The fact that many in this thread can appreciate her work is a good thing.
…should really not be the criteria by which you judge the philosophy (or its proponents)
It seems to me that emotional investment is high in Greyhawk’s value scale and he/she is relieved to relate to Objectivists in a way that feels more at home to his/her sense of life. Still I agree, when the philosophy is studied at greater depth it has a lot more to offer than is often assumed.
Here is another detail of Inkling.
I painted this 6 years ago. I still hadn’t yet heard of Ayn Rand.
I would like to describe the conditions under which this work was created.
I had been working at a nursing home. The place was an orphanage for old folks, most of them were virtually abandoned there. Most of their human contact was through the nursing assistants rushed schedule and latex gloved hands. I cried every frozen morning on the drive home, wondering what I could do to improve the quality of their lives.
Despite the latex gloves the nursing assistant staff were continually sick. I came in sick several times because there was no one else to do the job. About 4 months into the job I realized I hadn’t cried for a week. I had come to an understanding that these people had failed to inspire anyone or even themselves of their own value, and they were just waiting to die.
Such a contrast to my always cheerful Great grandfather who took care of himself and got around fine on his own until 3 days before his death at 97 years old.
I filed my two week notice of resignation to the nursing home.
.
Because of the unusual medium I was beginning to believe my work would have historical significance.
A woman is standing on the brink of the unknown, she isn’t sure of whether she wants to go over the edge, reaching questioningly toward the distant star as though in farewell to a guide that has always been out of her reach. The light to the left warmer, closer, beckoning her to be brave. The energy of her dress almost a living manifest of her power. A slight fear she will plummet to her death, but it is only her fear that will die.
Wow! Tym, I had no idea of the size of Inkling until I saw the picture of you standing in front of it, and no idea of the extent of its exquisite detail until I saw the next picture you just posted. I had previously thought that I liked Inkling, but now I find it absolutely amazing. You are clearly an artist with both great talent and vision. You don’t need the sanction of anyone else’s definition of art. Just keep doing your work!
John Link
I love the Spiral Eye, it made me feel like I was gonna fall through the monitor at any moment
lol, I’m glad I could give you an experience, it does that to me too.
Catherine is a beautiful piece of artwork. She looks like rising smoke, very fragile but very beautiful. And, I’m a sucker for long, flowing hair, especially when it’s blowing in the wind.
I also like Purpleish Bunch for purely sexual reasons.
I’m glad Catherine could catch your eye.
Purplish bunch’s essence was an exercise in stepping out of my comfort zone.
I could explain better by example, so I will… posture doesn’t look like she… lack of context.
I appreciate the time you took to describe the symbolism you got from my work. I was already considering revisiting Respiration because of her posture. Context is something I want to contemplate more.
…You have a really “good eye”.
Thank you for your compliments. I have often believed that I am much more visually oriented, than geared toward speech. I take a lot in, I have over a hundred painting ideas on the back burner. I need to get better at prioritizing what is most important to me to bring out.
I’m actually very curious as to how you’ve gotten that look..
I choose not to reveal my medium at this time. The geodes are lovely, I might well find inspiration for a painting in one.
Just keep doing your work!
I will get back to work. I have two ideas that are well into the process of being made. The sense of life in them actually led me back to this forum. I wanted to be more steeped in the values I hold as I work with them.
What are you looking for in order to “grow as an artist”? Audience feedback? Or, are you looking for other painters. (I know there are few members who paint; not many, but the numbers are probably not critical.)
I was afraid of being unanimously told that my work doesn’t belong here and I didn’t want to be alienated from this forum by a policy that tried to limit what I want to do with my Art.
I don’t mind that there are people who disregard or dislike my work, I’m finding value in their feedback because I grow in the challenge to communicate more effectively about what I am trying to do.
I think of painting as a language I am learning; a visual dictionary I am compiling. I have looked at hundreds of thousands of images taking note of which ones mean the most to me and why. I would like to have peers I can communicate with about these things. I don’t think of it as second handedness to learn from others because I only accept what makes sense to me.
I feel an urge to generate an environment in this Visual Arts forum that will allow artists to feel more confident about exposing their work here. In fact I would like to see artists realize what a powerful resource this forum can be in directing them toward the pursuit of their own value in their work.
I invented a new technique for the mediums I am using. I have never seen it done before. It isn’t an easy process.
Is it diluting paint with water and applying it with a sponge? I am curious about your technique, because I was asked to do a fauvist painting using this method, and the result was almost the same.
I will get back to work.
To be clear, when I wrote “Just keep doing your work” I did not mean to suggest only working and not discussing your work. The “Just” was merely for emphasis.
John
I have to say, I had no idea what Inkling was at first. Now that I see the closeup, I absolutely love it. I’m sure it would be even better if I saw it in person.
Is it diluting paint with water and applying it with a sponge? I am curious about your technique, because I was asked to do a fauvist painting using this method, and the result was almost the same.
Its ok if you cant see the difference. I understand that certain mental associations once made are hard to undo.
Its ok if you cant see the difference. I understand that certain mental associations once made are hard to undo.
As you wish. I was simply asking a question, but I am not interested anymore.
I have been contemplating why I am so interested in making images textural and ambiguous. I don’t see humans as statues, forever frozen in the moment. There is a fire inside of us, a movement that doesn’t cease until we are dead. The paintings I have been creating are attempts to express this movement. Ideas can last for thousands of years, but a human body seems to max out at 120. There is something precious in this fleetingness.
I still have a lot of thinking to do on this matter.
Yes, life is movement and not frozen.
But the direction of that movement is absolute–it can be only in ONE direction, or 180 degrees different. The will to live is not ambiguous.
When we perceive the world, to perceive hardness and solidity is beautiful, because our functioning, our perception feels “at home” in an absolute universe.
When it comes to perceiving, and painting a human being, it is beautiful to find the hard and solid aspects that are a result of the will and movement inside.
I have been contemplating why I am so interested in making images textural and ambiguous. I don’t see humans as statues, forever frozen in the moment. There is a fire inside of us, a movement that doesn’t cease until we are dead. The paintings I have been creating are attempts to express this movement. Ideas can last for thousands of years, but a human body seems to max out at 120. There is something precious in this fleetingness.
I still have a lot of thinking to do on this matter.
I have been contemplating why I am so interested in making images textural and ambiguous. I don’t see humans as statues, forever frozen in the moment. There is a fire inside of us, a movement that doesn’t cease until we are dead. The paintings I have been creating are attempts to express this movement. Ideas can last for thousands of years, but a human body seems to max out at 120. There is something precious in this fleetingness.
I still have a lot of thinking to do on this matter.
I don’t mean to bring up my own work while responding to this post, but I find it incredibly interesting that I too find myself compelled into making textual and slightly ambiguous music, despite the several Objectivist writings that I’ve read labeling such aesthetic properties as being ‘naturalist’. I think the problem really stems from a viewer’s inability to separate process from result. Your paintings, to me, are quite beautiful, and I particularly enjoy Inkling. It presents a startling hybrid of natural textures and serene, peaceful colors. I can tell that your style is not forced, and that results in legitimate, valuable art. When I view this art, I see an artist who has achieved romantic results using completely individualistic processes, not too different from Howard Roark.
… textual and slightly ambiguous music, despite the several Objectivist writings that I’ve read labeling such aesthetic properties as being ‘naturalist’.
I wonder who is writing this, because ambiguity and stylization goes in the opposite direction from naturalism.
I wonder who is writing this, because ambiguity and stylization goes in the opposite direction from naturalism.
You’re right. I meant to say expressionist.
I think the problem really stems from a viewer’s inability to separate process from result.
They each should be worthy of each other. the means doesn’t justify the ends just as the ends doesn’t justify the means especially in fine art. Art is about the relationship of consciousness to reality. The viewer should not separate process from result as integrating the mental and physical is an essential aspect of art.
An intelligent child is aware that he does not know what adult life is like. That he has an enormous amount to learn and is actually eager to learn it. An ambitious child is incoherently determined to make something important of himself and his life.
So when he hears such threats as ‘Wait until you grow up.’ and ‘You will never get anywhere with those childish notions.’ It is his virtues that have turned against him. His intelligence, his ambition, and whatever respect he might feel for the knowledge and judgment of his elders.
Thus the foundation of a lethal dichotomy is led in his consciousness; The practical vs. the moral.
With the unstated preconceptual implication that practicality requires the betrayal ones values, the renunciation of ideals.
His rationality is turned against him by means of a similar dichotomy; Reason vs Emotion.
His romantic sense of life is only a sense. An incoherent emotion which he can neither communicate, nor explain, nor defend. It is an intense yet fragile emotion. Painfully vulnerable to any sarcastic allegation since he is unable to identify its real meaning.
This is my problem with the approach the member who calls himself Howard Roark takes in regard to people who are new to Objectivism:
Sarcastic allegation.
I am invested enough in Objectivism to not be thrown off by such a crass approach, but I am dismayed to think that many people I would love to know have come and gone from this art forum because of similar experiences.
I am trying to learn what Objectivism is, and how it can enhance my exploration of my art and my life. I appreciate the effort many have made to clarify the Objectivist philosophy of good art and how it relates to my work.
After spending 30 years in chronic insecurity, the last 4 years have been an exercise in respecting my own mind and becoming a true adult. In contemplating why I choose to paint the way I do, I’m not convinced that mystery/ambiguity lacks usefulness in objective reality. I compare them to the way light and dark contrast and define one another, or the times Ayn Rand has found it proper to use symbols of mysticism, (Atlas, God, evil) to accentuate the deeper meaning in her point.
“…Marilyn Monroe on the screen was an image of pure, innocent, childlike joy in living. She projected the sense of a person born and reared in some radiant utopia untouched by suffering, unable to conceive of ugliness or evil, facing life with the confidence, the benevolence, and the joyous self-flaunting of a child or a kitten who is happy to display its own attractiveness as the best gift it can offer the world, and who expects to be admired for it, not hurt.”
One of my goals is to make beautiful work, I see beauty in every one of my paintings. If Howard pays me the injustice of accusing me of trying to make something as ugly as a muddy crayon scribble, he can not expect any further words that he offers to be taken seriously. It is a betrayal of Objectivism to use it as an ineffectual excuse to be cruel.
If Howard pays me the injustice of accusing me of trying to make something as ugly as a muddy crayon scribble, he can not expect any further words that he offers to be taken seriously. It is a betrayal of Objectivism to use it as an ineffectual excuse to be cruel.
I am deeply sorry if you felt that my criticism was cruel, but you are being overly dramatic about this. I never intended to be disrespectful. I was even interested in your procedure, and asked you about your personal technique, but your answer was completely dismissive. The only sarcastic allegations I can think of would be my first two replies, and the sarcasm was very mild. Of course, you deserve respect, but I never attacked you personally. I was expressing my disapproval for your work, which is not going to be praised and pampered every time you present it in public. I am sorry that you think this is unjust, but I am not going to change my mind simply because of how you feel. Moreover, I am not concerned by the fact that my words are being taken seriously or not. I still think they are true. In any case, many members agreed with me, and they do take them seriously. So, I am not the only heartless villain in the picture. I think that your paintings are bad, but I never accused you of intentionally giving them the appearance of a doodle. That is simply the outcome, and I indicated why I personally think this is true. If I accused you of trying to create bad art knowingly and on purpose, as you said I did, please provide evidence. Since you seem to know more about my motives than I do, I am definitively interested in your method for concluding that my arguments were secretly being used as an excuse for spreading my cruelty. Ascribing false and arbitrary motivations to suit your denunciation of my arguments is called “psychologizing.” Now you have something to actually call a “betrayal of Objectivism.”
