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 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 160

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich, you have never seen that side of me. Ask George Cordero what he thinks of it, though I keep telling himI am only being kind.

Michael


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 161

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

What seems to have set you off is my having mentioned that I've read art criticism which used the term "romantic" to mean "dramatic, idealized, artificial." I have no idea why, but even after Calopteryx and Ellen pointed out that "artificial" has meanings other than the one that you insist on limiting it to, you remained insulted and angry, and you selectively quoted what you apparently thought were only the most negative aspects of the definition of "artificial." But let's look at that. The definition that you posted used the word "contrived" a couple of times. "Contrived" seems pretty negative at first glance, but look at some of its possible meanings: "Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural [as in not naturalist]; to plan with cleverness or ingenuity; to devise." ~That~ is the context in which critics have used "romantic" as synonymous with "artificial" -- your Icarus Landing is not a spontaneous scene that would occur in nature; the plot of Atlas Shrugged was planned, calculated and devised with cleverness and ingenuity.

And contrary to your wild speculation, I'm not "getting even" because I've been hurt by Rand and Romantics. I love Rand's art (I thought I had already mentioned that on this thread). I enjoy quite a lot of ~your~ romantic work. ~I~ paint and sculpt romantic pieces.

Now, can we get back to the discussion? Do you have anything to offer in response to your opponents' positions on this thread other than huffy indignation and pronouncements of the unmatched grandness of your superlatively functioning soul? If you disagree with my main points, do you have any actual ~arguments~ against them? Can you refute the position that Vermeer was not a Naturalist ~by Rand's definition of Naturalism~? Can you demonstrate that Vermeer's characters are shown as not pursuing values and that his paintings represent despair, defeat, anti-value and anti-volitional orientations? Please, start with The Astronomer, The Geographer and The Allegory of Painting.

In regard to the idea that I "ain't got no respect," you wrote,
"I would be very cruel if I went into any detail."

I agree with Rich. We're all big boys and girls here, so please, say what's on your mind. Let it out. I would love to discover what you think you've learned about me, Rich and Ellen, and how you've learned it by looking at a single work of art that Rich posted and that I haven't commented on.

J


(Edited by Jonathan
on 12/21, 12:20pm)


Post 162

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

I believe the painting is called simply "Desnudo." I'd forgotten myself what it was named; I always just call it "The Capuletti Nude," as if he'd done only ONE nude. That one is "the" nude in my books. Some while ago there was a discussion of the painting on Atlantis II, and Brant Gaede found the name of it and posted a link. Jonathan then found a link to a better reproduction. If I have time later, I'll see if I can find the links.

There's also another painting by the same title. The one in question is the woman kneeling with her arms behind her back -- I'd say, and others agreed, though there was one dissenting vote -- obviously bound behind her back. In the lower right is a crystal. At the showing, some young guy was trying to find out from Capuletti *why* he'd put the crystal there. Much to this kid's frustration, Capuletti wasn't informative beyond, "It seemed right."

Ellen

___

Post 163

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's a link to the better image that I had found:

http://static.flickr.com/42/76030016_b19f359401_o.jpg

If you're interested in seeing other works by Capuletti, visit these sites:

http://www.capuletti.com/recently_sold.htm

http://www.papertig.com/cpmenu.htm

I've lost the link to the second Desnudo, but I thought Brant was going to buy a print of it, so maybe he has something he can post?

Best,
J

Post 164

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
the unmatched grandness of your superlatively functioning soul
 
I got put under the cop-light the last time I used the word "soul." I believe it is generally regarded as one of them fightin' words round hyeah.

rde
You gotta watch that shit.


Post 165

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

Apart from "Desnudo," there is one more Capuletti painting that has a Randian history, "Not Guilty." It shows the back of a female nude, looking toward the New York skyline from the Sandy Hook nude beach (in NJ, at the entrance to NY Harbor, across the bay from the City.) The story I've heard was that Capuletti was involved in the famous protest against Christianist attempts to forbid nudism there; someone close to Ayn Rand (rumors differ as to exactly who) had a copy of "Not Guilty" and displayed it together with copies of "Desnudo" and of a portrait of Rand.


Post 166

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
the unmatched grandness of your superlatively functioning soul
 
I got put under the cop-light the last time I used the word "soul." I believe it is generally regarded as one of them fightin' words round hyeah. But I must say, that is a dandy turn of phrase. I have every intention of making some ill use of it.

rde
You gotta watch that shit.


Post 167

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re "Not Guilty," referred to by Adam in post 165 and by me
in post 157, prints of that were sold by the Book Service.
For a time, it seemed that "every" Objectivist in New York City
had a copy of the print. We also have a copy of it.
My husband likes it better than I do. I've always been
bothered by the flaws in the anatomy (Capuletti sometimes
had his troubles with details of anatomy). The way the
fingers are laced isn't quite accurate, and there's a slight
"roaching" of the spine, and the right leg near the ankle
is wrong. These details "leap out" at me, and interfere
with my enjoyment of the features of the painting which I
like, predominantly the way he did the stone.

Adam, are you sure Capuletti himself was involved in a protest
about the nude beach? What's the date? (Was it when he was
taking some art courses in New York? I think he mostly
lived in Paris.)

Ellen

Post 168

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the links, Jonathan.

To repeat: The eyes are "buried" in the reproduction. In the real thing,
they're luminous, the lustrous brown irises clearly delineated, and
powerfully attention-getting. (My own photo is much better in capturing
the detail of the eyes.)

Also the skin tone just doesn't come through well in photographs.
The actual hue is dusky alabaster and has a quality of living marble.

ES


___

Post 169

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's Ayn Rand for sure. I would have recognized the face even if I had not read Ellen Stuttle's info on the work. She would have loved to have had that body, I'm also sure.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 170

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan: "...contrived...artificial...grandness of your superlatively functioning soul..."
I recently bought a book of Wilde’s witticisms. They don’t much appeal to me as cleaver as they are. Lindsay is also clever at put downs. In truth, I am not interested in that. I said we are not on the same page. It wasn’t a put down but rather an observation. And I still see that you don’t have respect.
Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 12/21, 7:11pm)


Post 171

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen,

I don't remember the chronology, but there were always many art students, artists (some actually painting or sketching) and especially models at Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook was once a shore artillery base defending the entrance to the NY harbor, and the woman in "Not Guilty" is standing at the edge one of the gun platforms there.

There is another Capuletti painting with a very similar composition and model, but with the woman looking at a Dutch canal (also painted by van Gogh) instead of NY harbor. I don't know the connection, but at about the same time with the famous anti-nudity arrests at Sandy Hook, all anti-nudity laws were repealed in the Netherlands.



Post 172

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 1:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam, you wrote:

<< [Quote] "Ellen,

"I don't remember the chronology, but there were always many art students, artists (some actually painting or sketching) and especially models at Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook was once a shore artillery base defending the entrance to the NY harbor, and the woman in "Not Guilty" is standing at the edge one of the gun platforms there.

"There is another Capuletti painting with a very similar composition and model, but with the woman looking at a Dutch canal (also painted by van Gogh) instead of NY harbor. I don't know the connection, but at about the same time with the famous anti-nudity arrests at Sandy Hook, all anti-nudity laws were repealed in the Netherlands." >>
[end Quote]

Hmm. Possibly you're right about his being personally involved in the demonstrations, but the chronology isn't seeming plausible to me, unless those demonstrations occurred during a visit of his to New York post circa '66 (which is when Rand wrote her article about him). And by then he was already past his student years.

(Jonathan, can you help? Do you have a date for the "Not Guilty" painting?)

As to the model: it's Pilar (his wife), unmistakably if one has seen a large percentage of his work. She was his constant model. I'm not sure what painting you're talking about re the "Dutch canal." (That particular description isn't ringing a bell.)

Ellen

[Spelling of "Pilar" corrected.]
___



(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 12/22, 4:03pm)


Post 173

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen,

Here are copies of "Not Guilty" and "El Canal:"




Post 174

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"(Jonathan, can you help? Do you have a date for the "Not Guilty" painting?)"

Capuletti.com lists it as 1967.

J

Post 175

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The resolution of the pictures is too low to judge the quality of the painting, but even these low-resolution pictures show a lack of technique. The perspective in "Not Guilty" is obviously incorrect. I've drawn a few lines along the paving stones to determine the vanishing point. It turns out that there are many different vanishing points, and most of them are far too high. The left leg also seems to hover in the air, which was probably not the intention of the artist.

 http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c337/calopteryx/NotGuiltywithlines.jpg


Post 176

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Some miscellaneous links and comments re Capuletti.

The Canal was painted in 1966.

It's the left ankle, not the right, as I earlier
wrote, which is anatomically wrong in "Not Guilty."

I've been misspelling his wife's name; it only has one "l":
Pilar.

Just this Thanksgiving I heard from one of the two friends
who always visit us for Thanksgiving that Capuletti had left
Pilar toward the end of his life. On a Spanish website linked
from the Aristos site, I found what looks like confirmation of
this, near as I can tell from the Spanish. Is anyone here
fluent enough in Spanish to translate the following paragraph?
(The last two sentences refer to Capuletti's untimely death.
Do they say what he died of? I've previously been told,
of a heart attack.)

"En 1973 y tras una época de desavenencias con su mujer,
Capuletti abandona su casa de Mairena y se marcha con su
nueva y joven compañera Iris Henrich. Con ella tuvo una hija,
Iris-Desirée. Finalmente, en un viaje a Alemania, muere
inesperadamente debido a una disnea, en septiembre de 1976.
Fue enterrado en el cementerio de Walluf."


Here are some links which give a partial idea of various
themes in his work.


http://www.capuletti.com/Images/la_paleta.jpg

(That's interesting to compare to Desnudo)


http://www.capuletti.com/images/La_lieutenance_du_Port_Honfleur.jpg

(That's so untypical I wouldn't recognize it as a Capuletti;
probably it's from his student years.)


http://www.capuletti.com/images/PleinSoleil_Capuletti.jpg

(A woman seated before a mirror in a landscape of desert
rock formations, seeing as the reflection in the mirror
an image like a photographic negative. He did a number
of paintings in which the person is seeing something other
than what the person is looking at, e.g., The Temptation
of Don Diego, in which Don Diego is looking at a woman
who's baring her breasts and he's painting a religious
abstract symbol which has a rough isomorphism to the
woman's body. I like that painting a lot; but I
couldn't find a link to it.)


http://www.capuletti.com/images/LeVentDuSud_Capuletti_litho.jpg

(He did a great many things of this type -- three robed
female figures, often with jugs on their heads. But usually
the painting is more colorful than this one; this one is
pale.)


http://www.mayrena.com/Historia/SPM5%20Capuletti.htm

(That link is to the Spanish site from which I copied
the quote above. It has three reproductions: one of
his strikingly dramatic paintings, a painting with
echoes of Desnudo, and a bullfight drawing.)

Ellen


___

Post 177

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Calopteryx Splendens writes (and graphically demonstrates) that:

"The perspective in 'Not Guilty' is obviously incorrect. "

That's interesting. There's always been something about
the positioning which has seemed "fakey" to me. But I don't
know enough about the technicalities of painting to have
figured out what it is. Maybe it's the perspective being off.

ES

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 178

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 10:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Torres & Kamhi on "Romantic Realism"

-

On an Aristos webpage* providing some information
about Capuletti, Lou Torres refers in passing to the term
"Romantic Realism" as applied by Objectivists -- or, rather,
in his view, as in mine and Jonathan's, misapplied -- to the
visual arts. The context is his listing of Quent Cordair Fine Art
as a source for "a few limited edition prints and other examples
of Capuletti's work, among many items by other artists."

* URL:

http://www.aristos.org/capulett.htm

Torres continues:

"(The gallery unfortunately labels the work it carries
as contemporary "Romantic Realism," a term long misapplied
by Objectivists to the visual arts--based on Rand's
characterization of herself as a 'Romantic Realist' writer,
in her essay 'The Goal of My Writing.' For a discussion
of Rand's concept of 'Romanticism,' see What Art Is:
The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand, 31-33.)

Following up on that reference...here's the passage cited:


EXCERPT-

[All ellipses in original.]


Romanticiam and Naturalism

To elucidate her view that "the palce of ethics in any given
work of art" depends on the metaphysical view of the artist,
Rand briefly introduces two concepts--Romanticism and Naturalism.
These concepts figure prominently in her personal esthetic of
literature but are misleading in the context of her theory
of art, and have led to much confusion in the meager Objectivist
literature on her esthetics. (23) Her analysis of these concepts--
both in "The Psycho-Espistemology of Art" and in an essay she wrote
four years later, "What Is Romanticiam?" (as well as in several
other essays reprinted in The Romantic Manifesto)--is almost
exclusively in terms of fiction and drama, and she fails to
indicate how her analysis would apply to other art forms.

Rand argues as follows: If an artist believes that man possesses
volition, his work will be value-oriented; this is the essence of
*Romanticism*. If, on the other hand, an artist is a determinist,
holding that human life is controlled by external forces, his work
will have an "anti-value" focus; Rand identifies this approach with
*Naturalism*. Romantic art, according to Rand, projects "the values
man *is to seek*" and presents "the concretized vision of the life
he *is to achieve*." (23, emphasis ours) In contrast, Naturalistic
art "assert[s] that man's efforts are futile" and presents "the
concretized vision of defeat and despair as his ultimate fate."

Rand's initial focus on the concept of value-orientation as a
defining characteristic of Romanticism is particularly confusing
in the context of her theory of art. As she argues elsewhere,
*all* art (not just Romantic art), necessarily involves values:
"It is inconceivable to have an art divorced from values....
Values cannot be separated from any human activity....It is
impossible...to write a book [for example] without some kind of
selectivity....Every time a man has to exercise a choice,
he is directed by some kind of values, conscious or not."

Delving further into the question in the essay entitled "What Is
Romanticism?," Rand offers the following definition: "*Romanticism
is a category of art based on the recognition of the principle that
man possesses the faculty of volition*." (99, emphasis ours)
Although she employs the generic term "art" in this definition,
her subsequent argument explicitly refers only to "the field of
literature." (99ff.) Moreover, the attributes she regards as
*defining* Romanticism are again specific to fiction and drama
and cannot be validly generalized to other art forms. It is clear
that by the phrase "recognition of the principle that man possesses
the faculty of volition," Rand does not mean simply that the artist
exercises volition during the creative process. As we have just
noted, *all* art-making, in her view, entails volition. What she
means instead is that the principle of volition is objectified
in the art work itself. As Rand herself argued in another context,
the only way the principle of volition can be fully and clearly
objectified is through the presentation of characters engaged in
the choice and pursuit of values over time; that is, through their
purposeful, on-going actions to gain or to keep their values
in the face of obstacles or conflicts, whether internal or
external. The only art forms in which that principle can be
concretized are narrative and dramatic literature--as Peikoff's
previously [on pg. 30] quoted remarks on the "model-building
aspect" of art confirm.

Notwithstanding her numerous references to Romantic "art,"
Rand offers few clues as to what she considers to be the defining
attributes of Romanticism in the visual arts or music. Those she
does offer bear no relation to her own definition of Romantic art
in terms of the "principle of volition." In her early essay
"The Goal of My Writing," for example, she cites a scene from
*The Fountainhead* in which the architect-protagonist Howard
Roark explains to the sculptor Steven Mallory that he wants
Mallory to create a sculpture for the Stoddard Temple because
his figures "have a magnificent respect for the human being"
and represent "the heroic in man." Rand explains that,
in this passage, she "was consciously and deliberately stating
the essential goal of [her] own work" as a "Romantic Realist." (168)
But surely one could attribute "respect for the human being" and a
sense of "the heroic in man" to any number of works predating the
nineteenth century--for example, various classical Greek sculptures,
Renaissance works such as Michelangelo's *David*, or numerous
figures by Bernini and other Baroque sculptors, to cite but a
few. These works could not properly be termed "Romantic,"
however, since Romanticism was an historical phenomenon,
a product of a unique set of forces in the Western world of
the nineteenth century, as Rand herself emphasizes.

Rand's only other reference to Romanticism in the visual arts occurs
in the context of her criticism of the "virulently intense antagonism
of today's esthetic spokesmen to any manifestation of the Romantic
premise in art." (102) She argues not only that they resent plot
structure in literature for its "implicit premise of volition
(and, therefore, of moral values)" but also that


[t]he same reaction, for the same subconscious reason,
is evoked by such elements as heroes or happy endings
or the triumph of virtue, or, in the visual arts,
beauty. Physical beauty is not a moral or volitional
issue--but the *choice* to paint a beautiful human being
rather than an ugly one, implies the existence of
volition: of choice, standards, values. [102, emphasis
in original]


Rand's attribution of "the *choice* to paint a beautiful human
being rather than an ugly one" to "the Romantic premise [of volition]
in art" is mistaken on several counts, however. Most obvious is
that artists long before the Romantic era chose to paint beautiful
subjects. More troubling, however, is Rand's apparent implication
that the choice to paint a physically *ugly* human being necessarily
indicates an *absence* of volition or values. She fails to consider
how the individual artist's context and hierarchy of values might
affect the significance of his depiction of beauty or ugliness
in a given painting. Consider, for example, the insightful
portraits Velazques (1599-1660) painted of the dwarfs of the
Spanish court. Although he realistically depicted their physical
deformity, that aspect is transcended by the depths of character
he captured in each subject--qualities ranging from the serene
confidence of his *Don Diego de Acedo* to the fierce pride
of his *Don Sebastian de Morra*. Here, as elsewhere, meaning
in art resides not merely in the ostensible subject portrayed
but, more crucially, in *how* it is portrayed--a principle
Rand herself recognizes in other contexts (see Chapter 3).

END EXCERPT-



Speaking of her recognizing in other contexts the issue
of *how* a subject is portrayed, a remark she made about
Capuletti's drawings of Flamenco performers is a case
in point.

She writes in her article "Capuletti," *The Objectivist*,
December 1966, pg. 14:

"A different aspect of Capuletti's art, yet the same basic
principle, is shown in the eight portraits of Flamenco
performers (individual artists within a traditional Spanish
school of folk music and singing [and dancing - ES]).
These are a brilliant display of visual characterization,
done in black and white tempera, each presenting the essence
of a personality by means of a face and two hands, with a
mere suggestion of the body. The subjects are aging,
portly, physically unattractive men and women--
yet, catching them in action, Capuletti brings out their
remarkable vitality, their purposeful drive and, above all,
their *dignity*. Degas managed to make ballerinas look
awkward and flat-footed; Capuletti makes middle-aged
peasants look significant and imposing. Such is his
view of man."


The Flamenco drawings can be found at:


http://papertig.com/cpmenu.htm


Ellen


___

Post 179

Friday, December 23, 2005 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can someone tell me how I can get a picture in a message (instead of a link), such as Adam did with his Capuletti pictures? I tried the <img src> tag, but that doesn't work, and I don't see a "picture"button...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.