Modernist and Postmodernist Con-Aritsts

[Victor Pross]

~ I'd get into the discussion in this thread, but, the original topic went out the window after the flame-fest got going on Vic. I'll check out the other (a)esthetic threads.

LLAP

J:D

There is now a new art thread: a “rational discussion of art.” I’m sure you’ve seen it. It’s been set up in such a way that nobody can flame me there.

[John Dailey]

Vic:

~ Ah-h-h, I'll finish this thread out first. Its responses are...thought-provoking.

~ I must admit that I may have overlooked something in the 1st 15 posts (which started off cordially but definitely started targeting your complaint about 'modern art.') *You* never defined/clarified what you regard as 'art' to begin with! What's NOT depends on the criteria for what IS, meaningfully. I presumed it was Rand's def you went by, (as Jeff Kramer and I), but, even without it spelled out, the complaints about your complaint seemed interesting enough for me to comment on. O-t-one-hand you're 'preaching to the choir', yet, the choir has a prob with your preaching. You 'borrow wordings' (that shadow of plagiarism WILL haunt you, obviously), while decrying art-gallery shysters. Ah, well...due to your starting-off ambiguity, some may have a spot or two for their criticism (minus the insults)...so far.

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

John,

This thread is a “middle water” conversation and much had been covered on other art threads. So you may have walked in the middle of it and gleamed only half of the discussion. I thought you were following all the art threads. But sure, much of what is seen here can be judged on its own merits. And yes, when you walk in the middle of a movie, it takes time to catch-up with the plot.

I don’t think any disagreement sprung from ambiguity on my part, or anybody else. It is a difference of principles, of basis ideas. Still, communication did break down.

-Victor

Edited February 24, 2007 by Victor Pross

[John Dailey]

~ In post #36 Jeff gives some interesting 'reasons' for his views/perspective/definition-of-art (accepted from Rand) which add up to what I'd call 'recognizability-of-subject-by-any-mature-human.' I'd say that for anything to be called 'art', THIS is a necessity, though not a sufficiency. Before picayune arguers add in, by 'subject' I mean something more than prettily-colored geometric shapes or squiggles whose mere colors, canvas-locations, etc give a 'feeling' of pleasantness. A 4-yr old's (or chimp's) finger-painting can do the same. Such is not worth (note that word) the label of 'art'...by any mature human.

~ Some would argue that my view (as some have of yours, Vic) is 'subjective.' All I can say to that is: that is their 'subjective' view of others' definitional criteria of...anything.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ Hmmm...thought I was up on most (so many threads, so little time). Ok; I'll back off here in this one. Maybe I'll comment on your other one re your "IS THIS ART?" question on examples. Still not finished re-reading Torres & Kamhi's WHAT ART IS though. Don't wanna tackle that thread 'till done.

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

John,

Is abstract painting a justifiable activity to engage in for those who value it without it being art? Sure, why not? But why must we confer the status of ‘art’ upon it to feel justified in the creation or enjoyment of it? We enjoy doing crossword puzzles and needlepoint—and many other things--and we don’t feel the urgent burst to designate these activities as ‘art.’ Why abstract painting? Oh, becuase it's paint?

Anyway, I think some people thought I was setting myself up as an esthetic dictator. My interest is philosophy, not mind-control. God, pleeeese. :turned:

I think Mr. Roger Bissell’s hypothesis of art as a microcosm leaves ‘abstract painting’ (if it is a matter of inscrutable swirls and blobs of paint) out of the file-folder where a definition of art is concerned. I simply cannot reconcile abstract painting to a microcosm approach, let alone the entire history of painting.

I invite you to read Mr. Bissell’s article. I have become a fan of it.

Edit: much of the junk that comes under the banner of 'modern art' is just beyond the pale. At least abstract painting has some compelling validity to the idea of it being an art form.

-Victor

Edited February 24, 2007 by Victor Pross

[John Dailey]

Vic:

~ *I* have a personal ('cyber-communication', if you will) prob with Mr. Bissell. That said, I agree with most that he's written on the subject of 'art', within and without the O-ist framework, a-n-d that most of what he argues is worth attending to. He's worth reading; I've no more to say about his writings. 'Nuff said (ie: let it go.)

~ You ask a question (for this layman to answer?) about 'abstract' painting. I already clarified that there's a prob with this label of 'abstract art': it's a bit amorphous/ambiguous. --- There's clearly 'meaningless' "abstractions" in art, and, there's clearly 'meaningfully-intended' "abstractions" in art. How to 'define' the distinctions here is a prob...apart from discussing 'modern' art.

LLAP

J:D

Edited February 25, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Vic:

~ Any more I have to argue/comment/rile-others about 'art' I'll continue in one of your other threads. This is my last comment in THIS thread.

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

Vic:

~ Any more I have to argue/comment/rile-others about 'art' I'll continue in one of your other threads. This is my last comment in THIS thread.

LLAP

J:D

John, I await for your remarks on this subject--here or elsewhere.

The charlatans of the modern art tout that those who can't see the merit of modern art are "philistines", "crude", or "dense". I have experienced this time and again for the last fifteen years, and I have experienced here. Nothing changes but the people. This kind of harrying coerces a lot of people into setting aside their own honest judgment for parroting the positions they have been told “sophisticated” people take. In the effort to appear “open-minded” and as non-philistines--they actually become philistines! They accept the creed that anything goes. They mutter over cocktails, "I like just about everything"--which means they don't have a deeply artistic experience with anything. It is all a pose. They wish to appear "sophisticated"---which is second-hand to the core. They are like whores who sleep with anyone, but are close to nobody. There are no standards for excellence or craft—or artistry. As if it's all equal and disposable—a big subjectivist emoting throwaway frill.

I value art too much to ever have that...um..."open-mind."

-Victor

Edited March 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Vic:

~ Any more I have to argue/comment/rile-others about 'art' I'll continue in one of your other threads. This is my last comment in THIS thread.

LLAP

J:D

John, I await for your remarks on this subject--here or elsewhere.

The charlatans of the modern art tout that those who can't see the merit of modern art are "philistines", "crude", or "dense". I have experienced this time and again for the last fifteen years, and I have experienced here. Nothing changes but the people. This kind of harrying coerces a lot of people into setting aside their own honest judgment for parroting the positions they have been told “sophisticated” people take. In the effort to appear “open-minded” and as non-philistines--they actually become philistines! They accept the creed that anything goes. They mutter over cocktails, "I like just about everything"--which means they don't have a deeply artistic experience with anything. It is all a pose. They wish to appear "sophisticated"---which is second-hand to the core. They are like whores who sleep with anyone, but are close to nobody. There are no standards for excellence or craft—or artistry. As if it's all equal and disposable—a big subjectivist emoting throwaway frill.

I value art too much to ever have that...um..."open-mind."

-Victor

Victor, what you are really doing here is insulting absolutely everybody who doesn't absolutely agree with everything you have to say on this subject.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

Brant:

~ Silly me had to go and re-check this thread I wasn't going to comment within again. Then I saw (never said that I wouldn't read such) that you changed the subject.

~ A funny thing about 'insults': they're fundamentally quite similar to 'disagreements.'

~ 2 people can disagree about a subject, and, until one voices such, initiating an explicating, neither may know that they even disagree about subject 'X.' Yet, implicitly, they mutually (by definition of 'disagreement')...disagree. Usually, the 'prob' seems to start with the explicitly-voiced 'initiating' disagreer.

~ Vic disagrees with certain views re what the term 'art' supposedly means to too many others. He clarifies his contempt for those who (as he regards such) disagree with him. Do 'disagreers' have a rational justification for doing such back at him? [next post ]

LLAP

J:D

Edited March 7, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Brant (cont):

~ 'Insults' can be quite similar, if not identical, predicated upon the prev post. 'Who' insults (er, in PC-language, 'offends') first? The one who explicits/states their contempt of 'opposing' view(s)? Ostensibly.

~ You accused Vic of insulting all disagreers-with-him here. This is itself an explicit insult (er, 'offensiveness'). Hey, he may have deserved it, but, you did not explicate how/why. Why start a flame-battle...here? Criticisms can be put 'objectively' flame-retardent. Yours wasn't, as you imply (but not 'argue') that his wasn't.

~ Strictly speaking, to tell others that "you are 'wrong' (re whatever)" is itself not an 'offensive insult'; technically, it's merely a criticism. O-t-other-h, to imply/state that they either KNOW better or OUGHT to, is. Did Vic do this, as you read his post?

LLAP

J:D

Edited March 7, 2007 by John Dailey

[Victor Pross]

Brant:

~ Silly me had to go and re-check this thread I wasn't going to comment within again. Then I saw (never said that I wouldn't read such) that you changed the subject.

~ A funny thing about 'insults': they're fundamentally quite similar to 'disagreements.'

~ 2 people can disagree about a subject, and, until one voices such, initiating an explicating, neither may know that they even disagree about subject 'X.' Yet, implicitly, they mutually (by definition of 'disagreement')...disagree. Usually, the 'prob' seems to start with the explicitly-voiced 'initiating' disagreer.

~ Vic disagrees with certain views re what the term 'art' supposedly means to too many others. He clarifies his contempt for those who (as he regards such) disagree with him. Do 'disagreers' have a rational justification for doing so? [next post ]

LLAP

J:D

John,

Yes, thank you for saying that. You know, I will grant great value to one lesson I have learned from MSK and it is this: the more visceral you make a point—the less it is heard. I believe (naturally) that I have a rational justification for my views, but they are being lost in the tangent manner I can present them. But they are still valid points, and people can decide to focus on that or not—depending upon their own standards of intellectual inquiry and honesty. That's all that matters.

-Victor

Edited March 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Let's be clear about something. If someone feels contempt for me, he sure as hell does not have to post on my forum.

I have heard offline several people express contempt for those who make "art" caricatures because they think that the good (the person portrayed) is being trashed for being the good. I have asked that this contempt not be expressed and have bent over backwards to defend the legitimacy of this art form.

I now see that the same person I was defending is expressing his contempt of me on my own forum. I have tried to isolate interaction so as not to let this flame up, but honestly speaking, what would you do? Let someone call you a poseur and second-hander in your own house and say that is nothing but "honest disagreement"?

Sorry. I'm not buying it. I don't work that way, and OL doesn't work that way. All the regular posters on OL are honest intelligent men and women of goodwill, as am I. Those without goodwill don't need to come here. I have started editing that particular poster's posts (although I let his last insulting one stand) and I will continue to do so. No more insults from that poster. Let him take that crap elsewhere. Not here.

There is another poster I like a great deal who insisted on insulting people as part of his normal rhetorical style. I tolerated it for a while but I had to start interfering because it was poisoning all discussions.

As for me, I personally do not go into the house of those I hold contempt for unless it is under extraordinary circumstances. I certainly do not wish to discuss anything with them.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

John,

In regards to insults, I now recall one particular insult coming from no less Christian. He made reference in one post to my Canadian heritage in such a way that was meant to convey what a home-grown idiot I am. You see, Canadian = Fool! I would like to let you know that I am of Russian, German and British origins, and maybe Christian can further his insults of me, in the effort to disqualify my positions, now that he knows my backgroud. (I wish I were Jewish Canadian, to see what he could do with that). From there, we can observe if MSK will edit out the crass insult or not.

Anyway, I'm having a little bit of fun here, but let's get back to a serious convo.

-Victor

Edited March 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

John,

Let's be clear about something. If someone feels contempt for me, he sure as hell does not have to post on my forum.

I have heard offline several people express contempt for those who make "art" caricatures because they think that the good (the person portrayed) is being trashed for being the good. I have asked that this contempt not be expressed and have bent over backwards to defend the legitimacy of this art form.

I now see that the same person I was defending is expressing his contempt of me on my own forum. I have tried to isolate interaction so as not to let this flame up, but honestly speaking, what would you do? Let someone call you a poseur and second-hander in your own house and say that is nothing but "honest disagreement"?

Sorry. I'm not buying it. I don't work that way, and OL doesn't work that way. All the regular posters on OL are honest intelligent men and women of goodwill, as am I. Those without goodwill don't need to come here. I have started editing that particular poster's posts (although I let his last insulting one stand) and I will continue to do so. No more insults from that poster. Let him take that crap elsewhere. Not here.

There is another poster I like a great deal who insisted on insulting people as part of his normal rhetorical style. I tolerated it for a while but I had to start interfering because it was poisoning all discussions.

As for me, I personally do not go into the house of those I hold contempt for unless it is under extraordinary circumstances. I certainly do not wish to discuss anything with them.

Michael

Michael,

Oy. Major misunderstanding. I am very sorry to see that what was becoming a friendship is tarnished by this conversation over art. Some clarification is needed. I do NOT hold contempt for you. You have well thought out views on art. You are not a poser. My expressed contempt is held for the ilk I have encountered time and time again in the outside world that orbits OL—that’s what my post refers to. (And some here, too....sorry). Sure, you can piss me off. So what? I piss you off. But I like you. There is no contempt.

Mind you, yes, it is true that there are certain individuals that I don’t like here. And they don’t like me. So what? What else is new in the cyber world? There are many people here that I do like--that is way more important. I find great value here, or else why would I be here?

-Victor

Edited March 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[John Dailey]

Michael:

~ You got me totally non-plussed on that post...especially in this thread. I'm not really clear on just what you mean.

~ You think I have 'contempt' for you? I mean, considering other things I've said about you, what are you talking about? If you think so, and that I'm playing some kind of games with/around you (like, I'm privy to all the 'back-door e-mails and IMs gossips that go around!), as I said to Loose Perignon (or whoever that fickle bitch was), say the word and I'll not fairy-dust your doorway again.

~ What your post has to do with my prev (in this thread) I dunno, but, I think you're reading WAY too much 'twixt the lines. Stop looking at those Rorschach pictures! (...or, maybe, disliking so much what I've said to certain others?)

~ Posting no more in your and Kat's forum here before *you* respond to THIS post of mine.

"Choices. It's all about choices!" -- Now, yours and mine.

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

Michael:

~ You got me totally non-plussed on that post...especially in this thread. I'm not really clear on just what you mean.

~ You think I have 'contempt' for you? I mean, considering other things I've said about you, what are you talking about? If you think so, and that I'm playing some kind of games with/around you (like, I'm privy to all the 'back-door e-mails and IMs gossips that go around!), as I said to Loose Perignon (or whoever that fickle bitch was), say the word and I'll not fairy-dust your doorway again.

~ What your post has to do with my prev (in this thread) I dunno, but, I think you're reading WAY too much 'twixt the lines. Stop looking at those Rorschach pictures! (...or, maybe, disliking so much what I've said to certain others?)

~ Posting no more in your and Kat's forum here before *you* respond to THIS post of mine.

"Choices. It's all about choices!" -- Now, yours and mine.

LLAP

J:D

John,

I believe MSK is talking of my supposed "contempt" of him--not you. Neither you nor I hold this view. Plus I have more to say (this being directed to MSK): If you can find one post where I started any gratuitous insult to any OL poster—one where I am not responding, but hurled first—then please feel free to edit it out. I stand by my conviction that if you show me due respect, I will be as gentle as puppy dog and display all the manners of a Victorian gent. But, being true to human nature, if you snap at me and insult me—merely because you disagree with me—then I’ll snap back. My life is no different here than the outside world, in one respect: I have had guys toss punches at me merely because they didn’t like my Yamaha bike or politics, (or whatever) and you better believe I hit back. Would you? But never---ever—have I punched somebody because they didn’t fit my mood that day.

-Victor

P.S.

I was wondering if all Americans are stupid? :turned:

Edited March 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

LOL... (Gotcha befuddled and discombobulated, did I?) I wasn't talking about you even though I was talking to you. Victor got it right. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Victor,

Thank you. I know the type of people you talk about and I too hold contempt for them. (I used to dump on them in my conducting days because everybody wants to be around the Maestro and the poseurs would always show up dropping names and so forth.) The fact is that there is not one regular poster I know of on OL who is like that, although I know of some posters who do not like you and vice-versa. (And you know that I am one who likes you.)

But if I have your ear all of a sudden, then please pay attention. Close attention. It doesn't matter who starts insulting whom. I don't want it to continue and flame up on OL. I see a lot of insulting start in the following manner: a highly derogatory comment is made about a general group of people. An individual who fits in that group takes it personally (like I just did above) and returns the insult, except he goes from the general to the personal. In this case, it is hard to say who started it. Here is an example.

The scenario: I am in another discussion with another person. Suddenly I say that all people who don't think modern art is art are simple-minded idiots who have no inkling of philosophy or definitions and they deserve pity more than contempt because they never really learned how to integrate (and examine) a conceptual chain by volition, much less build their normative concepts out of anything beyond whim. You would obviously think I was talking about you and would want to clear that up, probably in a heated manner.

Yet you make generalized condemnatory statements like that all the time in your rhetoric. That's what often causes the sudden abrasiveness with some posters.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

The scenario: I am in another discussion with another person. Suddenly I say that all people who don't think modern art is art are simple-minded idiots who have no inkling of philosophy or definitions and they deserve pity more than contempt because they never really learned how to integrate (and examine) a conceptual chain by volition, much less build their normative concepts out of anything beyond whim. You would obviously think I was talking about you and would want to clear that up, probably in a heated manner.

Michael,

I'm glad this is being cleared up, and I hope others will take heed of your words as I do. The well articulated illustration you present above of a “general damnation” of some position will cause people, it is true, to paint themselves into the picture presented--if they feel that their true colors are being exposed. But do you agree that the mere tenacity of disagreeing with someone---merely disagreeing, not hurling gratuitous insults—alone is enough to turn some people’s apple cart over and they become very nasty. For example, let’s say I merely present arguments against abstract painting as an art form, but I avoid calling abstracts artists “idiots” or “fools” or some such talk—well, this alone is enough to anger some people who have invested considerable emotions and appreciation into these alleged art forms, and I am saying that I have been on the the receiving end of that type of abuse. (Sometimes, it’s merely a huffy tone, and not always abuse). But forget it, water off the duck's ass. :turned:

I don’t like flame wars, but I suppose with topics like religion, art, philosophy and politics, this can be a very hard thing to avoid. It comes with the package. Toes will be stepped on, as these are hot button subjects. Yes, even Canadians bleed if you prick them.

Anyway, as I have said elsewhere, I find your arguments for abstract painting (as an art form) very interesting and provocative—and almost convincing. But I’m not there all the way. Sorry, I still disagree. Soon, I will be positing some thoughts concluding that the actual source of abstract painting (as a 20th century phenomena) is not due to the ever infamous Kant---but Plato. You do not have to engage me in any further dialogues on this topic, but I will post my thoughts and those who find it of interest will reap what they care to take from it.

-Victor

P.S.

Yes, we're cool.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Brant (cont):

~ 'Insults' can be quite similar, if not identical, predicated upon the prev post. 'Who' insults (er, in PC-language, 'offends') first? The one who explicits/states their contempt of 'opposing' view(s)? Ostensibly.

~ You accused Vic of insulting all disagreers-with-him here. This is itself an explicit insult (er, 'offensiveness'). Hey, he may have deserved it, but, you did not explicate how/why. Why start a flame-battle...here? Criticisms can be put 'objectively' flame-retardent. Yours wasn't, as you imply (but not 'argue') that his wasn't.

~ Strictly speaking, to tell others that "you are 'wrong' (re whatever)" is itself not an 'offensive insult'; technically, it's merely a criticism. O-t-other-h, to imply/state that they either KNOW better or OUGHT to, is. Did Vic do this, as you read his post?

LLAP

J:D

John, I quoted Victor. It is pretty easy to figure out what I was talking about. I actually like him quite a bit, except when he issues his scorched-earth ecumenisms on art. I find them intolerable and in this case insulting in just the way I said and I will not let such be sanctioned by letting them pass without comment. I am not so much interested in art this and that, but the issue is epistemological. When I see philosophy coming at me like a boxer's knockout punch, I know something's wrong and I will protect myself. And I will not concede the field to him by blocking his posts.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

Michael:

~ Uh-h-h, umm-m-m...boy: I really hate it when this s**t happens (ok, I own up: 'it' didn't 'happen'; *I* did it.) --- I made a super-big fawks pass, er fax paws (fix pasts?) --- I read you TOTALLY wrong and went on a rant over it. I could argue the excuse, like Socrates, that I had just come from another 2 forums where my blood was riling over a subject (not 'art') or two, and had responded to them like Frasier does with nincompoops (whom he too often finds later aren't!) and carelessly did to you what I accused you of: Rorschach-reading others' text. I COULD argue that, but, like Socrates finalized, I shan't.

~ Truly: Mea Culpa.

~ Feel free to respond with any 'Niles'-type repartee (just don't get carried away with it.)

LLAP

J:D

Edited March 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[Roger Bissell]

This article is plagiarized from:

Rick Bayan writing here on The Cynic's Sanctuary

The dead give-away was the phrase "lionized by lionized by all the cognoscenti."

Victor has succeeded in provoking the creation of a new cottage industry among morbidly curious Objectivists with (ahem) too much time on their hands. :-/

REB

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Roger. Duly edited.)

[Jonathan]

In post #13, I wrote;

But, wow, how deeply it moves Victor and many other Objectivists! It owns a part of them. It controls them and their creativity. They'll write a thousand words about it for every one word they write about the contemporary art that they allegedly love.

I'm going to leave the original post as is, but obviously it's now more accurate to say:

"But, wow, how deeply it moves Victor and many other Objectivists! It owns a part of them. It controls them and their plagiarism. They'll plagiarize a thousand words about it for every one word they plagiarize about the contemporary art that they allegedly love."

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

This article is plagiarized from:

Rick Bayan writing here on The Cynic's Sanctuary

The dead give-away was the phrase "lionized by lionized by all the cognoscenti."

Victor has succeeded in provoking the creation of a new cottage industry among morbidly curious Objectivists with (ahem) too much time on their hands. :-/

REB

THANK YOU, Roger! I knew that the article was plagiarizied, since the original version -- which I saw before Victor had done some editing and shortening -- was written with a sense of style, and a keen ear for alliteration, which there's no way Victor could have produced himself.

I posted early in the thread here saying that I thought Victor was borrowing again. Victor told me to grow up.

[Correction: It was further along in the thread, or in another thread, that he told me to grow up. In this instance, he just said to give him a break, he hadn't been a reporter at the exhibits he was speaking of.]

Ellen

___

Edited June 26, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle