Non Objective art

Aesthetics Visual Arts
41

Is the work of M.C. Escher art? And if it is art, is it objective or non-objective.

On this thread we’ve been talking about the means through which art is presented as opposed to the content, so I’d say that, by what I take to be Rand’s meaning of “objective,” Esher’s work is art, and it’s “objective” in its means, since most of it presents identifiable likenesses of things from reality.

As for content, I think it’s a toss-up as to whether or not Rand would have judged his work to be objective or non-objective. I think her opinion would have depended on how she interpreted his art and whether or not she liked it. She might have seen it as subjective, irrational nonsense, or, if she liked it and was in a good mood, she might have seen it as playful expressions based on geometry and optical illusion, and praised it as representing imagination and the deceptiveness of shallow appearances.

J

42

I generally use the same criteria that you do, and that Rand did,

How about you explain it to me in your own words? What do sculptures, music, paintings, dancing all have in common to be called “art”? Please don’t quote Ayn Rand.

43

I’m a magician - I can make people disappear! :smiley:

44

How about you explain it to me in your own words? What do sculptures, music, paintings, dancing all have in common to be called “art”? Please don’t quote Ayn Rand.

What do they have in common? They are all means of artistic expression – they express, conceptualize, symbolize, represent or evoke emotions and ideas that their creators felt were in some way important and worth experiencing.

There are some minor exceptions, but generally I think Rand’s idea that art is a “re-creation of reality” gets to the core of art’s means, only I think she could have chosen a more precise term, or one that doesn’t need as much explanation. I think a better way of putting it would be that art simulates aspects of reality. A few art forms, such as music, architecture and abstract paintings and sculptures, simulate aspects of reality much more indirectly than literature or figurative paintings and sculptures do, and claiming that they “re-create reality” doesn’t sound quite accurate. It implies an expectation of a level of specificity of mimesis that’s frankly unrealistic for the art forms that are more about evoking general moods than conveying specific, detailed information (like literature can).

I’m a magician - I can make people disappear! :smiley:

That, or you happened to post your last message while I was traveling and busy with more important things. In the future, before congratulating yourself on how devastatingly brilliant your comments must have been in order to drive me to awed silence, you might want to keep in mind that I’m often busy, and I’m sometimes absent from online forums for days or weeks at a time.

J

45

What do they have in common? They are all means of artistic expression – they express, conceptualize, symbolize, represent or evoke emotions and ideas that their creators felt were in some way important and worth experiencing.

There are some minor exceptions, but generally I think Rand’s idea that art is a “re-creation of reality” gets to the core of art’s means, only I think she could have chosen a more precise term, or one that doesn’t need as much explanation. I think a better way of putting it would be that art simulates aspects of reality.

Video games rule, but why are you describing them in this thread?

46

Video games rule, but why are you describing them in this thread?

Your question is just as apt of “a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.”

Were you under the impression that interactive “selective re-creations of reality” can’t be created “according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments”? Interactivity doesn’t prevent something from being art, at least not according to anything that I’m aware of in the Objectivist Esthetics. In fact, Rand’s play, Night of January 16th, was interactive. It had different endings depending on how jury members (who were chosen from the audience) voted.

J

47

What do they have in common? They are all means of artistic expression – they express, conceptualize, symbolize, represent or evoke emotions and ideas that their creators felt were in some way important and worth experiencing.

First, this is not the concept of art Ayn Rand is describing. This is a subjective concept, saying, essentially, that everything someone happens to feel something about is art.

Secondly, this description does not work because it is too broad - there are many thing that people do that express their feelings, but nobody classifies them as art. Like decoration on bicycle or a ring with a sentimental value or just kicking someone - that’s an expression of feelings as well but it’s not dancing.

Thirdly, “important and worth experiencing” is subjective as well - important to whom? What makes something worth experiencing?

48

First, this is not the concept of art Ayn Rand is describing.

Yes, it is.

This is a subjective concept, saying, essentially, that everything someone happens to feel something about is art.

No. When you quoted me above, you left out the next paragraph that I had written. If you’d bother to read it, you’d see that I was indeed talking about the same thing that Rand was describing. I was very clear in focusing on the idea of art being a simulation. If art is a simulation, then non-simulations would not quality as art, and therefore, contrary to what you suggest, I cannot be saying that “everything someone happens to feel something about is art.”

Secondly, this description does not work because it is too broad - there are many thing that people do that express their feelings, but nobody classifies them as art.

Who do you mean by “nobody”? You mean you, don’t you? There are a lot of things that people other than you classify as art, so let’s not pretend that you speak for everyone, or that the majority of people share your views. Your opinions about what is or is not art are actually in the minority, and a very small minority at that.

Like decoration on bicycle or a ring with a sentimental value or just kicking someone - that’s an expression of feelings as well but it’s not dancing.

A decoration on a bicycle or a ring might be art. “Just kicking someone” is not a means of artistic expression or simulation.

Thirdly, “important and worth experiencing” is subjective as well - important to whom? What makes something worth experiencing?

So apparently you’re saying that Rand’s notion of metaphysical value-judgments, which, in her own words, pertain to what an artist feels is important and worthy of attention or consideration, is subjective? And that her definition of art is therefore subjective?

J

49

I’d like to add a quote by Ayn Rand regarding what is and is not art, to demonstrate why Jonathan’s view has nothing to do with Objectivism (or with reality), and to also provide an answer to those who claimed that any “selective recreation of reality” (such as a smiley icon) is art:

Some sort of philosophical meaning, however, some implicit view of of life, is a necessary element of a work of art.

The quote is a small part of a huge discussion which supports and illustrates this point.

The core of the book describes what art is and what is its function - which is - to concretize man’s widest abstractions and allow him to contemplate them outside his mind by experiencing them in some physical, concrete form.

So while a hamburger is a selective creation of materials, as many other things, a hamburger (to some people’s amazement, perhaps) is not art.

Furthermore, Ayn Rand identifies the psychology of those who like abstract paintings. She explains that the style of an artist reveals his method of cognitive functioning with which he feels at home. She explains that clarity of the subject in art is a demonstration of a mind that functions in focus and with cognitive effort, while those works which are unfocused and unclear are evidence of an unfocused mind. She says that modern art is an attempt to escape from identity and to get away with faking reality.

I agree. It’s exactly what it is.

__________

A while back I’ve made several great posts analyzing paintings and explaining what metaphysical abstractions they communicate by analyzing the subject and style of rendering. It would be far better to read those than to just quote Ayn Rand. However, I can’t find those posts anymore (seems like all content before a certain time is no longer available?), so the above is all I can offer now.

However, I understand what art is very well. I understand what Ayn Rand is describing in full and I can demonstrate it by analyzing works of art. In other words, my knowledge of the subject is reality-based, not just book based. It would take time and effort I don’t have, but I may start a blog about it.

50

Furthermore, Ayn Rand identifies the psychology of those who like abstract paintings.

No, she didn’t “identify” anyone’s psychology. A person would have to actually meet and get to know another person in order to identify his psychology. She merely psychologized about people who like abstract paintings.

She explains that the style of an artist reveals his method of cognitive functioning with which he feels at home. She explains that clarity of the subject in art is a demonstration of a mind that functions in focus and with cognitive effort, while those works which are unfocused and unclear are evidence of an unfocused mind.

I like many abstract paintings, but, as an artist, I usually paint with a level of realist clarity that would qualify me as having one of the most focused minds in the world according to Rand’s criteria. But I also sometimes create abstract paintings. So, using the childish method of pychologizing that you’re using, I suppose that I’m a person of “mixed mindsets”? I apparently go from absolute clarity of mind to absolute lack of clarity of mind (despite the fact that I don’t) because you say so, and because you know my mind better than I do based on my tastes in art? And you expect to be taken seriously?

She says that modern art is an attempt to escape from identity and to get away with faking reality.

I think she was coming from the same sort of limitations of knowledge that you were coming from when you thought that I was faking reality by explaining the perspective errors in a realist painting. When it comes to my being able to see things that you don’t, it doesn’t appear to matter if a painting is abstract or realist: If I see and understand anything that you can’t, why, I must be making things up or faking reality!

It seems that it’s very upsetting to certain people that others have knowledge that they don’t, and that others have the ability to experience and understand things that they can’t. Rather than recognize and accept their own limitations, they lash out at those who aren’t so limited, and they claim that the knowledge that is being imparted is an act of faking reality. Pitiful.

J

1 Like
51

No, she didn’t “identify” anyone’s psychology. A person would have to actually meet and get to know another person in order to identify his psychology. She merely psychologized about people who like abstract paintings.

Is this an example of me psychologizing: “People who think 9/11 was an inside job have an unfocused mind.”?

Keep in mind, I haven’t met these people.

52

Is this an example of me psychologizing: “People who think 9/11 was an inside job have an unfocused mind.”?

Keep in mind, I haven’t met these people.

Yes, it’s psychologizing. I’ve met many people who think that 9/11 was an inside job who have very focused minds. I’ve known of many abstract artists and theorists who have written very focused and intelligent thoughts on abstract art and lots of other subjects.

J

53

Yes, it’s psychologizing. I’ve met many people who think that 9/11 was an inside job who have very focused minds. I’ve known of many abstract artists and theorists who have written very focused and intelligent thoughts on abstract art and lots of other subjects.

J

Ok, just checking. What if they think the Pink Panther planned 9/11. Still focused and ready to go?

54

Ok, just checking. What if they think the Pink Panther planned 9/11. Still focused and ready to go?

My point is that I think we need to actually learn what a person’s argument is, and get a sense of how they think and why they believe what they believe before declaring that they’re “unfocused” or otherwise mentally deficient. Since the Pink Panther is a fictional character, we would have enough information to judge a person’s departure from reality if he seriously believed that any fictional character planned 9/11.

I don’t think that Rand new enough about visual art in general, or about abstract art in particular, or about the people who created it or theorized about it, to make many of the judgments that she did. I get the impression, from reading her arguments against abstract art, that she hadn’t read much of anything about the subject, and wasn’t aware of what those promoting it actually believed. She presented what I would call caricatures or straw man constructions of their views, and then attacked those caricatures and straw men. Now, she may have been right that certain people believed the things that she claims they believed, and that they were unfocused and evil and all of that. But, unfortunately, we’ll never know because she didn’t identify or quote any specific person as having held the beliefs that she implied that all abstract artists and theorists must have believed.

J

55

No, she didn’t “identify” anyone’s psychology. A person would have to actually meet and get to know another person in order to identify his psychology. She merely psychologized about people who like abstract paintings.

…

It seems that it’s very upsetting to certain people that others have knowledge that they don’t, and that others have the ability to experience and understand things that they can’t. Rather than recognize and accept their own limitations, they lash out at those who aren’t so limited, and they claim that the knowledge that is being imparted is an act of faking reality. Pitiful.

Your criticism of the practice of psychologizing would be much stronger without that last paragraph.

1 Like
56

Your criticism of the practice of psychologizing would be much stronger without that last paragraph.

That paragraph wasn’t an example of psychologizing. Did you read my supporting evidence? When I tried to explain aspects of the science of perspective to Ifat so that she might begin to understand why I and others had a different judgment of a painting than she had, she accused me making up an explanation to justify an opinion.

It’s like sitting at a table with a four-year-old who knows how to count but doesn’t yet understand math. He has, say, four rows laid out on the table, each containing four blocks, and asks you to guess how many blocks there are in total. You say, pointing to each row as you go along, “Well, four plus four plus four plus four…is sixteen…therefore, there are sixteen blocks.”

If the child were to very angrily reply that you were just making stuff up about “math,” and that you’d need to count the blocks one by one, like he does, to actually know how many there are, rather than just making a lucky guess, would you say that it would be psychologizing for someone to claim that he wasn’t recognizing or accepting his own limitations, that he was lashing out at those who aren’t so limited?

J

57

That paragraph wasn’t an example of psychologizing. Did you read my supporting evidence? When I tried to explain aspects of the science of perspective to Ifat so that she might begin to understand why I and others had a different judgment of a painting than she had, she accused me making up an explanation to justify an opinion.

It’s like sitting at a table with a four-year-old who knows how to count but doesn’t yet understand math. He has, say, four rows laid out on the table, each containing four blocks, and asks you to guess how many blocks there are in total. You say, pointing to each row as you go along, “Well, four plus four plus four plus four…is sixteen…therefore, there are sixteen blocks.”

If the child were to very angrily reply that you were just making stuff up about “math,” and that you’d need to count the blocks one by one, like he does, to actually know how many there are, rather than just making a lucky guess, would you say that it would be psychologizing for someone to claim that he wasn’t recognizing or accepting his own limitations, that he was lashing out at those who aren’t so limited?

It depends on whether or not the child actually understands that what you did is valid or not. If he does understand, but cannot yet do it himself, then he is lashing out at you as a result of your ability to do something he can’t. But if he doesn’t understand what you did at all, and truly does think you’re just making stuff up, then his anger cannot be due to his refusal to face his own limitations; he doesn’t grasp the existence of the limitation in the first place. In that case, he may be responding with anger because he doesn’t like when people make stuff up and act like it’s fact.

My point is simply that it’s very hard to tell the difference between a failure to grasp and a refusal to acknowledge. Thus, imputing one process or another to someone requires stronger evidence than a few internet postings. Certainly there are more explanations for angry responses than the one you provided.

58

It depends on whether or not the child actually understands that what you did is valid or not. If he does understand, but cannot yet do it himself, then he is lashing out at you as a result of your ability to do something he can’t. But if he doesn’t understand what you did at all, and truly does think you’re just making stuff up, then his anger cannot be due to his refusal to face his own limitations; he doesn’t grasp the existence of the limitation in the first place. In that case, he may be responding with anger because he doesn’t like when people make stuff up and act like it’s fact.

My point is simply that it’s very hard to tell the difference between a failure to grasp and a refusal to acknowledge. Thus, imputing one process or another to someone requires stronger evidence than a few internet postings. Certainly there are more explanations for angry responses than the one you provided.

Sure, there could indeed be other explanations for Ifat’s anger, but they’re all worse than the one that I’ve gone with. I was being generous in giving her the benefit of the doubt and making the best possible conclusion about her. If you’re suggesting that I should consider the possibility that she may not understand that the science of perspective is valid, then my judgment of her can only get worse.

J

59

Sure, there could indeed be other explanations for Ifat’s anger, but they’re all worse than the one that I’ve gone with. I was being generous in giving her the benefit of the doubt and making the best possible conclusion about her. If you’re suggesting that I should consider the possibility that she may not understand that the science of perspective is valid, then my judgment of her can only get worse.

Lashing out as a result of one’s own limitation is the most charitable explanation you have? I don’t see any discussions of the science of perspective as a whole, just its applications to particular paintings. Not recognizing that the science of perspective as a whole is valid is a far cry from not understanding its application to a particular painting.

I for one know very little about art, especially visual art. I trust that the science of perspective is valid, but if someone handed me a Jackson Pollock and tried to tell me it was good art or represented incredible skill based on the science of perspective, I’d be very skeptical of that person’s understanding or application of perspective. Looking back over this little feud through the various threads, I don’t understand Ifat’s angry reaction to the particular paintings posted, but I certainly don’t get jumping to the conclusion that she’s reacting to an inadequacy that she recognizes within herself. That’s a bit too presumptuous for me. Reading the past posts of this little disagreement, I see that both sides are guilty of it, and I’d just as soon extricate myself from this altogether. It simply bothers me when people impute motives to others on this board.

60

No, she didn’t “identify” anyone’s psychology. A person would have to actually meet and get to know another person in order to identify his psychology. She merely psychologized about people who like abstract paintings.

Abstract paintings might not be art, but sometimes they look nice as decoration. There ARE some abstract paintings I would LIKE as decoration, actually. If a painter operates exclusively in an abstract style, it may be worth considering WHY they painted that way. Take a Rothko painting (anyone unfamilar with him can google image search “Rothko” and get a pretty good idea of the stuff he did); that’s what he did a lot of. It wouldn’t be a stretch to question his clarity of mind since he also claims to be an artist, but if he claimed to be an interior decorator, it’d make perfect sense.