RoR: Forum

Shit, hahahahaha, I should never post on online forums....but I almost really enjoyed the discussion---and I think Steve Reed probably named the issue best.

I am curious though about the different reactions towards this issue in art--many years ago, I thought of attaching to the backs of my paintings on a curse on anyone, i.e. art restorer doing anything more than cleaning. I have seen horrible jobs of restorations, in good faith, on great paintings---and I always felt it like the restorer was killing the life the painting. In the Uffizi, they had identical reds robes...the exact same color, on paintings that spanned over 100 years by different artists--the restoration on all those particular paintings was done at the same time, undoubtedly by the same art restorer--it brings out a level of disgust that is quite�ummm...strong.

When Michelangelo died, some sculptor got a hold of one of his unfinished works and had a go at it--the sculptor killed the flow of rhythm�fortunately that became obvious to whoever owned the work and they stopped him from continuing. I probably would have taken the chisel and chiseled him to death. :) hahahahaha

This sense, at least for me, is one of the many intense feelings/understandings I trust to see me though my life as an artist. I know if I took Steve W or Ted�s way, I would never have had the gumption to start a single painting.

(Edited by Newberry on 1/18, 9:49pm)

Post 41

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 9:59pm

Well, of course. Actual paint applied haphazardly to "restore" a painting is a blasphemy. I get incensed at that sort of thing all the time. But adding editorial comments in brackets on an on-line forum is hardly bookburning or Soviet style cut and paste redaction of actual printed books.

No actual works of art were harmed in the making of this thread.

Post 42

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 10:05pm

Ehrmann said, "...gracefully surrendering the things of youth." You argued about surrendering the spirit of youth. It is not on point. It marks a failure, also, to know how to read poetry. It isn't science, and it isn't philosophical exposition!
When Kipling said, "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you," he did not mean keep your head if and only if every single person around you is losing their head, otherwise, no comment!!
That sort of contentiousness is silly.

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 1/18, 10:16pm)

Post 43

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 10:07pm

What a load of crap.

You sell your "works of art", whatever the buyer does with them is no longer your business, they can wipe their ass with them if they like, your "artistic sensibilities" notwithstanding. Is this "sensitivity" stuff something you learn in "art marketing 101"? Steve Reed is a pretentious ass.

Post 44

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 10:08pm

Marty,
Nice rhythm and rhyme in your poem.

Post 45

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 10:09pm

Michael:

Just out of curiosity, what do you thing about remodeling the work of an architect? Of course, this immediately begs the question of whether architecture is art(!), but Rand thought that it was, so let's proceed on that assumption. Should the original architect always be consulted for any change or can another architect or designer be hired?

Frank Lloyd Wright designed his Usonian houses with the explicit idea that they could grow along with the changing needs of the family and many of them underwent additions which were often done by Wright or his apprentices. However, I have seen some butcher jobs done on these houses by others. Their heart may have been in the wright :-) place, but the understanding and skill was lacking. What should home owners do when their needs change?

Does architecture, as a utilitarian art, fall into a different category from fine art? Does the quality of the original architecture make a difference with regard to what an owner should and shouldn't do? Does the same distinction apply based upon the quality of a painting, a sculpture or a poem? Is a velvet painting of a seascape, purchased in Tijuana (and my father actually once purchased said item to the horror of my mother!) sacrosanct or can I add my own pink flamingo? :-)

I know I'm being a bit silly, but there is a serious question here.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 46

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 10:11pm

Mike:

I'm glad I'm no longer sensitive to finding an insult in every post!!! :-)

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 47

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 10:14pm

If art is nothing to you but the materials that go into it, wiping your--feet--on it is the differentia between you and those with "artistic sensibilities." But who is the ass in this picture?

Post 48

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 10:26pm

Jeff,
I have my limits. When simply talking about a poem is considered an insult I find it very hard not to simply tell someone to fuck off. But I didn't, did I? See, I'm trying to be nice. Most "art" is not very inspiring. Artists who do not inspire are often the most "sensitive".
(Edited by Mike Erickson on 1/19, 2:43pm)

Post 49

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 11:52pm

We have three different conversation going on.

A violation of rights involvement by either claiming someone else's property as their own or by damaging the property of another.
Aesthetic criticism of something
Emotional reactions to how others respond to a work of art.

Someone could look at Ed's revision and turn red in the face, and scream (emotional reaction) that they hate what he had done and shout that is the worst piece of shit they'd ever seen (criticism). But they shouldn't take out a knife and stab Ed, and most artists know that they can't carry the excuse of being an artist that far - so guess what... they control that impulse. Well, they also shouldn't call him a thief (rights violator), and if they wanted to they could control that impulse as well. Call someone a philistine, call their efforts crap, but don't call them a thief. That is all that I've been trying to say.

Post 50

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 12:22am

Jeff,

I think that architecture can be art and more. I don't know of many paintings that can give me the powerful feeling that the right building can. For me, my mind abstracts the essence - as if I were a painter and discarding the irrelevancies - the person walking by, the cars at the curb, the stain on the sidewalk, etc. And I don't know what it is that make it more but it has something to the human ingenuity and the pride in creating a functional thing. The building I love all have a kind of boldness about them - their designer wasn't apologizing or hiding his assertion. I can get that feeling looking at some boats, some planes, some bridges, etc.

Architecture seems different from other media - because many buildings, boats, planes just don't seem to be art - good or bad. Just a functional thing - whether it's design is pleasing or not (like a pattern in a rug might be pleasing or not). A painting and some buildings are clearly and boldly claiming to be art - and will be judged as good or bad in the sense of life reaction of every viewer.

That is just my reaction and clearly I'm just a layman in this area.

Your 'should' question is a different area. Clearly Objectivists go to property rights for the legal answer to whether or not someone 'should' be able to modify an architects work of art. Asking the question in any other context is kind of like asking shouldn't all people not be philistines and shouldn't they see the value in the beauty they propose to modify and immediately cease and desist? It is kind of like asking if we all shouldn't have a better sense of life - well, sure, but how to do that?

Post 51

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 3:17am

As usual, Steve gets to the heart of the matter. This is really one of the core point I was aiming for in my post. As we can see from this discussion, one man's philistine is another man's sage. I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 52

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 4:36am

Thanks, Marty!

I love your poem, even more than I love Desiderata. Someone once said that it's not so much a tragedy what men suffer, but what they miss. I have posted the quote somewhere here and have it somewhere in my personal notes. That quote really resonated with me. I believe it was Thomas Carlyle, but may be mistaken. Anyway, the point -- to elaborate (gosh, I hope this doesn't get me into trouble again!) -- is to not miss out on things in life and to not be a little, whiny, snot-nosed child when you experience suffering.

It's one of the wisest, value-based sentences I've ever read. Your poem captures its spirit.

Thank you.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/19, 4:36am)

Post 53

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 7:06am

Mike Erickson: "What a load of crap.

You sell your "works of art", whatever the buyer does with them is no longer your business, they can wipe their ass with them if they like, your "artistic sensibilities" notwithstanding. Is this "sensitivity" stuff something you learn in "art marketing 101"? "

No Mike, it doesn't work that way. I never thought of you as white trash before. When you buy art you are a guardian of that work, which shows a decent sense of life, morality, and class.

If you destroy art, you have no business among the living.

Post 54

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 8:16am

When you buy art you are a guardian of that work, which shows a decent sense of life, morality, and class.
...............

Well said - of course, by this, there is an implication that the art involved is life-affirming...

Post 55

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 9:22am

Hey Jeff,

"However, I have seen some butcher jobs done on these houses by others. Their heart may have been in the wright :-) place, but the understanding and skill was lacking."

"Butchered?" I think you pretty much understand that somehow a remodling should be sensitive to theme/style/feeling of the house or building, no?

"Does the quality of the original architecture make a difference with regard to what an owner should and shouldn't do?"

I don't think the Guggenheim should be remodled to change its essense--let another architect build is own fucking design. :)

"Does the same distinction apply based upon the quality of a painting, a sculpture or a poem? Is a velvet painting of a seascape, purchased in Tijuana (and my father actually once purchased said item to the horror of my mother!) sacrosanct or can I add my own pink flamingo? :-)

Maybe the artist was a starving 12 year old girl, or maybe just a simple person making something to the best of their ability--what value would you derive from adding your pink flamingo? Wouldn't you be a bit of an asshole for doing that? Or do you think it is right to ride roughshod over art and people?

Michael

Post 56

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 9:27am

I think the difference between what can be shown to be morally wrong and what can be shown to be legally wrong is being glossed over by some. Plagiarism in academic work, for example, is not legally wrong, but it sure is morally a theft!

Post 57

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 9:39am

Someone could look at Ed's revision and turn red in the face, and scream (emotional reaction) that they hate what he had done and shout that is the worst piece of shit they'd ever seen (criticism).

Steve,

You miss the point, yet again. Improvement or not is irrelevant to me...just write you own work. Let me know when you get this thought so I don't have to do variations on a repeated theme.

"...so guess what... they control that impulse. Well, they also shouldn't call him a thief (rights violator), and if they wanted to they could control that impulse as well."

Interesting that you bring up controlling impulses, you don't have background of repression do you? Or being a control freak? Freedom of impulses is what drives imagination and creativity, but that is beside the point (which follows below.)

Call someone a philistine, call their efforts crap, but don't call them a thief.

But again the effort was not what interests me, you don't confiscate the spirit of another person or art work, and again, there are exceptions depending on the art form, but poetry and painting are not among them.

Are you really a psychologist?

Curious,

Michael

Post 58

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:04am

Oh my, the voice from Mt. Olympus. Bow down mere mortals.

Is that what this has been about Michael? Delineating yourself from "white trash"? I never thought of you as an arrogant prick before.

Post 59

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:36am