Artist's intent and Aesthetic judgement

Aesthetics Visual Arts
1

*** Split from another topic . sN ***

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

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

An artist’s intentions aren’t relevant to the appreciation of art, and they’re generally not much of a concern of mine. They usually only become important when people start to imply that their tastes in art are objectively superior to others’, that their interpretations represent the “objective, observable nature” of art, and that others’ differing opinions don’t, or when they imply that we can’t judge certain technical aspects as being errors because they might be intentional distortions.

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

As far as I know, Rand didn’t specifically address the issue of when it might be necessary to discover an artist’s intentions as a means of confirming or rejecting people’s interpretations of art, but her comments on making “objective aesthetic judgments” imply that the artist’s intentions would eventually have to be discovered (after one has attempted to find an artwork’s meaning without reference to “outside considerations”) – artworks are usually open to many different interpretations, so following Rand’s notion of identifying the “artist’s theme” and evaluating how well he projected it would seem to require that the viewer must verify, by some means outside of the art, that he has correctly identified the artist’s theme.

J

2

so following Rand’s notion of identifying the “artist’s theme” and evaluating how well he projected it would seem to require that the viewer must verify, by some means outside of the art, that he has correctly identified the artist’s theme.

I can’t prove that it doesn’t seem to, to you, but beyond that that’s not true. Not even if you only mean paintings, not art in general.

You’re implying that one cannot make “objective aesthetic judgements” of art, instead they should go looking for documentation some place else. That is the exact opposite of Objectivism’s view of art.

3

You’re implying that one cannot make “objective aesthetic judgements” of art, instead they should go looking for documentation some place else.

One cannot make “objective aesthetic judgments” according to Rand’s meaning of the term if one hasn’t discovered the artist’s intentions by some means outside of his art, just as one can’t make an objective evaluation of any mission if one hasn’t discovered what the mission plan was.

Say that you’re observing a woman who decides to go out and try to accomplish a specific task. She doesn’t tell you what she’s planning on doing or why – you have no “outside considerations” by which to judge her actions. She crosses the street and enters a grocery store. She walks through a couple of aisles, picks up a jar of nutmeg and a bag of sugar, and then purchases them. What’s your objective evaluation of her mission? Has she succeeded? To paraphrase Rand’s comments on aesthetic judgments, evaluate the means by which the woman performed her task — i.e, taking her purpose as criterion, evaluate the effectiveness of her actions, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which she accomplished (or failed to accomplish) her goal.

That is the exact opposite of Objectivism’s view of art.

No, my point is not necessarily in conflict with Objectivism. Rand didn’t address the fact that aesthetic judgments involve not only the artist’s competence but the competence of those doing the judging as well, or that people place different levels of importance on different elements within an artwork, thus arriving at different interpretations based on the same evidence. She didn’t elaborate on how one would verify that one has identified the “artist’s theme” or if one has misinterpreted it, either due to the artist’s incompetence or the judge’s.

J

[Edited to add:]

P.S. During the past decade, I’ve probably seen hundreds of examples of Objectivists claiming to have objectively identified the “artist’s theme” in various artworks, and their interpretations quite often conflict with those of their fellow Objectivists. Often times they have opposite views of what the art means despite the fact that they’ve all based their opinions on what they’ve seen in the art. They all claim that their interpretations are the objective judgment of the art, that they’ve identified its meaning, and that anyone who disagees is mistaken. How do we determine which of them are objectively correct? How do we account for the fact that art can be very complex, that people place different levels of importance on different elements in a work of art, and that some people are aesthetically inept (tone-deaf, not sensitive to the nuances of form, body language or other non-verbal means of expression, literalists when it comes to metaphor or sacrasm, etc.)?

4

Judging art doesn’t take into account the artist’s *stated* intentions, although you may *infer* *some* of the artist’s intentions from evidence contained in the artwork. If two people disagree on meaning, as in any other aspect of life, they must go back to the evidence–the artwork itself. Sometimes the evidence may be inconclusive, particularly if the disagreement is about a subtle nuance.

The fact that it’s possible to evaluate art objectively doesn’t mean that it’s EASY.

5

Are you questioning evaluation of non-art vs art, or good art vs bad art? To me, there is a distinct difference between the two topics. It does not matter what I, as an observer, thinks is valuable about the piece of art. It only matter’s what the artist’s values are (stated or otherwise). How it relates to your values determines how much you like it. That it shows good or bad values determines how good the piece of art is. That it shows values at all determines if it is art.

What values a piece of art is showing is difficult. To have a complete and thorough evaluation of a piece art, I would agree that it is necessary to seek the artist’s explicit goal in their work. But you can figure out implicit values through analysis of technique, what is shown in the first place and colors used, etc. Rand didn’t go extremely in-depth on how to evaluate artwork, but she was pretty clear that it can be done and gave some principles on which to judge art.

6

Judging art doesn’t take into account the artist’s *stated* intentions…

It depends on what one means by “judging art.” If a person wishes to claim that he has objectively identified the “artist’s theme,” then he has to verify that the artist has communicated his intended meaning. If we set out to judge how well an artist has projected his vision, we have to know which vision he intended to project.

Let’s say that an artist wants to present mankind as heroic, but he’s somewhat lacking in skill, and the figures that he paints look distorted, which makes us interpret them as sickly and unhappy, among other negative things. If we don’t know the artist’s intentions, our interpretation of “his theme” is likely to be that mankind is doomed to be sickly and unhappy. Since we think that he projected that vision very effectively, we come to the conclusion that even though we don’t like his vision of existence, strictly aesthetically speaking he has done a tremendous job of expressing his horrible view of mankind (as Rand said, one need not like or agree with a painting in order to judge it as aesthetically great).

Well, the problem is that it’s not his view of mankind, it’s not “his theme,” and he’s obviously not the great artist that we’ve rated him to be. If we don’t know his intentions via external means, we have no objective standard by which to decide if he failed or succeeded in presenting his theme.

…although you may *infer* *some* of the artist’s intentions from evidence contained in the artwork.

But that’s not Rand’s concept of “objective esthetic judgment.” She made it very clear that we can’t merely “infer” “some” of the artist’s intentions. She stated that we must identify his theme, his meaning, his view of existence. She stated that his art must communicate, and that if it doesn’t do so, then it ceases to be art. That’s significantly different from saying that a viewer “may infer some of the artist’s intentions.”

If two people disagree on meaning, as in any other aspect of life, they must go back to the evidence–the artwork itself. Sometimes the evidence may be inconclusive, particularly if the disagreement is about a subtle nuance.

The evidence often supports many different interpretations, and, lacking knowledge of the artist’s intentions, errors can be seen as intentional distortions, and vice versa, lack of control can be interpreted as precise control, bad art can be mistakenly judged to be great art.

J

7

That’s why I said it wasn’t *easy*. Amateurs often get stuff wrong when they’re discussing art, but professional artists and art critics can tell the difference between poor technique and intentional distortion. Heck, I can do it myself in my classes.

With a lot of art, you can’t infer *all* of the artist’s intentions because the art is sloppy and they may have some confused premises/ulterior motives/etc. This is why I HATE it when artists do not know when to stop talking about their work. If you can’t pick up this or that from the actual work, talking about it just makes it worse.

With good art and a good professional critic, you can get everything.

8

If a person wishes to claim that he has objectively identified the “artist’s theme,” then he has to verify that the artist has communicated his intended meaning.

No.

It is not artist’s theme you are identifying but the painting’s theme. Artist’s intended meaning is irrelevant. What is relevant is what IS on the canvas.

9

Amateurs often get stuff wrong when they’re discussing art, but professional artists and art critics can tell the difference between poor technique and intentional distortion. Heck, I can do it myself in my classes.

I agree. As I said on this thread’s parent thread, I think that I can generally tell the difference between Dali’s perspective errors and his intentional distortions, but, then again, my judgments are informed by “outside considerations,” such as comparing content and techniques in several paintings, reading about Dali’s training, and having personally witnessed a lot of other artists in drafting classes, including very talented ones, and having seen the types of errors that they commonly make with perspective – in fact, they’re often being instructed to make the errors by teachers who themselves have been taught imprecise methods.

With a lot of art, you can’t infer *all* of the artist’s intentions because the art is sloppy and they may have some confused premises/ulterior motives/etc. This is why I HATE it when artists do not know when to stop talking about their work. If you can’t pick up this or that from the actual work, talking about it just makes it worse.

I agree that it’s annoying when artists over-explain their art. But I have no problem with a simple artist’s statement in a brochure or on a gallery placard, or some brief details in a magazine interview, etc.

With good art and a good professional critic, you can get everything.

Yes, but an important part of what makes for a good professional critic is that she considers all of the available information when judging art, including such “outside considerations” as the artist’s statements about his work, the history and content of his entire body of works, and any historical or mythical content to which his art might refer, etc. (visual art has a long history of making reference to such external content, and it really doesn’t make much sense to try to glean meaning from a painting while consciously avoiding it).

J

10

No.

It is not artist’s theme you are identifying but the painting’s theme. Artist’s intended meaning is irrelevant. What is relevant is what IS on the canvas.

That may be your view, but it’s not what Rand said. She was very clear about stating that a viewer must identify the artist’s theme. If she wanted to say that one should judge the artwork’s theme, then I think she would have said that. After all, she prided herself in using words very precisely, and in saying exactly what she meant.

J

11

She was very clear about stating that a viewer must identify the artist’s theme. If she wanted to say that one should judge the artwork’s theme, then I think she would have said that.

Relying on that type of wording is pretty weak one way or the other. The “artist’s theme” may easily enough not refer to the artist’s intended theme but to the artist’s actual theme. If the context was such that one is not focusing on a situation where actuality falls far from intent, there would be no need to make the distinction. Or, if the context is such that Rand is addressing an artist, rather than a critic, there may be no reason to focus on a mistake where they end up at variance.

One would have to examine any possible reference within its context to understand what she meant. Do you have some particular reference in mind?

12

That may be your view, but it’s not what Rand said. She was very clear about stating that a viewer must identify the artist’s theme. If she wanted to say that one should judge the artwork’s theme, then I think she would have said that. After all, she prided herself in using words very precisely, and in saying exactly what she meant.

J

From lexicon (bold mine):

In essence, 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.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life . . . .

Clearly she meant artwork’s theme - what is actually on the canvas.

13

Relying on that type of wording is pretty weak one way or the other. The “artist’s theme” may easily enough not refer to the artist’s intended theme but to the artist’s actual theme.

And what do you mean by “actual theme”? Is an “artist’s actual theme” the theme that you interpret to be the painting’s theme?

If the context was such that one is not focusing on a situation where actuality falls far from intent, there would be no need to make the distinction. Or, if the context is such that Rand is addressing an artist, rather than a critic, there may be no reason to focus on a mistake where they end up at variance.

One would have to examine any possible reference within its context to understand what she meant. Do you have some particular reference in mind?

I’m thinking of her comments on “esthetic judgments” in which she focused on identifying the artist’s theme and the technical mastery with which he projects his view of life, as well as her focus on the importance of art communicating – to communicate is to convey information clearly enough that the person receiving it understands it as it was intended.

J

14

Clearly she meant artwork’s theme - what is actually on the canvas.

Clearly she meant that we must identify the artist’s theme based on what we see on the canvas. As I’ve shown above, though, we can’t assume that we’ve identified the “artist’s theme” or that we’ve established how well he projected “his view of life” if we don’t verify what his intended theme was by some means outside of the art.

J

15

Clearly she meant that we must identify the artist’s theme based on what we see on the canvas. As I’ve shown above, though, we can’t assume that we’ve identified the “artist’s theme” or that we’ve established how well he projected “his view of life” if we don’t verify what his intended theme was by some means outside of the art.

Ok. So if I show you a portrait of my cat and then tell you “The theme of this painting is the interplay of light and shadow on a city view,” you then must twist your mind into a pretzel trying to fit my stated theme into what is on canvas?

16

And what do you mean by “actual theme”? Is an “artist’s actual theme” the theme that you interpret to be the painting’s theme?

The artist’s actual theme, that he has created.

I assume you think this is problematic because two people can differ on what that theme is. However, that is a general problem in knowledge-acquisition. In many other contexts, the existence of such difference of opinion would not deter Rand from saying that there is an objective reality that needs to be identified. Secondly, that difference of opinion could be irrelevant in the context of some particular discussion.

In the specific reference that Sophia provided, Rand appears unambiguous about identifying the theme that is manifest in the art work itself, without taking extraneous considerations into account.

Again, I’m not saying that the particular reference you have in mind is one or the other, only that your interpretation is not obvious to me, from what has been thus presented. If you have a more specific reference, it could help. (If you don’t have “the CD”, but can provide some close-by reference, someone else might hunt down the details for you.)

17

Clearly she meant that we must identify the artist’s theme based on what we see on the canvas.

What actually IS on the canvas is the artwork’s theme - which is the actual artist’s theme - what he actually created. It may match artist’s intended theme or it may not. The value is based on what IS.

As I’ve shown above, though, we can’t assume that we’ve identified the “artist’s theme” or that we’ve established how well he projected “his view of life” if we don’t verify what his intended theme was by some means outside of the art.

I have highlighted a passage in bold in my previous post in which Rand clearly stated that no other considerations other than what is on the canvas take part in an objective aesthetic judgment.

If you want to judge someone’s artistic skill then you may look at how well he was able to express his intended theme. That is a separate and different judgment.

18

On re-reading the quote that Sophia provided, I’m even more convinced that it is unambiguous. By “theme” Rand is talking about “the abstract meaning of the work”. Clearly, Rand thinks the work itself has meaning, and it is with that meaning that we should be concerned as viewers, readers, listeners, etc. A few paragraphs later, she speaks about how a critic has “to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms”. [Romantic Manifesto, Ch-3 Art and Sense of Life]

Earlier in the same anthology, she says this:

If, consciously or subconsciously, an artist holds the premise that man possesses the power of volition, it will lead his work to a value orientation (to Romanticism). If he holds the premise that man’s fate is determined by forces beyond his control, it will lead his work to an anti-value orientation (to Naturalism).

She is saying that an artist can do certain things subconsciously. This is more evidence that her focus is not on artist’s motivation as a primary.

She returns to the notion of unconscious motive, again:

Regardless of their creators’ conscious or subconscious motives, such thrillers, in fact, carry a message or intention of their own, …

Later she says this:

When the performance and the work (literary or musical) are perfectly integrated in meaning, style and intention, the result is a magnificent esthetic achievement and an unforgettable experience for the audience.

Clearly, she makes a distinction between “meaning” on the on hand, and “intention” on the other.

19

Earlier in the same anthology, she says this:She is saying that an artist can do certain things subconsciously. This is more evidence that her focus is not on artist’s motivation as a primary.

Given her intense admiration of Victor Hugo, this should be an obvious point incapable of being contested. Several of Hugo’s works are motivated by causes and concerns which Rand would disagree with. Another example: Rand’s admiration of Quo Vadis. Seinkiewicz imbued the novel with intense pro-Christian themes (his motivation for writing the work).

20

No.

It is not artist’s theme you are identifying but the painting’s theme. Artist’s intended meaning is irrelevant. What is relevant is what IS on the canvas.

Yes, bull’s eye. That’s exactly what I think as well. An artist can have a certain intention and fail to execute it, or he can have one intention but end up creating something different. For example, he can be a beginner and distort a human figure so badly that if interpreted as serious art (not as part of a study) would objectively be interpreted as presenting man as a distorted being.

It’s not likely to create something good unintentionally, but I guess that’s a possibility in rare cases.