Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Non Objective art

Rate this topic


Jonathan13

Recommended Posts

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

I'm not understanding what you're saying. I thought that you were proposing a hypothetical in which you identified a texture as representing rugged individualism. Now you're saying that you wouldn't recognize it as such.

Do you mean that you don't accept that a specific texture that you actually had in mind (but didn't show us) can represent rugged individualism (or at least play a significant part in representing it when combined with other abstract elements), or are you saying that no texture could possibly represent toughness, and that it therefore could not be used to represent rugged individualism?

I mean, even Rand claimed that a blotched, cracked texture could represent decay and degradation, so I'm not understanding why anyone would argue that textures can't convey quite a lot of information, including on a "metaphysical value" level.

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.

Does the fact that you're not convinced prove anything other than that you don't respond to abstract art? How would anyone prove to you that they experience what you don't? Someone who is tone-deaf could take your same approach and say that music does not do what you say it does, and that you're just making stuff up (along with everyone else who claims that music "communicates" something). What would you say in response?

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.

Pretty vague. If fact, your explanation is still much more vague and indecisive than my analyses of the abstract paintings. It doesn't appear that recognizable objects add to your ability to identify subjects or find meaning in still lifes.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not understanding what you're saying. I thought that you were proposing a hypothetical in which you identified a texture as representing rugged individualism. Now you're saying that you wouldn't recognize it as such.

Do you mean that you don't accept that a specific texture that you actually had in mind (but didn't show us) can represent rugged individualism (or at least play a significant part in representing it when combined with other abstract elements), or are you saying that no texture could possibly represent toughness, and that it therefore could not be used to represent rugged individualism?

I mean, even Rand claimed that a blotched, cracked texture could represent decay and degradation, so I'm not understanding why anyone would argue that textures can't convey quite a lot of information, including on a "metaphysical value" level.

My point is, what if I just start making stuff up with fanciful descriptions? If you doubt my claims i'll refer you to my friends, or suggest that you might be dysfunctional.

Not a very convincing case though, is it?

I'm saying that a texture by itself is just a "pattern". Within the right context though it can be used to describe certain attributes.

Does the fact that you're not convinced prove anything other than that you don't respond to abstract art? How would anyone prove to you that they experience what you don't? Someone who is tone-deaf could take your same approach and say that music does not do what you say it does, and that you're just making stuff up (along with everyone else who claims that music "communicates" something). What would you say in response?

Tone-deaf people are dysfunctional in their ability to distinguish relative pitches. I have seen no evidence to suggest that my abilities in the visual arts are dysfunctional in a similar way. In fact, I can distinguish light and color fairly accurately and I have no problems seeing shape and form.

For the record, I didn't say that I dont respond to abstract art. As a matter of fact, I do respond to some of it. I think that combinations of colors, values, shapes and forms can have a psychological impact. However, I do not think that abstract art can concretize abstractions. It may cause feelings or sensations, but whatever meaning you put into them comes from your imagination.

I can make an analogy to product design. Take the iPhone for example. It's something that alot of people find desirable, very much thanks to it's design. A little fascinating considering it's basically a square with rounded corners. However, what makes it so sucessfull is how the bevels and fillets are shaped, where even tiny differences effect how we feel, and the material/texture and color that helps us relate to how it would be to interact with it(and create the sensations when we're actually interacting).

Very much like your abstract art, is it not? However, even though Steve Jobs probably would like to call it art, it really isn't. Millions of people may experience similar feelings and sensations, but it's only a successful design.

Pretty vague. If fact, your explanation is still much more vague and indecisive than my analyses of the abstract paintings. It doesn't appear that recognizable objects add to your ability to identify subjects or find meaning in still lifes.

J

It may not have been the most elaborate explanation, but I don't think I was vague. I mean, the value range is pretty even with mid-greys in foreground and darker values in the bagground/negative spaces - nothing really stands out there. The colors are very saturated though, especially the reds and oranges with the greens helping them "pop". Saturated colors are often used to suggest life, vitality, energy or prosperity. Considering there is an energetic feel to the painting that's probably what the artist was after. If you want a really good explanation you should get in touch with those post-modernists selling their feces for millions. I'm not sure what they'll tell you, but their pitches have to be something really amazing.

I usually don't care for still lifes other than to admire some artists techniques. Actually, there's very little art I care for other than admiring technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is, what if I just start making stuff up with fanciful descriptions? If you doubt my claims i'll refer you to my friends, or suggest that you might be dysfunctional.

The same can be said of anyone's descriptions of what they see in any realist/figurative painting, and of what meaning they claim to get out of it. The same could also be said of the meaning that anyone claims to find in any work of architecture or music.

Not a very convincing case though, is it?

I'm saying that a texture by itself is just a "pattern". Within the right context though it can be used to describe certain attributes.

That's exactly what I'm saying: Textures combined with colors and abstract shapes can be used to communicate certain attributes -- including human emotions, attitudes or personalities -- which can add up to meaning.

Tone-deaf people are dysfunctional in their ability to distinguish relative pitches. I have seen no evidence to suggest that my abilities in the visual arts are dysfunctional in a similar way. In fact, I can distinguish light and color fairly accurately and I have no problems seeing shape and form.

Have you actually taken any tests which rate your visual/spatial abilities in comparison to others, or your ability to harmonize colors similar to the way that tones are harmonized to form musical chords? Have others here, who don't respond to abstract art, been tested to see how well they respond to things such as facial or body language, or the "personality" or "attitude" that various colors or forms can suggest, etc.?

For the record, I didn't say that I dont respond to abstract art. As a matter of fact, I do respond to some of it. I think that combinations of colors, values, shapes and forms can have a psychological impact. However, I do not think that abstract art can concretize abstractions. It may cause feelings or sensations, but whatever meaning you put into them comes from your imagination.

Many people believe that the same is true of music. In fact, Rand herself said that we cannot tell which aspects of the meaning that people think they get from music are actually contained in the music and which are put into it by listeners' imaginations. So, again, we have a double standard in the Objectivist Esthetics: It's okay for people to not be able to objectively prove that they're not just "making stuff up with fanciful descriptions" when it comes to music, but it's not okay when they can't objectively prove what is or is not contained in abstract art -- music is categorized as glorious art, where abstract art is categorized as a vicious assault on rationality and all values.

I can make an analogy to product design. Take the iPhone for example. It's something that alot of people find desirable, very much thanks to it's design. A little fascinating considering it's basically a square with rounded corners. However, what makes it so sucessfull is how the bevels and fillets are shaped, where even tiny differences effect how we feel, and the material/texture and color that helps us relate to how it would be to interact with it(and create the sensations when we're actually interacting).

Very much like your abstract art, is it not?

And it's also very much like architecture, and very much like music.

However, even though Steve Jobs probably would like to call it art, it really isn't. Millions of people may experience similar feelings and sensations, but it's only a successful design.

If it gives people a "sense of life" response, and says something significant to them in the way that architecture or music did to Rand, then I would say that it is art in the same sense, or, conversely, if the criteria are such that the aesthetics of product design cannot qualify as art, then the same is true of architecture and music.

To me it's about consistency as opposed to certain people's feelings (or lack thereof) somehow vetoing or invalidating others' feelings -- if the feelings that Rand experienced while listening to music or viewing architecture allow both forms to qualify as art, then the feelings that others have while viewing abstract art allow it to qualify as art.

It may not have been the most elaborate explanation, but I don't think I was vague. I mean, the value range is pretty even with mid-greys in foreground and darker values in the bagground/negative spaces - nothing really stands out there. The colors are very saturated though, especially the reds and oranges with the greens helping them "pop". Saturated colors are often used to suggest life, vitality, energy or prosperity. Considering there is an energetic feel to the painting that's probably what the artist was after.

The same is true of some of the abstract paintings in the right-hand column. Everything you've said about the painting of the leaves could be said about the abstract paintings.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Language is the medium of literature. Needing to know the language is not equivalent to needing to know how to understand a book. In order to read Atlas Shrugged in the original language having the skill of reading in English is required but having the Cliff's Notes on it is not.

Objectivity acknowledges and requires a knowing subject. So if I did not understand English then a novel in English would not be art to me in a very real first-handed sense. I could still acknowledge that other people who can read it treat it as art. There is no sense in which looking at a painting is like learning a language.

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.

No, you are missing the point of abstract act, which is to abstract. Abstraction is a process of omission. All of the attributes which remain on an abstract paintings canvas are to be recognized and still found ridiculously trivial compared even to a boring still life of a flower arrangement.

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?
Everytime you repeat it.

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?

It would help.

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?

Yes.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. .....

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.

Refutation: Black Circle, Kazimir Malevich, 1913-15

Black_circle.jpg

And the stunning sequel, Black Square 1913

Black_Square.jpg

IKB 191, Yves Klein, 1962

IKB_191.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Language is the medium of literature. Needing to know the language is not equivalent to needing to know how to understand a book. In order to read Atlas Shrugged in the original language having the skill of reading in English is required but having the Cliff's Notes on it is not.

Objectivity acknowledges and requires a knowing subject. So if I did not understand English then a novel in English would not be art to me in a very real first-handed sense. I could still acknowledge that other people who can read it treat it as art. There is no sense in which looking at a painting is like learning a language.

Really? Then why are there people like Luc Travers out there promoting podcasts designed to teach people how to "read" the visual information in a painting? Why are such presentations being marketed specifically to Objectivists? It seems that he believes that there's a market for teaching Objectivists the language of the visual arts, and on quite an elementary level, and that's rather odd if looking at a painting is in no sense like learning a language.

All of the attributes which remain on an abstract paintings canvas are to be recognized and still found ridiculously trivial compared even to a boring still life of a flower arrangement.

You're still stuck on basing everything on your limitations and lack of emotional responses, which are not an objective standard by which to judge anything.

It would help.

And yet you still haven't identified the subject, meaning and "metaphysical value-judgments" in the realist painting to which I posted a link to a fifteen inch image. It doesn't appear to have helped at all.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Then why are there people like Luc Travers out there promoting podcasts designed to teach people how to "read" the visual information in a painting? Why are such presentations being marketed specifically to Objectivists? It seems that he believes that there's a market for teaching Objectivists the language of the visual arts, and on quite an elementary level, and that's quite odd if looking at a painting is in no sense like learning a language.

When there is something there to talk about, that is fine. In abstract art there is not enough content.

Black Circle, Kazimir Malevich, 1913-15

Black_circle.jpg

And the stunning sequel, Black Square 1913

Black_Square.jpg

IKB 191, Yves Klein, 1962

IKB_191.jpg

Show us your artistic chops and display your fine sensitivities by discussing these paintings.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same can be said of anyone's descriptions of what they see in any realist/figurative painting, and of what meaning they claim to get out of it. The same could also be said of the meaning that anyone claims to find in any work of architecture or music.

When I say this depicts a chivalrous knight coming to save the lady in distress, I can in fact point to the guy in armor about to sheath his sword, the other guy laying beaten on the ground and the lady tied to the tree. With music maybe someone well versed in musical theory can explain how it works, but the fact is that people will fairly universally get the same message. Responses may differ, but there's rarely any doubt if it's a romantic song or a heroic piece.

It's pretty hard to miss what Dicksee's painting is about, and it's hard to miss the heroism in Hans Zimmers Knight's March:

Like it or not, you're still going to "get it".

Are there abstract painting that can do the same?

That's exactly what I'm saying: Textures combined with colors and abstract shapes can be used to communicate certain attributes -- including human emotions, attitudes or personalities -- which can add up to meaning.

But an abstract shape is not really a context. A square or a circle doesn't really tell me what that texture belongs to.

Have you actually taken any tests which rate your visual/spatial abilities in comparison to others, or your ability to harmonize colors similar to the way that tones are harmonized to form musical chords? Have others here, who don't respond to abstract art, been tested to see how well they respond to things such as facial or body language, or the "personality" or "attitude" that various colors or forms can suggest, etc.?

No, I haven't taken any tests, but I can say with confidence that my abilities would exceed any untrained eyes. Also, I would have noticed if I was dysfunctional in any such regard.

Many people believe that the same is true of music. In fact, Rand herself said that we cannot tell which aspects of the meaning that people think they get from music are actually contained in the music and which are put into it by listeners' imaginations. So, again, we have a double standard in the Objectivist Esthetics: It's okay for people to not be able to objectively prove that they're not just "making stuff up with fanciful descriptions" when it comes to music, but it's not okay when they can't objectively prove what is or is not contained in abstract art -- music is categorized as glorious art, where abstract art is categorized as a vicious assault on rationality and all values.

What exactly did she say and in what context?

And it's also very much like architecture, and very much like music.

Not exactly. The only abstract ideas communicated by product designs are those tied to the utilitarian aspects of the product. It's like accelerated lines on a car with the right proportions will communicate "fast" or "sporty". I think what i've written previously on painting and music covers them, but let's touch on architecture. Architecture is different because it fundamentally deals with man's place on earth. This is by it's very nature of covering the fundamental need of shelter. If a painting shows a "microcosm" then architecture would be more like "macrocosm", it creates it's own world for man to live in. That makes it fundamentally different from any other artistic pratice.

If it gives people a "sense of life" response, and says something significant to them in the way that architecture or music did to Rand, then I would say that it is art in the same sense, or, conversely, if the criteria are such that the aesthetics of product design cannot qualify as art, then the same is true of architecture and music.

No, I think architecture and music can "say something significant" and communicate a sense of life, but I don't think product designs can do that. At best they could perhaps communicate some sense of life(like for instance how choice of cars are often tied to lifestyles and such preferences).

To me it's about consistency as opposed to certain people's feelings (or lack thereof) somehow vetoing or invalidating others' feelings -- if the feelings that Rand experienced while listening to music or viewing architecture allow both forms to qualify as art, then the feelings that others have while viewing abstract art allow it to qualify as art.

I don't think anyones feelings are a good criteria for qualifying anything as art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show us your artistic chops and display your fine sensitivities by discussing these paintings.

I would say the first painting gives me the feeling of enjoying the unexpected or seemingly contradictory. The circle seems to have great mass, yet the image has compositional motion and lightness. Its high contrast, lack of hue, and rather precise rendering gives me a feeling of formal seriousness, but the off-centeredness adds a sense of playfullness. Translated to more physically detailed terms, I would say that the image gives the sort of feeling that I might get from seeing something like a large defensive lineman doing ballet, and doing it surprisingly well. The meaning I get out of the image is valuing discovering the unexpected, or moving beyond conventional methods of thinking or seeing.

The second image gives the feeling of being in the presence of power. It is balanced, perfectly proportioned and immobile, but enveloping me or pulling me in. (The scan is rotated about 0.5 degrees CCW, but I'm asssuming that is an error made by whomever scanned and posted it online.) The image implies power to me, but it doesn't seem to suggest either passionate good or evil, but dispassionate amorality. Translated to Aristotelian/Randian terms, I'd say that it is an Immovable Mover. The meaning that I get out of it is that man is godlike.

As for the third image, I think I'd need to see it in person to judge it. As it's showing up on my monitor, it is way outside the gamma range of reflective colors and therefore is very unlikely to be an accurate representation of the original. I suspect that the original has an intensity that can't be matched digitally, or is very difficult to match digitally (the same can be true of certain orange tones and lime greens).

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say this depicts a chivalrous knight coming to save the lady in distress, I can in fact point to the guy in armor about to sheath his sword, the other guy laying beaten on the ground and the lady tied to the tree.

And someone could also point to the content of the painting when claiming that the man on the ground is the hero who came to rescue the woman, and the man who just slew him is the villain who captured her. The woman could be interpreted as not expressing joy and relief, but shock.

The artist apparently wanted us to see the hero's face, regardless of how it might affect the "story" that the image conveys, so he painted him without head gear, which is pretty odd for a knight riding up knowing that he'll be entering battle. On the other hand, the slain villain is wearing head gear, or at least the lower part of it, where in reality he probably wouldn't be doing so while tying a woman to a tree. So the visual information could reasonably be seen as supporting the interpretation that the hero is the man in the image who has been slain and the perpetrator is now free to have his way with the woman. The red cloth at the woman's feet could be seen as symbolizing her lifeblood leaving her -- that she is recognizing her fate and losing all hope.

With music maybe someone well versed in musical theory can explain how it works, but the fact is that people will fairly universally get the same message. Responses may differ, but there's rarely any doubt if it's a romantic song or a heroic piece.

There's rarely any doubt that an abstract painting is joyous or chaotic or solemn or light or imposing.

Like it or not, you're still going to "get it".

Ditto abstract art.

Are there abstract painting that can do the same?

To you? Apparently not. To others? Yes.

But an abstract shape is not really a context.

I didn't say that an abstract shape was a context. My point was that the combination of abstract shapes, colors and textures can work together to provide a context and meaning in a painting or sculpture just as effectively as they do in architecture.

A square or a circle doesn't really tell me what that texture belongs to.

I get it already: I understand that it doesn't tell you anything.

On the other hand, a square or circle told Frank Lloyd Wright a lot. He thought such shapes were loaded with meaning. He seems to have known what he was talking about. Do you think it's possible that he might have known more about it than you do, and that he therefore could experience more than you do and create on a level that you can't? Is that at least a possibility?

No, I haven't taken any tests, but I can say with confidence that my abilities would exceed any untrained eyes. Also, I would have noticed if I was dysfunctional in any such regard.

I'm not saying that you'd necessarily have to be "dysfunctional." One who scores poorly compared to others doesn't necessarily qualify as being dysfunctional. Anyway, do you think most people notice and are openly accepting of their dysfunctions or limitations compared to others? In my experience, people are often very emotionally attached to the idea that they're not only normal, but quite special, especially when it comes to something like tastes and judgments of art. They're usually very strongly attached to the belief that they're very refined and sensitive, and that everyone else is an unwashed bumpkin (or sometimes evil and/or insane).

What exactly did she say and in what context?

Are you asking me what she said about the subjectivity of music, or are you asking me which moral and psychological judgments she made of people who create or enjoy abstract art? If the former, then she said, "In listening to music, a man cannot tell clearly, neither to himself nor to others -- and, therefore, cannot prove -- which aspects of his experience are inherent in the music and which are contributed by his own consciousness." (RM, p.55) If the latter, then I'd say start reading at about page 76 of the Romantic Manifesto, and there are other sources where she made similar comments, but I don't have time to hunt them down at the moment.

Not exactly. The only abstract ideas communicated by product designs are those tied to the utilitarian aspects of the product. It's like accelerated lines on a car with the right proportions will communicate "fast" or "sporty".

I disagree. Automotive aesthetics can communicate any number of concepts, from "elegant" to "masculine" to "lighthearted" to "casual" to "powerful," etc. There's no limit to what forms, colors and texures can communicate. And I think there are probably many more people who respond deeply to the aesthetics of automotive design than to architecture.

I think what i've written previously on painting and music covers them, but let's touch on architecture. Architecture is different because it fundamentally deals with man's place on earth. This is by it's very nature of covering the fundamental need of shelter. If a painting shows a "microcosm" then architecture would be more like "macrocosm", it creates it's own world for man to live in.

Yes, architecture creates -- not "re-creates" in the Randian sense -- an actual living space, not an imaginary one. Rand's view of art is that it re-creates, and that what it re-creates is imaginary, not real.

That makes it fundamentally different from any other artistic pratice.

No, aesthetically it's not different from the other forms. It works in the same way as abstract sculpture. It's an issue of the expressiveness of form, color, texture and proportion.

No, I think architecture and music can "say something significant" and communicate a sense of life, but I don't think product designs can do that.

And you've come to that opinion based on what? On your feelings?

I don't think anyones feelings are a good criteria for qualifying anything as art.

Good, then you either have to agree that abstract art and product design can be art, or that architecture and music are not art.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I would say the first painting gives me the feeling of ...

The second image gives the feeling of ...

As for the third image, I think I'd need to see it in person to judge it.

That is a thread killer response. I can't argue against your feelings, nor can you argue I should feel what you feel. Non-objective art simply leaves nothing to talk about.

Speaking of Luc Travers,

on the VanDamme Academy youtube channel. This is the painting he is discussing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Luc Travers,

on the VanDamme Academy youtube channel. This is the painting he is discussing.

Thank you for linking to Mr. Traver's talk at the VanDamme Academy, it is outstanding. In fact I started a thread praising it and linking to it and to another set of videos of VDA's Literature curriculum here. I cannot say enough good things about him and his approach. I think everyone should view those videos and this is coming from an art appreciation novice.

Do you know of any other material available by him?

Your link to "This is the painting" is not working. It goes somewhere but doesn't present the painting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a thread killer response. I can't argue against your feelings, nor can you argue I should feel what you feel. Non-objective art simply leaves nothing to talk about.

Why did you selectively quote only the parts where I wrote about my feelings and ignore the parts where I wrote about the objectively identifiable characteristics in the paintings, such as mass, compositional motion, contrast, lack of hue, precision in rendering, balance, proportion, and immobility, and the meanings they imply? I wonder how you'd respond if I did the same thing and selectively quoted Rand talking about the feelings that she had when looking at paintings or listening to music.

Also, it's odd that you'd claim that sharing what one feels when experiencing a work of non-objective art leaves nothing to talk about. I've frequently seen Objectivists, including Rand, saying quite a lot about the feelings they've gotten from music -- a non-objective art form -- and their comments are no more objective than my comments on the feelings I get from abstract paintings. In fact, their comments are less objective.

Speaking of Luc Travers,

on the VanDamme Academy youtube channel. This is the painting he is discussing.

Um, when viewing the painting under Travers' guidance, did you happen to notice, unlike Travers, that Joan is leaning against a tree, and that her right hand is merely loosely closed and not rigidly "clenched," and that therefore she is not presenting the rigid body language that Travers quite erroneously describes? Also, have you noticed all of the references to "outside considerations" that Travers eventually makes when analyzing paintings?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. My last post was a little too negative and unfair to Travers. I mentioned only his mistakes and what I take to be his inconsistencies. I also think that he's got a lot of passion, that his videos can be informative and fun, and I think he's probably helping a lot of people see things in ways that they hadn't before. So, good for him.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did you selectively quote only the parts where I wrote about my feelings and ignore the parts where I wrote about the objectively identifiable characteristics in the paintings, such as mass, compositional motion, contrast, lack of hue, precision in rendering, balance, proportion, and immobility, and the meanings they imply? I wonder how you'd respond if I did the same thing and selectively quoted Rand talking about the feelings that she had when looking at paintings or listening to music.

Why do those identifiable characteristics create the corresponding reactions in you? Is there any possibility of establishing a normative case for any particular set of reactions, that people should in general react a certain way to particular elementary characteristics?

Also, it's odd that you'd claim that sharing what one feels when experiencing a work of non-objective art leaves nothing to talk about. I've frequently seen Objectivists, including Rand, saying quite a lot about the feelings they've gotten from music -- a non-objective art form -- and their comments are no more objective than my comments on the feelings I get from abstract paintings. In fact, their comments are less objective.

"Having nothing to talk about" does not mean that people do not talk (or write) anyway, just that there is no way to argue that anyone should react to music in a particular manner because of the properties of the music. Rand had strong opinions and some people slavishly followed her lead during the Branden dark ages, but there is no case for concluding that people who like Beethoven are somehow objectively wrong.

Um, when viewing the painting under Travers' guidance, did you happen to notice, unlike Travers, that Joan is leaning against a tree, and that her right hand is merely loosely closed and not rigidly "clenched," and that therefore she is not presenting the rigid body language that Travers quite erroneously describes? Also, have you noticed all of the references to "outside considerations" that Travers eventually makes when analyzing paintings?

I get the impression she is walking because only one foot is forward and visible, she is advancing on her destiny and reaching out to grasp it. She is neither rigid nor leaning on a tree.

The painting stands on its own without outside considerations, but adding a context by explaining the story behind it gives it more meaning. This also constitutes "something to talk about".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do those identifiable characteristics create the corresponding reactions in you? Is there any possibility of establishing a normative case for any particular set of reactions, that people should in general react a certain way to particular elementary characteristics?

I doubt it, just as there's probably no possibility of establishing a normative case for how people should react to any work of art. Why did Rand interpret Capuletti's or Vermeer's work as representing certain ideas when there were just as many reasons to interpret it in any number of alternate ways?

"Having nothing to talk about" does not mean that people do not talk (or write) anyway, just that there is no way to argue that anyone should react to music in a particular manner because of the properties of the music.

So, are you saying that your notion of when it is acceptable to talk about something is only when the matter being discussed is purely objective? You seem to be saying that the only value that one could get out of a discussion about art is telling others how they should react to it -- that if one can't objectively tell others how they should react, then one "has nothing to talk about," and should just shut up. Is that your view? Do you see no value in understanding others' perspectives, or possibly learning to see things that you might have misperceived or failed to notice?

Rand had strong opinions and some people slavishly followed her lead during the Branden dark ages, but there is no case for concluding that people who like Beethoven are somehow objectively wrong.

I agree that there's no case for concluding that people who like Beethoven are wrong. There's also no case for concluding that people who like any work of art are wrong.

And, btw, people's slavishly following Rand's strong opinions wasn't limited to the "Branden dark ages."

I get the impression she is walking because only one foot is forward and visible, she is advancing on her destiny and reaching out to grasp it. She is neither rigid nor leaning on a tree.

She is leaning against the tree. Here's a better scan of the painting. It's really a simple matter of lighting and perspective: The shadow that her arm casts on the tree trunk is one of the darkest areas on the canvas, and the placement of the woman, her shadow and the tree in the perspective of the space puts her shoulder against the tree. Apparently Travers has talked you into seeing things not as they are, but as he misinterpreted them.

The painting stands on its own without outside considerations...

It depends on what you mean by "stands on its own." If you mean that one can successfully identify the "artist's meaning" as required by Rand's proposed method of "objective esthetic judgment," then I don't think it stands on its own. As much difficulty as you and Travers have had in identifying something as simple as the position of objects and the body language in a painting, it doesn't seem likely that you be able to accomplish the much more complex task of finding meaning without relying on outside considerations.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it, just as there's probably no possibility of establishing a normative case for how people should react to any work of art. Why did Rand interpret Capuletti's or Vermeer's work as representing certain ideas when there were just as many reasons to interpret it in any number of alternate ways?

Representational art is interpreted by identifying what is represented. It is the interpretation that is objective and which can be argued for, not the reaction.

So, are you saying that your notion of when it is acceptable to talk about something is only when the matter being discussed is purely objective? You seem to be saying that the only value that one could get out of a discussion about art is telling others how they should react to it -- that if one can't objectively tell others how they should react, then one "has nothing to talk about," and should just shut up. Is that your view? Do you see no value in understanding others' perspectives, or possibly learning to see things that you might have misperceived or failed to notice?

That is not my view. Your attempt to establish that the figure of Jeanne in the discussed painting is leaning on a tree is a perfect example of acceptable discussion, the identification of what is depicted. On the other hand, "Black Circle" was an off center square, black on white background. What more is there to say to identify what it is? Measurements could be specified for the size of the circle and to define its off center placement within the frame, and nothing else. The rest of your own interpretation of "Black Circle" was describing the subjective feelings it pulled out of you, and I can't follow you there if I don't feel it myself (and I don't).

I agree that there's no case for concluding that people who like Beethoven are wrong. There's also no case for concluding that people who like any work of art are wrong.

And, btw, people's slavishly following Rand's strong opinions wasn't limited to the "Branden dark ages."

All emotional reactions ("... the off-centeredness adds a sense of playfullness ..." or "liking") are beyond the bounds of what can be argued for. But if I insisted the figure in "Black Circle" was a triangle then I would be flat wrong and you could prove it was a circle. Your proof would be valid regardless of whether I accepted it or stubbornly clung to my triangle theory.

She is leaning against the tree. Here's a better scan of the painting. It's really a simple matter of lighting and perspective: The shadow that her arm casts on the tree trunk is one of the darkest areas on the canvas, and the placement of the woman, her shadow and the tree in the perspective of the space puts her shoulder against the tree. Apparently Travers has talked you into seeing things not as they are, but as he misinterpreted them.

I see what you mean here, and will conclude she is at least touching the tree with her shoulder. But I cannot reconcile her knocking over her chair in startlement with her now leaning on a tree. If she needed help standing up in her shock she would be grasping the tree trunk with her hand not having it reach out. She is not putting weight on the tree or relying on it for support, but perhaps it is the touch of it and the feel of leaves she has in her hand that reassure her and support her emotionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not my view. Your attempt to establish that the figure of Jeanne in the discussed painting is leaning on a tree is a perfect example of acceptable discussion, the identification of what is depicted.

What about Travers' attempts to identify what Joan is thinking and feeling? Would you say that that is an objective "identification of what is depicted"?

On the other hand, "Black Circle" was an off center square, black on white background. What more is there to say to identify what it is?

What's more to be said is the human characteristics or expressions that colors, shapes and their relationships can suggest, just as facial expressions and body language can. As I mentioned earlier on this thread somewhere, Frank Lloyd Wright believed that circles and squares could suggest or symbolize great meaning, and Rand apparently similarly believed that the abstract forms of architecture could deliver meaning and portray metaphysical-level concepts (such as sweeping and soaring, etc.). They were right, and the same abstract forms can suggest the same concepts when not associated with a utilitarian purpose.

Measurements could be specified for the size of the circle and to define its off center placement within the frame, and nothing else.

Someone who has difficulty reading facial expressions and body language could say the same about realist paintings -- that you could measure the figures and report what positions they were in, but nothing else. How would you establish objective criteria for determining whether or not a person is lacking in the ability to understand facial or body language, versus that others are just subjectively imagining that they see expression in a figure's pose? Likewise, how would you objectively prove that your inability to read the expressiveness of abstract shapes is anything but an indication of your lacking an ability which others possess?

The rest of your own interpretation of "Black Circle" was describing the subjective feelings it pulled out of you, and I can't follow you there if I don't feel it myself (and I don't).

Then the same is true of Travers' comments on the Joan of Arc painting. It's also true of Rand's interpretations of painters such as Vermeer and Capuletti. Travers and Rand didn't limit themselves to objectively describing what they saw when analyzing paintings, but what those painting meant to them, and in doing so they introduced a lot of subjectivity. Any attempt to identify and evaluate meaning in art inevitably results in a high degree of subjectivity. It's the nature of art. It's an emotional medium, and judging an emotional medium purely objectively can't be done.

Rand said that "an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it." I have never seen anyone employ Rand's method, including Rand, at least not without sneaking a lot of subjectivity into their evaluations, as well as outside considerations. If you think that you've seen a purely objective evaluation of a work of art using Rand's stated method, I'd love to read it.

All emotional reactions ("... the off-centeredness adds a sense of playfullness ..." or "liking") are beyond the bounds of what can be argued for. But if I insisted the figure in "Black Circle" was a triangle then I would be flat wrong and you could prove it was a circle. Your proof would be valid regardless of whether I accepted it or stubbornly clung to my triangle theory.

So, is arguing about what Joan of Arc is experiencing and thinking in the Bastien-Lepage painting something that is also beyond the bounds of what can be argued for? I don't agree with Travers that she is "somewhat" experiencing "tension and fright." There is nothing in the image that is objectively communicating tension or fear. So would you call Travers' interpretation objective?

I see what you mean here, and will conclude she is at least touching the tree with her shoulder. But I cannot reconcile her knocking over her chair in startlement with her now leaning on a tree.

Where did you get the idea that she must have knocked over the chair in startlement? Again, I think you're listening to Travers' subjective reactions rather than looking with your own eyes and considering that there are reasonable alternatives. She could have been working at her loom when the idea or image of angels entered her mind, then slowly and distractedly stood and wandered off from her work, absent-mindedly knocking the stool over as she left. There could be any number of reasons that the chair was knocked over other than startlement.

I think some of Travers' interpretations are rather literalist and limited. For example, he seems to see the visiting angels as being physically present and behind Joan. Many people see them as simply representing what's in her mind. In other words, as is true of other paintings of similar subjects, such as the one by Bussiere that Travers also discusses in his video series, the angels are a vision -- they are something like a sophisticated version of a cartoon thought-bubble which allows the viewer to see what the figure is envisioning.

If she needed help standing up in her shock she would be grasping the tree trunk with her hand not having it reach out.

I don't see her as in a state of shock. I see her as having wandered from her chore to lean against the tree when the angels entered her thoughts. Unlike Travers, I see her as being in the process of hearing and seeing the angel's communications rather than taking her leave of them after they'd finished.

She is not putting weight on the tree or relying on it for support...

She's leaning against the tree, as anyone might when lost in thought or when envisioning something. Try Travers' method of getting into her pose, but instead of doing so in open space, as Travers did, try it against a door frame. I think you might see how far off Travers is.

Another thing you might want to do is to imagine Joan and the tree as being made up of many segments of cylinders to get a better sense of what is going on in the perspective of the space. Or go even further and study the art of perspective. Joan is leaning against the tree, just as clearly as a circle is a circle and not a triangle.

...but perhaps it is the touch of it and the feel of leaves she has in her hand that reassure her and support her emotionally.

You seem to be focusing way too much on the toppled stool and the idea that it absolutely MUST indicate startlement. There are other options which don't require imagining that the character is expressing emotions and doing things that she's not.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Existence Identity Consciousness

Reason Self-esteem Purpose

A = A

“When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it.” -Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto, pg 34.

Romantic Manifesto Index pg 181-182:

Art as and end in itself. 4-5

Art as a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. 7-8, 22, 35, 65-66, 74, 87-88, 91

Art as a concretization of metaphysics. 8, 35, 67, 75, 118,

Art as a universal language, 8

Art as an indispensable medium for the communication of a moral ideal. 10

Profoundly personal significance for men, 12-13

“The motive and purpose of my writing is the projection of an ideal man.” -Ayn Rand, Romantic Manifesto, 155

Like Ayn Rand I have not found a projection of the ideal man in the field of Modern Art. And I can see why she refrained from giving it the distinction of fine art based on her criteria for art. I do not want to contradict Ayn Rand's negative views of Modern art, nor of the Non-Objective art that she experienced. I am interested in expanding and re-defining the genres in an Objective way.

“Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration.” Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto, pg 69

For my own personal study of art (as a painter) I redefine Modern and non-Objective art as: An investigation into the isolation of attributes and actions of art. With respect to the fact that the entity of the artist and the entity of the viewer are inherent in the creation and showing of the work.

“The first concepts man forms are concepts of entities -since entities are the only primary existents. (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities, relationships are relationships of entities.) -Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 15

“To be exact you would have to say you learn to differentiate those concepts by differentiating them from the concept “entity”.” -Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, “Entity” vs. “Attribute”, “Action” Etc. pg 274

A study of attributes:

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Attribute,concept of, 274-276

Attributes, 184-186, 264-268, 277-279

concepts of 11, 15-16, 146-147

see also properties, 282-288

I isolate the attributes and actions of art by temporarily focusing on what they communicate without the distraction of attachment to previously defined entities and all of their meaning. Later reintegrating what I have learned, merging attributes and actions with an entity, will greatly enhance the creation of fine art.

“And when the practitioners of modern art declare that they don't know what they are doing, or what makes them do it, we should take their word for it and give them no further consideration” Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto pg 70

If it is their intention to “not know” as though “not knowing” is an end in itself, Ayn Rand is quite right, but I believe that the reason many of them don't know is because there is not currently a well developed vocabulary for the discoveries they are finding.

Depending on a non-Objective artist's intentions and sense of life some are capable of rewarding you for the time you spend investigating their work. Others I have experienced (the ugliest and most miserable works) impart the feeling of spitting in your face by mocking your willingness to try to understand, and killing those precious moments of your life that were wasted in its void.

Edited by Tenderlysharp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“To define the meaning of the concept “blue” for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: “I mean this.” Such an identification of a concept is known as an “ostensive definition.” -Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, 41

I think of art as having a visual language. When I look at a certain attribute I feel a certain way, though I know feelings are not irreducible primaries, I search the dictionary and thesaurus for words that match this feeling, and few come close. It doesn't mean the feeling does not have an objective source. The only way I can think of explaining this feeling, is by finding and comparing it to work that has a similar feeling, or isolating certain visual attributes that are contributing to the feeling. Maybe feeling isn't the right word for it, it isn't a blank out, it requires a heightened state of consciousness... it has a dynamic energy.

Red has a different energy than blue, they each interact with green in certain ways. The study of the attributes and actions in the language of visual art requires a great deal of attention to ostensive definitions.

Though they can not exist separate from entities, I think it is important to study the way attributes affect human consciousness.

I was watching a documentary about the font “Helvetica” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0847817/ The development of a font is primarily focused on the study of attributes. The Helvetica font communicates professionalism, wealth, intelligence. In many cases the font communicates more than the entities (letters/words) they are attributed to. Look at the word 'Success' in Helvetica as compared to a graffiti font.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a point I made in my post, which is that art should not attempt to hide its content from the viewer (or reader, or listener). This seems clear to me, because art should strive to convey meaning as effectively as possible, and I do not know of a rational justification for including occlusion in a work of art. Perhaps the essence of the issue is that I do not consider "mystery" or "ambiguity"; to have aesthetic value. I am certainly not suggesting that you copy either of the artists I mentioned (that is the last thing you should do). There are clearly innumerable ways to effectively convey meaning in visual art. Why not develop your style around this same goal?

Do I have a rational justification for intentionally making my artwork challenging to decipher?

Mystery arouses speculation, curiosity, anticipation; volition is involved with the action of seeking answers. I am inviting your discerning powers to make sense of something. Mystery is not an end, it is an invitation to greater discovery. I believe the image you discover is beautiful enough to reward the investment of your attention. The medium is beautiful, it is an expression of energy, it has a great deal to say about life in addition to the entity it is attributed to.

Beings are not statues, as long as they are alive they are constantly in motion. I am interested in expressing this motion in my own way through the medium of paint.

My artistic sensibilities have developed a great deal this year, along with a more intensive study of Objectivist Epistemology. It is taking me longer than I had anticipated to produce new Artwork that pleases me on all levels. I will not be able to speak confidently on the personal work I have planned until I actually finish it.

Edited by Tenderlysharp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the possibility that music is ultimately, by its nature, not a purely objective medium is apparently an idea that is not to be entertained.

Objectivism vs. Subjectivism in art. Objectivist are weary of stepping onto the slippery slope of Subjectivism. If you want an Objectivist to see what you see, you have to be able to objectively defend your assertion that it is there. To show there is objectively something that exists in the artwork or music, something that is there whether every viewer sees it or not, it has to be communicated and defined in a proper context.

Subjectivism is a tool used to avoid value judgments, and an attempt to get out of being held accountable for mistakes. Subjectivism is a tool people use to get out of the effort it takes to present an objective case for the source of their feelings. Subjectivism has been a tool man has used to escape the oppression of the whims of mysticism.

If Ayn Rand could have projected the ideal man better in music or visual art than she did with words she might have chosen them as her vocation. Existence, Identity, Consciousness, Reason, Self-esteem, Purpose, Volition, Choice, Decision, Freedom, Communication, Values, Virtue, Morality, Fair Trade, Productivity, Justice, Accountability, The Pursuit of Happiness, Investment, Standards, Incentive, Ambition... The more concepts pertaining to consciousness a piece of work can express the better the work of art.

Ayn Rand found some music that gave her a sense of a projection of the ideal man, she did not find it in most music, nor in modern art, but in Objective Epistemology she did leave all definitions open to be expanded on in the future if an objective criteria could be developed. She wrote the Romantic Manifesto for herself. She was not primarily a visual artist, nor a musician, she left these fields open for others to develop, but her philosophy is geared toward avoiding the rational disintegration of Subjectivism.

If Subjectivism is allowed and/or necessary in art why is it not acceptable in all of the other fields of existence? An Objectivist says “I have not discovered a reason to find this valuable.” If it is valuable to you, and you want an Objectivist to value it, it is necessary to present a reasoned argument for your case. How effective will an attempt to get Objectivists to accept Subjectivism be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only communication going on is a wishful one or one of an indoctrinated mind, trained to strain itself to see meaning where there is none. One can only extract meaning from a blob of paint if one is engaging in self-deception (either intentionally, or unknowingly, as a result of accepting modern philosophy).

Ayn Rand used mystical projections in her work to illustrate her point. Atlas is a mystical projection. She used the fictional character Cinderella favorably to illustrate a point she made about a character concertizing a vast amount of conceptual understandings (In one of her lectures that I can't find at the moment). She sometimes used 'God' to illustrate her point, always with the disclaimer:

I may not literally mean a God but I like what that expression means, thank God or God bless you, it means the highest possible to me, and I would certainly thank God for this country.-Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder.

at about 8:30.

I am also interested in studying the way man projects consciousness onto nature, from looking for beings in the shapes in clouds, and swirls in rock, to the personifications of elements and aspects of consciousness into muses, imaginary friends, fiction heroes, a favorite toy, nature spirits, Gods, etc. The particular things man has projected consciousness onto are interesting to me. The act of man projecting himself onto the world is a token to his self-esteem. When a man's relationship with other men was stifling and disappointing he could turn to these projections to fulfill his need to communicate with something that was intelligent enough to understand him... something worthy of his Romanticism.

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...