Art and Subobjectivity

[Victor Pross]

Whoever said that abstract painting is not a selective recreation of reality? Here is a random link on Kandinsky that came up on Google. I dare you to show me any shape or color in any of his paintings that do not exist. All of them are part of reality and can easily be found outside the painting. He selectively recreated them in his paintings.

Michael,

"You have to slow down long enough to read if we are going to have any kind of mutually beneficial discussion." Oh, yes, I misread the posts---me thinks not. No, this is just more gas lightening.

Look at the above quote, come on. The point is: You are clearly trying to make a defense for Kandinsky--making him a devotee of reality, and your post following up to Jonathan’s rigorous and lengthy defense of Kandinsky shows this.

In fact, Jonathan’s entire case in defending abstract art is centered on its alleged adherence to reality. You know this. You and Jonathan are of one mind on this matter. Therefore reality is the standard—that is the tenor of your and Jonathan’s claims.

Reality is the standard in painting--as in 'art is a selective recreation of reality.' I’m fine with that. Shall we proceed from there?

Victor

ps

Jeff, do you agree with this estimate?

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I was talking about your rhetoric again. You are giving the following impression:

1. You are not reading the posts correctly,

2. You have a message you want to preach,

3. You claim to know what others think,

4. You have a message you want to preach,

5. You ignore main points others discuss,

6. You have a message you want to preach,

7. You provide heated arguments for points that are not raised as if they were,

8. You have a message you want to preach,

9. You want to think for the reader,

10. You have a message you want to preach.

That may not be the case, but that is the impression. I suggest slowing down and dealing with the issues that are raised instead of ignoring them as you repeat and preach.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I'm staying on the topic--which is art, not rhetoric. That's all I'm going to do from now on on this matter.

I am taking the discussion in a specific direction to discover a common ground.

Back to the topic:

Abstract art was spawned by an absolute subjectivism—both metaphysically and epistemologically. If I demonstrate this--to your satisfaction--would you still call this an art form?

If I demonstrate that the purpose—the intent--of abstract art [or abstract Expressionism] was spawned by a “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” orientation—as a matter of fact, beyond any reasonable doubt—would you still confer the status of 'art' upon it?

Once I demonstrate this about abstract painting, ask yourself this: what would there be to “contemplate” in abstract painting---if its purpose was to strip away objective cognition and the entire perceivable universe?

Also ask yourself if "art is a selective recreation of reality” or not. If it is, how does abstract painting qualify?

I asked you this before but received no answer.

-Victor

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I already answered all this. (This is what I mean by not reading.) Here goes again—in order.

Abstract art was spawned by an absolute subjectivism—both metaphysically and epistemologically. If I demonstrate this--to your satisfaction--would you still call this an art form?

Yes. Using Rand's definition of art, even subjectivism is a "metaphysical value judgment" and this is what is conveyed.

If I demonstrate that the purpose—the intent--of abstract art [or abstract Expressionism] was spawned by a “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” orientation—as a matter of fact, beyond any reasonable doubt—would you still confer the status of 'art' upon it?

Yes. Using Rand's definition of art, even “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” is a "metaphysical value judgment" and this is what is conveyed.

Once I demonstrate this about abstract painting, ask yourself this: what would there be to “contemplate” in abstract painting---if its purpose was to strip away objective cognition and the entire perceivable universe? And ask yourself if “art is a selective recreation of reality” or not. If it is, how does abstract painting qualify?

What is the question. Is it art? Yes—in the same manner that Kant's views on duty or categorical imperatives is philosophy. AS A COGNITIVE CONCEPT. There has been plenty of discussion on how abstract painting qualifies as "a selective recreation of reality” so far, but let's keep it obvious. Random forms and shapes occur in nature. They come with all sorts of colors. The abstract artist selectively recreates reality with them—the reality of them themselves at the least, and of parallel mental processes at the best.

Yup. It's art even on that level. Just like Kant's work is philosophy and Joyce's work is literature.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I just don’t agree with your epistemological approach to the question of art, which I regard as seriously flawed or poorly misinterpreted by you–-whoever devised this “cognitive” and “normative” dance between concepts and definitions in the first place.

It is in intriguing indeed but I’m not sure of the soundness of it, which I’ll explain why.

Rand displayed a cutting denunciation of modern philosophers for having abandoned the attempt to formulate an objective definition of art—that is, a definition in terms of essentials—of fundamental characteristics.

Her complaint was justified.

Many philosophers had been led to “despair of the possibility of defining ‘art,’” as the esthetician George Dickie has noted. W.E. Kennick further argued that “traditional aesthetics” rests on a mistake—the mistake of trying to define art. Since art has no definite function, he claimed, it cannot possibility be defined. Of course I disagree with this. Ayn Rand made it clear what purpose art serves—which I have elaborated on elsewhere.

Without a firm and rational definition at the tiller, it is no wonder that increasingly sundry objects and “events” have been put forward and accepted as art precisely because of this lack of a valid definition—including the men’s urinal.

But adding to the profusion of spurious definitions that have been put forward by certain philosophers, your own attempt at a definition [with elaborations following it up] is defective for its own non-essentialist approach.

"…an object or performance made by and for human beings solely for the purpose of contemplation."

Though it had the merit of brevity, it contains the absurd notion that something—anything—becomes art by having the status “conferred” upon it. More over, the term “object” is rather open-ended. What objects? Cell phones and joy buzzers? And you do not help matters when you say “It is clear to me that ‘art’ can be defined cognitively to include all art” when a rational definition of “art” is still wanting.

Your position was summed up thusly:

“Art (painting for the time being so as to stay simple and consistent with the previous posts) is exhibited in special display spaces like galleries, museums, halls, etc. People go there to contemplate it. So long as people produce it and consume it like that, it is cognitively ‘art.’”

Your approach is riddled with all the pitfalls that are characteristic in modern philosophy—especially in epistemology. Your definition [and explanations] of art preserve the same fundamentally circular thrust: virtually anything is art if a reputed artist or other purported expert says its art--if that is the intention, then cognitively—it is art. Therefore, 'art' does not have an identity.

I think the brazen subjectivism—the epistemological subjectivism—is clear here. Your definition fails on a cognitive level. And you wonder why I am lost in the opacity of this. Nobody could walk away with this approach and know if they should start their car or hang it on the wall.

Perhaps here we should heed the proper rules of definitions and come to grips on a rational definition of art before we ascertain whether abstract painting qualifies as art or not. Then we will be able to identify a work of actual art---and avoid putting our garage door with its peeling, cracking paint on the auction block.

-Victor

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I learned the cognitive and normative thing from Ayn Rand's writings. Even she calls modern art "art" on a cognitive level (just like she did with "businessman). If you do not agree with Rand on this (and feel her approach is "riddled with pitfalls," is "brazen subjectivism," is "defective for its own non-essentialist approach" yada yada yada), you are entitled. Many do. But you cannot call that Objectivism. Call it "Prossism" or something.

One of the reasons Rand coined the phrase "Romantic" (and "Romantic Realism") was to distinguish this form of art from all other forms of "art," including abstract art.

I'm tired of discussing this already because I am tired of repeating and defending the obvious.

We disagree.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I’m trying to adhere to reality and rationality—not to be a faithful servant to Rand’s philosophy. As it stands, I suspect that Rand’s philosophy is either misinterpreted--or flawed in this regard. But I don’t think that Rand’s esthetic philosophy contains the idea that anything can be art--if the intention that it be viewed as such and is presented as such is there. That is what is called the "institutional definition."

I’ll need to think about it.

I’m going to continue to reflect on this matter and post my conclusion to whom ever wishes to discuss it.

You need not feel obliged to respond. But I welcome what ever you have to say.

-Victor

edit:

If it makes a sound—it is music. If it has colors—it is art. If it moves—it is dance. If it has shape—it is sculpture. If it has words—it is literature.

No definition, no identity, no objectivity, but a whole helping heap of intentions. Anything and everything can be art. Just tax the object as art and take polls. That will do it.

Does this sound like Ayn Rand’s philosophy of art? :turned:

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Once again, cognitively (as an identification of an activity of man) those things are art. Normatively (according to Objectivism—what could and should be) they are not.

If you can't understand that difference, you will never get near convincing anybody of anything. You certainly are not convincing me, and I know the Objectivist literature.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

If I demonstrate that the purpose—the intent--of abstract art [or abstract Expressionism] was spawned by a “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” orientation—as a matter of fact, beyond any reasonable doubt—would you still confer the status of 'art' upon it?

Yes. Using Rand's definition of art, even “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” is a "metaphysical value judgment" and this is what is conveyed.

Ahh, but metaphysical value judgement is only half of the definition. They are not trying to selectively recreate reality. They are trying to deny reality's existence.

[Victor Pross]

If I demonstrate that the purpose—the intent--of abstract art [or abstract Expressionism] was spawned by a “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” orientation—as a matter of fact, beyond any reasonable doubt—would you still confer the status of 'art' upon it?

Yes. Using Rand's definition of art, even “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” is a "metaphysical value judgment" and this is what is conveyed.

Ahh, but metaphysical value judgement is only half of the definition. They are not trying to selectively recreate reality. They are trying to deny reality's existence.

Jeff,

You are right. The proponents of abstract painter’s ‘intentions’ and purpose was to strip away twenty-five thousand years of rational principles--of intelligibility and objectivity for raw emotion, of pure spirit. For them, the material world of perceptible objects in three-dimensional space had no connection to the world of “pure spirit” and must therefore be eliminated.

Abstract artists entertained the belief that color is a kind of formless energy---free of the material world. Before the “awakening soul” could complete its evolution, Kandinsky claimed, it must be liberated from the “nightmare of materialism”. However, ‘pure color’ is not a defining characteristic of art—But the colors sure are puuuur-dey and that is what the viewers are responding to. But it is not art, more like design.

I still find it funny: given their rejection of objective reality, the abstract painters, I have argued, failed to recognize that color is an attribute of material objects and that the experience of color is dependent on the physical properties of those objects as well as on the psychology of human sense perception.

-Victor

[Danneskjold]

I still find it funny: given their rejection of objective reality, the abstract painters, I have argued, failed to recognize that color is an attribute of material objects and that the experience of color is dependent on the physical properties of those objects as well as on the psychology of human sense perception.

-Victor

So wait, you're saying that people who try to deny reality and logic won't listen to reality or logic? Shocking.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Why do you ask? [Victor asked me re my asking him if he classified Escher as "art"].

I was curious as to whether or not you'd accept Escher as being a member of the clan of "artists." I don't myself think of his work as "representational," though I do classify it as being "art." There was a lot of arguing over Escher amongst O'ists I knew in the old days, with opinion about half-and-half divided between classifying (the bulk of) his work as "art" or "design."

I shouldn't have waded into the quagmire of an O'ist discussion of "art." A problem which I have with any such discussion is that I don't like, never have liked, Rand's definition. For one thing, I've never known what she meant by "selective re-creation of reality." I find the phrase unintelligible on its own, and I don't recall her explaining it anywhere. Maybe even more importantly, she doesn't discuss the nature of the art symbol.

The esthetician I've found the best of those I've read is Susanne Langer. There's a similarity of approach between Langer and Rand, but I think that Langer really understood art and that Rand was trying to fit art into her framework in a way which would end up justifying her own tastes as "better."

Also, of course, the "should be and could be" bit which she attributes to Aristotle isn't accurate. What he did think art presented was types of humans for contemplation, an idea which I think is closer to right than Rand's own views.

And...MSK, I think you're getting something off somewhere, though I haven't read the details of your posts carefully enough to specify where, in your interpreting her on "cognitive" and "normative" as applied to art. My understanding of her views on the subject of "modern art" was that she DID consider the works generally described by that label not-art, indeed ANTI-art. Best as I can recall various remarks of hers I heard reported, she drew the line approximately somewhere before Picasso. But I can't swear to that; I was much more attentive to issues of her opinions on music than to those of what she thought about the visual arts.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

You said:

I've never known what she meant by "selective re-creation of reality." I find the phrase unintelligible on its own, and I don't recall her explaining it anywhere. Maybe even more importantly, she doesn't discuss the nature of the art symbol.

I’m perfectly at home with this, and it is this one area that I have done a great deal of thinking about.

I elaborated on this very question on a "Kandinsky poll" elsewhere. You’ll see it. Tell me if it becomes clear for you or not. Personally, I think Rand was right on the money, and I'll be writing more about this soon.

Victor

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

She most certainly argued that 'modern art' is anti-art. I could not agree more.

Some anthropologists argue that the appearance of art--in the last 25 hundred years--way before, reflects a significant advance in human cognitive development---the emergence of a "spiritual 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. Modern art attempted to flout the requirements of human cognition by utterly destroying the purpose art serves—it was an attempt to destabilize the human mind.

Human kind’s need of art lies in the fact that our cognitive faculty is conceptual. We are aware of the world directly and immediately through sense perception, but we do much of our thinking at the conceptual level, using abstractions, language, and logic. Our concepts and theories have meaning only insofar as they are grounded in reality.

-Victor

Edited January 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Jonathan]

Ellen wrote,

I found the quotes from Kandinsky interesting and with a lot of truth to them in terms of what seem to me emotional correlates of various colors, although I'm suspicious of any attempts to universalize such reactions sans context in which the colors appear.

Right, and Kandinsky recognized that context was important. He felt that different cultural and individual experiences may result in different responses, as is true with music and language. And color wasn't the only aspect of visual art which he addressed. He also dealt with form and composition and the effects that they have in combination with color. He was offering a rough outline with the recognition of infinite possibilities.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a Kandinsky. J, do you have an easy-to-hand link to some sample works?

I'll post my favorites if I can find my links to good quality scans.

J

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

For them, the material world of perceptible objects in three-dimensional space had no connection to the world of “pure spirit” and must therefore be eliminated.

That is false. Even in the excerpts that I posted, Kandinsky rejects the idea that anything "must therefore be eliminated." Every form, to Kandinsky, had an expressive power. The "pure materialism" that Kandinsky wished to rise above was that of copying the external appearance of objects at the expense of expressing individual inner essence.

J

Edited January 10, 2007 by Jonathan

[Danneskjold]

Victor wrote,

For them, the material world of perceptible objects in three-dimensional space had no connection to the world of “pure spirit” and must therefore be eliminated.

That is false. Even in the excerpts that I posted, Kandinsky rejects the idea that anything "must therefore be eliminated." Every form, to Kandinsky, had an expressive power. The "pure materialism" that Kandinsky wished to rise above was that of copying the external appearance of objects at the expense of expressing individual inner essence.

I think Kadinsky would disagree with you there.

From Jonathan's earlier post:

The human form must either be replaced by another object which, whether by similarity or contrast, will strengthen the abstract appeal, or must remain a purely non-material symbol.

He's saying there that a painting must not have material value. How do you get around that?

[Danneskjold]

Victor wrote,

For them, the material world of perceptible objects in three-dimensional space had no connection to the world of “pure spirit” and must therefore be eliminated.

That is false. Even in the excerpts that I posted, Kandinsky rejects the idea that anything "must therefore be eliminated." Every form, to Kandinsky, had an expressive power. The "pure materialism" that Kandinsky wished to rise above was that of copying the external appearance of objects at the expense of expressing individual inner essence.

I think Kadinsky would disagree with you there.

From Jonathan's earlier post:

The human form must either be replaced by another object which, whether by similarity or contrast, will strengthen the abstract appeal, or must remain a purely non-material symbol.

He's saying there that a painting must not have material value. How do you get around that?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And...MSK, I think you're getting something off somewhere, though I haven't read the details of your posts carefully enough to specify where, in your interpreting her on "cognitive" and "normative" as applied to art. My understanding of her views on the subject of "modern art" was that she DID consider the works generally described by that label not-art, indeed ANTI-art.

Ellen,

"Anti-art" in cognitive terms is a category of art. Notice even that the word "art" is used? Rand is obviously referring to items or performances that are exhibited or take place where people exhibit and consume art. She is not referring to food, transportation, energy, clothing, or any other category of products produced by man.

The rhetorical bombast comes when "art" is used as a normative term in the place of a cognitive one, such as the statement: "A painting by Kandinsky is not art." The painting referred to is obviously an artwork and the person is pronouncing judgment on the quality if its content, not the identification of it as an artwork (painting) as such. This is different than the statement, "A shoe is not art," or "A hamburger is not art."

In the first case (Kandinsky), you would follow the statement with another normative statement like "Real art is a painting by Norman Rockwell" or something like that. In the other statements you would follow it with "Art is painting (or sculpture)" or something like that. To make it clear:

"A painting by Kandinsky is not art. Real art is a painting by Norman Rockwell." (normative)

"A hamburger (or shoe) is not art. Art is painting (or sculpture)." (cognitive)

Frankly I am astounded that people cannot see the difference between these two kinds of statements. If ignorance in something like this is where philosophy leads, I will have none of it. This is ignorance enshrined as wisdom. A philosophy that blinds people to this difference in their thinking has done the job of Logical Positivism (or Kant's categorical imperatives) much more effectively than it could ever do.

Rand coined a term once for a concept that tries to obliterate another concept, "anti-concept." The present use of the term "art" is such a case, and it is especially tricky because the same word is used for two different concepts. Also, the constant shift between the cognitive and normative, treating both as if they were the same, is a perfect example of using the "stolen concept."

I do admit that I extended the cognitive/normative distinction to the word "art" itself whereas Rand did not. She used both meanings interchangeably—and even included her own subjective concepts (i.e. preferences) whenever it suited her (let's say, er... at whim). When she gets really negative in her rhetoric on art, you can easily detect the shifting concepts using the same word (art).

Rand's discussion limited the normative part to the content, not the form. When she broke down art into the categories of their physical support (painting, sculpture, literature, dance, etc.), she called these categories "species." (This is used in the context of her definition of "definition": it contains a species and a differentia.) These categories are an example of what she would call "cognitive."

Form is cognitive.

Content is normative.

Form is the physical existent. Content is what is valuable (or judged as not valuable) in the form. Therefore, art as a form of human activity is a cognitive concept, the content of such activity is a normative one.

I object to arguments that claim that "X" content (say, abstract shapes and color combinations) obliterates the form from even existing (an artwork—say, painting), especially when I see people using the form all the time with such content. Talk about the child pointing and saying that the emperor has no clothes on (to invert the usage of that fairytale)! There is nothing to be gained by shutting ones eyes and complaining about the darkness.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Michael, now I see where we are disagreeing.

You said,

Ellen,

"Anti-art" in cognitive terms is a category of art. Notice even that the word "art" is used? Rand is obviously referring to items or performances that are exhibited or take place where people exhibit and consume art. She is not referring to food, transportation, energy, clothing, or any other category of products produced by man.

I do not see how this follows at all. You see, if a person is anti-American, anti-Objectivist, anti-government, or anti just about anything it does not mean that they are that concept that they are against. Osama Bin Laden is anti-American. Is he also American?

The rhetorical bombast comes when "art" is used as a normative term in the place of a cognitive one, such as the statement: "A painting by Kandinsky is not art." The painting referred to is obviously an artwork and the person is pronouncing judgment on the quality if its content, not the identification of it as an artwork (painting) as such. This is different than the statement, "A shoe is not art," or "A hamburger is not art."

Now, this would be true if there was no difference between what Kandinsky was doing and what an artist that we call an artist did. However, we are saying that Kandinsky is not an artist because what he produces does not fit into our definition of art because of certain attributes and things he does with his paintings. It is not a quality judgement, we are cognitively defining art as something that has roots in reality. Kandinsky does not do this, so he is not an artist. It has nothing to do with how well he does what he does, just what he is doing. We define a human being by a thing that has xyz. Something does not have x, it is not human because it is missing an element of humanity.

In the first case (Kandinsky), you would follow the statement with another normative statement like "Real art is a painting by Norman Rockwell" or something like that. In the other statements you would follow it with "Art is painting (or sculpture)" or something like that.

"Real art is a painting by Norman Rockwell" is a somewhat restrictive definition. However, I will treat it as if the supposed person said "Real art is the kind of painting done by Norman Rockwell" which would be true. However, that is a cognitive definition because according to who says that, Rockwell's paintings contain what is necessary for something to be considered art. According to this person Kandinsky doesn't.

I will continue this during lunch but I have to go to second period now.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do not see how this follows at all. You see, if a person is anti-American, anti-Objectivist, anti-government, or anti just about anything it does not mean that they are that concept that they are against. Osama Bin Laden is anti-American. Is he also American?

Jeff,

(I am going to stay on this with you because of your age and lack of reading in Objectivism. I do not think you are being argumentative for the sake of argument alone, or to trying to sell a party line, but attempting to come to terms with what you think is rational instead.)

If you are going to talk about a person as a generic category (the cognitive concept), you would not refer to specific types of ideas or nationalities. (Stolen concept again.) You would refer to their generic categorization. The correct analogy would be to say that Osama Bin Laden is anti-human being.

That could be true in normative terms, but in cognitive ones, which makes no sense. Osama Bin Laden is a human being. In normative terms, an anti-human being like Osama Bin Laden is still cognitively a human being.

In Rand's use of the term "anti-art," she is not talking about real estate or trees or the ocean. She is using the phrase to refer to artworks. It is because she is referring to artworks that "anti-art" is a category of art, not because the term "anti" or "art" makes it so.

Let's use another popular word for you to understand the idea of cognitive: "technically speaking." So you could say that—technically speaking—Osama Bin Laden is a human being. But since he has declared himself to be a worshiper of death, he is not human at all on the value level (normative). Also, "technically speaking," a painting on a canvas made by an artist hanging in a museum is art, regardless of what forms and colors are on that canvas. But in a view of art that restricts what subjects (content) may be included as valid according to a standard (value), is it not art (normative).

On another point, you cannot define art in generic terms (cognitively) by the content—only by the form. In this sense, Kandisky does what all painters do. He creates forms and colors on a canvas with paint to make an entity for exhibition. He made artworks.

When you say it is possible to make a cognitive concept for "our definition of art," you are correct. "This is a painting of Romantic Realism" or "Romantic Realism does not include abstract painting" or "Romantic realism is characterized by..." are all correct cognitive statements. (You fill in that last one, though. I don't want to open that particular can of worms.)

But "our art" (the term you used) is not a cognitive concept for all art. If you try to do that, you are making a normative statement. When you look at "our art," you see that value judgments are included in what content is acceptable. In light of all art, "our art" is already a normative concept. For example, "Romantic Realism is the only true art," or "Any painting that is not Romantic Realism is not art" are normative statements.

Thus, "modern art is not art" is a normative statement. Cognitively it makes no sense. How can art not be art? That is a contradiction. This statement only makes sense if the word "art" in "modern art" means one thing and the word "art" in "not art" means another. In the first, it is a cognitive concept. In the second, it is a normative concept (or at least qualified to exclusion by something not stated). The two uses of the word "art" mean two different concepts.

How is that not clear? And why is there such insistence on ignoring it?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

To the question: "How is that not clear? And why is there such insistence on ignoring it?"

I addressed some of my objections in post #130, but I will write more on this later. If interested, others can read my post.

-Victor

[Dragonfly]

However, we are saying that Kandinsky is not an artist because what he produces does not fit into our definition of art because of certain attributes and things he does with his paintings.

What is "our definition of art"? Yours and Victor's? And why should we accept your peculiar definition?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

All you did in Post 130 was muddle cognitive and normative meanings once again, ignoring the distinctions, and used bombastic rhetoric and sweeping statements. The only valuable thing there was a request to define art rationally.

I cannot rationally define art (or anything) using different concepts that float around a word at whim. How do you define something that means one thing one time and another thing at another time by the same person? The only way to rationally do that is to define what each use of the word means.

So let us define the category of concept, then define the concept, and only then decide which word we want to use for that concept.

Like I said, the word "art" means at least three different concepts in Rand's usage alone.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

For them, the material world of perceptible objects in three-dimensional space had no connection to the world of “pure spirit” and must therefore be eliminated.

That is false. Even in the excerpts that I posted, Kandinsky rejects the idea that anything "must therefore be eliminated." Every form, to Kandinsky, had an expressive power. The "pure materialism" that Kandinsky wished to rise above was that of copying the external appearance of objects at the expense of expressing individual inner essence.

I think Kadinsky would disagree with you there.

From Jonathan's earlier post:

The human form must either be replaced by another object which, whether by similarity or contrast, will strengthen the abstract appeal, or must remain a purely non-material symbol.

He's saying there that a painting must not have material value. How do you get around that?

In the context of the paragraph which contains that sentence, Kandinsky is saying that if an artist who is creating a painting believes that certain figurative elements weaken the painting as art, she might replace them with other figurative elements which do not weaken the painting as art, or she might replace them with abstract elements.

J