Bad Art

Aesthetics
1

I am a full blown Objectivist. I am not a Randian. When I struggle with the logic of an Objectivist opinion, I do not accept it. I have left O groups who could not reasonably explain certain ideas and who chastised me because of my reluctance to accept those ideas purely based on Rand’s opinion. Before I launch into my Aesthetics post, I would like to preface it with one of my past Objectivist arguments.

The issue of Competing Governments. With the non initiation of force principle entrenched in my morality, it seemed ridiculously contradictory to deem moral, aiming a gun at me if I should offer the service of a competing government. I kept getting the Police A vs Police B explanation as if, suddenly, the end justified the means, another contradiction. I was ruthless in my rejection of their explanations and left the group, along with others, who understood my argument. A couple years later I found documentation of a proper explanation and am now a firm believer in a Monopolistic Government.

Here is that explanation in my own words:

-----To compete means to enter a market. If this market is to be free (un-coerced), then it must presuppose the protection of individual rights. But this job belongs to government. Therefore competing governments would operate in a market BEFORE it is free, since they themselves are the agents of such freedom. Chaos can be the only result.-------

Now to my relevant post.

I quote Rand, " At the other extreme of the stylistic continuum, observe the deliberate blurring and visual distortions of the so-called “painterly” school, from Rembrandt on down–down to the rebellion against consciousness, expressed by a phenomenon such as Cubism which seeks specifically to disintegrate man’s consciousness by painting objects as man does not perceive them (from several perspectives at once.) . . . . . "

I would like to focus on her rejection of Cubism - the representation of the physically impossible.

Really? Cubism should be avoided because it is impossible? A man’s imagination is limitlessly good. From her point of view, we should never have had the privilege and honour of witnessing the magic of complex numbers in Math. For you non Mathematicians, Complex Numbers are the group of numbers that include, the IMAGINARY number i , where _ i _ is the square root of -1. As we all know, any number (positive or negative) when multiplied by itself produces a positive result. So what number IN REALITY, when multiplied by itself could ever produce -1? None. It is an impossibility.

Interestingly, Gerolamo Cardano, in 1545, conceived this concept in order to solve Cubic equations. That raht thar’s funny. Don’t care WHO yar.

More importantly, the imaginary number, _ i _, is Brilliant, it is Creative and it is Good. Because of this, I currently disagree with Ayn Rand with specific reference to her negative position regarding the painting of the impossible.

Your thoughts are most welcome.

2

I would like to focus on her rejection of Cubism - the representation of the physically impossible.

The quote doesn’t say physically impossible. And I know that wasn’t her reasoning elsewhere. Focus on the part that says “disintegrate man’s consciousness”. Perhaps the “from several perspectives at once” is mentioned because of how there is an impossibility of ever perceiving a thing in that manner. Much of what falls under Rand’s conception of art involves making an abstraction into something perceptual. If in reality what is represented could not be perceived in any manner apart from the piece of work, then it would be improper to classify it as art. However, I don’t quite agree that Cubism falls outside a valid classification of art because as far as I know it’s about movement and form in general, which is perceivable in a not-entirely static and clear visual form like that in a stationary portrait. I don’t think it really is impossible to have some abstract visualization in Picasso’s Cubist paintings, for instance. I should qualify further by saying there are two types of Cubism. Analytic Cubism is the borderline of not art, and I would qualify it as not art for the reasons Rand did. Synthetic Cubism is properly classified as art based on what I’ve seen.

3

The quote doesn’t say physically impossible. And I know that wasn’t her reasoning elsewhere. Focus on the part that says “disintegrate man’s consciousness”. Perhaps the “from several perspectives at once” is mentioned because of how there is an impossibility of ever perceiving a thing in that manner. Much of what falls under Rand’s conception of art involves making an abstraction into something perceptual. If in reality what is represented could not be perceived in any manner apart from the piece of work, then it would be improper to classify it as art. However, I don’t quite agree that Cubism falls outside a valid classification of art because as far as I know it’s about movement and form in general, which is perceivable in a not-entirely static and clear visual form like that in a stationary portrait. I don’t think it really is impossible to have some abstract visualization in Picasso’s Cubist paintings, for instance. I should qualify further by saying there are two types of Cubism. Analytic Cubism is the borderline of not art, and I would qualify it as not art for the reasons Rand did. Synthetic Cubism is properly classified as art based on what I’ve seen.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply on this topic.

In the end, you do differ in opinion to what she generally dismissed. This encourages me to believe that I am engaging in a rational discussion not plagued with Randian dogma - though I will state here than one is well advised to disagree with her with extreme caution.

With regard to the ‘physically impossible’, that was my interpretation and I do not view it differently as a reference to her quote. The only proof she has for any artist’s aiming to “disintegrate man’s consciousness” is the art itself. That was her own personal deduction from the painting(s). One needs to ask ‘where did she get that opinion from?’ Well, from the painting of course. And what exactly in the painting did she use for her decision? By the fact that is was not perceptible in reality. Her quote “from several perspectives at once” was bracketed and therefore meant to be - simply one example. My own description, ‘physically impossible’, perfectly matches what she is saying within the context of this discussion. We all know what she is alluding to. Lets step outside Cubism for a moment. Do you think that Ayn Rand would have approved, as ‘good’ art, The Penrose Stairs?

4

Art is a reflection of the mind that makes it and impacts its viewers’ minds similarly.  Art you enjoy is art that compliments the way you view reality or what you think reality should be; art you dislike is art that conflicts with what you hold to be true and good.  It is a physical extension of the minds who aspire to it.  That’s something Ayn Rand said, or a close approximation.

I don’t know whether she would have liked the Penrose Steps or not.  I actually do because it’s a clever imitation of infinity; a flash of an impossible but rather pleasant dream that it would be nice to experience.

 

But what sort of dreamworld would Picasso inhabit?

 

Picasso’s paintings are grotesque, not just because they’re impossible (art couldn’t function if it could only depict what’s really real) but because they depict people as gruesome monstrosities.  They’re somewhat similar to the drawings of a child, except that what Picasso did as an adult was done intentionally, and also perhaps less skillfully than some children.

That’s why I don’t like his work.  It’s not just that it’s a vision of fantasy; it’s that such visions are truly appalling to contemplate.

 

It’s like the difference between watching the movie Serenity or the movie Pandorum, even though both are science fiction.  It’s just which fiction you’d prefer to spend mental time inside of.