RoR: Forum

Jonathan says:

I often get what I think is probably a false impression of you... driven by something closer to jealousy than joy.

Interestingly enough, that's my impression of you. You avoid saying what art you like, implying that art really isn't that important to you. And yet, you get upset when anyone suggests there are objective standards in art. You've been stalking Newberry for years now, only posting to attack his criticisms. When he's challenged you to present your own likes, you've declined, preferring to snipe at anyone who dares suggest that not all art is created equal.

The picture painted by your posts is that you only care when people have the audacity to judge art. Your criticisms of criticisms don't suggest you have different standards or better standards than Michael. The only goal that can be discerned is that you can't stand judgment itself. You don't argue for anything. You only argue against, and only against comparisons. That looks far more like jealousy than joy to me.

Michael, on the other hand, is not simply seeking negation in his statements. He does tell us what he loves, and why he loves it. He does seek the best around around him. And it's because of his love of art that he's willing to judge and compare. It's because of his values that he's willing to apply standards of excellence. I personally gain a lot from his posts and thoughts. I've learned a lot about art and about excellence from him, and about seeking the best for myself. Really, there's no comparison here. Michael offers a vision of excellence in every facet of life, while you offer resentment of greatness and bitterness to anyone who recognizes it.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and instead of only criticizing, try your hand at celebrating greatness.

Post 21

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 7:34pm

Michael,

I love it when you make comments on art. You always see things that I simply don't, and I'm very interested in learning how to better judge and just to see artworks. So don't get scared off of SOLO too easily. =)

I have a related question. I sounds from your first post that you are saying that cartoon illustration is not fine art. By that do you mean that it takes less skill do produce, or something else? The reason that I ask is that from searching the Internet for interesting art, I've found several pictures that really interest me and seem as powerful as any oil painting, but all of these that I'm thinking of you could certainly consider "cartoonish" from the style. Some examples are: Invarience and Enlightenment by Jonathon Earl Bowser, Fountain in the Redwoods, by Julie Bell, and Chasm by Michael Whelan. Would you consider such works to be somehow lesser than what qualifies as fine art? Is it because of style, composition, or what? I would be interested to hear your comments.

Post 22

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 9:26pm

Joe,

I love a very wide variety of art, including that which I've defended here (as well as on the old SOLO Yahoo! group) ~because~ I appreciate its greatness. Your claim that I resent greatness seems to suggest that you think that my recognition and enjoyment of the greatness of, say, Yngwie Malmsteen, Modigliani, Goya or Stephen King (to name but a few of the artists for whose work I've clearly indicated fondness) isn't actually admiration, but is nothing more than an attempt to tear down artists who you think are greater. Is that what you're saying?

J

Post 23

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:23am

The reactions to this Atlas painting show once more that people's reactions to art are deeply felt and very personal.

But despite strong emotions, people need to be ... well, "gentlemen" for lack of a better word. And treat disagreements over matters of taste and the things that other people love with a certain amount of tact, courtesy, and respect.

I find a great deal of immaturity in many postings and posters on this thread and elsewhere in regard to asserting the angry Old Testament absolute rightness of their own view about something as complex as an artistic preference or regarding a particular work of art or music or movies.

They seem to have no clue how anyone could possibly have a legitimate different reaction (other than a 'bad sense of life'.) And they too often treat others who see things differently by firing off a post that comes across to a third party as if they are attacking them gleefully with a chainsaw. Needless cruelty, sarcasm, contempt, carrying over of old scar tissue and grudges onto new threads, loss of a sense of proportion - and a general lapsing of benevolence - are forms of this adolescent-like lack of maturity.

This surfaces not just on this thread, but wherever Objectivists create a forum. It surfaces over all kinds of issues beyond merely esthetic ones.

It really doesn't matter in the slightest whether you agree with Bob Palin or Michael Newberry or Phil Coates on their preference in paintings or among Ayn Rand novel covers. What matters greatly is how much class you display in expressing your views or disagreeing with the views of others.

And we wonder why no one pays any attention to constantly contemptuous, too often snarling, and generally ill-bred "redneck" Objectivists?

If you want people to stick their emotional neck out and offer things they love or feel deeply about, then you need to respond in a way that encourages them to return and do so again - or simply to want to have anything to do with you or be in the same room or discussion with you. Kindness and sensitivity about people's feelings are part of the virtue of benevolence.

--Philip Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 6/10, 12:37am)

Post 24

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 2:15am

Michael,

It is true that often times you come off as very defensive in your posts about art. I don't see why you can't simply post your opinions about the greatness -- or lack thereof -- of any particular piece of art, expressing all your reason and independent thought, without deliberately denigrating anything. For example, what was the point in coming on and asking: "why do you consider this good?" What if someone just likes it and can't explain why? What purpose would your question serve other than to make someone feel guilty for liking it? Instead, you could've simply come on and stated all the reasons why *you* don't like it. Your target would've clearly been the art -- not anybody's personal affection for it -- and we could've all learned something. Or an interesting debate might've ensued. Much better than a thread in which some people get offended for no discernable purpose, while you've still only hinted at what you don't like about this piece (conflicting light-sources is all I've gathered).

For what it's worth, I think this is nice but not special. It's pretty hard to consider something like this "magnificent" when an upclose image of The Ecstasy of St. Francis is still fresh in my mind from my visit to the Art Institute in Chicago.

Alec

Post 25

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:27am

Phil�you wrote:

But despite strong emotions, people need to be ... well, "gentlemen" for lack of a better word. And treat disagreements over matters of taste and the things that other people love with a certain amount of tact, courtesy, and respect. I find a great deal of immaturity in many postings and posters on this thread and elsewhere in regard to asserting the angry Old Testament absolute rightness of their own view about something as complex as an artistic preference or regarding a particular work of art or music or movies.

I find this odd coming from someone who applauded my description of rap as "evil set to cacophony." Are you suggesting I should now treat rap with "tact, courtesy and respect"? 'Cos I ain't gonna. And neither, on any kind of official level, is SOLO. Nor will it treat Jackson Pillock or John Cage, or their apologists, with "tact, courtesy & respect," since such dissolutes don't deserve any. Their apologists are at perfect liberty to post here�& they do�but they surely don't expect respect, as of right? Gimme a break!

The most vile thing ever said on SOLO is that John Cage had more artistic integrity than Mario Lanza. That was not only vile beyond words, but was also a calculated insult�uttered on the SOLO Board�against SOLO's founder & SOLO's founding principles. That the utterer of this atrocity still posts here is testament to SOLO's liberalism, but the fact that we practise liberality doesn't mean we deny the existence of objective standards that over-ride being kind to apologists for maggotry.

SOLO allows uninhibited debate on all subjects by all-comers, low-lifes & high-lifes alike. Doesn't mean we don't distinguish one from the other, in the name of SOLO's values. If this be "Old Testament," then I'm a convert to Judaism.

Linz

Post 26

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:04am

Phil,
You said it with much more class than I did.

Thanks,
J

Post 27

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:39am

Phil,

I find a great deal of immaturity in many postings and posters on this thread and elsewhere...

Needless cruelty, sarcasm, contempt, carrying over of old scar tissue and grudges onto new threads,...

I am one of the posters in this thread and elsewhere. Can you be more specific about which postings and which posters are "immature"? And who have carried over "old scar tissues and grudges"? I am terribly bad at guessing games.

___________

Now talking about "carrying over of old scars and grudges", the most vile thing that I've ever encountered at SOLO is that a sentence such as "John Cage had more artistic integrity than Mario Lanza," taken out of context, has ever been considered the most vile thing, an "atrocity", and "maggotry", not by Linz the individual, but by "SOLO's Founder & Principal" who has the absolute and unlimited "virtual" power over the "virtual" life and death of any posters here - and he doesn't miss a chance to make it clear that the "utterers" of such "atrocity" are at his mercy to post on SOLO. Forgive me my strong reaction here, for all the years that I've lived in the West, this is the single instance that reminded me too much of what it was like before.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 6/10, 9:00am)

Post 28

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:33am

Lindsay,

You are transparent to me.

Michael

Post 29

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:52am

Michael, did you mean that Linz is obvious, artless and insubstantial, or did you mean that he has a lot of spatial depth?

J
(Edited by Jonathan
on 6/10, 4:04pm)

Post 30

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:18am

What is this hullabaloo all about? My antennae must have gotten shorted or something. I've read and reread all of Newberry's posts [0, 15, 17] on this thread and have sensed nothing of jealousy, defensiveness, or any combativeness.

Exercise for the reader: Read all the posts made by Newberry and Bob Palin. Only those posts. Omit the parts that are personally addressed to other posters save for them two. After all, they are essentially the protagonist and antagonist here (for those interested in sticking labels, who is which is your call).

Now figure out if there is anything worth hyperventilating about.

There is no fault to ask that someone explain their artistic judgement. There is also no fault in excusing oneself from an explanation. What is faulty is assuming all sorts of vague emotional motives from posters who may turn out, surprisingly, to simply want a discussion of matters aesthetic.

Also, I can't figure out why the sordid and irrelevant matter of Cage vs. Lanza is raked back into discussion. Atlas is not going to sing anytime soon... The vilest utterance in SOLO? Well, Cage may bore more people to death than nukes can vaporize, but I'll wager the warheads are better designed for casualties.

I do hope the other posters will not seek to inflame this matter further with useless comments.

And if Bob Palin hasn't lost his appetite yet for posting pics, the one with the bodybuilder-group-hug ought to be handy right now.

Post 31

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:47am

Jeff,

I'm a huge fan of Whelan's art. I have two of his collections and always pursuse them and gaze in wonder at all he's done.

Ethan

Post 32

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:56am

> Are you suggesting I should now treat rap with "tact, courtesy and respect"? [Linz]

No. But I think there is a difference between criticizing the thing and the people who like some aspect of it (maybe out of context, maybe misguided, maybe selective focus). Same for 'modern art' in music or painting. There is a modern artist I like for his colors, I would like him as a designer of wallpaper or bedspreads.

> Nor will it treat Jackson Pillock or John Cage, or their apologists, with "tact, courtesy & respect,"

Again, one can treat someone with courtesy while strongly disagreeing with their taste or intelligence or whether they fail to see the forest for the trees. I treat some posters with courtesy while I think they are horridly rationalistic, can't think their way out a paper bag. I believe you just attack the thing or the mistake, not cast aspersions on the character or intellect of the person within the context of things Objectivists disagree about.

However, I believe it is perfectly appropriate to strongly criticize someone's methods as being 'rationalistic' or 'intrinsicist' on this list for example. And they shouldn't treat -that- as a personal insult. [But to distinguish why that is a different kind of context would be a whole other series of posts.]

> Can you be more specific about which postings and which posters are "immature"? And who have carried over "old scar tissues and grudges"? I am terribly bad at guessing games. [Hong]

That's exactly what I don't want to do.

I want to attack the idea or mistake more than the person making it. Because then it gets personal and the person gets defensive (or you include one person and exclude another..and so on). And we may disagree on particular examples, but agree on the principle. I don't think my points or principles in #23 -should- be controversial (but if so post a disagreement: Linz doesn't agree with some of my principles on this, or more precisely on their application to such issues as modern art and modern atonal music..where he doesn't see, apparently, -any- possible moral or reasonable reason for finding any value therein, even an out of context one).

Phil

Post 33

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:10pm

> they surely don't expect respect, as of right? Gimme a break! [Linz]

I distinguish different kinds (or levels) of respect...or lack of respect:

Respect for a -process- of civil discussion focused on the ideas without insult because it damages the process.

Respect/Lack of Respect that one may maintain privately but not on a public forum for a person who holds an idea and the faulty mental processes or total sense of life or character that you infer he must possess just by virtue of this one instance. [Advocate of something that it's absolutely clear one can't have an honest error about without massive evasion.]

Respect/Lack of Respect for a particular horrible mental process or error of a person in one area, but which doesn't necessarily extend to every area, or the whole person, or his total character. [Example: somebody likes horrendous stuff in a particular esthetic area, but lives an exemplary life and his preferences are radically different in other areas.]

This is not an exhaustive list.

Phil

Post 34

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 3:39pm

Jonathan, your method is crystal clear, as is your reasons for attacking Newberry and artistic standards in general.

Philip, your post centered around the idea of artistic preference. If that were the case, it would be right on. Of course we should let people like whatever they want...after all, it's just their feelings. It doesn't have anything to do with objective standards of art, or objectivity at all. Fine.

But if, on the other hand, we want to go a little beyond what we mysteriously feel about a piece of art, and actually talk about art with standards, then there is no room for "your opinion is as good as mine". If someone says that it is a great work of art, then he should be willing to back it up. If he's using the words in a loose way to mean he just likes it, he can say so. In this case Bob has said he likes it, and that's really all he was trying to say. He's also added some intelligent thoughts about why he likes it.

The issue here, as is almost always the case, is whether personal preferences are all that matter in art. Is Beethoven's 9th no better than rap music, but some people personally like it and are trying to claim their tastes are "better", without reason or explanation? Or is Beethoven's 9th a superior piece of art objectively? If they think its all subjective preference, and there cannot be objective standards or judgment, then they will get offended when someone says their art isn't as good. They will probably be even more offended if they accept that there are objective standards, and feel that their own tastes don't live up to it.

Your post indicates that you think it's the fault of the people demanding excellence and objective standards, as if they're just pushing their own preferences and angering others. I see it the other way. I see that whenever anyone suggest objective standards in art (and ethics as well), the people who think it's all preference get offended. This is made worse by some people who know their favorite art is bad, and consequently fear objective standards or discussions of excellence.

Of course, most of this uproar is based on a belief that your like or dislike of art should be judge based on the objective standards of art. In reality, there's so much more to consider.

Alec, I'm under the impression you don't accept the idea of objective standards in art (I believe you mentioned this elsewhere). It's not surprising then that you don't get Michael. He's trying to elevate the conversation to objective standards (or to keep people clear on the difference between that and their own personal responses). Since you don't accept them, of course your interpretation of his posts is going to vary. But asking for objective reasons for an evaluation is not the same as attacking it.

Hong, you're being completely unfair. You're welcome to disagree violently with Lindsay's view of Michael's earlier post. But Lindsay was quite clear that even though he completely disagrees with Michael and considers it "vile", he's still allowed on the forum. We may uphold standards, but we don't demand that everyone follow or be banned. You consider this a flaunting of our power as owners of the site. I think you're wrong. It's a statement that one can believe in something strongly, and still allow other people to voice their opinions. It sounds like you're offended that we even have the power, and think we should hide the fact and be ashamed of it. Well forget about it! It is our site.

I can just imagine if Lindsay hadn't mentioned our open policy. Everyone would scream that Lindsay doesn't allow dissent on SOLO! Oh please! Give me a break. Obviously we allow all kinds of dissent, even when we completely disagree with it. And we reserve our right to disagree with it, fiercely if necessary.

Num++, good post. But please, no more body-builder hugs!

Post 35

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 3:59pm

I agree with num++ that there's nothing wrong with asking someone to explain his artistic judgments, or with being direct about disagreement. But when each new negative evaluation becomes just one more link in a long chain of arguments which rarely, if ever, include positive evaluations of great contemporary art, I tend to become doubtful that the critic in question seeks greatness. The implication of chronic negative evaluations and the absence of positive ones seems to be that ~there is no~ contemporary greatness other than that of the only work that the critic seems to consistently laud -- his own.

And I become even more suspicious when the failure to find greatness extends to the art of an entire century. In a recent post (I believe it was on his thread on integrity), Michael implied that there were no great representational artists of the 20th century, and that representation was left to mere "commercial craftsmen" who didn't measure up in the integrity department, such as the impure Rockwell and Parish.

Sorry, but I have to question the objectivity of the standards which would lead one to deny the greatness of each and every representational artist of that century, including such artists as (off the top of my head) Grant Wood, Georgia O'Keefe, Andrew Wyeth, Diego Rivera, and Rene Magritte. Not to mention Edward Hopper, Egon Shiele, Balthus, Gwen John, and Aristide Maillol. And, while I'm at it, Odd Nerdrum, William Beckman, Michael Leonard, Antonio Lopez Garcia, William Nicholson, George Bellows, Mark Tansey, Alison Watt, Pavel Tcheckichew, John Nava and Dorthea Tanning (to name just a few more of my own likes, Joe).

Best,
J

Post 36

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:23pm

> Your post indicates that you think it's the fault of the people demanding excellence and objective standards, as if they're just pushing their own preferences and angering others. [Joe]

Can you show me where in my post I say this? I didn't. Because it's not my viewpoint.

Phil

[ I usually write my posts very precisely and I have a great deal left to say on a range of topics. But it makes me wonder if I'm wasting my time on SOLO when what I took a lot of care to write is not read carefully, and people...even the principals...criticize it for something different from what I said. ]

Post 37

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:46pm

Philip,

I find a great deal of immaturity in many postings and posters on this thread and elsewhere in regard to asserting the angry Old Testament absolute rightness of their own view about something as complex as an artistic preference or regarding a particular work of art or music or movies.

The immaturity remark is aimed at those who think they're right and others are wrong, correct? Since the people who claim they're right are talking about objective standards, I assume you're aiming the immaturity remark towards them. How should we interpret this part? Which of the "it's all subjective" people are "asserting the angry Old Testament absolute rightness"? None that I can see. So I don't see any other way to interpret it.

And you go on to say:

They seem to have no clue how anyone could possibly have a legitimate different reaction (other than a 'bad sense of life'.)

Again, sounds like you're pointing your fingers at the objective standards side.

And they too often treat others who see things differently by firing off a post that comes across to a third party as if they are attacking them gleefully with a chainsaw.

Again, you're still talking about the same group. The people who assert "angry Old Testament absolute rightness". And again, you talk as if they're the problem.

And on and on.

In your last post, you said

I usually write my posts very precisely

Maybe the problem here is that you're working so hard to not name names and not be specific, you're not actually being clear. How ambiguity is considered precise is beyond me. Obviously we're intended to read into what you say, since you're keeping it vague to protect against hurt feelings. The only alternative to trying to interpret your vague words is to ignore you, which I doubt was your goal.

I think this is the obvious interpretation of your statement. If you really have a problem with people misunderstanding you, maybe you should prioritize clarity a little higher with respect to benevolence.

And please, feel free to explain what you really meant. Who exactly are the people you're referring to with that Old Testament phrase? Who do you think is right and wrong in these never-ending debates?

Post 38

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:37pm

One of the problems with having only subjective standards for art is that it bundles the evaluation with the person. If "I like it" is the only reason to support a work of art, it's hard to not feel personally attacked when the art is being critiqued. But coming from a view where there are objective standards that can be communicated, asking for an explanation or elaboration of the standard is not personal. It's a discussion of the art and not the interpreter.

JJ

Post 39

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:48pm