Miss Lemon,
In regard to your artwork, I shall break from continuing the commentary at present and instead turn to offer my own opinion on Objectivist art.
I like you work; it is clear that you have talent. I see a great deal of inspiration in the first art (flowers) while the others suggest mastery of the materials without a fundamental unity connecting them together. This is not to say that they are poorly executed; quite the reverse! But, the flowers carry with them the tone of Impressionism without sinking so low as to copy a style long since dead. Yet it also pushes the envelope on fantasy art with tones of the surrealistic since the lighting scheme portrayed here is more or less impossible to be perceived by the naked eye. It is this individual perception that forms the roots of Objectivist art, in my opinion, and this brings me to the suggestions I want to make.
Ayn Rand inspired art exists in intimate relation to the human spirit, individual perception, the linearity of rational thought, and the elimination of factual distortion. In other words, inspired artwork of this nature should combine elements symbolizing the achievement of the human mind, pursuit of the highest boundaries of personal achievement, and rejection of an "other" (God, Allah, spirits affecting our lives). In Rand's world, this usually takes the form of architecture, (my personal artistic passion), displayed in vast cityscapes that are rooted in Art Deco and appear stretched vertically into a pure, boundless sky. She emphasizes the precise engineering of merged planes hovering above scalloped vertical high rises. She supports the streamlined simplicity of modernism over excessive decoration yet does not wholly ignore the need for ornamentation. She describes this ornamentation as functional but highly symbolic in nature, portraying the designer's internal image of the heroic man. It is stripped of superfluous gestures (I think of it as the complete opposite of Rococo), instead resting on it's representative meaning to the observer, who is free to choose to take away from if what he will. The artist is the one true patron of his own work, as Rand would certainly argue his is the one perception most important in the creative endeavor. The audience, in reflecting on his work, should see this introspection and recognize his intention in an act of mutual understanding.
To invoke emotion in the observer is necessary in art, but it is a dangerous road fraught with the strong likelihood of generating a lie. For when an artist evokes sympathy in an audience, he panders to the emotional tendencies of the masses, catching them up in their own struggles and exposing his weak underbelly. They may share his emotions, but they also recognize his fragile and pleading state. Although this is human and not something I personally find necessarily wrong, this weakness is not a part of Objectivist art and represents the will of the moochers who use empathy as a weapon. Avoid this pitfall. Rand-inspired creations must always be unapologetic, personal, self-centered, and highly symbolic of man's will to truth in a rational and deterministic world. There is room for imagination, of course, but the caveat of avoiding a stereotyped aesthetic must always be observed.
Best of luck!
