I did not care for Michael's "keep following that thought and you shall reach enlightenment" response, nor his "that you have no flair for visual art explains it all" nor his "I wrote some chapters in some books and gave so and so presentation with such and such august individual" responses.

Engage the ideas. Don't use PM art argument techniques. It makes your audience feel that you are looking down your nose at the "uninitiated."

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

nor did I call you a con man.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I apologized for that. After, I explained that I reject a distinction between judging "good" art and "worthy" art.

If there is some other premise you'd like me to check, please be specific. I doubt you'll find anyone as willing as I to admit error, apologize, or check premises.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

At this stage, Scott, once you've reached such a contradiction, isn't it time to check some premises?

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Scott: "And here's why: no amount of art education is going to con me into believing shit on a piece of cardboard has levels of meaning or is good art, a mark of genius, or of any technical skill whatsoever. The idea that praiseworthy art can somehow be removed from theme, medium and content."

Scott,

Who wants you to believe such a thing?

This is such a surreal situation. My writings, my work, everything I do about art is about beauty, quality, passion, intelligence, and integration. And you accuse me of being a con artist? Of being a spokesperson for Postmodernism.

Somewhere you've committed to calling me the opposite of what I am/do.

Cheers,

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

I will be honest, I am not even 100% sure what the fuck I am looking at. I presume that alcohol in vast quantities was served at this auction; or hallucinogenic drugs; or it was bought by a rich guy with more money than god, who was trying to bang his PM girlfriend and had to buy it to get into her pants. But there I go looking to put a rational explanation onto a bit of the world's craziness.

Oh, wait! NOW I know! Some guy who is really educated in art really understood the piece and once he understood enough about color theory and orange thermodynamics and economies of brown, he could get over his wanting to vomit or eat some aspirin after looking at it and knew that it was the missing link between Michaelangelo's David and Hirst's wonderful "Skull With Diamonds Pasted On It."

Do I have a dirty mind or is that guy trying to get it on with that bull?

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

...then I would note the extreme technical excellence and breakthrough in faux creature skull diamond pasting in Damien Hirst's highly artistic "Skull With Diamonds Pasted On It."

Michael, I apologize if you are not a postmodern nihilist and I apologize if I insulted you unjustly.

Here's where you lose me, Michael: "But I do distinguish between what one likes and evaluation. I am 100% for personal likes in art and that does not require knowledge or experience. But evaluations do require knowledge and experience, and one’s likes don’t matter a bit."

And here's why: no amount of art education is going to con me into believing shit on a piece of cardboard has levels of meaning or is good art, a mark of genius, or of any technical skill whatsoever. The idea that praiseworthy art can somehow be removed from theme, medium and content.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Wondering what Scott DeSalvo (or anyone in the thread) has to say about this painting:

It was auctioned for $45,961,000.

WSS

... one for the pomowankers:

Multi-millionaire English artist Damien Hirst said on Thursday he was donating four major works to Britain's Tate Gallery, including a sliced and pickled cow and calf.

The works also include one of the first in Hirst's series of fly paintings, Who is Afraid of the Dark? 2002, and the exhibition copy of Mother and Child Divided, 2007 -- a sliced and pickled cow and calf.

Scott: "People like you ~desperately~ need people to believe that they do or do not like a particular piece of art because of lack of training, or lack of some sort of mystic enlightenment."

I have never implied or said such a thing. But I do distinguish between what one likes and evaluation. I am 100% for personal likes in art and that does not require knowledge or experience. But evaluations do require knowledge and experience, and one’s likes don’t matter a bit.

"Or the utterly ridiculous notion that in order to appreciate art, one must do that same kind of art?"

Again, I have never said such a thing.

""[Van Gogh's] Great advancements in color theory"--what horseshit."

You might be interested in reading about some of the ways color theory works in my presentation: http://newberryworkshop.com/Tutorial/trans2/trans2.html

This online tutorial is a transcription from a 2002 lecture I gave at the Courage of Your Perceptions Conference (Satellite to the EC's Vision Scientists' Conference) in Glasgow, Scotland. Jan Koenderink, one of the World's leading vision scientists commented on my insights here: www.perceptionweb.com/perception/perc0403/editorial.pdf

On my tutorial page you will find a series on important innovations in the history of art. For example, one you might like, Polyclitus' Canon of Proportions, http://newberryworkshop.com/Tutorial/prop/prop.html Anyway, in this series I will be doing one on the Impressionists great development in color theory, in which, Van Gogh plays an important part.

Also, the innovation series is doubling for a project that I am working on with Stephen Hicks, Ph.D. philosophy, on explaining Postmodern Art. You might be familiar with his Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Now in its 7th printing. For those who are not familiar with it, it is razor sharp critique of Postmodernism. Stephen and I will be demonstrating, it is a DVD project, how Postmodernists have rejected all the major historical advances in art on its path to nihilism.

Scott, you treat me unjustly and I will hold you in that regard until I see a wiser and more thoughtful development.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

I have taken college level art and art history courses. I have had SOME training in what to look for. You might recall at a SOLO event in Atlanta, out of a group of 8 erudite and educated SOLOists, I was the only person to identify the persepctive problem with a sculpture? People like you ~desperately~ need people to believe that they do or do not like a particular piece of art because of lack of training, or lack of some sort of mystic enlightenment. Or the utterly ridiculous notion that in order to appreciate art, one must do that same kind of art?

"Great advancements in color theory"--what horseshit.

This exchange tells me everything I need to know about you:

"Scott: "I have no flair for the visual arts, other than an appreciation for what I like."

I think that sums it up. "

Minimalist, smug answer. I make an admission that I personally have no skill in putting colors together or drawing/painting. And that means everything I have written is invalid, because only the initiated inner circle can ever know anything about art?

Do not address the ideas. Mock me. Very nice. This is why I want to throttle most artists. Appearances aside, many are absolutely anti-intellectual and cannot escape damaging postmodern ideas about art and its nature.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Scott: "I have no flair for the visual arts, other than an appreciation for what I like."

I think that sums it up.

"That DOES NOT MEAN that there are no objective measures by which one can judge art, right?"

I think "judgment" is too harsh a word for evaluating an art work. The best that any critic can do is persuade to the values in the work. You dismissed Van Gogh earlier in this thread, yet he was magnificent in drawing diminishing objects in perspective far better than da Vinci. Van Gogh made great advancements in color theory--specifically how to change the tone and vibrancy of each color to "place" it throughout a deep spatial range.

One could easily look at his awkward figures, or some other feature as shortcomings, but then you throw out the baby with the bath water.

Michael

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

The most important qualifications I have as a person and lawyer are my sense of life and my integrity. My sense of life is a guarantee that I truly care about my clients and their problems. That means I sometimes make business decisions which leave something to be desired, but always in the interests of serving the client. My integrity means I say what I do, and I do what I say, and you know where I stand every step of the way.

I'm no genius by any stretch. I do not feel superior to anyone in particular. But then I do not know how one can walk around feeling superior if they have a true respect for other individuals, which to my mind is an absolute prerequisite for exhibiting a proper sense of life.

In face to face, real life, I can almost guarantee that we would quickly become fast friends.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I very rarely toot my own horn. There are some very intelligent but borderline personalities involved in O'ism. I take nothing Ayn Rand said as true because she said so. There you have it. I am sorry if I cause you physical pain.

"What if the unrealistic proportions or shadows are deliberately made so in an attempt to symbolise something?"

If its done well, there is no requirement that art is merely an exact reproduction of some perceived image in reality. That's what cameras are for, right? But some of the most beautiful art can be an artist's rendition of reality. Yes, symbolism in art can be grand. It can also be well done for poorly done, right?

"I have a notoriously wide appreciation of art, even art found in popular culture that many Objectivists would frown upon"

Well, there you have it. There are many Objectivists, on this site especially, who believe Rand was correct about the essentials but there is room for variance on some particulars. I think that is the correct view. It just so happens that I do agree with Rand on the vast majority of issues. That DOES NOT MEAN that there are no objective measures by which one can judge art, right?

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

But, then, that's part of the artist's mystique, right?

I shouldn't be able to really understand what you're getting at to lead me to the conclusion that your have some knowledge of the phenomenal or of the noumenal world via a source other than I have access to?

Keep going? Nope. I think I will follow only where reason leads.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I noted the term "intertextuality" in relation to postmodernist writers. It means that "all text is basically connected". Here's the wiki explanation:

Intertextuality is the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts. It can refer to an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text or to a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another.

Gee, when I was a kid we just called it a reference, homage or parody...

How could I forget Gibson! I still remember reading Neuromancer for the first time and being utterly rapt. Hell I even had the game on my Amiga at one stage...

I've always loved the Cyber-Punkers, though William Gibson more than Stephenson, who tends to get carried away.

But that is my point: neither of those two writers is attempting to subvert reality in any way, the concreteness of it, just extrapolate mans' present to his future. Indeed, Stephenson has basically, since the excellent Cryptonimicom, been writing historical fiction, that book looking at the code breakers ... oh, and the secret histories of WWII, though not in the subversive sense of Foucalt and the critics, although The Diamond Age was concerned with hyper textual meaning ... shit ... although ... although ... and perhaps Gibson is a case in point as well. He's all slick style, very little substance, indeed, in his novels nothing really happens. But damn that style does suck you in.

Oh dear. What does all this mean?

Thinking.

(Throw away the Umberto Eco, he's the most boring writer of prose in the twentieth century. But yes to the Elliot ... 'I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear my trousers rolled, I shall walk along sandy sunlit beaches, eating ice cream and peaches '. Lines I'm growing into.)

Thomas Pynchon and Neal Stephenson too on the Post Modernist writer front. I picked up Gravity's Rainbow on recommendation, I don't recall how far in I managed to read, but I promptly put it back down. Baffled me utterly. Stephenson isn't quite so bad, and I do like some of the 'cyber-punk' stuff (sorry "POST-cyber-punk" according to wikipedia). I loved Cryptonomicon and heartily recommend it. Also "In the Beginning... was the Command Line" is an excellent lengthy essay by Stephenson (wherein incidentally he smashes the Microsoft monopoly myth). You can actually download the essay, legally and for free here

I'm trying to read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco (another Post Modernist) at the moment. That's Leon Foucault the French physicist not the other chap.

Anyway, yes, my point, I had one I'm sure, the PM writing doesn't seem anywhere near the level of unintelligibility as the PM visual arts. And pardon my lack of O'ist credentials Mister Elliot , some of it is enjoyable reading.

/flame on

"A nonobjective artist, whether a painter or a writer, is counting on the existence of objective art—and using it in order to destroy it.

For me this is one of the most interesting threads in on the site at the moment, but it is also the most difficult.

The nonobjective writer especially is interesting. I can relate it to the post modern critics and theorists, such as Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, in fact, that is the summation of their ethic, but when it comes to naming a specific creative writer of prose, I can't?

Am wondering if it is more of a genre issue or of types (I find the worse type of poetry to be so subjective as to be unintelligible). Regarding prose, I suspect the structure of the publishing industry, given editorial control, something that doesn't exist in the visual arts (?), screens much of this from seeing the light of day, as a publishing house would have to have deep pockets to afford the luxury of publishing some type of stream of consciousness nonsense, unless they were working in an intellectual vacuum, such as at Salient.

But, examples of creative writers? I suspect the answer, if we're talking post modern, are the likes of Ezra Pound, TS Elliot, and Joyce, but all their writings are ultimately intelligible, even Joyce, and I've never found them to be subversive or destroyers. Indeed didn't they think of themselves as trying to protect and shore up what they saw as great from the past?

[Scott, I wish you practiced law in NZ; with all the qualifications and that IQ, I'd hire you. Seriously.]

"I probably am in the running for highest IQ and most education on this
site as far as I can tell. And, I also am the most independent,
non-mentally-ill person on the site." 

You cause me physical pain, atlascott.

"when I look at someone's sketch and the proportions or shadows are wrong, well, they are WRONG."

What if the unrealistic proportions or shadows are deliberately made so in an attempt to  symbolise something? An emotion, a concept - anything! Rand's idea that art 'by definition represents physical objects' is completely absurd.

"I have a notoriously wide appreciation of art, even art found in popular culture that many Objectivists would frown upon"

Well I never - an Objectivist readily admitting that the quality of works of art is subjective!

Christian Linnell

Keep going Scott, you are going down an interesting path. But, if you go deep enough you might not like what you find.

http://www.MichaelNewberry.com

So let's get to it!

"The best I can make of this is to say that that if that musical direction is in accord with the singer’s nature and higher purpose; then there is no moral compromise, so there is no breech of integrity."

Singers sing. Musical directors must direct. The idea that a singer is going to try to gauge a singing suggestion against their "nature" and/or "higher moral purpose" suggest to me a real contexual problem for the singer. Accepting the judgment of the musical director, whose job it is to direct, is part of the singer's job. Now, if the director is suggesting something absolutely ridiculous, that's another matter entirely., There are 'artists' on this site that hold the the notion that joining another's project makes an artist a whore. Poppycock.

"But I must admit, that this is very difficult thing to do consistently throughout ones life"

Not if the artist keeps the issue facing them in context. There are minor issues and there are major issues. Not every issue is major and not every compromise automatically renders one of the negotiating parties a integrity-less whore.

"Scott, given that Mozart, E.A. Poe and Van Gogh all had difficulties selling their work, and were often financially broke, does this make them mediocre artists? Should these men have gotten “day jobs”?"

Yes, if they could not live off their art, then, yes, they should have gotten day jobs. One must eat, after all? Mozart and Poe, definitely great artists who were insufficiently valued in their time. Van Gogh? Ick. The greatest female novelists of all time were virtually all very part-time writers, of necessity. MOST artists are part-timers. It makes them no less artists.

So my point is that the vast majority of unpaid, unappreciated artists suck. A small percentage of them perhaps are giants who due to unfortunate circumstances remain undiscovered. Most just suck. (And in this context, I mean that which exhibiting some degree of skill or talent, are insufficiently gifted to be discovered and develop the renoun that seems to precede worthwhile artistic earnings).

"And Scott, I believe you make a living litigating against Insurance companies and such, are you also a part-time artist? I ask, because it would help to know what level of first-hand knowledge and experience you possess to be able to tell the difference between a mediocre and exceptional artist/artwork?"

I have no flair for the visual arts, other than an appreciation for what I like. I am a fair writer, but as you might imagine, have very, very (read: no) time for it. I have written poetry and other stuff. But this is VERY beside the point.

What credentials have I to judge art? I am a rational, thinking human being. Those are the only credentials anyone needs. And the only credentials that matter. If it is your position that one must be somehow credentialed to judge or appreciate art, then I would suggest that you reconsider your understanding as to what art is really all about. If it matters to you, I probably am in the running for highest IQ and most education on this site as far as I can tell. And, I also am the most independent, non-mentally-ill person on the site. And, I am me, and that is a pretty wonderful thing. So when I look at someone's sketch and the proportions or shadows are wrong, well, they are WRONG.

I will mention as a side note: I have a notoriously wide appreciation of art, even art found in popular culture that many Objectivists would frown upon. I enjoy Stephen King's novels tremendously, just as I am a fan of low-budget amateurish "B" movies, when well done and outrageous. A work of art's fitness to its purpose if the standard I judge these thing by. A good Stephen king book (like The Cell, a book of rather recent King vintage) is like a rollercoaster ride, or a Saturday Matinee. Lots of fun, thrills, but signifying nothing much more than my willingness to allow myself to enjoy fun for its own sake.

"I believe, that for an artist, the highest praise they can receive from another person is some form of sincere affirmation that acknowledges the value that their work holds to them."

What do you think someone does when they pull out their wallet and they pay you for your CD after hearing you sing live? Or hand you $1000 for a painting? I often see lovely prints by very worthy artists. But when I am so blown away by a piece that Mr. or Ms. Artist gets my greenbacks, that says it all. I can tell an artist all day long "Hey nice drawing"--but he knows exactly how well he has done when I say that and then hand him over the cash. There is nothing dirty or ignoble about money. It is one of man's finest inventions, and it affirms, rather than cheapens, the value of a piece of art.

"Scott, since you quoted Stephen King as to what makes a person a writer; I’ll assume you agree with his take. And given that King has sold hundreds of thousands of books, and made an incredible fortune, I’m going to assume he makes your list of “greats”. So where would you rank King compared to a Hugo, or better still, compared to the novelist, Ayn Rand?"

I really enjoy Mr. King's books. They are fun if you as the reader retain enough youthful enthusiasm to get sucked into a "let's pretend" scenario. If you cannot, then his fiction is obviously not for you. One cannot compare Stephen King's horror books to an idea writer like Rand because they have entirely different purposes. I think Jack London (specifically, Martin Eden) and Stephen King both are more fluid and readable than Rand as novelist. I think Rand is a more accurate writer and content-dense (even in fiction) writer than London or King. I think King and London do much more realistic dialogue. I think Rand shows herself superior to them both in developing a complex plot in an utterly entertaining and logical way. But comparing them is trying to compare a steak with an ice cream cone. Ice cream aint gonna cut it when I want a steak.

I think that more or less addresses the issues.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Spin, Ayn, spin.

Scott DeSalvo: “Is it a lack of integrity for a great singer to accept direction from her musical director?” 

Interesting question, but open ended. My best answer is: it depends. Primarily it depends on your definition of integrity. In its simplest terms, I think Rand’s Howard Roark said it best, “Integrity is the ability to stand by an idea.”  

The best I can make of this is to say that that if that musical direction is in accord with the singer’s nature and higher purpose; then there is no moral compromise, so there is no breech of integrity. But if that is not the case, then to say yes would be a self-betrayal. But I must admit, that this is very difficult thing to do consistently throughout ones life; because the only way you can pull it off, is to be in love with integrity.

Scott DeSalvo: “As for mediocre artists: talent and skill will always allow an artist to make a living. Poor artists can delude themselves into thinking that the ~reason~ that they are not selling anything is because they are remaining true to their artistic vision. The truth is usually that they are mediocre at best at their chosen vocation (artist-producer of art). Mediocre artists can, do, and should have day jobs where they can trade their time and skills in a more profitable exchange.”

Scott, given that Mozart, E.A. Poe and Van Gogh all had difficulties selling their work, and were often financially broke, does this make them mediocre artists? Should these men have gotten “day jobs”?

And Scott, I believe you make a living litigating against Insurance companies and such, are you also a part-time artist? I ask, because it would help to know what level of first-hand knowledge and experience you possess to be able to tell the difference between a mediocre and exceptional artist/artwork?

Scott DeSalvo: “Being paid money for art is the highest praise an artist can receive.”

Well, Scott, I think that might work for a hot-dog vendor, but not an artist. I believe, that for an artist, the highest praise they can receive from another person is some form of sincere affirmation that acknowledges the value that their work holds to them.  

Scott DeSalvo, quoting Stephen King: “Or to paraphrase Stephen King: What makes someone a writer? Well, if you ever wrote a single word for a book, magazine, newspaper, website, and anyone ever agreed to pay you any amount of money to write it, and you went to your mailbox and found a check in there, went to the bank and the check didn't bounce and you had that money to pay the rent, order a pizza, or pay the phone bill, well, then congratulations. You're a writer.”

Scott, since you quoted Stephen King as to what makes a person a writer; I’ll assume you agree with his take. And given that King has sold hundreds of thousands of books, and made an incredible fortune, I’m going to assume he makes your list of “greats”. So where would you rank King compared to a Hugo, or better still, compared to the novelist, Ayn Rand?  

K

I am a film maker.

I want to do the greatest love story ever told on film.

Naturally, I want the greatest singers and most beautiful and talented actors. The best artists.

By the estimation of some, the best would never work for me if they have integrity, unless they happen to share the same ideas with me about virtually every important aspect of the project. Otherwise, they are 'sell-outs.'

No, this is the vision of the mediocre artist, trying to explain away his not being included in the production.

Is it a lack of integrity for a great singer to accept direction from her musical director?

Lack of integrity for a great chef to accept direction about the menu from the head chef or owner of the restaurant?

Lack of integrity for each member of a chorus to agree to harmonize for a greater sonic effect?

Or is it just lack of integrity to actually earn money from art (i.e., trading value for value)?

Being paid money for art is the highest praise an artist can receive.

Or to paraphrase Stephen King: What makes someone a writer? Well, if you ever wrote a single word for a book, magazine, newspaper, website, and anyone ever agreed to pay you any amount of money to write it, and you went to your mailbox
and found a check in there, went to the bank and the check didn't bounce and you had that money to pay the rent, order a pizza, or pay the phone bill, well, then congratulations. You're a writer.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

When I want to see pretty colors randomly throw together in a visually pleasing way, I will walk in the forest or stare at the sea.

When I look at art, I want something with discernible man made meaning.

Other than in {post]modern philosophy (where there ARE difficult concepts but they lead to nowhere), there is no other greater fraud perpetrated upon Western civilization than in art.

Appear disheveled and odd, speak in a seemingly-profound but utterly non-sensical way. DYe your hair, do a Warhol, appear bi-polar. Shit on a piece of cardboard. Vomit stream of conciousness poetry. It all means nothing, signifies nothing. Doing this sort of art is doing absolutely nothing--except wasting the precious few hours we all have on this big, beautiful rock.

As for mediocre artists: talent and skill will always allow an artist to make a living. Poor artists can delude themselves into thinking that the ~reason~ that they are not selling anything is because they are remaining true to their artistic vision. The truth is usually that they are mediocre at best at their chosen vocation (artist-producer of art). Mediocre artists can, do, and should have day jobs where they can trade their time and skills in a more profitable exchange.

I could love to play basketball. But if I am terrible at it, it is evasion for me to expect to make a living from it as a player. Refusing to do anything but be a basketball player when I do not have to tools or skills does not mean I have integrity. It means I have an insufficient desire to be prosperous and happy.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I suppose I would have to agree with 'all art is communication', but the concept of non-objective art is certainly not contradictory.

I would imagine that most artists have a very specific message that they are attempting to convey through their work. Whether that message is wishy-washy and emotional or concrete does not matter.

When, however, an observer arrives to view the art, the message that they receive (or at very least the feelings that the message evokes) may well be wildly different to that of another observer.

Some artists actively strive to be 'open' in the way that they create their works. This may be as simple as sitting with a blank piece of canvas while feeling angry and applying their stream of consciousness to the blank surface.

When our observers arrive to view the work, perhaps they all see the anger that went into the creation, and some of those that see it will relate to the anger on an emotional level. Others may go further and suggest a meaning to the shapes portrayed (though they may well be abstract - humans are great at seeing unintentional patterns). Some of the observers may not see the anger at all, but instead see happiness or confusion, or a myriad of other emotions - probably shaped by their emotional state while viewing the art.

Whatever the intentions of the artist, it is clear that if people can bring their own meanings to a work of art then the art must be seen as non-objective.

As for your 'non-objective painter', who supposedly paints 'blobs of paint and proclaims they are expressions of his subconscious', this artist would never say 'you understand the meaning, or you do not'. What you have described sounds much more like an 'objective painter', who creates a work with one meaning, and thus the art from his point of view is objective. But you cannot stop the message from being subjective once it reaches the audience, regardless of the intentions of the painter.

A non-objective painter, to be classed as non-objective, would have to be painting (even if at random!) with the specific intent of either being ambiguous, or of letting the observer glean his or her own meaning, or both. And that's ok actually - if the painter wants the observer to bring his own meaning, then how can he be faulted?

Lastly, I have to address the erroneous concept of 'art by definition represents recognisable physical objects'.

1. The art may not be intended to represent a physical object, but may do so through a human's unintentional pattern-finding.
2. The art may consist of a combination of colours and shapes which, even from a hard brain-science point of view, evoke certain emotions. Reds are usually viewed as 'warm', and blues as 'cold'. Black might symbolise death in somebody's culture, and thus on its own may be an effective abstract image.

By the way, who is Ayn Rand to be defining art?

Oh, also - "A nonobjective artist, whether a painter or a writer, is counting on the existence of objective art—and using it in order to destroy it." I'm sorry, but that is absurd, if I take her meaning correctly - if anybody still agrees with this, would they care to clarify for me, in case I miss her point?

Christian Linnell