Art and Subobjectivity

[Danneskjold]

So does that all loop back to what the artist has in mind when he does the painting? Also, what is to be said for the accidental nature of how a paint splatter ends up looking? If I take darts and throw them at paint filled balloons that are attached to the top of a canvas, how the paint falls is accidental, but it was my intention to make the paint fall.

[Victor Pross]

The "subject matter" of abstract painting is...paint. Paint itself. It is not a 'selective recreation' of anything. Shayne is being way too generous.

[sjw]

So does that all loop back to what the artist has in mind when he does the painting?

I don't know what you mean.

Also, what is to be said for the accidental nature of how a paint splatter ends up looking?

Nothing. It's nonsense.

[sjw]

The "subject matter" of abstract painting is...paint. Paint itself. It is not a 'selective recreation' of anything. Shayne is being way too generous.

I'm not being generous at all. This is an epistemological issue not an evaluative one.

And I don't agree that the subject is the paint itself--even if the abstract artist were to declare that. The subject is more along the lines of: the anihiliation of art. To emphasize the accidental would be naturalism; to leave everything out but the accidental would be a total anihilation of valid art, that's abstract art.

[Rich Engle]

Going farther with Victor's essay, which I have read several times now.

He is right, as far as I am concerned, at least as far as the examples he provides.

I found it easier and easier to see it from his perspective. Here's Victor polishing and refining his art and craft, and all around him there be nimrods. They can literally defecate and achieve social, arts-world, and maybe even economic parity to his considerable work.

And I can see why that might trigger a wholesale jettisoning of abstract art (Victor, I'm thinking of that at the least as non-representational art...?).

In music, a lot of us always kind of called it, uh, "experimental music." It was a way of pushing out boundaries. A lot of times, the purpose involved working in non-typical motifs, for the purposes of, well, let's see what that does.

To widen the pallette. To get another color in the big Crayola set.

I guess that makes me one of them thar "tolerationists," in that I tolerate experiments. Without experiments, there is only the same representational framework within which to work. In guitar playing, that got very out there, between heavy digital processing gear, loops, things like that, all the way down to "prepared guitar" (like putting alligator clips on the strings and starting them to bounce).

So I view weird art stuff as a way to push technique itself forward. What I think my friend Victor is talking about is those that lean on that and only that as a way of establishing themselves, artistically and financially.

But that's just how it goes, it's always gone that way. Hell, you want to see something that really ices it for a guy like me that's played guitar for nearly 40 years?

I am fascinated with the "Esteban" infomercial, much like one rubbernecks a trainwreck. It came on Saturday night and I was hypnotized by the horror, once again.

www.esteban-guitars.com , I think it is...

Every cheese thing I hate in music, on the guitar. Yet so strangely captivating. His band has the freshness of a cadaver.

But, on the other hand, I respect his capitalism. To me, capitalism is more important than art, when the rubber hits the road. The sheep-shearing aggravates me, but, pragmatically <---big swear word> I can see the need, or at least, the means available.

Once marketing gets involved, I am not so sure there is something as "doing honest business." Usually, that term is associated with another, called "business failure."

I am not positing that you have to be a crook to be a successful business person; only that marketing is necessary, and has drug-like capabilities.

Spin, street talk are the great equalizers.

I used to go play gigs with this elaborate system. It was beyond what the usual club listener was used to.

By the end, I stripped it down to essentials. It was a good exercise; I even played less notes.

After awhile, I got tired of them not noticing. I figured out that I could just play straight guitar and it was all the same. Art for art's sake is a beautiful thing, but it mostly involves needless sweat equity, when it comes down to the execution phase.

Fortunately, artists are durable, and are used to flying in the face of that condition. If we dumb down, we tend to do it under our own power...

[Ellen Stuttle]

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.

Michael, pause on that statement, if you'd like to. I'm interested: What about the painting would you say clued you in that you were "supposed" to despise it?

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Going farther with Victor's essay, which I have read several times now.

He is right, as far as I am concerned, at least as far as the examples he provides.

I found it easier and easier to see it from his perspective. Here's Victor polishing and refining his art and craft, and all around him there be nimrods. They can literally defecate and achieve social, arts-world, and maybe even economic parity to his considerable work.

And I can see why that might trigger a wholesale jettisoning of abstract art (Victor, I'm thinking of that at the least as non-representational art...?).

Yes, Rich, it is true that I make no qualms about confessing that I have busted my ass to develop whatever skill I possess as a painter—and I mean strictly on a technical level, not one of imagination and choice of subjects. The artword, such as it exists today, is a total outrage to ambitious and talented artists who study for years to master their craft—only to see kudos, grants, commissions and praise being allotted to Joe Blow—abstract artist!

It is this Joe Blow, who, just after painting his garage door, decides one morning that he wants to “express” himself and decides to become an “artist.” But who has the desire or the time—or the ability--to learn how to draw (the backbone of the painter’s craft) when you have abstract painting? This is a haven for every pretentious mediocrity if there ever was one. Meanwhile, I have a battle with the same artworld trying to establish the case that caricature is art.

In short, I defy anybody to differentiate a human splatter and smear abstract painting from that of Bessie the chimp or Dumbo the elephant. But I have tried to keep my “personal feelings” out of the discussion—as it may not amount to a philosophical hill of beans with some people.

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, pause on that statement, if you'd like to. I'm interested: What about the painting would you say clued you in that you were "supposed" to despise it?

Ellen,

At that time of my life, even though I had overthrown my Randroid phase, I was still under the influence of a narrow aesthetic certainty in the visual arts I had carried for decades that I got from The Romantic Manifesto. You should have heard me in my Randroid phase rant and rail against modern art down in Brazil. Hell, I even thought Candido Portinari was too modern and was outright garbage that showed not only naked evil, but an evil and flawed psycho-epistemology. This guy had it all: communist, a touch of primitivism, government grants, a real party for a Randite. I made Victor sound like a Jackson Pollock fan.

Needless to say, I have since drastically revised my appraisal. Incidentally, opening the Theme link on the link I just gave above, there is a non-figurative category. I had not seen his abstract work before. It is quite good.

Here are a couple of paintings showing the type of style for which he was famous (coffee plantation workers):

Here are a couple of abstract paintings by him (both called Sea):

If anyone is interested, here are the murals in the US Library of Congress, Hispanic Room.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

So does that all loop back to what the artist has in mind when he does the painting?

I don't know what you mean.

Just asking if you were saying goes back to the intentions of the artist determining whether or not something is art.

Also, what is to be said for the accidental nature of how a paint splatter ends up looking?

Nothing. It's nonsense.

It's nonsense that in paint splatter how the paint falls is accidental? The painter doesn't have any control over the pattern in which the paint falls, therefore his intentions are in no way involved with what it actually is that he paints. Does that have any significance?

[Danneskjold]

I'm dissapointed that the artist would sink so low as to paint those last two. I could have done that when I was five it had occured to me that I could make a profit off of being bad at something. Even if you consider it art it enshrines mediocrity, as does paint splatter.

The first two are wonderful though.

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

To quote Angie: OY! :shocked:

We have very different backgrounds. My whole rant and rave against “modern art” is genuinely from the gut of my own intellectual and emotional reserve—not a “Randian phase” that I’m going threw. That you did—is your own business.

I was against modern art, intellectually speaking---waaaaaay before I stumbled across Rand. Please, do not project your experiences and intellectual processes onto me. Plus, I do not turn my nose up at art forms that fall out of the category of “Romantic realism”—I’m a freaking caricaturist! I endorse—gasp—humor and satire in art! I am not a puppet to a Rand esthetic machine that churns out caricature works of art that would be identified as “Objectivist art.”

Hey, I’m just a simple cave man—the one who knew how to draw on his cave wall—and one who knows nothing of Rand—and yet is miles ahead of abstract painters. There are movements out there that have nothing to do with Objectivism who criticize modern art—as art—that have zippo to do with Ayn Rand. They actually exist.

If by embracing modernism as an attempt to shake off what you take to be a “Randoid phase”—this is an intellectual error from the gate out.

Finally, leave the caricature painting to me! Do not try this at home! :turned:

-Victor

Edited January 30, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

You would be surprised at how many great artists paint both representational and abstract. There are oodles of them. Oodles. Maybe they all have a defect that makes them "sink so low," and all of them don't know something you do?

(I'm not trying to be harsh, but worse than that is what you will get if you talk to most of them like that.)

Victor,

I hate it when you get presumptuous and try to state you know someone more than they know themselves, while misreading what they write. I did not undertake to understand modern art in order to overcome a Randroid phase. If you actually read my post before shooting off one of your own, you will read a very clear statement that I had long been out of that phase when I started to think differently about painting. The reason I undertook this understanding is that I decided to take a look-see with innocent eyes because a person I was involved with created in that style (among other styles) and I liked the work against my own stated beliefs. I wanted to see why I liked it, not correct or overcome any "defect" in my philosophical stance.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

At that time of my life, even though I had overthrown my Randroid phase, I was still under the influence of a narrow aesthetic certainty in the visual arts I had carried for decades that I got from The Romantic Manifesto. You should have heard me in my Randroid phase rant and rail against modern art down in Brazil. Hell, I even thought Candido Portinari was too modern and was outright garbage that showed not only naked evil, but an evil and flawed psycho-epistemology. This guy had it all: communist, a touch of primitivism, government grants, a real party for a Randite. I made Victor sound like a Jackson Pollock fan.

Michael

Michael, that comment about where you were in regard to art juxtaposed with the paintings gives me a deep-gut feeling of understanding why you turned to substance use as a refuge from the storms racking you. It seems to me, you must have known somewhere that such paintings were projecting the vitality of the culture which was attracting you, and yet part of your being said it was wrong...terrible clash.

You see why I think that the Objectivist esthetics are dangerous, why they can choke up vital blood of the psyche. Although, as I indicated on the Tracinski thread, I am of the belief that there's a fair amount which is life-affirming in Objectivism (and has often not been well presented), I have long wished that she'd never written her articles on esthetics. Yes, her views have the potentially positive feature of proclaiming that art is important; but they have the potentially deadly kicker of making art morally hazardous ("And so, gentle reader, do you.")

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

You might be interested to know that as a conductor (and trombonist), I was in demand with the avant-garde composers. I conducted many world premiers. I also played the world premier of many chamber works.

Rather than plow through the score any old way, I actually insisted that the musicians play what was written. And I would go for the dramatic effect. Often I would be thinking as I conducted, "I hate this shit."

The composers loved it.

I hadn't thought about aesthetics being a component of my addiction, but now that you mention it, it was. Art is akin to religion with me. So is objective understanding of what is in front of me. A premise-level conflict there cuts deep in my soul.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Jeff,

You would be surprised at how many great artists paint both representational and abstract. There are oodles of them. Oodles. Maybe they all have a defect that makes them "sink so low," and all of them don't know something you do?

Michael,

Is that an argument from authority or numbers? Maybe I just have a different perspective on life than they do. I am utterly failing to see where the actual argument in that comment is aside from that many do it. Many philosophers have advocated altruism, I think we can all agree that is sinking low in spite of someone's opinion of it. Those paintings enshrine mediocrity because anybody could do them. The fact that great people decided to do them means nothing. It's enshrining mediocrity and therefore I would argue that it is in bad taste at least.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] I could have done that [painted the Portinari abstracts] when I was five it had occured to me that I could make a profit off of being bad at something. [....]

I don't believe that you could have, or that you could now.

Ellen

PS: Michael is right that many painters paint in both relatively "representational" and relatively "abstract" styles. Coincidentally, I just learned of such a painter a couple days ago, a painter who lives in Bloomfield and has twice done a group of paintings for the walls of a very good restaurant where I go for dinner about once a month. (I'd like to eat there more than once a month; the food is exceedingly well prepared, but it's pricey, so I limit myself to about once a month.) The painter first did a series of items of food -- for instance, a circle of squash, sort of a squash mandala -- and cheerful, bold-colored Tuscan landscapes (the restaurant is called "Tuscan Twins"). Then the owner wanted a more moderinish look, so the painter did a semi-abstract mixed with closer-to-abstract set. I wasn't aware until I happened to be talking with one of the waiters about the current set the other day that they'd been painted by the same guy who did the earlier set. He has equal facility in both styles. I wouldn't rank his work as candidates for "great"; he doesn't have the intensely personal while also universal vision of a great artist. But he is good, at both types of painting.

___

[Victor Pross]

[....] I could have done that [painted the Portinari abstracts] when I was five it had occured to me that I could make a profit off of being bad at something. [....]

I don't believe that you could have, or that you could now.

Ellen

PS: Michael is right that many painters paint in both relatively "representational" and relatively "abstract" styles. Coincidentally, I just learned of such a painter a couple days ago, a painter who lives in Bloomfield and has twice done a group of paintings for the walls of a very good restaurant where I go for dinner about once a month. (I'd like to eat there more than once a month; the food is exceedingly well prepared, but it's pricey, so I limit myself to about once a month.) The painter first did a series of items of food -- for instance, a circle of squash, sort of a squash mandala -- and cheerful, bold-colored Tuscan landscapes (the restaurant is called "Tuscan Twins"). Then the owner wanted a more moderinish look, so the painter did a semi-abstract mixed with closer-to-abstract set. I wasn't aware until I happened to be talking with one of the waiters about the current set the other day that they'd been painted by the same guy who did the earlier set. He has equal facility in both styles. I wouldn't rank his work as candidates for "great"; he doesn't have the intensely personal while also universal vision of a great artist. But he is good, at both types of painting.

___

Yes, Jeff could have painted those. Even I could have done them...and I'm just a lowly caricaturist. So if I can do it---anybody can. :turned:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Those paintings enshrine mediocrity because anybody could do them.

Jeff,

You think so? Do you qualify as "anybody"? Then go on and give it a spin. Try to imitate an abstract style by a good artist (not even a great one). You might get surprised.

(Ooooh, did I ever learn that lesson the hard way in music.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I don't want to be snide, but you are wonderful at having your own style (to me, the mark of a real artist), but you were not so good at recognizing the style of another. You floundered pretty bad on a recent test.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

I don't want to be snide, but you are wonderful at having your own style (to me, the mark of a real artist), but you were not so good at recognizing the style of another. You floundered pretty bad on a recent test.

Michael

Hey, I was pulling an all-nighter and no coffee! One question! That's all! :baby:

[sjw]

Just asking if you were saying goes back to the intentions of the artist determining whether or not something is art.

Is this an abstract sentence? ;)

It's nonsense that in paint splatter how the paint falls is accidental? The painter doesn't have any control over the pattern in which the paint falls, therefore his intentions are in no way involved with what it actually is that he paints. Does that have any significance?

He intended to make a splatter.

[sjw]

I don't believe that you could have, or that you could now.

My dog could paint those. And I don't even have one.

[Danneskjold]

Shayne has imaginary friends.

(Dogs constitute friends)

Edited January 30, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

In this graphite drawing we see the late great Hunter Thomas. In it, I try to “concretize” the state of being “high” on drugs—not so easy to do. But as an artist, this is the task I assigned to myself.

Now, of course, the concept of being “high” (to use the vernacular) is a real abstraction and I have attempted in this drawing to bring it down to the “perceptual level” as best I could. My attempt is indicated by the swirling and fuzzy streaks of white flashes and yes, this could be considered “abstract.” (Whether I succeeded at this task is a separate question and my technique could be questioned). But “abstract artists” do not intend to “tie abstractions to concretes”— because abstractions, for them, are floating forms in some Platonic universe or whatever. Abstract Art, I said elsewhere, is an absolute primacy of consciousness orientation. This major epistemological failure—one of a fundamental nature—is one reason why I question abstract painting as being a “work of art.” So it is not "abstraction in art" that I object to--it is the lack of it in "abstract painting" that I object to.

-Victor

Edited January 30, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

In regard to painting, isn't it all "abstract?"

--Brant