[Tenderlysharp]

I make art. The art world seems to be dominated by collectivists. Professionally I am trying to find my way. I am not sure if I want to support galleries or make money off of collectivists organizations. Then I think if I pull money from them to fund my own plans it could be worth it.
In the last couple months I have been putting my work up on the 'Deviant Art' website. There are 80,000 artists posting their work and reacting to each other on the site and I receive a great deal of praise and interest from them for my work. The praise mostly comes from people who are emotionally driven. I often praise and attempt to communicate with other Artists when I am interested in seeing what their potential might produce. I use the journal to talk about what has motivated me creatively. I have a gallery of my own work, and a gallery of favorites that I have compiled after looking through thousands of images from other artists favorites.
The cons of the site are that the Administration is predominantly Liberal, and continually feature and promote artists who fall in line with their political agendas while some times censoring those who don't. They allow anyone to post so the site is bombarded with 13 year old cartoon sketches.
The name 'Deviant Art' implies vampires and fetish, but it also implies (the reason I finally decided to join) a way to market or sell art outside of the traditional gallery system. At the moment my work is only open to view and comment; I haven't decided to sell anything yet.
I came to the Objectivism Online forum a couple years ago because of my love for Ayn Rand. I don't get the satisfaction from these Visual Arts threads that I get from her novels. I wasn't compelled to return here, though I often thought about it. Maybe I wasn't feeling confident enough in my own appraisal of my work to withstand the onslaught of dozens of non-art-making critics expressing their dislike. As I saw happen to several artists who posted their work here. To me the lack of activity in the Visual Arts Threads is a testament to some repellent forces to the creative spark that I would like to abate.
I am trying to understand Ayn Rands Aesthetics, but it is still a floating abstraction to me. I am not sure if my work lives up to her definition of what art is. I am wondering if my art could be of value to some of the 'Individuals' who also value Ayn Rand's philosophy. Will it diminish my individuality to align my art making with Romantic Realism?

The main point I want to make is this... I can go to Deviant Art to get praise, market myself, admire and learn from other artists, make friends, give advice, or I can come here and do what? What exactly is this visual arts forum for? Could this become or is there a place where individualist artists thrive?

My gallery at Deviant Art: http://tym-benn.devi...rt.com/gallery/

[Jake_Ellison]

Tenderlysharp, on Feb 8 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

What exactly is this visual arts forum for?

Discussing art from an Objectivist perspective.

[Howard Roark]

Tenderlysharp, on Feb 8 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

I am not sure if my work lives up to her definition of what art is. I am wondering if my art could be of value to some of the 'Individuals' who also value Ayn Rand's philosophy

How can you possibly be unsure?



At least the answer is perfectly clear.

[Eiuol]

Howard Roark, on Feb 8 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

How can you possibly be unsure?

At least the answer is perfectly clear.

Are you evaluating whether or not his work in general is art based on that one painting? I like some of the paintings, and I would say it is art on Rand's definition. 'Liking' has nothing to do with 'is' anyway. Is it Romantic Realism? No. But Romantic Realism isn't the only valid, only good piece of art.

I would agree there isn't enough discussion about art. It is too important to ignore.

This post has been edited by Eiuol: 08 February 2010 - 05:44 PM

[Howard Roark]

Eiuol, on Feb 8 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

Are you evaluating whether or not his work in general is art based on that one painting?

Of course not. I am evaluating his work based on this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

[Tenderlysharp]

Howard Roark, on Feb 8 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

How can you possibly be unsure?
At least the answer is perfectly clear.

Effective communication requires tact.
I realize I need to be more concise when communicating in these forums.
As Eiuol said, I am sure it isn't Romantic Realism.
I know my work expresses some of my sense of life.
I am wondering if Objectivists or individual people here would find value in my work.
I would prefer to sell work to individualists rather than collectivists.
I am unsure as to whether this is a place I can grow as an artist.

Eiuol, on Feb 8 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

I would agree there isn't enough discussion about art. It is too important to ignore.

The liberals/socialists who run Deviant Art have a nurturing approach to artists. They allow a lot of really terrible work as a part of the process of developing the craft. The accounts I have heard of Ayn Rand's childhood seemed to be a creatively nurturing environment.

[Cello]

Wow, all of these are very... cool! I like them whether you call them art or not!

[Tenderlysharp]

I find talking with Objectivists more conducive towards proper art critique. Their intellects express more concisely any context, topic, or subject matter.
Whereas artists tend to get lost in their emotions and feelings so that often when I hope for a critical analysis I won't get a response which gives me insight in to how it is perceived by other people.
I have been successful in bringing bits of reason to some emotionally chaotic artists, I like to do so as a challenge to myself, but their gratitude doesn't assuage my desire for intellectual equals.
I don't mean to come across adversarial. I am not trying to sell my art at the moment.
I am attempting to sharpen my intellectual edge, and rise to the challenge of Objectivist philosophy.
Thank you Cello and Eiuol for your praise.

[John Link]

Tenderlysharp, on Feb 8 2010, 09:09 PM, said:

I would prefer to sell work to individualists rather than collectivists.

Why is that? Are you even sure that it is true? I'm interested in selling my art (music) to anyone that can relate to it, regardless of their professed philosophy. (You can find a notice of my most recent release here: http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.p...iew=getnewpost)

I have a sense that you started this thread because you were looking for confirmation from people who call themselves Objectivists that your work is art according to Ayn Rand's definition. Is there any truth to my hunch? In any case I think you, and all of us, would do well to follow the advice I found in the signature of one of the comments left for your painting "Catherine" (which I like very much, by the way):

better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not
-Andre Gide

John Link

This post has been edited by John Link: 09 February 2010 - 12:10 PM

[~Sophia~]

There are few pieces of yours which I like:

Inkling
Catherine
Purpleish Bunch
Bluegreen White Blossoms
Red Bunch
Spiky White

This post has been edited by ~Sophia~: 09 February 2010 - 03:09 PM

[softwareNerd]

Since I checked out the ones that Sophia recommended, I figure I'd share the links if anyone else wants to follow through.

Inkling
Catherine
Purpleish Bunch
Bluegreen White Blossoms
Red Bunch
Spiky White

Took me a bit of staring to see Catherine, and it was nice once I saw her. (Author's hint helped.)
I still don't see Inkling... not sure what I'm looking for.

This post has been edited by softwareNerd: 09 February 2010 - 04:19 PM

[John Link]

softwareNerd, on Feb 9 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

Took me a bit of staring to see Catherine, and it was nice once I saw her. (Author's hint helped.)

At first I was surprised by your comment, because I had immediately seen Catherine in the painting, but when I looked again I realized that I might not have seen her if it weren't for the title "Catherine".

Quote

I still don't see Inkling... not sure what I'm looking for.

Don't you have even an inkling of what is there? Keep looking, for I'm sure you will!

John Link

[softwareNerd]

John Link, on Feb 9 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

Don't you have even an inkling of what is there? Keep looking, for I'm sure you will!

Oh! It's Catherine's sister, reaching for a star.

[Prons]

I love the Spiral Eye, it made me feel like I was gonna fall through the monitor at any moment

[Alexandros]

Catherine is a beautiful piece of artwork. She looks like rising smoke, very fragile but very beautiful. And, I'm a sucker for long, flowing hair, especially when it's blowing in the wind.

I also like Purpleish Bunch for purely sexual reasons.

[softwareNerd]

Tenderlysharp, on Feb 8 2010, 09:09 PM, said:

I would prefer to sell work to individualists rather than collectivists.

I'd echo John's comment: as an artist, your ideal audience will like your art, seeing its meaning the way you do (even if they cannot express why). They might disagree with your views on Physics, History, Philosophy... but they're still the right audience for your art.

Tenderlysharp, on Feb 8 2010, 09:09 PM, said:

I am unsure as to whether this is a place I can grow as an artist.

What are you looking for in order to "grow as an artist"? Audience feedback? Or, are you looking for other painters. (I know there are few members who paint; not many, but the numbers are probably not critical.)

Tenderlysharp, on Feb 9 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

I find talking with Objectivists more conducive towards proper art critique. Their intellects express more concisely any context, topic, or subject matter. Whereas artists tend to get lost in their emotions and feelings so that often when I hope for a critical analysis I won't get a response which gives me insight in to how it is perceived by other people.

I like Catherine and Inkling once I figured out what they were! My personal preference is for over-the-top stylization, without sacrificing meaning. Your art is nothing if not stylized, and within the set ("Catherine" and "Inkling") tell the best story. Of the others: I'm not one for flowers; "Golden Boy" seems a little sad; "Respiration" might be #3 for me, but I can't get the story (I wonder why the tree is standing and the woman sitting); and, a few other I have not deciphered yet.

Tenderlysharp, on Feb 9 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

I am not trying to sell my art at the moment.

How does that site work when it comes to selling? If you put up a high-quality graphic file, will they sell things like prints for you; or does it require the artist to do more ?

[Greyhawk]

I really like the ambiguity of those paintings, you really have to put yourself into them to give them meaning.

When you start selling I think I'll pick one up down the road.

[Howard Roark]

Who would have thought that unintelligible non-objective modern art was going to receive such a good response from the members of this forum?

[Greyhawk]

Howard Roark, on Feb 10 2010, 06:37 PM, said:

Who would have thought that unintelligible non-objective modern art was going to receive such a good response from the members of this forum?

Sometimes I realize I am too harsh on Objectivists. The fact that many in this thread can appreciate her work is a good thing.

[softwareNerd]

Howard Roark, on Feb 10 2010, 06:37 PM, said:

Who would have thought that unintelligible non-objective modern art was going to receive such a good response from the members of this forum?

Non-objective? What does that mean?