RoR: Forum

As in, "I am not".

Yes, as in "I am not." What makes you an artist Rich?

Yet you seem to think you have authority to tell us how to be.

No Rich, I think you are confusing me with yourself. I said that I would be pissed about someone telling me how I AM, which you were doing when speaking for "artists".

I do not speak for all artists, but I am very, very confident. Are you?

Yes Rich, I am confindent. So confident that I can answer questions directly without hiding behind murky language.

Post 121

Friday, December 16, 2005 - 8:37pm

Jody wants me to whip out the resume:

Yes, as in "I am not." What makes you an artist Rich?

Probably what makes you not one. I chose to be one, and worked at that. We all get into different things, I just happened to turn out as an artist, I suppose. I have credentials, but really, do we have to get down to you show me yours I'll show you mine? Rather unfecthing, don't you think?

No Rich, I think you are confusing me with yourself. I said that I would be pissed about someone telling me how I AM, which you were doing when speaking for "artists".

And that would matter why? I will speak on behalf of artists, when asked. It's a big responsibility, and I don't care for it, but, if need be. What, do you want me to bring some in, or something? How many? But, see, then each one would have to go through your painful evaluation process, to determine if they are worthy of being called one. It's a wasted exercise. More woulda coulda shoulda. You're not one, which is fine, but that means you can't speak from that perspective. No more so than I can for whatever you do by profession. It's rude, and it makes one look, well...

rde
No, put away the ruler, I don't measure things like that side by side, it's a biohazard.

Post 122

Friday, December 16, 2005 - 8:46pm

I AM an artist Rich. Why? Because I choose to call myself such. This is how much credence YOU have given to the concept "artist". Hell, I've written poems for the past 15 years or so, and short stories, so that's right, I'm a fucking artist!

Anyway Rich, there is an entire forum dedicated to you, and I believe some questions that were directed at you over there remain unanswered, so let's keep this thread going in a productive direction.

Post 123

Friday, December 16, 2005 - 10:04pm

Ellen: "You see, you
answered in terms of "yes" or "no.""
Your welcome to pigeonhole me on something I have no idea what your talking about, be explicit please.
"The answer I'd have
liked to have gotten would have been along the lines that
you don't consider the categorization of "senses of life"
into benevolent/malevolent meaningful."

But, of course, "sense of life", benevolence and malevolence are quite meaningful. From both a personal interaction with art and from a philosophical one. You don�t give examples. John Cage, Francis Bacon, Jenny Saville, Merce Cunningham, have fairly horrific bodies of work. I think all of them serious, and good and great artists�but I am also disgusted by them, in how I personally enjoy art and from what I glean is their philosophical message.
Then there are lots of artists with straightforward subject matters like landscapes, still lifes, portraits of people in unassuming poses, etc. What someone enjoys here or their significance can be about their technical innovations, like the French Impressionists. Or Vermeer for that matter. I also included many of my works in this area.
Romantics for me are more about a type than period, Liberty Leading the People, Goya, the David, Danae of Rembrandt, and some of my major works like Denouement and Icarus Landing. If you like you can visit Brett Holverstott�s archive of my work, one of the largest of a living artist on the net, http://newberryarchive.com/,
I have experience in both naturalism and romanticism and have no problem with either and I use whatever tools I can to express whatever I want to. But the naturalistic pieces I work on for short periods of time, I get bored out of my mind if I invest too much time in them, though if they go quickly I absolutely love doing them. While with romantic pieces I will work on and savor for years at a time. I don�t mind calling a spade a spade but making out Vermeer to be a Romantic is absurd and a disservice to ideas and to artists.
I tried to comment earlier that grand and romantic themes feel significant different internally and in what is the right method to bring them about. Perhaps it�s the same difference between a Callas Norma and someone singing a baroque sacred piece. Perhaps its due to a level of functioning, but I think superlative innovative technical skill and huge amount of time should be matched by grand subject�if you will, like an extremely elevated paring of great food with great wines. Why the hell would you have a superb sophisticated wine with Mc Donalds? Now if someone as only ordinary skill I don�t see how they can do much better then make big Macs.
Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 12/16, 10:08pm)

Post 124

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 1:23am

Michael, there was no attempt to "pigeonhole" you, only to find out where you're coming from. From a place, it seems to me, which partly accepts Rand's esthetic theories and partly doesn't. As to examples, of course I won't give examples of a categorization in which I see no meaningfulness. What I think is that as soon as people start trying to categorize art in the classification schema Rand used, they're introducting considerations that get in the way of relating to the art work.

You didn't answer about whether or not "romantic" and "naturalist" are used by art historians. (I'm unaware of their being used, but I haven't much familiarity with art-history language. And as I said earlier, I'm wondering if what Jonathan is trying to point out is that importing that terminology from literary criticism is a misimportation. But I'm not sure if that's what he's driving at.)

Ellen

___

Post 125

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 7:04am

Ellen,
I have a dear friend and important collector who told me that if strangers, or anyone else for that matter, don�t "get" me or rise up to meet me within ten minutes I should move on. I have begun to implement his advice.
Micahel

Post 126

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 8:23am

I AM an artist Rich. Why? Because I choose to call myself such. This is how much credence YOU have given to the concept "artist". Hell, I've written poems for the past 15 years or so, and short stories, so that's right, I'm a fucking artist!

What did you do with them?

Yes, as in "I am not."

So, which is it, then?

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/17, 8:24am)

Post 127

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 10:14am

P.S. I have been using the word "naturalism" but I use it interchangeably with realism or representational or figurative or objective art�pretty much anything straightforward without stylized thematic content.

Post 128

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 8:17pm

Ellen,

In the visual arts, "Romantic" and "Naturalist" (or Realist) refer to specific movements or styles of specific periods, and, in my experience, they're rarely used as a primary means of classification outside of those periods. I think most critics and historians wouldn't share Rand's notion of the essential contrast between the two, or the value she placed on that contrast, and would use them (if they were to use them in reference to art outside of the periods mentioned above) to mean something more general like "dramatic, idealized, artificial" vs "gritty, matter-of-fact, genuine."

As I understand it, Realism was a visual arts movement based on views which resembled Rand's concept of Naturalism in that its advocates rejected Romanticism's idealized treatment of subjects, but differed from Rand's view in that defeat, despair, and anti-volitional orientations were not defining characteristics of their concept of realism/naturalism. So, coming from a non-Randian background, a critic looking at a contemporary image of, say, the despair of poverty, would have no reason to assume that it would immediately fall under his notion of naturalism. He'd be focused on all aspects of the art work (including its style, which he might even see as romantic) and on contemplating the work's meaning, which in this example, he might see as something involving the value of sympathy or social justice. A stereotypical Randian, on the other hand, ~would~ immediately classify it as naturalism, and might then discover little more than yet another harmful denial of volition.

And, yes, I was not accepting Rand's break-down, but pointing out that by her definition, Vermeer is not a Naturalist. There are many aspects of not only Objectivist literary theory, but Objectivist Esthetics in general which I think are misimportations, misidentifications, misapplications and a whole bunch of other mis- things when it comes to the visual arts. So I'm in a similar position to your view of Michael's: I'm in a place which "partly accepts Rand's esthetic theories and partly doesn't" (and obviously Michael and I have major differences on the "accepts" and "doesn't" particulars).

Best,
J

(Edited by Jonathan
on 12/18, 2:31am)

Post 129

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:45am

Jonathan wrote: "I think most critics and historians wouldn't share Rand's notion of the essential contrast between the two [Romantic and Naturalist], or the value she placed on that contrast, and would use them (if they were to use them in reference to art outside of the periods mentioned above) to mean something more general like "dramatic, idealized, artificial" vs "gritty, matter-of-fact, genuine."" Accent mine.

I have always enjoyed Jonathan�s posts even when they have annoyed me, like a mosquito�s buzz, mainly because of his interest in art. Also I found his style to be one of provocation�not something really to argue about or get to the truth of. But the sad thing for me is that I am not getting anything from them; indeed, I am finding something insulting in them, as in the above quote.

Jonathan is making one point in the above: Romanticism is artificial. The shame is that the way he does it, by quoting phantoms by osmosis, makes it impossible to actually communicate. Are Delecroix, Hugo, Rachmaninoff, artificial? Is it Rand? Is it me? A comic book hero? Or crying kittens and puppies painted on black velvet? Who is saying these things and in reference to what?

It is as if Rand or Romanticists have personally hurt you and your getting back at them but notably without responsibility of reason and clarity. I think a good question for your overall stance is "why"?

Michael

Post 130

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:04pm

Michael:

Jonathan is making one point in the above: Romanticism is artificial. The shame is that the way he does it, by quoting phantoms by osmosis, makes it impossible to actually communicate. Are Delecroix, Hugo, Rachmaninoff, artificial? Is it Rand? Is it me? A comic book hero? Or crying kittens and puppies painted on black velvet? Who is saying these things and in reference to what?

Strange that you get so upset about the term "artificial". Rand would have found it a compliment. From "We the Living":

"How beautiful!" said Lydia, looking at a stage setting. "It's almost real.
"How beautiful!" said Kira, looking at a landscape. "It's almost artificial."

It is obvious that it is just the artificial that Rand valued in art.

Post 131

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 1:00pm

And that is the oddity - since humans are as much a natural part of the enviroment as any other living organism, and what they do is as much a naturalness as any other living organism, then the so-called 'artificial' is actually a natural... so to decry the artificial is to decry the human - that is, to be in effect anti-human, a human hater...

Post 132

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 1:02pm

Jonathan,

Thanks for your reply. That's informative, and it confirms
what I suspected, both as to the way the terms "romantic"
and "naturalist" would be used in art history (I wasn't sure if
they were used there, but suspected that they'd be used as you
indicate if they were used), and as to what you were getting at
re Vermeer (that he wouldn't classify as a "Naturalist" by
Rand's definition).

From what you describe --that "'Romantic' and 'Naturalist'
(or Realist) refer to specific movements or styles of specific
periods, and, in [your] experience, they're rarely used as a
primary means of classification outside of those periods" --
the situation is, then, quite similar to that in literary
criticism and musicology. (Although in musicology, as I
previously indicated, there isn't a "Naturalist" contrast
to "Romantic." Instead the "Romantic" style emerged from
the "Classical" style, with Beethoven being considered a
transition -- and of course with both styles being contrasted
to those of other periods.)

Re your comment:

"I think most critics and historians wouldn't share Rand's
notion of the essential contrast between the two, or the value
she placed on that contrast, and would use them (if they were
to use them in reference to art outside of the periods mentioned
above) to mean something more general like 'dramatic, idealized,
artificial' vs 'gritty, matter-of-fact, genuine.'"

Likewise in literary criticism and musicology as to the essential
meaning and the value placed on the contrast, and likewise as to
the general meaning of the contrast between "Naturalist" and
"Romantic" in literary criticism. (In music, the contrast is
between freerer-flowing form and attempt at expression of personal
emotion -- Romantic -- and the stricter-in-form and less "personal"
Classical style. A good friend of mine, an extremely talented
pianist who was for years -- he's emeritus now -- on the faculty
at the Hartt school and who throughout his career has given many
recitals, and also various public lectures on music history,
described the difference thus: "If you consider the shapes of
a square and a heart, with the Classical style the heart is
inscribed inside the square, whereas with the Romantic style
the square is inscribed inside the heart." In other words,
the difference is in emphasis and in what's most immediately
noticeable.)

Michael objected to the word "artificial" in your description
of "Romantic," but I think that that word choice is precise as
to the meaning of the term when used in literary criticism.
For instance, the sorts of plot devices which are employed in
such books as *The Three Musketeers* and *The Count of
Monte-Cristo* can be described as "artifical" in the sense
that the likelihood of various precise details in these
stories occurring is very small.

A question about some specific painters. We have a 1994
calendar titled "Romance of the Past." All the featured painters
are nineteenth century and probably English (in the case of
Alma-Tadema, definitely English). Here are the names:

Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema; Albert Joseph Moore; Frederick
Lord Leighton; George Frederick Watts; John William Waterhouse;
Dante Gabriel Rossetti.

Would these painters by described by art historians as
"Romantic" in style?

All of the paintings are very "pretty" -- regular-featured young
women and men, artfully posed, immaculately dressed, except in
the case of two of the paintings. Those two I think have a depth
of emotion which isn't present in the others: "Proserpine"
by Rossetti (a hint of dark broodingness in her expression;
also the tone palette of that painting is darker in general --
her hair is a dark brown bordering on black, and her garment a
deep blue); and "The Lady of Shalott" by John William Waterhouse.
That one has enough of a hint of the hauntedness of that Lady,
I every now and then look at it when I'm thinking of the
Tennyson poem. (Waterhouse portrays her in a white dress,
sitting in a canoe-like vessel which is draped with a tapestry
that's dragging in the water -- the scene is presumably just
when she's setting out on her fatal voyage.)

Best,

E

[spelling edit]
___

(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 12/18, 1:10pm)

Post 133

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 1:36pm

Speaking of "The Lady of Shalott," here's the last stanza:

"Who is this? and what is here?
And in the lighted palace near
Died the sound of royal cheer;
And they cross'd themselves for fear,
All the knights at Camelot:
But Lancelot mused a little space;
He said, 'She has a lovely face;
God in his mercy lend her grace,
The Lady of Shalott.'"

What a wonderful rapier twist, how much the poet
says in that final comment by Lancelot about the
futility of her fixation: he has no idea even
that it was he she was seeking.

ES

___

Post 134

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 7:49pm

artificial

adj 1: contrived by art rather than nature; "artificial flowers"; "artificial flavoring"; "an artificial diamond"; "artificial fibers"; "artificial sweeteners" [syn: unreal] [ant: natural] 2: artificially formal; "that artificial humility that her husband hated"; "contrived coyness"; "a stilted letter of acknowledgment"; "when people try to correct their speech they develop a stilted pronunciation" [syn: contrived, hokey, stilted] 3: not arising from natural growth or characterized by vital processes

Post 135

Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 8:54pm

hahahah, wow, this thread feels like I am smack-dab in the middle of an Ibsen play.

Post 136

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 8:48am

An interesting thing to consider in art history is that one of the great contributions of modernity (beginning with the Renaissance and later, more strongly, The Enlightenment) was the separation of art, science, and morals into discrete categories. In art, this had the impact of the subject change in painting, which prior to that was greatly concerned with religious subject matter. This was a main reason that landscape paintings, for instance, began to appear more frequently.

Post 137

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 9:59am

Not quite... the effect was a consequence of the millenium passing and nothing happening - landscapes and such still had very moralisticness to them, the major difference being that in the south of europe [Itally] there was belief in the changeability of man to a betterment, whereas in the north [Dutch] there was the view of man remaining as was after Adam's fall, but that because all was spared, was considered as of value to God and thus worthy of recording - especially landscapes, which were considered unsullied.

Post 138

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 10:42am

I was just talking about the broader picture. That a major accomplishement of modernity was to allow art, morals, and science operate independently. Prior to that, there was a more holistic view, which, while there is advantage to be had there, had a major downside, mainly the church running through everything.

Post 139

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 11:50am