RoR: Forum

Michael,

The problem isn't the rare cases in which viewers "detect" a theme which isn't supported by the evidence contained in an art work, but the very common cases in which they detect an incorrect theme (or themes) which, along with the correct theme, ~is~ supported by all the evidence. Your statement, "You seem to think that what an artist states goes," should be directed at Rand. It is ~her~ requirement that an artwork be intelligible, and that the artist's meaning be identifiable. She didn't say that the viewer should simply be able to come to objective (yet potentially erroneous) conclusions based on the evidence contained within an artwork. Her requirement of identifiable meaning implies that the ambiguity of the "terribly complex" nuances that you (and I) enjoy impedes intelligibility. An artwork with a multitude of possible conflicting meanings is a failure as art (and possibly ceases to be art) according to Rand's views.

If your argument with Rand is that you believe that a work of art doesn't have to be intelligible (in the sense that the artist's meaning is identifiable) in order to qualify as art, or to be appreciated as art, I agree with you. If Peter Cresswell enjoys venting his rage by listening to AC/DC songs which actually have nothing to do with rage, that's fine with me. If you insist on seeing physical deformity in art as invariably representing a sub-human soul, that's your business. But not caring what the artist intended doesn't fit well with Objectivist aesthetic moralizing. Erroneous interpretations, no matter how much evidence there is to support them, ~do~ become problematic when Objectivists use them as their reasons for going on the Objectivist Cultural Warpath. I mean, you have to admit, Michael, that it's a bit silly when Objectivists, in effect, picket the artworld with signs which read, "We oppose the evil, destructive, anti-life meaning of your artwork as we have objectively yet erroneously interpreted it."

J

Post 21

Monday, February 14, 2005 - 6:40pm

Jonathan,

As usual I enjoy your passion and sensitivity. But your reasoning and understanding of concepts escapes me.

�Intelligibility� in an objectivist sense, as well as in the sense of 30,000 years of visual art history within every culture up to the 20^th Century, simply means that the viewer can recognize the subject(s) of the painting. Do you wish to argue this point or do you accept it?

You flip the context of the intelligibility from that of the subject to that of theme, which doesn�t make sense to me. The theme can be quite difficult to detect, hence that should be a key job of art critics to flesh out the themes of works and point out to us how the artist succeeded in that.

So the theme is not the same thing as subject. Again do I get a check from you?

Rand: �In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist�s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it�i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life.�

Earlier I commented that I was in complete agreement with this view, which contrasted with most postmodern critics as well as many objectivists. Actually I am profoundly in agreement with it, from the sense of connecting the tools of art making to the passion responding to my own work and to other artists� works.

You might also be able to follow the logic that Rand�s above definition of an objective criterion for art criticism would exclude Duchamp�s Fountain simply because there are no themes in the work and no aesthetic elements created by Duchamp. To find significance in it we would have to look exclusively to �outside considerations�.

You seem to have trouble understanding that the sublime works of contemporary painting have been replaced by such works as Fountain and works by the Chapman Brothers. There is no standard in which Denouement can be compared with the Fountain; Denouement is a celebration of many facets of an integrated view of painting, Fountain is a symbol of the death of art as I, any many other, know art to be.

But I have a suspicion that arguing aesthetics is not the driving factor of our discussions. You seem to go on the attack against the conviction expressed thorough my stances; not the reasons. If so, you don�t understand that the confidence I weld is as brilliant as the light in my work.

Newberry

Post 22

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:25am

What this painting says to me is "The world may be beautiful, but on this rock I am stranded, lonely, stressed beyond reason juggling too many fragile things. If I stop they all break at once. So I keep going in quiet resignation". It is living death.

I would have liked a deliberate angry smashing, and a standing tall with arms raised high. Maybe then the "spell" would broken and the maquette would come to life.

John

Post 23

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:32am

Rodney,
It is indeed full width. It would have gone back long ago otherwise.
Fred

Post 24

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:34pm

Michael,
This was my response from Sunday, it never made it to the board, so here it is...day late and dollar short...honestly, I don't remember what my point was, as I wrote it in the moment...
I am of two minds about your approach to art criticism. I don't think knowledge of the artist is necessary to understand the work, but I do think an understanding of the artist's context can bring about a broader understanding of the work. Appreciation can work on varying levels, no?

For a purely aesthetic approach, I am more inclined to agree with you; if you want to judge the technical merits, the theme, etc., it may be distracting to know the artist's reasons.(I would argue that the issue of style is a tricker subject, even for Rand, because it DOES involve the issues of psychology, and is probably the least objective element in art.) Rand's opinion on the subject was that "A sense of life is the source of art, but it is not the sole qualification of an artist...and it is not a criterion of esthetic judgement." But she also ended this same essay with the controversial sentence "When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work-and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it."
This statement suggests to me the difficulty in the idea of separating the ideas from the thinker, and why, earthquakes in Valhalla aside, there will always be interest in Rand's philosophy as realized in her personal life. She invited the comparison.
But because of my interest in psychology, and my own aspirations as an artist, I find it fascinating to get that behind the scenes look at how a piece came to be.

I am of the same mind in art as I am in Rand's biography. I like what Chris Sciabarra wrote in RUSSIAN RADICAL:

"...the study of philosophy cannot be reduced to exploring his or that philosopher's idiosyncrasies. That would be psychologism at its worst. One should not judge Schopenhauer's philosophy by sleeping with loaded pistols or Nietzsche's by the fact that he died insane.Similarly, one should not judge Rand's philosophy by her intolerance for dissenters, her penchant for moralizing, her style of polemical exposition...".

The emphasis on "psychologizing" here conflicts, for me, with my own interest in psychology of. But I don't think there needs to be a dichotomy, either. The process of creation can be therapeutic, and as therapy, the point is less aesthetic than psychological. (Jung would urge his patients not to worry about whether their drawings were art, and refused any suggestions that his own paintings were art. Rand may have been inclined to agree with him. She comments in THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO that horror stories represent "the metaphysical projection of a singe human emotion: blind, stark, primitive terror. Those who live in such terror seem to find a momentary sense of relief or control in the process of reproducing that which they fear...Strictly speaking, this is not a metaphysical, but a purely psychological projection...In it's basic motivation, this school belongs to psychopathology more than to esthetics."

But does this mean that there is a dichotomy? Rand's other comments seem to say "no." She does write that "A sense of life us a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence. It is in the terms of his own fundamental emotions-i.e., the emotions produced by his own metaphysical value-judgements-that man responds to music." But wouldn't that appraisal involve psychological projections as well as value-judgements? Rand suggests this when she writes that when music conveys emotions such as serenity, defiance, or exaltation, that it is up to the listener to supply the specifics for such feelings. She validates Jung's theory of projection when she writes that "music communicates emotions, which one grasps, but does not actually feel; what one feels is a suggestion, a kind of distant, dissociated, depersonalized emotion-until and unless it unites with one's own sense of life. But since the music's emotional content is not communicated conceptually or evoked existentially, one does feel it in some peculiar, subterranean way."

Post 25

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:54pm

Michael wrote,
"'Intelligibility' in an objectivist sense, as well as in the sense of 30,000 years of visual art history within every culture up to the 20th Century, simply means that the viewer can recognize the subject(s) of the painting. Do you wish to argue this point or do you accept it?"

I was speaking of both subject and theme. Depending on the art form and the work in question, both subject and theme can be open to a very wide variety of interpretations.

Michael wrote,
"You flip the context of the intelligibility from that of the subject to that of theme, which doesn�t make sense to me. The theme can be quite difficult to detect, hence that should be a key job of art critics to flesh out the themes of works and point out to us how the artist succeeded in that."

And the subject, which is closely tied to the theme, can present people with as much difficulty. The theme of Frank's painting might be the futility of human effort, where the subject might be mankind as a fragile, isolated, wooden buffoon. Or the theme might be that a genius' greatness often goes unappreciated, where its subject might be an exuberant character displaying childlike enthusiasm for her task. Etc.

Michael quoted Rand,
"Rand: 'In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist�s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it�i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life.'"

Did Rand give a reason why no "outside considerations" should be considered, or did she simply make an assertion? And what constitutes an outside consideration? Does a painting which includes images of historical or mythical figures resort to outside considerations, or do we get to assume that the inclusion of the figures brings knowledge of their historical or mythical importance "inside" with them? When I view David Mach's The Bike Stops Here, is my instant recognition of its implied references to works by Picasso, Duchamp and Rauschenberg relying on outside considerations?

Michael, would you mind offering a precise definition of "outside considerations" and fleshing it out by giving us some examples of what you think are tough, borderline cases? Or, better yet, since you believe that detecting meaning in a written presentation can be just as difficult as detecting it in a visual presentation, perhaps you could paint your definition of "outside considerations" and we could try to detect its subject and meaning without relying on outside considerations.

Michael wrote,
"You seem to have trouble understanding that the sublime works of contemporary painting have been replaced by such works as Fountain and works by the Chapman Brothers."

I don't understand your use of the word "replaced." Is there some omnipotent authority figure who has banned all figurative art? When I walk into galleries and museums, and page through countless art magazines, are the thousands of beautiful contemporary figurative works that I see figments of my imagination?

Michael wrote,
"But I have a suspicion that arguing aesthetics is not the driving factor of our discussions. You seem to go on the attack against the conviction expressed thorough my stances; not the reasons. If so, you don�t understand that the confidence I weld is as brilliant as the light in my work."

Actually, more than anything else, my driving factor is my desire to learn. In answering your questions, I've provided reasons and examples. I haven't attacked your convictions, but challenged the effectiveness of your method of interpretation. And although I often disagree with you, Michael, I love the fact that you stand up for what you believe.

Btw, you addressed me first in this conversation. If you're assuming that my post #12 was a response to your post #11, look at the time that my message was sent. (I'm still under moderation here due to the unpopularity of -- or indifference to -- my views. I guess Objectivists love to argue, but they don't love dissidents who give them something to argue about. :-))

Best,
J

Post 26

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 4:08pm

"(I'm still under moderation here due to the unpopularity of -- or indifference to -- my views. I guess Objectivists love to argue, but they don't love dissidents who give them something to argue about. :-))

Jonathan, this won't win you any points, for sure. But you can be a dissident here and still earn freedom of moderation. There's been plenty of dissent at SOLO, so if you have a chip on your shoulder, may I suggest shrugging it off? (Speaking as someone who brought a boulder with me, I can tell you SOLO is a pretty good place, so relax and enjoy!).

Shine on,
Joe

Post 27

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:18pm

Joe,

I'm really not looking to earn points, and I have no problem with being moderated here. My comment about being an unloved dissident was meant to be light-hearted, thus the smiley face. So get the frickin' chip off your shoulder and try to lighten up, okay? ;-)

I know that I can come across as being just a bit pissy on occasion, and, in particular, as someone who likes to pick fights with Michael, but that's because my primary interest is art (as is Michael's), and I don't have much time for discussing (and picking fights over) other issues.

Btw, I wish you'd turn that radioactive beam in your eye back on. I felt a stronger sense of my own presence when you were peering into my soul.

Best,
J

Post 28

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:13pm

Sorry if I missed the joke, Jonathan, it would seem the boulders are in my head. Which are blocking the eyebeams. :)

Post 29

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:45pm

Hey Jonathan,

There are two things I would like from you...a benevolent understanding of what my points are (you respond as if I make no fucking sense at all!) and constructive criticism based on where you precieve a difference with your own position. As it stands now I can only see that you are arguing to argue.

Michael

Post 30

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:32am

Actually, Michael, I think we've passed the point of diminishing returns. So let's leave it where it is, and maybe at some point in the future I'll try harder to tune my arguments to your wavelength.

Best,
J

Post 31

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 12:09am

Jennifer,

Exactly. I, too, like Fred, have a full-size reproduction of this painting. And I was assured by Mary Ann Sures that it is indeed Frank in the reflections, painting the painting you see and disappearing out an open door (previously closed) when he finished it. Note on interpretation that as the gay Christmas balls are thrown into the air by the awkward artist's mannaquin (how else would a mannaquin juggle?). there are fewer and fewer balls to juggle (busted, caught in a cloud, etc.) so that there are, quite literally, diminishing returns to the mannaquin's "hands", until the last ball is painted and Frank has disappeared as well, never to return to this work.

The psychological speculation about all of this is part of the legend whose only source we have is the Branden's interpretation of Rand's life and the affair Perhaps it is time to question that legend. Perhaps The Passion Of Ayn Rand's Critics will help.

Post 32

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 8:47pm

Jennifer Iannolo:

You know, the imagery and title of this piece keeps bringing me back to Frank's quote to Ayn:

"You're casting pearls and not even getting a pork chop in return."

I just ran into this painting for the first time, it is the first Frank O'Connor (other than the "Atlas" cover) I've actually seen. I like it quite a bit.

I completely agree with Jennifer's take. And was just about to post the same thing, but luckily, I saw her quote.

My very *first* impression, was surprise at how much "Dali" I see in the painting. No wonder Rand had good things to say about Dali's technique (oh, but that sense of life!).

After seeing this painting, I suddenly understand so much more about Nathaniel's recollections on Frank (from "My Years with Ayn Rand"), his talents, and his short-comings as an artist.

With the title, and reflections on Ayn and Frank in mind, its a sad painting. There is connection in theme (it's subtle) between this painting and the Picasso posted recently (ugh).

There is a *great* painting in Frank's work that didn't quite make it. Hmmm. Rand and O'Connor. Hmmm. Odd thing, that relationship.

I might have called this painting, "The Prophesied Madness of Alyssa".

RCR

P.S. Thanks to Joe for posting this gem.
(Edited by R. Christian Ross
on 6/16, 9:17pm)

Post 33

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 9:22pm

There were, I believe, two series of prints made of "Diminishing Returns." The first was before the "Break," the second after. I was told that the first series used an inferior technique and tended to fade over time.(?!?) The second was a run of 100 of which I own one (6/100) signed by Frank O'Connor. I still have brochures and such stuff and I'll see if I can come up with some more interesting info. This painting is the only one of his I really especially liked. I wonder just how many paintings he did paint and what happened to them.

--Brant

Post 34

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 7:00am

Gentlemen and Especially You Jennifer,

"Casting pearls before swine and not even getting a pork chop in return".

Is that genius speaking or what? I can see I've found some kindred spirits.

I know nothing about Ayn Rand's philosophy of art and I have great trouble interpreting and critiquing works of art; in spite of having an undergraduate degree in studio and art history. The penny isn't dropping for me. I'm still at the "I know what engages me; but I'll be damned if I can tell you why". I have a feeling that that some authentic discoveries can be made here.

You all seem to have that respect for each other that is so necessary for communication among those who wear their souls on their canvases. I'm just an aesthetic coward at heart. Give me some ammunition. We'll win over the philistines yet.

As an aside. Do any of you have anything to say about KITSCH? No urgency.

Thanks Sharon

Post 35

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 1:41pm

   After reading all the posts here, I have one word: "Whew!"

   Although, I also have a few more.

   Not being directly involved in art other than as a passive consumer, I really have nothing to argue about re any 'meaning' in this O'Connor painting, other than an art-form's 'meaning' is where you find it, and most posters here seem to have found quite a few different ones therein.

   I've found myself attracted to some surrealistic paintings (though not sculpture) for causes/reasons I know not of, while other paintings leave me cold. Dali is an example (I stress again, some) of the former, though there are other artists I find just as...interesting.

   However, to the degree I start seeing abstract-art ('surrealist' or otherwise) in terms of Rorschach, (Pollock, Picasso), all I see is 'wallpaper'; some of which seems good (for only that), and some not even worth that (maybe bird-cage lining, though.)

   This painting by O'Connor I gather had much meaning...for him; but it's ambiguousness re appreciation by others seems to stand out most, if he meant it to be viewed by anonymous/unknown others. (I gather he did, but...)

   For all the analysis given in these posts so far, I'm surprised no one brought up the idea of what his wife may have thought about it's theme, clarity, presentation, etc. --- I sure wonder.

J-D

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/06, 1:42pm)

Post 36

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 10:11pm