Art and Subobjectivity

[Victor Pross]

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.

Jeff,

"Let's not have this thread regress completely into bickering about people instead of ideas."

Very true. And yet you can see the posts following yours are still doing that. I shouldn't allow myself to get caught into a piss war by someone like Christian. He is the type who likes to focus on one person trying to bait them, as he is still doing.

Don't expect your response to Kevin's post to be dealt with. You and I, as a matter of fact, have laid to waste abstract painting--this is why people, not ideas now, are being attacked. Sure, it is a matter of wisdom and truth...but Ellen, Christian and MSK, etc have lost this debate...and they know it. Trust an old gut on this one.

-Victor

ps

my post to Ellen asking her to define "abstraction" and to then demonstrate where abstractions are to be found in 'abstract art'....well, observe. Okay? :turned:

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[reason.on]

Seems like you're the one creating the art, not him.

This is a quick post, but I wanted to note that I found this to be an interesting statement, partially because I'm very much on the line with Pollack's work (as I've said in another thread, his paintings are to me reminiscent of very unpleasant, abstract chaos-nightmares I had as a young child), and partially because this is one of the key elements, I think, to the broader "art" puzzle.

The question that it leads to is to what extent do we as the observer "create the art", vs. the artist. This is a tricky question, and I do believe "art" IS partially in the observer experience (not the direct "thinking" about it, the "experience" of it), and partially in the creator intention of it (from the artist, obviously). There is also a complex feedback process going on in the artist as he shapes his intellectual intentions and then periodically shifts to experiencing what he has done as an observer....

There are also distinct subjective perception issues involved, since what I perceive in a painting may not be what someone else perceives, as I've already tried to point out with the one of FLWs art-glass pieces. JeffK, for example, didn't see a flower, or a tulip, but I did. Many people don't see water-lilies (Monet), don't see sunsets or seascapes (Turner), don't see a planet (Hugo) or a sea battle (Kandinsky)...on and on I could go. If one is to assert that ALL visual art must be objectively "representational" in order to be properly classified as "art", then these subjective issues of perception (and others) pose serious problems and obstacles.

The reverse is also true with something like Hugo's "Rosette"; I see a flower, but in truth the piece is an ink blot, and by-in-large unintentional, or accidental....(much like my computer graphic resembling a rose) so, what IS it?

...

RCR

Edited February 1, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was curious to see if my impressions were correct about numbers. Here are the top posters in number of posts on this thread as of now.

Victor - 121

Jeff - 107

Michael - 95

Ellen - 62

Jonathan - 41

Dragonfly - 40

Shayne - 40

R. Christian R - 35

All the others have less than 10 (most around 2 or 3 or so).

Michael

[Danneskjold]

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?

No, nor has anyone who says that what we refer to as abstract art is not art been converted to the reverse. That is why I would say that we should argue ideas. I can stand on a street corner and defame whoever it is I wish all day but that proves nothing about their ideas. That is why ad hominem is considered a logical fallacy. Who started the chain of ad hominem attacks on this thread? I neither know nor care. It does not require that blame be placed in order for the discussion about the issue at hand to continue on. The placing of blame will only hinder the actual debate because it will create yet another off-topic argument.

Back to the discussion pertaining to art, I once visited a modern art gallery in New Mexico. On the walls of this art gallery hung a mere piece of graph paper. The lines all perfectly straight, intersecting every inch or so. It was not something that I could not have bought in a store. As an eight year old, I proclaimed loudly to my parents that this piece of graph paper that hung from the wall of a museum dedicated to art, was indeed, not art. I, to this day, do not see how it could be taken as such. Even if you could make a valid case that this piece of graph paper was art, and I highly doubt you could do so, I would say that this is immoral (amoral?) art. It is the enshrinement of mediocrity at it's worst (best?). By enshrining mediocrity you devalue that which is great.

[Danneskjold]

Seems like you're the one creating the art, not him.

This is a quick post, but I wanted to note that I found this to be an interesting statement, partially because I'm very much on the line with Pollack's work (as I've said in another thread, his paintings are to me reminiscent of very unpleasant, abstract chaos-nightmares I had as a young child), and partially because this is one of the key elements, I think, to the broader "art" puzzle.

The question that it leads to is to what extent do we as the observer "create the art", vs. the artist. This is a tricky question, and I do believe "art" IS partially in the observer experience (not the direct "thinking" about it, the "experience" of it), and partially in the creator intention of it (from the artist, obviously). There is also a complex feedback process going on in the artist as he shapes his intellectual intentions and then periodically shifts to experiencing what he has done as an observer....

There are also distinct subjective perception issues involved, since what I perceive in a painting may not be what someone else perceives, as I've already tried to point out with the one of FLWs art-glass pieces. JeffK, for example, didn't see a flower, or a tulip, but I did. Many people don't see water-lilies (Monet), don't see sunsets or seascapes (Turner), don't see a planet (Hugo) or a sea battle (Kandinsky)...on and on I could go. If one is to assert that ALL visual art must be objectively "representational" in order to be properly classified as "art", then these subjective issues of perception (and others) pose serious problems and obstacles.

The reverse is also true with something like Hugo's "Rosette"; I see a flower, but in truth the piece is an ink blot, and by-in-large unintentional, or accidental....(much like my computer graphic resembling a rose) so, what IS it?

...

RCR

My intention with the statement about him creating the art was not intended to mean that it is art. It was intended to point out that this would make whether or not this peice was art by his definition subjective. Subjective definitions, as I have stated, cannot exist. Subjective definition is a contradiction. I explained this earlier on (I believe page two, but I could go back and quote myself if it is so wished). That is why in order to objectively define art we must go to the intentions of the artist.

[Victor Pross]

-Victor

Jeff,

I agree with you on all your points in your posts. I will not be tossed off track again.

Regarding the "stainglass conundrum", this has been answered, yet it is asked again. Here’s the answer: Decorative images 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—AND even though they have “representational elements” eg., flowers, they are still design for reasons already stated.

Victor

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[reason.on]

My intention with the statement about him creating the art was not intended to mean that it is art. It was intended to point out that this would make whether or not this peice was art by his definition subjective. Subjective definitions, as I have stated, cannot exist. Subjective definition is a contradiction. I explained this earlier on (I believe page two, but I could go back and quote myself if it is so wished). That is why in order to objectively define art we must go to the intentions of the artist.

I am aware, Jeff, of what you intended to say.

RCR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

You have made that point before about the graph paper and you don't think it is art. How many times do you want to repeat it? The moment you put a definition on excluding something as art because it "enshrines mediocrity," you have made a normative judgment, thus you are usuing a normative definition. (Mediocre is a term of measurement.)

Incidentlally, I agree with you that the graph paper was a horrible attempt at art. It was worse than mediocre. It was worthless. But how many times do you want me to say that I have no problem with normative definitions, so long as a person does not try to use them for cognitive ones?

I fully agree with you about discussing ideas. What I want desperately to do is that. But is all that repeating "discussing ideas"?

And then... Oh... I forgot. The ideas concerning abstract art have been "buried" long ago and I (I, along with some others, who did not know I was competing with anyone or anything) "lost the debate." Gotta trust an old gut for that...

Yeah. Right.

Or here's an idea. I can "discuss" Pollock's unskilled "mess" or "explosion at a yarn factory" with you, as one who sees no value in it and doesn't want to learn any. Why bother? I have a question for you. If you already know what you want to know, and you think others are morons or misguided or immoral for thinking differently, why discuss it further? You have nothing to learn and nothing to gain by discussing anything with morons or the misguided or the immoral.

You don't have to like something to learn it. And you don't have to agree with it. But from what I am seeing... Why bother?

Slinging names is more fun. Isn't that where you're at with Pollock?

(btw - I just saw your last post. Subjective definitions do exist. They identify subjective concepts. They are both cognitive and normative in nature and they are particular to a single person and nobody else. The three categories of concepts are cognitive, normative and subjective. I went into detail on this near the beginning of the thread.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Question: "...Hugo's "Rosette"; I see a flower, but in truth the piece is an ink blot, and by-in-large unintentional, or accidental....(much like my computer graphic resembling a rose) so, what IS it?"

Answer: It's an ink blot.

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

You have made that point before about the graph paper and you don't think it is art. How many times do you want to repeat it? The moment you put a definition on excluding something as art because it "enshrines mediocrity," you have made a normative judgment, thus you are usuing a normative definition. (Mediocre is a term of measurement.)

Incidentlally, I agree with you that the graph paper was a horrible attempt at art. It was worse than mediocre. It was worthless. But how many times do you want me to say that I have no problem with normative definitions, so long as a person does not try to use them for cognitive ones?

I fully agree with you about discussing ideas. What I want desperately to do is that. But is all that repeating "discussing ideas"?

And then... Oh... I forgot. The ideas concerning abstract art have been "buried" long ago and I (I, along with some others, who did not know I was competing with anyone or anything) "lost the debate." Gotta trust an old gut for that...

Yeah. Right.

Or here's an idea. I can "discuss" Pollock's unskilled "mess" or "explosion at a yarn factory" with you, as one who sees no value in it and doesn't want to learn any. Why bother? I have a question for you. If you already know what you want to know, and you think others are morons or misguided or immoral for thinking differently, why discuss it further? You have nothing to learn and nothing to gain by discussing anything with morons or the misguided or the immoral.

You don't have to like something to learn it. And you don't have to agree with it. But from what I am seeing... Why bother?

Slinging names is more fun. Isn't that where you're at with Pollock?

(btw - I just saw your last post. Subjective definitions do exist. They identify subjective concepts. They are both cognitive and normative in nature and they are particular to a single person and nobody else. The three categories of concepts are cognitive, normative and subjective. I went into detail on this near the beginning of the thread.)

Michael

Michael,

I thought you were going to bring up Jeff's age again, but you didn't. Thanks. But we are back to "people" again--not ideas. Forget about why Jeff wants to pursue this topic or if he thinks that people who like abstract painting are morons or not. Back to the tpoic. (But yes, your post also dealt with ideas.)

-Victor

p.s.

Yes, there was a debate.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, there was a debate.

Victor,

Well, since according to you, you have buried the ideas and won the debate, what's left?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Yes, there was a debate.

Victor,

Well, since according to you, you have buried the ideas and won the debate, what's left?

Michael

Michael,

Come on now, I don't think that. You don't strike me as somebody who lacks humor. I still get a kick out of your Dali picture of me. :turned:

I was just laying down the gauntlet. :hairy:

Victor

[reason.on]

My intention with the statement about him creating the art was not intended to mean that it is art. It was intended to point out that this would make whether or not this peice was art by his definition subjective. Subjective definitions, as I have stated, cannot exist. Subjective definition is a contradiction. I explained this earlier on (I believe page two, but I could go back and quote myself if it is so wished). That is why in order to objectively define art we must go to the intentions of the artist.

I am aware, Jeff, of what you intended to say.

To put a finer point on it: anyone who attempts to "objectively" or "cogitative" define "art', by way of "representationalism" will necessarily run into the problem that any and all attempts at defining what is or isn't "representational" must rely almost exclusively on subjective perceptions; leaving the aforementioned definition completely non-objective. Following this line of thinking, we end up with the absurdity of someone saying (as a pretense at objectivity, nonetheless) "I don't see it (representational form), therefore it isn't art".

In other words, it is certainly a cognitive statement to say "art must be representational to be art", but the only way to find out if the cognitive statement is true is to check it with normative judgments.

For example, I don't know of any objective criteria to determine whether or not, for example, FLW's tulip design is "objectively" "representational" of a tulip. As I mentioned previously, I see it, but others don't. The artist's intentions (if they can be known) certainly provide a certain kind of clue, but they are not the end of the story.

And perhaps (as has been suggested by Ellen and Peter for different reasons) because of the deeply "subjective" nature of creating art and the experience of it, its "objective" boundaries must necessarily remain elusive and porous....although, I'm not presently convinced either way.

RCR

Edited February 1, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Dragonfly]

They are currently showing one of my absolute favorite paintings...It is called "Just Music", by Theo van Oostrom.

I'm also very fond of this one:

"Lunch Break", by Quent Cordair

Well, sorry, but these are not my favorites... women in strange poses with their heads backwards (ecstasy, I suppose?) between skyscrapers or other geometric, angular forms, blue background, harsh contrasts... The artists are different, but the results are very similar. I think these are typical examples of objectikitsch.

[reason.on]

Well, sorry, but these are not my favorites... women in strange poses with their heads backwards (ecstasy, I suppose?) between skyscrapers or other geometric, angular forms, blue background, harsh contrasts... The artists are different, but the results are very similar. I think these are typical examples of objectikitsch.

I'm not surprised to see you say that...obviously, I disagree.

I'm curious, do you have any favs from Cordair, or is it all "objectikitsch" to you?

RCR

Edited February 1, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Mike Hardy]

Still later, for about ten years -- through most of the 80s -- I lost interest to the extent I was barely noticing what was going on. But then David's split with Leonard reawakened my interest. Jumping ahead to 1999, through an email correspondence with Nathaniel, I indirectly learned of the then-Cornell list, later OWL. I joined that out of curiosity, just a few months before the original Atlantis was set up. Through Atlantis, I "met" a lot of other people, some of whom, though they're prominent in wider libertarian circles, I'd never heard of before, such as George Smith.

Interesting story, Ellen. Since you compare yourself to Josephus,

I can't help wondering whether you heard John the Baptist preach

in person? (Ignore the previous sentence (unless you choose not

to ignore it).) I'm a teensy bit surprised that you hadn't heard of

George Smith before. I know that one of those you "met" was

Roland Pericles. Via some email exchanges with Jeff Riggenbach

I've learned that his official status is now "gone and presumed

missing" (Jeff didn't use those words, but sometimes I have these

infallible inspirations.) Anyway, if I send you an old-fashioned

US mail address, can you send me that Opera Omnia Rolandi

disk you've mentioned? (I'm wondering whether, when Roland

was living in Maryland as a student at the Navel Academy, he

ever saw the Baltimore Oreos play?) -- Mike Hardy

PS for those unfamiliar with ATL and ATL2: Roland Pericles was

a pseudonym under which Jeff Riggenbach sometimes used to

post to those lists, most recently just a couple of months or so ago.

He was a child progeny, then later a navel officer, and then a

whirled famous philosopher who delivered lechers and rote assays

on many subjects.

[reason.on]

As I've indirectly mentioned, I have my OL preferences now set to "ignore" Victor, so I no longer see what he posts (oh, happy day!). However, I've noticed through various quotes and other posts that there have been several, at least, attempts to besmirch my character.

With regard to the central FLW "skill" issue, there is absolutely nothing more I can say to defend myself or my position, and Michael has already generously and adeptly re-stated (for the ump-teenth time) what was truly at stake...

And in case anyone is wondering, or waiting with baited breath, I have no intention of addressing the other flaccid charges against me, since to do so would be more of a waste of time than contemplating graph-paper-on-a-wall.

RCR

Edited February 1, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, sorry, but these are not my favorites... women in strange poses with their heads backwards (ecstasy, I suppose?) between skyscrapers or other geometric, angular forms, blue background, harsh contrasts... The artists are different, but the results are very similar. I think these are typical examples of objectikitsch.

First, thank you for the term "objectikitsch." I love it; I will treasure it and use it from here on to refer to "that genre."

The two paintings in post #639, however, especially the van Oostrom, seem to me closer to being good art than the "typical examples" of objectikitsch. (I think of Bryan Larsen as a "typical" example.) I personally like the van Oostrom better, as well as thinking it's better qua art.

Both are obviously influenced by Capuletti. But they both lack the sensuality, and the Spanish-masochism tension, which would be present in something similar by Capuletti himself. The first derives from the Desnudo -- the one AR bought and a photograph of which I have on my downstairs bedroom wall. As with Desnudo, I see an effect of the woman being "a statue." But with Desnudo the "statue" is living, breathing flesh/marble (one does need to see the original properly to get that effect, but my photograph picks it up better than any of those I've seen on websites). The van Oostrom figure, however, looks to me almost like a statue of glass, something "brittle" about it. I can imagine that figure done in glass.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

As I've indirectly mentioned, I have my OL preferences now set to "ignore" Victor, so I no longer see what he posts (oh, happy day!). However, I've noticed through various quotes and other posts that there have been several, at least, attempts to besmirch my character.

With regard to the central FLW "skill" issue, there is absolutely nothing more I can say to defend myself or my position, and Michael has already generously and adeptly re-stated (for the ump-teenth time) what was truly at stake...

And in case anyone is wondering, or waiting with baited breath, I have no intention of addressing the other flaccid charges against me, since to do so would be more of a waist of time than contemplating graph-paper-on-a-wall.

RCR

Speaking of Roland Pericles -- which one Dr. Hardy just did in the post two above: Indeed it would be a waist [sic] of your time, and possibly bad for your wasteline [sic] as well as your blood pressure bothering with answering whatever "flaccid charges" a certain person makes against you.

ES

___

[reason.on]

Both are obviously influenced by Capuletti. But they both lack the sensuality, and the Spanish-masochism tension, which would be present in something similar by Capuletti himself. The first derives from the Desnudo -- the one AR bought and a photograph of which I have on my downstairs bedroom wall.

For reference...

Desnudo, by Capuletti

RCR

[reason.on]

Speaking of Roland Pericles -- which one Dr. Hardy just did in the post two above: Indeed it would be a waist [sic] of your time, and possibly bad for your wasteline [sic] as well as your blood pressure bothering with answering whatever "flaccid charges" a certain person makes against you.

LOL. Corrected.

RCR

[Danneskjold]

Jeff,

You have made that point before about the graph paper and you don't think it is art. How many times do you want to repeat it? The moment you put a definition on excluding something as art because it "enshrines mediocrity," you have made a normative judgment, thus you are usuing a normative definition. (Mediocre is a term of measurement.)

I intentionally separated the fact that I thought it was immoral from the fact that I thought it wasn't art in my post.

Or here's an idea. I can "discuss" Pollock's unskilled "mess" or "explosion at a yarn factory" with you, as one who sees no value in it and doesn't want to learn any. Why bother? I have a question for you. If you already know what you want to know, and you think others are morons or misguided or immoral for thinking differently, why discuss it further? You have nothing to learn and nothing to gain by discussing anything with morons or the misguided or the immoral.

You don't have to like something to learn it. And you don't have to agree with it. But from what I am seeing... Why bother?

This would be a valid point if the center to the discussion was talking about moral art. The the center of this discussion, however, is what art is. Not what good art is. In such a case I am still open to the idea that what Pollock did was art, although at the moment I am inclined to disagree with it.

(btw - I just saw your last post. Subjective definitions do exist. They identify subjective concepts. They are both cognitive and normative in nature and they are particular to a single person and nobody else. The three categories of concepts are cognitive, normative and subjective. I went into detail on this near the beginning of the thread.)

Michael

What post number?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Still later, for about ten years -- through most of the 80s -- I lost interest to the extent I was barely noticing what was going on. But then David's split with Leonard reawakened my interest. Jumping ahead to 1999, through an email correspondence with Nathaniel, I indirectly learned of the then-Cornell list, later OWL. I joined that out of curiosity, just a few months before the original Atlantis was set up. Through Atlantis, I "met" a lot of other people, some of whom, though they're prominent in wider libertarian circles, I'd never heard of before, such as George Smith.

Interesting story, Ellen. Since you compare yourself to Josephus,

I can't help wondering whether you heard John the Baptist preach

in person? (Ignore the previous sentence (unless you choose not

to ignore it).)

I choose to ignore it.

I'm a teensy bit surprised that you hadn't heard of

George Smith before.

Not nearly as surprised, I imagine, as George was when he learned I hadn't previously heard of him! LOL

I know that one of those you "met" was

Roland Pericles. Via some email exchanges with Jeff Riggenbach

I've learned that his official status is now "gone and presumed

missing" (Jeff didn't use those words, but sometimes I have these

infallible inspirations.) Anyway, if I send you an old-fashioned

US mail address, can you send me that Opera Omnia Rolandi

disk you've mentioned?

Jeez, Mike, no, I cannot -- at this time. You missed your chance back when when I knew just where to find that file. But I've subsequently dumped a whole bunch of old stuff rather unceremoniously and unorganizedly onto external storage (I was in danger of a hard drive crash if I didn't take quick measures). And I haven't time to go searching now. You can send the mail address, but it will be awhile of unspecified length before I can comply with the request.

Sorry.

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

MSK wrote,

I was outraged that someone would call people of your caliber "Keatings and Tooheys," or the soul-mates of the same, claiming that they were the rational ones. All they had to do is look at what you do to see there is nothing in common.

I understand, and thank you for that. I should have waited to make my comment about "Romantic Realism" at another time. Looking back on my post, I see that it could appear to be a little cold. There you are standing up for us, and what do I do? I correct you on a technical point. Dumb. I am grateful, Michael, both for your being a voice of fairness and for your kind words about my work, and that's what I should have expressed in my post.

What these people get out of blanking that fact out and trying to depict you and us others as haters of Romantic Art, I don't know. I do know that it has nothing to do with reality and more to do with some fantasy in their own heads. I stand by my aping Rand comment.

That's a very common thing in O'ist circles. If you defend art that other O'ists hate (or think is not art), you'll be accused of attacking the art that they love. It's Objectivism's special brand of "logic." Pompous Pigero, for example, used to "defend" his favorite music against others' enjoyment of rock. My liking rock was somehow an attack on the music that he thought was better. You could repeatedly tell him that you loved many styles of music, including that which he loved, but it wouldn't matter, you were attacking all that was good by glorifying mediocrity and "wallowing in a cesspool."

Victor has the same attitude here. He sees himself as "defending representational art." Somehow we're apparently attacking it by loving it along with the art that Victor doesn't want to be art.

He hasn't yet told us which things we're attacking by passionately valuing architecture and music and believing that they're valid art forms, but I wish he would, just for the sake of consistency.

Jeff in his post #629:

It is the enshrinement of mediocrity at it's worst (best?). By enshrining mediocrity you devalue that which is great.

But, of course, "mediocrity" is rarely defined by Objectivists, and when it is, art which is created by Objectivists or which has Objectivist themes somehow always ends up rated above the level of mediocrity. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are a lot works of art created by Objectivists -- and praised beyond high heaven by other Objectivists -- which don't even rise to the level of mediocrity. Why is the "by enshrining mediocrity you devalue that which is great" theory never applied to the glorification of fifth-rate Objectivist art?

RCR:

Yet, in terms of ART (the big picture) there is so much that is missing there, and I'm sure the absences are in the name of Rand. To name just a few, there are no abstract pieces, no highly stylized pieces, not even any pleasing complex design work, few intellectually challenging pieces, no tragedy, no irony, no wit, no worry, no darkness, and only any "drama" of a particular flavor.

I think that Han Wu Shen is by far the best artist at Cordair. I'd say that the power of his works are their abstract elements and stylization - his paintings are very pleasing and complex in their abstract compositions. An interesting thing to me is that in the years that I've been visiting O'ist sites, where the Cordair gallery is brought up frequently, I can recall no one even mentioning Shen (until fairly recently when Kat posted one of his images in the OL art gallery).

In more recent years I've had several offlist conversations in which I've asked Objectivists to list their top 10 favorite artists at Cordair, and Shen has never made the cut. In a couple of cases, I've even specifically asked Objectivists to ignore narrative content and base their choices on nothing but purely visual aspects, such as the refinement of color and compositional proportion. Still Shen never made the cut. I've asked them to imagine a gallery containing paintings by greats such as Vermeer, Velázquez, Sargent, Millais, Eakins, or Whistler, etc., and to imagine an empty wall which must be filled with paintings by one of the artists represented by Cordair. Whose work might be worthy of being present in such company? In my humble opinion, Shen's is the only work that would come close to qualifying, but, again, he's never made Objectivists' lists.

I've always taken Shen's invisibility in the typical Objectivist mind as a strong indication of the differences in how most Objectivists approach visual art and how non-Objectivist fans of visual art approach it. Objectivists generally want a sort of visual literature which contains idealized humans. Serious visual art fans want symphonic arrangements which contain the mastery of visual nuance.

Check out Shen's work. The man is a master of light and composition:

http://www.cordair.com/shen/bridge.php

http://www.cordair.com/shen/springday.php

http://www.cordair.com/shen/mothersarms.php

http://www.cordair.com/shen/bonding.php

http://www.cordair.com/shen/springiscoming.php

http://www.cordair.com/shen/tryweddress.php

http://www.cordair.com/shen/ancientvillage5.php

http://www.cordair.com/shen/expectations.php

Notice what an expert he is with the expressiveness of the delicate color modulations and soft shadows of ambient light. His mid-tone shadows, for example, glow with saturation and translucency where those of lesser artists clumsily shift to neutrals. He understands light and color much in the way that Vermeer did, and he seems to be drawn to the most difficult, complex and beautiful lighting schemes. He relishes going where others fear to tread (or, when they don't fear it, they track a lot of mud in with their treading).

Dragonfly and MSK wrote,

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.

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.

Wow. Thank you both. The feeling is definitely mutual.

E:

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

I think it might be a Canadian thing.

Now, about Ravel. Ravel did indeed say some things critical of his Bolero, but he also commented on his intentions in composing the piece, some of which involved his envisioning specific "virtual entities" and their goal-directed actions, and he believed that the composition successfully portrayed or evoked imagery of those entities and actions. (Perhaps the fact that he felt that the piece was "without music" despite its successfully depicting what he envisioned might be an indication that he thought that such depiction wasn't the essence of music). I wonder why Objectivists can't "see" what Ravel "depicted," or, if they can, why they are so hesitant to report it.

J

[reason.on]

I just ran into an interesting Rand quote while looking through some other Capuletti's, and I don't recall having seen it before; perhaps it will spark further discussion...

"Degas managed to make ballerinas look awkward and flat-footed; Capuletti makes middle-aged peasants look significant and imposing. Such is his view of man."--Ayn Rand

RCR