Art and Subobjectivity

[Ellen Stuttle]

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

I looked at the whole set. There are 20 elephants listed. For about 4 of those, no examples are shown. Among the 12 or so for which examples are shown, there are only 4 which produced canvases that look as if they might be the work of young humans:

Thailand - Duanpen

Thailand - Gongkam

Thailand - Larnkam

Thailand - Wanpen

Interesting question: What's going on with those 4? Is the trainer giving them commands? And what are the elephants seeing on the canvases?

Ellen

PS: Humans are animals, Victor. Also, cave painting started before Homo sapiens emerged.

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Don't ask Victor to identify the painter just on the basis of the painting alone (meaning if he doesn't know it was an elephant). You will embarrass him.

He will call it art.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Didn't we already agree (I think you did, Michael) per one of Shayne's previous posts that the artist's intentions do play into whether or not it is art?

[Victor Pross]

PS: Humans are animals, Victor. Also, cave painting started before Homo sapiens emerged.

Rand expressed the view that art fulfills an essential need of human life---not a material need, but a spiritual need. Art is inextricably tied to human kind’s survival---not to physical survival, but to that on which our physical survival depends: to the preservation, the nourishment and survival of the reasoning mind. Human beings have always been spiritual beings by definition. (Of course, I use the world “spiritual” in a secular sense.) This being so, it has always found some mode of expression--one such mode being: art.

Yes, some thirty to forty thousand years, human beings began making images in caves (as discovered in Southern France) and in other widely scattered areas of the world. The earliest confirmed musical instrument dates from this period as well, as does recently found stone sculptures. It is not being said that Early man had the concept "art", but rather, that human beings engaged in these activities and that they served the same primary psychological function as they have ever since: that of integrating and objectifying experience in an emotionally meaningful way. By the time the first civilizations emerged in Egypt, the Indus River, China, etc, art was a well-established part of human life. Virtually every culture, at every period, has had some form of painting, sculpture, poetry, epic narrative, music, and dance. The claim that “art is a universal language”, as Peikoff stated, “is not a vacuous metaphor--it is literally true.”

Art is a universal phenomenon--it is a spiritual phenomenon, a human phenomenon. Just like language and mathematics---it is distinctively human. “That is why”, Peikoff further states, “art has always existed among human beings and why animals have neither art nor any equivalent of it whatsoever.”

Some anthropologists argue that the appearance of art reflects a significant advance in human cognitive development: the emergence of a spiritual/intellectual capacity in our species, the final stage in the evolution of the human mind. Of course, Rand agreed with this summation: Art does satisfy needs that arise from our unique capacity: the ability to think in abstractions. Human kind’s need of art lies in the fact that our cognitive faculty is conceptual.

That conceptual faculty is being systematically attacked—and not only in the area of art. Some are dupes of the philosophy that sustains it...and others are perpetrators. Who are you, Ellen? Maybe a little of both.

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen needs no defense from me, but there is one implied issue that keeps coming up over and over, often leveled at her:

If you like abstract art, this means you hate representational art and the heroic in man.

That's completely untrue.

The way this is insinuated is with phrases like "systematic assault on man's mind," "Peter Keating," "Toohey," etc., all aimed at people who appreciate abstract art and all while aping Rand's jargon. Unfortunately for such critics, it is possible—here on earth—for people to love the heroic in man and still be interested in exploring other forms of aesthetic perception.

More unfortunately for such critics, the people they criticize are not fictional enemies in a novel, they are intelligent productive human beings of good will who think for themselves (quite heroically, btw), and even more unfortunately, not one such critic is Ayn Rand (or the equivalent) charging off to battle.

The critics make this an issue of either-or.

To repeat, that's completely untrue.

I hope this is clear.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Ellen needs no defense from me, but there is one implied issue that keeps coming up over and over, often leveled at her:

If you like abstract art, this means you hate representational art and the heroic in man.

That's completely untrue.

The way this is insinuated is with phrases like "systematic assault on man's mind," "Peter Keating," "Toohey," etc., all aimed at people who appreciate abstract art and all while aping Rand's jargon. Unfortunately for such critics, it is possible—here on earth—for people to love the heroic in man and still be interested in exploring other forms of aesthetic perception.

More unfortunately for such critics, the people they criticize are not fictional enemies in a novel, they are intelligent productive human beings of good will who think for themselves (quite heroically, btw), and even more unfortunately, not one such critic is Ayn Rand (or the equivalent) charging off to battle.

The critics make this an issue of either-or.

To repeat, that's completely untrue.

I hope this is clear.

Michael

Michael,

Aping Rand's Jargon? I accept the philosophy of Objectivism--for the most part. Did so independently. Yep, thought over it a lot...all by myself. There are disagreements--even on the given topic here. But yeah, I agree with the philosophy. So what?

What ever could be an example of irrationality to you? So Ellen thinks that...animals are creating art? I’m reminded of Nathanial Branden’s “counterfeit individualism” all of a sudden. He said it best. Take a look at the jargon in that essay.

-Victor

Edited January 31, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

If you had seen those paintings without knowing that an elephant had painted them, would you have called them "art"?

I am not even using the broad definition. Use yours.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

I maintain that abstract art that takes no skill (not all abstract art taking no skill, but the type of abstract art that takes no skill) is the enshrinement of mediocrity in the same way that steroids are. They are tools to put the talentless on a pedastel with the talented and a way to discount the hard work and sacrifice of the talented.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My lady friend maintains that all sports involving a ball do not involve talent. Just testosterone and macho feelings.

So?

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Victor,

If you had seen those paintings without knowing that an elephant had painted them, would you have called them "art"?

I am not even using the broad definition. Use yours.

Michael

That question is irrelevant to the discussion. Assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Victor adopts Rand's definition, what is and is not art is dependent on the intentions of the artist. If you eliminate the artist from the painting then you cannot know if it is or is not art.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That question is irrelevant to the discussion. Assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Victor adopts Rand's definition, what is and is not art is dependent on the intentions of the artist. If you eliminate the artist from the painting then you cannot know if it is or is not art.

Jeff,

So you are saying that when you go to a restaurant and see an unsigned painting on the wall, you cannot know if it is art or not? If you are comfortable with that level of knowledge, go for it. As I made clear, that would be your opinion and only that.

I prefer more structured knowledge that includes big concepts as well as small.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

You can make reasoned guesses and theories about the intentions based on what is in the painting. If it is a painting like one of Victor's caricatures it is fairly obvious what is being said, you can have a reasonable amount of assuredness as to what the metaphysical value judgment is. Sometime's you can't.

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

On the Modernist thread, you respond here to my "inflamed" rants against the deeper outrages found in Modern art--one such example would include 'animal paintings as art.' You say:

"That was quite an inflamed statement, but you are preaching to the converted here. I can't think of any OL regular who would endorse those works you mentioned. What would be the point of me ranting and railing against communism here? To convince people of what they already know?"

Seems like there is a lot of "endorsing" going on!

I get the impression that outrageous shit found in modernism is evident to you, that you deem it as such, and yet...you NOW see your regulars here on OL giving it the thumbs-up! (Maybe this is something you didn't expect, but there you see it). And NOW you come to a lame defense calling it "heroic intelligence." Is it difficult slipping into a new role between scene changes?

What would be the point of me ranting and railing against communism here? To convince people of what they already know?"

Let's stop there...the last sentence. WHAT do these people already know? Let me think, let me think...You can't think of a single OL regular who would endorse the works I mentioned...what's the point in trying to convince people of that which they....already know. Hmmmm.

-Victor

Edited January 31, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

So you are saying that if nobody knows who painted a painting, no knowledge is possible on whether it is art or not? Only a guess is possible?

That's an interesting position...

Michael

Victor,

Who endorsed it? I didn't see anybody. I do see you trying to fabricate Keatings and Tooheys where none exist. Why not take the ranting to the public who pays money to see those works? Maybe you can convince them that they are not really in an art gallery because no art is on display.

Are you drinking when you post at night? You get one subject mixed up with another and get all emotional. You don't do that at other times.

btw - Back to elephant art. You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to. I already know the answer. You would call it art, then once you found out it was by an elephant, you would say it was not art.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

So you are saying that if nobody knows who painted a painting, no knowledge is possible on whether it is art or not? Only a guess is possible?

That's an interesting position...

Michael

Victor,

Who endorsed it? I didn't see anybody. I do see you trying to fabricate Keatings and Tooheys where none exist. Why not take the ranting to the public who pays money to see those works? Maybe you can convince them that they are not really in an art gallery because no art is on display.

Are you drinking when you post at night? You get one subject mixed up with another and get all emotional. You don't do that at other times.

btw - Back to elephant art. You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to. I already know the answer. You would call it art, then once you found out it was by an elephant, you would say it was not art.

Michael

Michael,

You don't see it? Open your eyes. Ellen thinks animals can create art. That's one example of an endorsement. She also rather likes the 'blinking lights' and calls it art. We were having some fun mocking it on the Modernist thread. OY, MSK!

You see, no matter what outrageous examples I provide…from shit on a canvas…or animal created paintings…nobody –nobody--will come out and say the obvious: “this is not art.” They don’t do so because the following question could be asked: why not? This means a standard or definition would have to come at hand as to why this-and-this is art---but not that-and-that. And it is here that the fear of being viewed as a closed-minded dogmatist comes in. So it all goes! It’s all art!

Yes, I do drink when posting at night. Orange juice.

Was I fabricating Tooheys and Keatings? I thought Shayne did that. Maybe you are getting one poster mixed up with another. :turned: (and I thought you put the bottle down, hee-hee.)

I only know of the animal paintings that *I* posted--and even if I thought a person had done it--no, I wouldn't think it was art. Do you have some other painting in mind? If so, I never saw it. Which specific one are you speaking of. And what is the larger point of this inquiry? I remember you saying yourself that it is only human beings that can create art...do you recall? Shall I dig up the post? Do you want to go there? Do you wish to maintain this position...or would you need to change it...to stand up for Ellen? :turned:

-Victor

Edited January 31, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Here's what it boils down to. We can guess the metaphysical value judgment of a painting in the same way we can say there is no god. There is nothing to indicate otherwise, so any statement otherwise would have to be based on faith. Sometimes it is completely unclear because it would take a faith based argument to give evidence for anything at all. In such a case you cannot speculate on the artist's intentions.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Victor,

If you had seen those paintings without knowing that an elephant had painted them, would you have called them "art"?

I am not even using the broad definition. Use yours.

Michael

Of course he would have, at least the middle one. Immature art, something on the level of a child. But there's a clear plantlike figure in that middle drawing. Victor thus would have had to call it art because of its being "representational."

Equally of course, it's most unlikely that Victor will bother to read what I wrote instead of charging onto the podium to deliver a speech. There is the question if the trainer is giving the elephant commands. As to intentions, do animals not have intentions? I doubt however that elephants would have the intention of painting a painting, although maybe they like the activity of wielding the brush and making marks. Elephants do some extraordinary things with their trunks, some of those things apparently just for pleasure.

Ellen

___

[Danneskjold]

The question remains insignificant. All that it amounts to is something akin to me allowing you to create a false premise based on a pattern, having you stand on that premise, and then ripping it out from under you once you have stood on it. What he would have done with incomplete information is irrelevant to what he does with complete information.

[Victor Pross]

Of course he would have, at least the middle one. Immature art, something on the level of a child. But there's a clear plantlike figure in that middle drawing. Victor thus would have had to call it art because of its being "representational."

No, I do not consider anything an animal does as art. Animals do not possess the faculty of reason. That you see a 'clear plantlike figure' has something to do with a conceptual being...the trainer...and the conceptual veiwer...you.

If a parrot squawks "2-plus-2...equals 4" --does that make the bird a mathematician? No it does not. (The trainer taught the bird to say that...and you heard it).

Is a dam as built by a beaver architecture? I shudder to hear your answer.

-Victor

Edited January 31, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

The question remains insignificant. All that it amounts to is something akin to me allowing you to create a false premise based on a pattern, having you stand on that premise, and then ripping it out from under you once you have stood on it. What he would have done with incomplete information is irrelevant to what he does with complete information.

The question was what he would have said the painting was if he'd been shown it and asked if it was art or not. He'd have said, yes. And then, just as Michael indicated, as soon as he found out an elephant did it, he'd have changed his answer. And the point is that his changed judgment would show that he wasn't basing his opinion directly on the work itself.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

I think it's somewhat misleading to call those elephant pictures "art made by elephants". They may have held the brushes, but they didn't conceive the painting itself, that was done by their trainers. The elephant is merely an instrument in the hands of the artist, comparable to the mouse or the graphics tablet of the artist who makes a drawing on his computer. So the elephant does not make art anymore than the horse Clever Hans could do arithmetic, both followed closely clues given by their trainers (in the case of Clever Hans the clues were given unintentionally).

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think it's somewhat misleading to call those elephant pictures "art made by elephants". They may have held the brushes, but they didn't conceive the painting itself, that was done by their trainers. The elephant is merely an instrument in the hands of the artist, comparable to the mouse or the graphics tablet of the artist who makes a drawing on his computer. So the elephant does not make art anymore than the horse Clever Hans could do arithmetic, both followed closely clues given by their trainers (in the case of Clever Hans the clues were given unintentionally).

Did you take a look at the site? It's not too clear what's going on, if the trainer is specifically giving commands. Most of the paintings are obviously just what Victor and Co. accuse modern art of being, blobs and swirls; a young child playing with fingerpaint could do as well. But a few of them look like a crude figurative drawing. So I don't know if some of the trainers aren't providing direction beyond, here, Jumbo, wave brush, whereas others are being more specific, or if it's differences in how good the elephants are at obeying commands, or what. But there is a degree of precision in placement of the paint with the results of a few of the elephants.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

This is a minor aside, but the kind of thing below is what gets tiresome and leads me to ask about being high:

Shayne, after reading this statement…I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with you about the whole Toohey membership thing.

Was I fabricating Tooheys and Keatings? I thought Shayne did that. Maybe you are getting one poster mixed up with another. :turned: (and I thought you put the bottle down, hee-hee.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I only know of the animal paintings that *I* posted--and even if I thought a person had done it--no, I wouldn't think it was art. Do you have some other painting in mind? If so, I never saw it. Which specific one are you speaking of.

(Sigh.) Try a post from Jonathan addressed to you, dated January 30, in reply to your post.

Well, okay, just one quick observation. The first image you 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.

Those are the ones Ellen said she would call art before you went apeshit.

Michael

[Kat]

I like the roses. I would, however, separate animal art as a novelty apart from real art.

Art is made by humans for humans and involves not only visuals, but expresses emotions as well. The fact that these are somewhat representational is merely coincidence. Obviously, when an animal makes a painting, there is no expression, communication or contemplation. Its not the same as art. Just like when a pet bird talks, it is not conversation.

Also, under no circumstances is human excrement ever art. That should go without saying. Art doesn't have to be especially beautiful to be art, but shit is shit.

Kat