RoR: Forum

Jonathan,

I like to keep context when at all possible.

1. We are here on an objectivist site.

2. Rand as made her aesthetic thought extremely clear.

3. I had 5 years of college education which was predominately postmodern.

4. I am a romantic representational artist and I have 3 decades of work behind me all of which comes from my soul.

5. Great art for me are pieces that are masterworks of integration, combining universal themes, brilliant method, passion, stunning use of sensory perception, and a respect reality and intelligibility. [I am italicizing those words which I am not convinced you understand the meaning of.]

My stance on art is from the perspective of: being a romantic soul; being in awe of the medium of paint and how it can represent the furthest researches into visual perception; being in love with beauty of nature; being exalted in humanity�s best, and in my best; and being amazed of epic integrations that can form a cohesive unit.

Great artists have done those things�that is what I am into. Matthew Barney is not a great artist; Duchamp is a cynical clown; Pollock re-creates the state of being raging infant. Puccini awes me as well as Beethoven, Rand, Michelangelo, Monet, Rembrandt, and many, many more artists.

If you want to engage me show me the things or thoughts that rise up to my standards because if you don�t I won�t be interested in spending my energy on it.

Michael

Post 21

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 1:21pm

If there is interest in furthering art appreciation beyond 'The Romantic Manifesto',
why not try some of the blogs devoted by various artists on the subject. The BodyinMind is one good one, and so is VisioneerWindows.blogspot.com. It is true, most Objectivist oriented blogs concerned themselves with politics, but not all, and it would behoove some to just spend time going thru some of the here and there to see if others have given a good say.

Post 22

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 1:02pm

Michael,
Why are you trying to skirt the Kinkade issue? I mentioned his name, you implied that doing so is a breach of etiquette akin to calling someone a Nazi(!!!), and you don't think that you have to explain such a vicious attack? What reason could you possibly have for spewing such venom in an Objectivist forum?

Let me quote Armando Cesari to give you an idea of the vibe that I'm getting from you:

"Because of his involvement with Hollywood, Lanza was never taken seriously either by the majority of the so-called music critics or by the musicals snobs, who looked down their noses at a singer of operatic capabilities who was making films, and very successfully, in Hollywood.

"The so-called connoisseurs are the very ones who today criticize The Three Tenors' concerts as cheap entertainment for the masses. But The Three Tenors, just as Lanza before them, have helped to popularise opera -- to bring it to people who had never heard an aria, let alone an opera.

"The notion that someone commercially successful cannot be classified as an artist is absurd -- whoever said this had to be?..."

Michael, am I correct in assuming that you think that mentioning Kinkade's name in an art discussion is like calling someone a Nazi in the same way that mentioning Lanza's name in a music discussion is like calling someone a Nazi?

Please explain.
J

(Edited by Jonathan on 9/18, 2:14pm)

Post 23

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 4:21pm

I look forward to hearing what you have to say or your review of Kinkade.

Post 24

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 7:04pm

Briefly: Kinkade's technique and his understanding and control of color, form, proportion and composition are much more refined and sophisticated than yours, and the "universe" he presents is more cheerful. A few of his paintings that I've seen are gorgeous, and they very effectively convey a sense of what I'd imagine Rand would call a "radiant, sunlit universe."

I'm not a fan of his work. Chalk it up to personal tastes -- he's just not my style. But I'd be willing to hang any painting of his on my wall before I'd be willing to claim that mentioning his name is like equating someone with a Nazi.

J

Post 25

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 8:17pm

Hey Jonathan,

I get the feeling that you are "irked" by me. Is that so?

Michael

Post 26

Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 11:10pm

Irked? Not really. When you're not attacking other artists and their art I think you can be very charming and inspiring. And even when you go into Angry Cultural Warrior mode I wouldn't say that I'm "irked." What I feel generally moves along the line between amusement and pity. But it doesn't stop me from liking you.

Now, are you going to continue with the evasive maneuvers, or are you going to share with us why you think that Kinkade is so far beneath you that my mentioning his name was similar to equating someone with a Nazi?

Or, if you're much too irked, we can call the whole thing off and hope to meet up on friendlier terms on some future thread.

J

Post 27

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 5:16am

http://www.bobross.ca/bobross.jpg

Hi Jonathan,

For what kinds of works should be displayed in a museum you are offering us the choice between the representational school of Kinkade, Redlin, and Ross:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/w/swk122/pic.jpg

http://www.thegremlin.com/fineart_redlin.html

http://www.artofthesouth.com/search/images/art/gog.jpg

Or:

��what the Cremaster Cycle represents to them -- how it is a return to narrative, beauty, myth-building and symbolism, how it challenges traditional notions of identity, sexuality, nature, nurture, urge, will, power, creation, destruction and the "easy answers" that people often search for in religion, culture, history and philosophy, how its ambiguity is different from that of most of history's art because more of its possible meanings are true from a wider variety of contexts, how it both embraces and regrets how technology has altered our lives, etc., etc., etc.�

Now I completely agree with you that the above paintings could represent �cheerfulness� and, if you stretch it, a "radiant, sunlit universe."

And I completely agree with you that the Cremaster Cycle includes all of the concepts you mentioned above.

But something disturbs me about the painters you mentioned. The subjects of their works look as if someone sprinkled fairy dust on them; as if the home of 7 dwarfs� from Snow White had literally been sugar-coated.

I have already reviewed Cremaster Cycle but I will add that though it involves serious themes, the method of presentation is �expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as in hallucinations and delusions), and conduct��

The choice you are offering, as it appears to me, is works that embody superficial sweetness or schizophrenia.

And I know you feel gentle �amusement and pity� for me when I get into my �Angry Cultural Warrior mode� but I think your feelings are misplaced as I think your aesthetic judgment unsound.

Post 28

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 5:22pm

Michael,

I really thought that you would have held Kinkade in higher regard. I agree that he doesn't take much coffee with his sugar, but, by Objectivists' standards, is his art really "superficially sweetened," or is it the ultimate in aesthetic purity because he refuses to allow ~any~ darkness to "pollute" it? His ardent fans would be very comfortable paraphrasing Barbara Branden's words regarding Lanza in saying that Kinkade has "never let pain corrupt his [art], and it is difficult to imagine a greater triumph."

Personally, I'd prefer that he'd paint the deeper subjects which might weigh a little more heavily on his mind, such as, say, the ascension of woman over Islam, but that would open him up to Objectivists' accusations of cynicism. I guess one man's fairy dust is another man's refusal to let "cynicism" corrupt his art, no?

As for postmodern "schizophrenia"...

My nieces and nephews have known nothing but the digital age. The videos that they watch and the games that they play often appear, to me, to be fragmented and disordered. But it all makes perfect sense to them. When I ask them about their rapid-fire-image world, I discover, more often than not, that what had appeared to me to be a "barren landscape" is actually very rich in ideas, beauty, history and culture (a theme they'd quickly identify in the Cremaster Cycle).

Their world -- and their aesthetic -- is anything but incomprehensible, ugly and meaningless to them. They can be cynical (and often rightfully so), but they're also very sophisticated, independent, humorous and positive. In their exploration and enjoyment of their postmodern world, I'm happy that they are, as David Bowie would say, immune to your consultations.

J

Post 29

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 7:19pm

Jonathan,

Haha, I have to say that I enjoyed your post, still think you are all over the place, using Barbara's quote for Kinkade...perhaps, no cynical voice intended, you should write a review of Kinkade or Barney, but I cannot help wanting to see better formed arguments if you do.

You have the uncanny ability to make a Kinkade seem like a joyful romp through a pseudo Somerset village...and a knack for making cynical children sound romantically joyful.

But, alas, I am who I am, with my particular views and exaltations and disgusts, it doesn�t do any good to rip into me, because I will toss you away and go off and lick my canvases and their forms with paint, and play in the light and brood in purple and hollow black until I am exhausted and then fall into a contented sleep, joyful and at peace.

Michael

Post 30

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:51am

If I can add to this argument (maybe it's dead?) but some of Thomas Kinkade's earlier work is actually quite good, as opposed to now, which is well described by Mr. Newberry:

"As if someone sprinkled fairy dust on them; as if the home of 7 dwarfs� from Snow White had literally been sugar-coated."

Which means, that Kinkade sold out for the money. He compromised his artistic integrity in order to appeal to the masses.

Jonathan, I did not scour this argument very carefully, but I think you are making the mistake of assuming popularity to be an intrinsic good. Those other artists you mention, Mario Lanza etc, became popular even though they did NOT compromise.

As for the previous topic, modern art makes me feel cold and disgusted. Modern music is worse. A few days ago I attended a contemporary concert that featured no actual performers, only some mixed noises accompanying various visual media. This is NOT music! To hear the professor who chose them call them "good" made my soul wretch. 20 minutes of floating dots on a screen accompanied by screeches and scratches of dissonant noise. Or the story of the vampire who has to adapt to the 20th century changes that humans have wrought on the earth, bringing more sunlight. Give me a break! Rand was right when she said (Atlas Shrugged) that some of the best art today is found on billboards and in commercials (paraphrase). That is even more true today.

Luckily good music exists, from the past and present, or I could not survive!

Meg

Post 31

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:16pm

Michael wrote,
�... and play in the light and brood in purple and hollow black until I am exhausted and then fall into a contented sleep, joyful and at peace.�

~This~ is the charming and inspiring Michael.

Best,
J

Post 32

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 7:21pm

Meg,

You may be right about Kinkade selling out. Or not.

My limited knowledge of him comes primarily from seeing his work at the home of a relative who has long been a collector, and I�ve been under the impression that since the beginning of his career he�s produced both sugary paintings and what you would call �quite good� paintings. And I�ve also seen works that he�s painted during his alleged �sell-out� period which are not sugary.

I think it�s possible that, in one way or another, he has compromised or has been influenced by popular demand, but, frankly, I�m not interested enough in his work to first define what standard would have to be established to prove that he has "sold out," and then analyze his entire body of work chronologically to judge whether or not the evidence meets that standard. And then, in the name of fairness, compare how it applies to Lanza (or any other artist).

Did Lanza choose every song he sang on stage, album and film based solely on his own tastes and aesthetic principles? Did he ever allow others to have influence? Did he never once think to himself, �Funiculi Funicula would be perfect for this evening (or record), but since the audience will be begging for O Sole Mio instead, what the hell.�? He may have refused to make compromises in many instances, just as I�m sure Kinkade has, but is there evidence that money or public opinion ~never~ influenced ~any~ of Lanza�s aesthetic choices to the same (or greater) degree that they may have influenced Kinkade�s? I don�t think anyone can honestly claim to know enough about both men to answer such questions.

If you want to take a shot at it, I�d be willing to consider your thesis, and, depending on how compelling it is, I might join you and Michael in equating Lanza and/or Kinkade with a cannibal Nazi rapist (just a little joke). But in the absence of such evidence, I was simply asking Michael which aspects of Kinkade�s technique, style and content would lead him to believe that Kinkade�s art is infinitely inferior to his own.

Oh, and, no, I'm not assuming popularity to be an intrinsic good. As I've said, I'm not a fan of Kinkade's work, regardless of how many other people are.

J
(Edited by Jonathan on 9/20, 10:02pm)

Post 33

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:08pm

I thought this might be an interesting tangential postscript:

If a singer or musician (who doesn't write the music that he sings or plays) is an artist, is a person who paints paint-by-number canvases an artist?

J

Post 34

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 6:00am

Jonathan : "I was simply asking Michael which aspects of Kinkade�s technique, style and content would lead him to believe that Kinkade�s art is infinitely inferior to his own."

Jonathan have you studied art history, or art formally, or have you had life-drawing? I suspect that you didn't. Of course, I could be wrong and that you do have a sense of what your asking; perhaps you just want to see me doing cartwheels.

On the other hand, you can go here, www.AnArtistsVoice.org, or here and read through what I have written about art and then google Kinkade or any other artist you deem "important" or one that suits your purposes and do a little compare and contrast. Of course that would take time and effort on your part and I am not sure that suits your creed. One of the hallmarks a good postmodernist is that they merely "think up" the project or question and then put as little effort as possible in the creation of or the answer to it. Bicycle Wheel of Duchamp comes to mind.

Remember my note about falling asleep contented? One of the things that makes that possible is that I don't like stepping on thorns.

Post 35

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 7:23am

Michael,

I'm intrigued by, and enjoying this thread. Particularly the manner of your response to Jonathan. In itself this thread plays out, and contrasts, the methods of mainstream pomo intellect vs that of a self-made, sincere, intellect such as yours, that knows for himself with his own hands. And loves it.

I enjoy Jonathan's posts too, though for different reasons. He's sensitive to art, and thought, clearly. Along with a tolerable (to date) dose of cunning and calculated. (I'd call it a pomo style, yet saved by being entertaining?) But I can't believe his mild 'not my cup of tea' manoeuvre on Kinkade. His respect for Blarney and Cremaster means revoltion at Kinkade. We know that. He just can't bring himself to the party. For to admit that, would that not be to admit credence to judgement of art? Would that not open the gates to having to deal with what really counts in art, what makes for good art and thus art's purpose?

I guess this thread has drama; how long he can hold out? How long he can keep his passion supressed? How long he can remain 'above the crowd', non-judgemental and egalitarian, against his own deeper sense. Perhaps that sense of drama keeps him coming back?

Your insight about the pomo 'artists' - thought and little effort - is helpful and clarifying. I've recently returned to sketching - my skill is low, but I love the process. A while back you posted a series on sketching, on its craft and techniques, that was fascinating and inspiring. There's a potent, visceral world in there, that is deeply satisfying. A world yet to be discovered by the pomos. A world I think you're offering Jonathan a glimpse of, if he's sincere.

And Kinkade's work is inferior to your own. You don't need explain that. I can see it. Like great music, you can return to your works again and again, and they're always fresh. Always authentic. No doubt a result of your "brooding in purple and hollow black." (Love that.)

Sleep well. I will too tonight.

Sam

Post 36

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 11:56am

Michael quoted me,
"I was simply asking Michael which aspects of Kinkade�s technique, style and content would lead him to believe that Kinkade�s art is infinitely inferior to his own."

Michael replied,
"Jonathan have you studied art history, or art formally, or have you had life-drawing?"

Yes. And sculpture, photography, and a little architecture as well. Not to mention digital imaging, 3D (vertex, spline & formula) and animation.

Michael continued,
"I suspect that you didn't. Of course, I could be wrong and that you do have a sense of what your asking; perhaps you just want to see me doing cartwheels."

Sorry if I've been misunderstood. The key words in the sentence of mine that you quoted were "was" and "infinitely." I was synopsizing my side of the discussion for Meg (who mentioned that she hadn't read the arguments carefully) and really wasn't trying to stoke the coals and revisit the issues. For what it's worth, the fact that I think one artist's work displays better "understanding and control of color, form, proportion and composition" doesn't mean that I would necessarily rank him as better or more "important" than another artist.

Michael continued,
"On the other hand, you can go here, www.AnArtistsVoice.org, or here and read through what I have written about art and then google Kinkade or any other artist you deem "important" or one that suits your purposes and do a little compare and contrast."

I don't regard Kinkade as "important." One of the reasons that I mentioned his name was to consider which criteria Barbara (or others) would employ in deciding which artists are worthy of being included in "important" galleries and museums. Should an artist's overwhelming popularity -- or disfavor -- be a factor? Is public opinion relevant? From whom might a layperson seek counsel when stocking her sim-museum? No one? Everyone? Would Michael's aesthetic opinions carry more weight than mine if he's had more education and experience than I have? Would mine carry more weight if I've had significantly more than he has?. I'm not looking for a chest-thumping contest here, I just really haven't given such things much thought -- I generally don't think in terms of competition or methods of establishing rank when contemplating art or which pieces should or should not be placed in "important" museums.

Michael wrote,
"One of the hallmarks a good postmodernist is that they merely "think up" the project or question and then put as little effort as possible in the creation of or the answer to it. Bicycle Wheel of Duchamp comes to mind."

I ~really~ don't want to carry this thread any further, so I'll exit with a mostly rhetorical question (and I'll allow Michael to have the last word, rhetorical or otherwise):

Can you think of any postmodern artists who don't adhere to the "hallmark" processes which you've outlined above? Are there any -- or many -- examples which would destroy your (apparent) view that postmodernism is merely an extension, and never a refutation, of the tenets of Greenbergian modernism?

J

Post 37

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 5:49pm

Jonathan askes: Should an artist's overwhelming popularity -- or disfavor -- be a factor?

M: No.

J: Is public opinion relevant?

M: No.

J: From whom might a layperson seek counsel when stocking her sim-museum? No one? Everyone?

M: Not sure what a �sim� museum is? But my guess is stock what you like.

J: Would Michael's aesthetic opinions carry more weight than mine if he's had more education and experience than I have?

M: No.

J: Would mine carry more weight if I've had significantly more than he has?

M: No.

J: I'm not looking for a chest-thumping contest here�

M: Damn, I have been working out at the gym.

J: I just really haven't given such things much thought�

M: !!!

J: I generally don't think in terms of competition or methods of establishing rank when contemplating art or which pieces should or should not be placed in "important" museums.

M: Earlier I thought, and still do that great art is intrinsically good, its all there in the Mona Lisa, or Scream, everything you need to know is in there��its self-evident� I thought. The art work doesn�t change, it is always the way it is�but paintings don�t get to do battle for places of honor, like great tennis players competing. Recognition is interpreted by scholars, critics, and curators based on their aesthetic values, their aesthetic philosophy. If they hold a postmodern aesthetic such as: temporal states, primacy of political and social stances, psychological spaces, body as medium, significance of creating new art forms�then an innovative representational painter or sculptor, (with the whole field of their endeavor grounded in how we as humans see and touch) doesn�t have a chance in hell of getting a nod of recognition from them. And justly so, postmodern aesthetics is founded as an anti-art aesthetic/form, like Duchamp�s cynical works.

I believe like Rand, when she said that if something is wrong she doesn�t accept it as the given, but asks why and resolves to answer it and act on it. In truth, I am familiar with petty candy-laced darts you have hurled at me-I went through postmodern art school and lived in New York, I know what it means to be complemented on my craft. (For all of you who do not know about postmodern artists, that is the nastiest thing they can say to a talented artist�guess where that concept originated from? Kant, the Sublime is of the mind and not a mere craft, like what artists make.)

Jonathan, I am glad you uncovered yourself a little bit, so I don�t see you as some crazy that loves Kinkade and Barney equally, though don�t know what you do? Hope your creative and doing lots of fun projects.

Michael

Post 38

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 6:01pm

Hi Meg, I enjoyed you post. I think we are all in agreement, Jonathan, you, and I that there is "something" commerical about Kinkade. And Jonathan's post was excellent on how difficult that would be to prove.

I believe it was Barbara Brandon who coined the term Social-Methaphysican? Barbara, if that is so would you mind sharing its inception with us...its a very important concept to understand.

Anyway, totally subjective on my part, but you can almost feel that Kinkade knew that little Somerset Cottages are big sellers.

Also I agree with you Meg, that there is a lot of skill in many of Kinkades works.

I rember going to a Cage concert, and hearing screeching noise and full volume in a concert hall--I heard a few days later that the speakers blew! Horrible, horrible experience.
Yes thankfully there is a lot of great art around if you know where to look.

Michael

Post 39

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:48pm