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

[9thdoctor]

Any reasonable person with that kind of resume would not expect anyone to take their word on anything.

I certainly don't take his word on anything, public resumé or no. When he makes references (e.g. to Kant on aesthetics), I check them. What's your method?

[Newberry]

Any reasonable person with that kind of resume would not expect anyone to take their word on anything.

I certainly don't take his word on anything, public resumé or no. When he makes references (e.g. to Kant on aesthetics), I check them. What's your method?

You might not have been around years ago when I started bringing up Kant's aesthetics - I might have been the first in O land or even in general to bring up the connection of Kant's aesthetics to Postmodernism, lol, with references. My work probably introduced J to the topic. It doesn't sound to me that you check up for real. And I don't you think you give a shit about this topic anyway, other than to chime in with inaneness.

[Newberry]

I like the three paintings but don't understand the apparent regression of skill or its lack of advancement. My untrained eye only thinks there should have been a little more definition in the right wrist in the first painting. Not much, just a little. It creates too much of a focal point or distraction as it is--or so I think. Actually seeing the work might create a different impression.

It's possible Jonathan is a con and a troll--but to what? You've replaced, "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" with "I've shown you mine and you don't have one." This is pin the tail on the donkey with ignorance as the blindfold.

There is a place for esthetics in Objectivism, but it's all cultural. There is no logical integration into the philosophical construct. If that's where you're coming from esthetically and otherewise both Jonathan and myself are on the outside looking in. That would make us both trolls to that. Essentially, however, that's the nature of Objectivist Living which, if true, could make you the troll.

--Brant

if you are I don't care; I think trolls can be valuable here although most blow up or implode or simply leave

"I don't know anything about the topic, but ..." You are trying to play gotcha with me, but you should ask yourself what your agenda is Brant. Like J I don't think you are for or stand for anything; just pissing away thoughts, your time, and your life.

[anthony]

There is a place for esthetics in Objectivism, but it's all cultural. There is no logical integration into the philosophical construct. If that's where you're coming from esthetically and otherewise both Jonathan and myself are on the outside looking in.

--Brant

The "logical integration" is expained:

"Man's profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e. that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate perceptual awareness".

[RM]

If this doesn't work for everyone - go for it, all fine. The premise of Kantian aesthetics has long entered art debate on OL. "Aesthetics" is wholly different in Objectivism (the science of -)

As long as it can be acknowledged that the Sublime and Beauty isn't the standard of art theory for all of us.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Newberry,

 

Your art does nothing for me, zero. But this makes me cry for joy.

 

[Newberry]

Newberry,

Your art does nothing for me, zero. But this makes me cry for joy.

It doesn’t matter what you think of my art, or anyone else. I love the process of making it, and only doing what I want. Am I mistaken, are you the guy that hacked a novel on order? Or was that a character? I am not following you closely.

[Brant Gaede]

I like the three paintings but don't understand the apparent regression of skill or its lack of advancement. My untrained eye only thinks there should have been a little more definition in the right wrist in the first painting. Not much, just a little. It creates too much of a focal point or distraction as it is--or so I think. Actually seeing the work might create a different impression.

It's possible Jonathan is a con and a troll--but to what? You've replaced, "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" with "I've shown you mine and you don't have one." This is pin the tail on the donkey with ignorance as the blindfold.

There is a place for esthetics in Objectivism, but it's all cultural. There is no logical integration into the philosophical construct. If that's where you're coming from esthetically and otherewise both Jonathan and myself are on the outside looking in. That would make us both trolls to that. Essentially, however, that's the nature of Objectivist Living which, if true, could make you the troll.

--Brant

if you are I don't care; I think trolls can be valuable here although most blow up or implode or simply leave

"I don't know anything about the topic, but ..." You are trying to play gotcha with me, but you should ask yourself what your agenda is Brant. Like J I don't think you are for or stand for anything; just pissing away thoughts, your time, and your life.

You're pissing on my tires. That's all you can do. You can't even make a statement about that too smudged up right wrist--that is, it is or it isn't. You can't even explain the lack of skill advancement over, what, 40 years? I see some skill regression. I could also comment on some of Jonathan's art--to wit, I don't like photo realism all that much. I could also say he runs rings around you in discussing esthetics philosophically including, it would seem, Kant. (I could, I did.) Your technique of discussion is to pretend to be above it all and--viola!--you're in my area of expertise, which is not esthetics. I don't discuss Kant. I don't discuss the Sublime. That you pretend to--well, that's the rub, isn't it?

--Brant

[Newberry]

You're pissing on my tires. That's all you can do.

--Brant

I think you are going about this the wrong way. You would impress me if you could identify what I or any other artist is doing well, and why. That would actually be fun. Instead you are way to focused on trying to find anything wrong. Yeah, I have been painting for 40 + years, and taught, etc. You write as if I don’t know anything about art. Don’t you think it would be interesting if there were stuff that you could discover? Instead of being monolithically stuck?

[Wolf DeVoon]

I am not following you closely.

 

Nor should you.

[Brant Gaede]

You're pissing on my tires. That's all you can do.

--Brant

I think you are going about this the wrong way. You would impress me if you could identify what I or any other artist is doing well, and why. That would actually be fun. Instead you are way to focused on trying to find anything wrong. Yeah, I have been painting for 40 + years, and taught, etc. You write as if I don’t know anything about art. Don’t you think it would be interesting if there were stuff that you could discover? Instead of being monolithically stuck?

Let me be blunt: understand Kant's notion of the Sublime then if you like it embrace it. To do that you'd have to actually understand it--do you, really?--and maybe embrace the Castor Oil AKA Jonathan or refute him. You Have Not Done That Yet Even By One Percent! (I may be full of shit. So what?) Rand the Randian supposedly embraced it and Rand the Objectivist supposedly did not. You seem to have embraced Rand the Objectivist.

Do you want to win fuckin' arguments or do you want this?:

https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/10/hunter-s-thompson-living-versus-existing/

--Brant

"fun" my ass

[Newberry]

I may be full of shit.

--Brant

"fun" my ass

No maybe about it, you are. And you know it.

[Brant Gaede]

I may be full of shit.

--Brant

"fun" my ass

No maybe about it, you are. And you know it.

I wasn't sure you'd go for chum, so I threw some in.

--Brant

I don't know if I'm disappointed with the result or not

[Brant Gaede]

The world of Objectivist esthetics is a bunch of intellectualizations without much meat. Take it or leave it.

The world of Randian esthetics is where the real meat is. Take it or leave it.

Of course there's some overlapping.

Rand herself mixed a lot of it up, nowhere more so than in Atlas Shrugged. She didn't peak artisically with The Fountainhead, but it's her best purely literary effort. So many of the characters did so many non-Objectivist things, like writing phony book and theater reviews or setting themselves up for "rape" or entering private contracts one party had no right to or blowing up a housing project one shouldn't have helped to design and had no rights to, moral or legal.

--Brant

the communists brought out the Nietzsche in her and she let them have him right in the gut (and the head too), which left her in the unfortunate position of seeming to be on the fascist-right side of the classical fascist-communist conflict divide most pronounced in the 1930s and 40s, so the left has always hated her as the fight for and against communism, in the mind now more than the country, goes on (the Marxists are everywhere, but not much of a threat which is more from the conservative neo-con right [nuclear war])

[Jonathan]

Glad you asked. I've downplayed my tennis stuff, and doing it part time funded my art studies, I've pretty much painted everyday since I was a kid. After 3 years as a fine art major at U.S.C. on a full-tennis scholarship...

...While I was playing there these are some of the paintings I did. Woman in Blue, and Women wearing a Hat, they each sold for around $5,000 in the 80's, quite decent prices then.

Thanks for the info. The reason that I asked is that the numbers don't add up. During the past decade and a half, I've seen your prices and the number of works you produce per year. The free schooling helps to explain some of it.

What did your father do for a living? Where did you attend high school?

Kind cool now though one of my pieces is insured for $250,000. And two other collectors just insured their Newberrys, for around $150,000. each. Those estimates came about by what like works more recently sold for and adjusting for the sizes.

Heh. Who are you trying to con? Art is notoriously over-insured. Collectors base their insurance decisions on their own optimism. And art isn't valuated like commodities or durable goods. It isn't fungible with all other works. Each painting has its own market value, independent of what all other paintings sell for. If, in 2006, you and Jeremy Lipking each sold one of your paintings for $10,000, and in 2016 Lipking's painting would resell for $315,000, it doesn't follow that your painting would resell for $315,000.

The same is true of comparing the prices of two different works from the same artist. If one of his or paintings were to appreciate 600 percent over three years, it doesn't mean that all of his works will perform the same. Your statement about "like works" and adjusting for sizes is bullshit. It's a fantasy that isn't releflected in the reality of the art market.

The only relevant numbers are the ones that represent reality, and those are the prices for which your paintings have actually sold or resold (excluding any of which you may have purchased back from buyers). I think you know this, but you're trying to appear to be something you're not, thus you didn't report actual prices but instead cited insurance estimates/wishes.

You also seem to forget that you've announced online in the past the prices of your work. Within the last couple of years, you've even admitted to not having surpassed the six-figure mark with any of your paintings, and you expressed hope that one of your current works at the time would sell for that amount. It hasn't sold yet.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

The world of Objectivist esthetics is a bunch of intellectualizations without much meat

 

I think this is how Newberry can sell his absurdly crude freak show characters as Objectivist-something-or-other. Where Rand praised Vermeer's mastery of light on canvas, Newberry puts phony light on his figures to poke fun at his subjects and his victims patrons. BTW, I saw Vermeer's De Melkmaid up close at the Rijksmusee. The poured milk is painted only in highlights, little streaks of titanium. Makes Rembrant van Rijn look like a dark, dour putz.

 

[Jonathan]

I was just musing do prisoners get internet? It seems that half of the posters here are criminals.

Criminals?!

J

Yeah, and this brings me to you again. Generic name, no portrait photos (though plenty of mug shots), a troller...

I'm not a troller. I've offered very informed and intelligent criticism of your comically stupid misinterpretations of Kant. You haven't -- and can't -- answer that criticism. Your only response is distraction through whining, evasion, personal attacks and pretending to be a published scholar.

Enough of the bullshit. Address the substance. Address the quotes from Kant that I posted in which he writes of the Sublime as being about overcoming terrifying entities, and doing so with fortitude, and of regarding our estates as exalted above them. Quit bluffing and evading. Be honest. Deal with reality.

no website, no public sightings,

I have websites, but I'm not interested in sharing them with the nuttier inhabitants of O-land. I'm not here to push my work, but to discuss ideas. I've only reluctantly posted some samples of my work in response to Objectivist demanding that I prove that I'm an artist (they usually made such demands while not being able to answer the substance of my arguments, and while pretending themselves to be some sort of authorities on art when the reality was that Rand's opinions were the only that they had ever read on art).

queer epistemology...

Hahaha! Reason, logic and my dedication to reality aren't "queer epistemology." Heh. Newbsie, I love that you've come back and are leaving this record of your mess of an epistemological method in action. It's a gold mine.

unpublished...

You're not published. You're pretend-published. You haven't been published in any independent publications which aren't managed or influenced by your Objectivish friends. Those who have published your ramblings haven't brought any critical thinking or scholarly standards whatsoever to your writings before publishing them. You're pretending to be a scholar, while not being able to answer the simplest of questions, which shows that you're used not having to meet any scholarly standards, but just expect your friends to give you a pass.

Again, Enough with the bullshit distractions. Address the substance. Address the quotes from Kant that I posted in which he writes of the Sublime as being about overcoming terrifying entities, and doing so with fortitude, and of regarding our estates as exalted above them. Quit bluffing and evading. Be honest. Deal with reality.

only a couple of photo realistic works that may or may not be yours to rest your laurels on...

As I said I'm not here to beg people to buy my works. I'm here to discuss ideas. I don't look at online discussion forums or social media as means of pushing my work or a fantasy image of myself.

and I couldnt make out signatures, no copyrights, and etc. Any reasonable person with that kind of resume would not expect anyone to take their word on anything.

Ah, I see! Since I provided quotes from Kant in which he says the opposite of what you've been misrepresenting his position to be, and since you can't answer that substance, then I therefore have to be smeared as being a con man who can't be trusted, and therefore the proof that I provided about Kant shouldn't be trusted?!!! Hahaha!

But you act the opposite; hence you are most definitely doing a con job.

Specifically what con do you think that I'm running? I haven't promoted my art here. I haven't solicited any art sales. I haven't asked anyone to avoid any substance, but in fact have been asking them to consider as much substance as possible. I've been providing evidence, quotes and proof, and asking people to review them, where you've been evading all of the substance and coming up with all sorts of distractions. You're the one acting like a con man.

Once again: Address the substance. Address the quotes from Kant that I posted in which he writes of the Sublime as being about overcoming terrifying entities, and doing so with fortitude, and of regarding our estates as exalted above them. Quit bluffing and evading. Be honest. Deal with reality.

J

[Jonathan]

Any reasonable person with that kind of resume would not expect anyone to take their word on anything.

I certainly don't take his word on anything, public resumé or no. When he makes references (e.g. to Kant on aesthetics), I check them. What's your method?

You might not have been around years ago when I started bringing up Kant's aesthetics - I might have been the first in O land or even in general to bring up the connection of Kant's aesthetics to Postmodernism, lol, with references.

You haven't made any real connections between Kant and postmodernism in art, because you don't understand either. You misrepresent both. And that's not original at all in O-land. Lots of morons do it.

My work probably introduced J to the topic.

Heh! There's the delusionally self-important Newbsie that we know so well! I read Kant's critique of judgment long ago, and found nothing controversial or upsetting about it. At the time (probably some time between '79 and '83), I remembered concluding that Rand had never read it, given what she had said about it.

I returned to it again within the last few years because you had made it an obsession to smear and misrepresent Kant's views on the Sublime. As I reported on the A Few Kant Quotes thread, I had forgotten a few things since my first reading, but generally remembered it pretty well and had most of it right.

Newbsie, heh, when you went out looking to blame Kant for modernism and postmodernism in art, which other thinkers from history did you also read? Your read none, correct? You've admitted a couple of times here to not having even considered the history of the Sublime, and of not having read thinkers prior to Kant on the subject (such as Burke, Shaftesbury, etc.). Do you believe that it's good epistemology to willfully misread one thinker with great prejudice and hostility, to read no one else and to consider no other options, to then conclude that Kant was the cause of what you were predetermined to blame him for, and to refuse to consider the mountains of proof provided by others that refute your position?

It doesn't sound to me that you check up for real. And I don't you think you give a shit about this topic anyway, other than to chime in with inaneness.

He did check up on it. Ninth and I have participated in other discussions on the same subject, and, just like me, he has posted several quotes from Kant, and provided many examples which demonstrate his understanding of the subject.

Newbsie, stop denying reality. Stop trying to blank it out. It's not going to go away. You're not going to succeed in wishing it out of existence.

Address the the proof that has been pointed out to you. Address the quotes from Kant that I provided in which he says exactly what you say that he doesn't. Stop lying and smearing. Deal with reality!

J

[Jonathan]

"I don't know anything about the topic, but ..." You are trying to play gotcha with me, but you should ask yourself what your agenda is Brant. Like J I don't think you are for or stand for anything

I stand for reality.

Heh. What do you stand for? Why, you stand for Kantan Sublimity while being too stupid to recognize it, and while believing that you're opposing it! More than anything else, you need the Kantian Sublime! You make Kant into a massively powerful cause of destructive influence so that you can experience your will to resist, and to feel the fortitude of overcoming his power, and of regarding your estate as exalted above it. You're all about trying to live Kantian Sublimity!

just pissing away thoughts, your time, and your life.

That's you. Pissng out your irrational anger at Kant, wasting your time trying to vindicate Rand on an issue about which she was ignorant and hatefully emotional. Your position is wrong and stupid, and you're pigheadedly clinging to it in the face of overwhelming evidence of its falsehood. It's sad that you need such unreality to motivate yourself. Inventing monsters so that you can pose as having slayed them. Pathetic. Do you actually believe that you're fooling anyone?

J

[Jonathan]

I like the three paintings but don't understand the apparent regression of skill or its lack of advancement.

My guess would be that Rand happened. Newberry became Obedient to her and her theories. He became a disciple, and when one does that with Objectivism, the ability to recognize one's errors or glaring imperfections vanishes. No reality can make it through the fantasy vision of one's own perfection, prestige and importance. It ends up stifling and stunting one's potentials.

J

[9thdoctor]

Any reasonable person with that kind of resume would not expect anyone to take their word on anything.

I certainly don't take his word on anything, public resumé or no. When he makes references (e.g. to Kant on aesthetics), I check them. What's your method?

You might not have been around years ago when I started bringing up Kant's aesthetics - I might have been the first in O land or even in general to bring up the connection of Kant's aesthetics to Postmodernism, lol, with references. My work probably introduced J to the topic. It doesn't sound to me that you check up for real. And I don't you think you give a shit about this topic anyway, other than to chime in with inaneness.

I've read enough of your writings now to share Jonathan's judgement. How about an example?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5855&p=53161

At least on my first 30 or 50 readings, in my 20's, of Kant's aesthetics it sounded like the gibberish that Phil and Kyrel joke about. Since then, I have read it many, many more times, and feel very comfortable understanding his style, content, and meaning. For many people it is not anymore understandable then the more weird aspects of Postmodern Art--but in his aesthetics lies the key to understanding the theoretical basis for PM art.

...

Kant spends some pages discussing the mathematical sublime. His theory is that if we can see the totality of the thing, see it was a whole unit, then it is not a very big deal. But, if the thing goes on without end, or seems to go on without end, it startles are imagination and inspires sublimity in our contemplation.

Another reminder, this is about his aesthetic thought.

Okay, based on Kant's theory of the sublime, the David would not measure up. Nor the Sistine Chapel, as we can still see the whole of it. And if you want to go for really monumental works like the Statue of Liberty, or the portraits of Mount Rushmore, they wouldn't measure up either.

After 50+ readings you didn't notice that Kant has two categories of Sublime, Mathematical and Dynamical? Then you claim that artworks that don't fit the Mathematical don't "measure up"? Measure up to what? If a work doesn't convey the Sublime Kant claims that's a fault? Where does he do that? Citation please.

Then, seeing "the whole of it" disqualifies a work from eliciting the experience of the Sublime? Nonsense. That would disqualify anything man made, even the evil POMO works you accuse Kant of inspiring. And the Sistine Chapel?? The Last Judgement???? That's as Sublime as it gets. The sky opens, God/Jesus hurls people left and right (actually, mostly down) to hell, this is unimaginably big stuff happening (starry skies and thunderstorms got nothing on this) but you, having just been to confession and nibbled your weekly wafer, feel exalted and energized. Also safe: you're soul is in good standing, you're among the elect.

Re your witless insults, 3 minutes in is for you.

Colorized, blech.

[Selene]

Being Kantian neutral, this Iranian doctoral thesis in 2006 makes Newbury's interpretations of the sublime to be inaccurate:

Sorry about that spacing...

3. The Kantian Sublime

Kant believes that the sublime is something in our mind instead of being innature. In other words, when someone is in a sublime situation, it is not the objectwhich is sublime but it is his/herself which he/she finds as sublime. The sublime innature is only improperly so called, and should properly be ascri bed only to themanner of thinking, or rather to its foundation in human nature.’10

The Kantiansublime ‘is therefore not to be sought in the things of nature but only in our ideas.’11

Kant defines the sublime in two deferent aspects, the Mathematical and theDynamic sublime. In Mathematical sublime, an object of huge dimensions is thesource of the sublime, something which is absolutely great, which is ‘great beyondall comparison.’12

When we encounter something which is absolutely great, our faculties of imagination and understanding are not able to perceive it because itsurpasses every measure which we know. This failure causes pain but, when thefaculty of reason makes the concept of infinity or magnificence for instance, the pain will disappear, because we find our rational capacity superior to the object.The huge object is now grasped through the supersensible idea which is made byour faculty of reason. So, the supersensible idea of reason is eligible for beingcalled the sublime. ‘That is sublime which even to be able to think of demonstratesa faculty of the mind that surpasses every measure of senses.’13

In themathematical sublime, we find and are aware of our superiority to nature, and itallows us tof eel delight instead of pain. Some scholars believe that it reveals a typeof freedom.14

For dynamic sublime, Kant talks about a natural power which has the capacityto endanger our life but when we are a safe distance of it we can find ourselvessuperior to it. Kant defines the dynamic sublime with the concepts of Power and Dominion.To him, ‘Power is a capacity that is superior to great obstacles.’15

Dominionis a type of power that ‘is also superior to the resistance of somethingthat itself possesses power.’17

Thus, ‘nature considered in aesthetic judgment as a power that has no dominion over us is dynamically sublime.’18

Although the natural object must be fearful in order to be a source of thesublime, it must not be frightening or Dangerous for the one who tries to judge it assublime. It means that we must be in a safe place for judging it, or be so brave as toresist it. Fearful natural objectsmake our capacity to resist into an insignificant trifle incomparison with their power. But the sight of them only becomesall the more attractive the more fearful it is, as long as we findourselves in safety, and we gladly call these objects sublime because they elevate the strength of our soul above its usuallevel, and allow us to discover within ourselves a capacity for resistance of quite another kind, which gives us the courage tomeasur eourselves against the apparent all-powerfulness of nature.

This capacity is based on the instinct of self preservation, but of a different typefrom that which we know. Its duty is to save our humanity instead of just our physical life.it reveals a capacity for judging ourselves as independent of itand a superiority over nature on which is grounded a self- preservation of quite another kind than that which can bethreatened and endangered by nature outside us, whereby thehumanity in our person remains undemeaned even though thehuman being must submit to that dominion. In this way, in our aesthetic judgment nature is judged as sublime not insofar as itarouses fear, but rather because it calls forth our power (which isnot part of nature) to regard those things about which we areconcerned (goods, health and life) as trivial, and hence to regardits power (to which we are, to be sure, subjected in regard tothese things) as not the sort of dominion over ourselves and our authority to which we would have to bow if it came downto our highest principles and their affirmation or abandonment.20

http://www.academia.edu/653979/Sublime_Pain_A_Study_of_Voluntary_Pain_Acceptance

[9thdoctor]

Being Kantian neutral, this Iranian doctoral thesis in 2006 makes Newbury's interpretations of the sublime to be inaccurate:

I just gave it a once-over and didn't see anything wrong.

[anthony]

Quite commonly, there are aspects of magnitude in Nature which will cause a temporary sensory overload in a consciousness. Like a sudden clap of thunder, or viewing a night sky or being confronted by a vast mountain range.

(If one called that mental phenomenon 'Shock and Awe' instead of The Sublime, around the same thing I reckon).

On these occasions, the process of 1. perceiving "a fact of reality", 2. identifying it and integrating it conceptually, 3. assessing its value to life and 4. having an emotional response - may be overwhelmed or 'short-circuited'. Here, I think one perceives 'the fact' - but straightaway feels an emotion (threatening or overawed). Only after, does one overcome the emotion, identify what the fact is, and judge its value or disvalue.

Honestly I don't see the big deal in something rationally explicable, which Kant himself said is "based on the instinct for self-preservation".

Kant accepted that "the sublime is something in our mind instead of being in nature", so he did avoid intrinsicism. He elsewhere called it a subjective experience. Right, his "sublimity" is not intrinsic nor innate to the nature of the mountain(etc.) - and is indeed subjective. But the visual cause of one's Awe - the mountain- has identity independent of one's senses, mind and emotions, so is objective.

As is a work of art and its content, and as is a morality, into both of which Kant carried forward his Sublime subjectivity, I gather.

[Jonathan]

Quite commonly, there are aspects of magnitude in Nature which will cause a temporary sensory overload in a consciousness. Like a sudden clap of thunder, or viewing a night sky or being confronted by a vast mountain range.

(If one called that mental phenomenon 'Shock and Awe' instead of The Sublime, around the same thing I reckon).

You reckon wrong. That's not what the Sublime is. Heh. It's not as hard as you're making it. You need to slow down, pay attention, and set aside your emotions. Understand the concept before going off to the races with your straw man philosophizing.

J

[tmj]

I Kant

I won't

Aye Rand