Art and Subobjectivity

[Dragonfly]

I wrote him off after he slinked away when I asked him what his motives were in demanding that I search through "The Objectivist" to find quotes to disprove the nonsense he was spewing into the forum about Ayn Rand's views on emotion.

More silly blathering. What a ludicrous idea that I should be accountable to you for my motivations, I just don't accept arbitrary statements ex cathedra, but simply ask you to back them up. But you're powerless against the evidence I give, so the only thing you can do is in impotent frustration to call it "nonsense" - such a convincing rational argument. And then the childish pretension "I wrote him off", as if your bloated opinion of yourself has any importance here.

[sjw]

More silly blathering. What a ludicrous idea that I should be accountable to you for my motivations,

Typically one who makes lame attacks on Rand such as you do is not honest, does not care to know what she actually said, and generally has motives other than finding out the truth. I'm open to someone being as horribly confused as you seem to be though, but only if they're willing to demonstrate some sembance of good faith. So yes, I'm holding you accountable--for the nutty anti-Rand remarks.

So here are my motivations. *I'm* willing to explain why I won't go digging up the information. Will you explain what you'll do if I do dig it up? Will you start giving her more benefit of the doubt, as she deserves?

[Dragonfly]

Typically one who makes lame attacks on Rand such as you do is not honest, does not care to know what she actually said, and generally has motives other than finding out the truth. I'm open to someone being as horribly confused as you seem to be though, but only if they're willing to demonstrate some sembance of good faith. So yes, I'm holding you accountable--for the nutty anti-Rand remarks.

Quoting Rand from Galt's speech, which is the summary of her philosophy, is a "lame attack" and a "nutty anti-Rand remark"? What a chutzpah to say that I do not care to know what she actually said while I am the one who quotes her; the only thing you do is to spout arbitrary and unfouded accusations and to hurl insults, that the only thing you're good at - now again telling that I'm not honest - meanwhile telling us that Nathaniel Branden doesn't know what he says - without presenting any evidence of course, but of course you thrive on blind accusations. I've selden seen a randroid that's so incompetent. Even Perigo can see what you are: "Talking of Shayne, I see he has gone there [to OL], and is already announcing that everyone has it wrong except him. Sounds moderately familiar." Say that again.

So here are my motivations. *I'm* willing to explain why I won't go digging up the information. Will you explain what you'll do if I do dig it up? Will you start giving her more benefit of the doubt, as she deserves?

What do I care about your motivations? I see the results and those stink enough.

[sjw]

Quoting Rand from Galt's speech, which is the summary of her philosophy, is a "lame attack" and a "nutty anti-Rand remark"?

Your dishonesty shines through--it wasn't her quote, it was *your* interpretation of it that's at issue. Which in that context is quite obvious. Would you dispute that I was criticizing your or NB's interpretation? I doubt it. But here you are pretending otherwise. Do you feel at such a loss for actual ammunition against me that you must scrounge around digging up nothings like this, or scrounge around SLOP for insults? Nevermind, the answer is obvious.

[Dragonfly]

Your dishonesty shines through

Fuck off, asshole.

[Brant Gaede]

Your dishonesty shines through

Fuck off, asshole.

You just quoted Arnold in "The Terminator." What is your motivation for not being original?

--Brant

Edited January 25, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Victor Pross]

Typically one who makes lame attacks on Rand such as you do is not honest, does not care to know what she actually said, and generally has motives other than finding out the truth. I'm open to someone being as horribly confused as you seem to be though, but only if they're willing to demonstrate some sembance of good faith. So yes, I'm holding you accountable--for the nutty anti-Rand remarks.

Shayne, Dragonfly is not the only bug that this statement could be directed to. Anti-Rand remarks abound from many who either don't understand her or who make it a point to blank out what she is all about. Hostility and intellectual dishonesty at its best.

-Victor

Edited January 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(sigh)

Is any of this important?

Michael

[sjw]

Is any of this important?

I just skimmed the whole thread. No, probably not.

Just kidding--Jeff has lots of good stuff to say. ;)

One thing I did notice in my skimming: there seemed to be no reference to the conceptual element here. What is referred to by "abstract art" should actually be called "concrete bound art", because it doesn't actually mean anything (leaving aside mixed cases that have elements of actual art). I mean, the best case is that we have a floor design, something very concrete, just perceptual-level patterns that don't mean anything abstract at all.

And by abstract I *mean* abstract--in the Objectivist sense. Not some woozy-floaty-touchy-feely emotion like "oh, I just love that". An actual abstract integration, that refers to many concretes in a precise, knowable way. Such as this:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/vermeer...rapher.jpg.html

What we have is a man in thought, seeing a new connection for the first time. And probably more that a good art analyst might be able to pull out. But even just that--it's an abstraction. A legitimate one not some bogus modern "abstract art" concrete bound nonsense. It means something to a thinker--it represents cashing in on a lot of work done. There are many abstract values implicit in that as well (affirming Rand's definition of art for this work).

That's the element that *must* be there for art: it must be conceptual. Now I don't have Rand's *description* of art in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that she hit that point. That's part of what she *means* when she uses her definition. So don't just sit and stare at the definition. Anyways, modern abstract art isn't conceptual. So it doesn't qualify as art.

Someone made a big deal about music, and how does that fit the definition. Well at least for good music, it fits the description of art as being conceptual. Intricate music would emphasize a precise, detailed integrative capacity--implying a value judgment about that. Simple music would empahsize a different value judgment. So I see no problem for her definition with music.

Oh, and don't retort and tell me that such and such "abstract art" is conceptual because you found a mixed case. Obviously, if you mix elements of the "abstract" bogus art with genuine art, you're going to end up with something in between.

Edited January 25, 2007 by sjw

[Victor Pross]

Is any of this important?

I just skimmed the whole thread. No, probably not.

Just kidding--Jeff has lots of good stuff to say. ;)

One thing I did notice in my skimming: there seemed to be no reference to the conceptual element here. What is referred to by "abstract art" should actually be called "concrete bound art", because it doesn't actually mean anything (leaving aside mixed cases that have elements of actual art). I mean, the best case is that we have a floor design, something very concrete, just perceptual-level patterns that don't mean anything abstract at all.

And by abstract I *mean* abstract--in the Objectivist sense. Not some woozy-floaty-touchy-feely emotion like "oh, I just love that". An actual abstract integration, that refers to many concretes in a precise, knowable way. Such as this:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/vermeer...rapher.jpg.html

What we have is a man in thought, seeing a new connection for the first time. And probably more that a good art analyst might be able to pull out. But even just that--it's an abstraction. A legitimate one not some bogus modern "abstract art" concrete bound nonsense. It means something to a thinker--it represents cashing in on a lot of work done. There are many abstract values implicit in that as well (affirming Rand's definition of art for this work).

That's the element that *must* be there for art: it must be conceptual. Now I don't have Rand's *description* of art in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that she hit that point. That's part of what she *means* when she uses her definition. So don't just sit and stare at the definition. Anyways, modern abstract art isn't conceptual. So it doesn't qualify as art.

Someone made a big deal about music, and how does that fit the definition. Well at least for good music, it fits the description of art as being conceptual. Intricate music would emphasize a precise, detailed integrative capacity--implying a value judgment about that. Simple music would empahsize a different value judgment. So I see no problem for her definition with music.

Oh, and don't retort and tell me that such and such "abstract art" is conceptual because you found a mixed case. Obviously, if you mix elements of the "abstract" bogus art with genuine art, you're going to end up with something in between.

Shanyne,

Yes, we are on the same page here. I was wondering when you were going to finally pipe in.

I have argued elsewhere that art is the means of creating embodied abstractions. In art, we experience in a concrete form a rich meaning through the artist’s work. To keep our abstractions tied to the world, however, we need to re-embody them in concretes, to attire them in definite forms that amalgamate the universality of the abstraction with the immediacy, the reality, of the particulars. This, in part only, is Objectivism. [so yes, I agree with Rand. So what?]

This is a principle to be practiced not just in art, but also in all areas of human thought and endeavor.

-Victor

Edited January 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Your argument rests on the presumption that abstract art does not present entities. But once you have perceived any entities, you are on the way to having concepts.

What abstract art does not present is a depiction of what I would call mid-range entities (like the ones we normally see without too much amplification or diminution from our normal perspective—people, sky, trees, furniture, etc.). This element of normal perspective is essential to the idea of representational in the romantic or academic sense.

A painting of a spec of dust, for example, (even a photograph of one) could be completely representational and still look like it was an abstract painting. So I believe this particular "representation," even if exact, falls outside of what we normally call representational art.

But some abstract art is quite conceptual. The entities presented are just different than the entities our normal day-to-day visual field contains. (Whether one values such entities or not, and why, is another question, but the conceptual process of selectively recreating reality is there.)

As regards music, I fully support the view of musical concepts. I once outlined a book on this and I might retake that project later (the provisional title was "Music Epistemology"). On this score, I am very attracted to Roger's idea that man creates musical "entities," but I go in a slightly different direction by focusing on the actual concepts (derived from sense data) that identify those entities.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Shayne wrote,

And by abstract I *mean* abstract--in the Objectivist sense. Not some woozy-floaty-touchy-feely emotion like "oh, I just love that". An actual abstract integration, that refers to many concretes in a precise, knowable way...

If I can find the time soon, I'll post a piece of music without identifying the title or composer, and then you can tell us which concretes it refers to in a precise, knowable way.

Such as this:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/vermeer...rapher.jpg.html

What we have is a man in thought, seeing a new connection for the first time.

I don't know. I think you might be using a woozy-floaty-touchy-feely emotional method there. What we actually have according to precise, concrete, Official Objectivism as explicitly stated by Rand is "folks next door" which reveal that Vermeer suffered from an inner conflict which, although similar but less offensive than Dali's, led him to combine his brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism.

J

[sjw]

Your argument rests on the presumption that abstract art does not present entities. But once you have perceived any entities, you are on the way to having concepts.

No, but your sentence rests on the presumption that I'm making a presumption.

Anyway, we're not talking about two-year-olds here. Being on the way to having concepts isn't what art is about. Unless we're making art for two-year-olds. But then I don't think that's what this thread is about, nor would I try to damage a kid by putting "abstract" art in his room.

What abstract art does not present is a depiction of what I would call mid-range entities (like the ones we normally see without too much amplification or diminution from our normal perspective—people, sky, trees, furniture, etc.). This element of normal perspective is essential to the idea of representational in the romantic or academic sense.

A painting of a spec of dust, for example, (even a photograph of one) could be completely representational and still look like it was an abstract painting. So I believe this particular "representation," even if exact, falls outside of what we normally call representational art.

I don't see how this relates to my point that art must be conceptual.

But some abstract art is quite conceptual.

You're going to need an example to back this claim up.

[sjw]

If I can find the time soon, I'll post a piece of music without identifying the title or composer, and then you can tell us which concretes it refers to in a precise, knowable way.

Well the concretes are the sounds. The abstractions are their conceptual relationships--which if it's really music, there will be some.

I don't know. I think you might be using a woozy-floaty-touchy-feely emotional method there. What we actually have according to precise, concrete, Official Objectivism as explicitly stated by Rand is "folks next door" which reveal that Vermeer suffered from an inner conflict which, although similar but less offensive than Dali's, led him to combine his brilliant clarity of style with the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism.

Every Objectivist I have shown that to (I have it in my livingroom) has made comments along the lines that I did about that painting. Or were you trying to be sarcastic about something Rand said? If so, it's misplaced sarcasm unless she was talking about that particular painting.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, but your sentence rests on the presumption that I'm making a presumption.

Anyway, we're not talking about two-year-olds here. Being on the way to having concepts isn't what art is about. Unless we're making art for two-year-olds. But then I don't think that's what this thread is about, nor would I try to damage a kid by putting "abstract" art in his room.

Shayne,

I was using "presumption" as a synonym for premise. See if I statement makes more sense to you by replacing the words. I do suppose you hold premises.

Why two-year olds, though? You are right that we weren't talking about them. Where did that come from? Anyway, I don't understand how an abstract painting could damage a two-year old any more than how a pattern on a rug could.

We need to agree on the nature of the entities that abstract art presents (and there is a variety) before we can discuss how they are conceptualized.

Michael

[sjw]

I was using "presumption" as a synonym for premise. See if I statement makes more sense to you by replacing the words. I do suppose you hold premises.

FYI, at dictionary.com, synomyms for "presumption" are: "audacity, effrontery, arrogance, gall."

But to answer your question: Again, I'd need an example. Merely representing entities does not make something convey legitimate abstract value-oriented concepts. Throwing marbles on a floor and taking a picture doesn't mean anything, but it's got entities and we can talk about the concept "round" and "marble".

Why two-year olds, though? You are right that we weren't talking about them. Where did that come from?

I thought you meant that having simple low-level concepts like "round" might qualify something as art. There must be value concepts implied, like "effort", "achievement", "fear", etc.

Anyway, I don't understand how an abstract painting could damage a two-year old any more than how a pattern on a rug could.

It's like religion. If you tell a kid that X is true, where X is in fact incomprehensible, you're teaching him to take your word for it and that the world is incomprehensible to him. As soon as he grasps that that picture on the wall is of some significance, and that he cannot even begin to grasp its significance, you're undercutting his mind and teaching him to become a second-hander.

We need to agree on the nature of the entities that abstract art presents (and there is a variety) before we can discuss how they are conceptualized.

OK--but I think it'd be best if you posted an example of pure abstract art, and demonstrated how it was 1) conceptual; 2) implied value concepts. I don't even think you'll even be able to do 1 unless it's a mixed piece.

[Ellen Stuttle]

(sigh)

Poor Vermeer.

Or: How to Not See a Painting in Several Objectivist Lessons

J.: See what I mean about having an Objectivist framework in your head interfering with understanding art?

The Geographer. What is "the subject" of that magnificent painting? Not "a man in deep thought." What that painting is "about" most profoundly is light, not the room, not the human; the human is only a metaphoric vehicle.

I cringe when Objectivists talk about Vermeer. He deserved so much better than Objectivist analyses of his work.

Ellen

___

[sjw]

(sigh)

Poor Vermeer.

Or: How to Not See a Painting in Several Objectivist Lessons

J.: See what I mean about having an Objectivist framework in your head interfering with understanding art?

The Geographer. What is "the subject" of that magnificent painting? Not "a man in deep thought." What that painting is "about" most profoundly is light, not the room, not the human; the human is only a metaphoric vehicle.

I cringe when Objectivists talk about Vermeer. He deserved so much better than Objectivist analyses of his work.

Heh, speaking of religious methods... So Ellen, do you have any actual argument to offer, or are you just going to spew your snootiness all over?

For the record, I was not offering an analysis of Vermeer's work (if I were I'd definitely have mentioned his distinctive method of using light). But I indicated as much. Of course, Ellen never seems to be able to resist an opportunity to drop context.

[reason.on]

(sigh)

Poor Vermeer.

Or: How to Not See a Painting in Several Objectivist Lessons

J.: See what I mean about having an Objectivist framework in your head interfering with understanding art?

The Geographer. What is "the subject" of that magnificent painting? Not "a man in deep thought." What that painting is "about" most profoundly is light, not the room, not the human; the human is only a metaphoric vehicle.

I cringe when Objectivists talk about Vermeer. He deserved so much better than Objectivist analyses of his work.

For reference:

http://essentialvermeer.20m.com/vermeer_pa...ng_part_one.htm

I can't speak for Soze, but I see what you mean very clearly.

However, wasn't Rand's discussion of Vermeer along the same lines as yours?

"The closer an artist comes to a conceptual method of functioning visually, the greater his work. The greatest of all artists, Vermeer, devoted his painting to a single theme: light itself. The guiding principle of his compositions is: the *contextual* nature of our perception of light (and of color). The physical objects in a Vermeer canvas are chosen and placed in such a way that their combined interrelationships feature, lead to and make possible the painting's brightest patches of light, sometimes blindingly bright, in a manner which no one has been able to render before or since"

"One might wish (and I do) that Vermeer had chosen better subjects to express his theme, but to him, apparently the subjects were only the means to his end."

It is interesting to note that Vermeer spent a considerable amount of time developing his technique for rendering "light"...I'm fairly certain that no one really knows exactly what he did to achieve his famous effect, but I recall reading that he actually baked his canvases in stages to achieve the characteristic luminosity of his work.

RCR

Edited January 25, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[reason.on]

OK--but I think it'd be best if you posted an example of pure abstract art, and demonstrated how it was 1) conceptual; 2) implied value concepts. I don't even think you'll even be able to do 1 unless it's a mixed piece.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/kandinsky/sea-battle/

Neither Marc nor Macke were abstract painters. It was Kandinsky who found that the ``interior necessity'', which alone could inspire true art, was forcing him to leave behind the representational image. He was a Russian who had first trained as a lawyer. He was a brilliant and persuasive man. Then, when already in his thirties, he decided to go to Munich in 1897 to study art. By the time Der Blaue Reiter was established, he was already ``abstracting'' from the image, using it as a creative springboard for his pioneering art. Seeing a painting of his own, lying on its side on the easel one evening, he had been struck by its beauty, a beauty beyond what he saw when he set it upright. It was the liberated color, the formal independence, that so entranced him.

Kandinsky, a determined and sensitive man, was a good prophet to receive this vision. He preached it by word and by example, and even those who were suspicious of this new freedom were frequently convinced by his paintings. Improvisation 31 has a less generalized title, Sea Battle, and by taking this hint we can indeed see how he has used the image of two tall ships shooting cannonballs at each other, and abstracted these specifics down into the glorious commotion of the picture. Though it does not show a sea battle, it makes us experience one, with its confusion, courage, excitement, and furious motion.

Kandinsky says all this mainly with the color, which bounces and balloons over the center of the picture, roughly curtailed at the upper corners, and ominously smudged at the bottom right. There are also smears, whether of paint or of blood. The action is held tightly within two strong ascending diagonals, creating a central triangle that rises ever higher. This rising accent gives a heroic feel to the violence."

RCR

Edited January 25, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christian,

Thank you very much for the Kandinsky. It works perfectly for the point I was making about entities.

Michael

[reason.on]

Hostility and intellectual dishonesty at its best.

You got that right! Those qualities are abound in these art threads....though, I'm quite sure we wouldn't agree on the source.

RCR

[reason.on]

Christian,

Thank you very much for the Kandinsky. It works perfectly for the point I was making about entities.

Michael

RCR

[reason.on]

Heh, speaking of religious methods... So Ellen, do you have any actual argument to offer, or are you just going to spew your snootiness all over?

Gack. I once heard a story about this kettle...

RCR

[Ellen Stuttle]

Heh, speaking of religious methods... So Ellen, do you have any actual argument to offer, or are you just going to spew your snootiness all over?

Gack. I once heard a story about this kettle...

RCR

Well, I hope that you aren't calling me a pot. ;-)

Ellen

___