Art and Subobjectivity

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

You may have a point, and I would like to explore this.

I think your policy is going to get you in trouble epistemologically. What do you do with mixed cases? Like abstract art that has a semblance of elements from valid art?

Do you have an example?

-Victor

[sjw]

You want evidence? Look at the paintings. They are not images of defeat and despair. They're not denials of volition or man's capacity for success or happiness. The fact that the characters are not building monuments, inventing engines or heroically leaping through the air with obvious expressions of ecstasy on their faces, as Rand may have wished, doesn't mean that they're caving in to a malevolent universe.

I did look at his paintings. I have two hanging up in my house. I don't think they are images of defeat and despair. At least 2/3 of the links I posted though are Naturalism (I think 3/3 but lets not quibble). Not in its most principled sense. But definitely in the sense of "Instead of presenting a *metaphysical* view of man and of existence, the Naturalists presented a *journalistic* view." In choice of subject, Vermeer often does that. And it contradicts his style.

I think you have misunderstood why Rand thought that this journalistic approach implied a denial of volition, but it is definitely a misrepresentation of Rand to keep harping on her along the lines of "defeat and despair" when she really spoke of Naturalism as journalism, as looking at man statistically rather than essentially.

[sjw]

Do you have an example?

I don't have an example, but I remember taking an art class where they showed different degrees of abstract art. Seems to me like an uncontroversial point that there's a contiuum with pure abstract art at the extreme.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor, why do you think it's important to not call it art, rather than calling it bad art? It fits Rand's definition, except the values involved are anti-conceptual, essentially they portray a hatred of reason.

Shayne,

You are getting where I am coming from. Victor wishes to replace the epistemological (and even metaphysical) with the aesthetic. Nobody can. Aesthetics is seated on epistemology (and ethics and metaphysics), not the reverse. That is how he can claim that a bad work of art is not art.

This reversing of the conceptual chain is a mistake in thinking I have perceived often in discussions with Objectivists. I rarely get this upside-down thinking from others. Several Objectivists with whom I have interacted wish to obliterate a fact with an evaluation, when it is obvious you need the fact in order to evaluate it.

I try to correct this kind of mistake when I perceive it because it actually turns people off to Objectivism. They perceive the error but usually can't say why and just simply write the person off as holding a strange idea. (Part of how this problem arises is the use of the same word for different concepts, especially cognitive and normative, and slipping back and forth between definitions when it is convenient to do so.)

A widely seen reverse case is with rights, where some people (primarily libertarians) wish to impose an ethical-political condition on metaphysics, claiming that a right is an attribute of the entity, man, not a moral principle taken to the social realm, where the principle deals not only with "man," but also with "men."

The question of portraying hatred of reason in abstract art is a bit more complex and not always the case, but it is true that much abstract art is made precisely for that purpose and does a magnificent job of glorifying whim as more important than reason. I usually find this particular type despicable in both intent and execution. (Boring is probably a better evaluation in most of my reactions.)

I will get to the nature of the entities portrayed in the Kandinsky painting later. So long as there is doubt that they are entities, it is difficult to discuss their nature.

The only thing I wish to say near this that might not have been clear before is that I understand Objectivist epistemology as forming concepts by perceiving entities (or attributes of them) through sense organs and integrating those perceptions. That is why I am starting with entities. You said something above to the effect that an entity is not a concept. I fully agree and I never meant to convey that an entity is a concept.

Perception of an entity is a basic stage in forming a concept, though. How can you have a concept of an entity if you deny that the entity exists? So we have to go there first if we wish to discuss the conceptual components of abstract art.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I lack the energy and time to commit on any alleged epistemological lapses. But I will reassert again that the history and ideas behind the birth of abstract painting stand alone as historical fact, and the question of their legitimacy as works of art are in serious jeopardy given facts already pointed out. The ice is rather thin.

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

There is no "epistemological lapse." I mentioned a reversal of the conceptual chain, trying to obliterate a fact with an evaluation.

Michael

[Jonathan]

You want evidence? Look at the paintings. They are not images of defeat and despair. They're not denials of volition or man's capacity for success or happiness. The fact that the characters are not building monuments, inventing engines or heroically leaping through the air with obvious expressions of ecstasy on their faces, as Rand may have wished, doesn't mean that they're caving in to a malevolent universe.

I did look at his paintings. I have two hanging up in my house. I don't think they are images of defeat and despair. At least 2/3 of the links I posted though are Naturalism (I think 3/3 but lets not quibble). Not in its most principled sense. But definitely in the sense of "Instead of presenting a *metaphysical* view of man and of existence, the Naturalists presented a *journalistic* view." In choice of subject, Vermeer often does that. And it contradicts his style.

I think you have misunderstood why Rand thought that this journalistic approach implied a denial of volition, but it is definitely a misrepresentation of Rand to keep harping on her along the lines of "defeat and despair" when she really spoke of Naturalism as journalism, as looking at man statistically rather than essentially.

How did you determine that Vermeer's images are "journalistic" views? Have you any knowledge whatsoever of Dutch life in the 17th century, such as standards of living, modes of dress and hairstyles, standards of physical beauty, styles of architecture and interior decor, which types of scenes in visual art had been commonly used symbolically or as parables rather than accounts of daily life, which activities were considered representative or virtue and productivity? Is the idea basically that you think that the quiet enjoyment of a task such as the preparation of food (a symbol for the nourishment of the soul as well as the body, btw) is "journalistic," but the quiet enjoyment of studying geography or astronomy isn't? Is an idealized image of the town of Delft (how would you know whether it was "jounalistic" or idealized -- have you compared Vermeer's rendition to maps and other images from the time?) or a sparkling little street scene within it are "journalistic," but a Randian vision of the skyline of New York isn't "journalistic," just because you say so?

J

Edited January 26, 2007 by Jonathan

[Ellen Stuttle]

Again, the subject is not the character. The character is not the subject.

Here's what Ellen said:

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.

and:

The figures he's selecting are those which will give him the effects he wants to achieve. He's not making a "metaphysical value judgment" statement about "folks next door."

She means that the character is not the subject. She does not mean, as you claimed, that Vermeer was "not exercising artistic selectivity on his choice of subject."

I said earlier that I think that "a man in deep thought" is somewhat the subject of The Geographer. What I meant was that it's not an accurate description of the subject, but it's kind of close. I think a better description of the subject would be something more like "the feeling of the play of light, contemplation and clarity of mind." The man is not the subject, but the feeling of what he's doing in combination with the feeling of the light and the symphony of colors, shapes and proportions is the subject.

Yes, that description is excellent, and is what I was trying to get at: that "the feeling of what he's doing" -- the "clarity of mind" -- is itself a metaphorical aspect of the issue of "light."

You say these things better than I do.

Rand may have confused herself by using the word "subject" to mean "abstract subject or meaning" most of the time, to mean "items depicted or characters" on some occasions, and sometimes she seems to have treated the meanings as interchangeable, when they're not.

In the case of Vermeer, if Rand was using the term "subject" to mean "the characters" or "what the characters are doing" then she could not accurately call his subjects "naturalist" since his characters are not shown as lacking volition or being defeated. If she was using the term "subject" to mean the abstract meaning and the effect that the image evokes, then she could not accurately call his subjects "naturalist" since the abstract meaning and feeling evoked is not defeat or denial of volition.

The manner in which Vermeer rendered light and depicted objects with his delicate brushwork is his style, but the effects evoked by that style -- the feeling of the play of light, the feeling of the arrangements of form and color, and the feelings of clear contemplation, serenity, solitude, love, laughter, etc. -- are the subjects of his paintings. The style of Vermeer's paintings do not contradict the subjects, nor do the characters contradict the subjects, nor do the characters contradict the style.

Rand did use "subject" in those two different senses -- hard to avoid doing so, I find; but I think one has to be sensitive to which way she's using it in a given context to interpret her. She used "subject" to mean "items depicted or characters" on more than "some" occasions; this was often what she meant, at least in speaking of visual art. Joan talks in her Full Context interview about Rand's being very subject-oriented, in the sense of "items depicted or characters," and her not being able to see past subjects in that sense which she didn't like. For example, the gloriousness of Michelangelo's "Pieta" was submerged for her by her not liking what was portrayed. And the famous example of her incensed reaction about Rembrandt's side of beef.

Ellen

___

Edited January 26, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Vermeer was a great artist, and would have been even greater if he paid more heed to his choice in subject.

That he was a great artist, I totally agree with, though I'd add VERY before the "great." That he "would have been even greater if he paid more heed to his choice in subject" I totally disagree with. I think his work needs no improvement, that what he chose to paint was exactly right for what he was doing. (Shayne is using "subject" there in the sense of "items depicted or characters.")

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Christian,

Sometimes when I'm catching up to a thread whereon many posts have accumulated since I last looked, I work my way backward through it, starting at the bottom of the page and going up.

I got to the Vermeer you posted in your post #364 and thought looking at it that I was reminded of a certain picture of Rand -- the one which if I recall correctly is on the dust jacket of the Journals.

Then, continuing to scroll, I came to this comment by you above the picture:

"I even tend to think of Rand herself when I look at this one".

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

BTW, I haven't heard anything more from Elizabeth since she wrote that excellent article that started this thread, I'd like to hear more from her.

I, too, would like to hear more from her and have been wondering where she'd gone.

Ellen

___

[sjw]

That he was a great artist, I totally agree with, though I'd add VERY before the "great." That he "would have been even greater if he paid more heed to his choice in subject" I totally disagree with. I think his work needs no improvement, that what he chose to paint was exactly right for what he was doing.

So, perfection is possible then? Some people can get so good there's no way to improve? Kinda like God or something, right?

(Shayne is using "subject" there in the sense of "items depicted or characters.")

Now you are being even more asinine.

[Dragonfly]

How did you determine that Vermeer's images are "journalistic" views? Have you any knowledge whatsoever of Dutch life in the 17th century, such as standards of living, modes of dress and hairstyles, standards of physical beauty, styles of architecture and interior decor, which types of scenes in visual art had been commonly used symbolically or as parables rather than accounts of daily life, which activities were considered representative or virtue and productivity? Is the idea basically that you think that the quiet enjoyment of a task such as the preparation of food (a symbol for the nourishment of the soul as well as the body, btw) is "journalistic," but the quiet enjoyment of studying geography or astronomy isn't? Is an idealized image of the town of Delft (how would you know whether it was "jounalistic" or idealized -- have you compared Vermeer's rendition to maps and other images from the time?) or a sparkling little street scene within it are "journalistic," but a Randian vision of the skyline of New York isn't "journalistic," just because you say so?

The view of Delft is still a magnificent painting, in spite of some discoloring due to the fading of some pigments; the reproduction gives only a very faint impression of the real thing. Compared to his other paintings this work is quite large (99 * 118 cm). Why should the skyline of 17th century Delft be a less suitable subject for an artwork than the skyline of 20th century New York? Also here the effect of the light is fantastic, with the sun shining in the distance and the foreground in the shadow, you almost see the shadows of the clouds moving.

[reason.on]

A little knowledge of art history could go a long way to avoid making spurious arguments.

LOL. Exactly...

RCR

[reason.on]

Christian,

Sometimes when I'm catching up to a thread whereon many posts have accumulated since I last looked, I work my way backward through it, starting at the bottom of the page and going up.

I got to the Vermeer you posted in your post #364 and thought looking at it that I was reminded of a certain picture of Rand -- the one which if I recall correctly is on the dust jacket of the Journals.

Then, continuing to scroll, I came to this comment by you above the picture:

"I even tend to think of Rand herself when I look at this one".

Yup, I've often wondered if the resemblance was more than accidental. It makes Rand's statements about Vermeer, such as "this IS me"....all the more interesting.

RCR

[reason.on]

Michael,

I lack the energy and time to commit on any alleged epistemological lapses. But I will reassert again that the history and ideas behind the birth of abstract painting stand alone as historical fact, and the question of their legitimacy as works of art are in serious jeopardy given facts already pointed out. The ice is rather thin.

:baby:

LOL. This bromide from the man who thinks Turner didn't create art and that FLW didn't have "skill"; I'd say the ice is thin alright. As has already been pointed out via lengthy excerpts from and about Kandinsky (the father of "abstract art") the history of "abstract art" is nothing like what Victor claims it to be.

RCR

[sjw]

You are getting where I am coming from. Victor wishes to replace the epistemological (and even metaphysical) with the aesthetic. Nobody can. Aesthetics is seated on epistemology (and ethics and metaphysics), not the reverse. That is how he can claim that a bad work of art is not art.

I'll come back to your other points later, but I did want to say that I think Victor is making a minor error relative to the other things I'm seeing in this thread. And unlike some other people I could name he seems open to correcting his mistakes.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I want to comment further on this which Jonathan said in exegeting me:

She [ES] means that the character is not the subject. She does not mean, as you [shayne] claimed, that Vermeer was "not exercising artistic selectivity on his choice of subject."

J. is correct as to my meaning. I'll explain a bit further. Vermeer wasn't orienting toward looking for interesting faces to depict, as Rembrandt, e.g., sometimes was. His process wasn't, "Oh, that's an interesting face to paint; I'd like to paint it." Instead, he had something he was trying to do with issues of "light," both physically and metaphorically, and he looked for settings and figures which would give him the opportunity to do what he was trying to do. I suppose this could be expressed by saying he was theme-driven not character-driven. The "Girl with a Pearl Earring" might have been the other way around, that he wanted to paint her (I gather that she was his mistress) and then did so using his characteristic approach to painting. I haven't read much in the way of biographical accounts of his work. I'm primarily going on the work itself -- and adding some amplification from things I heard Joan Blumenthal say -- in describing "what he was after."

Ellen

___

[Mike Hardy]

Well, "I don't know about art, but I know what I like".

I like Vermeer's _Geographer_ (and other things among his stuff).

-- Mike Hardy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... he seems open to correcting his mistakes.

Shayne,

That is one of the things I value in Victor.

He's just rather canine about it, first jumping all over the place with dirty paws while wagging his tail and barking up a storm.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Of course I am willing to correct my mistakes. But my convictions about art are solidified. Here, let me put it this way: try making an argument that I don’t exist, and that I am merely a fragment of Hegel’s God. You will have a better chance with me.

As for your dog reference, I think this image applies more to Christian lately than me. After all, he does have the furry face for it and I’m sure he is a big fan of Lois Cook’s work. ("Toothbrush in the jaw toothbrush brush brush foam dome come home…”)

You know, lately I feel like the 12th juror--the Henry Fonda character--in 12 Angry men on these art threads

-Victor

Edited January 27, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

How are my caricature chops?

On Lois Cook, Kitten (whom I met on SoloHQ) used that passage as a quote for discussion. And I used it as an inspiration for a mating call. I kept the imminent Ms. Cook's rhythm and rhyme and did up an Objectivist version. You can read about it here.

“Branden in the rand branden done done brand rand meek seek in the meek peikoff seek so weak weak in the rand peek seek brand branden brand pig gigolo polo solo”

It worked, too. (But is it art?...)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

How are my caricature chops?

On Lois Cook, Kitten (whom I met on SoloHQ) used that passage as a quote for discussion. And I used it as an inspiration for a mating call. I kept the imminent Ms. Cook's rhythm and rhyme and did up an Objectivist version. You can read about it here.

“Branden in the rand branden done done brand rand meek seek in the meek peikoff seek so weak weak in the rand peek seek brand branden brand pig gigolo polo solo”

It worked, too. (But is it art?...)

Michael

Michael,

How is your caricature chops? Oh, I could do a real number on you!

I have read The Virtue of Silliness and there is a love dance involved there. There is a certain art in wooing a potential partner, making the heart flutter and turning em’ to butter, don’t you think? Angie was a Renaissance master!

-Victor

Edited January 27, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I lack the energy and time to commit on any alleged epistemological lapses. But I will reassert again that the history and ideas behind the birth of abstract painting stand alone as historical fact, and the question of their legitimacy as works of art are in serious jeopardy given facts already pointed out. The ice is rather thin.

:baby:

LOL. This bromide from the man who thinks Turner didn't create art and that FLW didn't have "skill"; I'd say the ice is thin alright. As has already been pointed out via lengthy excerpts from and about Kandinsky (the father of "abstract art") the history of "abstract art" is nothing like what Victor claims it to be.

RCR

According to Wiki, Kandinsky was spiritually influenced by the H.P Blavatsky, the most important exponent of Theosophy—which means “wisdom of the devine.” Kandinsky was inspired to become a art theorist and expressed his ideas in a book called Concerning the Spritual in Art.

A little knowledge of art history goes a long way.

Wiki reports: “In fact, Kandinsky is perhaps more influential on the history of Western art because of his theoretical works rather than his paintings. He helped to found the Neue Künstlervereinigung München (New Artists' Association) and became its president in 1909. The NKVM, therefore, is regarded as a forerunner and pathfinder for Modern art in 20th century Germany."

For those who are interested, more information is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandinsky#You....281866-1896.29

See you in the funny papers. :turned:

-Victor

[Ellen Stuttle]

A little knowledge of art history goes a long way.

Toward what? It goes nowhere toward judging his paintings. I don't need to know one thing about art history to look at his work and consider it art.

Ellen

___