Kandinsky

[reason.on]

then I am not an Objectivist because I like some naturalistic art (such as musicians like Front 242),

Hold the phone...Front 242 "naturalistic art"....?? That begs an explanation!

RCR

[Victor Pross]

Same here. I think it's getting down to the archetypal level, the form-forming level. And I suspect that there are "visual templates," such as reactiveness to edges, which underly visual perception. It's like abstract art is getting at the forms which are behind our ability to perceive visually. (Another thing some of them are getting at is like chemical and molecular process.) I do think that there are abstract artists who are fradulent, putting one over, no intelligence in what they're doing. But something like Kandinsky. Oh, my god, awesome, IMO.

Kandinsky...awesome, huh? Wow. Okay.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm curious, does anyone here draw a meaningful distinction betwixt "art" and "design"??

I think it's a matter of degree, Christian, with an indefinable borderland. Design has artistry to it, but not the driving vision of great art. I think it's comparable to the range in music from marking rhythm (with tapping or drums or other means) at one end to something like Beethoven's Ninth Symphony at the other, with no sharp dividing line anywhere along the range.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

An interesting Rorschach picture (BTW, why are these always symmetric?).

Rorschachs are symmetric because they're ink blots made by dripping some ink on a paper and then folding the paper: the two sides come out symmetric. Jonathan's ink blot above is a "Rorschach" only by extension of the original meaning of the term, which was an ink blot made by Rorschach for his projective tests. It's now come to be used for similar read-in-the-meaning blots and blobs.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

[quoting ES] And I suspect that there are "visual templates," such as reactiveness to edges, which underly visual perception.

I fixed the typo, but not before Victor picked it up. ;-)

ES

__

[Ellen Stuttle]

And, btw, I don't think that "sense of life" has a damned thing to do with my reaction to much of Kandinsky's work. To the extent -- which is only a sorta, kinda, fuzzy extent -- I see any meaning in the term "sense of life," that nebulous commodity does have something to do with my reaction to some of the "Compositions" which MSK linked on the "Art and Subobjectivity" thread, and to a few other Kandinskys I've thus far seen. But the dominant components captivating me are fascination with the forms and appreciation of the artistic vision and the skill. In other words, I don't think that "sense of life" -- again, to the extent I see any meaning in the term -- is necessarily involved in all, or even in the majority of, esthetic response.

Ellen

PS: And I think that the string of posts I've posted tonight might be a new posting record for me. Time to go to bed.

___

[Victor Pross]

And, btw, I don't think that "sense of life" has a damned thing to do with my reaction to much of Kandinsky's work. To the extent -- which is only a sorta, kinda, fuzzy extent -- I see any meaning in the term "sense of life," that nebulous commodity does have something to do with my reaction to some of the "Compositions" which MSK linked on the "Art and Subobjectivity" thread, and to a few other Kandinskys I've thus far seen. But the dominant components captivating me are fascination with the forms and appreciation of the artistic vision and the skill. In other words, I don't think that "sense of life" -- again, to the extent I see any meaning in the term -- is necessarily involved in all, or even in the majority of, esthetic response.

Ellen

PS: And I think that the string of posts I've posted tonight might be a new posting record for me. Time to go to bed.

___

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

[Danneskjold]

Jonathan,

[Jonathan was quoting ES] "presentational form which evokes what meaningful process is like."

That is a good definition. My problem with it is that there are many things that present themselves and everything can be said to evoke what meaningful process is like. Rand's definition is equally subjective in the second half, however the first half restricts that quite a bit. Things that I could make a good argument that would fall under that definition would be a science journal, a piece of manufacturing equipment, a mathematical proof, and a family pedigree. All of these things manifest themselves physically and carry out, show, or take part in a process.

Personally I think you could improve your definition by including "created by and for humans" from Michael's definition, and perhaps made "by and for the human mind" to exclude involuntary processes of the human body. Also, if I were to take your position I would add "through abstract or creative means" to the end. This would allow for the recreation of reality so cherished by those following Rand, as well as allow Kandinsky to put his two cents in. Any suggestions?

Edit: It might end up something like "presentational form made by and for the human mind, which evokes what meaningful process is like through abstract or creative means."

Edit2: That was off-the-cuff though. I will see how well I like it when I have more time to think about it. I do know that it eliminates the problem of the scientific journals and mathematical proofs due to the fact that those prove reality and do not create.

Jeff, I have to chuckle reading that. You didn't understand the meaning of "presentational form." I grant that I was brief and sketchy in what I said (post 211, "Art and Subobjectivity Thread"), but you didn't grok it. For one thing "created by and for humans [or it might be some other species of symbol-producing animal]" and "through abstract or creative means" is already entailed in the meaning of "presentational form." And your interpretation of what "present" means in the usage is common-parlance usage, whereas the term is a specialized technical one. That of course quite militates against its being adopted or even understood by the general populace. I don't think it would ever happen that the man in the street would use that definition. Also, "the problem of the scientific journals and mathematical proofs" is already eliminated, because those are "discursive form," the contrast form to "presentational."

Ellen

___

Sorry for messing up that quote, first of all. Second of all: ...huh? Did I miss the meaning of presentational?

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

One may ask how one can dismiss all things Modernist. And do so in a snap. Mind you, "modernism" is a very broad grouping that encompasses a number of different "divisions" that have developed over the past one hundred years. However, I don't consider the differences between the various movements to be significantly relevant to their opposition to actual art. They have a common objective.

Whether a given movement opposes art on the grounds that tradition is bad--or that clarity of meaning is bad--or that skill is bad--or that white males are bad--or that the old masters were bad--or whatever, the "sides" are still the same: genuine art is on the one side and an endless parade of sophisticated but dubious arguments against it on the other. It is the "Everything is art/Art is whatever anyone says it is" philosophy. And it is typical that such an irrational and unfounded attack on art would have to constantly be shifting positions and following fads as one after another unfounded argument falls. That is exactly what we have seen over the course of the Modernist era.

It does come down to subjectivism, pure and simple. If one was to explain what is wrong with quack medicines and why people are taken in by them, would one carefully distinguish between sellers of snake oil and magnetic bracelets? Or would one generalize about them all together? All the sub-categories are one philosophy: subjectivism. I'm doing the same thing when I talk about abstract expressionism, abstract art, modernism, post-modernism, installation art -- and all the rest by a single name: [rather than enumerating each individual sub-category one at a time] subjectivsim.

It is subjectivism in all its glory.

Victor

Edited January 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

Do I smell an argument from authority here? The fact that there is a lot of rubbish in abstract art doesn't imply that all abstract art is made without skill or vision, just as the existence of a lot of worthless novels doesn't imply that all novels are trash, and that literature therefore isn't art (or mutatis mutandis, music).

[Danneskjold]

I wish someone would clear up for me how a published science journal and a published math proof aren't presentational form.

[reason.on]

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

I really hope you are kidding with this, since you can't tell anyone any such thing, especially with such an obnoxiously sweeping brush stroke. Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, practiced abstract modernism, as did Victor Hugo, and while you may be of the opinion that such pieces are not art, only a dim-wit would suggest that there is no "skill" or "vision" in said works.

And by-the-by, you keep bringing up your "training" (again and again) as if it allows you some kind of perfect omniscient knowledge of all that is "art"; pardon me for pointing this out, but you didn't even know who Jan van Eyck was (someone I learned about in high school)...which leads me to wonder what other gaps there are in your knowledge of art history. I'm really not trying to be rude or disrespectful, and there is nothing wrong with not knowing things, but when you strut about acting as if you know it ALL....well, you might consider toning it down a bit, especially in light of the fact that you are more-or-less completely surrounded by other trained and or professional artists whose knowledge and skill exceed your own.

RCR

Edited January 11, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

"...well, you might consider toning it down a bit, especially in light of the fact that you are more-or-less completely surrounded by other trained and or professional artists whose knowledge and skill exceed your own."

I really hope you are kidding with this.

Of course I know Eyck.

There is no "vision" or "skill" in said works. And I mean it. [Although I was joking around on the 'trained pro' bit; cool the jets].

How about that? I disagree with you.

And finally, I don't know it ALL, I know a great deal.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[reason.on]

"...well, you might consider toning it down a bit, especially in light of the fact that you are more-or-less completely surrounded by other trained and or professional artists whose knowledge and skill exceed your own."

I really hope you are kidding with this.

Of course I know Eyck.

I am not trying to be mean, but I am not kidding, at all. Curious response--since not long ago you wrote, "Bad as this sounds, I don't know this aritst's [van Eyck] work."

RCR

Edited January 11, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

"...well, you might consider toning it down a bit, especially in light of the fact that you are more-or-less completely surrounded by other trained and or professional artists whose knowledge and skill exceed your own."

I really hope you are kidding with this.

Of course I know Eyck.

I am not trying to be mean, but I am not kidding, at all. Curious response--since not long ago you wrote, "Bad as this sounds, I don't know this aritst's [van Eyck] work."

RCR

The name blanked out--although I don't recall that. I know his works. How can I not know his works?

But still, I suppose any point you wish to make rests on this, right?

[Victor Pross]

RCR,

The idea of modern "abstract" painting is--- that it is a painting about paint itself. Its subject matter is PAINT. Of course, saying a painting is about paint is like saying a poem is about the alphabet. A poem uses the alphabet to represent words, which can express ideas. For modernists, "abstract" means "non-objective" or "non-representational" or "non-figurative". For them, abstract means that which does not have any meaning outside of itself. Therefore, "abstract" modern art is actually meaningless. From the Modernists point of view, the more meaningless it is (the more "abstract") the better! Objectivists would call this a "floating abstraction" I imagne. That is the whole point of it.

Now, this is not to say that some "abstract" shapes or blobs of paint cannot be aesthetically lovely. My-my, look at the pretty colors! Hey, an oil slick can be pleasing to look at from the right angle--no matter whether it is in a puddle or on a prepared canvas. I have spilled coffee on my newspaper and the spill patterns are oh-so-nice. But it cannot be said that an "abstract" modernist painting is meaningful in any real sense. It is whatever it is: a blob of paint or a block of color. It is not art.

-Victor

Edited January 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jeff, I have to chuckle reading that. You didn't understand the meaning of "presentational form." I grant that I was brief and sketchy in what I said (post 211, "Art and Subobjectivity Thread"), but you didn't grok it. For one thing "created by and for humans [or it might be some other species of symbol-producing animal]" and "through abstract or creative means" is already entailed in the meaning of "presentational form." And your interpretation of what "present" means in the usage is common-parlance usage, whereas the term is a specialized technical one. That of course quite militates against its being adopted or even understood by the general populace. I don't think it would ever happen that the man in the street would use that definition. Also, "the problem of the scientific journals and mathematical proofs" is already eliminated, because those are "discursive form," the contrast form to "presentational."

Ellen

___

Sorry for messing up that quote, first of all. Second of all: ...huh? Did I miss the meaning of presentational?

Apparently you did. I see that you've asked again in a subsequent post.

Jeff, did you read the post in which I gave an explanation of the term? A link is provided in the post on this thread which you quoted (see above).

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

Victor, you can "tell" me whatever you wish. If you expect me to believe it because you tell it, however, that's another story.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

As a trained professional and representational artist, I can tell you that no "skill" or "vision" is exhibited in abstract modernism.

Victor, you can "tell" me whatever you wish. If you expect me to believe it because you tell it, however, that's another story.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

A question actually: have you ever read Torres and Kamhi’s What Art Is? I think it offers a coherent analysis of Rand's esthetic theory. They conclude that her views are compelling, and are corroborated by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science, and psychology. They also apply Rand's theory to a deflate the work of prominent modernists and postmodernists—from Mondrian, Jackson Pollock, and Samuel Becket to John Cage. What they have to say about Rand's definition of art --"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" is a very interesting read.

Victor

Edited January 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

A question actually: have you ever read Torres and Kamhi’s What Art Is? I think it offers a coherent analysis of Rand's esthetic theory. They conclude that her views are compelling, and are corroborated by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science, and psychology. They also apply Rand's theory to a deflate the work of prominent modernists and postmodernists—from Mondrian, Jackson Pollock, and Samuel Becket to John Cage. What they have to say about Rand's definition of art --"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" is a very interesting read.

Victor

I've read part of the Torres and Kamhi book. I have a copy of it. I think they're right in saying that Rand's usage "Romantic Realism" shouldn't be applied outside the literary arts. Unfortunately, instead of finding their book "a very interesting read," as you describe it, I find it dreary in style and I stopped partway through reading it, since my interest level was being kept high enough for me to want to slug through the whole book. I'm aware that they look with disfavor on modernism and postmodernism.

Victor, I sympathize with your problems in regard to the art-world "establishment." I've heard enough about that world I can imagine that trying to go against the trends is rather like trying to swim through a tank of sharks. I do sympathize. Nevertheless, I think that an attempt to write off modernism and postmodernism as non-art is wrong-headed. And to repeat about Rand's theory of esthetics, although I think it's in the right general ballpark, I think it's wanting in a number of ways.

One question to you: Why did you specify Jackson Pollock and John Cage in your comments? Why pick examples where there was gimmickry and con-artistry (more than artistry, although every now and then each of them did some good work)? Dragonfly has made the point to you at least twice that the fact that there's junk of a type doesn't invalidate the whole type. The point is correct. Using your technique of holding bad examples up as exemplars, I could say in reverse that dime-store representational-art kitsch invalidates representational art as a genre. The sword cuts both ways.

Ellen

___

Edited January 12, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

I suppose you mean "kitsch".

[Victor Pross]

Ellen,

A question actually: have you ever read Torres and Kamhi’s What Art Is? I think it offers a coherent analysis of Rand's esthetic theory. They conclude that her views are compelling, and are corroborated by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science, and psychology. They also apply Rand's theory to a deflate the work of prominent modernists and postmodernists—from Mondrian, Jackson Pollock, and Samuel Becket to John Cage. What they have to say about Rand's definition of art --"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" is a very interesting read.

Victor

I've read part of the Torres and Kamhi book. I have a copy of it. I think they're right in saying that Rand's usage "Romantic Realism" shouldn't be applied outside the literary arts. Unfortunately, instead of finding their book "a very interesting read," as you describe it, I find it dreary in style and I stopped partway through reading it, since my interest level was being kept high enough for me to want to slug through the whole book. I'm aware that they look with disfavor on modernism and postmodernism.

Victor, I sympathize with your problems in regard to the art-world "establishment." I've heard enough about that world I can imagine that trying to go against the trends is rather like trying to swim through a tank of sharks. I do sympathize. Nevertheless, I think that an attempt to write off modernism and postmodernism as non-art is wrong-headed. And to repeat about Rand's theory of esthetics, although I think it's in the right general ballpark, I think it's wanting in a number of ways.

One question to you: Why did you specify Jackson Pollock and John Cage in your comments? Why pick examples where there was gimmickry and con-artistry (more than artistry, although every now and then each of them did some good work)? Dragonfly has made the point to you at least twice that the fact that there's junk of a type doesn't invalidate the whole type. The point is correct. Using your technique of holding bad examples up as exemplars, I could say in reverse that dime-store representational-art kitch invalidates representational art as a genre. The sword cuts both ways.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

I am unware of Jackson Pollock's "good work." Show me. No, dime-store representational kitsch [or as you wish, 'kitch'] does not "invalidate" representational art as a genre. It is still art, but perhaps 'bad art' but I don't really care to use that phrase. Anyway, one is curious as to what "invalidate" means to you.

-Victor

Edited January 12, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Jeff, I have to chuckle reading that. You didn't understand the meaning of "presentational form." I grant that I was brief and sketchy in what I said (post 211, "Art and Subobjectivity Thread"), but you didn't grok it. For one thing "created by and for humans [or it might be some other species of symbol-producing animal]" and "through abstract or creative means" is already entailed in the meaning of "presentational form." And your interpretation of what "present" means in the usage is common-parlance usage, whereas the term is a specialized technical one. That of course quite militates against its being adopted or even understood by the general populace. I don't think it would ever happen that the man in the street would use that definition. Also, "the problem of the scientific journals and mathematical proofs" is already eliminated, because those are "discursive form," the contrast form to "presentational."

Ellen

___

Sorry for messing up that quote, first of all. Second of all: ...huh? Did I miss the meaning of presentational?

Apparently you did. I see that you've asked again in a subsequent post.

Jeff, did you read the post in which I gave an explanation of the term? A link is provided in the post on this thread which you quoted (see above).

Ellen

___

No, I'm sorry I was posting before school I'll get on that.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I suppose you mean "kitsch".

Right. I fixed it.

[studiodekadent]

Hold the phone...Front 242 "naturalistic art"....?? That begs an explanation!

Front 242 said their work has no message, they merely observe and report on things they find interesting. i.e. they do art about man as man is rather than man as man should be. i.e. naturalism.