Objectivist Art?

Aesthetics
21

I appreciate your understanding (expressed in the response to Crow) that all representational art is not necessarily good art.  As for Picasso, I don’t know that Guernica expresses his view about the world in general so much as his horror at a particular event in Spanish history.  In that sense, the mural may be regarded as an editorial cartoon writ large. I won’t defend the entire Picasso oeuvre, but there are many of his paintings and sketches that I find joyous, playful and a delight to behold.

Funny, that Goya is right after the Guernica in my art book.

As for the chickens, they’re still done with the skill of a 5 year old (look at his earlier work: he is capable of better). They still express a non-rational epistemology and therefore a hostile universe metaphysics.

22

First off, thanks for all the replies, I have only read FH and am still going through AS, so I have not had time to get to The Romantic Manifesto.

I notice that people say that Picasso draws with the skill “of a five year old” and that “Anyone can draw that”. But isnt the point that no one before Picasso drew that way, or that Picasso was the first to depict life in that way? Or even if I five year old could “draw that way” that Picasso drew better? (I am not familier with all of Picasso’s works, just his earlier ones).

Also, if art was only to depict human success and life as it ought to be, I imagine there would be far less variety in art galleries. I do believe firmly in the peer review being present in art, I would not want any old so called “modern” artist to simply mess with some dung to make a sculpture if it means nothing, but surely it is acceptable to express oneself in other artistic means, not just Romantic.

For example, the book covers of Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged both used very Romantic images untill the very recent Centenial editions, to celebrate the 100th anniversay of Ayn Rand, and those new book covers are certainely not “inferior” covers.

Also, when Art has to serve politics (or in this case, philosophy) by only showing what man should be like, wouldn’t it deny other artists from being able to express someselves in a unique and possibly groundbreaking way?

In a way, it seems ironic, because when people say “Romantic art is the only art worth depicting”, it sounds like the Dean from FH saying “All great architecture has already been created”.

(I have not yet read the exert from the Romantic Manifesto that was posted, but I will get around to it soon, thank you for posting)

23

Sorry for the double post, but another thought occured to me.

What about Ayn Rand’s very own “We the living”? Its ending certainely does not depict life as it “ought to be” but I doubt many people on the board here consider the novel not worth reading because it does not champaion Objectivist values to the same extent as FH or AS. (I have not read WTL, I just know the basic plot outline)

24

Furthermore, whatever one thinks of Picasso, I believe that there is room for the depiction of suffering (tragedy) in art and literature.  Consider another politically focused artist from Spain, Francisco Goya, and his Los Fusilamentos del 3 de mayo en Madrid:

.

goya.jpg

This is one of the most gripping depictions of naked oppression ever painted.  But I should hardly conclude from it that the artist believes that “that life IS suffering.”

As I said earlier, suffering can be depicted incidentally in Romantic art. This painting of Goya’s shows suffering, but the main theme, as I see it, is the heroic, intransigent struggle to resist tyranny, a perfectly Romantic theme.

Goya’s style of painting I do not like, but the subject is at least potentially Romantic. I think a more Romantic artist would have portrayed rebels attacking the soldiers, rather than suffering the consequences of resistance. Both are aspects of resistance, but Goya chose to show the more depressing aspect of it.

I also think the depiction of “goriness” is not Romantic. Blood and gore is a naturalistic trait, and isn’t necessary to depict suffering or resistance to tyranny. That kind of thing can be left to journalistic photographers. That’s one of the elements of Goya’s style that I do not like.

25

What about Ayn Rand’s very own “We the living”? Its ending certainely does not depict life as it “ought to be” but I doubt many people on the board here consider the novel not worth reading because it does not champaion Objectivist values to the same extent as FH or AS. (I have not read WTL, I just know the basic plot outline)

Again, suffering can be portrayed incidentally in Romantic art. Kira’s death is certainly a depiction of suffering, but the context was that she was struggling towards freedom, a Romantic theme. She definitely lived life as it ought to be lived, given the context of her existence. She did everything in her power to live a life proper to man—but the State smothered her.

26

I remember seeing an autobiography on Pablo Picasso on A&E. In the beginning, he was a master in representational painting. I remember seeing Vermeer previously on my own, and immediately identified him as someone I found amazing. Yes, Rand’s mention of his use of light helped but the clarity and luminosity was identifiable. The early work of Picasso seemed similar by my standards. It is still a mystery because of lack of his deeper biography to explain what made him paint the way he did. Was he inferior to other painters and thus had to hide it by the later work. Or, was he just as good and thus rejected his own genious for being genius.

But the way I envision the art of painting is by the following example: A beautiful man or woman, beautiful by a certain standard, but not a copy of an actual person, but like none the artist for sure has never actually witnessed, and thus is a creation of his imagination. And when it comes to the theme, it will not be some historical figure in an act of heroism. But a man never known of but the expression on his face, the clothes he is wearing, the position of his body, the background objects and climate–ALL THIS expressing the theme … And to have that time period modern, like of the time of the artist … or to project into the future … thus imagine an architect as painter or an engineer as painter. This is what painting is ultimately for me–at its best.

Americo.

27

Which paintings have a subject and meaning you can defend - the Picassos on the one hand, or the Kincaide/Goya on the other? By defend I mean “Support by pointing to actual attributes of the paintings themselves”.

Given that such a defense can be mounted, which has the greater force?

With “Guernica”, what I see is a disintegrated gloop of semi-recognizable objects. The semi-recognizable ones appear to be animal body parts. With the other Picasso, I see two chickens … but by abstraction only, since no real chickens have attributes such as those. I see no justification _in the paintings themselves_ for any claim about their meaning.

With the Kincaide and the Goya I have no trouble whatever naming the subject matter, with no abstraction required - and I doubt anybody could rationally argue over my identification of it. Naming the meaning is harder, and perhaps debatable, but at least I could point to actual attributes in the paintings themselves to defend my view.

Say what you will about the alleged lack of depth in the Kincaide, or the seeming malevolent meaning of the Goya, but for the above reasons, the concepts of “depth” and “meaning” just don’t apply to the Picassos.

I say that makes the Kincaide/Goya paintings _superior_ to the Picassos.

Substitute fully non-representational stuff for the Picassos, and this case becomes even stronger.

Mark Peters

28

Was he inferior to other painters and thus had to hide it by the later work. Or, was he just as good and thus rejected his own genious for being genius.

What about simply trying to explore a new means of expression, and to intentionally challenge the perceptions of the time? It was certainly a groundbreaking means by which to express oneself, and ir would undoubtedly have been a challenge.

Once again, I am surprised and a bit uncomfortable by the view that seems to be like that of the Dean’s in FH, that “All the best ways of doing architecture have already been discovered” (paraphrasing). I hear a lot of “The best way of doing art is in the Romantist style”.

However, I do have a greater understanding as to the reasoning behind this, so its no quite so shocking as it might had been earlier.

29

Also, when Art has to serve politics (or in this case, philosophy) by only showing what man should be like, wouldn’t it deny other artists from being able to express someselves in a unique and possibly groundbreaking way?

There is a whole lot wrong with this one little paragraph and hopefully untangling it will clear up your confusion.

Art’s nature IS philosophic. It always has been and always will be. Ayn Rand correctly classified art as the fifth branch of philosophy (esthetics). There is no way that art can be “less artistic” for having “served” philosophy, unless the philosophy is irrational and thus promotes naturalism (non-art).

Second, Art’s purpose is not simply “so the artist can express himself.” Express what? What IS that self? The modern answer would be a crude bromide that the answer is non-objective, irrational, etc.

If an artist wants to be groundbreaking, he had better learn to do his job with GROUNDBREAKING SKILL. Any idiot can do something that “hasn’t been done before.”

Your concern that art is limited by boundaries is missing the scope. EVERYTHING is limited by a boundary or limit. A is A, after all, and A can’t be B!

30

Funny, that Goya is right after the Guernica in my art book.

As for the chickens, they’re still done with the skill of a 5 year old (look at his earlier work: he is capable of better). They still express a non-rational epistemology and therefore a hostile universe metaphysics.

I don’t think painting chickens in a non-representational way says a thing about one’s epistemology. One can choose to re-shape everyday objects and still hold a very lucid view of the world. Michelangelo painted a sepent with a human head, and there was certainly nothing wrong with his grasp of reality. Picasso’s decision to paint a rooster with an anatomy like no real life rooster does not come from any perceptional disability; he is simply exploring alternate possibilities. The fact that objects in Picasso’s art depart radically from this world does not make his universe metaphysically hostile – just different. Personally, I find this particular work joyful and charming. And if there are five-year olds who are producing works like this, then they deserve to be paid handsomely.

31

I don’t think painting chickens in a non-representational way says a thing about one’s epistemology.  One can choose to re-shape everyday objects and still hold a very lucid view of the world.  Michelangelo painted a sepent with a human head, and there was certainly nothing wrong with his grasp of reality.  Picasso’s decision to paint a rooster with an anatomy like no real life rooster does not come from any perceptional disability; he is simply exploring alternate possibilities.  The fact that objects in Picasso’s art depart radically from this world does not make his universe metaphysically hostile – just different.  Personally, I find this particular work joyful and charming.  And if there are five-year olds who are producing works like this, then they deserve to be paid handsomely.

I’m not so much an expert esthetician so I’m going to bow out at this point on what to say about Picasso’s epistemological message or meaning. Suffice to say, I don’t like his works.

But from a skill standpoint, I maintain that I could go get you a five-year-old that has the same technical mastery as Picasso’s later works display. Is there any rhyme or reason to his non-representation? No. It has no internal consistancy, so anyone could replicate it.

I just see in his works a bunch of awful monsterous abominations. A man with a cracked brain. The ravings of a lunatic. Yes, chickens have eyes on both sides of their heads. I get it. Why is my life richer for having seen them both at once?

I have a poster on my wall that depicts the major skyscrapers and architectural achivements of America all at once and next to each other in their order from coast to coast. Certainly, this panoramic representation of America’s skyline is just as impossible as Picasso’s chickens. But the poster on my wall is INSPIRING.

32

As I said earlier, suffering can be depicted incidentally in Romantic art.  This painting of Goya’s shows suffering, but the main theme, as I see it, is the heroic, intransigent struggle to resist tyranny, a perfectly Romantic theme.

Goya’s style of painting I do not like, but the subject is at least potentially Romantic.  I think a more Romantic artist would have portrayed rebels attacking the soldiers, rather than suffering the consequences of resistance.  Both are aspects of resistance, but Goya chose to show the more depressing aspect of it. 

I also think the depiction of “goriness” is not Romantic.  Blood and gore is a naturalistic trait, and isn’t necessary to depict suffering or resistance to tyranny.  That kind of thing can be left to journalistic photographers.  That’s one of the elements of Goya’s style that I do not like.

Well, the point is that Goya’s painting was a form of journalism. That explains the title: The Shootings of May Third 1808. The work depicts the revenge Napoleon’s troops took on those in Spain who were seeking independence. It is a recording with oil on canvas of a military atrocity. The subject could not “be left to journalistic photographers,” because in 1814 when the artist began work on it, there was no such thing as photography. Minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren’t really much of an atrocity at all. It would be equivalent to a painting of Auschwitz, showing the residents as well fed and happily tending their flower gardens. Goya focused on suffering for a reason: he wanted the viewer to be outraged by what he saw.

33

I’m not so much an expert esthetician so I’m going to bow out at this point on what to say about Picasso’s epistemological message or meaning. Suffice to say, I don’t like his works.

But from a skill standpoint, I maintain that I could go get you a five-year-old that has the same technical mastery as Picasso’s later works display. Is there any rhyme or reason to his non-representation? No. It has no internal consistancy, so anyone could replicate it.

I just see in his works a bunch of awful monsterous abominations. A man with a cracked brain. The ravings of a lunatic. Yes, chickens have eyes on both sides of their heads. I get it. Why is my life richer for having seen them both at once?

I have a poster on my wall that depicts the major skyscrapers and architectural achivements of America all at once and next to each other in their order from coast to coast. Certainly, this panoramic representation of America’s skyline is just as impossible as Picasso’s chickens. But the poster on my wall is INSPIRING.

You see abominations; I see an inventive mind at play. You say any child can paint like that; I say, bring me these children.

As for the poster on your wall, I have no trouble appreciating both photographs (or paintings) of skyscrapers and works by Pablo Picasso. There is room in the art world for both. You seek what is inspiring – and so do I. But I also enjoy the sportive, the sly, and the mirthful.

34

Well, the point is that Goya’s painting was a form of journalism.  That explains the title: The Shootings of May Third 1808.  The work depicts the revenge Napoleon’s troops took on those in Spain who were seeking independence.  It is a recording with oil on canvas of a military atrocity.  The subject could not “be left to journalistic photographers,” because in 1814 when the artist began work on it, there was no such thing as photography.  Minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren’t really much of an atrocity at all.  It would be equivalent to a painting of Auschwitz, showing the residents as well fed and happily tending their flower gardens. Goya focused on suffering for a reason:  he wanted the viewer to be outraged by what he saw.

I did not realize this was of an actual incident in the war. Journalistic art is naturalism, of course. But this painting still retains elements of Romanticism, in choosing to depict resistance to tyranny, rather than submission.

I do not agree that “minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren’t really much of an atrocity at all.” Showing people stood up against a wall, about to be shot, would get the point across perfectly well to any rational adult. Gore is never necessary.

As for painting a scene from Auschwitz, showing a line of skeletal adults marching into a gas chamber would make the point crystal clear. There is no need to show them inside, choking, vomiting, etc. That is horror for horror’s sake. But a Romantic artist wouldn’t even paint a scene of Auschwitz like that (just marching to the gas chamber). He’d show the camp being liberated, with perhaps a view of inmates marching to the chamber somewhere in the background. A better naturalist (i.e., one with a benevolent sense of life) could show the camp being liberated, also, since that actually happened in reality.

My evaluation of Goya’s painting is that the subject is naturalistic with elements of Romanticism, and the style is naturalistic. A mixed bag. But not something I would hang on my wall.

35

You see abominations; I see an inventive mind at play.  You say any child can paint like that; I say, bring me these children.

As for the poster on your wall, I have no trouble appreciating both photographs (or paintings) of skyscrapers and works by Pablo Picasso.  There is room in the art world for both.  You seek what is inspiring – and so do I.  But I also enjoy the sportive, the sly, and the mirthful.

What is so great about what that “inventive mind” invented? Why does a crude drawing of a chicken where I can see both of its eyes become less crude (non-skillfull) by virtue of the fact that I can see both its eyes?

If his perspective was internally consistant then it would be at least interesting. “How the world looks through a 4-D lens” or something. Like perhaps those “impossible objects” drawings with the tuning fork or the staircases that lead to each other.

But it ISN’T. It’s just distorted without any discernable method. Random. Any child can paint random nonsense. If you could point out a method to his madness, that would be something at least.

My point is that

  1. There is no technical skill involved in Picasso’s later work.

  2. There is no logic at all to the way he distorts his paintings. They’re just randomly distorted.

36

I did not realize this was of an actual incident in the war.  Journalistic art is naturalism, of course.  But this painting still retains elements of Romanticism, in choosing to depict resistance to tyranny, rather than submission. 

I do not agree that “minimizing the bloodshed and suffering would have the effect of suggesting that the mass executions weren’t really much of an atrocity at all.”  Showing people stood up against a wall, about to be shot, would get the point across perfectly well to any rational adult.  Gore is never necessary.

Yes, the public should never get the impression that mass murder is anything but neat, quick and painless.

As for painting a scene from Auschwitz, showing a line of skeletal adults marching into a gas chamber would make the point crystal clear.  There is no need to show them inside, choking, vomiting, etc.  That is horror for horror’s sake. 

That would be very shocking, and we certainly we wouldn’t want the masses to be shocked by the activities of the Third Reich.

But a Romantic artist wouldn’t even paint a scene of Auschwitz like that (just marching to the gas chamber).  He’d show the camp being liberated, with perhaps a view of inmates marching to the chamber somewhere in the background.  A better naturalist (i.e., one with a benevolent sense of life) could show the camp being liberated, also, since that actually happened in reality.

But the Romantic shouldn’t include any inmates with skeletal faces. That would be horror for horror’s sake. The inmates should all have nice, normal faces

37

What about simply trying to explore a new means of expression, and to intentionally challenge the perceptions of the time? It was certainly a groundbreaking means by which to express oneself, and ir would undoubtedly have been a challenge.

Once again, I am surprised and a bit uncomfortable by the view that seems to be like that of the Dean’s in FH, that “All the best ways of doing architecture have already been discovered” (paraphrasing). I hear a lot of “The best way of doing art is in the Romantist style”.

However, I do have a greater understanding as to the reasoning behind this, so its no quite so shocking as it might had been earlier.

The phantasms presented in the later works of Picasso cannot be in reality and thus shouldn’t be. A “stark realism” portrait of the inside of a Nazi gas chamber would be preferable and more romantic. It would be a twisted mind to paint what could be and should be by such a chamber. It would still be more romantic if it was painted as what could be and shouldn’t be. Romantic Realism grasps an Aristotelian universe, judges it as benevolent metaphysically, and judges man as an efficacious agent worthy of happiness, thus what should be is what is, as is what could be.

One will have trouble understanding or approving of the Objectivist Aesthetics without understanding Rand’s adoption of Aristotle’s phrase.

Good art should be guided by the idea of the proper functioning of a rational mind, either implicitly or explicitly …to accept this idea of Objectivism is a mother load and perhaps its most contraversial aspect.

Americo.

38

What is so great about what that “inventive mind” invented?

It’s a “what-if” chicken, a playful reconstruction of the elements in the natural world. I make no claim about its greatness; I only say that it is fun to look at. I would compare it to Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky,” a poem about a non-existent monster. They both engage our imagination by bringing together the familiar and the strange.

Why does a crude drawing of a chicken where I can see both of its eyes become less crude (non-skillfull) by virtue of the fact that I can see both its eyes?

Nothing becomes less crude or less anything by being the same thing in the second part of your sentence that it was in the first part of your sentence.

If his perspective was internally consistant then it would be at least interesting. “How the world looks through a 4-D lens” or something. Like perhaps those “impossible objects” drawings with the tuning fork or the staircases that lead to each other.

But it ISN’T. It’s just distorted without any discernable method. Random. Any child can paint random nonsense. If you could point out a method to his madness, that would be something at least.

It’s a thought experiment: a way of imagining something with one or two important elements rearranged. Yes, I suppose if he were “consistent,” Picasso would have changed not just the eyes but every other part of the bird – and it would look not like a chicken at all. But that was not what he was after.

My point is that

  1. There is no technical skill involved in Picasso’s later work.

  2. There is no logic at all to the way he distorts his paintings. They’re just randomly distorted.

As I’ve said before, I don’t like everything the man did, yet I can take pleasure from many of his works, including those from his abstract period.

39

I think anything I say at this point would be repeating myself. Suffice to say, I don’t think Picasso “created” anything in terms of perspective any more than I have created a new word or concept by blabbering “skjgnpsbg;alrwjhk;n!!!”

40

I think anything I say at this point would be repeating myself. Suffice to say, I don’t think Picasso “created” anything in terms of perspective any more than I have created a new word or concept by blabbering “skjgnpsbg;alrwjhk;n!!!”

I agree that Picasso created nothing new in terms of perspective. But I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I was making such a claim. As for your nonsense word, it may or may not be meaningful in terms of the context in which it is placed. Consider Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky”:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:

Long time the manxome foe he sought –

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’

He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Yes, it is nonsense in that a great many of its words cannot be found in any English dictionary. But is it devoid of all meaning and value? I think not. What Carroll has accomplished here is an elaborate connotation. He provides just enough clues to suggest something dreadful and powerful, and yet by withholding precise details creates something that demands involvement, through conjecture, by the reader. So, yes, Inspector, in some circumstances “skjgnpsbg;alrwjhk;n!!!” could be a “brillig” thing to say!