Visual Art Qua Visual Art

[Ellen Stuttle]

I see that Frishmuth's Wikipedia entry says that she frequently used dancer Desha Delteil as a model. Here, here and here are photos of Delteil (of course, we should keep in mind that none of these photos would qualify as art according to the Objectivist Esthetics, since they merely mechanically capture people and objects as they exist in reality).

Not to mention that, though I am mentioning it, I wonder what would be said about the dancer. I never did find out just what was the objection to modern dance. Tap dancing was ok, but...

I recall Allan starting one segment of his music course -- in which he had sections about relationships to parallel developments in other art forms -- with the comment "Ever since Isadora Duncan threw off her ballet shoes [...]" (he continued with a slighting remark, the details of which I don't recall, about modern dance).

Possibly he doesn't still make these slighting remarks in the revised, post-his-and-Joan's-break-with-Ayn course.

Ellen

___

[Newberry]

More interesting, to me, however, are her statements:

In nearly all cases, the objects in the paintings were chosen for their shapes and sensual textures, and arranged to either harmonize or contrast these. So the stones set a harmonizing pattern across the painting, but the rough stones contrast with the smooth ones, giving variation within the pattern. The glass vase contrasts with the burlap, both in texture and in suggestion of refinement versus rudeness. And so on.

and

When I compose a painting, I have general ideas about the mood I want in it, and the kinds of objects, and then I pick and discard objects, rearrange and light them until I have a composition that entices me. This process is only partly conscious. Much of it is subconscious (though drawing on my knowledge of the principles of composition), with my conscious participation mainly being one of editor, or analyst asking why something looks good or wrong, but the creation and judgment are mainly subconscious.

and

The objects are only part of the picture. More of the theme is achieved by the composition and rendering, and here there is not only the matter of unifying and contrasting shapes and textures, but also the contrasts of empty and full spaces, the paths I lead your eye in, and the careful modulation of edges, with some of them very sharp and others very diffused. I think selective focus is very important.

It sounds to me as if Mann has been influenced by the theories behind abstract art, perhaps without knowing it, while also rejecting them elsewhere on her site.

Since the objects chosen for her paintings have no symbolic or narrative meaning, but are selected and arranged based on their abstract visual qualities -- their shapes, textures and ability to harmonize or contrast with each other, and to "entice" Mann -- how does she fail to grasp, as she does when rejecting non-objective art here, Kandinsky's (and others') view that there is no difference between, on the one hand, painting likenesses of objects which have no symbolic or representational meaning but are chosen for their color and texture according to the harmony or contrast that they can bring to a composition, and, on the other hand, painting shapes which do not mimic real objects but which, instead, directly fulfill the artist's compositional requirements of color, texture, harmony and contrast, and satisfy his "mainly subconscious" judgments, like Mann's, about "why something looks good or wrong"?

For me there is one difference--abstraction is a tool. It seems to me that purely abstract artists use abstraction as their content, their end, and their means. To say there is no difference is not very exact.

Michael

[Jonathan]

For me there is one difference--abstraction is a tool. It seems to me that purely abstract artists use abstraction as their content, their end, and their means.

That's not accurate. Abstraction is the means, but not necessarily the content or the end, just as abstract patterns of sounds are the means but not necessarily the end or the content of music.

To say there is no difference is not very exact.

Okay, then I'll be more precise: There is no essential or relevant difference between purely abstract art and Mann's art if the objects she depicts have no symbolic or narrative meaning.

Well, okay, there's possibly one difference, which is that the meaningless objects in her paintings are likely to cause confusion in viewers who reasonably expect them to have symbolic or narrative meaning, where there is no such potential confusion in purely abstract art.

J

[Newberry]

abstract art = representational art?

[Jonathan]

abstract art = representational art?

No.

"I painted this non-symbolic likeness of an object and put it here on this part of the canvas because I was enticed by its color, texture, contrast and harmony" = "I painted this colored abstract shape and put it here on this part of the canvas because I was enticed by its color, texture, contrast and harmony."

J

[Newberry]

Looks like crossed wires to me.

[anonrobt]

Considering how you are all viewing Linda Mann's works, what would you consider of these -

www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com ?

As for her works as I see them - for one, despite an artist claiming there is no symbolism involved in the objects presented in the works, all art as such deal with symbols as a consequence of their being selected from their fundamentality as worthy of being important enough to present [as opposed to being not included - the 'selective re-presentation' aspect] ... consequently, her shapes as such imply a purity in forms which, thru the detailing, ties into reality as elevating the seeming common into a rarified universality...

Edited November 21, 2008 by anonrobt

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

anonrobt,

Hello Robert.

Welcome to OL.

Michael

[anonrobt]

anonrobt,

Hello Robert.

Welcome to OL.

Michael

thought had been listed on this way way back, but if so, no longer remember under what name... and yes, forgot of this place until reminded me by Stephen...

[Jonathan]

Considering how you are all viewing Linda Mann's works, what would you consider of these -

www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com ?

Your style and sense of design, to me, evokes feelings similar to those induced by the art of Roberto Innocenti and Maurice Sendak. Your work is interesting and visually rather light, but it has something of an unsettling undertone. I don't know if it's the distorted (intentionally or otherwise) proportions, or your tastes in textures and shading, but everything seems to be almost anthropomorphized with personalities that include a slightly sinister flavor (something about your work reminds me of Mickey's infinite brooms in The Sorcerer's Apprentice). I'll think about it a little more and see if I can be more specific about what I experience in your art, and why.

J