Art and Subobjectivity

[Danneskjold]

Victor said:

I do maintain that abstract painting has no skill, it is not art. (I say it again!) In regards to stain glass windows, my father use to do that for a while. He was creative that way. He never considered himself an artist though, but rather a craftsman. He said I was the artist in the family. Stain glass is design—not art. Abstract painting (if it is an “abstract painting”) is neither art or design. It is paint on a canvas.

Michael said:

FLW's stained glass windows is abstract art.

Abstract art takes no skill to produce.

THEREFORE, it takes no skill to produce FLW's stained glass windows.

The above quote from Michael, I assume, was meant to be a syllogism as Victor thought of it. If I am correct then I do not see how Michael's comment is at all a reflection of Victor's thought process.

Victor said (with the quotes attributed to Michael):

"Then a discussion ensued where Victor claimed that abstract art required no skill. Christian observed that this included the FLW works he referenced. Then this turned into a defense of saying that FLW had no skill (as an architect)”

Now once again, I never said FLW had no skill—much less having the nerve to say that he had no skill as an architect!

This is really a quite simple misunderstanding on Victor's part. I almost missed it myself. When Michael said "Then this turned into a defense of saying that FLW had no sill (as an architect)" What was intended, as best I can think, (correct me if I'm wrong Michael) was to say that this somehow turned into a defense against him saying he said FLW had no skill as an architect. The implication being that Victor did not say that FLW had no skill as an architect and that the defense against it was unnecessary. That's how I read it, correct me someone if I'm wrong.

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I disagree with your evaluation of Christian’s jab –which he clearly took. He attributed a false position to me, period. And even after I corrected him, he maintained his jab bringing the conversation down to a game of ‘who said what’ in target fashion. So focus some of your criticism his way (But I won’t hold my breath.) In fact, he started the little piss war by insulting me—calling me an ‘idiot’, I believe. (Do you want to see the post?)

And I simply do not agree that I haven’t contributed substantive arguments on this thread…sorry, I just don’t agree. In fact, the case against abstract painting has been put to bed.

That I have skimmed or bypass some poster’s posts is not a very good habit—even for duel conversations branching out in every direction. One can lose track. Hell, I’m still waiting for answers from you on questions posed, Mr. Black Kettle.

However, I will answer ALL questions or arguments put to me from now on.

-Victor

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Come on. I was discussing Victor's previous posts when he was hijacking the thread with a huge volume of posts containing wrong information, not the post he just made in response to me.

Victor,

Once again, your are not reading correctly. You just wrote:

And I simply do not agree that I haven’t contributed substantive arguments on this thread...

I (nor anybody) has ever stated that. What do you gain with this?

I said you are making a huge amount of mistakes. I said nothing about the "substantive" points. To be frank, the incompetence you have displayed with understanding what people have written has severely damaged those arguments. Some intelligent people are starting the use the "ignore" feature for your posts, so they don't even read them.

Like I said, you are better than that. My suggestion is to slow down and try to read correctly. If you don't understand something, ask first then do your thing. And if it becomes clear that you misunderstood, say so instead of coming out with some smart-ass remark. You don't save face that way. You don't win anything. You lose. You make intelligent people ignore you.

If that is what you want, then please start a thread on art where they are not present. You and Jeff (and anybody else who thinks your way) can have a ball condemning and mocking the art world. I guarantee you they will not go there. If you want interaction with them, then a basic level of competence needs to be shown in discussing what they have actually written.

(btw - You are totally wrong about Christian. He merely challenged your knowledge when you made broad generalizations and condemnations by asking you to back up your statements with a display of expertise. You failed several times and it stung. But yes, I would like to see the "idiot" post. )

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Ellen speaking of the elephant art].

And those are the ones Ellen still says Victor would also call art if he saw them without being told how they were produced.

Ellen, I have already given my answer...so has Kat and Dragonfly, as I agree with them. They made sense. You don't. Move on.

-Victor

Except that Kat and Dragonfly didn't agree with each other. And I do agree with Dragonfly.

Laughed out LOUD.

I could but won't resist an aside to RCR and Jonathan: Shades of EM...

ES

___

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

Come on. I was discussing Victor's previous posts when he was hijacking the thread with a huge volume of posts containing wrong information, not the post he just made in response to me.

Victor,

Once again, your are not reading correctly. You just wrote:

And I simply do not agree that I haven’t contributed substantive arguments on this thread...

I (nor anybody) has ever stated that. What do you gain with this?

I said you are making a huge amount of mistakes. I said nothing about the "substantive" points. To be frank, the incompetence you have displayed with understanding what people have written has severely damaged those arguments. Some intelligent people are starting the use the "ignore" feature for your posts, so they don't even read them.

Like I said, you are better than that. My suggestion is to slow down and try to read correctly. If you don't understand something, ask first then do your thing. And if it becomes clear that you misunderstood, say so instead of coming out with some smart-ass remark. You don't save face that way. You don't win anything. You lose. You make intelligent people ignore you.

If that is what you want, then please start a thread on art where they are not present. You and Jeff (and anybody else who thinks your way) can have a ball condemning and mocking the art world. I guarantee you they will not go there. If you want interaction with them, then a basic level of competence needs to be shown in discussing what they have actually written.

(btw - You are totally wrong about Christian. He merely challenged your knowledge when you made broad generalizations and condemnations by asking you to back up your statements with a display of expertise. You failed several times and it stung. But yes, I would like to see the "idiot" post. )

Michael

Michael,

Really, am I suppose to take people's rejection of me (or my posts) as of any importance--that I could be "better than this", as you say. Wrong person.

I'm not wrong about Christian. He was belligerent. (Yes, I'll get the "idiot" post).

You suggest: "My suggestion is to slow down and try to read correctly. If you don't understand something, ask first then do your thing."

BUT I do exactly that. This has been characterized as "evading" or "dancing around an issue."

I mean it when I said I'll meet any argument head-on.

-Victor

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

[Ellen speaking of the elephant art].

And those are the ones Ellen still says Victor would also call art if he saw them without being told how they were produced.

Ellen, I have already given my answer...so has Kat and Dragonfly, as I agree with them. They made sense. You don't. Move on.

-Victor

Except that Kat and Dragonfly didn't agree with each other. And I do agree with Dragonfly.

Laughed out LOUD.

I could but won't resist an aside to RCR and Jonathan: Shades of EM...

ES

___

Ellen,

Dragongly and Kat agree: it's not art.

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not wrong about Christian. He was belligerent. (Yes, I'll get the "idiot" post).

You suggest: "My suggestion is to slow down and try to read correctly. If you don't understand something, ask first then do your thing."

BUT I do exactly that. This has been characterized as "evading" or "dancing around an issue."

I mean it when I said I'll meet any argument head-on.

Victor,

Yeah, right. If you say so.

I have nothing to ask you right now.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Do these people disagree with each other about the "elephant art."

Kat: 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.

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]

Victor,

Once again, your are not reading correctly. You just wrote:

And I simply do not agree that I haven’t contributed substantive arguments on this thread...

I (nor anybody) has ever stated that.

Well, I will state it now. To the extent he makes "substantive" arguments, he's getting those arguments from Torres and Kamhi and not doing a good job of presenting what they said. I don't agree with what they said, but at least they're coherent.

Ellen

PS: I like the idea of Victor's starting a different thread where he can hold court and leaving those of us who'd enjoy a serious conversation alone. I, btw, would have put his posts on "no read" before now, except that my browser is outdated and I can't access that option.

___

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

Once again, your are not reading correctly. You just wrote:

And I simply do not agree that I haven’t contributed substantive arguments on this thread...

I (nor anybody) has ever stated that.

Well, I will state it now. To the extent he makes "substantive" arguments, he's getting those arguments from Torres and Kamhi and not doing a good job of presenting what they said. I don't agree with what they said, but at least they're coherent.

Ellen

PS: I like the idea of Victor's starting a different thread where he can hold court and leaving those of us who'd enjoy a serious conversation alone. I, btw, would have put his posts on "no read" before now, except that my browser is outdated and I can't access that option.

___

Ellen,

Any objection or arguments that I have presented will be simpatico with Rand (clue: I'm an Objectivist) or simply from me (things I argue and not covered by Rand or Torres and Kamhi). When I present an argument--feel free to follow up with: "So-and-so thinks that, and here's why I disagree with it." Or don't. I will correct you if need be.

-Victor

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Ellen speaking of the elephant art].

And those are the ones Ellen still says Victor would also call art if he saw them without being told how they were produced.

Ellen, I have already given my answer...so has Kat and Dragonfly, as I agree with them. They made sense. You don't. Move on.

-Victor

Except that Kat and Dragonfly didn't agree with each other. And I do agree with Dragonfly.

Laughed out LOUD.

I could but won't resist an aside to RCR and Jonathan: Shades of EM...

ES

___

Ellen,

Dragongly and Kat agree: it's not art.

-Victor

Get with the program, Victor. Dragonfly wrote:

It is art, but not art made by elephants. It's art made by using elephants.

With which I agree.

Tata,

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

I haven't much time for discussion at the moment but wanted to make a couple of quick comments:

Kevin, that was a wonderful post (#530). I often read your posts and think, "Yeah, that pretty much says it all. Nothing to add to that." But now I realize that something really should be added: "Please post more often."

I second that! And I'd ask the same of you (well, if you have time, of course). It's always pleasant to read posts of someone who is really knowledgeable in the subject matter. You were also a breath of fresh air among the narrowminded philistines on RoR who couldn't stand your real expertise and superior insight and therefore as true randroids had to ban you.

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly: “I think it's somewhat misleading to call those elephant pictures "art made by elephants".

Kat: “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.”

Grasping the total context and understanding implications are not your strengths. Try harder, Ellen.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[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

Ellen,

In this post, I argue that abstract painting is not art--because, in fact, there is nothing "abstract" in them! (And did Rand ever make such an argument?) Do you agree? If not, how do you define "abstract"--and where would you find that (your definition) in abstract art? That is, forget Rand--what is YOUR definition of "abstraction" and what would its relationship be to the human mind? And then tie it (whatever your answer is) to "abstract art." Nutshell: Where are abstraction(s) in 'abstract art'?

-Victor

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

So, am I to understand correctly that Victor and Jeff would not consider the below image to fit into the concepual category of "art", because it does not represent some thing, in particular, in reality...

...while, they would consider this second piece to be "art", since it represents the form of a flower?

Finally, I have no idea where Victor and Jeff would place this one, since it does represent Saguaro forms, though not overtly or discretely....so, "art" or not?

RCR

To answer an old question of Christian's.

Not art. These are designs. If I answer any other way, my teachers from The International Academy of Art and Design will kill me. ;]

Decorative images—such as these--are crafts and are subordinated to a utilitarian purpose—even though they have embedded in them non-essential characteristics found in some art: creativity and beauty. This is a short answer.

-Victor

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I haven't much time for discussion at the moment but wanted to make a couple of quick comments:

Kevin, that was a wonderful post (#530). I often read your posts and think, "Yeah, that pretty much says it all. Nothing to add to that." But now I realize that something really should be added: "Please post more often."

I second that! And I'd ask the same of you (well, if you have time, of course). It's always pleasant to read posts of someone who is really knowledgeable in the subject matter. You were also a breath of fresh air among the narrowminded philistines on RoR who couldn't stand your real expertise and superior insight and therefore as true randroids had to ban you.

Dragonfly,

Hear hear! Kevin has a first-class mind and does his own thinking, regardless.

I am unaware he was banned on RoR. I do know his perspective was not appreciated much during the SoloHQ days. I just checked. His last post there was in December 6, 2005, right after the split (on Dec. 1).

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

To answer your request about the “idiot” remark, I can’t find it now--but I would simply call on Christian to confirm or deny it. You asked me, so that's why I am following up on this, not that I wish to make such a big deal over it. I want to return to the dicussion.

Nevertheless, an insult is found here—one without provocation on my part.

“Wow, indeed. I know you are Canadian and all, but really I'd expect that you be able to read and comprehend basic English. Last time I checked, the phrase "almost entirely" is not at all equivallent to "every point and post"....words have meaning, you know.”

You see, Canadians aren't too bright. As for "basic English" skills, you will note that “equivalent” is supposed to be spelled with just one “L”.

-Victor

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

Hear hear! Kevin has a first-class mind and does his own thinking, regardless.

I am unaware he was banned on RoR.

I agree with you about Kevin, but I was here referring to Jonathan.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I agree with you about Kevin, but I was here referring to Jonathan.

Hear hear, too! Jonathan has a first-class mind and does his own thinking, regardless.

[Dragonfly]

To answer your request about the “idiot” remark, I can’t find it now--but I would simply call on Christian to confirm or deny it.

A search on "idiot" in posts by RCR on this forum returns only one mention, namely in a quote from Jeff.

You asked me, so that's why I am following up on this, not that I wish to make such a big deal over it. I want to return to the dicussion.

Aw, those Canadians don't know how to spell "discussion"...

[Victor Pross]

To answer your request about the “idiot” remark, I can’t find it now--but I would simply call on Christian to confirm or deny it.

A search on "idiot" in posts by RCR on this forum returns only one mention, namely in a quote from Jeff.

You asked me, so that's why I am following up on this, not that I wish to make such a big deal over it. I want to return to the dicussion.

Aw, those Canadians don't know how to spell "discussion"...

Dragonfly,

It was something like 'idiot'...the point here was that it was an insult. As I suggested, we can wait for Christian to confirm or deny it. The insult is nevertheless presented in the above quote.

-Victor

ps

Yes, we are very weak on the word "discussion" here. That's why I want to move to the states; I'm sick of it!

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Hey, when was the last time we said something about art that didn't use elephants or wasn't thrown in as a side topic into a post about another person? Probably my post about Kevin's that nobody addressed.

Let's not have this thread regress completely into bickering about people instead of ideas. If you think that Victor is being incompetent then address somebody else's strengths. If you really believe that Victor's points are non-points or incompetent then don't address him. Proving somebody you consider incompetent wrong doesn't prove anything about your idea anyway and that's what we're trying to debate about here isn't it?

I personally think that this whole thread has regressed into non-points or at least off-topic ones and that Victor as well as Ellen and Michael have contributed to that by all focusing on each other instead of the ideas. Then add in almost everyone else who has posted a substantial quantity in the thread (including myself) for both not stopping it and often joining in on one side or the other. I don't think the blame can really be placed on any one person.

I was having fun with this debate. Now not so much.

[reason.on]

I could but won't resist an aside to RCR and Jonathan: Shades of EM...

Yup. I had the same thought.

RCR

P.S. I've recently discovered the "ignore" feature on this site. It works wonderfully!

Edited February 1, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

This discussion regressed many, many posts ago and stopped being fun.

Michael

btw - Do you think anyone who loves abstract art has been converted by all the mocking and proclamations?

[Brant Gaede]

Jeff,

This discussion regressed many, many posts ago and stopped being fun.

Michael

Is it art or not art?

Should the toilet paper go over or under the top of the roll?

The first question has generated over 600 posts.

The second question generated the most mail Ann Landers ever received on one subject.

--Brant