Architecture -- art or not?? (2006)

[anthony]

BTW, where is the "beauty" in "Guernica"?

--Brant

The stylization of Guernica is precisely anti-beauty, an uncompositional disorder, for a reason. A negative which doesn't invalidate the positive. The large scale of the canvas, the drab, monochromatic rendition, but mostly the random remnants of life and property, give the sense of careless and arbitrary destruction and death. Picasso's savagely anti-bombing 'protest art', I believe, and it looks that way.

Stylization, by the choice and psychology of the artist, is an integral part of the needs of further study of aesthetics.

[Brant Gaede]

BTW, where is the "beauty" in "Guernica"?

--Brant

The stylization of Guernica is precisely anti-beauty, an uncompositional disorder, for a reason. A negative which doesn't invalidate the positive. The large scale of the canvas, the drab, monochromatic rendition, but mostly the random remnants of life and property, give the sense of careless and arbitrary destruction and death. Picasso's savagely anti-bombing 'protest art', I believe, and it looks that way.

Stylization, by the choice and psychology of the artist, is an integral part of the needs of further study of aesthetics.

The "beauty" is the "anti-beauty"? WTF? You're side-stepping your centralization of beauty in esthetics with a faux negative. If it was a real one it might be workable--like "ugly." The "anti" only exists because the anti anti (beauty) exists. Your sentence properly reads "The stylization of Guernica is precisely [nothing]." Or, you didn't say anything. The problem with "ugly" is then you ain't got "beauty" in your thesis. You've Russian sleighrode into circularity at best (a rationalization)--that "nothing" at worst.

--Brant

[anthony]

I have not argued for "a centralization of beauty in aesthetics". Anything but. Repeatedly, I've said beauty is an important element, but not the core element.

Terms have to be redefined away from the bias of some philosophers who injected a more recent meaning into "aesthetics".

I'd think it's clear Guernica was stylized in keeping with Picasso's emotions, based on his value-premises. His key concept was envisaged in his mind and the painting of it was self-directed by his mind employing his skills.

That he could paint and stylize beautifully, we know elsewhere.

It is a fragmented and deliberately ugly painting. It was meant to be. It is an ugly subject. That doesn't mean it does not have a strong and enduring impact. Therefore, how always necessary ('centralized') is beauty to art?

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know. I assume it sells.

--Brant

[anthony]

For me, simply, "Aesthetics" is the study of the creation of art, equally, of its contemplation. This covers a wide and deep scope of everything essential, including stylization, the nature of beauty, subject or theme matter, technique, medium, etc. - and especially, the source of art and its appreciation, our consciousness. I think an emphasis on aesthetics-as-beauty, minimizes and diverts from those, particularly the mind.

As heard often, it's as though Beauty is perceived as a "floating abstraction" from which an artist draws magical power and acts as its conduit to other, normal folk. ("The Genius", Kant called him).

Beauty must possess referents: a. it is an 'object' (and the light) which is "beautiful". b. it's the artist's treatment (stylization) which can be "beautiful". Four (broad) permutations then -

A beautiful subject may be painted beautifully.

A beautiful subject may be painted in an ugly fashion.

An ugly or plain subject may be painted beautifully (or, the ugly in a stark, unbeautiful fashion).

Nothing "has to be", as far as the creative process is concerned. It is all choice. Every step from previsualizing/envisaging a work to its completion, is under an artist's direction, so is basically his expression and a part of him.

[Jonathan]

I have not argued for "a centralization of beauty in aesthetics". Anything but. Repeatedly, I've said beauty is an important element, but not the core element.

Terms have to be redefined away from the bias of some philosophers who injected a more recent meaning into "aesthetics".

I'd think it's clear Guernica was stylized in keeping with Picasso's emotions, based on his value-premises. His key concept was envisaged in his mind and the painting of it was self-directed by his mind employing his skills.

That he could paint and stylize beautifully, we know elsewhere.

It is a fragmented and deliberately ugly painting. It was meant to be. It is an ugly subject. That doesn't mean it does not have a strong and enduring impact. Therefore, how always necessary ('centralized') is beauty to art?

The same is true of We The Living, yet somehow we never see Objectivish-types mentioning the novel when complaining that certain artists and arts theorists were "out to destroy beauty." Rand's work is never mentioned when hyperventilating poseurs purport to explain in their essays "Why Art Became Ugly."

J

[Jonathan]

BTW, where is the "beauty" in "Guernica"?

--Brant

The stylization of Guernica is precisely anti-beauty...

Heh. It's stylization is "anti-beauty"? Hahahaha! I think you're confusing your judgment of the subject with the stylization.

...an uncompositional disorder, for a reason.

So, YOU can't seen any compositional order, so it is therefore "uncompositional disorder"? Hahahaha!

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Roger's] wife's idiotic emotional ejaculation of personal incredulity [...] I've mentioned her and her idiotic comment multiple times since then[.]

You indeed have mentioned the comment multiple times. If what Becky was being incredulous about was your attribution of discursive-assertions meanings to a couple "abstract" paintings, then I see nothing "idiotic" in her reaction.

Ellen

As I've observed in the past, the personally incredulous tend to congregate, and to belive their amassing of their fallacious "arguments from personal incredulity" somehow magically adds up to something that is not fallacious. The fallacy of the "argument from personal incredulity" times 7 equals a non-fallacy? Heh.

J

There's no "argument from incredulity" whatsoever involved in saying that an entity, be it a painting or anything else, can't do what that entity can't do.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

And it wasn't incumbent on her to tackle the general subject of evaluating artistry in some other essay.

When an arts theorist publicly snarls and sneers that all others are dismally inept and horribly ickily stankily inferior on a given subject, it IS incumbent on her to tackle the subject, and to do better than those nasty poopy others.

Not when the "given subject" is a side issue to what the art theorist is talking about.

She passed on the essential issue of aesthetics. It is THE make-or-break issue. It is the requisite yet absent foundation for any claim of objectivity in aesthetic judgment. It is the required evidence and proof. And she passed on providing it.

J

Repeat, what you want to call "the essential issue of aesthetics" is a side issue to what Rand was doing, which was presenting a theory of the nature, source, and need for art.

(I do think it's odd that when she published her essays in book form, she subtitled the book "A Philosophy of Literature," since the thesis she presents has applicability to all art forms, not just to literature.)

Ellen

[Jonathan]

[Roger's] wife's idiotic emotional ejaculation of personal incredulity [...] I've mentioned her and her idiotic comment multiple times since then[.]

You indeed have mentioned the comment multiple times. If what Becky was being incredulous about was your attribution of discursive-assertions meanings to a couple "abstract" paintings, then I see nothing "idiotic" in her reaction.

Ellen

As I've observed in the past, the personally incredulous tend to congregate, and to belive their amassing of their fallacious "arguments from personal incredulity" somehow magically adds up to something that is not fallacious. The fallacy of the "argument from personal incredulity" times 7 equals a non-fallacy? Heh.

J

There's no "argument from incredulity" whatsoever involved in saying that an entity, be it a painting or anything else, can't do what that entity can't do.

Ellen

Heh. Ellen, you're being foolishly obstinate.

Your argument is that you (along with Roger's allegedly supremely aesthetically sensitive wife) have not experienced identifying an artist's intended meaning in any paintings, and you've never witnessed others having done so, and you can't believe that it can be done, and therefore it can't be done. Argument from personal incredulity.

I've done it many times. I've identified artists' intended meanings and normative views, and confirmed that I've done so by talking with the artists. I've witnessed others do it as well. It's a pretty common occurrence. Spend some time in galleries. Your lack of having experienced it doesn't cancel out all of the instances in which others have experienced it. Your personal incredulity doesn't limit others' ability to visually communicate.

Besides, I don't buy the idea that you have never experienced such meanings in visual art. You're just being obstinate. Arguing for the purpose of arguing. You're denying reality for the purpose of trying to be irritating. You're still holding your little grudge.

We've had the discussion on visual communication before, and you evaded mosts of my points and challenges. One question that I brought up, which I had to remind you of multiple times, is one that you still haven't answered:

"Have you never looked at a painting of, say, a mother and child, and thought that it communicated the fact that, even though motherhood may not have been important to you, the artist felt that motherhood was important, and more specifically, that raising and nurturing a child is immensely satisfying, rewarding and dignified, only to later discover that that was exactly what the artist intended the image to communicate?!!!"

That came from this post, which includes many other points which you haven't addressed:

I confess to being flabbergasted. So you acknowledge that there isn't discursive communication going on, and yet you claim to be able to...what? read? detect? discursive meaning in something which doesn't have such meaning in it.

In post 234 I asked you if I would be communicating with you if I gave you a look of disapproval and you understood it to be disapproval, and I asked if you believe that communication can only happen through standardized "conventional signifiers."

In post post 241, you answered that you did not believe that communication can only happen through conventional signifiers. But you didn't answer the question about the look of disapproval being a means of communication.

So, do you not understand that non-verbal communication is a mode of communication? Do you not know that people can discursively explain the meaning that was communicated to them via a non-verbal means of communication?

By what magic?

No magic is necessary. Is today really the first day in your long life that you've heard of the concept of non-verbal communication?

(Btw, I'm still wanting to see quotes from the painters about any "meanings" they intended.)

We'll get to that eventually. In the mean time, I would suggest that you visit some galleries, listen to what fans of visual art have to say about what they're looking at, and listen to the artists describing their intentions.

It's like if we were to test your ability to understand a different language by having a person speak a sentence in that language, and then we asked you to tell us in English what you thought the sentence meant. Your telling us your interpretation in English would not make their communication to you an example of English communication.

It would make it an example of discursive communication.

Am I to interpret your analogy as indicating that you think that abstract art is some kind of language, like sign-language?

No, I'm saying that all visual art -- realistic as well as abstract -- is a form of non-verbal communication, like "body language," facial expression, vocal inflection, etc., all of which are means of communication despite not being discursive, and despite usually not being as reliable as discursive means.

The drawings of a blueprint are a means of communication despite their not being discursive. Do you understand that certain people would be able to look at blueprints of a machine and understand more about the machine and its functions than others would be able to understand from a discursive description of the machine? Are you not aware of the fact that a blueprint's ability to non-verbally communicate such information effectively is the reason that blueprints exist?

I've heard a fair amount of people reading verbal meanings into non-verbal art forms (musical as well as visual).

I think you're providing a good example.

How would you prove that people were "reading into" those art forms versus that they were successfully understanding what was intended to be non-verbally communicated? I mean, right now, you just seem to be in denial mode. You seem to be refusing to believe that non-verbal communication can actually communicate.

If my wife gives me a look of disapproval over something I've said, you seem to be asserting that it is impossible for her disapproval to have been communicated to me, or that it is impossible for me to translate her non-verbal look to the discursive term "disapproval."

If you'd said of the first painting, for instance, that it makes you feel inspired to be "strong and bold, and pursue [your] passions," fine.

But your claim that it means that "[...] mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions" is reading into, not deciphering. (Unless you're going to tell me that the artist provided a sign-language-type code, but then I wouldn't call that "art." I'd call it cryptology.)

The painting didn't make me feel inspired to be strong and bold or to pursue my passions. Rather, it made me feel that strength and boldness and passion were important to the artist.

Have you never looked at a painting of, say, a mother and child, and thought that it communicated the fact that, even though motherhood may not have been important to you, the artist felt that motherhood was important, and more specifically, that raising and nurturing a child is immensely satisfying, rewarding and dignified, only to later discover that that was exactly what the artist intended the image to communicate?!!!

PS: I'll get back to the "abstract" issue later. You're doing with Kamhi what you did with Rand, claiming that she thinks that all art forms have to be representational.

Actually, I think Kamhi has double or even triple standards. Her criteria are arbitrary and shifting, and they're based on nothing but her personal lack of response. Her criteria are not rational, nor are they consistent across the art forms. She might indeed arbitrarily declare that one art form which she doesn't like, and which she doesn't want to qualify as art, must present identifiable likeness of things in reality, and in the next sentence she might arbitrarily declare that an art form that she does like, and which she wants to qualify as art, does not have to present identifiable likenesses of things in reality. She arbitrarily accepts one abstract art form while rejecting others. There's no rhyme or reason to her declarations other than that she personally doesn't like or get anything of depth out of the art forms that she rejects. In effect, she begins with a list of what she doesn't want to qualify as art and works backward from there, selectively constructing and applying criteria to achieve the result of eliminating what she wants eliminated.

J

Answer the questions. Address the points. All of them. No more dodging and evading and electron chasing.

J

[Jonathan]

Repeat, what you want to call "the essential issue of aesthetics" is a side issue to what Rand was doing, which was presenting a theory of the nature, source, and need for art.

Indeed she was presenting a theory of the "nature" of art and aesthetic response, and a key part of her theory of the "nature" of artistic response/aesthetic judgment was her desire to believe that it was "objective." Everything must be objective! But she skipped the proof. Her view of the alleged "nature" of art therefore hasn't been validated by her own stated epistemological method. That makes it an essential issue. Any issue which would cause the entire structure to crumble can't be called a "side issue."

J

[anthony]

BTW, where is the "beauty" in "Guernica"?

--Brant

The stylization of Guernica is precisely anti-beauty...

Heh. It's stylization is "anti-beauty"? Hahahaha! I think you're confusing your judgment of the subject with the stylization.

...an uncompositional disorder, for a reason.

So, YOU can't seen any compositional order, so it is therefore "uncompositional disorder"? Hahahaha!

J

Can you tell me what the "subject" is in Guernica? We know the subject "matter", but you can't point me at "a subject" in reality.

It was all in Picasso's head and imagination, yeah? His symbolic use of many disparate entities takes the place of "a subject".

Symbolism.

Therefore, his "stylization" IS the "subject".

I claim again that Picasso deliberately leached out any "beauty" in this painting for the statement he wanted to make.

Actually, a "beautiful" rendition of the devastating, horrific event of aerial bombing of innocents (unknown in those days, I guess) which he felt so strongly about, he could have considered to be cognitively dissonant and wrong. I think rightly.

When does beauty = "shock and awe"? When beauty's meaning has been distorted by 'the sublime'.

The picture has a powerful and graphic impact ... precisely because Picasso deviated from aesthetic norms.

It can be called many things, like masterful, gripping or memorable, so why does anyone have to insist on "beautiful"?

(Again, a child would "get it". She wouldn't know the first thing about the artist or back-story, but she'd understand that it shows something terrible, that it isn't meant to be beautiful).

[Jonathan]

Can you tell me what the "subject" is in Guernica? We know the subject "matter", but you can't point me at "a subject" in reality.

It was all in Picasso's head and imagination, yeah? His symbolic use of many disparate entities takes the place of "a subject".

Symbolism.

Therefore, his "stylization" IS the "subject".

Tony, do me favor. Take some hands on courses in studio arts. Learn from reality rather than just from Rand, or, worse, from the strawman-constructing ghost of Rand who lives in your head and whispers ideas to you.

The picture has a powerful and graphic impact ... precisely because Picasso deviated from aesthetic norms.

It can be called many things, like masterful, gripping or memorable, so why does anyone have to insist on "beautiful"?

Why do you insist on telling people that they cannot possibly experience any beauty whatsoever from any element or aspect of the painting simply because YOU don't?

(Again, a child would "get it". She wouldn't know the first thing about the artist or back-story, but she'd understand that it shows something terrible, that it isn't meant to be beautiful).

Arbitrary assertion. Many pantings from throughout history have shown "something terrible," but they've done so beautifully, or they have included contrasting beautiful aspects or elements of stylization. Artists INTEND to include beauty as one among other values being threatened by the "something terrible." So don't try the bullshit bluff that you know that an artist intended to not include beauty in an image that he also intended to include horror.

Remember what I'm always reminding you to do: Look before you leap by applying your frantic theorizing to Rand's art first. Before going coo coo for Cocoa Puffs on all other artists, take your nutty ideas for a test drive with Rand's art. Hmmm, did she ever show "something terrible" in her art, and do so with beautiful stylization? Um, she did! Did she ever combine "something terrible" with something beautiful in her art? Uh, yup, she did! Did she ever write any novels which qualify as great examples of specifically Kant's version of Sublimity while also, at the same time, showing beauty? Of course! She did so in all of her novels! Therefore: Nutty theory refuted; discard nutty theory.

J

[anthony]

All of it supercilious rubbish. Not an argument in sight. I see the picture for what it is, I don't need you or Rand to tell me what I see.

Your Kantian ideas of aesthetics have nothing to do with your myopia, but my Randian ideas, do?

You could simply try to view beauty - as, well - the beautiful - not just the technically skilled and the masterful, nor by emotions of shock and horror (which beauty is not. But that line of mine you avoided quoting, I see).

Yes, we know - artists have many times combined "something terrible" with a beautiful treatment...

So what? You are repeating my comment of #132.

My point is that Picasso did not do so in this case, clearly by creative choice. A terrible incident was justly given a stark and fragmented treatment. I'm not a fan of his mostly, but I give him the respect he deserves on his always great stylizing and skills, when you in fact denigrate him by calling it what it's not, nor what he obviously intended .

Any wondrous exhilaration or extreme feeling (in say, a Rand novel) is therefore a version of Kant's Sublime? Wow, you have it backwards.

All it is, is a high human emotion, and from long before Kant's theories were dreamed of.

[Selene]

For us neophytes, this is on a site called Total History...I will provide the link later...

With Guernica, Picasso wanted to establish his identity and his strength as an artist when confronted with political authority and intolerable violence. But instead of being simply a political piece of art, Guernica ought to be viewed as Picasso’s statement on what art can in fact donate to the self-assertion that emancipates all humanity, and shields every person from overpowering forces like political crime, war, and death

Doesn't this factor into any evaluation of beauty?

A...

[Jonathan]

All of it supercilious rubbish. Not an argument in sight. I see the picture for what it is, I don't need you or Rand to tell me what I see.

I haven't claimed that you need Rand to tell you what to see. What you need Rand for is to have someone to parrot in telling others that they don't experience in works of art what they claim to. You need to emulate Rand as posing as the aesthetic and cognitive limit of all mankind. Your position is that since you don't experience beauty in an image, it is not there, and anyone who claims to experience it is wrong.

Your Kantian ideas of aesthetics have nothing to do with your myopia, but my Randian ideas, do?

I don't have "Kantian ideas of aesthetics." I actually have Objectivist ideas: I apply Objectivist Epistemology to the field of aesthetics. I don't accept or parrot Rand's deviations from Objectivist Epistemology in aesthetics. A is A, and I don't overlook her contradictions and double standards of calling a B or a C an A. Nor do I accept her pretending that her subjective tastes and preferences were objective, just because she shouted that they were. I require proof, which she skipped because it was conveniently "outside of the scope of the discussion." Heh.

I challenge you to pick up where she left off. Do what she neglected to do (or evaded doing). Maybe try to get delicate Dodger Bissell to come out of his Safe Space and help you.

Objectively define such aesthetic concepts as "beauty" and "ugliness," and provide objective criteria by which to measure them.

As I challenged you in post #96 (a challenge which you evaded):

The Objectivist epistemological method of supporting your assertions would be to first objectively define terms such as "beauty" and "ugliness," along with many other aesthetic concepts, and then to clearly and objectively identify the standards and criteria by which to apply them in reality. The Objectivist method would be to demonstrate that any person could take your criteria for beauty (etc.), apply them to any entity, and arrive at the same judgment as anyone else applying the same criteria (or even the same conclusion that a computer would come to when programmed to apply the criteria). It would be as black and white as a mathematic formula. Entity X meets or exceeds objectively measurable standards A, B, C, and D, plus it complies with criteria E, F, and G, plus it does not violate exclusionary clauses H, I, and J, and therefore it equals "beautiful."

Follow that method. Your emoting about Kant isn't a valid substitute for that method. It's not even an effective distraction. It's pathetic. Practice Objectivism for once, and define the terms and identify the standards and criteria for making objective aethetic judgments.

Stop evading. Stop bluffing. Stop constructing straw man distractions. Have the courage to apply Objectivist Epistemology to the field of aesthetics.

My point is that Picasso did not do so in this case, clearly by creative choice. A terrible incident was justly given a stark and fragmented treatment. I'm not a fan of his mostly, but I give him the respect he deserves on his always great stylizing and skills, when you in fact denigrate him by calling it what it's not, nor what he obviously intended.

Prove that Picasso intended to include no beauty in the image. Your feelings are not enough to determine what was "obviously intended." You are notoriously unaware and unobservant, and you willfully, pigheadedly misinterpret almost everything. So practice Objectivism and PROVE your assertion that Picasso intended no aspects of the painting to be beautiful.

Any wondrous exhilaration or extreme feeling (in say, a Rand novel) is therefore a version of Kant's Sublime? Wow, you have it backwards.

No, moron, I said nothing of the kind. Stop making straw men and putting words into my mouth. Nothing that I said even remotely suggests that I think that "any wondrous exhilaration or extreme feeling is therefore a version of Kant's Sublime." I've described multiple times on OL why Rand's art qualifies as great examples of the Kantian Sublime. I've explained it to you over and over again. Were you not paying attention?!!! Are you incapable of reading comprehension?!! Her novels present terrible forces of immense magnitude and destructive power which stimulate her fictional heroes' will to resist and overcome, as well as readers' will. That's what makes her novels examples of Kantian Sublimity. How long will it take for you to grasp the simple concept?

J

[Jonathan]

For us neophytes, this is on a site called Total History...I will provide the link later...

With Guernica, Picasso wanted to establish his identity and his strength as an artist when confronted with political authority and intolerable violence. But instead of being simply a political piece of art, Guernica ought to be viewed as Picasso’s statement on what art can in fact donate to the self-assertion that emancipates all humanity, and shields every person from overpowering forces like political crime, war, and death

Doesn't this factor into any evaluation of beauty?

A...

That could indeed factor in, but I was simply referring to the physical beauty of the forms to begin with. Does it logically follow that, since Tony doesn't experience beauty in any aspect of the forms, proportions or even the spaces versus negative spaces of the composition, that no one else could?

How did Tony's mind become the universal limit of cognition and aesthetic response?

J

[Selene]

For us neophytes, this is on a site called Total History...I will provide the link later...

With Guernica, Picasso wanted to establish his identity and his strength as an artist when confronted with political authority and intolerable violence. But instead of being simply a political piece of art, Guernica ought to be viewed as Picasso’s statement on what art can in fact donate to the self-assertion that emancipates all humanity, and shields every person from overpowering forces like political crime, war, and death

Doesn't this factor into any evaluation of beauty?

A...

That could indeed factor in, but I was simply referring to the physical beauty of the forms to begin with. Does it logically follow that, since Tony doesn't experience beauty in any aspect of the forms, proportions or even the spaces versus negative spaces of the composition, that no one else could?

...

J

J, I want to wait and see how Tony, or, Ellen comment on that specific quote.

I have been hearing you say what I highlighted above.

A..

[anthony]

Same old smoke, J.

Start off simply: something ugly* painted with beautiful and masterly stylization is still something ugly.

Right?

Wrong?

*keep it easy, say the ugly is suffering or brutality or something similar you know is "ugly" beyond doubt.

[Brant Gaede]

Guernica, according to me: the traducification--that's my word I invented!--of beauty by a horror. A great work of art.

--Brant

[anthony]

For us neophytes, this is on a site called Total History...I will provide the link later...

With Guernica, Picasso wanted to establish his identity and his strength as an artist when confronted with political authority and intolerable violence. But instead of being simply a political piece of art, Guernica ought to be viewed as Picasso’s statement on what art can in fact donate to the self-assertion that emancipates all humanity, and shields every person from overpowering forces like political crime, war, and death

Doesn't this factor into any evaluation of beauty?

A...

Adam, not at all. The final product, a stand-alone "end in itself", is all one should address, in isolation. Regardless of what one knows of the artist, art reviews of the picture, or one's opinions of other of his works. Besides, the political loyalty or ethics of Picasso (e.g.) would likely be revealed more by his choice of the subject-content and its treatment, than by his primary concern with beauty.

I think it's the passion, intensity and masterful rendering that comes over in an artwork, and which powerfully affects and impresses a viewer. Less beauty, per se.The skill of rendition - sometimes what's mistakenly seen as "a true to life reproduction" - may ~seem~ to correspond with beauty. Apparently the creative process must be studied deeper, starting with the aesthetics definitions - it doesn't help that "beauty" covers everything or means different things to different people.

[Jonathan]

Same old smoke, J.

Being challenged to objectively define your terms is "smoke"? Heh. Being challenged to prove your assertions is just some trifle to be brushed aside? Hahaha! And Objectivists wonder why they're getting no cultural traction, and why they're laughed at. Tony, you can't evade giving objective definitions and proof while advocating a philosophy which demands as some of its highest priorities objective definitions and proof.

Start off simply: something ugly* painted with beautiful and masterly stylization is still something ugly.

Right?

Wrong?

*keep it easy, say the ugly is suffering or brutality or something similar you know is "ugly" beyond doubt.

How am I supposed to know what you're asking me when you haven't objectively defined the terms, and in fact refuse to do so?

I mean, okay, for the sake of argument, I can temporarily go with "suffering or brulatily" as examples of "ugly," even though the term "ugly" literally refers to judgments of physical appearance, where you're using it metaphorically.

You know what, let's skip all of that because you're just going to continue to evade the challenge of defining your terms and identifying objective criteria. So let's just eliminate the terms "ugly" and "beauty," and replace them with "A" and "B."

So, translating your question to a simple, logical, mathematical-like format, "If we start with A, and we add B, then does it stIll equal A?"

My answer, all along, has been that it is a combination of A and B.

What's your answer, Tony? Yours is that A + B = A and only A and it cannot contain any B and it's obvious that the artist intended for there to be no B whatsoever in even the smallest, tiniest aspect, praise be to Ayn Rand!!!

While we're at it, let's also consider Ellen's opinion on the nonexistence of visual communication, as applied to the painting. We can't see and identify suffering or brutality in a painting, and we can't sense the artist's treatment of it, and we therefore can't conclude that the artist has communicated his opposition to the horrors of war or his compassion for its victims.

J

[anthony]

You know what, let's skip all of that because you're just going to continue to evade the challenge of defining your terms and identifying objective criteria. So let's just eliminate the terms "ugly" and "beauty," and replace them with "A" and "B."

So, translating your question to a simple, logical, mathematical-like format, "If we start with A, and we add B, then does it stIll equal A?"

My answer, all along, has been that it is a combination of A and B.

What's your answer, Tony? Yours is that A + B = A and only A and it cannot contain any B and it's obvious that the artist intended for there to be no B whatsoever in even the smallest, tiniest aspect, praise be to Ayn Rand!!!

s.

J

Very close. My answer: A + B = A++

If the ugly subject be selected in the first place as "important" to an artist (which we viewers implicitly know) - and then been beautifully styled - it has the effect of accentuating and glamorizing ugliness, not diminishing from it.

Conversely, the logical conclusion of A + B = A and B:

a masterfully stylized painting of a dirty toilet bowl will be presented as a beautiful artwork.

Post-modern art.

[Jonathan]

So, therefore, since Rand's art contains ugliness that is beautifully stylized, she was glamorizing ugliness.

[Jonathan]

My answer: A + B = A++

Heh. What in the hell does that mean?

So, then 9 + 1 does not equal 10, but equals 9++?

WTF?

J