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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

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).

You are quite right about this. I think we would have to determine Kinkade's psychology and whether or not he believes his style has improved. If he does believe that his style has improved, he is simply not a very good artist but has not lost artistic integrity (did he have any to begin with?) If he changed his style for the worse consciously in order to appeal to popular tastes, he is guilty of "selling" out.

I am not familiar enough (or at all) with Lanza yet to comment about him specifically. As for your comparison of musicians or singers and people who paint by numbers, I'm not entirely sure how to compare them at all. Musicians and singers can choose for the most part what pieces to play. True, it may slow their careers down to refuse to perform (for example) some crappy dissonant piece of modern music. So they can choose to perform pieces that they think are life-affirming. They can also add their own individuality to them with their individual voice / playing style and invent new ways of making the pieces even better or more perfect. In this way they are professionals inventing. The artist who comes up with his own composition is also inventing.

Painting by numbers, on the other hand, leaves little room for invention. If I am correct, the composition and the colors are chosen beforehand. It can be a fun pastime for the amateur, but it is not the same as professional music-making or artistry. 

Oh, I just found this on one of the link's Mr Newberry provided:
the great artist goes beyond what has been done or known and makes something of his own." -Hemingway
Wow, I'll have to explore that website some more. Anyway, that's what I was trying to get at as to the differences between good musicians and artists and paint-by-numbers.

Again, I only skimmed most of the stuff between post 33 and your last post, so sorry if I missed something there.

Meg Townsend


Post 41

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
POSTED FOR BARBARA BRANDEN

Michael, the concept of Social Metaphysics is not mine, it is Nathaniel's. He defines it as follows: "Social Metaphysics is the psychological condition of one who holds the minds and perspectives of other people, not objective reality, as the ultimate authority and frame-of-reference."

Barbara


Post 42

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James, Meg, and Jonathan...glad you all posted and would love to respond tonight but I promised myself that tonight's remaining hours are going to a painting I am working on.

Michael


Post 43

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 7:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Meg. Thanks for your response. What I was hinting at in my comparison of a singer and a person who paints by numbers is that compromise is not a vice for a singer. His "artistic integrity" is ~defined~ by his willingness to compromise (or abandon) his individual creative vision in favor of the composer's.

A singer doesn't create any of the vital aspects of the art which he performs (the subject, score or libretto). He sings the notes and words that someone else has written, just as a paint-by-number artist paints the shapes and colors that someone else has outlined and indicated.

Meg wrote,
"They can also add their own individuality to them with their individual voice / playing style and invent new ways of making the pieces even better or more perfect. In this way they are professionals inventing. The artist who comes up with his own composition is also inventing."

An operatic singer is not asked to scat and jam and otherwise jazz things up with improvisation. He is not requested to "invent." His task is to study his role and learn how it is to be performed ~correctly~. He is to conform to the styles and traditions which have been established over centuries by kings, emperors, their court composers, advisers, and other arbiters of imposed taste. The closer an operatic singer comes to following the predetermined rules, the "better" he is deemed to be. Any "individuality" which lingers through to the finished product will be the target of connoisseurs' criticism.

Meg wrote,
"Painting by numbers, on the other hand, leaves little room for invention."

Paint-by-number kits leave more room for invention than any classic opera I've ever heard. Even though it's ususally limited to 10 or 20 colors/values, there is plenty of room for different styles of blends, blurs, scumbling and other techniques which would make the image either more lifelike or more "posterized."

Meg wrote,
"If I am correct, the composition and the colors are chosen beforehand."

Yes, the composition and colors are chosen beforehand, just as the composition, notes and words of an opera are chosen beforehand. The singer does not have input in writing it.

Meg wrote,
"It can be a fun pastime for the amateur, but it is not the same as professional music-making or artistry."

I disagree. A professional artist's paint-by-number project would be as noticeably superior to an amateur hobbyist's as Plácido Domingo's singing is to mine. In fact, there are companies which hire people to paint copies of famous paintings using the paint-by-number techinique. A canvas is printed with a contour/cartoon and very skilled craftsmen fill in the colors. They're quite popular.

J

Post 44

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 8:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
J: "I get the feeling that Michael and I suffer from severe miscommunication problems. We're not on the same wavelength. It's something that I'd sincerely like to try to remedy."

Hi Jonathan,

I have had your post in the back of my mind. My response is to ask you a question, two actually:

What does Objectivism mean to you methodologically and emotionally?

Michael


Post 45

Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 9:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael asked,
"What does Objectivism mean to you methodologically and emotionally?"

I agree with and am very inspired by Objectivism. I don't agree with some of Rand's personal views on many things, including homosexuality, art and music. And I don't think that any disagreement that I might have with Rand's, yours, or anyone else's artistic tastes, opinions, interpretations (or misinterpretations) represents a disagreement with Objectivism, if that's what your question was meant to imply.

J


Post 46

Monday, November 8, 2004 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A friend recently sent me a snippet which she says comes from a 2003 Geoffrey MacNab interview with Matthew Barney. I thought some here might be interested:

"[Barney] also enjoyed King Vidor's wonderfully overblown version of the Ayn Rand novel, The Fountainhead, which partially inspired the look and some of the characters in Cremaster 3."

Best,
J

Post 47

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 - 9:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan,

What does the above mean for you?

M


Post 48

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael asked,
"What does the above mean for you?"

I'd guess that it means that Barney, like a lot of people, sees the concept of the Randian hero as erring on the side of arrogance, and the Randian style as making occasional forays into sermonizing.

Tangent: A few years ago I agreed to produce works of bas-relief for the entrance of a private residence in Minneapolis. My arrangement with the architect and owners was that I'd have total creative freedom and that my work would not be altered in any way. After I finished my end of the project, the clients and architect, mildly reminiscent of events in The Fountainhead, permanently rearranged a few of the pieces without asking or informing me first, which, as far as I'm concerned, altered the mood and integrity of the work. So, what I'm wondering is, according to Objectivist philosophy, am I within my rights to sneak onto their private property and take a jackhammer to the sculptures? Can I go as far as killing the owners if they try to stop me, or might that be just a tad overblown?

Best,
J

Post 49

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 6:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan wrote: "So, what I'm wondering is, according to Objectivist philosophy, am I within my rights to sneak onto their private property and take a jackhammer to the sculptures? Can I go as far as killing the owners if they try to stop me, or might that be just a tad overblown?"

Sorry to hear about that problem. But, sure, hammer the piece and kill the owners; they fucked you over! But then you would have to take the consequences...

Michael


Post 50

Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 4:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry to hear about that problem. But, sure, hammer the piece and kill the owners; they fucked you over! But then you would have to take the consequences...
.....................


but I doubt ye'd get the jury to acquit you as Roark did...


One thing I've notice that seems to be lacking in this thread - the issue of a painting's merits lie not in just it being re-presentational and holding to a 'sunlit' view of the world, but in its holding to universal theming - and here is where the shallowness lies, and the sugar poisoning, and the difference in valuing between them and, say Michael's works [or mine, for that matter]......
(Edited by robert malcom on 8/10, 4:35pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Monday, August 11, 2008 - 6:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Cremaster 2 embodies this regressive impulse through its looping narrative, moving from 1977, the year of Gary Gilmore’s execution, to 1893, when Harry Houdini, who may have been Gilmore’s grandfather, performed at the World’s Colombian Exposition. The film is structured around three interrelated themes—the landscape as witness, the story of Gilmore (played by Barney,) and the life of bees—that metaphorically describe the potential of moving backward in order to escape one’s destiny. Both Gilmore’s kinship to Houdini (played by Norman Mailer) and his correlation with the male bee are established in the séance/conception scene in the beginning of the film, during which Houdini’s spirit is summoned and Gilmore’s father expires after fertilizing his wife."

What language is this?

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.