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


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 180

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil, you nailed it in post 176. That's exactly the distinction I was making.

For those who think that there can be absolutely nothing for an Objectivist to admire in people who are devoted to bad causes, please explain Rand's sympathetic portraits of Andrei Taganov, Gail Wynand and Bjorn Faulkner. Read her introduction to "Night of January 16th" and her comments about Ivan Krueger, and outlaws generally.

Then go argue with Rand.   


Post 181

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara, I agree entirely with your post #170. Every word.

Post 182

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,
For those who think that there can be absolutely nothing for an Objectivist to admire in people who are devoted to bad causes, please explain Rand's sympathetic portraits of Andrei Taganov, Gail Wynand and Bjorn Faulkner. Read her introduction to "Night of January 16th" and her comments about Ivan Krueger, and outlaws generally.
For some reason, I'm thinking Ayn Rand wouldn't be approving of that urinal "art" thing, or of the guy who did it. I'm also thinking that there's something radically different between Gail Wynand, who might even publish a positive article on it, and the guy who actually comes up with that junk. You really can't think of any crucial differences there?


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 183

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne,

You're right that Rand undoubtedly wouldn't approve of the "urinal art" thing. But I think her analysis of human beings was clearly not unidimensional, either.

* Andrei Taganov was not just an advocate of bad ideas, but of communism; and he wasn't merely a philosophical communist, but a member of the secret police Yet Rand obviously meant him to be seen sympathetically, and portrayed his commitment to his convictions as -- on its own terms -- admirable. Kira (Rand's self-projection in the story) did emotionally respond to something in his character -- his idealism, and commitment to his ideals -- as appalled as she was by many of his actions. Thus his death was portrayed as a great tragedy.

* Gail Wynand not only published trash; he actively went out of his way to corrupt and destroy the careers of idealists. Yet he was Roark's best friend. Recall the exchange between the two, where Roark says something like, "Besides, I know there's something I can count on." Wynand asks, "Your integrity?" And Roark answers: "Yours, Gail." Roark (and Rand) obviously believed that Gail Wynand had, in some respect, "integrity." What do you suppose she could have been referring to? Interesting question! And she also described Wynand as the novel's "great tragic figure." Why "tragic" instead of "immoral"? Clearly, she meant Wynand to be seen as a mixed bag of virtues and vices; but she DID acknowledge his virtues.

* Likewise, Bjorn Faulkner is a thief, an embezzler -- a very Nietszchean sort of "hero," who, like Wynand, willingly sacrifices others to himself. Karen Andre is his partner in crime. Yet Rand makes clear in her introduction, as well as in the play itself, that by making them criminals she deliberately intended to isolate their admirable sense of life from their immoral actions -- and thus to show that it's possible to respond to, even admire, certain qualities of a person, even though you don't approve of his moral character. In fact, the whole point of "Night of January 16th" was to force the audience-jury to judge Karen Andre -- and, by implication, Faulkner -- on the basis of their sense of life alone, exclusive of their acknowledged criminality.

In all these examples, Rand is showing considerable moral subtlety and psychological discrimination, indicating that there are multiple respects in which we can judge individuals -- e. g., psychologically (including romantically), professionally AND philosophically -- and that it's possible to acknowledge, even admire, isolated positive qualities in any of those areas, without "morally approving" of the whole package.



(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/22, 8:55am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 184

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And she also described Wynand as the novel's "great tragic figure." Why "tragic" instead of "immoral"? Clearly, she meant Wynand to be seen as a mixed bag of virtues and vices; but she DID acknowledge his virtues.
It's simple really. It's the "tragic flaw" thing. None of these characters were a "mixed bag". Really they were for the most part, good, but with just one flaw. That is inverted from the case at hand. This urinal guy isn't good for the most part with only one tragic flaw.

Really, your rhetoric is getting way ahead of your thinking here.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 185

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hello all,

 

Michael said;

 

"Another wicked point but very truthful, is that  I respect several PM artists for their artistic integrity. I would take Duchamp and John Cage anytime over Rozsa and Lanza. I hope you don’t short circuit on that."

 

Michael, please point out the "art" of Duchamp or Cage.

 

The truth is that there is no "artistic" anything in Duchamp or Cage to have integrity with.  There is no value, there is only whim, caprice and nihilism in their work, the destruction of value, rational (there is no other) value, for destructions sake.

 

That Lanza died prematurely doesn't remove any value or integrity from his past work just as you saying the above doesn't remove any value that might be in your works.
 
Sam Axton





Post 186

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is this *the* Sam Axton? I absolutely love your work. "The World Is Mine" and "Joy" in particular.

Post 187

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If this is indeed *the* Sam Axton, I would like to thank you for a moment of inspiration when it was most needed.

Gratefully,
Jennifer


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 188

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sorry for barging in the other day without introducing myself. 

 

So let me begin again. 

 

Hi there.  My name is Sam Axton.  I’m a sculptor.  My work is shown at the Cordair Fine Art Gallery. 

 

I was led to this site by a recommendation for intelligent conversation and from what little I’ve read I found it. 

 

I left my comments to Michael but after returning for a few days and not seeing it posted I figured I had done something wrong in sending it.  Maybe I had to be vetted?

 

BTW, I saw your compliments Shayne and Jennifer and really appreciate them.

 

But in browsing the site, I was so struck by Michael's comments that I just signed up and blurted out a post.

 

I saw later that he went further to explain his comments about Duchamp v Lanza, but I am still confused as to why he thinks Duchamp was an artist.

 

Like I said, I’m a sculptor.  I am not a writer or a philosopher which may become apparent shortly.  I feel a bit strange saying what is probably obvious to Objectivists and if someone else has made the same point I've missed it or maybe the point Michael made went right over my

head just ignore this.

 

I’ve heard it said that an artist doesn’t have to communicate anything to anyone but himself.  If he thinks a canvas he has painted with a nonsensical mass of color is a portrayal of a nude descending a staircase, so be it.  Who are we to argue?  He knows what he has created and that’s all that’s required for it to be called art.

 

But this is subjectivism and of course that is their point.  What is worse to me though is that the farce is on those who support this view.

 

An art work by definition has to be a recreation of something.  Otherwise, what’s the point.  What is the abstraction he in concretizing.  On what is his metaphysical value judgement based.  This something must be communicable or there is no rational way to judge what is much less judge it as art.  Paint on a canvas is not art it’s paint on a canvas.  Putting a title on gibberish does not make it communicable.  One cannot simply assert that a painting of “nothing” is a recreation of something. 

 

You must agree that before one is say, an inventor he has to invent something.  A nonsensical widget is not an invention of anything nor is the maker of such a widget an inventor.  In other words until we have art there is no artist.  So I ask what is Duchamp’s art, what is Cage’s art?

 

It’s only by use of floating concepts that one could connect the concept artist with no art or the valid concept of integrity with nonsensical vision.

 

My other point was not to disparage you in any way but to say that an art work once completed becomes independent of the artist.  It becomes an end in itself and is aesthetically judged by it’s constituent elements.  The artist is not one of those elements he’s only put them together, but that also means that the artist can be judged by his art.  

 

Because Lanza may not have lived up to his potential whatever that may have become or because he may have become debauched (I don’t know) doesn’t have any affect on whatever the art he did was bad.  Just as an artist that may have artistic integrity doesn’t make their art good.

 

My best for yours,

 

Sam Axton



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 189

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam, I am generally in agreement with your position except that the example you use (nude descending a staircase) seems to me to be very far from a nonsensical mass of colour.
It was developed from the photographic experiments of Etienne-Jules Marley and is  representational of the human form in movement.
It is not clear to me that there is any element of nihilism in this work although it exists in his later works.


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 190

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi David, 

Sam, I am generally in agreement with your position except that the example you use (nude descending a staircase) seems to me to be very far from a nonsensical mass of colour.

"...very far..." ?  Have you seen a nude female descending stairs?
Try this experiment for me.  (I'm not sure how to insert a picture or I would.)  Copy Duchamps "Nude..?" and rotate it 180 degrees (maybe it is flipped already).  See any significant difference.  It's like being asked what you see in an ink spot or a cloud, you'll probably come up with something. 

If you did not know anything about this image; no title, no sycophants guiding you to see its components would you even be motivated to try to guess what it was?  Would you see a nude, a female, stairs?

The nihilism is in the purposeful obscurity, the destruction of the identity or the distinction of what it is or what it is doing.  He had to spend a lot of time to distort a female nude so that is was unrecognizable.  You tell me why?  What was his purpose? 

The purpose of the title was so that another could experience the distortion.  Take the title only.  You know what a nude female descending a staircase looks like.  You could imaginge the beauty of the form, the hair, the breasts, the smooth skin, the fluid motion and then BANG! you get this crumpled piece of paper and your mind tries to make sense of it, replacing the vision in your imagination with this train wreck with the same name.  Had he called it a train wreck or a crumpled piece of paper I would have less hostility but this is a purposeful destruction of  beauty, motion, form, identity, reality, rationality.



Post 191

Friday, April 29, 2005 - 9:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You got that right!

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 192

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 2:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,
        there are several versions but the one I am looking at is clearly understandable as a figure in motion. It is perhaps a small point to argue about but I think he was representing the body in movement,not as a person but as a  form. Now , we can disagree whether or not he was successful but you have not convinced me that his intention was essentially nihilistic.

.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 193

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

David,

 

Do you really want to argue this?  Nothing personal dude (I don’t know you), but I don’t think I could convince you.  Nor will I try.  I would rather try to convince you that red isn’t yellow.  Actually, I would rather scratch a chalkboard.  Nor was it my goal, besides, what’s my reward, I convince you that Duchamp’s “Nude…?” is nihilistic but still art? Oxymoronic.

 

Better yet, convince me it is art. No, nevermind don’t, I don’t want to read the necessary rationalizations.  One can only tolerate so much.

 

I’m not here to argue the validity of my senses.  My question; Where is the art?, was a protest to stretching definitions beyond distinction.  My comments were for those who may be honestly confused and are looking for more definition, more distinction not obscurity and equivocation.

 

Besides I’ve got beautiful flowers to plant and heroes to sculpt.

 

Sam


Post 194

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 1:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam

Welcome to SOLO. I was wondering whether your World Is Mine sculpture was based on Dagny Taggart, then looking around your site I saw that it was.

I love your work!


Post 195

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,
         no offence taken or intended. Maybe I am deluding myself on this? It is a very familiar image to me so I have no "gut reaction" to it. I am honestly confused but thanks for your explanation anyway.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 196

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Sam,

I have been chomping at the bit for a couple of days to get into a discussion with you. But first I acquainted myself with your work your own site and the Cordair gallery site. I am completely in awe that this is going on over here. (I have returned recently from Brazil after being there for over 30 years.)

Magnificent. Completely magnificent. I have already started to save my pennies to purchase your work. And other things I saw at Cordair.

Now on to the discussion. Your original request of Michael Newberry:
Michael, please point out the "art" of Duchamp or Cage.
LOL. Coming from the creator of your beautiful work, what else could anyone expect you to say? I have a couple of observations, but I delayed this conversation because I felt, what is the point? It almost seems like a sacrilege. You are so far into your exalted mindset, you can't even place these gentlemen in your world at all.

Now I want to ask you, after seeing the photos of Joy, The World is Mine, Master, Rapture and Excelsior on the Cordair Gallery page, why on earth would I want to do that either? Even if you did ask for it?

Then you stated in another post:

Better yet, convince me it is art. No, nevermind don’t, I don’t want to read the necessary rationalizations.  One can only tolerate so much.

LOL! Again!

 

No, I won't try to convince you that that crap is art. Not in the sense you (and I) define the word "art." Besides, it was not even made for human understanding anyway. These guys are always searching for something called "broadening horizons," whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Beyond human. They sure like the word "beyond." Well "beyond" doesn't matter. It ain't for humans and that's all that is important for someone like you (and me and most of the posters around here).

 

Don't be too hard on Namesake (my pet name for Michael Newberry). There are many intelligent apologists for this garbage and way too many people in our culture who do consider it art. Someone has to fight it on the intellectual/artistic level.

 

Michael has decided to stand up. I will admit that this is more the work of a garbageman than Michael's own magnificent work (I especially like his focus/out of focus dynamic). I believe Michael is cowriting a book (with Stephen Hicks) on post modern art being derived from Kant and other issues.

 

We never discussed it, but I do know that things like integrity and so forth are weighing heavily on his mind. He is looking at major movements. He is basically looking into who and what make the greatest cultural impacts. (He is also on the threshold of an important exposition - always an antsy time.)

 

Maybe in his infamous quote, the word "integrity" rubbed everybody the wrong way - especially considering the emotional content it has taken on for Objectivists. Maybe all this discussion was even a good thing so that he will be EXTREMELY CLEAR in what he does write.

 

I am almost hesitant, Sam, to point out that there is a there there. Famous artists (in the general sense) who have been trend setters have possessed common characteristics. That is what is being examined.

 

How this whole affair with Namesake came about is that Objectivists have a tendency to a self-imposed blindness to the outside world at times. (I call myself an Objectivist, by the way.) This can be almost fanatical. I will give you an example. Say ANYTHING about Mario Lanza being less that the world's greatest tenor around here and see what happens. Michael sure did.

 

His attempts at trying to make people see his point became so exasperating that he went to the extreme of saying what he did about Cage and Duchamp for shock value - in order to make people pay attention - to make them try to understand that they were not getting what he was trying to say - to actually try to get them to understand, and hopefully even contribute more clarification - to make them think.

 

What he got back instead was even worse that Argument From Intimidation. It was Argument From "But You Said..."

 

Regardless of what he wrote, this kept coming up - and there was no attempt at all to see where he was coming from. (Well, I jumped in, but I am only one.) No attempt at saying, do you mean "commitment" to filling the highest form? You can fill the highest form with high art or you can fill it with garbage. Both will have a tremendous impact on the culture if there is enough consistency to some vision - any vision at all - even a non-human one - to convince people with, especially if you convince them that a non-human form of understanding is somehow superior. Or how about saying that garbage in a high place will impact more than high art in a low place? These are other ways of saying what he was getting at.

 

Anyway, that's how it all developed.

 

As to the rest, I am almost sorry I am writing this to you, Sam. It is a tremendous honor to communicate with someone of your artistic stature. I talked because you asked (although I do not speak for Namesake, I speak for myself. But I have no doubt that he agrees with me on most issues from private correspondence.)

 

I am almost tempted to tell you to stay out of this. LOLOLOL...

 

You have no business at all hanging around the stable-cleaning of post modern art. You have much more important stuff to do. Go sculpt or something.

But don't run off - it is a real pleasure to know you.


Michael





Post 197

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shock value - to cover poor language structure? Not good... a mistake was made, and should have been acknowledged....

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 198

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But You Said...

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 199

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks Tim for your compliment.

 

David, maybe this will help you understand, it’s the best I can do.

 

Hi Michael Kelly, Thanks for your words of appreciation.

 

Don't be too hard on Namesake (my pet name for Michael Newberry). There are many intelligent apologists for this garbage and way too many people in our culture who do consider it art. Someone has to fight it on the intellectual/artistic level.

 

Again, I don’t know Michael Newberry, and the following comments are aimed at his comments not him personally.  Also, I’m writing this more to clarify what art is not to argue whether Post Modernism is art.  

 

Until Ayn Rand, the concept art had been a catch-all of virtually any product that was the least bit creative, skillful, beautiful or almost anything that had no utilitarian value.  After her clarifying definition and her accompanying essays, art is slowly being distinguished by Objectivist’s who understand and use her principles.  We realize the value and purpose of art in human life.  We want to keep it distinct and important.

 

Most people I talk to have no definition of art.  Most, even when given one, protest with the comment; “Who are you to say what art is.”  It can be confusing growing up, being pounded by the intellectuals out there, as most people are, with the idea that anything in a museum is art.  Until I had Ayn Rand’s definition I was confused as to what art was.  (In fact I still struggle a bit with whether some things belong in the concept art; some photographs, some fictional biographies in movies or books, some portraits, some still lifes)

 

I am not an authority on Post Modernism, who would want to be?  But PM has been clearly shown by others to be Fart (false art) or anti-art.  Like nihilism, a PMist’s purpose was not to bring a new quality or skill or composition or style nor was their purpose recreation of reality much less selective recreation nor was it to express their soul or metaphysical value judgements.  A PMist’s purpose was not to concretize abstractions nor reduce them to their essence nor was it integration or understanding.  Their goal was precisely the opposite of these things.  Their goal was to take all of these attributes of art and invert them.  Their goal was to negate these important human values.

 

Ayn Rand said it best in “The Romantic Manifesto”; 

“Decomposition is the postscript to the death of a human body; disintegration is the preface to the death of a human mind. Disintegration is the keynote and goal of modern art—the disintegration of man's conceptual faculty, and the retrogression of an adult mind to the state of a mewling infant.

 

To reduce man's consciousness to the level of sensations, with no capacity to integrate them, is the intention behind the reducing of language to grunts, of literature to "moods," of painting to smears, of sculpture to slabs, of music to noise.

 

But there is a philosophically and psychopathologically instructive element in the spectacle of that gutter. It demonstrates—by the negative means of an absence—the relationships of art to philosophy, of reason to man's survival, of hatred for reason to hatred for existence.

 

After centuries of the philosophers' war against reason, they have succeeded—by the method of vivisection—in producing exponents of what man is like when deprived of his rational faculty, and these in turn are giving us images of what existence is like to a being with an empty skull.”

 

Michael said he hoped others wouldn’t short circuit with his comment but what do you expect from intelligent people who have tried to integrate the principles of good art.  I don’t think Michael is some neophyte to Objectivism who might have an excuse on such an error.  He’s an artist, an Objectivist artist, (I think) for crying out loud.  Michael’s comment was not “shock value” it was well… post-modernist, it was anti-conceptual.  It was also the promotion and sanction of PM into the discussion and realm of art. 

 

There is no art without its defining characteristics, there is no integration without reason, there is no “artistic integration” without art or reason.  And Michael Kelly, Michael Newberry may not be an apologist for PM but to use two of the worst PMist’s as a standard, a superior standard no less against Lanza, a real artist, maybe a great performing artist, regardless of how you judge his artistic integrity, is more than egregious it’s unconscionable.  It’s no wonder Mr. Lindsey short circuited, obviously, so did I.

 

Michael, I’ve read some good words you have written about art, about your purpose, so for the sake of all that you hold sacred, reconsider your comments.

 

Sam Axton

 

 

 

 


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.