About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, November 8, 2002 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very good article. Thank you.

Rebuild!

Thomas

Post 1

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 12:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What would you recommend an artist do?
Regurgitate the same old art of the pre-modern era changing only the subject. Portraits, landscapes, still-lifes with pretty colors?
How boring is that.
Although I do agree there is a terrible amount of real CRAP out there I would say that the post-modern era has produced some of the most innovative, intelligent art in history.
The shock value art is running its course similar to the way Punk rock, grunge, and other forms of shock rock/music have come and gone. It loses its initial newness, shock, and value relatively quick. I mean you can't go much farther than spreading urine and feces on a wall.
To me post-modernism represents freedom. I am not constrained to any convention, medium, or rules about how I should create a particular piece of art. But with such freedom comes responsibility.
Sure, you will have people who are very charismatic and articulate. Skilled decievers who take advantage of this freedom, fooling themselves and others into believing that pouring a large pile of Candy in a corner of a gallery is a profound artistic statement.
The bottom line though is that people are generally suspicious of this type of art. The majority of people, even among other artists, can see through this type of "hollow" superficial art. I believe that it is not the art that is troubling so much as the people who try and promote the art as being a wonderful avant-garde innovation. I'm rambling. Sorry.
I don't sit up at night worrying about where post-modern art is going or how it is going to destroy us all. When impressionism came out in the 1800's we had the same exact complaints from the classical artists about how impressionism was so grotesque and horrible. But today we regard Van Gogh and Monet, etc. as masters.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 11:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tim, why do you think the representational forms are boring? If you look at www.cordair.com or www.michaelnewbery.com you will find the type of representaional visual art that I find engrossing and exciting. I don't believe that nonrepresenative forms modernism and post-modernism are art. I beleive that art is a meaningful, extremely selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's fundamental values and/or disvalues. I like the art that is presented on these sites because I can find within these artworks a meaningful expression of what I seek from life. These works capture the radiant joy of living, thinking, and everything else that make being human meaningful. I could not do that with a Picasso, Mondrian, Duchamp etc. If you want to know more about the Objectivist theories on art, you should read The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand, What art Is by Louis Torres and Michelle Kahmi, and visit www.aristos.com.

Post 3

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 12:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If anything, the postmodern forms are more tedious because they do not make sense. When I look at a Picasso, my first thought is, "What the blithering hell am I to make of this?". I don't have that problem when I view the works of Michaelangelo or Da Vinci or Caravaggio. And I sure as hell don't have that trouble with Michael Newberry's art.

Post 4

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can somebody explain to me how SHOCK is VALUE? What are the definition of these two terms and how are they being applied in this discussion? It may be presumptuous of me, but I am going to assert that the term "shock value" has no cognitive content whatever. In fact modernism and postmodernism are so null in content that the phrase "shock value" is the highest aesthetic standard that may be appropriately applied. A value of 0 for making no sense. :-)

Post 5

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The only purpose for shocking people that I can think of is to wake them up and get their attention. But shock alone isn't enough, and neither is mere attention-getting. Without worthy content, one cannot earn people's continued attention.

Post 6

Monday, December 9, 2002 - 10:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello again.
First I'd like to say that the paintings of
Michael Newberry are wonderful examples of
post-modern art. The juxtapositon of color, the use of dominance, balance, and movement in his work is great to be sure. One of my favorites -
God Releasing Stars Into The Universe, 1993-2000
Is a good example of this.
But looking close at the above mentioned painting ,and many of his other works, what you see is a lot of wonderful abstraction of shapes, forms and color mixed with representational figure(s) or object(s).
Personally I would like "God Releasing Stars Into The Universe" even more if he were to remove the male figure used to represent god and chose a more abstract representation. Maybe have god be a starburst of color and light or an androgynous figure representing all living things. Etc.
I think the weak point of that particular painting is the male/god figure. Of course, for all I know his use of a male figure to represent god may have some significance or message he is trying to express that I am not aware of.
The god in the painting has a strong resemblance
to the artist. What is he trying to say if that is the case? If not who is the person used to model for god? Why did he make god male? What does that say? Or perhaps it doesn't mean anything at all. It may have just been more convenient to use a photo of himself as a model.

Anyway...
The art of Picasso, Mondrian, and Duchamp is modernism and more specifically cubism.

I think the problem we are having is with the definition of post-modernism. There probably is no solid post-modernism definition per se: anything goes.
Post-modernism is really any and all art produced
from about the mid 1970's - present. The good the bad and the ugly. A straight-forward landscape,
a bunch of cat turds in a bowl, a photo of christ immersed in piss, or a still life of fruit.
All are considered post-modern art.

So, to say you don't like post-modern art is to say you don't like any art at all produced after the mid 1970's. Which I know is not the case.

The shock art I referred to in my other post is just a small percentage of all art produced today and from what I can tell is confined mainly to a subculture that is on it's way out the door.

Like Matthew Graybosch said above -
The only purpose for shocking people that I can think of is to wake them up and get their attention. But shock alone isn't enough, and neither is mere attention-getting.

Well said.

Post 7

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think, TimSD, that the point behind using a male figure in God Releasing Stars Into The Universe was to imply that each man, with his ability to understand and manipulate the world around him, possesses the potential to be a god. However, I could be wrong. If you're listening, Newberry, would you care to offer an opinion?

Post 8

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 9:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is a very possible interpretation Matthew.
I know this thread really isn't supposed to be about critiquing art. But being an artist myself I have a hard time looking at any art without trying to gain some insight into the motivation for the work. Anyway, this seems to be a great place for intellectual discussion. Before finding this site on accident I had never given much thought to many of the ideas discussed here and quite frankly I have very little knowledge regarding any form of philosophy. I had maybe 1 or 2 classes as an undergraduate pertaining to philosophy and found it quite interesting but 99% of my energy was focused on my art studio classes. As a graduate student I had to put 101% of my energy toward art. So i've had very little time to study anything else, least of all the ideas of objectivism. But I find many things here are already in line with beliefs I've personally held for many years so i've been pouring over the articles and trying to absorb exactly what this thing called objectivism is.
One last thing-
Anthony, why do you think post-modernism is so null in content? I don't understand how you can think that.
DO you think Michael Newberry's art is null of content. He is a postmodern artist. If so can you please define EXACTLY your definition of content.
A more appropriate statement would be that you think MOST postmodern art is null of content.
Don't you agree?

Post 9

Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 10:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I personallly disagree, Tim, but that's because I don't think that Michael Newberry is a post-modernist but a Romanticist. Grab a copy of Rand's The Romantic Manifesto and take the time to understand it.

Post 10

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 3:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Tim,

Are you referring to postmodernism as a historical or chronological fact (i.e. "Michael Newberry is a contemporary artist, he is therefore postmodern."), or are you saying that Newberry is postmodern in the sense that he embraces it as a philosophical movement, agrees with its major statements, etc.?

Anthony

Post 11

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 3:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whoa. There are some very interesting aesthetic ideas going on in this thread and also on the other thread on Contemplation. Tim thanks for your comments on "God". About the other stuff I am really pressed for time but I would still like to throw in a few comments.

1. Tim, something we try to do here is use reason in our arguments or point of views and try to use words with their real meanings. I don't know how you can define an art movement by a date and time--that doesn't make any sense. You would have to define it by the style or manner of the works. You hit on a good definition of PM art when you say that it is anything. In my case I define postmodern art as anything but representational painting or sculpture and/or its main themes are disgusting or senseless. Many examples of which you have cited. BTW, good luck with your studies!
2. Picasso! I love Picasso, he rates for me just under Rembrandt and Michelangelo. But I do find many of his works to have a pathetic philosophical message, that life is a fragmented mess. What I love is his brilliance of execution as a painter, incredible use of color, composition, movement…and his realistic works are brilliant. Discussing him brings me to a few related aesthetic points:
3. Art criticism should be based on HOW well does the artist express their theme. This is all about the technical stuff: composition, form, etc. Rand made a very clear statement about this in Romantic Manifesto with regards to Tolstoy being an excellent writer. In the Art of Fiction Writing she even praise a writer who wrote about unicorns! But if one were to look at meaning or philosophical content of an artwork you would look at the ethical perspective: if the content is positive or negative for a healthy humanity. In the same way philosophy makes ethical judgements on politics, medical ethics, etc. But I stress the philosophical elements have nothing to do with the artwork is good or not.
4. Also the issue of influence comes up which is also debated on the Contemplation thread. Everything an artist experiences can find its way into an artwork: their background, their visual environment, their studies, teachers, artists they like, their knowledge of art history, etc. In my work if I find that something I am doing looks strongly like a other artist's work I will reject that idea, even if it looks too much like something I have already done I will think of rejecting it. Because of the inevitability of influences I think it is crucial for an artist to be constantly in-touch directly with reality. I mean if you are painting a portrait of someone not to rely on photos or only your mind's eye but do your visual research of a living breathing person--it is inevitably that you will see unique nuances that you could not have imagined or seen in a photograph--and these nuances from real life imbue the work with uniqueness, freshness, and nuance.
5. And SHOCK! I think that "shock" plays a vital role in art! Think of the size of the David. The Blinding of Samson by Rembrandt, it is explicit! In Tchaikovsky's Pathetique symphony in the first movement there is a lyrical part that quietly winds down to lulling silence and then, BLAST, a huge explosion of sound takes off at breakneck speed. Every ten minutes in the Opera Tosca is shocking including the homicidal villain's aria declaring is lust for murder, rape, and deceit INSIDE a church with a choir singing in the background. Think of the train wreck in the tunnel in Atlas or the torture of Galt. Shock is very important in art and can startle people out of their apathy. But shock the use of shock as an AESTHETIC and PRIMARY criteria is a dead end street and ultimately dictated by audience reaction not the genuine expression of the artist. This is what we have now, a PM audience that is no longer shocked by anything, hence murder in the guise of art is the next step for postmodern artists.
6. Oh god, about "God Releasing Stars into the Universe"…hmmm, all paintings are spiritual self-portraits! No I was not the model, there was a real living person who was the model for that painting. I do think that artistic creation is what it feels like to be a god--as the artist you re-create the world the way you would like to see it. I think Matthew said it perfectly: "that each man, with his ability to understand and manipulate the world around him, possesses the potential to be a god." Oh…and I have/am painting women goddesses too!

Post 12

Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 8:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Michael,

WOW I agree with everything you say here. Imagine that, not a single thing you say is incorrect in my opinion. Thanks especially for expanding the idea of shock and showing how it has become a primary. You know, I am thinking of Victor Hugo again, in Hernani. He shocked the Classicists not by presenting a series of horrible distortions, but by altering the rules of drama and dismissing the unities. I didn't think that you were a postmodern painter, and above all, you paint Newberry's, not works of postmodernism or works of Objectivism.

Post 13

Friday, December 13, 2002 - 5:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anthony--Thank you.

Post 14

Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a disgracefully bad thesis, very poorly argued. To begin with, the Taliban and al-Qaeda couldn't care less about "postmodern art". All they care about is furthering Islamic culture, by their definition. The Buddhas were non-Islamic, ergo destroyed. The World Trade Center was a sign of American hegemony, not a sign of Marcel Duchamp's art, for Pete's sake. I've never heard anything more preposterous in my entire life. According to the Taliban, people are not even allowed to portray living figures in their art, rendering every single piece of Renaissance art "illegal" in their eyes. Should we Westerners destroy the entire Louvre, in order to appease the Taliban? What an embarrassingly stupid article indeed. But back to the subject at hand: If you don't like it, don't look at it. There's always plenty of traditional art. Go buy it. Go favor it. It's always around. The reason it's not in museums is that it doesn't need to be. It all looks the same after a while. If it's not going to be done any better than the classical European artists, why bother taking up space with it? It's already been done. Modern art is a quest for that which is new and exciting. Life is like that in general. There's plenty of traditional art out there. Go buy it, go foster it, go talk about it. Find a good traditional artist and write about them. But stop forcing people to do what you want. You seem angry because there's nothing good about traditional art since the 19th century. Don't take it out on us. Moron.

Post 15

Friday, August 8, 2003 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
sooo true...

i respect landscapers the same way i respect those who build Twin Towers or Eiffel Tower with matches and glue, as fellows working hard on their hobby. It's okay for me.

And a painter who decide to paint like romantics use to, AFTER modernity passed and trew all artistic institutions in the garbage, is postmodern. With modernity everything was «destroyed» (as well as art's definition). The state of post modernity is a state where the upcomming artist says to himself:«after a guy did nothing and that that precise (no)thing was recognised as art, the f**k can I do??».
that's it.
The result of this postmodern phenomenon is that many artist started to mix all kind of passed current in their stuff this mixed with new techniques and anything they wanted. It's a kind of meta-freedom to pick whatever influences you want. So critics and theoricians started to say that postmodernism was a current caracterized by the mixing of old and new techniques and marked by the late 70's and 80's romantism (return to individualism). It was a mistake due to the lack of step back.
The fact was that what was recognised like art took one milion different paths. Postmodernism as modernism is not a current, it is an unfixed historical period, unfixed because nobody has the same experience with art.
And the human mind has alot of difficulty to seize what's not fixed. that's why it took so long for the idea of postmodernity to spread.
And you know what?
Many theoricians say that we are no longer in postmodernity!!!
I don't start on this...

Even thaught my english is not very good, i hope you understood the ideas i tried to expose.

P.s.: The article is indeed an undocumented piece of crap.
and my first sentence is stricly emotiv.

Post 16

Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Soloists—the latter two posts on this thread are informative in the sense that you get to see examples of authentic postmodernists.

The former post makes statements I have heard explicitly for the last 30 years:

“The reason it's not in museums is that it doesn't need to be. It all looks the same after a while. If it's not going to be done any better than the classical European artists, why bother taking up space with it? It's already been done. Modern art is a quest for that which is new and exciting…There's plenty of traditional art out there.”

They are saying that excellence as already be achieved and cannot be surpassed therefore lets find out what “new and exciting” possibilities we can do with such mediums as shit, Vaseline, real cadavers. Notice the crude blanket use of the word “traditional” to denote 30,000 years of representation art, from the cave paintings to the present. Not a very subtle awareness from one who wants to discus aesthetic issues.

The latter post equates landscape painting (Bierstadt, the French Impressionists, hell almost every great artist painted some form of landscape) with craftspeople who make matchstick souvenirs of famous buildings. This person correctly knows that “With modernity everything was «destroyed» (as well as art's definition).” But the rest that follows is a fit of conceptual hiccuping.

Notice that neither of these people can clearly identify concepts, nor evaluate them towards a cohesive conclusion but descend to calling my article a “piece of crap” and that I am a “moron”.

Many of you soloists might think that these people are trolls…but, no, they are not. What you have read here are the results of people who have been serious about their postmodern education and threw out reason and benevolent content.

Post 17

Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree that it's unfortunate that Michael's article was called a piece of crap, and that Michael was called a moron. But I think that, even though they contradict themselves, the two posters to whom Michael responds in his latest post make some good points. I think that Michael's definition of postmodern art -- "Anything but representational painting or sculpture and/or its main themes are disgusting or senseless" -- is much too narrow and negative.

As has been mentioned here, postmodernism is not essentially non-representational, disgusting or senseless. It is not a monolithic "movement," but a wide variety of individual styles and perspectives which include, in addition to non-representational works, representational forms such as photorealism and neoclassicism (among countless others). It includes both malevolent visions of existence and romantic, benevolent ones. If we are to take Michael's advice and define postmodernism "by the style or manner of the works," the only common thread that we might likely find among the diverse lot would be a sort of spiritual anarchism: a rejection of predetermined rules, collective aesthetic "movements", and conformity to authority -- including a rejection of the modernist authoritarian habit of rejecting representational styles.

And this is where the posters calling themselves "Offended By Stupidity" and "no dog please" contradict themselves. If they truly value postmodernism in art because it embraces "a kind of meta-freedom to pick whatever influences you want," then it is self-refuting for them to deride artists who employ that meta-freedom by choosing to paint "traditional" works such as landscapes.

Jonathan

Post 18

Monday, August 11, 2003 - 12:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan—

You have very nicely said nothing.

He said: “…the only common thread that we might likely find among the diverse lot [postmodernism] would be a sort of spiritual anarchism: a rejection of predetermined rules, collective aesthetic "movements", and conformity to authority -- including a rejection of the modernist authoritarian habit of rejecting representational styles.”

Your saying that everyone is a postmodernist from the makers of shit paintings and plasticized cadavers, to landscape artists—the common denominator being freedom. Which simply means anything is art…or nothing is. You also imply that painting and sculpture come from “predetermined rules, collective aesthetic "movements", and conformity to authority”. You sound like you were a good listener and are regurgitating what NPR has been telling you. Painting and sculpture, as forms of art, are connected to the universality of human sight and touch—that is an observation of 30,000 years of art—and one you are rejecting as type of opinion.

Postmodernism is essentially an anti-art movement and a good postmodernist is one who comes the closest to being an anti-artist. I am sure that there are thousands of confused wannabe artists that cannot plot a course through this postmodern era. Who take a little of this and a little of this anti stuff without integrating what the hell they are doing and try to convince themselves that they are “free” from the restrictions of “authority” (sight and touch)—the results of which becomes meaningless shit.

Post 19

Monday, August 11, 2003 - 2:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Please note - the above 'Jonathan' is not Jonathan Barrett.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.