RoR: Forum

Robert, you said:
"But perception is of concretes, identifiable objects, not geometric forms which are the abstractions of object shapes [not the objects themselves]"

I think we have a different understanding of the process of perception. I don’t know how much you are into music. To me, instrumental music is abstract. It does not represent anything natural, and it is purely the creation of the musicians. There is no words, no stories, no figures or scenes in Mendelssohn’s violin concerto or Shostakovich’s 5^th symphony. And yet, we hear it, perceive it, and respond to it (or not). It is just a group of sounds but it is structured in such a way that sometimes, a passage I’ve never heard before could make me smile uncontrollably like a silly girl; and sometimes, another passage could put me in tears within a second. Why is that?

To me, Kandinsky’s pieces are somewhat analogous to instrumental music. Of course a Kandinsky is no Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, but perhaps it’s a little dance, a sonatina, or a nocturne. In order to really perceive, we needs to open ourself up, let our senses take it all in. Let the visual or audio stimuli interact with our eyes, ears and our brain cells. They may cause a rush in the gut, or lift a heavy heart, or sooth a sour mental muscle. Or they may not. Kandinsky does it for me.

Post 21

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 8:32pm

Aural perception not same as visual perception.

And, obviously, you like Kandinsky....

(Edited by robert malcom on 12/19, 8:33pm)

(Edited by robert malcom on 12/19, 8:34pm)

Post 22

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 8:18am

Aural perception not same as visual perception.

Heh... glad we got that one straight... :)

But they interact nicely. And, you can find similarities from music and art from the same school. Impressionist painting and Impressionist music employ similar compositional approaches, for instance.

Post 23

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 5:31pm

Queer thing, Hong...the compositions of your two postings are almost identical. Inverted "V" center bottom; darkest dark and brightest light, left middle; Next lightest, right mid/above; and circles for church domes...interesting.

Michael

Post 24

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 6:40pm

Geez, here I thought that nothing could be safer than these two pieces. ;-)

To my uneducated eyes, to say that they are similar in composition is really a stretch. But who am I to argue with Newberry about paintings?!

Anyway, I am submitting another piece to the queue and I'd be interesting to know if any connection can be made between these three.

Post 25

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 10:14am

One day in New York, I was walking down the ramp at the Guggenheim, disgustingly looking at all the modern art, when I finally found a modern artist I liked, and it was Kandinsky.

> "...a sense of an underwater world...Yes! If I try, I see the deep, dark ocean with fish or perhaps dolphins or whales jumping around. There are hints of sails, a boat, waves, a strong beam from a lighthouse maybe, and the cities on the shore...and quite dominantly a golden pyramid. It all seems so free but not without a structure..." [Mike E, Hong]
>"The bouncing circles and shapes, the straight lines, the clean and bright colors exuded a sense of joy, freedom, and harmony, the kind I had never seen before" [Hong]

Thanks, guys! This helps me get a clearer handle on what it is I like about many pieces by "the Kandy man". The vividness of intense color and the childlike sense, the happiness of the vibrance (so different from most modern art) is a part of it for me. Just in terms of color and vibrancy, he's sort of the anti-Matisse (to name a painter I detest) for me.

Phil

Post 26

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 11:12am

Phillip says: This helps me get a clearer handle on what it is I like about many pieces by "the Kandy man". The vividness of intense color and the childlike sense, the happiness of the vibrance (so different from most modern art) is a part of it for me. Just in terms of color and vibrancy, he's sort of the anti-Matisse (to name a painter I detest) for me.

Phillip, I agree with you that Kandinsky is a sort of "anti-Matisse", but I cannot fathom where you see any "happiness" or "childlike sense" in Kandinsky's work?

Have you really looked at Matisse's work? Check out The Dance, Open Window, or Le Gouter, these are wonderful paintings that demand a response from the viewer; they are alive, joyful and breathe. When it comes to intense color and vividness, Matisse is wonderful and hard to match. The sheer expressiveness of Matisse's paintings, they jump with vibrant color and motion; his work has always drawn me in. Even the late, and experimental, Matisse, makes a Kandinsky look sterile, cold and confused by comparison.

Early, post-impressionist Matisse, fills me with a feeling of wonder; while a Kandinsky, either elicits nothing from me, or appeals to that part of me that will slow down to view a traffic accident.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/26, 1:05pm)

Post 27

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 8:45pm

> Have you really looked at Matisse's work? [George C]

Whoops. I meant Manet, not Matisse. Although as soon as I realized that I went onto the web and found at least one of his paintings I like

> Early, post-impressionist Matisse, fills me with a feeling of wonder; while a Kandinsky, either elicits nothing from me, or appeals to that part of me that will slow down to view a traffic accident.

I think it is often the case with an artist who has good and bad, skillful and unskillful, beautiful and lame aspects, some people will focus on the aspect that resonates the most with them. Another person will acknowledge that aspect exists but it won't mean as much to him. An example for me is Renoir. I can acknowledge that his painting skills are no match for the Dutch and Flemish masters. He can be "fuzzy" in style when it is not necessary (and that is in a way part of impressionism) but this matters little to me when I am taken by the benevolence and happiness of his scenes and subjects...and sense of life.

Another way to put this is do you prefer a sloppy or clumsy but noble, heart's-in-the-right-place romantic or a super-intelligent but grim and dark naturalist. Nine times out of ten I will enjoy the former, want to be in the presence more whether it be a painting or a person. I don't think there is any right or wrong on that particular issue: your personal odyssey and your mileage may differ.

Phil

Post 28

Monday, December 26, 2005 - 10:14pm

Phil wrote:"An example for me is Renoir. I can acknowledge that his painting skills are no match for the Dutch and Flemish masters."

Phil,

Really?

Michael

Post 29

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 12:46pm

Michael,

Really.

Phil

Post 30

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:27pm

Ok, Phil, if you insist.
I don’t think you have qualified your aesthetic evaluations(s) by Objectivist standards of aesthetic evaluation; nor by your posts; nor by your experience in art; nor by any art historical evaluation I know of. You come across as didactic and totally subjective and naive. "Fuzzy" vs. clarity, would be a stylistic issue and not an issue in aesthetic standards of evaluation.
What you like is crucially important in personal connections with art. Judging works is a whole other ball game–it surprises me that you and many, many other objectivists don’t know the difference.
You do a disservice to Objectivism by being authoritative about a subject you know so little about.
Michael

Post 31

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 11:40pm

> "Fuzzy" vs. clarity, would be a stylistic issue and not an issue in aesthetic standards of evaluation. [Michael N]

"Fuzzy" is as much a valid aesthetic criterion in visual art as it would be in literary art. Think of vague, imprecise, "fuzzy" language in literature. Would you claim that this is merely a matter of stylistic preference, rather than something that others besides 'art experts' can pick up on and be critical of?

> You come across as didactic and totally subjective and naive....You do a disservice to Objectivism by being authoritative about a subject you know so little about.

First of all, I am not representing Objectivism, I'm just thinking out loud in an informal discussion board not writing a publishable essay, so cool it down a notch. Secondly, you have no way of knowing how much I know about art, how many museums I've been to in how many countries, etc. Lastly, you come across like an artistic elitist, as if only you, the painter, is entitled to have an opinion because of your superior "experience in art" and allegedly superior knowledge of "art historical evaluation". It's the same elitism that doesn't allow Rand or others without a Ph.D. to get listened to by academics in the humanities or philosophy, because they are viewed as amateurs not "professionals", not having gone through the prescribed course of study. By your reasoning, apparently, I couldn't offer an opinion on a movie like "It's a Wonderful Life" if I hadn't been to film school or wasn't a filmmaker. And I couldn't offer an opinion on a book unless I wrote them or had taken a lot of courses in literature. Nor could I talk about music unless it was my specialty. So why don't you tear up half of the posts by most of the people on this list?

You would have better luck being convincing regarding your views on art and spreading a New Renaissance if you showed patience and tried -carefully explaining- in a benevolent way, rather than being sarcastic or trying to personally attack and demonize those who disagree with you and who might have been your allies.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 12/27, 11:47pm)

Post 32

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 6:57am

Fuzzy vs clarity is much more than 'style' - is a matter of 'focus' vs 'non-focus', an epistemological issue - like paintings rendered as if without glasses to see clearly vs seeing clearly.

Post 33

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 7:04am

Phil,

Sigh. Hahahaha, though your handsome when angry. Of course, your are welcome to have opinions; it’s a free country.

Interesting twist on "elitism" you’re the one who is snubbing Manet, Renoir, and Matisse with a "fuzzy" wave of the mind.

On another note. You didn’t acknowledge my point about the difference between the personal appreciation and an evaluation of art. And, yes, I am sorry, but when most people understand that then they would probably be wise to cut out half their posts...and, hopefully, they would know which half to cut.

Michael

Post 34

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 12:32pm

Hello all,
I thought I would make a rider to comment to Phil–from a slightly different perspective.
Understanding the difference between personal appreciation of art and making judgments about it is an exalting experience. Commenting on the art that moves you, art that you cannot stand, how it affects you, inspires you, repulses you–is all great stuff. Stories of being moved for the first time or how an artwork lifted you out of funk reflect the power of art. Or even about the horror of some work-I once went to an exhibition at the Guggenheim and I was so disgusted with it I couldn’t wait to get the scum-like feeling off of me and getting out of Manhattan wasn’t quite far enough.
On the other hand making unqualified judgments about art will put you in, necessarily, on shaky ground. Hong’s posts are: she is showing what she likes and responds to and her thoughts on it–I love that. Same with Jody’s. I don’t think it is a lot to ask for everyone to qualify their art judgments in a thorough manner or skip that part completely and rave or rant about their personal tastes to their heart’s content.
Michael

Post 35

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:03pm

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 12/29, 1:40pm)

Post 36

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:11pm

Hong’s posts are: she is showing what she likes and responds to and her thoughts on it

Of course, Michael is right. ;-). I do not think about any idealogical things when first encountering an art piece, a book or a movie. People have posted pieces here that they particularly responded to, so I thought I'd post a few of my own favorites and tell how accidentally they became my favorites. Obviously, my taste is not that popular (or perhaps I should consider myself elitistc, hahaha, joking). But at least, Phil likes it, Mike sort of likes it, and even (gasp) Newberry likes this particular piece. I should be happy.

Post 37

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 5:49pm

The best thing about this thread is that the people who I would most like to sit and have a long dinner and much wine with are posting :)

Shine on Hong Zhang!

Post 38

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 6:54pm

Thanks John. But...but...what about the merit of my posts by themselves? :-)

Post 39

Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 9:59pm