Art and Subobjectivity

[Victor Pross]

In regard to painting, isn't it all "abstract?"

--Brant

Yes, if the concept "abstraction" is properly understood and effectively implemented. The first will determine—to varying degrees-- the latter (depending upon the skill of the artist).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In regard to painting, isn't it all "abstract?"

Brant,

LOL.

That is more correct that appears on the surface. Speaking of surface, the job of a painter is to take strict reality, which is little more than a canvas (a surface, basically), and cover it over with a fantasy made up of pigments.

This process has always been reflected in the personalities of the painters I have known. I will leave you to speculate on how...

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne has imaginary friends.

That was supposed to be an abstract joke.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That was supposed to be an abstract joke.

Dayamm!

You be careful, Shayne. You are developing a sense of humor not related to value judgments.

That was cool...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

In regard to painting, isn't it all "abstract?"

Brant,

LOL.

That is more correct that appears on the surface. Speaking of surface, the job of a painter is to take strict reality, which is little more than a canvas (a surface, basically), and cover it over with a fantasy made up of pigments.

This process has always been reflected in the personalities of the painters I have known. I will leave you to speculate on how...

Michael

My question rhetorical? Oh, no! Incorrect "on the surface?" Oh, no! It's correct from the outside in and the inside out! Incorrect question: "Are you still beating your wife?" Incorrect answer(s): "Yes." (Er, "No.")

--Brant

Edited January 30, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

In regard to painting, isn't it all "abstract?"

--Brant

I think so. To quote for the 4th time something which I read in a source I don't recall, by someone whose name I don't recall -- and I'm not even certain I have the exact quote right, though I'm sure I have the meaning right:

"The function of art is never representational, even when it uses representational means."

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

In regard to painting, isn't it all "abstract?"

--Brant

I think so. To quote for the 4th time something which I read in a source I don't recall, by someone whose name I don't recall -- and I'm not even certain I have the exact quote right, though I'm sure I have the meaning right:

"The function of art is never representational, even when it uses representational means."

Ellen

___

This could be a misleading and confusing quote when read on its own.

[Ellen Stuttle]

So it is not "abstraction in art" that I object to--it is the lack of it in "abstract painting" that I object to.

Victor, I asked in the "Modernism" thread (if I recall right where I asked it) for you to post some examples of works you'd classify as "abstract." If I understood correctly some comments you've made, you don't consider Kandinsky, e.g., "abstract." Or that Apple Tree painting by Mondrian. I'm not sure which works you mean when you use the description "abstract."

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

So it is not "abstraction in art" that I object to--it is the lack of it in "abstract painting" that I object to.

Victor, I asked in the "Modernism" thread (if I recall right where I asked it) for you to post some examples of works you'd classify as "abstract." If I understood correctly some comments you've made, you don't consider Kandinsky, e.g., "abstract." Or that Apple Tree painting by Mondrian. I'm not sure which works you mean when you use the description "abstract."

Ellen

___

Abstract Art...or as I would call it: some different colors of paints on a canvas.

http://www.yvettepeters.com/images/Peters%...04993%20Bdr.JPG

http://img.timeinc.net/TFK/media/news/2005...art_special.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4064...86_congo203.jpg

Ellen, do you consider these works as art?

-Victor

[Ellen Stuttle]

Late-night bulletin: I'm laughing. I just heard a quote on the late-night classical station I sometimes listen to, I think by a person named Robinson (didn't get the full name):

"Ravel is the most insolent monstrosity ever perpetrated on music."

Amused.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Abstract Art...or as I would call it: some different colors of paints on a canvas.

Ellen, do you consider these works as art?

The only one which is loading on my computer is the first of the three. Eehh... Questionable. I don't see any clear signs of "technique" in that.

Am I correct in believing that you do not consider Kandinsky and Mondrian's Apple Tree "abstract" art?

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Abstract Art...or as I would call it: some different colors of paints on a canvas.

Ellen, do you consider these works as art?

The only one which is loading on my computer is the first of the three. Eehh... Questionable. I don't see any clear signs of "technique" in that.

Am I correct in believing that you do not consider Kandinsky and Mondrian's Apple Tree "abstract" art?

Ellen

___

Ellen, one thing at a time. "Questionable" or "not seeing technique" does not answer my question. Still, are you saying that "technique" is a necessary attribute for a work to be properly deemed as art, is that it? These are abstract paintings--deemed in the artworld as art. Do-you-agree?

edit: The iconic Jackson Pollock (Jack the Dipper) didn’t have a technique, did he? If you consider prancing around (and on) the horizontal canvas as paint dropped from a stick as a “technique.”

Edited January 30, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

But “abstract artists” do not intend to “tie abstractions to concretes”— because abstractions, for them, are floating forms in some Platonic universe or whatever. Abstract Art, I said elsewhere, is an absolute primacy of consciousness orientation. This major epistemological failure—one of a fundamental nature—is one reason why I question abstract painting as being a “work of art.” So it is not "abstraction in art" that I object to--it is the lack of it in "abstract painting" that I object to.

I see that you're still leaving architecture and music out of your rants about faulty epistemology. You've told us that you don't think that architecture is art, yet for some unexplained reason you still don't seem to be upset about the "primacy of consciousness orientation" of those who try to pass it off as art. Not very consistent, Victor.

You haven't yet announced that music isn't art even though many composers and musicians do not intend to “tie abstractions to concretes” in their music. They wouldn't agree with Roger Bissell's theory of music presenting virtual entities, or at least they wouldn't agree that his theory identifies the essence of their art form, and despite the benefit of having read about Roger's theory, you can't identify any "concretes" to which works of music refer. Or maybe you think you can? If so, I'd love it if you would tell us precisely which actions the "virtual entities" in pieces of music are engaged in.

J

Edited January 30, 2007 by Jonathan

[Victor Pross]

"I see that you're still leaving architecture and music out of your rants about faulty epistemology. You've told us that you don't think that architecture is art, yet for some unexplained reason you still don't seem to be upset about the "primacy of consciousness orientation" of those who try to pass it off as art. Not very consistent, Victor."

Yes, I am stark raving mad at this. One thing at a time, my hands are full. I still await Ellen's answer--or anybody else who cares to answer. You are a painter...what do you say?

Edited January 30, 2007 by Roger Bissell

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

edit: The iconic Jackson Pollock (Jack the Dipper) didn’t have a technique, did he? If you consider prancing around (and on) the horizontal canvas as paint dropped from a stick as a “technique.”

Yes, he did have a technique (several, actually). He was very much in control of how and where he was applying the paint. It wasn't random.

There are many people who would be able to instantly identify the styles and techniques of many different abstract artists, perhaps even more accurately than you could distinguish between which paintings were created by Raphael and which were not.

"I see that you're still leaving architecture and music out of your rants about faulty epistemology. You've told us that you don't think that architecture is art, yet for some unexplained reason you still don't seem to be upset about the "primacy of consciousness orientation" of those who try to pass it off as art. Not very consistent, Victor."

Yes, I am stock raving mad at this. One thing at a time, my hands are full. I still await Ellen's answer--or anybody else who cares to answer. You are a painter...what do you say?

One thing at a time, Victor. My "hands are full" too. I'm not addressing any of your diversions until you answer my questions.

Well, okay, just one quick observation. The first image you posted is clearly the work of a human. The other two look like images that I've seen that were created by animals.

Here are more animal paintings:

I think that a lot of people, if they were to encounter these images without knowing that they were created by animals, would call them art.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is that an argument from authority or numbers? Maybe I just have a different perspective on life than they do. I am utterly failing to see where the actual argument in that comment is aside from that many do it.

Jeff,

There is a booby-trap in this kind of thinking when it is the first argument that comes to mind. (God knows I used to do this enough.) This could become a manner of sabotaging your thinking.

Obviously argument from authority and argument from numbers are not logical arguments—in terms of deduction. But in terms of induction, i.e., looking and seeing and identifying (not to mention before judging), they are very important components of information that need to be evaluated. It's nice to have a romantic self-image as a rebel and an innovator. This is proper when you know what you are talking about. But it gets you into all kinds of trouble when you don't.

Look at baseball. If you ever get a crack at the pros and some heavy top-notch player takes you under his wing on the way, I seriously doubt you will immediately ask him how he can "stoop so low" in response to some advice he is trying to give you simply based on the fact that you don't like it. I believe that, coming from him, you will at least try to understand his advice before rejecting it. You might even have a "default" mode of accepting the advice at the moment he says it because he was the one who said it and you know what he is capable of, and only later thinking about it further.

This same manner of assimilating information goes for numbers. If a lot of players do one procedure for maintaining or improving a technique (say for working on your pitch) and you are starting to learn how to play, you will do that procedure precisely because they do it, and you will learn more as you go along. Only after you know the limitations of that procedure are you really entitled to dismiss it on the grounds that "just because others do it, that doesn't make it right." You can do that at that later time because you know a whole lot more than you did before.

To repeat, when you know nothing or very little about a subject, it is a good idea to learn from those who do know about it. To repeat again, you will find that those people are precisely the authorities (experts) and the numbers of people who are adept at it.

Coming to art, you have not demonstrated very much knowledge, but you have demonstrated a strong opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. We are all entitled to like or dislike art works. There is a problem with saying that a bunch of experts are "stooping low" because they all practice the same thing, especially when that same thing is producing works in a style you admire and works in a style you don't. The first focus should be a question, "Why do they do that?," not a value judgment, "They are evil (or morally low)."

It is very easy to ask why you think they are evil part of the time and glorious the other part in the work they love so dearly. The only thing you have right now to answer is your opinion and the conclusions of a few others that you don't really understand yet. So in logical terms (in your mind at this point), these conclusions have the same cognitive weight as opinions. Nothing more.

That's not enough to make a proper refutation. That's only enough to say, "I don't like it and these other people don't either."

So long as you are at this stage, my suggestion is to go deep into induction. Soak it up and soak it up thoroughly. Ask questions. Look for answers. Then judge. There is plenty of time for deduction later. You will not damage your soul this way. On the contrary, you will give a strong degree of logical certainty to your opinions since they will be based on first-hand information.

Notice that with religion, you started in this manner by going to different churches and reporting what you saw. Why not do this in art, also?

Maybe, just maybe, a great artist who produces magnificent representational works has reasons for painting abstract works that you don't know about, reasons that have nothing to do with having "a different perspective on life," or being taken in by a con. And maybe, just maybe, many great artists share these reasons and know a lot more about their field than you do.

I say learn those reasons if you seek wisdom. As you are a beginner, it is wise to look first to the authorities and the numbers because that is where the information is. You can always reject those reasons later.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Jonathan,

Diversions? Um, I was having a conversation with Ellen...until you budded in out of the clear blue sky making demands that I answer this and that. Perhaps you felt the stress on her, Zorro...I don't know. But yes, one thing at a time.

-Victor

[Jonathan]

It's interesting that Ellen would bring up Ravel at this point in the conversation. During the past half dozen years I've occasionally asked Objectivists (who insist that art must be intelligible -- that we must be able to identify the artist's subject without relying on outside considerations) to identify the subject of the Bolero, and so far, no one has done so (I ask about the Bolero because it's a very popular piece, most people are familiar with it, and many people are obviously affected by it and believe that it is art). Why haven't Objectivists taken me up on my request? I can tell you right now, in a matter of seconds, which "concrete" entities are depicted in Vermeer's Geographer and what the subject is. I don't need to think about it and get back to you in a few months: It's a room with a window on the left, through which light is entering. There's a man in blue clothing with orange and white accents in the center of the image. He's holding a compass and leaning over a table which is covered with paper and a tapestry. Behind the man is a cabinet with a globe on top of it. There's a framed map to the right, with a chair beneath it. The man is gazing out the window, and appears to be in a moment of contemplation. The subject is the feeling of the play of light, contemplation and clarity of mind.

Victor, Shayne and Jeff, would you mind idenfifying the specific entities and actions that are depicted in Ravel's Bolero (when you get the time, of course)?

I've also asked Objectivists about Chopin's Nocturne in E Flat Major, Mozart's Bassoon Concerto in B Flat, Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances, and Brahms' Hungarian Dance No 1 in G Minor. No one has yet answered. (Nor have they answered about the different subjects and meanings of Frank Lloyd Wright's Coonley House, Boynton House, Stockman House, Hanna House and Goetsch-Winckler House.)

J

Edited January 30, 2007 by Jonathan

[sjw]

Jonathan: Are you under the impression or do you wish to give the impression that if one can't answer every question in the domain of art then no answers one gives are valid?

[reason.on]

Victor,

I don't want to be snide, but you are wonderful at having your own style (to me, the mark of a real artist), but you were not so good at recognizing the style of another. You floundered pretty bad on a recent test.

Michael

Hey, I was pulling an all-nighter and no coffee! One question! That's all! :baby:

Ahem.

"One question", yes, but only "one question" correct.

Out of the 11 paintings posted in the art quiz you attempted to identify only 3, and out of those 3 you correctly identified one artist, Blake (so far as I could tell from your "clue"). The other 2 "clues" you posted for were incorrect. Neither Raphael nor Van Gogh were featured artists in the quiz. You also maintained for a number of days that Raphael and Fran Agelico had styles that were so similar as to be easily mistaken for one and another; that is until a side-by-side comparison was posted.

This is, of course, on top of you not knowing who Jan van Eyck was (by name or by his most famous painting, "The Marriage"), and I suspect not knowing who Turner was either (how anyone can "know" Turner and not know that he is most famous for his highly abstract sunsets and seascapes is beyond me), in addition to making the absurd claim that all "abstract art" is strictly about "paint" qua "paint".

Honesty, for someone who supposedly knows "a great deal" about art, this is not a very impressive track record, Victor.

RCR

Edited January 30, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

I don't want to be snide, but you are wonderful at having your own style (to me, the mark of a real artist), but you were not so good at recognizing the style of another. You floundered pretty bad on a recent test.

Michael

Hey, I was pulling an all-nighter and no coffee! One question! That's all! :baby:

Ahem.

"One question", yes, but only "one question" correct.

Out of the 11 paintings posted in the art quiz you attempted to identify only 3, and out of those 3 you correctly identified one artist, Blake (so far as I could tell from your "clue"). The other 2 "clues" you posted for were incorrect. Neither Raphael nor Van Gogh were featured artists in the quiz. You also maintained for a number of days that Raphael and Fran Agelico had styles that were so similar as to be easily mistaken for one and another; that is until a side-by-side comparison was posted.

This is, of course, on top of you not knowing who Jan van Eyck was (by name or by his most famous painting, "The Marriage"), and I suspect not knowing who Turner was either (how anyone can "know" Turner and not know that he is most famous for his highly abstract sunsets and seascapes is beyond me), in addition to making the absurd claim that all "abstract art" is strictly about "paint" qua "paint".

Honesty, for someone who supposedly knows "a great deal" about art, this is not a very impressive track record, Victor.

RCR

Ahem. Ahem.

I do know a great deal about art--not all of it. I am not an art historian; I merely know more about it than the common person. That is, more than some...less than others. So what? Would you care to submit yourself to a test? (Still, all this is beside the point of this debate or discussion; we are having a conversation about abstract painting.) This is not about RCR trying to paint people he doesn't like into a corner. And yes, I stand by my statements about abstract painting...absurd to you or not. I think your point of view is a laugh.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Victor Pross

[reason.on]

This is not about RCR trying to paint people he doesn't like into a corner.

That is correct, Victor it absolutely is not. I hold no ill-will against you at all.

What it is about, for me anyway, is accuracy, honesty and truth; nothing more, nothing less.

RCR

[sjw]

Honesty, for someone who supposedly knows "a great deal" about art, this is not a very impressive track record, Victor.

What's truly not impressive is this brazen ad hominem RCR indulges in.

Evidently I should have asked RCR the same question I asked Jonathan.

[Victor Pross]

This is not about RCR trying to paint people he doesn't like into a corner.

That is correct, Victor it absolutely is not. I hold no ill-will against you at all.

What it is about, for me anyway, is accuracy, honesty and truth; nothing more, nothing less.

RCR

Honesty and truth. Putting words into my mouth that I regard FLW as having no skill is an indication of this? Sure, giving the benefit of the doubt of there being a misunderstanding is fine, but I did correct you---and you still argue your case that such is my stance. "Victor is of the view that FLW has no skill." Yeah, now I look like a dick, thanks to RCR, even though I have never expressed such a thing. Come on.

[reason.on]

Honesty, for someone who supposedly knows "a great deal" about art, this is not a very impressive track record, Victor.

What's truly not impressive is this brazen ad hominem RCR indulges in.

Evidently I should have asked RCR the same question I asked Jonathan.

:logik: You have some very peculiar defintions of "ad hominem", Shayne.

RCR