Awesome Heroic Sculpture by Living Artist

[Newberry]

A poignant contrast to Zarathustra, is this exhibition by Hirst opening this week in NY.Review in the NY Times. Thanks to Ginnie for the link.

Hirst is a postmodern visual artist. This 2 year project came with a price tag of 10 million. He is called an "idea" man, he comes up with an idea, and then has a small army of workers implement his ideas. It is an exhibition of dead animals. Hirst doesn't draw, paint, or sculpt, yet, he is one of today's preeminent visual aritsts. (!)

I would say this comparison is a perfect visual analogy of Rand's Romantic Manifesto and Kant's Critique of Pure Judgment. I am a little rushed for time now, but the broad outline is that Rand grounded aesthetics to our senses, and our conceptual faculty, with a slant towards a love of existence. Kant grounded his in that the highest reaches, the sublime, "...does violence to our imaginations," and that it can be formless. Painting, drawing, sculpture are forms. "Conceptual art" that centers on a idea but can be manifested by literally any means: dead animals, frozen blood sculptures, piss, shit, Vaseline, bubble gum, playdough, rocks, body parts, etc, etc. ad absurdum are not forms. For example you wouldn't have a Vaselinist, a playdoughist, taxidermist (oops, you do have that but they are not artists, ;) you get the idea.)

I think the significant debate here is whether you want to support, for your spiritual fuel, formless pathologies or passionate figurative art. Or maybe you just want to shit on the messenger? And, I guess, a forth possibility is someone who doesn't choose.

Cheers,

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Virginia;

My "Can't we all get along" is my attempt to lighten things up. I glad you like them.

Just to repeat I like the sculpture. I also like Michael's paintings.

Michael Newberry is very good. I would not put him in the great category yet.

He's still young.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Jonathan]

Maybe I am an anomaly . . . maybe it is strange to believe that calling someone a "jackass," sarcastically referring to him as "Supreme Master," telling him that he lacks a "sense of security" are not words that are conducive to a productive debate. Anomaly or not, I stand by my belief.

Let's go back over the events, and examine why I responded to Newberry in the ways that I did, and why I think that his behavior was not "conducive to a productive debate":

In post #9, I gave my view of the sculpture (my post was not addressed to Newberry, and it makes no reference to him or his ideas). In post #11, MSK responded, mentioning that his perspective was different from mine. Others then joined in and gave their opinions. Newberry returned in post #22, not to talk about the sculpture, but to presume to chide everyone for their "subjective opinions" and for not using enough care in getting from A to B, while not yet having contributed anything himself to the discussion of the sculpture's merits other than the title of the thread. My take on his post was that he didn't appear to have much interest in speaking to others as intelligent adults, but as if they were naughty students who hadn't properly completed an assignment that he imagined he had given them. It seemed that he was pretty interested in being seen as our Supreme Master.

I returned in post #28 to elaborate on my views in response to MSK, and, in doing so, I threw in a little humor at the expense of certain Objectivists, and some of that humor refers to a history, again, that you might not be aware of. Notice that I said I was glad that the sculpture connected with MSK, despite the fact that our opinions of it differed. If Newberry had commented on the sculpture, instead of trying to make sure that everyone knew that he was the Supreme Master in charge of slapping wrists and scolding everyone on how they should properly discuss the sculpture, I might have replied to him as politely as I did to MSK. Instead I took him up on the topics that he seemed to be interested in.

In post #29, I laughed at the fact that he wasn't following his own advice. In post #30, I pointed out something that I thought he might have missed when he was reprimanding others.

He returned in post #32, presuming to advise me again on how to properly experience and discuss art, with the promised reward that I would grow in the process. It sounded like typical Newberrian Kung-Fu Master advice, so I couldn't help but laugh and ask about snatching pebbles from his hand. He still wasn't discussing the sculpture, but trying to control others. In other words, he was behaving like a jackass and a self-important clown.

In post #35, he was still chiding me, and he seemed more interested in talking about the wonderfulness of Newberry than the sculpture. When people behave like he does -- including not just the constant self-admiration but the rash judgments of others because they simply have different tastes -- I tend to see it as an issue of insecurity, which is why I mentioned it. I sincerely hope that some day he'll be able to behave like MSK and I did -- to politely disagree without throwing around accusations of cynicism and angst, and without trying to control how everyone discusses a topic.

Does that help you to better understand my use of "jackass," "Supreme Master," and "sense of security"?

I stand by what I said regarding Michael and his posts. It is what it is, therefore, clarification isn't necessary. I certainly won't accept another person's dictum regarding my views.

The "dictum" that I offered regarding your views is the judgment that Michael made of others. So you're basically saying that you "won't accept" what you've stated that you "stand by."

Your most interesting and productive posts were in response to anyone other than Michael. For instance, one of your most enlightening posts (for me, anyway) was #111 in response to Ms. Ellen Stuttle...

Sure, but notice that Ellen was discussing the sculpture rather than preening and trying to control how others discussed the sculpture.

J

[Jonathan]

Innumerable times J has called me a hypocrite concerning a sketch of mine, Rend, and its relationship to one part of my manifesto, To Bring Forth Shimmering Passion, Not to Wallow in Despair. (I will concentrate on this one point.)

I've tried to be clear in saying that I've been questioning what appears to be your hypocrisy on the subject of presenting pain in your art, and that I'm very open to hearing your answers to my questions, and adjusting my opinions accordingly. So far you've avoided addressing them. I'm glad that you're now trying to be substantive.

It is a strange feeling to be challenged to justify it, as the manifesto states my motivations in art. But there are people out there that, in good faith, would like to understand what this is about. So I will address them.

My concerns are not based only on the information contained in your manifesto, but also on the many conversations we've had in the past about your theories of interpreting and judging art. What I've been doing is applying your methods of judging others' art to your art. In case there's any confusion, my purpose is not to negatively judge your art, but to point out the absurdity of the aestetic theories that you use to negatively judge others' art, in light of the fact that you wouldn't apply the same methods or standards to your own darker works.

The Passion segment in the video presentation begins around 4:50, starts with a few drawings from series on the theme of mourning, and moves through to my principal works expressing themes of contentment and joy. Rend is a 9 or 10 hour drawing. That represents about 1/5,000th of time I have put into art. That is a significant point, which I will bring up shortly.

One of the observable technical aspects to my work is the light. I often use the light as a metaphor for the radiance of the human spirit. Many people have commented that it seems as if the light were coming from the person. The concept of bringing out the light in my is always present while I am working. As I use light both technically and metaphorically, I used the word, shimmer, to give a suggestion of this.

I don't think that all of these "outside considerations" are necessary to judging Rend by your own methods and standards. The content of your other works, the amount of time spent on Rend versus other pieces, what a joyous person you think you are, and your intentions of using light as a metaphor for the radiance of the human spirit are all irrelevant to judging the art, at least according to your stated views. You've publicly highlighted Rend and other images of pain and emptiness as examples of your art. That's all we need to know: it's art.

This brings us to the concept of mourning and whether it is meaningful in human life. For me, it is an important because it simultaneously honors the significant dead, and it stresses the awareness of being alive. For me, mourning is a pro-active process that is absolutely necessary to heal and grow when the situation arises.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, your method of judging others' art hasn't been so generous or nuanced. Your past position has been that when something is included in a work of art, it takes on metaphysical significance and presents a "world view," which means something like "essential view of existence." By such methods, Rend presents the "world view" that the essence of existence is agony.

And, again, relying on "outside considerations" is a no-no according to you, so, based only on the visual information in Rend, we can't possibly know that the figure's pain is in honor of the "significant dead." There are no visual clues to give the viewer any indication of why the figure is in pain. One could say that he's experiencing a causeless despair. All we can know is that he is in agony, and that by your standards of judging other artists' art, the "world view" presented by Rend is that agony is mankind's natural state.

Here are some examples of your method that I've quoted before:

"Deformity in art has unmistakable metaphysical and symbolic connotations, none of them good."

"A deformed human engaging in a heroic struggle, especially as a solitary figure in sculpture, conveys that humanity is in essence a mangled heap but destined to 'try' their best; no matter how 'successful' they become they will never be whole."

"Nothing will change the fact that a mangled body is not a standard for human ideal or for the heroic."

"Physicality in painting and sculpture convey much, much more than they do in reality—the form of the human body is the means to convey emotions and thoughts: a mangled body equals a sub-human soul."

Now let's take these quotes and plug in "agony" in place of "deformity" and "mangled":

"Agony in art has unmistakable metaphysical and symbolic connotations, none of them good."

"An agonized human...especially as a solitary figure...conveys that humanity is in essence agonized...they will never be happy."

"Nothing will change the fact that agony is not a standard for human ideal or for the heroic."

"Physicality in painting and sculpture convey much, much more than they do in reality—the form of the human body is the means to convey emotions and thoughts: an agonized figure equals a sub-human soul."

Wallowing in despair congers up, for me, people who enjoy being pathetic, who want sympathy for their self-inflicted scars, or who mourn getting caught at trying to get away with something.

Here you have shifted to the ungenerous, not-so-nuanced method of interpretation that you typically reserve for art, created by others, which you want to judge negatively.

Scars could imply the hardships that life has imposed on the figure, just as a hardship has been imposed on the figure in your Rend. They could imply social impositions or expectations which the figure rejects and wishes to confront the viewer with. I find it odd that you would post an image of Saville's Branded as an example of wallowing in despair, being pathetic, or wanting sympathy. I see the figure as confronting the viewer, refusing to be ashamed of her form, and perhaps refusing to accept current social definitions of what it means to be a woman, or of what form a woman's body should take. I see it as defiance and self-acceptance.

Aside from that, I'm wondering how we would determine what constitutes "wallowing"? Some artists deal with agony much more frequently in their art than you do. Does that make them more wallowy than you? I'm all but 100% certain that I've experienced more devastating losses of loved ones in my life than you have, going back to my father when I was about 2 years old, yet I've not dealt with the issue of loss or agony in my art anywhere near as much as you have. Does that make you more wallowy than me?

J

[Philip Coates]

mamma he did it first you called me a weiner before i called you a weiner

[Jonathan]

mamma he did it first you called me a weiner before i called you a weiner

Phil,

I don't know if your comment was directed at me, but, if it was, I'm not whining to "mamma." I enjoy a variety of different styles of conversation. If someone wants to share intelligent discussion, friendly, light chatter, their deepest emotions, or sharp witticisms, I can roll with it all. I just wanted to make it clear to Virginia that if someone she looks up to, like Michael Newberry, chooses chest-thumping, name-calling or cutting remarks, or even schoolmarm-like behavior as the type of conversation that he wants to have, Virginia shouldn't be too puzzled as to why I'm not responding to him in the same way that I'm responding to people who have chosen to have intelligent, respectful, substantive conversations.

J

[Philip Coates]

Jonathan,

Not exclusively at you but to everyone who does what I parodied.

God knows it's tempting to take one more counter-shot at somebody. I sometimes get sucked into responding to unfair personal stuff, but more often it's best to shrug them off - walk away from any discussion with the individual. At least, on those rare occasions where you respond, one tries to keep it short and not multi-post or ongoing or the length of a whole page:

1) One doesn't really have to defend oneself from every attack - I faced a lot of silly ones on SoloP for example. They fall of their own weight and one can't worry if a few gullible or shallow people believe them. Do you not have better things to do with your time?

2) There is no reason to 'broadcast' all these fights in the form of posts to people, random readers who are not involved. They cannot usually judge and/or do not want to waste the time - it is uninteresting. Why does anyone care to peruse point - counterpoint of your feud with Michael N. Don't THEY have anything better to do with their time?

3) It takes over a thread and squeezes out an intellectual discussion.

I'm sure of two things: One, that what I've just said is completely rational and convincing. Two, that many who claim to live by Objectivism will not be persuaded by a rational argument which overrides their anger, emotions, impulses. And reqauires them to monitor their own behavior instead of finding fault with everyone else in the world. Instead they will try to 'rationalize' a response or rebuttal to what I've just argued.

[Jonathan]

Instead they will try to 'rationalize' a response or rebuttal to what I've just argued.

Well, who can argue with that?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Why does anyone care to peruse point - counterpoint of your feud with Michael N. Don't THEY have anything better to do with their time?

I guess I don't, although I have SO much else to do at this time, I looked at OL proceedings only to read this thread. The "point - counterpoint" of the "feud" (more significantly, of the difference in approach to aesthetics) between Jonathan and Newberry interests me quite a bit.

And guess what: Along with not finding what you said "completely rational and convincing," I'm not an Objectivist, or trying to find "fault with everyone else in the world" (not even with you, Phil), or to rationalize anything. I was, however, curious enough about this particular thread, I couldn't resist looking.

Ellen

___

[Newberry]

From this recent wave of postings, the most interesting fact, for me is that, at 2 years old, Jonathan's father passed away. The most pleasurable were Ginnie's posts. And the most shocking was that Phil agreed with me after reviewing the context. Now, I am going to take advice from Phil--I do have a host of projects that will be better served by doing them.

(Edit: and to thank Ellen for her post above, it is appreciated.)

(Edit: and an irresistible urge to part with the idea that Phil should not be allowed to use the word, "parodied." ;))

Cheers,

Michael

Edited November 12, 2007 by Newberry

[Chris Grieb]

During the VietNam War a senator suggested that we should declare victory and withdraw.

Michael I think you have just done that in this discussion. Good for you!

[Jonathan]

Why does anyone care to peruse point - counterpoint of your feud with Michael N. Don't THEY have anything better to do with their time?

I guess I don't, although I have SO much else to do at this time, I looked at OL proceedings only to read this thread. The "point - counterpoint" of the "feud" (more significantly, of the difference in approach to aesthetics) between Jonathan and Newberry interests me quite a bit.

And guess what: Along with not finding what you said "completely rational and convincing," I'm not an Objectivist, or trying to find "fault with everyone else in the world" (not even with you, Phil), or to rationalize anything. I was, however, curious enough about this particular thread, I couldn't resist looking.

Ellen

___

Thanks, Ellen.

Phil's categorization of my disagreements with Michael as a "feud" is something that I'm tempted to categorize as an example of an Objectivist who views aesthetics as a "mostly frivolous topic," as I had mentioned in my post #218 (but I wouldn't necessarily categorize Phil as a fan of Michael's work).

From this recent wave of postings, the most interesting fact, for me is that, at 2 years old, Jonathan's father passed away.

Then it might also be of interest to some here that I got a new dad a couple of years after my biological father died. He raised me as his own, and I love him dearly. I'd rate my family life as ideal. I couldn't have asked for better parents.

J

Edited November 12, 2007 by Jonathan

[Newberry]

I would like to thank everyone who commented on this thread as it has been helpful for my upcoming review of Zarathustra.

The New Individualist will debut it under my column The Artist's I, in the April issue.

Cheers,

Michael