Dystopian Art

[DarkReaver13]

I understand the Objectivist view of art is romanticism, that is life, the world and human beings as they ought to be represented in a concrete form.

However, is there an Objectivist view of dystopian art?

For example, before I was an Objectivst I made a series of artworks which depicted a destroyed city in a fairly abstract but recognizable way. For example: http://www.darkreavers.co.uk/portfolio_item.php?id=36 / http://www.darkreavers.co.uk/portfolio_item.php?id=32

This is clearly not romanticism, and perhaps not an Objectivist example of art. However does this mean it is "bad"?

These pieces are a representation of Soviet Russia and Communism, so it is the intention that it portrays these things as ruinous and chaotic. This obviously fits with reality and with Objectivism, however does it constitute art?

I would suggest that it is a visual form of satire, in the way that it examplifies the irrationality/evil etc. of Communism. I still very much like these images, and I think that is the reason why.

Any thoughts?

Edited June 5, 2007 by DarkReaver13

[DragonMaci]

These pieces are a representation of Soviet Russia and Communism, so it is the intention that it portrays these things as ruinous and chaotic. This obviously fits with reality and with Objectivism, however does it constitute art?

You are being objective and depicting evil as what it is, evil and destructive, so I would say it is valid art. However, I am only a student of Objectivism, so I would love to know what one of the fully-studied Objectivists here think about the matter.

[Prometheus98876]

I do not consider that the proper role of art is to primarily portray evil, even for the purpose of showing its destructive nature. The proper role of art is to show what can and should be, what is a moral idea, metaphysically important. n seeks art in order to confirm his view of existence in the sense of being able to contemplate abstractions externally of his mind in physical concretes. He does not seek the reverse of his view of existence, and indeed he shoudl find a piece of art that contradicts his view of existence as displeasing, and instead seek those pieces that confirm his view of existence.

So consider, what is the value of presenting man the view of a world like in these pieces?

[DragonMaci]

I do not consider that the proper role of art is to primarily portray evil, even for the purpose of showing its destructive nature.

No one said that ofd art in general. We are discussing just a few pictures, not art in general. If you mean those particular pictures, then you used bad wording, as that wording means art in general, not those particular pictures.

Also, is it not true that an Objectivists values state that evil is destructive? So the picture is consistent with one of his values is it not?

[Prometheus98876]

Yes, I realize that no one said that of art in general, or at least you didnt. However my point is equally valid and there is no point nitpicking by pointing out that in PARTICULAR that applies to DarkReavers stuff, that is extremely obvious. I made a statement about art in general as I considered it important to do so, and it was obvious that DarkReavers pieces were examples of works that are improper.

As for the second point, well I think you see why I would say that proper art should portray the good. I suppose if have values opposed to mine, such pieces seem proper to you, and it might still be valid art (even though it expresses a terrible view of the world), but I find such works to be morally perverse, as I said to you over the IM channels.

[Tenure]

Is satire not art then?

[Prometheus98876]

Well yes, proper satire can be. But proper satire does not share and express the values it denounces, it does so in the context of the values which oppose it. So if you want to make a satire out of say Communist Russia one does not use the context of Communist Russia to do that, one does not make what one considers evil/improper the primary expression and focus of ones work.

Though of course one certainly includes them in there to some extent, otherwise how do you make your point?

[softwareNerd]

I understand the Objectivist view of art is romanticism, that is life, the world and human beings as they ought to be represented in a concrete form.

That does not go to the essence of Romantic art, the way Rand used the term. For instance, Rand used Dostoevsky work as an example of one type of Romanticism, even though he does not portray the world and human beings as they ought to be. The razor that Rand uses is: what does the art say about human volition?

For instance, art can depict good men and evil men, but the depiction of one of the other is not fundamental to whether the art is Romantic. One has to go one level "deeper". Depictions of good and bad men who are purposefully enacting good and bad doesn't exhaust the possibilities. There are also: men who are driven by some uncontrollable trait, or men who try to enact good or bad but whose attempts are necessarily futile because of some fundamental flaw with reality, etc.

Depicting a purposeful, competent villain makes a positive statement at least at the fundamental level of human volition: man can choose good and evil, he can act according to his values and end up doing good or bad.

Good romantic art with villains alone misses out on something, but it can still be good (there's an earlier thread about that -- search for "Dostoevsky").

Next, is the question of "good" art. Whether art is Romantic or Naturalistic does not tell you if it is good. Romantic works can be poorly executed and Naturalistic works can be done very well. Rand mentions that it's valid to say that a work of art is good, but that one does not like it.

Now, looking at the two paintings to which you linked. Clearly, they're art. When I look at them, I see the some semblance of chaos. Nothing else strikes me -- no motive, no actor: for instance there's no laughing Satan anywhere. To the extent that I get a theme, it's "chaos", "dark", "destruction". So, I wouldn't classify it as Romantic.

[Victor]

DarkReaver13

I found your post of particular interest. I’m a caricature artist…or rather, as I like to say: I’m an artist who can do caricatures.

I don’t really have anything to say about “romantic art” or so-called “good art” or “bad art”—because I don’t create art for my viewer per se, but for myself. BUT keep this in mind: I am conscious enough to be aware of the viewer’s pleasure, and so technique must come at hand as well...or else I would have nothing more at hand than what would resemble a child’s finger painting with its various swatches and swirls of color across the canvas. If you have something to “say” in a drawing or paining—don’t disregard human perception and make your work intelligible. (Yes, in this regard, the Objectivist comes out).

I’m in general agreement in what you express in your post---especially regarding the subject of humor. It’s fair to say that the art of caricature—or even more broadly speaking, satirical illustrations (such as yours) doesn’t get its due respect among the artistic literati. Somewhere along the line humor in visual art has been dealt a raw deal. Those who determine “taste” have decided it’s alright for an artist to move us to tears, or to show human beings at their best, or to anger the viewer or to awe him, or out-and-out repulsion or whatever else. But to make his audience laugh was considered beneath the artist’s station. Satirical work, to my mind, like that of Daumier, can be just as provocative.

I always enjoyed drawing people. As a child, I was inclined from the very start to “twist the divine human form into silly putty shapes”---as one reviewer of my art put it. I have been a professional artist for a number of years. I have experienced many different reactions to my art over the years—from joyful laughter to awe-struck appreciation to disconcerted confusion to even enmity. The more mild responses of protest have ranged from “Don’t you draw real people?” to “Why do you draw such weird stuff” to “What kind of acid trip are you on?” (This could crush the heart of a sensitive artist, but of course I always retain my cool as the jovial bohemian that I truly am).

As I said, I create art for myself—for the pleasure of it and to financially profit from it; I seek to enjoy my vocation and earn a living). Caricaturing was my way of coping with what I took to be a troubling reality. This “troubling reality” still haunts me to this day. It is the light within me, the good within me, that wishes to expose the dark side of the world—to alert the viewer of it—by ridiculing it in caricature. No, it is not an exploration of any dark side in me. It is an external exploration---not internal.

My caricatures cannot come out decorous and beautifully detached: they must be, and are, charged with fear, horror, moral outrage, humor, and irreverence. You need an extraordinary gift for humor to laugh away all the perilous things in this world. It is for ME. Allow that personal voice within you to come forth without worrying too much what others might think. Be true to yourself.

-Victor-

[Groovenstein]

"We the Living" SPOILER

I do not consider that the proper role of art is to primarily portray evil, even for the purpose of showing its destructive nature.

What do you make of Kira's death at the end of "We the Living"? What is the death of the book's primary character in such a way if not to show the destructive nature of socialism?

[DragonMaci]

"We the Living" SPOILER

What do you make of Kira's death at the end of "We the Living"? What is the death of the book's primary character in such a way if not to show the destructive nature of socialism?

Yeah, I have heard of that death, which is why I intend to never read We the Living.

[Prometheus98876]

"We the Living" SPOILER

What do you make of Kira's death at the end of "We the Living"? What is the death of the book's primary character in such a way if not to show the destructive nature of socialism?

Well after a rethink I now see that softwareNerd has a good point...so yeah I suppose We the Living was entirely approriate in how it ended given its goal.

[DragonMaci]

Well after a rethink I now see that softwareNerd has a good point...so yeah I suppose We the Living was entirely approriate in how it ended given its goal.

Personally, I see no value in a story where the heroes die. To me only heroes succeeding is of any value.

[DarkReaver13]

Thanks for all the comments.

I'm not sure I would agree that because the images in question represent communism and the Soviet Union, they are therefore not representative of rational values. This is because the images aren't representing the good of communism or the U.S.S.R, but the evil of these things. Of course it is valuable to accept the rational, but surely this also implies it is valuable to denounce the irrational - as represented in these artworks. Is it not important to concretize the failure of "the villain", or the destruction that the villain causes, in comparison to concretizing "the hero" succeeding, or the good that the hero causes?

Concentrating on the good may make one lose sight of that which is evil, so art which reinforces the nature of the latter may be of value, in my opinion.

[Inspector]

DarkReaver13,

Portraying evil is certainly a function of romantic art. Even good art. But it's tricky, since there is widespread philosophical confusion on the nature of evil. Especially people thinking evil is powerful, where in reality evil is metaphysically impotent. And they think that good=altruism, so the heroes end up being whiny little dinks because altruism stinks and they can't get around that fact. So they end up creating heroic villains and anti-heroes. They get everything all backwards.

And then there's the question of what kind of evil you're depicting: the totally impotent, totally evil? The dangerous mixture of some good and some evil? (remember you have to keep it straight what part of that mixture does what!)

And what metaphysical statement are you making in depicting evil? The biggest hurdle in depicting evil in art is to make sure you show that it is at war with the demands of reality; that it is self-defeating, hypocritical, etc. Not just that it destroys things, but that it destroys itself; it destroys even its own power to destroy. And so on.

Finally, remember that the purpose of art is fuel for the soul. How will a depiction of evil fuel your soul? It could do so by showing evil's ultimate impotence. I'd be somewhat fueled by that. But I don't think you could subsist exclusively on that; you can't just show evil's impotence - you have to show good's potency! I mean not in every since piece of art, but surely the potent is the important, right? And in the balance you'll want to focus on what is ultimately important.

The Romantic Manifesto is a good read, by the way.

[DarkReaver13]

Thanks Inspector that was helpful.

The Romantic Manifesto remains one of the books I haven't read by Rand, I should certainly do that before really thinking about this much more. I am waiting on my Objectivist research CD-ROM that I asked you about, so I'll probably be able to read it from that.

I haven't created any art for nearly three years now so it hasn't really been at the forefront of my mind. The images that are the subject of this thread are really some of the last pieces I created - around the time of the Starting from Scratch thread was going on; late 2004 to early 2005. Since my ideas have changed so radically since then, if I put my mind to making art now it would likely be very different. Even my design tastes seem to have shifted, for example my old websites were always very dark and featured lots of decaying or distorted textures, whereas now it's got more of an ordered and clean look to it.

I do think the ability to reflect on what is evil and destructive in a concrete form is valuable, however you're probably right that it shouldn't be totally detached from that which is good, or from the fact that evil is self-defeating.

[softwareNerd]

I'm not sure I would agree that because the images in question represent communism and the Soviet Union, they are therefore not representative of rational values. ...Concentrating on the good may make one lose sight of that which is evil, so art which reinforces the nature of the latter may be of value, in my opinion.

You're right, in principle... but, looking at those paintings, how would one know that they represent communism and the Soviet Union? More generally, how would one know that the chaos is the result of evil -- as opposed to (say) a hurricane, or as opposed to being a statement that the world simply is chaos?

[That's not a rhetorical question. Is there something in those paintings that makes it clear? They were bit dark on the web.]

[Prometheus98876]

You're right, in principle... but, looking at those paintings, how would one know that they represent communism and the Soviet Union? More generally, how would one know that the chaos is the result of evil -- as opposed to (say) a hurricane, or as opposed to being a statement that the world simply is chaos?

[That's not a rhetorical question. Is there something in those paintings that makes it clear? They were bit dark on the web.]

That would be part of the problem as you say, as you say there does not seem to be any way of telling what the heck his pieces are about just by looking at them. But art is meant to be more clear than this of course, one shouldnt have to struggle to decipher what the hell it is about

Personally, I see no value in a story where the heroes die. To me only heroes succeeding is of any value.

There is good reason why the heroes should die in that case and arguably many others. Sometimes the nature of the evil that is being portrayed is so monstrous that even the best of heroes have little chance (i.e. under Communism). Sometimes the best way to show just how evil and self destructive something like Communism is not to paint a perhaps less realistic scene where the heroes somehow succeed under a system where this is virtually impossible, but to show that the evil being portrayed is so destructive that it can destroy even the best of men, indeed the death of the heroes might be consistent with your message.

Of course portraying evil in that manner might not be of particular value to you, you might prefer to portray the good in the way I indicated earlier in the thread, thats fine, in which case I would definetely agree the heroes should probably live.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Prometheus98876

[DragonMaci]

There is good reason why the heroes should die in that case and arguably many others.

Yes, but it is on no interest or value to me.

Sometimes the nature of the evil that is being portrayed is so monstrous that even the best of heroes have little chance (i.e. under Communism).

Ever heard of having the heroes creating rebellion?

*Double Spolier*

That is what Terry Goodkind had Richard do in Faith of The Fallen and what I am going to have Fortis and Ktelris do against the Warashan government and then the Vescan Empire in my book. OK, admittedly that was not Richard's intent, but it will be the intent of Fortis and Ktelris. The reason I am doing that because I see good defeating evil to be of value, but good dying because of evil or killing themselves because they cannot handle the evil as evil winning, which is of no value to me.

*Spoiler ends*

And what about having the heroes escape to a freer nation? It would be very hard for the heroes to manage since such nations try to prevent that. But histroically it has happened, so it is realistic that the heroes manage it.

To me either of those scenarios are valuable, but the end of We the Living is totally lacking in value to me. They are superior to the end of We the Living as far as I am concerned. Besides, as I said, We The Living's way shows evil winning and good losing. That is innappropriate of art.

Sometimes the best way to show just how evil and self destructive something like Communism is not to paint a perhaps less realistic scene where the heroes somehow succeed under a system where this is virtually impossible, but to show that the evil being portrayed is so destructive that it can destroy even the best of men, indeed the death of the heroes might be consistent with your message.

I think if you are going to do that you should kill of a secondary hero, not a primary hero. And if you are going to kill a/several primary hero/heroes, which I do not think should ever be done, then you should kill of one/several and leave others alive and have them successful in the end. Either of those is consistent with the goal you mentioed, and it alsoe has the valuable goal of showing evil as defeatable, which to me is far more valuable than showing evil as destructive.

Ultimately, I do not see how having all of the heroes die like that is any different to the art DarkReaver13 linked to. And ultimately I think showing succesful heroes is infinately more valuable than showing heroes die.

Edit: I clarified where the spoiler ends.

Edited June 6, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Prometheus98876]

Yes, but it is on no interest or value to me.

That is fine.

Ever heard of having the heroes creating rebellion?

Course I have. But woudlnt that presume that you want to show good triumphing over evil? Which was not really the point of We the Living as such.

n the case of We the Living, such a rebellion that the heroes could have in theory tried to establish wouldnt have worked anyway. Many such rebellions were tryed in Russia, all were brutally put down..

And what about having the heroes escape to a freer nation? It would be very hard for the heroes to manage since such nations try to prevent that. But histroically it has happened, so it is realistic that the heroes manage it.

Besides the point. The point is to show the [full] evil of socialism, not as such the power of the good to overcome it, but to show t hat the good are brutally destroyed under such an evil (which also destroyes itself). Them escaping would undermine this message.

Ultimately, I do not see how having all of the heroes die like that is any different to the art DarkReaver13 linked to.

That is grossly missing the point. DarkReavers "art" portrays that which is pretty much unintelligeable. What is it meant to portray? Apparently the nature of some evil, but it fails in this goal. We the Living however is very very clear in the message it seeks to portray, the two could hardly be more different both in nature, style and clarity, success and other ways, even though its INTENDED goal might be similar.

[DragonMaci]

But woudlnt that presume that you want to show good triumphing over evil?

Of course it does!

Which was not really the point of We the Living as such.

Then I do not care for We the Living and see no value in it.

n the case of We the Living, such a rebellion that the heroes could have in theory tried to establish wouldnt have worked anyway. Many such rebellions were tryed in Russia, all were brutally put down..

Ayn Rand could of presented it an illustration of the fact that enough people rebelled the government is powerless to stop them, as they can never have an armny big enough.

Besides the point. The point is to show the [full] evil of socialism, not as such the power of the good to overcome it, but to show t hat the good are brutally destroyed under such an evil (which also destroyes itself). Them escaping would undermine this message.

I repeat: I see absoluetely no value in that by itself and only see value in that with heroes succeeding eventually or some other way of showing heroes succedding eventually. Besides, in Faith of the Fallen Terry Goodkinjd managed to show the Communist-like evil of the Imperial Order while still having the good get a victory, so the two can be done together quite well.

That is grossly missing the point. DarkReavers "art" portrays that which is pretty much unintelligeable. What is it meant to portray? Apparently the nature of some evil, but it fails in this goal. We the Living however is very very clear in the message it seeks to portray, the two could hardly be more different both in nature, style and clarity, success and other ways, even though its INTENDED goal might be similar.

OK, it is different in that way, but it is not different in the sense of showing evil and destructive while not also showing evil as impotent. Evil wins in the end really. So evil is not shown as impotent. That is what I meant before.

Ultimately, and this is talking more about my own writing style now, I could never do to my heroes what Ayn Rand done to hers in We the Living. I care too much for my heroes to do that. I sort of think of them as my children, so I could not do that to them. As it is it is going to be hard for the handle writing the part where the Empire tortures Fortis and Ktelris.

Edited June 6, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Prometheus98876]

I repeat: I see absoluetely no value in that by itself and only see value in that with heroes succeeding eventually or some other way of showing heroes succedding eventually. Besides, in Faith of the Fallen Terry Goodkinjd managed to show the Communist-like evil of the Imperial Order while still having the good get a victory, so the two can be done together quite well.

Well I would argue We the Living done a much better job of showing just how evil such is...much better. But that was not Faith of the Fallens main point, it was to show the nobility and dignity of the human spirit, even in the face of overwhelming evil and how the good should never sacrifice their beliefs or their dignity to those who would strip them of if it. Quite different to what WTL tries to do, so comparing WTL and FOTF in this way is kind of pointless.

OK, it is different in that way, but it is not different in the sense of showing evil and destructive while not also showing evil as impotent. Evil wins in the end really. So evil is not shown as impotent. That is what I meant before.

Ultimately, and this is talking more about my own writing style now, I could never do to my heroes what Ayn Rand done to hers in We the Living. I care too much for my heroes to do that. I sort of think of them as my children, so I could not do that to them. As it is it is going to be hard for the handle writing the part where the Empire tortures Fortis and Ktelris.

Actually WTL does show evil as impotent, very impotent, read it sometime. Sure, it kills the heroes, but it is shown as impotent again and again throughout the novel.

[DragonMaci]

Actually WTL does show evil as impotent, very impotent, read it sometime. Sure, it kills the heroes, but it is shown as impotent again and again throughout the novel.

I would call the good characters dying as evil winning vis a vis, evil not appearing as impotent. As for reading it, why the hell should I read something of no value to me? The answer is, of course, that I should not. Also, I tried reading your copy of We The Living once remember? Before I knew of the ending. I got bored by it. The beginning was monotonous and boring. it was of no interest or value to me.

[Prometheus98876]

Oh no, its shown as impotent to acheive its alleged goals, to produce, to feed its citizens, to produce wealth, prosperity etc. This is shown quite clearly and is quite important. But anyway...I have one more thing to say about WTL in this thread:

It might not appeal to everyoen as fiction. However if one ever wanted to find out just what life was like for an those living under Communism, then it could be a pretty valuable insight, as it a fairly realistic insight, assuming you can actually bear the book of course. Possilby better than some non-fiction you will find on the subject. Though I have a pretty decent book on the general subject you can borrow one day if you wish DragonMaci.

[DragonMaci]

Oh no, its shown as impotent to acheive its alleged goals, to produce, to feed its citizens, to produce wealth, prosperity etc.

It was hardly impotent when it came to Kira and the rest. Quite the reverse.

It might not appeal to everyoen as fiction. However if one ever wanted to find out just what life was like for an those living under Communism, then it could be a pretty valuable insight, as it a fairly realistic insight, assuming you can actually bear the book of course. Possilby better than some non-fiction you will find on the subject. Though I have a pretty decent book on the general subject you can borrow one day if you wish DragonMaci.

I would rather read a non-fiction book on it if I was evet to study Communism, which I am not going to. With fiction I only care for stories with successful heroes as I see no value in any other sort.