Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[Jonathan]

...And how did this thread go so far off course into irrelevant tangents?

Man, I take a break for a few months, and everything goes to hell.

Let's get back on course. Throw out the cluttered thinking and the dusty distractions.

Objectively demonstrate -- prove -- that anything has ever qualified as art by Rand's theory of aesthetics, or by Kamhi's, or by your own, or by any other Objectivish who gets all frothy, engorged and tingly over telling others, "That ain't art!!!"

Put up or shut up.

[Brant Gaede]

11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

...And how did this thread go so far off course into irrelevant tangents?

Man, I take a break for a few months, and everything goes to hell.

Let's get back on course. Throw out the cluttered thinking and the dusty distractions.

Objectively demonstrate -- prove -- that anything has ever qualified as art by Rand's theory of aesthetics, or by Kamhi's, or by your own, or by any other Objectivish who gets all frothy, engorged and tingly over telling others, "That ain't art!!!"

Put up or shut up.

If this can't be done what might we talk about?

Whenever someone says, "That ain't art!!!" I just assume it's art. I trust their judgment.

--Brant

not that I'd buy it

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If this can't be done what might we talk about?

 

First, we'd talk about people admitting to and accepting the objective reality that neither they nor Rand have ever shown that anything has ever qualified as art by her criteria, or by their own. Second, we could talk about the prospect of actually objectively testing if anything qualifies as art. What means would be used? What percentage of art consumers would have to have been communicate to via any work of art, and why that percentage? Third, if, after such testing, little or nothing qualifies as art by Rand's or her followers' criteria, then what does that say about her criteria? What modifications, if any, should be taken to correct the theories' inconsistencies, contradictions, unproven assertions, mistakes and falsehoods?

Lots and lots of ground to cover.

[Brant Gaede]

10 hours ago, Jonathan said:

First, we'd talk about people admitting to and accepting the objective reality that neither they nor Rand have ever shown that anything has ever qualified as art by her criteria, or by their own. Second, we could talk about the prospect of actually objectively testing if anything qualifies as art. What means would be used? What percentage of art consumers would have to have been communicate to via any work of art, and why that percentage? Third, if, after such testing, little or nothing qualifies as art by Rand's or her followers' criteria, then what does that say about her criteria? What modifications, if any, should be taken to correct the theories' inconsistencies, contradictions, unproven assertions, mistakes and falsehoods?

Lots and lots of ground to cover.

Well, the only way to objectively "prove" something is "art" is to start with a definition of art. The problem is any definition ends up excluding vast areas of art that are commonly considered art. Literature vrs painting vrs music, etc.

My view is very simple: If someone says he's an artist he's an artist. If someone says something is art it's art. All else is bullshit.

Now esthetics is different. Esthetics is the study of what people call art of interest to an esthetician. A professional esthetician who gets embroiled in an argument about what is and isn't art is ignorant stupid. It's OK to say "Piss Christ" is cheap and disgusting and not art if you aren't an esthetician, but rather a moralist.

--Brant

morality and art don't mix just as thinking and "correct thinking" don't mix

[Theo]

On 05/10/2017 at 3:37 AM, Jonathan said:

Complete waste of time. You're just making shit up off the top of your head.

Not interesting whatsoever.

Of course Jonathan, you must hate it every time I mention anything about, stylisation, subject matter and theme, as these are the essential ingredients that make up objective art - and which are totally ABSENT in abstract art! The term abstract art is a joke! Abstract implies there is something conceptual about it. Abstract art cannot even be perceptual, it can only convey sensations, much like decorative design. Compare a Vermeer next to a Pollock painting, there is no way they can be conceptually grouped into the same category of fine art just because they are both contained within a frame - one is art, one is not.

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, Theo said:

Of course Jonathan, you must hate it every time I mention anything about, stylisation, subject matter and theme, as these are the essential ingredients that make up objective art - and which are totally ABSENT in abstract art! The term abstract art is a joke! Abstract implies there is something conceptual about it. Abstract art cannot even be perceptual, it can only convey sensations, much like decorative design. Compare a Vermeer next to a Pollock painting, there is no way they can be conceptually grouped into the same category of fine art just because they are both contained within a frame - one is art, one is not.

All art seems to be abstract. To say a Pollack isn't art you have to define him out and that'll be arbitrary. Also, you start with "fine art" and segue to "art" mixing up your categories. Abstract art and abstractions aren't even remotely the same thing. Abstract (art) implies nothing conceptual. Conceptual appertains to literature and some paintings. Etc.

--Brant

why do some people want to be eaten alive?

[Jonathan]

17 hours ago, Theo said:

Of course Jonathan, you must hate it every time I mention anything about, stylisation, subject matter and theme, as these are the essential ingredients that make up objective art - and which are totally ABSENT in abstract art! The term abstract art is a joke! Abstract implies there is something conceptual about it. Abstract art cannot even be perceptual, it can only convey sensations, much like decorative design. Compare a Vermeer next to a Pollock painting, there is no way they can be conceptually grouped into the same category of fine art just because they are both contained within a frame - one is art, one is not.

The fact that you personally don't recognize stylization, subject matter or theme in a work of art doesn't mean that no one else does.

Instead of answering my challenges above, you thought that you'd sidestep them and double down with more of the same unsupported assertions. Did you seriously think that no one would notice? Just act all Randian-authorityish, make more declarations without proof, and ignore -- or "blank out," as Rand's followers like to say -- the substance of any criticism?

Here, again, is the challenge that you've "blanked out," Mr. Babbling Arts Expert Authority:

"Let's get back on course. Throw out the cluttered thinking and the dusty distractions.

"Objectively demonstrate -- prove -- that anything has ever qualified as art by Rand's theory of aesthetics, or by Kamhi's, or by your own, or by any other Objectivish who gets all frothy, engorged and tingly over telling others, "That ain't art!!!"

"Put up or shut up."

[Theo]

On 08/10/2017 at 4:01 AM, Jonathan said:

"Objectively demonstrate -- prove -- that anything has ever qualified as art by Rand's theory of aesthetics, or by Kamhi's, or by your own, or by any other Objectivish who gets all frothy, engorged and tingly over telling others, "That ain't art!!!"

In art, like philosophy, you won't get the "proof" you are looking for. This is not a science experiment! Validating knowledge on art requires first understanding the nature of the subject we are talking about and to do this it is crucial to answering questions such as; Why does man create or even need art? Since art is uniquely man-made, how does it relate to man as a conceptual being? Why recreate (stylise) reality? etc. What we are dealing with here are very broad abstractions and I believe Ayn Rand asked and answered these brilliantly. To fully understand these concepts requires tracing them back to references in reality. That is exactly why representational painting and abstract painting CAN NOT be retained within the same concept, art, simply because everything about the nature of both are totally different - they have absolutely nothing in common - in the way they are created and in the way a viewer responds to them. At best, abstract painting is decorative design. Recognising something for what it is or is not, does not make me a fascist.

 

On 08/10/2017 at 4:01 AM, Jonathan said:

The fact that you personally don't recognize stylization, subject matter or theme in a work of art doesn't mean that no one else does.

How?! How can a theme be conveyed without a subject? How can something contain subject matter and contain none at the same time? How can an artist stylise reality, without reference to reality? As I have explained in my previous post, every element that makes art possible has been removed in abstract painting.
Empiricists hate and recoil from broad abstractions - it is all too much for them and they can only resort to cynical, snide comments. The only option for an empiricist is to turn to pure subjectivism to provide them with "answers", here is a perfect example:

 

On 21/09/2016 at 7:12 AM, Jonathan said:

Image 1: I see vibrant, energetic action, with individual “virtual entities” (as His Royal Published Majesty refers to the non-representational means of music) acting and affecting each other through their environment. The concentric circles are like waves expanding and modulating as they go. Simplified to an Objectivist-style “essence," I would say that its meaning/emotional affect on me is like a public discussion, with ideas being exchange, reflected, modified and honed. I see it as a valuing of interaction and exchange.

Image 2: I see fiery warm hues behind a gauzy transparent barrier which diffracts and both blurs and sharpens the image behind it. To me, it has the feeling of the awareness of time/distance of a memory. Its like fondly looking back without wanting to return there.

Image 3: This image is similar to Image 1, but less compositionally impactful to me. It doesn’t have the self-consistency of Image 1. The “virtual entities” feel more local and isolated. They feel more individualistic and independent, but also as if they haven’t benefitted from being exposed to others who differ. The image feels like a tradeoff: Are you willing to miss out on some great human discoveries and exchanges on a grand scale in order to maintain self and originality but on a small scale?

6

That was Jonathan's attempt to give abstract art some meaning!?

[Brant Gaede]

On 10/7/2017 at 10:01 AM, Jonathan said:

The fact that you personally don't recognize stylization, subject matter or theme in a work of art doesn't mean that no one else does.

Instead of answering my challenges above, you thought that you'd sidestep them and double down with more of the same unsupported assertions. Did you seriously think that no one would notice? Just act all Randian-authorityish, make more declarations without proof, and ignore -- or "blank out," as Rand's followers like to say -- the substance of any criticism?

Here, again, is the challenge that you've "blanked out," Mr. Babbling Arts Expert Authority:

"Let's get back on course. Throw out the cluttered thinking and the dusty distractions.

"Objectively demonstrate -- prove -- that anything has ever qualified as art by Rand's theory of aesthetics, or by Kamhi's, or by your own, or by any other Objectivish who gets all frothy, engorged and tingly over telling others, "That ain't art!!!"

"Put up or shut up."

But you know this can't be done?

--Brant

I think it can't but don't know it can't and can't cannot wait for an answer

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, Theo said:

In art, like philosophy, you won't get the "proof" you are looking for. This is not a science experiment! Validating knowledge on art requires first understanding the nature of the subject we are talking about and to do this it is crucial to answering questions such as; Why does man create or even need art? Since art is uniquely man-made, how does it relate to man as a conceptual being? Why recreate (stylise) reality? etc. What we are dealing with here are very broad abstractions and I believe Ayn Rand asked and answered these brilliantly. To fully understand these concepts requires tracing them back to references in reality. That is exactly why representational painting and abstract painting CAN NOT be retained within the same concept, art, simply because everything about the nature of both are totally different - they have absolutely nothing in common - in the way they are created and in the way a viewer responds to them. At best, abstract painting is decorative design. Recognising something for what it is or is not, does not make me a fascist.

It sounded pretty good until the abstract art/art divide where one is art and the other not, revealing you're essentially a rationalizer on the subject. All art is abstract. You are simply jumping in between the creator and the consumer of what is called "art" so if you aren't a fascist about it you're at least a party crasher.

--Brant

[Theo]

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It sounded pretty good until the abstract art/art divide where one is art and the other not, revealing you're essentially a rationalizer on the subject. All art is abstract. You are simply jumping in between the creator and the consumer of what is called "art" so if you aren't a fascist about it you're at least a party crasher.

I explained clearly that abstract art was aligned with decorative design - just because I left out some detail (surely I don't need to explain the design process here), does not make me a rationalist. I assume most people understand it at least in a basic way. Also, it is clear that representational painting is not decorative design in any way and assumed I didn't need to elaborate further, but I will if I have to. What part of what I wrote don't you understand?
 

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

But you know this can't be done?

--Brant

I think it can't but don't know it can't and can't cannot wait for an answer

If a "creator" staples a tyre to a wall and calls it art, does not make it art. In fact, this subjectivist view would make it utterly impossible to answer any questions on art. "Anything goes" is not a valid understanding of anything, simply because you don't know the answer. Or, what I suspect is, you want to cling onto a falsehood - you want to believe abstract painting is art.

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, Theo said:

In art, like philosophy, you won't get the "proof" you are looking for. This is not a science experiment! Validating knowledge on art requires first understanding the nature of the subject we are talking about and to do this it is crucial to answering questions such as; Why does man create or even need art? Since art is uniquely man-made, how does it relate to man as a conceptual being? Why recreate (stylise) reality? etc. What we are dealing with here are very broad abstractions and I believe Ayn Rand asked and answered these brilliantly. To fully understand these concepts requires tracing them back to references in reality. That is exactly why representational painting and abstract painting CAN NOT be retained within the same concept, art, simply because everything about the nature of both are totally different - they have absolutely nothing in common - in the way they are created and in the way a viewer responds to them. At best, abstract painting is decorative design. Recognising something for what it is or is not, does not make me a fascist.

 

How?! How can a theme be conveyed without a subject? How can something contain subject matter and contain none at the same time? How can an artist stylise reality, without reference to reality? As I have explained in my previous post, every element that makes art possible has been removed in abstract painting.
Empiricists hate and recoil from broad abstractions - it is all too much for them and they can only resort to cynical, snide comments. The only option for an empiricist is to turn to pure subjectivism to provide them with "answers", here is a perfect example:

 

That was Jonathan's attempt to give abstract art some meaning!?

Lots of blather, and still no demonstration of anything ever qualifying as art by your criteria. Bluff and bluster and bullshit. Heh. Your position is that you don't have to prove anything? Hahaha. 

[Jonathan]

5 hours ago, Theo said:

I explained clearly that abstract art was aligned with decorative design - just because I left out some detail (surely I don't need to explain the design process here), does not make me a rationalist. I assume most people understand it at least in a basic way. Also, it is clear that representational painting is not decorative design in any way and assumed I didn't need to elaborate further, but I will if I have to. What part of what I wrote don't you understand?
 

If a "creator" staples a tyre to a wall and calls it art, does not make it art. In fact, this subjectivist view would make it utterly impossible to answer any questions on art. "Anything goes" is not a valid understanding of anything, simply because you don't know the answer. Or, what I suspect is, you want to cling onto a falsehood - you want to believe abstract painting is art.

Anything goes is far better than nothing goes, which is what happens under the Objectivist Esthetics. Nothing, ever, has been shown to qualify as art by the standards and requirements of the Objectivist Esthetics. Nothing goes. Nihil!

[anthony]

Indeed, "not a science experiment" Theo. This goes to the core of empiricism with regard to objectivity, and why art (and Rand's theory of art) is not an indulged outlier but is essential to the mind and to Objectivist theory. Like all existence, there is no "proof", but what one is able to perceive - and is therefore self-evident. Artwork is concrete. Art has its ultimate purpose the single mind's contemplation, value-assessment, value-acquisition and the consequent emotions. Almost any artist implicitly grasps this fact, I reckon. He wants to be 'visible'. (Unless he renders his art abstract, 'invisible'). The viewer *sees* and perceives the reality in another man's re-doing of reality, one which has been chosen, isolated, contemplated and specially prepared by his eye and hand, put through his consciousness and guided, knowingly or not, by his particular view of existence. From concretes -> through his mind's abstractions -> to final concrete. The viewer reverses the artistic process and forms his own abstractions, which the picture will represent for him in future.

Few know much about the slog of art-making. There isn't anything magical about the artistic process, nor mystically-gifted (intuitional) about the artists' insights. There is hard training, graft and thought about technique and style, together with a keenly developed vision, in his mind's eye as well as outwardly, and fine awareness of nuance and detail. Every choice of action leads on to another one, what to insert and what to leave out, toward his final, purposeful, destination. And the occasional inductive leap. Going along, will be his emotional turmoil, some pain during and delight after the completion. Know this human reality about artists, and ~then~ can one pay great respect to a good artist's works, in appreciation. Much of the sentimentalism and glamorized elements people believe of art-creation would be put to rest if they lived with, or followed an artist around or observed him/her in his studio for long periods. 

You either trust your senses and your mind - or what is there? Sometimes the viewer doesn't see in a painted work one thing that makes visual sense, so what can he do but ignore it? One either knows reality directly for oneself, or must succumb to any arbitrary claims by the artist - and especially the conclusions by 'art authorities', who have a mega-wealthy industry and their collective reputations riding on what they pontificate "is" art to collectors (who in turn, have a vested interest to keep the bubble afloat) . Here are the intellectual tyrants of art, in overwhelming majority - not the few critics, Objectivists and others who dare to state they can't see what is before their eyes - and so don't acknowledge the significance of - what is claimed actually 'exists'. 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Like all existence, there is no "proof", but what one is able to perceive - and is therefore self-evident...

Which "one" are we talking about? Are all "ones" the same in their abilities to perceive? We recently had a discussion here at OL about what is called Aristotle's wheel "paradox." The discussion revealed great differences in individuals' abilities to perceive. Merlin couldn't see what is self-evident to most of the rest of us, even after our assisting him with visual aids and explanations. Should he therefore be the standard for what is able to be perceived and what is self-evident?

 

Quote

You either trust your senses and your mind - or what is there?

What is there? Well, there's also recognizing that others have different abilities, and sometimes their abilities are greater than yours, and sometimes they are lesser. All humans are not limited to what Merlin can or cannot see and understand, nor are we limited to what Tony or Theo can see or understand.

 

Quote

Sometimes the viewer doesn't see in a picture one thing that makes visual sense, so what can he do but ignore it?

You think that's the only option? Another might be to study the picture more closely, and to listen to what others describe seeing it in, rather than shutting off one's mind. Choose to learn, rather than to be an obedient Rand sheep.

 

Quote

One either knows reality directly for oneself, or must succumb to any arbitrary claims by the artist - and especially the conclusions by 'art authorities'...

I choose the former -- I know reality directly for myself -- rather than succumbing to claims by "art authorities" like Rand and her little bleating followers who insist on telling everyone else what they can and can't experience in works of art in which the twit "authorities" experience nothing. I don't care how upsetting it is to people like Kamhi, Tony or Theo, or even Merlin. I'm not limited to their deficiencies and ineptitudes just because they're so psychologically fragile that they need to believe that they are the peak cognitive limit of the whole human race.

 

Quote

Here are the intellectual tyrants of art, in overwhelming majority - not the few critics, Objectivists and others who dare to state they can't see what is before their eyes - and so don't acknowledge the importance of - what is claimed actually 'exists'. 

The art tyrant Rand required art to communicate the "artist's meaning." No work of alleged art has ever been shown to comply with that requirement. Nothing. Not even Rand's own alleged art. Nothing is art according to the Objectivist Esthetics.

[Theo]

7 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Anything goes is far better than nothing goes, which is what happens under the Objectivist Esthetics. Nothing, ever, has been shown to qualify as art by the standards and requirements of the Objectivist Esthetics. Nothing goes. Nihil!

So what is it that you need me to explain for you to understand? Are you expecting me to compile a list of paintings that qualify as objective art? Do you need me to analyse each one? Do you need me to show you examples of masterful stylisation? Do you need me to show you how recognisable subject can project meaning within a painting? 
I continue to point out how the nature of representational painting and abstract painting differ, but that clearly is not enough for you.
None of the above is important to you when you want to hold onto a lie (like a priest), a lie that tries to make something into that which it is not! Ayn Rand has exposed that lie! In fact, that lie was exposed as self-evident long before Rand came along.
 

[william.scherk]

[Jonathan]

18 minutes ago, Theo said:

So what is it that you need me to explain for you to understand? Are you expecting me to compile a list of paintings that qualify as objective art?

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the meaning of the words that I used? I did not ask you to compile a list of paintings that you think qualify as art, but to objectively demonstrate that any work of alleged art has ever successfully met Rand's requirement of communicating the intended "artist's meaning." That doesn't mean that I'm challenging you or anyone else to merely state what you interpret a work of art to mean, but to actually show that the intended "artist's meaning" was successfully conveyed via the art, and only the art, and allowing for no "outside considerations" such as titles, placard descriptions, program notes, etc.

Understand now? It's not that difficult of a challenge to understand. You have to pay attention instead of just having an emotional reaction and then blabbering about irrelevant stuff.

 

Quote

Do you need me to analyse each one?

One work of art will be enough for the time being. Follow Rand's criteria to the letter. Now, pay attention. That means something very specific. Curb your emotions and focus on understanding what you're being challenged to do.

 

Quote

Do you need me to show you examples of masterful stylisation?

Heh. Please do! Rand thought that her being a novelist somehow qualified her to judge "masterful stylization" in visual art. She didn't know what she was talking about. Hopefully you'll do better. Be careful not to bluff! Just giving you fair warning.

 

Quote

Do you need me to show you how recognisable subject can project meaning within a painting? 

I don't need you to do anything. You, due to the onus of proof being on you, need to back up your little beliefs in Ayn's Esthetics, and objectively demonstrate that anything has ever qualified as art according to her theory. Your and her bald assertion is that abstract paintings cannot qualify as art because they can't communicate meaning. Not only have you not proven that assertion, but you haven't even proven the idea that representational paintings can communicate meaning.

When I've test Rand's followers for their ability to identify "artists' meanings" in realistic representational paintings, they've failed. Every time! Nothing qualifies as art by Rand's criteria.

 

Quote

I continue to point out how the nature of representational painting and abstract painting differ, but that clearly is not enough for you.

Indeed, your empty assertions based on your own personal limitations is not enough for me. I require proof that you can comply with Rand's criteria and identify intended "artists' meanings" in works of art while being denied access to what she called "outside considerations." 

Here. Let's go back to the points that I posted in the first post on this thread, since apparently you missed them. They should help you understand the challenges that I've issued, and which remain unanswered:

1. If your argument does not boil down to your basing your claims of others’ “depth of meaningful response” on nothing but your own personal lack of response, then please identify the objective method that you’ve used to scientifically measure others’ depth-of-meaning responses to the art forms in which you personally experience little or no depth-of-meaning.

2. Please post the data and results of such objective testing methods and experiments so that we may analyze and review the research, weight its merits, and criticize any potential errors.

3. Please reveal experiments in which you’ve tested people’s ability to identify "artists’ meanings” in works of art which you have accepted as validly qualifying as art by your own criteria. Please objectively demonstrate that any work of alleged art has been objectively shown to comply with your criteria. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve tested many Objectivists with representational paintings, and none, so far, has succeeded in identifying “artist’s meanings.” Have your tests yielded better results?

4. You suggest that, since some viewers “misread" Rothko’s intentions with his art, then it therefore surely indicates that there was something wanting in his approach. In the deleted post of mine, I identified ways in which people have interpreted Rand’s The Fountainhead much differently than she intended, and they did so based on the objectively identifiably content in the novel (Roark’s violating his own morality by working on a project to which he is morally opposed, his conspiring to commit the fraud of passing off his work as someone else’s in order to subvert the rights of the owners to not hire him, his presenting the false and irrational argument in court that a contract that he did not have with the owners was violated by them when the reality was that he actively hid his involvement in the project from them, etc.).  Applying your own method that you just used on Rothko, shouldn’t we conclude that people’s “misreading” of Rand’s intentions also “surely indicate that there was something wanting in [her] approach [to literary/aesthetic theory]”? 
 

 

[in response to Tony's suggestion that we empirically test people for the ability, or lack thereof, to identify artists' meanings in abstract art:]

Where is such empirical testing of people's ability to identify artist's meanings in the images in the left hand column???

Why is it that none of you Objectivish aesthetic geniuses, and none elsewhere, has been able to identify any artists' meanings in any realistic, representational paintings?

One of the points of my posting the two columns of images, long ago, was to apply Objectivist criteria to various works and begin to test them in reality. I did so because O'vishes had demanded proof from others that abstract visual art could actually meet their criteria. In other words, they weren't content to take people at their word when describing the depth and meaning that they claimed to experience in abstract art. Well, I decided to call the O'vishes' bluff by applying their own standards to them: I'm not content to take you at your word -- I don't accept your empty assertions that the works which you declare are valid art have actually been shown to meet your criteria. I require proof, the same proof that you demand of fans of abstract art! So, as part of my investigation and testing, I have challenged, and continue to challenge, you and all other O'vishes to identify the artists' meanings in the representational images in the left column (as well as other tests involving other representational images beyond still lifes). So far, only a few people have even attempted to identify only a couple of the artists' meanings, and none have succeeded. Actually, they failed miserably.

Nothing, ever, has yet been demonstrated to qualify as art by Objectivism's criteria!

NOTHING!!! NIHIL!!! Aesthetically, that is what you stand for! You're destroyers and haters, and nothing excites and satisfies you more than screaming in everyone's face, "It's NOT ART!!!!"

[anthony]

"Meaningful". "The artist's meaning". Where does that come from?

I haven't seen Rand ever mention "meaning" in a painting. You perceive, you identify what reality is there, in the subject, its treatment and presentation. From that you infer what the artist believes is *important* (weighted good, or bad) about an aspect of existence he chose to show. This either matches with your view, or doesn't or leaves you neutral. These are what I look for, and all the "communication" I need. But "meaning", no. That's the criterion that empiricists will use to try to "prove" and "test" art and art-appraisals.

[anthony]

"It IS ART!!!"

(and we've got the power, prestige and majority on our side, so watchit buster).

[william.scherk]

 

 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"Meaningful". "The artist's meaning". Where does that come from?

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking histheme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) hisview of life..."

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

 

 

Where's Waldo? 

[Jonathan]

13 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 

 

Wow, look at all of those people who experience nothing in that abstract piece, but who are just there to pretend to get something out of it so as to impress the elite art world authorities!

[Jonathan]

Just a reminder. The challenges that I've issued on this thread apply to all art branches, categories, forms, genres. Nothing has ever been shown to qualify as art according to Rand's criteria. No novels. No paintings or sculptures or buildings. No poems, plays, movies, or ballets. No songs, symphonies or operas. Nothing.

Here's Rand on art:

Quote

As a re-creation 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

So, demonstrate that a piece of music or architecture has complied with that requirement of intelligibility. Prove that the philosophical theory actually applies to reality,  rather than being completely made up and disconnected from reality.

[edited to add] Then move on to showing that consumers of any alleged art form can identify the intended subject of the work of art, as well as the artist's theme/meaning.

More Rand:

Quote

To reduce man’s consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to “moods,” of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.

Where is the proof that all of mankind can't integrate the forms in any abstract paintings? Just because angry old Ayn couldn't get anything from certain types of art doesn't mean that no one else can. 

Quote

But there is a philosophically and psychopathologically instructive element in the spectacle of that gutter. It demonstrates—by the negative means of an absence—the relationships of art to philosophy, of reason to man’s survival, of hatred for reason to hatred for existence. After centuries of the philosophers’ war against reason, they have succeeded—by the method of vivisection—in producing exponents of what man is like when deprived of his rational faculty, and these in turn are giving us images of what existence is like to a being with an empty skull.

My skull isn't empty when experiencing art from which angry Ayn got nothing. She's merely projecting the emptiness of her own skull onto others. See, it's an ego problem. Massive insecurity. She has begun with the assumption that she is the cognitive limit of all of mankind, and the highly insecure need to believe that if she doesn't experience something, then no one else can either, because everyone else is less than she is, they MUST BE less than she is, and no one, and I fucking mean no fucking one, could possibly be more cognitively able in any way that angry Ayn! Don't even dare to entertain such a thought for a millisecond!

Quote

It is highly doubtful that the practitioners and admirers of modern art have the intellectual capacity to understand its philosophical meaning; all they need to do is indulge the worst of their subconscious premises. But their leaders do understand the issue consciously: the father of modern art is Immanuel Kant (see his Critique of Judgment).

Hahaha! Kant was actually the father of Romantic Realism! Rand absorbed his notion of the Sublime, without knowing it, and made it her signature aesthetic style!

Quote

Those who do not wish to be the passive, silent victims of frauds of this kind, can learn from modern art the practical importance of philosophy, and the consequences of philosophical default. Specifically, it is the destruction of logic that disarmed the victims, and, more specifically, the destruction of definitions. Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration.

Hmmm, the destruction of logic, you say? As in art is a re-creation of reality, but some things still qualify despite Rand's explicitly stating that they "don't re-create reality"? Hahaha.

Quote

Man’s need of precise definitions rests on the Law of Identity: A is A, a thing is itself. A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art.

Nothing has ever been objectively shown to meet the definition, criteria, and cognitive requirements of the Objectivist Esthetics' theory of art.

The Objectivist Esthetics is the destruction of art. Its goal is to wipe art from existence. Its purpose is to turn brains to mush, just like Tony's has been turned, to the point of overlooking glaring contradictions and double standards, and then just focusing one's mind on adoring and obeying Rand's authority. 

J