What ought to be

Aesthetics Visual Arts
1

At long last my website has launched at www.cheynerood.com.

The art world, with its chimerical values and arbitrary commendations, has been a struggle for me: One who casts only a passing glance at art history, refuses to cite artistic ancestor or ‘ism’ of style.

For solace I turn again and again to the philosophies that underlie both my artwork and my life. I am proud to hold Ayn Rand among those few thinkers, sharing rank with Aristotle, Calvino, and Plato.

I present my site for your review, not only because I am proud of my work, but also with hopes that those who share my philosophical aesthetic may likewise share my visual aesthetic.

Best Regards,

Cheyne

2

While I think some of the pieces are well designed and are pretty, they hardly can be classified as “Objective” or what Ayn Rand considered art.

I tend to agree with her about aesthetics so your pieces don’t do much for me. As an example I would point out your “woman at the piano”: why is the figure so distorted? What do you think that says about the human form, female form? Why is the atmoshpere deliberately distorted (without identity)? If you know Objectivism’s stances on more fundemntal issues such as epistemology or ethics then you can see how those things would also apply aesthetically.

3

It will be difficult to engage in effective discussion with a response that assumes so much and offers so little substance. It would be to our mutual benefit for you to qualify your remarks with explanation.

I am quite well versed in the ideas of Objectivism. Please indicate the piece to which you refer when you say, “the atmosphere is deliberately distorted (without identity)”. Surely not “Woman at the Piano”, where the figure and the piano are the sole objects - no atmosphere to speak of.

Your use of the word distortion - which you are free to use - has obvious negative connotations. I would not even think to use that word to describe my art. It is hard for me to comment on your interpretation of the Objectivist aesthetic, but, from what you have thus far offered, you are well off the mark. I urge you to properly explain yourself, as an interesting discussion is conceivable.

What you call ‘distortion’ I would call dynamic, light, minimal. I emphasize these qualities as an expression of what I find important aesthetically and philosophically - they convey, as Rand would put it, my sense of life. I do not mind if it does not resonate with you.

4

When I say “atmosphere” I mean the atmoshpere of the picture plane. There is a theme of “distortion” in a sense of being somehow liquified.

When you depict a figure they way you did in that piece, you are not abstracting and separating certain elements of the female form according to what you deem important, you are inventing, you are distorting, that is, changing certain elements about the human form such as: proportion, form, etc. This distortion may be deliberate but it doesn’t make it innocent. If you were to say isolate certain elements of the form and simplify them,e.g. the Latest editions of Ayn Rand’s books’ covers, then that would be a case of “selective recreation based on the artist’s metaphysical value judgements”. What you are doing is “perverting” the human form, you are dipicting it, and everything else, as a shapeless fluid non-thing. Human bodies are solid, not liquid, and depicting them as such is insulting, it betrays the solidity, the efficacy of the human body.

Please do not think that I am trying to insult you. You came here looking for a critique no?

Also: I did not mean to imply that your drawing are not art, just that they are bad art.

5

While I think some of the pieces are well designed and are pretty, they hardly can be classified as “Objective” or what Ayn Rand considered art.

How, exactly, is art “Objective”? What does the term even mean when applied to aesthetics?

Objective is an epistomological term that means an idea conforms to reality. The name for Ayn Rand’s chosen school of aesthetics is Romantic Realism. Realism, because it depicts things that actually exist, and Romantic, because it portrays them in an essentialized, idealized fashion.

Cheyne’s art is not realistic; it is more abstract, however it is possible to have non-realist art that is Romantic; you don’t have to be a Romantic Realist to look to Ayn Rand for inspiration.

I personally am not a fan of abstract art because I generally find it to be crude, much like the drawings of a four or five-year-old instead of the subtle mastery that you would expect from an adult. Even if an abstract artist is great maestro of the pen or paintbrush, wild scribblings will not make this apparent.

6

IAmMetaphysical:

You have been aggressive in noting a certain ‘distortion’ across my works. Mine is not an attack on the human form, as you had apparently interpreted. I am aware that humans are not in a liquid state. Think of any of Rand’s heroic characters. They are constantly in motion, working restlessly, striving towards a staggering goal – and, left to this pursuit, experience the incredible joy of being and producing and earning. I believe that the good in itself is likewise in constant motion. My aim, among other things, is to capture this important and beautiful motion, but must do so in a static image. You are in your right to find this offensive, but you will not find me apologetic.

Your closing remark was a rather cowardly jab, since your initial post never implied and I certainly never contended the issue of my work not being art. I encourage and will welcome critique, but your approach lacks reason. I am afraid that, unless your remarks are of greater substance, I should be foolish to continue acknowledging you.

JMeganSnow: I agree entirely, I have very little respect for purely abstract works for the reasons you stated and also because they lack intelligibility. In contrast, I find purely representational “photo realistic” works typically underwhelming (although of course there are exceptions). In the way of Aristotle, I seek a balanced middle ground that grants the intriguing flexibililty and expression of abstraction with the intelligibility of representation. It is a thin line to tread.

You are right about the misuse of the term Objective. And, further, I will confirm that I am not subscribing to Rand’s ‘school’ of aesthetic. I think the authors/editors of “What Art Is” are accurate in their analysis of the values and shortcomings of her aesthetic concepts.

7

I do not mind if it does not resonate with you.

Actually, based on your tone and the volume of what you wrote, I think you do mind.

Look, your work is exactly what you describe in your bio: doodles from class. I did it, other people do it, my younger brother does it. Doodling is fun, but I will agree with IAmMetaphysical that in your case it does not qualify as good art. Maybe a kind of design some people would like in a certain context, but not good art. I could not even identify what some of the subject matter was, in Atlas Walked and Woman with Child, for example, until I read the descriptions. Even then, Bird Diving and Morning Commute I still can’t recognize. Wait, I just got the bird one (really… at first I thought it was a fox or something).

What you call ‘distortion’ I would call dynamic, light, minimal.

[…]Think of any of Rand’s heroic characters. They are constantly in motion, working restlessly, striving towards a staggering goal – and, left to this pursuit, experience the incredible joy of being and producing and earning. I believe that the good in itself is likewise in constant motion. My aim, among other things, is to capture this important and beautiful motion, but must do so in a static image

To me it seems like your subjects are actually melting, or sludging, into the ground, or to their destinations. The “water” design effect that you use gives off a melencholy tone. It is not light, dynamic, joyful, or hard at work.

8

I should not have used O-bjective then. I meant o-bjective, which their work isn’t.

It isn’t realism or romantic, either. Romanticism is about showing man pursuing values, no? Maybe I have a mistaken view of it, and I did not intend to imply that I had the Objectivist viewpoint, I mistyped when I put the capital “o”. Their work is not objective, not realist, and to my understanding, not romantic, or if it is, it does a very poor job of getting that across. The artist intentions are not as important as how it is recieved by a viewer with a rational judgment.

I will echo JASKN in that your figures do seem to be more melty than actionably fluid, the seem to sleek into the ground.

I would also like to point out that my last remark (about clarifying that I did not think it wasn’t art only bad art) was not an attack but my assessment of the merit of your work. I will repeat: it is BAD art. That is my judgment, and I gave you my reasons. You contend that it is not your intention to depict man in that way, but that is how they are depicted, maybe in the future you will be a little more careful about the look of your figures and realize how they appear to an observer.

9

I should not have used O-bjective then. I meant o-bjective, which their work isn’t.

Just to clarify: objective in terms of art means that it has a logical standard by which it can be evaluated. Non-objective art includes things like:

formless blobs of paint on a canvas

“novels” without paragraphs, punctuation, plots, characters, or even words

any “statue” that invites the question: who dumped all this trash in the park? (usually followed by: “You mean that’s supposed to be here?”)

music without rythym or melody

poetry without structure

Abstract paintings are not necessarily non-objective, but there does have to be something there that you can identify in order to evaluate it.

10

Their work is not objective, not realist, and to my understanding, not romantic, or if it is, it does a very poor job of getting that across. The artist intentions are not as important as how it is recieved by a viewer with a rational judgment.

Whose work? Cheyne Rood’s, you mean? I thought Crescendo was kind of neat: not fantastic, but somewhat nifty.

11

Yes I mean cheyne’s work. I did not like any of it, although I admit that I did not give all of it a thorough lookings at.

Their work might be slightly “objective” in that they are meant to depict certain things, but I wouldn’t classify them as such to easily because of the way they go about depicting certain things. Its splitting hairs I guess, but I will try to clarify.

Their work does at least attempt to depict reality, to re-create it. Therefore it can qualify as art. It does so only by distorting the way man usually perceives reality in order to draw attention to a certain “concept” the concept the artist intended to be: motion, but which I read as “feeble melting” and lost of “rigidity”.

There is a certain amount of “abstraction” that has to be done when depicting usually 3-d objects on a 2 dimensional picture plane, but i think this artist goes too far and starts to dis-integrate the human form, unecessarily and aginst their own intentions. They are aiming for a certain concept and missing, thus making it a failed attempt, or bad art. What alos makes it bad art is what it says regardless of the artist’s intentions, which I have stated previously. It implies some evil metaphysical value judgments. That is why I think it is bad, that is my moral judgement of it. Like I said to begin with though, as designs, some of them are visually appealing, they at least have that going for them.

12

About the whole “objective art” thing. I guess I did mean to have a big “O” in the first place as I was talking about it not being in line with the Objectivist aesthetics which was named: Romantic realism. I treat the two terms interchangably, sorry for the confusion, even I was confused for a bit. I interchange “objetive ethics” with “egoism” or “selfishness” as well.

13

I draw and create art for myself. In the absence of art with which to connect, I seek to fulfill my own visual ideals.

I posted the link to my site not seeking approval. Nor was I seeking critique, although, as I have stated, I will always welcome a rational discourse (a rare treat in itself). I presented this site to share this vision with those with whom I already share a love for the works of Ayn Rand.

To pour one’s soul, love of philosophy, and complete sense of life into a tangible work of visual art…this all means an incredible amount to me. To have a person comment

I did not like any of it, although I admit that I did not give all of it a thorough lookings at.

…

I had higher expectations for this discussion forum, but I suppose it is what it is. Many have seemed to confuse style - which is consistent - with content, which is not. A work can be sad or reflective or mournful without sacrificing its underlying style & ideals.

Provided nothing of particular merit, these will be my parting words in this topic thread.

14

Hehe. You really shouldn’t be so defensive, you should realize that what I say is only to help. You make art for yourself and thats great, but great art is not made that way. Great art is great “objectively” not just to one person’s mind. I am sorry if you felt I was trying to insult you. I did not give your work a thorough look because the style as you put it is disgusting to me. Style is just as important as content. Think of it this way: The style reflects epistemology, i.e. HOW you see something in an artwork, and the content is the metaphysics, what it IS, what it says. So you have what it says and how it says it, just as in: what is it, and how do I know? The derivitive of epist. and metaphysics is ethics, a theory of value. The value of an artowrk therefore rests on the epistemology just as much as the content. You can have a work of art that is sad, that would not be bad unless the sadness were given some sort of importance. But what you do with your style is a consistent attack on the human form, and no matter what your intentions were that IS what you work says, either change it to fit your intentions or keep rationalizing to yourself. I suspect though that the reason you draw the way you do is because you are attempting to cover up the fact that you can’t draw accurately and pull it off.

15

I had higher expectations for this discussion forum, but I suppose it is what it is.

And what is that? Have you based your whole opinion on this forum on one or two people’s critique of your art? Is your summation “it is what it is” (which seems to imply a negative) what you consider “rational discourse”? The community on this board is much larger than those very few who have participated in this thread.

Any person involved in a creative effort who seeks to put his creativity out on display for the world to see should be ready to hear commentary, deserved or not, that will not be pleasing to their mind. To the Objectivist, of all people, the amount of effort put into something means far less than the result achieved. Are people supposed to appreciate your art because you worked really hard and put your soul into it, or are we supposed to like it because of what you actually accomplished? Around here, I think you can expect the latter.

If you put your emotional investment in your work aside for the moment, and look not at what you see in your art, but at what others may see in it, can you at least understand the points of view being expressed? If the comment you quoted had been the only explanation given as to the objection to your art, I think I could understand your reaction better. However, folks have gone on to explain to you why they viewed your art the way they did, so the quote you used to “exemplify” this forum with isn’t even a fair shot.

A quote from your original post (my bold emphasis);

I present my site for your review , not only because I am proud of my work, but also with hopes that those who share my philosophical aesthetic may likewise share my visual aesthetic.

So you came here to “share” your art, but not for critique. I would offer that your use of the word “review” is misleading then. Additionally, “share” can have mulitiple connotations depending on how it is framed in writing. It appears to me that the context is not simply share as in “for your perusal”, but with the added expectation that “I hope you like it as much as I do and I hope you tell me so”. If people had praised your efforts from the start, would you be saying the same thing (with regards to your not seeking critique or evaluation)? Roark built buildings that he liked and he didn’t care what others thought of them. He knew that they had objective qualities that made them valuable (to him) and no critique could diminish that or upset him.

You came to an Objectivist board, associating your art in at least some manner as pertaining to Objectivism or at the very least as having objectively rational qualities (“What Ought To Be”) and then when someone critiques it by objective standards, which they describe, that are not in your favor, you get upset. If I were to avoid giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would say that your last post is disingenuous in light of your first post. As it is, I merely think you are just mad because no one has come across with glowing reviews of your art. Despite what you may think, your emotions have come across in your words.

If you want to walk away from this thread, that’s your choice. However, it is inaccurate to do so under the representation that you have somehow been victimized and that this forum is to blame.

16

This is a super old thread but I would just like to say that the images in Cheyne’s portfolio, while underwhelming on their own, look very much like frames of animations. I suggest trying to create some animations in Flash or After Effects, they could be much more compelling.

17

I am proud to hold Ayn Rand among those few thinkers, sharing rank with Aristotle, Calvino, and Plato.

Sharing rank? They all don’t share the same rank with me…

But other than that, I personally like what you’ve said here in response to others in regards to your art:

They are constantly in motion, working restlessly, striving towards a staggering goal – and, left to this pursuit, experience the incredible joy of being and producing and earning. I believe that the good in itself is likewise in constant motion. My aim, among other things, is to capture this important and beautiful motion, but must do so in a static image. You are in your right to find this offensive, but you will not find me apologetic.

Nor will you find me apologetic for liking most of your works. I appreciate them more after reading about one of your aims: “capture this important and beautiful motion, but must do so in a static image”.

18

The style seems to be a mixture of tribalism and old Japanese art. The people are deformed, enlongated, bent at incorrect angles and places. Those that I saw look contemplative or downtrodden. I see a beginning, a spark of a really good style, but it’s as though the art was stretched and bent afterwords.

I do like what your style can be, in much the same way that your philosophy puts Rand on the same level as Plato (founder of the mind/body split). What can be.

Crosswalk: Very sullen, depressing. The person looks like an evil spirit. The tree looks very Japanese, and also dissolving. Or is it a lightpost?

Woman at the Piano: I don’t see any beauty in what she’s doing. She looks hunched over in an odd way, the overall feeling is hunchback suspicious princess that is concerned about who’s behind her.

I think the distortion that people are complaining about is the fluid, positive motion you’re attempting to show is butting up against your metaphysical belifes about the nature of the universe (malevolent). I may be wrong, though.