Objectivist Art?

[Designer]

It seems to me to be some what pointless to speak of art objectively. obviously you can say that my paintings are not as good as Dali and you would be quite rite in saying that. But to argue with a person or people about why one artist or work of art should speak to them over another is senseless. If an artist creates something that inspires you it is probably because there is a common theme that you share with him or her. the artist projects this through the art and that is why it speaks to you. but if some one else doesn't share this theme its impossible to convince them that this work is better than one that does speak to them. art is objective only to a degree and is entirely subjective after that.

-Nick

[volco]

It seems to me to be some what pointless to speak of art objectively. obviously you can say that my paintings are not as good as Dali and you would be quite rite in saying that. But to argue with a person or people about why one artist or work of art should speak to them over another is senseless. If an artist creates something that inspires you it is probably because there is a common theme that you share with him or her. the artist projects this through the art and that is why it speaks to you. but if some one else doesn't share this theme its impossible to convince them that this work is better than one that does speak to them. art is objective only to a degree and is entirely subjective after that.

-Nick

Hello Nick. I don't know whether your paintings are better, as good as, or worse than Dali's. The only Objective indication I have is that you are younger and Dali's art during his 20s were a bunch of exercises and studies most with depressing catala folk depictions.

What I mean to say is, show me your paintings! -smileyface that creates empathy and trust-

[Jonathan13]

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

Rand said, "t is of course impossible to name the sense of life of fictional characters. You might name the sense of life of your closest friend – though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that. You cannot judge the sense of life of another person; that would be psychologizing." (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, 186)

Yet here you are claiming to know Picasso's sense of life/metaphysical view of existence based on a single image that he created? And you're so certain about it! Terror at his metaphysical world-view is "of course," you so confidently assert, what Picasso was expressing!

Heh. Of course! Of course!

J

[Jonathan13]

I was paging through Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A a bit again last night and thought that some of you might be interested in this (from page 185):

So many combinations of premises are possible that you can't make a rule applicable to everyone who claims to like all kinds of art. You can say the same about people who claim they only like "romantic" art or – be careful here – "Objectivist" art (if there were such a thing, which there isn't). You cannot always be sure what a person's premises are; most people are inconsistent.

(Before you deluge me with questions about there being no such thing as Objectivist art, let me add: My novels are Objectivist, because I translated my sense of life into conscious terms. I can't say that about anyone else's novels. Further, no such formulas necessarily apply to other fields of art. For example, my husband's paintings are exactly in his field what my novels are in mine, but I'd never call it "Objectivist painting." No such term is appropriate.) (185)

---

J