What do you think about my Art?

Productivity
21

Miss Lemon,

In regard to your artwork, I shall break from continuing the commentary at present and instead turn to offer my own opinion on Objectivist art.

I like you work; it is clear that you have talent. I see a great deal of inspiration in the first art (flowers) while the others suggest mastery of the materials without a fundamental unity connecting them together. This is not to say that they are poorly executed; quite the reverse! But, the flowers carry with them the tone of Impressionism without sinking so low as to copy a style long since dead. Yet it also pushes the envelope on fantasy art with tones of the surrealistic since the lighting scheme portrayed here is more or less impossible to be perceived by the naked eye. It is this individual perception that forms the roots of Objectivist art, in my opinion, and this brings me to the suggestions I want to make.

Ayn Rand inspired art exists in intimate relation to the human spirit, individual perception, the linearity of rational thought, and the elimination of factual distortion. In other words, inspired artwork of this nature should combine elements symbolizing the achievement of the human mind, pursuit of the highest boundaries of personal achievement, and rejection of an “other” (God, Allah, spirits affecting our lives). In Rand’s world, this usually takes the form of architecture, (my personal artistic passion), displayed in vast cityscapes that are rooted in Art Deco and appear stretched vertically into a pure, boundless sky. She emphasizes the precise engineering of merged planes hovering above scalloped vertical high rises. She supports the streamlined simplicity of modernism over excessive decoration yet does not wholly ignore the need for ornamentation. She describes this ornamentation as functional but highly symbolic in nature, portraying the designer’s internal image of the heroic man. It is stripped of superfluous gestures (I think of it as the complete opposite of Rococo), instead resting on it’s representative meaning to the observer, who is free to choose to take away from if what he will. The artist is the one true patron of his own work, as Rand would certainly argue his is the one perception most important in the creative endeavor. The audience, in reflecting on his work, should see this introspection and recognize his intention in an act of mutual understanding.

To invoke emotion in the observer is necessary in art, but it is a dangerous road fraught with the strong likelihood of generating a lie. For when an artist evokes sympathy in an audience, he panders to the emotional tendencies of the masses, catching them up in their own struggles and exposing his weak underbelly. They may share his emotions, but they also recognize his fragile and pleading state. Although this is human and not something I personally find necessarily wrong, this weakness is not a part of Objectivist art and represents the will of the moochers who use empathy as a weapon. Avoid this pitfall. Rand-inspired creations must always be unapologetic, personal, self-centered, and highly symbolic of man’s will to truth in a rational and deterministic world. There is room for imagination, of course, but the caveat of avoiding a stereotyped aesthetic must always be observed.

Best of luck!

22

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and opinions.

Architype2005, you were particularly helpful with your ideas about Objectivist art, suggestions about the portrayal of ideals and the potential pitfalls in creating Rand inspired art.

I plan to continue to draw and paint and of course, study Rand’s ideas. I think, the more I learn about Objectivism the more focused my art (and life) will become.

Again, thanks to everyone who commented, including Ifat…someone told me recently that even negative emotions are better than indifference.

MissLemon

23

So, when people, perhaps even including Ayn Rand, disagree with Ifat’s evaluations of art, they are objectively wrong because Ifat’s judgments unerringly represent the official “objective, observable nature” of the art? When Ifat feels that she is pulled into a painting, and that she is sucked “into the moment of noticing the beauty about a simple chain of keys,” she is making a purely objective evaluation, but when I, bless my little spirit, am pulled into a painting, and am sucked into the moment of noticing the beauty of simple tubes of paint, as well as the beauty of their compositional relationships to each other, I am not making an objective evaluation?

J

I’m not going to answer this mocking, sarcastic, degrading tone.

The flowers look interesting from a distance but up close I think they’re too blobby and two-dimensional to suit me. I do like how you conveyed the metallic shine on the tops of the tubes of paint, though. It always fascinates me to see how other artists manage to *suggest* texture and shine and so forth. I think the red background would look good with a subtle texture to it so the composition would be a little more interesting close up.

But it doesn’t have a theme. What is the idea about randomly selecting an object and then selecting a background to match the colors? Even if the object is executed perfectly, and looks as real as it is; if there is no central idea to the painting it’s not art.

To demonstrate what I mean by a central idea: If an artist selects a still object because it presents something abstract, like enjoyment (a glass of wine standing at the window in 4th of July), safety (a bowl of fruit in a kitchen), freedom (an open field on a summer day seen through a window). If all you do is paint a table or whatever drowning in a sea of red color, it communicates nothing but chaos.

Miss Lemon,

In regard to your artwork, I shall break from continuing the commentary at present and instead turn to offer my own opinion on Objectivist art.

I like you work; it is clear that you have talent. I see a great deal of inspiration in the first art (flowers) while the others suggest mastery of the materials without a fundamental unity connecting them together. This is not to say that they are poorly executed; quite the reverse! But, the flowers carry with them the tone of Impressionism without sinking so low as to copy a style long since dead. Yet it also pushes the envelope on fantasy art

Do you even know what fantasy art is? It has nothing to do with this painting, absolutely nothing. To suggest that this is not just good, but revolutionary as to push the boundaries of a field of art - is ridiculous.

Ayn Rand inspired art exists in intimate relation to the human spirit, individual perception, the linearity of rational thought, and the elimination of factual distortion.

Can you provide a quote for all of this? What would it even mean to eliminate factual distortion in art? What does “linearity of rational thought” mean?

In other words, inspired artwork of this nature should combine elements symbolizing the achievement of the human mind, pursuit of the highest boundaries of personal achievement, and rejection of an “other” (God, Allah, spirits affecting our lives). In Rand’s world, this usually takes the form of architecture,

The only correct part here is that romantic realistic art shows the achievement of the human mind. Ayn Rand certainly did not say that art is mainly architecture.

To invoke emotion in the observer is necessary in art, but it is a dangerous road fraught with the strong likelihood of generating a lie. For when an artist evokes sympathy in an audience, he panders to the emotional tendencies of the masses, catching them up in their own struggles and exposing his weak underbelly. They may share his emotions, but they also recognize his fragile and pleading state.

If an artist is pleading so is every other businessmen selling his product.

And invoking emotions in observers should never be the proper approach for an artist. That would lead to creation of second hand art (in the sense of Peter Keating being a second hander).

Although this is human and not something I personally find necessarily wrong, this weakness is not a part of Objectivist art and represents the will of the moochers who use empathy as a weapon. Avoid this pitfall. Rand-inspired creations must always be unapologetic, personal, self-centered, and highly symbolic of man’s will to truth in a rational and deterministic world. There is room for imagination, of course, but the caveat of avoiding a stereotyped aesthetic must always be observed.

This is the only part sort of I agree with, except, an artist shouldn’t care about stereotypes nor about avoiding them, if he is to be a first hand artist - that is an artist who creates his art by his own standards, not anyone else’s.

I wonder why I am the only one who gives negative criticism here, when every person with a pair of eyes can clearly see it is due.

24

I wonder why I am the only one who gives negative criticism here, when every person with a pair of eyes can clearly see it is due.

I’m just guessing here, but perhaps it has something to do with your seemingly omniscient ablilty to assume what *every person with a pair of eyes can clearly see.*

25

Really? You don’t see that the first one is most definitely a pot full of flowers or that the second one is tubes of paint? I know you know that objective is; not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. The fact is that those paintings DO look like those things and the only thing that can be said for your opinion is that you don’t like them because objectively they are quite obviously representations of those things no matter how amateur the skill used to render them.

They do look like these things, so does a stick man looking like a man in some way. It is one thing when a child draws a stick man, it’s a different thing when an adult artist does so - then it sends an entirely different message.

26

I was searching today to see if I could find any free online resources on projection perspective, which uses plan and elevation views as the basis of a perspective drawing. It’s a great way to get accurate results. I was surprised that I wasn’t finding any good sites, and I was about to give up when I hit on this tutorial:

http://www.khulsey.com/perspective_2pt.html

The site says that it’s a method of drawing with software applications like Illustrator and Corel Draw, but it’s the same system that I learned back in high school using a pencil, T-square and an adjustable triangle.

One thing that isn’t covered in the tutorial is that you can place a drawing of the viewer into the side elevation for scale, and as a means of determining the placement of your horizon line: place it at the viewer’s eye level – if you want to show an object as it would be seen by someone who is standing or kneeling, draw a rough human form that is standing or kneeling in proportion to the other objects on the elevation view, and place your horizon line at his eye level; if you want a bird’s eye view as if the viewer is standing on a ladder, draw him on a ladder in the elevation view and place your horizon line at his eye level, etc.

And there are other interesting tutorials at the site as well, including one on ellipses that beginners should find valuable. A lot of artists, including some experienced professionals I know, seem to be unaware of the fact that an ellipse’s minor axis should line up with the vanishing point that is perpendicular to the ellipse’s plane. Lack of ellipse mastery is something that really stands out. It’s one of the reasons that the painting by Maria Schaeffers that Ifat posted looks a bit twisted or melted.

J

27

One thing that isn’t covered in the tutorial is that you can place a drawing of the viewer into the side elevation for scale, and as a means of determining the placement of your horizon line: place it at the viewer’s eye level – if you want to show an object as it would be seen by someone who is standing or kneeling, draw a rough human form that is standing or kneeling in proportion to the other objects on the elevation view, and place your horizon line at his eye level; if you want a bird’s eye view as if the viewer is standing on a ladder, draw him on a ladder in the elevation view and place your horizon line at his eye level, etc.

And there are other interesting tutorials at the site as well, including one on ellipses that beginners should find valuable. A lot of artists, including some experienced professionals I know, seem to be unaware of the fact that an ellipse’s minor axis should line up with the vanishing point that is perpendicular to the ellipse’s plane. Lack of ellipse mastery is something that really stands out. It’s one of the reasons that the painting by Maria Schaeffers that Ifat posted looks a bit twisted or melted.

J

Very intetesting, thanks. And, I will check out that website. I know I have a lot to learn and I am remembering some things, as I draw, that I had once learned but had forgotten over the years. I had no idea that studying Ayn Rand’s philosophy would inspire me in so many areas of my life, even art!

28

They do look like these things, so does a stick man looking like a man in some way. It is one thing when a child draws a stick man, it’s a different thing when an adult artist does so - then it sends an entirely different message.

You are being insulting for no good reason Ifat. It is quite obvious that MissLemon is not drawing stick men and these paintings could not be accomplished by someone without some skill.

Do you want a critical eye and more importantly a voice as vicious as yours turned on your own “art”?

29

You are being insulting for no good reason Ifat. It is quite obvious that MissLemon is not drawing stick men and these paintings could not be accomplished by someone without some skill.

Do you want a critical eye and more importantly a voice as vicious as yours turned on your own “art”?

This questions is “be nice to me I’ll be nice to you”. The answer is no. I seek nothing but justice from other people. If I created something mediocre I would acknowledge that it is, not present it as some form of ideal art, and not expect others to do it too.

I see a value in presenting negative criticism in a nice yet truthful way so long as no one is trying to pretend that they do something better than what they do.

I’ve had people in the past calling my art “art” as you have. It’s easy to distinguish between an honest judgment, good or bad, and an emotionalist who lets his feelings dictate his artistic “judgment”.

My tone will be exactly as it is when I see someone trying to pretend. You can expect zero tolerance, zero niceness from me. I am only nice in an environment of justice and honesty.

As for the stickman: I was referring to a choice of presenting a subject, not the technical ability.

It’s very simple, when someone shows me a bunch of paint tubes drowning in a sea of red and calls it art, I’m going to reply very clearly that it is not. This is not vicious, this is just and selfish. Vicious would be saying that this is great art in order not to offend the artist. It would be vicious because it would corrupt the meaning of what art is for bad reasons.

By themselves her paintings have isolated elements of something good. If she presented it as such, with an emphasis that the red tubes are nothing more than an exercise in realism, devoid of artistic content, I’d be talking differently, even encouraging her. But the boldness of presenting the red tubes as art, and to further treat it as pushing the boundaries of art, oh ho, Don’t expect me to sit quietly.

30

And there are other interesting tutorials at the site as well, including one on ellipses that beginners should find valuable. A lot of artists, including some experienced professionals I know, seem to be unaware of the fact that an ellipse’s minor axis should line up with the vanishing point that is perpendicular to the ellipse’s plane. Lack of ellipse mastery is something that really stands out. It’s one of the reasons that the painting by Maria Schaeffers that Ifat posted looks a bit twisted or melted.

All of a sudden you have high standards in judging art. I wonder why you did not analyze MissLemon’s paintings similarly (not really, I know why).

And I also find it funny that you use the word “melt” (which is obviously not coincidental - it was chosen because MissLemon used it). You don’t even know what she meant by “melting” (because it was not clarified or asked) yet you come up with some explanation to justify such an opinion. “This is why it looks melted, or soft, or… hold on a minute, what word did she use?”

31

If I created something mediocre I would acknowledge that it is, not present it as some form of ideal art, and not expect others to do it too.

I see a value in presenting negative criticism in a nice yet truthful way so long as no one is trying to pretend that they do something better than what they do.

I’ve had people in the past calling my art “art” as you have. It’s easy to distinguish between an honest judgment, good or bad, and an emotionalist who lets his feelings dictate his artistic “judgment”.

My tone will be exactly as it is when I see someone trying to pretend. You can expect zero tolerance, zero niceness from me. I am only nice in an environment of justice and honesty.

As for the stickman: I was referring to a choice of presenting a subject, not the technical ability.

Don’t expect me to sit quietly.

For the record…I have never produced anything approaching an ideal piece of artwork and have not sugggested so anywhere. I have repeatedly stated that all the works I posted here except the first one, were attempts at improving my skills and finding a direction.

As for the stickman comment, I have looked at your art and suggest that instead of discouraging others interested in improving their own art, you should spend more time studying body proportions as my eyes tell me that my beginner’s sketch is much more realistic than your elongated figures with their stiff positions.

I do doubt that anyone who knows you would expect you to sit quietly let alone be tolerant of others, or even be nice.

Oh, to clarify, the edges and bottoms of the keys in the painting you posted are what appear to me, and perhaps at least one other human, to be melting as does the doorknob base.

Now, I am off to pretend to draw and paint because improving my art is something I value.

32

By themselves her paintings have isolated elements of something good. If she presented it as such, with an emphasis that the red tubes are nothing more than an exercise in realism, devoid of artistic content, I’d be talking differently, even encouraging her. But the boldness of presenting the red tubes as art, and to further treat it as pushing the boundaries of art, oh ho, Don’t expect me to sit quietly.

Red tubes? I could have sworn that I objectively saw them as blue and yellow.

J

33

All of a sudden you have high standards in judging art. I wonder why you did not analyze MissLemon’s paintings similarly (not really, I know why).

I think that MissLemon has a pretty good eye, especially for someone who has no formal training, and for someone who says that she’s brushing up on her understanding of perspective. Ifat, why does it anger you that I focused on what I like about her work and on what I think she did well?

And I also find it funny that you use the word “melt” (which is obviously not coincidental - it was chosen because MissLemon used it).

Yeah. She observed that the painting of the keys looks distorted. She used the word “melted.” And then when discussing her observation that it looked melted, I used the word “melted” in regard to its meltedness that we were discussing. So, you’re right that it’s not a coincidence that I used the word “melted” in a conversation about why something looks melted.

You don’t even know what she meant by “melting” (because it was not clarified or asked) yet you come up with some explanation to justify such an opinion. “This is why it looks melted, or soft, or… hold on a minute, what word did she use?”

Ifat, have you taken a look at the tutorials on projection perspective and ellipses that I linked to? If not, you might want to study them and experiment with them. I think that once you’ve mastered perspective to the point that you can plot a chain of keys in correct perspective from orthographic drawings, you’ll see things from a different, er, perspective, and understand that I didn’t “come up with some explanation to justify an opinion.”

If you become good enough at using the projection perspective method, you might even discover that you can use it in reverse as a means of testing precisely how accurate or inaccurate MissLemon’s eye is.

J

34

I think that MissLemon has a pretty good eye, especially for someone who has no formal training, and for someone who says that she’s brushing up on her understanding of perspective.

If you become good enough at using the projection perspective method, you might even discover that you can use it in reverse as a means of testing precisely how accurate or inaccurate MissLemon’s eye is.

J

Thanks for the link to those tutorials, Jonathan13. They will be very useful.

As soon as I looked at those elevation plans I realized that I HAVE had a little formal training…but I didn’t think of it as art training. So in the interest of full disclosure… I took two classes in manual drafting and autocad in the mid 90’s. The main thing I remember learning is that I did not want to be a draftsman. Some of the techniques are coming back to me now as I look over the tutorials and draw more often. Hmm, maybe those classes weren’t a waste of time after all…

35

As for the stickman comment, I have looked at your art and suggest that instead of discouraging others interested in improving their own art, you should spend more time studying body proportions as my eyes tell me that my beginner’s sketch is much more realistic than your elongated figures with their stiff positions.

If your drawing is better than this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p…st&p=220724 (post 65, or any for all that matters)

Then I’m a cow.

36

On Schaeffers’ art-work above, I find it to be very engrossing - as a result of such mundane subject matter, that seems to say more than what it actually is. Her treatment of light (my personal raison d’etre) is superb - I’ve seen that quality of luminence before; and yet it’s as though I’ve never seen it!

The ‘melting quality’ (that I’m interested to note Miss Lemon picked up first) is partly due to the light, but mainly the ‘distortion’ caused by the perspective difference between the two oval shapes. This is actually not distortion at all. The eye, or any lens, really sees this way, when it is very close to a subject. What happens with normal vision, is that the brain automatically compensates the view to match the shapes.

A more draughtsmanlike painter would have ‘corrected’ this, so that the ovals would be the same shape,( but of course with size differential.)

I share Ifatart’s frustration on the other matter. There’s a huge area here that I won’t try to explain my thoughts on. It involves art appreciation, talent, honesty, justice, benevolence, encouragement, non-compromise, self-belief and motivation. My quick thought is that if I spend too long in trying to understand where the artist is ‘coming from’, and what he wants to say - if anything - his picture has little merit. A picture attracts, draws one in, involves one, and promises future rewards — or it doesn’t.

There is a difference between a work in progress, and an artist in progress. So I won’t try to judge the potential that MissLemon has. I just can’t find anything I particularly like in her pictures. She shows that she has an ‘eye’; which is a great deal. Beyond technique, and that can be improved on, I feel that she needs to turn inward and think about what matters to her - what her vision is of the world and herself, and why.

I am a complete believer in talent being 99% perspiration ,1% inspiration. I’ve seen it happen. More, there is that beautiful quote of Constable’s : " We see nothing, until we truly understand it".

For the rest, it just may be that when Miss Lemon looks back on her career one day, she will thank Ifatart. B)

37

If your drawing is better than this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p…st&p=220724 (post 65, or any for all that matters)

Then I’m a cow.

Well done Ifat, you are truly an artist… now. That is not a compliment I would have granted you on examining this or many of the others on your site however.

Even with this latest piece you have a lot of work to do in achieving realism. I agree with Myself’s appraisal of all except for the bit about the sky, sometimes the sky is just plain and mottled blue that way. I’d like to add that there ought to be beads of water on the woman’s body as well, unless these are just rendered invisible by the medium.

38

If your drawing is better than this:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p…st&p=220724 (post 65, or any for all that matters)

Then I’m a cow.

As my sketch was a 10 minute study and I am willing to bet it took you a little longer to produce this drawing, it’s hardly a fair comparison but since you asked…I’ll comment on what I see as objectively as I am able to.

The female dancer’s left arm looks too long to me, and the shading on that upper arm is very odd. Something’s wrong with the male’s leading leg…I think it’s too short, maybe a more experienced artist could tell you exactly what the problem is there, and his face is well, ugly and pinched looking to me. The best part is her right leg with is beautifully drawn and shaded in my opinion. Again, you have problems with proportion and positioning.

39

For the rest, it just may be that when Miss Lemon looks back on her career one day, she will thank Ifatart. B)

Unlikely…I don’t respond well to tyrants.

And about the keys…I agree there are times that drawing or painting what you actually see results in an unreal effect. If the luminence produces a perceived distortion, and I am not sure that’s what’s going on there but I will take your word for it, the artist should adjust the piece, in my opinion.

40

On Schaeffers’ art-work above, I find it to be very engrossing - as a result of such mundane subject matter, that seems to say more than what it actually is. Her treatment of light (my personal raison d’etre) is superb - I’ve seen that quality of luminence before; and yet it’s as though I’ve never seen it!

The ‘melting quality’ (that I’m interested to note Miss Lemon picked up first) is partly due to the light, but mainly the ‘distortion’ caused by the perspective difference between the two oval shapes. This is actually not distortion at all.

Actually, it is distortion. The image’s perspective does not conform to what would be seen in reality.

The eye, or any lens, really sees this way, when it is very close to a subject. What happens with normal vision, is that the brain automatically compensates the view to match the shapes.

A more draughtsmanlike painter would have ‘corrected’ this, so that the ovals would be the same shape,( but of course with size differential.)

A correction would include not only tightening up the shape of the ovals so that they are proper ellipses, but also correcting the angles at which their axes are sitting.

I share Ifatart’s frustration on the other matter. There’s a huge area here that I won’t try to explain my thoughts on. It involves art appreciation, talent, honesty, justice, benevolence, encouragement, non-compromise, self-belief and motivation. My quick thought is that if I spend too long in trying to understand where the artist is ‘coming from’, and what he wants to say - if anything - his picture has little merit. A picture attracts, draws one in, involves one, and promises future rewards — or it doesn’t.

And different pictures can attract or repel different people for different reasons. People will place differing degrees of importance on the different technical merits or flaws in paintings based on their levels of knowledge and on their subjective tastes. You appear to appreciate how an artist handles light while being rather forgiving about how she handles form. I seem to value proportion and compositional structures more than Ifat does. People with little knowledge of perspective are less likely to be critical of perspective since their lack of knowledge means that they lack an understanding of the criteria that are used in judging perspective. People who haven’t studied color theory in depth will have rather vague and uninformed standards with which to judge an artist’s color selections, etc.

There is a difference between a work in progress, and an artist in progress. So I won’t try to judge the potential that MissLemon has. I just can’t find anything I particularly like in her pictures.

Oh, well. Chalk it up to subjective tastes and preferences. As I’ve said, I have found things to like in MissLemon’s pictures. I’ve also found things to like in some of Ifat’s art and in the painting by Schaeffers, both of whom appear to be good “artists in progress” – artists who have not mastered important aspects of their art form.

J