Holy Black Square

[Simkin]

A Comparative religion inquiry into Modern art

http://reverent.org/holy_black_square/

[jbuck919]

An interesting challenge as always, Mikhail. Your central point seems to be: " The hypothesis that the attitude of art lovers toward modern art is religious in nature now looks quite plausible." The problem is that you support this by citing the mere replacement of an object of devotion (an icon) by an object of art, it being of no relevance to your own point whether the art is good as such or not.

Religion has nothing to do with art except by accidents of history in which great art may have been created with the inspiration and/or patronage of established religion. Art as art is judged strictly on criteria of beauty, which may of course be problematic in the extreme, but still do not cause it to cross in its essence the boundary between itself and religion.

[Simkin]

The problem is that you support this by citing the mere replacement of an object of devotion (an icon) by an object of art, it being of no relevance to your own point whether the art is good as such or not.

It has a direct relevance. Since masterpieces of apestract art are no better than ridiculous fakes the art lovers must prostrate themselves not before the images but before what they see beyond them.

Religion has nothing to do with art except by accidents of history in which great art may have been created with the inspiration and/or patronage of established religion. Art as art is judged strictly on criteria of beauty, which may of course be problematic in the extreme, but still do not cause it to cross in its essence the boundary between itself and religion.

The prices of modern art masterpieces would be justified only if they possessed supernatural powers. They are similar to the prices for the body parts of the apostles charged in middle ages.

[John F]

masterpieces of apestract art are no better than ridiculous fakes...

What is "apestract art"? Paintings by chimpanzees? But if you mean "abstract art," and are asserting that works of art must always be representations of the real world in order not to be "fakes," you're more than a century behind the times. It must be lonely, out on that limb. Are you a climate change denier too?

[jbuck919]

The problem is that you support this by citing the mere replacement of an object of devotion (an icon) by an object of art, it being of no relevance to your own point whether the art is good as such or not.

It has a direct relevance. Since masterpieces of apestract art are no better than ridiculous fakes the art lovers must prostrate themselves not before the images but before what they see beyond them.

Religion has nothing to do with art except by accidents of history in which great art may have been created with the inspiration and/or patronage of established religion. Art as art is judged strictly on criteria of beauty, which may of course be problematic in the extreme, but still do not cause it to cross in its essence the boundary between itself and religion.

The prices of modern art masterpieces would be justified only if they possessed supernatural powers. They are similar to the prices for the body parts of the apostles charged in middle ages.

This is disappointing coming from you. Your best posts challenge us to reflect on our assumptions about art, whether it be visual, literary, or musical. Offering a set-up so that you can satisfy your preconceived notions is beneath you and your own talent as I am capable of perceiving it.

Many people would agree with you that the market in fashionable modern art is hugely inflated, though this is not limited to abstract art. It is also probably true that some people look at some art and must see beyond it in their imaginations to give it value. Don't get me started on some of what has passed for inherently beautiful art in the last 50 years. This is partly a reflection of investment by the wealthy unaccompanied by taste and abetted by the mediation of people who make their money selling art. It may be a sad commentary that a mediocre work by so-and-so would bring more at auction than a good Cézanne that might still be in private hands, but it is a leap rather than a logical conclusion from that to devaluing entire swathes of art with a stroke of the pen as you seem to be doing.

[Simkin]

A quote from the updated article

Let us add that the skeptics often ask the very same question about the creators of traditional icons that they ask about modern artists: could the guy paint? For example, Russian journalist Alexander Nevzorov described the famous Trinity by Rublev in the following words [7] (my translation):

...something with faded wings, with sausage-like fingers without joints, with hands with strange anatomical parameters, with puffy, very schematically painted womanly faces, and the deformed cup on the table.

[jbuck919]

A quote from the updated article

Let us add that the skeptics often ask the very same question about the creators of traditional icons that they ask about modern artists: could the guy paint? For example, Russian journalist Alexander Nevzorov described the famous Trinity by Rublev in the following words [7] (my translation):

...something with faded wings, with sausage-like fingers without joints, with hands with strange anatomical parameters, with puffy, very schematically painted womanly faces, and the deformed cup on the table.

Icons are in general stylized in a manner still copied by modern iconographers. I could make my point by posting "The Dormition of the Virgin" by Domenikos Theotokopoulos (El Greco) and juxtaposing it with one of his great paintings of the late Renaissance. One could also go down a very long list of pre-Renaissance Western painters who were not realistic, and then append a list of, say, Victorian ultra-realists whose problem is that they painted in an academic fashion but without artistic inspiration.

It is tempting to conclude that much of modern art is created by people who have no talent for draftsmanship or painterly rendition of the world, either or both of which are basic to an assessment of artistic talent. However, several years ago I saw an exhibit of the minimalist Ellsworth Kelly at a local museum (the Hyde Collection in Glens Falls, NY), which was made possible because a local couple had befriended Kelly years ago and had something of an inside track to his work. The exhibit included drawn portraits of these two men, entirely realistic, and they were very good indeed.

[Simkin]

What is "apestract art"? Paintings by chimpanzees? But if you mean "abstract art," and are asserting that works of art must always be representations of the real world in order not to be "fakes," you're more than a century behind the times.

I have nothing against abstract art. However, the works of the so-called "abstract" artist one can't tell from ape work. And apes are not capable of abstraction. Therefore the so-called "abstract" art is really apestract.

[John F]

On the other hand:



No ape could produce that piece of abstract art. You've generalized to the point of absurdity.

[Simkin]

On the other hand:
No ape could produce that piece of abstract art. You've generalized to the point of absurdity.

It is not a generalization, but a hyperbola. You are not familiar with hyperbola?

If that picture can not be painted by an ape this is the reason it should cost $10,000,000?

[John F]

It is not a generalization, but a hyperbola. You are not familiar with hyperbola?

Obviously you exaggerate, but I've given you credit for having some serious point you are trying to make. If you've been giving us hype all along, and you know it, then you're just fooling around.

In the real world, as you well know, Mondrian paintings like everything else cost what people are willing and able to pay. Cost is a function of markets and is not the same thing as value, which is about intrinsic qualities. In the world of art, the two are often unrelated; it costs a fee to perform the most jejune rap "song," but performing Beethoven's 9th symphony is free of charge. If that's the point you are so insistently trying to make, nobody's arguing with you, so why keep prating about it? If not, then what is your point?

[jbuck919]

I think Simkin means hyperbole. However, the names of all of the conic sections (hyperbola, parabola, ellipse, and even circle) have corresponding terms in discourse/rhetoric.

[John F]

Hyperbole and exaggeration are the same; otherwise I wouldn't have used the words interchangeably. And obviously Simkin can't be talking about geometry.

[jbuck919]

Hyperbole and exaggeration are the same; otherwise I wouldn't have used the words interchangeably.

Oh I know that. I thought you were just overlooking that he wrote "hyperbola" instead of "hyperbole," so I decided for once to play the copy editor.

And obviously Simkin can't be talking about geometry.

My comment was an aside. I did once have this (to me) amusing conversation with a teaching colleague at the Catholic school:

Me: something like "Of course Christianity is compatible with mathematics. Jesus spoke in parabolas."

(In fact in annotated versions of the New Testament a particularly lengthy string of these is commonly called the "parabolic discourse.)

Colleague: "Yes, and when he really wanted to make a point, he spoke in hyperbolas."

Me: LOL

OK, back to Simkin's notions, if that's really where you want to go.

[Simkin]

Obviously you exaggerate, but I've given you credit for having some serious point you are trying to make. If you've been giving us hype all along, and you know it, then you're just fooling around.

I do not exaggerate when I call abstract expressionism apestract. I also do not exaggerate when I say that almost any human can produce paintings indistinguishable from masterpieces of other branches of modern art.

In the real world, as you well know, Mondrian paintings like everything else cost what people are willing and able to pay. Cost is a function of markets and is not the same thing as value, which is about intrinsic qualities. In the world of art, the two are often unrelated;

Not a small statement. If price is independent of value this means that markets are not working.

it costs a fee to perform the most jejune rap "song," but performing Beethoven's 9th symphony is free of charge. If that's the point you are so insistently trying to make, nobody's arguing with you, so why keep prating about it?

That copyright for Beethoven's work had expired is obviously not what I was arguing about.

[Simkin]

A new finding

When Malevich died his followers placed Black Suprematic Squre at the head of his funeral bed. Christians usually have an icon in that place.


See the updated article for the foto.

[John F]

In the real world, as you well know, Mondrian paintings like everything else cost what people are willing and able to pay. Cost is a function of markets and is not the same thing as value, which is about intrinsic qualities. In the world of art, the two are often unrelated

Not a small statement. If price is independent of value this means that markets are not working.

Not at all. Markets are based on perceived value, not intrinsic value. The price of a barrel of crude oil was $47 in December; the same barrel with, presumably, the identical intrinsic value is now priced at $27.45. This doesn't mean the market isn't working. To the contrary, it works very efficiently in settling the price between would-be sellers and buyers. But it has nothing to say about intrinsic value, which for its purposes might as well not exist.

it costs a fee to perform the most jejune rap "song," but performing Beethoven's 9th symphony is free of charge. If that's the point you are so insistently trying to make, nobody's arguing with you, so why keep prating about it?

That copyright for Beethoven's work had expired is obviously not what I was arguing about.

That's an evasion. For whatever reason, the price of Beethoven's work is obviously independent of its intrinsic value, of which one measure is the frequency with which it is performed. Copyright may act as a price support for relatively new works, as with wheat and pork bellies, but take away the price support and agricultural products still cost something; not so works of music and literature.

[jbuck919]

Obviously you exaggerate, but I've given you credit for having some serious point you are trying to make. If you've been giving us hype all along, and you know it, then you're just fooling around.

I do not exaggerate when I call abstract expressionism apestract. I also do not exaggerate when I say that almost any human can produce paintings indistinguishable from masterpieces of other branches of modern art.

Somehow I missed this post for several months. It is simply not true that abstract expressionism is imitable successfully by anyone. That is a separate issue from whether people not educated in art appreciation can tell the difference between a work of art and a work of junk. There are artists who would give anything if they could do as well as painting a three-colored panel in the manner of Mark Rothko. If you think that almost any human can produce paintings indistinguishable from modern art, I invite you to post your own submissions in proof of such an assertion. I mean works you have actually produced, not something a dog made when its paws were covered with paint.

As for what should be positioned at the head of the resting place of a deceased person, icons are only typical of the Eastern (Orthodox) Church. It is understandable given your background that you would generalize that to "Christian," but Western Christianity knows no such custom.

[Simkin]

If you think that almost any human can produce paintings indistinguishable from modern art, I invite you to post your own submissions in proof of such an assertion. I mean works you have actually produced, not something a dog made when its paws were covered with paint.

You did not really read the article. This is what everything started with

http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/true_art_or_fake_quiz

[BWV 1080]

I easily got 100% correct on the artist or ape test, so does that disprove your point?

the average person cant tell the difference between Thomas Kincade and JWM Turner or between Andrew Botacelli and Pavarotti singing Verdi, so what?

[jbuck919]

I easily got 100% correct on the artist or ape test, so does that disprove your point?

the average person cant tell the difference between Thomas Kincade and JWM Turner or between Andrew Botacelli and Pavarotti singing Verdi, so what?

Andrea Bocelli, you mean. (Undoubtedly interference from the truly great visual artist Sandro Botticelli. ) Of course, I agree with your main point.

No, Mikhail, I missed that particular article which is now nine years old. However, I have made a point of going through every exercise you have presented us with that is likely more recent. I do note that the article does in fact have at the top an example of "art" created by you.

[Simkin]

I easily got 100% correct on the artist or ape test, so does that disprove your point?

It does not. You could get this result by a pure chance with the probability 1/64. One has to look at the statistics.

http://ecclesiastes911.net/abstract_grandmasters/

the average person cant tell the difference between Thomas Kincade and JWM Turner or between Andrew Botacelli and Pavarotti singing Verdi, so what?

It is not just an average person. Artists, art students, and art critics also can't.

http://ecclesiastes911.net/boronali/

[BWV 1080]

Not that difficult to tell Kadinsky or Pollock from an ape.

[BWV 1080]

Like this

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2458

We analyze the time pattern of the activity of a serial killer, who during twelve years had murdered 53 people. The plot of the cumulative number of murders as a function of time is of "Devil's staircase" type. The distribution of the intervals between murders (step length) follows a power law with the exponent of 1.4. We propose a model according to which the serial killer commits murders when neuronal excitation in his brain exceeds certain threshold. We model this neural activity as a branching process, which in turn is approximated by a random walk. As the distribution of the random walk return times is a power law with the exponent 1.5, the distribution of the inter-murder intervals is thus explained. We illustrate analytical results by numerical simulation. Time pattern activity data from two other serial killers further substantiate our analysis.

Is just mathematical masturbation. One can fit anything to these type of models

[jbuck919]

Now what? Thank you, Steve, for stepping in with exact reasoning and saving me the trouble.

[Simkin]

Like this

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2458

We analyze the time pattern of the activity of a serial killer, who during twelve years had murdered 53 people. The plot of the cumulative number of murders as a function of time is of "Devil's staircase" type. The distribution of the intervals between murders (step length) follows a power law with the exponent of 1.4. We propose a model according to which the serial killer commits murders when neuronal excitation in his brain exceeds certain threshold. We model this neural activity as a branching process, which in turn is approximated by a random walk. As the distribution of the random walk return times is a power law with the exponent 1.5, the distribution of the inter-murder intervals is thus explained. We illustrate analytical results by numerical simulation. Time pattern activity data from two other serial killers further substantiate our analysis.

Is just mathematical masturbation. One can fit anything to these type of models

There is a different point of view

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4266 ... of-murder/

The important thing, however, is that it is not related to the subject of this thread. Why would one bring it up?

Not that difficult to tell Kadinsky or Pollock from an ape.

Art students and artists make mistakes.

[Simkin]

In the real world, as you well know, Mondrian paintings like everything else cost what people are willing and able to pay. Cost is a function of markets and is not the same thing as value, which is about intrinsic qualities. In the world of art, the two are often unrelated

Not a small statement. If price is independent of value this means that markets are not working.

Not at all. Markets are based on perceived value, not intrinsic value. The price of a barrel of crude oil was $47 in December; the same barrel with, presumably, the identical intrinsic value is now priced at $27.45. This doesn't mean the market isn't working. To the contrary, it works very efficiently in settling the price between would-be sellers and buyers. But it has nothing to say about intrinsic value, which for its purposes might as well not exist.

If you read an economics textbook you learn that efficient market sets the price of a commodity just above the production cost. If it doesn't - it does not work.

Of course the traders are busy selling each barrel of oil 15 times before it gets to refineries. But this does not increase mpg only the cost. So if the traders were not "working" everyone else would have been better off.

it costs a fee to perform the most jejune rap "song," but performing Beethoven's 9th symphony is free of charge. If that's the point you are so insistently trying to make, nobody's arguing with you, so why keep prating about it?

That copyright for Beethoven's work had expired is obviously not what I was arguing about.

That's an evasion.

No it is the precise analysis of the issue. If you wished to discuss a different topic you should have done it.

[John F]

That too is an evasion. You can't dismiss relevant evidence by redefining your topic to exclude it. Or you can try, but I won't let you get away with it.

As for markets, whenever anything is sold and bought, a market for it is made and its value is defined, if only temporarily. Stock prices are not based on the underlying company's intrinsic value but the sellers' and buyers' perception of its future value. When that perception changes, the market price of the stock can fall or rise precipitously, though the underlying value remains unchanged. If you don't know that, you know zilch about markets in the real world.

efficient market sets the price of a commodity just above the production cost. If it doesn't - it does not work.

Who told you that? It's obviously not true in the real world. If a sale is made, the market has "worked," period. The market in crude oil, pork bellies, and such commodities is generally efficient in the way you describe, but the market in works of art does not deal in commodities, and the price of a Rembrandt etching is not "just above" the price of the paper and ink it's made of, while in the case of fees for music or drama, no objects change hands, only the performance rights and only temporarily, and if the work not protected by copyright, not even that.

Either you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue or you yourself are confused and don't know what you're talking about. I'm a retired publishing professional and do know what I'm talking about, so you can't bluff me.

[BWV 1080]

If you read an economics textbook you learn that efficient market sets the price of a commodity just above the production cost. If it doesn't - it does not work.

that is not so. The definition of an efficient market is one that does not allow risk-free arbitrage, prices reflect all available information, and demand and supply balance - nothing more. Oil currently is trading well below the production costs of most producers (and it is a very nebulous concept because it includes the cost of equity and debt capital and alot of other variables and is heterogeneous across producers)

there is no such thing as intrinsic value

[John F]

there is no such thing as intrinsic value

I wouldn't have dared to put it so boldly, because it somehow feels wrong, but come to think of it, you're right.

It nullifies Oscar Wilde's famous observation about people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing - he believed that value is knowable, but he was mistaken.

[Simkin]

efficient market sets the price of a commodity just above the production cost. If it doesn't - it does not work.

Who told you that?

Adam Smith.

It's obviously not true in the real world. If a sale is made, the market has "worked," period.

Worked for what? Not for common good certainly.

The market in crude oil, pork bellies, and such commodities is generally efficient in the way you describe, but the market in works of art does not deal in commodities, and the price of a Rembrandt etching is not "just above" the price of the paper and ink it's made of

Reasonably, it could be equal to the price of the work of another artist of the same quality.

[John F]

It's obviously not true in the real world. If a sale is made, the market has "worked," period.

Worked for what? Not for common good certainly.

You're trying to change the subject. Who said anything about the common good? A market is what it is, for better or worse; whenever anything is bought and sold, that's a market, and it has worked for the buyer and seller and, more broadly, for an orderly society. But to answer you, buying and selling is essential to the common good, or else each of us would have to grow our own food or starve to death.

The market in crude oil, pork bellies, and such commodities is generally efficient in the way you describe, but the market in works of art does not deal in commodities, and the price of a Rembrandt etching is not "just above" the price of the paper and ink it's made of

Reasonably, it could be equal to the price of the work of another artist of the same quality.

How is that reasonable? No other artist is "of the same quality" as Rembrandt, Shakespeare, or Beethoven. Their "quality," if you put it that way, is immeasurably high by common consent.

You keep posting endlessly about art, but you seem to have no concept of what art is, let alone what great art is. All your messages here are apparently aimed at debunking the notion that there is such a thing as great art, and possibly such a thing as art itself. This is a senseless and futile project. Give it up, or do it elsewhere if you must.

[Simkin]

If you read an economics textbook you learn that efficient market sets the price of a commodity just above the production cost. If it doesn't - it does not work.

that is not so. The definition of an efficient market is one that does not allow risk-free arbitrage, prices reflect all available information, and demand and supply balance - nothing more.

This is a definition from financial economics textbook. Traditional definition is different.

Oil currently is trading well below the production costs of most producers (and it is a very nebulous concept because it includes the cost of equity and debt capital and alot of other variables and is heterogeneous across producers)

No, still above.

there is no such thing as intrinsic value

There is. It is the total number of man-hours needed to produce the thing.

Remarkably in 19th century people used rational stock prices. They were average dividend paid last few years multiplied by a coefficient which depended on interest rate.

[Simkin]

Who said anything about the common good?

James Madison.

A market is what it is, for better or worse; whenever anything is bought and sold, that's a market, and it has worked for the buyer and seller and, more broadly, for an orderly society. But to answer you, buying and selling is essential to the common good, or else each of us would have to grow our own food or starve to death.

Buying and selling serves common good only if someone buys what he needs from someone who does not need it. However, speculative buying and selling is a zero sum enterprise. And today over 95% of the transactions are of that nature.

In the case of the oil , those who get rid of the futures before the price had collapsed gained money and those who did not lost money. There is no difference from a pyramid scheme. The general public lost because of higher gasoline prices.

How is that reasonable? No other artist is "of the same quality" as Rembrandt, Shakespeare, or Beethoven.

Rembrandt had a whole factory of artists who produced the artwork which he merely signed. So the majority of "his" artwork is actually not his.

We don't know who Shakespeare was if there was one and how many people actually produced literary work published under that name.

Their "quality," if you put it that way, is immeasurably high by common consent.

The common consent disappears when famous artwork is separated from famous names as a host of experiments had demonstrated.

[John F]

You're talking nonsense, and you're talking to yourself - I'm reading no more of this gabble.

[Simkin]

You're talking nonsense, and you're talking to yourself - I'm reading no more of this gabble.

Gabble is what you are writing. I am stating the simple truth

Rembrandt ran a large workshop and had many pupils. The list of Rembrandt pupils from his period in Leiden as well as his time in Amsterdam is quite long, mostly because his influence on painters around him was so great that it is difficult to tell whether someone worked for him in his studio or just copied his style for patrons eager to acquire a Rembrandt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt

[jbuck919]

Sigh. Some years ago there was a very careful scholarly project to sort out "real Rembrandt," who was a prolific painter, from "school of Rembrandt" or "attributed to Rembrandt," or "now known to be by another painter." There is a paper trail for many if not most of his paintings. No one doubts the self-portraits, The Night Watch, et multa cetera. The man worked in 17th century Amsterdam, not on the Isle of Man during the Dark Ages. Now don't get me started about Shakespeare.

Here's a work of art you may appreciate, if you get my meaning:

[Simkin]

Sigh. Some years ago there was a very careful scholarly project to sort out "real Rembrandt," who was a prolific painter, from "school of Rembrandt" or "attributed to Rembrandt," or "now known to be by another painter." There is a paper trail for many if not most of his paintings. No one doubts the self-portraits, The Night Watch, et multa cetera. The man worked in 17th century Amsterdam, not on the Isle of Man during the Dark Ages.

If you need a paper trail to establish Rembrandt's authorship it only proves my point.

Now don't get me started about Shakespeare.

Is it an attempt at intimidation?