The Art Instinct

[Jonathan]

Btw, my apologies to Xray. I haven't had any negative run-ins with you, and don't follow all of threads here, so I don't share others' frustration with you, but obviously JR used your name as an insult, so that's what I was responding to. I didn't mean to imply in the above post that I'm judging you negatively. I don't know enough about you to do so.

J

[Xray]

As I said here:

"Why would Rand specifically say that we must identify the artist's meaning and stress that we must use his theme as criterion if she actually meant that we should identify the artwork's theme? I've been under the impression that she was quite capable of saying exactly what she meant...

...Rand was clearly rejecting abstract art because she thought that it doesn't communicate, which means that it doesn't convey the artist's intended meaning. It was not enough for her that millions of people find meaning in abstract art based on the evidence contained in the art -- just as much meaning, if not more, than Rand found in music (and perhaps more than she found in figurative visual art). No, fans of abstract art were required to be able to identify the artist's meaning. They were required to understand his "communications"...

...since Rand did claim that she was identifying artists' themes and senses of life, and since she even went so far as to make psychological pronouncements about some of them based on her interpretations of their art, obviously she thought that she was identifying their intended meanings -- one cannot talk of an artist's alleged "inner conflicts" or "malevolent" view of existence unless she thinks she has identified his intended meaning." (Johnathan)

You aren't interested in understanding anything or learning anything. All you're interested in is "scoring" meaningless "points" against Rand by quibbling about non-essential details, infelicities of wording, etc.

JR clearly avoided addressing the points in Jonathan's post (which don't deal with "non-essential details" at all!)

Btw, my apologies to Xray. I haven't had any negative run-ins with you, and don't follow all of threads here, so I don't share others' frustration with you, but obviously JR used your name as an insult, so that's what I was responding to. I didn't mean to imply in the above post that I'm judging you negatively. I don't know enough about you to do so.

No problem at all on my part, Jonathan.

Riggenbach can't deal with criticism and that's why he gets so personal all the time.

One of his standard phrases with discussion opponents is obviously:

You aren't interested in understanding anything or learning anything.

You can bet your bottom dollar that when JR resorts to that phrase, you must have hit on something dead center, and that he does not want to admit you have been right.

And when Riggenbach realizes that he has not succeeded in pushing the other poster against the wall, he disappears from the discussion.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Xray

[Roger Bissell]

Btw, my apologies to Xray. I haven't had any negative run-ins with you, and don't follow all of threads here, so I don't share others' frustration with you, but obviously JR used your name as an insult, so that's what I was responding to. I didn't mean to imply in the above post that I'm judging you negatively. I don't know enough about you to do so.

No problem at all on my part, Jonathan.

Riggenbach can't deal with criticism and that's why he gets so personal all the time.

Unlike "Jonathan" and "Xray" (who the hell are these anonymous cowards, anyway?), who always employ the most objective, rational responses to those who criticize people or perspectives they like.

One of his standard phrases with discussion opponents is obviously:

You aren't interested in understanding anything or learning anything.

You can bet your bottom dollar that when JR resorts to that phrase, you must have hit on something dead center, and that he does not want to admit you have been right.

And you'd lose your dollar, bottom and all. All "Jonathan" has "hit on...dead center" is to clearly reveal that he totally misunderstands what is entailed in communication, and that he has read only enough Rand to find the best phrases to borrow in trying to trip up Objectivists in discussions, but without really trying to understand what she was talking about. That would be enough to send me heading for the exit, or at least to withdraw from an exchange of ideas with him. (Actually, I should say "him," since I have no evidence whether "Jonathan" is a he or a she, except for the name, which could be fake. Does anyone here know who this person is??)

And when Riggenbach realizes that he has not succeeded in pushing the other poster against the wall, he disappears from the discussion.

This suggests a rather cowardly motive to JR. If ~anyone~ doesn't merit such a slur, it would be JR. He has courageously articulated and defended his values publicly for over 40 years, and he has done so with his real name. Unlike some people on this list. No, I think it's quite clear why he bailed on the discussion, as I indicated above, and as he himself made amply clear in his posts.

REB

[PDS]

Btw, my apologies to Xray. I haven't had any negative run-ins with you, and don't follow all of threads here, so I don't share others' frustration with you, but obviously JR used your name as an insult, so that's what I was responding to. I didn't mean to imply in the above post that I'm judging you negatively. I don't know enough about you to do so.

No problem at all on my part, Jonathan.

Riggenbach can't deal with criticism and that's why he gets so personal all the time.

Unlike "Jonathan" and "Xray" (who the hell are these anonymous cowards, anyway?), who always employ the most objective, rational responses to those who criticize people or perspectives they like.

One of his standard phrases with discussion opponents is obviously:

You aren't interested in understanding anything or learning anything.

You can bet your bottom dollar that when JR resorts to that phrase, you must have hit on something dead center, and that he does not want to admit you have been right.

And you'd lose your dollar, bottom and all. All "Jonathan" has "hit on...dead center" is to clearly reveal that he totally misunderstands what is entailed in communication, and that he has read only enough Rand to find the best phrases to borrow in trying to trip up Objectivists in discussions, but without really trying to understand what she was talking about. That would be enough to send me heading for the exit, or at least to withdraw from an exchange of ideas with him. (Actually, I should say "him," since I have no evidence whether "Jonathan" is a he or a she, except for the name, which could be fake. Does anyone here know who this person is??)

And when Riggenbach realizes that he has not succeeded in pushing the other poster against the wall, he disappears from the discussion.

This suggests a rather cowardly motive to JR. If ~anyone~ doesn't merit such a slur, it would be JR. He has courageously articulated and defended his values publicly for over 40 years, and he has done so with his real name. Unlike some people on this list. No, I think it's quite clear why he bailed on the discussion, as I indicated above, and as he himself made amply clear in his posts.

REB

Roger: I agree with your assessment of JR. We should all feel lucky that he posts here, and I mean that. On the other hand, as one of the anonymous weenies you refer to, perhaps my opinion is meaningless...

Seriously, I work in a profession where, in the age of Google, a juror could punch in my name and learn all kinds of things about me to dislike. I had a juror tell me they had googled me just last week, and luckily all they learned was that I am a former Marine--a good bounce of the ball-- were he a latter day hippie, for instance, even that could have hurt my client's position.

Compounding such possibilities by using my real name would be too great a risk, I am afraid. If that makes me a coward, so be it, but, then again, because of my anonymity, I try not to insult others behind the veil of a nom de whatever. That seems like a minimal standard of behavior in such circumstances.

Edited February 2, 2011 by PDS

[Selene]

Thank you for your service PDS

[Roger Bissell]

Fine. Sorry to have interfered with your private party. It won't happen again.

Wow, another Mr. Pouty Pants? You throw shit at me by saying that I remind you of Xray and that I'm only trying to score points, and then you instantly turn into a poor little victim when I return the favor? If you can't handle my talking trash to you, then don't talk it to me.

I have to say that it's highly amusing to me that a trombone player is instructing me, a professional visual artist and sculptor (and also a musician), on the nature of the visual arts from a position of ignorance, as well asserting that Linda Mann isn't really creating meaningful art, and I'm the one you chose to accuse of not wanting to learn or understand. Heh.

You are certainly easily amused.

I also play piano, sing jazz and opera, conduct, compose, and arrange. (What kind of "musician" are ~you~?) I also do cartooning and architectural drawings. I have also read several books on visual art and on the philosophy of the visual arts. I happen to disagree philosophically with the modern theory of "significant form" and related concrete-bound, relativist theories as being adequate to explain what is really going on when visual artists claim to be simply painting objects and not also expressing a view of life. For this, I am accused of trying to "instruct" from "a position of ignorance." No, I am just defending a contrary point of view, and you can't stand it, so you have to attack my character and presumed level of knowledge.

You were accused of not wanting to learn or understand, because you argued, incorrectly, that Rand's view of communication is that an utterance's or artwork's meaning is just what someone's explicit, verbal message purports it to be. This is ridiculous on its face. If I say to someone, "I love you," while simultaneously scowling and gritting my teach, or having a deadpan face, what would ~you~ say the real meaning of my utterance is? Or if I say, "I have no feelings for you one way or the other," while looking at you with affection and desire, or disgust, or fear, or hatred?

Rand talked a good bit about the match or mismatch between a person's stated philosophy and his sense of life. It's clear that this also applies to a person's verbal statements in relation to his body language and facial expressions, as well as to an artist's rationalizations of what he has created in relation to the view of reality conveyed by his creation. But you wouldn't know this about Rand's views of communication, because as JR rightly pointed out, you do not want to learn or understand, just cherry-pick useful phrases with which to provoke people and derail productive discussion.

And while I'm on the subject, you have stated a blatant LIE. I did NOT say that "Linda Mann isn't really creating meaningful art," and you KNOW it. In post #63 of this thread, I wrote:

This is how Linda Mann's description of her artistic approach strikes me. Unprincipled, except for principles of technique. Not trying to "get across anything" about what is presented, just presenting it for something to look at and appreciate visually, with no broader meaning. Not trying to portray an orderly universe, just orderly objects. Not trying to portray a universe where life can be successful, just a thing that has had a successful life. Etc. Yet, whether the artist protests and denies it or not, it all adds up, doesn't it?

What part of "it all adds up" don't you get? I'm saying that Mann's ~description~ of what she is doing -- her explicit, verbal philosophy of painting (not sayin' anything about the world, just makin' significant, orderly objects, don'tcha know) -- is at odds with what she is ~in fact~ doing, making art that portrays a meaningful, orderly world. Whether or not she consistently portrays a world that is such, or that is one open to successful life or not, is not my concern. I was just addressing her ~description~, her ~claims~ about, what she is really doing when she does art.

Mann's modernist philosophy of art, or stated policy of what she is doing, says ~nothing~ about the merit or meaningfulness of what she creates. Her philosophy of art is just another one of those communication mismatches Rand talked about, like between philosophy and sense of life, or between the repeated public touting (sincerely or not) of Pragmatist anti-ideology and the ~fact~ of the steady, cumulative drift toward greater and greater statism from a succession of "practical, non-dogmatic, non-ideological solutions" that all just ~happen~ to increase government control over our lives.

This should have been abundantly, perhaps even mind-numbingly, clear from my previous post. It's not for nothing that I'm frequently accused here on OL of "preaching" and "instructing."

So, why say such a lie? Are you ~that~ anxious to "win" an argument (or draw me back into it? that you have to make shit up about me?

Now, do you want to have a grown-up conversation without the stupid shit?

Look in the mirror, and enjoy the rest of your masked, snarky monologue. I'm not going to address the rest of your caricatures and misrepresentations of my views, and I won't be back to this thread.

REB

P.S. -- PDS, I appreciate your responsible attitude toward anonymous online discussion. Please feel free to send me a private message at any time, in case you ever find yourself unable to make a civil response to something I post that upsets you. I'm sure we can work it out without either of us having to resort to personal attacks.

[Jonathan]

Unlike "Jonathan" and "Xray" (who the hell are these anonymous cowards, anyway?), who always employ the most objective, rational responses to those who criticize people or perspectives they like.

I think "Roger Bissell" is a fake name. Fucking coward. The only proof I'll accept is photocopies of his driver's license, social security card, credit cards and tax returns.

And you'd lose your dollar, bottom and all. All "Jonathan" has "hit on...dead center" is to clearly reveal that he totally misunderstands what is entailed in communication, and that he has read only enough Rand to find the best phrases to borrow in trying to trip up Objectivists in discussions, but without really trying to understand what she was talking about

I understand and appreciate Rand's ideas. My complaint is that she went overboard in trying to force all of the art forms to conform to her concept of literature. She wasn't actually interested in learning about the visual arts, nor was she a competent judge of them, just as "Roger" isn't. She was interested in publishing as an authority on aesthetics, and that meant bluffing and blustering about the art forms about which she was ignorant.

That would be enough to send me heading for the exit, or at least to withdraw from an exchange of ideas with him.

Typical chickenshit Objectivist tactic.

I think that, like Rand, "Roger" is a very intelligent person who probably began with an honest interest in the philosophy of aesthetics, but then at some point got a little too full of himself and went beyond his area of expertise. He started bluffing. He really doesn't know much of anything about the visual arts, or architecture, or probably many other art forms, and that's readily apparent to anyone who does have expert-level knowledge of those forms. "Roger," who are you trying to impress? Gullible Objectivists who know even less than you do?

(Actually, I should say "him," since I have no evidence whether "Jonathan" is a he or a she, except for the name, which could be fake. Does anyone here know who this person is??)

I also call "Roger" a "him," even though he's been acting like a little bitch.

This suggests a rather cowardly motive to JR. If ~anyone~ doesn't merit such a slur, it would be JR. He has courageously articulated and defended his values publicly for over 40 years, and he has done so with his real name. Unlike some people on this list.

If I've been courageously articulating and defending my values publicly for longer than JR has, does that make me the winner of every argument I have with him? Does it mean that I get to dish it out without being able to take it? Is that the way it works?

I also do cartooning...

Whoa! You do cartooning? Well why didn't you say so? Jeepers, I bet you know just about everything there is to know about color theory and composition and everything if you've done cartooning! Holy smokes!

I have also read several books on visual art and on the philosophy of the visual arts. I happen to disagree philosophically with the modern theory of "significant form" and related concrete-bound, relativist theories as being adequate to explain what is really going on when visual artists claim to be simply painting objects and not also expressing a view of life. For this, I am accused of trying to "instruct" from "a position of ignorance." No, I am just defending a contrary point of view, and you can't stand it, so you have to attack my character and presumed level of knowledge.

Will you post images of your cartoons and architectural drawings? Are the architectural drawings orthographic, or have you done some isometric and perspective drawings as well? I'd like to see if you're to a point yet where you know as much as I did when I was five.

Rand talked a good bit about the match or mismatch between a person's stated philosophy and his sense of life. It's clear that this also applies to a person's verbal statements in relation to his body language and facial expressions, as well as to an artist's rationalizations of what he has created in relation to the view of reality conveyed by his creation.

Conveyed to whom? If everyone viewing a painting, other than "Roger," agrees with the artist about what he has created and what it means, are they all "rationalizing"? As I keep asking, when did "Roger's" limitations become everyone else's? By what objective standard is everyone else to be judged as "rationalizing," as opposed to "Roger" being judged as visually aesthetically incompetent?

Look in the mirror, and enjoy the rest of your masked, snarky monologue. I'm not going to address the rest of your caricatures and misrepresentations of my views, and I won't be back to this thread.

Good riddance. You haven't answered any of the substance of my points anyway.

J

[Guyau]

.

Here is a charming look by David MacLagan into The Art Instinct.

Again, the remarks of Mohan Matthen at the Author-Meets-Critics session are here.

[Roger Bissell]

I know I said I wouldn't return to this thread, but out of curiosity I visited the web page of Linda Mann, the example Jonathan cited earlier of a painter whose philosophy of visual art supposedly is fundamentally at odds with my own supposedly "shallow, literalist, and Randian" views. In justice, I have to make a couple of more comments:

First, let me say that I very much admire the various examples of her work posted there, and I greatly enjoyed reading her journal on painting. She is a fine artist and a fine thinker. Secondly, let me say that (based on Jonathan's selective quotes from her web site) I seriously mis-judged Linda Mann's philosophic approach to art. She is anything but a non-thematic Pragmatist. Lo and behold! Just look at what she said on her home page:

The theme of my still life paintings is that the world is real, orderly and fascinating and that man is capable of understanding and enjoying it. I express this theme by choosing beautiful objects to paint, by creating compositions that are purposeful and intriguing, by carefully rendering the objects and by capturing the subtle and exact quality of light.

...the paintings are meant to both be experienced as specific views of specific objects, and also as representatives of important abstractions.

So, in her own words, Linda Mann's still life paintings are meant to symbolize ("represent") important abstractions -- to "express the theme" that "the world is real, orderly, and fascinating and that man is capable of understanding and enjoying it." Sounds suspiciously like one of the specific themes that Rand referred to in "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art" as a "metaphysical value-judgment." Sounds suspiciously like what Jonathan referred to as "shallow and literalist and Randian." Hmmmm.

As Jonathan previously quoted her, Linda Mann also wrote:

The vase, stones, bag, box and other objects do not symbolize Orderly Universe or Clear Perception. Rather, they are examples of orderly, clear and distinct objects. If I have done my job well, they give you the perceptual experiences from which you may subconsciously induce those abstract ideas.

Jonathan followed up on this quote, saying:

So, it would be shallow and literalist to interpret one of her paintings of, say, gourds, as representing the idea that gourds are the essence of existence, or that mankind deserves to eat only gourds, or that man is basically a worthless gourd.

Apart from the silliness of Jonathan's comment -- who, in his right mind, would try to apply Rand's esthetics views in such a meatheaded, concrete-bound way? (except to try to caricature and ridicule those ideas) -- he seems to be contradicting himself, or applying a double standard. If I "subconsciously induce" from Linda Mann's art the "abstract idea" that the world is open to successful life, that is "shallow and literalist and Randian" -- but if Linda Mann attributes to her artworks the "abstract idea" that the world is orderly and intelligible, that is NOT "shallow and literalist and Randian"?

I think Jonathan has been trying to have his Linda Mann and eat her, too -- all the while he's beating me over the head with her, as though our philosophies were at odds with each other.

I have absolutely no beef with Linda Mann's work or her philosophy of art. She and I are clearly in the same camp. Whether her process of conveying the theme of her artworks to viewers is better described as providing an experience of images of objects that allows a viewer to induce an abstract idea, or as providing an experience of images of objects that embody an abstract idea that can be grasped by a viewer, is something she and I could argue about. But it's clear we're talking about the same process, and that the purpose of Linda Mann's art is to convey that abstract meaning, that theme, that metaphysical value-judgment.

Plus, I don't think I'd have to work very hard to convince her that there is a ~second~ theme present in much/most/all(?) of her work, a theme I discussed previously, and which Jonathan ridiculed as "literalist, shallow, Randian." In the first quote of Linda Mann above, note that she says she expresses her theme by "choosing beautiful objects to paint" (and doing so with a careful, precise style). The ones I saw all contain either well-proportioned man-made objects or healthy specimens of fruits and vegetables. From a pro-life, rational standard of value, these are some of the kinds of things that people would naturally see as beautiful.

Maybe it's just my "literalist, shallow, Randian" bias, but I see these Linda Mann paintings all as giving a viewer "the perceptual experiences from which [he] may subconsciously induce [the] abstract idea" that successful life and achievement are possible -- or subconsciously ~grasp~ that abstract idea as embodied in the objects of the various paintings. Seems to me that she very consistently conveys that sense of life, that metaphysical value-judgment, as a theme of her artworks, ~along with~ her officially stated "intelligible universe" theme.

Jonathan again:

She is a visual artist, and ignoring the visual nature of her art -- her compositions of "unifying and contrasting shapes and textures," her "contrasts of empty and full spaces" and her "careful modulation of edges" -- and instead approaching her art as a form of something akin to symbolic visual literature would completely miss the point. Some works of visual art do include symbolic meaning, but many don't, so if you don't have an understanding and appreciation of visual composition, you're probably not really getting what it is that visual artists do, and only concentrating on what most visual artist would consider to be either meaningless or secondary aspects of their art.

I was not concentrating on the symbolic meaning of the ~objects~ in the artwork. I don't know where Jonathan got the idea that I was. I was concentrating on the fact that the artwork as a whole conveys an abstract theme, a metaphysical value-judgment, and that the theme is embodied in the subject of the artwork. ~Of course,~ it's reflected in the stylistic aspects (visual composition, etc.) as well, as Rand pointed out in at least two of her essays in TRM, where she referred to "psycho-epistemological sense of life" in connection with style. Who said it wasn't, and what does ~that~ have to do with my point?

Also, I don't believe that ~Linda Mann~ considers the ~theme~ of her artworks (which is what ~I~ was talking about and being blasted for by Jonathan) to be "meaningless or secondary." The theme is a "metaphysical value-judgment" -- namely, in her own words, that the world is orderly and intelligible, and man is able to grasp it as such. And again, in her own words, she chooses to present the objects she does ~precisely because~ they serve as a means to her conveying her theme to the viewer -- as do the stylistic elements of her work.

True, Linda Mann isn't "most artists," but she ~is~ the one Jonathan chose to misrepresent in trying to blast a strawman misrepresentation of my position. Looks like she falls into that "shallow and literalist and Randian" category Jonathan so blithely smeared me with. (Ha.) Looks like I'm in good company. Cheers to Linda Mann and to all her non-mendacious fans.

REB

[Jonathan]

I wrote:

So, it would be shallow and literalist to interpret one of her paintings of, say, gourds, as representing the idea that gourds are the essence of existence, or that mankind deserves to eat only gourds, or that man is basically a worthless gourd.

"Roger" replied:

Apart from the silliness of Jonathan's comment -- who, in his right mind, would try to apply Rand's esthetics views in such a meatheaded, concrete-bound way?

You would, and do. When you see a painting of dead trees or leaves or whatever you announce to the world that its "real" meaning, whether the artist intended it or not, is that "life is difficult or impossible."

In the first quote of Linda Mann above, note that she says she expresses her theme by "choosing beautiful objects to paint" (and doing so with a careful, precise style). The ones I saw all contain either well-proportioned man-made objects or healthy specimens of fruits and vegetables.

So, if Linda Mann were to choose colorful, well-proportioned, man-made stone tiles as the "beautiful objects" that she wanted to paint in a still life, and if she were to selectively cut them and arrange them in a manner which pleased her, like this...

...and if she were to then create a painting of them like this...

...the painting would qualify as art according to your criteria, right?

If she were to explain that the theme of the painting is that the world is real, orderly and fascinating and that man is capable of understanding and enjoying it, and that she expressed this theme by choosing beautiful objects to paint, and by creating a composition that is purposeful and intriguing, and that she carefully rendered the objects and romantically enhanced their colors and textures, you'd agree that she succeeded, right?

Anyway, "Roger," when are you going to stop evading, and answer the question that I've asked many times now? The question is not going to go away. When each viewer of a work of visual art has a different opinion of what it means, why is it that your interpretation represents the artwork's "real" or "actual" meaning and anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing"? Why is it that when you can see no meaning where others do, they must be "rationalizing"? By what objective means have you tested and determined that your visual aesthetic capacities and sensitivities are not insufficient compared to those who you claim are "rationalizing"?

Is it even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, and which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend? Is it really so upsetting to consider the possibility that you might be lacking in some areas compared to others, that you might have a visual "tin ear"?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of a viewer's fitness to judge a work of art, and the relevance that such fitness has in qualifying or disqualifying him to opine on which things other humans can or cannot experience as art?

J

Edited February 3, 2011 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Earlier, "Roger" asked:

I also play piano, sing jazz and opera, conduct, compose, and arrange. (What kind of "musician" are ~you~?)

I play a variety of instruments. Professionally, I was a bass player in a few bands over a period of a couple of decades. We played covers and wrote and recorded some originals. Mostly rock and blues. More recently I've been exploring composing in other styles and genres.

Here are some snippets of a few samples of works in progress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhPfc7mubBk&

As I say in the youtube description:

This is a piano "skeleton" of about the first quarter of a piece that I've been experimenting with in Apple's Symphony Orchestra JamPack plugged into the GarageBand application on my Mac. It's followed by a phrase taken from the "skeleton" and repeated a few times in different instruments to get an idea of which options I might use in fleshing out the piece. I've also tacked on a couple of additional brief experimental sound-test segments after that.

J

[Xray]

Unlike "Jonathan" and "Xray" (who the hell are these anonymous cowards, anyway?),

I would like to remind you that we are on a forum, and not in a Western, Mr. Bissell.

What names people use on forums is entirely their own business.

I'm interested in a person's argumentation on an issue and in studying whether their arguments are convincing; under which name someone posts is irrelevant in that context.

Nor am I interested in speculating whether the name they do use is their real name or not.

In the end, aesthetically, it doesn't matter what the artist intended. What matters is what the artist actually did. What we need to ask ourselves when we set out to understand or evaluate any work of art is: "What is this thing? What does it do? How does it work?" What anyone intended this thing to be, what anyone intended it to do, how anyone intended it to work - all this is irrelevant.

All this is also extremely elementary. At the risk of coming across like Jonathan, I'm somewhat taken aback by the ignorance of attempting to discuss meaning in the arts without apparently ever having heard of or considered what is usually known as "the intentional fallacy."

JR

It looks like your education in literature occurred at a time when the books of Cleanth Brooks/Robert Penn Warren on "Understanding Poetry" and "Understanding Fiction" had almost biblical status in literature departments at the universities.

Remember the impressive scene in the film Dead Poets' Society when the teacher tells his students to tear the pages of the book on literature interpretation apart? The yellow book looked exactly like "Understanding Poetry".

Edited February 3, 2011 by Xray

[caroljane]

Unlike "Jonathan" and "Xray" (who the hell are these anonymous cowards, anyway?),

I would like to remind you that we are on a forum, and not in a Western, Mr. Bissell.

What names people use on forums is entirely their own business.

I'm interested in a person's argumentation on an issue and in studying whether their arguments are convincing; under which name someone posts is irrelevant in that context.

Nor am I interested in speculating whether the name they do use is their real name or not.

I'd like to second that. And to add that,under whatever name, the anonymous music was lovely and evocative to me.

(Hey X, maybe he's THE ONE (nudge nudge wink wink)

[Roger Bissell]

I wrote:

So, it would be shallow and literalist to interpret one of her paintings of, say, gourds, as representing the idea that gourds are the essence of existence, or that mankind deserves to eat only gourds, or that man is basically a worthless gourd.

"Roger" replied:

Apart from the silliness of Jonathan's comment -- who, in his right mind, would try to apply Rand's esthetics views in such a meatheaded, concrete-bound way?

You would, and do.

Wrong! This bears no resemblance to what you correctly refer to in the following remark:

When you see a painting of dead trees or leaves or whatever you announce to the world that its "real" meaning, whether the artist intended it or not, is that "life is difficult or impossible."

Nice bait and switch, but you ain't catchin' no fish with that one.

Your original comment would require that I say some concrete-bound nonsense like: dead trees or leaves or whatever "are the essence of existence," or that mankind deserves to contemplate only "dead trees or leaves or whatever," or that "man is basically a worthless dead tree or leaf or whatever." Perhaps those viewing re-creation of reality as re-creating ~things from~ reality might fall into that way of thinking, but not me.

Instead, I said something much different, something abstract, something very much like Linda Mann posted on her web site as being the abstract theme ~she~ seeks to communicate in her art. She explicitly chose to paint works that show the world as being intelligible, rather than not. And I pointed out that her works, by deliberately choosing to present beautiful objects, also reflect a choice to show the world as a place where successful life and achievement are possible, rather than not.

These are light-years away from the crude, laughable strawman examples you tried to hang on me in your first comment above.

You are very persistent in caricaturing and distorting my views, but that doesn't refute them. It just makes you look like an unethical sophist, who resorts in whatever smear and diversion you can in order to avoid dealing with a viewpoint you disagree with. But why should you treat me any differently than you've treated everyone else here on OL...

REB

[Jonathan]

"Roger," if an artist were to paint a small, beautiful abstract sketch, and then paint a larger canvas based on the sketch, wouldn't he be painting a beautiful object from reality? And, therefore, wouldn't any painting which is based on such a sketch quality as art by your and Rand's criteria? Or do certain beautiful objects, like sketches and flat, colorful tiles, somehow not count as beautiful objects from reality because you don't want them to?

And are you going to answer my previous questions, or continue to evade them? Here they are again:

When each viewer of a work of visual art has a different opinion of what it means, why is it that your interpretation represents the artwork's "real" or "actual" meaning and anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing"? Why is it that when you can see no meaning where others do, they must be "rationalizing"? By what objective means have you tested and determined that your visual aesthetic capacities and sensitivities are not insufficient compared to those who you claim are "rationalizing"?

Is it even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, and which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend? Is it really so upsetting to consider the possibility that you might be lacking in some areas compared to others, that you might have a visual "tin ear"?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of a viewer's fitness to judge a work of art, and the relevance that such fitness has in qualifying or disqualifying him to opine on which things other humans can or cannot experience as art?

J

P.S. I've posted samples of my music above. Will you post samples of your visual art?

Edited February 4, 2011 by Jonathan

[Roger Bissell]

"Roger," if an artist were to paint a small, beautiful abstract sketch, and then paint a larger canvas based on the sketch, wouldn't he be painting a beautiful object from reality? And, therefore, wouldn't any painting which is based on such a sketch quality as art by your and Rand's criteria? Or do certain beautiful objects, like sketches and flat, colorful tiles, somehow not count as beautiful objects from reality because you don't want them to?

And are you going to answer my previous questions, or continue to evade them? Here they are again:

When each viewer of a work of visual art has a different opinion of what it means, why is it that your interpretation represents the artwork's "real" or "actual" meaning and anyone who disagrees with you must be "rationalizing"? Why is it that when you can see no meaning where others do, they must be "rationalizing"? By what objective means have you tested and determined that your visual aesthetic capacities and sensitivities are not insufficient compared to those who you claim are "rationalizing"?

Is it even a possibility in your mind that I and others might have visual/spatial abilities that you lack, and which allow us to see and experience things in ways which you'll never comprehend? Is it really so upsetting to consider the possibility that you might be lacking in some areas compared to others, that you might have a visual "tin ear"?

Why do you avoid addressing the issue of a viewer's fitness to judge a work of art, and the relevance that such fitness has in qualifying or disqualifying him to opine on which things other humans can or cannot experience as art?

J

P.S. I've posted samples of my music above. Will you post samples of your visual art?

I'm not going to answer your questions, and I'm not going to post samples of my visual art, and I'm not going to comment on your music samples, and I'm not going to explain why I won't. You can hypocritically continue to hurl whatever additional smear-insinuations ("evasion") that you like. I'm sure your adoring fans will swoon at your audaciousness as you do so.

REB

[Jonathan]

I thought it might be worthwhile for me to post, for those open to learning, a link to excerpts that I've posted before from Kandinsky on the effects of color, and some of the human characteristics that they can imply.

Within Kandinsky's text on approach and retreat, I mention Michael Newberry's echoing of the subject in his notion of "transparency." While reading Kandinsky's comments, it might be helpful to look at the examples that Newberry provides in his illustrated online essay, Transparency: A Key to Spatial Depth.

Actually, kudos to Newberry for going farther than Kandinsky did and recognizing that the issue of approach and retreat is contextual. Kandinsky sees blue as retreating and yellow as approaching, which is true in the common context of the outdoors in which a blue sky is the background, but Newberry recognizes that if the background is a different color, then the hues opposite it will give the impression of approach. Thus, if the sky is red, a green or cyan shape will approach, if it's yellow, blue or magenta will approach, etc.

J

Edited February 4, 2011 by Jonathan

[Guyau]

. . .

This brings me also to Jonathan. He has puzzled me as well. As a stated artist, he should enjoy that there is a colleague painting a lot, showing, writing art stuff. It shouldn't matter how much he agrees in detail about it, but there should be some camaraderie there. Reversing it, if he would like recognition then it simply takes sharing his own works, his excitement for his aesthetic discoveries, his ongoing projects, and etc. Even if he were a commercial artist, I would enjoy seeing how he solves problems and what he is doing. But he predominately shares his critical postings, not leaving me any room to relate.

One of the biggest puzzling things about Jonathan has been his instance that I am wrong about practically everything. What is odd, is that when I have replied in good faith, with all my sincerity, truthful observations, personal perspective . . . it is never accepted. . . . It has gone way beyond disagreement, or an argument, world views, types of art . . . there is a really personal uncomfortable feeling about. Have any of you had someone hound you like that? . . .

Anyway, the distinct impression I get from Jonathan is that I should not exist.

So, now I am thinking what does an artist do when he is shackled with a nasty critic on one objectivist site, and smeared by a bully on another, when I am honest, creative, independent, hard working, and respectful of reason, and never malicious? Fold up and leave? Challenge them to be better human beings?

. . .

Cheers,

Michael

Shortly after this post, Michael ended up leaving OL.

Plainly, the preceding nice post by the artist in Minneapolis is to serve as a counterexample in his argument (in its personal-animus dimension) with Roger. That being understood, it remains: the post was informative, and it was pleasing to see Jonathan acknowledge something good about Michael.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[Jonathan]

Shortly after this post, Michael ended up leaving OL.

Newberry ended up leaving because he couldn't answer my polite but direct questions and challenges to his erroneous beliefs and judgments. Go back and reread the thread. Try to set aside your emotional bias against me and my ideas, and read it as a neutral, objective person would. As usual, I was the one in the conversation trying to stick to substance, where Newberry and others were avoiding substance, telling falsehoods, and emoting. Go back and reread it. (And if you want to see unadulterated, irrational rage, read Phil's posts on that thread.)

Stephen, when Objectivists can't resort to deleting posts as a means of evading polite, well-reasoned arguments, like you did in your "corner," they tend to rely on other tactics like whining that they're being picked on, and running away from the conversation with one excuse or another (usually it's a heroic excuse, such as that they're dignity prevents them from continuing). They often enter a conversation very rudely, parroting Rand's views and, more importantly, her angrier attitudes, telling other people what they can or cannot experience in art, for example, or telling them that they're "rationalizing," perhaps not even realizing that they're behaving rudely, and then they squeal like infants when challenged directly in return.

I prefer to have polite conversations, but when people talk shit, I have no problem throwing a bit of it back at them.

Plainly, the preceding nice post by the artist in Minneapolis is to serve as a counterexample in his argument (in its personal-animus dimension) with Roger. That being understood, it remains: the post was informative, and it was pleasing to see Jonathan acknowledge something good about Michael.

Is that the reason that I posted it? To serve as a counterexample to animus? And you know that how? Via mind-reading or "psychologizing"? Are those the Objectivist virtues that you're practicing now, Stephen (in addition to silencing those who disagree with you)?

I've acknowledged good things about Newberry many times in the past, including aspects of his essay on "transparency." I've often praised him for his talents. Do you know what his response has usually been? Nothing. He'd sometimes whine that I never said anything good about him, and I'd remind him that I've often praised his art, and his response, if he responded, was not to say something like, "Thank you," or, "Yes, I guess I do recall that you haven't let our philosophical disagreements taint your judgment of my talents," but to say, "Noted."

I posted the comment on Newberry and "transparency" because it ties into the discussion here. I thought that those who are not very visually gifted and are resistant to reading and comprehending Kandinksy might have a better chance of understanding him if they knew that someone who they see as being on their "side," like Newberry, had come to almost exactly the same conclusions, with illustrated examples, and had even gone a little farther.

The animus here is not coming from me. I think a big part of the problem is that certain Objectivists don't see their own blunt comments as rude, but take others' blunt comments as extremely vicious attacks. An example is my judgment that "Roger" is lacking in the area of visual/spatial knowledge and reasoning. "Roger" took it as nothing but a personal attack. It's not. It's an informed judgment. I've been reading "Roger's" opinions in his essays and posts online for quite some time now, and I've picked up a lot about what his knowledge, tastes, judgments and experiences are (just one example: "Roger" has reported reading the book "Color For Men" to learn how to dress himself, and of being greatly helped by it; do you understand what that tells a seasoned, professional artist about his level of knowledge of color theory?).

My judgment of his visual abilities is not an insult, but a valid part of my argument: The sensitivities, or lack thereof, of those with a visual "tin ear" are not a good standard for determining what is or is not visual art. I think the fact that "Roger" and others here are insulted by my judgment that he does not have the same knowledge or visual aptitudes that I and others do supports my long-held opinion that a lot of people are very emotionally attached to the belief that they have the most exquisite tastes and are the ultimate in refinement and sensitivity as judges of the arts. Nothing could convince them otherwise.

Now, would you like to get back to substance rather than all of this personality conflict stuff and evasive distractions? Do you have any comments on the issue of establishing objective criteria for judging the fitness of a person to judge whether or not something qualifies as art? Do you have any comments on why an artist who collects round stones, arranges them, and then paints of picture of them is creating art, but another artist who collects stone tiles, arranges them, and then paints a picture of them is not creating art?

J

P.S. Heh. If I criticize Newberry, even very politely, I'm a big meanie. If I praise him, I'm only doing it so as not to look like the big meanie that I am. Another no-win situation, I guess.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Jonathan

[PDS]

Jonathan wrote: "I posted the comment on Newberry and "transparency" because it ties into the discussion here. I thought that those who are not very visually gifted and are resistant to reading and comprehending Kandinksy might have a better chance of understanding him if they knew that someone who they see as being on their "side," like Newberry, had come to almost exactly the same conclusions, with illustrated examples, and had even gone a little farther."

I appreciate the link and the comments. This is far more interesting than any of the psychological back and forth on this thread.

[Jonathan]

I appreciate the link and the comments. This is far more interesting than any of the psychological back and forth on this thread.

Thank you! I'm glad that you found the links valuable.

J

[Guyau]

.

J,

I’ve never had any bias against your ideas (e.g.). I’ve never had any settled position on any of the perennial issues in esthetics. Still considering all the ideas, and learning more about esthetics, after all these years.

Contrary to your presumption, I am not an Objectivist. I’ve stated that and the reasons for it a number of times at this site.

S

[Jonathan]

I’ve never had any bias against your ideas (e.g.).

The thread that you link to in the above sentence is the one on which you deleted examples and comments, from Dragonfly and me (and perhaps from others?) on why we believe that "disharmony, conflict, contrast, etc., can be as beautiful as harmony" (as well as our objections to your deletions). If you have no bias against such ideas, as you say, then why did you censor them? Why did you prevent them from being seen?

I’ve never had any settled position on any of the perennial issues in esthetics. Still considering all the ideas, and learning more about esthetics, after all these years.

That's good to hear.

Contrary to your presumption, I am not an Objectivist. I’ve stated that and the reasons for it a number of times at this site.

Okay. I must have missed those posts. I'd be interested in reading the ones that really get to the core of which areas you're in agreement and disagreement with Objectivism - of why you don't think of yourself as an Objectivist. If you have links to such posts handy, please post them.

J

[Guyau]

Concerning the first point of Jonathan’s #98:

Peter Johnson (Dragonfly) had posted a large image of Goya’s Saturn in that thread of my corner, which I regarded as my living room. He had images of a couple of other famous paintings in the post as well. He had a sentence or two of text at the bottom of the post. I don’t recall what he said. Not a thousand words, let alone his few words, could stand tall for attention next to the immediate overwhelming revulsion that I and everyone I have personally known feels at the sight of the Saturn painting.

So I edited his post by replacing the images with links to them. Peter was outraged and used profanity. That too is out in my corner. (The way I use the corner is an asset for this site; evidently, my corner has around a hundred regular readers.) He posted an ultimatum to the site owner, but I solved that by deleting it and the stretch of posts pertaining to the controversy. He was then not socially etched into his ultimatum, and before long he resumed posting elsewhere at the site. (More recently he has been absent, for reasons entirely unknown to me.)

In the post of yours that got puffed away in that stretch, I recall you remarking that Goya was a great painter. Agreed. That has certainly been my impression since discovering him back in college.

No, there was no discussion in that stretch on how conflict can work into beauty (nor whether beauty is the only valid aim in art, etc.), as you said you did not want to enter into discussion of substance in a sector of the site in which I had (limited) editorial control. That is fine. The same discussions can proceed elsewhere at this site.

Concerning the third point of #98:

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H

Sorry about the disarray in that set of links. Maybe some day I’ll write a book about Rand’s philosophy and weave it all together.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[william.scherk]

Peter Johnson (Dragonfly) had posted a large image of Goya’s Saturn in that thread of my corner, which I regarded as my living room.

Dragonfly is not 'Peter Johnson' . . . the one time I used his real name on OL, he contacted me backstage to urge me to remove it, explaining that he had been subject to harassment in the past.

Please don't, in any attempt to correct the 'Peter Johnson' mistake, publish Dragonfly's real identity.