Objectivist movement and art - two approaches

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, freedom. The crazy uncle we keep in the closet.

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

Brant,

Welcome to the club.

Victor wants to see two warring camps and no amount of evidence showing how oodles of highly trained (even great) representational painters also do abstract work makes a dent in his vision. Total blank-out. They do not exist. Only two warring camps exist and all discussion will go back to these two warring camps.

Instead of clearly defining a concept and establishing a proper term for it, and then fighting for that, he prefers the method of trying to destroy a valid concept and trying to control people's thinking. I know it is hard to believe, but there is no rational argument here. The sad part is that I actually agree with much of what he says (and I am sure many others do too), but the error is too fundamental for anyone to jump on board.

Then there is an awful lot of writing he has done on a projected novel where the theme is precisely this issue over terminology. If he agrees with you, he will have to rewrite the entire thing. That's a lot of work.

Michael

Michael,

I am aware of representational painters who paint abstract. You mentioned it before, and I have answered it. Instead of repeating myself, lets drop employing all this “blank out” jingo. Why can’t we say that we disagree?

As for my projected novel, part of the conflict involves our intrepid caricature artist who is left outside in the cold by the two opposing forces in the art world—a drama I have lived for 15 years. The modernists rejects the satirist painter for being a throw-back to “traditionalism” and the academic school rejects him because they take 'satire in painting' as a postmodernist gimmick. Been there and done that. Gee, our poor hero. Hey, does life imitate art or is it the opposite? :turned:

-Victor

Edited February 8, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

Well Victor, you're one hell of a writer--very dramatic--so I look forward to reading your novel.

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

Well Victor, you're one hell of a writer--very dramatic--so I look forward to reading your novel.

--Brant

Thank you. The book is called “The Hungry Artist”. It relies less on imagination than actual experiences! The hardest part of writing this bitch is marshalling all my experiences into a story with a beginning, a middle and an end. Michael has been a tremendous help in assisting me in becoming a “representational” writer instead of a stream-of-consciousness abstract writer.

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael has been a tremendous help in assisting me in becoming a “representational” writer instead of a stream-of-consciousness abstract writer.

That's for damn sure.

btw - Is stream-of-consciousness writing literature? (Never mind...)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

All in favor of taking whatever discussion on this over to the Art and Subobjectivity thread and discussing early Objectivism on here. That part is really what piqued my interest and we have PLENTY of threads about art right now.

There are also plenty of older threads on this site with stuff about the early days of Objectivism. If you search for threads in which Barbara and/or I participated from back toward the beginning of the site, you'll find material and branches and links to other material.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Brant,

I do want to address some inquires you made that I felt I haven't really answered yet.

Regarding “abstract painting”—it is true that many here have made gallant attempts to defend this activity as a “creation of art” and their defense as taken different forms. Here is just a break down of a few of those attempts:

A, perhaps the validity of the senses is in question; can we really know what the artist is really trying to say in a representational painting and are we interpreting it correctly, etc.

B, if you stare long and hard enough and rub your eyes you will be able to “see” images in the abstract barrage of scattered paint. (You see, the attempt here is to imbue it with the qualities of representational art to give it legitimacy. Now, that’s funny. Let’s defend “abstract art” by pointing out its representational merits.)

C, The most laughable attempt at defending abstract painting as an art has been the attacks on Rand’s esthetic theory—as if the case for their claims lies within whatever holes Rand has in her philosophy of art. This has been both gut wrenching and enjoyable to witness--but so beside the point! The case for or against “abstract art”--as art--is not contingent on the writings of Ayn Rand.

D, The most interesting attempt has been Michael’s talks of “entities” in abstract painting How ironic is that? Jonathan is correct in saying that abstract painting is ‘theory-driven’ and what is being driven is an absolute subjectivism. They wanted a world of 'pure spirit'--entities free. The birth of abstract art [or abstract Expressionism] was spawned by a “primacy of consciousness” or an “absolute subjectivism” orientation. For modernists, "abstract" means "non-representational" and “non-objective.” And Brant, this "theory baggage" is not irrelevant. The inscrutable was their aim. They succeeded.

So this is where we get to the crux of it: For thousands of years the inimitable and vital function of art was (and is) to present, in concrete form, what is essentially an abstraction. The purpose of art is the objectification of values. To objectify values is to make them real by presenting them in concrete form. The case to be made for actual works of art is epistemological—not by an appeal to tradition as such. Abstract painters ignore the epistemological requirements of visual perception and representation. This, in short, is why ‘abstract painting’ is not art. When I said that abstract painting is not art—that it is…well, paint on a canvas, I didn’t mean it as hyperbole.

There is a reason why I asked you where the “art begins” in that other post. Is it from the time a person purchases paints and canvas? Does it start the moment paint is applied to the canvas in an arbitrary manner? Does it begin when paint is accidentally spilled on the canvas? Does it begin the moment we bring an animal into the procedure? Or does the artistry begin when a skilled craftsman paints something that represents something meaningful that speaks—in some manner—of the human condition, something that is discernable and intelligible?

And one more thing, Brant: DJFsdsdndfhhf658484f8$$$# -----RRUD$$#

What’s that you ask? Exactly.

-Victor

Edited February 9, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The most interesting attempt as been Michael’s talks of “entities” in abstract painting How ironic is that? Jonathan is correct in saying that abstract painting is ‘theory-driven’ and what is being driven is an absolute subjectivism. They wanted a world of 'pure spirit'--entities free.

Victor,

I don't even know why I am bothering right now. This statement is the kind of thing you get so wrong that I get a strong urge to explain it. Except you don't understand, ever. You keep repeating the either-or stuff without even looking. (Define "entity" for example.) I can't tell whether you really don't understand, or because of the bombast, you are sidestepping on purpose.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Victor, one last time: Where does the art stop and the abstraction (not art) begin? Define art so I'll know I'm looking or not looking at art. I need to know who the enemy is so I can go out and whack him. I mean, I don't want to off a Dali by mistake.

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

Victor, one last time: Where does the art stop and the abstraction (not art) begin? Define art so I'll know I'm looking or not looking at art. I need to know who the enemy is so I can go out and whack him. I mean, I don't want to off a Dali by mistake.

--Brant

Brant,

You have been dealing with Ortho-Objectivists too long and you have, it would seem, mistaken me for one! You have done so to the point that...well, I don't think you're now really listening to me. I have answered your question, truly I have. If you don't wish to grasp it or accept my answer, that is up to you. No biggie.

Victor

[Victor Pross]

The most interesting attempt as been Michael’s talks of “entities” in abstract painting How ironic is that? Jonathan is correct in saying that abstract painting is ‘theory-driven’ and what is being driven is an absolute subjectivism. They wanted a world of 'pure spirit'--entities free.

Victor,

I don't even know why I am bothering right now. This statement is the kind of thing you get so wrong that I get a strong urge to explain it. Except you don't understand, ever. You keep repeating the either-or stuff without even looking. (Define "entity" for example.) I can't tell whether you really don't understand, or because of the bombast, you are sidestepping on purpose.

Michael

Michael,

I'm pressed for time now, but I will follow up on THIS post when I have the time later tonight. I do want to pursue this question.

-Victor

[Danneskjold]

Painting and art, as I understand it, separate themselves once there is the introduction of a concept (human being, building, etc.) that is capable of showing (not making someone feel) a statement/metaphysical value judgment.

That is my current (and not well rooted) definition. For the reason I draw the line there, look here on the Art and Subobjectivity thread.

[Kevin Haggerty]

Hey Brant,

I doubt Victor's gonna be able to tell you where art ends and abstraction begins because these are not objective categories. Paint-on-canvas, and paint-not-on-canvas is an objective distinction anyone can make. But as it has been demonstrated with Mondrian's three "tree" paintings in the other thread, the supposed line between "the figurative" and "the abstract" can be as whimsical as whether the artist chooses to name the thing "apple tree" or "untitled #26."

Victor has stated that FLW's stained glass windows were "design" and not "art" because they lacked figurative elements. But that begs the question, "What about designs and patterns that include figurative elements?" Would a kitschy little pink and yellow bunny and easter egg pattern on the border of a Hallmark card be considered art because design "by definition" is non-figurative?

How 'bout this: what if we were to take one of FLW's stained glass designs and put a big smiling face of Bugs Bunny in the middle of it. As far as Victor has let us in on his objective definition, such a thing would have to be considered art because of Bugs's mug learing at you. Okay then, objectively speaking, how small could Bugs Bunny's visage be before the work ceased to be art? You think we could get an "official ruling" on how many centimetres across the figurative element within a graphic work needs to be in order to comfortably call the thing art? What about uncomfortably?

Hey, I'm a artist, with oodles of experience, so here's my personal non-objectivist, but about as objective as I think the subject can bear, definition:

All art is emotional autobiography. I mean this from the point of view of its creator as well as the point of view of its audience (the first audience for any work is the artist him or herself). When a work of art moves us, it connects with our own experience of life as we've lived it. It puts a name or a face to something we've known. And we honor the work with the title "art." If the thing doesn't move us, who cares what it is? It doesn't matter to us and we move on to things worthy of our time. And as for the artist who creates something that doesn't touch him deeply, he's a hack or a poser.

I'm always happy when someone enjoys a work of art that I cannot, because I recognize that the vast majority of people in our culture who've chosen to live as artists, do so against great odds. Setting out to be an artist in the first place is usually an heroic action in itself, worthy of praise. Rand's The Fountainhead illustrates what I mean to a "T." Yes there are orthodoxies, and yes, untalented fools can attatch themselves to this or that style or movement and "rise in the ranks" like a Peter Keating, but Rand shows us the inner misery to which such choices invariably subject the individual. Peter is a perfect example of the would-be artist who chooses to create that which means nothing to him. Peter doesn't know himself or really care to--he has no self esteme--and that is why he is unable to create art--not because he has no talent or skill, but because he is shallow.

What if I were to say that real art is deep and fake art is shallow? I think we could all agree that Victor's examples of post-modern gimmickry are shallow works. Our ability to create art is dependant on our ability to appreciate art. Our ability to appreciate art of any kind is the product of introspection, a product of intimacy with ourselves. One of the most exciting things to my mind about art, is that when we love a work of art, it makes us all aspiring artists when we make the effort to share our love for the thing with others. Art evokes aesthetic contemplation, and when we express our thoughts about a given work of art we are spontaniously formulating our own theories of art on the spot.

I like this definition of mine, because anyone can easily apply it to any of the works we've discussed in this vast, viral multi-thread. We may disagree on how well a work reflects our lives, but I think the disagreements would make for rewarding conversation. Try it, it's fun! I'll start us off. My Bugs Bunny stained glass window idea, no matter how big his head is, would not qualify as art in my book. Of course, I could give it the title "Straw Man" and it might get some play in certain circles. ;)

-Kevin

[Victor Pross]

Kevin,

Wow, dude, you really are getting snotty lately. I think I’ve pressed some buttons here—and merely for expressing my views. What a bastard I am. Well, in all fairness, I have been irked as well, so it all evens out well.

Well, I must say from the start that I’m not the least bit impressed with your argument, but I do enjoy many of your posts and we are not in total disagreement. That's good, I think.

The problem I have with the thrust of your post on this thread is this: your attempt to “blur the lines” between figurative painting and design hardly establishes a foundation for abstract painting (if indeed that was your attempt). See, presenting a "problem" in one area (figure representational painting and design—and can we know the difference?) does not make the case for another area (abstract painting). Do you follow my point here? I hope so.

Is your argument thus: Can we really differentiate between figurative painting and design? It seems that the lines are blurry—therefore abstract painting is art!

If I were to follow your line of reasoning and satirize it, it would go something like this:

"Why should sexual consent be at the age of eighteen and not seventeen? After all, there are many seventeen-year olds who are way more mature than people well in their twenties. So the line is kind of blurry here. Ergo, toilet installations are art!" :baby:

Yeah, I know I’m stretching it a bit, but I can’t help but laugh.

Being serious again. Before I address your post any further, is that what you were attempting to do? What is it that you are really trying to establish? In all fairness, you may not agree with me, but I have made my views very clear and have tried, to the best of my ability, to state my reasons.

**

Brant,

Kevin wrote: "I doubt Victor's gonna be able to tell you where art ends and abstraction begins because these are not objective categories."

I don't know what he is talking about.

I want to make clear what I have said elsewhere: representational paintings have within them an “abstract idea” given that it is representational--whereas so-called “abstract art” has neither an “abstraction” nor “art”, but it does have a lot of paint though. Yes, lots of paint....I'll give it that.

-Victor

Edited February 9, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

The most interesting attempt as been Michael’s talks of “entities” in abstract painting How ironic is that? Jonathan is correct in saying that abstract painting is ‘theory-driven’ and what is being driven is an absolute subjectivism. They wanted a world of 'pure spirit'--entities free.

Victor,

I don't even know why I am bothering right now. This statement is the kind of thing you get so wrong that I get a strong urge to explain it. Except you don't understand, ever. You keep repeating the either-or stuff without even looking. (Define "entity" for example.) I can't tell whether you really don't understand, or because of the bombast, you are sidestepping on purpose.

Michael

Michael,

You asked me to define 'entity' and I am hereby offering the Objectivist approach, but it will be of course nothing new to you. But I am curious as to where this is going in regards to art. [??] Here we go:

An entity is a dividing up of existence and is an “axiomatic concept” but not a basic axiom...if I recall my OPAR indoctrination. ;] The “law of identity” states that an entity will have a certain kind of nature under a given set of circumstances and will have no other nature under those conditions. An action can only be performed by an entity. That is, there can be no such thing as an action that does not involve an entity. In the Objectivist view, the law of causality is basically the law of identity applied to action. So, causality is a corollary of identity.

-Victor

Edited February 9, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Brant Gaede]

To sum up my position: Abstract painting is as much art as anything else might be and it's created by artists. I'm not telling anybody he isn't an artist because his work isn't "objective" or moral or something I like. That's because I have a problem with intimations of authority, with telling people to shut up. My approach to these things is becoming more Milton Friedman and less Ayn Rand.

--Brant

Edited February 9, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Victor Pross]

To sum up my position: Abstract painting is as much art as anything else might be and it's created by artists. I'm not telling anybody he isn't an artist because his work isn't "objective" or moral or something I like. That's because I have a problem with intimations of authority, with telling people to shut up. My approach to these things is becoming more Milton Friedman and less Ayn Rand.

--Brant

Brant, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from and I can appreciate that. Let me see if I have it right: If a person tells you that the world is flat…well, who are you tell him he is wrong! Hee-hee, how sweet. Still, creating art does not mean ignoring the properties of the medium and the audience, pretending that they either don't exist or can be anything and that novelty is itself the goal of art, not the actual artistic expression of ideas. To expect standards (as you would in any other department of life) does not make you an esthetic dictator. There is no "final authority" in these matters. I recall Rand's article "Who is the final authority in ethics" for some reason. I think the basic thrust of what she tried to communicate there...can apply here.

-Victor

edit: "To sum up my position: Abstract painting is as much art as anything else might be and it's created by artists."

Art is created by artists, huh? Can you say 'circular'? :turned: Wow, talk about begging the question. Is that your defintion of 'art'? Finally, Milton Friedman didn’t compromise his capitalistic economics with the principles of socialism, and if he did…is that what you applaud?

**

Edited February 9, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Kevin,

I'd like to say "thanks" for your detailing why Victor has not presented a consistently applicable differentiator between "art" and "design." I could disagree with your own proferred definition of "art." You wrote:

Hey, I'm a artist, with oodles of experience, so here's my personal non-objectivist, but about as objective as I think the subject can bear, definition:

All art is emotional autobiography.

Reading that, such thoughts sprang to my mind as...well, then what of something like Beethoven's 2nd symphony, composed when he was in the midst of severe crisis over his encroaching deafness but generally described -- I haven't read any contrary description, though Rand might have said otherwise if she ever heard the work -- as "cheerful" in tone?

But I think I understand where you're coming from with the definition. Also that whatever differences you and I might have over details of defining the field of "art," we're much on the same wavelength as regards what is and isn't "the real stuff" we're talking about.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

I'd like to say "thanks" for your detailing why Victor has not presented a consistently applicable differentiator between "art" and "design."

Ellen wants to say thanks? That's bloody strange. Darn, Ellen is not convinced. Well, Brant was happy with it. :aww:

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I don't speak for Kevin, but I seriously don't think he was being snotty. I think he cares—and cares deeply—about the issue he is discussing. I would say he cares about that much more than he cares about Victor. He mentioned your stated positions, never you as a person, because that's where the ideas were. (Like the bank robber, on being asked why he robbed banks, stated, "That's where the money is.")

I find it inconceivable that Kevin would call you "snotty" simply because you disagreed with him and mentioned where.

Besides, I find it difficult to call anything involving Bugs Bunny "snotty."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I want to direct this comment to you, although Kevin was the culprit who indirectly brought it up. I feel an emotion at times that I identify as "aesthetic outrage." As an example, I feel this on seeing the Mona Lisa with a moustache painted on it (and maybe pushing that button was Duchamp's point at the time.) Something like that comes across as the height of disrespect. I know I can stand back and cut off the feeling and try to see it through another perspective, but "aesthetic outrage" is my gut reaction.

While reading Kevin's post, I got that same feeling from trying to see Bugs Bunny's mug plastered on the stained glass windows by Frank Llyod Wright. Here was the representational completely cheapening the abstract to the point of disrespect. (I admit that I quickly channeled the anger into humor because Bugs is too damn cute to get angry about.)

Did you get the same feeling?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

To sum up my position: Abstract painting is as much art as anything else might be and it's created by artists. I'm not telling anybody he isn't an artist because his work isn't "objective" or moral or something I like. That's because I have a problem with intimations of authority, with telling people to shut up. My approach to these things is becoming more Milton Friedman and less Ayn Rand.

--Brant

Brant, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from and I can appreciate that. Let me see if I have it right: If a person tells you that the world is flat…well, who are you tell him he is wrong! Hee-hee, how sweet. Still, creating art does not mean ignoring the properties of the medium and the audience, pretending that they either don't exist or can be anything and that novelty is itself the goal of art, not the actual artistic expression of ideas. To expect standards (as you would in any other department of life) does not make you an esthetic dictator. There is no "final authority" in these matters. I recall Rand's article "Who is the final authority in ethics" for some reason. I think the basic thrust of what she tried to communicate there...can apply here.

-Victor

edit: "To sum up my position: Abstract painting is as much art as anything else might be and it's created by artists."

Art is created by artists, huh? Can you say 'circular'? :turned: Wow, talk about begging the question. Is that your defintion of 'art'? Finally, Milton Friedman didn’t compromise his capitalistic economics with the principles of socialism, and if he did…is that what you applaud?

**

Victor, I summed up my position because I am leaving this discussion reference your refusal or inability to explain what abstract art or painting is in contrast to "objective" or "representational" art. My "circular" argument is only my way of not sanctioning your jihad against artists who make art you don't think is art, say Pollock or Picasso, by saying their work isn't art and they aren't artists. Milton Friedman stated his positions forcefully and clearly but wasted no time on the character of his opponents. That doesn't mean I value his ideas or agree with his ideas more than Rand's.

--Brant

Edited February 9, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[reason.on]

I don't speak for Kevin, but I seriously don't think he was being snotty.

That damn shadow-self, again...........

RCR

"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

— Dr. Carl G. Jung

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

I want to direct this comment to you, although Kevin was the culprit who indirectly brought it up. I feel an emotion at times that I identify as "aesthetic outrage." As an example, I feel this on seeing the Mona Lisa with a moustache painted on it (and maybe pushing that button was Duchamp's point at the time.) Something like that comes across as the height of disrespect. I know I can stand back and cut off the feeling and try to see it through another perspective, but "aesthetic outrage" is my gut reaction.

While reading Kevin's post, I got that same feeling from trying to see Bugs Bunny's mug plastered on the stained glass windows by Frank Llyod Wright. Here was the representational completely cheapening the abstract to the point of disrespect. (I admit that I quickly channeled the anger into humor because Bugs is too damn cute to get angry about.)

Did you get the same feeling?

Michael

Oh, yes. I'll tell you the first time I recall getting that feeling. It was when I was in early grade school. I went with my best friend of those years and her mother to visit a cemetery -- I think my friend's grandmother had been recently buried there; I don't remember for sure why we'd gone there. On one of the graves was a statue which at the time I thought was lovely; I might not have so high an opinion of it now as I did then, but back then the statue seemed to me beautiful. It was a woman, gracefully robed, tenderly and protectively bending toward the grave. Someone had painted bright red fingernail polish on the statue's finger- and toenails. I felt outraged, incensed that someone would do that.

I don't actually have this aesthetic outrage feeling at Duchamp's moustached Mona Lisa. To me it seems that there was a legitimate "point" being made, that the disrespect was directed not at Da Vinci but instead at mindless extolling of tradition because it's tradition. I don't know if this is what Duchamp had in mind, but it's how I "read" that particular case. The thought of the Bugs Bunny mug on the Frank Lloyd Wright stained-glass windows, however, I reacted to with a feeling of nausea.

Ellen

___

[Kevin Haggerty]

...well, then what of something like Beethoven's 2nd symphony, composed when he was in the midst of severe crisis over his encroaching deafness but generally described -- I haven't read any contrary description, though Rand might have said otherwise if she ever heard the work -- as "cheerful" in tone?

Hey Ellen,

Thanks for your reply. I guess the word "autobiography" has a certain "journalistic" connotation--"I was feeling glum so I made a glum painting," but I didn't mean to suggest that art is some kind of glorified diary entry. That was why I qualified it as emotional autobiography, to distance it from literal day to day happenings. Perhaps I could call it "spiritual autobiography" as long as folks trusted that I wasn't trying to import any christianoid nonsense into the discussion, because art properly connects us to our deepest natures.

With respect to Beethoven, I would say that he indeed had to reach deep to come up with "cheerful" in the face of incipient deafness. One of the amazing powers of art is its ability to take our greatest pain and suffering and transmute it into beauty. And please don't mistake my use of the word "deep" to mean "ultra-serious" or "hifalutin"--a belly laugh comes from as deep a place in us as a sigh.

As I understand it, art is a universal human need. Either we find the art we need in the culture around us, or we must create it ourselves. It is in its capacity as a reflector of our inner lives that I think of art as intrinsically autobiographical. When we say we love a certain work of art, don't we mean that it expresses some deep unspoken part of ourselves?

-Kevin