Dismissing Abstract Painting as the Arbitrary

[brianleepainter]

I think the mistake that you're making is that you're not focusing on architecture strictly in its role as an art form, but you're confusing yourself by referring to its utilitarian identity and functions and conflating them with its aesthetic identity and functions. Your act of focusing on the fact that architecture "creates a world to walk around and/or live in" is to focus on architecture's practical aspects rather than its aesthetically expressive aspects. The point that you're apparently missing is that architecture, in its role as a work of art (as opposed to its separate utilitarian role), is an art form whose means of expression is the arrangement of abstract colors and shapes. Exactly like abstract paintings and sculptures, architecture's artistic expression is achieved non-mimetically via abstract relationships and proportions.

When I'm writing about identity of an art form I mean that this, identity, subsumes function and utility. In regards to utility, architecture is in a class of its own as Rand had stated in Romantic Manifesto:

"Architecture is in a class by itself, because it combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality, but creates a structure for man’s habitation or use, expressing man’s values." - Rand, Ayn (1971-10-01). The Romantic Manifesto

I think in the identity of the art form architecture, its utility can be considered part of the limitation of the medium, when the architect masters the chosen medium to best represent a location in organic architecture, for instance a cliff side, he is concerned with "form and function as one." i.e., What essential characteristics in the cliff side should be recreated in material for aesthetic form and to function as a home? How could Roark, Wright, Sullivan, or Lauder integrate an artwork into the Cliff side without realizing the material and its limitations?

To give consideration of the identity of the art form, sculpture, the sculptor is limited by the malleability of marble, what it can support,etc. in carving the human figure.

Since architecture and sculpture share familiarities, I was using them as an example when I had written "creates a world to walk around and/or live in" to address the use of three dimensionality as opposed to painting in the use of two dimensionality.

"Works of art—like everything else in the universe—are entities of a specific nature: the concept requires a definition by their essential characteristics, which distinguish them from all other existing entities. The genus of art works is: man-made objects which present a selective recreation of reality according to the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments, by means of a specific material medium. The species are the works of the various branches of art, defined by the particular media which they employ and which indicate their relation to the various elements of man’s cognitive faculty." -Ayn Rand

I think you're missing the point. My point is not to suggest that an artist working in one medium must first understand all other media in order to create. My point is simply to get you to understand that if you accept architecture and music as valid art forms, then you shouldn't have any difficulty in understanding how and why abstract paintings can also be art, since, in accepting architecture and music as valid art forms, you've already accepted art forms which rely solely on abstract shapes, colors and/or sounds as their means of artistic expression!

Considering abstract paintings to be art does not follow from having accepted architecture and music as art forms. Painting, in its representational re-creation of reality and its psycho-epistemological function is already understood. To gain more knowledge on music is not too change painting.

"The so-called visual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture) produce concrete, perceptually available entities and make them convey an abstract, conceptual meaning."

"Music does not deal with entities, which is the reason why its psycho-epistemological function is different from that of the other arts"

-Ayn, Rand : The Romantic Manifesto

What is the "identity" of abstract paintings and sculptures?

It is the arrangement of abstract shapes and colors for the purpose of artistic expression.

And what it the "identity" of architecture as an art form?

It is the arrangement of abstract shapes and colors for the purpose of artistic expression.

What is the "identity" of music?

It is the arrangement of abstract sounds for the purpose of artistic expression.

What is the "identity" of dance as an artistic performance?

It is the arrangement of abstract motions for the purpose of artistic expression.

All of these art forms are abstract. None of them are mimetic or "representational" in the sense that you use the term.

"Man’s need of precise definitions rests on the Law of Identity: A is A, a thing is itself. A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk. “Something made by an artist” is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist. “Something in a frame hung on a wall” is not a definition of painting. “Something with a number of pages in a binding” is not a definition of literature. “Something piled together” is not a definition of sculpture. “Something made of sounds produced by anything” is not a definition of music. “Something glued on a flat surface” is not a definition of any art." -Ayn, Rand : The Romantic Manifesto

Others see things differently. They respond more to the relational/compositional aspects of visual art than to the imitative/narrative aspects. They are not trying to destroy man's consciousness, or deny that knowledge can be known, or whatever you accuse them of. They're focusing on the aspects of art that they respond to. You could compare it to people responding differently to different aspects of music: Certain people might respond strongly to melody or rhythm, where others might respond more strongly to the drama of the overarching harmonic structure. And I think it would be just as mistaken for those who respond only to melody to accuse those who respond to the harmonic structure as being "arbitrary," of denying the true and proper nature of man's consciousness, and of claiming that knowledge can't be known.

J

Certainly individuals see things differently. To see is to take into account ones values,knowledge, and perception. You are using the terms "relational/compositional" and "imitative/narrative" aspects. These are all interrelated in the artwork as an indivisible whole. These "aspects" make up the representational painting, and can be focused on by the viewer. I see this as aesthetic form being as one with content, inextricable. This is partly why I brought up, through example, visual concepts. There certainly can be visual concepts underlying the representational. Here is an example of a representational painter, who does explicitly state that he relates to music, using rhythm among other things:

"All the while, there is the composer, with brush and palette knife, conducting, refining, coaxing, interpreting his own score. As he explains, “I use music all the time in my paintings.” The discerning viewer sees and feels the brushstrokes corresponding to musical notes and movements -- legatos broad and delicate, an adagio of cured prairie grasses, a swirling vivace of light and clouds over the marcato of mountain granite. Clyde's music touches the eyes with distinct rhythmic textures, letting the canvas reflect how earth and sky are interwoven. The result is the artist’s ethereal yet tactile manifestation of natural forces: “Paintings become symbols of all that we are.”"- Clyde Aspevig

After looking at the abstract paintings of the past, I think that they are examples of the Theory-Practice dichotomy championed by such articulate voices as Clement Greenberg and Hilton Kramer. Many abstract painters were more concerned with theory, and thought they could create something of substance without painting the prerequisites of content; intelligible form.

"form and content are inextricably linked in works of art. Perceptually graspable forms are the means by which content (meaning) is conveyed in visual art. Form without intelligible meaning or content does not constitute a work of art; nor can there be content in the absence of identifiable forms. And by "identifiable forms" I do not mean abstract shapes such as circles, squares, or stripes; I mean visual representations of persons, places, things, and events (whether real or imagined), representations that are meaningful in relation to human experience."

"Contrary to Kramer's view, the entire history of twentieth-century avant-garde movements, beginning with abstraction, can be understood as a series of misguided attempts to do away with either or both of these essential attributes. While the abstract pioneers earnestly sought to create meaningful work, they made the mistake of dispensing with the familiar forms of perceptual experience through which meaning is conveyed in painting and sculpture. And the sorts of occult metaphysical concepts they were attempting to convey may in any case simply not have lent themselves to visual embodiment at all. Later influential advocates of abstract art--most notably, Alfred Barr (the founding director of MoMA) and the critic Clement Greenberg--completely ignored the pioneers' intent, treating their work as if it were not meant to convey ideas, and evaluating it instead in purely formalist terms. Kramer largely subscribes to their formalist notions of esthetic value with respect to abstract work." - Hilton Kramer's Misreading of Abstract Art

If definitions were upheld, there would not be works of Joseph Albers hanging alongside works of Thomas Dewing among other artists in the North Carolina Museum of Art.

To see what happens when bad ideas are not dismissed as arbitrary, view the abstract works in : Banishement of Beauty

"I do not know which is worse: to practice modern art as a colossal fraud or to do it sincerely.

Those who do not wish to be the passive, silent victims of frauds of this kind, can learn from modern art the practical importance of philosophy, and the consequences of philosophical default. Specifically, it is the destruction of logic that disarmed the victims, and, more specifically, the destruction of definitions. Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration." -Ayn Rand

Edited September 19, 2011 by brianleepainter

[Jonathan13]

When I'm writing about identity of an art form I mean that this, identity, subsumes function and utility. In regards to utility, architecture is in a class of its own as Rand had stated in Romantic Manifesto:

"Architecture is in a class by itself, because it combines art with a utilitarian purpose and does not re-create reality, but creates a structure for man’s habitation or use, expressing man’s values." - Rand, Ayn (1971-10-01). The Romantic Manifesto

In the above statement, Rand is treating the artistic aspects of architecture as separate from the utilitarian aspects of architecture: she is saying that architecture is a combination of art on the one hand, and of a utilitarian purpose on the other. Therefore the Objectivist view is not that architecture's aesthetic means and identity "subsumes" its utilitarian functions, but that it is art in spite of the fact that it contradicts Rand's criteria and serves utilitarian functions in addition to its aesthetic function. Rand's view was that art and utility are in conflict with each other -- that the inclusion of utility in a work of art can only diminish the expressive freedom and effectiveness of the art, which is why she held the view that utilitarian objects could not be art.

Additionally, as the quote you provided reveals, Rand's view was that architecture does not re-create reality. So, even if she believed that the utilitarian aspects of architecture played a part in aesthetic expression (which she did not), she still would not have believed that any aspect of architecture was mimetic or "representational" in the sense that you use the term. Her use of "does not re-create reality" means that she thought that architecture was abstract.

And why are you not bothered by Rand's contradictions? She defined art as a "re-creation of reality," yet she classified architecture as a valid art form despite clearly saying that it "does not re-create reality." She also stated that utilitarian objects could not qualify as art, but then turned around and allowed architecture to qualify. And you seem to think that her announcing that architecture is in a special "class by itself" somehow makes these contradictions disappear, rather than opening the door for others using the same method of allowing exceptions and contradictions? Anything can qualify as art as soon we have a special "class by itself" which contains objects which we want to qualify as art despite their contradicting our definition and criteria!

I think in the identity of the art form architecture, its utility can be considered part of the limitation of the medium...

Rand would agree that "utility can be considered part of the limitation" of architecture. She did indeed believe that utility limited artistic expression, and so much so as to prevent utilitarian objects from qualifying as art.

...when the architect masters the chosen medium to best represent a location in organic architecture, for instance a cliff side, he is concerned with "form and function as one." i.e., What essential characteristics in the cliff side should be recreated in material for aesthetic form and to function as a home? How could Roark, Wright, Sullivan, or Lauder (sic) integrate an artwork into the Cliff side without realizing the material and its limitations?

The architects whom you listed did not concern themselves with which "essential characteristics" should be "recreated" in material. They often (but not always) sought to harmonize and integrate their work with the surroundings, or sometimes to dramatically contrast and frame nature, but not to "re-create" it. Anyway, even if aspects of their work could be seen as borrowing elements from nature, the work is still as abstract as abstract paintings are: it still borrows only attributes of nature, and does not "re-create" identifiable likenesses of objects as you require.

Since architecture and sculpture share familiarities, I was using them as an example when I had written "creates a world to walk around and/or live in" to address the use of three dimensionality as opposed to painting in the use of two dimensionality.

My point still stands: You seem to be taking the absurd position that the arrangement of three-dimensional abstract forms and colors can have deeply profound aesthetic meaning when we attach the name "architecture" to them, but the exact same abstract forms and colors somehow magically become "meaningless" and an attack on man's "proper method of cognition" when we attach the name "abstract sculpture" to them, or when we create a two-dimensional drawing of them and call it an "abstract painting."

"Works of art—like everything else in the universe—are entities of a specific nature: the concept requires a definition by their essential characteristics, which distinguish them from all other existing entities. The genus of art works is: man-made objects which present a selective recreation of reality...

But, remember, if we want to, we can selectively and arbitrarily ignore the idea that everything has to have a "specific nature" defined by its "essential characteristics," since architecture qualifies as art despite Rand's stating that it "does not re-create reality." If architecture's arrangements of abstract shapes and colors somehow count as art despite not re-creating reality, then abstract painting's arrangements of abstract shapes and colors can also count as art despite not re-creating reality. As Rand did with architecture, anyone can declare that abstract painting, or anything else, is in a special "class by itself" -- the class of objects which qualify as art by having fewer reasons than architecture against their qualifying as art according to Objectivism.

...according to the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments...

Art's being created "according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments" is the reason that Rand said that utilitarian objects cannot qualify as art: because the object is designed according to utilitarian needs rather than strictly according to the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.

...by means of a specific material medium. The species are the works of the various branches of art, defined by the particular media which they employ and which indicate their relation to the various elements of man’s cognitive faculty." -Ayn Rand

I don't accept the arbitrary, unsupported assertion that your personal aesthetic limitations, or Rand's or anyone else's, represent the limits or "proper" functioning of "man’s cognitive faculty."

Considering abstract paintings to be art does not follow from having accepted architecture and music as art forms.

Yes, it does follow. What does not follow is that abstract paintings are declared to be non-art for all of mankind just because you don't get anything out of them.

Painting, in its representational re-creation of reality and its psycho-epistemological function is already understood. To gain more knowledge on music is not too change painting.

Gaining more knowledge of music, architecture and abstract painting does "change painting." Art forms aren't limited to your personal preferences, emotional biases and levels of knowledge. You obviously immensely dislike the idea of abstract art, and you're opposed to learning how it affects others. Why? Does the fact that others understand and appreciate something that you don't make you feel threatened or something? Why is the issue so upsetting to you?

"The so-called visual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture) produce concrete, perceptually available entities and make them convey an abstract, conceptual meaning."

What is meant by "perceptually available entities"? Does it mean that those art forms re-create identifiable likenesses of things from reality? If so, then architecture does not "produce concrete, perceptually available entities." Or does "perceptually available entities" mean that those art forms present perceptually available shapes and colors? If so, then architecture does so, but then so does abstract painting.

"Music does not deal with entities, which is the reason why its psycho-epistemological function is different from that of the other arts"

-Ayn, Rand : The Romantic Manifesto

Music is not different from all of the other arts. Music's "psycho-epistemological function" is the same as architecture and abstract paintings and sculptures. The mind is capable of finding meaning through associations based on mere attributes of objects, be they aural or visual.

To be continued...

J

Edited September 19, 2011 by Jonathan13

[Jonathan13]

"Man’s need of precise definitions rests on the Law of Identity: A is A, a thing is itself. A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk. “Something made by an artist” is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist. “Something in a frame hung on a wall” is not a definition of painting. “Something with a number of pages in a binding” is not a definition of literature. “Something piled together” is not a definition of sculpture. “Something made of sounds produced by anything” is not a definition of music. “Something glued on a flat surface” is not a definition of any art." -Ayn, Rand : The Romantic Manifesto

We need precise definitions? How about "art is a selective re-creation of reality"? But, wait, architecture, music and abstract paintings don't "re-create" reality according to Rand. But, since Rand liked architecture and music, but not abstract paintings, suddenly we should only apply our "precise definitions" to abstract art, but we can be very vague and sloppy and invent contradictory "classes by themselves" and other exceptions for architecture and music?

Certainly individuals see things differently. To see is to take into account ones values,knowledge, and perception. You are using the terms "relational/compositional" and "imitative/narrative" aspects. These are all interrelated in the artwork as an indivisible whole. These "aspects" make up the representational painting, and can be focused on by the viewer.

Who is "the viewer"? You? There are viewers other than you who can appreciate relational/compositional aspects without their being part of "representational" objects. Your tastes and limitations are not the tastes and limitations of all of mankind. Your cognitive abilities and methods are not the universal standard.

I see this as aesthetic form being as one with content, inextricable. This is partly why I brought up, through example, visual concepts. There certainly can be visual concepts underlying the representational. Here is an example of a representational painter, who does explicitly state that he relates to music, using rhythm among other things:

After looking at the abstract paintings of the past, I think that they are examples of the Theory-Practice dichotomy championed by such articulate voices as Clement Greenberg and Hilton Kramer. Many abstract painters were more concerned with theory, and thought they could create something of substance without painting the prerequisites of content; intelligible form.

I think the same is true of many Objectivist artists: they're more concerned with following Rand's theories and admonishments than they are in exploring what Rand didn't know about their medium.

"form and content are inextricably linked in works of art. Perceptually graspable forms are the means by which content (meaning) is conveyed in visual art."

The means of conveying content to whom? To you? To Kamhi and Torres? To Rand? And therefore to all people? Are you asserting that it is not possible that others might be able to find meaning where you can't, and by means which you don't grasp? How would you propose that we objectively determine that your limitations, as well as those of Rand and Kamhi and Torres, should be the standard for what is "normal" or "proper" for mankind?

Form without intelligible meaning or content does not constitute a work of art...

Intelligible to whom? To you? If art must present "intelligible meaning," then why does Objectivism accept music and architecture as art? More importantly, why does it accept realistic still lifes and such, when Objectivists can't identify meaning in them?

...nor can there be content in the absence of identifiable forms. And by "identifiable forms" I do not mean abstract shapes such as circles, squares, or stripes; I mean visual representations of persons, places, things, and events (whether real or imagined), representations that are meaningful in relation to human experience."

And yet I've seen countless fans of abstract art identifying meaning in paintings which don't contain what you call "identifiable forms," and, in contrast, I've seen countless Objectivists who were unable to identify meaning in art works which contain quite obvious "identifiable forms."

"Contrary to Kramer's view, the entire history of twentieth-century avant-garde movements, beginning with abstraction, can be understood as a series of misguided attempts to do away with either or both of these essential attributes. While the abstract pioneers earnestly sought to create meaningful work, they made the mistake of dispensing with the familiar forms of perceptual experience through which meaning is conveyed in painting and sculpture. And the sorts of occult metaphysical concepts they were attempting to convey may in any case simply not have lent themselves to visual embodiment at all. Later influential advocates of abstract art--most notably, Alfred Barr (the founding director of MoMA) and the critic Clement Greenberg--completely ignored the pioneers' intent, treating their work as if it were not meant to convey ideas, and evaluating it instead in purely formalist terms. Kramer largely subscribes to their formalist notions of esthetic value with respect to abstract work." - Hilton Kramer's Misreading of Abstract Art

You're quoting Kamhi and Torres? They're no different than you are in arbitrarily and falsely assuming that their own personal limitations should automatically be the standard for all of mankind. In fact, they are so theory-driven and incapable of being affected by color and form, and they are so dependent on overtly mimetic narrative in the arts, that they believe that Rand was mistaken in identifying architecture as an art form! When faced with Rand's contradictions and double standards, they'd rather start getting rid of art forms rather than reconsider Rand's definition and criteria!

If definitions were upheld, there would not be works of Joseph Albers hanging alongside works of Thomas Dewing among other artists in the North Carolina Museum of Art.

Whose definitions? If Rand's definition and criteria were upheld, and upheld consistently, there would be no "class by itself" exceptions, and no "someday an objective conceptual language of music will be discovered." No, by Objectivism's contradictory definitions and criteria, either architecture and music must not qualify as art, along with abstract paintings and sculptures, or abstract paintings and sculptures must qualify as art along with music and architecture.

To see what happens when bad ideas are not dismissed as arbitrary, view the abstract works in : Banishement of Beauty

I disagree. I would say that if anyone is interested in seeing what happens when bad ideas are implemented, one should view what happens when painters take advice on their art form from a novelist and her acolytes who know very little about the medium. Visual art becomes a sort of cheesy imitation of literature in their hands: bluntly staged narrative, schmaltzy artifice and ham-fisted over-expressiveness.

And when you want to see the artworld conforming to theories, look at Kamhi and Torres's rejection of architecture. It's what happens when you start to apply Rand's definitions and criteria consistently. The next step in that direction is to eliminate music, and then dance. After that, realistic still lifes, which Objectivists have a very difficult time with, will be on the cutting block, and then paintings like Joan of Arc (see Luc Travers' odd, blundering views of the painting) or a lot of Vermeer's work, about which Objectivists often have quite wrongheaded interpretations.

"I do not know which is worse: to practice modern art as a colossal fraud or to do it sincerely.

Those who do not wish to be the passive, silent victims of frauds of this kind, can learn from modern art the practicalimportance of philosophy, and the consequences of philosophical default. Specifically, it is the destruction of logic that disarmed the victims, and, more specifically, the destruction of definitions. Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration." -Ayn Rand

When someone is claiming that others are perpetrating a "fraud," one is generally required to prove it. So, how would we prove that people who say that they respond to abstract paintings as deeply as Rand responded to the abstract art form of music are committing fraud, versus that Rand (and those who share her opinions) was simply incapable of experiencing what others do? What objective means would you propose for measuring who is or is not capable of finding meaning in various art forms? As I've mentioned, I've asked many Objectivists over the past decade to identify meanings in realist paintings, and they've performed very poorly compared to fans of abstract art identifying meaning in it. My experiences in seeing people respond to various art forms suggest that Objectivists who are as upset about abstract art as you are feel threatened and insulted by the idea that others have more knowledge and aesthetic sensitivity than they do. They seem to be anything but objective and rational about the subject.

J

Edited September 19, 2011 by Jonathan13

[brianleepainter]

Though I don't know if Immanuel Kant would have enjoyed such abstract creations such as those of the abstract expressionists, his philosophy was left open to Modernists. He writes of beauty in representationalism, yet of the sublime being without form. He leaves his Critique of Judgement, so that future painters are critical of the faculties that give rise to even see beauty. What is more important and influential; Kant's writings about beauty and the represented form and formless sublime, or his ideas to undercut reason?

Do you agree that an artist, should consider his chosen art form, painting, and then medium, oil and canvas, to be limitations of a positive, rather than, like representational masters, a negative? Would you advise this individual to be critical of the species painting in the larger genus, art, so that this person should consider what the medium can do and study formalism, as the primary, rather than contemplate the subject matter, and re-create it as the secondary, if at all?

With this having been said, if this young artist wants to pursue representational painting, do you think that he should rather consider Greenberg's ideas that figurative painting is no longer putting forth new ideas, and that to save figurative painting from kitsch that he should pursue the avant-garde?

"Greenberg believed that the avant-garde arose in order to defend aesthetic standards from the decline of taste involved in consumer society, and seeing kitsch and art as opposites. He outlined this in his essay "Avant-Garde and Kitsch". One of his more controversial claims was that kitsch was equivalent to Academic art: "All kitsch is academic, and conversely, all that is academic is kitsch." He argued this based on the fact that Academic art, such as that in the 19th century, was heavily centered in rules and formulations that were taught and tried to make art into something learnable and easily expressible. He later came to withdraw from his position of equating the two, as it became heavily criticized." - Avant Garde and Kitsch

Do you think that this "artist" should be influenced by Greenberg, as did the later be influeneced by Kant? Greenberg was an intellectual, who by championing the abstract expressionist movement understood that Kant was one of the first modernists. "“Because he was the first to criticize the means itself of criticism, I conceive of Kant as the first real Modernist.”- Greenberg [Modernist Painters]

‘“The essence of Modernism,” [Clement Greenberg in “Modernist Painting” (1960)] wrote, “lies, as I see it, in the use of the characteristic methods of a discipline to criticize the discipline itself, not in order to subvert it but in order to entrench it more firmly in its area of competence.” Interestingly, Greenberg took as his model of modernist thought the philosopher Immanuel Kant: “Because he was the first to criticize the means itself of criticism, I conceive of Kant as the first real Modernist.” […] I suppose the corresponding view of painting would have been not to represent the appearances of things so much as answering the question of how painting was possible”’ (After the End of Art, Princeton University Press, 1998, p. 7).

Edited October 2, 2011 by brianleepainter

[Jonathan13]

Yeah, um, you appear to be taking an approach which is common among Objectivists, which is to give Kant's

Critique of Judgment

a very hostile reading, to misinterpret him while not learning about the history of the aesthetic ideas that he was discussing, and to then try to blame him for ideas or art forms that you don't like. Michael Newberry did the same thing over on OL on

this thread

, as well as

this one

,

and many other places in various other Objectivist fora, and I've been trying for years to get him to recognize and admit to his errors.

Stephen Hicks has also taken the same approach, and offered the same false arguments that you're now offering, which I thoroughly refuted

here

and

here

, and perhaps elsewhere on the same or other threads on OL. Please read those old posts of mine with an open mind, and I think you'll see that, like Newberry and Hicks, you're taking an approach which makes you appear to not be very familiar with art history and philosophies of aesthetics (for example, your quoting of Greenberg's comment on Kant being "the first real Modernist" only tells me that, like Hicks, you're apparently not aware of the fact that "Modern Aesthetics" is usually considered to have begun with Romanticism, and that the term is not the same thing that you might mean when using the term "modern art.")

I also demonstrated

here

that Rand's novels are some of the best existing examples of Kant's concept of Sublimity in the arts, what with their formless objects of magnitude and terror (such as political tyranny) which Sublimely "excites the consciousness of our power of overcoming every resistance." And I supported my views by

citing others

who I later discovered had made the same observations,

years before I had, about the Kantian Sublimity of Rand's art.

Before continuing down the path that you're on of misinterpreting and vilifying Kant's aesthetics, you may want to read

this post

of mine which briefly summarizes his concept of the Sublime, and you may want to give some serious consideration to the fact that there really isn't much art in existence which is more Sublime in a Kantian sense than Rand's.

J

Edited October 3, 2011 by Jonathan13

[brianleepainter]

Before writing more about the affects of Kant* and other individual's ideas, I'd like to address my initial post of this thread:

I have a quarrel with abstract paintings passing as art. This is my attempt to show for my own understanding, why I think abstract painting can be discounted and not considered as art, thrown out as arbitrary.

I think dismissing abstract painting as arbitrary, not to be considered art, is a response to the attempts of others trying to rewrite reality. Isn't accepting both abstract works and representational works as art ignoring the Law of identity?

Jonathan13 had questioned:

You obviously immensely dislike the idea of abstract art, and you're opposed to learning how it affects others. Why? Does the fact that others understand and appreciate something that you don't make you feel threatened or something? Why is the issue so upsetting to you?

It is important to me, because I"m concerned with what I don't understand,with my own thinking, and also, how I'm supposed to live in society. I think had I been alive as a primitive man, trying to represent reality by painting on a cave wall, perhaps projecting values of a good hunt or want of rain for tomorrow, non objective "art" would be unimportant. I'm here today though, and seeing non objective "art" as a consequence of disintegration is important.

"In presenting the fundamentals of esthetics, is the subject of nonobjective "art" important?"

"No. Fundamentals are important. The connection between art and epistemology is important. That applies to all art. But nonobjective "art" is unimportant. It's important today, as a symptom of cultural disintegration. But it would not have been important a hundred years ago, and I hope it will not be important a hundred years from now." -from "Ayn Rand Answers"(pg. 187 Esthetics, Art, and Artists)

*Kant-"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 Manfesto, 76"

[Jonathan13]

Before writing more about the affects of Kant* and other individual's ideas, I'd like to address my initial post of this thread:

I think dismissing abstract painting as arbitrary, not to be considered art, is a response to the attempts of others trying to rewrite reality. Isn't accepting both abstract works and representational works as art ignoring the Law of identity?

No, accepting both abstract works and representational works as art does not ignore the law of identity. When you accept abstract art forms like architecture and music as art, I don't think that you're ignoring the law of identity, and when people other than you accept abstract paintings as art because they respond to them in the same way that you respond to the abstract forms of architecture and music, they are also not ignoring the law of identity. In other words, as I keep suggesting, the natures of art, reality and the law of identity are not defined by your personal responses, sensitivities, levels of knowledge, etc., or lack thereof -- your personal inability to experience anything in one art form or another is not proof that the law of identity has been broken by that art form.

It is important to me, because I"m concerned with what I don't understand,with my own thinking, and also, how I'm supposed to live in society. I think had I been alive as a primitive man, trying to represent reality by painting on a cave wall, perhaps projecting values of a good hunt or want of rain for tomorrow, non objective "art" would be unimportant.

My understanding is that primitive man was very affected by non-objective art. Non-representational imagery was a powerful, meaningful and important part of his life.

I'm here today though, and seeing non objective "art" as a consequence of disintegration is important.

Your desire to see non-objective art as "a consequence of disintegration" despite all of the evidence I've presented to the contrary is arbitrary and subjective, if not solipsistic.

"In presenting the fundamentals of esthetics, is the subject of nonobjective "art" important?"

"No. Fundamentals are important. The connection between art and epistemology is important. That applies to all art. But nonobjective "art" is unimportant. It's important today, as a symptom of cultural disintegration..."

If the "connection between art and epistemology" is important and "applies to all art," then that means that it applies to architecture and music. So, why does Objectivism consider architecture and music to be valid art forms? By Rand's own admission, they do not "re-create reality." They do not have a "conceptual vocabulary." Why does Objectivism not claim that architecture and music are an attempt to "disintegrate man's consciousness"?

"...But it would not have been important a hundred years ago, and I hope it will not be important a hundred years from now." -from "Ayn Rand Answers"(pg. 187 Esthetics, Art, and Artists)

In the above Rand asserts that non-objective art would not have been important a hundred years ago. Apparently she didn't know that people prior to Kant's publication of his Critique of Judgment (more than 200 years ago), such as the artist Alexander Cozens, were creating abstract "blotscapes" after reading Da Vinci's comments on the aesthetic effect of stimulating one's imagination by looking at random stains on a wall.

*Kant-"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 Manfesto, 76"

Didn't you read my last post? I've read Kant's Critique of Judgment. Rand was wrong about it. Kant is not the "father" of the "modern art" that she disliked. As I said, it would be more accurate to say that Kant was the father of the Objectivist Esthetics and of Rand's art and "sense of life." Rand offered no argument to support her assertion about Kant and his Critique of Judgment. Your posting of her unsupported opinion is also not an argument. I think you'd do better if you were to address the substance of my last post rather than posting Rand's unsupported assertions about Kant. In the links provided in my last post, I've thoroughly refuted your opinions about Kant when they were offered by others (Hicks and Newberry) in the past. As things stand, your approach seems to boil down to ignoring all of the arguments and evidence that I post and shouting "But Ayn Rand said so!"

J

[RationalBiker]

I think there are probably several threads which contain discussions on the subject of realist vs abstract art.

J

That's a typical contribution from that user over the last several months... nothing substantive to point out in the thread other than to say there's already another thread.

[Jonathan13]

That's a typical contribution from that user over the last several months... nothing substantive to point out in the thread other than to say there's already another thread.

Isn't there already a thread about that poster pointing out that there's already a thread?

[brianleepainter]

No, accepting both abstract works and representational works as art does not ignore the law of identity. When you accept abstract art forms like architecture and music as art, I don't think that you're ignoring the law of identity, and when people other than you accept abstract paintings as art because they respond to them in the same way that you respond to the abstract forms of architecture and music, they are also not ignoring the law of identity. In other words, as I keep suggesting, the natures of art, reality and the law of identity are not defined by your personal responses, sensitivities, levels of knowledge, etc., or lack thereof -- your personal inability to experience anything in one art form or another is not proof that the law of identity has been broken by that art form.

(Bold, mine)

I don't think that one requires, or can even attain, a certain "level of knowledge" in regards to seeing what is and what is not art, that is somehow above an individual of any field. Contrast this to the prerequisite knowledge required to make use of a utilitarian object by the user. In both artworks and utilitarian objects, specific knowledge is required of the creator but in regards to the viewer or user only in a utilitarian object is knowledge required to make use of it. Art is after all a universal language, correct? I could understand an individual telling me that I must study Spanish before I'm to read a novel in Spanish, but if that individual were telling me that I must study "art" in order to view art, and have that function of, that is incorrect. I already have the conceptual faculty required to view art, as does every other individual. Yet some intellectuals, thinking highly of themselves in relation to society try to disarm the others, who have not devoted time to studying "art". On occasion I've heard individuals starting a conversation about what they like by stating, "well, I don't know much about art but...". There is no prerequisite knowledge required to view an artwork. (Each individual, based on their values and experience will interpret a painting differently, each one may have different preferences, yet each individual already has the faculty to know what is and what is not representational.The more knowledge that an individual has when seeing an artwork, such as history of the represented characters, historical facts, etc. will only be of that much interest to the individual vs. one that does not have the historic backgrounds, but this is not required to know what is and what is not art.)

To be more specific, an architect requires knowledge to create a home, and knowledge of creating a heroic sculpture in the courtyard, perhaps being a focal point of the whole, but what previous knowledge is required to have a guest take in that sense of life when he walks around and in the artwork, and into the courtyard to view the sculpture? So, this guest then goes inside to warm up by the fireplace, and above the mantle is this. The owner tells the guest about how he has "more knowledge", and is now "more sensitive" to interpreting works, so he removed "Joan of Arc" from view and into the closet to be replaced with a more "meaningful" work. One that is more "intelligible".

[Jonathan13]

I don't think that one requires, or can even attain, a certain "level of knowledge" in regards to seeing what is and what is not art, that is somehow above an individual of any field. Contrast this to the prerequisite knowledge required to make use of a utilitarian object by the user. In both artworks and utilitarian objects, specific knowledge is required of the creator but in regards to the viewer or user only in a utilitarian object is knowledge required to make use of it. Art is after all a universal language, correct?

No, I would not say that art is a universal language. Art is far from being universal. I would say that each work of art is perceived and understood differently by each individual. Be it operas, realist paintings, abstract sculptures or architecture, what has deep meaning to one person might mean nothing to another. But most people are intellectually mature enough to recognize that their personal lack of response to one art form or another isn't an indication that anyone who does claim to respond to it must be a charlatan who is trying to disintegrate mankind's method of cognition.

I could understand an individual telling me that I must study Spanish before I'm to read a novel in Spanish, but if that individual were telling me that I must study "art" in order to view art, and have that function of, that is incorrect.

No one has suggested that you must study art "in order to view art." Rather, my point was that you may have to study certain art forms in order to understand how and why others can find meaning where you can't.

I already have the conceptual faculty required to view art, as does every other individual.

Yup, and millions of those other individuals use their conceptual faculties to experience many things through art that you don't. Why do you try to deny the validity of their experiences? Why do you need to smear them as destroyers and disintegrators rather than just accepting the fact that they respond to something which does nothing for you?

Yet some intellectuals, thinking highly of themselves in relation to society try to disarm the others, who have not devoted time to studying "art".

My point is not to think highly of myself, but simply to let you know that I and others don't share your lack of response to certain artworks. It's not intended as an insult. I'm sure that there are many people who experience through certain art forms what I don't. I'm sure that there are many art works which do a lot for you but which do nothing for me. I'm not insulted by that, so why are you? The difference between you and me is that when I don't respond to something which is meaningful to you, I don't need to believe that you're lying or delusional and trying to destroy man's conceptual faculty -- I don't feel attacked and insulted by the idea that someone might be able to experience through one art form something that I don't experience.

On occasion I've heard individuals starting a conversation about what they like by stating, "well, I don't know much about art but...". There is no prerequisite knowledge required to view an artwork.

By Objectivist standards, there is much more required than merely "viewing an artwork." An artwork must objectively "communicate" an "intelligible meaning." Those are the grounds on which Objectivism asserts that abstract paintings are not art. The problem is that those criteria are applied very selectively and inconsistently. If the same criteria were applied consistently, music, architecture and dance would also not quality as art, since, as I've demonstrated countless times in Objectivist fora, Objectivists cannot successfully employ Rand's requirements of objective aesthetic judgment when attempting to judge those art forms -- they cannot objectively identify subjects and meanings in those art forms. There are even a lot of realistic paintings which would not qualify as art if we were to go by average Objectivists' inability to objectively identify "artists' meanings."

(Each individual, based on their values and experience will interpret a painting differently, each one may have different preferences, yet each individual already has the faculty to know what is and what is not representational...

That would depend on your definition of "representational." Many fans of abstract art see it as representing ideas, moods, emotions, etc., but just less directly than realistic art forms.

...The more knowledge that an individual has when seeing an artwork, such as history of the represented characters, historical facts, etc. will only be of that much interest to the individual vs. one that does not have the historic backgrounds, but this is not required to know what is and what is not art.)

Unlike you, there are millions of people who don't need more knowledge to be able to understand that abstract art is art. They respond to it without any special knowledge or prompting. They respond to it to the same degree that Rand responded to music and architecture: They find as much meaning in it as Rand did in the non-representational, subjective, abstract art forms that she deemed to be valid despite their not having an objective "conceptual vocabulary." So, clearly there are millions of people who have the "faculty" to know that it is art, despite your denials and your attempts to claim that they are lying or delusional.

To be more specific, an architect requires knowledge to create a home, and knowledge of creating a heroic sculpture in the courtyard, perhaps being a focal point of the whole, but what previous knowledge is required to have a guest take in that sense of life when he walks around and in the artwork and into the courtyard to view the sculpture?

So, are you suggesting that if I were to post various examples of architecture, you believe that you and others here will be able to fulfill Rand's criteria for making aesthetic judgments and objectively identify the "artists' meanings" which are "communicated" through the abstract forms of the architecture?

So, this guest then goes inside to warm up by the fireplace, and above the mantle is this. The owner tells the guest about how he has "more knowledge", and is now "more sensitive" to interpreting works so he removed "Joan of Arc" from view and into the closet to be replaced with a more "meaningful" work. One that is more "intelligible".

Does the guest have lots of trouble identifying simple body language and objects' positions, such as whether or not a figure in a painting is obviously leaning against a tree? If so, I think there's a good chance that the abstract painting could be more intelligible to fans of abstract art than the realistic painting is to this fictional guest.

J

Edited November 8, 2011 by Jonathan13