Ellen Stuttle Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I'm sure Victor and I would agree that that is art. It is actually very good and I very much like it.Since it's by one of the three Arch-Fiends of modern art -- the other two being Kandinsky and Malevich -- if Victor does agree that it's art, hmmm...EllenPS: Speaking of Malevich: J., RCR, Dragonfly, could any or all of you post some samples of his work?___What distinguishes an abstract painting from art is not the artist that made the word: it is the work itself. I can paint an abstract painting and also paint a representational one. If one of the fiends of modernism painted something that looks like a tree...then he painted something that looks a tree.Which painting are you talking about, Victor? The Apple Tree painting or the Red Tree painting? The Apple Tree painting was the one MSK was referring to in the post to which Jeff replied. I therefore believe it is also the one Jeff was referring to. The Apple Tree painting is unmistakably abstract art, though the Red Tree is borderline "representational" -- the progression through the set of three, I think shows well just how arbitrary any cut-off line you want to draw is. Is the Red Tree acceptable, the Grey Tree halfway acceptable but not quite quite a respectable denizen of the "art" realm, and the Apple Tree on the other side of the tracks?Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) I'm sure Victor and I would agree that that is art. It is actually very good and I very much like it.Since it's by one of the three Arch-Fiends of modern art -- the other two being Kandinsky and Malevich -- if Victor does agree that it's art, hmmm...EllenPS: Speaking of Malevich: J., RCR, Dragonfly, could any or all of you post some samples of his work?___What distinguishes an abstract painting from art is not the artist that made the word: it is the work itself. I can paint an abstract painting and also paint a representational one. If one of the fiends of modernism painted something that looks like a tree...then he painted something that looks a tree.Which painting are you talking about, Victor? The Apple Tree painting or the Red Tree painting? The Apple Tree painting was the one MSK was referring to in the post to which Jeff replied. I therefore believe it is also the one Jeff was referring to. The Apple Tree painting is unmistakably abstract art, though the Red Tree is borderline "representational" -- the progression through the set of three, I think shows well just how arbitrary any cut-off line you want to draw is. Is the Red Tree acceptable, the Grey Tree halfway acceptable but not quite quite a respectable denizen of the "art" realm, and the Apple Tree on the other side of the tracks?Ellen___Ellen, Your beef is with the theorists of abstract painting, not me. The purpose of abstract painting was to fly into the world of pure spirit, sort of like a Hegelian triad. What an abstract painter is doing in “the world” I can’t tell you. These are either poor representational paintings or simply non-abstract painting. But the colors are pretty—as colors usually are. By the way, you can’t refer to the ‘apple tree painting’ as an abstract painting. It is akin to speaking of a freefall as “flying.” Look, the theorists gave us an alternative: We can either be "tied down" by old-fashioned ideas/skills/practices/themes/etc--and prefer this because they are traditional OR one can toss the whole thing in the trash heap and start "fresh" by adopting the dogma of modernism which considers novelty to be the prime virtue. What’s more, by defending representational painting, I am not saying that all academic art is great or above criticism. Not at all. It would be no less erroneous to issue blanket praise to an entire category than to condemn it—as the modernist do when it comes to representational art. Academic painting ranges from brilliantly executed and deeply inspired to...flat and dismal -- in terms of technique and subject. But I find even the worst of it more meaningful than “art” based on the preposterous notion that it is important to prove the canvas is flat---or that one needs no skill or technique to be an artist. These are views generally clinched by those who condemn the entire category of academic art. They seek to elevate legitimacy to that which has removed all standards and prior defining characteristics of art. That was their purpose. In other words, by defining non-art as art-- the logical conclusion is that art is non-art, or that anything can be art.-Victor Edited January 13, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I asked "Which painting are you talking about, Victor? The Apple Tree painting or the Red Tree painting?" I still don't know, since you still didn't say, which one you meant. I got a speech but not an answer.Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Ellen, When I said "What distinguishes an abstract painting from art is not the artist that made the worK: it is the work itself. I can paint an abstract painting and also paint a representational one. If one of the fiends of modernism painted something that looks like a tree...then he painted something that looks a tree.." I was not speaking of any of the paintings on this thread...just speaking generally. Is there some point you wish to make??Victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 13, 2007 Author Share Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) PS: Speaking of Malevich: J., RCR, Dragonfly, could any or all of you post some samples of his work?Here are some samples of Malevich's work...btw, I'm keeping these image refs large, for better viewing, so they might take moment to load, depending on the speed of your connection.http://www.abcgallery.com/M/malevich/malevich.htmlInteresting the resemblance to O'Connor's "Diminishing Returns", no? Malevich actually has a series of these blank-faced mannequins...I wonder if O'Connor was directly influenced by Malevich or if the similar choices were just coincidental.RCR Edited January 13, 2007 by R. Christian Ross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Ellen, When I said "What distinguishes an abstract painting from art is not the artist that made the worK: it is the work itself. I can paint an abstract painting and also paint a representational one. If one of the fiends of modernism painted something that looks like a tree...then he painted something that looks a tree.." I was not speaking of any of the paintings on this thread...just speaking generally. Is there some point you wish to make??VictorVictor, are you really that oblivious to the sequence here? (1) In post #21 is a series of three "tree" paintings by Mondrian: the Red Tree, the Grey Tree, and the Apple Tree.(1) MSK said in post #22 that the Apple Tree painting is the sort of daydream-inducing painting he'd spoken of on another thread. (2) Jeff said in post #23: "I'm sure Victor and I would agree that that is art. It is actually very good and I very much like it." Since his post came immediately after MSK's, he sure did appear to be referring to the Apple Tree painting.(3) I expressed doubt that you would classify the painting as "art." Ok, I could have worded my comment better, I will grant you that. But was it not clear that I was specifically doubting that you would agree with calling the Apple Tree painting "art"?(4) Thus far, you do appear to be avoiding giving any answer to the question: IS the Apple Tree painting art or not according to you?A yes or no answer is the answer sought.Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 RCR, thanks for the Malevich images. The first and fourth ones aren't loading on my computer, although the middle two are. Is there possibly something wrong with the coding of the first and fourth links?E-___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Ellen, the Apple Tree is an upside down tree with the contrast taken out of it. Are we not allowed to rotate reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted January 13, 2007 Author Share Posted January 13, 2007 RCR, thanks for the Malevich images. The first and fourth ones aren't loading on my computer, although the middle two are. Is there possibly something wrong with the coding of the first and fourth links?E-Huh...they all come through fine for me.Here are the links themselves...http://www.abcgallery.com/M/malevich/malevich191.jpghttp://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/jpg/malevich.jpghttp://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/pics/Ma...h-snowstorm.jpghttp://www.abcgallery.com/M/malevich/malevich101.jpgAlso you can browse a good number of his works herehttp://www.abcgallery.com/M/malevich/malevich.htmlRCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Ellen, the Apple Tree is an upside down tree with the contrast taken out of it. Are we not allowed to rotate reality?Jeff,Come on. Upside down, it's a boat. Or maybe a bird. Or an upside-down tree.Don't you understand art? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) Ellen, When I said "What distinguishes an abstract painting from art is not the artist that made the worK: it is the work itself. I can paint an abstract painting and also paint a representational one. If one of the fiends of modernism painted something that looks like a tree...then he painted something that looks a tree.." I was not speaking of any of the paintings on this thread...just speaking generally. Is there some point you wish to make??VictorVictor, are you really that oblivious to the sequence here? (1) In post #21 is a series of three "tree" paintings by Mondrian: the Red Tree, the Grey Tree, and the Apple Tree.(1) MSK said in post #22 that the Apple Tree painting is the sort of daydream-inducing painting he'd spoken of on another thread. (2) Jeff said in post #23: "I'm sure Victor and I would agree that that is art. It is actually very good and I very much like it." Since his post came immediately after MSK's, he sure did appear to be referring to the Apple Tree painting.(3) I expressed doubt that you would classify the painting as "art." Ok, I could have worded my comment better, I will grant you that. But was it not clear that I was specifically doubting that you would agree with calling the Apple Tree painting "art"?(4) Thus far, you do appear to be avoiding giving any answer to the question: IS the Apple Tree painting art or not according to you?A yes or no answer is the answer sought.Ellen___Ellen, Are you really that oblivious to the nature of your own question? You ask me if the APPLE TREE is art or not. Well, if it is indeed an APPLE TREE then it is art -because it is an apple tree. Painting of Apple tree = art. If it is not an apple tree-- but was painted for the express purpose to be abstract-- then the "artist" either does not understand abstract painting [along with some of his viewers] or else he is a very poor representational painter. You tell me. My advice is to study the theories that spawned abstract painting in the first place. You will find that it was to strip away the tangible universe of perceivable world of concretes for pure abstraction, and I mean this in a -religious sense. This quest did not include APPLE TREES, lo and behold. Victor Edited January 13, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Victor,You really got into deep water here. The following has been discussed to death on Objectivist forums, but how about Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 by Marcel Duchamp for example?This painting is not only an attempt at a "selective recreation of reality," it is actually based on it. He used the stop-motion photography of Eadweard Muybridge for inspiration.The connections are easy to see.But according to your most recent post, ("Painting of Apple tree = art"), the following would be art. It is called Still Life:What say you? Can you accept that as a painting of a still life, i.e., actual entities, but merely "selectively recreated"?OK, OK, I fudged. This is actually not a painting at all, but photography. It is a photograph of actual entities. It is called "Still Life" and the photographer is unknown. It can be found here in an ad for notecards.Yes, my man, but is it art? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Ellen, the Apple Tree is an upside down tree with the contrast taken out of it. Are we not allowed to rotate reality?Jeff,Come on. Upside down, it's a boat. Or maybe a bird. Or an upside-down tree.Don't you understand art? MichaelI suppose it comes down to the artists intentions at some level then doesn't it? Sure looks like an upside down tree to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Ah, Victor, I "see": The Mondrian painting in #21 titled "Apple Tree" is bad representational art because it's titled "Apple Tree." If instead the selfsame painting had been titled, say, "Study in Form," it would then be non-art. Clear as mud. Evidently you can't tell whether it's art or not just by looking at the painting.Ellen___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Ah, Victor, I "see": The Mondrian painting in #21 titled "Apple Tree" is bad representational art because it's titled "Apple Tree." If instead the selfsame painting had been titled, say, "Study in Form," it would then be non-art. Clear as mud. Evidently you can't tell whether it's art or not just by looking at the painting.Ellen___Ellen, I think this is the conclusion you wanted to come to regardless of what my response was. You don't have a poker face at all. I saw it a mile away. B) -Victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I think I already clarified what it is. Besides, what Victor said was if it's an apple tree it's art. As in if the foundation of the picture is in reality (an apple tree as the name would suggest) then it's art. He wasn't saying its status was dependent on the name, he said that if it is a tree as the name would suggest then it's art. Look at that picture, you see a large amount of angular forms towards the bottom which appear to be leaves, less at the top, and then there are lines forming what appears to be a trunk at the top of the picture coming out of where the roughly leaf shaped figures are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Victor, what other conclusion is there to come to with all the double-talk you're engaging in on the thread except that you don't want to give a straight answer as to whether or not that painting is art?I'm afraid you tripped yourself up and fell flat.Ciao,EllenI'm off to a movie which I expect is art.___ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 (edited) Victor, what other conclusion is there to come to with all the double-talk you're engaging in on the thread except that you don't want to give a straight answer as to whether or not that painting is art?I'm afraid you tripped yourself up and fell flat.Ciao,EllenI'm off to a movie which I expect is art.___Ellen,What Jeff said. Enjoy the movie. But demand your money back if there is only a blank screen. On second thought, enjoy it. It's ALL art, don't you know? -Victor Edited January 14, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Victor,Frankly, I didn't understand your answer either. Put-downs are easy to understand. I am talking about the answer to Ellen's question.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Michael, I think my answer is very clear, if you take everything I have thus said about art and abstract painting into consideration. Much of abstract painting reveals design and can be enjoyed as such. I'm okay with that. But I’m at a loss to understand why there is such a persistent insistence to confer the status of ‘art’ upon it. It is not art. But I think I understand the source of the confusion: In the realm of visual arts, I observe a difference between "art" and "design." All art reveal rudiments of design, it is true, but not everything exhibiting design is art. I can enjoy some forms of non-representational modernism as interesting designs, but I do not consider it art. Really, I agree with what Jeff said. Re: the Apple tree painting: If the artist had it in mind “I will paint an apple tree” - and given whatever level of technical skill to accomplish this task - proceeded to do so, then we have a work of art. Really, doesn’t the title of the painting all lend support to this? Victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Victor,I still didn't understand that answer. Sorry, but it is true.Your answers sound like those people who excuse every little flaw in Rand when you ask, "Do you agree or disagree with Rand when she says that a woman should not be President?" They go on for pages without telling you.So let's put the question this way. Suppose you encounter the painting The Apple Tree, somewhere. Anywhere. Say, on a wall in the house of a neighbor (one who is not very cultured in art). You do not know the artist and you do not know what the title is.Will you think, "This is a work of art?" It's a simple question that doesn't really need a lot of explanations.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 For me it depends on how long I look at it. The problem a lot of the time is taking a cursory glance at something and not attempting at all to find out what it might have been intended to be. However, your question is misleading. The artist, it could be argued, uses the title of the painting to help you see what it is instead of seeing it as just random colors on a canvas. I noticed fairly quickly that there was an upside down tree in the picture, but this may have been because of the title. The title, in a case such as this, is used to help the viewer see what the artist wants them too. On a side note: That "Red Tree" is pretty cool looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Pross Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Victor,I still didn't understand that answer. Sorry, but it is true.Your answers sound like those people who excuse every little flaw in Rand when you ask, "Do you agree or disagree with Rand when she says that a woman should not be President?" They go on for pages without telling you.So let's put the question this way. Suppose you encounter the painting The Apple Tree, somewhere. Anywhere. Say, on a wall in the house of a neighbor (one who is not very cultured in art). You do not know the artist and you do not know what the title is.Will you think, "This is a work of art?" It's a simple question that doesn't really need a lot of explanations.MichaelMichael, Which one in the series of "apple tree" are you speaking of when asking this quesiton? This is a serious question--let's make sure we have clarity here. As I said, I observe a difference between "art" and "design." All art reveal rudiments of design, it is true, but not everything exhibiting design is art. THIS is where the cofusion comes from. Please don't tell me you don't understand this. -Victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danneskjold Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Victor, the series isn't "The Apple Tree" (I think) "The Apple Tree" is that last painting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 However, your question is misleading.Jeff,My question isn't misleading at all. It's a simple question that is being sidestepped.But for even more clarity:Cognitive: Is it a work of art the neighbor bought and hung on the wall or is it house paint, an insect, a bologna sandwich or a TV set?Normative: Is the subject of the painting a proper one for a "work of art" in the sense of having some kind of beauty or spiritual (or emotional) value that becomes evident in contemplating it?Is that less "misleading"?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now