Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Vladamir Kush

Rate this topic


athena glaukopis

Recommended Posts

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)

You are missing a very important understanding of what the Renaissance was all about. Granted some of the Renaissance painters were other-worldly in the Platonic sense, but what is most important is that they rendered their paintings real -- i.e. this worldly -- aside from some of the themes. In other words, they concretized abstractions, which is the most important aspects of art. Christianity actually made a very big step forward with this, and it is based on the writings of Aquinas who brought Aristotle back to European thinking. While they could not get rid of Christianity completely at the beginning, the stylization of rendering paintings real was a step towards making rational observations based on the evidence of the senses, something that had been lacking in Medieval thought and art. So, he had Jesus floating up into heaven, that was Platonic and Christian, but the fact that he rendered them real to the human eye was such an advance in art that it brought about a revolution in the rendering of paintings. This led directly to beautiful art for the sake of rendering this worldly beauty real to the human eye and mind.

To take the other-worldly aspect of some Renaissance art and transform it into surrealism is to go backwards intellectually. It is an attempt not only to dismiss this worldly beauty, but to dismiss reality as such. The Renaissance painters were bringing the beauty of this world to man's mind and vision, the surrealists reject that. This is what I meant earlier when I said surrealism is painting of non-reality; or primacy of consciousness run amuck.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Ah, so within the Renaissance we find a painter who deviates from the movement’s “concern with this earth” (The Objectivist, March 1969, p. 11).

Then surely there can be nonconformity within the surrealist movement as well, with the judgment we place on one artist not being applicable to another.

Or to look at it another way: if our major premise is that surrealism is Freudian and we encounter Artist X who is not Freudian, either we have to conclude that X is not a surrealist or that our major premise is in error.

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.

It is thought to be Giulio Romano.

The fact that you brought it into this conversation to strengthen your position only illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.

The fact that The Transfiguration was painted by not one but two Renaissance painters does not make it any less a Renaissance painting. I brought the painting into the conversation to illustrate the peril of over-generalization.

But your own post has ably performed that task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this little exchange with interest. Whlie I don't necessarily disagree with any of the characterizations of surrealism as a movement per se, I am still a bit remiss at the classification of a particular artist as "philsophically bankrupt" solely based upon the characterization of a movement. I also have no problem with someone who, knowing hte specific epistemological issues with such a school, can manage to keep those separate and still find some sort of value in the works based upon it's other characteristics (or in finding a sense of playfulness in the paintings as such).

I'm curious if adrock thinks that Rand was "philosophically bankrupt" because she liked a Dali painting, and if not, then why not? How does he reconcile such a distinct judgement of the school and its adherents, with evidence that someone (and a well-respected someone at that) was able to appreciate aspects of specific examples of that school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are missing a very important understanding of what the Renaissance was all about. Granted some of the Renaissance painters were other-worldly in the Platonic sense, but what is most important is that they rendered their paintings real -- i.e. this worldly -- aside from some of the themes.

I am not missing that fact. I have not even contested it. I introduced an example of Renaissance art into the discussion to answer ~Sophia~’s allegations about mysticism in the artist under question. Kush’s realistic treatment of fantastic or otherworldly themes is in the same mode as Raphael’s, Michelangelo’s, Corrergio’s or Titian’s.

To take the other-worldly aspect of some Renaissance art and transform it into surrealism is to go backwards intellectually.

1assunt0.jpg

I have done no such thing. You miss my point, which was to show that religious themes can be found not only in surrealism but also in the Renaissance works that Ayn Rand fervently admired.

It is an attempt not only to dismiss this worldly beauty, but to dismiss reality as such. The Renaissance painters were bringing the beauty of this world to man's mind and vision, the surrealists reject that. This is what I meant earlier when I said surrealism is painting of non-reality; or primacy of consciousness run amuck.

The assertion that surrealists reject “bringing the beauty of this world to man's mind and vision” is easily disproved by the works of Dali and Kush displayed on this thread and the positive response of Ayn Rand and members of this forum to them.

Edited by Gary Brenner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You said much but this is a minor point.

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.

That is true. As a philosophy, for the sake of completeness, I will be happy to read other descriptions if you can provide them.

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.

Yes and I said that and I will provide an explanation for my judgment based on what is actually expressed.

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)

Let's look at the context of this statement.

A view of man is projected by the manner in which the human figure is presented.

The philosophy characteristic to medieval Christendom was a rejection of the physical body and the material world. In contrast to the Greeks, human bodies were not represened as images of physical perfection. Medieval mystics regarded man as evil, human body as loathsome, and mind as impotent. This view was reflected in art. Human body was made to be unhealthy/overly thin, two dimentional, disproportionate, weightless, lifeless. Man was portait as helpless and deprived creature, doomed to pain and mysery, who's body was a prison.

Now keeping that in mind look again at the image you linked. The weight, three dimentionality, natural proportions, and healthy appearance of the human body are restored. Bodies are engaged in an energetic movement. Faces are expression-full giving hint of underlying conscioussness. Images are in the sphere of real with a positive view about man's existance and identity. Very much "a rebellion against anti-human values of medieval Christendom". Religious theme is judged in that context.

I only wish to point out that art is capable of showing not only the world that is but a world that could be.

I am not sure what you mean. Many of the images above are in a direct conflict with laws of identity. Do you think it is disposable?

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kush’s realistic treatment of fantastic or otherworldly themes is in the same mode as Raphael’s, Michelangelo’s, Corrergio’s or Titian’s.

That is false. Let's look at Mr. Kush's vision of man.

Whenever you find a human figure it is often tiny in comparison to it's surroundings, tall and thin, stick like unnaturally elongated or flattened, long arms, long legs, small head, often bold. Many figures have no visible faces.

Those are the creatures offered to us, in many of his creations, as visual embodiment of man's metaphysical nature.

coolestpictureillusion1dm1.jpg

What does this image tells us about man's existance? When things get though (like those rough, dark waters) what is going to get you out of it? (Notice how small the boat is in comparison to almost horizonless waters.) Where does the hope come from? What would be the source of your strength?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still a bit remiss at the classification of a particular artist as "philsophically bankrupt" solely based upon the characterization of a movement.

My judgment was not based on that and even if you make such a conclusion you may always find a piece that does not fit that description. Eventhough you may notice a trend, in the end, each piece should be judged individually.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I merely pointed out that an interest in optical illusions can found in many surrealist works.

Given the fact that much of contemporary philosophy (including surrealism) seeks to destroy man's confidence in the power of his mind, I wonder if this particular interest is not driven by a desire to attack the accuracy of man's sensory perception using such illusions as examples of inadequacy of our vision; saying in essence: Seeing is deceiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that much of contemporary philosophy (including surrealism) seeks to destroy man's confidence in the power of his mind, I wonder if this particular interest is not driven by a desire to attack the accuracy of man's sensory perception using such illusions as examples of inadequacy of our vision; saying in essence: Seeing is deceiving.

This is the sort of thing that bothers me. It is one thing to discuss the objective meaning of a particular work of art or school, but quite another to ascribe (or "wonder" about) motives to it's adherents. The latter falls in the realm of psychologizing, dont you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the sort of thing that bothers me. It is one thing to discuss the objective meaning of a particular work of art or school, but quite another to ascribe (or "wonder" about) motives to it's adherents. The latter falls in the realm of psychologizing, dont you think?

I have not offered it as anything but what it was - a speculation (and it obviously was not related to our discussion about Kush in particular). However, if you search a bit on sites preoccupied with optical illusions you will find that what I said is not completely off. Those are some of the conclusions that people are making as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not psychologizing to observe a work of art -- any art -- and discover what the artist's view of consciousness, man, and existence are; because that is directly observable in the art, if you know how to see it. And I have to agree with Sophia that paintings of stick-men conveys that man is not important or that there is something wrong with him metaphysically. One can even observe some of the psycho-epistemology of an artist and even his psychology, if one observes enough of the artist's work. What an artist conveys says a lot about who he is, and what his mind-set is; and likewise when one response to a work of art. The response however, reveals the viewer, not the art, so one could not say it is good art because I like it, or ascribe things to the artist strictly based on an observer's reaction to it. The art itself, and what the artist chooses to focus in on and how it is conveyed reveals the artists view of existence, and what he thinks man's place is in existence; the viewer's response is based on his view of existence and man's place in it, and whether or not the artist conveyed that view or clashes with it.

Going back to Renaissance art versus more modern surrealism art, the Renaissance was a period of transition from the Dark Ages (the rule of the mystics) to the Enlightenment (the rule of reason). Because it was transitional, there are still a lot of left-overs from the previous very other-worldly elements that were in the prevalent philosophy at the time. Likewise with surrealism, except the transition goes the other way; from a focus on reason and reality (which is still there in the details of the paintings), to a focus on some otherly mystical realm where sailing ships have flower petals and butterfly wings instead of sails. I mean, unless someone can point out what those images refer to -- a poetic phrase for example -- then it has to be taken literally; as whimsy for the sake of whimsy -- a dismissal of the real for the sake of the imagined set adrift from reality. It's not as bad as smeared but empty canvases of "abstract art", but it is certainly not of this earth nor of this reality.

Some people keep pointing at Dali's Jesus cubed painting, but that was one of the least unreal paintings he ever did. The realistic rendering of the figures is inspiring; and it is difficult to tell if the man is in agony or in ecstacy, presumably as he is going up to be with God after his Crucifixion. Perhaps I ought to point out that many men were recruited into the Crusades because they were told that union with God was better than sexual ecstacy. And I think Dali conveys that very well. So he is concretizing an abstraction. I don't know what his twisted clocks and deformed creatures in many of his other paintings are meant to reveal except that reality is fluid, as in not firm, that it is all kind of runny and gooey; which is a rejection of identity.

Kush does a similar thing with his paintings of willowy men and strange ships that would be quite useless in reality. I am not trying to say that an artist must paint real things and only real things. There is a place for fantasy art. But what is the fantasy that he is trying to concretize? I could see ships being pulled by butterflies, say as they go to never never land or something, but what is the point of putting butterfly wings or flower petals as sailing ships sails? What is he trying to convey; and why are you responding positively to it?

I suspect those who like those paintings are positively responding to the realism of the details, since he has an admirable talent for rendering things real; but what is the overall theme of the paintings and why have a positive reaction to those images? I mean, they are rather cutesy or playful in a sense, which is positive, but is it silliness for the sake of silliness? Is he laughing at reality? Does he think life is just a big joke while he is waiting to go to heaven? I think these are questions that need to be asked.

It is possible to take life and reality very seriously, and yet to enjoy it profoundly and even to be "light hearted" about it all; but only if you face reality with reason.

I don't think Kush is doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said much but this is a minor point.

That is true. As a philosophy, for the sake of completeness, I will be happy to read other descriptions if you can provide them.

There are serviceable ones here and here. Bear in mind that it would be a mistake to assume that the characteristics of one surrealist painter are necessarily true of another. Like the romantic movement, the surrealist movement encompasses a number of diverse and sometimes contradictory points of view. Thus some surrealists were communists (Benjamin Peret) and some were anti-communists (Salvador Dali). Some were religious (Dali) and some were atheists (Luis Buñuel). Some were abstract (Miró) and some were representational (Dali).

In the case of Kush, he shares with better known surrealists like de Chirico and Magritte a flair for the element of surprise and unexpected juxtapositions. I see nothing in common with Breton's "assault against conscious reality."

Yes and I said that and I will provide an explanation for my judgment based on what is actually expressed.

Good, then we can judge Kush without reference to his place in the surrealist school.

Let's look at the context of this statement.

A view of man is projected by the manner in which the human figure is presented.

The philosophy characteristic to medieval Christendom was a rejection of the physical body and the material world. In contrast to the Greeks, human bodies were not represened as images of physical perfection. Medieval mystics regarded man as evil, human body as loathsome, and mind as impotent. This view was reflected in art. Human body was made to be unhealthy/overly thin, two dimentional, disproportionate, weightless, lifeless. Man was portait as helpless and deprived creature, doomed to pain and mysery, who's body was a prison.

Now keeping that in mind look again at the image you linked. The weight, three dimentionality, natural proportions, and healthy appearance of the human body are restored. Bodies are engaged in an energetic movement. Faces are expression-full giving hint of underlying conscioussness. Images are in the sphere of real with a positive view about man's existance and identity. Very much "a rebellion against anti-human values of medieval Christendom". Religious theme is judged in that context.

Sure, there was a revolution in technique and knowledge of the human form, but Renaissance painters certainly were not in rebellion against the Christian faith. The fact that their paintings were rendered realistically, with superb draftsmanship, understanding of perspective and mastery of human anatomy doesn’t make them any less religious.

Michelangelo, an artist highly esteemed in Rand’s esthetics, was no mercenary Bible illustrator. Although sometimes at odds with the Church over nudity in his works, he was a believer throughout his life. In the sonnet Vorrei voler, Signor he wrote,

Tear Thou the veil O Lord, and break the wall

Whose hardness holdeth back and doth retard

The sunshine of Thy light, lost to the world!

Send the predicted light to come to us

To Thy Fair Consort, so that I may flame

At heart, full free of doubts, feeling Thee alone.

I am not sure what you mean. Many of the images above are in a direct conflict with laws of identity. Do you think it is disposable?

Perhaps you would explain how Kush’s paintings have violated that law.

That is false. Let's look at Mr. Kush's vision of man.

Whenever you find a human figure it is often tiny in comparison to it's surroundings, tall and thin, stick like unnaturally elongated or flattened, long arms, long legs, small head, often bold. Many figures have no visible faces.

Those are the creatures offered to us, in many of his creations, as visual embodiment of man's metaphysical nature.

It struck me right away that Kush is primarily a landscape painter. From his autobiographical description at http://www.vladimirkush.com/bio.php we learn that he was influenced by the geography of his native Russia, whose plains “stretched on unimpeded for thousands of kilometers.” I don’t think we need draw any philosophical conclusions from that. I cannot disprove your claim that the tiny figures in his works symbolically diminish the importance of man. Yet my own reaction was that these vast spaces suggested great possibilities.

What does this image tells us about man's existance? When things get though (like those rough, dark waters) what is going to get you out of it? (Notice how small the boat is in comparison to almost horizonless waters.) Where does the hope come from? What would be the source of your strength?

The obvious interpretation would be that the boat (man) is in the hands and light of God. It hardly expresses my own beliefs and I find the metaphor a bit hackneyed. But I still have to marvel at the power of the image. The composition is arresting, and the sharp contrast of dark and light tones, warm and cool colors and rough and smooth textures is stunning.

On the whole, my experience with the painting was uplifting. That is not a result of the work’s theme but of the artist’s remarkable skill. A great many Renaissance nativity and crucifixion scenes have had the same effect on me.

Given the fact that much of contemporary philosophy (including surrealism) seeks to destroy man's confidence in the power of his mind, I wonder if this particular interest is not driven by a desire to attack the accuracy of man's sensory perception using such illusions as examples of inadequacy of our vision; saying in essence: Seeing is deceiving.

metamorphosis_narcissus.jpg

Dali's Metamorphosis of Narcissus

Find what you like in surrealism. Your confidence may be destroyed, but I take delight in the painter’s illusion in the same way and for the same reason I enjoy a great magician.

By the way, all realistic representational painting is a form of optical illusion. It turns a flat, white surface into a seeming window on a world with depth, weight, color and texture.

If I see grapes in a still life that look good enough to eat, the last thing to cross my mind would be that the artist has launched an attack on "the accuracy of man's sensory perception."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not psychologizing to observe a work of art -- any art -- and discover what the artist's view of consciousness, man, and existence are; because that is directly observable in the art, if you know how to see it.

I agree with that fully. Maybe you can point out to me the specific work of art being observed and the artists metaphysical value judgements being discerned, at the time I suggested that there was psychologizing going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people keep pointing at Dali's Jesus cubed painting, but that was one of the least unreal paintings he ever did.

Great, so you agree then that it is a matter of degree. Hopefully you can help me convince adrock that a complete judgement of the artist (not his work no less) is a bit overboard then.

As to the Kush paintings, I would have to argue that they are also some of the least surrealistic that I've seen, consisting of a picture that is almost totally realistic with a few elements replaced with other elements, such as to be metaphorical or as in a simile. Just as a a floating crucifiction cannot exist, but the Christian metaphor still has meaning so objects such as flowers and butterflies have meaning as well, specifically as objects of natural beauty. I simply took this metaphor to mean that the man-made (such as the mechanism of a ship) is beautiful, in the same way. I took the dragonfly construction to be of the same sort of genre, that mans ingenuity rivals the consruction of nature. I especially liked the camel/needle metaphor since I specifically took that as a refutation of the Christian idea that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Well, if we have camels lining up to go through the eye of a needle, what does that say about rich men? I especially liked the metaphor of man as the heart of a flame. I thought this was decidedly pro-man and pro-life. The only one I wrestled with was the one that the detractors seem to only be able to focus on, the lighthouse. But given the decidedly pro-man themes of all of his other paintings, I actually took the metaphor much more literally, as one of a lighthouse (i.e. man-created) being the source of help to those lost.

In fact, the really surealistic stuff, which is almost incoherent (such as Dali's landscapes with clocks melting and such, and juxtapositions that make no sense) is decidedly unpalatable to me, but I view this work in much the same way that you view the Dali Crucifixion. If one wanted to say that that other sort of work was a complete rejection of reason and the artist was philosphically bankrupt why I'd be the first to agree with him, just a I would a blob painter. However, I find this particular form of surrealism to be only mildly annoying, and I find I can enjoy the romantic/realistic aspects of the painting and still hold my annoyance together without having to compromise my values.

What I find interesting is that we've had people bring us realistic paintings that had elements of impressionism in them, with subjects that were pastoral or common; we've also had photo-realistic paintings brought to us, and in none of htese cases did we condemn the artist for those elements that clearly are anti-reason. I find impressionism to be a form of disintegration, and disintegration is hardly something I'd advocate in one's thinking. I find pure realism (such as in photo-realistic painting) to be a form of metaphysical egalitarianism, which defies the idea of values and value heirarchies, and I'd hardly advocate that in one's thinking. But in each case we seemed to be able to value the aspects of the work, while qualifying our judgements of it, because of the fact that we're smart enough to be able to judge the work objectively and not hypothesize about the psychological motivations of the artists or the school's adherents, or the philosophical bankruptcy of the.

I have to believe that this is how Rand viewed the topic since it is clear that she liked some surrealist work, and since her husband painted some surrealist work (which by the way is the specific painting that is shown in A Sense of Life, when Peikoff discusses how O'Connor finally found his calling and produced some really "great" work. I even remember that the specific adjective used was actually played while that work was being shown on screen).

But I'm perplexed by the odd behavior I find in some to really want to condemn this work whole hog, the artist, and the school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

metamorphosis_narcissus.jpg

Dali's Metamorphosis of Narcissus

Now this is one where I'd have to agree with everyone who has discussed the school of surrealism. It is hard enough to keep the metaphors conceptually straight when one or two elements are replaced "like for like" as in the Kush paintings. This is utter epistemological chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, so you agree then that it is a matter of degree. Hopefully you can help me convince adrock that a complete judgement of the artist (not his work no less) is a bit overboard then.

A work of art can be defined as a product of choices. The particular choices that an artist makes are in front of the beholder; one simply needs to distinguish them. It isn't really necessary to say a choice is preceeded by philosophy here, is it?

I agree that each individual work of art is a matter of degree. If you show me a single painting, then of course I have no way of truthfully knowing that artists entire worldview - I can only gather a small portion of it. However, when one is presented with a collection of paintings, as one is in this thread, then surely one is able to gather enough information to reach a conclusion on the artists' presentation of values by observing his choices, and therefore, his essential philosophical positions.

Of course, one can value certain things about a painting while still condemning the artist in general. For example, I greatly admire some of Raphael's work in the Stanza della Segnatura. Primarily, The School of Athens, one of my favorite works of art of all time, which I value for its iconography but little else. I would say that Rand likely valued the Dali work for a particular as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that each individual work of art is a matter of degree. If you show me a single painting, then of course I have no way of truthfully knowing that artists entire worldview - I can only gather a small portion of it. However, when one is presented with a collection of paintings, as one is in this thread, then surely one is able to gather enough information to reach a conclusion on the artists' presentation of values by observing his choices, and therefore, his essential philosophical positions.

Well, this is great. I presented a case in the section of my post after you quoted me that argued as a matter of degree, why this artist doesn't warrant your judgement. So far, you have not analyzed the artist at all, but have made general comments regarding the school. Maybe you can use the process you mention above and defend your assertion. I for one would be interested in the analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are serviceable ones here and here.

But these are not different from what I posted. They confirm the anti-reason definition which I provided.

I was looking for an alternative point of view within this particular movement.

Thus some surrealists were communists (Benjamin Peret) and some were anti-communists (Salvador Dali). Some were religious (Dali) and some were atheists (Luis Buñuel). Some were abstract (Miró) and some were representational (Dali).

What is uniting them all into one group? You can be all of those and doubt reason.

In the case of Kush, he shares with better known surrealists like de Chirico and Magritte a flair for the element of surprise and unexpected juxtapositions.

Before it was humor, and now it is an element of surprise. Both are not more valuable than the message of a piece and certainly not valuable if there is not an intelligible message at all. I have nothing against humor or suprises, I enjoy both, but not at the expense of meaning.

The purpose of art is to help us to integrate, to make new valuable conceptual connections, or much wider in scope abstract intergrations, or to bring something to our immediate focus.

Most of surrealism goes against the core of rational values. I strive for the clarity of my thought, for using my mind expertly, for integration between reality and my consciousness, for understanding the source of my emotional reactions, for integration of my emotions and rational, explicitly identified - values.

Surrealism places feeling above understanding and thus it also cuts off the connection between experienced emotion and identifiable value. Kush actually does it expertly in my opinion (and if that is his goal - it would have made him a great artist - highly mistaken about reality but great as an artist - great when it comes to getting his intended message accross). In his case you get what you identify as a positive reaction but you often struggle (and try to rationalize) to identify the value to which you are responding. Then you look at a piece closely and it seem to have no message aside from "neat/different" at all.

but Renaissance painters certainly were not in rebellion against the Christian faith.

You are changing the meaning of the statement you quoted - the claim was not that it was against faith. It was however more like the Greeks and less like Christian anti-man, anti-existance philosophy (regardless of what their intent was).

The fact that their paintings were rendered realistically, with superb draftsmanship, understanding of perspective and mastery of human anatomy doesn’t make them any less religious.

It was not about draftstmanship or lack of appropriate knowledge and skill. How a man was painted was a choice driven by the philosophy (explicit or implicit). Kush is painting man as a faceless stick not because he is not familiar with human anatomy.

Although sometimes at odds with the Church over nudity in his works, he was a believer throughout his life.

I already addressed the issue of artist's personal beliefs. Again more like the Greeks regardless... I don't care what he was thinking, or how many times a day he prayed, or even that he maybe believed that it was not his talent but rather he was channeling God.

It struck me right away that Kush is primarily a landscape painter.

That maybe so yet he does include man (and in a specific way as I explained) eventhough he often does not have to for the sake of his visual trick. Art is a product of choice.

But I still have to marvel at the power of the image. The composition is arresting, and the sharp contrast of dark and light tones, warm and cool colors and rough and smooth textures is stunning.

I have no problem recognizing that what he is doing he is doing well. I just don't like his message (whenever I can tell what it is - and when there is no meaning - because that is a message in itself) and thus I don't like most of his creations eventhough I do like his technique. To bad it is not used to promote my values.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is great. I presented a case in the section of my post after you quoted me that argued as a matter of degree, why this artist doesn't warrant your judgement. So far, you have not analyzed the artist at all, but have made general comments regarding the school. Maybe you can use the process you mention above and defend your assertion. I for one would be interested in the analysis.

I would say that Kush's art is not beautiful for the same reason I would say a woman born with her nose on her forehead, her eyes where her ears should be, and her legs in the sockets of her arms would not be beautiful. In his works, Kush is searching for and giving priority to a beauty found in his mind; whether it is a Freudian unconscious mind or not is trivial, although I suppose it is Freudian. The primary subject of every work is something that is contrived, some supposedely clever reorganization of not fantastical, but real objects. Of course the mind is noble and beautiful, but the concept of beauty is derived from sensory experiences of reality. It is not some sort of abstract idea that exists super-celestially. Kush is Platonic at root. He is all too eager to reorganize reality in order to allude to some great vision. Is it a illustration of things as they are? No. Is it a vision of things as they ought to be? I suppose, if one feels that reality ought to be reshaped.

Certain aspects of nature are certainly portrayed with a great deal of attention. In fact, they are portrayed a bit too dramatically. The colors are pastel-like. The detail with regard to the natural world is grand and theatrical. The crests of the waves are overemphasized, the clouds wisk in dramatic impossible fashion, highlighted with bright hues. A triumphant whale leaps. The light source is always diluted with a correspondingly over-dramatic attention to detail, shining through a cracked egg or an open mollusk. And then we see the likeness of man reduced to stick figures and savage looking creatures with no distinguishable traits, facial features, or the like. The beholder can be sure that Kush has thought this through and done this purposefully. In one painting the candle is shown as a lighthouse of sorts. The candle is a religious symbol, representing I suppose many things but primarily the Holy Spirit. Jesus told his followers they were the light of the world. Kush seems to use light throughout his works in a similar religious context, i.e. using it to guide man or conceiving of a light source as a "gemstone" or a "new birth".

I have more thoughts but I have to run for now.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this is one where I'd have to agree with everyone who has discussed the school of surrealism. It is hard enough to keep the metaphors conceptually straight when one or two elements are replaced "like for like" as in the Kush paintings. This is utter epistemological chaos.

How so? I had no trouble seeing what Dali is driving at. Among other things, he is presenting a comparison of forms. The youth bathing on the left is caught in a pose that closely resembles the hand holding the egg on the right. On the most superficial level the viewer can appreciate the artist’s ability to discover an unexpected similarity in familiar objects. Symbolically, as we a tipped off by the title, the painting deals with the transience of youth: that life is finite and matter in a continuous state of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Symbolically, as we a tipped off by the title, the painting deals with the transience of youth: that life is finite and matter in a continuous state of change.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? What were the elements that lead you to it?

Narcissus is a symbol for destructive self admiration. He died of thirst because he did not want to shatter his own image in water which he would have had to do to take a drink.

The youth bathing on the left is caught in a pose that closely resembles the hand holding the egg on the right.

What is the message?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But these are not different from what I posted. They confirm the anti-reason definition which I provided.

I was looking for an alternative point of view within this particular movement.

What is uniting them all into one group? You can be all of those and doubt reason.

As I took pains to point out, many viewpoints exist within the community of surrealist artists, and hostility to reason is not a common denominator. In fact, the first definition I referenced makes no mention of “doubting reason.” It does, however, allude to an unexpected arrangement of elements (something we find repeatedly in Kush):

“A 20th-century literary and artistic movement that attempts to express the workings of the subconscious and is characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtaposition of subject matter.”

Before it was humor, and now it is an element of surprise.

I am not aware that there is a contradiction between these elements. In fact, Arthur Koestler, whom I mentioned earlier in this thread, sees surprise as an important component of laughter. A joke can be regarded as the intersection of two conventionally unrelated "operational fields."

Both are not more valuable than the message of a piece and certainly not valuable if there is not an intelligible message at all. I have nothing against humor or suprises, I enjoy both, but not at the expense of meaning.

Perhaps the message of the piece is its humor. And what would be the problem with that? If all a painting, drawing or cartoon does is make us smile, then it has made itself useful to us and we don’t have to demand any more of it than that.

The purpose of art is to help us to integrate, to make new valuable conceptual connections, or much wider in scope abstract intergrations, or to bring something to our immediate focus.

Very well then, at the very least Mr. Kush has brought some interesting visions to our immediate focus.

Most of surrealism goes against the core of rational values.

A methodical study would be required to have any certainty about such a conclusion. In any case, it is irrelevant to the example at hand. I have already shown that it is fallacious (Dicto simpliciter) to judge an individual in a group by attributes which are true of only some members.

More importantly, in Post #54 in response to my call not to judge Kush by what Breton says, you wrote, “Yes and I said that and I will provide an explanation for my judgment based on what is actually expressed.”

So we don’t have to refer to “most of surrealism” at all in order to evaluate Kush.

Kush actually does it expertly in my opinion (and if that is his goal - it would have made him a great artist - highly mistaken about reality but great as an artist - great when it comes to getting his intended message accross). In his case you get what you identify as a positive reaction but you often struggle (and try to rationalize) to identify the value to which you are responding. Then you look at a piece closely and it seem to have no message aside from "neat/different" at all.

Fine. That’s a reasoned judgment. It deals with Kush on his own terms without condemning by the pigeonhole method. (My take on Kush was different: my reaction was positive and I have a pretty good idea what value I was responding to.)

You are changing the meaning of the statement you quoted - the claim was not that it was against faith. It was however more like the Greeks and less like Christian anti-man, anti-existance philosophy (regardless of what their intent was).

The statement reads, “Very much a rebellion against anti-human values of medieval Christendom.” In fact, Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo were Christian and their religious beliefs were not significantly different than those of artists in previous centuries. Like their predecessors, Christians in 16th century Italy uniformly believed that God created all that is seen and unseen, that Jesus is the son of God and is one with God, that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, that Jesus suffered and was crucified, etc.

In short, we can say that artists of the Renaissance were believers in “mysticism,” as Ayn Rand would define that word: “the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason.” ("Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 62.)

In Post #44 you wrote, “many of Kush's creations are nothing but mystical.” If this criticism is true for Kush, it is just as true for the Renaissance artist-heroes of Objectivist esthetics.

It was not about draftstmanship or lack of appropriate knowledge and skill. How a man was painted was a choice driven by the philosophy (explicit or implicit). Kush is painting man as a faceless stick not because he is not familiar with human anatomy.

This is demonstrably false. Perspective is a science that was not fully developed until the 15th century when Filippo Brunelleschi discovered its geometrical basis. When he painted the outlines of Florentine buildings onto a mirror, he noticed that all of the lines converged on the horizon line. Artists to this day use the same method. The discovery of new pigments in the New World such as carmine increased the European artist’s range of colors. And the invention of the printing press helped spread criticism of mistaken notions in Galenic anatomy.

In any case, I find Kush’s stylized anatomy distinctive and pleasing.

I already addressed the issue of artist's personal beliefs. Again more like the Greeks regardless... I don't care what he was thinking, or how many times a day he prayed, or even that he maybe believed that it was not his talent but rather he was channeling God.

800px-Creation_of_Adam.jpg

Fine. If it is okay for Michelangelo to have been a Christian and to have interpreted Christian mythology in his work, then why worry about whether Kush or any other artist is “mystical”?

Edited by Gary Brenner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you arrive at this conclusion? What were the elements that lead you to it?

Classical mythology. Narcissus at the pool so engrossed in his own image that we cannot see his face. Also, perhaps despondent that he can never embrace himself (concretize the ideal of love). A white hand (Death) holding an egg (age-old symbol of new life) from which a flower springs (the flower that will bear the boy's name, or perhaps the plant that will grow from his moldering remains).

Narcissus is a symbol for destructive self admiration. He died of thirst because he did not want to shatter his own image in water which he would have had to do to take a drink.

What is the message?

Didn't you just tell us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not the main thrust of this thread, but I wanted to comment on this:

... sees surprise as an important component of laughter. A joke can be regarded as the intersection of two conventionally unrelated "operational fields."
I'm not sure one can generalize this to all humor, but definitely to certain category of humor. Sometimes when one thinks something is odd, one says "that's funny". Here's an old thread on the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...