Rational Television
Mar...@lara.pathlink.com
here for Scooby. I encouraged it for my daughter because the ghosts were never
real and the kids gathered clues to build a hypothesis which they proved when
the bad guy was unmasked.)
Columbo. Unassuming in the extreme, of course, and that can become of paro
dy of
itself, perhaps. However, his methodology is based on non-contradiction.
Columbo is successful because lies cannot be.
William Martin
During the early to mid 70s I was a teenager. I did not believe in ghosts or in
an all powerful God, any of that supernatural primitivism. Maybe that is why
I liked Scooby Doo!
Other shows I watched: Space 1999. I really loved that one segment in which
everyone thought a much higher intelligence than them was God. The humans
reasoned later that he was just a much higher intelligent being - a metaphy
sical
magician. It had a very big supportive effect on me. I don't remember the
name of the particular segment. After watching it, I wished everyone in
America, including the Moral Majority bible thumpers, would watch it.
With memories of that show, I found it easy to concur with E.G. Ross's
"The Objective American" idea that God-like beings may exist, but an
all-powerful God is a contradiction. Did anyone see the Space 1999
show I am writing about? I liked it better than any Star Trek segment!
Ken Gardner
> Did anyone see the Space 1999 show I am writing about? I
>liked it better than any Star Trek segment!
Was that the show with Martin Landau? However, if we are talking
about "rational television," nothing beats ESPN's National Hockey
Night. <G>
Ken
Mar...@lara.pathlink.com
cannot condemn that per se. I personally found the show to be the depths and
pits of anti-life, anti-reason, and anti-man. However, that's just me...
(I like Rodin's THE THINKER and yet, there was a denunciation of it in The
Objectivist or Ayn Rand Letter. For all the same reasons, I praise the work.
The reviewer said it showed a powerful brute with no mind, frozen by inaction.
I feel that it shows a powerful man who does not act before thinking, his
muscles the physical expression of the power of his thoughts. So, if you LIKED
Space 1999 and got something important and good and valuable from it for
positive pro-life reasons of your own, I will not excommunicate you or withdraw
my sanction -- even if I go to the fridge when the show comes on and return for
the commercials.)
X-Files, anyone? I know, I know... mysticism and UFOs and blah-blah-blah, but
they always seek FACTS, they have to work against ignorance and evil. They seek
the truth and accept as true the theories that explain the evidence, no matter
how outlandish... and the process does not end. It is not a simple mattter of
isolating one thing, but of integrating each new discovery into the complex
tapestry of Whatever-it-is-that's-going-on-we-don't-understand. I think the
acting is good, the tension is real, Ducoveny and Anderson display their
feelings without betraying their feelings. (They do not interrupt the action
for a scream of fear, for instance.) I think the show has a good sense of
life.
No matter how complex, no matter what obstacles are there, the truth is out
there, and you can find it.
Ken Gardner
>I like Rodin's THE THINKER and yet, there was a denunciation of it in The
>Objectivist or Ayn Rand Letter.
Huh?
>For all the same reasons, I praise the work.
>The reviewer said it showed a powerful brute with no mind, frozen by inact
>ion.
>I feel that it shows a powerful man who does not act before thinking, his
>muscles the physical expression of the power of his thoughts.
My reaction is identical to yours.
Ken
R Lawrence
>Mar...@lara.pathlink.com, "Michael E." <mer...@well.com> wrote:
>
>>I like Rodin's THE THINKER and yet, there was a denunciation of it in The
>>Objectivist or Ayn Rand Letter.
>
>Huh?
From "Metaphysics in Marble" (Part II) by Mary Ann Sures, in _The
Objectivist_, March 1969 (pp. 619-620):
<begin quote>
By the second half of the nineteenth century, [...] philosophy shattered
man's self-confidence. It fashioned a view of man which raised a mixture of
disillusionment, doubt and hopelessness to the status of man's essence.
That view was given visual expression in the work of Auguste Rodin.
As a characteristic of his work, Rodin introduced an element that had been
rare in sculpture since the end of the Middle Ages: human ugliness. His
figures combine ugliness with extreme physical discomfort, expressing his
subjects' state of mind. His figures are presented in bent, twisted,
strained, squatting and huddled positions; musculature is distorted; faces
are left unfinished. The surfaces of the material, usually bronze, are
highly polished, but beneath the sheen one can distinguish uneven ridges
and hollows that make the skin texture look broken and unhealthy.
[...]
One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, _The Thinker_, sums up his
view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a
position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs
and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body
indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His
external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging
in mental activity.
<end quote>
Not everything is available on the CD-ROM, you know! But you will
henceforth be able to find this quote, plus some of the omitted material in
the ellipses above, through the Objectivism Reference Center at
http://www.objectivism.addr.com/texts/rodin.html .
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
Ken Gardner
[...]
>One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, _The Thinker_, sums up his
>view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a
>position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs
>and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body
>indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His
>external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging
>in mental activity.
><end quote>
Thanks for posting this excerpt, including the part I snipped for
brevity. I guess I'm still shaking my head, although I don't know any
Rodin works other than The Thinker (I'm looking at a picture of it as
I type).
>Not everything is available on the CD-ROM, you know! But you will
>henceforth be able to find this quote, plus some of the omitted material in
>the ellipses above, through the Objectivism Reference Center at
>http://www.objectivism.addr.com/texts/rodin.html .
It is an excellent site.
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
>
> As a characteristic of his work, Rodin introduced an element that had been
> rare in sculpture since the end of the Middle Ages: human ugliness. His
> figures combine ugliness with extreme physical discomfort, expressing his
> subjects' state of mind. His figures are presented in bent, twisted,
> strained, squatting and huddled positions; musculature is distorted; faces
> are left unfinished. The surfaces of the material, usually bronze, are
> highly polished, but beneath the sheen one can distinguish uneven ridges
> and hollows that make the skin texture look broken and unhealthy.
Is it possible that the Thinker was trying to take a dump and
having a hard time of it. It happens to all of us, now and
again.
Bob Kolker
f
t
b
f
t
b
Ted
R Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>From "Metaphysics in Marble" (Part II) by Mary Ann Sures, in _The
>Objectivist_, March 1969 (pp. 619-620):
>One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, _The Thinker_, sums up his
>view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a
>position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs
>and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body
>indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted.
His
>external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging
>in mental activity.
Since when is engaging in mental activity a strain? Thinking is one of the
greatest pleasures there is. Until now, I saw the sculpture as someone so
lost in contemplation as to be oblivious to the uncomfortable posture of
his body.
Then I read the excerpt you generously posted. Well, I still see it the same
way. The title is 'The Thinker', not 'The Worrier' or 'The Hopelessness of
It All'. Despite the title, is this a man in despair or a man pushing his
brain to the limit?
Which interpretation is right? It seems to all depend on what he is thinking
about. No! Wrong! Not what he is thinking about. What we think he is thinking
about. I think.
Ted
Phil
> Not everything is available on the CD-ROM, you know! But you will
> henceforth be able to find this quote, plus some of the omitted material in
> the ellipses above, through the Objectivism Reference Center at
> http://www.objectivism.addr.com/texts/rodin.html .
Some of the material now excluded (not the Branden's) may be on
a future edition once I clarify, to my own satisfaction, the rights
involved. It is not always a clear issue. I would certainly like to
include Mary Ann Sures' writing, she has valuable things to say
about art.
Phil Oliver
The works of Ayn Rand on CD-ROM
www.Objectivism.net
R Lawrence
> I guess I'm still shaking my head, although I don't know any
>Rodin works other than The Thinker (I'm looking at a picture of it as
>I type).
Your last comment brings to my mind an interesting point, which struck me
early on when reading this thread: I have never seen The Thinker in
person. I suspect I am not alone in this among the participants in this
thread. Nor, quite frankly, do I know much about sculpture. Sures'
interpretation of The Thinker is based on the details of the figure's
musculature and such, along with knowledge of Rodin's other work, and I
don't presume to know whether that interpretation is good one or a foolish
one.
Fred Weiss
"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e_O07.6253$Gj5.1...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, _The Thinker_, sums up his
> view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a
> position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs
> and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body
> indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted.
His
> external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging
> in mental activity.
For a somewhat different view of the same theme, you might want to compare
Nicholas Gaetano's cover art for Philosophy: Who Needs it?
http://www.papertig.com/gaetano.htm
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
R Lawrence wrote:
>
>
> One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, _The Thinker_, sums up his
> view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a
> position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs
> and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body
> indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted. His
> external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging
> in mental activity.
> <end quote>
He is taking a dump, I tell you.
David Buchner
> X-Files, anyone? I know, I know... mysticism and UFOs and blah-blah-blah,
> but they always seek FACTS, they have to work against ignorance and evil.
> They seek the truth and accept as true the theories that explain the
> evidence, no matter how outlandish... and the process does not end. It
> is not a simple mattter of isolating one thing, but of integrating each
> new discovery into the complex tapestry of
> Whatever-it-is-that's-going-on-we-don't-understand. I think the acting is
> good, the tension is real, [Duchovny] and Anderson display their feelings
> without betraying their feelings. (They do not interrupt the action for a
> scream of fear, for instance.) I think the show has a good sense of
> life.
Yes. They always solve problems by thinking. But more importantly,
you've got two *heroic*, pretty much beyond-reproach, main characters.
They're highly moral, dedicated to each other and the truth, courageous
(constantly running straight into impossible situations most of us would
run in the other direction from or curl up in a corner and moan), smart,
and competent. I think people get more out of watching such examples
than popular "coolness" allows them to admit.
Actually, though, most of the appeal for me comes from the characters'
interactions and goofy smartass sense of humor...
--
David
Buc...@wcta.net Osage MN USA
David Buchner
> From "Metaphysics in Marble" (Part II) by Mary Ann Sures, in _The
> Objectivist_, March 1969 (pp. 619-620):
> Not everything is available on the CD-ROM, you know! But you will
> henceforth be able to find this quote, plus some of the omitted material in
> the ellipses above, through the Objectivism Reference Center at
> http://www.objectivism.addr.com/texts/rodin.html .
How come, durnit? I thought when I read through the list of stuff on the
CD-ROM, that the newsletters were there.
Who has a handy link to pictures of "The Thinker" - so I can see if he
really looks like he's straining, cramped, exhausted, and ugly? I don't
remember having that impression on seeing it before, but then I haven't
paid that much attention to it.
Ken Gardner
>Who has a handy link to pictures of "The Thinker" - so I can see if he
>really looks like he's straining, cramped, exhausted, and ugly? I don't
>remember having that impression on seeing it before, but then I haven't
>paid that much attention to it.
Just go to www.google.com and do a search using "Rodin" and "Thinker."
It will turn up lots of sites.
Ken
Darcy
> >Objectivist_, March 1969 (pp. 619-620):
>
> >One of Rodin's most famous and popular works, _The Thinker_, sums up his
>
> >view of man's wretched state. The figure is seated, hunched over in a
> >position that combines strain and limpness. The muscles in his arms, legs
>
> >and toes are knotted and cramped. The size and development of his body
> >indicate that it was once powerful and energetic, but is now exhausted.
> His
> >external, physical state reveals his inner strain: the strain of engaging
>
> >in mental activity.
>
Whenever I've heard _The Thinker_ discussed, I've heard, as Sures says
in the last sentence, that his physical state reveals his inner
strain. Obviously. But IMHO the rest of the interpretation is way
off-base.
Thinking, especially on some weighty matter, can be a serious strain.
I'd bet some hpo-ers debating the nature of truth are hunched over
their keyboards -- brows furrowed, muscles clenching and unclenching
-- as they try to get the argument just right. ;) Personally, I find
it interesting that Rodin has used his subject's physicality to
represent inner turmoil.
But in Objectivist art criticism, things like showing a man hunched
and showing thinking as a strain are often interpreted as stating that
man is wretched. Since art is "supposed" to concretize metaphysical
value-judgments, any depiction of man that isn't perceived as radiant,
upright, heroic, and triumphant is condemned.
Someone mentioned the sketch for Philosophy: Who Needs It? at
http://www.papertig.com/Gaetano_PWNI.htm. That is a great
counterpoint. The cover sketch brings to life Rand's vision of the
heroic philosopher.
_The Thinker_ (which I believe was originally called The Poet) brings
to life the process of deep thought -- maybe even for a man who's not
a mental giant. I think it's a stretch to widen this abstraction and
call it human ugliness and a depiction of man's wretchedness.
Jennifer
Fred Weiss
"Darcy" <jed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67f10d03.01070...@posting.google.com...
> But in Objectivist art criticism, things like showing a man hunched
> and showing thinking as a strain are often interpreted as stating that
> man is wretched. Since art is "supposed" to concretize metaphysical
> value-judgments, any depiction of man that isn't perceived as radiant,
> upright, heroic, and triumphant is condemned.
Then why did Ayn Rand so much admire Victor Hugo or the painter Vermeer?
"Triumphant" is not exactly the words that come to mind when I think of
either of them. All of Victor Hugo's novels end sadly or tragically. Two of
them with the suicide of the hero, although there is an element of triumph -
or value affirmation - in both cases.
Furthermore, Ayn Rand didn't "condemn" art with a bad sense of life. She
didn't personally like much of it, but she acknowledged that some of it is
great art.
> _The Thinker_ (which I believe was originally called The Poet) brings
> to life the process of deep thought -- maybe even for a man who's not
> a mental giant. I think it's a stretch to widen this abstraction and
> call it human ugliness and a depiction of man's wretchedness.
You'd also have to see it in connection with Rodin's other work where those
themes are more apparent.
Fred Weiss
Darcy
7.atl.mindspring.net>...
> Then why did Ayn Rand so much admire Victor Hugo or the painter Vermeer?
Ayn Rand talked about Hugo's "magnificent view of and of existence."
Vermeer, she said, concretized "the psycho-epistemology of a rational
mind."
But I'm not talking about Ayn Rand's personal taste in art. I'm
interested in Objectivist art criticism. What about the works that
Ayn Rand *didn't* comment on? How is art evaluated under the
Romantic-Realist school of thought versus other methods?
> Furthermore, Ayn Rand didn't "condemn" art with a bad sense of life. She
> didn't personally like much of it, but she acknowledged that some of it is
> great art.
>
You're right, she didn't -- neither did I claim she did. Rand even
said that sense of life should not be used for esthetic judgment
although she did say that a "sense of life is the source of art."
Rand did, however, skirt close to condemning the *viewer* of art for
what he reveals about his sense of life.
A "man whose normal mental state is a state of full focus, will create
and respond to a style of radiant clarity and ruthless precision -- a
style that projects sharp outlines, cleanliness, purpose an
intransigent commitment to full awareness..."
On the other hand, a "man who is moved by the fog of his feelings and
spends most of his time out of focus will create and respond to a
style of blurred, 'mysterious' murk, where outlines disolve and
entities flow into one another ... a level of awareness appropriate to
a universe where A can be any non-A one chooses." ("Art and Sense of
Life" RM) In other words, non-objective art is bad -- and not Art.
Elsewhere she lets those with mixed premises responding to
mixed-premises artists somewhat off the hook.
I've never been clear on the proof for the Objectivist definition of
art: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an
artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Where is the proof, other
than Rand's introspection on her own art? Why is a work of art
necessarily a recreation of the artist's widest abstractions? Why is
it *necessarily* a fundamental view of man and of existence?
This definition leads to a way of evaluating art, such as this
discussion of Rodin.
> You'd also have to see it in connection with Rodin's other work where those
> themes are more apparent.
>
And for that matter, we should also see it in connection with the art
of its time. The Impressionists had broken with traditional ideas of
proper subject matter and correct ways of portaying them. The camera
had been invented, meaning that there was no longer the same 0need for
artists to create a strict representation of a person or other
subject. All the old rules were thrown out the window, and artists
began experimenting with radically new ways of doing things.
I'm no expert on Rodin but I know he's famous for portraying emotions
and for capturing the transitory. Some of his works portray fear and
pain. Mary Ann Sures talked about the sculptures' faces being left
unfinished -- Rodin used that to represent human imperfection. These
themes don't sit well in the Objectivist esthetics -- but I think even
these themes can be worthy of contemplation.
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Not everything is available on the CD-ROM, you know!
>
>How come, durnit? I thought when I read through the list of stuff on the
>CD-ROM, that the newsletters were there.
The articles by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff from Rand's various magazines
are there -- but not articles by Mary Ann Sures or other authors.
Fred Weiss
"Darcy" <jed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67f10d03.01070...@posting.google.com...
> I've never been clear on the proof for the Objectivist definition of
> art: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an
> artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Where is the proof, other
> than Rand's introspection on her own art? Why is a work of art
> necessarily a recreation of the artist's widest abstractions? Why is
> it *necessarily* a fundamental view of man and of existence?
How else would you differentiate art from, say, decoration or "painting by
the numbers" or from a mere straightforward report of an event (such as a
newspaper article)?
>The Impressionists had broken with traditional ideas of
> proper subject matter and correct ways of portaying them. The camera
> had been invented, meaning that there was no longer the same 0need for
> artists to create a strict representation of a person or other
> subject. All the old rules were thrown out the window, and artists
> began experimenting with radically new ways of doing things.
The discovery of photography had nothing to do with it. And good "realist"
art is not photographic. It is stylized. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel is
not "photographic". Even the Mona Lisa is not photographic.
Impressionism is in fact a reflection of the influence of Kant: that we
cannot really know reality, i.e. that reality is just a (distorted)
"construct" in our brains. Impressionism was the first step in the complete
destruction of fine art which ended in completely distorted images and then
outright smears. It is in fact true in this sense: this is the way the world
would look to a fully consistent Kantian (or a psychotic).
> I'm no expert on Rodin but I know he's famous for portraying emotions
> and for capturing the transitory. Some of his works portray fear and
> pain. Mary Ann Sures talked about the sculptures' faces being left
> unfinished -- Rodin used that to represent human imperfection. These
> themes don't sit well in the Objectivist esthetics -- but I think even
> these themes can be worthy of contemplation.
Why would you want to contemplate fear, pain, and "human imperfection"
(whatever that means)?
Btw, if you want to see some good examples of stylized (non- photographic)
realist art, consider these:
http://www.papertig.com/capuletti.htm
Others can be found here:
Fred Weiss
Symme7ry
>From: Fred Weiss pape...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 7/8/01 6:00 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9i9efa$4nm$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>>Some of his works portray fear and
>> pain. Mary Ann Sures talked about the sculptures' faces being left
>> unfinished -- Rodin used that to represent human imperfection. These
>> themes don't sit well in the Objectivist esthetics -- but I think even
>> these themes can be worthy of contemplation.
>
>Why would you want to contemplate fear, pain, and "human imperfection"
>(whatever that means)?
Why wouldn't you? They're all parts of human experience.
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ken Gardner
>> I've never been clear on the proof for the Objectivist definition of
>> art: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an
>> artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Where is the proof, other
>> than Rand's introspection on her own art? Why is a work of art
>> necessarily a recreation of the artist's widest abstractions? Why is
>> it *necessarily* a fundamental view of man and of existence?
>How else would you differentiate art from, say, decoration or "painting by
>the numbers" or from a mere straightforward report of an event (such as a
>newspaper article)?
Also look at what an artwork is and does. A sculpture, a painting, a
novel are all selective recreations of reality in some sense. Even
music is a selective recreation of certain emotions that we human
beings experience. And what the artist selects to recreate in his
artwork reflects his metaphysical value-judgments, i.e. what he thinks
is metaphysically important enough to include in his work. So, Rand's
definition certainly reflects the essence of what art actually is.
[...]
>Impressionism is in fact a reflection of the influence of Kant: that we
>cannot really know reality, i.e. that reality is just a (distorted)
>"construct" in our brains. Impressionism was the first step in the complete
>destruction of fine art which ended in completely distorted images and then
>outright smears. It is in fact true in this sense: this is the way the world
>would look to a fully consistent Kantian (or a psychotic).
No pun intended, but you are painting here with too broad a stroke.
There is absolutely no resemblance here between, say, the best works
of Monet or Renoir with the trash to which you are referring.
[...]
Ken
Darcy
> "Darcy" <jed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:67f10d03.01070...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I've never been clear on the proof for the Objectivist definition of
> > art: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an
> > artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Where is the proof, other
> > than Rand's introspection on her own art? Why is a work of art
> > necessarily a recreation of the artist's widest abstractions? Why is
> > it *necessarily* a fundamental view of man and of existence?
>
> How else would you differentiate art from, say, decoration or "painting by
> the numbers" or from a mere straightforward report of an event (such as a
> newspaper article)?
>
I don't think that proves that art necessarily represents the artist's
metaphysical value-judgments.
Unfortunately, I don't have a comprehensive alternate definition to
propose. But there's a simplified definition someone posted in an
essay on the web: Art is any human creation which contains an idea
other than its utilitarian purpose. That leaves open what is good art
and what is bad, but I like it as a starting point.
Ken Gardner <kesga...@home.com> wrote:
> Also look at what an artwork is and does. A sculpture, a painting, a
> novel are all selective recreations of reality in some sense. Even
> music is a selective recreation of certain emotions that we human
> beings experience. And what the artist selects to recreate in his
> artwork reflects his metaphysical value-judgments, i.e. what he thinks
> is metaphysically important enough to include in his work. So, Rand's
> definition certainly reflects the essence of what art actually is.
Art is certainly a selective recreation of reality. But how do we get
from there to "what the artist selects to recreate in his artwork
reflects his metaphysical value-judgments"? That seems to be making
an unwarranted psychological evaluation. Maybe the artist just found
the composition interesting, or maybe he or she thought it was
important as one *part* of the human experience.
We can't know that the artist intended a work to represent something
*metaphysically* important unless the artists tells us. (As Rand did
about her own art, and as a lot of Romantic-Realist artists do today.)
Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> also wrote:
> > Darcy wrote:
> >The Impressionists had broken with traditional ideas of
> > proper subject matter and correct ways of portaying them. The camera
> > had been invented, meaning that there was no longer the same 0need for
> > artists to create a strict representation of a person or other
> > subject. All the old rules were thrown out the window, and artists
> > began experimenting with radically new ways of doing things.
>
> The discovery of photography had nothing to do with it. And good "realist"
> art is not photographic. It is stylized. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel is
> not "photographic". Even the Mona Lisa is not photographic.
>
Artists have a lot of reasons to create a piece; before the invention
of the camera, one of them was to paint portraits for people who
wanted their images preserved for posterity. My point was that once
the camera was invented, this changed one need for art. (Not to open
the photography debate -- but photography *can* be highly stylized.)
Fred Weiss
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@home.com> wrote in message
news:rg1hktoo59rcrbsoh...@4ax.com...
> No pun intended, but you are painting here with too broad a stroke.
> There is absolutely no resemblance here between, say, the best works
> of Monet or Renoir with the trash to which you are referring.
They were a bridge to the complete collapse of art in the 20th Century. The
better of the Impressionists still had one foot in the better world of art
which preceded them, just as the better "naturalist" writers still had one
foot in romantic literature, and the better "modernistic" composers still
had some harmony and melody. So you can still see some resemblance to
reality in the better Impressionists, but it is still deliberately out of
focus and/or smeary. What does that convey to you? What does it convey to
you when a painter is looking at the world as if he needs a new pair of
glasses or needs to clean the ones he's got? (Except there was nothing wrong
with their glasses. They chose to paint that way.)
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
>> No pun intended, but you are painting here with too broad a stroke.
>> There is absolutely no resemblance here between, say, the best works
>> of Monet or Renoir with the trash to which you are referring.
>They were a bridge to the complete collapse of art in the 20th Century.
I don't know enough about art history to talk about "bridges" in this
manner, but in any event I just don't see any connection at all
between the better Impressionistic art and, say, Picasso's markings
and scratches (I wouldn't call it art).
>The better of the Impressionists still had one foot in the better world of art
>which preceded them, just as the better "naturalist" writers still had one
>foot in romantic literature, and the better "modernistic" composers still
>had some harmony and melody. So you can still see some resemblance to
>reality in the better Impressionists, but it is still deliberately out of
>focus and/or smeary.
I agree with the broader point that clarity is always better in
artwork. Having said that, I've seen lots of Impressionistic art in
person. The better paintings are very clear, just different. The
worse paintings are more unclear (or suffer from other flaws). This
pattern also holds true in most non-Impressionistic art.
>What does that convey to you? What does it convey to
>you when a painter is looking at the world as if he needs a new pair of
>glasses or needs to clean the ones he's got? (Except there was nothing wrong
>with their glasses. They chose to paint that way.)
The bad paintings look this way, I agree. But, again, this particular
flaw is not limited to art in the Impressionistic style.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>Art is certainly a selective recreation of reality. But how do we get
>from there to "what the artist selects to recreate in his artwork
>reflects his metaphysical value-judgments"?
Look at what he selects to be included in his artwork, i.e. his
recreation of reality. What he selects is what he regards as
metaphysically important enough to be selected. What he omits is what
he regarded as not sufficiently important enough to be selected.
>That seems to be making an unwarranted psychological evaluation.
Not if you judge the work solely by the work itself, without regard to
who created it. Also see my next comment.
>Maybe the artist just found the composition interesting, or maybe he or she
>thought it was important as one *part* of the human experience.
Speaking for myself, I don't subscribe to the view that the
metaphysical value-judgments reflected in a work of art _necessarily_
reflect the artist's own metaphysical value-judgments. Thus, I don't
dwell on what might have been in the artist's mind. I dwell on the
artwork itself.
>We can't know that the artist intended a work to represent something
>*metaphysically* important unless the artists tells us. (As Rand did
>about her own art, and as a lot of Romantic-Realist artists do today.)
I agree.
Ken
Fred Weiss
"Darcy" <jed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67f10d03.0107...@posting.google.com...
> Unfortunately, I don't have a comprehensive alternate definition to
> propose. But there's a simplified definition someone posted in an
> essay on the web: Art is any human creation which contains an idea
> other than its utilitarian purpose. That leaves open what is good art
> and what is bad, but I like it as a starting point.
That has an element of truth in it, namely, that art is an end in itself.
But it doesn't go far enough. Any hobby, qua hobby, serves no utilitarian
purpose (or shouldn't if it is a proper hobby), e.g. stamp collecting or
book collecting (my field). Gourmet cooking serves no utilitarian purpose
and while it can be "artful" is not art.
> Art is certainly a selective recreation of reality. But how do we get
> from there to "what the artist selects to recreate in his artwork
> reflects his metaphysical value-judgments"? That seems to be making
> an unwarranted psychological evaluation. Maybe the artist just found
> the composition interesting, or maybe he or she thought it was
> important as one *part* of the human experience.
That reflects his value judgments.
> We can't know that the artist intended a work to represent something
> *metaphysically* important unless the artists tells us.
He "tells" us in his work. Actually, if it is good art that's what it should
do: tell or show us clearly what he intended.
>(Not to open
> the photography debate -- but photography *can* be highly stylized.)
Yes, I know and there is some debate whether exceptional photography of a
certain type should be considered art. It is a possible "borderline" case.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@home.com> wrote in message
news:537hkt4i5h87t3mi6...@4ax.com...
> Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> No pun intended, but you are painting here with too broad a stroke.
> >> There is absolutely no resemblance here between, say, the best works
> >> of Monet or Renoir with the trash to which you are referring.
>
> >They were a bridge to the complete collapse of art in the 20th Century.
>
> I don't know enough about art history to talk about "bridges" in this
> manner, but in any event I just don't see any connection at all
> between the better Impressionistic art and, say, Picasso's markings
> and scratches (I wouldn't call it art).
Picasso and his ilk were actually anti-art, by explicit intent, btw.
> >What does that convey to you? What does it convey to
> >you when a painter is looking at the world as if he needs a new pair of
> >glasses or needs to clean the ones he's got? (Except there was nothing
wrong
> >with their glasses. They chose to paint that way.)
>
> The bad paintings look this way, I agree. But, again, this particular
> flaw is not limited to art in the Impressionistic style.
Yes, there are mediocre painters in any school but the Impressionists
deliberately chose to paint in a smeary, out of focus manner. That was their
chosen style. Renoir or Monet may have been less bad in this regard than
some of the other Impressionists, but it is still present even in their
work.
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
>Picasso and his ilk were actually anti-art, by explicit intent, btw.
Of course. "Anti-art" -- and anti-reality (i.e. nihilistic) -- is the
perfect term to describe Picasso and his ilk.
>> The bad paintings look this way, I agree. But, again, this particular
>> flaw is not limited to art in the Impressionistic style.
>Yes, there are mediocre painters in any school but the Impressionists
>deliberately chose to paint in a smeary, out of focus manner.
That's my problem. I've seen lots of the best of Impressionistic
paintings, and I wouldn't regard them as "smeary" or out of focus.
Some of the more mediocre or lousy artworks in this style are, but I
don't think that this problem is unique to Impressionists.
[...]
Ken
Darcy
it. Those old O'ist boogeymen of Picasso, paint blobs and spatters,
and things that "don't look the way they should" aren't avant-garde
anymore. Art didn't collapse in the 20th century -- it went right on
changing and developing.
The Romantic-Realist movement is part of that. And although there's
still a lot of abstract art being created, there's also a focus on
"new realism." That change in the tide is old enough to have been
part of a humanities course I took years ago.
Forgive the lengthy quote, but I thought this was interesting.
Straight out of a textbook, the 1991 edition of William Fleming's
_Arts & Ideas_:
"For the modernists, realism had been anathema. Postmodernists, for
their part, felt a strong need to come to terms with the real world
once again. In his _Reflections on Realism_, the writer J.P. Stern
remarked that realism is 'the creative acknowledgment of the data of
social life at a recognizable moment in history,' a new concern with
human beings in specific situations who, by force of circumstance,
must make choices and decisions. ...
"The present generation of realist painters ... refuses to yield
naturalistic representational art to the photographers while at the
same time it rejects the abstractionist notion that a picture has no
referent beyond itself. The new realists are convinced that there is
a world out there worth looking at and recording on canvas. ...
"Postmodernism, then, is a concept covering the range of art produced
by and addressed to the present-day pluralistic society. Abstraction
is still with us, as it has been from the beginning of time. Other
constants in the history of art, however, are now being rediscovered
and brought into balance. The value of drawing and draftsmanship, a
description of the objective world, the power of the human figure, and
a sense of spirituality are now being rediscovered and reassessed.
Thus in the present period of pluralism, all kinds of approaches to
art have once more found space to coexist."
Fleming emphasizes that even though art is rediscovering realism, "no
painter of whatever persuasion could possibly approach a canvas as if
cubism and abstract expressionism had never happened." The same goes
for other forms of art and their equivalents.
Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Btw, if you want to see some good examples of stylized (non- photographic)
> realist art, consider these:
>
> http://www.papertig.com/capuletti.htm
>
> Others can be found here:
>
> http://www.cordair.com/
Yep, I've actually been there in person. Quent Cordair has created an
oasis off Burlingame Ave. -- it's almost the only gallery I've been to
where the interior design is also beautiful and "user-friendly"
(perfect for viewing the art). If I had more money, I'd have a few
Jerald Rough pieces hanging on my walls.
Here's a painting from another gallery that makes me smile:
"d'Anconia's Floor" at
http://www.tracyfineart.com/d'anconia'sfloor.htm. (Robert Tracy's
gallery -- http://www.tracyfineart.com/index.html.)
And I *still* like Picasso.
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Actually I have had a hard time trying to pin down
exactly what impressionism includes. I don't like Turner style smears, but
some of the better impressionists look ok from a distance.
Oil painting if done with big gobs will look blurry close up, but clear at a
distance. So, when is fuzziness the result of technique, rather than intent
as I assume with Turner?
Isn't there a place for less detail? Some foggy days can create striking
images in that they obscure distracting details. There is a certain mood
that can be captured here.
Think of a ship (say the Flying Dutchman) appearing out of the mist for
example; sharp brilliant lines would not be appropriate.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Symme7ry <symm...@aol.compare.com> wrote in message
news:20010708121538...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> >(whatever that means)?
>
> Why wouldn't you? They're all parts of human experience.
They are not fun.
How much time do contemplate dog poops on the lawn?
How would you answer your neighbour who tell you
to do so, because it's part of human experience?
--
Arnold
Acar
>
>Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Unfortunately, I don't have a comprehensive alternate definition to
>propose. But there's a simplified definition someone posted in an
>essay on the web: Art is any human creation which contains an idea
>other than its utilitarian purpose.
A commisioned portrait is utilitarian. Architecture is utilitarian. By the way,
of what reality is architecture a selective recreation? People have certain
kinds of fun in a building? :-)
>That leaves open what is good art
>and what is bad, but I like it as a starting point.
The only criterion of good art is the test of time.
Carmichael
Fred Weiss
"Arnold Broese-van-Groenou" <bro...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:0E927.88855$Rr4....@ozemail.com.au...
> ...some of the better impressionists look ok from a distance.
Some people look better from a distance also, but when you look
closer....<g>
> Isn't there a place for less detail? Some foggy days can create striking
> images in that they obscure distracting details. There is a certain mood
> that can be captured here.
Emphasizing the fog would be one thing; showing something emerging from the
fog might convey something powerful. I have a photograph (which might have
made an interesting subject for a painting) showing the tops of a number of
NYC skyscrapers sticking up on a very cloudy day.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Darcy" <jed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67f10d03.01070...@posting.google.com...
> Contemporary art has changed a lot since Ayn Rand was writing about
> it.
I don't follow it closely but I understand there has been a rebellion
against "modernist" art and better art is now commanding higher and higher
prices. One indication is the growing interest in "illustration art", such
as Maxfield Parrish and N.C. Wyeth. I consider it a good sign.
> >
> > http://www.cordair.com/
>
> Yep, I've actually been there in person. Quent Cordair has created an
> oasis off Burlingame Ave. -- it's almost the only gallery I've been to
> where the interior design is also beautiful and "user-friendly"
> (perfect for viewing the art). If I had more money, I'd have a few
> Jerald Rough pieces hanging on my walls.
Quent is a friend of mine. I'll mention this to him and I'm sure he'll be
pleased at your reaction.
>
> Here's a painting from another gallery that makes me smile:
> "d'Anconia's Floor" at
> http://www.tracyfineart.com/d'anconia'sfloor.htm. (Robert Tracy's
> gallery -- http://www.tracyfineart.com/index.html.)
Yes, I know Robert. Earlier this year we had discussed the possibility of
his designing a book cover for me.
You might enjoy this:
http://www.papertig.com/nsart.htm
Fred Weiss
Symme7ry
>From: Arnold Broese-van-Groenou bro...@ozemail.com.au
>Date: 7/8/01 10:36 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ZD927.88854$Rr4....@ozemail.com.au>
>> >Why would you want to contemplate fear, pain, and "human imperfection"
>> >(whatever that means)?
>>
>> Why wouldn't you? They're all parts of human experience.
>
>They are not fun.
They are somewhat important, though.
>How much time do contemplate dog poops on the lawn?
>How would you answer your neighbour who tell you
>to do so, because it's part of human experience?
I'd say there's nothing further to be gained from contemplating it, since it is
a rather insignificant matter.
The difference here is in that of importance and relevence to the condition of
humans. A good understanding of fear, pain, and human weakness for instance
might enable an evil kantian ruler of of a country to rule more effectively. In
fact the communists in the USSR seem to have utilized a decent understanding of
how fear effects people to maintain their system for so long.
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
> "Arnold Broese-van-Groenou" wrote in message
> news:0E927.88855$Rr4....@ozemail.com.au...
>
> > ...some of the better impressionists look ok from a distance.
>
> Some people look better from a distance also, but when you look
> closer....<g>
You mean nice from far, but far from nice?
..
..
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
> >Subject: Re: Rational Television
[answering this question:]
> >> >Why would you want to contemplate fear, pain, and "human
> >> > imperfection" (whatever that means)?
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't you? They're all parts of human experience.
> >
> >They are not fun.
>
> They are somewhat important, though.
>
> >How would you answer your neighbour who tells you
> >to do so, because it's part of human experience?
>
> I'd say there's nothing further to be gained from contemplating it, since
it is
> a rather insignificant matter.
>
> The difference here is in that of importance and relevence to the
condition of
> humans. A good understanding of fear, pain, and human weakness for
instance
> might enable an evil kantian ruler of of a country to rule more
effectively. In
> fact the communists in the USSR seem to have utilized a decent
understanding > of how fear effects people to maintain their system for so
long.
That is hardly art. It's tyranny 101
Look at it this way; the important things in life are the things you focus
on. You focus on the things that bring you long term happiness, such as your
job and family and hobbies. If you get a toothache or other problem in life,
you focus on it only long enough to eliminate it.
Pain, human imperfection, and fear are not worth contemplating. If I never
encountered these again, my life could only improve.
Art should give you a positive feeling, otherwise it detracts from your
happiness.
Art is the way a person expresses himself, or more precisely, how he sees
the world. He shows you a work, and says "that's how I feel". He focuses on,
and emphasises what he wants to express.
For example, a person who loves (say) baseball may wish to show someone who
doesn't, what attracts him to it. He may show a painting of a figure sliding
onto base, or making contact with a bat, that shows the earnestness,
concentration or power he wishes to convey.
--
Arnold