|
Understanding philosophy and avoiding rationalistic errors would be
easier if we each had a team of advisors and aides, like a corporate
executive or a high level statesman has. When considering any
important topic, we could simply consult the appropriate specialist
and request that he outline the fundamental context, fill gaps in our
knowledge, identify our mistakes, and maybe even advance the state of
human knowledge on the topic with some original ideas, just for our
personal benefit. I am thrilled that on the subject of aesthetics in
the visual arts, Lee Sandstead provides us with this type of expertise.
In his second of two articles on style in visual art,
"Psycho-Epistemology and Style in Narrative Painting,"1
Mr. Sandstead continues to act as an intellectual razor on the topic
of aesthetics. He presents novel distinctions and again debunks
rationalistic errors commonly made by Objectivists and
non-Objectivists alike.
The first of his two articles,2 reviewed in the last issue
of the TOA Newsletter,3 showed that at the most
basic psycho-epistemological level, the style of a painting reflects
the degree of mental clarity and focus which the artist
characteristically uses to perceive the world around him, as well as
his ability to recreate this process visually. The essential visual
details selected by the artist, the depth perspective of the objects
portrayed and the composition of those objects sum to an aesthetic
whole which has either a pro-reality or anti-reality orientation, in
a psycho-epistemological sense. In his more recent article, Mr.
Sandstead elevates the discussion of style to a more abstract and
complex level. He shows that in artworks which have a narrative
element (an explicit conceptual-level message), the style with which
the artist conveys the narrative, whether successfully or not, is
determined by his clarity and focus at the conceptual level - i.e.,
how firmly his concepts are tied to perceptual level reality.
The narrative is the means by which an artist makes an abstract
statement of his views or convictions, whether explicitly
philosophical or not. For example, a non-narrative still life
painting depicting ruby red tomatoes, bunches of fresh herbs, and a
bottle of golden-green olive oil sitting on a hardwood cutting board,
can convey a very general sense of abundance and the pleasure of food.
A slightly more narrative still life painting showing an open book
with handwritten notes and figures, a partly expended candle, a pen,
and a collection of sea-shells on a desktop makes a more explicit
statement about the value of natural science and intellectual study.
Mr. Sandstead's article on narrative style focuses primarily on how
it is possible for an artist to convey conceptual themes using only
visual means. Indeed, it is almost redundant to explain to an
Objectivist audience what narrative is and why
narrative elements are important in visual art. Some Objectivists
understand this issue to the point of fault - i.e., to the extreme of
missing the implicit metaphysical value judgments contained in
non-narrative art. It is this common error which made it important
for Mr. Sandstead to an examination of narrative for a second
article, and address in his first essay the issue of style at the
level of fundamental perceptual recreation.
In his two articles Mr. Sandstead has made two novel clarifications.
First, he has identified explicitly that there are two psycho-epistemological
levels of style, one level pertaining to the perceptual
aspects of recreation (modelling, perspective, composition), and one
level pertaining to the conceptual, narrative aspects.
Second, he has identified, somewhat more subtly, by the hierarchical
order in which he has discussed these two topics (one in his first
article, the other in his second), that the strictly perceptual-level
elements of style are more basic psycho-epistemologically, and
therefore aesthetically, than the narrative elements of style. This
is why a painting with a grandiose theme but incompetent
draftsmanship falls as flat as a fiction story that probes weighty
moral issues but lacks a plot and is ungrammatical.
In approaching the issue of how an artist creates a narrative
statement, Mr. Sandstead is clear and systematic. His article is
accompanied by two sample narrative paintings: a stylistically
successful work and an unsuccessful one. To illustrate the difference
between these two paintings, he begins with a concrete analogy
contrasting the obscure, cryptic hand signals of a baseball |
|
coach communicating to a pitcher, with a well told anecdote. Mr.
Sandstead shows that the unsuccessful painting fails because the
artist did not select concretes that would add up epistemologically
to the abstract whole he was hoping to convey. Rather than
restricting himself to basic perceptual concretes that a rational
viewer could be expected to comprehend and integrate, the
unsuccessful artist relied upon a multitude of vague symbols with
obscure allusions to religious dogma. Mr. Sandstead further shows
that this failure results from a percept-concept dichotomy in the
mind of the artist, which renders the theme of the painting as
unintelligible as the baseball coach's secret signals. In this sense,
the unsuccessful artist has violated the context of knowledge with
which a normal viewer would approach his painting. The end effect is
the same as that of context-dropping in writing or speaking - an
incomprehensible message.
As in his first article, Mr. Sandstead's choice of the two example
paintings is highly selective. Each painting is visually clear,
having an in-focus style with respect to perceptual-level recreation.
This allows us to concentrate on the different way that each painting
presents its narrative material. It becomes readily apparent that a
successful narrative element in a painting arises from proper
percept/concept integration. The artist must identify and respect the psycho-epistemological
context of the normal, rational viewer and choose visual concretes
which the viewer can integrate and which draw him into inferring the
artist's intended message. Mr. Sandstead's analysis of narrative
style shows the role of context in art, and how context must be
carefully observed.
Mr. Sandstead's writing style is so smooth and his handling of ideas
so adept, that one might easily overlook the complexity and depth of
the concepts he presents. Although his article does not include an
explicit discussion of context, it is valuable for us to consider
this topic briefly, so as to appreciate how skillfully - almost
invisibly - Mr. Sandstead has implicitly addressed the importance of
context in his discussion of style. It is obvious that if an artist
relies on the viewer possessing detailed knowledge on specialized or
little-known topics in order to grasp his narrative, he has violated
the requirements of a rational context. However, it is equally an
error for the artist to think that he need not rely on any
knowledge on the part of the viewer, because a viewer always
possesses a particular context when approaching an artwork.
Some Objectivists mistakenly think that in appreciating or evaluating
an artwork we must rely only on information contained within
the artwork itself. This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of
objectivity in art, since every artwork would be unintelligible to a
viewer with a content-less, context-free consciousness. Even in
viewing our example non-narrative still life painting described
above, our context would include knowledge of what tomatoes and herbs
and bottles of olive oil look like; knowledge of what these objects
are used for; and knowledge of the pleasure we derive from consuming
them. In our narrative still life example, a rational viewer's
context would include knowledge of books, pens, candles and shells;
knowledge of the existence of intellectual study and natural science;
and knowledge that these pursuits are beneficial to human life. No
painting - a recreation of reality - could possibly be intelligible
without the viewer's prior integrated knowledge - his first-hand
grasp of the reality which the painting strives to recreate. In
contrasting one artist's percept/concept dichotomy against the other
artist's percept/concept integration, Mr. Sandstead has shown what
constitutes proper observance of context by the successful artist.
In September 2000, Mr. Sandstead will be visiting Toronto to present
a lecture on art appreciation to TOA. As well, a third, and
reportedly somewhat controversial, article by Mr. Sandstead will be
published in an upcoming issue of The Intellectual Activist.
He has assured me that his presentation to TOA in particular will
include a detailed discussion of context. I am quite sure that both
Mr. Sandstead's upcoming lecture and forthcoming article will become
milestone advances in the body of Objectivist thought on aesthetics,
outweighing even his own two outstanding articles on style. I urge
you not to miss either of these two exciting advances.
Notes:
|
1. |
The Intellectual Activist, Vol.13,
No.11 (November, 1999) |
|
2. |
TOA Newsletter, Vol.7, No.1 (February, 2000) |
|
3. |
The Intellectual Activist, Vol.12,
No.8 (August, 1998) |
© Rob Stevens, 2000. All Rights Reserved. |
