Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What do you think about my Art?

Rate this topic


MissLemon

Recommended Posts

The contentiousness in this thread is accomplishing nothing. Knock it off.

Agreed.

This thread has been about judging and comparing student-grade paintings, including MissLemon's, Ifat's and the painting by Maria Schaeffers. I think that each of their works has appealing features, and each has obvious flaws which clearly indicate the areas in which they lack knowledge and experience. There are many aspects of their craft that they each need to work on.

With that in mind, reading Ifat's posts has been like watching the 978,215th rated artist in the world venting her anger that no one has joined her in thrashing the 978,267th rated artist in the world.

J

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:P Nice one.

Those melting keys of Schaeffers' have really become a talking -point. Just to get in my 2cents, the key in the lock is obviously, and surely deliberately, hanging loosely out of the lock.

The whole perspective is affected by this; as much as optical distortion, and yes, perhaps, poor technique of elliptical perspective, and who knows, deliberate distortion by the artist.

The upshot is an absorbing picture, whether by accident or design, that the purists here would like to see "corrected". I think it should stand as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please establish that the keys don't really look like they are melting?

Something which "looks melted" doesn't have to appear to be in a purely liquid state. People often say that the objects in this Dali painting look melted:

http://www.cowart.info/blog/uploaded_image...mory-703915.jpg

So rather than turn the conversation into a discussion on semantics, and on whether MissLemon should have said "the objects look somewhat melted, or as if they've begun to bend from starting to melt," people might want to try to grasp the substance of her point, and, if they think they can, demonstrate that she is wrong.

Besides, MissLemon isn't the only person to have commented on the image's distortion, so her somewhat metaphorical or casual use of "melted" isn't the only word in play. In addition to "melted," I used the words "twisted" and "distorted," and I described the painting's perspective problems, and I even posted a tutorial about a system which can be used to measure the problems. Will anyone be addressing any of those issues, or posting any images to try to mock my choice of words or to deny the technical problems that I've pointed out?

Btw, speaking of Dali, here's a section of a painting of his which is said to have been Rand's favorite painting.

It's distorted. Can anyone here identify what's wrong with the perspective and proportions?

J

*** Mod's note: For continuing discussion on the Dali painting referred above, see this topic. sN ***

Edited by softwareNerd
Topic split
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How should we go about determining who is qualified to comment on art, and who can rightfully say that their evaluations represent some sort of ultimate "objective, observable nature" of a work of art, as Ifat seemed to be claiming earlier in regard to the evaluations that she makes (while seeming to imply that my evaluations, and those of others, are not up to her objective standards).

When talking about judging art, shouldn't we first establish criteria to judge how aesthetically competent those doing the judging are?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am completely not sucked into the "keys" image. At least with the play of colors in the paint tubes drawing I wanted to look at the image to try to understand where the artist was coming from (even if I didn't get there).

"Unlocked" demonstrated a lot of technical ability but there is nothing overly interesting or exciting about it as art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art is Re-creation of reality according to an artist metaphysical value judgement - it means that an artist creates something that he considers important and which is inspiring to him - something that combines elements of that which exists (reality) but according to his implicit metaphysics - his view of the essential nature of the world and of man and how they relate to one another.

For example, if a composer writes a victory marsh he is implicitly describing his view of man's relation to the world: Man is a creature fit to succeed in a world that has obstacles which can be overcome. If the victory marsh is full of music describing suffering - his view of the world is that it is a harsh place.

So, when an artist paints an image of keys and a lock, and the image has somewhat realistic lighting and surface textures, but also has "melted," twisted or distorted proportions and perspective planes, then that must mean that the objective meaning of the painting is that reality only seems to be knowable on the surface, but that it can suddenly and randomly disobey the rules of reality at any moment?

In contrast to that, MissLemon selected bold, simple forms, bright lighting and saturated colors, and she arranged the forms in a composition which suggests energy and intensity. Her painting therefore communicates the metaphysical view that mankind should be potent and happy, and that humans should improve their world -- the paint tubes convey the idea that mankind can color (and otherwise alter) existence as he rationally sees fit.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have learned from this thread:

My strong points are perhaps some basic skills, an eye for composition and an interest in perspective and proportion. I will continue to draw and paint with the goal of improving on these strengths.

I need to focus on purpose most of all since without that, nothing I create will have any real meaning other than the building of my technical skills.

Thanks to everyone for helping pinpoint some of the strengths and weaknesses of my creations. I may post more of my work as I continue to study and create, but probably only the finished pieces...

A couple of comments about critiquing art in general and the discussion on Dali:

I think one does not need to be an artist to offer opinions on art. All one needs is well, vision and an opinion. The intent of the artist doesn't matter as much as the attributes of the finished product, which we are all free to comment on and discuss, forever, even if the artist is long dead.

Does this in any way dispute what Ayn Rand had to say about art?

Miss Lemon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Actually, it is distortion. The image's perspective does not conform to what would be seen in reality.

This just shows that you don't have an idea what Ayn Rand wrote about art. She never said every detail in a painting needs to be like a photo. She said that the aesthetic value of a work of art is measured by how well the rendering and all elements in the painting serve to illustrate its theme. For example, in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark never goes to the restroom, even though a normal person does. This is intentional because that detail has nothing to do with the theme (which is Individualism). The same goes for visual art. Blurring out unimportant parts can serve the aesthetic value of the piece a lot more than enhancing every detail.

What someone called "melted" is, I suppose how the textures looked shiny and smooth - unlike a real key which has a more sharp texture and edges. The texture enhances the way one experiences the keys as a treasure. If the keys were like a photo it would no longer be art, it would be a picture of keys. Judging "focus" has to be done in relation to the theme of a piece.

The focus is measured by how clearly the theme is illustrated. In The Fountainhead, for example, the theme is exhibited in a very clear, accurate manner because the philosophy behind the theme (behind individualism) is fully clarified in Ayn Rand's mind. And, as a result, every dialog demonstrates the characters and the theme in a crystal clear manner. Had she not thought out the philosophy behind the theme, or took the time to identify it consciously, it is likely she would not have consistently illustrated it and so more random elements would have been added.

In the drawing of the keys, the theme is enjoyment of every day life. This is illustrated by the fact that an ordinary set of keys is rendered as if it were a treasure: smooth and shiny and in the very center of the drawing, viewed from an unusual angle, showing that to look at the keys from that angle, one would have to bend close to them to observe them closely, rather than view them from the usual angle they appear when one unlocks a door. All those serve to focus the mind of the viewer on the theme (on how every day objects can be enjoyed). This has an implied view of existence and of human nature.

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...