Non Objective art

Aesthetics Visual Arts
61

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.

Well, as I said in my last post, if Ifat doesn’t understand the relevance that perspective has to the painting which we were discussing, then my judgment of her up to now has been much too generous.

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.

Yes, it would be inappropriate for someone to discuss perspective in regard to a painting which isn’t meant to represent a 3-dimensional space. But I don’t know what relevance that has since, as I explained in post #50, the image that Ifat and I were discussing was a realist painting. It was a painting that Ifat had posted as an example of good art. It was an image of a key in a lock, with other keys hanging from a ring attached to the first key. Another poster had mentioned that the image was distorted – that it looked “melted.” I explained why it looked distorted: because of perspective errors. I even provide a link to an online tutorial so that people could learn to measure the errors for themselves if they wanted.

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.

I think that’s because you don’t appear to be really paying attention to the details of the discussion. The fact that you mentioned Pollock and perspective above, which has no relation or relevance at all to the particulars of this case, suggests to me that you’re not aware of what’s been discussed.

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.

Hey, I’m open to changing my opinion of Ifat. If she doesn’t grasp the relevance of perspective to the painting of the lock and keys, I’ll gladly downgrade my judgment of her if it’ll make you happy.

J

62

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

So, just to summarize: you admit that your previous observation, about having to meet and get to know someone before making a judgment about their psychology is nonsense. You can in fact judge them based on their actions, statements or preferences alone.

And now you’re changing your argument to an ad hominem against Miss Rand: she was psychologizing because she wasn’t well read on the subject. You’re also going in circles (all ad hominem arguments are circular): You know she was ignorant of the subject because what she said about it is wrong, and she was wrong because she was ignorant.

Sorry, but the only way you’re going to convince anyone of the value of something, is by explaining what its value is in a logical fashion. No amount of bashing those who disagree with you will accomplish that, it will only shed light on your own irrationality and psychology. So, what’s good about abstract art? How exactly is it an expression of a focused mind?

63

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.

What I said was one step remote from directly quoting Ayn Rand. It is practically what SHE said. If you want to say that Ayn Rand psychologized people, I suggest you don’t do it in an Objectivist forum.

Just in case someone has a doubt - read the chapter from which I quoted. She explains, with examples, why the style reveals a man’s psycho-epistemology. She wrote a whole lot illustrating and supporting her analysis. It’s not out of the blue “if you like this, you are that”.

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

Mixed, I suppose (I didn’t see your artwork).

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.

See now, THAT, however, is psychologizing. It is an insult in disguise. You are openly saying that I am posting what I post here because I am upset that you know more than I do (which is also untrue, but beside the point).

64

Yes, it would be inappropriate for someone to discuss perspective in regard to a painting which isn’t meant to represent a 3-dimensional space. But I don’t know what relevance that has since, as I explained in post #50, the image that Ifat and I were discussing was a realist painting. It was a painting that Ifat had posted as an example of good art. It was an image of a key in a lock, with other keys hanging from a ring attached to the first key. Another poster had mentioned that the image was distorted – that it looked “melted.” I explained why it looked distorted: because of perspective errors. I even provide a link to an online tutorial so that people could learn to measure the errors for themselves if they wanted.

This just shows that you don’t have an idea what Ayn Rand wrote about art. She never said every detail in a painting needs to be like a photo. She said that the aesthetic value of a work of art is measured by how well the rendering and all elements in the painting serve to illustrate its theme. For example, in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark never goes to the restroom, even though a normal person does. This is intentional because that detail has nothing to do with the theme (which is Individualism). The same goes for visual art. Blurring out unimportant parts can serve the aesthetic value of the piece a lot more than enhancing every detail.

What someone called “melted” is, I suppose how the textures looked shiny and smooth - unlike a real key which has a more sharp texture and edges. The texture enhances the way one experiences the keys as a treasure. If the keys were like a photo it would no longer be art, it would be a picture of keys. Judging “focus” has to be done in relation to the theme of a piece.

The focus is measured by how clearly the theme is illustrated. In The Fountainhead, for example, the theme is exhibited in a very clear, accurate manner because the philosophy behind the theme (behind individualism) is fully clarified in Ayn Rand’s mind. And, as a result, every dialog demonstrates the characters and the theme in a crystal clear manner. Had she not thought out the philosophy behind the theme, or took the time to identify it consciously, it is likely she would not have consistently illustrated it and so more random elements would have been added.

In the drawing of the keys, the theme is enjoyment of every day life. This is illustrated by the fact that an ordinary set of keys is rendered as if it were a treasure: smooth and shiny and in the very center of the drawing, viewed from an unusual angle, showing that to look at the keys from that angle, one would have to bend close to them to observe them closely, rather than view them from the usual angle they appear when one unlocks a door. All those serve to focus the mind of the viewer on the theme (on how every day objects can be enjoyed). This has an implied view of existence and of human nature.

65

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the theme of the keyes, and I do think it’s a nice painting, I don’t think how it’s rendered is a good example of serving it’s theme. It just looks like a poor choice of blending techinique, like using the smudge brush in Photoshop, and not correctly observing how reflections in metal work. It actually retracts from the shininess of the metal, as shiny objects have clear reflections, and gives it a satined look. The theme could have been helped by a more accurate, yet stylized, rendering.

A couple of examples of what I mean by sharper reflections:

http://watercoloursforfun.com/Teapot/18Teapot.jpg

http://www.brassproducts.com/images/brass1.jpg

66

This just shows that you don’t have an idea what Ayn Rand wrote about art. She never said every detail in a painting needs to be like a photo.

I never suggested that an artwork needs to be “like a photo.” Rand demanded that a painting needs to look like reality. She demanded that a painting must present objects in the manner in which man perceives them, including in proper perspective.

She said that the aesthetic value of a work of art is measured by how well the rendering and all elements in the painting serve to illustrate its theme. For example, in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark never goes to the restroom, even though a normal person does. This is intentional because that detail has nothing to do with the theme (which is Individualism). The same goes for visual art.

Are you saying that using proper perspective is an unimportant detail? Are you suggesting that the artist who painted the image of the lock and keys intentionally avoided proper perspective – that she actually understands how to paint things as they appear in reality, but she chose to alter their perspective? Avoiding perspective, or using it improperly (even if unintentionally), results in an image containing more than one perspective at once. Well, here’s what Rand had to say on the subject:

“…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).”

So, to intentionally mess around with perspective is to rebel against consciousness! If we use Rand’s criteria, the best that we can say about the artist who painted the lock and keys is that she unintentionally disregarded the importance of presenting objects as man perceives them, and that her art therefore reveals that she exists in an unfocused cognitive fog, and she seeks to escape identity and to fake reality. What would Rand say about people who like such distorted visions of reality?

Blurring out unimportant parts can serve the aesthetic value of the piece a lot more than enhancing every detail.

Oh, but Rand didn’t like blurring. Not at all. Any intentional blurring was bad. She didn’t say anything about it being good when used to blur out “unimportant parts.” In fact, I suspect that she would have said that “unimportant parts” have no business being in a painting in the first place.

What someone called “melted” is, I suppose how the textures looked shiny and smooth - unlike a real key which has a more sharp texture and edges.

You can’t see the perspective errors in the painting, can you?

J

67

In point of fact, the keys painting has at least two perspective errors. The doorknob and lock appear to be “facing” in different directions (off by about 20 degrees from each other, I’d say). The key in the lock looks as if it is bent where the head joins the shaft.

By the way the thread has been split, the keys are here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=16870&view=findpost&p=223400

68

So, to intentionally mess around with perspective is to rebel against consciousness! If we use Rand’s criteria, the best that we can say about the artist who painted the lock and keys is that she unintentionally disregarded the importance of presenting objects as man perceives them, and that her art therefore reveals that she exists in an unfocused cognitive fog, and she seeks to escape identity and to fake reality. What would Rand say about people who like such distorted visions of reality?

No, it would be an error of knowledge. That’s not the same as an unfocused mind.

Oh, but Rand didn’t like blurring. Not at all. Any intentional blurring was bad. She didn’t say anything about it being good when used to blur out “unimportant parts.” In fact, I suspect that she would have said that “unimportant parts” have no business being in a painting in the first place.

Did she actually say so? The fact that you suspect something does not make it so. :wink:

69

No, it would be an error of knowledge. That’s not the same as an unfocused mind.

How would we determine that any deviation from reality in any painting is or is not an error of knowledge, and not an indicator of an unfocused mind? How do such judgments work? If we like an artist and her paintings, her deviations from reality are innocent errors of knowledge, but if we don’t like an artist and her paintings, her deviations from reality are proof of her psychological and moral deficiencies?

Did she actually say so? The fact that you suspect something does not make it so. :wink:

Rand said that everything included in a painting takes on metaphysical significance, and that an artist’s job is to selectively choose the important while eliminating the unimportant or inconsequential, so, yes, I’d say that there’s solid ground for my suspicions.

J

70

How would we determine that any deviation from reality in any painting is or is not an error of knowledge, and not an indicator of an unfocused mind? How do such judgments work? If we like an artist and her paintings, her deviations from reality are innocent errors of knowledge, but if we don’t like an artist and her paintings, her deviations from reality are proof of her psychological and moral deficiencies?

I’ll admit that off the top of my head I can’t come up with an answer that i’m satisfied with. Perhaps I need a little coffee or sleep first. However, honestly, are you saying you can’t tell that, say, Picasso’s paintings were deliberate while the lock and keys has some unintentional errors(like perspective)?. Actually, i’m pretty darn sure you can, so the question is not really if but how.

Rand said that everything included in a painting takes on metaphysical significance, and that an artist’s job is to selectively choose the important while eliminating the unimportant or inconsequential, so, yes, I’d say that there’s solid ground for my suspicions.

“Eliminating the unimportant” can also mean eliminating unimportant aspects. Take for example a portrait. An artist may judge the particular details of the background to be unimportant, the focus being on the persons face, but aspects of the background(like light) can help the theme(setting the mood and giving more depth and contrast). I see nothing in Ayn Rand’s words that speak against it.

71

I never suggested that an artwork needs to be “like a photo.” Rand demanded that a painting needs to look like reality. She demanded that a painting must present objects in the manner in which man perceives them, including in proper perspective.

Do you have a reference? Perhaps this is your interpretation of what she wrote in her article “Our Cultural Value Deprivation”.

To the extent that they communicate anything at all, the visual arts are ruled by a single principle: distortion. Distortion of perspective, of space, of shape, of color, and, above all, of the human figure. We are surrounded by images of distorted, dismembered, disintegrated human bodies—such as might be drawn by a retarded five-year-old—and they pursue us everywhere: on subway ads, in fashion magazines, in TV commercials, or suspended on chains over our heads in fashionable concert halls.

There is also the nonrepresentational—or Rorschach—school of art, consisting of blobs, swirls, and smears which are and aren’t, which are anything you might want them to be provided you stare at them long enough, keeping your eyes and mind out of focus. Provided also you forget that the Rorschach test was devised to detect mental illness.

If one were to look for the purpose of that sort of stuff, the kindest thing to say would be that the purpose is to take in the suckers and provide a field day for pretentious mediocrities. But if one looked deeper, one would find something much worse: the attempt to make you doubt the evidence of your senses and the sanity of your mind.

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value judgments. Observe what image of man, of life and of reality modern art infects people with—particularly the young whose first access to a broad view of existence and first source of values lie in the realm of art.

Is this what you are referring to, or do you have some reference from Rand’s published work?

72

I think we are confusing Rand’s aesthetic preferences as being a part of Objectivism when it is not. She states right in the Introduction of The Romantic Manifesto that

“this manifesto is not issued in the name of an organization or movement. I speak only for myself.”

She uses her philosophy to explain why she enjoys the sense of life of Romanticism, but again that is only her preference.

73

Do you have a reference? Perhaps this is your interpretation of what she wrote in her article “Our Cultural Value Deprivation”…Is this what you are referring to, or do you have some reference from Rand’s published work?

Sure, that’s part of it, along with her comments, which I posted earlier, on Cubism and painting objects as man perceives them from a single perspective.

J

74

I’ll admit that off the top of my head I can’t come up with an answer that i’m satisfied with. Perhaps I need a little coffee or sleep first. However, honestly, are you saying you can’t tell that, say, Picasso’s paintings were deliberate while the lock and keys has some unintentional errors(like perspective)?. Actually, i’m pretty darn sure you can, so the question is not really if but how.

No, I think Picasso’s paintings were deliberate departures from true perspective. But no one has proved to me that his playing with perspective was a “rebellion against consciousness” or an attempt to “disintegrate man’s consciousness,” versus that he was just committing innocent “errors of knowledge,” or that he was even wrong to begin with. I’ve heard of no Objectivists, including Rand, quoting him or any other Cubist and then addressing their actual views on what and why they were doing what they did with their art.

The same is true of aesthetic theorists and practitioners of abstract art. I know of no Objectivist who has addressed their actual views on what abstract art is, and how it works. No evidence has been presented to back up the claims that they were unfocused, faking reality, or out to disintegrate man’s conciousness, or that they were not making innocent “errors of knowledge,” let alone that their theories were wrong.

Btw, unlike Rand, I don’t have a problem with artists intentionally deviating from true perspective. I see no difference in enhancing the effects of perspective than in enhancing the effects of color or any other element which Rand would have found perfectly acceptable to enhance. Just because Rand or anyone else might not recognize that an artist is romanticizing perspective, or any other aspect of his art, doesn’t mean that he’s rebelling against consciousness or whatever.

“Eliminating the unimportant” can also mean eliminating unimportant aspects. Take for example a portrait. An artist may judge the particular details of the background to be unimportant, the focus being on the persons face, but aspects of the background(like light) can help the theme(setting the mood and giving more depth and contrast). I see nothing in Ayn Rand’s words that speak against it.

The same can be true of an artist’s intentional altering of perspective. An artist may wish to enhance the perspective in an image for reasons that those inexperienced in the visual arts may not recognize just by looking at a painting with their novice eyes.

J

75

I think we are confusing Rand’s aesthetic preferences as being a part of Objectivism when it is not. She states right in the Introduction of The Romantic Manifesto that

“this manifesto is not issued in the name of an organization or movement. I speak only for myself.”

She uses her philosophy to explain why she enjoys the sense of life of Romanticism, but again that is only her preference.

She may not have been speaking for any organization or movement in The Romantic Manifesto, but she was speaking in the name of her philosophy of Objectivism. The Romantic Manifesto presents her theory of the fifth branch of her philosophy.

J

76

She may not have been speaking for any organization or movement in The Romantic Manifesto, but she was speaking in the name of her philosophy of Objectivism. The Romantic Manifesto presents her theory of the fifth branch of her philosophy.

No, she was speaking philosophically on the philosophical aspects, as an author on others, and personally on a third set. Philosophically, she presents a theory of the need for art and its link with sense of life. However, since she champions Romanticism, she also says that the book is a personal manifesto (even including the term inn the title of the book). Clearly she thought Naturalism could be good esthetically even if she disliked it.

77

No, she was speaking philosophically on the philosophical aspects, as an author on others, and personally on a third set. Philosophically, she presents a theory of the need for art and its link with sense of life. However, since she champions Romanticism, she also says that the book is a personal manifesto (even including the term inn the title of the book). Clearly she thought Naturalism could be good esthetically even if she disliked it.

Yes, in The Romantic Manifesto Rand says that Naturalism can be aesthetically great. That is her official Objectivist, philosophical position, and not just her personal opinion. She also judged Romanticism to be morally superior to Naturalism, and that is also her official Objectivist, philosophical position, and not merely her personal opinion.

J

78

Yes, in The Romantic Manifesto Rand says that Naturalism can be aesthetically great. That is her official Objectivist, philosophical position, and not just her personal opinion. She also judged Romanticism to be morally superior to Naturalism, and that is also her official Objectivist, philosophical position, and not merely her personal opinion.

Do you have some particular reference in mind here?

79

No, I think Picasso’s paintings were deliberate departures from true perspective. But no one has proved to me that his playing with perspective was a “rebellion against consciousness” or an attempt to “disintegrate man’s consciousness,” versus that he was just committing innocent “errors of knowledge,” or that he was even wrong to begin with. I’ve heard of no Objectivists, including Rand, quoting him or any other Cubist and then addressing their actual views on what and why they were doing what they did with their art.

The same is true of aesthetic theorists and practitioners of abstract art. I know of no Objectivist who has addressed their actual views on what abstract art is, and how it works. No evidence has been presented to back up the claims that they were unfocused, faking reality, or out to disintegrate man’s conciousness, or that they were not making innocent “errors of knowledge,” let alone that their theories were wrong.

I don’t know much about Picasso or any cubist, but I found this after a little googling:

http://www.goodart.org/picconf.htm

Based on those few quotes i’m inclined to think he was in fact rather twisted. Though in fairness that page is not enough to make any final judgement.

So, what’s your take on it? What’s the idea behind cubism? What are the metaphysical value judgements?

Btw, unlike Rand, I don’t have a problem with artists intentionally deviating from true perspective. I see no difference in enhancing the effects of perspective than in enhancing the effects of color or any other element which Rand would have found perfectly acceptable to enhance. Just because Rand or anyone else might not recognize that an artist is romanticizing perspective, or any other aspect of his art, doesn’t mean that he’s rebelling against consciousness or whatever.

Personally I regard perspective, light and color theory(among other things) as tools of the trade. I have no problems with deviations when it serves a good purpose. Heck, one of my favorite paintings has a green sky. There’s something you don’t see every day. Atleast not on planet earth.

From what I understand of Ayn Rand’s tastes, that she liked some of Dali’s and Capuletti’s works, i’m not so sure she had problems with such deviations per se.

The same can be true of an artist’s intentional altering of perspective. An artist may wish to enhance the perspective in an image for reasons that those inexperienced in the visual arts may not recognize just by looking at a painting with their novice eyes.

The question then remains, what is it and what does it communicate?

80

My understanding of Picasso was that he was a classically trained artist, meaning he knew how to draw well in the ordinary sense. He put that technique aside in favor of making a statement with Cubism. He knew what he was doing. Given that he was Spanish and Spain had gone through a long decline culminating with the loss of the remnant of the Spanish Empire in the Spanish-American War and then Spain itself was convulsed by the Spanish Civil War, an artistic statement about fragmentation and disintegration is understandable on his own local terms. When he became a worldwide sensation then that speaks to something a little more profound then just the fate of Spain, and has more to say about the world than it does Picasso at that point.