Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Tenderlysharp

Why does the Visual Arts Forum seem deserted?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

My own experience with this forum is a state of exhaustion.  Reading paragraph after paragraph of words that don't inspire my sense of life.  Once in a while something beautiful is posted and the flickering interest of its author never returns to continue a discussion.  Simple curiosity is met with a dissertation on the flaws and conformity of Objectivism   Is there any way to revitalize it?  Is there a concise way to recognize why this happens?  Is there any way to entice you to want to return here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nature of Objectivism seems to be that most often, people who like a vigorous intellectual debate get into it. Or at least, vigorous discussion on philosophy. Online forums are good for that.

You're right, this doesn't exactly vitalize an artist's sense of life. Best way I can think of is for you to say, post some of your art and talk about it. I mean, you might be eager to talk about something new. Personally I return for that vigorous discussion, but if I saw someone post on writing, I love to offer thoughts in a productive way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tenderlysharp said:

"... words that don't inspire my sense of life..."

... words that don't inspire my sense of life; once in a while, I'd like to see a post ____________

                                                                                                                             (fill in the blanks)

Share this post


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

people who like a vigorous intellectual debate get into it

I like this perspective, the challenge of creating a post topic related to visual art that is compelling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

... words that don't inspire my sense of life; once in a while, I'd like to see a post ____________

..a post that makes me feel the way I feel when I am reading/listening to Rand's work. 

I have 'The Romantic Manifesto' on audio book, I don't know how many times I have listened to it, a few times a year for ten years.  I often contemplate her words on literature relating them to Visual art.   Rand wasn't a visual artist, she touches on it, but deeper exploration of it doesn't seem high on her list of priorities.  With this I believe there is room in Objectivist thought for visual exploration. 

I appreciate the vigorous Objectivist discussions on many subjects.  My 'exhaustion' was specifically in regard to the Visual Arts Forum.  And a deeper exhaustion with a sense of personal failure in my previous attempts to communicate here.  I am very visual.  I take in thousands of images daily.  Much of my brain is visual.  When I attempt to speak with words it takes me a very long time.  A five minute post takes me an hour to write. 

....Time..... I think I ought to spend painting. 

But most of the visual art world is so geared toward pushing a socialistic agenda, I feel very alone.  Although I admire independence, I also know physiologically people need to touch and be touched.  The personal relationships I have found have distracted me away from the integration of visual art and reason. 

I come here hoping to heal a broken heart and dread the response that kind of vulnerability might evoke.  "Fear, shame, and pity are self defeating dead ends" Rand said. 

Share this post


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

..a post that makes me feel the way I feel when I am reading/listening to Rand's work. 

I have 'The Romantic Manifesto' on audio book, I don't know how many times I have listened to it, a few times a year for ten years.  I often contemplate her words on literature relating them to Visual art.   Rand wasn't a visual artist, she touches on it, but deeper exploration of it doesn't seem high on her list of priorities.  With this I believe there is room in Objectivist thought for visual exploration. 

I appreciate the vigorous Objectivist discussions on many subjects.  My 'exhaustion' was specifically in regard to the Visual Arts Forum.  And a deeper exhaustion with a sense of personal failure in my previous attempts to communicate here.  I am very visual.  I take in thousands of images daily.  Much of my brain is visual.  When I attempt to speak with words it takes me a very long time.  A five minute post takes me an hour to write. 

....Time..... I think I ought to spend painting. 

But most of the visual art world is so geared toward pushing a socialistic agenda, I feel very alone.  Although I admire independence, I also know physiologically people need to touch and be touched.  The personal relationships I have found have distracted me away from the integration of visual art and reason. 

I come here hoping to heal a broken heart and dread the response that kind of vulnerability might evoke.  "Fear, shame, and pity are self defeating dead ends" Rand said. 

Do a Google search with keywords:

Objective Standard Caspar Friedrich Visual Romanticism

and you might get a peek at an old article that you may find inspiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you enjoy about that painting? I like hiking, so it speaks to me quite a bit. It presents a fit, well-dressed, serious man enjoying his expansive view from a lofty summit. I can imagine the effort it took to get there. And the satisfaction and pleasure he must be taking in having climbed to such a height and having been rewarded with a beautiful view of the bright world before him. Perhaps he's contemplating future goals, such as reaching that high peak in the distance. The colors in the painting are mostly shades of black and white, which establishes a sharp contrast between the foreground and the background. The foreground represents man, the background contains nature. It is man triumphing and lording over nature. 

Share this post


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

Are you familiar with Aristos?

Aristos has highlighted/promoted these artists:

Frederic Church

Frederic Edwin Church - The Iceberg.jpg

 

Thomas Cole

Thomas ColeThe Voyage of Life Old Age.jpg

 

Anthony Waichulix

Anthony Waichulis.jpg

Jason Brady

Jason Brady.jpg

 

Jean-Léon Gérôme

jean-leon-gerome horse trader.jpg

 

Léon-Joseph-Florentin Bonnat

Léon_Bonnat_-_Fille_romaine_à_la_fontaine.jpg

 

Théodule-Augustin Ribot

Théodule-Augustin Ribot.jpg

 

Maria Oakey Dewing

Maria Oakey Dewing Iris at Dawn.jpg

 

Lawrence Alma-Tadema

Lawrence Alma-Tadema.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


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

So what you are saying is we need a thread where artists can showcase there work? And viewers can also offer their thoughts as Eiuol suggested.

Many more threads would be a good start.  I would like to present the argument that if Objectivism is going to thrive individuals interested ought to take the visual world seriously, more seriously than I see evidence of in this visual arts forum. 

With the advent of the Internet, the world is becoming increasingly visual.  I believe the mental real estate in my brain is filled up with a great deal more visual information than most of the people I know.  It is historically unprecedented how many images I can recognize. 

Tumblr for instance is thriving with visual activity of every echelon of quality.  I've been cultivating my tumblr account for five years, and re-posted over 10,000 images.  I've sifted through and rejected hundreds of images for each image I post.  You get better at sifting, better at finding those who have the kind of eye you are seeking. 

My tumblr: http://tenderlysharp.tumblr.com/

Share this post


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

What do you enjoy about that painting? I like hiking, so it speaks to me quite a bit...

Yes everything you said MisterSwig, as well as mounting evidence that travel invigorates the brain, exercise creates brain fertilizer, getting up to a higher vantage point offers greater perspective, the map each of us holds in the mind becomes more detailed and rich with each experience.  The identification of the names of each mountain peak you see makes them more real, more tangible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Tenderlysharp said:

Tumblr for instance is thriving with visual activity of every echelon of quality.  I've been cultivating my tumblr account for five years, and re-posted over 10,000 images.  I've sifted through and rejected hundreds of images for each image I post.  You get better at sifting, better at finding those who have the kind of eye you are seeking. 

My tumblr: http://tenderlysharp.tumblr.com/

Brilliant! You have many images that are inspirational. I find Pinterest a good source for artistic inspiration as well - especially images with amazing lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎10 at 11:33 PM, Tenderlysharp said:

Many more threads would be a good start.  I would like to present the argument that if Objectivism is going to thrive individuals interested ought to take the visual world seriously, more seriously than I see evidence of in this visual arts forum. 

With the advent of the Internet, the world is becoming increasingly visual.  I believe the mental real estate in my brain is filled up with a great deal more visual information than most of the people I know.  It is historically unprecedented how many images I can recognize. 

Tumblr for instance is thriving with visual activity of every echelon of quality.  I've been cultivating my tumblr account for five years, and re-posted over 10,000 images.  I've sifted through and rejected hundreds of images for each image I post.  You get better at sifting, better at finding those who have the kind of eye you are seeking. 

My tumblr: http://tenderlysharp.tumblr.com/

I think one big problem is that many Objectivists are not artists, but they like to be art critics. Not that you really need to be one to be the other, but it's not uncommon for things to get a bit vicious when things don't fit the Objectivist(tm) criteria of good art. Sadly, because I think there are so much more to say about art than Ayn Rand did or the interpretations of what she said.

Anyhow, I'm not so active here anymore but if you want to talk art. Like, really getting down and dirty with it, well... I'm game. Just throw a ball and I'll play it right back at you. I'm actually starving for that kind of discussion, because I haven't found it available anywhere. 

Seriously, about ten years ago there were forums active with artists fighting to improve themselves and sharing their knowledge with others. Today it's a situation of everyone trying to scream the hardest to get the most attention. This has nothing to do with Objectivism or any other branch of philosophy. It is, as I call, the ADHD generation taking over the internet. 

In case someone thinks I'm too pessimistic I'd like to mention that I was there when the internet was new and amazing. I joined different forums for computer hardware, racecar engineering and later art (or rather, CGI). Back then there were people who really knew their shit. I mean, literally, I got some help from a Formula 1 engineer when I was building my own racecar. No kidding.

That was the kind of environment you'd find on the internet back then. Not that Formula 1 engineers where a dime a dozen, but you could find some real experts in just about any field. Like computer hardware. I've learned a thing or two from engineers working at Intel and AMD. And in terms of art, I've learned things from people who spearheaded the industry back then. 

I haven't found that stuff on the internet today. Sure, there's some valuable stuff on sites like Youtube. But, most of it is focused on getting attention. Just search Youtube on "how to draw [whatever]" and most of your results will be crap to a dramatic soundtrack, without any real information or knowledge. 

That's the state of affairs today. But hey, if you want to talk art and have something intersting in mind...well, I'm game.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/12/2016 at 1:03 PM, Alfa said:

I think one big problem is that many Objectivists are not artists, but they like to be art critics. Not that you really need to be one to be the other, but it's not uncommon for things to get a bit vicious when things don't fit the Objectivist(tm) criteria of good art. Sadly, because I think there are so much more to say about art than Ayn Rand did or the interpretations of what she said.

Can non-representational art be art?

Share this post


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

Can non-representational art be art?

That's a question each person has to answer for himself.  I've certainly learned much from non-representational art, especially as it applies to architecture, furniture design, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An artist can definitely learn and get inspired by the non-representational things, but I find that the focus is mainly on those very concrete and specific aspects or attributes of those things ie form, colour, light. Utilitarian things such as those you mentioned and any good design do show visual themes, but those themes are not representational and are mostly in a form of decoration and can not project broad philosophical themes. Fine art is a lot more than that and is made up of a number of realistic elements that create a general theme. What makes art great potentially is that it is thematic. That is not to say architecture or any design discipline is not amazing, because it is - but it is simply different.

Share this post


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

Can non-representational art be art?

Can something visual which we call art not represent anything at all?

I don't think so.  I do think that there must be enough said in such a way that something is successfully communicated.  It may be at a high level of abstraction but it would not be art if it meant absolutely nothing.  

In a sense art which has NO meaning for the artist and literally ANY meaning for each viewer is not art... it's a random Rorschach's pattern and one which has not been "selected" by an artist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2016 at 4:21 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Can something visual which we call art not represent anything at all?

I don't think so.  I do think that there must be enough said in such a way that something is successfully communicated.  It may be at a high level of abstraction but it would not be art if it meant absolutely nothing. 

When people say "non-representational art", they don't mean it represents nothing at all. I'd say it's a misnomer, really. If it were truly absent of -any- representation, your reply would be spot on. It just means art that doesn't offer a representation of concretes. That isn't to say non-representational art is ALL properly art according to a proper definition of art. Music is non-representational art, for example, because it isn't a representation of a concrete.

Share this post


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

When people say "non-representational art", they don't mean it represents nothing at all. I'd say it's a misnomer, really. If it were truly absent of -any- representation, your reply would be spot on. It just means art that doesn't offer a representation of concretes. That isn't to say non-representational art is ALL properly art according to a proper definition of art. Music is non-representational art, for example, because it isn't a representation of a concrete.

I do believe visual art does rely on the representation of concretes to convey something - that is the nature of sight. And the sum of the concretes add up to a visual theme. Just image for a moment that an artist created a modern non-representational "painting" prior to the 20th century, it would be regarded as a joke - at best regarded as decoration. That this decoration is now regarded as fine art they have suddenly become advanced? - what has changed, have they suddenly become visually aware? I have nothing against decoration and it has it's place, but to call it fine art is to negate the basic nature of fine art.

I don't think using music, a totally different form of art, as a comparison to the visual arts. Even with my limited knowledge on music I would not dismiss it as non-representational.

Share this post


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

I do believe visual art does rely on the representation of concretes to convey something - that is the nature of sight.

Since there is a nature to art, and both music and painting are art, there wouldn't be an aspect of defining art that's present for one form of art, but that same aspect disqualifies something else from being art at all. Maybe you can argue it isn't -visual- art, though, because of how it is made, and isn't -about- representing the visual world.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


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

Since there is a nature to art, and both music and painting are art, there wouldn't be an aspect of defining art that's present for one form of art, but that same aspect disqualifies something else from being art at all. Maybe you can argue it isn't -visual- art, though, because of how it is made, and isn't -about- representing the visual world.

Both art forms are completely different especially how they are created. However, the way we respond to both are similar. ie If I listen to Rachmaninoff's Scherzo it definitely takes me places which is quite visual - more like a scene from an epic movie that a painting, but very uplifting.

Edited by RomanticRealism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-representational art was seen as a "reaction" by Modernists to the Beau Art's insistence on the portrayal of overtly literary themes and subjects, such as biblical scenes.  But as Tome Wolfe points out in his wonderful book The Painted Word the non-representational works could only be "understood" if you read the manifestos published by the artists of the various  styles (i.e. fauvism, cubism, De Stijle, etc.). I had to read dozens of these in Arch School.  Boring....

RR is correct, non-representational art it is largely decoration... not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

gibbons_house.jpg

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an architect, I like some works such as that by Frank Stella - I just won't ascribe any great "philosophical" significance to it.  But it can work nice in a lobby, etc.

Edit: And I sure as hell wouldn't pay a million bucks for it, because I can do this for a couple of hundred dollars.

 

Stella, Raqqa II, 82_16.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.

×