Art and Subobjectivity

[reason.on]

This is not about RCR trying to paint people he doesn't like into a corner.

That is correct, Victor it absolutely is not. I hold no ill-will against you at all.

What it is about, for me anyway, is accuracy, honesty and truth; nothing more, nothing less.

RCR

Honesty and truth. Putting words into my mouth that I regard FLW as having no skill is an indication of this? Sure, giving the benefit of the doubt of there being a misunderstanding is fine, but I did correct you---and you still argue your case that such is my stance. "Victor is of the view that FLW has no skill." Yeah, now I look like a dick, thanks to RCR, even though I have never expressed such a thing. Come on.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, Victor, I posted exact quotes; you are mistaking your own foot...

Perhaps, you ought to read my posts, before commenting on them.

RCR

Edited January 30, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

This is not about RCR trying to paint people he doesn't like into a corner.

That is correct, Victor it absolutely is not. I hold no ill-will against you at all.

What it is about, for me anyway, is accuracy, honesty and truth; nothing more, nothing less.

RCR

Honesty and truth. Putting words into my mouth that I regard FLW as having no skill is an indication of this? Sure, giving the benefit of the doubt of there being a misunderstanding is fine, but I did correct you---and you still argue your case that such is my stance. "Victor is of the view that FLW has no skill." Yeah, now I look like a dick, thanks to RCR, even though I have never expressed such a thing. Come on.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, Victor, I posted exact quotes; you are mistaking your own foot...

RCR

Where are these quotes where I state that FLW has no skill? Did I say it explicitly?

OR...

Do you mean this:

I trash Modernist art.

RCR is of the view that FLW is of the modernist movement.

ergo, Victor thinks FLW has no skill.

[sjw]

Where are these quotes where I state that FLW has no skill? Did I say it explicitly?

OR...

Do you mean this:

I trash Modernist art.

RCR is of the view that FLW is of the modernist movement.

ergo, Victor thinks FLW has no skill.

He couldn't have meant that, he's not *that* stupid and dishonest.

[Victor Pross]

Where are these quotes where I state that FLW has no skill? Did I say it explicitly?

OR...

Do you mean this:

I trash Modernist art.

RCR is of the view that FLW is of the modernist movement.

ergo, Victor thinks FLW has no skill.

He couldn't have meant that, he's not *that* stupid and dishonest.

Na, nobody is that dishonest. Well, I hope not, I really do. I’ll promise to brush up on my art history knowledge if RCR looks into the fine art of logical syllogisms and the limitations of logical inference.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Victor Pross

[reason.on]

Where are these quotes where I state that FLW has no skill? Did I say it explicitly?

OR...

Do you mean this:

I trash Modernist art.

RCR is of the view that FLW is of the modernist movement.

ergo, Victor thinks FLW has no skill.

I am astonished, truly astonished; are you serious...with this? I honestly can not believe anyone would even attempt this kind of dodge TWICE, really, it is beyond the pale.

I've already REPOSTED (this makes the second time) your EXACT WORDS.

What? I NEVER said that Victor Hugo and Frank Lloyed Wright didn't have skill. Where do you get this from?

You are having some serious trouble with the truth these days, Victor.

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

I really hope you are kidding with this, since you can't tell anyone any such thing, especially with such an obnoxiously sweeping brush stroke. Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, practiced abstract modernism, as did Victor Hugo, and while you may be of the opinion that such pieces are not art, only a dim-wit would suggest that there is no "skill" or "vision" in said works.

There is no "vision" or "skill" in said works. And I mean it.

Then you posted this nonsense:

Yes, I am aware that there was a modernist movement in architecture. But this is not art. My discussion on this thread (among others) has been about art and only art. It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on.

to which I replied:

Uh...earth to Victor....the discussion referenced was not about architecture, the discussion was about specific works by FLW and Victor Hugo that I posted, which I consider to be abstract modernism (something you've universally decried as not requiring any "skill" to create). Further, I acknowledged that you may not be of the opinion that these specific works by FLW and Victor Hugo that I POSTED were art--but that they none-the-less took "skill" and "vision". So your retort above about only talking about "art" is pretty meaningless. Your reply in the original thread was crystal clear, "There is no 'vision' or 'skill' in said works. And I mean it". Your follow-up response above is a remarkable display of back-peddling...and I think pretty much everyone here can see that.

Now, I may have been overly general when I recently wrote that you claimed, "Frank Lloyd Wright and Victor Hugo didn't have or utilize 'skill'"...and probably should have added, "in the creation of the pieces that I posted here". But, I find it difficult to understand how someone can be of the opinion that FLW's buildings took "skill", but that this art-glass work did not....

So, if you want to change your original position and say that the works that I posted did require "skill" and "vision", fine. Or, if you want to stick by what you actually said, great. But, this silly dance of yours is really becoming tiresome.

RCR

Edited January 30, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

Where are these quotes where I state that FLW has no skill? Did I say it explicitly?

OR...

Do you mean this:

I trash Modernist art.

RCR is of the view that FLW is of the modernist movement.

ergo, Victor thinks FLW has no skill.

I am astonished, truly astonished; are you serious...with this? I honestly can not believe anyone would even attempt this kind of dodge TWICE, really, it is beyond the pale.

I've already REPOSTED (this makes the second time) your EXACT WORDS.

What? I NEVER said that Victor Hugo and Frank Lloyed Wright didn't have skill. Where do you get this from?

You are having some serious trouble with the truth these days, Victor.

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

I really hope you are kidding with this, since you can't tell anyone any such thing, especially with such an obnoxiously sweeping brush stroke. Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, practiced abstract modernism, as did Victor Hugo, and while you may be of the opinion that such pieces are not art, only a dim-wit would suggest that there is no "skill" or "vision" in said works.

There is no "vision" or "skill" in said works. And I mean it.

Then you posted this nonsense:

Yes, I am aware that there was a modernist movement in architecture. But this is not art. My discussion on this thread (among others) has been about art and only art. It was not my intention to suggest that FLW didn't have skill. It was a mistake. So I'm hereby correcting your mistake that you thougt I did. Okay? Good. Okay, let's move on.

to which I replied:

Uh...earth to Victor....the discussion referenced was not about architecture, the discussion was about specific works by FLW and Victor Hugo that I posted, which I consider to be abstract modernism (something you've universally decried as not requiring any "skill" to create). Further, I acknowledged that you may not be of the opinion that these specific works by FLW and Victor Hugo that I POSTED were art--but that they none-the-less took "skill" and "vision". So your retort above about only talking about "art" is pretty meaningless. Your reply in the original thread was crystal clear, "There is no 'vision' or 'skill' in said works. And I mean it". Your follow-up response above is a remarkable display of back-peddling...and I think pretty much everyone here can see that.

Now, I may have been overly general when I recently wrote that you claimed, "Frank Lloyd Wright and Victor Hugo didn't have or utilize 'skill'"...and probably should have added, "in the creation of the pieces that I posted here". But, I find it difficult to understand how someone can be of the opinion that FLW's buildings took "skill", but that this art-glass work did not....

So, if you want to change your original position and say that the works that I posted did require "skill" and "vision", fine. Or, if you want to stick by what you actually said, great. But, this silly dance of yours is really becoming tiresome.

RCR

RCR,

You must have a lot of time on your hands to dwell over an issue that was a misunderstanding from the start. FLW had great skill--I always thought so. Are you going to take more time out of your 'busy' life to still argue with me?

-Victor

Edited January 30, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

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.

Jeff,

There is a booby-trap in this kind of thinking when it is the first argument that comes to mind. (God knows I used to do this enough.) This could become a manner of sabotaging your thinking.

Obviously argument from authority and argument from numbers are not logical arguments—in terms of deduction. But in terms of induction, i.e., looking and seeing and identifying (not to mention before judging), they are very important components of information that need to be evaluated. It's nice to have a romantic self-image as a rebel and an innovator. This is proper when you know what you are talking about. But it gets you into all kinds of trouble when you don't.

Look at baseball. If you ever get a crack at the pros and some heavy top-notch player takes you under his wing on the way, I seriously doubt you will immediately ask him how he can "stoop so low" in response to some advice he is trying to give you simply based on the fact that you don't like it. I believe that, coming from him, you will at least try to understand his advice before rejecting it. You might even have a "default" mode of accepting the advice at the moment he says it because he was the one who said it and you know what he is capable of, and only later thinking about it further.

This same manner of assimilating information goes for numbers. If a lot of players do one procedure for maintaining or improving a technique (say for working on your pitch) and you are starting to learn how to play, you will do that procedure precisely because they do it, and you will learn more as you go along. Only after you know the limitations of that procedure are you really entitled to dismiss it on the grounds that "just because others do it, that doesn't make it right." You can do that at that later time because you know a whole lot more than you did before.

To repeat, when you know nothing or very little about a subject, it is a good idea to learn from those who do know about it. To repeat again, you will find that those people are precisely the authorities (experts) and the numbers of people who are adept at it.

Coming to art, you have not demonstrated very much knowledge, but you have demonstrated a strong opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. We are all entitled to like or dislike art works. There is a problem with saying that a bunch of experts are "stooping low" because they all practice the same thing, especially when that same thing is producing works in a style you admire and works in a style you don't. The first focus should be a question, "Why do they do that?," not a value judgment, "They are evil (or morally low)."

It is very easy to ask why you think they are evil part of the time and glorious the other part in the work they love so dearly. The only thing you have right now to answer is your opinion and the conclusions of a few others that you don't really understand yet. So in logical terms (in your mind at this point), these conclusions have the same cognitive weight as opinions. Nothing more.

That's not enough to make a proper refutation. That's only enough to say, "I don't like it and these other people don't either."

So long as you are at this stage, my suggestion is to go deep into induction. Soak it up and soak it up thoroughly. Ask questions. Look for answers. Then judge. There is plenty of time for deduction later. You will not damage your soul this way. On the contrary, you will give a strong degree of logical certainty to your opinions since they will be based on first-hand information.

Notice that with religion, you started in this manner by going to different churches and reporting what you saw. Why not do this in art, also?

Maybe, just maybe, a great artist who produces magnificent representational works has reasons for painting abstract works that you don't know about, reasons that have nothing to do with having "a different perspective on life," or being taken in by a con. And maybe, just maybe, many great artists share these reasons and know a lot more about their field than you do.

I say learn those reasons if you seek wisdom. As you are a beginner, it is wise to look first to the authorities and the numbers because that is where the information is. You can always reject those reasons later.

Michael

I have to go, but let's put the baseball thing in context quickly. Let's say the said technique is steroids, not illegal, I won't do it. It sacrifices my integrity and takes no skill. I don't care what experts say or how many are doing it.

[reason.on]

Are you going to take more time out of your 'busy' life to still argue with me?

No Victor, I can assure that I will not be. You no longer meet the pre-reqs.

RCR

Edited January 30, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

Are you going to take more time out of your 'busy' life to still argue with me?

No Victor, I can assure that I won't be. You no longer meet the pre-reqs.

RCR

Sorry to let you down. And I know it was important to you that I would hold the position that FLW had no skill.

[reason.on]

Sorry to let you down. And I know it was important to you that I would hold the position that FLW had no skill.

Victor, please consider this my last response to you. You've not let me down. I don't care. I have standards, and you miss the mark. I really can't believe....oh, forget it.

You know no such thing as you state above; it is of no importance to me what-so-ever. As I've already pointed out on multiple occasions, the issue was with specific abstract works done by FLW (not his buildings), works you explicitly claimed took no "skill" to create. You really ought to learn to read and write before venturing into groups like this.

Have a nice life.

RCR

Edited January 30, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, one thing at a time. "Questionable" or "not seeing technique" does not answer my question. Still, are you saying that "technique" is a necessary attribute for a work to be properly deemed as art, is that it? These are abstract paintings--deemed in the artworld as art. Do-you-agree?

I've answered your question as close as I can answer it, Victor. To repeat, the 2nd and 3rd url's aren't loading. The 1st I consider iffy, maybe, questionable, maybe art but not well done. As to "technique," it's a strong factor in my own evaluation but not the only factor. E.g., Frank O'Connor's work is not that of an accomplished technician but I don't hesitate to call it art. On the other hand, there was a large display which the Symmetry conference people went to in Budapest last summer which involved exceedingly clever and skilled tricks of perspective and reflection. I'd have liked to have gone back and studied that stuff for hours; I was fascinated by it from the standpoint of issues of how seeing works. But I didn't myself quite, quite consider it art, more like a virtuoso display of visual tricks.

I would still like to know if I'm correct in believing that you do not consider Kandinsky and Mondrian's Apple Tree "abstract" art. I can't get a handle on any specifics beyond Jackson Pollack as to what works in particular you mean when you speak of "abstract art," and I think I recall your saying that you'd classify Kandinsky and Mondrian's Apple Tree as "design," not as "abstract art."

Ellen

___

[Danneskjold]

Paint splatter and many such types of painting can take little to no skill, I won't make a generalization about these forms of painting in their entirety. The pictures that Victor showed are evidence of this. To sell these things as fine art, or to glorify them as wonderful, is enshrining mediocrity. In the same way when a baseball player takes steroids they are taking away from those who are great at it, therefore enshrining what would otherwise be mediocrity.

No matter how many people take steroids and how good they are/were after or before they took steroids, I will never take steroids to improve my baseball performance.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wrote:

Late-night bulletin: I'm laughing. I just heard a quote on the late-night classical station I sometimes listen to, I think by a person named Robinson (didn't get the full name):

"Ravel is the most insolent monstrosity ever perpetrated on music."

Amused.

Jonathan writes:

It's interesting that Ellen would bring up Ravel at this point in the conversation. During the past half dozen years I've occasionally asked Objectivists (who insist that art must be intelligible -- that we must be able to identify the artist's subject without relying on outside considerations) to identify the subject of the Bolero, and so far, no one has done so (I ask about the Bolero because it's a very popular piece, most people are familiar with it, and many people are obviously affected by it and believe that it is art).

It might be that what the "Robinson" I was quoting actually said was that "Ravel's Bolero is the most insolent monstrosity ever perpetrated on music."

I didn't quite catch the beginning of the quote. The composition which had just been playing was indeed Bolero. An interesting thing about Bolero is Ravel's own reported opinion that the piece isn't music. I've never checked primary sources trying to ascertain if he really said that, but I've heard reported a number of times that he became irritated by the piece's popularity and said in exasperation that the work wasn't properly music, just an experiment in a sustained orchestral crescendo. If he did say this, I think it's one of those cases where the artist's evaluation isn't accurate. I think Bolero is music, though I understand why Ravel would have been irritated by its being so popular compared to his other work.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

"I see that you're still leaving architecture and music out of your rants about faulty epistemology. You've told us that you don't think that architecture is art, yet for some unexplained reason you still don't seem to be upset about the "primacy of consciousness orientation" of those who try to pass it off as art. Not very consistent, Victor."

Yes, I am stark raving mad at this. One thing at a time, my hands are full. I still await Ellen's answer--or anybody else who cares to answer. You are a painter...what do you say?

This post has been edited by Roger Bissell: Yesterday, 09:56 PM

Hello? How did ROGER's name get inserted in the edit notification?

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, okay, just one quick observation. The first image you [Victor] posted is clearly the work of a human. The other two look like images that I've seen that were created by animals.

Here are more animal paintings:

I think that a lot of people, if they were to encounter these images without knowing that they were created by animals, would call them art.

I think that I would call them art, even if they are by animals. (What animals, btw?)

Ellen

___

[reason.on]

Paint splatter and many such types of painting can take little to no skill, I won't make a generalization about these forms of painting in their entirety. The pictures that Victor showed are evidence of this. To sell these things as fine art, or to glorify them as wonderful, is enshrining mediocrity. In the same way when a baseball player takes steroids they are taking away from those who are great at it, therefore enshrining what would otherwise be mediocrity.

No matter how many people take steroids and how good they are/were after or before they took steroids, I will never take steroids to improve my baseball performance.

For what it may be worth, I agree with you Jeff. I wonder if you'd agree that the abstract works that I've posted by FLW, Victor Hugo and Turner did take "skill", even if you can't agree that they are "art".

RCR

[reason.on]

I didn't quite catch the beginning of the quote. The composition which had just been playing was indeed Bolero. An interesting thing about Bolero is Ravel's own reported opinion that the piece isn't music. I've never checked primary sources trying to ascertain if he really said that, but I've heard reported a number of times that he became irritated by the piece's popularity and said in exasperation that the work wasn't properly music, just an experiment in a sustained orchestral crescendo. If he did say this, I think it's one of those cases where the artist's evaluation isn't accurate. I think Bolero is music, though I understand why Ravel would have been irritated by its being so popular compared to his other work.

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/musiclassical/ravel.html

Ravel Bolero

He called it a piece for orchestra without music. An orchestral piece with no thematic development. A 15 minute creshendo with varying orchestral effects. FP November 22, 1928 at a dance recital by Ida Rubinstein at the Paris Opera House.

http://www.olympiasymphony.com/pages/FEBProgramNotes.html

When told of a woman at the premier who declared that the composer must have been mad, Ravel responded, "She understood the piece!"

RCR

[Dragonfly]

I don't quite understand the idea that Hugo's drawing is abstract art. Perhaps the rather poor reproduction (the contrast is too high, causing details to disappear) may give that impression. I have a better reproduction in my copy of Les travailleurs de la mer, and there you see clearly that it is a drawing of an octopus (which figures in the story) in a typical Romantic style, just like the other drawings in the books. In my opinion Hugo was definitely better as a writer than as a draftsman. I find his drawings (including a number of caricatures) rather amateurish.

[reason.on]

I don't quite understand the idea that Hugo's drawing is abstract art. Perhaps the rather poor reproduction (the contrast is too high, causing details to disappear) may give that impression. I have a better reproduction in my copy of Les travailleurs de la mer, and there you see clearly that it is a drawing of an octopus (which figures in the story) in a typical Romantic style, just like the other drawings in the books. In my opinion Hugo was definitely better as a writer than as a draftsman. I find his drawings (including a number of caricatures) rather amateurish.

I agree that Hugo's drawing of the "The Octopus" from *The Toilers of the Sea* (one of my all time favorite novels) is more stylized than abstract...the others I posted, however, I'd argue are abstract art which took skill to create.

"Rosette" ca. 1856 (Victor Hugo)

"Abstract Composition", Brown-ink wash on vellum paper 5x9 in (Victor Hugo)

"Lace impression", ca. 1855 (Victor Hugo)

"Planet", ca. 1854 (Victor Hugo)

RCR

PS. Btw, I also agree Hugo was a much more skilled at writing novels and poems than he was at drawing/painting (though, I do love "The Octopus").

Edited January 30, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Jonathan]

E:

I think that I would call them art, even if they are by animals. (What animals, btw?)

They were painted by elephants from conceptual artists Komar and Melamid's Asian Elephant Art & Conservation Project:

http://www.elephantart.com/

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I agree that you should not take steroids, but this is putting a chemical into your body. This is not a playing technique. This is akin to an artist telling another to use drugs for inspiration or for being able to appreciate the painting.

My question still stands. Would you ask a master how he could "stoop so low" at the outset because you disagreed with him on a technique, or would you try to reevaluate your knowledge first?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thanks for the Ravel citations, Christian. Apparently the story is "official."

When told of a woman at the premier who declared that the composer must have been mad, Ravel responded, "She understood the piece!"

I've heard that quip oft-repeated on radio shows. He seems to have been witty. Another one oft-quoted is his objecting to a conductor who was taking "Pavane for a Dead Princess" at a pace Ravel found too slow:

"It's supposed to be a pavane for a dead princess, not a dead pavane for a princess."

E-

PS: I'll read the elephant-art material later, J.

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When I was in college, I heard a story about a clash between Toscanini and Ravel over Bolero where Ravel complained about the tempo and Toscanini said that he conducted Ravel's work much better than Ravel wrote it.

I never verified the story, so I don't know if it is true. It is a good story, though. When I was told this, the clash was apparently very bitter.

I just looked it up on Google and there is something here (and article by Paul Shoemaker about a recording by the Minnesota Orchestra under Stanislaw Skrowaczewski. From the article (but commenting on a historical 1953 recording by Pedro de Freitas Branco with the Champs Elysées Theatre Orch.):

This recording was important in another way in that it was the first high fidelity recording ever made of Boléro following the composer’s using oboe d’amour as called for in the score, and also recognising the composer’s stipulation that there be NO acceleration (the score reads "moderato assai") a long overdue repudiation of Toscanini’s revisionism which had dominated musical taste for decades. Branco witnessed Ravel accosting Toscanini after a performance and criticising the accelerated tempo. Toscanini said, "If I played it any slower it would not be endurable!" and stormed off. Ravel said, to whoever was still listening, "but I intended that it should be unendurable."

I love the Internet. You can verify the stories from your past on it.

Michael

EDIT: Just to stir up some stuff, I Googled some images of art works based on Bolero:

Artist unknown from here.

Duchesnay’s in Bolero de Ravel by Jacques Espil

Roberto Benzi conducting Ravel's 'Bolero' by Norman Perryman

[Danneskjold]

Michael, the reason I compared drugs to steroids is not because of the chemicals in the body. The connection I was attempting to make is that by using steroids you are not only messing up your body but you are taking away the value of the talent of those who don't. It is harming those who have the moral integrity to not take steroids and still have better skill than you. Now, those who want to take steroids even though they are skilled enough not to are like the artists who are skilled enough to make the art that takes skill (already specified what doesn't). That is why I consider it stooping so low.

Think of it in terms of Howard Roark. He was greatly skilled in his craft and would not stoop low and sacrifice his intelligent by making easy money on everybody else's work. Similarly, if there is ever a time when it comes down to me taking a performance enhancing drug or playing in the major leagues I will continue on in the minors until the club reconsiders.

The fault with your metaphor with a new skill in baseball is that:

1. It involves skill

2. The technique must be learned to be attained

3. It takes skill to master the technique

The type of painting that I say someone "stoops so low" once they paint (assuming they were higher in the first place) does not include any of the above three. This is why I compare it to steroids. Steroids is a means to harm the skilled and moral by those who have neither. I see no difference (in moral application) between that and the skill-less type of abstract art. "Rosette", however, is very beautiful.

RCR, I very much like the first and the last of Hugo's works that you showed. The middle two I am more dubious of, but am not prepared to make a judgment on as of yet.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The fault with your metaphor with a new skill in baseball is that:

1. It involves skill

2. The technique must be learned to be attained

3. It takes skill to master the technique

The type of painting that I say someone "stoops so low" once they paint (assuming they were higher in the first place) does not include any of the above three.

Jeff,

This is where you are so wrong. Like I said, if you think it takes no skill, I dare you to paint a Kandinsky in his style and come even close to looking like one of his paintings. Try it. It's quite an eye-opener.

Here is a premise to check. Why would so many skilled artists (ones who do both representational and abstract) devote much of their time creating works that "need no skill," and display them on an equal level of validity? Are they collectively dumb, or collectively partial con artists, or what? No other realm of human activity shows similar behavior on so wide a scale, so it must be a collective thing. It is inconceivable that the individuals who do that all happen to choose the same field by coincidence.

Or is there another reason? Are the challenges to their skill of a different nature than imitation? And you merely refuse to see it?

Is their no light or are your eyes shut while you mock those who see and try to explain to them that no light exists?

Michael