing.

Then, of course, there's a difference between style and execution. Style is certainly more personal and harder to critique. However, when it's a matter of a displaced hip and a melted face, such critique is pureley technical.

You make several good points around the idea of growing, and trying new things. Sure when the “lightbulb” goes off grasping a new thing that is awesome. You missed my point that there are people that want to manipulate artists to do what they want – they are not interested in the “lightbulb” going off, they want their idea to be done by some else. You will see in my body of work that I try new things, subjects, methods, techniques – new color and tone harmonies, and different ways of lighting. So I agree about importance of pushing the envelope.