Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kant and Aesthetics

Rate this topic


Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Recommended Posts

"(what's the old saying? "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach"?)."

Many great artists of the past (Michelangelo, Jacques Louis David, etc.) taught students, first via the apprenticeship system and then by the atelier system. The atelier system still survives, by the way, and I would recommend it to you. You would improve your work immensely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only spare the time to answer this in bits and pieces, so be patient.

"I just think that you have an exaggerated appraisal of what that experience adds up to. You imagine that you're an authority."

What's the exagerration? I have been a painter all of my life, and have taught for many years as well. The latter experience has provided me with insight into the role of natural talent, the role of proper instruction, etc. Yes, I do think of myself as an authority. Likewise, if someone I knew worked as a marine biologist all of his life, I'd expect him to be an authority on the subject. It simply doesn't seem far-fetched.

"People often have a very over-inflated opinion of their own abilities, tastes and jugdments."

Very true --- look in the mirror.

"Ah, so others are only so-called "experts," but you're the real deal?"

Thankfully, I was trained in the atelier system, and thus was spared the relativism and faddishness of the modern art school, which unfortunately has led otherwise sane and talented individuals to distrust their own eyes.

"The only differences from Rand's statement are that I'm not "helplessly bewildered" that you don't experience what I do, and that you seem to be quite upset by the notion that someone might be able to experience what you can't."

Perplexed, really. Gammell speculated that it the appeal of modern art was a replacement for religion: people desire mystery in their lives, a select community apart from others which shares their "faith", religious-like feelings and experiences when in front of the "mystery", and the intense desire to defend it. Some of that seems right on.....

Let me give you an example of the last item on that list: the Minneapolis Institute of Arts has a program called "The Foot in the Door Show". The program grants exhibit space and promotional materials to up-and-coming artists, who are selected by a panel of artists in the community. Work done in the tradition of classical realism were ALWAYS rejected. Several years ago, a couple of atelier-trained artists somehow managed to make it on the panel, though they lacked a majority. Word got out that those artists were Classical Realists, and they had another candidate for the panel (which would have given them either a majority or an equal vote -- can't remember which). The modernists were so afraid that ANY traditional work be exhibited there that they called a meeting. As an atelier-trained artist, I showed up to lend support. The modernists were so determined to protect their status as THE high priests of art that they shouted down anyone who attempted to speak, stood up and yelled obscenities, and otherwise showed themselves to be fanatics. I couldn't help but think of how "religious" they were in their convictions, and we were treated as heretics.

"You don't know what you're talking about."

I'm afraid I do.

"But I do know, from reading what you've written here, that you're very emotionally invested in this issue, and that you're very upset about the idea of others having more knowledge and sensitivity to the visual arts than you do, and that you're so enraged by it that you have to accuse others of being "brainwashed" and such. Very defensive and angry."

Of course I'm emotionally invested -- this is my vocation and my passion, after all. And no, I'm not upset by others having more knowledge and sensitivity than I do (there are many artists whose work I admire -- no doubt they surpass me in many ways), but rather I simply have no patience for the relativistic nonsense and pseudo-intellectual drivel that accompanies modern art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW I've told Jonathan before that in spite of spending a good amount of time in front of different Pollock's, for example at MOMA, that they do nothing for me, I don't get it, etc. It didn't seem to bug him in the least. If someone, particularly a non-musician, tells me Schoenberg's Survivor from Warsaw doesn't connect with them, it's no biggie in my book. If they start saying it's evil (or anything like that), my opinion of them has got to move at least one notch in the direction of dumbass.

Exactly. There are a lot of works of art which do nothing for me, including ones which I think required immense talent to produce as well as ones which required little talent. When that happens, I don't feel the need to tell those who are affected by it that they're "brainwashed."

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"(what's the old saying? "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach"?)."

Many great artists of the past (Michelangelo, Jacques Louis David, etc.) taught students, first via the apprenticeship system and then by the atelier system. The atelier system still survives, by the way, and I would recommend it to you. You would improve your work immensely.

If by "improve" my work, you mean that I'd be more likely to conform to the formulaic traditions and rules of classicism, that wouldn't be my idea of an "improvement."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me give you an example of the last item on that list: the Minneapolis Institute of Arts has a program called "The Foot in the Door Show". The program grants exhibit space and promotional materials to up-and-coming artists, who are selected by a panel of artists in the community. Work done in the tradition of classical realism were ALWAYS rejected. Several years ago, a couple of atelier-trained artists somehow managed to make it on the panel, though they lacked a majority. Word got out that those artists were Classical Realists, and they had another candidate for the panel (which would have given them either a majority or an equal vote -- can't remember which). The modernists were so afraid that ANY traditional work be exhibited there that they called a meeting. As an atelier-trained artist, I showed up to lend support. The modernists were so determined to protect their status as THE high priests of art that they shouted down anyone who attempted to speak, stood up and yelled obscenities, and otherwise showed themselves to be fanatics. I couldn't help but think of how "religious" they were in their convictions, and we were treated as heretics.

I remember reading about the hostilities between the Classical Realists and everyone else. In fact, this article, which I've quoted over on OL in the past, mentions the hostilities and the Classical Realists' packing the crowd with their own in an attempt to win positions on the MAEP curatorial panel.

I can understand the concerns of the opponents of the Classical Realists. Classical Realism is dead. It's formulaic, and it's rarely anything new, either in style, composition or content. More often than not, it's basically repainting what's been painted thousands and thousands of times before.

As I wrote on this thread on OL:

Anyway, the reason I started this thread is that it irritates me when artists spend a lot of time complaining that they're not getting the attention, respect, fame or money that they think they deserve. I look through quite a lot of art books and magazines each month, visit galleries and museums, and try to keep up on internet arts sources, and I see a lot of contemporary realism that earns attention, respect, fame and money. I think that Gjertson and others are not getting what they want because their art isn't seriously connecting with people, and not because there's a bias against great realism. If visual art were music, to me a lot of Gjertson's work would be something along the lines of Christian-inspired marches or polkas, and hearing his complaints that major museums aren't displaying his work is like hearing a group called, say, The 37 Fat Marching Gospel Dutchmen griping that MTV, the Kennedy Center, and satellite radio aren't playing their stuff.

When I first looked at Gjertson's work, I kept thinking that it felt forced and rigid. But why? Most of the figures aren't lifeless, and even though I don't like religious subjects, other artists have created religious art that is very alive and powerful to me. Then it occurred to me: it's the lighting. Almost every scene that Gjertson paints is lit from about 5 or 7 o'clock high, with the same neutral white light at the same intensity, casting the same degree of hardness in the shadows. There's hardly any variation in choice of palette to establish mood and there's virtually no increase or decrease in global saturation. Gjertson has established a formula for what he apparently thinks is ideal "classical" lighting, and he very rarely -- almost never -- deviates from it.

I think his painting "The Late Show" is a good example of how formulaic lighting can severely limit expression. Nothing about the image says "late." Rather than using a cool palette to imply night, and using the television screen as the scene's source of illumination, Gjertson's "ideal" lighting scheme makes it look like a warm, sunny afternoon. Without knowing the painting's title, the visual information alone, especially the warm colors of the children's clothing, might even convey to the average viewer the sense that the children are all home from school with fevers.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can do artwork like those, which are extremely good...

Thank you.

...and yet defend someone like Pollock and other non-objective artists, then you are betraying your own talent.

It doesn't occur to you that my talent might allow me to see, understand and appreciate that which you don't?

And, besides, Miss Rand was quite clear in The Romantic Manifest of why music, dance, and architecture is art.

No, she doesn't make it clear why those art forms should qualify as art in spite of contradicting her criteria.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I can understand the concerns of the opponents of the Classical Realists. Classical Realism is dead. It's formulaic, and it's rarely anything new, either in style, composition or content. More often than not, it's basically repainting what's been painted thousands and thousands of times before."

Far from being dead, realism is alive and well and thriving -- it's modernism that has nothing left to say. It's left to simply try to shock, which is increasingly difficult in this dead age.

Nor does any of your work represent anything that hasn't "been painted thousands and thousands of times before" -- you have merely copied photographs whereas the classical realists would work from life.

I have to agree with you about Gjertson's work -- there is often a rigidity about his figures. I much prefer the work of a classmate of mine: http://www.jeffreytlarson.com/about.asp

"If by "improve" my work, you mean that I'd be more likely to conform to the formulaic traditions and rules of classicism, that wouldn't be my idea of an "improvement."

No, actually what I had would be the improved sensitivity to color and value that would come from direct observation of life, instead of slavishly copying a photograph. Also the artistic anatomy courses would strengthen your form, which I see is lacking where the photograph lacks (case in point your nude).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I can understand the concerns of the opponents of the Classical Realists. Classical Realism is dead. It's formulaic, and it's rarely anything new, either in style, composition or content. More often than not, it's basically repainting what's been painted thousands and thousands of times before."

Far from being dead, realism is alive and well and thriving...

I didn't say that realism was dead. In fact, I said " I see a lot of contemporary realism that earns attention, respect, fame and money." What I said was that Classical Realism is dead.

...it's modernism that has nothing left to say. It's left to simply try to shock, which is increasingly difficult in this dead age.

So, your theory is that every work of modern art is nothing but an attempt to "shock" people? Heh. I think you drank the atelier's Kool-Aid (or do they serve only hand-squeezed lemonade there because Kool-Aid is just too damned shockingly modern?).

Nor does any of your work represent anything that hasn't "been painted thousands and thousands of times before" -- you have merely copied photographs...

That shows what you know. I have not copied photographs.

...whereas the classical realists would work from life.

Heh. I love the elitism of the notion that "copying photographs" is a bad thing, but slavishly copying the scene one has staged in front of oneself is good.

I have to agree with you about Gjertson's work -- there is often a rigidity about his figures. I much prefer the work of a classmate of mine: http://www.jeffreytl...n.com/about.asp

Beautiful work. Most of it appears to be much more Impressionistic than Classical Realist. I think his best work is that which deviates from the formulae of the atelier.

"If by "improve" my work, you mean that I'd be more likely to conform to the formulaic traditions and rules of classicism, that wouldn't be my idea of an "improvement."

No, actually what I had would be the improved sensitivity to color and value that would come from direct observation of life, instead of slavishly copying a photograph. Also the artistic anatomy courses would strengthen your form, which I see is lacking where the photograph lacks (case in point your nude).

Again, the painting is not copied from a photo.

But that is a cute comment (that anatomy can be lacking where a photograph lacks it). In other words, the reality of human anatomy that a camera records is "lacking" compared to the rules of anatomy that Classical Realists are trained to obey?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful work. Most of it appears to be much more Impressionistic than Classical Realist. I think his best work is that which deviates from the formulae of the atelier.

By the way, it's interesting how many of Larson's paintings have compositions that are influenced by modernism. Old-world academic masters would be shocked and outraged at his sense of design. Avila, does Larson become as enraged as you do about others' differing tastes and responses to art? If so, perhaps he absorbed the modern aesthetic sense without knowing it?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually what I had would be the improved sensitivity to color and value that would come from direct observation of life, instead of slavishly copying a photograph

Are you now trying to pose as an authority on photography? If so, why is it that you're not aware of the fact that photography is no less sensitive to color and value than the human eye? Why don't you know that photography can present a wider range of color and value than painting can?

At the atelier, did they tell you that photography is limited compared to painting or to what they eye sees, and you just took their word for it and believed them instead of actually learning about the medium for yourself?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I didn't say that realism was dead. In fact, I said " I see a lot of contemporary realism that earns attention, respect, fame and money." What I said was that Classical Realism is dead."

Define "classical realism" -- how does it differ from realism? Be concise...

"So, your theory is that every work of modern art is nothing but an attempt to "shock" people?"

No, most of it is simply tired and mediocre. The stuff that makes the news is designed to shock, and it serves to "rally the troops" -- apologists for modernism can pretend to stand firm against the evil puritanical forces that threaten censorship -- quite bracing stuff.

"That shows what you know. I have not copied photographs."

I don't believe you for a second. Your work has the signature of being copied from photographs -- not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, as long as the artist is aware of the limitations of the camera in regard to values and color.

"Heh. I love the elitism of the notion that "copying photographs" is a bad thing, but slavishly copying the scene one has staged in front of oneself is good."

Again, it's not inherently bad, but the artist needs to be aware of the camera's limitations. Nor did I suggest that the only proper method for the artists is to "slavishly" copy what is in front of him. You are displaying your lack of understanding of traditional methods and motivations. That's understandable -- your education has been in modernism, which is inherently at odds with art as understood through most of man's history.

"Beautiful work. Most of it appears to be much more Impressionistic than Classical Realist. I think his best work is that which deviates from the formulae of the atelier."

Once again you are showing your misunderstanding of the term "Classical Realism", if you see his work as more "impressionistic" -- it also shows a muddled but modern understanding of the term "impressionism". Velasaquez and Vermeer, for example, were supreme impressionistic painters. Jeff's work doesn't "deviate" from the "formula of the atelier" -- the atelier is a training ground to equip the artist for his avenue of expression. The atelier training gives an artist tools, not a formula. Jeff taught at a number of ateliers -- really, you don't know what you're talking about.

"Again, the painting is not copied from a photo."

Yeah, sure....

"But that is a cute comment (that anatomy can be lacking where a photograph lacks it). In other words, the reality of human anatomy that a camera records is "lacking" compared to the rules of anatomy that Classical Realists are trained to obey?"

You misunderstood what I am trying to say. In your nude, I see some anatomical errors. Nothing big, mind you, but what they tell me is that you haven't studied artistic anatomy to any great extent. You can sneer at "Classical Realists" being "trained to obey", but then you would have to sneer at virtually all of the great artists, schools, and ateliers of the past, up until the late 1800s, because studying the human form has always been an important part of an artist's formation. Now it's not taught in art schools to any great degree, and it's easy to see why: why bother? If art is simply anything an artist spits (as a famous modern artist asserted) then there is no "good" drawing or "bad" drawing. Why do the work of drawing, when there aren't any standards?

"By the way, it's interesting how many of Larson's paintings have compositions that are influenced by modernism. Old-world academic masters would be shocked and outraged at his sense of design."

Hardly. The "modern sense of design" you see is there in the work of the "old-world academic masters", but the poorly-formed eye can't get past the superficial differences. Jeff's sense of design is quite personal, and his use of modern things (cardboard, etc.) is simply a continuation of the still-life artist's desire to make the commonplace beautiful. It comes off as quirky, perhaps, but I think it's not unreasonable to think that a Chardin, for example, might have enjoyed painting foam blocks and cardboard egg crates if he had them around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Avila, does Larson become as enraged as you do about others' differing tastes and responses to art?"

He has no time for Jackson Pollock, I can tell you that, or any other of his kind. As for rage, well, he's a mellow guy.

Within the broad category of art, we all have differing tastes and responses. Rubens, for example, has no appeal for me, or El Greco. Yet they are great artists who produced great work, and the same principles of order, workmanship, and intelligibility are in play, regardless of subject or style. The stuff that Pollock and his kind produce is simply unrelated to those principles. It's a different beast altogether -- perhaps it's best thought of as "decoration".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Are you now trying to pose as an authority on photography? If so, why is it that you're not aware of the fact that photography is no less sensitive to color and value than the human eye? Why don't you know that photography can present a wider range of color and value than painting can?"

I don't think one needs to be an authority on photography to be aware of the differences between how the eyes take in visual information and how a camera records it. I'm sure most people have had the experience of being moved by a particular scene, only to be disappointed at photographs taken of it. The human mind is selective: it takes in important details and ignores others. This is one reason why artists need to be careful when using photographs as reference. The other reason is color -- there is usually a lot more color and light in shadow areas than what photographs show. This is what shows up the most in artists who have little experience in plein air painting -- the use of color is photograph-based and it shows. Using photography as one's sole reference takes far less skill than working from life or with a combination of both, so I understand your defensiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe you for a second. Your work has the signature of being copied from photographs -- not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, as long as the artist is aware of the limitations of the camera in regard to values and color.

Take another look at my painting "Pensive." If a photography novice like you were to shoot a photograph of the room that I used as reference, using the same lighting that I used, the result would not be the warm color scheme and intentionally limited palette that you see in the painting, and there would be significantly more contrast. The darks and lights would be "clipping out" -- for example, the curtain in the distant room would be pure white, as would the reflections on the floor and ceiling, and the front of the woman's dress and the area from the knee and hip down would be pure black.

Again, it's not inherently bad, but the artist needs to be aware of the camera's limitations.

Still pretending to be an authority on photography, eh? As I said in my last post, photography does not have limitations in regard to values and color in comparison to what the eye sees. Photography can record more than the human eye can see. The fact that you may not know enough about photography so as to use a camera to accurately record what the eye sees does not mean that the medium itself is limited, or that others must share your limitations.

So, what you imagine that you see as proof of copying is really just proof of your lack of knowledge of photography, and your lack of understanding of how and why an artist would selectively limit his use of color and value.

Nor did I suggest that the only proper method for the artists is to "slavishly" copy what is in front of him. You are displaying your lack of understanding of traditional methods and motivations. That's understandable -- your education has been in modernism, which is inherently at odds with art as understood through most of man's history.

You know nothing of my education. My education was not in modernism.

"Again, the painting is not copied from a photo."

Yeah, sure....

Your attitude reminds me of some of David Hockney's assertions in Secret Knowledge.

You misunderstood what I am trying to say. In your nude, I see some anatomical errors.

Now you've changed your position. Your earlier statement was that my painting's anatomy "is lacking where the photograph lacks" -- you were asserting that the photograph that you allege that I copied had somehow inaccurately recorded human anatomy, and that I, not having your expertise in anatomy, failed to recognize these errors that reality had perpetrated, and therefore foolishly copied them! You're being quite silly.

Hardly. The "modern sense of design" you see is there in the work of the "old-world academic masters", but the poorly-formed eye can't get past the superficial differences. Jeff's sense of design is quite personal, and his use of modern things (cardboard, etc.) is simply a continuation of the still-life artist's desire to make the commonplace beautiful. It comes off as quirky, perhaps, but I think it's not unreasonable to think that a Chardin, for example, might have enjoyed painting foam blocks and cardboard egg crates if he had them around.

Heh. I wasn't talking about his use of "modern things," but of the modernist influence on his compositions. Apparently you're too busy focusing on objects and their characteristics to see compositional style. And that doesn't surprise me since your inability to recognize compositional style is at the heart of our disagreement. You're basically a blind man angrily telling others that they can't see because you can't see.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now you've changed your position. Your earlier statement was that my painting's anatomy "is lacking where the photograph lacks" -- you were asserting that the photograph that you allege that I copied had somehow inaccurately recorded human anatomy, and that I, not having your expertise in anatomy, failed to recognize these errors that reality had perpetrated, and therefore foolishly copied them!"

No, that's not what I meant. I didn't express myself well. What I meant was that there were probably areas in the photograph of the nude you were working from that were unclear or did not give you enough information. This results in anatomical errors because there's no knowledge of artistic anatomy to supply you with the needed information independent of the photograph.

"Heh. I wasn't talking about his use of "modern things," but of the modernist influence on his compositions."

Yes, I understood what you were asserting regarding the supposed influence of the "modern sense of design" on Jeff's work, but as I said, it isn't really "modern". The same principles of light and shadow, form and flow, are present in traditional works as well. Good composition is good composition, and is timeless, not "modern". You are confusing externals with underlying design structures. My comments about the subjects used was simply an additional comment about modern externals -- I like Jeff's use of them.

"You're basically a blind man angrily telling others that they can't see because you can't see."

No, I'm a person who feels quite sorry for you -- you have talent and a good sense of design and just need to develop those further. But you have obviously been "educated" right out of common sense: a Pollock has little in common with a Velasquez, other than both using paint. The Pollock is basically an "up yours" gesture to the Velasquez, to fine art. Still, that's what you were expected to absorb and believe, and you have obeyed. And it is always a hell of a lot easier to go along with the crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, for those of you who wish to see some excellent work of the type that Jonathon describes as "dead", "formulaic", and "rarely anything new, either in style, composition or content" and which consists of "repainting what's been painted thousands and thousands of times before", go here:

http://www.artrenewal.org/

If you wish to see the work of current painters, either click on "Living Masters Gallery" or on "Salon" to see past winners in this competition. It will give you some much-needed perspective on Jonathon's abilities (yes, he has talent, but not nearly as much as he thinks he does, especially when compared to these artists).

If you have an interest in the philosophy that underlies the Art Renewal Center's efforts, click on "Philosophy" and read the articles (scroll down for a quick summary). You'll find that Jackson Pollock and the kind of relativistic garbage he represents aren't held in the same kind of awe that Jonathon accords them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not what I meant. I didn't express myself well. What I meant was that there were probably areas in the photograph of the nude you were working from that were unclear or did not give you enough information.

That's funny. Do you seriously not recognize that the painting is intended to present a combination of clarity and obscurity?!!! The purpose of my creating the painting was not to academically pose and light the figure in order to show everything clearly or to demonstrate to viewers how impressive my understanding of anatomy is. That's why I didn't go with anything like Gjertson's notion of universally "ideal" classical lighting or his artificial poses. See, the idea is that the figure is using the light to her advantage, and that there are objects and forces which are obscure or invisible but which we can infer are nevertheless there. The entire point of the painting is to contrast clarity with obscurity!!!

Do you really not understand that artists intentionally avoid your rules and half-baked theories because they stifle creativity and expression, and because they tend to result in artifice and kitsch because the imposed rules are internally inconsistent with the thematic content of the microcosm within a work of art?

One thing I've always liked about Ayn Rand was her stressing the point that, in judging art, one is to take the artist's theme as the criterion upon which to base one's judgments.

You appear to have an opposing view. You seem to start with rules about what you want to see when looking at a work of art, and how you want to see it, and if those rules have not been obeyed, then the art is to be judged as flawed. All while ignoring (or being incapable of recognizing) obvious thematic content.

Man, it's no wonder that people would not want anyone like you on a museum's art board.

This results in anatomical errors because there's no knowledge of artistic anatomy to supply you with the needed information independent of the photograph.

But remember, I don't share your comically severe limitations when it comes to photography. If I were shooting reference photos, I'd have more information than you could see with your eye.

And if I'm bad at anatomy, why would you assume that I'd have to copy a photo? Wouldn't I draw just as poorly looking at reality as looking at a photo?

Yes, I understood what you were asserting regarding the supposed influence of the "modern sense of design" on Jeff's work, but as I said, it isn't really "modern". The same principles of light and shadow, form and flow, are present in traditional works as well. Good composition is good composition, and is timeless, not "modern". You are confusing externals with underlying design structures. My comments about the subjects used was simply an additional comment about modern externals -- I like Jeff's use of them.

You don't have any knowledge of modern composition, do you? Heh. Let me guess, you've always been so angry and resentful of modernism that you've assumed that there's nothing that you can learn from it (just as you've falsely assumed that there's nothing that you can learn about photography because you know everything already), and therefore you've never studied it, and that's why you can't recognize the unintentional modernist influence over your friend's work? And your teachers at the atelier patted you on the back and rewarded you for joining them in heroically avoiding such knowledge? Hilarious. The blind leading the blind.

No, I'm a person who feels quite sorry for you -- you have talent and a good sense of design and just need to develop those further. But you have obviously been "educated" right out of common sense: a Pollock has little in common with a Velasquez, other than both using paint. The Pollock is basically an "up yours" gesture to the Velasquez, to fine art. Still, that's what you were expected to absorb and believe, and you have obeyed. And it is always a hell of a lot easier to go along with the crowd.

That's funny coming from a person who bluffs and blusters as much as you do. I noticed in your last post that you've stopped posing as an authority on photography because I called your bluff. But why haven't you owned up to your errors and explicitly acknowledged that you actually had no clue what you were talking about when pretending to be an authority on the subject? Is it because owning up to your complete lack of knowledge would be an admission that you've been obeying your masters and repeating the ridiculous misinformation that they had taught you out of their own ignorance? Admitting to your obvious foolishness would be an admission that you've been following a crowd rather than thinking for yourself, and that you've been contributing to the passing of misinformation from generation to generation while believing that you were brilliant and that you knew what you were talking about?

C'mon, have the guts to explicitly admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, and that you were expecting that I knew even less than you did, but that it didn't pan out for you.

If you wish to see the work of current painters, either click on "Living Masters Gallery" or on "Salon" to see past winners in this competition. It will give you some much-needed perspective on Jonathon's abilities (yes, he has talent, but not nearly as much as he thinks he does, especially when compared to these artists).

You have no idea how much talent I think I have compared to other artists. Of the two of us, I'm not the one who is huffing and puffing about how great I am while refusing to show my work.

If you have an interest in the philosophy that underlies the Art Renewal Center's efforts, click on "Philosophy" and read the articles (scroll down for a quick summary). You'll find that Jackson Pollock and the kind of relativistic garbage he represents aren't held in the same kind of awe that Jonathon accords them.

I don't hold Pollock in "awe." I simply recognize that you are incapable of recognizing modernist design elements and styles, and not just in Pollock's work, but in your own realist friend's!!!

You've got kind of a Dunning-Kruger thing going: you assume yourself to be an authority on every subject about which you actually know nothing, and about which you intentionally and actively avoid learning anything.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do you seriously not recognize that the painting is intended to present a combination of clarity and obscurity?!!!"

Calm down -- you don't have to get so wound up. Of course I admire the combination of clarity and obcurity in any piece of well-executed art. However, there's a difference between "obscurity" and "don't know what to do here because the photograph isn't giving me the information I need".

"Do you really not understand that artists intentionally avoid your rules and half-baked theories because they stifle creativity and expression, and because they tend to result in artifice and kitsch because the imposed rules are internally inconsistent with the thematic content of the microcosm within a work of art?"

Again, if anyone wants to see what "rules" and "half-baked theories" produces, they can look at the "artifice and kitsch" here: http://www.artrenewal.org/

People can judge for themselves.

"And if I'm bad at anatomy, why would you assume that I'd have to copy a photo? Wouldn't I draw just as poorly looking at reality as looking at a photo?"

No. The difference in skill level required to draw well from a photograph and that required to draw well from life is huge.

"You don't have any knowledge of modern composition, do you?"

By which you mean to say, if one doesn't think there's much of value on a Pollock, one is ignorant. Well, that's handy for you, isn't it? It beats actually having to explain, for example, the difference between a "good" Pollock" and a "less good" Pollock.

"....therefore you've never studied it, and that's why you can't recognize the unintentional modernist influence over your friend's work?"

Actually, I have studied it. I spent time at the Mpls. College of Art and Design and had quite a regimen of it. Funny, though, my friend doesn't recognize the alleged "modernist influence" in his work either.

" I noticed in your last post that you've stopped posing as an authority on photography because I called your bluff."

I never posed as an authority of photography. To restate what I said earlier: I don't think one needs to be an authority on photography to be aware of the differences between how the eyes take in visual information and how a camera records it. I'm sure most people have had the experience of being moved by a particular scene, only to be disappointed at photographs taken of it. The human mind is selective: it takes in important details and ignores others. This is one reason why artists need to be careful when using photographs as reference. The same is true with focus -- with lost and found edges. Another reason is color -- there is usually a lot more color and light in shadow areas than what photographs show.

" Is it because owning up to your complete lack of knowledge would be an admission that you've been obeying your masters and repeating the ridiculous misinformation that they had taught you out of their own ignorance?"

"Obeying my masters"? Really, you're starting to sound hysterical. Calm down. Relax. No one is going to hurt you.

"C'mon, have the guts to explicitly admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, and that you were expecting that I knew even less than you did, but that it didn't pan out for you."

I think both your work and your comments here have told me volumes about your level of knowledge.

"I'm not the one who is huffing and puffing about how great I am while refusing to show my work."

I never huffed and puffed about how great I am. Nor have I refused to show my work -- you simply assumed that my lack of an on-line presence indicated refusal. But I appreciate your over-heated comments, because they show the readers here (that and the quality of the work at http://www.artrenewal.org/ -- by the way, some of my work would be there in the Salon catalogs) that modern art apologists are not a rational lot.

"You've got kind of a Dunning-Kruger thing going: you assume yourself to be an authority on every subject about which you actually know nothing, and about which you intentionally and actively avoid learning anything."

Wow, that's quite an over-heated statement. Guess I touched a nerve....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down -- you don't have to get so wound up. Of course I admire the combination of clarity and obcurity in any piece of well-executed art. However, there's a difference between "obscurity" and "don't know what to do here because the photograph isn't giving me the information I need".

You haven't been able to comprehend my comments on the falsehood of your beliefs about photography's limitations, have you? To repeat, I don't share your limitations. If I were to shoot reference photos for a painting, they would not be missing information just because photos that you would shoot of the same thing would be missing it.

Again, if anyone wants to see what "rules" and "half-baked theories" produces, they can look at the "artifice and kitsch" here:http://www.artrenewal.org/

People can judge for themselves.

Indeed, and there is quite a lot of artifice and kitsch there, along with some quite good art.

I never posed as an authority of photography. To restate what I said earlier: I don't think one needs to be an authority on photography to be aware of the differences between how the eyes take in visual information and how a camera records it. I'm sure most people have had the experience of being moved by a particular scene, only to be disappointed at photographs taken of it.

Yes, when people like you who don't know what they're doing take photos of things, they are often disappointed because they don't know how to use a camera to accurately capture what they see in reality. Fortunately, I don't share your limitations.

The human mind is selective: it takes in important details and ignores others. This is one reason why artists need to be careful when using photographs as reference. The same is true with focus -- with lost and found edges. Another reason is color -- there is usually a lot more color and light in shadow areas than what photographs show.

False. People other than you know how to use a camera to accurately capture color and light in shadow areas. I'm one of such people.

The lack of light and color in the shadow areas of my painting of the archer is an intentional effect. It really is downright ridiculous that you believe that the lack of light and color in a painting could not possibly be intentional, but rather that it is proof of photographic copying simply because you unintentionally get the same effect when you fumble around with a camera while trying to capture a different effect! So, let me repeat once again: I do not share your photographic incompetence.

I never huffed and puffed about how great I am. Nor have I refused to show my work -- you simply assumed that my lack of an on-line presence indicated refusal. But I appreciate your over-heated comments, because they show the readers here (that and the quality of the work at http://www.artrenewal.org/ -- by the way, some of my work would be there in the Salon catalogs) that modern art apologists are not a rational lot.

Images of your work are available somewhere online in the Salon catalogs? What's the problem with pointing them out?

Hmmm, let's see. I just did a search looking for the subjects on which you've been pontificating and pretending to be an expert. I think I've discovered who you are. And if you're who I think you are, I understand why you're not posting samples of your work.

Wow, that's quite an over-heated statement. Guess I touched a nerve....

No, it's actually a very calm and reasonable statement based on my observing your behavior: you've been posing as an authority when you don't know what you're talking about. Your views on photography's limitations (based on your own limitations) are very Dunning-Kruger-like. Even after I've explained it to you a few times already, you're still not getting it. You still apparently believe that photography itself is limited rather than that you know nothing about it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of your response consists of stating how knowledgeable you are as a photographer -- curious, but OK. I'm a painter, not a photographer, and have never pretended otherwise.

"Indeed, and there is quite a lot of artifice and kitsch there, along with some quite good art."

Most of the work there is of a higher quality than what you have shown yourself capable of. But with some proper training, who knows?

"It really is downright ridiculous that you believe that the lack of light and color in a painting could not possibly be intentional, but rather that it is proof of photographic copying."

As an apologist for modernism, you can always state that anything in a painting (and especially any passages that appear clumsy or poorly composed or executed) is entirely intentional. Sweet. I can see the appeal of your position: you can happily paint from your photographs using realism, but at the same time reject any standards that one could use to criticize or correct any aspect, whether of color, form, or composition.

Anyway, you haven't answered some basic questions that I asked above: how do you define "Classical Realism"? (And why do you declare it to be dead, when it is, in actuality, thriving -- with more ateliers opening every year? Wishful thinking, perhaps?) By what standard does one differentiate between Pollock at his best, and at his not-so-good? Can modern artists even have "good" or "bad" paintings? If, as a famous modern artist once asserted, "everything the artist spits out is art", then how does one determine "good" spit from "less good" spit?

This has been fun, Jonathan. Why, you show just enough promise that you could apply to my atelier....I have some students that could show you what excellence really is. I'm sure you'd learn so much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hmmm, let's see. I just did a search looking for the subjects on which you've been pontificating and pretending to be an expert. I think I've discovered who you are. And if you're who I think you are, I understand why you're not posting samples of your work."

Good for you. And you will have no doubt noticed the number ateliers advertized on the site as well. So tell me, which atelier is mine? Surely you know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to agree with 13, given my views about him betraying art by siding with Kant and Pollock, but he is right about the relationship between art and the camera. An artist has to do much more than just copy reality verbatim -- he has to concretize an abstraction (an integration of multiple incidents of, say, seeing an apple) and he must project the world as it might be and ought to be. Copying just what one observes for one scene is naturalism, not romanticism, and I see that as one of the problems with Larson's still-lifes.They are very well done, especially the ones with the tea pot and how he expertly captured the reflection, giving solidity roundness to the painting. But if you noticed, most are as he saw it while painting them (because only his reflection is in it) and the bicycle and the tractor have rust spots on them, so it was probably a copy of what he was seeing at the time of painting. 13's paintings are much closer to romanticism, which makes him siding with Kant and Pollock all the more bewildering and contrary to a rational view of his own talent.

Also, I think 13 is mistaken about the entity perceiving senses, since we only have two of those -- sight and touch. The rest of the senses do not give us awareness of entities, but rather what entities sound like or what they smell like or what they taste like; and we do not grasp entities qua entities with ears, nose, and tongue. For those arts geared towards sight and / or touch, those are the ones that must depict entities and their attributes (and their actions for dance and plays and movies), otherwise one is not depicting existence, and certainly not existence as it might be and ought to be. So, music is not there to depict an entity because our ears are not geared towards integrating sensations into forms like a bat's ears or perhaps a dolphin's ears. However, on the broadest level, all of the arts are objective in that we observe something created by man and get the abstraction conveyed from the artwork. In other words, if one is going to maintain an object / subject distinction, then anything coming from existence as processed by the human mode of perception and neurological processing is objective, not subjective as Kant would have you believe -- that is, we are aware of something separate from us out in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I hate to agree with 13, given my views about him betraying art by siding with Kant and Pollock, but he is right about the relationship between art and the camera. An artist has to do much more than just copy reality verbatim -- he has to concretize an abstraction (an integration of multiple incidents of, say, seeing an apple) and he must project the world as it might be and ought to be."

But I agree with that as well. I don't think highly of anyone copying a photo verbatim -- it takes some skill, yes, but is taking the artist away from the personal filter of his eyes. That's the point I was trying to make -- the mind does not record information the same way a camera does, but is selective. An artist who uses photos for reference needs to be aware of that. Romanticism is fine, too -- did you look at the Art Renewal Center site? I'm sure there are pieces there that you would appreciate, if that's what your personal taste prefers. Different artists are inclined and moved by different inspirations -- what Jeff Larson does is as legitimate as an equally talented Romanticist.

"...he must project the world as it might be and ought to be. Copying just what one observes for one scene is naturalism, not romanticism, and I see that as one of the problems with Larson's still-lifes.They are very well done, especially the ones with the tea pot and how he expertly captured the reflection, giving solidity roundness to the painting. But if you noticed, most are as he saw it while painting them (because only his reflection is in it) and the bicycle and the tractor have rust spots on them, so it was probably a copy of what he was seeing at the time of painting."

And I disagree emphatically that the artist must "project the world as it might be and ought to be". Still-life painting generally has, as its motivation, the artist loving the affect of light on different surfaces, showing how beautiful ordinary things are....those are legitimate inspirations for the artist who is inclined that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to agree with 13, given my views about him betraying art by siding with Kant and Pollock...

But I'm actually disagreeing with Kant when "siding" with Pollock. Kant would have agreed with you that Pollock's work is not art. On that issue, you're the one who is siding with Kant.

...but he is right about the relationship between art and the camera. An artist has to do much more than just copy reality verbatim -- he has to concretize an abstraction (an integration of multiple incidents of, say, seeing an apple) and he must project the world as it might be and ought to be.

As Avila said, that's not true. An artist need not project the world "as it might and ought to be." That's only Rand's description of what Romanticism does, and art need not be Romantic to qualify as art by Objectivist criteria.

Copying just what one observes for one scene is naturalism, not romanticism...

Naturalism is not just copying what one observes. That's only Rand's personal opinion of what Naturalism is. But, anyway, even if we accept the premise that Naturalism is just copying what one observes, it still would qualify as art according to Objectivism. Rand herself categorized Naturalism as a type of art.

...and I see that as one of the problems with Larson's still-lifes.They are very well done, especially the ones with the tea pot and how he expertly captured the reflection, giving solidity roundness to the painting. But if you noticed, most are as he saw it while painting them (because only his reflection is in it) and the bicycle and the tractor have rust spots on them, so it was probably a copy of what he was seeing at the time of painting.

But you can't know what Larson saw if you haven't personally seen the setup that he staged, or a photo of it, and therefore you don't know how much he may have altered and enhanced in his paintings. I've never seen an artist who did not enhance what he saw in one way or another. And that's also true of what I've seen of Avila's work (I'm now 99% sure that I know who he is). I've seen photos in which his paintings are shown next to the scene that he painted, and it's clear that he has used "artistic license" -- he altered what he saw.

13's paintings are much closer to romanticism, which makes him siding with Kant and Pollock all the more bewildering and contrary to a rational view of his own talent.

The paintings of mine that I've shown could indeed be seen as examples of my siding with Kant because, as I've said before, Kant's views do not logically lead to "modern art," since, as Kant scholar Paul Guyer observes, "Kant assumes that all works of art are mimetic, that is, that they have a representational content or theme" -- Kant's view was that "the beauty of art is a beautiful representation of a thing." The paintings of mine that I've posted are mimetic representations of things.

And my "siding" with Pollock (my understanding of Modernist compositional concepts) is what has allowed me enhance the power of my painting's compositions.

Also, I think 13 is mistaken about the entity perceiving senses, since we only have two of those -- sight and touch. The rest of the senses do not give us awareness of entities, but rather what entities sound like or what they smell like or what they taste like; and we do not grasp entities qua entities with ears, nose, and tongue.

So, you're saying that the light waves that come from an object and enter our eyes and allow us to sense the visual attributes of the object give us direct awareness of the object, but the sound waves that come from an object and allow us to sense the aural attributes do not give us direct awareness of the object? In other words, when I see my dog, I am directly experiencing knowledge of reality, but when I hear or smell my dog, I am not actually perceiving the dog (even though I instantly identify it as my dog) or directly experiencing knowledge of reality, but I'm doing something other than perceiving? Why would an object's visual and tactile attributes count as perception but the attributes of sound, taste and smell would not? To me it sounds as if you're taking the position that you interpret Kant as taking.

For those arts geared towards sight and / or touch, those are the ones that must depict entities and their attributes (and their actions for dance and plays and movies), otherwise one is not depicting existence, and certainly not existence as it might be and ought to be. So, music is not there to depict an entity because our ears are not geared towards integrating sensations into forms like a bat's ears or perhaps a dolphin's ears.

But that's not true. Our minds are geared toward integrating sensations from our ears, tongues and noses. That's why Stevie Wonder can make sense of what he hears, tastes and smells. Without seeing or touching things, he can know what they are.

In addition to that, humans can use a form of echolocation. A lot of blind people are very good at it. They integrate aural sensations just like bats do.

However, on the broadest level, all of the arts are objective in that we observe something created by man and get the abstraction conveyed from the artwork. In other words, if one is going to maintain an object / subject distinction, then anything coming from existence as processed by the human mode of perception and neurological processing is objective, not subjective as Kant would have you believe -- that is, we are aware of something separate from us out in reality.

By your formulation above, abstract art is objective.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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