Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kant and Aesthetics

Rate this topic


Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Recommended Posts

The color pallet or color scheme of a painting certainly has a lot to do with the overall conveyance of the mood of the painting, and people will generally go for paintings that have color schemes that appeal to them. But for the visual arts, because we observe the world in terms of entities and not disconnected smears of colors, then a painting must be a painting of an object to qualify as art. Granted, one may well like the color scheme of an abstract smear painting, but that doesn't make it a work of art. See Ayn Rand's essay "Art and Cognition" for a further explanation.

But it really abhors me that someone like 13 with his talent and all the preparations he goes through for perspective et al for one of his paintings can throw it all away and claim that dripping paint onto a drop cloth equally qualifies as art al la Pollock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Avila, when you give your critique, please identify the standards that you'll be using to judge the art, and explain how and why you chose those standards, and why they should apply to my art."

I'll apply the standards I employ when evaluating the work of prospective and current students. And I'll send my critique to DonAthos via private message, as I've grown tired of your ignorant remarks regarding atelier teaching methods and your childish personal flings. You'll just have to imagine....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Purpose of Art

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

03/27/2012

Pygmalion and Galatea: http://www.greeka.com/greece-myths/pygmalion-galatea.htm

Painting by Gerome: http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/assets/images/images/met_6_gerome_pygmalion.jpg

http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/academic-art

In The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand shows that the purpose of art is to concretize an abstraction – to make an idea real in material form. This is necessitated by man’s means of cognition, that ideas can be vague and uncertain, unless one has a very clear grasp of the facts organized in the right way (according to objective principles). Even an idea that is close to the perceptually self evident – like the concept “apple” – can be difficult to keep in mind without a specific memory of a particular apple. What the artist does is to take his concept of the apple and puts it onto canvas by presenting the perceptual concretes that make it possible to identify the object as an apple (i.e. a red skin and a roundish shape, and reflective highlights, etc.). By doing this, he makes the idea real on canvas.

The better the artist the better the skill at rendering ideas onto canvas; and one of my favorite paintings is “Pygmalion and Galatea” by Gerome. In this one painting, he captures the story of Pygmalion, who rejected women in favor of his work, until he created a statue of the perfect woman and fell in love with it. According to legend, Aphrodite saw the statue, greatly admired its beauty, and made it into a real woman for Pygmalion to love and to admire. Gerome captures all of this in his painting, making the event real in terms of specific concretes presented on canvas.

I think the theme of Gerome’s painting is an artist falling in love with the perfect woman whom he helped to create; and this is the general theme of several plays and movies based on the original idea of the Greek legend.

met_6_gerome_pygmalion.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier, Thomas challenged me to post examples of abstract art and to explain what it means (immediately after I had provided a link to a thread which I informed him contained examples of my doing so), so I promised to post some examples from that previous thread directly to this current thread, and to repost them again later if necessary.

Here, I wrote about the following paintings:

369315155_6fca71f322_o.jpg

369315152_66ac0e08b7_o.jpg

The first gives me the feeling of energy, determination and action. It's meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions. The specific angularity and proportions of the shapes is what conveys motion and rising to me, the dramatic contrasts and bold colors suggest passion, heat, pressure and struggle, and the bulk of the forms and the roughness of the textures give me the feeling of strength and rugged durability. I see it as a very physically masculine painting. It's extroverted, dominant, serious and aggressive. It's like Atlas pushing upward.

The second image gives me the feeling of serenity. It's meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities. The colors are subdued and calming. There is practically no drama or contrast -- the forms are delicate and faint, and they convey a soothing gentleness, playfulness and weightlessness. The image is like a visual whisper. I see it as a very physically feminine painting. It's withdrawn and introverted, and anything but aggressive. It's like a mother caressing a child.

In this post, Grames asked me to identify meaning in abstract paintings that he posted.

Here's what I wrote:

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

One of the places you and I may continue to differ here is: don't you think that there are certain elements of these abstract works (such as the "slow notes" I'd mentioned earlier) which may be relied upon to produce certain effects (i.e. sadness) in he who partakes of it?

I don't think that you and I have a lot of differences on this issue. I agree with you that, in general, there are certain elements in abstract works of art (music, dance, architecture, abstract painting, etc) which can be relied upon to produce certain general emotional effects among certain populations of people.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The color pallet or color scheme of a painting certainly has a lot to do with the overall conveyance of the mood of the painting, and people will generally go for paintings that have color schemes that appeal to them .But for the visual arts, because we observe the world in terms of entities and not disconnected smears of colors, then a painting must be a painting of an object to qualify as art. Granted, one may well like the color scheme of an abstract smear painting, but that doesn't make it a work of art. See Ayn Rand's essay "Art and Cognition" for a further explanation.

Thomas, do you read and comprehend anything that I write? The point is not that people "go for" paintings that have color schemes that appeal to them. The point has nothing to do with "liking" colors or finding them "appealing," but rather that colors (and abstract shapes) can convey emotions and meaning just as you claim that music can. They can convey, say, heat and passion, or coolness and calmness, among countless other concepts. As Kandinsky explained, they can convey approach and retreat, and therefore extroversion or introversion, or energy, aggressiveness, evasiveness or stillness, etc. To people other than you, they can convey as much infomation and emotional impact as you claim that music conveys to you.

But it really abhors me that someone like 13 with his talent and all the preparations he goes through for perspective et al for one of his paintings can throw it all away and claim that dripping paint onto a drop cloth equally qualifies as art al la Pollock.

What abhors me is that you're incapable of learning from someone who knows significantly more about art than you do, and that you insist on believing that you have something to teach me on the subject.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Avila, when you give your critique, please identify the standards that you'll be using to judge the art, and explain how and why you chose those standards, and why they should apply to my art."

I'll apply the standards I employ when evaluating the work of prospective and current students. And I'll send my critique to DonAthos via private message, as I've grown tired of your ignorant remarks regarding atelier teaching methods and your childish personal flings. You'll just have to imagine....

Yes, please do that: privately post your remarks to someone who admits to knowing nothing about visual art and photography, and who therefore has no context or expertise by which to judge the merits of your comments (or lack thereof). Keeping it private is probably the best way to avoid revealing more of your ignorance on the subjects, as well as more of your aesthetic rule-obeying mindset.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Purpose of Art

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

03/27/2012

Pygmalion and Galatea: http://www.greeka.co...ion-galatea.htm

Painting by Gerome: http://smarthistory....e_pygmalion.jpg

http://smarthistory....rg/academic-art

In The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand shows that the purpose of art is to concretize an abstraction – to make an idea real in material form. This is necessitated by man’s means of cognition, that ideas can be vague and uncertain, unless one has a very clear grasp of the facts organized in the right way (according to objective principles). Even an idea that is close to the perceptually self evident – like the concept “apple” – can be difficult to keep in mind without a specific memory of a particular apple. What the artist does is to take his concept of the apple and puts it onto canvas by presenting the perceptual concretes that make it possible to identify the object as an apple (i.e. a red skin and a roundish shape, and reflective highlights, etc.). By doing this, he makes the idea real on canvas.

The better the artist the better the skill at rendering ideas onto canvas; and one of my favorite paintings is “Pygmalion and Galatea” by Gerome. In this one painting, he captures the story of Pygmalion, who rejected women in favor of his work, until he created a statue of the perfect woman and fell in love with it. According to legend, Aphrodite saw the statue, greatly admired its beauty, and made it into a real woman for Pygmalion to love and to admire. Gerome captures all of this in his painting, making the event real in terms of specific concretes presented on canvas.

I think the theme of Gerome’s painting is an artist falling in love with the perfect woman whom he helped to create; and this is the general theme of several plays and movies based on the original idea of the Greek legend.

met_6_gerome_pygmalion.jpg

Thomas, I think it's quite likely that Rand would have called the above work of art "trash," especially since it includes the cupid. Way too cute and "chocolate box" for her tastes.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone earlier, I think 13, posted a write-up of Kant's esthetics claiming that Kant and Ayn Rand had the same general idea about art. I beg to differ, as the passage below clearly shows that Kant was not interested in art as presenting a subject as it might be and ought to be (Romanticism) but rather a mere average of a genus(possibly a type of naturalism, but again, he doesn't really specify):

[Search for "esthetic idea" in his Critique]

[To Kant, beauty is just an average, SS 17. Ideal of beauty.]

Two factors are here involved. First, there is the aesthetic

normal idea, which is an individual intuition (of the imagination).

This represents the norm by which we judge of a man as a member of a

particular animal species. Secondly, there is the rational idea.

This deals with the ends of humanity so far as capable of sensuous

representation, and converts them into a principle for estimating

his outward form, through which these ends are revealed in their

phenomenal effect. The normal idea must draw from experience the

constituents which it requires for the form of an animal of a

particular kind. But the greatest finality in the construction of this

form-that which would serve as a universal norm for forming an

estimate of each individual of the species in question-the image that,

as it were, forms an intentional basis underlying the technic of

nature, to which no separate individual, but only the race as a whole,

is adequate, has its seat merely in the idea of the judging subject.

Yet it is, with all its proportions, an aesthetic idea, and, as

such, capable of being fully presented in concreto in a model image.

Now, how is this effected? In order to render the process to some

extent intelligible (for who can wrest nature's whole secret from

her?), let us attempt a psychological explanation.

It is of note that the imagination, in a manner quite

incomprehensible to us, is able on occasion, even after a long lapse

of time, not alone to recall the signs for concepts, but also to

reproduce the image and shape of an object out of a countless number

of others of a different, or even of the very same, kind. And,

further, if the mind is engaged upon comparisons, we may well

suppose that it can in actual fact, though the process is unconscious,

superimpose as it were one image upon another, and from the

coincidence of a number of the same kind arrive at a mean contour

which serves as a common standard for all. Say, for instance, a person

has seen a thousand full-grown men. Now if he wishes to judge normal

size determined upon a comparative estimate, then imagination (to my

mind) allows a great number of these images (perhaps the whole

thousand) to fall one upon the other, and, if I may be allowed to

extend to the case the analogy of optical presentation, in the space

where they come most together, and within the contour where the

place is illuminated by the greatest concentration of colour, one gets

a perception of the average size, which alike in height and breadth is

equally removed from the extreme limits of the greatest and smallest

statures; and this is the stature of a beautiful man. (The same result

could be obtained in a mechanical way, by taking the measures of all

the thousand, and adding together their heights, and their breadths

[and thicknesses], and dividing the sum in each case by a thousand.)

But the power of imagination does all this by means of a dynamical

effect upon the organ of internal sense, arising from the frequent

apprehension of such forms. If, again, for our average man we seek

on similar lines for the average head, and for this the average

nose, and so on, then we get the figure that underlies the normal idea

of a beautiful man in the country where the comparison is

instituted. For this reason a Negro must necessarily (under these

empirical conditions) have a different normal idea of the beauty of

forms from what a white man has, and the Chinaman one different from

the European. And the. process would be just the same with the model

of a beautiful horse or dog (of a particular breed). This normal

idea is not derived from proportions taken from experience as definite

rules: rather is it according to this idea that rules forming

estimates first become possible. It is an intermediate between all

singular intuitions of individuals, with their manifold variations-a

floating image for the whole genus, which nature has set as an

archetype underlying those of her products that belong to the same

species, but which in no single case she seems to have completely

attained. But the normal idea is far from giving the complete

archetype of beauty in the genus. It only gives the form that

constitutes the indispensable condition of all beauty, and,

consequently, only correctness in the presentation of the genus. It

is, as the famous "Doryphorus" of Polycletus was called, the rule (and

Myron's "Cow" might be similarly employed for its kind). It cannot,

for that very reason, contain anything specifically characteristic;

for otherwise it would not be the normal idea for the genus.

Further, it is not by beauty that its presentation pleases, but merely

because it does not contradict any of the conditions under which alone

a thing belonging to this genus can be beautiful. The presentation

is merely academically correct.*

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kant ends the above referenced section with the following,which in his typical gobbledeegook manner, says absolutely nothing in many confusing words:

But the ideal of the beautiful is still something different from its

normal idea. For reasons already stated it is only to be sought in the

human figure. Here the ideal consists in the expression of the

moral, apart from which the object would not please at once

universally and positively (not merely negatively in a presentation

academically correct). The visible expression of moral ideas that

govern men inwardly can, of course, only be drawn from experience; but

their combination with all that our reason connects with the morally

good in the idea of the highest finality-benevolence, purity,

strength, or equanimity, etc.-may be made, as it were, visible in

bodily manifestation (as effect of what is internal), and this

embodiment involves a union of pure ideas of reason and great

imaginative power, in one who would even form an estimate of it, not

to speak of being the author of its presentation. The correctness of

such an ideal of beauty is evidenced by its not permitting any

sensuous charm to mingle with the delight in its object, in which it

still allows us to take a great interest. This fact in turn shows that

an estimate formed according to such a standard can never be purely

aesthetic, and that one formed according to an ideal of beauty

cannot be a simple judgement of taste.

Added on Edit: Keep in mind that Kant's moral ideal was complete dedication to one's duty, with no personal wants and desires to be filled; so his ideal human face would have no pleasure, and "no sensuous charm" -- no makeup on a pretty face for Kant, it must be quite austere and emotionless for it to be an ideal human face.

Kant would be completely against "Kicking up her Heels" by Sylvia Bokor.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, it's either or -- either you have the mind to see the artistry of Gerome or you have the mind to see something in smears on canvas.

No, what's "either or" is this: In order for something to qualify as art according to Objectivism, it must "re-create reality" and it must present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings. There are no exceptions for that which "does not re-create reality." There are no special "class by itself" contradictions. There are no exemptions based on predictions of the future that someday, somewhere, someone will discover an objective "conceptual vocabulary" for a favored subjective, abstract art form (while allowing no such future discoveries for other abstract art forms).

The "either or" is that Objectivists either must consistently follow Objectivism's tenets on non-contradiction and therefore eliminate architecture, music and dance (and possibly other art forms like realist still life painting), or they must recognize that even Rand wasn't able to consistently apply her definition and criteria, but had to grant exceptions and allow contradictions, and therefore her definition and criteria need to be reconsidered and corrected to include the importance of subjectivity and emotion in the arts, as well as the human ability to experience emotion and grasp meaning in all abstract forms -- be they aural or visual.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Added on Edit: Keep in mind that Kant's moral ideal was complete dedication to one's duty, with no personal wants and desires to be filled; so his ideal human face would have no pleasure, and "no sensuous charm" -- no makeup on a pretty face for Kant, it must be quite austere and emotionless for it to be an ideal human face.

Kant would be completely against "Kicking up her Heels" by Sylvia Bokor.

Thomas, did you read my earlier post on your misunderstanding of Kant's use of the term "disinterest"? I'd suggest that you go back and reread it because you're still not understanding it. It really is perplexing how anyone could so blatantly misread things and come up with the stuff that you come up with.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "either or" is that Objectivists either must consistently follow Objectivism's tenets on non-contradiction and therefore eliminate architecture, music and dance (and possibly other art forms like realist still life painting), or they must recognize that even Rand wasn't able to consistently apply her definition and criteria, but had to grant exceptions and allow contradictions, and therefore her definition and criteria need to be reconsidered and corrected to include the importance of subjectivity and emotion in the arts, as well as the human ability to experience emotion and grasp meaning in all abstract forms -- be they aural or visual.

Since it's been bandied a couple of times in the thread, I'll just say:

I think any conception of "art" which would "eliminate" architecture, music and dance would be worse than useless. That's like a conception of color that somehow eliminates red, orange, and yellow.

If it's a choice between that, or letting abstract paintings into the tent, then there's no real question between them in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read The Metaphysics of Morals by Kant a while back, and there doesn't seem to be an online version (unlike other one's I've quoted in this thread), but it is quite clear that Kant thinks that one should be motivated out of duty alone, and not to seek happiness in any form as a motivator (even the "happiness" of following one's duty. So, yes, he would be completely against "Kicking up her Heels" by Sylvia Bokor with it's focus on the shear enjoyment of the moment and of one's own life and living. Here is a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the issue of duty in Kant:

What, then, is the difference between being motivated by a sense of duty in the ordinary sense, and being motivated by duty in Kant's sense? It is, presumably, this: Motivation by duty is motivation by our respect for whatever law it is that makes our action a duty. But we can rationally ‘opt out’ of our membership in the city, state, club or any other social arrangement and its laws — for instance, by quitting the club or expatriating. Those laws only apply to us given we don't rationally decide to opt out, given the opportunity. Our respect for the laws guiding us is qualified, in the sense that the thought that the law gives us a duty is compelling only if there is no law we respect more that conflicts with it: My respect for the laws of my club guides my action only insofar as those laws do not require me to violate city ordinances. But my respect for city ordinance guides me only insofar as they do not require me to violate federal law. And so on.

Eventually, however, we will come to laws that apply to us simply as members of the ‘club’ of rational agents, so to speak, as beings who are capable of guiding their own behavior on the basis of directives, principles and laws of rationality. We cannot choose to lay aside our ‘membership’ in the category of such beings, or at least it is unclear what the status of such a choice would be. So, suppose that there is some law prescribing what any rational agent must do. Then we have an idea of a duty that we cannot rationally opt out of. When we do something because it is our moral duty, Kant argued, we are motivated by the thought that, insofar as we are rational beings, we must act only as this fundamental law of (practical) reason prescribes, a law that would prescribe how any rational being in our circumstances should act. Whatever else such a law might be, it is, in virtue of being a principle of reason, true of all rational agents. My respect for such a law is thus not qualified: my respect for the laws of my club, city, constitution or religion guides me in practical affairs only insofar as they do not require me to violate laws laid down by my own practical reason, but my respect for the deliverances of my own reason does not depend on whether it requires me to violate the former sorts of laws. In this case, it is respect for (rational) lawfulness as such guides me.

Keep in mind that Kant thought that pure reason had nothing to do with the facts of reality and that one's duty could not, therefore, be derived from the facts of reality, but only from "pure reason" disconnected from the facts of a man's own life.

Edited to add link to SEP.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not an issue of throwing out dance, architecture, and music or keep "abstract art." Re-read The Romantic Manifesto and The Fountainhead. Smears on canvas are not art, by any rational criteria, and someone claiming that the "get strength" from smears of oranges and yellows is being so subjective that he might as well give up on trying to say anything rational about art at all. After 13 chewed me out for my "astronaut" depiction of Rachmaninoff's Symphony #2 (as being subjective) he then turns around and claims to get all sorts of motivations and meanings from empty canvases. It is 13's designation of art that is wrong and not founded in the facts, not Ayn Rand's designation of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not an issue of throwing out dance, architecture, and music or keep "abstract art." Re-read The Romantic Manifesto and The Fountainhead. Smears on canvas are not art, by any rational criteria...

In this post, I've already shown how things like smears and splatters on canvas can qualify as art by Objectivist criteria. Did you not read and comprehend that post?

Not only can they qualify as art, but as I demonstrated in that post, they can qualify as Romantic Realism -- my painting of a splatter that existed in reality is a stylized, idealized representation of an identifiable thing which existed in reality. It represents a heroic vision of existence!

And, in the same thread, I illustrated how the abstract image of the colorful, angular shapes could qualify as art according to Objectivism. If it had been painted based on colorful tiles that the artists had arranged in reality, it would be no different than an artist painting an image based on an arrangement of stones, flowers, apples or any other object that exists in reality. Tiles are identifiable objects in reality, just like everything else, and therefore paintings of tiles qualify as art, just like paintings of anything else.

...and someone claiming that the "get strength" from smears of oranges and yellows is being so subjective that he might as well give up on trying to say anything rational about art at all.

I didn't say that I "get strength" from smears of oranges and yellows, but that the warmth, boldness and intensity of the tones, and the angularity, dramatic contrast and rugged textures convey the concepts of motion, passion, heat, pressure, struggle and strength.

After 13 chewed me out for my "astronaut" depiction of Rachmaninoff's Symphony #2 (as being subjective) he then turns around and claims to get all sorts of motivations and meanings from empty canvases. It is 13's designation of art that is wrong and not founded in the facts, not Ayn Rand's designation of art.

I didn't "chew you out." I said that your interpretations of the music were subjective.

My interpretations of the abstract paintings, on the other hand, are much more objective than subjective. If you reread my descriptions, you'll see that my interpretations are based on the attributes that are contained in the paintings, and that very little of what I say is contributed by my own consciousness. My interpretations of the abstract art are a combination of a high degree of objectivity and a low degree of subjectivity, where your interpretations of music are highly subjective with very little objectivity.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This image, while not art,says a lot more about strength than orange geometric shapes:

strengths(2).jpg

And this one says more about relaxation that a blank blue-grey background with some squiggles on it:

Cat_Relaxation_by_photomarker.jpg

Do I read what you write 13...yes, but I find it difficult to take anything you say seriously given your views of Kant and abstract art:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This image, while not art,says a lot more about strength than orange geometric shapes:

And this one says more about relaxation that a blank blue-grey background with some squiggles on it:

It doesn't surprise me in the least that overt narrative is pretty much the only thing that you look for and see in any work of art. In your view, the more clearly an artwork illustrates a story, the greater you rate it aesthetically. To you, the goal of art is to spell out a message and to make everything as obvious as possible.

Do I read what you write 13...yes, but I find it difficult to take anything you say seriously given your views of Kant and abstract art:)

Thomas, what would you say about Kant if he had definded art as a "re-creation of reality" and then said that architecture is an art form despite saying that it "does not re-create reality"? You wouldn't hesitate to say that he had contradicted himself, would you? In fact, you'd condemn him as being irrational and evil for taking such a position, no?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the work of Germoe.

It's interesting that someone would put forth, as a defense of the Romantic Manifesto, a work from the Ecole des Beau-Arts. This is exactly the type of work that Howard Roark fought against. It's the type of work that would have looked perfect mounted above a fireplace designed by Peter Keating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the work of Germoe.

It's interesting that someone would put forth, as a defense of the Romantic Manifesto, a work from the Ecole des Beau-Arts. This is exactly the type of work that Howard Roark fought against. It's the type of work that would have looked perfect mounted above a fireplace designed by Peter Keating.

Yes, isn't it odd that there are so many Objectivish types who, when it comes to the arts, appear to be so uptight, opposed to the new, and opposed to discovering all that is possible outside of their own very limited knowledge, personal tastes and experiences? Instead of seeing the arts an opportunity to make or appreciate bold leaps forward, they feel insulted and attacked by anything outside of their own personal little comfort zones. No heroic Roarkian sense of discovery or adventure. It's as if they believe that discovery and adventure used to be great things, but since Ayn Rand came along and gave her opinions on every issue, there is nothing new left to discover -- she knew everything about everything, and identified the final aesthetic rules for all time!

If a Howard Roark were to exist in reality today, these Rand-idolaters are the type of people who would rally behind a real-life Toohey and publicly condemn him.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NQ8UD00Z.jpg

YOG1100Z.jpg

1B11100Z.jpg

Fragonard was one of their students (Ecole des Beau-Arts), as was Ingres, and both did beautiful work. Some "modern masters" Like Renoir also studied there. It's history spans over 300 years, and while it did focus on a type of classicism, obviously, it didn't have just a classicism style and content. And judging from the well-known artist who studied there, obviously, they were free to "branch out" once they graduated.

After doing some research on the Ecole des Beau-Arts on the Objectivism CD-ROM, it seems as if Ayn Rand was against it primarily because it did not teach any particular convictions when it came to the arts (and architecture, according to her journals and a brief mention in The Fountainhead). She makes an off-hand comments that it taught some basic techniques, but not overall composition or presenting a meaning into the art-work. I'm definitely against this as well, but the examples illustrated above shows that good things can come of this school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art -- good art -- requires both a good technique for rendering things real (realism in paintings) but also a presentation of a wider abstraction (a deeper meaning). Technique without meaning is what most modern art classes at universities teach as they rejected realism and romantic realism, claiming that it is only technique. And the meaning must be conveyed rather explicitly for it to be good art.While there can be hidden meanings and mystery, in the final analysis, the meaning must be clearly presented in the details of the art work itself. Empty smears on canvas have no meaning and no content and no technique. It's just trash.

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...