RoR: Forum

The purpose of Art is for contemplation... as such, what kind of mind would care to have that Frida work on the wall to see and contemplate day after day - hardly one with much a positive sense of life... as a psychological study in therapy, yes, is of interest - but beyond, do question...

That a great point. I know I wouldn't own this particular painting, but I would hang other's of Kahlo's work (all in private collection). The only thing you can find of hers now for public display ARE the depressing, painful representations.

No where could I find, in my brief search, the glorious renderings I remember seeing somewhere years ago. I just remember some gorgeous fruit in them. I didn't spend a whole lot of time studying Kahlo, but I do know that she was most prolific in self portraits. Her world view paintings were far more happy, as I recall. In other words, I think she viewed her own life as wretched, (which it was) but she didn't view the world this way. I understand she had a very clever wit, and was very intellegent

." If Rand hadn't praised The Miracle Worker, I wouldn't be surprised to see such Objectivist zealots showing similar levels of compassion for the character of young Helen Keller ("God, what a stupid little twat that blind, deaf dingbat was! Such ailments are not proper subjects for life-affirming art. Rand's heroes didn't have such flaws, so including them in a work of art is a monstrous attack on all values." etc.).

Makes me wonder, Jonathan, but I think the criticism comes more from the utter lack of potential given to the subject, which I think is a sad waste as well. I wish I could have been privy to the old discussion, however.

Post 21

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 6:13pm

Kevin-
Your entire interpretation and evaluation of Kahlo is dependent upon knowing her biography(and reading between the brush strokes). I have not sussed my ideas out completely about this, but I tend to think of art as the New Criticism does of literature, and say that a work should stand on it's own, and convey it's meaning cleary without having to resort to footnotes. If someone proffers a work of art such as Kahlo's, then surely they can't fault us for being disgusted with it when we don't have the benefit of a biographer telling us what happened to her and giving an interpretation as to what "she really meant."

Post 22

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 6:13pm

Jonathan! Your always fun to read!

You wrote: "I think they could at least be seen as strong indications that Rand's art may have harmful, brain-washing effects on many people."

On a serious note, ok, I know your both having fun with objectivists and being serious, do you think Rand has made a contribution to aesthetic thought? If so, what? And do you think her fiction is artistically merited?

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 12/05, 6:45pm)

Post 23

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 6:49pm

Oh, Christ, Michael! Are you kidding here??:

On a serious note, ok, I know your both having fun with objectivists and being serious, do you think Rand as made a contribution to aesthetic thought? If so, what? And do you think her fiction is artistically merited?

Shit yeah! I NEVER would have had an ounce of interest in art if it wasn't for Rand!

When I first started reading her fiction (I started out with the non-fiction stuff), I complained to my senior Objectivist mentors about how dry and boring it was. Why the hell did she write on and on about the look of a building?? David Oyerly smiled and said, "You're missing the good stuff, girl! There's a whole bunch of amazing ideas written between the lines." He gave me examples, which I've forgotten, but all I know is that I started reading her fiction differently, paying a great deal of attention to the subtlety. I have never enjoyed reading so much in my life! Literature IS art! Because of this learned technique for "viewing," I started seeing "subtle ideas in everything having to do with creative efforts. To this day I still don't appreciate architecture, but pretty much everything else having to do with visual arts.

Post 24

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 6:58pm

Teresa, Teresa,

Your answering Jonathan's question. (Actually my question to Jonathan.)

Tsk, tsk,

Michael

Fun answer though.

(Edited by Newberry on 12/05, 6:59pm)

Post 25

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 7:03pm

Oh, well, you said "both of you" so I thought I'd include myself. :)

Post 26

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 7:06pm

As for my post 21, I don't mean to imply that an artist's life and biography should not, or would not influence the work, but that the sense he/she wishes to convey will be contained in the work itself, without the observer having to learn every detail of the artist's life to even have a vague clue.

Post 27

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:46pm

Teresa,

You wrote:

"In other words, I think she viewed her own life as wretched, (which it was) but she didn't view the world this way. I understand she had a very clever wit, and was very intellegent "

Did you know she was a Communist? She was married to Diego Rivera, the muralist equally known for the freshness of his aesthetic approach and for his pro-Soviet propaganda. She was also bonking "Leon Trotsky" on the side.

Hey, maybe this suggests a way to tear apart the modern Left: now that she is dead, get some disgruntled former associate to write a shabby expos� of her private life. Hmmm, this has possibilities. How's this for a working title: _The Passion of Frida Kahlo_?

;-)

-Bill

Post 28

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 10:49pm

Ah Jody,

Your entire interpretation and evaluation of Kahlo is dependent upon knowing her biography(and reading between the brush strokes).

I thought of that implication, but decided to let it stand as inessential to my point. (If I hunted down and qualified every last implication of what I wrote, I might never get around to posting!) I don't find my argument dependent upon the facts of her life, so much as conveniently illuminated by the facts of her life.

I agree with the New Criticism that the work should be able to stand on its own--with this qualification: I begin with the benevolent assumption that the artist was driven by a need to find meaning in her life and to express it through her art. The specific details of her biography are not necessary for me to find meaning in the work. Let's just say I extend to artists the benefit of the doubt born of my understanding of human psychology and the lives of artists. The hours of toil and money that any serious artist sacrifices for her art could surely be spent in some more purely stimulating amusement. The misunderstanding and disrespect the artist so often must endure tell me that no dedicated artist comes by her art easily or flippantly.

All that my interpretation really depends upon is that my individual experience have some grounded correlation to the subject matter of her painting. I have in my life felt like the column of my life was broken, that I've been bound, that I've been beyond repair. I have felt that I would never stand tall again. I have been discouraged. And I have had the perseverance to turn my grief into something positive. I see by the evidence of her painting that Kahlo has felt similarly and that rather than hide it away in shame, or distance herself from it as so many do, she chose to explore it in her art.

-Kevin

Post 29

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 1:22am

"Jonathan! Your always fun to read!"

Good to see you participating here, Michael. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has missed you.

"On a serious note, ok, I know your both having fun with objectivists and being serious, do you think Rand has made a contribution to aesthetic thought? If so, what?"

Yeah, I think Rand made many contributions. My favorite would be her notion of sense of life and the role it plays in both the creation of art and in the viewer's response to it.

"And do you think her fiction is artistically merited?"

Absolutely. She's one of my favorite artists. In fact, I admire her so much as a truly individual talent that I tend to cringe when I hear Objectivists summoning each other to the "Artistic Battleground" since their goal often seems to be little more than to convince artists and art consumers to surrender their own highly individual contexts and senses of life and replace them with poor, one-size-fits-all imitations of Rand's.

(Btw, none of this should be taken to mean that I'm incapable of appreciating some of the art at cordair.com.)

J

Post 30

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 7:54am

As Michael Newberry and I have each pointed out, the four sides of a work of art comprises the edge of a universe within - it is within that universe that we, as viewers, see... and it is that universe from which we, as viewers, make judgment - and the only way such judgment can be made is reference to reality, and how it affects each of our own personal experiences... we don't study, nor need to, Jane Austin's life to critique her books... by the same token, that applies to Frida, and to any of the other visual renderers - if the communication fails in understanding, then it is gibberish and not art - if it communicates, then it must stand or fall on what is communicated, not on what is supposed by the artist...

Post 31

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 8:12am

Geez, I knew it would come down to Freda Kahlo being branded communist. Hell, probably almost all the artists down there were "communists". Somehow, I think she was more concerned with painting than pamphleteering. I'm thinking that even "communists" can occasionally be good artists.

The Romantic Manifesto was a great book, because it went back to basics, and, at the time, it represented a major, needed adjustment- it was a backlash. I'd recommend it to anyone that wants to be an artist, musician, or writer. It orients. But, it's not the goddamn Holy Grail, and it's not a mandatory style guide!

Being a decent artist requires work, and study. Those are the two practices that have to integrate into even the most wildly powerful talent.

Post 32

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 10:04am

Jody,

but I tend to think of art as the New Criticism does of literature, and say that a work should stand on it's own, and convey it's meaning cleary without having to resort to footnotes. If someone proffers a work of art such as Kahlo's, then surely they can't fault us for being disgusted with it when we don't have the benefit of a biographer telling us what happened to her and giving an interpretation as to what "she really meant."

The argument against this idea is that all knowledge is contextual.

PS-I now see you second post on this topic, which makes the more reasonable point.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 12/06, 10:10am)

Post 33

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 10:09am

Yes - and as said in post#30, context is within that universe of the work itself...

Why? - because we are dealing with universals when dealing with a work of art, whether consciously known as such to the artist or not...

(Edited by robert malcom on 12/06, 10:11am)

Post 34

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 11:02am

Rich:

The Romantic Manifesto was a great book, because it went back to basics, and, at the time, it represented a major, needed adjustment- it was a backlash. I'd recommend it to anyone that wants to be an artist, musician, or writer. It orients. But, it's not the goddamn Holy Grail, and it's not a mandatory style guide!

I agree. Sometimes I get the impression that Objectivists think that a painting should always have bright colors (preferably a blue sky), skyscrapers and/or people in heroic postures, and that other styles are a sign of a bad sense of life, yes, that these even may be harmful! It is then only a small step to call art that doesn't conform to the Objectivist standards "evil". This reminds me a bit too much of Soviet realism and Nazi art and the disdain of their proponents for "entartete Kunst". I don't say that the notion of "sense of life" in art is meaningless, but Rand's treatment is hopelessly simplistic, especially in the area of fine art and music.She calls Vermeer the greatest artist (I certainly agree that he is one of the greatest), but scorns his "kitchen naturalism". I wonder how many paintings by Vermeer she ever saw in her life, because this is sheer nonsense. Another example is her wholesale condemnation of Impressionism as "silly".

She doesn't commit this simplistic fallacy in literature; witness the example of her favorite writer Victor Hugo. Hugo's works are often gloomy and tragic, but she doesn't see that as a sign of a negative sense of life (and rightly so). But in her view a positive sense of life music can only be found in the "tiddlywink" variety or in triumphant (Liszt's St. Fran�ois de Paule marchant sur les flots) or joyful (Chopin's butterfly etude) music. Beethoven's universe is in her view "malevolent" (which is really absurd) and I seem to remember that Bach and Mozart didn't fare much better in her view. Probably she would have found no positive sense of life in Chopin's sonata in b flat minor or his Etude in b minor either (I think she mentioned somewhere that a funeral march doesn't have to be a sign of a negative sense of life, but I think that she is here only paying lip-service to the idea). As a great writer herself Rand had a great understanding of literature (although I get the impression that she had read relatively litte), but in fine art and music she was obviously an amateur, which unfortunately didn't stop her in her unfounded judgements. I think Objectivists shouldn't follow Rand unthinkingly here; they'd better avoid such simplistic views of art.

Post 35

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 12:16pm

but I tend to think of art as the New Criticism does of literature, and say that a work should stand on it's own, and convey it's meaning cleary without having to resort to footnotes.

In literature, I tend to prefer that as well, although I have a much higher opinion of James Joyce than the party line allows (he is generally considered below pond-scum). In the case of Joyce, the party line on him completely misses what work like A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man was about, not only in terms of flat-out stylistic innovation, but in the broader sense of being possibly the first substantial work of literature that took the Hero's Journey myth inward. Instead, you get what amounts to a declaration that stream-of-consciousness is disorganized, meandering drivel. I wonder how many good Randians never read that novel because that was suggested. No problem, right? We don't need world-class examples of where myth has evolved to- fuck myth anyway, it's only the bedrock of how civilization talks about the experience of being human. :)

The only kind of art (I am taking lit out of the discussion) that can really do that is called (suprisingly:) "objective art", which is virtually non-existent in modern times. It is very hard to find out things about objective art, because it lies in antiquity. This is what is known as "sacred art", and given where I'm writing this I don't think I want to go there. The purposes of objective arts are metaphysical ones, I would say.

Virtually all art in modern times is subjective art, which means it requires some level of intimacy with the artist in order to get the full and true message they were attempting to convey. It doesn't mean you can't look at it or listen to it, but it will not come across the same way.

I think that the kind of art that mainline Objectivists prefer is very appropriate for them. Most of it, I even enjoy. The problem is, once again, that it is not enough in some quarters to say "this is my pallette, it fits me well". It has to be reduced to premises that will "prove" that it is the only appropriate art for a moral, rational being. I'm sorry, but that's fascist bullshit and I'll have no part of it, even though I often agree with the aesthetics.

Post 36

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 12:41pm

Robert Malcom wrote,
"As Michael Newberry and I have each pointed out, the four sides of a work of art comprises the edge of a universe within - it is within that universe that we, as viewers, see... and it is that universe from which we, as viewers, make judgment - and the only way such judgment can be made is reference to reality, and how it affects each of our own personal experiences... we don't study, nor need to, Jane Austin's life to critique her books... by the same token, that applies to Frida, and to any of the other visual renderers - if the communication fails in understanding, then it is gibberish and not art - if it communicates, then it must stand or fall on what is communicated, not on what is supposed by the artist..."

Generally, the only reason that information about an artist's life or artistic intentions is brought into these discussions is that Objectivist critics are often not content to explain that they, personally, don't like a work of art, but insist on asserting that the artist and his art are "harmful" (or evil, anti-life, anti-reason, anti-man, or any number of other Objectivist clich�s), while offering no evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by the art, and, frequently, while willfully ignoring evidence -- the loud, clear, explicit, direct testimony of others -- that the art has been powerfully "life-affirming." In fact, the art works discussed often seem to have been experienced as beneficial by almost everyone in the entire world except for the Objectivist critics, and, unfortunately, these critics seem to be completely unaware of the fact that their critiques are not exactly seen as powerful weapons in their Objectivist Cultural War, but as nothing more than inadvertent confessions of their own peculiar Objecti-blindness and ineptitude at interpreting art. Considering the artist's life and context is usually just one of the many tools used by others to try to pry open the eyes of "those who would not see."

J

(Edited by Jonathan on 12/07, 2:43am)

Post 37

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 12:49pm

and the only way such judgment can be made is reference to reality, and how it affects each of our own personal experiences... we don't study, nor need to, Jane Austin's life to critique her books... by the same token, that applies to Frida, and to any of the other visual renderers - if the communication fails in understanding, then it is gibberish and not art

I was discussing this thread with my wife, who has a very strong psychology background, and she made a comment that kind of took me by suprise, but I see where she's coming from. She said of it: "These Objectivists, they're reducing themselves to behavioralists! They're basically saying 'what you see is what you get,' and that there is no more to it than that. That's just silly, because there almost always is more going on than that."

Geez, talk about cutting to the chase. :)

Post 38

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 12:58pm

Solipsism as art may be a cathartic venture for the likes of a Sylvia Plath or a Kahlo, but I want to view art that shimmers without having to illuminate the darkest corners of the artist's psyche.

Post 39

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 1:29pm