Art and Subobjectivity

[Victor Pross]

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

___

Yep. Pretty colors.

[Ellen Stuttle]

QUOTE(sjw @ Jan 26 2007, 07:01 AM)

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.

[Deleting silly comment re perfection in Shayne's reply]

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

Now you are being even more asinine.

My mistake, Shayne. I though you were agreeing with Rand about Vermeer and thus that you were using "subject" in the same sense she was when she complained about his choices of "subject." I don't know what you mean in thinking he'd have "been even greater if he paid more heed to his choice in subject" if you meant "subject" in the sense of "theme" of the work.

Ellen

___

[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

___

Yep. Pretty colors.

No, not "pretty colors." Sorry, Victor, "pretty colors" are nothing to do with my opinion of Kandinsky any more than art history is. Excellent composition is. Conveying the sense of emotional dynamics is. E.g., that "Sea Battle" work Christian posted. I saw that as a clash of forces immediately, before I noticed what it was captioned. That you don't see what I do in Kandinsky's work I realize. But "pretty colors" are not what I'm responding to.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

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

___

Yep. Pretty colors.

No, not "pretty colors." Sorry, Victor, "pretty colors" are nothing to do with my opinion of Kandinsky any more than art history is. Excellent composition is. Conveying the sense of emotional dynamics is. E.g., that "Sea Battle" work Christian posted. I saw that as a clash of forces immediately, before I noticed what it was captioned. That you don't see what I do in Kandinsky's work I realize. But "pretty colors" are not what I'm responding to.

Ellen

___

I use to have a lava light that did the exact same thing for me.

[sjw]

[Deleting silly comment re perfection in Shayne's reply]

Translation: Deleting on point reply that Ellen doesn't know what to do with.

My mistake, Shayne. I though you were agreeing with Rand about Vermeer and thus that you were using "subject" in the same sense she was when she complained about his choices of "subject." I don't know what you mean in thinking he'd have "been even greater if he paid more heed to his choice in subject" if you meant "subject" in the sense of "theme" of the work.

Clearly, I had gone beyond talking about "characters". I was talking about abstract values as well. So yes, your mistake.

[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.

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've seen the same thing with altruists. They equate altruism with ethics, so anything that's not altruism is unethical. Rand pointed this out.

But I think Objectivists are the most justified in this sort of error. Because I think that the rational form of art or ethics provides the basis for really understanding the whole field. Abstract art is parasitical: it can only be called "art" because legitimate art came before. It's a form of rebellion and that's all--if the thing being rebelled against weren't there, then abstract art wouldn't exist. If abstract art were the first human "art" and that was it, then there wouldn't be a concept of art.

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."

I agree.

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.

My point wasn't that there weren't entities (even though there are not), it was that there was in fact *no abstraction*. Abstract art is ironic to the highest degree: it purports to be of abstraction, but is really crudely concrete-bound.

[sjw]

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?

Ayn Rand touched on the point in Atlas about the difference between mere maintenance of life (I think she used the metaphor of it being "circular") vs. its improvement (a straight line). Obviously, learning or building is the straight line; preparing a meal is the circle. Not that I'm saying that one couldn't properly romanticize sitting down at a meal. There's not some simplistic formula. You have to look at each artwork.

For example, regarding "Little Street" (http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue_xl/xl_little_street.htm), I don't see how one could view run-down buildings and fat old women doing chores in any way other than as natrualism. On the other hand, showing a meal with wonderful foods and friends and enjoyment could make a good romantic work of art (though not a great work in my opinion).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But I think Objectivists are the most justified in this sort of error.

I don't find any justification for this kind of error from anybody. It is incorrect thinking.

Abstract art is parasitical: it can only be called "art" because legitimate art came before. It's a form of rebellion and that's all--if the thing being rebelled against weren't there, then abstract art wouldn't exist. If abstract art were the first human "art" and that was it, then there wouldn't be a concept of art.

This is not dealing with essentials. You could make the same argument by saying that an automobile is parasitical because legs had to come first.

My point wasn't that there weren't entities (even though there are not), it was that there was in fact *no abstraction*. Abstract art is ironic to the highest degree: it purports to be of abstraction, but is really crudely concrete-bound.

Think about chapters 3 and 4 of ITOE. I am interested in discussing why depicting in art those types of abstractions and "mental entities" is parasitical or bad art. (We have the problem with settling the entity problem first, though.)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

For example, regarding "Little Street" (http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue_xl/xl_little_street.htm), I don't see how one could view run-down buildings and fat old women doing chores in any way other than as natrualism. On the other hand, showing a meal with wonderful foods and friends and enjoyment could make a good romantic work of art (though not a great work in my opinion).

Jeez, could that painting have been where Rand got the title for her unfinished story "The Little Street"? The thought never occurred to me before because I do not "see" the painting the way Shayne is describing it. I see a scene rendered exquisitely lovely because of the way the light is falling on it. (I have many times seen such scenes: old neighborhoods which look dingy in some lighting conditions can become suddenly beautiful if the light falls on them just so. The neighborhoods I've seen of this type, however, aren't Dutch neighborhoods, which are neat and clean and kept clean -- or at least so I've heard, and so the painting shows.) I don't think of that painting in terms of romanticism/naturalism at all. One point on which I agree with Torres and Kamhi, as I've mentioned, is that the term "Romantic Realism" is inappropriate for painting. And I don't even use that way of categorizing in regard to literature, where it has some validity.

Never thought of it before. But now that I have thought of it, I find the thought very plausible that she got the title and setting idea of "The Little Street" from that painting.

Ellen

___

Edited January 27, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[sjw]

I don't find any justification for this kind of error from anybody. It is incorrect thinking.

That doesn't sound very tolerant ;)

Some mistakes are easy to make and it's more reasonable to make them than others. I'm not saying it's good to make the mistake.

This is not dealing with essentials. You could make the same argument by saying that an automobile is parasitical because legs had to come first.

No, because 1) legs are valid, abstract art isn't; 2) legs don't pretend to be and advance over the automobile, while trying to destroy it.

Think about chapters 3 and 4 of ITOE. I am interested in discussing why depicting in art those types of abstractions and "mental entities" is parasitical or bad art. (We have the problem with settling the entity problem first, though.)

WTF?! I said there was *no* abstraction, not that it was of the wrong type!!!

[Danneskjold]

Abstract art is parasitical: it can only be called "art" because legitimate art came before. It's a form of rebellion and that's all--if the thing being rebelled against weren't there, then abstract art wouldn't exist. If abstract art were the first human "art" and that was it, then there wouldn't be a concept of art.

This is not dealing with essentials. You could make the same argument by saying that an automobile is parasitical because legs had to come first.

Cars aren't calling themselves legs.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

WTF?! I said there was *no* abstraction, not that it was of the wrong type!!!

I did not disagree with your depiction of your position. This is the entity problem I keep talking about. If there is no entity, there can be no abstraction.

But if there is are entities in abstract paintings...

Cars aren't calling themselves legs.

But both legs and cars are means of locomotion (a more generic concept based on an activity of man).

Michael

[sjw]

But if there is are entities in abstract paintings...

Then you'd still be a long ways of showing that it was rational art... Entities as such wouldn't mean a thing. If I toss two rocks somewhere and take their picture, that doesn't imply anything of significance or meaning.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I agree. I'm just taking things one thing at a time. The first problem is epistemological. Then we can get to aesthetics after we come to some kind of agreement on more fundamental bases.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Shayne,

Yes, I agree with MSK, the foundation is epistemological! But what I am witnessing is the urgent and dire attempts of MSK to rescue abstract painting and level it to the stratum of ‘art’ by trying to imbue it with “entities” - or with whatever other qualities characteristic of representational painting –so as to redeem it. He does this instead of dealing with it head on and arguing for what abstract painting was all about on its own accord--given its philosophical roots: irrationality. Although I admire his attempts, however wrong, they are nothing like the esoteric New-Age-Flower-child-age-of-Aquarius prattle exhibited by Ellen.

-Victor

Edited January 27, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

With all due respect, we are trying to conduct a serious discussion. Ellen as New Age? Come on. You show you haven't read her posts. She has some non-Objectivist premises, but they are definitely not New Age. Try again. Or better, don't. Let's stay on the ideas.

Michael

[Kat]

I don't think Michael is trying to elevate abstract art at all. He is saying something more along the lines of personal tastes do not define art. Just like some people say rock-n-roll is not music, we all know that it is a type of music, regardless of our own personal view as to whether or not we like it. It is the same with abstract paintings and art. Hey, I don't like rap, but I still recognize it as a valid form of music.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Kat

[Danneskjold]

I have given several explanations of why Rand's isn't a normative definition yet this is what everything seems to come back to.

[Victor Pross]

Kat,

I’m with you. I hate rap music, but recognize it as such. I love rock music and love it as such. I thought my position was crystal clear: abstract painting is not art.

Michael, take away my comments about Ellen --the only thing you focused on in my post--and what I say still stands. On epistemological grounds, the case against abstract painting as art has been argued by me, Jeff, and now Shayne is making some very excellent points—and it is damn refreshing to be on the same page as him on this matter.

-Victor

[Brant Gaede]

Kat,

I’m with you. I hate rap music, but recognize it as such. I love rock music and love it as such. I thought my position was crystal clear: abstract painting is not art.

Michael, take away my comments about Ellen --the only thing you focused on in my post--and what I say still stands. On epistemological grounds, the case against abstract painting as art has been argued by me, Jeff, and now Shayne is making some very excellent points—and it is damn refreshing to be on the same page as him on this matter.

-Victor

Is "Guernica" abstract painting? Just curious about your opinion.

A lot of abstract painting makes for good wall decoration. Might as well call it "art." If it's garbage call it garbage. If it's abstract painting it gets a special category called "abstract painting?" You are trying to objectify subjectivity. You say art and not art. I say garbage or not garbage. Leave the artist alone.

--Brant

Edited January 28, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Shayne has expressed disagreement with you in epistemological terms. He merely calls your error "minor" compared to the aesthetics he perceives in others. We are also discussing entity and abstraction, but have not advanced very far. That is how I have read his recent posts.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Get a load of this! I found an interesting article that attempts to equate caricature art with abstract painting. The writer is defending abstract painting. I don’t agree with the equation, but I find it fascinating that the writer would refer to caricature art to make a case for abstract painting. How novel. It is an interesting argument. So I wanted to share it here. I think others will find it interesting.

"Some definitions of abstract art are offered as a work of art where the image is "not an accurate representation of the subject". I feel that definition is completely erroneous. The opposite is truer. Good abstract art should provide the viewer with a better "representation" of the subject, an image that better characterizes the subject, similar to the way poetry better describes thoughts or the way music helps to convey an emotion.

Consider a caricaturist. What he is able to do is to take a face and rather than produce an image that is totally faithful to the original, recreate the image in a way that particular attributes of the person's face are presented more convincingly so that you get to see the real person. Abstract painters have the same goal - to describe what may not be readily perceived by the viewer.

Would we say a caricaturist can't draw? On the contrary, we can say that he has a heightened ability to present what he perceives in the person he is drawing. Abstract? Yes! Inaccurate? That depends on what you need to know. For example, a caricaturist doesn't attempt to tell you exactly what the surface of the subject's forehead is like. He has other things to say - that is, to "explain" the person's character.

In the same way words can help explain a photograph, since photographs indeed have their limitations, caricatures and likewise, abstract art, intend to go beyond a mere graphical display of the subject. They aim to reveal the true essence of the subject to the viewer."

Yes, very interesting.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does the word "stylized" come to mind?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have given several explanations of why Rand's isn't a normative definition yet this is what everything seems to come back to.

As I've said several times, I agree that Rand's definition is meant as a cognitive definition, not a normative definition. She was defining what art as a category is, not what good art is. She was saying that all art, not only good art, is "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." (Btw, answering a question you asked on another thread, she used a hyphen in "re-creation." She also hyphenated "value-judgments," I see upon looking her wording up in the Lexicon, but mostly those who write about her theories use just "value judgments.")

Where Michael is getting the idea of her definition being "normative" is that it's often been used as a basis for ruling out as not being art categories (especially architecture) and styles (much of "modern art") which most people would classify as being art. Objectivists don't agree amongst themselves as to whether or not architecture and/or "modern art" should be ruled out as being non-art instead of art. However, Rand's definition and associated discussion provide a basis for a case being made that architecture and/or "modern art" are not art. Torres and Kamhi make such a case regarding both. Victor accepts their line of reasoning. Roger Bissell does not, at least as regards architecture.

The problem which Michael is getting at in calling Rand's definition "normative" would better be described by the Objectivist term "the fallacy of frozen abstraction." Quoting the (brief) Lexicon entry on this term:

[Lexicon, pg. 184, ellipsis and brackets in original] A fallacy which may be termed "the fallacy of the frozen abstraction"...consists of substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs--[e.g.] substituting a specific ethics (altruism) for the wider abstraction of "ethics." Thus, a man may reject the theory of altruism and assert that he has accepted a rational code--but, failing to integrate his ideas, he continues unthinkingly to approach ethical questions in terms established by altruism.

["Collectivized Ethics," VOS, 104; pb 81.]

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

A little look into the common touch. Most people don’t judge abstract painting or “modern art” as art. Going by my own experiences over the past twenty years or so I find it being rejected as "works of art"- and being done so by people who have never heard of Objectivism, lo and behold! Being deeply meshed in the art community I have come across scores of people from different walks who find it utterly vacuous and fraudulent. When it comes to abstract painting, one common bromide I have heard over the years (and the one bromide that strings all these vastly different people together as one voice) is: “my kid could do that.” I recall "60 minutes" doing a show called "But is it art?" -or something like this- and the answer was NO.

It takes art critics and intellectuals to find a defence for the supremely ridiculous.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Victor Pross