Art and Subobjectivity

[Danneskjold]

I went to an art museum not too long back in New Mexico. On the walls in the modern art section I found, you will never believe this, graph paper. Literally. Now, by the definition of art in which those lines and the conflicts were said to be art (I forget what thread that is but I do know it's somewhere around here) the straight lines represent determination and the intersection in the lines represents conflicting values. Graph paper is not, will never be, and never has been art. It remains from now until eternity a tool for math students. The problem with the desired definition of art is that it opens up to so much of this bullshit to be art.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

You have given more thought to what I mean than anybody. Thank you for that. I agree that the frozen abstraction fallacy is probably at the root of a good deal of Objectivist omissions. But as you also mentioned, Rand often used the term "art" in a normative manner. That was my original point anyway, not necessarily that the Objectivist definition of art is normative. I don't know how I got side-tracked into saying/implying that. Probably all the heated repetition of "that doesn't exist."

I have a thesis from a while back I have been working on with Rand's use of her own terminology and art is one of those terms. After she discusses modern art, you read her state that modern art is not art.

Morality is another. After she discusses the morality of altruism, you read her state that altruism is not morality. After she discusses the divine right of kings, you read her state that the divine right of kings is not a right.

There are other terms like that. Usually this happens in the same essay and it is confusing if the cognitive/normative distinction is not identified in the context.

I have done some more thinking and here is what I came up with. How the normative applies is that Rand establishes an Objectivist standard as a unit of measurement and then claims that the broader concept exceeds such measurement or does not measure up. Thus it is not really that concept at all. That is why I have called this use "normative." The Objectivist concept in itself is not normative. It is merely more restrictive—more narrow and selective. But once it is used as a unit of measurement for excluding wider concepts that bear the same word, this use is a normative attempt to hijack the word and eliminate the wider concept.

When it gets really confusing is when Rand also makes use of the wider concept and denies it in the same breath, in the same essay. Rather than say Rand contradicted herself, I have discerned nuances of meaning for the same word. This is a rhetorical device she has used several times. (I once projected an article on this, providing examples, and I think I will finish it one day.)

From many discussions I have had and read, when we get to the conceptual realm, several Objectivists I have interacted with do not really understand what a cognitive/normative distinction is. They understand cardinal and ordinal numbers when you put them in their faces, but do not really understand that these are cognitive and normative categories of numbers and have no idea of how this applies to measurement omission in forming concepts (ultimately forming two categories of concepts).

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have done some more thinking and here is what I came up with. How the normative applies is that Rand establishes an Objectivist standard as a unit of measurement and then claims that the broader concept exceeds such measurement or does not measure up. Thus it is not really that concept at all. That is why I have called this use "normative." The Objectivist concept in itself is not normative. It is merely more restrictive—more narrow and selective. But once it is used as a unit of measurement for excluding wider concepts that bear the same word, this use is a normative attempt to hijack the word and eliminate the wider concept.

I think that's a good description of how the process goes.

When it gets really confusing is when Rand also makes use of the wider concept and denies it in the same breath, in the same essay.

I recall noticing frequent examples of her doing that, in the days when I read her essays with minute attention to the details.

Rather than say Rand contradicted herself, I have discerned nuances of meaning for the same word. This is a rhetorical device she has used several times. (I once projected an article on this, providing examples, and I think I will finish it one day.)

I think the article would be interesting (not as if you don't have a whole list of other projected articles: I think you have enough lined up to be writing for years. ;-))

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I think I understand the “cognitive” from the “normative” just fine, I just don’t agree with how it is being applied to the question of “Modern art”—using the term ‘art’ solely for purposes I have stated again and again.

Mind you, I agree with you regarding your observations of Rand’s writing when speaking of altruism. If morality—any morality—is, generally speaking: a code of conduct to guide the actions and the course of a human life—then altruism is a contender. But I simply do not grant the same leverage to the huge fraud that has been perpetrated on 20th century man. This is not a “normative evaluation” because I don’t regard much of the works of Modernism as art at all --e.g. bugs in a cup, excrement on a canvas, urinals, etc. If you wish to maintain that the reason for my stating this is due to not sufficiently understanding “cognitive” and “normative” distinctions, go right on ahead. As far as I’m concerned, it is very clear in my mind. From where I stand, it was a cognitive attack on the human mind.

What these theorists and perpetrators have done (and they seem to understand the nature of art than most people) is to strip everything that makes art of its guts and turn it inside out and spin it upside down—declaring to the world that the anti-art is art. But not only do they allege that this “new art” is truly art, they went so far as to declare that all other forms that came before it as “false”- thus relegating representational painting as mere “illustration" (non-art.) In other words, they have not only expropriated the word art—they wish to deny that which is art its rightful status.

In fact, I think you commit a great error in trying to categorize this whole thing -or make sense of it- by applying normative and cognitive approaches at all—when the whole thing is one big giant fraud from the word go! And a fraud that was entirely created and sustained by irrationality.

As Shayne said: "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." [italics mine].

-Victor

Edited January 29, 2007 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

I think I understand the “cognitive” from the “normative” just fine, I just don’t agree with how it is being applied to the question of “Modern art”—using the term ‘art’ solely for purposes I have stated again and again.

I'd add that Objectivists who refuse to call abstract art "art" are far more aware of what's what than the people who actually feel it's legitimate. Compared to that, it's a quibble to talk about whether we classify this bogus rebellion whose purpose is to destroy art "art" or not. I think we should call it art technically speaking, because it can exist in degrees, but I have no qualms with someone saying that abstract art isn't art, all I have is this minor technicality. So I think Michael's making far too big a deal out of this cognitive/normative error that Objectivists allegedly make.

[Jonathan]

Shayne wrote.

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).

I don't know what you're seeing on your monitor, but the actual painting is bright and clean, and has a feeling of freshness. It's not about "doing chores" if that's what you're thinking. It's about the feeling of a busy little section of street and the type of day that is flooded with ambient light. The scene's buildings are not "run-down." They look as though they're clean and well maintained, and there's no visual information to suggest that the women are old or fat. As is true with several of Vermeer's paintings, the clothing has a lot of bulk to it. With the style of dress and the tiny size that the figures are rendered, it's impossible to determine their girth and age. So you seem to be imagining what you want to see rather than seeing what's actually there.

Anyway, even if some of the elements of some of Vermeer's paintings were to be considered "average," or somewhat weathered, or slightly less than brand new, shiny and perfect, it's ridiculous to conclude that his subjects are naturalist by Rand's definition. Well, that is unless we apply the same method of judgment to We The Living and conclude that it's a much more severe brand of naturalism. After all, it's a "journalistic" account of life in Russia. It shows a very miserable world which is much more "run-down" than anything that Vermeer ever painted. Not only that but, with its tragic ending, it's also a vision of horrible defeat and despair. Is it therefore Rand's expression of man as incapable of achieving his goals or happiness? Does the fact that Rand combined her brilliant style with the bleak metaphysics of naturalism reveal that she suffered from inner conflicts and couldn't decide where she stood on whether or not mankind was a plaything of fate? I guess so.

J

Edited January 29, 2007 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

All I am trying to do right now is to identify something correctly so I can judge it correctly. You cannot rationally judge what you do not know.

Nothing more.

If it sounds like I am trying to make a big issue, it is because of a high number of posts by Victor responding to everybody who posts, all his posts proclaiming "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," "It's not art," and very little else. I think everybody knows his view already. Most agree with some of his examplse, but do not agree in all cases.

Maybe the following story is premature, but I will share it with you anyway. It is something that happened to me. I was once involved for 2 years with a painter who painted both beautiful landscapes and also did abstract. I tried to get her to explain to me what the fundamental difference (not just style) inside her was when she did one or the other. She never did understand what I wanted to know. To her, it was all the same. Just the style was different.

Against my own stated values, I liked her abstract work. It appeared to be more than decoration, but this evaluation was only at the edge of my awareness. As time went on, it became more apparent, so this led me to ask myself why. To explore, I tried an experiment. One day I set aside some time. I suspended all my preconceptions while I contemplated one of her paintings to see what would happen. I let my mind go where it wanted to go without telling it what to do.

After a few minutes, her painting "spoke" to me. This was an honest reaction and it came from deep down. The more I stared, the more intense the experience became.

So I began to embark on an inductive exploration inside myself to learn more about my reactions and why I had them with art I was supposed to despise. Without going into a great deal of detail, let's just say that I discovered a valid aesthetic experience in contemplating that painting. (Hopefully, we will discuss this as we go along if Victor stops playing tag.)

About my own responses, I have come to the following appraisal for myself. I love great representational art. I also love great abstract art. If I had to choose, there is no doubt in my mind. I love great representational art more.

Normatively, there is one category of art I hate with a passion:

Mediocre art.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Oh, Michael, what a cheap shot. :turned: If I counted the number of times you use the words “normative” and “cognitive” in the attempt to justify abstract painting--will someone kill me! It simply doesn’t hold water because, really, it is an exercise in sophistry. (So says I again): Yepper, it just a fancy variation on the institutional definition. I give you credit for originality though.

Indeed, if one reads my posts or yours, they will find that we both have more to say. Come on.

Oh, and to have to hear that girlfriend abstract painter story again! I have said elsewhere that just because you have a esthetic response to something does NOT make it a work of art. (Shit, I said it again.)

Is there some way we can advance the discussion without either of us repeating ourselves? :poke:

-Victor

Edited January 29, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is there some way we can advance the discussion without either of us repeating ourselves? :poke:

Victor,

I don't think so. We disagree on a fundamental: that the word "art" can have more than one definition. I say it can. You say it can't.

How can we discuss art that way?

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Just for clarification, are you saying that the word art have more than one definition (punch a person and punch the drink), or that the concept of art has more than one identity?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I am saying that the word "art" has a very broad definition and this "broad" meaning is one of its definitions (I call it cognitive). This definition is so broad that it includes the Objectivist definition of art. Then there is another definition, an Objectivist definition. This one is more restrictive and does not include some things in the broader one. (There are even other definitions of art.)

Notice that in the attempt to refute Modern Art as art, the word "art" is used. What does "art" mean in that phrase? This is a very common concept.

I find it useless to say something like "art is not art." That's what happens when you remove the word "modern." This sounds like Gertrude Stein ("a rose is a rose is a rose").

Michael

[sjw]

Just for clarification, are you saying that the word art have more than one definition (punch a person and punch the drink), or that the concept of art has more than one identity?

I'm saying neither. I think that the Objectivist definition includes all art, even abstract art. I wasn't clear on this earlier in the thread, but that's my considered opinion. Abstract art is a selective recreation (sensory-level) based on the artist's metaphysical value judgments (reality is unknowable).

[sjw]

Michael, your experience with abstract art sounds like a religious experience. Maybe you just liked that chick a lot and didn't want to upset her ;)

With my favorite art, I can tell you why I respond as I do. I can trace it to things that are actually objectively in the artwork. I wonder if you can analyze an abstract artwork objectively.

BTW, I don't preclude someone finding something in art that really isn't there and responding to that--not ideal, but not "wrong", the purpose of art is to enjoy it--on the other hand, that would put that outside the bounds of objective art analysis or communication to rational human beings. There'd be nothing to say other than "I like that". So I think art can validly be personal, but such art would not deserve to be objectively ranked as "great" merely because many people responded to it in this ineffable way. I might even stretch this to abstract art and say that even though it's objectively evil some might personally like it and that could be valid for them to in their context (that's quite a stretch though).

[Danneskjold]

Shayne, do you consider paint splatter art by the Objectivist definition? If so, how?

[Rich Engle]

That's the coolest post I've ever seen Shayne put up. I'm actually liking him more than I already did.

You know, Victor is the first/only person I ever commissioned to do a painting, I'm about to get it shipped here soon, he's doing a few finishing touches--it's being used for my album cover.

The reason we picked Victor is because he's an original, he thinks out of the box, and he has great skill. Oh, and he's funny, yes! The man can draw, and I think that's a part of where his rage comes from. He worked his ass off to do what he does, and then some douchebag gets to stick a cross into a jar of pee and suddenly, there's parity.

I totally get that. I'm a musician. Enough said?

It's like Zappa said about music: "Music is BIG." Art is big too. Expression is big in general.

If people want to go to a gallery and look at a jar of piss, well, they are morons. I'm not sure which is worse--them, or the guy that pissed in the jar (but I think there's a slight edge on the pisser).

But Victor, really... I've got a couple of abstracts in my office that I really like! And it doesn't look like they were done Pollock-style. I think they took some time and effort and understanding.

There's all kinds of music that doesn't suit my pallette. And some of it comes from pretentious, self-important ass-wipes. Actually, I've seen good work come out of pretentious, self-important asswipes... Art is like that, you find it in the strangest places.

And there's nothing to be done about jar pissers other than to relentlessly expose them, if you wish. I just ignore them because I don't consume such products. There is a relationship between artist and audience, and as an artist it can be easy to forget that. You're shitting out diamonds, and they're running through Popeye's chicken. Annoying!

And to get funded to be a jar pisser, well, welcome to the world, Mr. Pross. It's ALWAYS been like that. It's just easier now!

Edited January 29, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Danneskjold]

But Victor, really... I've got a couple of abstracts in my office that I really like! And it doesn't look like they were done Pollock-style. I think they took some time and effort and understanding.

I'm sure they are great paintings. Does that make them art?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, your experience with abstract art sounds like a religious experience. Maybe you just liked that chick a lot and didn't want to upset her

Come on, man. I ain't that shallow. I was a professional artist for years (music). I would never prostitute my artistic soul like that. Even all that time I was addicted, I never did that. (I refused to play or direct when I was high, too, because I couldn't give it my best.)

I find it interesting you mentioned religious experience. Religious emotions are exactly the experience Rand attributed to great art. (Read her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead for a good explanation of her view on this.) btw - I get much more of a "religious experience" from representational art than from abstract art, which is why I said I would prefer it if I had to choose.

I might even stretch this to abstract art and say that even though it's objectively evil some might personally like it and that could be valid for them to in their context (that's quite a stretch though).

Leaving the discussion of subjective artistic taste aside (and I essentially agree with your comments on that), I only partially agree with your appraisal that abstract art is "objectively evil." When it is used to fracture the human experience (integration, reason, etc.), I would call it evil. When it enshrines the mediocre or poor quality as the great (even in abstract art), I would call it evil. When it serves a pro-human purpose, a demonstrably objective one, it is not.

In order for me to be able to communicate this properly to you, though, there is still a ways to go. We are still at the level of entity and abstraction.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Jeff asks the Big Question:

I'm sure they are great paintings. Does that make them art?

Yes. Why?

Because I say so.

If I don't say so, you get to, and I don't like that. If I allowed that, the next thing you know people would be coming after my other stuff.

Hey, is a velvet Elvis painting art? Yes, and kitsch and lowball. Wherever there's a park full of double-wides, there's a hillwhack that paid good money for that art.

It's the anti-objectivist stance: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The whole O-world unfolds if you accept that.

I like "The Romantic Manifesto." There's a lot of shit in there, but at least she was passionate as always.

Consider the Orthodox alternative: welcome to nothing but Romantic Realism.

Got any guilty pleasures in your CD collection? I better not be seeing any punk in there, boy...

rde

Don't make me come over there.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If people want to go to a gallery and look at a jar of piss, well, they are morons.

Rich,

That is one hell of a normative statement. I couldn't agree more.

LOLOLOLOL...

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Let's disect this for a minute, Rich.

Jeff asks the Big Question:

I'm sure they are great paintings. Does that make them art?

Yes. Why?

Because I say so.

Wishing, or saying, makes it so?

If I don't say so, you get to, and I don't like that. If I allowed that, the next thing you know people would be coming after my other stuff.

Hey, is a velvet Elvis painting art? Yes, and kitsch and lowball. Wherever there's a park full of double-wides, there's a hillwhack that paid good money for that art.

It's the anti-objectivist stance: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The whole O-world unfolds if you accept that.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What someone finds beautiful is a value judgment. Art is not synonomous with beauty though. Art is a concept with a single definition. Adjectives added on such as "Objectivist" as in "Objectivist Art" can change the concept. Art, however, is a single concept with an objective definition. It is not a value judgment.

I like "The Romantic Manifesto." There's a lot of shit in there, but at least she was passionate as always.

Consider the Orthodox alternative: welcome to nothing but Romantic Realism.

Got any guilty pleasures in your CD collection? I better not be seeing any punk in there, boy...

rde

Don't make me come over there.

I don't like punk. I do have some christian, but I don't really listen to it for the lyrics and tend to remain intentionally ignorant of the metaphors, that in spite of acknowledging that there are metaphors.

[Victor Pross]

You know, Victor is the first/only person I ever commissioned to do a painting, I'm about to get it shipped here soon, he's doing a few finishing touches--it's being used for my album cover.

The reason we picked Victor is because he's an original, he thinks out of the box, and he has great skill. Oh, and he's funny, yes! The man can draw, and I think that's a part of where his rage comes from. He worked his ass off to do what he does, and then some douchebag gets to stick a cross into a jar of pee and suddenly, there's parity.

I totally get that. I'm a musician. Enough said?

Rich,

Damn, Rich, you found me out. Actually, this is not so far from the truth. I didn't want to go into it because people tend to think you have no objectivity if you approach it this way. You know, I would have saved a lot of time if I simply took a colored shit on the canvas and sent it out to you that way. But the professional in me won't allow me to do that.

Victor

[Rich Engle]

As long as you have the title and band name right, and there's no corn in it, I'm down.

I hope you shrink wrap it.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Rich Engle

[sjw]

Shayne, do you consider paint splatter art by the Objectivist definition? If so, how?

Yes--to the extent that the artist thinks he's making a statement. To the extent that he's not trying to make a statement (a painter who accidentally splatters paint) it's not art. It is true that there is no difference between the two cases than the intent of the artist--an objective observer looking at the "art" would not know which was art and which was not. Such is the nature of abstract art. I think that's why you would prefer not to call it art--since there is in fact no difference between an accidental mess and pure abstract art.

Note that the Objectivist definition *includes* the intent of the artist: it's a selective recreation of reality (selected by who? the artist) based on the artist's metaphysical value judgments. Paint splatters count as a selective recreation--if that's what the artist meant. By what he chose to select we can judge him and his art. What an abstract artist regards as important is the unintentional (what valid artists would regard as completely unimportant--the abstract artist inverts)--but since he choses to portray that, then that is his intention. It's his intention to be unintentional. That's still an intention. Why? Because he values the incomprehensible, the accidental. So he recreates that aspect of reality as he sees it. It amounts to valuing nothing, and that's still a value judgment.

[Danneskjold]

How does paint splatter recreate reality? The only way I could see that it does would be at a perceptual level, or a level where there is differentiation between two entities but those entities are not yet formed into concepts. Even then, when you percieve something in reality it looks the same as it does after you apply a concept so I don't see how it re-creates reality.

[sjw]

How does paint splatter recreate reality? The only way I could see that it does would be at a perceptual level, or a level where there is differentiation between two entities but those entities are not yet formed into concepts. Even then, when you percieve something in reality it looks the same as it does after you apply a concept so I don't see how it re-creates reality.

Well, paint splatters are part of reality... The accidental is all over reality. Look at the pattern of snowfall, or dust, or the marks left on the floor when you paint a room.