Caricature Art

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] here I am thinking...I have been holding back! I told myself that for the next series of paintings that I’ll be doing in 2007, to just “let it go” and exaggerate and really explore my imagination! [....] I really want to climb out on the ledge of exaggeration [...].

So we'll have the edge on a ledge. Sounds perilous. Seriously, I look forward to the sense of vertigo.

ES

___

[sjw]

The “art world guardians” have hampered development and the art world, as a whole, suffers from an intolerable snobbery. In most circles, humor—and even satire—was considered tawdry, and it still is. I don’t know why.

I am not sure I get your meaning. I don't think you are being clear. You seem to be saying that it's snobbery to say that humor is subordinate to other artistic purposes. But evoking passion for something important is surely a higher purpose than evoking laughter. You seem to be trying to lump everyone who does not subscribe to your view as humorless instead of facing the point I made. If so, the only person you'll convince with that technique is yourself.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

A “higher purpose”? Sort of like a propaganda poster can serve a higher purpose to justify the ink and paper it’ll take? Art is an end in itself, and it seems like you are ascribing a didactic purpose to it. And if emotion plays any important role in art, why not laughter, just as much as awe…or any other emotional state?

Victor

[sjw]

A “higher purpose”? Sort of like a propaganda poster can serve a higher purpose to justify the ink and paper it’ll take? Art is an end in itself, and it seems like you are ascribing a didactic purpose to it.

You certainly seem to want me to be saying that or saying that humor is tawdry. And it would certainly make me an easier target. But that is not what I actually said.

And if emotion plays any important role in art, why not laughter, just as much as awe…or any other emotional state?

So for you, concretizing the ideal man is an equivalent order of art as caricature? For you, a caricature artist can in principle be an equivalent artist to Michaelangelo or Ayn Rand? Is that the reason for the Leonardo tie-in, to try to imply that since he was a great artist, then all his art was great in this respect?

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

So for you, concretizing the ideal man is an equivalent order of art as caricature?

Shayne

Ah, now we are making progress. I can see a major premise you are holding, and sticks out like a bulbous nose. When you speak of “concretizing the ideal man” you are speaking of Ayn Rand’s esthetic purpose—her personal esthetic purpose that she had set for herself as an artist—and in terms of literature. That is not the wider function art has served through out history—it was Rand’s purpose, and noble it was. [Have you read The Romantic Manifesto or even What Art Is?] But tell me, how does one “concretize the ideal man” in music, another art form. When we speak of art, we are not, of course, merely speaking of painting.

Victor

[sjw]

Ah, now we are making progress. I can see a major premise you are holding, and sticks out like a bulbous nose. When you speak of “concretizing the ideal man” you are speaking of Ayn Rand’s esthetic purpose—her personal esthetic purpose that she had set for herself as an artist—and in terms of literature.

Your penchant for humor is blinding you. No Victor, I don't hold the silly premise you just dreamed up for me.

But how about you answer the question I put to you before: "For you, a caricature artist can in principle be an equivalent artist to Michaelangelo or Ayn Rand?"

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

There are many days where I get a lot more out of something that makes me smile than contemplating a representation of Ideal Man<tm>. It helps me deal with going into the jungle every day and producing (that's what it's about).

I agree with Victor on the snobbery. And it's not limited to visual art. I'm not sure what it is. You get it in the music world too, big time. A lot of times it comes from the conservatory types. My roomates and I all get a laugh out of it, including Megan, who's working on her PhD in music, but gets the business because she does very profitable cocktail piano gigs in between study, teaching, rehearsing, and conducting.

There are, in places, people who think that there should be this constant modicum, a built-in seriousness. Well, go have it. I'm serious as a heart attack-- what I do, where I do it, and what's on the line for me, my business, and by extension people like my kids. On top of it I work in one of the most dangerous places in the country; a place where you have to accept that you very well might not make it out in one piece, and that's every damn day.

And spiritually, yes, my contemplation is often somber.

But every day, give me the joyousness, the smiles, the laughs, the fooling around. That's where I like to be, because one day it will be gone. I'll take it now.

As far as people who take their artistic pursuits hyper-seriously (or, in my opinion, with what is considered to be what "seriousness" consists of in terms of attitude), well, I've never seen all that much that tripped my trigger. And, I notice they tend to be miserable bastards.

rde

Bring on the yucks!

Edited November 15, 2006 by Rich Engle

[sjw]

As far as people who take their artistic pursuits hyper-seriously (or, in my opinion, with what is considered to be what "seriousness" consists of in terms of attitude), well, I've never seen all that much that tripped my trigger. And, I notice they tend to be miserable bastards.

Interesting comment to make on an allegedly pro-Ayn Rand board.

Edited November 15, 2006 by sjw

[Rich Engle]

Well, I give her slack because she was a Russian. It's hard for them.

Do you think she was a 24 by 7 serious type? Did she have the pensive look when she relaxed to her beloved tiddlywinks music?

The end of her life, sadly, was not fraught with joy. That much is true.

rde

Even Howard Roark laughed.

Edited November 15, 2006 by Rich Engle

[sjw]

Do you think she was a 24 by 7 serious type?

Do you think that anyone in this thread was implying that humor is bad or that Rand had none? That's the whole problem. You and Victor are trying (and failing rather miserably) to pretend that the alternative to your viewpoints is to be humorless.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Shayne, I didn’t suddenly forget this section of our discussion: concretizing the ideal man is an equivalent order of art as caricature, is what the challenge was. I now want to know—still want to know—is that, in your view, the function of art? And I mean, ALL of art. Is the idea to concretize the ideal man the function and purpose of art?

-Victor

[Rich Engle]

Well, they do exist, yes. And I've found a lot of them around O-world in the 26 years of it being a major part of my life, to varying degrees.

It's like they just can't do it. They'd be violating the Holy Creed of Up-Tightness.

This, of course, just brings out the tempation in some of us, because button-pushing and lampooning become highly available, and observing the subsequent results can be a guilty pleasure if you've been around this little culture long enough and don't buy into what all the locals do. It's fun to watch the sputtering and spewing. But sometimes they loosen up and even crack jokes. It's hard for them, but it's very fufilling to be a part of it.

I think the last time I got into that I ended up quoting a song by a group called The Adults, called "Fuck Art, Let's Dance."

Fuck yeah!

rde

Swing Dancer , Businessman, Occasional Exposure Therapist.

Edited November 15, 2006 by Rich Engle

[sjw]

Shayne, I didn’t suddenly forget this section of our discussion: concretizing the ideal man is an equivalent order of art as caricature, is what the challenge was. I now want to know—still want to know—is that, in your view, the function of art? And I mean, ALL of art. Is the idea to concretize the ideal man the function and purpose of art?

You've got a lot of presumption to keep asking me new questions while refusing to answer questions I've repeatedly put to you.

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, Victor The Evader:

I wanna know if your Hunter Thompson has the aesthetic value (and please be concrete, perhaps a 0-100 comparative point scale) as The Last Supper, dammit.

You better have your premises all checked out.

rde

We're watching you, Sporty-Pants... :purple: <--official O'ist "Cabbalah Eye of Judgment"

Edited November 15, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I agree with Shayne on the differences between caricature and more serious art, but I am a bit adverse to making a hierarchy. It is like comparing beef and oranges.

There is something very deep within us that Atlas Shrugged touches that no caricature ever could. But there is also a fundamental part of our souls that caricature touches that Atlas Shrugged didn't and probably couldn't without destroying its heroic impact.

What is more important in life, to have a heroic vision or to be able to laugh off silly things as they appear along our way? I hold that both are essential to a healthy organism. As a metaphor, which organ is more important to the human body, the heart or the four limbs? Without a heart, it dies. Without the limbs it can survive, but it will need help.

I see these art forms in this kind of hierarchy. I see no point to either-or. Both are good and fundamental and both serve different parts of the same spiritual need.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael you missed your calling. You should have been a politician.

A heart vs. *4* limbs? Do you think that maybe that isn't the most honest comparison? Maybe a heart vs. 1? Certainly caricature art can't count as 4 whole limbs! Heck, even 1 whole limb. Maybe the tip of my pinky finger. Not even that much.

[sjw]

Yeah, Victor The Evader:

Hint: Making a joke out of something doesn't make it go away.

For my part I've not yet decided that Victor is evading. I know that he suspiciously hasn't answered my question 3 times in a row. It is interesting that you concluded that he was doing what I haven't concluded yet. But, you do know him better than I do. You and he have a lot in common.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael you missed your calling. You should have been a politician.

A heart vs. *4* limbs? Do you think that maybe that isn't the most honest comparison? Maybe a heart vs. 1? Certainly caricature art can't count as 4 whole limbs! Heck, even 1 whole limb. Maybe the tip of my pinky finger. Not even that much.

Shayne,

Re point 1: Was that supposed to be a poke-in-the-ribs friendly quip or a snarky put-down? I ask because the Internet forum medium is limited and this is hard to evaluate with your post.

Re point 2: I am glad our issue is over degree and not kind. Of course, my observation was meant to be a bit more fundamental than just one particular medium: caricature art. I was referring to lampooning. Caricature art is merely one form of satire. Satire is the four limbs--and of course, satire serves a very important part of our cognitive/spiritual needs. That's why this category of art, which is expressed in different media, came into existence.

Rand did use satire, but she also used it sparingly and in an extremely limited fashion. I would not call her a humorist and it would not be fair to judge her as one. However, she did judge humor as a field negatively and she shows that she knew very little about it, so I find it necessary to say that I disagree with her that humor is essentially destructive. I have discussed this elsewhere. If you are interested in my thoughts on this subject, and those of some others, I will dig them up and provide the links.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

Actually, MSK pretty much answered for me; I agree with his explanation of the function of humor and satire and what it can serve. So caricature, you can see, is only one faction from the total. Caricature and The David? Apples and oranges. Both are different, but both are good. Now then, an answer to my question.

Victor

[Kat]

Somehow in all this back and forth discussion, I lost track of what exactly Shayne and Victor both were asking each other. Gentlemen, can you both restate clearly or rephrase your questions to each other and please do not make predictions as how the other will answer.

Thanks.

Kat

[Victor Pross]

Kat,

Sure, that’s no problem.

Shayne’s post below is what prompted MY question before we got off the tracks.

“So for you, concretizing the ideal man is an equivalent order of art as caricature? For you, a caricature artist can in principle be an equivalent artist to Michaelangelo or Ayn Rand? Is that the reason for the Leonardo tie-in, to try to imply that since he was a great artist, then all his art was great in this respect?”

And then I said:

"Ah, now we are making progress. I can see a major premise you are holding, and it sticks out like a bulbous nose. When you speak of “concretizing the ideal man” you are speaking of Ayn Rand’s esthetic purpose—her personal esthetic purpose that she had set for herself as an artist—and in terms of literature. That is not the wider function art has served through out history—it was Rand’s purpose, and noble it was. [Have you read The Romantic Manifesto or even What Art Is?] But tell me, how does one “concretize the ideal man” in music, another art form. When we speak of art, we are not, of course, merely speaking of painting."

And then Shayne denied that such was the case he presented in the post seen above. See below:

“Your penchant for humor is blinding you. No Victor, I don't hold the silly premise you just dreamed up for me.”

Later on, I still pressed for an answer to the question—which is thus: does Shayne regard the purpose of all art is to provide a “concretization of the ideal man”. I had put it to Shayne that this was Rand’s personal esthetic objective--and not of art as such. Is the idea to concretize the ideal man the function and purpose of art?

Victor

Edited November 16, 2006 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

Somehow in all this back and forth discussion, I lost track of what exactly Shayne and Victor both were asking each other. Gentlemen, can you both restate clearly or rephrase your questions to each other and please do not make predictions as how the other will answer.

Since my questions exclusively concerned getting Victor to clarify whether what I thought he was saying was what he actually was saying, there's no way to answer your question without talking about what I thought he was saying.

Victor's initial post was about what I thought of caricature as an art form. I said it was a lesser art but a valid pursuit. Then he and Rich started calling me snobby. Michael kinda sorta seems to agree, because he's denies my entire point (while seeming on some undefined level to agree with me, sorta): that there's a hierarchy here.

Shayne

[sjw]

Re point 1: Was that supposed to be a poke-in-the-ribs friendly quip or a snarky put-down? I ask because the Internet forum medium is limited and this is hard to evaluate with your post.

Does it have to be either-or? :poke:

There's nothing nasty behind my intent, but I do think you are waffling, trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Shayne

[sjw]

Later on, I still pressed for an answer to the question—which is thus: does Shayne regard the purpose of all art is to provide a “concretization of the ideal man”. I had put it to Shayne that this was Rand’s personal esthetic objective--and not of art as such. Is the idea to concretize the ideal man the function and purpose of art?

And I thought by saying that this view you dreamed up for me was silly I meant that I don't think that. If you can't see that as answering your question you're thick.

Shayne

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

In your own words...what is the purpose and function of art? Let's talk.

Victor