Evidence for Theory of Art History?

[ctrl y]

What's the evidence for Rand's claim that painting moved away from realism as a result of Immanuel Kant's philosophy? Isn't the development of the camera a pretty strong contender, since it would have spurred painters to distinguish painting from photography?

Edited July 8, 2008 by ctrl y

[softwareNerd]

A citation and quote would be helpful.

Edited July 9, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Jonathan13]

A citation and quote would be helpful.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/modernart.html

"It is highly doubtful that the practitioners and admirers of modern art have the intellectual capacity to understand its philosophical meaning; all they need to do is indulge the worst of their subconscious premises. But their leaders do understand the issue consciously: the father of modern art is Immanuel Kant (see his Critique of Judgment)."

– Art and Cognition, The Romantic Manifesto, 76.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Jonathan13

[adrock3215]

I'm not sure what particular aspect of art you are referring to.

If it is painting you are referring to, then I suggest as evidence studying the art movements from Kant to today, including (but not limited to): Realism, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Precisionism, Futurism, Constructivism, Dada, Surrealism, German Expressionism, De Stijl, Abstract Expressionism, Color Field Painting, Pop-Art, and Photorealism.

Kant is the base of these movements in metaphysical essentials. Other philosophers, namely Schopenhauer, did more particular work in the field of aesthetics in general.

[Jonathan13]

I'm not sure what particular aspect of art you are referring to.

If it is painting you are referring to, then I suggest as evidence studying the art movements from Kant to today, including (but not limited to): Realism, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Precisionism, Futurism, Constructivism, Dada, Surrealism, German Expressionism, De Stijl, Abstract Expressionism, Color Field Painting, Pop-Art, and Photorealism.

Kant is the base of these movements in metaphysical essentials. Other philosophers, namely Schopenhauer, did more particular work in the field of aesthetics in general.

I think that if people are looking to support Rand's claim that Kant is the father of "modern art" (which I take to mean non-objective art -- the art that moved away from direct representational figuration), a good place to start would be to quote the fathers of modern art (the actual artists who first began creating abstract paintings) citing Kant as their primary influence.

J

Edited July 9, 2008 by Jonathan13

[adrock3215]

I think that if people are looking to support Rand's claim that Kant is the father of "modern art" (which I take to mean non-objective art -- the art that moved away from direct representational figuration), a good place to start would be to quote the fathers of modern art (the actual artists who first began creating abstract paintings) citing Kant as their primary influence.

J

What you are proposing is non-essential. One need not have an explicit quote from every artist citing Kant as an influence in order to prove that Kant was the major influence, essentially. I'm not sure you would even find such a quote from the likes of Duchamp, Monet, Matisse, Picasso, Pollack, etc. What will prove Rand's thesis is an essential understanding of Kantian metaphysics and epistemology coupled with a particular observation of the essentials of a particular work or school. For example, one could start with "the Impressionists were concerned with analyzing the nature of light by disintegrating it into physical sensations" or "the Cubists were concerned with portraying reality as socially constructed, and analyzed the three-dimensional world in terms of various two-dimensional geometrical abstractions, i.e. the straight line and the arc", and then show how these particulars are derivations of Kantian philosophy.

However, there are some explicit statements by modern artists that one can trace back to Kant. For instance, Dali and the Surrealists were strong admirers of Freud; I am sure it would not be too hard to find an explicit statement of admiration for psychoanalysis by Dali and his followers. One would have to demonstrate how Freud was influenced by Kant to complete the link.

Edited July 9, 2008 by adrock3215

[eriatarka]

I think that if people are looking to support Rand's claim that Kant is the father of "modern art" (which I take to mean non-objective art -- the art that moved away from direct representational figuration), a good place to start would be to quote the fathers of modern art (the actual artists who first began creating abstract paintings) citing Kant as their primary influence.

Kandinsky is widely accepted as the father of abstract painting and I've read various writings by him yet found no mention of Kant - are you thinking of something in particular?

Also non-representational art doesnt imply that its 'non-objective' - instrumental music is a fundamentally non-representational artform yet noone has a problem with that. Abstract painting often has more in common with music than it does with representational painting (especially Kandinsky, who saw very strong relationships between colours and music on account of his synaesthesia). Demanding that all painting should be representative strikes me as being equivalent to demanding that all music should be programmatic (because how can non-programmatic music represent reality?)

The highly structured nature of Kandinsky's better work reminds me of symphonic music, especially pieces like this

Edited July 9, 2008 by eriatarka

[softwareNerd]

Kandinsky is widely accepted as the father of abstract painting and I've read various writings by him yet found no mention of Kant - are you thinking of something in particular?

I don't think Jonathan is implying that one will find such a mention; just suggesting where to look.

However, as Adrock pointed out, what one would want to look for is not necessarily an explict mention of Kant as such, but an aesthetic theory that is similar to the one espoused by Kant. That would be a start. Then, one could try to trace it's intellectual roots, step by step, to see if there was a connection.

Ctrl-Y has not provided a citiation, so it's not clear what he was referring to. If it is the quote that Jonathan provided, then what Rand is saying is that the aesthetic theories of the leaders of modern art echo the same themes as laid out by Kant in his "Critique of Judgment".

[eriatarka]

However, as Adrock pointed out, what one would want to look for is not necessarily an explict mention of Kant as such, but an aesthetic theory that is similar to the one espoused by Kant.

I agree that explicit citing of Kant isnt necessary to prove that someone was influenced by him, I was just pointing out that most of the influential early-20th artists didnt mention Kant, as far as I know.

If it is the quote that Jonathan provided, then what Rand is saying is that the aesthetic theories of the leaders of modern art echo the same themes as laid out by Kant in his "Critique of Judgment".

Fair enoguh. I dont think youll find many connections though - most of the worst trends in modern art are anti-Kantian in nature imo. If I had to pick 3 things which defined a lot of 20th art then it would be a) sensuality over intellectualism, psychoanalytic concerns and c) the treatment of art as a political object. Kant was very much opposed to all three of these.

In any case, it seems like cherry picking to claim that the art Kant had the most influence on was the 20th stuff created several hundred years after his death, rather than that produced by artists a few decades after he published his work, by artists who were directly influenced by him, and who often explicitly identified themselves as being Kantians. Schiller is a good example - his main work on aesthetic theory ("On The Aesthetic Education of Mankind") is extremely Kantian in nature and references him every couple of pages, yet Ayn Rand admired his artistic work. Heinrich Heine also had a lot of respect for Kantian thought, and his poetry is wonderful.

I would say that German art during the 18th, 19th and early 20th century represents the pinnacle of human artistic achievement, and a lot of its main figures were deeply respectful of Kantian thought. The worst excesses of modern art seem more French/American in nature to me (the French focus on sensuality over intelligibility, and the anti-elitist consumerism of America with its rejection of any distinction between high and low art)

Edited July 9, 2008 by eriatarka

[adrock3215]

In essence, Kant's position is that pure emotional responses and judgements to a given work of art can be a form of 'apriori' knowledge in and of themselves. So, for instance, if I take a pen and draw a sharp crooked line with several straight angles (say, like this /\/\/\/\/\ ), and it invokes a feeling (let's say, of anger), then that is a universally valid judgement and a form of knowledge (and a great work of art).

For example, when a manifold is synthesized in accordance with the concepts green and square, the outcome is a perceptual experience in which the object is perceived as green and square. But now in the Critique of Judgment, Kant suggests that imagination and understanding can stand in a different kind of relationship, one in which imagination's activity harmonizes with the understanding but without imagination's being constrained or governed by understanding. In this relationship, imagination and understanding in effect do what is ordinarily involved in the bringing of objects under concepts, and hence in the perception of objects as having empirical features: but they do this without bringing the object under any concept in particular. So rather than perceiving the object as green or square, the subject whose faculties are in free play responds to it perceptually with a state of mind which is non-conceptual, and specifically a feeling of disinterested pleasure. It is this kind of pleasure which is the basis for a judgment of beauty.

Kant appeals to this account of pleasure in the beautiful in order to argue for its universal communicability: to argue, that is, that a subject who feels such a pleasure, and thus judges the object to be beautiful, is entitled to demand that everyone else feel a corresponding pleasure and thus agree with her judgment of beauty.

- From Kant's Aesthetics

Edited July 9, 2008 by adrock3215

[Jonathan13]

Kandinsky is widely accepted as the father of abstract painting and I've read various writings by him yet found no mention of Kant - are you thinking of something in particular?

No, I'm thinking that, in general, the various theories behind modern art were not particularly Kantian. But I'm open to discovering that I might be wrong.

Also non-representational art doesnt imply that its 'non-objective' - instrumental music is a fundamentally non-representational artform yet noone has a problem with that.

I was using the term "non-objective" because that's what the art was often called by its creators and collectors. Prior to the existence of Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum, which was designed to be “a temple to non-objectivity,” Hilla Rebay housed Guggenheim's collection in a temporary space that she called the Museum of Non-Objective Painting. The term isn't meant to be derogatory.

As you say, music is also non-representational, or non-objective. Even Rand said that until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music, and our choices in music must be treated as a subjective matter.

My view is that what's good for the aural goose is good for the visual gander.

Abstract painting often has more in common with music than it does with representational painting (especially Kandinsky, who saw very strong relationships between colours and music on account of his synaesthesia). Demanding that all painting should be representative strikes me as being equivalent to demanding that all music should be programmatic (because how can non-programmatic music represent reality?)

I agree (except for the part about Kandinsky's alleged synesthesia: it's my understanding that he did not have synesthesia -- that it's just something of a rumor, myth or misunderstanding that has been repeated -- and that he only explored the condition as part of his investigation into color, sound and the senses).

J

[Jonathan13]

I don't think Jonathan is implying that one will find such a mention; just suggesting where to look.

Right, I'm suggesting that modernist artists favorably quoting Kant would be some pretty strong evidence to back up Rand's views, but I'm also implying that modernist artists explicitly rejecting Kant would be strong evidence against Rand's claim that Kant was the father of modern art.

However, as Adrock pointed out, what one would want to look for is not necessarily an explict mention of Kant as such, but an aesthetic theory that is similar to the one espoused by Kant. That would be a start. Then, one could try to trace it's intellectual roots, step by step, to see if there was a connection.

Yeah, and similarity to Kant doesn't necessarily imply that one agrees with or has been influenced by him. There are Objectivists who have pointed out that there are aspects of Rand's aesthetic theories which are very similar to Kant's, probably much more similar than Kandinsky's or Seurat's are to Kant's, yet I doubt that most Objectivist would be comfortable with the claim that Kant was therefore the father of the Objectivist Esthetics.

J

Fair enoguh. I dont think youll find many connections though - most of the worst trends in modern art are anti-Kantian in nature imo.

It's been my impression as well that many of the artists who led the way away from representational realism were anti-Kantian, or at least not pro-Kantian.

J

[eriatarka]

In essence, Kant's position is that pure emotional responses and judgements to a given work of art can be a form of 'apriori' knowledge in and of themselves. So, for instance, if I take a pen and draw a sharp crooked line with several straight angles (say, like this /\/\/\/\/\ ), and it invokes a feeling (let's say, of anger), then that is a universally valid judgement and a form of knowledge (and a great work of art).

I'm no expert on Kant's third critique, but I remember him saying that a key component of objective judgements in art was that they should be universalizable - ie the difference between saying "I like that work" and "that work is good" is that in the latter case you would expect all other rational people to respond the same way that you do, and (to go one step further) beleive that they ought to respond the same way to it that you do. This isnt true in the case of the crooked line you describe, since any emotion you receive from that is obviously based on your own psychology and you would have no grounds for claiming that others should respond in the same way (ie it wouldnt be an objective judgement in the sense that Kant means).

Kant didnt say that anything which caused you to have a strong emotion was necessarily a great work of art, that seems like a strawman. I think he was referring more to the feeling that you get in response to some works of art which causes you to believe that they are good in a way which goes beyond your personal taste - theres a difference between liking someone on a purely personal level and believing that it has objective artistic merit, and I think thats what Kant was getting at with his distinction between the agreeable and the beautiful.

edit: Yeah, the sections on the 2nd and 4rth Moments of the Beauty in the essay you linked to are what I remember him saying - universalizability is the key factor seperating personal taste ('agreeableness') from objective judgements ('beauty').

Edited July 9, 2008 by eriatarka

[KendallJ]

In any case, it seems like cherry picking to claim that the art Kant had the most influence on was the 20th stuff created several hundred years after his death, rather than that produced by artists a few decades after he published his work, by artists who were directly influenced by him, and who often explicitly identified themselves as being Kantians.

I would suggest that this whole premise, that philosophers influence art only directly and only decades after their work is fallacious and has at its base a particular idea about how ideas make it into the culture at large, which is wholly wrong.

The OCON course mentioned on art, taught by Sandra Shaw was superb and does a really good job showing how this occured. It is neither necessary to have artists claim or reject Kant specifically to have his ideas be the root of the problem. Kants impact was the destruction of a valid epistemology broadly and is embedded everywhere. I would suggest buying if you want to learn about the idea specifically.

If you want broader treatment of the impact of Kant's ideas, then some good resources would be David Harriman's the Philosophic Corruption of Physics, and Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parrallels, both of which treat Kant and his legacy in various fields.

Edited July 9, 2008 by KendallJ

[adrock3215]

Kant didnt say that anything which caused you to have a strong emotion was necessarily a great work of art, that seems like a strawman. I think he was referring more to the feeling that you get in response to some works of art which causes you to believe that they are good in a way which goes beyond your personal taste - theres a difference between liking someone on a purely personal level and believing that it has objective artistic merit, and I think thats what Kant was getting at with his distinction between the agreeable and the beautiful.

The main issue is the sentence that I bolded above. That is, that art need not be conceptual, but necessarily must be responded to on a perceptual level with a "state of mind that is non-conceptual" (whatever that means).

[Jonathan13]

I would suggest that this whole premise, that philosophers influence art only directly and only decades after their work is fallacious and has at its base a particular idea about how ideas make it into the culture at large, which is wholly wrong.

The OCON course mentioned on art, taught by Sandra Shaw was superb and does a really good job showing how this occured. It is neither necessary to have artists claim or reject Kant specifically to have his ideas be the root of the problem.

So, are you saying that even if artists specifically rejected Kant, his ideas were still the root of their theories?

Kants impact was the destruction of a valid epistemology broadly and is embedded everywhere.

Everywhere? Would that include every aesthetic theory which proposes that an art form is not objective, such as the Objectivist theory of music, and which, therefore, grants that subjectivity in art is acceptable?

Since Rand's theory of music was heavily influenced by Helmholtz, who was influenced by Kant, might that mean that Kant's ideas could be at the root of the Objectivist theory of music? Would it be unfair to suspect that Kant's influence might be the reason that, according to Objectivism, no one can claim the objective superiority of his musical tastes, that musical tastes are to be treated as a subjective matter, that music doesn't have to re-create reality or be representational or intelligible, and yet it is still classified as a valid art form?

I would suggest buying if you want to learn about the idea specifically.

It sounds interesting. Do you know if it will be available in printed form? I like making margin notes without having to first transcribe a thinker's words, and I like endnotes, a bibliography, etc., because I prefer having the option of checking the thinker's sources and verifying that she has understood them correctly and represented them accurately.

Could you summarize which specific artists' ideas Shaw highlighted in her lecture and how she demonstrated that Kant's ideas were at the root of their theories? Or could you at least share how she characterized Kandinsky's theories, since he is usually thought of as the originator of the type of art that Shaw is linking to Kant's influence?

J

[adrock3215]

Or could you at least share how she characterized Kandinsky's theories, since he is usually thought of as the originator of the type of art that Shaw is linking to Kant's influence?

I don't think you are understanding how ideas can influence a culture and its art. Since Kandinsky was born after Kantian ideas first infiltrated art, he is not a significant figure by any measurement (even if you want to identify him as the first painter to make a totally abstract, non-representational work, which I have no clue if he is or is not). The artistic style from the mid-nineteenth century called Realism was the first movement in the visual arts to employ ideas that were Kantian in nature (see 'The Gleaners' by Jean-Francois Millet or 'Burial at Ornans' by Gustave Courbet). Overall, the trend from Kantian times to modern art can be summarized by: "art gets flatter." In other words, the artifice of a particular painting went from being hidden, to being shown, to being stressed, to being exaggerated completely. The result was that the two-dimensionality of a painting became idealized.

[KendallJ]

So, are you saying that even if artists specifically rejected Kant, his ideas were still the root of their theories?

yup

Everywhere? Would that include every aesthetic theory which proposes that an art form is not objective, such as the Objectivist theory of music, and which, therefore, grants that subjectivity in art is acceptable?

There is no Objectivist theory of music. What Rand had to say about music was how it should be treated until such time as there is an Objective theory of music.

Since Rand's theory of music was heavily influenced by Helmholtz, who was influenced by Kant, might that mean that Kant's ideas could be at the root of the Objectivist theory of music? Would it be unfair to suspect that Kant's influence might be the reason that, according to Objectivism, no one can claim the objective superiority of his musical tastes, that musical tastes are to be treated as a subjective matter, that music doesn't have to re-create reality or be representational or intelligible, and yet it is still classified as a valid art form?

Assuming your tracing and representation ae correct (which I've already said they are not), unfair to suspect, no. Unfair to conclude upon analysis, yup. As for what Objectivism says regarding the topic, see previous.

Could you summarize which specific artists' ideas Shaw highlighted in her lecture and how she demonstrated that Kant's ideas were at the root of their theories? Or could you at least share how she characterized Kandinsky's theories, since he is usually thought of as the originator of the type of art that Shaw is linking to Kant's influence?

Sure, what do you have to offer me that would make it worth my time to do such a thing for you?

[Jonathan13]

I don't think you are understanding how ideas can influence a culture and its art. Since Kandinsky was born after Kantian ideas first infiltrated art, he is not a significant figure by any measurement (even if you want to identify him as the first painter to make a totally abstract, non-representational work, which I have no clue if he is or is not). The artistic style from the mid-nineteenth century called Realism was the first movement in the visual arts to employ ideas that were Kantian in nature (see 'The Gleaners' by Jean-Francois Millet or 'Burial at Ornans' by Gustave Courbet).

Maybe it would be helpful if you would identify exactly what it means for an artistic style to be "Kantian in nature." From what I've been able to gather from this conversation, it seems to mean anything that an Objectivist might not like aesthetically. Which aspects of Millet's and Courbet's paintings are you claiming to be the result of Kant's influence? And are you suggesting that no artists prior to Kant included those same aspects in their work?

Overall, the trend from Kantian times to modern art can be summarized by: "art gets flatter." In other words, the artifice of a particular painting went from being hidden, to being shown, to being stressed, to being exaggerated completely. The result was that the two-dimensionality of a painting became idealized.

Is it your opinion, then, that two-dimensionality was a tenet of Kant's aesthetics, or that two-dimensionality was somehow reasonably inferred to be a Kantian tenet by the painters who were allegedly influence by his ideas?

If so, how could one classify Kandinsky's theories as Kantian when he (Kandinsky) stresses the importance of the expressive value of the illusion of three-dimensional visual depth that is achieved by using varying colors (yellow approaches the viewer where blue recedes, etc.)?

J

Edited July 9, 2008 by Jonathan13

[eriatarka]

I don't think you are understanding how ideas can influence a culture and its art. Since Kandinsky was born after Kantian ideas first infiltrated art, he is not a significant figure by any measurement (even if you want to identify him as the first painter to make a totally abstract, non-representational work, which I have no clue if he is or is not). The artistic style from the mid-nineteenth century called Realism was the first movement in the visual arts to employ ideas that were Kantian in nature (see 'The Gleaners' by Jean-Francois Millet or 'Burial at Ornans' by Gustave Courbet). Overall, the trend from Kantian times to modern art can be summarized by: "art gets flatter." In other words, the artifice of a particular painting went from being hidden, to being shown, to being stressed, to being exaggerated completely. The result was that the two-dimensionality of a painting became idealized.

I think youre cherry picking. Kant was a very influential philosopher and many things which came after him can be traced back to him in some way. Yeah, you can pick out 'bad' art and say its inspired by Kant, but there is also a lot of good art which was similarly inspired (again, Schiller). As I said before, much of 20th century art is a rejection of Kantian thought - things lke psychoanalysis and art-as-political-statement are un-Kantian, yet these themes are present in a lot of 20th century art. One of the major movements in art during the last 50 years has been conceptual art, which is about as anti-Kantian as you can get.

Edited July 10, 2008 by eriatarka

[adrock3215]

The essentials of art are not always easy to pick out. As evidence, the Objectivist Academic Center will not let a undergraduate student critique any form of art in any paper he writes for all four years of the program. My guess is that this is because the analysis of art requires very conceptual and integrated reasoning, whereas most individuals tend to regress to concrete-bound thinking when analyzing art. An example of a concrete-bound criticism of art is: "A Mannerist painting has figures that are elongated, i.e. the hands and feet are stretched out" or "A Rococo painting has a playful mood and uses pastel colors." Although these characteristics are mostly true, they are not the essential defining characteristics of such movements or works. Rand was very good at reducing various art movements and artworks to their essentials (she is the only one who correctly identified Romanticism as a form of art acknowledging the fact that man posesses volition, whereas others define Romanticism as "emotion based).

Maybe it would be helpful if you would identify exactly what it means for an artistic style to be "Kantian in nature."

The clearest way to summarize Kant's influence is: "Why reproduce reality when we have art?" According to Kant, there is no particular reason why art must be representational, as that is not a basis for beauty. That is to say, if I put a swash of red paint on a canvas that induces feeling in the beholder, then I have made a work of art, and that work of art has value in and of itself. It can even be a valid form of knowledge.

From what I've been able to gather from this conversation, it seems to mean anything that an Objectivist might not like aesthetically. Which aspects of Millet's and Courbet's paintings are you claiming to be the result of Kant's influence? And are you suggesting that no artists prior to Kant included those same aspects in their work?

Take Courbet's famous painting "The Stone Breakers." Courbet defeats the pictorial drama that the Romanticists employed, i.e. Gericault's "Raft of the Medusa", by discarding the lessons learned since the Renaissance; by discarding the notion of illusion as a primary. Men don't have to stand in an accurately depicted three-dimensional space anymore (matter of fact, they don't even have to engage the beholder, they can just stand with their backs to the beholder, ignoring him entirely). The foremost technological advancement of the Renaissance in painting was the acquisition of the knowledge of how to accurately depict three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional surface (a canvas) by using the methods of a linear perspective, atmospheric perspective, sfumato, light, etc. A typical way of depicting spatial relationships is by the saying "up is back", so that the top part of the painting is the furthest "back" from the beholder and the bottom of the painting is the "closest". This is normally achieved by the use of a horizon line (see Piero della Francesca's "Flagellation of Christ" for an early instance, he did a lot of work in understanding how this can be achieved. Look at the lines in the ground.).

Courbet uses a horizon line but places it above the heads of the two workers in "The Stone Breakers." The result is that the painting is "flat"; it doesn't really look like there is enough space for these two people to be standing there. Also notice Courbet's treatment of light, one of the most important parts of any painting. The light is shining straight on to the figures, creating very thin shadows such that the outline of each figure is accentuated with a black line. The result is the diffusion of the drama of light itself, not to mention a very unconvincing depiction of light (no one perceives light in such a manner). The figures in "The Stone Breakers" look almost two-dimensional.

That's the point. Courbet is trying to say to the beholder, "Yeah, it's a painting...So what?" (Kantian) Look at Gericault's painting "The Raft of the Medusa" and note how light is depicted. Imagine if Gericault opted for the same light as Courbet. The entire drama of the scene would be gone. Take a look at any work by Vermeer, one of Rand's favorites. Here is what Rand has to say about Vermeer and his treatment of light in The Romantic Manifesto:

The greatest of all artists, Vermeer, devoted his paintings to a single theme: light itself. The guiding principle of his compositions is: the contextual nature of our perception of light (and of color).

With Millet's "The Gleaners" you will also notice the high horizon line. The "upper classes" who employ these workers are there in the 'distance', above the absurdly high horizon line, but it really isn't a convincing depiction of spatial relationships. Take a look at another realist painting: Edouard Monet's "The Fifer." Notice that there's no horizon line at all! It isn't difficult to see how this can ultimately lead to modern art; it is only a few steps away. Take away the figures and light entirely, and splash automotive paint everywhere (Pollack): "So what, it's a painting, we don't need to reproduce reality."

And are you suggesting that no artists prior to Kant included those same aspects in their work?

I suppose you could say that artists included some of these elements before the Realists. For example, Japanese woodblock printing was an inspiration to Courbet, Millet, and Monet. But Japanese art is outside of the entire Western tradition.

Edited July 10, 2008 by adrock3215

[Jonathan13]

Here's a reposting of a message of mine which was deleted from this thread (apparently for violating this forums rules). I've removed the part of the original post that I can only assume was unacceptable:

There is no Objectivist theory of music.

Really? I know that Rand admitted that parts of her theory were speculative and incomplete, but I wouldn't say that that means there is no Objectivist theory of music.

What Rand had to say about music was how it should be treated until such time as there is an Objective theory of music.

Yet the Objectivist Esthetics claims that music is an art form. If art must be objective, representational and intelligible according to Objectivism, shouldn't music be relegated to the status of not being a valid art form until the time that there is a theory of music which meets the Objectivist requirements for all art forms?

Assuming your tracing and representation ae correct (which I've already said they are not), unfair to suspect, no. Unfair to conclude upon analysis, yup. As for what Objectivism says regarding the topic, see previous.

Please see my previous comment as well: Shouldn't music be removed from the realm of legitimate art forms until the time that there is a theory of music which meets the Objectivist requirements for all art forms, i.e., a theory that is a least as objective and detailed as, say, Kandinsky's theory of color?

I asked:

Could you summarize which specific artists' ideas Shaw highlighted in her lecture and how she demonstrated that Kant's ideas were at the root of their theories? Or could you at least share how she characterized Kandinsky's theories, since he is usually thought of as the originator of the type of art that Shaw is linking to Kant's influence?

Kendall replied:

Sure, what do you have to offer me that would make it worth my time to do such a thing for you?

So now you want some sort of payment for answering questions which challenge your views? Suddenly it's a time-consuming ordeal to briefly summarize Shaw's views about a single abstract artist's theories?

J

[KendallJ]

Really? I know that Rand admitted that parts of her theory were speculative and incomplete, but I wouldn't say that that means there is no Objectivist theory of music.

OK, I'll bite. What is the Objectivist theory of music? As opposed to the Objectivist theory of art. A reference would be handy.

Yet the Objectivist Esthetics claims that music is an art form. If art must be objective, representational and intelligible according to Objectivism, shouldn't music be relegated to the status of not being a valid art form until the time that there is a theory of music which meets the Objectivist requirements for all art forms?

Please see my previous comment as well: Shouldn't music be removed from the realm of legitimate art forms until the time that there is a theory of music which meets the Objectivist requirements for all art forms, i.e., a theory that is a least as objective and detailed as, say, Kandinsky's theory of color?

Only if you're a rationalist, and definitions determine reality. Music is pretty ostensibly an art form. It's issue is how it functions as representational. This is a bit like claiming that goats should be removed from the classification of valid animal forms until such time as we've mapped it's genome.

So now you want some sort of payment for answering questions which challenge your views? Suddenly it's a time-consuming ordeal to briefly summarize Shaw's views about a single abstract artist's theories?

Let's understand how this whole thing works. You're on a board made up of people who voluntarily associate with each other. Mutual benefit for mutual gain. The fact that you show up to challenge anyone's views does not obligate anyone here to do so. Nor does it indicate any sort of dishonesty in refusal to do so. The fact is that what you're asking, i.e. for a summary of how Kant ideas impacted art, isn't exactly something that fits into a few sentences and can be given proper treatment that way. Doing so for someone whose methods and intentions are unknown is equivalent to the creation of a tar baby (i.e. one set of a few sentences leads to another set of challenges, when must then be defended by more detailed information) something which I'm not willing to engage in.

I don't much care if you prefer written summaries, marginalia, endnotes or whatever. I've pointed you to equivalent sources that go through similar analyses. If those are insufficient, then yes, you really do need to offer something of value to me to spend the time to do nothing other than make it easier for you.

[Jonathan13]

Take Courbet's famous painting "The Stone Breakers." Courbet defeats the pictorial drama that the Romanticists employed, i.e. Gericault's "Raft of the Medusa", by discarding the lessons learned since the Renaissance; by discarding the notion of illusion as a primary. Men don't have to stand in an accurately depicted three-dimensional space anymore (matter of fact, they don't even have to engage the beholder, they can just stand with their backs to the beholder, ignoring him entirely). The foremost technological advancement of the Renaissance in painting was the acquisition of the knowledge of how to accurately depict three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional surface (a canvas) by using the methods of a linear perspective, atmospheric perspective, sfumato, light, etc.

Courbet's Stone Breakers accurately depicts a three-dimensional space in the context of hilly terrain.

A typical way of depicting spatial relationships is by the saying "up is back", so that the top part of the painting is the furthest "back" from the beholder and the bottom of the painting is the "closest". This is normally achieved by the use of a horizon line (see Piero della Francesca's "Flagellation of Christ" for an early instance, he did a lot of work in understanding how this can be achieved. Look at the lines in the ground.).

Courbet uses a horizon line but places it above the heads of the two workers in "The Stone Breakers."

Your opinion about the image's horizon line and perspective is meaningless to me until you demonstrate where the horizon line is by plotting it out in 3-point perspective based on the figures, objects, lighting and shadows. Care to give it a try?

The result is that the painting is "flat"; it doesn't really look like there is enough space for these two people to be standing there.

I agree that the painting is somewhat "flat," especially compared to paintings which contain extreme chiaroscuro lighting schemes and overt perpective indicators like a checkered floor, but it's no more "flat" than certain paintings which preceded the dissemination of Kant's ideas, like some of the paintings of Hals, Velazquez, Chardin, and even Gainsborough.

Also notice Courbet's treatment of light, one of the most important parts of any painting. The light is shining straight on to the figures, creating very thin shadows such that the outline of each figure is accentuated with a black line.

The lighting is not straight on, but at about 30 degrees off of being straight on, horizontally, and 30 to 40 degrees off, vertically.

The result is the diffusion of the drama of light itself, not to mention a very unconvincing depiction of light (no one perceives light in such a manner).

There's nothing unconvincing about the light and shadows. It's not true that "no one perceives light in such a manner." Everyone perceives a light at 30 x 40 degrees in the way that it's depicted in the painting.

The figures in "The Stone Breakers" look almost two-dimensional.

That's the point. Courbet is trying to say to the beholder, "Yeah, it's a painting...So what?"

Do you have any quotes from Courbet about what he was "trying to say," or are your views about his intentions based on your "reading" of his painting (while misrepresenting its perspective and lighting)? My understanding of Courbet is that he was trying to create genuine depictions of life and nature, without artifice and pretension.

Visual art has had a long history of artists rejecting the styles and ideas of the artists who came immediately before them -- the acceptable, established, popular styles of the day -- and somewhat reverting to older styles and ideas (which the young artists thought had been headed in the right direction before the current established bastards wrecked everything and distorted The True Vision), and combining them with new ideas and styles based on new technologies and techniques, some of which would even be appropriated from the established styles that were being rejected.

Millet and Courbet, and others like Manet, were heavily influenced by the frontal lighting, rough brushwork, and compositional ideas of artists who predated Kant, like some of those I mentioned above -- Hals, Velazquez, etc. They were also heavily influenced by the new technology of photography, which included, to their minds, fascinating new effects which they tried to replicate, in some cases drawing directly from photos. One of photography's effects was an appealing realism which didn't require the forced artifice of chiaroscuro. In other words, photography allowed them to see ways in which to improve on Hals and Velazquez and portray reality without limiting the lighting scheme to a clichéd formula.

So, were Hals' and Velazquez's "flat" paintings also "Kantian," despite being created before Kant?

That's the point. Courbet is trying to say to the beholder, "Yeah, it's a painting...So what?" (Kantian)

If by "Kantian" you mean that you've interpreted Courbet to have held ideas that may have been similar to the ideas that you've interpreted to be the essence of Kant's ideas, and that "Kantian" doesn't mean that you've established a link between Courbet's art and Kant's ideas, then I'd agree that Courbet may have been "Kantian."

With Millet's "The Gleaners" you will also notice the high horizon line. The "upper classes" who employ these workers are there in the 'distance', above the absurdly high horizon line, but it really isn't a convincing depiction of spatial relationships.

It's a very convincing depiction of spatial relationships. It doesn't include something like a checkered floor to give the visually uninitiated an obvious sense of perspective, but the figures and objects appear to properly conform to the three-dimensional space, and the image makes use of the atmospheric perspective and non-flat lighting that you praised earlier.

I don't have time at the moment, but at some point in the near future I'll compile and post a list of the many artists who lived before Kant yet painted images with "absurdly high" horizon lines, "flat" lighting, and placed a lot of emphasis on pictorial composition as opposed to overtly romantic narrative.

Take a look at another realist painting: Edouard Monet's "The Fifer." Notice that there's no horizon line at all! It isn't difficult to see how this can ultimately lead to modern art; it is only a few steps away.

Sure, but Manet's work (not "Monet's" -- there's an "a" not an "o") leading to modern art is not the same thing as Kant's ideas leading to modern art.

I suppose you could say that artists included some of these elements before the Realists. For example, Japanese woodblock printing was an inspiration to Courbet, Millet, and Monet. But Japanese art is outside of the entire Western tradition.

Regardless of the fact that Japanese art was "outside of the Western tradition," it had an influence on Courbet, Millet, and Manet (and many other Western artists), and had nothing to do with Kant. And, as I mentioned above, I hope to find some time to compile a list of artists who used the alleged "Kantian" elements of the Realists prior to Kant.

J

Edited July 10, 2008 by Jonathan13

[eriatarka]

If music gets a break in the name of future discoveries which will explain how music affects us, then abstract art should get the same break (and, as I've been saying, about one hundred years ago Kandinsky had already been much more objective and detailed in exploring the "language" of abstract color and form than any Objectivist, or anyone else, has been in exploring the "language" of music).

Although I adore Kandinsky, I have to disagree with this. A lot of his 'theory'' of colour (detailed in "Concerning The Spiritual In Art') is little more than claims about how colours affected him personally. He did seem to think that what he described would be shared by all people who were sufficiently developed emotionally to 'understand' art, but he never really gave any objective basis for it and it isnt presented in the manner of a scientific/psychological theory. When someone asserts that orange is a more spiritual colour than green, theres not really much you can say in response. Edited July 11, 2008 by eriatarka