Vladamir Kush

[Zip]

The arbitrary might exist, but without any evidence to support it, it is simply dismissed.

Leonardo DaVinci's ornithopter as the inspiration for the modern day helicopter?

[Gary Brenner]

If it does not make sense what would be the purpose of such playfullness (in epistemological context)?

What is the value of imagination disconnected from reason?

In fact, it does make sense. A shell that opens to reveal an invaluable pearl is very much like the breaking of a new day. Within a tree is a book and a bark. And it has suddenly occurred to me that flower petals share many of the same attributes as canvas sails.

Disconnected from reason? Hardly. Here is a singular talent with a keen intelligence behind it. More importantly, the paintings reveal a fellow with a sense of humor, a quality all too often lacking in serioso artists.

[athena glaukopis]

Nobody has yet mentioned that Ayn Rand's favorite painting was by none other than the king of surrealism, Salvidore Dali. He's even more surrealist and has a wicked sense of life.

Salvador Dali, Corpus Hypercubus, oil on canvas, 29" by 23", 1954. Rand's favorite painting - she spent hours contemplating it at the Metropolitan Musuem of art.

"Ayn Rand" by Jeff Britting

[John McVey]

This one is just ewww. I'd be tempted to raze the place with a flamethrower then high-tail it after nuking the site from orbit.

JJM

[Adrian Hester]

When I look at surreal paintings that I like (including some of Dali's stuff), the term that comes to mind is: playful.

I'd go (a somewhat qualified) further--not just playful but making connections between disparate things like metaphor in poetry. For instance, three striking metaphors that could make for interesting surrealist paintings:

"The glaciers creep

Like snakes that watch their prey, from their far fountains,

Slow rolling on..." (Shelley, Mont Blanc)

"And fancies fond with gaudy shapes possess,

As thick and numberless

As the gay motes that people the Sun Beams..." (Milton, Il Penseroso)

"When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang

Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,

Bare ruin'd choirs, where late the sweet birds sang." (Shakespeare, Sonnet 73)

I tend to judge surrealist painting that I like by the quality of any metaphor it embodies (much surrealist painting leaves me cold because it either makes no comprehensible metaphor or its metaphor is repugnant); on that score and for that reason I quite like Mr. Kush.

Edited March 8, 2008 by Adrian Hester

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I don't get that painting either. I don't care who painted it. Maybe someone can explain it's message to me.

I believe the painting by Frank O'Connor is called Diminishing Returns -- the guy has so many balls up in the air, like a juggler, that he drops a few. I think it is meant to convey the idea that if you are serious about values, then one is more selective in what to "keep up in the air" and doesn't drop them, thus leading to the preservation of values rather than the destruction of values. From what I read about Frank, especially at http://www.facetsofaynrand.com he had a very playful sense of life, and this would be his way of poking fun at those who have so much going on that they don't even realize they have dropped the ball. In other words, having a few values to focus on and care for is the more rational way of living -- i.e. being selective in one's values. If you ever noticed, some people are just frantic all of the time because they have so much going on in their lives. Frank is basically saying it is silly to be this way.

I think a lot of people who like surrealism like it because the images are generally sharp, with crisp, clear colors -- but it is damned hard to figure out what the heck the message is, and for the most part the message is that reality is not real; that what is in the mind is more real than reality, hence they dispense with images of real things. And this is so clear to them that they paint their surrealism in a very realistic manner. The stylization is generally good, but none of it fits reality. It's kind of like fantasy done in a super modern fashion, you know, like special effects in modern movies.

But I think the important thing to those types of artists is that it is striking to the mind, but they have nothing to say about reality and man's place in it. It's primacy of consciousness done in super fine detail.

I think Ayn Rand liked some surrealism because of the psycho-epistemology of the style -- the super sharp realism, the fine details, how real it looks. Miss Rand loved highly stylized art, as she points out in The Romantic Manifesto.

I wish we had painters like that who were more focused on reality as it might be and ought to be. Like some of the special effects of "Babylon 5" or "Star Trek: The Next Generation" but more what was actually possible to man, rather than a fantasy. I think the super realism of that which cannot exist -- as is found in surrealism -- is a mark of modern philosophy after Kant. Artists with talent want to present their vision, but their vision just doesn't match reality, so they do it anyhow, and people think it is "cool" -- the non-reality of it all.

This is different from what might be called rational fantasy, where the artist is actually expressing something of value to man's mind in a highly stylized manner, but maybe he doesn't know how to bring it fully to reality. Kind of like a sense of life reaction to science fiction.You know those events are not specifically possible, but the heroism is there, and the space craft are awesome; so even though you have to suspend your consciousness a little, one can still get into the world of the artist.

In surrealism, what the heck kind of world would that be where everything is topsy-turvy?

[Tenzing_Shaw]

I am surprised no one has mentioned Eye of The Needle, as I think this has a very recognizable (not to mention rational) theme. Kush paints a line of camels stretching to the horizon, passing through the eye of a giant needle, which is held up by a scaffolding. I see this as a sort of "oh yeah?" thrown in the face of the Biblical quote "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". I think the scaffolding is also relevant: he is saying that rich men will pass into the "kingdom of God" (metaphorically speaking) through the power of technology.

Sorry, but I can't figure out how to post an image of the painting here. If someone else could do so, or tell me how, I would appreciate it.

Edited March 8, 2008 by Tenzing_Shaw

[intellectualammo]

Sorry, but I can't figure out how to post an image of the painting here. If someone else could do so, or tell me how, I would appreciate it.

[airborne]

Tenzing_Shaw

I enjoyed that painting but I never thought of it as you did. Interesting...

here is the description from Vladimir's offical page: (http://www.vladimirkush.com/editions.php?id=120&category=Editions/Available%20Limited%20Edition%20Prints)

The needle is forever associated with the thread. With this said, the thread is a symbol of human destiny. Ancient Greeks believed that moiras weave the threads of life. People felt the magical power of destiny, the authority of which extends beyond that of the gods. The gods cannot change or avert that which the moiras have decided upon. Moiras cut the thread of life and continued to weave it depending on what color ball - black or white - another of the moiras would pick out of an urn. In the painting the thread of destiny is represented in two images: the golden “thread” of a caravan and the blue “thread” of the River of Life. The “thread” of a caravan as a symbol of wealth, leads us like the Ariadne’s clue to the central image of the painting – that of a camel going through the needle’s eye. A striking, paradoxical image used by Jesus to condemn riches and wealth… But we couldn’t help noting a certain humor the painter introduces here. Look, in spite of all the efforts of the cameleer a camel at the head of the caravan balks as if saying: ”I don’t want to go through a real eye of a needle!”

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Thank you for posting the image, intellectualammo.

Looking at his descriptions of the paintings, I can see that my interpretations of many of them were more wishful thinking than anything else. For example, I would never have guessed that the Candle symbolized the "light" of Christianity dispelling "ignorance". Nonetheless, I think Mr. Kush has created some good works of art, and I don't think this can be completely accidental. Perhaps he has some good premises lurking in his subconscious in spite of his irrational (or incomprehensible) explicit themes. From now on I will have to enjoy his paintings for their own sake, knowing that he is ignorant of any objective value they may have.

[intellectualammo]

For example, I would never have guessed that the Candle symbolized the "light" of Christianity dispelling "ignorance".

I had seen one of his last night that had hands coming out of the sky over a candle, that was being used as some sort of lighthouse for a boat in troubled water.

Also came across this one (which isn't bad, a few I do like. the flower blossom that Sophia had posted could have been a very beautiful one, if the blossom wasn't ...well the way it is...)

again, it's the blossom or flowerhead part...

Edited March 8, 2008 by intellectualammo

[adrock3215]

I think the super realism of that which cannot exist -- as is found in surrealism -- is a mark of modern philosophy after Kant.

Absolutely agree.

[~Sophia~]

Leonardo DaVinci's ornithopter as the inspiration for the modern day helicopter?

This is not an example of imagination disconnected from reason; it is, in fact, the opposite. It is looking at reality (in this case birds) and trying to deduce/discover the laws governing it (the physics of flight).

In order for DaVinci to fit surrealism (going by the definition of it's founder) he would have had to put flower petals instead of wing-like structures on his ornithoper.

More importantly, the paintings reveal a fellow with a sense of humor, a quality all too often lacking in serioso artists.

More importantly? I do not consider sense of humor more important than reason.

[~Sophia~]

I tend to judge surrealist painting that I like by the quality of any metaphor it embodies...

I agree with your criteria. Visual metaphors can be used with thought or without.

if the blossom wasn't ...well the way it is...

What do you mean?

[Gary Brenner]

More importantly? I do not consider sense of humor more important than reason.

"More importantly" in the sense of identifying what sets this artist apart from the run of the mill. It is, in fact, a validation of his reason.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

"More importantly" in the sense of identifying what sets this artist apart from the run of the mill. It is, in fact, a validation of his reason.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a sense of humor in art; but I don't think it ought to be silliness for the sake of silliness.

For example, if some primitive tribe made a large set of eggshells and placed them like in that painting for the sunrise, that would be very silly and a waste of time -- unless maybe they could charge admission to see the show. Primitive man did make very large structures lined up with the sun for the purpose of detecting when it was time to plant crops and as a means of having religious ceremonies. Now, in a sense, this is silly in that there are better means of detecting when it is time to plant crops, and if it was merely for religious purposes, then it is silly and going through all of that effort was a big waste of time and effort. Primitive man did go through a lot of wasted time and effort in doing these things rather as an end in themselves or to create a sense of awe for the priest class so they could remain in power. It's like the beginning of Christianity or other primitive religions whereby they made a lot of noise in the attic of the church to imitate thunder and lightning as the voice of the gods. There was actually very famous artisans and inventors who went through a great deal of effort to convey "magic" to instill a sense of awe into the religious flock. Very advanced machinery was actually used to render these "special effects" real to the flock, so as to get more donations -- including coin operated machinery. But was the sense of awe created to fleece the flock, or did the inventor merely have no other means of earning a living at that time? And should we laugh at these or be disgusted by them?

I mean, the painting of a pun is all good and well, depending on what one is poking fun at. If one is poking fun at real values, then it is not good to do that. If one is poking fun at primitive man, well, they really didn't know any better and often confused a sense of awe with a sense of religion -- usually to keep the flock down in superstitious fear, which is not good. I do think a lot of these superstitious types of societies fell apart as the flock realized they were being duped, though that might take hundreds of years. The falling apart of those primitive peoples might be something to laugh at in the sense that they finally saw reason, at least to some degree -- in other words laughing with them at the discovery of reason which destroyed the priest's hold on them, which would be good.

But given that some of his paintings convey Christian themes means that he is not upholding reason. In other words, it is just superstition to believe that one is being guided out of the storm by God's hands and God's light. As opposed to coming to understand storms with one's own mind and knowing how to navigate through the storm using reason.

In other words, is Mr. Kush poking fun at reason? Is he saying it is silly to see all of these connections with one's mind?

Christians believe that it is silly to try to comprehend God using reason. Is Kush saying that it is silly to comprehend reality with one's mind? That it is all merely juxtaposition instead of integration?

[adrock3215]

In other words, is Mr. Kush poking fun at reason? Is he saying it is silly to see all of these connections with one's mind?... Is Kush saying that it is silly to comprehend reality with one's mind? That it is all merely juxtaposition instead of integration?

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. I thought I was crazy at first when everyone else liked this artist. I am glad someone else saw what I saw though. He is philosophically bankrupt, and one can deduce that from his art.

[~Sophia~]

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a sense of humor in art; but I don't think it ought to be silliness for the sake of silliness.

Or it maybe for the sake of being different. Different is mistakenly being regarded as a value regardless if it is a new integration (in which case it is proper) or disintegration.

Edited March 10, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Gary Brenner]

I mean, the painting of a pun is all good and well, depending on what one is poking fun at. If one is poking fun at real values, then it is not good to do that. . .

But given that some of his paintings convey Christian themes means that he is not upholding reason. In other words, it is just superstition to believe that one is being guided out of the storm by God's hands and God's light. As opposed to coming to understand storms with one's own mind and knowing how to navigate through the storm using reason.

In other words, is Mr. Kush poking fun at reason? Is he saying it is silly to see all of these connections with one's mind?

Christians believe that it is silly to try to comprehend God using reason. Is Kush saying that it is silly to comprehend reality with one's mind? That it is all merely juxtaposition instead of integration?

First of all, much surrealist art is devoted to the study of optical illusions -- visual puns. The ability of painters such as Dali and Escher to create images that can be “read” more than one way is a demonstration of their profound insight into human perception, not their irrationality.

As for religious themes, I don’t think Kush is spoofing reason anymore than Michelangelo was in painting the Creation portion of the Sistine fresco. In fact, Kush’s Christianity is not particularly important. A work of art can be esthetically interesting quite apart from its theological content. To put it another way, the intended message may constitute only a portion of a work’s total value. The atheists Shelley and Rand were both fascinated by the myth of Prometheus and wrote major literary works based on it. That Fritz’s Lang’s Siegfried is a dramatization of an ancient Nordic myth did not keep Rand from praising it in The Romantic Manifesto as the greatest of silent films.

So here’s to guilt-free viewings of Vladimir Kush’s paintings.

[~Sophia~]

First of all, much surrealist art is devoted to the study of optical illusions -- visual puns. The ability of painters such as Dali and Escher to create images that can be “read” more than one way is a demonstration of their profound insight into human perception, not their irrationality.

much?

This is a more accurate representation of "much":

15 years of surrealist research

author of the website summarizes, what he calles a poetic inquiry:

...the recurring elements, symbols and other materials assembled themselves into a mythology of freedom (erotic and otherwise), manifesting an organic assault against conscious reality and all of its Cartesian work-a-day,

penny-worth, treacherous systems of thought.

further:

To gain an understanding of the essence of any collection of surrealist

paintings (not to mention, surrealism and surrealist creation), please read the

excerpt of Andre Breton's Preface to the Catalogue of the International

Surrealist Exhibition (London, 1936) at the bottom of this page.

taken from that preface:

The only domain that the artist could exploit became that of purely mental

representation, in so far as it extends beyond that of real perception, without

therefore becoming one with the domain of hallucination. But here it should be

recognized that the two domains are by no means clearly separated, and that all

attempts at delimitation are open to dispute. What is important is that mental

representation (in the object's physical absence) provides, as Freud has said,

'sensations related to processes taking place on different levels of the mental

personality, even the most profound'. The necessarily more and more systematic

exploration of these sensations in art is working towards the abolition of the

ego in the id, and is thereupon forced to make the pleasure principle

predominate over the reality principle. It tends to give ever greater freedom to

instinctive impulses, and to break down the barrier raised before civilised man,

a barrier which the primitive and the child ignore. The social importance of

such an attitude, if one takes account of the general disturbance of the

sensibility that it entails (shifting of considerable psychic burdens on to the

constituent elements of the perception-consciousness system), on the one hand,

and of the impossibility of going back to the former position, on the other, is

tremendous.

To put it another way, the intended message may constitute only a portion of a work’s total value.

I would go further and say that intended message is irrelevent all together. One's judgment about the work of art should be based on what a piece of art actually expresses and not artist's intensions. There maybe a discrepency between an intended message and what has been executed. However, A is A, many of Kush'es creations are nothing but mystical.

[Gary Brenner]

much?

This is a more accurate representation of "much":

15 years of surrealist research

I would go further and say that intended message is irrelevent all together. One's judgment about the work of art should be based on what a piece of art actually expresses and not artist's intensions. There maybe a discrepency between an intended message and what has been executed. However, A is A, many of Kush'es creations are nothing but mystical.

If the artist's intention is irrelevant to the value of a work to a viewer, then even less relevant would be the opinion of a third party, such as the critic whose website you linked to. Do we really need to know what someone at http://www.surrealcoconut.com/ thinks before we permit ourselves to enjoy a surrealist painting?

As for the allegation of mysticism in Kush's work, I'm reminded of what Arthur C. Clarke said about an encounter between civilizations at different stages of development: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

You see mysticism; I see imagination.

[~Sophia~]

If the artist's intention is irrelevant to the value of a work to a viewer, then even less relevant would be the opinion of a third party, such as the critic whose website you linked to. Do we really need to know what someone at http://www.surrealcoconut.com/ thinks before we permit ourselves to enjoy a surrealist painting?

I have not offered it as such. The website however explains the philosophy of surrealism (which in essense is nihilism) and gives you a glimpse of "most" (it was my response to your incorrect claim about what most is). From my viewing, I gathered that the author of the website is not a critic but a fan. Andre Breton is the founder of the movement.

Knowing this can possibly save someone a lot of time trying to decipher the meaning of something which very probably does not contain any.

If a work happens to carry a meaningful and life promoting message I will identify it as such.

As for the allegation of mysticism in Kush's work, I'm reminded of what Arthur C. Clarke said about an encounter between civilizations at different stages of development: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

You see mysticism; I see imagination.

Time to define the terms I guess.

From lexicon:

Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing."

To the mystic, as to an animal, the irreducible primary is the automatic phenomena of his own consciousness.

This fits most of surrealism like a glove.

Imagination, on the other hand, is the ability to rearrange the things one has observed in reality to achieve human values. Imagination lies in the realm of reason and law of identity.

Reason, is a choice. There is always the other possibility. Your claim here is, in essence, that human values can be produced as a result of entrataining the irrational.

Edited March 11, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Gary Brenner]

I have not offered it as such. The website however explains the philosophy of surrealism (which in essense is nihilism) and gives you a glimpse of "most" (it was my response to your incorrect claim about what most is).

I have not made any claim about what “most” surrealist art is. I merely pointed out that an interest in optical illusions can found in many surrealist works.

From my viewing, I gathered that the author of the website is not a critic but a fan. Andre Breton is the founder of the movement.

Knowing this can possibly save someone a lot of time trying to decipher the meaning of something which very probably does not contain any.

“Critic: One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.” (American Heritage Dictionary)

Breton was a literary theorist whose 1924 manifesto on surrealism may be regarded as one of the first works of artistic criticism (judgments) devoted to the movement.

The problem is that Breton’s description of surrealism in the first part of the 20th century may not be adequate to cover all surrealism. It may in fact have very little bearing on the works of Vladimir Kush. My point stands: it is not necessary to know what Breton says about surrealism in order to form an opinion about the merits of any of Kush’s paintings.

If a work happens to carry a meaningful and life promoting message I will identify it as such.

Time to define the terms I guess.

From lexicon:

This fits most of surrealism like a glove.

Not really. While many surrealists have explored fantastic, other-worldly visions, so have a great many Renaissance artists. Consider, for example Raphael’s “The Transfiguration” above.

By what standard could we regard it as more meaningful, rational or life-promoting than any of Kush’s paintings? Yet Raphael’s work was not, technically, surrealist but a part of the artistic Renaissance, which Rand’s protégé, Mary Ann Sures called “a conscious rebellion against the anti-human, otherworldly values of medieval Christendom.” (The Objectivist, March 1969)

Imagination, on the other hand, is the ability to rearrange the things one has observed in reality to achieve human values. Imagination lies in the realm of reason and law of identity.

Reason, is a choice. There is always the other possibility. Your claim here is, in essence, that human values can be produced as a result of entrataining the irrational.

Not at all. I only wish to point out that art is capable of showing not only the world that is but a world that could be. To suggest the possibility of such a world is not to deny the reality that we presently inhabit. In that respect, there is nothing irrational about Kush’s flowers with humanoid petals and ships with butterfly sails.

[Zip]

This is not an example of imagination disconnected from reason; it is, in fact, the opposite. It is looking at reality (in this case birds) and trying to deduce/discover the laws governing it (the physics of flight).

In order for DaVinci to fit surrealism (going by the definition of it's founder) he would have had to put flower petals instead of wing-like structures on his ornithoper.

Aside from the fact that the ornithopter was designed with a screw like propeller, completely distinct and different from a wing one would find on any bird I will agree that the drawing shows a rational mind at work.

But, to see interwoven lovers in the pedals of a rose (a symbol of love) that too speaks of reason twined with the artists imagination.

[adrock3215]

Not really. While many surrealists have explored fantastic, other-worldly visions, so have a great many Renaissance artists. Consider, for example Raphael’s “The Transfiguration” above.

Sir, you are completely off-base here. Raphael was a Renaissance artist, that is correct. But it is well known that towards the end of his career (around roughly 1517) he began to strive solely for beauty and execution as a Platonistic ideal. In this regard, Raphael (and more so Michelangelo) is seen as an artist at the forefront of the Mannerist and later the Baroque movements. Of course, these movements are directly antecedent to Modern art, including the Surrealist movement, with all of its garbage as we know it today. Many others saw Raphael as a turning point from Renaissance ideas to what we are still witnessing today. Note: The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. John Ruskin said:

The doom of the arts of Europe went forth from that chamber [the Stanza della Segnatura], and it was brought about in great part by the very excellencies of the man who had thus marked the commencement of decline. The perfection of execution and the beauty of feature which were attained in his works, and in those of his great contemporaries, rendered finish of execution and beauty of form the chief objects of all artists; and thenceforward execution was looked for rather than thought, and beauty rather than veracity.

And as I told you, these are the two secondary causes of the decline of art; the first being the loss of moral purpose. Pray note them clearly. In mediæval art, thought is the first thing, execution the second; in modern art execution is the first thing, and thought the second. And again, in mediæval art, truth is first, beauty second; in modern art, beauty is first, truth second. The mediæval principles led up to Raphael, and the modern principles lead down from him.[72]

Maybe on a hierarchal scale, this painting would be slightly above Kush's works, although one cannot regard this particular painting as more rational or life-promoting than Kush. This painting was the last painting Raphael did before he died, and he wasn't even able to complete it; it was completed by another artist, whose name escapes me at the moment. The fact that you brought it into this conversation to strengthen your position only illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.