Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Art?

Rate this topic


Strangelove

Recommended Posts

I remember seeing an autobiography on Pablo Picasso on A&E. In the beginning, he was a master in representational painting. I remember seeing Vermeer previously on my own, and immediately identified him as someone I found amazing. Yes, Rand's mention of his use of light helped but the clarity and luminosity was identifiable. The early work of Picasso seemed similar by my standards. It is still a mystery because of lack of his deeper biography to explain what made him paint the way he did. Was he inferior to other painters and thus had to hide it by the later work. Or, was he just as good and thus rejected his own genious for being genius.

But the way I envision the art of painting is by the following example: A beautiful man or woman, beautiful by a certain standard, but not a copy of an actual person, but like none the artist for sure has never actually witnessed, and thus is a creation of his imagination. And when it comes to the theme, it will not be some historical figure in an act of heroism. But a man never known of but the expression on his face, the clothes he is wearing, the position of his body, the background objects and climate--ALL THIS expressing the theme ... And to have that time period modern, like of the time of the artist ... or to project into the future ... thus imagine an architect as painter or an engineer as painter. This is what painting is ultimately for me--at its best.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which paintings have a subject and meaning you can defend - the Picassos on the one hand, or the Kincaide/Goya on the other? By defend I mean "Support by pointing to actual attributes of the paintings themselves".

Given that such a defense can be mounted, which has the greater force?

With "Guernica", what I see is a disintegrated gloop of semi-recognizable objects. The semi-recognizable ones appear to be animal body parts. With the other Picasso, I see two chickens ... but by abstraction only, since no real chickens have attributes such as those. I see no justification _in the paintings themselves_ for any claim about their meaning.

With the Kincaide and the Goya I have no trouble whatever naming the subject matter, with no abstraction required - and I doubt anybody could rationally argue over my identification of it. Naming the meaning is harder, and perhaps debatable, but at least I could point to actual attributes in the paintings themselves to defend my view.

Say what you will about the alleged lack of depth in the Kincaide, or the seeming malevolent meaning of the Goya, but for the above reasons, the concepts of "depth" and "meaning" just don't apply to the Picassos.

I say that makes the Kincaide/Goya paintings _superior_ to the Picassos.

Substitute fully non-representational stuff for the Picassos, and this case becomes even stronger.

Mark Peters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was he inferior to other painters and thus had to hide it by the later work. Or, was he just as good and thus rejected his own genious for being genius.

What about simply trying to explore a new means of expression, and to intentionally challenge the perceptions of the time? It was certainly a groundbreaking means by which to express oneself, and ir would undoubtedly have been a challenge.

Once again, I am surprised and a bit uncomfortable by the view that seems to be like that of the Dean's in FH, that "All the best ways of doing architecture have already been discovered" (paraphrasing). I hear a lot of "The best way of doing art is in the Romantist style".

However, I do have a greater understanding as to the reasoning behind this, so its no quite so shocking as it might had been earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, when Art has to serve politics (or in this case, philosophy) by only showing what man should be like, wouldn't it deny other artists from being able to express someselves in a unique and possibly groundbreaking way?

There is a whole lot wrong with this one little paragraph and hopefully untangling it will clear up your confusion.

Art's nature IS philosophic. It always has been and always will be. Ayn Rand correctly classified art as the fifth branch of philosophy (esthetics). There is no way that art can be "less artistic" for having "served" philosophy, unless the philosophy is irrational and thus promotes naturalism (non-art).

Second, Art's purpose is not simply "so the artist can express himself." Express what? What IS that self? The modern answer would be a crude bromide that the answer is non-objective, irrational, etc.

If an artist wants to be groundbreaking, he had better learn to do his job with GROUNDBREAKING SKILL. Any idiot can do something that "hasn't been done before."

Your concern that art is limited by boundaries is missing the scope. EVERYTHING is limited by a boundary or limit. A is A, after all, and A can't be B!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, that Goya is right after the Guernica in my art book.

As for the chickens, they're still done with the skill of a 5 year old (look at his earlier work: he is capable of better). They still express a non-rational epistemology and therefore a hostile universe metaphysics.

I don't think painting chickens in a non-representational way says a thing about one's epistemology. One can choose to re-shape everyday objects and still hold a very lucid view of the world. Michelangelo painted a sepent with a human head, and there was certainly nothing wrong with his grasp of reality. Picasso's decision to paint a rooster with an anatomy like no real life rooster does not come from any perceptional disability; he is simply exploring alternate possibilities. The fact that objects in Picasso's art depart radically from this world does not make his universe metaphysically hostile -- just different. Personally, I find this particular work joyful and charming. And if there are five-year olds who are producing works like this, then they deserve to be paid handsomely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think painting chickens in a non-representational way says a thing about one's epistemology.  One can choose to re-shape everyday objects and still hold a very lucid view of the world.  Michelangelo painted a sepent with a human head, and there was certainly nothing wrong with his grasp of reality.  Picasso's decision to paint a rooster with an anatomy like no real life rooster does not come from any perceptional disability; he is simply exploring alternate possibilities.  The fact that objects in Picasso's art depart radically from this world does not make his universe metaphysically hostile -- just different.  Personally, I find this particular work joyful and charming.  And if there are five-year olds who are producing works like this, then they deserve to be paid handsomely.

I'm not so much an expert esthetician so I'm going to bow out at this point on what to say about Picasso's epistemological message or meaning. Suffice to say, I don't like his works.

But from a skill standpoint, I maintain that I could go get you a five-year-old that has the same technical mastery as Picasso's later works display. Is there any rhyme or reason to his non-representation? No. It has no internal consistancy, so anyone could replicate it.

I just see in his works a bunch of awful monsterous abominations. A man with a cracked brain. The ravings of a lunatic. Yes, chickens have eyes on both sides of their heads. I get it. Why is my life richer for having seen them both at once?

I have a poster on my wall that depicts the major skyscrapers and architectural achivements of America all at once and next to each other in their order from coast to coast. Certainly, this panoramic representation of America's skyline is just as impossible as Picasso's chickens. But the poster on my wall is INSPIRING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, suffering can be depicted incidentally in Romantic art.  This painting of Goya's shows suffering, but the main theme, as I see it, is the heroic, intransigent struggle to resist tyranny, a perfectly Romantic theme.

Goya's style of painting I do not like, but the subject is at least potentially Romantic.  I think a more Romantic artist would have portrayed rebels attacking the soldiers, rather than suffering the consequences of resistance.  Both are aspects of resistance, but Goya chose to show the more depressing aspect of it. 

I also think the depiction of "goriness" is not Romantic.  Blood and gore is a naturalistic trait, and isn't necessary to depict suffering or resistance to tyranny.  That kind of thing can be left to journalistic photographers.  That's one of the elements of Goya's style that I do not like.

Well, the point is that Goya's painting was a form of journalism. That explains the title: The Shootings of May Third 1808. The work depicts the revenge Napoleon's troops took on those in Spain who were seeking independence. It is a recording with oil on canvas of a military atrocity. The subject could not “be left to journalistic photographers,” because in 1814 when the artist began work on it, there was no such thing as photography. Minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren't really much of an atrocity at all. It would be equivalent to a painting of Auschwitz, showing the residents as well fed and happily tending their flower gardens. Goya focused on suffering for a reason: he wanted the viewer to be outraged by what he saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so much an expert esthetician so I'm going to bow out at this point on what to say about Picasso's epistemological message or meaning. Suffice to say, I don't like his works.

But from a skill standpoint, I maintain that I could go get you a five-year-old that has the same technical mastery as Picasso's later works display. Is there any rhyme or reason to his non-representation? No. It has no internal consistancy, so anyone could replicate it.

I just see in his works a bunch of awful monsterous abominations. A man with a cracked brain. The ravings of a lunatic. Yes, chickens have eyes on both sides of their heads. I get it. Why is my life richer for having seen them both at once?

I have a poster on my wall that depicts the major skyscrapers and architectural achivements of America all at once and next to each other in their order from coast to coast. Certainly, this panoramic representation of America's skyline is just as impossible as Picasso's chickens. But the poster on my wall is INSPIRING.

You see abominations; I see an inventive mind at play. You say any child can paint like that; I say, bring me these children.

As for the poster on your wall, I have no trouble appreciating both photographs (or paintings) of skyscrapers and works by Pablo Picasso. There is room in the art world for both. You seek what is inspiring -- and so do I. But I also enjoy the sportive, the sly, and the mirthful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the point is that Goya's painting was a form of journalism.  That explains the title: The Shootings of May Third 1808.  The work depicts the revenge Napoleon's troops took on those in Spain who were seeking independence.  It is a recording with oil on canvas of a military atrocity.  The subject could not “be left to journalistic photographers,” because in 1814 when the artist began work on it, there was no such thing as photography.  Minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren't really much of an atrocity at all.  It would be equivalent to a painting of Auschwitz, showing the residents as well fed and happily tending their flower gardens. Goya focused on suffering for a reason:  he wanted the viewer to be outraged by what he saw.

I did not realize this was of an actual incident in the war. Journalistic art is naturalism, of course. But this painting still retains elements of Romanticism, in choosing to depict resistance to tyranny, rather than submission.

I do not agree that "minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren't really much of an atrocity at all." Showing people stood up against a wall, about to be shot, would get the point across perfectly well to any rational adult. Gore is never necessary.

As for painting a scene from Auschwitz, showing a line of skeletal adults marching into a gas chamber would make the point crystal clear. There is no need to show them inside, choking, vomiting, etc. That is horror for horror's sake. But a Romantic artist wouldn't even paint a scene of Auschwitz like that (just marching to the gas chamber). He'd show the camp being liberated, with perhaps a view of inmates marching to the chamber somewhere in the background. A better naturalist (i.e., one with a benevolent sense of life) could show the camp being liberated, also, since that actually happened in reality.

My evaluation of Goya's painting is that the subject is naturalistic with elements of Romanticism, and the style is naturalistic. A mixed bag. But not something I would hang on my wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see abominations; I see an inventive mind at play.  You say any child can paint like that; I say, bring me these children.

As for the poster on your wall, I have no trouble appreciating both photographs (or paintings) of skyscrapers and works by Pablo Picasso.  There is room in the art world for both.  You seek what is inspiring -- and so do I.  But I also enjoy the sportive, the sly, and the mirthful.

What is so great about what that "inventive mind" invented? Why does a crude drawing of a chicken where I can see both of its eyes become less crude (non-skillfull) by virtue of the fact that I can see both its eyes?

If his perspective was internally consistant then it would be at least interesting. "How the world looks through a 4-D lens" or something. Like perhaps those "impossible objects" drawings with the tuning fork or the staircases that lead to each other.

But it ISN'T. It's just distorted without any discernable method. Random. Any child can paint random nonsense. If you could point out a method to his madness, that would be something at least.

My point is that

1) There is no technical skill involved in Picasso's later work.

2) There is no logic at all to the way he distorts his paintings. They're just randomly distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not realize this was of an actual incident in the war.  Journalistic art is naturalism, of course.  But this painting still retains elements of Romanticism, in choosing to depict resistance to tyranny, rather than submission. 

I do not agree that "minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren't really much of an atrocity at all."  Showing people stood up against a wall, about to be shot, would get the point across perfectly well to any rational adult.  Gore is never necessary.

Yes, the public should never get the impression that mass murder is anything but neat, quick and painless.

As for painting a scene from Auschwitz, showing a line of skeletal adults marching into a gas chamber would make the point crystal clear.  There is no need to show them inside, choking, vomiting, etc.  That is horror for horror's sake. 

That would be very shocking, and we certainly we wouldn't want the masses to be shocked by the activities of the Third Reich.

But a Romantic artist wouldn't even paint a scene of Auschwitz like that (just marching to the gas chamber).  He'd show the camp being liberated, with perhaps a view of inmates marching to the chamber somewhere in the background.  A better naturalist (i.e., one with a benevolent sense of life) could show the camp being liberated, also, since that actually happened in reality.

But the Romantic shouldn't include any inmates with skeletal faces. That would be horror for horror's sake. The inmates should all have nice, normal faces

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about simply trying to explore a new means of expression, and to intentionally challenge the perceptions of the time? It was certainly a groundbreaking means by which to express oneself, and ir would undoubtedly have been a challenge.

Once again, I am surprised and a bit uncomfortable by the view that seems to be like that of the Dean's in FH, that "All the best ways of doing architecture have already been discovered" (paraphrasing). I hear a lot of "The best way of doing art is in the Romantist style".

However, I do have a greater understanding as to the reasoning behind this, so its no quite so shocking as it might had been earlier.

The phantasms presented in the later works of Picasso cannot be in reality and thus shouldn't be. A "stark realism" portrait of the inside of a Nazi gas chamber would be preferable and more romantic. It would be a twisted mind to paint what could be and should be by such a chamber. It would still be more romantic if it was painted as what could be and shouldn't be. Romantic Realism grasps an Aristotelian universe, judges it as benevolent metaphysically, and judges man as an efficacious agent worthy of happiness, thus what should be is what is, as is what could be.

One will have trouble understanding or approving of the Objectivist Aesthetics without understanding Rand's adoption of Aristotle's phrase.

Good art should be guided by the idea of the proper functioning of a rational mind, either implicitly or explicitly ...to accept this idea of Objectivism is a mother load and perhaps its most contraversial aspect.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is so great about what that "inventive mind" invented?

It's a "what-if" chicken, a playful reconstruction of the elements in the natural world. I make no claim about its greatness; I only say that it is fun to look at. I would compare it to Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky,” a poem about a non-existent monster. They both engage our imagination by bringing together the familiar and the strange.

Why does a crude drawing of a chicken where I can see both of its eyes become less crude (non-skillfull) by virtue of the fact that I can see both its eyes?

Nothing becomes less crude or less anything by being the same thing in the second part of your sentence that it was in the first part of your sentence.

If his perspective was internally consistant then it would be at least interesting. "How the world looks through a 4-D lens" or something. Like perhaps those "impossible objects" drawings with the tuning fork or the staircases that lead to each other.

But it ISN'T. It's just distorted without any discernable method. Random. Any child can paint random nonsense. If you could point out a method to his madness, that would be something at least.

It's a thought experiment: a way of imagining something with one or two important elements rearranged. Yes, I suppose if he were “consistent,” Picasso would have changed not just the eyes but every other part of the bird – and it would look not like a chicken at all. But that was not what he was after.

My point is that

1) There is no technical skill involved in Picasso's later work.

2) There is no logic at all to the way he distorts his paintings. They're just randomly distorted.

As I’ve said before, I don’t like everything the man did, yet I can take pleasure from many of his works, including those from his abstract period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think anything I say at this point would be repeating myself. Suffice to say, I don't think Picasso "created" anything in terms of perspective any more than I have created a new word or concept by blabbering "skjgnpsbg;alrwjhk;n!!!"

I agree that Picasso created nothing new in terms of perspective. But I hope I didn't leave the impression that I was making such a claim. As for your nonsense word, it may or may not be meaningful in terms of the context in which it is placed. Consider Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky":

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:

Long time the manxome foe he sought --

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'

He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Yes, it is nonsense in that a great many of its words cannot be found in any English dictionary. But is it devoid of all meaning and value? I think not. What Carroll has accomplished here is an elaborate connotation. He provides just enough clues to suggest something dreadful and powerful, and yet by withholding precise details creates something that demands involvement, through conjecture, by the reader. So, yes, Inspector, in some circumstances "skjgnpsbg;alrwjhk;n!!!" could be a “brillig” thing to say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I see what you mean. Nevertheless, it's hardly the kind of stuff that belongs in a museum. Again, a child could have done it. It's basically scribbling.

Again, compare to Salvador Dali. They're both distorted, but Dali's stuff took some skill, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I see what you mean. Nevertheless, it's hardly the kind of stuff that belongs in a museum. Again, a child could have done it. It's basically scribbling.

Again, compare to Salvador Dali. They're both distorted, but Dali's stuff took some skill, at least.

I have enjoyed this thread, Inspector! Thank you for a most stimulating conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I see what you mean. Nevertheless, it's hardly the kind of stuff that belongs in a museum. Again, a child could have done it. It's basically scribbling.

This is the problem with modern art - not the fact that it's "bad", but the fact it's deemed to be worthy of attention. I think that the problem is largely caused by the idea of 'art galleries' - if something is placed in an art gallery, a context is automatically created around it which leads people to evaluate it in a certain way (ie as 'art').

However, I believe that mass media, and the internet in particular, will erode this (and indeed has done so already to some extent). Art no longer has the mystique it once did, since anyone can view any painting whenever they please simply by performing a search on google - there is no need to hype up a trip to the art gallery, which creates expectations and thus prejudices judgement. I think that will lead to more people judging pieces on their own merits, rather than judging them 'as art' - it's a lot easier to say that an unmade bed or a picture of some random squiggle is worthless when you see a picture of it in the newspaper, than when you see it hanging on the wall of a white room in one of the world's most prestigous art galleries.

It works both ways though; I think that most traditional paintings are hideously overrated, mainly because 1) they were produced at a time when very little art was made and hence every piece was something 'special', whereas today thousands of people make thousands of artwork every year - there is more competition, and hence more good pieces being produced. 2) traditional pieces come "pre-evaluated" to some extent' - when someone views a Verneer or Raphael they know that they are looking at "a masterpiece!" which will influence their judgement.

While some are mystified that others get excited about a few blobs of colour on a canvas, I personally don't understand why people get so worked up about a picture of some sunflowers, or a naked women. I mean sure, they might be pretty pictures, but who cares? I mean the Mona Lisa might be a very skillful painting of some woman, but at the end of the day it is just a painting of some woman. I find the idea that a picture of flowers could seriously be ranked alongside a piece of art like Atlas Shrugged or a Rachmaninoff concerto to be absolutely absurd. But then, I'm not really a fan of paintings in general. I like Kandinsky though :)

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an artist wants to be groundbreaking, he had better learn to do his job with GROUNDBREAKING SKILL. Any idiot can do something that "hasn't been done before."

Why exactly? An artist only needs the skill required to produce the pieces they wish to produce. Your comment reminds me of the people who claim that rock music is necessarily inferior to classical because it "takes less talent" (a view I think I can recall you rejecting in another thread, although I could be mistaken). Skill isnt everything - Steve Vai is a very skillful guitarist, but I find his music terrible; I'd much rather listen to a 'less talented' musician. So a painter can produce amazingly lifelike images - who cares? We have cameras these days that can do the same (and personally I find photography much more appealing than 'lifelike' painting, romantic or otherwise). The worth of a piece of art comes mainly from the idea behind it - the talent only matters to the extent it can express that idea (and some ideas may require more talent than others).

Andy Warhol once had a dollar bill placed in an art gallery. Not a painting, just a normal dollar bill. Did it take skill to produce that? Perhaps not, but this piece SAYS so much more philosophically than most 'lifelike' paintings. Just think of the message it carries about fiat currency - a piece of paper blessed by the government is worth $1, an identical piece of paper produced by a couterfeiter is worth nothing, but the same piece of paper hung on an art gallery wall by Andy Warhol is worth hundreds of thousands. If that isnt art with a meaning, then I don't know what is.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't sweat it, Hal. I was simply saying that being "different for different's sake" is not enough IMO to qualify a person as a good artist. Anyone can be "different;" I want something GOOD.

(I suppose you thought I meant just technical skill, which is not enough for me, either... see my example of the well-painted picture of a maggot vomiting on the David)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't sweat it, Hal. I was simply saying that being "different for different's sake" is not enough IMO to qualify a person as a good artist. Anyone can be "different;" I want something GOOD.

Ah, fair enough. While I do agree with this, I'm normally prepared to give people more leeway if they are attempting something new - if you're one of the first people to break new grounds then its likely your work wont be as good as those that come after you (the original 'rock' musicians were probably inferior to those who followed them - their value lies more in the fact they created rock music than that they created GOOD rock music). When it comes to new ideas I think that potential is, in a way, more important than the final product. Even if your work isnt that good, something you've done might open up a path for others to explore and to incorporate into their own work in a better way.

To use an analogy with computer games, in a market so populated with generic sequels and countless variants on the 'first person shooter'/'racing cars' themes, its nice to find a game which is genuinely original. Sometimes this originality makes it good (the first Grand Theft Auto for instance), but more often it doesnt. But even in the latter cases, at least people are trying - original ideas are worth more to me than the latest version of Tomb Raider 73, simply because the desire to be creative is the primary reason why most fields advance in the first place. Experimenting is a fairly hit and miss affair - sometimes you'll get a good end product, and sometimes you won't. But the risk of failing shouldnt prevent you from trying.

However, the art world has taken this principle way too far, and you do get way too much 'different for the sake of being different'. If we take something like Picasso's cubism or abstract art as isolated from their historical contexts, I would wholeheartedly approve of them - I think its good that people are prepared to push the boundaries of art to see if they can discover new things. But the problem is when this experimentation becomes the norm - cubism and abstract impressionism werent simply experiments at the 'frontiers' of art; they were held as being art itself, and 'realistic' paintings suffered from condecension and being labelled as boring simply because they werent sufficiently abstract. THIS is the real problem - not the fact that people are trying new things. If we had a lot of good art being recognised today, I wouldnt mind people doing things like the unmade bed as a sideshow. But the fact that good pieces ARENT being recognised in the art world, and that we ONLY have unmade beds, is the reason for my disgust.

It's ironic in a sense, because the main reason for my complaint is that the art world isnt actually varied enough - its all 'experimentation', and no real attempts at producing quality products.

(I suppose you thought I meant just technical skill, which is not enough for me, either... see my example of the well-painted picture of a maggot vomiting on the David)
Yeah I did; I missed that, sorry. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
What about simply trying to explore a new means of expression, and to intentionally challenge the perceptions of the time? It was certainly a groundbreaking means by which to express oneself, and ir would undoubtedly have been a challenge.

What about distorting the way we view reality makes it a valid means of expression? Expression presupposes someone doing the expression, but also who the expression is to. Art therefore is a form of conversation, either to yourself or to others, it is a way to percieve concepts that aren't normally available to sense perception. Therefore there are certain rules one must follow in order for the "perception" of the concepts to be successful,i.e. it must conform to reality, because perception--being automatic--automatically conforms with reality.

Just like if I want to make myself clear here in this forum I must speak English (using english words, with the proper use of English grammar) If I simply started to disregard these rules would that make it a valid form of expression? The above posting of "The Jabberwocky" is not a refutation of this because it is only understandable through the words that do conform to the rules of conversational English, the made up words only serve to throw confusion into the mix, any meaning which is gleaned out of that poem is IN SPITE OF those meaningless words. Take this for example: Can you get any sense of meaning out of the following?

Held a experienced by had he motionless, stood: "before" He; feeling never?

Or does this group of words mean something much more when put in the "proper" sequence and with the "proper" punctuation:

He stood motionless, held by a feeling he had never experienced before.(Taken from Atlas by the way, :D )

The reason that "abstract" art is not as good "epistimologically"(sp?) as representational art is because of what it says about man's faculty of grasping reality. Abstract art says that man can not know reality directly, that he is ignorant because he uses reason, blind because he has eyes, and that the true character of a portrait is innaccessable to him through his normal mode of perception, that reality must be distorted for him in order for him to be able to view it, that his eyes must be cut out in order for him to see.

But there are many parts to a painting and not just "how it is painted." Subject matter has to be considered as well. This is why a representational painting isn't automatically good just because epistimologically(sp?) it is consistent with man's perceptual faculty. A work of art must be judged as a whole. Thomas Kinkade therefore is not automatically a great artist. He's a great painter maybe, but being an artists is not only the application of paint to a canvas, just as art isn't only paint on a canvas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Which is, of course, terror at his metaphyiscal world-view. He is saying that life IS suffering. Malevolent universe premise at work.

The War (Spanish Civil War, or Second World war) was indeed a time of terror, suffering and most definitely all aspects of a malevolent universe at work. The artist recorded that.

A well done, well detailed image of a bridge being built is beautiful, like the bridge, thus the painting would be consistent and inspiring, like this http://www.cordair.com/larsen/anchorage.php

A painting done just as well, just as detailed, of a civil bombing taking place would be perverse. However when the style is consistent with the theme, in this case, utter destruction, shock and awe, I can begin to see why Picasso's Guernica is consistent, coherent, and iconic.

Ironically though, it is the naive postcard "art", not the Guernica that has the effect on my stomach most similar to witnessing an air strike.

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...