Cheyne R

I draw and create art for myself. In the absence of art with which to connect, I seek to fulfill my own visual ideals. I posted the link to my site not seeking approval. Nor was I seeking critique, although, as I have stated, I will always welcome a rational discourse (a rare treat in itself). I presented this site to share this vision with those with whom I already share a love for the works of Ayn Rand. To pour one's soul, love of philosophy, and complete sense of life into a tangible work of visual art...this all means an incredible amount to me. To have a person comment ... I had higher expectations for this discussion forum, but I suppose it is what it is. Many have seemed to confuse style - which is consistent - with content, which is not. A work can be sad or reflective or mournful without sacrificing its underlying style & ideals. Provided nothing of particular merit, these will be my parting words in this topic thread.

IAmMetaphysical: You have been aggressive in noting a certain 'distortion' across my works. Mine is not an attack on the human form, as you had apparently interpreted. I am aware that humans are not in a liquid state. Think of any of Rand's heroic characters. They are constantly in motion, working restlessly, striving towards a staggering goal -- and, left to this pursuit, experience the incredible joy of being and producing and earning. I believe that the good in itself is likewise in constant motion. My aim, among other things, is to capture this important and beautiful motion, but must do so in a static image. You are in your right to find this offensive, but you will not find me apologetic. Your closing remark was a rather cowardly jab, since your initial post never implied and I certainly never contended the issue of my work not being art. I encourage and will welcome critique, but your approach lacks reason. I am afraid that, unless your remarks are of greater substance, I should be foolish to continue acknowledging you. JMeganSnow: I agree entirely, I have very little respect for purely abstract works for the reasons you stated and also because they lack intelligibility. In contrast, I find purely representational "photo realistic" works typically underwhelming (although of course there are exceptions). In the way of Aristotle, I seek a balanced middle ground that grants the intriguing flexibililty and expression of abstraction with the intelligibility of representation. It is a thin line to tread. You are right about the misuse of the term Objective. And, further, I will confirm that I am not subscribing to Rand's 'school' of aesthetic. I think the authors/editors of "What Art Is" are accurate in their analysis of the values and shortcomings of her aesthetic concepts.

It will be difficult to engage in effective discussion with a response that assumes so much and offers so little substance. It would be to our mutual benefit for you to qualify your remarks with explanation. I am quite well versed in the ideas of Objectivism. Please indicate the piece to which you refer when you say, "the atmosphere is deliberately distorted (without identity)". Surely not "Woman at the Piano", where the figure and the piano are the sole objects - no atmosphere to speak of. Your use of the word distortion - which you are free to use - has obvious negative connotations. I would not even think to use that word to describe my art. It is hard for me to comment on your interpretation of the Objectivist aesthetic, but, from what you have thus far offered, you are well off the mark. I urge you to properly explain yourself, as an interesting discussion is conceivable. What you call 'distortion' I would call dynamic, light, minimal. I emphasize these qualities as an expression of what I find important aesthetically and philosophically - they convey, as Rand would put it, my sense of life. I do not mind if it does not resonate with you.

This conversation is muddled by vague premises and language. I despise linguistic arguments, as they promise a tiresome circularity, but nevertheless your reference to "modern art" lacks clarity. As does your approach to valuing art. Some of the previous replies have alluded to these problems. Your comments about whether painting a bowl of fruit is "proper" is misguided. I find little basis for deeming different species of subject matter as proper or improper, as the true import resides in how it is expressed. This is why the camera poses no challenge to the painter - painstakingly trying to paint something with precise photorealism as the end will produce no more than a novelty. Such would compel one to say, "Wow, how very realistic." For a work of art to truly resonate with a viewer, the artist infuses their creation with perspective, emotion, or as Rand might say..."the world as it ought to be". Can the camera achieve such an expression? Well, yes, possibly...medium is irrelevant (and to an extent, so is the subject). What really matters is the treatment of the subject. My own portrayal of a bowl of fruit, which, sadly I do not have imaged for my website, endures as one of my personal favorites. This is not because I champion the significance of the mundane (I don't), but because in it there exists a light, dynamic, elegance that I value both visually and ethically. My problem with what we may call "modern art" is that it lacks intelligibility. RI1138 was quite right - the subject becomes decontextualized, with no form to communicate the expression to the viewer. Enjoying art at this level seems purely a social chimera, ugly in its arbitrary elitism and desperate parroting. aleph_0: Thanks for posting the piece by Frank O'Connor. Cheyne

At long last my website has launched at www.cheynerood.com. The art world, with its chimerical values and arbitrary commendations, has been a struggle for me: One who casts only a passing glance at art history, refuses to cite artistic ancestor or 'ism' of style. For solace I turn again and again to the philosophies that underlie both my artwork and my life. I am proud to hold Ayn Rand among those few thinkers, sharing rank with Aristotle, Calvino, and Plato. I present my site for your review, not only because I am proud of my work, but also with hopes that those who share my philosophical aesthetic may likewise share my visual aesthetic. Best Regards, Cheyne