Art and Subobjectivity

[Brant Gaede]

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

Someone in my Phillip J. Smith acting class learned from Capu that this painting represents a composite of Ayn Rand and an actress whose name I don't remember. I saw it on display in the Hammer gallery 37 years ago. Leonard Peikoff most certainly owns it now.

--Brant

[reason.on]

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).

Interesting, interesting. You know, one of the reasons that came quickly to mind as to why I have not responded so strongly to Shen's work is that it reads like photography to me...at initial glance, online at least, there isn't enough stylization to grab me personally....I'm curious, have you seen his work in person?

I have marveled in the past at his technique and elegant compositions, but the pieces just didn't resonate with me.

I'm going to review his work again with a more critical eye, and with your comments in mind; it never occurred to me before to look at him like a Vermeer.

RCR

Edited February 1, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Dragonfly]

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

Not all, but I can't say I have any real favorites. Some are well done, but in a photorealistic style which I don't find very interesting (why just not take a picture and put that on canvas?). An example is Han Wu Shen, although not all his work is like that, so I like his Serenity:

There is also ordinary kitsch, like this still life by Alfredo Gomez:

Those colors really make my stomach turn. Now this might be the result of a bad reproduction, but I suppose that the artist has consented to use this picture, so he'd be responsible for the quality.

On the other hand, Robert Tracy is obviously inspired by Objectivism, but at least in general he avoids the usual clichés:

I can't really discuss all the painters on that site here, so to conclude here is a sample from my horror file:

Larsen:

Eichinger:

Gaetano:

Cordair:

Bokor:

Denys:

[Ellen Stuttle]

On the other hand, Robert Tracy is obviously inspired by Objectivism, but at least in general he avoids the usual clichés:

Something about the face reminds me of some pictures of Ayn Rand as a child. I wonder if he had her in mind.

I also like Serenity. I hadn't seen that before. (I don't peruse the Cordair site, since my reaction, like yours, is Yuck! to so much of it.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Someone in my Phillip J. Smith acting class learned from Capu that this painting represents a composite of Ayn Rand and an actress whose name I don't remember. I saw it on display in the Hammer gallery 37 years ago. Leonard Peikoff most certainly owns it now.

--Brant

I think the body is Pilar's, his wife at the time it was painted. Sure looks like the same body -- details of the breasts and the collarbones -- in other paintings which have her face (or close to her face; he somewhat altered the details of her face in those he did of her frontal).

Leonard Peikoff owned Desnudo at least as of several years ago when there was a picture of him in his living room on the front of one of the libertarian book catalogs. The lower part of the painting could be seen on the wall behind him.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Objectivists generally want a sort of visual literature which contains idealized humans.

Um. So many of those paintings at Cordair look to me like attempts at cover art (or internal illustrations) for Ayn Rand novels. ;-)

E-

PS. And then they talk about someone like Vermeer as if they're evaluating his work in terms of how well it would suit as illustrations of Ayn Rand themes. As you say, a different way of looking at paintings from that of people who are looking at them from an interest in visual art.

___

Edited February 2, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Danneskjold]

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?

Everyone has a bias. As far as skill of the actual painting goes, I rather like parts of a lot of those paintings but find myself disliking many others. I do, however, know that I could not come close to any of those paintings or the sculpture without a lot of practice. The picture by Gaetano looks like Zeus drawn like the guy on the cover of Philosophy: Who Needs It. In any case, the inconsistent application of the statement that a painting enshrines mediocrity is of little to no concern to me unless I do it, in which case I would like to be told.

Edit: On second thought, doesn't immorality imply intentions?

Edited February 2, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Victor Pross]

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.

J,

For the Record, I don't think you (or anyone else) is "attacking" anything, much less romantic art--whatever that is. I'm not that kind of Objectivist. You have come across too many caricature Objectivists.

-Victor

[reason.on]

Objectivists generally want a sort of visual literature which contains idealized humans.

Um. So many of those paintings at Cordair look to me like attempts at cover art (or internal illustrations) for Ayn Rand novels. ;-)

Exactly, and exactly.

I do have the sort of cringe reaction that Peter and Ellen describe with some of the pieces in the gallery (that last one Peter posted reminds me of a certain lost someone from old Atlantis who had a bit of a fetish for wing'd people...). However, while I agree with Soze that O'sts raise a particular heroic narrative in visual arts to unnecessary and even distracting importance, and with Peter that there are many cliches, and with Ellen that many look like Rand illustrations, I'm not as bothered by these facts as they are. I nod, and say "yeah", but I still like and enjoy several of those even in Peter's "horror file". I enjoy their narratives, and mode of stylization, as Randian as they may be. Even some of the most "objectikitch" still resonate with me, and at the very least I find them...charming. Because at the end of the day, even prototypical Randian themes extend in significance and import beyond Rand herself, and certainly beyond O'ist's attempts to dogmatize and enshrine them.

There are also entirely personal reasons why I like "Just Music" and "Lunch Break", reasons which can't really be "justified" in any meaningful sense; such are the complexities of art appreciation. :-)

I would also agree that Capuletti is a superior artist to the other two I posted from Cordair; still I like the others as well, and "Just Music", I like a lot.

I admit, there are few that I would call "great" paintings, further there are many "Greek temples", as it were in the gallery. Reproductions of reproductions of reproductions....(btw, Gaetano did all of the recent Rand cover art, I think they have his work on most of the titles these days)

Even "Just Music" isn't a "great" painting. It isn't executed as well as it could be, none-the-less, I get more out of it than the sum of its technical parts; that too is an important piece of the art puzzle.

RCR

Edited February 2, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Brant Gaede]

All painting (art) is abstraction. There is no objective way to demonstrate where art ends and design begins. Much art is garbage but that's subjective. There is no objective way to show that "abstract painting" is not art. Quite a few pictures have been put up that are art but, as Dragonfly notes, also "Objectikitsch." Aside from the monetary value, there is much abstract painting I'd prefer to art that's kitsch.

The attempt to objectify some art as not art is an attempt to control the artist by shutting him up. One can define what a painting is but not show what painting is not art.

A lot of the Objectivist philosophy as commonly understood by Objectivists is only for keeping people under leaders' thumbs--in line. Shutting them up not only in regard to independent thinking but to their very personalities as they try to be Dagny or John or Howard instead of themselves. This is evident in "Atlas Shrugged" itself, where all the heroes kowtow to Galt who was on top of the heap, though he, of course, does the same to the author and her philosophy by eschewing a world of strife and conflict ("The Strike") for the comfort of a post-world cemetery where evil has been vanquished by removal of the sanction of the victim.

Evil is not to be denied by denying the potential for evil out of a normal human brain re free will. Ayn Rand never really explained how her heroes got to herohood and one presumes therefore that they were born that way and since no one in the real world grows up that way she set an impossible standard for would-be Objectivists to repair to so they pretended and pretend--that they aren't human, actually. So did Ayn Rand.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I do have the sort of cringe reaction that Peter and Ellen describe of some of the pieces in the gallery (that last one Peter posted reminds me of a certain lost someone from old Atlantis who had a bit of a fetish for wing'd people...).

Yeah. I had the some connection. I think that there might be sexual-orientation differences in the extent to which that painting is likely to appeal to people.

However, while I agree with Soze that O'sts raise a particular heroic narrative in visual arts to unnecessary and even distracting importance, and with Peter that there are many clinches, and with Ellen that many look like Rand illustrations, I'm not as bothered by these facts as they are.

Christian, I'm not "bothered" by these facts in the sense you maybe mean. I don't mind if some people like those works. Some of them I'd even think would make good book covers. (I might even have used some of them for book covers when I was choosing book covers as an editor.) But I wouldn't want them on my wall, and I wouldn't go to a gallery to look at them. Or go back and back to photos or webclips of them to look at them over and over.

I nod, and say "yeah", but I still like and enjoy several of those even in Peter's "horror file". I enjoy their narratives, and mode of stylization, as Randian as they may be. Even some of the most "objectikitch" still resonate with me, and at the very least I find them...charming. Because at the end of the day, even prototypical Randian themes extend in significance and import beyond Rand herself, and certainly beyond O'ist's attempts to dogmatize and enshrine them.

Yes, of course, "even prototypical Randian themes extend [etc.]." That's one of the things which are of the nature of art, that extending and setting off new reverberations and new nuances and this little connection to that perspective and this echo of another and....without limit.

There are also entirely personal reasons why I like "Just Music" and "Lunch Break", reasons which can't really be "justified" in any meaningful sense; such are the complexities of art appreciation. :-)

Sure. And those sorts of reasons will differ from person to person. Even the more universal sorts of reasons will differ in specifics from person to person. E.g., all 4 of us -- Peter, J., you and me -- much appreciate Vermeer and for similar reasons; but within the general similarity, each of us is responding differently.

I would also agree that Capuletti is a superior artist to the other two I posted from Cordair; still I like the others as well, and "Just Music", I like a lot.

There are painters whom I consider quite good artists whose work I don't like as well as works of some lesser artists. The scales of technical ranking and personal response are different scales, although they interlock in complicated ways. I think I could make the generalization of myself that I don't like work I consider "trite," that "triteness," if I see that in a work, turns me off. And works that I consider very great I feel a reverence for because of the greatness. But there are works which I consider non-trite yet nothing near "great" which I like a lot.

For instance, at the top of the stairs between the first and second floor of our house is this chromocolor-style painting of a kindly, knarled old wizard standing on the pinnacle of a mountain (only the tip of the pinnacle shows in the painting), his robe waving, his wand sending up a glitter of sparks which in the backgroud trailing up are turning into a line of unicorns flying off. The painting, actually, I'd classify as "kitsch," but not trite kitsch, imaginative type. And thing is, I love that painting. Brings a smile to my face -- I'm grinning describing it. I saw that painting at one of those huge movie theaters, 20 movies at once, those sorts of places. It was amongst a display of mostly ghastly kitsch. But I noticed the twinkling wizard, and I called Larry over and said, "Um?" He immediately went and bought it. He loves it too. Great art it is not, though.

And, I admit, there are few that I would call "great" paintings, further there are many "Greek temples", as it were in the gallery. Reproductions of reproductions of reproductions....(btw, Gaetano did all of the recent Rand cover art, I think they have his work on most of the titles these days)

Didn't he do the commemorative stamp also? I like the stamp for what it is; I consider it a good design for the purpose.

"Just Music", even, isn't a "great" painting. It isn't executed as well as it could be, none-the-less, I get more out of it than the sum of its technical parts; that too is an important piece of the art puzzle.

Fully agree about the importance of the personal resonance. (Although Objectivists are likely to talk about that personal alchemy in terms of "sense of life," and then I'm not going to fully agree.)

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

All painting (art) is abstraction. There is no objective way to demonstrate where art ends and design begins.

Brant, that's not true. Decorative images or design usually employ repeated patterns and are subordinated to a utilitarian purpose --and this very is very much different from art. Would you also say that your claim also includes company logos—that they can’t be identified as different from art?

-Victor

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re post #660:

Well said, Brant.

Ellen

___

[Danneskjold]

All painting (art) is abstraction. There is no objective way to demonstrate where art ends and design begins. Much art is garbage but that's subjective. There is no objective way to show that "abstract painting" is not art. Quite a few pictures have been put up that are art but, as Dragonfly notes, also "Objectikitsch." Aside from the monetary value, there is much abstract painting I'd prefer to art that's kitsch.

The attempt to objectify some art as not art is an attempt to control the artist by shutting him up. One can define what a painting is but not show what painting is not art.

A lot of the Objectivist philosophy as commonly understood by Objectivists is only for keeping people under leaders' thumbs--in line. Shutting them up not only in regard to independent thinking but to their very personalities as they try to be Dagny or John or Howard instead of themselves. This is evident in "Atlas Shrugged" itself, where all the heroes kowtow to Galt who was on top of the heap, though he, of course, does the same to the author and her philosophy by eschewing a world of strife and conflict ("The Strike") for the comfort of a post-world cemetery where evil has been vanquished by removal of the sanction of the victim.

Evil is not to be denied by denying the potential for evil out of a normal human brain re free will. Ayn Rand never really explained how her heroes got to herohood and one presumes therefore that they were born that way and since no one in the real world grows up that way she set an impossible standard for would-be Objectivists to repair to so they pretended and pretend--that they aren't human, actually. So did Ayn Rand.

--Brant

On what basis do you say any of this?

Edited February 2, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[reason.on]

Christian, I'm not "bothered" by these facts in the sense you maybe mean. I don't mind if some people like those works. Some of them I'd even think would make good book covers. (I might even have used some of them for book covers when I was choosing book covers as an editor.) But I wouldn't want them on my wall, and I wouldn't go to a gallery to look at them. Or go back and back to photos or webclips of them to look at them over and over.

I didn't mean it the sense you thought maybe I did...I meant I'm not "bothered" in the sense that I would rather spend time in a gallery looking at most of them than time looking at most post-modern kitch, and would put some of them on my walls (in certain rooms). I'd do so for exactly the same reasons that you have a wizard and glitter unicorns on your wall (which, I can smilingly tell you would NEVER find its way onto any of my walls...E-V-E-R).

RCR

Edited February 2, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Danneskjold]

What is kitch?

[reason.on]

What is kitch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch

RCR

[Jonathan]

RCR:

However, while I agree with Soze that O'sts raise a particular heroic narrative in visual arts to unnecessary and even distracting importance, and with Peter that there are many clinches, and with Ellen that many look like Rand illustrations, I'm not as bothered by these facts as they are. I nod, and say "yeah", but I still like and enjoy several of those even in Peter's "horror file". I enjoy their narratives, and mode of stylization, as Randian as they may be. Even some of the most "objectikitch" still resonate with me, and at the very least I find them...charming.

Good for you. Love what you love. I like a lot of the art at Cordair as well. Btw, I DO NOT want to give the impression that I'm looking down on anything, including the methods by which other people enjoy art. If you like heavy narrative in visual art, more power to you. If I can make you also see something in the way that I appreciate it, hopefully you'll benefit from that as well. One of my favorite things about art and other people is discovering new insights by looking through their eyes or listening through their ears. My best friend loves music that I normally wouldn't get anything out of. He's shared his passion for it, and I now hear things in it that really move me. He's given me a wider variety of perspectives.

There are also entirely personal reasons why I like "Just Music" and "Lunch Break", reasons which can't really be "justified" in any meaningful sense; such are the complexities of art appreciation. :-)

I would also agree that Capuletti is a superior artist to the other two I posted from Cordair; still I like the others as well, and "Just Music", I like a lot.

And, I admit, there are few that I would call "great" paintings, further there are many "Greek temples", as it were in the gallery. Reproductions of reproductions of reproductions....(btw, Gaetano did all of the recent Rand cover art, I think they have his work on most of the titles these days)

"Just Music", even, isn't a "great" painting. It isn't executed as well as it could be, none-the-less, I get more out of it than the sum of its technical parts; that too is an important piece of the art puzzle.

Yeah. There are many works of art which aren't great by any standard except one: they rip my heart out, or they make me indescribably happy, or they make me want to conquer something impossible. Everyone else might be bored sick by the same art, or quite justifiably think it's sappy, crudely fashioned or needlessly esoteric, but it knocks me out. I heard this song by Billy Joe Shaver tonight. Georgia On A Fast Train. It's a total bumfuck, shit-kickin' hillbilly stomp, but it made me smile my ass off the entire time that it was on. I'm downloading it tomorrow and putting it into rotation.

J

Edited February 2, 2007 by Jonathan

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

When it comes to Modernist ideologues, there seems to be a subtle but resolute effort to blur the lines between objectivity and subjectivity, to cast into doubt the validity of the senses--that we can never really tell if a representational painting is what it is or that we cannot perhaps see an ‘image’ in an abstract painting after all, etc, and do so in a language that is abstruse and intellectual. You see this here. We are seeing the "Everything is art/Art is whatever anyone says it is" philosophy in action.

Victor

Edited February 2, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

All painting (art) is abstraction. There is no objective way to demonstrate where art ends and design begins.

Brant, that's not true. Decorative images or design usually employ repeated patterns and are subordinated to a utilitarian purpose --and this very is very much different from art. Would you also say that your claim also includes company logos—that they can’t be identified as different from art?

-Victor

I agree with your statement. I could quibble about details but not significantly. Your task now, agent Victor, if you chose to accept this challenge, is to tell us how to differentiate abstract painting from abstract art.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

All painting (art) is abstraction. There is no objective way to demonstrate where art ends and design begins. Much art is garbage but that's subjective. There is no objective way to show that "abstract painting" is not art. Quite a few pictures have been put up that are art but, as Dragonfly notes, also "Objectikitsch." Aside from the monetary value, there is much abstract painting I'd prefer to art that's kitsch.

The attempt to objectify some art as not art is an attempt to control the artist by shutting him up. One can define what a painting is but not show what painting is not art.

A lot of the Objectivist philosophy as commonly understood by Objectivists is only for keeping people under leaders' thumbs--in line. Shutting them up not only in regard to independent thinking but to their very personalities as they try to be Dagny or John or Howard instead of themselves. This is evident in "Atlas Shrugged" itself, where all the heroes kowtow to Galt who was on top of the heap, though he, of course, does the same to the author and her philosophy by eschewing a world of strife and conflict ("The Strike") for the comfort of a post-world cemetery where evil has been vanquished by removal of the sanction of the victim.

Evil is not to be denied by denying the potential for evil out of a normal human brain re free will. Ayn Rand never really explained how her heroes got to herohood and one presumes therefore that they were born that way and since no one in the real world grows up that way she set an impossible standard for would-be Objectivists to repair to so they pretended and pretend--that they aren't human, actually. So did Ayn Rand.

--Brant

On what basis do you say any of this?

Jeff: Please define abstract painting in a way to set it apart from abstract art. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels. I can't do it.

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

All painting (art) is abstraction. There is no objective way to demonstrate where art ends and design begins.

Brant, that's not true. Decorative images or design usually employ repeated patterns and are subordinated to a utilitarian purpose --and this very is very much different from art. Would you also say that your claim also includes company logos—that they can’t be identified as different from art?

-Victor

I agree with your statement. I could quibble about details but not significantly. Your task now, agent Victor, if you chose to accept this challenge, is to tell us how to differentiate abstract painting from abstract art.

--Brant

Brant, are you asking me why I have adopted the phrase 'abstract painting' over 'abstract art?'

-Victor

[Ellen Stuttle]

[A] wizard and glitter unicorns [...] would NEVER find its way onto any of my walls...E-V-E-R.

You have something against wizards and unicorns, have you? ;-)

E-

__

[Brant Gaede]

All painting (art) is abstraction. There is no objective way to demonstrate where art ends and design begins.

Brant, that's not true. Decorative images or design usually employ repeated patterns and are subordinated to a utilitarian purpose --and this very is very much different from art. Would you also say that your claim also includes company logos—that they can’t be identified as different from art?

-Victor

I agree with your statement. I could quibble about details but not significantly. Your task now, agent Victor, if you chose to accept this challenge, is to tell us how to differentiate abstract painting from abstract art.

--Brant

Brant, are you asking me why I have adopted the phrase 'abstract painting' over 'abstract art?'

-Victor

Victor: No. We need something that I can use to objectively tell the difference. As I see it now "abstract painting" is an inferior category to (abstract) "art" but nonetheless art. I don't see how I can ID any "abstract painting" and say it is not art. You may be surprised but I agree with most of your aesthetic criticisms--and I "know" abstract painting as opposed to art when I see it--or at least sometimes I think I do--but I can't objectify it. Take "Guernica." That to me is absolutely great art, but I also see it as "abstract." In fact, I don't like much of the rest of the artist's work, but can we say he's not an artist?

--Brant

Edited February 2, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

Christian,

I just got around to reading your post #627. That's an important post. I'll come back to it when I get a chance -- might not be till Monday or Tuesday.

Ellen

___