Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Tenderlysharp

Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

I don't believe they can, because they are attributes of concretes. On their own they can't communicate anything broad. Texture would be at the perceptual level and no more than that. You simply recognise it as texture. And I'll take it a step further, a single concrete that is representational can't communicate anything broad (theme). You need 2 or more concretes - concretes that relate to each other.

You're sneaking in "communacte anything broad". Do you think strong verticals in a composition communicate the same feeling as a horizontal composition? Can you tell the difference in feeling from looking at a piece of brushed metal and a piece of plastic? Do you Think it's all the same to lead the eye through a painting wiht long sweeping arcs or through short abrubpt turns? Is a cool blue all the same as a warm orange?

I certainly think they communicate quite different things.

 

5 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

Very nice piece of music! What music evokes is a very broad sense, a general feeling. The concretes that you associate with those feelings will differ for each person. So you will have to answer that question yourself. An example is how a director chooses music to enhance a movie because of how the general sense of the music relates to the specifics he believes are being shown and in most cases the viewer will relate as well. What makes music special is that it seems to take you from the general to the specific, where as painting starts with concretes. People who try to justify non-representational painting believe the process is the same as it is in music ie start with some general feelings and then relate it back somehow to concretes. Painting is not music.

Painting is not music is not an argument. Associations drawn from general feelings is not the same as communicating concretes. You haven't made the case why, for instance, Kandinsky's paintings couldn't evoke general feelings, and why you couldn't draw associations from that just like in a piece of music.

I like Kandinsky as an example since I think he quite successfully does that, and I would associate Scriabin's etude with one of his paintings.

4 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

Do you think it was Renoir's intention to make all the females and males identical (or very similar) to each other? - especially the woman in "Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette". Just an observation.

His intention was to capture the sense of the place and the crowd, the sense of being there. That's why he didn't focus on the faces. You wouldn't make out the details of faces in a crowd, but you would notice the atmosphere, shapes and forms, and the movements. The women and men are more easily told apart by their clothing, the latest fashion in Paris at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alfa said:

Painting is not music is not an argument.

"Painting is not music" is an argument because understanding the visual arts as I had explained in my previous posts is clear-cut - that painting is conceptual because of the relationship between recognisable concretes, but the problem with music is no one has the knowledge so far to explain the exact cognitive process. I have only attempted to explain it earlier in the sense of it being like a movie, or being placed within a movie - by introspection only.

In a Kandinsky painting there are no recognisable concretes, only attributes to concretes. If you could explain the conceptual relationships within a Kandinsky painting (similar to my explanation of the Sargent painting) I will call you a genius. Now if a Kandinsky painting makes you feel good while viewing it, that's great - it is a very good form of decoration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

I agree Sargent was a master at capturing and conveying character especially the woman - the man looks a bit ominous, but that could be because of the lighting.

I would still like for you to expound further on the above comment.

In multiple responses to Alfa and me you seem unwilling (for some reason) to acknowledge the obvious -- that form, color, texture, lighting, shadow, detail, composition, brushwork, etc. are capable of conveying information.  

The cognitive ability to make crossmodal connections between tastes, textures, colors, sounds, forms, volumes, movements, smells, tones, hues, etc. forms the very basis of an individual's aesthetic ability.  Some people have it highly developed across all senses, some don't.  Making these types of crossmodal connections is something that persons with a highly developed atheistic sense do automatically.  A willow tree has a different "tone" than an oak tree.

The root of this ability lies in evolution.  Think of the difference in sound that a dog makes with a playful bark and a menacing one.  Think of the dogs different body language as well.  This emphatic ability to understand the mental state and intent of others is not unique to humans.  It is found across all animals that nurture, raise and teach their young (it's tied to the emergence of the limbic system in the brain).  Humans are unique in that we can make crossmodal connections and can project this ability into non-living, non-representational things - such as architecture and music - but also to brushwork, shadow, lighting, etc.

Rand understood that words have different connotations -- based not just on their semantic content -- but also on their tone.  Take for example the way your lips, tongue, and breath forms the following two words:  "rough" and "smooth".  The first requires short abrupt bursts and movements, while the second's s- and oo- can be formed and drawn-out continuously over time.  (The vowels (a,e,i,o,u) are defined by how the sounds are formed.)  If you run your hand over a rough surface, what happens?  You feel small, abrupt changes in motion.  What happens if you run your hand over something smooth?  The motion is continuous.  Making these types of crossmodal connections is paramount to appreciating art.  English is a particularly rich language with many influences - both Latinate and Germanic - and many subtle variations in tone, if not meaning, can be implied by the selection of certain words.

 

 

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

"Painting is not music" is an argument because understanding the visual arts as I had explained in my previous posts is clear-cut - that painting is conceptual because of the relationship between recognisable concretes, but the problem with music is no one has the knowledge so far to explain the exact cognitive process. I have only attempted to explain it earlier in the sense of it being like a movie, or being placed within a movie - by introspection only.

In a Kandinsky painting there are no recognisable concretes, only attributes to concretes. If you could explain the conceptual relationships within a Kandinsky painting (similar to my explanation of the Sargent painting) I will call you a genius. Now if a Kandinsky painting makes you feel good while viewing it, that's great - it is a very good form of decoration. 

The answer that is missing here is why painting could not reach man's emotions directly, like music. Saying that painting is conceptual because of the relationship between recognisable conretes is not really an answer to that.

Could you explain the conceptual relationshop within a piece of music?
I could say that I find this:Wassily-font-b-Kandinsky-b-font-font-b-p

to invoke the feeling of Walking along a quay on a bright sunny day, set against a blue sky and ships sailing in the water, while it's busy with people and things moving about. I could of course point to such things as the warm yellow color, the blue triangle and the different shapes and so on and so forth. My own associations are certainly at play here and I have no idea of Kandinsky's intent, though some things are probably quite universal. I would for example be very suprised if someone found the mood to be dark and depressing.

Could you say much more about this?
Quissettdaysail20x36.jpg

(not suggesting they have quite the same mood, by the way)

Edited by Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, New Buddha said:

In multiple responses to Alfa and me you seem unwilling (for some reason) to acknowledge the obvious -- that form, color, texture, lighting, shadow, detail, composition, brushwork, etc. are capable of conveying information.  

I did, very clearly in a previous post: Alpha asked " Can shapes, colours, textures, arrangements etc. communicate something without representing any concretes? - you can read my previous post but I will have to reword it and see if I can be clearer.

All of the above (minus brushwork) are ATTRIBUTES of entities. They are NOTHING without the objects they are part of. Light can not be portrayed without it falling upon an object, your chosen subject. What makes light and shade (shadow) possible are the forms that the object possess. I never said to you the above attributes are not capable of conveying information. When you talk about certain attributes in your above post you link them back to objects (willow, oak tree). I said to Alpha those attributes are not capable of conveying information without the entities they are associated with. Alpha mentions "arrangements"- arrangements of want? Clearly defined objects? What I object to is taking those attributes and making them float, by detaching them from what makes them possible in the first place - the subject. So I would reword your statement by saying: ATTRIBUTES of entities in painting are SO IMPORTANT because it is what make those objects REAL. 

Edited by RomanticRealism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, New Buddha said:
18 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

I agree Sargent was a master at capturing and conveying character especially the woman - the man looks a bit ominous, but that could be because of the lighting.

I would still like for you to expound further on the above comment.

You have asked me this because I mentioned LIGHTING. See my previous post on attributes. However I will answer your question. The man's posture, his demeanor and his being placed in the shadow, the colour of his clothes are similar to the background which makes the darkness of his face standout. He is recessed into the background except for a bit of light on his face to suggest he is present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alfa said:

The answer that is missing here is why painting could not reach man's emotions directly, like music. Saying that painting is conceptual because of the relationship between recognisable conretes is not really an answer to that.

Realistic painting does reach man's emotions directly (or very quickly) because the artist has done all the work. The viewer can pick up on extra details, implications, subtleties, etc, but the main idea is portrayed quite instantly because, if produce well, the sum of the related entities (including their attributes) convey and idea (theme).

The cognitive process of painting, literature, dance are different. Painting and sculpture are the same. Non recognisable painting (which I call decoration), if called fine art causes this problem; you would have to say that the cognitive process of representational art is completely different to non-representational art thus creating a whole new art form. Is that what you propose? - painting has 2 categories simply because you wish to include decoration?     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Consider this picture, and what it tells us of the girls.

I will also add; the large vases were added for a reason. The girl indifferent to the "visitor" leaning on the expensive vase is probably an act of defiance, she probably isn't allowed to be leaning on it.

New Buddha, this piece is obviously important to you for you to choose it. What are your thoughts on the girls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RomanticRealism said:

You have asked me this because I mentioned LIGHTING. See my previous post on attributes. However I will answer your question. The man's posture, his demeanor and his being placed in the shadow, the colour of his clothes are similar to the background which makes the darkness of his face standout. He is recessed into the background except for a bit of light on his face to suggest he is present.

I'm asking why you stated, "but that could be because of the lighting."   And not, the man appears ominous because of the lighting.

I took from this (and some of your other posts) that you don't believe that Sargent's deliberate use of  shadow has anything to do with the man's appearing "ominous".  Do you think the shadow just happened to be there, so Sargent painted it?  Or do you think he used it as a technique to convey character?

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

I took from this (and some of your other posts) that you don't believe that Sargent's deliberate use of  shadow has anything to do with the man's appearing "ominous".  Do you think the shadow just happened to be there, so Sargent painted it?  Or do you think he used it as a technique to convey character?

Clearly the latter! Sargent was very deliberate about what he wanted to convey. That is why when an artist includes something (such as lighting, shadow) it is as if the artist is emphasizing its importance simply by including it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RomanticRealism said:

Clearly the latter! Sargent was very deliberate about what he wanted to convey. That is why when an artist includes something (such as lighting, shadow) it is as if the artist is emphasizing its importance simply by including it.   

Okay.  Then I must have misunderstood you.  You seemed to grant that Sargent did capture the woman's character, but that the man's character only might have been captured - and that the shadow was an unexplained anomaly in the painting.

Like the shadow, I also extend this type of technique to include the level of detail on the various parts of Lady Agnew's gown and the expressive features (or lack there of) on the individual faces in Renoir's painting.  You questioned why Renoir's faces were "similar".

In Sargent's personal portrait's (at least the examples I've posted) he wants you derive an understanding of his subjects individual character from their faces - even the man's which is partially obscured by shadow.  In a different way, Renoir downplays the individual characters facial expressions in order to draw an overall  impression of the the atmosphere of the scene.  If Renoir had spent too much time on the individual faces, then the observer would be drawn to the various "stories" being told by the various characters - something Renoir did not want.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

If Renoir had spent too much time on the individual faces, then the observer would be drawn to the various "stories" being told by the various characters - something Renoir did not want.

Yes, a very good example of stylisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RomanticRealism said:

that painting is conceptual because of the relationship between recognisable concretes, but the problem with music is no one has the knowledge so far to explain the exact cognitive process. I have only attempted to explain it earlier in the sense of it being like a movie, or being placed within a movie - by introspection only.

That would mean no one knows if music is art. People can and do recognize communication without concretes - in music, in abstract art, and it is shown in psychology experiments. If you don't understand abstract art, that's fine, but it's not like a book written in Spanish isn't art because you don' t understand. It makes some sense to me - so I visualize things like abstract art sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If you don't understand abstract art, that's fine, but it's not like a book written in Spanish isn't art because you don' t understand.

I thought I explained this in my earlier posts.  Abstract art is not art because not just me but no one can understand it. If I fill a canvas with blue paint because I like blue, blue makes me feel good, it also reminds me of the sea and of course the sky which is beautiful, it also reminds me of a holiday I once had.... Abstract art is decoration, not art as I have described it. I do not denigrate decoration - I love many forms of decoration including many design disciplines.

Edited by RomanticRealism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RomanticRealism said:

I thought I explained this in my earlier posts.  Abstract art is not art because not just me but no one can understand it.

I explained that people can...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RomanticRealism said:

New Buddha, this piece is obviously important to you for you to choose it. What are your thoughts on the girls?

This piece was only important with regards to how Lady Agnew was presented off center from the chair.

The way I see the painting is that the placement of the girls (with respect to the painter) was determined by their respective ages.  This was his "technique".

As each girl grows older, she (they) becomes a little more distant and begin to turn inwards - as teenagers are prone to do - with the oldest one shown only in profile.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RomanticRealism said:

I thought I explained this in my earlier posts.  Abstract art is not art because not just me but no one can understand it. If I fill a canvas with blue paint because I like blue, blue makes me feel good, it also reminds me of the sea and of course the sky which is beautiful, it also reminds me of a holiday I once had.... Abstract art is decoration, not art as I have described it. I do not denigrate decoration - I love many forms of decoration including many design disciplines.

I tend to agree with you.  However, I would say that Abstract "paintings" are or might (generously) be seen as decoration - and that decoration is a form of art.  I do like abstract, representational paintings.

Edit:  I mean I feel your pain, RR.  I have known some abstract painters who couldn't, with a gun to their heads, paint a meaningful, representational work - but none the less, consider themselves to be painters and artists.  They "hide" behind abstraction.

I can forgive Picasso much because he could paint in any style he chose - from Old Master's to Modern.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

People can and do recognize communication without concretes - in music, in abstract art, and it is shown in psychology experiments.

 

54 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I explained that people can...

I don't know in what form that communication would take without concretes. Concretes are what we need to understand reality therefore providing meaning in communication.

Edited by RomanticRealism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

I do like abstract, representational paintings.

Do you mean abstract the same way I mean it? ie that the representational painting (or sculpture) conveys a broader meaning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RomanticRealism said:

Do you mean abstract the same way I mean it? ie that the representational painting (or sculpture) conveys a broader meaning?

By representational, I mean things i.e. people, trees, boats, etc.

As an example, something from Andre Derain's Fauvism period.

Edit: the Portrait is of Matisse.

 

estaque-1905.jpg

Matisse.jpg

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

By representational, I mean things i.e. people, trees, boats, etc.

As an example, something from Andre Derain's Fauvism period.

Okay, now you are going to really hate me! You posted earlier about what I call attributes - colour, texture, lighting (includes shadow) and implied how important they are to you and art. I posted why and how I believed they were important to visual art and how they can add clarity. These 2 paintings are a good example of how poorly colour, texture and lighting is represented in a painting.  

Edited by RomanticRealism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RomanticRealism said:

Okay, now you are going to really hate me! You posted earlier about what I call attributes - colour, texture, lighting (includes shadow) and implied how important they are to you and art. I posted why and how I believed they were important to visual art and how they can add clarity. These 2 paintings are a good example of how poorly colour, texture and lighting is represented in a painting.  

Well, no, I just don't agree with your definition of "clarity".  To you, clarity is "realism" and to me "clarity" is the intent of the artist.  And remember, I'm an architect.  We can spend weeks searching for just the right type, texture and color of brick (such as Norman) and wrestle whether or not to use a running 1/2 bond or running 1/3 bond.  I'm much more comfortable dealing with very abstract themes in design.  I find texture (brush strokes) in painting to be very important.  To me, painting should almost be sculptural.

Edit:  And let me add, I like your work. I think "Just Music" really gets to the core of the matter.  What medium is it?

brick bond BIA color.jpg

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In architecture, you always have to be concerned with resolving tensile and compressive forces.  You can't have compression with out tension, and you can't have tension without compression.  Tension and Compression have emotional value.

Stone is great at resisting load bearing compressive forces.  Steel reinforced concrete can resist tension (thanks to rebar).  As an example, Falling Water.

The load bearing, compressive stone anchors the tensile, reinforced concrete cantilevers.

This is a "theme" in much of Wrights work.

 

fw.jpg

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×