DOCSLIB.ORG

Reply to Fred Seddon: What Does Ayn Rand Have to Do with Who Says That’S Art? Author(S): Michelle Marder Kamhi Source: the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies , Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reply to Fred Seddon: What Does Ayn Rand Have to Do with Who Says That’S Art? Author(S): Michelle Marder Kamhi Source: the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies , Vol Reply to Fred Seddon: What Does Ayn Rand Have to Do with Who Says That’s Art? Author(s): Michelle Marder Kamhi Source: The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies , Vol. 15, No. 2 (December 2015), pp. 280-286 Published by: Penn State University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jaynrandstud.15.2.0280 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:32:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Discussion Reply to Fred Seddon What Does Ayn Rand Have to Do with Who Says That’s Art? Michelle Marder Kamhi ABSTRACT: This commentary is in response to Fred Seddon’s review of Who Says That’s Art? A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (December 2014). In addition to answering objections raised in the review about such matters as whether “abstract art” and photography should qualify as “fine art,” it aims to show in what respects the book was influenced by Rand’s thought. Let me begin by expressing my thanks to Fred Seddon (2014) for his recommendation—in the final paragraph of his review—that readers buy not only Who Says That’s Art? (2014) but also What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (2000), which I coauthored with Louis Torres. Apart from that rec- ommendation, however, I fear that readers unfamiliar with my work would have little sense of why Who Says That’s Art? was being reviewed in a journal devoted to Rand’s ideas, for nowhere does Seddon indicate their relevance to my thesis. A key aim of this response, therefore, is to show in what ways my book is indebted to Ayn Rand. But first I must note an important bibliographic error: Who Says That’s Art? was incorrectly listed as an “E-book, no bibliography or index” (275). While there is no separate bibliography, all editions of the book contain The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2015 Copyright © 2015 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA JARS 15.2_04_Kamhi.indd 280 04/11/15 12:57 AM This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:32:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Discussion | Kamhi 281 numerous bibliographic endnotes, which serve the same purpose. Moreover, in addition to both Kindle and Epub electronic editions, the book is also available in print, as a fully indexed quality paperback. Now to more substantive matters. Seddon’s initial objection (278) is to my definition of visual art as “imagery that skillfully represents real or imagined people, places, and things in a form expressive of the maker’s temperament, deeply held values, and view of life” (Kamhi 2014, 34). He rightly notes that defining art in terms of imagery precludes abstract work. But his objection ignores the larger context of the definition. My introduction clearly stated that “the concept of art dealt with in this book is that of ‘fine art’ (as distinct from the ‘decorative arts’)” (8). As I noted, the best way to define any concept is to trace it back to its origins (8). Though I didn’t cite Rand on that point, I was in fact following her sage advice in the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: When in doubt about the meaning or the definition of a concept, the best method of clarification is to look for its referents—i.e., to ask oneself: What fact or facts of reality gave rise to this concept? (Rand [1966–67] 1990, 51) In Chapter 1, I therefore traced the concept of visual “fine art” back to its roots in eighteenth-century European culture, where it referred mainly to painting and sculpture—that is, to the image-making arts (Kamhi 2014, 12–17). In addition, I documented its fundamental kinship to the concept of mimetic art in ancient Greek thought (14–15). I also argued that a similar concept is implicit in non-European cultures, in which painting and sculp- ture have always served to embody a society’s most important beliefs and values (23–31). I further argued that the largely unprecedented and confusing inclusion of architecture among the otherwise mimetic “fine arts” was based on very flimsy criteria put forward in the introduction to Diderot’s great Encyclopédie, and that it took hold mainly because of that document’s pres- tige, in spite of the evident contradictions of such a classification (17–20)— contradictions which, I should add, troubled even Rand (Torres and Kamhi 2001). Surprisingly, Seddon devotes nearly half of his review (278–79) to critiqu- ing my discussion of “abstract art” in Chapter 3. Yet he ignores the points that I expected would be of greatest interest for Objectivism. In a section titled “Why Was ‘Abstract Art’ Invented?,” I wrote: To begin with, the abstract pioneers’ total rejection of imagery was rooted in a profoundly irrational impulse. Reacting against what they JARS 15.2_04_Kamhi.indd 281 04/11/15 12:57 AM This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:32:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 282 THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIEs deemed to be the extreme materialism of late-nineteenth-century European culture, they earnestly desired to transcend it. That desire in itself was not irrational, but the form it took was. They attempted to create an entirely new kind of art, based on a series of ill-founded assumptions about the workings of the human mind—assumptions that have since been largely disproven by the findings of modern science (more on which in Chapter 7). (52) I then presented a brief summary of those assumptions, which I noted were inspired by the quasi-religious cult of Theosophy. At their base was belief in an irreconcilable split between “spirit” and matter—mind and body—coupled with a profoundly anti-individualist animus grounded in an essentially collectivist worldview (52–56, 65–66). Moreover, these artists believed that reason could be replaced with a higher form of consciousness that would, as I stated, “give them effortless insight—immune from error—into the fundamental truths of exis- tence” (53–55). By banishing reference to the material realm in their work, they intended to facilitate this new consciousness, beyond reason (54). Yet they were haunted by the very realistic fear that in the absence of imagery their paint- ings would be perceived as merely “decorative” rather than deeply meaningful (56–57). As I indicated in endnotes, this summary in Who Says That’s Art? was based on a much longer discussion in What Art Is (Torres and Kamhi 2000, 133–46). Ignoring the fundamental considerations outlined in that summary, Seddon instead focuses on a section he refers to as “How Much Like Music Is Painting?” Unfortunately, readers will be unable to find that title, which appeared in early page proofs but was changed to “False Analogy with Music” (corrected proofs were submitted to the journal for checking against the review, but no one caught the change). Seddon’s main objection (279) to this section is I that wrongly “attack” Wassily Kandinsky—a leading pioneer of abstract art—when I claim that he “argued that visual art and musical composition were essentially similar” (57). I refrain from commenting on Seddon’s rather trivial points that Kandinsky, as a nonphilosopher, did not “argue” anything or use the word “essential” (279). The point I was making might have been better expressed as follows: Kandinsky advocated creating visual art that would emulate and approach the condition of music. To rebut my claim, Seddon (2014, 279) argues, [Kandinsky] is not trying to construct a definition or even point out similarities between painting and music. Listen to what he says. “A painter, who finds no satisfaction in mere representation, however artistic, in his longing to express his inner life, cannot but envy the ease JARS 15.2_04_Kamhi.indd 282 04/11/15 12:57 AM This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:32:48 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Discussion | Kamhi 283 with which music, the most non-material of the arts today, achieves this end [the expression of the artist’s soul]” (Kandinsky 1912). But Seddon omits what Kandinsky added in his very next sentence: [Such a painter] naturally seeks to apply the methods of music to his own art. And from this results that modern desire for rhythm in painting, for mathematical, abstract construction, for repeated notes of color, for setting color in motion. (Kandinsky [1912] 1977, 19) Why that omission? I can only speculate that it stems less from a desire on Seddon’s part to defend abstract art than it does from a wish to justify his own view that the art of music is nonrepresentational. In any case, he (like countless others since Kandinsky) proceeds to enlist the analogy with music in defense of abstract art, by arguing, [Since] instrumental music doesn’t represent objects, it’s nonrepresentational.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What “Rand's Aesthetics” Is, and Why It Matters1 Michelle Marder Kamhi
    Discussion Reply to The Aesthetics Symposium (Spring 2001) What “Rand’s Aesthetics” Is, and Why It Matters1 Michelle Marder Kamhi This is the first of a two-part reply to our Spring 2001 symposium on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of art. In our Fall 2003 issue, we will publish part two, written by Louis Torres. — The Editors The Aesthetics Symposium is described in the journal’s table of contents as “[a] discussion of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of art inspired by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi’s What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand.” The ten contributors vary widely in the extent to which they deal with either Rand’s theory of art or our book, however. While Lester Hunt and Jeff Riggenbach offer on the whole thoughtful, though not necessarily approving, responses to our analysis and application of Rand’s theory, two of the longest essays —those by John Hospers2 and Barry Vacker—scarcely touch on Rand’s philoso- phy of art, much less on our book. David Kelley focuses on two points we raised in “Critical Neglect of Ayn Rand’s Theory of Art” (Kamhi & Torres 2000)—a chapter omitted from the book and subsequently published in this journal.3 Like Kelley, Roger Bissell deals only with points related to that article, not with the main thesis of our book.4 Michael Newberry deals exclusively with the application of Rand’s concept of metaphysical value-judgments to the interpretation of paintings. Gene Bell-Villada appears to deal with the substance of our book—in particular, with our application of Rand’s theory in Part II—but he so often ignores or misconstrues our point that it is The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 4, no.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Education in the Visual Arts
    The Future of Education in the Visual Arts Comments for the January 20, 2010, ESEA Reauthorization Meeting submitted by Michelle Marder Kamhi, Co-Editor Aristos (An Online Review of the Arts) Member, National Art Education Association Member, University Council for Art Education Contact: [email protected] [Note: To save space, some of the links cited below have been condensed to “Tiny URLs.” See http://tiny.com.] The traditional visual arts of painting, drawing, and sculpture have played a significant role in human culture since prehistory. Yet they are receiving ever-shorter shrift in our nation’s schools. Critics of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB), attribute the neglect of arts education largely to the pressures imposed on schools by mandatory testing in math and reading. They seek to remedy the situation with new proposals for the section of the Act dealing with the arts in education. As I have indicated in numerous articles published in Arts Education Policy Review and elsewhere, however, the real problem with visual art education goes much deeper than the impact of NCLB. Moreover, the changes to NCLB proposed by the National Education Taskforce (NET) will, I argue, only make matters worse. The NET proposal recommends defining the arts as “creative activities and products of the theater, the visual arts, dance, music, and multimedia combinations of the above” and requiring that “all children [be] taught the arts by arts specialists.” With respect to the visual arts in particular, however, standards have so declined that virtually anything can qualify as contemporary visual art—from purely verbal expressions such as Jenny Holzer’s Truisms < http://mfx.dasburo.com/art/truisms.html > to “sound installations” < http://tiny.cc/FnIuN >.
    [Show full text]
  • A VETERAN RECONNOITERS AYN RAND's PHILOSOPHY Robert L
    A VETERAN RECONNOITERS AYN RAND’S PHILOSOPHY Robert L. Campbell Ayn Rand Tibor R. Machan New York: Peter Lang, 1999 xii + 163 pp., index Tibor Machan’s new book is the latest sign of accelerated growth in the academic coverage of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, edited by Mimi Reisel Gladstein and Chris Matthew Sciabarra, has joined a series of volumes on Plato, Hegel, and Sartre, among others. Douglas Den Uyl’s monograph, The Fountainhead: An American Novel, in the Twayne’s Masterworks series, sits alongside critical essays on Daisy Miller and War and Peace. Now Machan’s volume takes position number 5 in a series titled “Masterworks in the Western Tradition.” It is intended as an overview and introduction to Rand’s philosophical system. Machan was eminently prepared to write this book. He has been actively promoting Randian ideas since the late 1960’s. Because he was excommunicated during the days of the Nathaniel Branden Institute for asking the wrong questions, he never got close to Rand’s inner circle and has never had to shoulder the weight of Objectivist orthodoxy. Along with Robert Poole and Manuel Klausner, he took over a new, obscure magazine called Reason in 1969 and nurtured it into a cultural force. He has published in every outlet from the academic philosophy journals to the dittoed page allotments of Libertarian Connection to the editorial columns of the daily newspapers; his output of books has grown especially prodigious over the past decade. Readers who know a little of Machan’s previous work will recognize this presentation of Rand as his most recent contribution to a continuing conversation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ayn Rand and the Possibilities of an Objectivist Aesthetics of Cinema
    Screen of Vision: Ayn Rand and the Possibilities of an Objectivist Aesthetics of Cinema Kyle Barrowman School of Journalism, Media, and Culture Cardiff University This thesis is submitted to Cardiff University in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy April 2018 Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgments iv Preface ix Introduction – Towards an Objectivist Aesthetics of Cinema 1 1. Poststructuralism and the History of Film Studies 39 2. Objectivism and the Future of Film Studies 100 Conclusion – Approaching Atlantis 154 References 166 Abstract This thesis is my attempt to establish a foundation, based on the philosophy of Objectivism as it was developed and elaborated by the Russian-American novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, for the construction of an Objectivist aesthetics of cinema. After con textualizing and explicating Rand’s philosophy, I make the case that, propaedeutic to the construction of a new aesthetics of cinema, it is incumbent upon film scholars to refute the irrational and immoral philosophical premises that have long been destroying the philosophy of art in general and the discipline of film studies in particular. Due to the troubling combination of its contemporaneity, extremism, and considerable influence, I focus initially on the philosophical school of poststructuralism – which I contend has, since the 1960s, served as the default philosophical foundation for film scholars – before ultimately moving on to refute what I call the Kantian aesthetic tradition, of which I demonstrate poststructuralism is a deadly symptom. Upon clearing away this philosophical debris, I set about arguing for the probative value of an Objectivist aesthetics of cinema by reigniting long-dormant debates about the validity of interpretation and the role of evaluation in film criticism.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Art” and the “Experts” Who Defend It
    Contact: Publisher: Pro Arte Books <[email protected]> Author: Michelle Marder Kamhi <[email protected]> http://www.mmkamhi.com 917-816-4556 New Book Debunks “Contemporary Art” and the “Experts” Who Defend It The gurus of contemporary culture hold that virtually anything can qualify as art—from an all- black painting to a pickled shark. Many art lovers reject such “art.” The just-released title Who Says That’s Art? argues that those ordinary people are right and the presumed experts are mistaken. NEW YORK, NY, November 14, 2014 -- Today’s critics and curators accept virtually anything as “art”—from an all-black or all-white painting to a dead shark in a tank of formaldehyde. Who Says That’s Art? A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts (Pro Arte Books, ISBN 978-0- 9906057-0-6) challenges that open-ended view. The book’s author, independent scholar and critic Michelle Marder Kamhi, argues that ordinary people who reject such “art” are absolutely right and the alleged experts are profoundly mistaken. Kirkus Reviews calls Who Says That’s Art? “forceful and persuasive”---“impressive” in its scholarship, yet “accessible” for non-specialists. Midwest Book Review notes that “Kamhi’s scrutiny is unerring. providing non-specialists with a scholarly yet accessible account that not only explains how to distinguish genuine art but also promises to enhance its appreciation.” Kamhi argues that “pseudo artists” dominate today’s artworld with twentieth-century inventions such as installation art and conceptual art—which the public largely detests—while talented painters and sculptors who are creating genuine art that the public would appreciate are ignored by the cultural establishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Art Student Perspectives of Activist Art: a Phenomenological Study Charity-Mika Woodard
    Masthead Logo Digital Commons @ George Fox University Doctor of Education (EdD) Theses and Dissertations 4-1-2019 Art Student Perspectives of Activist Art: A Phenomenological Study Charity-Mika Woodard This research is a product of the Doctor of Education (EdD) program at George Fox University. Find out more about the program. Art Student Perspectives of Activist Art: A Phenomenological Study by Charity-Mika Woodard FACULTY RESEARCH COMMITTEE Chair: Scot Headley, PhD Member: Terry Huffman, PhD Member: Mark Terry, MFA Presented to the Faculty of the Doctor of Educational Leadership Department George Fox University In fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Education April 1, 2019 Abstract The purpose of this phenomenological study was to examine the lived experience of seven undergraduate art students who created an original piece of Activist Art through a class assignment. The researcher sought to hear participants’ stories and examine the artwork created to give meaning to their experience. The overwhelming response showed that undergraduate students wanted to tell their stories and looked inward to find personally powerful and relevant causes that they wanted to share with their classmates, and, in creating a lasting piece of artwork, with the world. The implications of this work suggest that art programs set up in an out-of-date Disciple Based Art Education (DBAE) curriculum that focuses on technical skills and not on visual communication with integration in social justice education are doing a disservice to their young artists. In developing a curriculum for undergraduate art majors, programs have effectively provided technique and media instruction in various courses to develop artists’ skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Says Thats Art? : a Commonsense View of the Visual Arts Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    WHO SAYS THATS ART? : A COMMONSENSE VIEW OF THE VISUAL ARTS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Michelle Marder Kamhi | 336 pages | 14 Nov 2014 | Pro Arte Books | 9780990605706 | English | New York, United States Who Says Thats Art? : A Commonsense View of the Visual Arts PDF Book She never felt safe now. The airport stretched just beyond the strip of beach and silver barbed fence with ominous words printed on prismatic hoardings;. Rate movie. Museums and galleries of contemporary art around the world are filled with "cutting-edge" pieces that art lovers largely detest, while painters and sculptors whose work the public would appreciate are ignored by the cultural establishment. Not you? When will the silhouette reveal itself? Before heading back to my digs though, I'll make a quick pit stop at the harbour wall. Moreover, it reveals the cultural forces that collude to promote pseudo art in the contemporary artworld--from art educators and wealthy collectors to museum administrators and the media. In contrast, it demonstrates the emptiness of the "installations" and "conceptual art" that dominate the postmodernist artworld. Above us, the stars. Many books have attempted to bridge the gap between the public and the contemporary artworld. About Michelle Marder Kamhi. Views Read Edit View history. Very accessible, jubilant Shakespeare with brief bawdiness. I was just in time, racing up the path, finding my place beside Granddad to pick the runner beans which we sought out, gently easing them away from their leafy camouflage, flecked with red flower through hums of bubbles flying high under the smudged haze of an East End sky.
    [Show full text]
  • Art History Gone Amuck
    Acad. Quest. (2020) 33:383–393 DOI 10.1007/s12129-020-09902-w ASSAULT ON THE ARTS Art History Gone Amuck Michelle Marder Kamhi Published online: 22 July 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 The cancellation early this year of a very popular, long-standing Yale undergraduate survey course on Western art understandably provoked a considerable outcry among cultural conservatives. As the latest rejection of an allegedly outmoded canon focused on “dead white men,” the move was clearly inspired by the current academic obsession with “diversity,” consistent with other like-minded curricular changes and with the introduction of all-gender bathrooms at Yale. Specious claims made by the college’s Art History Department to justify the cancellation were thoroughly dissected by Heather Mac Donald.1 Her perspective was informed by her having taken the first half of the two-semester course (“Introduction to the History of Art: Prehistory to the Renaissance”) in the 1970s, when it was presented by architectural historian Vincent Scully, whose charismatic teaching became legendary at Yale and beyond. As she trenchantly argued, killing the course is yet another capitulation to identity politics and its assault on Western civilization. The chief focus of the recent furor, however, was the course’s second half: “Introduction to the History of Art: Renaissance to the Present” (Yale HSAR 115b). Had Mac Donald gone on to take that offering, she might have discovered that even under Scully’s inspired tutelage, Western art history was already headed down a dubious path—one far more destructively consequential than viewing art through the distorting lens of “gender, class, and ‘race’” as envisioned by Professor Tim Barringer, his latest successor.
    [Show full text]
  • Art Speaks out Inside This Issue President’S Message
    Art Speaks Out Inside This Issue President’s Message .......................................................................................................... 3 Letter from the Editor ...................................................................................................... 5 2017 NYSATA Conference: Save the Date! .................................................................... 6 2017 Keynote Speakers .................................................................................................... 7 Albany Update From the Desk of Leslie Yolen ................................................................. 8 10X10 Member Exhibit Information ................................................................................ 9 The Book Mark: Book Review ........................................................................................ 11 The Book Mark: Art education and Social Justice Online .............................................. 13 Equality Created Through Feminist Pedagogy................................................................. 15 Teaching Art and Social Justice ...................................................................................... 18 Meet Sharon Ciccone ..................................................................................................... 19 The Making and Teaching of Art as a Social Act ............................................................ 20 Call for Contributors .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mimesis and Expression in Ayn Rand's Theory of Art Kirsti Minsaas
    Aesthetics Mimesis and Expression in Ayn Rand’s Theory of Art Kirsti Minsaas Introduction In her aesthetic writings, Ayn Rand set forth a theory of art that is basically mimetic in its formulation. In clear opposition to nonrepresentational views of art, she saw art primarily as a medium for the representation of reality. This, however, does not mean that Rand adhered to a literalist notion of artistic mimesis. Essential to her aesthetic theory is the view that art involves a form of stylized representation. Far from just holding up a neutral or “objective” mirror to the world, an artist, Rand holds, presents reality in a highly selective manner, re-creating it according to his particular view of what constitutes its essential nature. As a result, Rand’s theory assumes a strong expressive dimension that infiltrates and to some degree even threatens to destabilize her mimetic base. In the steadily growing literature on Rand’s aesthetics, this expressionism has so far received rather scant attention. In their groundbreaking book on Rand’s aesthetics, What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand (2000), Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi are mainly concerned with the mimetic aspects of Rand’s theory. Although in their Introduction they duly acknowledge the non-literal nature of Rand’s mimeticism, writing that for Rand “art is essentially mimetic, albeit in a highly selective and stylized manner” (14), their following discussion does not sufficiently indicate the wider implica- tions of this statement. Committed to what seems to me a rather restrictive mimetic view of art, they tend to downplay the expressive significance of both selectivity and stylization in Rand’s aesthetics.
    [Show full text]
  • A Renaissance in Rand Scholarship1
    Bibliographic Essay: A Renaissance in Rand Scholarship1 Chris Matthew Sciabarra The title of this article is not entirely accurate; a "renaissance" is a rebirth. Given the sustained sales of Rand's books, one might conclude that interest in her work has never died. Still, in this last decade of the twentieth century, Ayn Rand seems to be everywhere: in magazines, from the New Yorker to U. S. News and World Repon; in film and theater, from an Oscar-nominated documentary feature ("Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life") to a Showtime cable movie and a British stage dramatization of Barbara Branden's biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand; and on television, from "The Simpsons" and "South Park" to "Saturday Night Live." This is not a mere pop cultural revival. My Ayn Rand The Russian Radical (1995b) is one of fifteen book titles dealing with Rand that have been published since 1995, along with countless articles and other references to her work. Among these titles are Rand's Mdrgimlia, Letters, and Journals, as well as several useful anniversary editions of her fiction. Scholars are witnessing too, an important growth in critical and interpretive studies of the Randian canon. Advancing scholarship on Rand has proceeded apace with the publication of materials that continue to provide clues into the development of her thought. The Rand Estate has played a pivotal role in this endeavor. While some of Rand's papa are on reserve at the Library of Congress, the bulk remain housed in the Ayn Rand Institute's burgeoning archives. Until such time as bona fide scholars can gain archival access, they are being fed a diet of edited collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Postmodern Art
    Postmodern Art American Gothic Comes to the City, Steve Furman Postmodern art is a comprehensive, cross-disciplinary, philosophical concept, referring to art movements, styles, forms, disciplines and techniques. The term helps define art that contradicts and reacts against various aspects of modern art. It involves drawings, paintings, collage, assemblage, animation, videos, photography, documentation, installations and conceptual art. Other characteristics of postmodern art include: the use of words as a central artistic element, the juxtaposition of the old and the new, performance art, appropriation, the recycling of past styles and themes, and the breakdown between fine or high and lowbrow art. The latter — often employing pop culture imagery — emphasizes that distinctions between high and low art are no longer relevant. Postmodern art blurs traditional distinctions between painting, sculpture, film, performance, architecture, dance and other visual and performance art disciplines. The artworks may also include elements from natural and physical sciences, industry, technology, popular culture, words, literature and poetry. Postmodern artists appropriate or adopt, borrow, steal, or recycle styles from contemporary, modern and classical works. They combine and/or alter these images to create new contemporary artworks. Many artists fill their works with a strong sense of self-awareness. They also work with scientific, technological, media and digital elements. With postmodern art, the defining line between painting and sculpture is blurred, technology has helped expand its tools and mediums, while the works explore conceptual, political, social and other cerebral ideas. Exploring Daily Life In the online news source, examiner.com, Jim Benz theorized that postmodernism explores daily life by whatever standards, materials or methods the artist prefers.
    [Show full text]