RoR: Forum

Was only siderally speaking of Art, and what was meaning in that was that the word 'art' is used both as 'fine art' and as aesthetics, two different concepts - but which, like 'faith' brings confusion when the word is used as if interchangeably.........

Post 81

Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:48am

Ellen,
Thanks for your further comments on the beauty and style of the film _Frida_. I think I'll watch it again (I haven't seen it since it was first released) since your post has brought back to mind some of the vivid artistry that I had forgotten. And I haven't yet seen the Callas film but hope to soon. There are only two copies at that local video store, and they've been out each time I've checked.

Best,
J

Post 82

Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:53am

I'd love to hear what George, Marvin, Jody or Jason (or anyone else who might feel attacked, insulted, or psychoanalyzed by possibly being suspected of "Objecti-blindness") might think of Rand's view that Vermeer's subjects were "folks next door to kitchens," and that they reveal that Vermeer suffered from an "inner conflict" which, though "similar, but less offensive" than Dali's, led him to combine his brilliant clarity of style with "the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism." Do you agree with her? Or do you think that she was being insulting and inappropriately psychoanalytical?

Also, just out of curiosity, if a postmodernist critic's facile interpretations of Rand's work seemed to be quite clearly based on his zeal for postmodernist theory, would you rush to his defense if someone suggested that his distorted criticism appeared to be little more than an inadvertent confession of his own pomo-blindness?

J

Post 83

Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 3:28pm

Rand wasn't always consistent in her judgement either. She writes about a painting of her favorite painter Capuletti:

"Le Mur is a tour de force: it is a still life featuring a solid expanse of old, peeling, blotched, cracked plaster wall. If there ever was a subject for the modern cults of decay and degradation, this was it. You would not believe that it could be made beautiful - beautiful and inspiring by the sheer perfection of workmanship; neither did I until I saw it."

So suddenly the choice of the subject of a painting is no longer important, as long as it is painted beautifully and with great workmanship? Not that I disagree, but this goes against everything she writes on the subject elsewhere.

Post 84

Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 4:18am

Also, just out of curiosity, if a postmodernist critic's facile interpretations of Rand's work seemed to be quite clearly based on his zeal for postmodernist theory, would you rush to his defense if someone suggested that his distorted criticism appeared to be little more than an inadvertent confession of his own pomo-blindness?

This, of course, being a pure hypothetical... ;)

"Facile." This has got to be the only environment where that gets resoundingly used as a negative.

"Pomo" is used in the same way as one uses "nigger", or "kike". It's basically predjudice, because of its sweeping wideness. No doubt there is a lot of silliness in postmodern thought. There's a lot of silliness in all schools of thought. More accurately, there's a lot of silly people in them. And angry ones.

Post 85

Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 5:43am

Prejudice means to judge without reason - if there is reason to judge, then no prejudice is there, no matter how much some persons dislike the identification...

Post 86

Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 10:39am

"Pomo" is used in the same way as one uses "nigger", or "kike". It's basically predjudice, because of its sweeping wideness. No doubt there is a lot of silliness in postmodern thought. There's a lot of silliness in all schools of thought. More accurately, there's a lot of silly people in them. And angry ones.

"Pomo" is nothing like "nigger" or "kike". "Pomo" is short for "Post-Modern", which means a person who supports the idea that one cannot know anything. It is an incorrect position (see objective metaphysics and epistemology). To accept it is to destroy your own mind (How can you make a decision, if you are incapable of knowing the potential consequences of the available choices?). To spread it is to spread the destruction of men's minds. A man's mind is his most crucial and potentially useful tool for survival. Destroy a man's mind, you destroy a man.

Post 87

Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 11:15am

Stop calling people POMOs! When you say it you are being angry and hurtful. As another poster put it : "It's basically predjudice, because of its sweeping wideness."

So because we want to avoid being judgemental I suggest that we stop calling them POMOs and instead use the term "Fucking Morons" when refering to those thinkers who have helped to create and spread the postmodernist school of thought.

- Jason

Post 88

Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 1:30pm

Jonathan, you wrote:

"...I haven't yet seen the Callas film but hope to soon. There are only two copies at that local video store, and they've been out each time I've checked."

Are the copies available at the store video tapes or DVDs? If the former,
check to see if the movie's been cut to fit it into the available space.
Unfortunately often, video tapes are cut for length reasons.

Ellen

Post 89

Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 8:00pm

"...[what do you] think of Rand's view that Vermeer's subjects were "folks next door to kitchens," and that they reveal that Vermeer suffered from an "inner conflict" which, though "similar, but less offensive" than Dali's, led him to combine his brilliant clarity of style with "the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism." Do you agree with her?"

Sure. It doesn't feel odd to me. It is a particular way of matching technique to subject matter. Romantic or idealized visions feel different in process and introspection,...there is something grand permenating everything about it...Realistic still-lifes feel to me a bit scientific or clinical...and expressionist gesture feels very free until your not happy with the look of it--and fixing it is not exactly a freeing feeling...

Post 90

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 2:12am

Jason: "So because we want to avoid being judgemental I suggest that we stop calling them POMOs and instead use the term "Fucking Morons" when refering to those thinkers who have helped to create and spread the postmodernist school of thought."

Why do "we" want to avoid being judgmental? I'm not at all picky about WHAT to call them, but for myself, I intend to remain judgmental.

Post 91

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 9:04am

Regarding Vermeer especially - context, context, context... When the millenium passed and the world did not come to an end, there was a shifting in the north countires regarding the world. Unlike the south, which postulated a changing potential in man, the north took man as eternally as is was from Adam's fall, but as much a part of the world as the rest since God spared all. Consequentlly, they viewed the world, since it too was spared, as pure, and worthy of study - hence the stark realism of such as Peter Breugal, and the looking at the world as worth looking at instead of being despared. The 'town view', for instance, with independent images of various towns and specific buildings and churches, became quite popular - and Jan Vermeer has become the most famous [tho at the time he was little known for his artworks] in terms of depicting the secular interior, with the quiet meditativeness that, for instance, Saenredam's church renderings embued. Order and light were equated with, in effect, holiness, with the purity of light pouring thru windows partly opened giving a shift of the otherwise mundane into a spiritual uplifting in the contemplation of the scene. Moreover, the emphasis shifted from the architecture being primary - to considering the actions of persons as being the primary...

to be sure, this is not naturalism...

Post 92

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 9:47am

Tenya -- Yes, you are quite right. My post was of course laced with sarcasm.

- Jason

Post 93

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 1:58pm

Michael,
Since you agree with Rand, would you mind explaining how you think Vermeer could have done better?

Let's pretend that instead of choosing to paint the naturalistic averageness of the common folks next door, Vermeer wished to transcend his inner conflicts and properly paint idealized, beautiful images of subjects such as serenity, contemplation or other inwardly-directed states. What should he have done differently to make his paintings more in keeping with the tenets of Romantic Realism? How might he have successfully matched his technique to his subject matter in a way which would satisfy his Objectivist critics?

Should his characters have been shown leaping and bounding about, displaying godly physical feats of daring serenity? Should they have been shown striking muscular, super-heroic action poses of meditation? Should they have been depicted as sweat-glistened nudes bursting with light and energy beams of calm solitude? Or what?

J

Post 94

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 2:48pm

Actually, Jason, your post was laced with simple profane name-calling. I have yet to see one thing out of you that actually spoke directly to post-modernism. I'm not even sure you know what it means, other than not being you.

Maybe that is good, because it is simply a time period. Do you call pre-moderns "fucking morons" as well? And, within the modernist period, I would imagine there are fucking morons to be found too.

You are either very foolish, or you are a coward.

Post 95

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 2:56pm

Hi Jonathan,

I like this question. I�ll answer it too.

Although Vermeer's paintings, composition and subject, are benevolent and really very beautiful, for the most part they are merely reflections of everyday, as it was; as it was almost exactly. Of course there is nothing particularly wrong with that, but Vermeer chose to mostly reflect what he saw, as lovely as it was. He did not go much beyond that. [This is like and the problem with photography, for example.]

Ask yourself "what were his metaphysical value judgments" -- his choices of subject and composition. They weren�t bad. They weren�t ugly. They were nice, sweet, pretty, quaint, and sometimes terribly beautiful. But what about "exciting", "heroic", "inspiring", "idealistic", �passionate�. There is very little of that.

This is why I think Girl with Pearl Earring is so admired more often than most of his other work. It is enigmatic. Like the Mona Lisa there is something there to be understood. What is it? This is the transcendence that his other work lacks. It is wonderful what a beautiful face can do�.

Anyway, compare the majority of Vermeer's work to say the masters before him: Botecelli or the Sistine Chapel. There is something different. I call it imagination and even ego.

What happened to that spirit of the Renaissance that disappeared in Vermeer. Why did he choose to go in nearly the opposite direction? That is the problem.

--I don�t think it is a matter of satisfying Objectivist critics. That�s something of a cop out, Jonathan! This is and should be a matter of satisfying any rational being, as logically we should all strive for and seek out greatness. This can be fully identified. It is those irreplaceable sparks! Those sparks will never be a woman pouring water from a jug.

Cheers.

PS Post Moderns are "fucking morons" because they KNOW BETTER. Po-Mo art is devoid of meaning BY DEFINITION. They have evidence starring them in them in the face every second of the day that their philosophy is wrong and they CHOOSE to ignore it. There is no excuse. They are lame at best and rotten at the worst. Mostly rotting though.

Post 96

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 4:00pm

Rich, yes you are correct throughout history there have been all manner of "fucking morons". But I don't think that any group of intellectuals deserves that distinction more then the academic peddlers of postmodernism who make up the intellectual establishment of university departments across America and Europe. That group deserves to be called every profane epithet that can be thown at them for just the reasons Marnee described in her last post.

And call me as many names as you like. I know you don't like me very much, but I think that my responses to the nonsense that you spout daily on this website are well deserved. This is an Objectivist site. If you want to talk smack about Objectivists, or peddle your religous beliefs or defend postmodernists or post meaningless trash I'm sure there are other websites that will better suit your needs.

- Jason

Post 97

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 6:06pm

Jonathan-

I'd love to hear what George, Marvin, Jody or Jason (or anyone else who might feel attacked, insulted, or psychoanalyzed by possibly being suspected of "Objecti-blindness") might think of Rand's view that Vermeer's subjects were "folks next door to kitchens," and that they reveal that Vermeer suffered from an "inner conflict" which, though "similar, but less offensive" than Dali's, led him to combine his brilliant clarity of style with "the bleak metaphysics of Naturalism." Do you agree with her? Or do you think that she was being insulting and inappropriately psychoanalytical?

Ever hear people say that it takes less effort to smile than it does to frown? Well it takes zero effort to be completely apathetic, and that is how I feel about Vermeers works. He illicits no psycho-epistemological response from me. Never cared for him long before I read Rand, and I did not pay much attention to what she said directly about him, though I would probably agree with her assessment of the Naturalism in the work. I have about as much interest in them as I do of watching the middle=aged neighbor across the way pour water into a glass. Do I think he suffered from an "inner conflict"? See the apathetic part above. I have not cared to look at his entire portfolio that closely. Ask Ayn. I can't speculate on how closely she examined his works and his life.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 12/12, 6:07pm)

Post 98

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 6:17pm

Thanks for your post, Marnee, but I really don't think that it answers my question, which was how the subjects of ~serenity, contemplation and other inwardly-directed states~ might be depicted properly by a Romantic Realist artist (in a way which would not allow a Randian ideologue to mistake the subject as the folks next door*). Your desire to see in art the things that you listed completely ignores the nature of the hypothetical's chosen subject matter -- images of exciting heroes being enigmatically inspiring and idealistically passionate tend to convey an impression that is the ~opposite of calm, private meditation~. It's as if I had asked how one should visually portray an intimate whisper, and you answered that it's really great when people speak loudly.

Do you believe that peaceful inner reflection is an inappropriate subject of Romantic Realist art?

J

* For example, if I look at Bryan Larsen's _Young Builder_ I might be inclined to be rather Randian and declare that I see nothing but a commonly dressed, average little girl-next-door playing with blocks in an average office building, that the image implies, if anything, that mankind is childishly immature, that any attempts man might make at grand achievements are just futile little children's games, and that Larsen's choice of such subject matter implies that he has some serious mental problems and crippling inner conflicts. I might look at his _Winter Evening_ and accurately assert that there's nothing more heroic about the character in the painting than any of Vermeer's. I might look at his _Motive Force_ and see a disease-spreading whore (she's apparently hanging around down by the railroad tracks, wearing nice shoes and showing a lot of leg to attract customers). _Vantage Point_? Pretty yokel sitting barefoot on a parking ramp. _Composition_? Troubled average office drone. _A Moment's Pause_? Typical, everyday, plain Jane secretary with nothing to do. Etc., etc., etc.
(Edited by Jonathan
on 12/12, 6:59pm)

Post 99

Monday, December 12, 2005 - 9:10pm