Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Non Objective art

Rate this topic


Jonathan13

Recommended Posts

You can accept both sides of those pairs because they are not contradictory. There is an objective recognition that many kinds of things are art, and a normative standard for what art should be.

The Principle of Two Definitions

They most certainly are contradictory. Playing word games isn't going to change that.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it is you settling for playing the game of "gotcha!"...

By that standard, I suppose that Rand was playing "gotcha" when pointing out others' contradictions? Or are the meanings of words not as whimsically flexible when others are caught in contradictions? Is it just Rand whose contradictions aren't contradictions?

...instead of trying to understand the distinction between the actual and the normative
.

Okay, then explain it to me. Perhaps you could tell me what Rand's special secret second definition of "art" was, and how you've determined that she was switching between the two definitions, and precisely when she was doing so. I'm only familiar with the single definition that she gave, as well as the single set of criteria on intelligibility, non-utility, etc. I'm all ears.

Are you aware of the fact that the Ayn Rand Lexicon contains no entry on "architecture"? Do you know why? There's evidence that, while reviewing the early work on the Lexicon shortly before she died, Rand recognized the contradiction in her own statements and was reconsidering her views. So are you sure you want to be taking the position that her contradictions were not contradictions?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectively anything goes as far as styles are concerned. Art is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments. This is the genus of artworks which Rand offers in Art and Cognition. Picasso's cubist paintings are art because those are his metaphysical value judgments applied to paint on canvas. It simply does not matter whether his judgments are right or wrong, this definition incorporates no standard by which to judge anything except membership in the category.

Rand's aesthetic theory explains the epistemological function of art. Rand also has an epistemology. Joining her epistemology with the aesthetic theory gives the specific Objectivist standards for good art: the intelligibility standard, the non-utility so that a single essence is brought to mind rather than two, her Romanticism based on recognizing man has volition, etc. None of this can be applied to Picasso's cubist paintings to deny they are art but only to judge that they are bad art by this standard. If Picasso's cubist paintings were not art it would be a category error to apply an artistic standard to them and nothing could be said at all.

Rand's secret special definition of art is no secret at all. Art is the selective recreation of reality as perceived by a rational man according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments.

edit: that last sentence would be better using conceived instead of perceived because perception cannot be rational or irrational.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's secret special definition of art is no secret at all.
Not secret, and not covering any radically different set of referents. While Rand's definition is somewhat distinctive, I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that the referents covered by Rand's concept of art are radically different from what most people would call art. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectively anything goes as far as styles are concerned. Art is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments.

I think you're missing the point. Rand classified architecture as a valid art form despite explicitly saying that it does not recreate reality. She classified music as an art form despite recognizing that it does not have an objective "conceptual vocabulary," that it doesn't convey objectively intelligible subjects and meanings, that we cannot objectively prove which aspects of our interpretations of its aesthetic content are contained in the music and which are not, and therefore that we must treat it as a subjective matter.

This is the genus of artworks which Rand offers in Art and Cognition. Picasso's cubist paintings are art because those are his metaphysical value judgments applied to paint on canvas. It simply does not matter whether his judgments are right or wrong, this definition incorporates no standard by which to judge anything except membership in the category.

Rand's aesthetic theory explains the epistemological function of art. Rand also has an epistemology. Joining her epistemology with the aesthetic theory gives the specific Objectivist standards for good art: the intelligibility standard, the non-utility so that a single essence is brought to mind rather than two, her Romanticism based on recognizing man has volition, etc.

Rand's intelligibility standard isn't only applied to judging whether art is good or not, but to whether it is art or not. She said that if something ceases to present an intelligible subject and meaning, it ceases to be art. Music does not present intelligible subjects and meanings. In my experience of asking Objectivists to identify subjects and meanings in music (while not allowing them access to "outside considerations"), versus asking fans of abstract art to identify subjects and meanings in abstract art (while also not allowing them access to "outside considerations"), the fans of abstract art have blown the Objectivists out of the water. It has never even been close.

None of this can be applied to Picasso's cubist paintings to deny they are art but only to judge that they are bad art by this standard. If Picasso's cubist paintings were not art it would be a category error to apply an artistic standard to them and nothing could be said at all.

I don't know why you're focused on Picasso. Picasso's art is not the type of art that Rand rejected. My point has been that Rand's views on architecture are self-contradictory, and that her views on music versus her views on abstract art (not Cubism) are contradictory. She used double standards. If the objective criteria that she used to reject abstract art were applied equally and consistently to music, music would meet fewer of her requirements for art than abstract art would.

Rand's secret special definition of art is no secret at all. Art is the selective recreation of reality as perceived by a rational man according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments.

But weren't you implying, with your posting of the link to "The Principle of Two Definitions" that Rand was using two different definitions of art, one a broad one and the other a narrower subcategory of the first? Wasn't that your point? I was asking to hear the second definition, the one that I'm not familiar with, and which allows some things to qualify as art despite not meeting the requirements of the first definition. In the above quote, you've only repeated her first definition, the one that I'm already familiar with, and which contradicts her statements on architecture and music (and perhaps other art forms as well, such as dance, etc.). What is her second definition of art?

And, since you mention that art is a recreation of reality "perceived [or conceived] by a rational man," how do we determine who is or is not a "rational man"? Objectivism offers no method of determining a person's fitness to judge art, but begins with the unwarranted assumption that Rand and other Objectivists could not possibly have the visual equivalent of a "tin ear."

Everything seems to be taken as proof of the rationality of those calling themselves Objectivists and the irrationality of anyone disagreeing with the Objectivists or having differing abilities: If someone experiences something in a work of art which Rand and other Objectivists do not, then the person is deemed to not be a rational man. If, on the other hand, Rand and other Objectivists experienced something in a work of art that others do not, then the others are again deemed to not be rational men.

If a person claims to have visual/spatial capacities that Rand or other Objectivists lack, he is smeared as claiming to have powers possessed only by the "mystical elite," or he is accused of "making stuff up" and "rationalizing." And such accusations aren't limited to people's appreciation of abstract paintings, but of realist ones as well, which I've been pointing out on this thread -- Ifat believes that my claiming to have an eye for perspective which she lacks is an act of my faking reality, and she has decided that I can't possibly be an Objectivist because I claim to have the ability to see and experience things in paintings that she and Rand couldn't.

Apparently it is completely unreasonable and irrational to even consider the possibility that a person with decades of professional expertise in the visual arts might have visual abilities that a novelist or Objectivist visual art student lacks.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think you're missing the point. Rand classified architecture as a valid art form despite explicitly saying that it does not recreate reality. She classified music as an art form despite recognizing that it does not have an objective "conceptual vocabulary," that it doesn't convey objectively intelligible subjects and meanings, that we cannot objectively prove which aspects of our interpretations of its aesthetic content are contained in the music and which are not, and therefore that we must treat it as a subjective matter.

Torres and Kamhi in What Art Is: The Aesthetic Theory of Ayn Rand make a similar claim, but they make an error all too common among those who rush forward into the subject area that interests them without thoroughly grasping the epistemology first, or at least not well enough to actually employ it. They substitute the genus of her definition of art into her statement about architecture and come up with "Architecture ... combines a selective recreation of reality with a utilitarian purpose and does not recreate reality" (What Art Is, p. 90). The error is that a definition is not the meaning of a concept, the meaning of a concept is the referents. Definitions help to find the referents but are necessarily contextual. Architecture is an art in the objective sense as anyone can mentally put aside the utilitarian function of a building and judge its aesthetic qualities as an abstract sculpture. Even though almost anything can be viewed this way buildings are actually designed with this perspective in mind. Abstract sculpture is art in the objective sense, even if it isn't mimetically representing something it can still evoke an aesthetic response. Music is not mimetic either, and yet as Rand reminds the reader "Music communicates emotions . . . As a rule, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn."

Rand solves a problem by looking at reality and then finding what is essential. Architecture is what it is, and it seems to have more in common with other forms of art than not.

Rand's intelligibility standard isn't only applied to judging whether art is good or not, but to whether it is art or not. She said that if something ceases to present an intelligible subject and meaning, it ceases to be art. Music does not present intelligible subjects and meanings.

And yet she does not conclude music is not art. Rand will not march off a cliff in obedience to a definition. She does conclude that some sets of sounds are not music "...the introduction of nonperiodic vibrations (such as the sounds of street traffic or of machine gears or of coughs and sneezes), i.e., of noise, into an allegedly musical composition eliminates it automatically from the realm of art and of consideration." Periodic vibrations arranged into a melody meet some criteria of intelligible clarity whereas unsynchronized recordings of noise do not.

In my experience of asking Objectivists to identify subjects and meanings in music (while not allowing them access to "outside considerations"), versus asking fans of abstract art to identify subjects and meanings in abstract art (while also not allowing them access to "outside considerations"), the fans of abstract art have blown the Objectivists out of the water. It has never even been close.

Why would any sampling of Objectivists be expected to know subjects and meanings in music? I don't even know what the phrase "subjects and meanings" could refer to in music, that requires knowing more about music (assuming it is even valid).

Look, any fool that thinks that just because he knows Objectivism (and he probably doesn't) he has the master keys to the Universe is wrong. There is no substitute for knowing what you are talking about, and that applies to every subject area.

I don't know why you're focused on Picasso. Picasso's art is not the type of art that Rand rejected. My point has been that Rand's views on architecture are self-contradictory, and that her views on music versus her views on abstract art (not Cubism) are contradictory. She used double standards. If the objective criteria that she used to reject abstract art were applied equally and consistently to music, music would meet fewer of her requirements for art than abstract art would.

Music has its own peculiar nature due to the medium of sound and the corresponding sense of hearing which makes it different from a visual medium. In vision, we know what to look for, objects. If we don't find them then that means something.

But weren't you implying, with your posting of the link to "The Principle of Two Definitions" that Rand was using two different definitions of art, one a broad one and the other a narrower subcategory of the first? Wasn't that your point? I was asking to hear the second definition, the one that I'm not familiar with, and which allows some things to qualify as art despite not meeting the requirements of the first definition. In the above quote, you've only repeated her first definition, the one that I'm already familiar with, and which contradicts her statements on architecture and music (and perhaps other art forms as well, such as dance, etc.). What is her second definition of art?

The logically prior definition is the broader one, that is the one that should be referred to as the first definition. That is the definition she gives, but when she shifts to writing about what is good and bad in art then that incorporates a standard which she did not make explicit.

And, since you mention that art is a recreation of reality "perceived [or conceived] by a rational man," how do we determine who is or is not a "rational man"?

We apply an objective standard for rational behavior, sound thought and psychological health, which is going to be close to the commonsense idea of an ordinary person (does not see things in multiple perspectives at once, does not perceive melody in noise, is not neurotic, etc.).

Apparently it is completely unreasonable and irrational to even consider the possibility that a person with decades of professional expertise in the visual arts might have visual abilities that a novelist or Objectivist visual art student lacks.

The keys are off, they were not drawn right. There was too much fidelity to an idea of "what keys look like" and not enough attention to how they actually appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torres and Kamhi in What Art Is: The Aesthetic Theory of Ayn Rand make a similar claim, but they make an error all too common among those who rush forward into the subject area that interests them without thoroughly grasping the epistemology first, or at least not well enough to actually employ it. They substitute the genus of her definition of art into her statement about architecture and come up with "Architecture ... combines a selective recreation of reality with a utilitarian purpose and does not recreate reality" (What Art Is, p. 90). The error is that a definition is not the meaning of a concept, the meaning of a concept is the referents. Definitions help to find the referents but are necessarily contextual.

I think you're still not getting it.

Rand said that art is a recreation of reality, and then said that architecture is art despite the fact that it "does not recreate reality." No amount of context allows something which does not recreate reality to qualify as something which recreates reality.

She also said that "utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art." No amount of contextuality allows a utilitarian object to qualify as art if utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art.

Architecture is an art in the objective sense as anyone can mentally put aside the utilitarian function of a building and judge its aesthetic qualities as an abstract sculpture. Even though almost anything can be viewed this way buildings are actually designed with this perspective in mind. Abstract sculpture is art in the objective sense, even if it isn't mimetically representing something it can still evoke an aesthetic response.

Personally, I agree with you that abstract sculptures are art. The problem is that Rand did not agree. If you've moved beyond Rand's contradictions and double standards, and if you accept art forms as valid which she did not, that's great, but it doesn't erase her contradictions and double standards. She did not share your views. We're talking about her views, not yours which differ from hers. The point of the initial post on this thread is that Rand contradicted herself and applied double standards to different art forms in categorizing them as art or as non-art. You seem to be confusing your views with hers.

Music is not mimetic either, and yet as Rand reminds the reader "Music communicates emotions . . . As a rule, men agree on whether a given piece of music is gay or sad or violent or solemn."

As a rule, people also agree on whether a given piece of abstract art is gay or sad or violent or solemn, yet Rand claimed that abstract art is not art (because she apparently couldn't experience in it what others could). And that's why this thread was started: I had observed that if we eliminate any double standards or personal limitations or biases while allowing a non-mimetic art form like music to qualify as art, then we should also allow other non-mimetic forms, like abstract paintings and sculptures, to qualify as art.

Rand solves a problem by looking at reality and then finding what is essential. Architecture is what it is, and it seems to have more in common with other forms of art than not.

I agree with you that architecture has a lot in common with abstract sculpture, but, unfortunately, Rand did not accept abstract sculpture as a valid art form.

And yet she does not conclude music is not art. Rand will not march off a cliff in obedience to a definition.

In regard to abstract art, she obeyed her definition and criteria. Not so with music. And not so with architecture, at least not until very late in her life if Kamhi and Torres's report is accurate that Binswanger suggested that Rand may have changed her mind about architecture's status. I would say that someone who proclaimed the glory of architecture as an art form, who wrote probably the world's most famous and revered novel on the subject, and who shared her views of its expressive power in quite potent and impassioned language, has "marched off a cliff in obedience to a definition" if one day she suddenly no longer accepts it as an art form.

Why would any sampling of Objectivists be expected to know subjects and meanings in music?

Because Rand specifically required that art must present intelligible subjects and meanings. She said that if something ceases to do so, then it ceases to be art. Her theory of art has the requirement of objective intelligibility.

Music has its own peculiar nature due to the medium of sound and the corresponding sense of hearing which makes it different from a visual medium.

Abstract art also has its own peculiar nature due to the media of color, form and abstract composition which makes it different from the mimetic arts, including mimetic visual art, yet Rand rejected it.

In vision, we know what to look for, objects. If we don't find them then that means something.

Who is "we"? I and millions of other people appreciate certain forms of visual art without looking for objects. Do we count as "we"?

The logically prior definition is the broader one, that is the one that should be referred to as the first definition. That is the definition she gives, but when she shifts to writing about what is good and bad in art then that incorporates a standard which she did not make explicit.

Um, when I referred to Rand's contradictions (which you said were not contradictions), I was NOT talking about her standards of judging good art versus bad art. I was talking about her standards of judging what qualifies as art and what does not. I don't know why you keep talking about standards for judging art as good or bad. It has no relevance to the conversation.

We apply an objective standard for rational behavior, sound thought and psychological health, which is going to be close to the commonsense idea of an ordinary person (does not see things in multiple perspectives at once, does not perceive melody in noise, is not neurotic, etc.).

I'd be interested in learning which deviations from reality are acceptable and which are indicators of irrationality and psychological deficiencies, and why. There are quite a lot of things in almost any painting which are intentionally presented in ways which are contrary to how an "ordinary" person would see them in reality. By what objective standard are some acceptable where others are indicators of irrationality, evil or mental illness?

The keys are off, they were not drawn right. There was too much fidelity to an idea of "what keys look like" and not enough attention to how they actually appear.

It's not just the keys. Everything in the painting is "off." As I've said, the painting's use of perspective is such that it shows the space depicted from more than one perspective at once.

By the way, the same is true of a lot of José Manuel Capuletti's work. He either didn't know what he was doing and hadn't even mastered perspective on an elementary level, or he intentionally deviated from perspective. If people are to be judged as irrational or psychologically damaged based on their creating or enjoying art which deviates from proper perspective, what should we conclude about people who believe that Capuletti's mediocre works contain sheer perfection of workmanship, disciplined power, and virtuoso technique?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She also said that "utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art." No amount of contextuality allows a utilitarian object to qualify as art if utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art.

It is not the case that architecture is always and necessarily utilitarian. Architects create monuments and memorials, structures with no utilitarian purpose. It requires the conceptual level to understand what a monument or memorial is about.

Chapter 7 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology discusses borderline cases.

The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological "razor": concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.

By "Borderline Case," they mean existents which share some characteristics with the referents of a given concept, but lack others; or which share some characteristics with the referents of two different concepts and are, in effect, epistemological middle-of-the-road'ers—e.g., certain primitive organisms that biologists are unable to classify fully as either animals or plants.

. . .

What these doctrines do demonstrate is the failure to grasp the cognitive role of concepts—i.e., the fact that the requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of concept-formation. The conceptual classification of newly discovered existents depends on the nature and extent of their differences from and similarities to the previously known existents.

. . .

In the case of existents whose characteristics are equally balanced between the referents of two different concepts—such as primitive organisms, or the transitional shades of a color continuum—there is no cognitive necessity to classify them under either (or any) concept. The choice is optional: one may designate them as a sub-category of either concept, or (in the case of a continuum) one may draw approximate dividing lines (on the principle of "no more than x and no less than y"), or one may identify them descriptively—as the nominalists are doing when they present the "problem."

Architecture is a borderline case, which Rand claims is in a class by itself. Clothing design also obeys two masters, utility and art. Auto body design also has a similarity when the same chassis and engine can be found on two greatly differing models, because the difference more stylistic than functional. There many similar activities in the area of "graphic, industrial and decorative arts" as Torres and Kamhi point out. But only architecture has a mode which is purely non-utilitarian which fully validates architects as artists even if only by an occasional commission.

Personally, I agree with you that abstract sculptures are art. The problem is that Rand did not agree. If you've moved beyond Rand's contradictions and double standards, and if you accept art forms as valid which she did not, that's great, but it doesn't erase her contradictions and double standards. She did not share your views. We're talking about her views, not yours which differ from hers. The point of the initial post on this thread is that Rand contradicted herself and applied double standards to different art forms in categorizing them as art or as non-art. You seem to be confusing your views with hers.

This is an instance where it is useful to distinguish between Objectivism and Ayn Rand. She was too adamant in rejecting some forms as art at all, but there is a method of thinking and being objective which resolves the apparent contradiction.

I had observed that if we eliminate any double standards or personal limitations or biases while allowing a non-mimetic art form like music to qualify as art, then we should also allow other non-mimetic forms, like abstract paintings and sculptures, to qualify as art.

I agree. When Rand says these things are not art she is using an aesthetic standard of what art should be. In her time abstract paintings and sculptures were intrusions and deliberately nihilistic, but today they are part of the raw material for inducing what art is and how it works even if only by being negative examples and failures. Abstract art for most people is merely decorative and evokes nothing. What is unusual and needs explaining is how anyone can find anything beyond the decorative in an abstract artwork. Torres and Kahmi advance the idea that Kandinsky suffered from synthesia, for example (pg 143).

In regard to abstract art, she obeyed her definition and criteria. Not so with music. And not so with architecture, at least not until very late in her life if Kamhi and Torres's report is accurate that Binswanger suggested that Rand may have changed her mind about architecture's status. I would say that someone who proclaimed the glory of architecture as an art form, who wrote probably the world's most famous and revered novel on the subject, and who shared her views of its expressive power in quite potent and impassioned language, has "marched off a cliff in obedience to a definition" if one day she suddenly no longer accepts it as an art form.

She wrote nothing further, there is no basis to conclude she would do as you imagine.

Because Rand specifically required that art must present intelligible subjects and meanings. She said that if something ceases to do so, then it ceases to be art. Her theory of art has the requirement of objective intelligibility.

Music is intelligible when it employs tones arranged on a scale and has a melody. Noise is not intelligible. Intelligible means clear, or has clarity.

Who is "we"? I and millions of other people appreciate certain forms of visual art without looking for objects. Do we count as "we"?
Not if you are just a social clique organized around a few synthetes making universal pronouncements about color and line that could not possibly be universal but may perhaps apply to a small group of people with a similar neurological condition.

Um, when I referred to Rand's contradictions (which you said were not contradictions), I was NOT talking about her standards of judging good art versus bad art. I was talking about her standards of judging what qualifies as art and what does not. I don't know why you keep talking about standards for judging art as good or bad. It has no relevance to the conversation.

You are interesting in slaying dragons, and Rand is your dragon. I'm interested in the truth, and Rand is a more than helpful guide even when she is a bit off from perfectly resolving everything.

I'd be interested in learning which deviations from reality are acceptable and which are indicators of irrationality and psychological deficiencies, and why. There are quite a lot of things in almost any painting which are intentionally presented in ways which are contrary to how an "ordinary" person would see them in reality. By what objective standard are some acceptable where others are indicators of irrationality, evil or mental illness?

You quote from Art and Cognition, so you already know the answers.

It's not just the keys. Everything in the painting is "off." As I've said, the painting's use of perspective is such that it shows the space depicted from more than one perspective at once.
But the perspectives are close enough to discern the intent of the artist was not to depict multiple perspectives at once. A cubist painting shows the way to accomplish that.

By the way, the same is true of a lot of José Manuel Capuletti's work. He either didn't know what he was doing and hadn't even mastered perspective on an elementary level, or he intentionally deviated from perspective. If people are to be judged as irrational or psychologically damaged based on their creating or enjoying art which deviates from proper perspective, what should we conclude about people who believe that Capuletti's mediocre works contain sheer perfection of workmanship, disciplined power, and virtuoso technique?

Really, by this thinking the art of painting started going to hell when detailed backgrounds began to be intentionally omitted, because no one ever sees anything without a background. But that is obviously wrong as it neglects selectivity and composition. Rand called her preferred style Romanticism, not Naturalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Architecture is a borderline case, which Rand claims is in a class by itself.

In order for something to be a borderline case, it must fit two different concepts. If something recreated reality and was utilitarian, then it would be a borderline case. But Rand says that architecture "does not recreate reality," and therefore doesn't even qualify as a borderline case.

But only architecture has a mode which is purely non-utilitarian which fully validates architects as artists even if only by an occasional commission.

You'd have to prove the above unsupported assertion. I disagree with it. I think that many things, from couture to coiffure to automotive aesthetics, can have a "mode that is purely non-utilitarian."

Abstract art for most people is merely decorative and evokes nothing.

Did you just make that up? Are you implying that you've scientifically tested "most people" and their reactions or lack thereof to abstract art?

In my experience, most of the people I've met and discussed art with get nothing out of opera. It's not even the aural equivalent of being "merely decorative" to them, but just downright annoying or mind-numbingly boring. So is opera therefore not art?

What is unusual and needs explaining is how anyone can find anything beyond the decorative in an abstract artwork.

Then explain it, since in post# 107 you say that abstract sculpture is art in the objective sense! Are you saying that the abstract forms of a non-mimetic 3-dimensional object can evoke a deep enough aesthetic response in you that it qualifies as art, but you can't understand how anyone could possibly claim to get the same response from a 2-dimensional image of the same form?!?!

Anyway, have you read Kandinsky, or anyone else on the subject? Have you taken any courses in drawing, composition, and color theory? Doing so might provide some answers.

Torres and Kahmi advance the idea that Kandinsky suffered from synthesia, for example (pg 143).

Kandinsky did NOT have synesthesia. He only explored the topic while studying how abstract art affects people. I suspect that Kamhi and Torres liked hearing the rumor that he had synesthesia and wanted to repeat it, while providing no evidence, because the idea that he had synesthesia would support their desire to believe that anyone who creates or enjoys abstract art must be psychologically defective. I think its a case of confirmation bias.

She wrote nothing further, there is no basis to conclude she would do as you imagine.

How do you know that she wrote nothing further? She only published nothing further. We have yet to discover if her journals contain anything on the subject, or if Binswanger or any of her other close associates will confirm whether or not Kamhi and Torres's statement about what Binswanger is alleged to have said is true.

Beyond that, I think there is a further basis for my concluding that she would have resolved her contradictions, and that is that she was known for not accepting contradictions.

Btw, what theory do you propose for why there is no entry for "architecture" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon? It doesn't strike you as odd that the author of The Fountainhead's lexicon has nothing to say on the subject of architecture as an art form?!?!

Music is intelligible when it employs tones arranged on a scale and has a melody. Noise is not intelligible. Intelligible means clear, or has clarity.

That's not what Rand meant by art being "intelligible." She meant that it must convey identifiable subjects and meanings. By your proposed concept of "intelligible," abstract works of art as intelligible as music if they arrange colors and forms in a pattern which has compositional flow and visual rhythm. Mondrian's paintings are quite "clear" or "have clarity."

Not if you are just a social clique organized around a few synthetes making universal pronouncements about color and line that could not possibly be universal but may perhaps apply to a small group of people with a similar neurological condition.

I'm not a synesthete, and neither are millions of other people who create and enjoy abstract art. We have no "neurological conditions." When one group of people claim to be deeply emotionally affected by a type of art, and another group says that they are not affected by it, why do you automatically assume that the group that you're in is the one that is necessarily not deficient? Why must the others automatically be suffering from "neurological conditions"?

You are interesting in slaying dragons, and Rand is your dragon. I'm interested in the truth, and Rand is a more than helpful guide even when she is a bit off from perfectly resolving everything.

So, it's okay for you to say that Rand was off a bit, but when I say it I'm slaying dragons and being a big, bad meanie?

You quote from Art and Cognition, so you already know the answers.

I think the answer is that there is no actual objective criteria for determining which deviations from reality in a work of art are acceptable and which are indicators of psychological defects. I think the standard is that if you like a deviation (or if you don't have a good enough eye to recognize the deviation) then it's acceptable, but if you dislike the deviation, then those who create or enjoy such deviations must be psychologically damaged. The goal appears to be to promote oneself as the universal standard of taste and judgment, and to denigrate anyone with different tastes and judgments as psychologically defective. It sounds as if the idea that others might be more knowledgeable and sensitive to the arts is viciously insulting to some people, and therefore not to be considered under any circumstances.

But the perspectives are close enough to discern the intent of the artist was not to depict multiple perspectives at once. A cubist painting shows the way to accomplish that.

No, we can't "discern" the artist's intent without asking him. I've dealt with enough fellow artists to know that many of them both intentionally and unintentionally deviate from proper perspective, often in the same painting. So, no, your assumptions about what an artist may have intended don't trump everyone else's. Further, I suspect that you don't know enough about perspective to even recognize most deviations from true perspective, let alone to make reasonable conclusions about which types of deviations are typically accidental and which are not.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order for something to be a borderline case, it must fit two different concepts. If something recreated reality and was utilitarian, then it would be a borderline case. But Rand says that architecture "does not recreate reality," and therefore doesn't even qualify as a borderline case.

Non-utilitarian objects can only be understood as recreations of reality, either in the straightforward way prompted by mimetic likeness or in what Ayn Rand describes in music as the reverse process. Architecture qualifies by the second process (which by the way is the same process by which abstract art qualifies as explained below).

You'd have to prove the above unsupported assertion. I disagree with it. I think that many things, from couture to coiffure to automotive aesthetics, can have a "mode that is purely non-utilitarian."
I already did. Monuments and memorials exist. Automotive aesthetics do not have a non-utilitarian mode, a non-functional car is simply a broken car not an end in itself or an alternative aesthetic. There can be no such thing as a non-utilitarian hair style as hair must exist in some form if it exists at all. Couture that is worn has a utilitarian aspect, no matter how otherwise ridiculous.

Did you just make that up? Are you implying that you've scientifically tested "most people" and their reactions or lack thereof to abstract art?

In my experience, most of the people I've met and discussed art with get nothing out of opera. It's not even the aural equivalent of being "merely decorative" to them, but just downright annoying or mind-numbingly boring. So is opera therefore not art?

A Scientific Inquiry into Modern Art is an experiment similar to the "Social Text" hoax by Sokal, but in this experiment fake examples of modern non-representational art are mixed with famous examples by the heavyweights in the field to see if the masterpieces can even be recognized, let alone understood. (Take the Quiz: True Art or Fake Art?) After a bias of 9% in favor of the famous pieces being recognized instantly on sight simply for having been seen before is taken into account, the 50,000 quiz subjects do only slightly better than random in picking out the real from the fake. Subtle visual cues such as an image looking like it was made on a computer or as described in Multifractal Fingerprints in the Visual Arts can account for such residual ability as exists to discriminate the genuine art without needing to appeal to any ability to interpret the image.

In opera, it is not controversial to identify the activity involved as singing. There may also be an orchestra, dancing, plot, and representational set designs. Even if I don't like opera I know from conceptually identifying the elements separately as arts that opera is also an art. No such argument can be made for abstract art as the elements of points, lines and colors are not arts in themselves.

Then explain it, since in post# 107 you say that abstract sculpture is art in the objective sense!

Ok.

What we have here is the case of a non-representational visual art is an analog to music, where the subconscious offers up associations and emotions to fill the void of meaning left by the painting. In decoration one does not desire meaning, that would be a distraction. In an artwork which is supposed to be the focus of one's attention, deliberately leaving a void of meaning where a representation could supply one makes a statement in itself. It is as if the artists are deliberately crippling themselves, a variation on the philosophical refusal to integrate and be conceptual but to stay empirical and concrete. In music there are no representations available so this evaluation of the lack of intelligible content cannot apply. Abstract works have to be admitted to be art before it makes sense to apply an aesthetic norm and say visual artworks should not be crippled like that.

Mondrian does make a good wallpaper pattern, dress design, exterior house painting, etc..

Anyway, have you read Kandinsky, or anyone else on the subject? Have you taken any courses in drawing, composition, and color theory? Doing so might provide some answers.
I have not read Kandinsky, and what answers he can supply would belong to the decorative or graphic arts. I have taken courses in draftsmanship and so know a bit about perspective drawing.

Kandinsky did NOT have synesthesia. He only explored the topic while studying how abstract art affects people. I suspect that Kamhi and Torres liked hearing the rumor that he had synesthesia and wanted to repeat it, while providing no evidence, because the idea that he had synesthesia would support their desire to believe that anyone who creates or enjoys abstract art must be psychologically defective. I think its a case of confirmation bias.

Possibly. But if Kandinsky was not "born that way" then he has been intentionally nihilistic in discarding subjects and meanings in painting, and morally guilty for his bad influence on art.

How do you know that she wrote nothing further? She only published nothing further. We have yet to discover if her journals contain anything on the subject, or if Binswanger or any of her other close associates will confirm whether or not Kamhi and Torres's statement about what Binswanger is alleged to have said is true.
Journal speculations that are consistent with what she published but show her groping for a solution, or show discarded lines of thought or inadequate arguments are interesting and can be illuminating. When there are inconsistencies the published work has to be taken as the more official line. Journal entries would not settle anything, especially here where the line of thinking was not completed.

Beyond that, I think there is a further basis for my concluding that she would have resolved her contradictions, and that is that she was known for not accepting contradictions.

Btw, what theory do you propose for why there is no entry for "architecture" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon? It doesn't strike you as odd that the author of The Fountainhead's lexicon has nothing to say on the subject of architecture as an art form?!?!

She was aware that the format of the lexicon would expose an issue she did not have an immediate answer to in the form of another paragraph that could also be quoted in the Lexicon. The Lexicon was not her project and she was not going to do original writing for it.

That's not what Rand meant by art being "intelligible." She meant that it must convey identifiable subjects and meanings. By your proposed concept of "intelligible," abstract works of art as intelligible as music if they arrange colors and forms in a pattern which has compositional flow and visual rhythm. Mondrian's paintings are quite "clear" or "have clarity."

Ayn Rand: "Music offers man the singular opportunity to reenact, on the adult level, the primary process of his method of cognition: the automatic integration of sense data into an intelligible, meaningful entity." Intelligibility is not in the music, but is evoked in the mind of the listener. Intelligibility is not in abstract painting, and only few claim that such art provokes an intelligible response in them.

I'm not a synesthete, and neither are millions of other people who create and enjoy abstract art. We have no "neurological conditions." When one group of people claim to be deeply emotionally affected by a type of art, and another group says that they are not affected by it, why do you automatically assume that the group that you're in is the one that is necessarily not deficient? Why must the others automatically be suffering from "neurological conditions"?
Not every fan of abstract art need be a synthete, but it would explain the certainty of the ringleaders of the movement. The alternative explanation starts with the observation that non-representationalism is a new phenomenon, and coincides in time with the philosophical corruption of every other art and science known to man in the twentieth century. It is the result of a bad idea not a physiological quirk.

So, it's okay for you to say that Rand was off a bit, but when I say it I'm slaying dragons and being a big, bad meanie?

You have a value commitment in terms of real time life spent in the field of abstract art. The stakes seem to be pretty high for you. Beware of your own bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-utilitarian objects can only be understood as recreations of reality, either in the straightforward way prompted by mimetic likeness or in what Ayn Rand describes in music as the reverse process. Architecture qualifies by the second process (which by the way is the same process by which abstract art qualifies as explained below).

You're still missing the point. YOU may believe that architecture qualifies as a recreation of reality in some way, but RAND DID NOT! She specifically said that IT DOES NOT RECREATE REALITY!

I already did. Monuments and memorials exist.

I see. I was misunderstanding you. Somehow I had misread your comments on monuments.

A Scientific Inquiry into Modern Art is an experiment similar to the "Social Text" hoax by Sokal, but in this experiment fake examples of modern non-representational art are mixed with famous examples by the heavyweights in the field to see if the masterpieces can even be recognized, let alone understood. (Take the Quiz: True Art or Fake Art?)

I took the quiz and scored 100%.

After a bias of 9% in favor of the famous pieces being recognized instantly on sight simply for having been seen before is taken into account, the 50,000 quiz subjects do only slightly better than random in picking out the real from the fake. Subtle visual cues such as an image looking like it was made on a computer or as described in Multifractal Fingerprints in the Visual Arts can account for such residual ability as exists to discriminate the genuine art without needing to appeal to any ability to interpret the image.

Such tests don't really mean much of anything if not compared to similar tests in which the same people are asked to choose between real and fake examples of realist/figurative paintings. The same allegedly embarrassing results have been achieved using "realist" works of "art."

It's really not difficult to mislead realist art enthusiasts into offering critiques of things that merely look like realist art, or to lure them into "identifying" deep "metaphysical values" where they were never intended to exist. I've participated in many art discussions over the years, and I've seen anti-modernists, including Objectivists, easily tricked into expressing admiration for "art works" which were actually nothing but medical/anatomy book illustrations, advertising images, components of elementary school science fair projects, life masks and death masks, and random acts of nature. I've seen them denying that paintings were paintings because they were so realistic that they refused to believe that they weren't photographs. And I've seen them deny that paintings were art because they didn't contain identifiable objects, despite the fact that the viewers had unknowingly identified the objects that the paintings contained while making the claim that the paintings contained no objects!

The best example that I saw of fooling people about realist art was a scan of a golden umber "watercolor landscape" which was actually the dried mud pattern left by a small tree branch and a plastic garbage bag that had been sitting on a concrete patio during a rainstorm. Only a very small percentage of people didn't think it was a painting.

In opera, it is not controversial to identify the activity involved as singing. There may also be an orchestra, dancing, plot, and representational set designs. Even if I don't like opera I know from conceptually identifying the elements separately as arts that opera is also an art. No such argument can be made for abstract art as the elements of points, lines and colors are not arts in themselves.

People who get nothing out of opera have the same opinion about it that you have about the types of art that you get nothing out of, therefore, since you're telling me that something is not art despite the fact that I get something out of it that you don't, opera is also not art despite the fact that you may get something out of it that others don't. In effect, in regard to judging if any proposed art form qualifies as art, those who don't get it, and who shout their opinions the loudest, are the standard by which to determine whether something is art or not.

What we have here is the case of a non-representational visual art is an analog to music, where the subconscious offers up associations and emotions to fill the void of meaning left by the painting. In decoration one does not desire meaning, that would be a distraction. In an artwork which is supposed to be the focus of one's attention, deliberately leaving a void of meaning where a representation could supply one makes a statement in itself. It is as if the artists are deliberately crippling themselves, a variation on the philosophical refusal to integrate and be conceptual but to stay empirical and concrete. In music there are no representations available so this evaluation of the lack of intelligible content cannot apply. Abstract works have to be admitted to be art before it makes sense to apply an aesthetic norm and say visual artworks should not be crippled like that.

You did a lot of talking in the above paragraph but didn't answer my question, which was, "Are you saying that the abstract forms of a non-mimetic 3-dimensional object can evoke a deep enough aesthetic response in you that it qualifies as art, but you can't understand how anyone could possibly claim to get the same response from a 2-dimensional image of the same form?!?!"

I have not read Kandinsky, and what answers he can supply would belong to the decorative or graphic arts.

How would you know? You haven't read him. Heh. It sounds to me as if you're admitting that you've already made up your mind, without having studied the subject, and that no amount of new knowledge is going to get through.

Possibly. But if Kandinsky was not "born that way" then he has been intentionally nihilistic in discarding subjects and meanings in painting, and morally guilty for his bad influence on art.

Kandinsky DIDN'T discard subjects and meanings. You're judging him before understanding his views.

Anyway, is it even a possibility in your mind that others may have knowledge and sensitivities that you lack? If someone who doesn't share your personal limitations in any field explores avenues that you don't understand (while not having studied their field) are they also "nihilistic"?

Journal speculations that are consistent with what she published but show her groping for a solution, or show discarded lines of thought or inadequate arguments are interesting and can be illuminating. When there are inconsistencies the published work has to be taken as the more official line. Journal entries would not settle anything, especially here where the line of thinking was not completed.

It almost sounds as if you believe that you're the official spokesperson for what is and is not Objectivism, and that you're in charge of telling everyone which of Rand's ideas and actions officially count as her ideas and actions and which do not. Um, if she directed Binswanger to not include an entry for architecture in the lexicon because she had changed her mind on the subject, then that's what she did, and that is her final view on the subject. She and her associates didn't have to inform you about her decisions or get your permission and official sanction. You're not Ayn Rand's spokesperson.

She was aware that the format of the lexicon would expose an issue she did not have an immediate answer to in the form of another paragraph that could also be quoted in the Lexicon. The Lexicon was not her project and she was not going to do original writing for it.

In other words, she recognized that she had contradicted herself on a subject about which earlier in this thread you claimed that she hadn't?

Ayn Rand: "Music offers man the singular opportunity to reenact, on the adult level, the primary process of his method of cognition: the automatic integration of sense data into an intelligible, meaningful entity." Intelligibility is not in the music, but is evoked in the mind of the listener. Intelligibility is not in abstract painting, and only few claim that such art provokes an intelligible response in them.

You have no proof that music is any more "intelligible" to the population than abstract art is.

Not every fan of abstract art need be a synthete, but it would explain the certainty of the ringleaders of the movement.

Differing abilities in visual/spatial reasoning would also explain why some people do or don't respond to abstract art, so it's just as logical and reasonable, if not more so, to suspect that those who get nothing from abstract art are lacking in some way that others are not. How would you propose that we objectively test that certain people are not visually/spatially impaired compared to others versus that those who create abstract art have synesthesia or other similar conditions?

The alternative explanation starts with the observation that non-representationalism is a new phenomenon, and coincides in time with the philosophical corruption of every other art and science known to man in the twentieth century.

Not true. Artists such as Alexander Cozens and those associated with him began exploring abstract "blotscapes" about a quarter of a century prior to Kant's publication of the Critique of Judgment, based on Da Vinci's views on stimulating one's imagination by looking at random stain patterns on a wall. The idea of compositional abstraction has been around a long time. See, it pays to actually know some history rather than just making stuff up to fit one's biases. And, if anything, the twentieth century abstraction that you so dislike coincided with some of the most amazing scientific discoveries and successful outside-the-box thinking that the world has ever seen.

It is the result of a bad idea not a physiological quirk.

Do you really think that your opinion on the matter carries any weight, especially when you're giving it while admitting that you haven't read anything on the subject, and that you're judging people's ideas prior to understanding them?

You have a value commitment in terms of real time life spent in the field of abstract art. The stakes seem to be pretty high for you. Beware of your own bias.

Wrong again. I'm primarily a realist artist, and I only very rarely experiment with abstraction. I'm not even much of a fan of most of it. If I were to have a personal bias, it would probably be against most abstract art. But this isn't about biases, at least not mine. It's about philosophical consistency and NOT having criteria which are based on certain people's biases, subjective tastes, or limitations. The fact that Rand, you or I (or anyone else) may dislike something, or personally not have much of an aesthetic response to it, doesn't make it non-art for all of mankind. All that such a method of judgment achieves is to make the least sensitive person the standard for what is or is not art for everyone else.

It makes me wonder if there are blind people in the world who go around insisting that no one else can see, and that anyone who claims to have sight must be a nihilist with severe mental problems.

J

P.S. I posted this on the Surrealism thread, but I thought that you might like to take a shot at it here. Please identify the subjects and meanings of the paintings in the left column, as well as the artists' metaphysical value-judgements, and prove that you've objectively done so.

2693303411_40dbc3f704_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still missing the point. YOU may believe that architecture qualifies as a recreation of reality in some way, but RAND DID NOT! She specifically said that IT DOES NOT RECREATE REALITY!
This is not a very exact statement of Rand's view. First, to get the border-line cases out of the way: if one wants to think of something like the Statue of Liberty as a "building" , then someone designing that is arguably more a sculptor than an architect.

When it comes to buildings designed for some purpose other than contemplation of the building itself, then the architect's primary objective is to make sure the building fulfills its purpose. So, it is not primarily art in the way the Statue of liberty might be. That does not mean that the building is not art at all. Quite apart from its functional aspects, the architect might seek to make it look beautiful, or inviting, or imposing, or whatever. This would be like someone making an artistic-looking tea-kettle. Of course Rand acknowledged that functional objects can be art in that sense, even if being art was not their primary objective.

I'm not sure why there is so much focus on the whole question of "is XYZ art?" in the first place. Anyhow, it is wrong to think that Rand was ruling out that architecture is art in some sense. This is just as much a strawman as saying that Rand thought photographs can never be art. One can build quite the bird's nest with this stuff.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a very exact statement of Rand's view.

It's a QUOTE FROM RAND! How much more exact of a statement can you get?!?! She said that architecture "does not recreate reality"!

First, to get the border-line cases out of the way: if one wants to think of something like the Statue of Liberty as a "building" , then someone designing that is arguably more a sculptor than an architect.

Yes, but calling large statues "buildings" is not what Rand had in mind when referring to architecture as an art form. She was talking about houses, office buildings, churches and art galleries, etc.

When it comes to buildings designed for some purpose other than contemplation of the building itself, then the architect's primary objective is to make sure the building fulfills its purpose. So, it is not primarily art in the way the Statue of liberty might be. That does not mean that the building is not art at all.

I agree. But in order to accept such architecture as an art form, one must NOT follow Rand's definition and criteria. It does not "recreate reality" in the sense that Rand meant (again, I repeat, that she said that it "does not recreate reality"). She also said that utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art.

See the problems? We either have to eliminate architecture as a art form if we follow Rand's definition and criteria, as Kamhi and Torres have (which is a mistake, in my opinion), or we can choose to ignore certain aspects of Rand's definition and criteria, as you appear to be doing (along with me). And if ignoring her definition and criteria is acceptable in some cases -- such as when applied to art forms that Rand liked despite not fitting her requirements -- then they can also be ignored when applied to art forms that people other than Rand like, despite not fitting her requirements.

Quite apart from its functional aspects, the architect might seek to make it look beautiful, or inviting, or imposing, or whatever. This would be like someone making an artistic-looking tea-kettle. Of course Rand acknowledged that functional objects can be art in that sense, even if being art was not their primary objective.

No, she did NOT acknowledge that functional objects can be art. She said that they can be "artistic" and that they can have some qualities of art, but that they are NOT art.

I'm not sure why there is so much focus on the whole question of "is XYZ art?" in the first place.

I think it's because Rand stressed the importance of definitions and of intellectual clarity, and was highly critical of those who accepted contradictions or double standards. I agree with her -- so much so that I'm not willing to overlook her contradiction and double standards.

Anyhow, it is wrong to think that Rand was ruling out that architecture is art in some sense.

No, it's not wrong. Her stated criteria rules architecture out, and Binswanger is said to have reported that she changed her mind on the subject before she died. These are legitimate reasons to believe that she probably did change her mind on architecture as an art form.

This is just as much a strawman as saying that Rand thought photographs can never be art.

Rand DID think that photographs can never be art!

Are you going to tell me next that I'm foolish for believing that she thought that the initiation of force was never morally acceptable?!?!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a QUOTE FROM RAND! How much more exact of a statement can you get?!?! She said that architecture "does not recreate reality"!

... ...

See the problems? We either have to eliminate architecture as a art form if we follow Rand's definition and criteria,

... ...

No, she did NOT acknowledge that functional objects can be art.

... ...

Rand DID think that photographs can never be art!

... ...

Well, I know you've insisted on all these things and variations of them in various threads over the years.

My advice to any third party reading this is to read Rand to find out what she really said, and not to take Jonathan's strawmen at face value. As the saying goes: "the devil can quote scripture"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I know you've insisted on all these things and variations of them in various threads over the years.

My advice to any third party reading this is to read Rand to find out what she really said, and not to take Jonathan's strawmen at face value. As the saying goes: "the devil can quote scripture"

I agree that third parties reading this thread should read Rand and find out for themselves what she beleived, and not take softwareNerd's misrepresentations as the truth. Unfortunately, there is no entry on architecture at the online Ayn Rand Lexicon, so people will have to refer to The Romantic Manifesto if they have it, but they can look up the entry on photography and see that I'm accurately summarizing Rand's views, and that softwareNerd is not:

"A certain type of confusion about the relationship between scientific discoveries and art, leads to a frequently asked question: Is photography an art? The answer is: No. It is a technical, not a creative, skill. Art requires a selective re-creation. A camera cannot perform the basic task of painting: a visual conceptualization, i.e., the creation of a concrete in terms of abstract essentials. The selection of camera angles, lighting or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful—but the same artistic element (purposeful selectivity) is present in many utilitarian products: in the better kinds of furniture, dress design, automobiles, packaging, etc. The commercial art work in ads (or posters or postage stamps) is frequently done by real artists and has greater esthetic value than many paintings, but utilitarian objects cannot be classified as works of art."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still missing the point. YOU may believe that architecture qualifies as a recreation of reality in some way, but RAND DID NOT! She specifically said that IT DOES NOT RECREATE REALITY!

Yes, I know she wrote that. So what? Now you are missing the point. Stop quoting and start thinking. You seem to be indicting me for not being obedient to the authority figure of Ayn Rand, which is a very peculiar position to take when you think she is wrong.

I took the quiz and scored 100%.
You are special. Yay?

Such tests don't really mean much of anything if not compared to similar tests in which the same people are asked to choose between real and fake examples of realist/figurative paintings. The same allegedly embarrassing results have been achieved using "realist" works of "art."

It's really not difficult to mislead realist art enthusiasts into offering critiques of things that merely look like realist art, or to lure them into "identifying" deep "metaphysical values" where they were never intended to exist. I've participated in many art discussions over the years, and I've seen anti-modernists, including Objectivists, easily tricked into expressing admiration for "art works" which were actually nothing but medical/anatomy book illustrations, advertising images, components of elementary school science fair projects, life masks and death masks, and random acts of nature. I've seen them denying that paintings were paintings because they were so realistic that they refused to believe that they weren't photographs. And I've seen them deny that paintings were art because they didn't contain identifiable objects, despite the fact that the viewers had unknowingly identified the objects that the paintings contained while making the claim that the paintings contained no objects!

The best example that I saw of fooling people about realist art was a scan of a golden umber "watercolor landscape" which was actually the dried mud pattern left by a small tree branch and a plastic garbage bag that had been sitting on a concrete patio during a rainstorm. Only a very small percentage of people didn't think it was a painting.
The "watercolor style" is so unrealistic that it is quite plausible that a dried mud pattern might look like an example of the style. Watercolor as a material and technique can produce realistic results.

People who get nothing out of opera have the same opinion about it that you have about the types of art that you get nothing out of, therefore, since you're telling me that something is not art despite the fact that I get something out of it that you don't, opera is also not art despite the fact that you may get something out of it that others don't. In effect, in regard to judging if any proposed art form qualifies as art, those who don't get it, and who shout their opinions the loudest, are the standard by which to determine whether something is art or not.

Keep your quotes straight, please. It is Rand who denies things are art, not me.

Perception is detection, and in conjunction with memory is recognition. Similarities are objective. One can be perceptually justified in judging that a non-F is an F. The subjective reaction of "getting something out of it" is irrelevant. When half of the quiz takers mistake a random construction for an abstract artwork they are basing their judgement on real similarities perceived in the works. This shows that the theory of abstract art is irrelevant.

How would you know? You haven't read him. Heh. It sounds to me as if you're admitting that you've already made up your mind, without having studied the subject, and that no amount of new knowledge is going to get through.

Kandinsky DIDN'T discard subjects and meanings. You're judging him before understanding his views.

Screw Kandinsky's "views", all that matters is his paintings. They stand on their own or they do not. Mostly not.

Anyway, is it even a possibility in your mind that others may have knowledge and sensitivities that you lack? If someone who doesn't share your personal limitations in any field explores avenues that you don't understand (while not having studied their field) are they also "nihilistic"?

There is no knowledge or "sensitivity" at stake, just visual perception and recognition.

It almost sounds as if you believe that you're the official spokesperson for what is and is not Objectivism, and that you're in charge of telling everyone which of Rand's ideas and actions officially count as her ideas and actions and which do not. Um, if she directed Binswanger to not include an entry for architecture in the lexicon because she had changed her mind on the subject, then that's what she did, and that is her final view on the subject. She and her associates didn't have to inform you about her decisions or get your permission and official sanction. You're not Ayn Rand's spokesperson.

You are not Ayn Rand's mindreader, your conclusion that she changed her mind and decided that architecture is not an art is speculation that you cannot know.

Not true. Artists such as Alexander Cozens and those associated with him began exploring abstract "blotscapes" about a quarter of a century prior to Kant's publication of the Critique of Judgment, based on Da Vinci's views on stimulating one's imagination by looking at random stain patterns on a wall. The idea of compositional abstraction has been around a long time. See, it pays to actually know some history rather than just making stuff up to fit one's biases. And, if anything, the twentieth century abstraction that you so dislike coincided with some of the most amazing scientific discoveries and successful outside-the-box thinking that the world has ever seen.
Without the sustained philosophical assault on objectivity no one would ever have been brazen enough to put forth an abstract compositional plan as if it were a final product. Instead of publishing a novel, try publishing an outline of a novel. People won't accept it in literature, and there is no reason to accept it in painting.

Do you really think that your opinion on the matter carries any weight, especially when you're giving it while admitting that you haven't read anything on the subject, and that you're judging people's ideas prior to understanding them?

Paintings are perceived. If you have to read an instruction manual before even recognizing it as art then it sucks as art.

The fact that Rand, you or I (or anyone else) may dislike something, or personally not have much of an aesthetic response to it, doesn't make it non-art for all of mankind.
Right.

2693303411_40dbc3f704_o.jpg

The subjects are various kinds of vegetation. There are no human figures or artifacts in any of the images except for perhaps the flower arrangements of the first and last images, so meanings are indefinite. The images are too small to judge the styles, or even to make a judgement that they are paintings or photographs.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. I posted this on the Surrealism thread, but I thought that you might like to take a shot at it here. Please identify the subjects and meanings of the paintings in the left column, as well as the artists' metaphysical value-judgements, and prove that you've objectively done so.

[.img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2693303411_40dbc3f704_o.jpg

1. Lush, rich and colorful.

2. Looks like a photograph with a lot of digital vibrance.

3. Not sure if it's a painting or photograph. If it's a painting it's well done capturing the light of an overcast day.

4. Looks familiar. My guess is that it's part of a bigger picture.

5. Leaves in spectral light with a pink Snorlax in the background. I'm guessing somehow done with computers.

6. Rather similar to Mondrian's tree.

7. Pretty flowers again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know she wrote that. So what? Now you are missing the point. Stop quoting and start thinking. You seem to be indicting me for not being obedient to the authority figure of Ayn Rand, which is a very peculiar position to take when you think she is wrong.

No, I'm not indicting you. Earlier you had said that Rand had not contradicted herself. I've simply been trying to explain to you that she did. And you keep twisting yourself into pretzels -- you confuse your views with hers, or you claim that she had two definitions of "art" when she didn't, etc. -- rather than simply accepting the fact that she contradicted herself.

You are special. Yay?

No, I don't think I'm special. I think that certain people respond to certain things, and others don't. When I don't respond to an artwork or style, I think it would be pretty silly for me to tell everyone else that they don't (or shouldn't) respond to it either, and that if they do, then they're psychologically damaged or evil. That would be behaving as if one was "special," not to mention that it would be quite nasty "psychologizing."

The "watercolor style" is so unrealistic that it is quite plausible that a dried mud pattern might look like an example of the style. Watercolor as a material and technique can produce realistic results.

The "watercolor landscape" mud pattern that I was talking about was a very realistic-looking image. I don't know if I still have a copy of the jpeg anywhere, but if I do, I'll post it.

When half of the quiz takers mistake a random construction for an abstract artwork they are basing their judgement on real similarities perceived in the works. This shows that the theory of abstract art is irrelevant.

You and Alfa can't identify which of the realistic images I posted are paintings and which are not, so does that make realist art non-art?

If I were to give you a book without telling you in advance whether it's fiction versus an account of real events, and after reading it you still couldn't tell if it was fact or fiction, would that make realist literature non-art?

Screw Kandinsky's "views", all that matters is his paintings.

That's what I thought: closed mind.

They stand on their own or they do not. Mostly not.

They don't stand on their own TO YOU, but we were talking about what qualifies as art, not your personal, subjective tastes, opinions, sensitivities or limitations. You are not the standard by which to determine if something is art or not for everyone else.

There is no knowledge or "sensitivity" at stake, just visual perception and recognition.

Okay, then, let's not argue over semantics. If you prefer the term "perception and recognition" rather than "sensitivity," how would you propose that we objectively test viewers' abilities to "perceive and recognize"? If a person who has deep aesthetic responses to certain abstract works of art also scores very highly on standard visual/spatial reasoning tests, where a person who doesn't respond to any abstract art scores much lower on the same tests, might that be an indicator that appreciation of abstract art might not be due to psychological deficiency as you've assumed without evidence?

You are not Ayn Rand's mindreader, your conclusion that she changed her mind and decided that architecture is not an art is speculation that you cannot know.

I didn't conclude that she changed her mind. I said that everything indicates that she probably changed her mind. And I don't need to be a mindreader to justifiably make such speculation. There are reports that Binswanger, a close associate of Rand's, has semi-publicly commented on the subject.

Without the sustained philosophical assault on objectivity no one would ever have been brazen enough to put forth an abstract compositional plan as if it were a final product.

Having not read anything on the subject (and apparently refusing to read anything on the subject), you don't know what you're talking about.

Paintings are perceived. If you have to read an instruction manual before even recognizing it as art then it sucks as art.

I and others don't have to read an instruction manual, so, again, how would you suggest that we objectively determine that it's the art that "sucks" and that it's not an issue of certain people lacking the ability to "perceive and recognize" what the art contains?

You and Alfa seem to be having trouble with the realistic images that I posted, so are they also not art (or sucky art)? Are you waiting for an instruction manual before recognizing which of the images are art, and before identifying their subjects and meanings?

The subjects are various kinds of vegetation.

No, that is merely the physical subject matter. You're confusing the concept "subject matter" with the concept "subject." The objects depicted are the subject matter. The subject is the conceptual content of the art. For example, characters like Dagny, Hank, Frisco and Galt, etc., are subject matter within Atlas Shrugged, they are not the novel's subject.

There are no human figures or artifacts in any of the images except for perhaps the flower arrangements of the first and last images, so meanings are indefinite.

So, therefore the images are not art?

The images are too small to judge the styles, or even to make a judgement that they are paintings or photographs.

They're about the same size as the images in the abstract art quiz that you posted, and I didn't see you complaining that those images were too small to judge the styles.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Lush, rich and colorful.

Is that an identification of the painting's subject and meaning? If so, several of the paintings in the right column are also lush, rich and colorful, and therefore anyone could easily identify their subjects and meanings by your standards.

2. Looks like a photograph with a lot of digital vibrance.

It's a painting, not a photograph.

3. Not sure if it's a painting or photograph. If it's a painting it's well done capturing the light of an overcast day.

It's a painting. What is its meaning? What are the "metaphysical value-judgments" that it objectively conveys?

4. Looks familiar. My guess is that it's part of a bigger picture.

It's possible that it may have been trimmed down just slightly by a row or two of pixels, but nothing is missing to give the painting a more easily-read meaning.

5. Leaves in spectral light with a pink Snorlax in the background. I'm guessing somehow done with computers.

No, it's a traditional painting. No computers involved. Heh -- Snorlax. :lol:

6. Rather similar to Mondrian's tree.

It's a realist painting.

7. Pretty flowers again.

In your seven descriptions, I didn't see any identifications of thematic meanings, and only one description -- "capturing the light of an overcast day" -- that might qualify as the identification of a "subject" in the sense that Rand seems to have meant. All of your descriptions are less detailed and contain much less content than my descriptions here of what I see and feel in a couple of abstract paintings.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and Alfa can't identify which of the realistic images I posted are paintings and which are not, so does that make realist art non-art?

It makes thumbnails bad-art.

If I were to give you a book without telling you in advance whether it's fiction versus an account of real events, and after reading it you still couldn't tell if it was fact or fiction, would that make realist literature non-art?

Bad art.

They don't stand on their own TO YOU, but we were talking about what qualifies as art, not your personal, subjective tastes, opinions, sensitivities or limitations. You are not the standard by which to determine if something is art or not for everyone else.

They don't stand on their own TO YOU either, if you have read Kandinsky. They don't stand on their own to anybody.

Okay, then, let's not argue over semantics. If you prefer the term "perception and recognition" rather than "sensitivity," how would you propose that we objectively test viewers' abilities to "perceive and recognize"? If a person who has deep aesthetic responses to certain abstract works of art also scores very highly on standard visual/spatial reasoning tests, where a person who doesn't respond to any abstract art scores much lower on the same tests, might that be an indicator that appreciation of abstract art might not be due to psychological deficiency as you've assumed without evidence?
It is not semantics at issue. You want to test the subjects perceiving, I want to test the objects being perceived. The problem with abstract paintings is that nothing on the surface of the works looks like anything. Similarity in shape is objective, and could even be given a computer generated quantitative score.

I didn't conclude that she changed her mind. I said that everything indicates that she probably changed her mind. And I don't need to be a mindreader to justifiably make such speculation. There are reports that Binswanger, a close associate of Rand's, has semi-publicly commented on the subject.

A "justified" speculation (an oxymoron) is still just a speculation, unreliable and unable to support any conclusion.

I and others don't have to read an instruction manual,
Have you in fact read Kandinsky and thus are qualified to know what you are talking about, or not?

No, that is merely the physical subject matter. You're confusing the concept "subject matter" with the concept "subject." The objects depicted are the subject matter. The subject is the conceptual content of the art. For example, characters like Dagny, Hank, Frisco and Galt, etc., are subject matter within Atlas Shrugged, they are not the novel's subject.

A still life or a landscape cannot convey much conceptual content, which is why they are pretty unexciting even when done realistically. The style is very important when other kinds of content is omitted, and style itself is largely omitted in a thumbnail. Even a Monet is equivalent to photo-realistic when reduced to 32x32 pixels.

So, therefore the images are not art?
Uninspiring art. Remember, I'm not Rand.

They're about the same size as the images in the abstract art quiz that you posted, and I didn't see you complaining that those images were too small to judge the styles.
Because they were bigger, and thus not too small. Also, none of the images would have benefited from enlargement as they had no details to lose by being reduced in size in the first place. The relatively spare featureless appearance of abstract art is part of what makes it so vulnerable to being mocked by casually slapped together digital drawings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that an identification of the painting's subject and meaning? If so, several of the paintings in the right column are also lush, rich and colorful, and therefore anyone could easily identify their subjects and meanings by your standards.

In your seven descriptions, I didn't see any identifications of thematic meanings, and only one description -- "capturing the light of an overcast day" -- that might qualify as the identification of a "subject" in the sense that Rand seems to have meant. All of your descriptions are less detailed and contain much less content than my descriptions here of what I see and feel in a couple of abstract paintings.

The images are way too small to make any judgements at all. Also, not all of us are used to judging paintings of schrubbery. Not all paintings have any meaning, and all meanings are not expressed clearly. Latsly, to really make accurate judgemens takes a great deal of knowledge and analysis. Even if you get it, explaining the how and why is not a small task. For example:

This painting is called "Philip the Good", but what is it that's supposedly good about him?

http://idadeadulta.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/philip_the_good1.jpg

Or her?

http://www.paintinghere.com/painting/Portrait_of_Mme_N._M._Polovtsova_21750.html

What's the main theme here?

http://www.artilim.com/painting/c/cecchi-adriano/at-the-dressmakers.jpg

Or what's the narrative here, and why?

http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artwork.php?artworkid=32161&size=large

These examples are just things I found after recently revisiting a favorite DVD of mine, called "Mechanics of Color". Anyway, my guess is that without a basic understanding of color it will be hard to answer the questions.

As for the details of my descriptions, let's pretend that I answered something like; "the texture on the flower petals suggest a rugged individualism". What's your answer to that?

And just because something evokes feelings or sensations, even if you can objectively explain why, doesn't make it art. It could, however, be an effective design.

No, it's a traditional painting. No computers involved. Heh -- Snorlax. :lol:

Clearly my guesswork wasn't very good, however that picture must be seen in full size before I believe you. Until then it's a fractal image generated by a computer on Charlie Sheen. I can clearly see leafy things, a Snorlax and some green translucent tentacles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes thumbnails bad-art.

So, was that the point of your posting the abstract art quiz -- that thumbnails are bad art?

They don't stand on their own TO YOU either, if you have read Kandinsky. They don't stand on their own to anybody.

So you are claiming to speak for everyone, and to tell them what they do or do not experience or think!

I didn't "have to read" Kandinksy. Absract works of art stood on their own to me prior to reading him. By your 'reasoning' I suppose that Rand's novels aren't art because you've read her theory of aesthetics?

Also, Rand's novels don't stand on their own to someone who hasn't learned to read English, and therefore aren't art by your theory (if someone's needing to learn the language of color and form in order to appreciate abstract art makes it non-art, then needing to learn the language of English in order to appreciate Atlas Shrugged makes it non-art).

It is not semantics at issue. You want to test the subjects perceiving, I want to test the objects being perceived. The problem with abstract paintings is that nothing on the surface of the works looks like anything. Similarity in shape is objective, and could even be given a computer generated quantitative score.

No, you want to test people for their ability to recognize the attributes of objects which you recognize or find meaningful, but you want to eliminate from consideration the attributes which you don't find meaningful. If effect, you're proposing a tainted "scientific" test which is designed to confirm your biases. "Similarity in shape" is apparently the attribute which you think you find meaningful (while not actually being able to identify subjects and meanings from "similarities in shapes"). Others find similarity in hue, saturation, texture, gesture, or visual rhythm, etc., expressive and meaningful, but since you apparently don't, you arbitrarily reject those attribubtes despite the fact that they are just as objective as "similarity in shape."

A "justified" speculation (an oxymoron) is still just a speculation, unreliable and unable to support any conclusion.

I'm thinking that maybe you need to calm down. How many times do I need to repeat that I was not making a conclusion?

As for "justified speculation," certain speculations are indeed justified where others are not. We have reasons to consider that Rand may have changed her mind on architecture as an art form, and we have reasons to speculate and to ask more questions about the issue. We don't have reasons to consider that she, say, changed her mind on the initiation of force, or to speculate and ask questions about her doing so.

A still life or a landscape cannot convey much conceptual content, which is why they are pretty unexciting even when done realistically.

To whom? To everyone?

The style is very important when other kinds of content is omitted, and style itself is largely omitted in a thumbnail.

So, are you saying that if I had only posted large enough images for you to see the brushwork, why, then you would have been able to instantly identify subjects and meanings? You're a connoisseur of the expressiveness of brushwork and other small details?

Uninspiring art. Remember, I'm not Rand.

Don't you mean that you are uninspired by the art rather than that the art is uninspiring?

Because they were bigger, and thus not too small.

Ah, I see. So, when others look at thumbnails of art which you don't like and which are around 0.25 to 12 percent of the size of the originals, it's hilarious that they can't tell which are works of art and which are not (except when someone nails 100%, then it's not so hilarious), but when you are asked to look at thumbnails of realist art which are 0.25 to 12 percent of the size of the originals, it's unfair and pointless and mean?

Also, none of the images would have benefited from enlargement as they had no details to lose by being reduced in size in the first place.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. I've seen enough abstract art to know that the brushwork and other abstract details are significantly more expressive and effective when viewed in person than when viewed in small thumbnails. Seeing full scale abstract paintings quite often reveal a level of intention and control that viewers hadn't expected.

The relatively spare featureless appearance of abstract art is part of what makes it so vulnerable to being mocked by casually slapped together digital drawings.

Abstract art isn't featureless. How can you not see its features? Maybe you should get out and look at it in person rather than trying to judge it based on thumbnails.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the details of my descriptions, let's pretend that I answered something like; "the texture on the flower petals suggest a rugged individualism". What's your answer to that?

My answer would be a question: If I see the same texture in an abstract painting as also representing rugged individualism, would you accept that the painting is art?

And just because something evokes feelings or sensations, even if you can objectively explain why, doesn't make it art.

So when is something which evokes feelings or sensations art, and when is it not? What are the objective criteria for making such determinations? As it stands, it appears to me that Rand's feelings are the criteria: non-mimetic music made her feel something, and non-mimetic visual art did not (well, except when she was younger and commented that certain abstract shapes expressed laughter and defiance), therefore she judged music to be art and abstract not. If I'm wrong, please explain how I'm wrong. If Rand's (or yours, or Grames', etc.) feelings or lack thereof are not the standard that you're using to determine what is art and what is not, then what standard are you using? What objective standard?

Clearly my guesswork wasn't very good...

Well, I thought your Snorlax comment was awesome. It was a good catch. I hadn't seen the leaf as being similar to a Snorlax until you pointed it out.

...however that picture must be seen in full size before I believe you.

You can find it here. If you're on a Mac (I don't know if the same is true on other systems), just drag and drop the image to your desktop and you can then open it to a size up to 11.639 x 15.653 at 72ppi. Is that big enough to objectively identify subject, meaning and the artist's metaphysical value-judgments?

Btw, I'm pretty sure that Rand didn't see at full size most of the paintings that she judged. Do you think that all of her judgments which were not based on viewing full sized images were therefore unfair or inaccurate?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer would be a question: If I see the same texture in an abstract painting as also representing rugged individualism, would you accept that the painting is art?

I wouldn't accept that the texture could represent rugged individualism in the first place.

So when is something which evokes feelings or sensations art, and when is it not? What are the objective criteria for making such determinations? As it stands, it appears to me that Rand's feelings are the criteria: non-mimetic music made her feel something, and non-mimetic visual art did not (well, except when she was younger and commented that certain abstract shapes expressed laughter and defiance), therefore she judged music to be art and abstract not. If I'm wrong, please explain how I'm wrong. If Rand's (or yours, or Grames', etc.) feelings or lack thereof are not the standard that you're using to determine what is art and what is not, then what standard are you using? What objective standard?

For one thing, art is a concretization of abstractions. It is for example like taking a theme, say love or heroism, and making a conrete representation of that. That's from where art derives it's value. And, music can actually do that. It just communicates differently, more directly, than the visual arts. I am yet to be convinced abstract art can do that. So far I have only seen it being defended as doing the opposite - making abstractions of concretes.

Well, I thought your Snorlax comment was awesome. It was a good catch. I hadn't seen the leaf as being similar to a Snorlax until you pointed it out.

Unfortunately it seems once it's been seen, it cannot be un-seen.

You can find it here. If you're on a Mac (I don't know if the same is true on other systems), just drag and drop the image to your desktop and you can then open it to a size up to 11.639 x 15.653 at 72ppi. Is that big enough to objectively identify subject, meaning and the artist's metaphysical value-judgments?

Btw, I'm pretty sure that Rand didn't see at full size most of the paintings that she judged. Do you think that all of her judgments which were not based on viewing full sized images were therefore unfair or inaccurate?

J

That certainly makes it big enough to see. As for the subject I can't find anything that suggest other than it would be about the colors on the leaves. With a subdued value range the color and their saturation is the point of interest, and it's not a far stretch here to say that she used them to get at something lively and energetic.

Well, if Rand ever judged pictures so small she had to put her nose to the canvas and squint real hard...

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...